The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2005-05-24r F j LE Prepared 05/16/05 1.. \2 2 Â·1 7 4Â·ti.71(4~iti TOWIN OF ESTES PARK .....: -Â·:T.-- .2.-t *R ...:UG+.1 . . .Â·.6 . 993+69;J ....4- . r -:'1141: j : hER# Â·.-4.-31.i'.; ~cfpRXÂ¢ 02~0~~After. The Mission of the Town of Estes Park le to plan and provide reliable, hi0h-value eervices for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take 0reat pride eneurlnd and enhancInG the opality of life in our community by Deind 0ood etewards of public resources and natural settin0. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, May 24,2005 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address) TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated May 10, 2005. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, May 19, 2005: 1. Boom Crane Truck purchase $187,727 (Budgeted). 4. Resolution #11-05 - Sponsor Estes Park Housing Authority membership in CIRSA. 5. Resolution #12-05 - Intent to Annex Bosan Addition. Set public hearing date of June 28,2005. 6. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, May 3,2005 (acknowledgement only). 7. Estes Valley Planning Commission, May 17, 2005 (acknowledgement only). 1 Continued on reverse side 1 4 9 I -'+ 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. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP: A. Preliminary Condominium Map Time Extension: Fall River Village, Lot 8, Fall River Village Final PUD, The Lane 111 Group, Inc./Applicant 2. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP: A. Supplemental Condominium Map #1, EPCO Condominiums, Units 21 & 22, Lot 1, EPCO Subdivision, Dennis K. Brown/Applicant 2. ACTION ITEMS: Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny. A. Presentation of Remaining Portion of Block 7 Amendments, Estes Valley Development Code. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. SALES TAX REPORT: 1 ST QUARTER 2005. Finance Officer McFarland. 2 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT APPROVAL REQUEST - FRONT END LOADER "ROLLOVER" PAYMENT WITH FORK LIFT ATTACHMENT PURCHASE - BUDGETED. Public Works Dir. Linnane. 3 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 .4 Mayor Baudek & Honorable Trustees, I am Lois Smith, a registered voter at 410 Big Horn Drive in Estes Park. I have been a property owner in Estes Park and Larimer County for nearly 35 years. While I appreciate your response in setting a special review on June 7~h regarding Estes Valley Development Code, Block 7, A Accommodation changes, I am uncertain I will be able to attend that meeting and so I am speaking tonight in hopes of targeting several specific areas for your consideration & discussion. It has been brought to your attention that to pass this amendment as is, would certainly cause an unfair and inequitable seizure of individual property rights and would have a severely negative impact on the valuation of numerous A Accommodations zoned properties. Should these actions be taken, it seems highly probable that lawsuits based on the "intent of the law" of Colorado Statute 38-33.3-106 and those laws regarding seizure of property rights may be a property owner's only recourse to protect the value of their investments. As a landowner of A-Accommodation zoned property in Larimer County for nearly 20 years, to me it seems unwarranted to make this change now. The primary reason cited for this change, is to limit the amount of A-zoned property seeping into longer term housing versus the visitor-serving overnight lodging. This loss is presented in terms of a significant decrease of sales tax revenues from these accommodations. This is faulty logic because it is based on incomplete information. In discussion of this issue with Mr. Bob Joseph of our Planning Commission, he confirms there has been no detailed study of affected properties specifically in Estes Park to document and support this claim. So this just an assumption that sounds good. Especially in light of grandfathering of certain properties, how many properties are actually being affected by this change? What amount of potential revenue loss is realistic? For example, my business property, The Baldpate Inn, is outside city limits and therefore, this cited sales tax loss would not even pertain. (My property is in an area that could not be annexed for many technical reasons i.e. water blue line.) What about the loss of value to those property owners who have held their land for decades as investment? With regard to the proposed 90 day limit for occupancy, how will this be monitored? ( I'm especially curious as to who would oversee the cemetery - Estes Memorial Gardens - listed as A Accommodations property- to monitor those spending more than 90 days overnight--- oh, I guess they would be grandfathered...) It is currently proposed that property owners who already have home or condo-type units on their land, are to be grandfathered. This in itself creates a great inequity for those with similar zoning that have not yet built vacation homes or converted units to condos. After speaking with several landowners whom this change will dramatically affect, I have found no evidence of any Planning Commission attempt to gain direct comment or input on this matter. Small business is difficult enough without our governing entities stealing value from our land via zoning. In a community of our size, it should not unreasonable to expect a more proactive attempt on the part of our government to actively seek specific input from those directly affected by any Code change. Because Larimer County has deferred zoning issues for the entire Estes Valley to our Town's Planning Commission, it would seem only reasonable that extra effort should be made to consider results in each situation. Those issues that are relevant to landowners in the outlying County may not be equally important or even relevant to those within the City limits. Especially in this case, some understanding of these differences should be clearly demonstrated by the governing bodies before making arbitrary changes that affect all. It is especially troublesome that this proposed change forbids these uses, not merely requires special use review, thereby making any appeal for variance impossible. Few dispute our community has enjoyed many benefits from the tax dollars our hospitality-based economy brings. To stay competitive in today's changing tourism industry we must remain current in supplying what our consumer, the leisure traveler, is seeking. Any study of hospitality trends as documented in trade journals clearly indicates a shift in demand to upscale and condo style accommodation for the leisure traveler we serve, while traditional motel/hotel units continue to fulfill demand mainly in the business travel market-business travel is clearly not the primary market we serve. Are we to ignore these changes and continue to lose market share to Colorado communities that are more willing to support what today's consumer wants? Expanding what we may offer, not limiting our selection, will bring us more business and in turn more revenues to strengthen our local economy. This is the proactive approach that we want our leaders to take. Please understand the gravity of this issue to A-Accommodation property owners. Should you choose to accept it, I have for you an informal petition, a declaration of concern, signed by 40 property owners, listing some of these issues and seeking that you more carefully study and ultimately reject this change in code. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you directly tonight. 5/24/05 11440 -U--j I *4 los Â· 39 ~,u~~-dÂ».O - Â»*j MÂ»41- . Cp ull 4-gAÂ»â€¢< Ail Petition Regarding Proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" District Submitted to the Board of Trustees, Town of Estes Park, Colorado This petition is to respectfully ask the Trustees of the Town of Estes Park to table the proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" Zoning District. Since there is no crisis need for this change at this time, we would seek you instead request a more specific study of the legal and economic ramifications that might be brought by these changes, especially detailing the different considerations and issues that would result for both in and out of town properties. We believe that the proposed changes to the "A" zoning district, ifapproved, will result in: â€¢ A detrimental impact on property values in this district â€¢ Disparities in property values between those condominiums grandfathered vs. new condo developments and conversions with highly restricted permitted uses. â€¢ Disincentives for developers to purchase "A" zoned land and develop vacation condos with rental management programs â€¢ Highly restrictive policies governing owner stays which are confusing, realistically unenforceable, and likely to stimulate litigation. â€¢ Future limitations on Estes Park's ability to attract new populations oftourists who are increasingly seeking more upscale vacation accommodations. We request that you table the proposed "A" Zoning changes at least until the issues surrounding Home Rule are fully addressed and the implications of long-term economic development are carefully examined. Name Address Date A il /20@ FAÂ·/) 1.~2,Â« (4-~ C)/-Joc- #,9.70<Ii v nt,/d Af/Bur tFp..., /,5.o 1 4 & 3 FA-â€¢t A, oe=,- lib lA. , i 0=4 -FliC{124-, 51= R:4 U Â£ l,-.A_ 6_e_ â‚¬(/5/b5- UÂ»dx- 51910Â£%1.41.a,J- 444 D ' Â®Fr ELOAUÂ£,iZE // 2 0 *1 . EÂ£-U++012.4 â‚¬ '}9 - 2-00:S -PFA â‚¬** 1 )3 o W. 9 ,#hor A 5 -1 3- a Dos 1 li GIA hE,PY 1194 lo.glkhorr[ A ve .5-- /3 -05 /Rion 0'41/40 12 0) 1@bl Â©ii)e,u--Â·Â·-~~U-d 39- I Li 1Â« GeÂ°ry PUnsen /5.26 Fill *,ver Roc64 y- / 7- 05 RoN,AL-p b \Alâ‚¬-35 /46 0 FALL Rive (RM- 3> Pi- oy Petition Regarding Proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" District Submitted to the Board of Trustees, Town of Estes Park, Colorado This petition is to respectfully ask the Trustees of the Town of Estes Park to table the proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" Zoning District. Since there is no crisis need for this change at this time, we would seek you instead request a more specific study of the legal and economic ramifications that might be brought by these changes, especially detailing the different considerations and issues that would result for both in and out of town properties. We believe that the proposed changes to the "A" zoning district, if approved, will result in: â€¢ A detrimental impact on property values in this district â€¢ Disparities in property values between those condominiums grandfathered vs. new condo developments and conversions with highly restricted permitted uses. â€¢ Disincentives for developers to purchase "A" zoned land and develop vacation condos with rental management programs â€¢ Highly restrictive policies governing owner stays which are confusing, realistically unenforceable, and likely to stimulate litigation. â€¢ Future limitations on Estes Park's ability to attract new populations of tourists who are increasingly seeking more upscale vacation accommodations. We request that you table the proposed "A" Zoning changes at least until the issues surrounding Home Rule are fully addressed and the implications of long-term economic development are carefully examined. Name Address Date ha, r , n 0,2-oddef f) 3 Ru,erroef~---~ ~ 9 50044 4 185- 804 Ur@28 leE 010* 1361 5 24(4 046 2-4 6'j / 1./66- 1 64*U. (29 6 0 72( A,-- A-2 . <r -/ 2.0 - el/*- 15*YA. li,A'u 16 757&0 fittt fUge,2-- 0.6 4 5- l 2--09- I /'11,4 1-1â‚¬8,I- 93( 844 11*iss De, 6--2 1-057 Jo# 9 /0 OFâ‚¬/t / 675- /991.c Rive< 5-1 2-05- A Petition Regarding Proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" District Submitted to the Board of Trustees, Town of Estes Park, Colorado This petition is to respectfully ask the Trustees of the Town of Estes Park to table the proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" Zoning District. Since there is no crisis need for this change at this time, we would seek you instead request a more specific study of the legal and economic ramifications that might be brought by these changes, especially detailing the different considerations and issues that would result for both in and out of town properties. We believe that the proposed changes to the "A" zoning district, if approved, will result in: â€¢ A detrimental impact on property values in this district â€¢ Disparities in property values between those condominiums grandfathered vs. new condo developments and conversions with highly restricted permitted uses. â€¢ Disincentives for developers to purchase "A" zoned land and develop vacation condos with rental management programs â€¢ Highly restrictive policies governing owner stays which are confusing, realistically unenforceable, and likely to stimulate litigation. â€¢ Future limitations on Estes Park's ability to attract new populations of tourists who are increasingly seeking more upscale vacation accommodations. We request that you table the proposed "A" Zoning changes at least until the issues surrounding Home Rule are fully addressed and the implications of long-term economic development are carefully examined. Name Address Date 06\)Â«mUÂ·v'-1412- 1,19 1 IlÂ·wi U34 . 9- i aro i< LU 9 - 1 ..;;Â« 1 ->-1 1 4 i l- Or , t./1-02 f 10/31 ZonbUM E. F G~.6Â£*g- 5 ~i:2-[Os l G 1 1 3264*ir Â£53 E-1- j Pr,-/ O C Petition Regarding Proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" District Submitted to the Board of Trustees, Town of Estes Park, Colorado This petition is to respectfully ask the Trustees of the Town of Estes Park to table the proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" Zoning District. Since there is no crisis need for this change at this time, we would seek you instead request a more specific study of the legal and economic ramifications that might be brought by these changes, especially detailing the different considerations and issues that would result for both in and out of town properties. We believe that the proposed changes to the "A" zoning district, if approved, will result in: â€¢ A detrimental impact on property values in this district â€¢ Disparities in property values between those condominiums grandfathered vs. new condo developments and conversions with highly restricted permitted uses. â€¢ Disincentives for developers to purchase "A" zoned land and develop vacation condos with rental management programs â€¢ Highly restrictive policies governing owner stays which are confusing, realistically unenforceable, and likely to stimulate litigation. â€¢ Future limitations on Estes Park's ability to attract new populations of tourists who are increasingly seeking more upscale vacation accommodations. We request that you table the proposed "A" Zoning changes at least until the issues surrounding Home Rule are fully addressed and the implications of long-term economic development are carefully examined. Name Address Date n' A , --Wiqi~-~f M,Atou /166 h.), E/41,0,n Ave 9 haj O -4 1 1 /4/1. 1~~7.7 ,)165 to, El kL Ar V\ Ave 6/)2)65 "A 1 C %,14 4,ty/JU 16%0 Atx.\cAL . ! c n21.0zyL.Â·~40,0 1%6 2U,-v-,ux 1-6(1 Â· .5/fe/1 s Li on 7%~ n /Ay-& 73b 9**a-3~~, 5,), i) D 5 1 1 <A n kA AA<1n4A,~~iiu.# 69 eD BeoA\3 20 Wi Â¢4* 6)/ 9-/ 03 0- C , 1 - li Petition Regarding Proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" District Submitted to the Board of Trustees, Town of Estes Park, Colorado This petition is to respectfully ask the Trustees ofthe Town of Estes Park to table the proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" Zoning District. Since there is no crisis need for this change at this time, we would seek you instead request a more specific study of the legal and economic ramifications that might be brought by these changes, especially detailing the different considerations and issues that would result for both in and out of town properties. We believe that the proposed changes to the "A" zoning district, if approved, will result in: â€¢ A detrimental impact on property values in this district â€¢ Disparities in property values between those condominiums grandfathered vs. new condo developments and conversions with highly restricted permitted uses. â€¢ Disincentives for developers to purchase "A" zoned land and develop vacation condos with rental management programs â€¢ Highly restrictive policies governing owner stays which are confusing, realistically unenforceable, and likely to stimulate litigation. â€¢ Future limitations on Estes Park' s ability to attract new populations of tourists who are increasingly seeking more upscale vacation accommodations. We request that you table the proposed "A" Zoning changes at least until the issues surrounding Home Rule are fully addressed and the implications of long-term economic development are carefully examined. Name Address Date ~/ 479494â‚¬,C~-,I 1,~20â‚¬00,Â£:A~ l<&~2.-0 Fe//~R,J Â« Rd -M P 1-1 to F A\l Â»uu- R.d 9.D 5//7/ 09. 1 1, 1 / 7 hAgee " (72) FALL A-\VER . RS, - P .* 1 3-1 1 7 1.01 6)oÂ»FI k (77 0 9 (l 9 ili,n-Rd -Ef q (t(00 . . Petition Regarding Proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" District Submitted to the Board of Trustees, Town of Estes Park, Colorado This petition is to respectfully ask the Trustees of the Town of Estes Park to table the proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" Zoning District. Since there is no crisis need for this change at this time, we would seek you instead request a more specific study of the legal and economic ramifications that might be brought by these changes, especially detailing the different considerations and issues that would result for both in and out of town properties. We believe that the proposed changes to the "A" zoning district, if approved, will result in: â€¢ A detrimental impact on property values in this district â€¢ Disparities in property values between those condominiums grandfathered vs. new condo developments and conversions with highly restricted permitted uses. â€¢ Disincentives for developers to purchase "A" zoned land and develop vacation condos with rental management programs â€¢ Highly restrictive policies governing owner stays which are confusing, realistically unenforceable, and likely to stimulate litigation. â€¢ Future limitations on Estes Park's ability to attract new populations of tourists who are increasingly seeking more upscale vacation accommodations. We request that you table the proposed "A" Zoning changes at least until the issues surrounding Home Rule are fully addressed and the implications of long-term economic development are carefully examined. Address Date A /02*99 A A UL/WJ5(f)&46 W,13.IAL.gk 1 0/0*/G1~10Â»1 Arou f//1--r or- ~) ct LÂ« 4/0 (223~.F,#J 31' *,# EEZJ'. be b /9-jots- 1 U Petition Regarding Proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" District Submitted to the Board of Trustees, Town of Estes Park, Colorado This petition is to respectfully ask the Trustees of the Town of Estes Park to table the proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" Zoning District. Since there is no crisis need for this change at this time, we would seek you instead request a more specific study of the legal and economic ramifications that might be brought by these changes, especially detailing the different considerations and issues that would result for both in and out of town properties. We believe that the proposed changes to the "A" zoning district, if approved, will result in: â€¢ A detrimental impact on property values in this district â€¢ Disparities in property values between those condominiums grandfathered vs. new condo developments and conversions with highly restricted permitted uses. â€¢ Disincentives for developers to purchase "A" zoned land and develop vacation condos with rental management programs â€¢ Highly restrictive policies governing owner stays which are confusing, realistically unenforceable, and likely to stimulate litigation. â€¢ Future limitations on Estes Park's ability to attract new populations of tourists who are increasingly seeking more upscale vacation accommodations. We request that you