The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2004-08-248 677- Prepared 08/20/04 F . The Mission of the Town of Eetee Park ie to plan and provide reliable, hiÂ®-value eervicee for our citizens, vieitore, and employees. We take - Great pride eneuri,10 and enhanclne the quality of life In our 1 community by belne 0ood etewarde of public reeources and natural getting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, August 24,2004 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PRESENTATION: Acknowledgement of Rick Emerson and Mike Jones, Light & Power Department Employees, for their heroic efforts on July 16~ -Fire Chief Dorman and Mayor Baudek. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 10, 2004. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, August 12,2004: 1. Cornerstone Engineering, $714,049, Fall River corridor 8" Water Line & Storage Tank Project. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, August 3,2004 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 17, 2004 (acknowledgement only). 6. EVRPD Estes Valley Trail Committee: Removal of the 9/04 expiration date on the Town appointment of Community Development Dir. Bob Joseph. 7. Stipulation & Partial Settlement of Expansion of the Local Calling Area. l A. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1 Continued on reverse side 1. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. FINAL SUBDIVISIONS: A. Cito Subdivision, Lot 23, Block 4, Lake View Tracts Subdivision, a Part of Lot 4, Stanley Meadows Addition, Donald & Bonnie Cito/Applicants. B. Sixth Green Estates, Portion of Lot 9, South St. Vrain Addition, Robert L. Dekker & William G. Van Horn/Applicants. 2. PRELIMINARY & FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS: A. Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums, Units 1 through 6, Building A, Fall River Chalets, SRG Properties, LLC/Applicant. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS: A. Vista Ridge Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium, Phase 111, Lot 2, Vista Ridge Subdivision, Estes Investors, LLC/Applicant. B. Thunder Canyon Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #1, Lot 22, Stanley Hills Subdivision P.U.D., Roy Johnson/Applicant. C. Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map, Phase XIV, Lots 1 and 2, Park River West Subdivision, Richard H. Mile TrusVApplicant. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RE-APPOINTMENT OF TWO COMMISSIONERS - ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY. Irene Little and Al Wasson, 5-yr. terms, expiring 9/14/09. Mayor Baudek. 2. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM NORMAN & THERESA SCHAIBLE dba THE WOODLANDS. TO GREGG SUNFIELD, dba THE GALLERY RESTAURANT & BAR, 205 VIRGINIA DR., #501. Town Clerk O'Connor. 3. VISITOR CENTER FACILITY REPORT PRESENTATION - STEVE LANE/BASIS ARCHITECTURE. C.V.B. Director Pickering and Steve Lane. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 10, 2004 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 1Oth day of August, 2004. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Lori Jeffrey-Clark Chuck Levine Wayne Newsom Bill Pinkham Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: John Baudek, Mayor, David Habecker, Trustee Mayor ProTem Doylen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS None. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated July 27,2004. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, August 5,2004. 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, (acknowledgment only). 5. Appointment of Hearing Officer. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Pinkham) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. FEMA WELLNESS GRANT AND STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT - REPORT. Fire Chief Dorman appeared before the Board to comment and clarify recent negative media articles pertaining to the Department's grants. In summary, during the past 18 months, the EPVFD applied for and received two different grants from two different sources for two different purposes: Board of Trustees - August 10, 2004 - Page 2 â€¢ FEMA 'Assistance to Firefighters" Program for a wellness program and fitness room; the 90/10 matching grant applied for directly to FEMA in April, 2002. â€¢ State Homeland Security Grant for a decontamination trailer, grant applied for directly to their county emergency service contacts and then coordinate their requests within one of the nine statewide regions. Appreciation was expressed to the Town Board, staff, and citizens who offered their support during this trying time. Trustee Pinkham commented on the unfortunate stance the media chose to take; the public tends to read sensational articles and not research the facts; however, the EPVFD was commended and the Town is fortunate to have such an outstanding voluntary force. Trustee Newsom praised Chief Dorman in responding to the media so promptly; and Chief Dorman commended the Trail Gazette and Estes Park N@ws for their fair reporting on this issue. Mayor ProTem Doylen expressed the Board's appreciation to Fire Chief Dorman for his clarification, noting the gross injustice, concluding with a statement that the EPVFD grants were appropriately sought and funds were properly expended. Citizen comments were heard from Jim Esterbrook who reported that Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge has stated these grant funds were appropriately expended; however, Senator Allard's comments were not favorable. 2. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK - UPDATE ON TRAIL RIDGE ROAD CONSTRUCTION, ENTRANCE FEES, ETC. RMNP Superintendent Baker gave an update on the following projects, and noted the Park's appreciation to the Fire Dept. and recent MOU extension: Â· Wilderness Anniversary. Acknowledging the 40th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act (1964-2004), a framed John Fielder poster was presented to the Town. Special programs acknowledging this anniversary are being planned. Â· July visitation stats are 1.5% for the year through the end of July most likely due to inclement weather. Â· Secretary of the Interior Norton recently visited the Park and a tour of the Bear Lake Road and Hidden Valley construction projects was included; both projects are on schedule, and a ribbon cutting ceremony is being planned in October. Â· Depending on funding, Trail Ridge Rd. has been scheduled for construction in 2005-2006. As in the current construction projects, significant public notice will take place. Â· 2005 Entrance Fee Increase approval - the entrance fee of $15.00 for 7 days will be increased to $20.00. RMNP is the last remaining Park in the Intermountain Region of its size and visitation to increase the fee, and the additional revenue will benefit the Fee Demonstration Program and Transportation projects in the Park. Â· Transportation Planning - working with the Town on this project, and a test run shuttle system (pickup/drop-off site to be determined) will be scheduled. This test run will be conducted prior to any major decisions/investments being authorized. Â· Ozone - When the EPA issued "ozone alerts", RMNP must follow suit, and the Park is taking precautions. Â· Nitrogen Deposition. For 20 years, the Park has been monitoring "acid rain" in the Loch Vale area near Longs Peak. The State has asked the Park to enter into discussions (scientists to scientists) to address this issue. Should the Town Board so desire, the Park would attend a Town Board Study Session to discuss air-quality issues. Â· Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement - the Plan/Impact Statement is now ready for public inspection, and it Board of Trustees - August 10, 2004 - Page 3 contains a summary of public scooping comments and the development of draft management alternatives. Following discussion and/or clarification, the Board commented Supt. Baker for the updates and resultant favorable communication. 3. PRESENTATION - 2003 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT. Finance Officer Brandjord introduced Wendy SwanhorsUSwanhorst & Cutler, LLC who conducted the annual independent audit of its financial statements. The Town's Audit Committee has reviewed and accepted the Audit Report and the Finance Dept. was commended on the quality of the 2003 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Ms. Swanhorst commented that pursuant to this review, it is clear that the Town Board and staff share a strong sense of fiscal responsibility to ensure continued economic well being of the Town. The Town is in a strong financial position and actually improved from 2002. Trustee Pinkham praised Ms. Swanhorst and the Finance Dept. staff for their impressive work, which has resulted in a complete and easy to review document. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A. None. 5. MISCELLANEOUS. Town Attorney White briefed the Board on the August 2nd hearing on the formation of the Fire Protection District. The Judge approved the petition and ordered an election on 11/2/04. Chief Dorman was designated as the Election Official, and if passed, 5 Directors will be elected. Nomination forms are available at the Fire Station, and submittal deadline is 8/31. The ballot question language is as follows: "Shall the Estes Park Fire Protection District taxes be increased $843,500 annually in the first full fiscal year and by whatever additional amounts are raised annually in each subsequent year by the imposition of a mill levy not to exceed three and one-half (3.5) mills upon taxable real and personal property within the District, commencing with the tax collection year 2005, and continuing thereafter; and shall the District be authorized to collect, keep and spend all revenues received in 2005 and each year thereafter without regard to any spending, revenue, or other limitation in Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution or other statutory laws of the State of Colorado; and shall the Estes Park Fire Protection District be organized as a Special District pursuant to Article I of Title 32 C.R.S. and pursuant to its Service Plan?" Colorado registered electors who either reside or own property within the proposed District are eligible to vote on this question. Following conclusion of all agenda items, Mayor ProTem Doylen adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 12, 2004 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of August, 2004. Committee: Chairman Jeffrey-Clark, Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Public Works Director Linnane, Utilities Dir. Goehring, Construction/Facilities Mgr. Sievers, Sr. Electrical Engr. Matzke, Assistant Mangelsen, Clerk O'Connor Absent None Chairman Jeffrey-Clark called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. FALL RIVER CORRIDOR 8" WATER LINE AND STORAGE TANK - REQUEST ACCEPTANCE OF COST PROPOSAL. Directors Linnane and Goehring reviewed the proposed project and drawings that will increase fire protection to Fall River Estates, the area currently being served, and future growth. Project particulars include: 1. 1,600' of new 8" water main from Fish Hatchery Rd. to a new 300,000-gallon below-ground concrete storage tank to be constructed on property just west of McGregor Mtn. Lodge/Hwy. 34 2. A vault and control valve located at the existing 100,000-gallon storage tank in Fall River Estates. 