table the proposed "A" Zoning changes at least until the issues surrounding Home Rule are fully addressed and the implications of long-term economic development are carefully examined. Name Address Date r mut/ ,1, oe-4 N'Â°8- 3%37 El? %05/7 9 -/2 -0 5 _ - TÂ»L NUe/v,YUfv\3 66 .4 - Petition Regarding Proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" District Submitted to the Board of Trustees, Town of Estes Park, Colorado This petition is to respectfully ask the Trustees of the Town of Estes Park to table the proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" Zoning District. Since there is no crisis need for this change at this time, we would seek you instead request a more specific study of the legal and economic ramifications that might be brought by these changes, especially detailing the different considerations and issues that would result for both in and out of town properties. We believe that the proposed changes to the "A" zoning district, if approved, will result in: â€¢ A detrimental impact on property values in this district â€¢ Disparities in property values between those condominiums grandfathered vs. new condo developments and conversions with highly restricted permitted uses. â€¢ Disincentives for developers to purchase "A" zoned land and develop vacation condos with rental management programs â€¢ Highly restrictive policies governing owner stays which are confusing, realistically unenforceable, and likely to stimulate litigation. â€¢ Future limitations on Estes Park's ability to attract new populations of tourists who are increasingly seeking more upscale vacation accommodations. We request that you table the proposed "A" Zoning changes at least until the issues surrounding Home Rule are fully addressed and the implications of long-term economic development are carefully examined. Name Address Date C.oni Â·Aoubelv\Ur 16 \-2_AL-Â©-i UG 5 (\24 0 5 ,-4Â·*fq i-~7 0 5 6-6(00 crE,/L 1-5-13- thu:/ 4 6 didor- i . Petition Regarding Proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" District Submitted to the Board of Trustees, Town of Estes Park, Colorado This petition is to respectfully ask the Trustees of the Town of Estes Park to table the proposed Zoning Code Changes to the "A" Zoning District. Since there is no crisis need for this change at this time, we would seek you instead request a more specific study of the legal and economic ramifications that might be brought by these changes, especially detailing the different considerations and issues that would result for both in and out of town properties. We believe that the proposed changes to the "A" zoning district, if approved, will result in: â€¢ A detrimental impact on property values in this district â€¢ Disparities in property values between those condominiums grandfathered vs. new condo developments and conversions with highly restricted permitted uses. â€¢ Disincentives for developers to purchase "A" zoned land and develop vacation condos with rental management programs â€¢ Highly restrictive policies governing owner stays which are confusing, realistically unenforceable, and likely to stimulate litigation. â€¢ Future limitations on Estes Park's ability to attract new populations of tourists who are increasingly seeking more upscale vacation accommodations. We request that you table the proposed "A" Zoning changes at least until the issues surrounding Home Rule are fully addressed and the implications of long-term economic development are carefully examined. , 0 0~ Address c ~ Date /111, 04 2 330 1 141?lm)49< (20 5 -) 7-0 5 - J 8 8 4 44Â·u-9 4 6 5 -41-0 15- 6-rru_~L j f , Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 10, 2005 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 10th day of May, 2005, Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Richard Homeier Lori Jeffrey-Clark Chuck Levine Wayne Newsom Bill Pinkham Also Present: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Jackie Williamson, Deputy Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Baudek presented a Proclamation to Michael Crabbs, Larimer County Health, proclaiming the Month of May as "Mental Hea#h Month" in Estes Park. PUBLIC COMMENT Susan Pir,kham provided the Board with fire protection and prevention brochures. She is working as an Interagency Fire Education Coordinator to provide fire prevention education for the residents of Estes Park. Tony Simmons of Larimer County will provide individual evaluations for residents. She stated presentations are available to any group that is interested within the areas of Boulder, Grand and Larimer Counties. Paul Sterling requested the Town sponsor the Memorial Day Weekend Peace Tree Benefit Concert. He also suggested the Town join the City for Peace organization. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Mayor Baudek stated a new wine tasting room, Valley of the Wind Winery, has recently opened and Snowy Peak Winery will be opening a tasting room soon. He asked the Clerks office to update the Board on the requirements for satellite wineries. Deputy Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the procedure for satellite wineries. 1. Submittal Deadline. The Licensee is required to submit a copy of the application or supplemental application for the additional sales room to the local licensing authority 15 days prior to the opening if the operation will occur for no more than three consecutive days, or 30 days prior to the opening date if the additional sales room is to be operated for. more than three consecutive days. 2. Zoning (47-428). The Town Clerk's Office shall confirm that the proposed site is in conformance with zoning restrictions. 3. Police Department. The Town Clerk's Office shall route a copy of the application to the Police Dept. for their commenVconcem. 4. Business License. With compliance and/or approval of all three items listed above, the licensee must obtain an Annual Business License. r / Board of Trustees May 10, 2005 - Page 2 Trustee comments/questions were heard and summarized as follows: Can the Town J require TIPS training? Is there a limit on how much alcohol the licensee can serve? These businesses will be in direct competition with local establishments. Do they pay a Town liquor fee? 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated April 26,2005. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, April 28,2005: Police Departinent 1. Police Policy and Procedure Manual - Recodified. Fire Department 1. Fireworks Permit, "Ride the Divide" Rally, June 4,2005. B. Community Development, May 5,2005: 1. Design of Knoll/Willows Viewing Platform at the Ruins - Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, $4,600, budgeted funds. 2. Waiver of Building Permit Fee for Cleave St. Renovation Project - Estes Park Housing Authority. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Levine) the consent agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK - UPDATE. RMNP Superintendent Vaughn Baker briefed the Trustees on the following: (1) Snow pack is at normal levels and snow removal is on schedule: (2) the park is celebrating its 90'h anniversary; (3) Bear Lake road construction is complete and open, however shuttle buses will still be in service; (4) Hidden Valley reopened in December with a new and safer sledding area; (5) Dream Lake/Emerald Lake trail construction to continue with the trail closed Tues. - Fri. during the day; (6) volunteers - 100,000 hrs which equates to 50 full time staff and $2 million; (7) Operating budget to remain flat and project funds to increase. Up coming projects: rehabilitate upper Hidden Valley rock wall, wayside exhibits, replace trailhead signs, pine beetle mitigation, Moraine Park bus shelter; (8) Lily Lake visitor center may close in the future; (9) Rky Mtn. Park Assoc. currently raising funds for 30 AEDs, timber creek amphitheater, Lake Irene trail work, Endo Valley picnic area and wigwam stabilization; (10) Elk Management Plan draft available later this year; (11) half the deer population has been tested for "Chronic Wasting Disease", if positive the animal is destroyed. No live test for elk - animal destroyed only if displaying evidence (6% of deer and 2% of elk); (12) a public hearing to be held on June 2gt, to discuss Wilderness designation for the Park; (13) Twin Owl trailhead relocation requires legislative act from the Congress to affect a land exchange with MacGregor Ranch and is currently moving forward; (14) exploring options for a fire station on Park land for the west side of town; (15) Park intends to enter into an agreement with the Town to provide shuttle bus service in 2006; therefore, the Park is anxious for the Visitor Center groundbreaking later this month. 2. ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY - UPDATE. Director Kurelja reported the following: (1) EPHA celebrated its 51h j anniversary; (2) Accomplishments - Cleave St. Apartments, Talon's Pointe, 22 Section 8 vouchers, ongoing development of Vista Ridge, Larimer Home ' 4 Board of Trustees May 10, 2005 - Page 3 Ownership Program, Larimer Home Improvement Program, provided service to more than 300 people; (3) Sue Doylen resigned as Chairman, Eric Blackhurst was elected Chairman, Trustee Pinkham was appointed commissioner; (4) reviewed demographics - 98% of individuals given aid or support work within Estes Park; (5) Cleave St. project to begin construction with a grant obtained from the Co. Dept. of Housing for $94,000, a low interest loan from the Co. Housing Finance Authority, and the Town of Estes Park to provide curb/gutter and sidewalk; (5) in 2006, EPHA will become an independent agency, however certain services will be contracted through the Loveland Housing Authority; (6) the Consolidated Appropriation Act signed in December reduced funding to HUD and in turn reduced funds for Section 8; therefore, the wait list has been closed; (7) 2005 projects - research employee housing needs, become an independent agency, develop Lot 4, Vista Ridge Subdivision and acquire Lone Tree in the next couple of years and continue to research housing needs in Estes Park. 3. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM JOSE RUIZ TO CASA GRANDE OF ESTES PARK. INC., JOSE T. GONZALEZ-RUIZ AND MARIA RANGEL. dba CASE GRANDE MEXICAN RESTAURANT. 210 E. ELKHORN AVE., HOTEL & RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Deputy Town Clerk Williamson presented the application transferring the Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License from Jose T. Ruiz to Casa Grande of Estes Park, Inc. The owner is incorporating his business and is required to file a Transfer of Ownership Application. Regarding required T.I.P.S. training, the Applicant must provide confirmation of successful completion of the course. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Pinkham) the Transfer Application filed by Casa Grande of Estes Park, Inc., dba CASA GRANDE i MEXICAN RESTAURANT for a Hotel & Restaurant License be approved, and it pessed unanimously. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 2005 Organizational Chart. - Administrator Repola reviewed the chart pointing out the Assistant Town Administrator position was not filled; however an Administrative Assistant was added. Trustee Doylen requested the CVB Advisory board be added to the chart. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) the 2005 Organization Chart be approved, and it passed unanimously. Automatic Electronic Defibulators (AED) - Estes Park Quota Club donated 2 AED units to the Town. One unit will be placed within Town Hall and one unit in the new Riverspointe Downtown development. The American Heart Association states when an AED is available during a heart attack the survival rate increases to 90%. Museum Exhibit - On May 13th the museum will open a new exhibit entitled "The Lost Inns of Rocky Mountain National Park" and all are invited. There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:16 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town-bf Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 19, 2005. 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 1 gth day of May 2005. Committee: Chairman Jeffrey-Clark, Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Attending: Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Public Works Director Linnane, Utilities Supt. Goehring, Fleet Mgr. Mahany, and Deputy Clerk Williamson Absent: Chairman Jeffrey-Clark Trustee Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. LIGHT AND POWER DEPARTMENT. Derrick/Boom Truck/Light & Power - Request Authorization To Purchase. The Light and Power Dept. is using a 1986 International (1954 Series 4x2 truck with 7,751 hrs/40,000 miles) equipped with a pole derrick/boom aerial device used for installation of utility poles and transformers. The 2005 Budgeted amount is $200,000, and the prices are as follows: Altec Industries - Denver, CO/Dixon, CA 2005 International 7400 - 4x4 w/Altec DM Series Aerial Derrick ................. $193,727 Trade-in: Equipment #93330 1986 International 1954 Series w/Telelect Commander 4042 Aerial...................................................................6,000 Bid Price: $187,727 Terex Utilities - Denver, CO / Seattle, WA 2005 International 7400 - 4x4 w/Telelect 4047 Series Aerial Derrick (Does not meet all specifications).......... $205,250 Trade-in: Equipment #93330 1986 International 1954 Series w/Telelect Commander 4042 Aerial 3 500 Bid Price: $201,750 Versalift Utilities - Colorado Springs, CO / Waco, TX Discontinued Manufacturing of smaller Derricks (April 2005) NO BID Staff recommends purchasing the 2005 International 7400 - 4x4 with Altec DM Series Aerial Derrick from Altec Industries and trading-in the 1986 International (truck 93330). Committee recommends approval to purchase of the 2005 International truck from Altec Industries at a cost of $187,727. Reports â€¢ The Committee reviewed financial reports for the Light & Power and Water Departments through the month of April. â€¢ New Fiber Optic Trunk Line is complete with 26 miles of line. Staff will bring forward a proposal to lite the system in June or July. â€¢ Prospect Mountain Water Company is looking for alternatives to their water supply that has become to costly to maintain. The Town is reviewing options to provide bulk treated water to their holding tank. Prospect Mtn. Water Co. would remain responsible for the distribution and billing. â€¢ The Backflow Prevention Program has begun in the downtown business area. The cost to businesses will vary and depend on the location and type of business. The Town's plan is to be flexible with the correction timeframe. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - May 19, 2005 - Page 2 Public Works Dept. will provide Public Service announcements to educate the public: What are cross connections? Why they are need? â€¢ Water accountability from 1997 - 2004 has increased by 13%. This percentage increase is equivalent to approximately 330 CBT units which have a market value of approximately $4.2 million. During the same 1997- 2004 timeframe, we have spent an average of $350,000 on our annual system improvement projects. The increased accountable water is a benefit of this annual capital plan. Other benefits of the capital plan include increased water reliability, improved water quality, improved Town image, and a decrease in customer complaints. â€¢ Mobile Meters - 85% to 90% of electric meters and 50% of water meters have been converted to the mobile meters. â€¢ Fall River Tank - Work will begin in July. There being no further business, Trustee Newsom adjourned the meeting at 8:52 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Deputy Town Clerk Memo Date: May 13, 2005 TO: Town Board From: Gregory A. White RE: Resolution No. 11-05- Estes Park Housing Authority - CIRSA BACKGROUND: As part of the transition of the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) from Housing Authority of the City of Loveland (HACOL), EPHA is applying for membership in the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) to insure its operations. EPHA is eligible for membership in CIRSA because the commissioners of EPHA are appointed by the Town Board. In order for CIRSA to review EPHA's application, it is necessary for the Town to sponsor EPHA membership in CIRSA by the passage of Resolution 11-05. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There are no budgetary implications STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the Staffs recommendation that the Resolution be adopted. RESOLUTION #11-05 A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO PARTICIPATION BY THE ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY IN THE COLORADO INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK SHARING AGENCY WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency ("CIRSA"), a public entity self-insurance pool providing property/casualty coverage, workers' compensation coverage, or both, to its members; and WHEREAS, the Estes Park Housing Authority is a public entity as said term is defined in Section 24-10-103 (5) C.R.S. (other than the state, a county, a city and county, or a school district); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 29-4-205 C.R.S. the Board of Trustees appoints all the commissioners of the Estes Park Housing Authority; and WHEREAS, the Estes Park Housing Authority has made application for membership in CIRSA; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to consent to the Estes Park Housing Authority's participation in CIRSA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. The Board of Trustees hereby consents to participation by the Estes Park Housing Authority in CIRSA. Section 2. A copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the Estes Park Housing Authority and to CIRSA. INTRODUCED, READ, and ADOPTED this day of ,2005. 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 2 RESOLUTION NO. 12-05 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., hereby states its intention to annex the area described herein. The Board of Trustees finds and determines that the Petition filed with the Town Clerk requesting annexation of the area described herein is in substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1*g), C.R.S. The Board of Trustees further finds and determines that the Petition is signed by persons comprising one hundred percent (100%) of the landowners in the area proposed to be annexed and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, and any land owned by the annexing municipality. Such area, if annexed, will be known as the "BOSAN ADDITION" to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. Such area is described as follows: A PORTION OF THE NW1/4 OF SECTION 20, T5N, R72W OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS COMMENCING AT THE Wl/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20 AS MONUMENTED BY A BLM BRASS CAPPED PIPE AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID NW1/4 CONSIDERED AS BEARING N01Â°31'28"E; THENCE N01Â°31'28"E A DISTANCE OF 627.22 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE S89Â°55'59"E A DISTANCE OF 1,684.37 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE HILLERY PARRACK EXEMPTION AND THE NORTH LINE OF VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION; THENCE S89Â°59'14"E ALONG THE NORTH LINE VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION A DISTANCE OF 177.08 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DRY GULCH ROAD; THENCE N12Â°40'57"W A DISTANCE OF 242.02 FEET ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE; THENCE N89Â°54'48"W A DISTANCE OF 1,802.06 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF GOOD SAMARITAN SUBDIVISION TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID NW1/4; THENCE S01Â°31'28"W A DISTANCE OF 236.91 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 9.946 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 31-12-108, C.R.S., the Town Board Public Hearing shall be held Tuesday, June 28,2005 at 7:00 p.m., in the Municipal Building, located at 170 MacGregor Ave., Estes Park, Colorado, for the purpose of determining if the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall give the notice of the hearing as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. DATED this day of ,2005. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk f â€¢ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 3,2005,8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Al Sager, Members Cliff Dill, Bill Horton, Chuck Levine, Wayne Newsom, and Alternate Jeff Barker Attending: Chair Sager, Members Levine, Newsom, and Barker Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Member Dill, Member Horton 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 The minutes of the February 1, 2005 meeting. 2. LOT 11. FOX RIDGE ESTATES, 2185 Ridge Road, Applicant: Jack and Sharvn Gartner - Variance Request from Section 4, Table 4-2, of the Estes Vallev Development Code Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. He stated that this is a request for a variance to Table 4-2, "Base Density and Dimensional Standards," of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a south side-yard setback of thirty-five feet in lieu of the fifty-foot setback required. The applicant would like to build a two-story addition on the southeast end of the house for a master bedroom and two-car garage. The home was built in 1971, prior to the establishment of setback requirements; although it was located legally on the 2.5-acre property at the time it was built, the home is currently legally nonconforming. Although the addition could be built on another portion of the house, it would require extensive remodeling, including moving the fireplace and reconfiguring the kitchen. Planner Shirk noted that the applicants redesigned the proposed addition to minimize the variance request and its impact on the neighborhood. He recommended that the applicants have a setback survey completed to ensure they meet the requirements of the requested variance. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing agency staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. The Light and Power Department noted that the transformer may need to be upgraded if the heat source is electric, and the Larimer County Health Department requested that connection to Upper Thompson Sanitation District be a condition of approval. The request was also submitted to adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. Two neighbors, Robert Dull and Reed Smedley, called to inquire about the variance but expressed no concerns. The applicant, Sharyn Gartner, was present. Member Levine questioned what would be done with the current garage door. Mrs. Gartner stated the present garage would be closed off and converted into a workroom with a standard exterior door and window. Public Comment: None. , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 May 3,2005 It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to approve the requested variance to allow a south side-yard setback of thirty-five feet, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent and one alternate in attendance. CONDITIONS: 1. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 2. Compliance with the approved site plan. 3. Connection to Upper Thompson Sanitation District sanitary sewer is required. 4. The applicant shall contact the Light and Power Department prior to building permit application. 3. LOT 11. SPANIER SUBDIVISION. Amended Lot 6 and a Portion of the E 1/2 of the NE 1/5 of Section 34. T5N, R73W, 1700 Highway 66, Applicant: New Snail. LLC - Variance Requests from Section 1.9.D.2, Development Setbacks from River and Stream Corridors, Section 7.6.F.1. Prohibited Activities. and Section 7.6.G, Preservation of Vegetation. of the Estes Vallev Development Code Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. He stated that the property has a range ' of addresses; the portion under consideration for the variance is located at 1738 Spur 66. The property consists of 2.4 acres in the A-Accommodations zoning district and received Planning Commission abproval for development on December 21, 2004. While redeveloping the property, the applicant encountered significant debris along the riverbank and initiated slope stabilization. The Community Development Department was contacted and erosion-control mats, revegetation, and retaining walls were discussed. The staff of the Community Development Department assumed that the proposed retaining walls would be those shown on the development plan, and all trees and vegetation along the bank would remain, as required by the approved development plan. The applicant found that garbage had been dumped along the riverbank, resulting in an unstable slope which sloughed silt and garbage into the Big Thompson River during heavy rains. The applicant's atterhpt to correct the situation resulted in removal of 60 truckloads of garbage and * the construction of the retaining wall and removal of vegetation, which was not shown on the approved development plan. The applicant submitted a revised site plan dated May 2,2005 for redesign of the slope stabilization and drainage next to the neighboring Griffith cabin. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff as well as adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. The Larimer County Engineering Department had a variety of comments related to working in the floodplain, a review required by the Army Corps of Engineers, and building permit holds. The Army Corps of Engineers completed a site inspection; they stated that an individual permit was not required for the project. The Larimer County Engineering Department also gave their approval. Bill Kirk, who owns property located across the river from the applicant's property and has lived at that location since 1972, visited with Planner Shirk and confirmed that the previous owner of the property had dumped garbage along the riverbahk for twenty years. Over that period of time, garbage and dirt flowed into the river. Mr. Kirk emphasized his approval of the current work done to correct the problem. A letter from adjacent property owner, Sue Lamb of Skyline Cottages, was received. She stated that she had no objection to the construction of the retaining wall but objected to the existing deck and pumphouse, noting that she did not want to see them legitimized as part of the variance. In regard to Section 7.6.G, Preservation of Vegetation, Planner Shirk recommended the lower planting beds between the retaining walls be planted with willow, alder, and birch, species that are commonly found along riparian corridors, noting that the purpose of the setback is to preserve river vegetation. He also recommended the upper planting area be planted with creeping juniper which, over time, would creep down the wall, thus providing a natural layer of screening over the walls. , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 May 3,2005 Planner Shirk noted that the property could not be put to beneficial use without some type of slope stabilization, which requires a variance, and that the applicant's predicament could not be mitigated through some method other than a variance. He stated that the essential character of the neighborhood would not be changed by the granting of the variance. Member Barker questioned whether the pumphouse and deck mentioned in Sue Lamb's letter were legal. Planner Shirk stated the he believed they had been in place prior to current regulations and would therefore be legally nonconforming. Member Levine clarified the the variance would in no way legitimize the existence of the pumphouse and deck. Chair Sager questioned whether any requirements would have been different had the variance request been presented sooner. Planner Shirk stated that the emphasis would have been on minimizing the retaining wall but the applicant had done a good job given the circumstances they encountered. Leo Salazar was present to represent the applicant, New Spall, LLC, owner of the property, as well as Beaver Brook Development Company, the developer of the property. He stated the work was done in good faith without intention to act contrary to the approved development plan or to usurp the Board of Adjustment powers. He noted that the final plan submitted is the product of a series of discussions with the neighboring property owners, the Griffiths, to mitigate their concerns. He also noted that the questions regarding the pumphouse and deck raised by Sue Lamb had been addressed with the development plan application. He stated that the pumphouse does not contain any pump equipment and that the deck is solely for recreational purposes. Public Comment: Mike Griffith, adjacent resident, was present. He presented a private agreement signed by members of the Griffith family and Mr. Salazar and requested the Board of Adjustment include the agreement in the conditions of approval. Director Joseph stated that it is not the role nor the responsibility of the Board of Adjustment to enforce a private agreement. He offered to consider including any specific statements from the agreement as conditions of approval but noted that a private agreement could not be included in the variance solely by reference to the agreement. He stated that the private agreement refers to the revised site plan drawing presented by Mr. Salazar and questioned Mr. Griffith whether adoption of the drawing as a condition of the variance would satisfy the needs of the Griffiths. Mr. Griffith agreed that it would. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve the requested variances, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent and one alternate in attendance. CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with applicable building codes. 2. Compliance with the submitted and approved site plan dated May 2,2005. 3. Compliance with memo from Larimer County Engineering (Roxann Hayes) to Dave Shirk, dated April 15, 2005, regarding floodplain issues, Corps of Engineer's issues, and building permit holds. 4. The applicant shall submit verification from a licensed engineer that the retaining walls comply with the submitted site plan and that they were designed and built in a structurally sound manner (e.g., support the proposed buildings, allow proper drainage, etc.). This shall be submitted prior to release of certificate of occupancy. 5. The upper planting area shall be planted with a creeping juniper. The lower planting beds between the retaining walls shall be planted with willow, alder, and birch. 6. The approved development plan shall be amended to account for landscaping and grading plan changes and shall be subject to review and approval by Larimer County Engineering Department. This shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of the next building permit. . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 May 3,2005 4. REPORTS Planner Chilcott reported on Whyard variance, which was approved by the Board of Adjustment on January 4,2005 for the property at 189 and 191 East Riverside Drive. She noted that although the variance was approved for the installation of three outdoor tables with a small amount of concrete under the tables, the entire back area had been paved because of drainage problems. In the CD-Commercial Downtown zoning district, lots may be covered up to 100%. No vegetation was removed; the area was dirt. The property owner, Paul Whyard, was present. He stated that the plans originally submitted with the variance request accurately reflected his intentions at the time. As the process evolved, numerous requirements by various 8epartments had to be met, including establishing grading for the entire property, which resulted in paving of the area approved for the variance granted in January. Member Newsom stated that Mr. Whyard had done a nice job making the property more attractive. There being no further business, Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 8:49 a.m. Al Sager, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission May 17, 2005, 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Joyce Kitchen, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, George Hix, Bill Horton, Betty Hull, and Edward Pohl Attending: Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Hix, Hull, and Pohl Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Chair Kitchen, Commissioner Horton, Planner Shirk Acting Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. and welcomed new Planning Commissioner Richard Eisenlauer. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated April 19,2005. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hix) that the Consent Agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. REZONING REQUEST, MACGREGOR RANCH PARCEL, Metes and Bounds, MacGregor Avenue, Applicant: Staff / Affected Owner Director Joseph stated that a zoning map error involving a parcel owned by MacGregor Ranch recently came to the attention of Community Development Department staff. The vacant five-acre parcel is located immediately north of St. Bartholomew's Church. The property was zoned "RM" Multi-Family during the 2000 comprehensive rezoning, under the incorrect assumption that the church, which requires "RM" zoning, was located on the parcel. This was an unintentional up- zoning, and the Community Development staff now recommends the property be rezoned to "E-1" Estate, which has a minimum lot size of one acre. This would provide an effective transition buffer between the "RM" zoned land, where the church is located, and the "RE-1" zoned land to the north, which has a ten-acre minimum lot size. Mr. Bill Van Horn, Chairman of the MacGregor Ranch Trustees, as well as the Board of Directors, have been notified of this corrective rezoning. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Amos) to recommend approval of the Rezoning Request, MacGregor Ranch Parcel, Parcel ID #35241-00-907, Metes and Bounds, to the Board of County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 May 17, 2005 4. SPECIAL REVIEW 05-01, HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE CONCESSION, Downtown Estes Park, Applicant: Victor Anderson Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a proposal for horse-drawn carriage rides within the Town of Estes Park. Services are to include wedding transportation, other special events, and carriage rides alopg a fixed route with normal hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. daily. The proposed route is one that has been reviewed by the Estes Park Police Department and planning staff, and approved by the Town on prior occasions. It minimizes left turns as well as conflicts with the general flow of traffic. The proposed public pick-up and drop-off locations are limited to the Stanley Hotel, the Transit Center, and Tregent Park. The route will begin at the Stanley Hotel and proceed south down MacGregor Avenue to Bond Park then continue west on Elkhorn Avenue to Tregent Park. The carriage will turn around in the Tregent Park parking lot and return along the previously traveled route, returning to the Stanley Hotel. Other proposed pick-up and drop-off points for private events include the Stanley Hotel, St. Bartholomew's Church, and Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church. The proposal has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. The Public Works Department commented that the applicant will ne'ed to provide water for the horses at their scheduled stopd. Planning staff recommends that any future additions or revisions to the routes or stops be approved by Town staff including, but not limited to, the Public Works and Police departments. The applicant will be required to obtain a Town business license and provide a copy of a certificate of insurance for $1,000,000 to the Town, with the Town named as an additional insured party. No signage will be allowed on public , property and the horses must be diap-ered during service. Public Comment: The applicant, Victor Anderson, was present. He stated his willingness to comply with the staff's recommendations. Director Joseph noted that the horses must be stabled at a property that is zoned to allow horses. Commissioner Hull questioned whether Mr. Anderson was concerned about the horses impeding traffic. Mr. Anderson stated his opinion that the speed of the summer traffic would be consistent with the speed of his horses. ,. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of Special Review 05-01, Horse-Drawn Carriage Concession, Downtown Estes Park, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall obtain a business permit from the Town Clerk. Prior to issuance of a business permit, the applicant shall: a. Provide a copy of a Certificate of Insurance for $1,000,000 to the Town, with the Town to be named as an additional insured. b. Obtain written permission from property owners for specified stops on private property, including the Stanley Hotel, St. Bartholomew's Church, and Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church. c. Submit a revised site plan incorporating the following: â€¢ Signature block: APPROVAL: Approved by the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees this day of ,2005. John Baudek, Mayor RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 May 17, 2005 2. Any future additions or revisions to the routes or stops to be approved by Town staff. 3. No signage shall be allowed on public property. 4. If traffic conflicts or other use conflicts occur on the streets or at the public stop locations, Town staff is authorized to restrict operations until the problem is corrected. This is intended to account for accidents, parade routes, periods of heavy traffic, or other instances of traffic hazards or congestion. 5. All horses shall be diapered during times of service. 6. Horses shall wear a rubber overlay shoe. 7. Public drop-off shall be limited to the Transit Center and Tregent Park. 8. A copy of the business license and Special Review permit shall be kept with the carriage. 5. SPECIAL REVIEW 05-02, CIRCLE OF FRIENDS MONTESSORI SCHOOL, Lot 1, Saint Bartholomew's Addition, 880 MacGregor Avenue, Applicant: Circle of Friends Montessori School, Kay Lawson, Director Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request to allow Circle of Friends Montessori School to operate a child care center in Saint Bartholomew's Church for a maximum of ten children between twelve and thirty-six months old. The Montessori school has moved out of its former location at the YMCA of the Rockies and is in the process of searching for a more permanent location where they can expand their programs. A temperary-use permit was approved by staff on May 5, 2005 to allow the Montessori school to relocate to the church property for a thirty-day period while awaiting consideration of their special review application. The proposal was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. Comments received from the Chief Building Official, Will Birchfield, included a list of recommended conditions of approval. Planner Chilcott noted that the proposed child care center is small, limited to ten children, in an existing building that already provides Sunday school services to children. Staff does not find any adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, or the environment, with the exception that parking could have created adverse impacts if the church and Montessori School had not agreed to a shared parking plan to address parking during peak demand periods; the Montessori school will cancel child care during times when the church needs extra parking. The proposed location meets the minimum-lot-size requirements for child care centers and the outdoor play area will be limited to the existing playground. Commissioner Hix questioned what would happenif the Montessori school wished to increase the number of students participating in its program. Planner Chilcott stated that the applicant would have to repeat the review process with the Planning Commission and Town Board. The applicant was not present at the meeting. Public Comment: None. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 May 17, 2005 It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hull) to recommend approval of Special Review 05-02, Circle of Friends Montessori School, Lot 1, Saint Bartholomew's Addition, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed uanimously with two absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the conditions in Will Birchfield's memo dated April 25,2005. 2. The application fee shall be submitted or a waiver granted by Town Board, with review by the Community Development Committee prior to Town Board review. 6. REZONING REQUEST AND PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REQUEST, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, Metes and Bounds, 995 Dry Gulch Road, Applicant: Boyette F. and Sandra A. Williams Commissioner Amos recused himself from participating in the discussion and vote on this agenda item due to his involvement with the Estes Valley Non-Profit Resource Center, Inc. Acting Chair Pohl verified that the four Commissioners remaining still provided a quorum. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a preliminary subdivision plat application to divide a 9.946-acre parcel into thirty-three lots. The proposed subdivision will include thirty single-family residential lots on 5.734 acres. Fifteen lots will be deed restricted for twenty years and sold to households earning 100 percent or less of the median income. The remaining fifteen lots will be deed restricted for twenty years and sold to households earning 120 percent or,less of the median income. In addition, two commercial lots, totaling 1.849 acres, will be donated for development of a community services building by a newly formed nonprofit, the Estes Valley Non-Profit Resource Center, Inc., and development of a building for the Salud Family Health Center. The non-profit resource center will encompass Estes Valley non-profits, including Victim's Advocates, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, day-care providers, services for the children and elderly, and so forth. Approximately 2.3 acres of right-of-way will also be dedicated and a new road constructed to serve the subdivision. The road is proposed to connect to Red Tail Hawk Drive to the north and Crabapple Lane to the south. The existing home and accessory dwellings will be removed. One home design is proposed for all thirty new homes. Their placement on the lots, color, and garage location will vary throughout the subdivision. The property is currently zoned "RE" Rural Estate, which requires a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. This is a request to rezone the western 5.734 acres to "R-1" Single- Family Residential, which requires a 5,000-square-foot minimum lot size, and the eastern 1.849 acres to "0" Office, which requires a 15,000-square-foot minimum lot size. The "R-1" Single-Family Residential zoning district was established solely for attainable housing development. The property to the north has been rezoned from RE-1, Rural Estate, to RM, Multi-Family Residential zoning and includes the Good Samaritan Village, Talons Pointe, plans for approximately fifty units to be developed by the Estes Park Housing Authority, and plans for a Lutheran church. Talons Pointe includes units for households earning sixty percent or less of median income. The property to the south is being developed as Vista Ridge, a sixty-one-unit, multi- family residential development that includes thirty-one attainable-housing units for households earning eighty percent or less of median income. Planner Chilcott noted that the proposed development is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. It will provide for a mixed-use development as well as attainable housing. This is only the second time a private developer has offered to provide affordable housing since the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 May 17, 2005 The property lies within the unincorporated Estes Valley and the applicant has submitted an annexation plat, titled the Bosan Addition, as well as a development agreement, for Town Board review. The annexation/development agreement includes a modification of the "R-1" Single-Family Residential zoning district attainable-housing requirement that owner-occupied attainable housing be sold to households earning eighty percent or less of median income. The proposal also includes a waiver of the fifteen-percent-open-space requirement. This requirement was waived for the Mangelsen Subdivision on Halbach Lane, which include R-1 zoned lots. Planning staff intends to recommend removing the open-space requirement for R-1 parcels from the Estes Valley Development Code. Planner Chilcott noted that the proposal does conflict with some of the North End sub-area key issues and guidelines, including maintaining the low-density character of the North End and preserving existing native vegetation while locating buildings to minimize disruption and intrusion. Because the property is sandwiched between two high-density developments and it does not push additional high-density development farther into the North End, staff is supportive of the proposal. All lots have legal access to a road and staff is supportive of the proposed road design. No direct access to Dry Gulch Road will be permitted. The proposed plan includes dedication of a twenty-five-foot-wide hike/bike path easement along the eastern property line of Lot 2, Block 3. The applicant has agreed to add a twenty- foot-wide public pedestrian trail easement on Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, to provide for the possibility of public access to The Reserve open space in the future. District buffer landscaping requirements are triggered for the single-family lots abutting "CO" Outlying Commercial and "RM" Multi-Family Residential zoning districts. Because the district buffer requirements provide for such dense plantings, staff recommends spreading the proposed trees and shrubs along the property lines to provide screening in the most needed areas and create a more natural landscape design. Landscaping, except that in the landscaped islands, will be required to have automatic-drip irrigation. Additional review of adequate public facilities requirements, including water, fire protection, sewer, transportation, and drainage standards will occur with the submittal of final construction plans to ensure compliance. StormWater drainage from Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, will flow into the gutter on Red Tail Hawk Drive. The remaining lots will drain into a culvert between Lot 8, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 3, eventually crossing under Dry Gulch Road. Comments from the Public Works Department regarding the stormwater drainage plan have been largely addressed; Public Works will review the updated drainage plan and final drainage construction plans. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agencies and to adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Public Works Department, Town Attorney Greg White, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, Larimer County Engineering Department, and the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment. Comments were also received from Frank Weale, 864 Crabapple Lane, Nancy Bergman, 870 Crabapple Lane, Elaine Hunt- Downey, 874 Crabapple Lane, and Bob and Karen Umscheid, 885 Crabapple Lane, who expressed concern about additional traffic on Crabapple Lane created by the proposed development. Staff is supportive of the street connection to Crabapple Lane because the Town has adopted regulations that require interconnected streets between developments, where feasible, and has adopted regulations to limit the number of houses on a cul-de-sac. When Crabapple Lane was platted in 2002, it was designed to connect to this property once it developed. James Nytes, 1753 Wildfire Road, expressed concern about the sight visibility at the intersection of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 May 17, 2005 Wildfire Road and Dry Gulch Road, where property owners using Crabapple Lane would exit onto Dry Gulch Road. Planner Chilcott noted that the Estes Park Housing Authority intends to improve the sight visibility at that intersection when grading is done in that area in the fall. A traffic impact study was conducted. With the additional traffic generated by the proposed development in the area, including the surrounding developments, the estimated number of trips on Dry Gulch Road total 3,480 per day. Turning movements at the Dry Gulch Road/U.S. Highway 34 intersection and at the Dry Gulch Road/Red Tail Hawk Drive intersection will also be studied. The additional traffic generated by The Neighborhood development is estimated to be 287 trips per day for residential use. Of that, 108 trips per day are estimated for Crabapple Lane with the remaining trips added to Red Tail Hawk Drive. The office lots are estimated to generate 518 trips per day; ingress/egreds will be solely onto Red Tail Hawk Drive. Public Comment: Paul Kochevar, of Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers, was present to represent the applicant. Commissioner Hull questioned whether the applicant had considered building duplexes instead of single-family homes to reduce density and allow for more landscaping. Mr. Kochevar stated the applicant had considered multi-family units but had decided against them due to the existing number of multi-family units currently on the market and because the costs to build multi-family units increase enough to preclude making the proposed development attainable housing. Nancy Bergman, 870 Crabapple Lane, stated that although she is supportive of the proposed affordable housing, Community Resource Center, and Salud Health Center, she has great concern over the impact of additional traffic on Crabapple Lane. She noted that Phase 11 and 111 of Vista Ridge have yet to be built; both will use the narrow Crabapple Lane for ingress/egress. She questioned whether a pedestrian/bike trail between the proposed development and Vista Ridge would meet linkage requirements of the EVDC. Cathy Jensen, 868 Crabapple Lane, also expressed concern about additional traffic on Crabapple Lane, questioning whether access to The Neighborhood could be from the western end of Gray Hawk Court or whether a second access point could be added to the north, onto Red Tail Hawk Drive. Planner Chilcott stated that the property adjacent to the western end of the proposed development is The Reserve open space. Director Joseph stated that the land at the eastern end of the development is too steep to provide a public right-of-way onto Red Tail Hawk Drive. Otto Soehl, 875 Crabapple Lane, questioned how close the proposed homes would be built to his property line, noting that his home had been built six feet from the rear property line. Planner Chilcott stated the minimum rear-yard setback requirement for the proposed development is fifteen feet. Mr. Kochevar stated that the current plans for placement of the homes is proposed to be staggered, with the homes set closer to the front property line than the rear property line and setbacks from the rear property lines varying from thirty-five to forty-five feet. Jean Michael, 866 Crabapple Lane, expressed concern that traffic from Talons Pointe and Good Samaritan would use Crabapple Lane in addition to the residents from the proposed new development. Planner Chilcott noted that it was -unlikely that people wishing to access Dry Gulch Road would wind around through the various neighborhoods rather than using Red Tail Hawk Drive to directly access Dry Gulch Road. She stated that interconnected roads increase access for emergency personnel. Ms. Michael questioned the release rate of the proposed detention pond for stormwater runoff. Mr. Kochevar stated that the detention pond will release its RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 May 17, 2005 entire contents in approximately two hours; the water will flow into an existing drain at the intersection of Red Tail Hawk Drive and Dry Gulch Road. Ms. Michael also asked about the types, heights, and numbers of proposed buildings in the office complex. Planner Chilcott stated that preliminary plans reflect two buildings of approximately 11,000 square feet. She noted that the development plan for the office buildings will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and that neighbors will be notified. Wilber Coyle, 1802 Ptarmigan Trail, stated his objection to the "cookie-cutter" style of the proposed homes, noting the adjacent residences in the Good Samaritan development are attractively grouped and landscaped, with consideration given to the contour lines of the surrounding land. He stated that the architectural impact of the proposed development would be negative. Jim and Billie Nytes, 1753 Wildfire Road, stated their concern that increased traffic on Crabapple Lane would flow onto Wildfire Road, noting that people park on both sides of Wildfire Road on days when Crossroads is busy. They stated their objection to the density of the proposed development and the lack of a play area for children and additional parking space for residents. They noted that the proposed office buildings will add to traffic congestion. They stated that although the North End is supposed to be a low-density area, they are now surrounded by some of the highest-density development in the Estes Valley. Tara Steckline, 1670 Brook Court, stated that she and her husband are potential purchasers of a residence in the proposed development. She noted that with two young children, such development may provide the only option for their family to stay in Estes Park and stated that she is very supportive of the project. Commissioner Pohl referred to the recommended condition of approval that the "O" Office land be rezoned to "RE" Rural Estate if construction of the Salud building and community services building is not commenced within a "set period of time," questioning who would determine that length of time. Planner Chilcott stated that discussion would be held with the Salud Foundation and the Estes Valley Non-Profit Resource Center to determine their approximate time frame for construction. The Town Board typically retains the right to rezone the property if construction is not commenced within one year of the date of approval. Wendell Amos addressed the Commission on behalf of the Estes Valley Non-Profit Resource Center. He stated that the start of construction on the Community Resource Center is contingent upon the timing of Community Development Block Grant funds from the government and will probably not commence until 2006. He confirmed that access to and from the office buildings will be from Red Tail Hawk Drive and noted the Center's support of pedestrian trail access if the hike/bike trail is developed on the west side of Dry Gulch Road in the future. Doug Frisbie, a member of Estes Park Salud Foundation, stated that construction of the Salud facility must begin by the end of the calendar year in order to meet Community Development Block Grant requirements. He noted that plans for the Â· building are fairly well along and that the building will be a one-story structure with a walk-out basement. Eric Blackhurst, Chairman of Estes Park Housing Authority, and Sam Betters, Executive Director of the Estes Park Housing Authority, both gave their commendations to the developer for the effort to bring more affordable housing to Estes Park. Mr. Blackhurst questioned whether the twenty-year deed restriction for affordability is long enough, noting that Housing Authority deed restrictions are for ninety years. He and Mr. Betters asked who would ensure that buyers are income- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 May 17, 2005 qualified, both now and in the future. Mr. Blackhurst questioned whether a homeowners association would be formed and who would be responsible for maintaining landscaping in the development. Mr. Kochevar stated that the EVDC requirement for deed restrictions on affordable housing is currently twenty years. He expressed a willihgness to look into the effect of extending the deed restriction on the financing costs of the project. He noted that the details of the deed restriction, i.e., who will ensure buyers' qualifications, etc. have not yet been finalized but must be complete prior to consideration by the Town Board on June 28, 2005. Mr. Kochevar confirmed that a homeowners' association will be formed and will have responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and architectural control. Mr. Betters noted the number of concerns raised about increased traffic on Crabapple Lane, questioning whether access could cross The Reserve property or whether the proposed Gray Hawk Lane could connect to Red Tail Hawk Drive at a point closer to the office lots. Director Joseph stated that no public right-of-way exists across The Reserve property; such access would have to be privately negotiated. Mr. Kochevar reiterated that the slope is too steep at the eastern end of the proposed development to add a connection to Red Tail Hawk Drive in that area. Commissioner Hull stated her reason for voting against the preliminary subdivision plat is her concern over the additional traffic that will be generated on Crabapple Lane and Dry Gulch Road. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the Rezoning Request, The Neighborhood, Metes and Bounds, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent and one abstention. Those abstaining: Amos. CONDITIONS: 1. Town Board approval of the Bosan Addition annexation plat and recordation of the plat. 2. Town Board approval of an annexation/development agreement, addressing, at a minimum: a. the attainable housing deed restriction; b. the open space waiver; and c. Rezoning of the "O" Office land to "RE" Rural Estate if a development plan for the Salud Medical Center and community services building is not approved and construction commenced within a set period of time. d. Town Board approval and recordation of The Neighborhood final subdivision plat. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Hix) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Request, The Neighborhood, Metes and Bounds, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed with two absent and one absention. Those voting for: Hix, Pohl, and Eisenlauer. Those voting against: Hull. Those abstaining: Amos. CONDITIONS: 1. Plat approval shall be conditioned on comments in the affected agencies memos, letters, and emails referred to in the staff report. 2. Construction limits of disturbance shall be addressed on the final road construction plan. 3. Removal of existing structures shall be included in the improvement agreement, unless they are removed prior to plat recordation. 4. Note #1 which stateh, "all areas outside the building envelopes shall be reserved as public drainage & utility easements" shall be revised to clarify RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 May 17, 2005 which lots have building envelopes and to clarify that easements will be dedicated, not reserved. 5. Mixing the 100 percent and 120 percent deed restricted lots throughout the subdivision shall be reviewed during building permit submittal. 6. Proposed sales prices shall be provided. 7. During development plan and/or building permit review for the "O" Office area, a soils investigation shall be required. 8. Construction limits of disturbance shall be addressed on the final construction plans submitted with the final subdivision plat. 9. To create a more natural landscaping design, the proposed forty-eight trees and seventy-two shrubs shall be planted along the entire southern property line between the Gray Hawk Lane/Crabapple Lane intersection and The Reserve open space, grouping trees and shrubs to provide screening in the most needed areas. District buffer landscaping shall be provided along the northern property line. 10. Automatic drip irrigation shall be provided for the district buffer. 