3. Miscellaneous electric and SCADA control components necessary for remote operation of the pumps. (Data from both tanks will be used to control the pump system; this updates existing 1988 SCADA equipment at the Fall River Estates pump house and tank.) Due to the eminent commercial annexation in the Fall River area, this project is an important element. The winter construction schedule should not be an issue due to the rock surface, thus the completion target of March, 2005 should be met. Cornerstone Engineering has submitted a proposal in the amount of $714,049, and Cornerstone will serve as the General Contractor. $760,000 is the budgeted amount. The Committee recommends acceptance of the proposal in the amount of $714,049 submitted by Cornerstone Engineering. CHRISTMAS DECORATION PROJECT - REQUEST APPROVAL OF PRIVATE CONTRACTOR FOR INSTALLATION. The Dept. has completed a cost-benefit comparison on the privatization v. in-house installation of the Christmas decorations that includes eight scenes, 120 rebar Christmas Trees, and string lights installed on 190 trees. This analysis portion focused on tangible and intangible in-house and out-of-house costs and benefits of each. Based on the report, staff is recommending the private contractor practice for installation of the Christmas decorations be continued. The Committee received clarification on potential employee overtime costs and skilled RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - August 12, 2004 - Page 2 v. manual labor, customer service, maintenance once installation is complete, scheduled projects that could be delayed with the return of this project in-house, and potential time and weather-related risks to the Christmas Parade and decoration project as a whole. Thus, based on the analysis and clarification/discussion, the Committee recommends retaining the privatization of the Christmas Decoration Project. REPORTS. Light and Power: Â· Financial Data. The Committee received a review of the monthly financial report and graphs for July. Â· Charter Communications. Recently, Trustees and staff have been receiving citizen grievances lodged against Charter Communications; thus, the Committee officially requested Charter attend either the September or October Committee Meeting. Water: Â· Financial Data. The Committee received a review of the July monthly financial report and graphs. Â· Projected Water Rights Surplus. Based upon a Year-end Projected Water Rights Surplus with Actual Up to Date Monthly Use Report, the projected surplus is 469 ac. ft. There being no further business, Chairman Jeffrey-Clark adjourned the meeting at 8:46 a.m. Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 3,2004,8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Bill Horton, Members Chuck Levine, Wayne Newsom, Al Sager, Cliff Dill, and Alternate Jeff Barker Attending: Vice Chair Sager, Members Dill, Levine, and Sager Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent: Chair Horton Vice Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. The minutes of the July 13, 2004 meeting. 2. LOT 8, PROSPECT VILLAGE, 430 PROSPECT VILLAGE DRIVE, APPLICANT: LUIS RUIZ - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM PLATTED SETBACK AND SECTION 4, TABLE 4-5 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests a 31 foot variance to a 66 foot wide platted setback to allow a 1,250 square foot (25 by 50 feet) outdoor seating area to remain 35 feet from the northern property line and approximately 12 feet from the southern bank of the Big Thompson River bank. The applicant also requests a three foot variance to the fifteen foot side yard setback in the "CO" Outlying Commercial zoning district to allow the outdoor seating to remain twelve feet from the side (western) property line. The applicant installed outdoor carpet and fencing in the spring of 2004 to delineate a new outdoor seating area. These improvements did not require a building permit, but did require compliance with the platted setback and "CO" zoning district setbacks. The proposed addition will not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Outdoor seating could be placed east of the building and outside the setback. Approval of the variance requests on a seasonal and temporary basis only would reduce the long-term impact of variance approval. Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official stated the applicant would need to apply for the applicable building permit and flood plain permit if the variance is approved. The use is a permitted use and needs to be documented with the appropriate permit. Sager stated the eastern edge of the outdoor seating is much closer than the western edge of the deck as shown in the pictures. Board Member Levine agrees and is concerned with the proximity of the patio to the edge of the river. Louis Ruiz, owner, was present with an interpreter Herardo Herera. Mr. Herera stated the outdoor seating will help Mr. Ruiz's business. The outdoor seating existed when Mr. Ruiz purchased the property. He has tried to improve the existing patio with new tables, chairs, outdoor carpeting and fencing. Mr. Ruiz will comply with all permit requirements. He would like to have the outdoor seating area for summer use and will close it for the winter. Board Member Newsom asked if it is the owner's intent to leave all the items out during the winter. Mr. Herara stated the owner would like to leave the items out during the winter if possible. Vice-Chair Sager stated he understood staff would like all items removed and stored. Planner Chilcott stated staff would like all items removed to help minimize the long-term impact. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 August 3,2004 It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to approve the outdoor patio as drawn on the site plan, parallel to the river and no closer than the northwest corner of the patio and a three foot (3') variance from the fifteen foot (15') side yard setback to allow an outdoor seating area to remain 12 feet from the western property line and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 1. A registered land surveyor shall provide an improvement location certificate which includes the outdoor seating by August 6,2004. 2. This is a seasonal approval only. Each year the outdoor seating, including, tables and chairs, shall be installed no early than May 1St and shall be removed by October 1St. 3. This is a temporary approval only. Town staff can require removal of the outdoor seating, including,Â· but not limited to fencing, outdoor carpet, tables and chairs, with thirty days written notice for reasons including occupying the public easement. 4. Any Building Code violations associated with the new outdoor seating area shall be corrected within 30 days of Board of Adjustment approval. 3. LOT 19, LITTLE VALLEY 2ND FILING TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, 1730 MOON TRAILWAY, APPLICANT: PRISCILLA LOONSTEN - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to build a detached work shop/storage building within the 50 foot side yard setback in the 'RE" Rural Estate zoning district. The lot is significantly sub-sized for the zoning district, which has a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. The eastern portion of the lot was purchased by the Forest Service under the previous owner, which resulted in the majority of the existing house being located within the required 50 foot setback. The lot has a triangular shape, which is an awkward shape and minimizes the buildable area. The lot is steeply sloped, heavily wooded, and contains a rock outcropping in a portion of the buildable area. The proposed structure will be less than 200 square feet, and the applicant proposes to locate the structure in an area that has already been excavated. The neighborhood is heavily forested, and the lots do not have a clear pattern of the property lines. The applicant could locate the structure on other areas of the lot. However, that would result in greater site disturbance. Priscilla Loonsten, applicant, was present to answer questions. She stated she understands the staff recommendations. Board Member Levine agrees the selected location for the storage shed will have the least amount of impact and the site already exists. It was moved and seconded (Cliff/Levine) to approve a thirty foot (30') variance from the fifty foot (50') side yard setback to build a detached work shop/storage building twenty (20') from the side yard setback and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 1. Full c6mpliance with the Uniform Building Code and approved site plan. 2. Prior to foundation inspection, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 4. PORTION OF SECTION 18 AND 19, T5N, R72W OF THE 6TH P.M., 1380 DEVIL'S GULCH ROAD, APPLICANT: DOUGLAS AND SHARON SHERMAN - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4, TABLE 4-2 AND SECTION 5.2.D.5.D OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to allow a side yard setback of 7 feet in lieu of the 50 feet required to build a three story tree house. The structure will not exceed the 30 foot height limit, and the side yard setback request is to allow the structure to be built closer to an internal property line; the applicant owns the adjacent lot. The applicant contacted both the Larimer County Building Department and the Estes Park Community Development Department prior to start of construction and was informed a building permit would not be required. The applicant is over the square foot limit allowed for accessory structures. The location RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 August 3,2004 of the tree house would have less of an impact on the neighborhood than if it met all required setbacks. Board Member Levine feels the applicant did not intentionally build the tree house without first trying to obtain the necessary permits. Planner Shirk stated another alternative to a variance would be to combine the lots or move the lot lines through a boundary line adjustment. However, the applicant has not decided what he would like to do with the property and the amended plat or boundary line adjustment would take several months. The combination of the lots would not eliminate the nonconforming density and might increase the degree of nonconformity. Joe Coop of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Coop stated the applicant has obtained all of the necessary permits for the work performed on the property. Nels Larson, 1527Devils Gulch Road, stated the tree house is visible from his front porch and all of his windows. He feels it decreases his property value and blocks his last view down to the lake. He stated the installed landscaping does not screen the tree house. Mr. Larson does not think Mr. Sherman should be allowed to build the tree house because he is already over the allowable accessory structure limit. He also feels the tree house could be placed elsewhere on the property. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to approve a forty-three foot (43') variance from the fifty foot (50') side yard setback to build a three story tree house seven feet (7') from the side yard setback and Section 5.2.D.5.d to allow an additional accessory structure over the maximum allowed and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 1. Full compliance with the Uniform Building Code and approved site plan. 5. REPORTS None. Board Member Newsom requests that staff be at the meeting before 8:00 a.m. so the meeting can start on time. There being no further business, Vice Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 9:07 a.m. Al Sager, Vice Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission August 17,2004,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Homeier, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Judy Haggard, George Hix, Bill Horton, Joyce Kitchen, and Edward Pohl Attending: Chair Homeier, Commissioners Amos, Haggard, Hix, Horton, Kitchen and Pohl Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson. Town Board Liaison Habecker present at the study session. Absent: None Chair Homeier called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated July 20,2004. b. REZONING REQUEST, WESTLEY REZONING, LOT 9, AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 10 -17, PORTION OF LOTS 1, 6, 8, & 9, ELKHORN ESTATES, 475 Fall River Lane - Withdrawn by Applicant. c. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 04-05, BEAR CREEK LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS, UNITS 1 THROUGH 6, BUILDING A, FALL RIVER CHALETS, 1280 Fall River Road - Withdrawn by Applicant. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hix) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, BEAR CREEK LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS, UNITS 1 THROUGH 6, BUILDING A, FALL RIVER CHALETS AND PROPOSED BUILDING, 1280 Fall River Road, Applicant: SRG Properties, LLC. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a preliminary condominium map application to condominiumize the existing six-unit building at 1280 Fall River Road. The property is condominiumized as the "Fall River Chalet." This condominium regime will be terminated and a new map and declaration will be recorded for Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums. The proposed condominium map complies with all density and dimensional standards set forth in EVDC Â§4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts, with the exception of a slight encroachment of the new hot tub into the 30 foot river setback. Staff recommends approval of a minor modification to allow this encroachment to remain. The property is zoned W Accommodations Highway Corridor and the proposed use is accommodations and residential. The current use is accommodations. The property meets the density and parking requirements for both uses and the condominium regime will allow both uses. EVDC Â§10.5.D Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections and Trails requires in part that"To the maximum extent feasible, all subdivisions shall provide pedestrian linkages including trails to parks, schools, adjacent developments and existing and proposed hike and bike trails as depicted in the Estes Valley Long Range Hike and Bike Trails Plan (found in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan)" and that "The minimum width of a required sidewalk shall be eight (8) feet in all other nonresidential zoning districts. There are plans to extend a ten foot wide trail/sidewalk along US 34 (Fall River Road) as shown on the Estes Valley Long Range Hike and Bike Trails Plan and staff recommends that this subdivision construct trail in accordance with EVDC Â§10.5.D. Storm water from the parking lot does not adequately drain into the drainage swale and should be addressed. A public sewer easement is dedicated with this map for a portion of the sewer main that does not fall within the existing easement. A portion of the existing easement that is not occupied will be vacated with this map. The RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 August 17,2004 existing water service line does not meet current standards and will be replaced with a 1 M inch copper line. Kerry Prochaska of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant does not feel they should pay for that portion of the traiUbike path in front of their property. He advised the property is already condominiumized and this is simply a name change. He feels it is excessive to require the applicant to pay for a trail that is currently planned by the Town for this fall. Director Joseph stated the applicant is vacating the first filing of the condominium map; and therefore nullifying the existing regime and starting with a new one. The applicant is also requesting a reservation for future development, which did not exist with the previous condominiumization. Chair Homeier questioned whether the location of the trail would be in the right-of- way or an easement. Mr. Prochaska stated the location of the trail would be within the right-of-way due to design considerations. Greg Siever, Facilities and Construction Manager, advised the final location for the trail has not been determined. Commissioner Kitchen feels the trail construction is an undue burden being placed on one property owner when the trail will be constructed by the Town in the near future. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Amos) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the Preliminary Condominium Map, Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums, Units 1 Through 6, Building A, Fall River Chalets and the motion passed. Those voting "Yes" Pohl, Amos, Homeier, Hix, Horton, and Haggard. Those voting "No" Kitchen. 1. Prior to October 1, 2004 and plat recordation the applicant shall complete construction of a ten foot wide concrete bike trail with three foot shoulders along US 34. The trail shall be built to Town of Estes Park standards and design shall be approved prior to construction. This shall be included in the subdivision improvement agreement. Or the applicant shall submit a cost estimate to the Town for review and approval and provide funds for Town construction of this portion of the trail prior to October 1, 2004 and plat recordation. 2. The animal proof dumpster, enclosure and proposed location shall be reviewed and approved by staff and the dumpster and enclosure shall be in place prior to recordation of the map. A landscaping plan for landscaping around the dumpster and enclosure shall be submitted for staff review and approval and landscaping shall be in place prior to recordation of the map. , Hand irrigation of required trees and shrubs shall be allowed provided that prior to recordation of the map a three year improvement agreement and financial guarantee is provided in accordance with EVDC Â§7.3.D.5.d. The dumpster enclosure shall comply with EVDC Â§7.13.B.3. 3. Parking lot drainage shall be improved to ensure that the parking lot does not hold water. 4. The deck encroachment in the sewer main easement shall be removed prior to issuance of any additional sewer permits for development on the lot and prior to recordation of the condominium map. 5. The final condominium map shall show the general location and number of units to be reserved for future development. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 04-06, MACGREGOR MOUNTAIN WATER STORAGE TANK, NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 SECTION 16, T5N, R73W, OF THE 6TH P.M., 2818 Fall River Road, Applicant: Town of Estes Park, Public Works Department. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a Location and Extent Review to build a 300,000-gallon water storage tank. The tank will be located above the Fall River Pump Station. It will improve the fire flow and provide an increased RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 August 17,2004 supply of potable water for the area, supplementing the existing 100,000 gallon Fall River Estates water tank. Staff has determined this is a minor utility, and therefore a permitted use in the "A" Accommodations zone district. Kerry Prochaska of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. Bob Goehring, Utilities Superintendent, was also present. Mr. Prochaska stated the timing of construction from July to October is somewhat limiting. The Public Works committee approved the project so long as the construction was completed by March; therefore construction would have to take place during the winter months. He would like the opportunity to work with the Department of Wildlife to see if they can reach a compromise regarding construction during the winter months. Director Joseph spoke with Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager, regarding the state of the bighorn sheep. Mr. Spowart feels the sheep have been in a precarious state for some time and are still at risk for stress related mortality. Mr. Spowart also indicated that he would be willing to be flexible and could allow construction a month on either end of the suggested construction timeframe. - Chair Homeier asked what the timeframe for construction is. Mr. Prochaska stated the construction would take place from September through March. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hix) to approve Development Plan 04-06, MacGregor Mountain Water Storage Tank, NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 Section 16, T5N, R73W, of the 6th P.M., 2818 Fall River Road and the motion passed unanimously with the following conditions. 1. Compliance with the approved site plan. 2. Compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. 3. There shall be no exterior lighting. 4. Construction shall be limited per the recommendation of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 5. The tank shall be at least 15-feet from the east side yard. 6. The road shall be placed in cut slope; the grading plan shall be changed accordingly. 7. Compliance with Larimer County Building Department memo dated June 16, 2004 regarding MacGregor Mountain Water Storage Tank. 8. The owner and lienholder signature line shall be changed to include Alpenglow Lodge LLC, Warren Clinton and Ruth L. Clinton. 9. The two existing parcels (PIDs 3516400087 and 3516400034) shall share a single highway access point. The method of access consolidation shall be finalized before any excavation work on either of the parcels. 5. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES Public Comment: None. Planner Shirk reviewed the current code for Geologic and Wildlife Hazard Areas. The intent of the revision is to clarify the code language. He reviewed the new code revisions which add specific language regarding mitigation for wildlife and geologic hazards. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Amos) to recommend acceptance to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners Block 7, Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas to the Estes Valley Development Code and it passed unanimously. 6. REPORTS Planner Shirk stated the County Commissioners approved the Driftwood right-of-way vacation and the Cheley Camp right-of-way vacation. . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 August 17,2004 Planner Chilcott informed the Commission that staff has reviewed Development Plan 04-07, Ertl Mechanical Building and has recommended conditional approval. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 2:49 p.m. Richard Homeier, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary Memo Date: August 19, 2004 TO: Town Board From: Gregory A. White RE: Stipulation and Partial Settlement Agreement - Expansion of the Local Calling Area in Northern Colorado BACKGROUND Numerous municipalities, Larimer and Weld Counties and several Chambers of Commerce have proposed, along with Qwest Corporation, to expand the local calling area in Northern Colorado. This proposal is currently being reviewed by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Specifically, Estes Park's local calling area would be expanded to include Eaton, Ault, Gilcrest, Greeley, Johnston-Milliken, LaSalle, Mead, Platteville, Windsor and Nun. If this Stipulation and Partial Settlement is accepted by the PUC, the only question remaining before the PUC is whether or not Qwest will be entitled to raise rates, statewide, to cover its projected losses in the expansion of the local calling area. Qwest has requested an increase of $.06 per month per phone line, statewide, to cover Qwest's loss of revenues in this expansion of the local calling area. Whether or not Qwest will be successful in obtaining approval from the PUC for this rate increase will be decided by the PUC in this proceeding at a later date. The Stipulation and Partial Settlement Agreement between all of the municipalities, the counties, the Chambers of Commerce and Qwest agree to said expansion of the local calling area in Northern Colorado and does not oppose Qwest's rate increase. The affect of expansion of the local calling area for the Town is to allow significant expansion of non-long distance calling from Estes Park to a majority of the Northern Colorado area. BUDGET There are no budget implications to the Town. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Staff, including Attorney White, recommends adoption of this Stipulation and Partial Settlement and authorization of the Mayor to execute the final Stipulation and Partial Settlement Agreement. Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: August 17,2004 Subject: Cito Minor Subdivision, Lot 23, Block 4, Lake View Tracts Subdivision of a Part of Lot 4, Stanley Meadows Addition, Applicants: Donald & Bonnie Cito Background. The applicant has submitted a minor subdivision plat to subdivide an approximately one acre, "R-2" Two-Family Residential zoned lot on Vista Lane into two "R-2" zoned lots. Lot 23A is proposed as a duplex lot and Lot 23B is proposed as a single-family lot. The minimum required net land area for a duplex lot in the "R-2" zoning district is 27,000 square feet and the minimum for a single-family lot is 18,000 square feet. The proposed lots are 27,007 square feet and 18,008 square feet respectively. Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the plat at their July 20,2004 meeting. The applicant has addressed all conditions of approval; however, these conditions require Town staff review and approval which is not completed. Budget. Location Map None. /9 1 1 111 Action. iii 1 Approval of the plat with the following w n, / conditions: (1) Compliance with the U-Ll...--1 conditions of approval recommended by F- ~ Planning Commission. (2) Removal of the ~-12.9, fence in right-of-way prior to plat j i Vista Lane - recordation. (3) Compliance with Greg -< 1 Zoning Sievers' August 18, 2004 memo to Lonnie L---/ 1 Golf Course /' 1.03 acres Sheldon concerning drainage. Setbacks, edge of asphalt, Lot 17 ownership information shall be removed ~ Lake Estes - from the plat. Town of Estes Park Community Development Depadment Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: August 18,2004 Subject: Sixth Green Estates, Portion of Lot 9, South St. Vrain Addition, Robert L. Dekker and William G. Van Horn/Applicant Background. The applicants have submitted a final subdivision plat application to subdivide a two acre, "E" Estate zoned parcel into three single-family residential lots and a 0.25 acre outlot for access and utilities. The address is 1380 South Saint Vrain Avenue (Colorado Highway 7). Two of the proposed residential lots are approximately one half acre in size and the third lot is approximately three quarters of an acre. The Town Board recommended conditional approval of the preliminary plat at the June 22, 2004 meeting. All Town Board conditions of approval that were required to be satisfied prior to Town Board review of the final plat review have been satisfied. Budget. LOCATION MAP None. Golf Course .CO. Action. 'RM" 1 Approval of the final plat conditioned on (1) 1210 Holiday Ln. compliance with the June 22, 2004 Town .18,1 /,3,11-~ - 1224 Holiday Ln. Board conditions of approval (2) No <'1 11 1 1 1, n n*~~ 1240 Holiday Ln. increase in historic rate of discharge shall 1=6-1-_"E" I~ f-J' be permitted. (3) The sewer easement on g\ I IN i --~~IL.... Â·~ 1 1380 S. Saint Vrain Av7 ME" the golf course lot shall be reviewed and j ~_ 1 -1117? S. Saint Vrain AveÂ·~ approved by Town staff and shall be j R--I-P<â‚¬J 1.024.'sk* ~~I~J~~ - submitted to the Town for recording with l 1---dED--927'7 AV~Â· u , ~ the plat. (4) Compliance with the Town 097.=full Attorney's letter dated August 11, 2004. 'BAV Ule.IA *uleS fi /Â£ Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: August 18,2004 Subject: Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums, Units 1 through 6, Building A, Fall River Chalets, SRG Properties, LLC/Applicant Background. The applicant has submitted preliminary and final condominium map applications for Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums. The property is located at 1280 Fall River Road (US 34) and is zoned "A" Accommodations Highway Corridor. The current use is accommodations; however, the property meets the density and parking requirements for both accommodations and residential use and the new condominium regime will allow both uses. The property is currently condominiumized as the "Fall River Chalet." This condominium regime will be terminated and a new map and declaration will be recorded for Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums. The new map and declaration resubdivides the property, reserves the right to build additional units and reserves the right to add land to the condominium regime. Location Map Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the preliminary condominium map at their August 17, 2004 1280 F I River Rd. meeting, with six members voting for the "RE" motion and one against. The applicant aRM" was in agreement with all conditions of all approval except the condition that "Prior to e River Rd.A~ Fall Riv r October 1, 2004 and plat recordation the Nic vs applicant shall complete construction of a â€¢An ten foot wide concrete bike trail with three r / foot shoulders along US 34. The trail shall L..1*met-z~.-Â·_ be built to Town of Estes Park standards and design shall be approved prior to construction. This shall be included in the subdivision improvement agreement. Or the applicant shall submit a cost estimate to the Town for review and approval and provide funds for Town construction of this portion of the trail prior to October 1, 2004 and plat recordation." At this point the applicant has not decided if they want to remove this item from the consent agenda to appeal this condition. One vote was cast against the motion due to a concern that trail construction placed an undue burden on one property owner when the trail will be constructed by the Town in the near future. Planning Commission recommend this condition because EVDC Â§10.5.D Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections and Trails requires in part that "To the maximum extent feasible, all subdivisions shall provide pedestrian linkages including trails to parks, schools, adjacent developments and existing and proposed hike and bike trails as depicted in the Estes Valley Long Range Hike and Bike Trails Plan (found in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan)" and that "The minimum width of a required sidewalk shall be eight (8) feet in all other nonresidential zoning districts." The Town has plans to extend a ten foot wide trail along US 34 (Fall River Road) as depicted in the Estes Valley Long Range Hike and Bike Trails Plan. Planning Commission recommends that this subdivision construct or pay for construction of the trail in accordance with EVDC Â§10.5.D. The applicant should discuss business licenses for individually owned condominium units with the Town Clerk's Office and the applicant should notify future owners of condominium units of business licensing requirements. Budget. None. Action. Approval of the Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums preliminary and final condominium map applications with the following conditions (1) Compliance with the Planning Commission conditions of approval (2) Compliance with the Town Attorney's letter dated August 11, 2004 (3) Section 14.4 Reservation of Withdrawal Rights reserves the right to withdraw real property from the condominium regime. This shall be removed from the declaration. (4) References to a development agreement with the Town shall be removed from the declaration, including references in Section 7.4 and 14.10, as no such agreement exists. (5) No monumentation is proposed for one of the eastern property corners. A monument shall be set for this corner and shown on the map. (6) The reference to "nicky's restaurant" and the location of the restaurant shall be removed from the map. (7) The certificate from the Secretary of State stating that the articles of incorporation have been filed, comply with Colorado law, and that the corporation is authorized to conduct affairs within the State shall be submitted along with a copy of the filed articles of incorporation prior to map recordation. (8) The purpose of each easement shall be stated on the condominium map, e.g. access. (9) The edge of asphalt in Fall River Road shall be removed from the map. (10) The relation of the property to adjoining subdivisions is shown. Ties consisting of courses and distances shall be added. â€¢Page 2 Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 and Bob Joseph, Director Date: August 18,2004 Subject: Vista Ridge Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium, Phase 111, Lot 2, Vista Ridge Subdivision, Estes Investors, LLC/Applicant Background. This is a final (supplemental) condominium map application submitted by Estes Investors, LLC for Vista Ridge Phase 111. Estes Investors, LLC is a partnership between the Estes Park Housing Authority and local investors. Phase 111 consists of eight units, Units 872,874,876,878,880,882,884, and 886, in two buildings on Lot 2, Vista Ridge Subdivision. The site is located on Crabapple Lane. All three lots in the subdivision are zoned "RM" multi-family residential. The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan. The three deck N encroachments into easements Vista Ridge Location Map A were approved with the 0 development plan. An as-built PIP LIli C-7/ development plan is required once construction of improvements is complete. 1 | ~ Good Samaritan Subduision 1.-Ub-'x Dll*hlk/(t.,12.4-dS-uil,ISIWWÂ»,0 ~-2~~..~ The Town Board conditionally j . ANNZAÂ»ye.e-*--*I approved the Map of Vista Ridge m,~,CE --0+ - I_~-Lmbrer- Ranch (Rex Whlkil) Thi R**grv, ,\ FE-1 Condominiums, Phase 11 at the *3 igle-FamilyResidential 1?E' September 9,2003 meeting. 1 1 L --~ Lot 1, Wildfire Ridge Addition \ Garage/Storage Unds ~ Â·RM' MultiÂ·Family Residential Budget. . Loni Pin, Acres _)04 Â·CO- Commercial Oullying $140 application fee was waived. 1 1_ L_1 -1 01 1 9 -3 -1 8.42:1-1 Â·EÂ· Estate Action. Approval of the Map of Vista Ridge Condominiums - Supplemental Map Phase 111. Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director Date: August 24,2004 Subject: Thunder Canyon, Supplemental Condominium Map Site Background. 2004, the Town Board approved the map of the Thunder Canyon - 4 Condominiums, which are - currently under construction. Stanley Hotel . 1 i This is the first supplemental n map, which finalizes Units 1 and 2, Building H. Condominium maps cannot be * finalized until they are - N substantially complete, which is why this map is before the Town Board now. There will be additional subsequent maps for this project as units near completion. The site is located at 720 Black Canyon Drive, and there are eleven units left to be finalized. Budget. NA Action. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the First Supplemental Condominium Map of Thunder Canyon Condominiums CONDITIONAL TO the original conditions of approval, as set forth below: 1. Compliance with Development Plan 03-12 "Thunder Canyon". 2. Compliance with EPSD memo dated February 27,2004 referencing the private sewer line and plant investment fees. 3. Compliance with Public Works memo dated February 26,2004 (except numbers 1 and 2). Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: August 18,2004 Subject: Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map, Phase XIV, Lots 1 and 2, Park River West Subdivision, Richard H. Wille Trust/Applicant Background. Richard H. Wille Trust has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for Park River West Phase XIV. Phase XIV consists of two units, Units 627 and 629, Building 30, located on Lot 1, Park River West Subdivision. The site is adjacent to River Rock Condominiums on Moraine Avenue (CO Highway 36). Lots 1 and 2 of the Park River West Subdivision are zoned "RM" multi-family residential. The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan with the exception of the proposed finished floor elevations. An as-built development plan is required once construction of improvements is completed. Location Map The Town Board approved the ___r-n 0, -1- 7 --i Supplemental Condominium Map for 4 7 1 Park River West Phase XIII at the July 27,2004 meeting. River Rock Condominium Budget ~ . // ~~#eda: Ridgi j None. (032 -z- x Action. Approval of the Supplelnental , , Park River WeELL Condominium Map for Park River . ../ c D West Phase XIV. Â« " / 1 1- 1 1 // 1 Memorandum August 13, 2004 To: Mayor John Baudek From: Al Wasson, Chairman, EPURA Re: Reappointment ofEPURA Commissioners The terms as EPURA Commissioners of Irene Little and myself expire 9/14/04. I have talked to Irene and she is eager to continue to serve as an EPURA Commissioner, as am I. If you see fit to reappoint us, this might be done at the August 24th meeting ofthe Town Board, to ensure the continuity of a full Board. We appreciate the opportunity to serve the Town of Estes Park in this capacity. Copy: Vickie O'Connor, Wil Smith April 2003 PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: 0 The application was filed Auqustll, 2004 B The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. 0 The applicant is filing as an Individual 0 There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant. FI Status of T.I.P.S. Training: X Unscheduled Completed (Date: ) MOTION: I move the Transfer Application filed by Greqq Sunfield, doing business as THE GALLERY RESTAURANT & BAR for a Hotel & Restaurant License be approved/denied. ' 4 * f TOWN OF ESTES PARK Police Department --4~43 *2,2 3 81/.5.&-ern 29%9*7MMie#.~ Â«-â‚¬.3~429189 19&041&Â¢/919 %1 ./ &*U/iogJB+- 42~ 0 .t,34.44 7# -4 1 Â»Â»S"*90- e.u;,461~. '.044 1 1--1 August 20,2004 Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: The Gallery Restaurant & Bar Hotel & Restaurant Sunfield, Gregg W. DOB: 04/03/61 Oehlman, David R. DOB: 06/13/66 Dear Mrs. O'Connor: A check of the Estes Park Police Department local records on the above-named person(s) and business was conducted. This check revealed no activity reported within the town limits during the past year. Sincerely, CM 01 â‚¬ \)11.h 144~.41 Wesley R. Kufeld Police Commander, Estes Park Police Department (970) 586-4465 â€¢ RO. BOX 1287 â€¢ ESTES PARK, CO 80517 â€¢ FAX (970) 586-4496 DR 8404.1 (06/02) COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE " ' #r LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 1881 PIERCE STREET RM 108A DENVER CO 80261 INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECORD - be completed by each -individual applicant," all general pirtners of a partnership, all limited partners owning 10% (or more) of a partnership; all officers and directors of a corporation, all stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the stock i of such corporation; all. limited liability company MANAGING<rnembers, Officers or other limited liability company members -1 with a 10% (or more) ownership interest in such company and all managers of a Hotel and Restaurantor a lavern License. f 1NOTICE: This individual history record provides basic information which is necessary for the licensing authority investigation. All Eluestions must be answered in their entirety or your application may be delayed or not processed. EVERY answer you give twill be checked for its truthfulness. A deliberate falsehood or omission will jeopardize the application as such falsehood i Within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant. 1. Name of Business ~ / a e Â£rl ' .rv ResÂ·11Â·e.urat~k- P 1:Seâ€¢â€¢- -3 f 2. Your Full Name (last, fir*, middIM - Â·.Â·Â· - -- - -/Â·Â· .. 3. List anyother names you have used. UUL 6-vcqq Gui LIt A.â€¢U,- Vexerse,i , Circqq IA./1 LIIÂ«kVM 1 4.Â¥ailing addres;s. (if (feredfrom resickoU) 4 ....0 , ..,*':Â· .,~:LF.,.Li.1..., , A..1.- Home.Telephorte iÂ·h .,,}:%*..5'U, . 4.- â€¢'A â€¢ ..~7 Â·Â·,â€¢'v.4.- Â·~i ...54 AD. 830>< 1924 Lve,e, co 3-4-90 303 823 8-239 5. List all residence addresses below. Includt current and previous addresses for the past five years. f f STREET AND NUMBER CITY, STATE, ZIP FROM TO Current .e ... Â·Â· 1-]iC -=FGA-- sk -225 - 1255=4-6 - n LflÂ«i-â€ž LyeAd Previous. 1 265-1- Affl â‚¬ 1.1 ley A?. - l-,76'As 60 9-6 3- 4 0 q '16 1 447 u i ' .'...'~-1~./ 9'-â€¢. ' I I . t ~' i I . . 'll- , 11' . Wet LL Â¢1 f - .1. % 4 6 1-2)64 co 165405 5{~re~'7<~vy\-5-llt[ 61 ' 1 ... .. . .. \ . 6. Date of Birth Social Security Number (SSN) Place of Birth 7. U. S. Citizen? 9/3~01 5-Â¥ 5-295--/Â¥21 300,M IasÂ·c' Ca.lif. [110>fes E No f If Natifralized, state where When Name of District Court Naturalization Certificate Number Date of Certification If an Alien, Give Alien's Registration' Card Number Permanent Residence.Card Number - 8. Height Weight Hair Color Eye Color Sex Race 9. Do you have a current Driver's License? If so, give number & state Â·. ' 6 6 1 5-0 6, 13 r Al k.) [24 UNo P S 0 93 0 3 To 10. List the name(s) of relatives working in or holding a financial interest in the Colorado alcohol beverage industry. NAME OF RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP TO YOU POSITION HELD ~ NAME OF EMPLOYER ti - 2. 7= - Have you ever applied for, held, or had an interest in a State of Colorado Liquor or Be&[License, or loaned money, furniture or fixtures, equipment or ventory, to dny liquor or beerlicensee? If yes, answer indetail. 13]Yes ER'*jo 51.Â·r,r 12. Have you ever been convicted of a crime, or received a suspended sentence, deferred s tence, or forfeited bail for any. offense in crimin-al or militity. court or do you have any charges pending? (If yes, explain in detail.) El Yes 12140 I Â¥ " .in .1 Â·-1 1.) 4.1-iÂ¥ i:3 4-9 + 1 13.Â¥lave you ever rdb*ived a violdtioh notice, suspendion-or revocation, for ~,IiÂ®or law violatign, or have you' appliedÂ·fOr Or been denied a liquor or beer ' license anywhete'in'the UÂ·.S:?Â·lfiyes, explainÂ·in detail.:, Â·Â·C EYes -Â·~o r ;tÂ·.,Â·:4'Â·Â·Â·.Â· f':'j,2Â· r;' MO; 2.-1 if :9'6n.,.f. t'j-~i...1 1.: -8.67.30.8 41!i.Â· .. .. $ z .4 r .ifin, #buÂ·Â·2 iÂ·~. 2/olls:M;*36 12.-~-, 55. 8%.3 -i'-joi {48 vw - c . 3 10 4.-7- .Â· 2.Â·11 54Â·-- ' Â·i<;}66 A. 221Â·.Â·.Â·49-:- ,~,Â·. ~ ' 14.Â·List all-current and-formeremployers orÂ·busirtesses*engagedÂ·in-within. th@'14-st fivetearj (AttaGhsdparate~ihwkif nedeaa4)~71.. 2.5 :4.4..... ..... NAME OF EMPLOYER t ADDRESS (*TREET, NUMBER, CITY, STATEâ€ž ZIP) POSITION HELD FROM ; .TO ... â€žr~-,w ,:>~ ~ 1 1 ,~ ~Â· .vt Ki,ty Afe-4 .- -t-412/4 Â· 4 5-SY WL k IL, 1.~u,- co We-,IN f Palk, cv'c ' 9 ~- ; k Au- 1-4 f L., , t.â€ž --.- -~. 1.-- -Â»,-9 -... ..... -. ...... . 1- ,". '. .. -"-+ .-1...".'.-- ---....~..,-~ -- .- ------ -,.. .- .- v -r v t.Â·4- Â·r Â·. 0... - '1, V.3221 04 . nb 15Â· Financial Information.Â¥ *,1-%\ . . /. I 'll Total, purghase price $ V 9, /00 - Cifbuying-an existing business) 0Rlist the total amount of your investment in the-6690 businelial ..Ni inclu~ng,notes,;loans, cash, sdrvices or equipment, andÂ·operating gapitai $ I Y.9. RA Z . .5. 2~ 13 U ; 0' r E. O h ) E ..' i.Â·' i Af -it.': .., 27 Â·Â« Provide dkail& of Investment. You must account for the sources of ALL cash (how acquiredi. Attach a separate sheet ifAAe,Fled, - , , Typf: Cash,'Services-o,>Equip'ment r.v -. 4.- r,~ ..Where Obtaine*d (Savings, Checking, Account, 6tc.) 1 . i..! Amount I 2412/Pock=,21 1 .62: 7 b . r -4 -- p c Le. c k 11â‚¬,#A y/ 55 - Â«1< /00 06 .. . I #-~- . 1 /. U ./. -0 1 2 2, 5 i , d d L /' A ..... f . ,. .1- % - 1.- / + / 1 11 h T - % 44. I i Loan Information (attach copies of all notes,or loans) Name of Lender Address Term Security Amount . - 16. Give name of bankwhere business account will be maintained; name the account will be maintained under; and the name ornames of persons . i - Â·authorized to draw thereon. Volley Â£41 + Trook i TA r - 6*11â€¢ 7 Re-slvv.zk r Bay- 5 ~6-re-jo- Suve@'.ticÂ¢ .-- .... - . _Oath_of Applicant.. I declare under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and completeto the best J my knowledge. A Authorized#gnature Title Date 91 + b-'-- -il~-7 U - % 4 ---A Business Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Tom Pickering, Director of Business Development Date: August 20,2004 Re: Estes Park Visitor Information Center Background: The Town Board Goal # 3 is to study the condition of the Estes Park Visitors Center and ascertain its effectiveness and efficiency in providing visitor information and customer services to the community, its customers and residents. Under the direction of Goal Team #3a needs assessment and facility review was requested. Basis Architecture, P.C. of Estes Park Colorado was hired to conduct the study. Under the Scope of Services the Architect was asked to 1. Review the buildings functions and design expectations. 2. Study the existing site and building and conduct a feasibility study. 3. Prepare a comparison on remodeling vs. replacement of the structure. Basis was asked to prepare this report for presentation to the Town Board on or before August 24,2004. Action: Report Only 1 <6WN-Ot ti.0' Town of Estes Park Visitors Information Center Needs Assessment Report August 2004 . . 2 1 4 L -i - --Â£# -1 BASIS ARCHITECTURE P.C. 552 W. Elkhorn Avenue P.O. Box 2421 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 vox: 970.586.9140 fax: 970.586.9149 Town of Estes Park Visitors Information Center Needs Assessment Report August 2004 Prepared for: John Baudek Mayor Sue Doylen Mayor Pro Tem David Habecker Town Trustee Lori Jeffrey-Clark Town Trustee Chuck Levine Town Trustee Wayne Newsom Town Trustee Bill Pinkham Town Trustee Thomas Pickering Director ofBusiness Development Richard Widmer Town Administrator Randy Repola Assistant Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor Town Clerk by BASIS Architecture P.C. Estes Park Visitors Information Center Needs Assessment Objective This project presents an opportunity to establish a vision of the gateway to and 'hub' of the Estes Park experience. The objective of this evaluation of the Estes Park Visitors Information Center was to provide clear and adequate information that will allow the Board of Trustees to make an educated decision concerning the facility's future. While greatest weight was given to the structure itself, an evaluation of the site location helped to guide the recommendations contained within. Executive Summary This needs assessment was commissioned in July of 2004 and completed for review during the August 24,2004 Town Board meeting. The consultants met with the Mayor's 'goal team' and toured Front Range visitors centers. Meetings were held with representatives from the Ambassadors, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and Rocky Mountain National Park. The Estes Park Visitors Information Center is owned by the Town of Estes Park and operated by a volunteer force of Ambassadors. It currently houses the offices of the Chamber of Commerce; though on October 1, 2004, the Chamber is scheduled to vacate the space for the Town Convention and Visitors Bureau. The building was erected by the Town in 1979 and holds a total of 3,500 square feet on three levels, including the restrooms. Set in an ideal physical location, the information center offers assistance with lodging, dining and activities for visitors to the Estes Valley and Rocky Mountain National Park. Restroom facilities are used heavily by frequenters of the Lake Estes trail system as well as visitors. Several picnic shelters are also located nearby. The problems with the existing facility are numerous. Despite its prime location, it is all but invisible from Highway 36 and downtown. Because the main floor is set four feet above grade, physical access is difficult and can be dangerous. The diminutive lobby is often crowded and noisy, and frequently, uncomfortably warm. Restrooms are not internally connected and do not meet current codes. While the overall condition of the structure is good; the exterior wood is in dire need of maintenance. The architectural design is dated, overly complex and confusing. An outline of physical and experiential components resulting from the surveys conducted suggests that a total of 6,500 square feet is required to adequately meet the needs of the customer, volunteers and stafÂ£ The most efficient arrangement places 5,000 square feet on a ground level with 1,500 on an alternate level, most likely a basement. Remodeling the existing building is possible, but not recommended. The difficulties presented by incorporating this structure into an adequately sized facility and the costs associated make this the less desirable option. Construction of a new facility east of the existing provides a better, more economical solution and has the added benefit of allowing the existing facility to remain operational during construction. A new facility is the best way to meet the needs of the visitor - the customer - and provide an introductory experience to Estes Park that will benefit the business owner and visitor alike. August 24, 2004 1 BASIS Architecture PC Estes Park Visitors Information Center Needs Assessment Introduction Background The Estes Park Visitors Information Center is currently operated by a team of volunteers, the Ambassadors, and houses the office of the Chamber of Commerce. The building, built in 1979, is owned by the Town of Estes Park. Following a 2003 audit of the advertising and marketing program, the Town Trustees voted to rename the business development department the Convention and Visitors Bureau, create a marketing board to provide Town advertising, and, along with the volunteers, assume control of the Visitors Information Center operations. This last action is scheduled to occur on October 1, 2004, following expiration of the Chamber's lease. Needs Assessment A needs assessment report - this document - was commissioned in July of 2004 and completed for review during the August 24,2004 Town Board meeting The consultants met with the Mayors 'goal team' to review the project and tour the Fort Collins and Loveland visitors' centers. Survey meetings were then held with representatives from the Ambassadors, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and Rocky Mountain National Park. The compiled information was reviewed to determine the size and relational requirements, how the existing building might be used, and to project a budget for any improvements necessary. A significant amount of detail was recorded during the survey meetings. Much of this information will be important to the design team if a construction project is undertaken. However, it was not deemed appropriate to include an exhaustive level of specificity in this report. Location 1 The Visitors Center sits at the eastern edge of downtown on a 3.68 acre parcel of land bisected by the Big Thompson River, at Â· â€¢Â·..:.54:â„¢*.Â·.f.:/Â·4Â·..0.1.01:.- 4 :'f~.0.:11Â§4.'~...* 1 V the intersection of Colorado State E-,444*1/2:,.-Triii.,2 Highways 34 and 36. Across the 41 646 ... 1.3 .R. 3 1.-9.4-7 91. -1 . 2,1-1-':.135.7,2*tefk.~5 river to the south is a parking area, I 3- t. - - I linked by two bridges. The property 1 1,1 110, 41> 1 1 1 i is zoned C-O, commercial outlying and owned by the Town of Estes Vt' . Park. It would be almost impossible to :' find a location more suited to its J 4, %4 1 -- - 2:%1** 141....1 1% 'A purpose. The only visitors not likely ; 1 r . 4. 1 ...41*:?f:nl-b ..s . '11'a.~.6, to pass the center on their way into i 1 Ill.4...:' Estes Park are those coming either from the western slope, over Trail Ridge Road, or from Glen Haven; in either case a decided minority. Highway 34 Westbound - Visitors Information Center ahead on the left August 24,2004 2 BASIS Architecture PC Estes Park Visitors Information Center Needs Assessment Operation In addition to an information center, the building also houses offices for the Chamber of Commerce. During the summer peak season, the'information center' functions are provided by volunteer Ambassadors, many of whom are seniors, seven days a week. In the off season, October to mid-May, the Ambassadors staff the center only on weekends, requiring the Chainber employees to oversee the information desk during the week. Services currently provided at the center include helping visitors find lodging, dining, and activities in the Estes Valley, including Rocky Mountain National Park. As often, more informal requests are made of those staffing the counter relating to weather, directions, etc. Restroom facilities are available and are used quite heavily by frequenters of the Lake Estes trail system as well as visitors to the center, as are the picnic shelters in the immediate vicinity. rp. 7* * :* 7.....c ~, . 1 1 11 r .. 3:.- Â·Â· â‚¬14.1 1 2,11. ...fÂ· 43124*Al: .- '.'0~r;mtv*~, ..01 1 .1. !.LA.*id.c-:.- ;i#...g.9.21'4>t 'V#. 1 : -' â€¢ak . 11 L 1 ..L 1/ . Â· 12 4 1. ... . / I .rep .'Â· it B -9 -..23Â£21 g. , ... 771 1 .3.3. 31 Â£- Â· 5 p .le I ,- ./. . .. -5 "8.k.:.::Ad. * - k I U. 1 1 1 3.19., .....- I 4,1 'lili .all .81. .4,11 '.1 F .1.. 1 1 1,1 1 .%â€¢ $-46 Visitors Center Information desk August 24,2004 3 BASIS Architecture PC Estes Park Visitors Information Center Needs Assessment Existing Building Evaluation The Estes Park Visitors Information Center was built in 1979. The restrooms were added shortly thereafter. While some remodeling has occurred, the building exterior remains mostly unchanged. The structure contains 1,500 square feet of area on the main level *a I and basement each, plus 500 square feet of restrooms on an intermediate, ground level. Over 250,000 people now come through the I'll"Eae'..p/.~: 1 --.Â»./Â£ AL. - ...41~- not adequately designed for the amount of ................................ -,W'll'.//%Ill'.//I/-,I the requirements for the CVB offices, the _-~ I facilities designated to the visitor are woefully ~ undersized, dysfunctional, or just nussIng ~ altogether. Highway 36 Westbound - Visitors Information Center blocked by trees along the Big Thompson River Site The location of the structure on the property is less than ideal. While the large trees along the river provide welcome shade, they also completely block the view of the building from Highway 36 to the south. The willows to the east obscure the view of both the mountain range and downtown. The result is that the building is only really visible to travelers on Highway 34. Once arrived, visitors looking out from within have few visual references of the area with which to orient themselves. Physical access to the building is a major problem. Entry to the center, unobvious from either parking area, is on the south side via wooden steps or a ramp up to a wood deck. Neither the steps nor the ramp meet current building or accessibility codes and are dangerously slick in wet or icy weather. The deck is approximately four- feet above the surrounding grade. In short, the first thing the visitor experiences is a barrier. 4- il Â¥ *F# 4/ >---2.xc- 4//*;bu,/-5.2~1 1.2 ./.. i--1---E--1- .......ipw./.linifulliummil../.M/liel//1/I . & .... ..11,011 Â· .141. 1 11,1. 1 3/ 11.1 1 t West elevation from parking ~ Southwest Corner ot isitors enter an estrooms from the Riverwalk August 24,2004 4 BASIS Architecture PC 1 Estes Park Visitors Information Center Needs Assessment Visitors Once inside the building, the space allocated to the public is miniscule: approximately twelve feet ~ wide by 28 feet long The information desk area 7 7 lacks functionality, the brochure racks cover the ?Â·1 majority of available windows - eliminating any 21 real connection to the outside - and the phones and - .1 .m lodging display board do not function properly. If a small group is being served at the counter, it can be almost impossible to get in the door. 9- 9.1, .. Potentially large numbers of people in a $- 1 diminutive room with a lot of south facing 3, y glass and no method of cooling the air causes discomfort for the visitor and staff member Information desk and brochure racks alike. In the small space, noise levels are another hindrance. Close quarters and hard surfaces mean that people often need to raise their voice to be heard, compounding the problem. Restrooms -:- r.gqgualÂ·- -Â·~Â·7.-f Â· .F ;.Â·Â· - Â·PICÂ·~.;4 -/3. 1. .heAr' 1. 1 . . . ~~ 4.~.~I~ The restroom facilities are also not adequate for the traffic. From the visitor center counter, Â· - someone not capable or willing to use the stairs must walk an additional 200 feet around the S. 1.11./5 <!13-4 ~ 21 3 building just to get to the restrooms. Once there, f 'tâ‚¬I they might realize that the facilities also do not meet current accessible requirements. Either it=59 way, the visitor must walk outside between the -*M E=.2=3.- * two, with no protection from foul weather. - Administrative Inside the administrative area of the building 5 i.