11. Waiver of the automatic drip irrigation requirement for the landscaped islands shall be conditioned on staff review and approval of a revised landscaping plan for the islands. 12. Refuse disposal shall be addressed in the homeowners' association protective covenants. The covenants shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to recordation. 13. Water service lines and sizes shall be shown on the final construction plans submitted with the final subdivision plat. 14. Sewer service lines with line sizes shall be shown to all lots on the final construction plans submitted with the final subdivision plat. 15.The Upper Thompson Sanitation District's comments in their April 19, 2005 letter concerning overlapping drainage and utility easements, the proximity of drainage and sewer improvements, and service line design shall also be addressed on the utility plan submitted with the final subdivision plat. 16. Grading for the detention area shall be shown on Sheet 1 and a drainage easement shown for the detention area. This shall be reviewed by staff to determine if there is room for both a trail and detention area in the twenty-five foot-wide strip; if not, a revised plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval. 17. A traffic impact study shall be submitted which includes review of the Dry Gulch Road/US 34 intersection. Trip generation estimates shall be submitted and shall include an estimate of the number of trips added to Crabapple Lane.updated to review the DGRd /US Hwy 34 intersection & DG Rd/RTHawk intersection 18.Transformer sizes shall be noted on the final construction plans submitted with the final subdivision plat. Primary and secondary service lines shall be noted and proposed easements for all primary electric installations shall also be shown on the final construction plans. 19. No direct access to Dry Gulch Road shall be permitted. Access to the "O" Office zoned lots shall be from Red Tail Hawk Drive and access to all residential lots shall be from Gray Hawk Court or Gray Hawk Lane. A note shall be added to the final plat describing this, and general driveway locations shall be shown for lots adjacent to the internal traffic circle and the four lots at the end of the cul-de-sac on the final construction plans. A note shall also be added permitting only one driveway curb cut per residential lot. 20. No access to Crabapple Lane shall be permitted until sight visibility is improved at the Wildfire Road / Dry Gulch Road intersection. 21.A note shall be added to the plat clarifying that no public access to The Reserve exists at the present time. 7. REPORTS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 May 17, 2005 Planner Chilcott reported on the Mary's Lake Lodge Condominiums Revised Development Plan 0-07A that was approved by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2005. The applicant has requested that condition #4, which requires that the portion of Kiowa Trail needed to access units 10 and 11 be constructed prior to issuance of building permits for those units, be changed to require the road construction prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. Planner Chilcott stated that staff is supportive of this request. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:34 p.m. Edward B. Pohl, Acting Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary T,HE LANE 1 1 1 GROUP, INC. P.O, -OX 637 CONIFER, COLORADO 80433-0637 r --3 03â€¢697â€¢0497 FAX 303Â·697â€¢6213 L C 1-*NE Ill 3-27-05 Town Board of Estes Park cio Alison Chilcott Community Development Town ofEstes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Re: Request for One Year Extension of Fall River Village Preliminary Condominium Map Dear Town Board Members, Fall River Village Communities, LLC respectfully requests a one year extension ofthe Fall River Village Preliminary Condominium Map which was approved on March 10th , 2004 and recorded on June 2nd~ 2004. Fall River Village Communities, LLC formally commenced horizontal development of its 64 condominiums and 7 estate lots in February 2005. Fall River Village Mobile Hgme Park ceased all mobile home rental operations effective 3-14-05. FRV shipped the first four mobile homes to the Oglala Souix Tribe in early March. The remaining mobile homes will be shipped to the reservation over the next few months. The river front acreage ofFRV is having its primary infrastructure installed at this time and the old home and garage have been demolished and removed. Vertical construction of the first two condominium buildings is scheduled to commence in May 2005. Fall River Village Communities, LLC has commenced pre-sales and hopes to close its first homes in late September 2005 with final project completion in late 2006 or early 2007. Basis Architecture is the project architect and Cornerstone Engineering is the project's general contractor. JDG Design is the landscape architect. Enclosed please find the check for the processing fee for this extension request. If I may be of further assistance, please contact me at: 303.697.0497. Thank you. Sincerely, 4134-- Noel West Lane III The Lane III Group, Inc. Manager, Fall River Village Communities, LLC Cc: Cornerstone Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 and Bob Joseph, Director Date: May 19, 2005 Subject: Preliminary Condominium Map Time Extension: Fall River Village, Lot 8, Fall River Village Final PUD, The Lane 111 Group, Inc./Applicant Background. On March 9,2004 Town Board approved a preliminary condominium map submitted by the Lane 111 Group, Inc. for sixty-four accommodations units on Lot 8, Fall River Village Final PUD. This lot is located between The Willows condominiums and West Park Center on West Elkhorn Avenue. The approval was valid for one year and has expired. This is a request for a one-year extension of the preliminary condominium map approval. A letter from the applicant requesting this extension is attached. N Budget. ~ Location Map for 511 West Elkhom Avenue None. r US 34 Bypass FT-7- IE- r--r-1 Lot 2 Suiny Acres -F Action. Far View Dr. Approval of the Fall River Village preliminary \ , ~/ -9 Lot 4 Sumly Acies K . 1 E--LT Ta7+7, condominium map time extension with the TheWillows Condos i JÂ» 7 r.f.-Il-Â£Â» March 9, 2004 Town Board conditions of RM Zoning iÂ° ~ /'~7463~ : approval and compliance with the comments /3.1 h<14 -4=76=61 in Jeff Boles May 4, 2005 Public Works memo. L / *3*Â©.., 'Â·.koy â€¢N-\1'.97Â£#lmL -- ~ Pedommnce Park *, NNÂ»-I/-141= E-1, RMa,id COZon,!U I -<4Â£~Q--1 ~-Â· Wed Park Celter F~ joyaÂ»*waeÂ»Ws*34 4 -77-100 Zoniâ€žg 1 Amelican Wilderness Condos < A Zoning ~ ~ 34 Bus. (W. Elkhom Ave.1 ~ CD ~ . Page 1 of 1 Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: David Shirk Date: May 20,2005 Subject: EPCO Condominiums Background. On February 10, 2004, the - -Â«\/\4491 //0,425409. Town Board approved a / i /543Â»/Â«55 Final Condominium Map for the EPCO / 1 ~~~4Â»99Â·~ta.Â».: , Condominiums, located at ~ \494Â»Â»/2./.494>,04 - - ,%<Â«~g~witttor 220 Virginia Drive. f - ; 9 3,4:4*04-44{ 9044449,~14 40 ~ 6483'A_ ~ ., ~ ,' This is a request for a ~ . \14* bl)el-i g~/gjj.. supplemental 0/.Â· 5. -72.5,/9/.441 condominium map to ~~~~_~ .9 9%*29%70*5942 finalize two units. \7,43~r.4,0, Till. There are a variety of 1,/1~~Â«Â»',c:.ip~>:. small corrections that need to be made to the plat before it is recorded. These are outlined in the conditions of approval. Budget. NA Action. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Supplemental Map #1 of EPCO Condominiums CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with the approved EPCO Final Condominium Map. 2. The following shall be corrected on the submitted mylars: a. Limited Common Elements (LCE's) for proposed units shall be delineated. b. LCE's delineated on the Final Condominium Map shall be delineated on this supplemental map. c. All existing easements shall be shown on this supplemental map (per state law). This includes the pedestrian easement along MacGregor Avenue. d. Correct the Unit 21 and 22 encroachments into the access easement (the map incorrectly locates a deck and portion of a parking area in an access easement). e. The dedication statement shall read as follows "... have caused to be surveyed and platted as shown on this Supplemental Map #1 of EPCO Condominiums Units 21 and 22. The initial plat map of EPCO Condominiums is recorded at Reception , records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder." f. Include surrounding property lines for reference. g. References to building setbacks shall be removed from the plat. â€¢ Page 2 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: 5-19-05 Subject: Block 7 Code Revisions Background: The Block Seven Code Revisions have been divided into three groups for purposes of public discussion and adoption. The first category is clarifications, the second is minor revisions, and the third is significant revisions. Staff recommends taking public comment separately for each of these three groups, with three separate votes for adoption. Also, it may be necessary to split out one or two of the significant revisions for a separate vote. In response to concerns raised over the proposed A-Accommodations zoning changes, this matter will be pulled from consideration. A separate public meeting will be held to further discuss the proposed modifications to the A-Accommodations zoning on Tuesday, June 7th , at 7:00 p.m., in the Town Board room at 170 MacGregor Avenue. At that time, the issue will be discussed in depth in an effort to find a more agreeable alternative. This item must be tabled for further analysis. Budget: No Impact Recommendation: The Planning Commission has recommended adoption of all parts of the Block 7 revisions. Clarifications: ITEM 6 - FRONT SETBACKS ON CORNER LOTS AND DOUBLE- FRONTAGE LOTS: Double frontage lots will have two front or street setbacks. ITEM 7 - FEATURES ALLOWED IN SETBACKS (PAGE 1-6) signs, postal boxes and parking areas are allowed. ITEM 8 - STREET LOT-LINE SETBACKS AND SETBACKS FOR DOUBLE-FRONTAGE LOTS Double frontage lots will have two front or street setbacks. ITEM 9 - MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS Lot width standards shall apply to lots that do not have a front lot line, i.e. lots that do not abut a street. In these cases, the Decision-Making Body shall determine where to measure lot width. ITEM 11 - MINOR MODIFICATIONS Lot dimensional requirements are subject to minor modification. ITEM 12 - DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW Clarification of applicable triggers for development plan review. ITEM 15 - SIDEWALKS/TRAILS Clarify sidewalks can be required with commercial subdivisions. ITEM 16 - ACCESSIBLE PARKING Table becomes guide to allow reference to state and fed stds. ITEM 18 - WETLANDS AND STREAM PROTECTION Allow Corps permit as last step rather than first step in approval. ITEM 20 - EXTERIOR LIGHTING Improve illustration ITEM 22 - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTIONS Clarify definition consistent with practice and intent. ITEM 25 - APPENDIX B: ATTACHMENT B Dedication Form ITEM 24 - APPENDIX B: ATTACHMENT A Signature Block Form Minor Revisions: ITEM 4 - ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES: ELECTRICITY Prior to issuance of the first building permit, all necessary electric services are in place. ITEM 10 - REVISIONS TO SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Staff shall have the discretion to shorten submittal time frames. ITEM 13 - BUILDING SEPARATION Delete 1Oft. minimum separation standard between buildings. ITEM 17 - OUTDOOR SEATING (PAGE 5-4) Correct typographical error. ITEM 19 - REFUSE DISPOSAL Allow dumpster hot wires to deter bears. ITEM 21 - PARKING SPACES FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING Delete employee housing parking requirement. ITEM 23 - MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW Land consolidation plats shall follow the review timeframe for Final Plats. ITEM 26 - KENNEL DEFINITIONS Reconcile animal limit with Municipal Code (limit of four). Significant Revisions: ITEM 3 - DENSITY BONUS FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING For example, on a "RM" -Aulti-Family Residential zoned lot with a net lanc area of ona (1) acre, the underlying base zoning district density is eight (8) units per acre. A maximum density of twelve dwelling units per acre may be achieved if at least four of the dwelling units are attainable. ITEM 14 - SEPARATE LOT DETERMINATIONS Formalize process with appeal to TB/CC ITEM 5 - GEOLOGIC AND WILDFIRE HAZARDS D. Professional Qualifications; Adopt the wildfire standards used throughout Larimer county, add flexibility. ITEM 2 - LANDSCAPING Requirements Not Cumulative. The various requirements set forth in the following sections shall not be cumulative. For example, impervious coverage requirements may be used to satisfy other landscaping requirements such as district buffer and street frontage requirements provided individual requirements not fall below their minimums. District buffers shall not be required for areas where street frontage buffer 1--- 0 requirements are met. Greater discretion on part of Planning Commission to be flexible with the standards. Re-format entire section to improve readability. Appendix D Adopt current engineering standards and best practices. FAR exemption Provide a volume based approach to calculation of Floor Area exemptions. Community Development Memo Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Bob Joseph .5~~Del CC: Randy Repola Date: May 4,2005 Re: Proposed Floor Area Ratio Exemption: Illustrations Two different building examples (each using two different formulas) are illustrated with the attached sheets. The first example uses a two level building with a roof pitch of 2:1. This example illustrates the floor area exemption that results from a walkout lower level that is 50% below grade: where the exclusion is a function of the total building volume including attic space an exclusion of 800s.f. of floor area is reached; where the exclusion is a function of the volume of just the lower level an exclusion of 1,000 s.f. of floor area is reached. The second example uses the same two level building, with the same 50% bury of the lowest level, but with the roof pitch increased to 1:1. In this example where the exclusion is a function of the total building volume including the larger attic space a reduced exclusion of 667s.f. of floor area is reached, but where the exclusion is a function of the volume of just the lower level the exclusion of 1,000 s.f. of floor area is unchanged. It is the staff and Planning Commission recommendation to use the total building volume formula because it is more likely to produce the intended result of limiting the visible bulk of the building as these two examples illustrate. 1 Z; 1 -F~OeT- prrt+1 h- 90# A - - 20 ft A ' 10 ft v - d250 Et > 40 ft Two-level building 40'x 50' each level (2000 sf/level) Total floor area = 4,000 s.f Ceiling height lowest level = 10 ft. Volume lowest level = 20,000 c.f Total Bldg Volume = 40,000 cf + 10,000cf (attic) = 50,000 cf exalut==4=4 -,4-9 -f=uderr-[02 SI-P -123~TAL Sull..c>1 142= 42 l.-UMLE- ; D \000 GE - = 20,3 of= -re-ru_ t-*anG:~ vk. 2 -5 BEL-066 68**, 260,000 Câ‚¬- n-*ey-Fa26 : 7253>56 g>F -rpl)#L F-LE;OF- Aa=-ak It> eXe- LPEZZ 0Â£~~ 6 R EX C,l-, dlZEâ‚¬-D f~UZAZ_ 25-4/tak W aikout lowest level 50% below grade ~,ml L -Ti-2,4â€¢-0.Â·.Â· ~Â·.,Â·C.B.: p.7 , -Sinizill'."--~/ :r:Â« -C~*'#e~=tir;* EfÂ·*I,: tmze.:P' 4 2. (429>0:4.9-14}ir?t~ :24~k -7 - .rite*VA*AB~/4,4205:49.:5216Â¥r ; 3 . **--.t,-0.411ft:-01' 4"BA./ .- .. .., . ,-~I Â·,.~-44&-~-:AÂ»47*6~AN 4.~:9.14 , I. 4-kÂ¢-/ ti,~fd- tzÂ«e .1 - ... J,*2.6.*iE ~*MA#n~fi)08@.ik.. 6.,go '~&*23: /~4.*. :':~.:k~ ''#i.2 ~::'< 6 - - E- ..,5".'.~prg- 1 Â·' Â· 1 *.i Â·Â·.Â·t Â· Â· .Â·...1 ;.RE: FIX:.'*~ -Â·:jiÂ·Â·:.'(Â» i'B Exedeled A:b f:u.tan,=A cr u:> u..DEST- LEUEL JC>Lut-Â·â‚¬ >, \0 loe>0 C-â‚¬ = 622/4 or Lou-Desr- 1.-gu EL VE>L , BELz70-1 (2=12: 201000 (Lf -1-*Eger=,Ni: 95-25) p~ d>r LOJEST LECE-l- Â·9-05>* AFEL 13 (Exawl fl 012- I ooP t>,f=. EXCLUDEt> f=UPDFL .A.42:â‚¬A- --- Walkout lowest level 50% below grade Â· ~77777.. 'El:Illimillill"illillill'llill'llililigill'll'll/ifill'llilli~,1&/,SJÂ·AÂ¢2:Fi"ihuo~ * 11'k 2.1 4--,11. ./ f. ... '. t .C. r. . (*ilÂ·*41&<254#rve" 518 1 - 1 ' -094.44#944Â»4,494:p.Â·04*12Â·-- 3933*ic & -twal.:E*66:9Â·66. t .1 16Â·ji~tr'iÂ· 1. -: ..0 . $ e. 'fluilierj 11~51.# 111 p 17/. j~.2Â·râ€¢ F' ~1~Â·,-0 1 -11 42 11-1 1 KE*2i. 6><APAFLE 7&%5 - h \ Moul= Prrnt-1 / 20,- V 20 ft L .... V 1. 10 ft 1 < 50 & 40 ft Two level building 40'x 50' each level (2000 sf / leveD Total floor area = 4,000 s. f Ceiling height lowest level = 10 ft. Volume lowest level = 20,000 c.Â£ Total Bldg Volume = 40,000 cf + 20,000cf (attic) =60,000 cf Exe-0-15toJ AS fl-ld2310-4 gÂ¥1 -Tz:i-rbL 12>Ll,LD i bleS VE LutÂ« 3 - 10) 00(2> C:r. 1- 2 19Â· 6~-76 Of~ -Tm[AL- Ept-PER, VoL lS 2ELDLJ G;pu 00, 000 e-.r-, 774 Elze FDeâ‚¬ : 1 6. t- 74 2:'F~ 12:5TU_ f~L.-CCF:.. Ae.E-A 1 6 EXEÂ¥-AF~T- Opt 476,7 6,6 EXC-LUDEk> fs'LocÂ»- t*54 Walkout lowest level 50% below grade 1 \28 +6Â¢t,1,<A.JEIT. al U L.; rb tE>~-Â£?CO ~ *4939 '/ IM â€¢Mf;Â¥.Â· Â·.e- = A~' AL~f'.fl=NÂ·,9Â¢Aâ€¢=k . 114.Â£ 411.00%*~. 659.ffft/,2,3.Fi&Etri# .j"lillilillilliwim 1.1 ..... 1 1. . 1 6 >< c,1.-llt>LOA -Aap VULon od ef LogE+T' LE\)-6\- VOL-Lt Ila ; \ 0,000 Of= - = 6-006 DF LE) wbeâ‚¬E l-El) EL BELIR,3 Â£a*DE 2-0,000 Eâ‚¬- 1142*E~~ FA=ze. t 50'90 02 LD\>OE<ST ~651_ 6-:ce=*. *-*z.eA \55 '5 72*iff DF. i cc'O S.,le 51<CA-u EDâ‚¬XD f~UDEÂ¥2:. #h.*2=GA. Walkout lowest level 50% below grade E,.Â· + i ..~~~ . , .$=#=1%Â· *.p. f â‚¬ ,Â©fm...A *tâ€¢ r I 7-.**,4.LF=.1 2-119 -1.-0"321Â·1.- e . *4)42:~j.iftiti -i~*ir>.-. 31*41..... ~91-~~.f?*Flot ...%11. .i' ...'%3<. :fi :83*~499 :299(~.~~tfti,~]3.:.~to )~ 16;b ~~~<Â·~ji~ . m ...: . . 2 1 - i T ~ 6 'i i Â·Â·: 447&4al(gg'm -.: :.-,~ Remti~$1* 1&2-WKIVI#V#Eg.lilli *T '11 --~, P"., /~Â· 'nJ ~'~.4 -. "65......'.DÂ·i'*Â·Â·Â·Â· 1~ 1 1 f.~-1-7 *I:XY'VIT.~,5.#3. - fli--'-Â·,~ .9,2yt. ov - -4 ,-' 3 '~WF~ -~ Amendments to the Estes Valley ~~~ Development Code, Block Seven: Town Board Review =,* Estes Park Community Development Department ~ Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: May 19, 2005 F-P RMP ~t ~ TITLE: Amendments to the Estes Valley .* 6--I Aff.Rk,rrtar, r USFS Development Code, Block Seven 1**eâ€ž =L REOUEST: To make a number of changes and - t6 P. corrections to the adopted Estes Valley lu'bultain Development Code. - . *h LOCATION: Estes Valley, inclusive of the Town = ES RIVNP of Estes Park. Ex'ildry APPLICANT: Estes Valley Planning Commission STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County adopted the Estes Valley Development Code in 1999, and it came "on-line" in February 2000. Since that time, Staff has worked with the Code daily, and has presented several code amendments. This is the latest set of proposed Code amendments. These range from technical corrections to re-organizations to those with more substantial land use implications. ORGANIZATION: 1. Text to be replaced is delineated with strikethrough (The quick brown fox jumped over the fet+ee). 2. New text is delineated with underline (The quick brown fox jumped over the fence). 3. "Relocated" text is delineated with double-strikethrough (The quick brown fox jumped over 44-464*ee). \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 1 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM ITEM 1:- CHANGES TO THE "A" ACCOMMODATIONS DISTRICT Item 1 has been tabled for further study. ITEM 2 - LANDSCAPING Section 7.2 Grading And Site Disturbance Standards C. Restoration of Disturbed Areas 1. Follow Natural Contours. No change. 2. Revegetation Required. Areas disturbed by grading shall be contoured so they can be revegetated and shall be revegetated within one (1) growing season after construction, using native species similar to those growing on the site when such revegetation does not contribute to hazards. Reveqetation shall be sufficient to provide erosion control and to prevent the invasion of weeds. (See also Â§7.3 and Â§7.5 regarding tree/vegetation preservation and landscaping requirements.) Plans for revegetation of cut-and-fill and graded slopes shall be included as part of the landscaping plan submitted as part of the project development plan_ approval process. Section 7.5 Landscaping And Buffers A. Purpose and Intent. The intent of this Section is to establish standards to protect and enhance the Estes Valley's appearance by the installation of appropriate landscaping and buffering materials; to encourage the preservation of native plant communities and ecosystems; to maintain and increase the value of land by providing for restoration of disturbed areas and by incorporating adequate landscaping into development; to restrict the spread of invasive plant species that disrupt and destroy native ecosystems; to encourage skilled installation and continued maintenance of all plant materials; and to establish procedures and standards for the administration and enforcement of this Section. B. Applicability. These landscape and buffer standards shall apply to tho following development to residential subdivisions created after the adoption of this Code, and to all development where development plan review is required bv Section 3.8 of this Code. 1. Single-family and multi-family residential projects containing three (3) or moro dwening-Units.r 2. Mobile homo parks, campgrounds, resort cabins and guest ranches. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 2 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM 3. All now nonrosidontial development and uses, changes of use (except to single- family residential) and additions onto nonrosidential buildings where development plan review is required by Â§3.8 of this Code. C. Approval of Landscaping and Buffering Plan. 1. No development plan required under this Code shall receive final approval unless a landscaping and buffering plan meeting the requirements of this Section has been submitted and approved. Landscaping plans mav include provision for phasinq. Refer to Appendix B for landscaping plan submittal requirements. 2. Alternatives to the specifications concerning minimum plant sizes and quantities set forth in this Section may be authorized by the decision-making body EVPG under development plan review, provided that the Applicant submits a detailed landscaping plan and that the decision-making body EXPÂ© in approving this plan determines that the proposed landscaping is equivalent to or exceeds that speeifie+*1 satisfies the purpose and intent of this Section. pFeviding-visual appeal, screening, shading and restoration of disturbed areas. 3. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued unless the following criteria are fully satisfied with regard to the approved landscaping and buffering plan: 4. Such plan has been fully implemented on the site and inspected by Staff; or 5. Such plan, which cannot or will not be implemented immediately because of seasonal conditions or phasing, because of seasonal conditions cannot bo implemented immediately, but has been guaranteed by an improvement agreement (or included in an approved development agreement) in a form agreeable to the Town or County and secured by a letter of credit, cash escrow or other instrument acceptable to the Town or County, in an amount equal to one hundred fifteen percent (115%) of the cost of materials and labor for all elements of the landscape plan. 6. A landscaping as-built plan, including sizes and quantities, details regarding reveqetation, and irrigation, shall be submitted to Staff prior to inspection. D. General Landscaping Design Standards. The following minimum standards shall apply to all landscaped areas developed under the requirements of this Section. See Subsections E through I below for additional specific landscaping requirements for multi-family, accommodation and nonresidential developments. 1. Aesthetic Enhancement Requirements. Landscaping shall be utilized in the design to enhance the aesthetic quality of the property by adding color, texture and visual interest while obscuring views of parking and unsightly areas and uses. In locations where new development alters visually attractive and distinctive natural landscapes, the selection and arrangement of new plantings shall be designed to complement and enhance the natural landscape character \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 3 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM of the site. All areas not covered by parking, drives, streets or structures shall bo improved with landscape clcments in accordance with this Section. 2. Plant Materials. a. Use of Native or Adaptive Plant Materials. Refer to Appendix C for lists of plant materials considered native or appropriate. In order to further water conservation and to assure adequate growth and survival of new plantings, all landscape plans shall be comprised entirely of native or adapted plants that reflect the surrounding plant materials and environment. Plant materials considered native or appropriate for use in Estes Valley landscapes arc listed in Appendix C. All proposed plant materials shall be chosen from these lists unless Staff approves an equivalent alternative. b. Â·Existing Plant Materials. Healthy, existing trees, grasses, and shrubs shall be incorporated into the landscape to the maximum extent feasible. These existing plants shall be shown on the landscape plan and labeled as "existing." Similarly, existing and retained trees shall be listed on the plan's plant list with their current size shown. (1) Landscaping Credit. Existing trees and shrubs shall be credited against landscaping requirements provided thev meet applicable standards such as size and location requirements. Healthy, existing trees and shrubs shall bo incorporatod into tho landccapo to tho maximum oxtont foaciblo. Thoco oxisting plants shall bc shown on tho landscape plan and labolod as "existing." Similarly, existing and retained trees shall bo listed on the plan's plant list with their current size shown. If located within twenty-fivo (25) foot of a proporty lino at tho street, no existing troo of four (4) inchos DBH or greater, or dense stand of trees or shrubs of four (4) or more feet in both dopth and hoight chall bo romovod, unlocc dietatod by plant hoalth, access, safety or identification of tho promisos, all as dotcrmincd by Staff. Scc Â§7.3, "Tree and Vegetation Preservation," above, for additional requirements regarding preservation of existing and significant trees and Al@86=mate#al. (21 Preservation of Existing Trees. \1 located withih twenty-five (25) feet of a property line at the street, no existing tree of four (4) inches DBH or greater, or dense stand of trees or shrubs of four (4) or more feet in both depth and height shall be removed, unless dictatod bv plant health, access, safety or identification of the premises, all as determined bv Staff. See Â§7.3, "Tree and Vegetation Preservation," above, for additional requirements regarding preservation of existing and significant trees and plant material. (3) Root zones. Design of the landscape shall take retained, existing trees into consideration with an adequate area provided around each tree that is free of impervious material to allow for infiltration of water and air. This pervious area shall be equal to one and one-half (1.5) times the drip line of \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 4 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM the tree. The root zones of existing trees and shrubs to be preserved shall be protected from unnecessary disturbance due to cut or fill grade changes. The location of underground utility lines shall be carefully planned to avoid unnecessary disturbance of root zones that would threaten the survival of existing trees and shrubs to be preserved. (See also Appendix D for protection of trees/vegetation during construction activities.) c. Species Mix. Species variation is required for all landscape plans because species uniformity can result in disease susceptibility and eventual demise of a large portion of a landscape at one (1) time. *fees arc more apt to succumb to disease and take longer to replace; therefore, tree species variation is required fot all landscape plans. Landscape plans shall exhibit species variation, which shall increase based on the number of trees proposed in the landscaping plan. d. Plant Sizes. At the time of installation, plants shall be no smaller than the following: (1) Deciduous trees: (a) Fifty percent (50%) of amount on site: four-inch caliper. (b) Fifty percent (50%) of amount on site: two-inch caliper. (2) Evergreen trees: (a) Fifty percent (50%) of amount on site: eight (8) feet tall. (b) Fifty percent (50%) of amount on site: six (6) feet tall. (3) All shrubs: five-gallon. (4) It may be necessary for plant size to exceed these minimums in order to meet special buffering or screening needs. Individual species' growth rates and patterns shall be considered when choosing the installation size of plants. Additional tree plantings beyond what is required by this Section arc exempt from the minimum size requirements but shall be shown on the landscape plan. e. Plant Quality. All plant material shall meet the American Association of Nurserymen specifications for Nomber 1 grade, and shall comply with the quality standards of the Colorado Nursery Act, Title 35, Article 26, C.R.S., as amended. f. Plant Quantity. See Subsections E through I below for the quantity of landscaping required for each specific use category subject to this Section's requirements. g. Plant Arrangement. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 5 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM (1) The scloction and arrangement of new plantings shall be carefully planned to create visual appeal, to provido effectivo screening, to define sito circulation and to enhance the use of the site. (2) Trees shall bo planted to allow for normal growth in hcight and shape without the need for excessive pruning. (3) Trccs with a mature height of more than twenty five (25) feet shall not be planted under utility lines. (4) Plants that will cxcced six (6) inches in height shall not bc planted within three (3) foot of a firo hydrant. 3. Location and Arrangement of Required Landscaping. a. The selection and arrangement of new plantinas shall be planned to create visual appeal, to provide effective screening, to define site circulation, and to enhance the use of the site. b. All required landscaping elements shall be located on the property they serve. Landscaping located on adiacent properties or street right-of-wav shall not count toward the landscaping requirements of this Section. c. All required landscaping shall be located outside of anv adiacent right-of-wav unless a waiver is received from Estes Park or Larimer Countv Public Works. d. Trees shall be planted to allow for normal growth in height and shape without the need for excessive pruning. Refer to Appendix C for spread characteristics. e. Trees shall be planted no closer than seven (7) feet from anv structure and shall be installed with at least fiftv-five (55) square feet of nonpaved area around the trunk. f. No trees shall be planted within five (5) feet on either side of water or sewer main lines. All plantinas shall be set back from overhead power lines or be of a tvpe whose structure will not grow high enough to interfere with the power lines. g. Trees with a mature height of more than twenty-five (25) feet shall not be planted under utility lines. Refer to Appendix C for height characteristics. h. Plants that will exceed six (6) inches in height shall not be planted within three (3) feet of a fire hvd rant. Refer to Appendix C for height characteristics. i. No trees shall be located within twenty-five (25) feet of street intersections or ten (10) feet from fire hydrants and utility poles. 4. Restoration and Revegetation of Disturbed Areas. A\\ portions of the site where existing vegetative cover is damaged or removed, that are not otherwise covered \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 6 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM with new improvements, shall be successfully revegetated with a substantial mixed stand of native or adapted grasses and ground covers. The density of the reestablished grass vegetation after one (1) growing season shall be adequate to prevent soil erosion and invasion of weeds. See Â§7.2 C, "Restoration of Disturbed Areas." 5. irrigation. All newly installed landscapes shall include a properly functioning automated sprinkler system with individual drip lines for nonturf areas. Other forms of irrigation may be approved on a case-by-case basis by Staff. A functional irrigation system is required for final approval of installed landscaping and release of associated collateral or assurances. 5. Location of Required Landscaping. a. All required landscaping shall be located outside of any adjacent right of way unless a waiver is rocoivod from Estes Park or Larimer County Public Works. b. All roquirod landscaping clcments shall be located on the property they serve. Landscaping located on adjacent properties or street right of way shall not count toward tho landscaping requiroments of this Section. 5. Requirements Not Cumulative. The various requirements set forth in the following sections shall not be cumulative. For example, impervious coverage requirements mav be used to satisfv other landscaping requirements such as district buffer and street frontaqe requirements provided individual requirements not fall below their minimums. Where Larimer Countv Engineering Department or the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department require living snow fences, those requirements shall be counted toward the requirements of this Section. E. Landscaping Requirements For Multi-family and Nonresidential Uses. 1. All multi-family and nonresidential land uses, except in the "CD" district, shall install at least one (1) tree and three (3) shrubs for every one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area covered by impervious surfaces, excluding parking lots~ but including drives, sidewalks, and other hard surfaces. This landscaping shall bo in addition to any parking lot landscaping or street landscaping required by thisÂ·Â·Chaptef. Trees shall bo no closer than scvon (7) foot from any structure and shall bc installed with at least fiftyâ€žfive (55) square feet of nonpaved arca around *19=4FWAk. 2. Planting beds may contain a combination of living plant materials and mulch. Living materials shall comprise no less than fifty percent (50%) of the required planting beds. 3. Plant materials shall be located to enhance views from public streets and sidewalks. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 7 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM 1. Any existing trees and shrubs protected within the limits of disturbance shall bo credited against this landscaping requirement. (Sec Â§7.2.D above.) F. Buffering and Screening. 1. Purpose. Buffering is intended to help mitigate the physical, visual and environmental impacts created by development on adjacent properties. Buffering and screening creates a visual buffer between incompatible or differing land uses. 2. Applicability. Buffering is required in the following circumstances: a. District Boundaries. (1) A landscaped buffer shall be planted on the boundary between the zoning districts set forth below, unless the abutting property is determined by Staff to be unbuildable or visually separated by topographic features. District buffers shall not be required for areas where street frontage buffer requirements are met. . (2) The buffer shall be planted within twenty (20) feet of the district boundary. (3) A minimum buffer consisting of eight (8) evergreen trees and eleven (11) shrubs per one hundred Â·(100) linear feet of district boundary shall be installed between the following zoning districts: (a) An industrial district and any other zoning district; (b) A commercial or accommodations district and any residential district; (c) A multi-family residential district and any other residential district; or (d) A commercial district and any accommodations district. b. Street Frontaae Buffers. (1) Purpose: Landscaping in areas located adjacent to streets is intended to create tree-lined streets, provide shade, improVe air quality, sereen pafking-areas and enhance property values through improved views for the traveling public. Parking lot perimeter landscaping may bo used to meet these requirements. (2) Exemption: The following shall be exempt from these street frontage buffer requirements: (a) Single-family developments and subdivisions, except in the RM zoning district. (b) All development in the CD zoning district. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 8 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM (c) Development in the CH and I-1 zoning districts shall be exempt from the nonarterial buffer requirements only. (3) Property Abutting Arterial Streets. All development on property abutting an arterial street shall provide a landscaped buffer with a minimum width of twenty-five (25) feet along the entire arterial street frontage. See Figure 7- 8. (4) Property Abutting Nonarterial Streets. All development on property abutting a nonarterial street shall provide a landscaped buffer with a minimum width of of not less than fifteen (15) feet wide along the entire street frontage. See Figure 7-8. (5) Planting Requirements (See Figure 7-8). (a) Arterial Street Frontage: (i) One (1) tree shall be planted for each twenty-five (25) lineal feet of street frontage and one (1) shrub for each ten (10) lineal feet of street frontage positioned to adequately buffer developed frontage as viewed from adiacent street or right-of-wav as determined bv the Decision-Making Body. along the entire length of the artorial street #entage. (ii) Side Lot Line Planting Area: Side lot line planting is required for premises abutting an arterial street, but not in the CD or CH districts. Required sideline planting shall be provided within five (5) feet of the side lot line between the front lot line and the building line. (b) Nonarterial Street Frontage: One (1) tree shall be planted for each forty (40) lineal feet of street f rontage and one (1) shrub for each fifteen (15) lineal feet of street frontage positioned to adequately buffer developed frontage as viewed from adiacent street or right-of-wav as determined bv the Decision-Making Bodv. along thc entire length of the nonartorial Street#entage. (c) Where parking lot perimeter landscaping is required along street frontage and side lines, those plantings may be credited towards tho street and side lot line landscaping requirements of this subsection. (d) Trees shall be located at least twenty fivo (25) foot from street intorcoctionc and ton (10) foot from firo hyd rantc and utility poloc. (6) No Development in Street Frontage Buffer Area. Within the street frontage buffer, there shall be no development, parking or drives, except for access to the portion of the site not in the buffer, which is approximately perpendicular to the right-of-way, underground utility installation, pedestrian and bicycle paths, allowable signs and necessary lighting. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 9 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM c. Service Areas. All multifamily and nonresidential service areas, such as dumpsters, other trash receptacles and ground-mounted mechanical equipment, shall be screened from public view on three (3) sides by a solid wall or'fence at least six (6) feet in height and on the fourth side by a solid gate at least five (5) feet high. The screening structure and gate shall be architecturally compatible with the principal building(s) on the site. d. Loading Areas. All commercial and industrial loading areas and docks shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way and residential zone districts. e. Berms. Berms mav be utilized as part of street frontaqe landscaping, but shall varv in height over the length of the berm. r. (1) SHRUB FOR EVERY 10 LINEAL ~ FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE 100 ONEAL FEET ~f i ' .1 ' ,[1) TREE FOR EVERY 4 23 LINEAL FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE -4- /h~ilED 60.