Â· are two offices of good size plus a work space Stairs, Ramp, and Restrooms adjacent to the counter. One unisex bath is provided; not accessible. The conference room and storage are located in the basement, accessible only by stairs which also do not meet current building code standards. Negotiating stairs with heavy boxes of brochures can prove difficult, especially for elder Ambassadors and staff. Structure The overall condition of the structure itself - the foundation, walls and roof - is good. The stone veneer is also in solid condition. The exterior wood finishes - siding, decks and railings - are sorely in need of maintenance and repair. August 24,2004 5 BASIS Architecture PC 7. ff" Estes Park Visitors Information Center Needs Assessment Design Architecturally, the materials used on the original building: stone, glass, wood siding, are appropriate; though much of the detailing seems dated and, as mentioned, the wood is in dire need of maintenance. The design presents a 'wall' to the visitor to the north (great for signage, but not for welcoining) Entry to the building is again somewhat confusing, the offsetting rooflines and exposed exterior'trusses' working to confuse rather than direct someone unfamiliar with the building. R, 5 Â· - 5 '1 2 1 , .a.'' li i - 4 11Â¥/4 I 7.W , 1 : :'Lf. :.41 : J...1.2 i p -1 #>iÂ®dt,-1. :*% , U l h .1. Iff''iÂ· P .1 149 1 1 f 61.Y LA X }~ ~ 7.5-Â·:.1.,f. 4 1 :44 7 44 . ir-It ts< * 5-- 4 L ._ th. ..1- ':-* ,Â·lip .-:jit ' W -1-1. :1 $4em?~e.,04ewa""e-.-,-1- View from the Northeast - Highway 34 signage August 24,2004 6 BASIS Architecture PC 7 ,%9 FL. "--Â· 1 Estes Park Visitors Information Center Needs Assessment Facility Requirements 1 As noted, the Town is to assume operations of the Visitors Information Center on October 1, 2004. The preference is to move the Convention and Visitors Bureau offices to the building to establish a better connection with the customer, build a working relationship with the Ambassadors, and provide coverage for the center during the off-season. The goal of the survey meetings was to determine the program requirements under the new operational structure managed by the Town. The discussion centered on model scenarios in order to establish the highest and best use. Entering this facility and interacting with the operating staff is perhaps the first experience for a visitor to Estes Park. Consequently, meeting the needs of the customer - the visitor - ranks paramount. The following two outlines describe the physical and experiential criteria desired. A 'bubble' diagram describing the relationships and adjacencies of the spaces required is included at the end of this report. Program Requirements Â© Visitors Information Center 2,000sf o Lobby o Information Desk * o Self-serve information * a Brochures, kiosks, displays = Phones, lodging vacancy board Retail sales area Indoor & outdoor seating Covered entry (pork cocbere) and airlock vestibule Water & coffee service station @ Public Facilities (open 24-hours) 700sf o Restrooms * o Phones, ATM, vending machines e Transportation Hub 400sf (roof only - not o Rocky Mountain National Park Shuttle stop included in area summary) Other ill-town transit services e Convention and Visitors Bureau 2,300sf Offices (8) *(3 existing) Open office (phone operators) Conference room * Break Room Private restrooms * (1 existing) Copy room â€¢ Building Service Area 1,500sf o Storage (min 1,20Osf) * o Mechanical & Electrical * * Functions provided within the existing Visitors Center building. August 24,2004 7 BASIS Architecture PC 000000 0 0000 Estes Park Visitors Information Center Needs Assessment Subjective Requirements â€¢ Architectural o Design and materials 1 Appropriate to Estes Park (stone, glass, wood) m Balance traditional design with modern facility m Low-maintenance finishes o Building entries ' Easily identifiable a Warm and welcoming o Main hall space ' 'Decompression' zone - transition space for orientation â€¢ High vaulted ceilings m Recognize views to west and south 1 Warm and welcoming @ Low-maintenance finishes m Acoustic design o Restrooms a Easily identifiable from main entry 1 Vandal-resistant 1 Easy to clean & maintain * Site o Establish Visibility from Elkhorn and Highway 36 o Integrate Visitors and Trail system users m Orient 24-hour facilities for easy access by all I Improve river edge space and picnic areas a Establish a clearly defined connection with the Elkhorn Riverwalk under Highway 36 The total area required to meet the needs outlined above is approximately 6,500 square feet. Ideally, all functions listed would be on one level. Given the restrictions of space available, consideration is given to providing storage and service areas in a basement level if accessible by elevator, allowing the 'footprint' to be reduced to 5,000 square feet. August 24,2004 8 BASIS Architecture PC Estes Park Visitors Information Center Needs Assessment Recommendations The existing building is clearly inadequate in function and size. The two obvious options are: â€¢ Renovate and add to the existing structure. â€¢ Construct a completely new building and demolish the existing. Re-use the existing building While the condition of the existing structure itself as noted above is good; an evaluation of what portions might be efficiently re-used yields less than half. Additionally, selective demolition is substantially more involved (and risk-laden) than wholesale demolition. When the costs associated with this process are added to the construction costs of remodeling - both interior and exterior, new construction is often less expensive. Another consideration is the location and operation of the Visitors Center and CVB during the construction process, expected to be about six months. The most likely scenario would be to move a temporary structure on to the property while construction is taking place. 2,71' ~Ej i &1 l i l i . ; st M 1 9 'Â¥ Â· ' Basement/Foundations The basement could easily be remodeled into building 39.. - 1 4 1 service area in its entirety. The exterior deck is cantilevered 1 2: from its footings, making the effective use of the existing narrow foundation structure in this area unfortunately Â» . problematic. The restrooms should be expanded and remodeled to current accessible standards, but the footprint 4,--. .- li- - ,@ - . -fÂ©* Â· .,W could rentain. . .40&4*&1 Main Floor/Roof Â· ~ 20â€¢â€¢,2.>7 - The large volume of space required for the main floor Â»*Oviallimal#.- Deck cantilever over concrete block foundation wall uses necessitates removal of a considerable amount of 7*AD; wall area and rooÂ£ Integrating the existing roof into a new Â·fÂ·#%--*Â·%0~ 1 architectural design would be difficult. i Another significant problem is the split-level nature of the building, especially the lobby and restrooins. + *2.' Reconstructing the restrooms on a level to match the main a â€¢Â·4...4 ~ ~ ~k floor and providing an elevator to the basement are strongly .i -44 11â‚¬12 '3'J./ 3*17 .1 - .4 recommended. Site The location of the building is not ideal for visual connection toorfromdowntown and Highway 360rforviewsofthe T.-m;/: Â·:21'13*1â€¢ - /&al/'ll/"mm mountain range. Moreover, enough room does not exist to Visitors Information Center Northeast elevation create a transit loop dedicated to buses and visitor drop-offs at the west end of the building, the preferred location for traffic flow However, neither of these is absolutely critical to the function of the center. An issue that must be addressed is the facility accessibility. Since the primary level is more than four feet above grade, either additional fill to raise the grade or a system of ramps and stairs is required. If the latter, this system should not only meet current accessible codes, but should be comfortable and safe for all visitors. August 24,2004 9 BASIS Architecture PC Estes Park Visitors Information Center Needs Assessment Cost For estimating purposes, this study assumed remodeling, with selective demolition, the main floor, basement and restroom areas; approximately 3,500 square feet. Around the existing structure would be built about 3,000 square feet of new area to the east and west, bringing the building total to 6,500. The existing deck, about 1,400 square feet, would be entirely demolished. Re-grading the site for accessibility was assumed for the estimate, projected as the lesser cost of the two options described in the site notes above. An estimate is provided at the end of this section. New Building A completely new structure presents a number of benefits. The building can be designed exactly as desired, without the necessity of accommodating areas and materials that are not ideal. A significant advantage lies in scheduling. A new building constructed in the area adjacent to the existing building would allow the existing facility to be fully operational during construction processes until the new building is available. Following the survey findings, a ground floor level 'footprint' of 5,000 square feet is anticipated, with a partially finished basement service area of 1,500 square feet, served by an elevator. Exterior seating would be on a patio accessible from the river walk. Placing a new building to the east and slightly north of the existing would allow for a transit loop, visitor drop- off and accessible parking to the west, and substantially improves the view from the building to the east. A small amount of clearing of sub-standard vegetation along the river could now provide a view corridor from Highway 36, while keeping existing high-quality shade trees along the river to the west. Site plans for the remodel and new building scenarios 4.9 *u # Â· area provided at the end of this report. Parking, drives, a = ~7' - 2 bus lane, and defined outdoor space area also described - * . 91 411 - in these plans. Both the remodel and new scheines -0 3- 1 assuine that the adjacent lot to the east, owned by the Town, would be best utilized as parking. Town staff has indicated that current operations on this property could easily be relocated further to the east. - Miscellaneous View from proposed new building location While not technically part of the needs assessment, the team evaluated the role of the parking area south of the Big Thompson River. A design providing much needed parking spaces, while preserving open areas along the river, is included in the report for consideration. Additionally, the team recommends consideration for landscaping, monuments, and signage improvements to the Riverwalk path leading to downtown. The addtional parking made available on both sides of the river should encourage visitors to park before driving downtown and use the pedestrian path system. From the Visitors Information Center, it currently appears more as if one might be walking into a forest of willows, rather than entering the west end of Estes Parks' vibrant retail and restaurant core. August 24, 2004 10 BASIS Architecture PC Estes Park Visitors Information Center Needs Assessment Cost Estimates Construction costs are based upon a fall/spring 2004-2005 construction schedule and include general contracting overhead and profit. The following items have been excluded: permits and fees, performance and payment bonds, and furnishings and equipment. Costs associated with rental of temporary facilities for the information center operations during remodel/addition project construction have also not been factored. Professional fees include development plan preparation for review by the Estes Valley Planning Commission, construction documents comprising civil, architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering, plus construction phase observation and review services. RemodeI/Addition Project Estimate Facility Construction cost: $ 750,000 ($115 average cost per square foot) Parking, drives and other site improvements: $ 470,000 ($3,800 per parking space) Professional fees: $ 75.000 (+ /- 6%) Total: $1,295,000 New Building Project Estimate Facility Construction cost: $ 690,000 ($106 average cost per square foot) Parking, drives and other site improvements: $ 450,000 ($3,700 per parking space) Professional fees: $ 72.000 (+/- 60/0) Total: $1,212,000 ($83,000 less than remodeling) South Parking Project Estimate Facility Construction cost: $ 30,000 (New picnic shelters) Parking, drives and other site improvements: $ 380,000 ($3,000 per parking space) Professional fees: $ 35.000 (+ /- 8%) Total: $ 445,000 August 24, 2004 11 BASIS Architecture PC Estes Park Visitors Information Center Needs Assessment Conclusion The people that come through the doors of the Visitors Information Center are arguably the most important contributors to the economy of the Estes Valley Possibly the first impression visitors have of Estes Park is formed from interaction with the staff and experience of the building itselÂ£ They may be tired from a long trip, distracted, and unsure of their next step. This type of facility should provide a welcome to visitors, reflected in the spatial organization and the architecture. There should be ample room to become oriented, the location of necessities should be clearly established upon entering, and there should be sufficient area to absorb information gathered. The existing building accomplishes none of these things. The space required to adequately meet the needs of the visitor - the customer - is clearly substantia]ly greater than that provided. When the requirements of the Convention and Visitors Bureau are factored in, the deficit is even more pronounced. While remodeling may often be more economical than new construction, in this case that maxim does not hold true. Removing the service area component, the ground level area required is over three times the size of the existing building The oddly configured structure would be difficult to incorporate into a new overall design. Furthermore, the expense allocated to selectively demolishing portions not meant for integration is substantial. The direction recommended is to pursue the design of a new Visitors Information Center located east of the existing building and incorporate the components outlined. The result will be a facility designed to meet all of the needs of the customer and staff without compromise. August 24, 2004 12 BASIS Architecture PC Estes Park Visitors Information Center Needs Assessment Appendix Aerial Photo Existing Condition Main Floor Plan Existing Condition Basement Floor Plan Remodel/Addition Proposed Site Plan New Building Proposed Site Plan South Parking Lot Proposed Site Plan Relationship fBubble' Diagram August 24,2004 BASIS Architecture, P.C. Â·412--In-Im *.&21&4 1 .1 Â·. J 446/...6-6141/P.-4, -~,~ i ' 2,# . 1 - .- 6- 2 7%,2i..1-* Â·ce, i +., :Â· 2/....m . 4 *4Â· L . ~ - #bor-1.-,47. â‚¬ CU.774, f 2.4 .. 1 r;,0. 1 4: . fi' 00 ' . 9 *. ...... . 1 1. 4Â·{ Â»4 j ' 46.-4.Â¥ . 2 1*6 'Â·'* I., 9.1 41 : I ./.3* c Â·Â·Â· t ' .lai. I . .I â€¢ 421 Â· hib â€¢ ic? 0 i , t. 10'YEB: j/>i.-R'. 1 Â· 411 i , 46,& r' . I ..' 122Â·6 I .$'/* : , '1. , 8 14#L 0 .Â·j â‚¬4,01.1'1' r.- . : 1 4 ..:....2 .1, ~ .f i - I..... lili###mÂ¥* 7 + 1 #FE#FacuIM= :4.=. 6 . Â·Er' r. 4 a.Â£'I<';*. ....... -.:*1/14 ......... /.r, V 1 1 . f f U tyâ‚¬e -M"*El/ i.ty.v ...6/ 'Ail.W'~ 4 9 t .R~&%+F*.<':Â·-Wmg-A=01 ,- .fi i,ZÂ·.:Â·Al . ll'lliqxwi.=.~ &8> 4.- . 12, , I T et .1- - )' 0 9/WIFf . . 4 1%1*.1 4,0. .J/b 7.fl'll' -1,7.J Â· Ve'/Bull" A. m.6... '1 0 1 -4,= 1 1/Pe//~~Whia/m/'/-=b :,0 11, =./.IL}' Fl../ 24 1 W. Â£ 2- e -05 Â·"~211* 01. Â· ' 14 1 f.. , 2.. .//1 9"..IMIN"/Aimillimil 4- lie I i '' I .---I.-- I .' p . i, ' ''' .4: t. *07;4 -- 11-07. I -/1 : 'Â¥.4 - .,1 rh- *.El/ .m. .. . R 742 1 * ..2 0 4- -0 r. ./. 5 f ..1 4 71 < - u . ,1 ,. 4.24,1, 2,;. 11Â· f ?1% LT + â€ž U. Imyi, 'p@t# I * 3/ m% 0.4 , ep 4 0 1 .,D 2 56 53 VIIIC $ ' , I * t. I' W'. "4 :L : 414:i I . 1 . I ./ 44 .., '4*-1=#. :11 E- 47 + i . 02 N w 2 f. 0. '6* U * 1 -1 . ..1 , 3 4 .Â¢ i .- 4,4 . 14 - 1 Â· I ~' 1 - L In 1 . '/ f .....9 da . i 1 : Â£16 1 -" Ma :Â»f,. t, t > .a f. i - .Ar ;R \ I \, mt ..4-4 t ..7/ b'.IC) 4 , ' ... 1 1 .- -. 41 i /O 5., 4.1 .6 25 1 01 .0 -At** j~~ 4.>..1 .ft 68&. ?4 ./4 - -' -115.*M"B .".i..... 1....m f' . " t. i ..Ill- 5, A 2.9. Â· c ~i# .i~. il '*52F~ -_- bâ€žâ€ž,# .-E~- .4.Zk Â« - , **1 - . - 0 :Jay .r, . 4.2,-11.râ„¢. I + 1 -M . r ~ ., ~...2& . 4 .f 3 1 "-9,--- . 001 pre. *Â¥ t .?4 41' .4*151.M 'JIF'Z~* t~ ' '* ' :li. r " f.' 4ihi.+AA -7.- ---Â» M M & ,. 6-1 4mpl/&Bl/ V K . i I '~14 /&./ .~ 9-r- b I 1~1 1- t i 9 g E ..'-#-- t. r - s I al' 5 ....# '- R' 1// 1 4 Â·* 7 42/ .Â¥19?.r=k~ *. -- - -1-1 â‚¬ 5/4.42..1 . M. Â£2 e ,% 94 44. 1 ' .5 '49.rs'" 15- a.-1 1 ~< <10 *0 I. , 2Â· :9K' 4 $ L . 4 ~ . . 4 8 14 k 7/& T.....,5:al ' Al = 3 9.39458, F '4 t 44 8- + "f 1 e - / ./1.|4:||0 . L %.f. % 44 Â¥ 6 14 U. 4 N., . '7: '. CA 17/2 ~ 'Â·It ..0.7 1.* 03. Ae e 6 2 1 4. 1 -J- 0 & 1/1. N 4 . t. ' Â· 9 H. " 2 -4111.1,$' V9/, i/,Â¥1~ . ..r'... .&14 1,#434, > 4: Â»!.1kAr*fp ... ** 7 '. a.41,9....1. Eec:li~ /4Â«,6 4** dia,v--- Â· ' ~'24Â·.2~~ ~.\.4-~~ ,Am,Imiff"--r~' Â·as Ed,Agai"I"11 fOOE.tE.8 WHIN 3 NO .LOHd E[V Z L908 OaÂ¥210103 'MblÂ¥d S31S3 -9 8 5 fooz - ' Apms weLUSSeSSÂ¥ E 3AN3AV NBOH>I13 193AA 199 3 T $ 6 4 z â‚¬ e E :00- g 01 X08 0 d ai E <0 7% M N co 1 ope,oloo 'Mied se,sa C Qi m @ 1 : 111 9 0 'd G[HfliDS[LIHOHV 3 0 0 5 m.# 9 0 45 LU m q S IS XHiwiia Ae,ues uo!*ew,obul Jous'A (9 CL (0 00 2 0 0 0 0 - M LU 9696-OI @ 'r, U) NMOC] -dI,Pht *2 52 -1 Lu A U , U-1 Rig HZ O N .-1 ' B g E El n CO 0 R Em 5 M -3 I J CO E L 4 32 8 1 -1 I U 119/L 0/]Jo o -U E -wgI D C 0 U 11 11 -7- I /4 49 Â·<RE .-, .w E 8* LL LL S [ FIN- -44 44** [ LU , Et d L L/20~7 w ~ LU c U-1 2 C 2 11 ?Â¢ - f 4414 Nnkl i,Z/I OI MAIL ROOM EXISTING STAIR OFFICE OFFICE A 4 4 4 0 10 WORK AREA 33Â¥dS DI19Ad I - SNIalInS *2Â¥WIkld blOO1=I NIVIN B f 4.7 iee 12 1.. Â¢ A Z :908 O0Vb!0103 '>INVd 93193 E 3nN3AV NBOH>Il) 1SBM 199 z k001 -' Apms Wel,USSeSSÂ¥ R * i % ro t- O 02 X08 '0 d 00 1--14 05 4- ope,oloo 'Vied se,sa ~ CE E &94 Ill g 0 'd RHI-liD SI,LIHONV Â·~ 2 E %;i 9 e E I S T g I~V Ha iNE * % ~ 65 % Ae,ues uo!,elluo,ul JousiA 2 80-22 CO ( 1 > - - <C hz U 1 I LU lL 0 I =1 LU rfgz.& U 2 UO R 0 5 U 4 E LU 0 ZE 1 *# O = lo *Of\\ I 91 1 1 r i _3 b Ve:% /4 1 112 SllinG-SV NOILVC]NAO=1 AWD 30 ah\r-\ --~~ CONFERENCE UPI SWOONH.LVEI DI-IEInd 13A31 N3ahIVD STORAGE 1=lbs 96+'I - DNIalIAB AkIVWIkId : = .8/ L N =1321 A P 4 11'Ellt W r j d .]ll -min â€¢. - * 4 -- 1-I irn i.... 1...4/Ir 0 -AMMIA-r ~ T t* 116411. I.* I ~â€ž./pw'â€¢~1 I -11 I vlkill:El#49'i Â· 1 11:it 1'.,1.i, I 1 ... A ' 4.1 i : 9 :1 X. 1 11~ 6 8 . 1,; I r 11 ..'\imil I. . .ZA.VaL/Al .. .1 1 1.- . 1./.1. i 44: , 4 1 111 , , ~ 11 , "le t. 1111,1 4 .4 '.mi~*/'-1: 1-;PS& f - :30 ' 1 Ca 49 . \\ . ~1 1 I.. i. l 1 . 11 4 \ 1.. . â€ž I , I. 1 19&\ 11111111Â¢ ~1111 111/i t '1111 1 61 14< 1 . .1 11111111 1 \V\ ~10, 1~ 2, < 1 .. 1 91.1 .. 1-.1.a'.9 .. 11. f-/1 . 1.1 . lili 11 0, lili , 1 1 1 \ i .11 1 0 1 11 '411,0. ' 111'P :Ilill V \ 4\ .., 4 11 1. 1,11 X i A 111' , i â€¢' . 11 i 1% 111*61.1 v , k 1111111111 ~.@= 111111'gll-1 5 1. 1 -14\ ~ ' :t/v:- I ~: 5 1 - -Z \ 4 11 7 1:111 -* .b wipli"'' \ :.. . :1' i Â«111 11'11 k %11. . 1-v .:.. ' 1,1111 . i. b . 1 - 1 70 :Â·vÂ·*1 \. N . t... , E 91- ga 1 11 \1 < ~ 11 ~11111:.~11.1 1.0. 7 2 1~ .%1111 . 4?.t rfi< 15 ..... .... U .. 11 0 1 111-,/1 / I' , h I e m,10 1 14 , Â»111 91. \ 111.1111~~,41 1 . //In//PAW I \ -60:-2. ,~~ ~ * ~~l,ii ~'| ~ ~~ lt|~~~ i â€¢. 4 /\ 4. 1 1 . 1 1 I \ 1 4 40:3 1 7 , 4 r.-7. CU. 1 1 .7!1 .1 11:1111:'. . . f 10 â‚¬ ik i - i %24'' 11 * .1 il IN>2.. \ lili v~*/ t: . i Pti 4 1 \ 6 3>U e lili 1 lilli':1. \ ..\~ ' I 1 . 2 \\ 'Z - 4,f.1 â€¢ .61.- .14?1 1 lillil 11,1,~ 1 11111;((~ -: 1 1 < )~ f 111 /% I .'' ~ .% 3 1 5. , 11-01Â§, 111,1!111 ~16 IF - .'Ir 4 1 i 1111111 ... l 11,1111 11 1' 11 1 . ''lEi i': 1. r il . 6,4 .1 . 4 ., . ..4... .'11.* / C T I fia 1, . i 111 .1 1111111,7, . I . lili 111# . I. Pill . . 4-141 .1 - -- 4 4 11.1 .|141:11,|CIE! 4 ~C ' f 4,1 1 111:: .1 . ' . . - 111911, 11 XII -1 1,1 1 :; 1 ~ \ ...... . . W U 4. Z 1111 . 1 1. 1,1 . '. b r . 0 :12. 4 1 " '11 1 79 m 0 % 14. lili , . . 1.-/,- '4 119 111-0.k- -1 1.1 t...9 1 3/, Â·0<34. 1 A- 1 1 11 ~1[1::, 11 1 i.11'.!1 ,4 1 -/ \ 11,911,~111110 ' 111 11 ~ 11'J ~1 111,1, 1 1 0 ... ' 'll'.''Ahp ' !14Â·~' 1 - -- 9 1 1 ~41.4 11! 0 , . A. 1. '41. . Ii'Â· 01/-1 \1 - .... !?'..111 V it 41 1,1. tk L I. \1 1411 Â»:11 1 , 1 I l'il d 1 'pr! . \ Lkt 1*11 0 i.yÂ¥ 1: . ....' 4 1 I.* O 7 8 1411, r:-,1, 4 .. 74./.-- .Â· / 24 94 11'11111 - ..0 h -I'Il.- ' i \4/4 ~ D 1 ||' 4 .. 11111'IN' h'r 4 'hll .: 1,11:1 1 111 111\ \ 1 4 \ 111/ . '. r' 11 d 411 lr |/A Elit 7 -JQ.54, ~~ ~ 2 \h N 913* 51 1 lili \ 1111:ill~ 11~ lei, . \ '' lili 1 'L 'Ull.-141 gl ..4 1/ * : 1 2@ 1 i V Z. 2 0- .. I ~111 .1 - % .â€¢ 0,0 ..r '. ' 1 I'liill:~'&b '~ C. 1/'ll r AN i ... '14 : 122 -ri 3- I . 0 \ imi'KJ'.:1 \, 4 9 71 4, . \ I.~\:* U 7/8/5*Â£1~' Ji 2 4 \ 4,4 :1 1 C il~Â¤-~ \ "tax..tmjd.7~w- >0% '~ ~ '!1 ''Â·'1~,~. _ 10/ 04:..,]1044;.'.A \ g re l E- 2 . 4 4 - 4 e .. 0 00 4 # -3 tiJ ~ 2 8 31,4- t .. 0 4% 1.: I ' m â‚¬ 2 1 2 f #1 22j ~2 3 -1 -1 -~ - < 1- 2 7 , 1 4. 26 A h I gL .. 1 0 %1 1 l /0/. lb....... rk....... 02 S 0% 08Â» 1 1' 1 9 1 C ''11 1 1 1 1 14 INIS;IA V le,1Â·~MZ6 30 '91 "li,41'H.*1 619â€¢41 0 8 A 2- VI 1 41â‚¬1 16 + 3 1 + 1 -2 1 X Cb 419 4 0 0 00 1 L _ P 3-4 3 0, 3 0 1 9 . 3 J 43 . k 4 4- Â£ b 7 ,t Â¥9 & 1 -0 4, O 1 LU a o & 'r 4 C< 02 2 3 0 0 X E 4 ce -0 LU W 0 1 -J 1- 3 4 1 -5 1 2 d /0 - 01 00 2 d * V ria jitimodyrazi Entry / Â»'b,-5 -go 0,0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 #mt-flmmO 410,r-leloorn LO O 0 1-1 00 ~ . E In 4 IN 4 4 4 111 041/11 [9 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0114.mimol N 00 0% r-1 0 00 ,-1 If) MO] 10 E-4 01 00 M co O . 1-1Lflr-11.-1 r-1 O\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\CoW ow o\Co\O 0100{1>Ot-~ 00 ~11 03 rl CO (A Cht--LOONCO Chenclooch r-1 r-1 mi .-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 J . O\0 0/0 0\0 0\0 ow o\O 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 1-100YOO#LO r-IN . LD 01 (NL0101(14,41 (\1 5 # el O 0111.-Ir-11 01 1 0\0 cio op 0\0 OP op 22 010 0,00 0\0 0* cIO 00 5 h Ul LD m 00 St--Chol(Neo Â· Â· Â· Â· Â· Â· U.1 Â· Â· Â· Â· Â· Â· mmtÂ·O55Lfl 0wcomr-000 a I * 0 1-1 .-1 .-1 0 9 6 OYO O\0 0\0 0\0 OW 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 t- 00 0 Ul .-1 '7 m In r-1 r-1 911 44 t- W (N ~ 911 0 in N (N I eli 4 6,1 m U.1 0 6-1 P .\0 0\0 op ./low 6 e e op e O 0 N ul 00 M O ..O LO .-1 ,-1 0 OU..... Un O > Ch 01 Lfl N 44 0 U I r-1 1 H Em 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 E-1 m M tÂ¢ 1~9 00 2 m 914 0 41 5 .... â€¢41 O W 01 r--1 911(Nt--=jim 1 r-1 r-1 1 010 0\0 0\0 0\0 0'p OW 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 40 0\0 0\0 010'14'C-410,91 01(1*'fOLON At . . . . . . . .... 2 W 01 m Om LD tÂ·- tri N N â€¢-1 h Ul r-1 m 01*Im lili 01 -4 1 1 % m M M H Z Â¢1 5 04 E-4 M u @810&!MERNMERE amimmeemag:M -% E. DI VISITS US 34 US 36 TOTAL TOTAL RETAIL ACCOM REST GROC SALES TAX XVI, SE'IVS WOODY 'IIYLLEIN 'I n P E Sn SLLISIA %L.Z- ECONOMIC INDICATORS % Chg 2004 - 2003 MONTHLY % %Â·L'o