-Â· c.qk~ m.'F *-LANDSCAPE BUFFER ARTERIAL STREET 6 00 UNEAL FEET ~~ , (1) TREE FOR EVERr (1) SHRUB FOR EVERY 15 UNEAL FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE 40 UNEAL FEET OF SWEET FlONTAGE :r-IT :. 0.. I. ... Â·Â· PLANTS SHOU.0 SE GROUPED. 1-]Â»6 NOT EVE}LY SPACED LANDSCAPE NON-ARTERIAL STREET BUFFER 7 5 F.2.9 BUFFERING REOUIREMENTS Figure 7-8 3. Responsibility for Buffering. Buffering shall be the responsibility of new development. Existing land uses may be required to provide buffering if the use is changed, expanded, enlarged or in any other way increases the impacts on adjacent properties or rights-of-way over what is present at the time this regulation is adopted. It shall be the responsibility of the expanded or changed land use to evidence what the uses and impacts were at the time of adoption of this regulation. 1. Method of Calculation. Graphic 7.1 shall serve as a guide for measuring distances for calculation of buffer requirements. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 10 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM 25 MIN. (different zone district) A . C t (27 , '11 11,1 1;1 , '' 111 1,1 B . B A= Distlict Buffer B= Street Buffer (Street) C= Parking lot screening Graphic 7.1 \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 11 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM (Street) (louls!!) @UOZ @UIES) G. Parking Lot Landscaping. 1. Purpose. Parking lot landscaping is intended to improve the views from adjacent properties and public use areas, alter the microclimate of parking areas by providing shade and reducing reflected heat, and break up large areas of impermeable surface allowing areas for water infiltration. 2. Perimeter Landscaping. a. Applicability. All parking lots containing six (6) or more spaces shall provide perimeter landscaping pursuant to the General Requirements below, except where abuttinq property is determined bv Staff to be unbuildable or visually separated bv topographic features. e*Gept-that-pParking lots in the GE) El- and CH districts shall be exempt. See Figure 7-9. b. General Requirements (See Figure 7-9). (1) All parking areas shall be separated from property lines at the street by a planting area at least twenty-five (25) feet wide on arterial streets and by a planting area at least fifteen (15) feet wide on other street property lines. (2) All parking areas and access drives shall be separated from side and rear property lines by a planting area at least eight (8) feet wide. (3) All parking lots or areas shall be separated from the high water mark of all river banks by a minimum setback of fifty (50) feet, except in the CD district where the setback shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet. The required perimeter landscaping shall be provided within this setback area through retention of existing vegetation, or through additional new tree and shrub plantings as needed to meet the required minimum quantities of perimeter plantings. See Â§7.6.E below. (4) Perimeter landscaping shall provide a semi-opaque screen during the winter season. c. Berms. Berms may be utilized as part of perimeter landscaping. Wheze-befms aro used, they shall not bo of a uniform height but shall vary in height ffem twenty four (21) to forty-eight (18) inches in height over the length of the berm. a. Walls/Fences. Where walls or fences are used, a minimum of one (1) evergreen tree or three (3) shrubs are required for every forty (40) linear feet of wall or fence and shall be planted on the side of the fence or wall facing the surrounding streets, walks, parks, trails or other public use properties. b. Perimeter Planting Requirements: \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 12 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM (1) A minimum of one (1) tree per twenty (20) lineal feet and one (1) shrub per five (5) lineal feet shall be planted along the perimeter of any parking lot area located adjacent to an arterial street. A minimum of one (1) tree per thirty (30) lineal feet and one (1) shrub per ten (10) lineal feet shall be planted along the perimeter of any parking lot area located adjacent to nonarterial streets. See Figure 7-9. (2) For parking lot areas that are adjacent to a side or rear lot line, one (1) tree per thirty (30) lineal feet and one (1) shrub per five (5) lineal feet shall be planted along the perimeter of any parking area located along the lot line. (3) Plants should be grouped, not evenly spaced. 3. Parking Lot Interiors. a. Applicability. All parking lots with thirty (30) or more parking places shall comply with these interior parking lot landscaping requirements. Interior parking lot landscaping requirements shall be in addition to all other landscaping requirements; no other landscaping requirement mav be used to fulfill interior parking lot landscaping requirements. Landscaping used to fulfill the perimeter parking lot landscaping requirements shall not bc used to gatisfy thosc interior parking lot landscaping requirements. b. Minimum Requirement: A minimum of six percent (6%) of the total interior parking lot area shall be landscaped with planted islands. A minimum of one (1) tree and two (2) shrubs must be planted in interior islands for every two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of parking lot, exclusive of perimeter plantings. See Figure 7-9. c. Landscaped Islands: (1) Individual landscaped islands shall include a minimum of one (1) tree, an automated sprinkler and raised concrete curbs. (2) Landscaped islands shall be at least one hundred (100) square feet in size with the smallest dimension being six (6) feet to allow for adequate root aeration and expansion. See Figure 7-9. (3) Islands shall be arranged to maximize shading of parking spaces. (4) Plantings shall be arranged so as not to interfere with driver vision, vehicle circulation or pedestrian circulation. (5) To the maximum extent feasible, landscape islands shall be incorporated in the stormwater management plan and located to break up large areas of impermeable surface allowing areas for water infiltration. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 13 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM ... (1) SHRUB FOR EVERY 10 LINEAR FEET 7 REAR PROPERTY LINE 11111-1*11-91-'11.11113-4 LOT AREA SHALL BE LANDSCAPED 8% OF TOTAL INTERIOR PARKING / SIGN 15' MIMMUM TO ~ ~PROPEITY UNE ISLANDaI-UM--O - -1II>Â¢â€¢iN 12Â¥16)7121 .. ="L -M ~E~~EEN TREE FOR EVERY 30 LINEAR FEET a,~3&2&?&7~ + 22 ~r:#f'I 'L "\ 14 \ FOR EVERY 20 LINEAR FEET I | I \ ARTERIAL STREET ~25'MINIMUM TO PROPERTr LINE 7.5.G. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING Figure 7-9 H. Fences and Walls. Fences and walls are permitted as elements of a landscape plan and, in some locations, may be used to conceal storage or other unsightly or conflicting land uses. All fences or walls shall meet the following requirements: 1. Materials. a. Fences or walls shall be constructed of wood, stone, brick, decorative concrete block, wrought iron (or products created to resemble these materials), er a combination of any of these materials, or other materials as approved bv the Decision Making Body. b. All fencing shall be finished on both sides, except fencing accessory to a residential use or development, which shall be finished on all sides that are visible from off-site. c. Plywood, particle board, sheet metal, concrete slabs, concrete barriers or similar materials shall not be used for fencing or walls intended to provide screening or buffering. d. Chain link fencing, with or without slats, shall not be used for screening or buffering purposes. Chain link fencing mav be allowed for security purposes as approved bv the' Decision Making Bodv. No slats shall be allowed with chain link fencing \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 14 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM MIDE PROPERTY LINE Jit~ 1.lahill 19,~31&9-NON 6. Barbed-wire and similar fence materials may be only be used in conjunction with a permitted agricultural use or in conjunction with the permitted keeping of hofses or livestock. 2. Fences/Walls Abutting Public Roads. Where opaque or solid fencing will abut a public road, it shall be screened from the road. Breaks in the screening shall be created and changes in fence setbacks, heights or materials shall also be utilized to provide visual diversity. Where more than two (2) consecutive rear lot lines will abut a public right-of-way, it shall be the developer's responsibility to install the wall or fence that will delineate the property line in order to assure diversity of setback, screening and streetscape views. 3. Plantings in Conjunction with Fences/Walls. Where opaque or solid fencing continues for more than forty (40) feet alona a buffer zone, the buffer requirements shall be located between the fence and the area to be buffered. Where opaque or solid fencing continues for more than forty (40) feet of street frontaae, a minimum of one (1) evergreen tree e# and three (3) shrubs shall be planted on the outer or public side of the fence for each forty (40) linear feet of fence. 4. Fences and Walls In Critical Wildlife Habitat. See Â§7.8.G.1.c below for standards. 1. Technical Landscaping Requirements. 1. Protection of Landscape from Vehicular Damage. Wheel stops, curbs or other elements intended to keep vehicles out of landscaped areas shall be set back from existing plant materials an adequate distance. 2. Protection from Wildlife Damage. To protect landscaping from wildlife-related damage, transparent fences (including very low-voltage electrified fencing), walls or other architectural elements shall be included around landscaped areas in all landscape and buffering plans. Materials shall be compatible with materials used for structures on the site. No chain link fencing shall be allowed to protect landscaping from wildlife damage. 3. Protection of Water, Sewer Lines and Power Lines. No trees shall be planted within five (5) fcct on either side of water or scwcr main lines. All plantings shall be set back from overhead power lines or bo of a typo whose structuro will not grow high onough to interfere with the power lines. J. Maintenance Requirements. 1. Maintenance Required. Required landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy, growing condition at all times. The property owner is responsible for regular irrigating, pruning, weeding, mowing, fertilizing, replacement of plants in poor condition and other maintenance of all plantings as needed. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 15 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM 2. Maintenance of Landscape Structures. Where walls, fences or other structures are an integral part of the landscape plan, such structures shall be maintained in good repair. Fences that are leaning, broken, have missing pieces, peeling paint or are in any other way damaged shall be immediately repaired or replaced. Walls with missing bricks or blocks, crumbling mortar or other aesthetic or structural defects shall be imniediafely repaired. 3. Replacement. The following plant material conditions require plant removal and replacement: a. Deciduous trees and shrubs that fail to produce leaves on more than fifty percent (50%) of the plant by July 1 st of the calendar year. b. Evergreen trees and shrubs with needle loss or browning over more than fifty percent (50%) of the tree. c. Damaged plant materials that have split trunks, loss of major branch structure, loss of leader shoot or other damage that a certified nurseryman , confirms will ultimately cause the premature death of the plant. d. Diseased, insect-infested or parasite-infested plants that cannot be adequately treated to prevent premature death or to prevent contamination of other plant materials. e. Removal and replacement shall occur during the same growing season in which plant material exhibits at least one (1) of the above conditions. Where seasonal or adverse weather conditions make replanting or replacement within such a time period impractical, Staff may grant an extension and may require adequate fiscal assurance, if needed, from the Applicant or owner to assure replacement. 4. Enforcement. All plantings shall be subject to periodic inspections to insure compliance with this regulation and the approved landscape plan. Failure to comply with the Maintenance Plan shall be a violation of this Code, subject to the enforcement and penalties provisions set forth in Chapter 12. ITEM 3 - DENSITY BONUS FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING Section 11.4 Attainable Housing Density Bonus A. Purpose. Staff Comment: No changes to EVDC proposed. B. Eligibility. Staff Comment: No changes to EVDC proposed. C. "Attainable" Defined. Staff Comment: No changes to EVDC proposed. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 16 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM D. Maximum Permitted Density Bonus. Except in the R-1 District, subject to the standards and review criteria set forth in this Section and Chapter, for every one (1) attainable housing unit provided, the Applicant shall bo eligible for a bonus of onc- half (0.5) unit that may bo used only for the development of additional attainablc units attainable housing units are eligible for a density bonus of up to one and one- half (1.5) times (50%) of the base net density standard set forth in Table 4-2, Â§4.3.C. In no case shall the development density exceed fifty percent (50%) of the maximum density permitted in the underlying base zoning district. , For example, on a "RM" Multi-Family Residential zoned lot with a net land area of one (1) acre, the underlying base zoning district density is eight (8) units per acre. A maximum density of twelve dwellinq units per acre mav be achieved if at least four of the dwelling units are attainable. E. Development and Design Standards. Staff Comment: No changes to EVDC Proposed ITEM 4 - ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES: ELECTRICITY Section 7.12 Adequate Public Facilities B. Applicability. Adequate public facilities requirements apply to all new development and subdivisions subject to this Code, except that development on lots of record that were approved for single-family residential use prior to the effective date of this Code shall be exempt from the fire protection, and transportation adequate facilities requirements of this Section. C. General Requirements 1. Approval Conditioned Upon Adequate Public Facilities. The approval of all development shall be conditioned upon the provision of adequate public facilities and services necessary to serve the new development. No building permit shall be issued unless such public facilities and services are in place or the commitments described in this Section have been made. 2. Level of Service Standards a. This Section establishes level of service standards for the following public facilities: sewage disposal, water, drainage, transportation anâ‚¬4 fire protectionl and electricity. b. No development plan or building permit shall be approved or issued in a manner that will result in a reduction in the levels of service below the adopted level of service standard for the affected facility. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 17 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM Section 7.12.I Electricity 1. Level of Service. A\\ development shall provide adequate and functional electric service to each lot pursuant to this subsection. 2. Criteria for New Development. The development shall be served bv the Town of Estes Park and shall meet current standards established bv the Town. 3. Minimum Approval Requirements. Adequate electric services to support the proposed development shall be available concurrently with the impacts of such development. In this regard, the Decision-Making Bodv shall require that, prior to issuance of the first building permit, all necessary electric services are in,place and available to serve the new development or subdivision in accordance with the approved utility plan for the development, i.e. all electric service shall be installed up to and including mains and distribution boxes such as transformers and secondary pedestals. Section 10.5.E. Utility Standards 1. Water Mains and Fire Hydrants. The subdivider shall install water mains, service lines, fire hydrants ahd appurtenances in accordance with the current water design and construction standards of the Town. All service lines shall be installed to the property line prior to the paving of the street. 2. Electric and Street Lighting Systems. The subdivider shall install such electric service and distribution system and such street lighting system as shall be determined by the Town. All subdivisions shall comply with the adequate public facilities standards set forth in Â§7.12.I of this Code. ITEM 5 - GEOLOGIC AND WILDFIRE HAZARDS Section 7.7 Geologic And Wildfire Hazard Areas A. Applicability. All new subdivisions and development, including residential development on lots of record approved prior to the effective date of this Code, shall comply with the procedures and standards set forth in this Section. B. Interpretation. The provisions of this Section shall be interpreted to apply in conjunction with all other applicable local, county and state land use requirements. Whenever a provision of any other land use regulation conflictswith the intent of this Section, the provisions of this Section shall apply. \\Senera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 18 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM C. Description of Regulated Hazard Areas. Hazard areas regulated by this Section shall include all areas that are or that may become hazardous due to environmental conditions. The hazards include, but are not limited to, the following: wildfire, avalanche, landslide, rock fall, mud flow and debris fan, unstable or potentially unstable slopes, seismic effects, radioactivity, ground subsidence and expansive soil and rock. I Everything below this point is a change from existing regulations. D. Professional Qualifications. All maps and reports required by this section must be prepared by or under the responsible direction of a duly qualified professional. 1. Wildfire hazard analysis required by this Section must be prepared by or under the direct supervision of a professional forester with at least two years experience with wildfire hazards in the Rocky Mountain region. 2. Geologic hazard analyses required by this Section must be prepared by or under the direct supervision of a professional geologist with experience in engineering geology or geotechnical engineering. 3. Engineering work required by this Section must be prepared by or under the direct supervision of a licensed professional engineer who is experienced in the engineering specialty (e.g. soils, slope stability) required to meet the objectives of this Section. E. Wildfire Hazards 1. Wildfire Hazard Areas. a. Mapped Wildfire Hazards. Wildfire hazard areas shall include all those areas shown as "high-tree" fire hazard areas on the Wildfire Hazards Resource Map in Appendix A. b. Unmapped Wildfire Hazards. Wildfire hazard areas shall also include areas located outside of the mapped wildfire hazard areas that are identified by the Colorado State Forest Service or the Larimer County Wildfire Safety Specialist or designee as hazardous areas. c. In the event an Applicant questions the existence of a wildfire hazard within the proposed development or subdivision, the Applicant may submit evidence with respect thereto from a professional forester. This evidence may be considered by the Decision-Making Body, together with all other applicable evidence, in determining whether or not said development or subdivision is within a wildfire hazard area. 2. Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Plans \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 19 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM b. Mitigation Plan Required. When new development or subdivision is proposed within a wildfire hazard area the Applicant shall be required to submit a mitigation plan prepared by a professional forester addressing how the development,or subdivision will either avoid or mitigate the hazard, as more fully set forth below. Wildfire Mitigation Plan Requirements. Mitigation plans shall be prepared according to the "Colorado Landowner Forest Stewardship Plan Guidelines." 3. Review Criteria. a. In reviewing new development or subdivisions subject to this Section, the Decision-Making Body may deny development within a hazard area or may approve it on the condition that the development is designed and built in such a manner to adequately mitigate the hazard. b. In reviewing new development and subdivisions the Decision Making Body shall take into consideration the following: (1) The Applicant's mitigation plan; (2) Vegetative, topographic, access and other technical information presented by the Applicant or other interested party, including the Town, County or other public agency; (3) Recommendations of a reviewing state agency having expertise with respect to the hazard in question and recommendations of others with similar expertise; and (4) Site specific vegetation and topographical characteristics. c. Mitigation methods required by the Decision-Making Body may include, but are not limited to: (1) Compliance with "Guidelines and Criteria for Wildfire Hazard Areas," written by the Colorado State Forest Service, September 1974; "Wildfire Mitigation Plan Standards and Guidelines (Appendix D)," written by the Colorado State Forest Service, April 1997; (2) Specific requirements for construction, locatioh and density of structures and/or lots; (3) Provision of defensible space in compliance with current Colorado State Forest Service guidelines shall be required on all new construction in wildfire hazard areas. For additions to or changes in the type of the occupancy or use in existing structures, a defensible space shall be provided around the entire structure; and (4) Specific requirements for alteration to the vegetative features of the land; \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 20 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM F. Geologic Hazards. 1. Geologic Hazard Areas. a. Mapped Geologic Hazards. Geologic hazard areas shall include all areas shown on the Geologic Hazard Areas Resource map and all areas classified as 4,5,6 or 7 on the Official Geologic Hazard Maps, which have been reviewed by the Colorado Geological Survey and are incorporated by reference in this Code. The Official Geologic Hazard Maps shall be available for public review at the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department. b. Unmapped Geologic Hazards. Hazard areas shall further include any areas which have not been so classified, but where a hazard has been identified and confirmed by the Colorado Geological Survey. The Planning Director or his designee shall have the authority to identify geologic hazard areas during field inspections. Such field identifications shall be based on identification procedures set forth in "Guidelines and Criteria for Identification and Land Use Controls of Geologic Hazard and Mineral Resource Areas," written by the Colorado Geological Survey, 1974 c. In the event an Applicant questions the existence of a hazard area within the area proposed for development or subdivision, the Applicant may submit evidence with respect thereto from a professional geologist having requisite technical expertise. Such evidence may be considered by the Decision- Making Body, together will all other available evidence, in determining whether or not said development or subdivision is within a hazard area. 2. Geologic Hazard Mitigation Plans. a. Mitigation Plan Required. When new development or subdivision is proposed within a geologic hazard area the Applicant shall be required to submit a mitigation plan prepared by a professional geologist addressing how the development or subdivision will either avoid or mitigate the hazard, as more fully set forth below. Licensed professional engineers who are experienced in the engineering specialty (e.g. soils, slope stability) may submit mitigation plans for steep slope and alluvial soils hazards. Lots approved for single- family residential development prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code do not need to submit a mitigation plan for rockfall hazards. b. Colorado Geologic Survey Review. Except for single-family residential development on lots of record, new development and subdivisions within a geologic hazard area shall be referred to the Colorado Geological Survey for review and comment. At the time of application submittal, the Applicant shall submit the required fees for the Colorado Geological Survey review. Applicants seeking approval of single-family development on lots of record \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 2 I for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM within an identified Geologic Hazard Area shall be exempt from Colorado Geological Survey review, but shall be required to subject to all other requirements in this Section. c. Geologic Mitigation Plan Requirements. Mitigation plans shall be prepared according to "Guidelines and Criteria for Identification and Land Use Controls of Geologic Hazard and Mineral Resource Areas," written by the Colorado Geological Survey, 1974 and include, at a minimum, the following: (1) An evaluation and predication of the impact of the hazard or hazards affective the proposed development or subdivision and recommended mitigation methods; (2) Maps describing the extent and severity of the hazard at the particular site, and including a true north arrow, scale, ties to quarter section corners, and accurate dimensions for all lines, angles and curves used to describe property boundaries scale; (3) Topography; (4) A location map showing the general location of the development or subdivision and its relationship to surrounding topographic features; (5) A map showing the location, type, and density of the proposed development or subdivision; (6) In the case of an alluvial soils hazard, an on-site subsurface soils investigation and report; (7) In the case of rockfall geologic hazards, the mitigation plan shall: (a) Specifically address each possible method of mitigation, including (1) building outside of the runout zone, (2) stabilization of rocks, (3) slowing or diverting moving rocks, and (4) physical barriers. (b) Include maps of the fallout zone, including the rockfall source area, the acceleration zone, and the runout zone. Computer modeling is the preferred method of determining hazard zones. (c) Include maps portraying the geologic conditions of a development area with particular attention given to the designated hazard condition or conditions and those geologic, hydrologic, soil and topographic features constituting the hazard. (d) If needed, geologic cross sections can be utilized to portray the hazard conditions. These maps must show the topography with a contour interval of ten feet or smaller if necessary. These maps must be on a scale sufficiently detailed to meet the purposes of this section, but in no case can the scale be less than one inch equals 200 feet. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 22 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM 3. Review Criteria. f. In reviewing a development subject to this Section, the Decision-Making Body may deny development within a hazard area or may approve it on the condition that the development is designed and built in such a manner as to adequately mitigate the hazard. g. In reviewing new development and subdivisions the Decision Making Body shall take into consideration the following: (1) The Applicant's mitigation plan; (2) Geologic, topography, and other technical information presented by the Applicant or other interested party, including the Town, County or other public agency; (3) Recommendations of a reviewing state agency having expertise with respect to the hazard in question and recommendations of others with similar expertise; and (4) The relationship between the development and the hazard area and the potential impact of the development within the area on lands outside the development. h. Mitigation methods required by the Decision-Making Body may include, but are not limited to: (1) Compliance with "Guidelines and Criteria for Identification and Land Use Controls of Geologic Hazard and Mineral Resource Areas," written by the Colorado Geological Survey, 1974; (2) To the maximum extent feasible, in rockfall hazard areas avoidance of the runout zone shall be the method of mitigation. (3) Location of building envelopes outside areas identified as Class 11 geologic hazard areas; (4) Specific requirements for construction, location, density of structures and/or lots; (5) Specific requirements for construction of roads upon the land; (6) Specific requirements for alteration to the physical characteristics of the land; ITEM 6 - FRONT SETBACKS ON CORNER LOTS AND DOUBLE- FRONTAGE LOTS Section 1.9.D.1 Building and Structure Setbacks from Lot Lines. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 23 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM c. Front Setbacks on Corner Lots and Double-Frontage Lots: For corner lots and double- frontage lots, all sides of the lot with street frontage shall be required to establish the applicable front yard setback. See Figure 1-2. ITEM 7 - FEATURES ALLOWED IN SETBACKS (PAGE 1-6) Section 1.9.D Setbacks-Building and Structure Setbacks. b. Features Allowed Within Building Setbacks: (9) Signs that comply with applicable sign regulations. CIO) Postal boxes. (11) Parking lots that complv with landscaping standards set forth in Section 7.5.G "Parking Lot Landscaping." ITEM 8 - STREET LOT-LINE SETBACKS AND SETBACKS FOR DOUBLE-FRONTAGE LOTS Section 13.3 Definition of Words, Terms, and Phrases 145. Lot Lines shall mean the property lines along the edge of a lot or site: a. Front Lot Line: The shortest lot line of all street lot lines. If all street lot lines are the same length, then all shall be considered front lot lines. b. Side Lot Line: Any lot line except a street-eF rear lot line. c. Rear Lot Line: A lot line that is opposite a front lot line, but which does not abut a street. A triangular lot has two (2) side lot lines but no rear lot line. For other irregularly shaped lots, the rear lot line is all lot lines that are most nearly opposite the front lot line. d. Interior Side Lot Line: A side lot line that does not abut a street. e. Street Lot Line: Any lot line that abuts a street. Street lot line does not include lot lines that abut an alley. On a corner lot and a double frontage lot, there are two (2) (or more) street lot lines. Street lot lines can include front lot lines and side lot lines. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 24 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM f. Street Side Lot Line: A lot line that is both a side lot line and a street lot line. ITEM 9 - MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS Section 1.9 Rules of Measurement B. Lot Width Measurement. Lot width refers to the horizontal distance between the side lot lines as measured along a straight line parallel to the front lot line fthe-let-liRe abutting the strect on which the property has its principal access) or the chord thereof. The minimum lot width shall be measured between the side lot lines along a line that is parallel to the front lot line and located the minimum front setback distance from the front lot line. Lot width standards shall apply to lots that do not have a front lot line, i.e. lots that do not abut a street. In these cases, the Decision- Making Body shall determine where to measure lot width. See Figure 1-1. Section 13.3 Definition of Words, Terms and Phrases 148. Lot Width shall mean the horizontal distance between the side lot lines along a straight line parallel to the front lot line (or the chord thereof) and located the minimum front setback distance from the front lot line. Lot width standards shall apply to lots that do not have a front lot line, i.e. lots that do not abut a street. In these cases, the Decision-Making Bodv shall determine where to measure lot width. ITEM 10 - REVISIONS TO SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Section 3.1 General Provisions C. Incomplete Applications or Insufficient Fees. Applications shall be reviewed for completeness within seven-49 eight (8) working days of filing. If the Staff determines that the application is complete, the application shall then be processed. If the Staff determines that it is incomplete, they shall return the application to the Applicant as incomplete and specify the specific ways in which the application is deficient. No further processing of the incomplete application shall occur until the deficiencies are corrected. Any application that is not accompanied by the required fee shall be found incomplete. Fees shall not be required with applications initiated by the Staff, Planning Commission or Boards. Section 3.2.B. Step 2: Application Timing and Certification of Completeness \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 25 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM 1. Except for variances, all development applications shall be submitted to Staff a minimum of fifty-five (55) days prior to the next regularly scheduled EVPC meeting at which the application will be reviewed. See Â§3.6 regarding variances. Staff shall have the discretion to shorten submittal time frames. 2. Within seven-tz> eight (8) working days of submittal, the Staff shall either certify the application as complete and in compliance with all submittal requirements or reject it as incomplete and notify the Applicant of any deficiencies. See Â§3.1.C above. C. Step 3: Staff Review and Report. WiN*41*tr-(30) days from the date that a submitted application is certified as complete pursuant to Â§3.2.B abovo, No later than fourteen (14) days prior to EVPC meeting, Staff shall refer the development application to the appropriate review agencies, review the development application and prepare a staff report. No changes to the development application or any accompanying plans or information shall be permitted after submittal, except for any changes or additional information requested by the Staff during their review. Section 3.2.G. Flow Chart of Standard Development Approval Procedure STANDARD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE Step 1: Pre-Application Conference Step 2: Application Submittal â€¢ 1 Dles I Notice of Deficiencies . Staff Reviews for Completeness and T Certifies or Rejects Step 3: Staff Review of Complete Application -m Referral to Local, State, â€¢ and Federal Agencies Staff ReporUSet Public I Hearing if Required 11~1 LIN Â¢ Step 4: Review and Recommendation or Action by Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 Applicant has 30 days from , EVPC action 1 EVPC action date to comply : i deemed final I with conditions of approval ~ Step 5: Review and Action by Town Boardl Board of County Commissioners \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDr & Rign r . . . ....~ x .. . , . . .. ~ . .. . . C Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 26 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19~~3:44 PM Applicant has 30 days from ~ Board action t Board action to comply with Â»--+ deemed final conditions of approval 1 Section Â§3.6.B Procedure for Approval of Variances 1. Step 2: Application Timing. Applications for variances shall be submitted to Staff a minimum Qi thift~#ve-436> forty-two (42) days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting of the BOA. Staff shall have the discretion to shorten submittal timeframes. ITEM 11 - MINOR MODIFICATIONS Section 3.7.A Applicability 2. Minor Modifications from General Development and Zone District Standards. a. Staff Authority to Grant Minor Modifications. Staff may grant minor modifications up to a maximum of ten percent (10%) from the following general development and zone district standards, provided that the Staff finds that such modification advances the goals and purposes of this Code and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieves practical difficulties in developing a site: (1) Minimum lot area and dimensional requirements; (2) Yard and building setback requirements; (3) General development standards set forth in Chapter 7; or (4) Subdivision design standards set forth in Chapter 10. b. EVPC Authority to Grant Minor Modifications. The EVPC may grant minor modifications up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%) from the following general development and zone district standards, provided that the EVPC finds that such modification advances the goals and purposes of this Code and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieves practical difficulties in developing a site: (1) Minimum lot area and dimensional requirements; (2) Yard and building setback requirements; (3) General development standards set forth in Chapter 7; or (4) Subdivision design standards set forth in Chapter 10. Section 10.4 Lots \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 27 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM A. Lot Dimensions and Configuration. 1. The lot area/size, width, depth, shape and orientation shall be appropriate for the location of the subdivision, and for the type of development and use contemplated. In addition, each lot shall also demonstrate a building site and access. In all cases, however, lot area and-dimensiens shall comply with the minimum requirements of this Code. Prior to submittal of the preliminary subdivision plan, all proposed multi-family and commercial subdivisions shall evidence compliance with this provision on the sketch plan submitted at the preapplication meeting. ITEM 12 - DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW EVDC Section 3.8 Development Plan Review B. Applicability. All development set forth in Table 3-3 below shall be required to submit a development plan for review pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this section. See also Â§7.1.B, which requires development plans for all new development on land with slopes steeper than thirty percent (30%) or on land containing ridgeline protection areas. No development, excavation, site preparation or construction activity, including tree/vegetation removal or grading, shall occur on property subject to this Section until a development plan has been approved. \\Sen'era\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 28 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM Table 3-3 Development Plan Review Requirements Determining Factor Staff Review [1] EVPC Review 81LNonresidential Developments in=the-COrCHrO-and-1-1, Except Accommodations Development, in any Zoning Districtti Number of Parking Spaces 10-20 21 or more 10,001 or mom cq. ft. More than Construction of Gross Floor Area 2,000 - 10,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Major alterations that also entail alteration to the number of parking 10,001 or moro cq. ft. More than spaces, the configuration of parking, 2,000 - 10,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sa. ft. inqress, egress, water, sewer, drainage, or lighting on the premises All Nonresidential Developments in tho CD Zoning District Construction of Groes Floor Aroa 2,000 10,000 eq. ft. 10,001 ormorocq. ft. All Residential or Comme:Gial Accommodations Development, including RV Park/Campgrounds Number of New Dwellingi ex Guest 3-10 11 or more Units..andlgEBM-oadlcampalies Major alterations that also entail alteration to the number of parking 3-10 AWpaWGampsite-Dwellincls, 11 or more A-Wpad/Gampsite spaces, the configuration of parking, quest units, and/or RV Dwellinqs, quest units, and/or RV inqress, egress, water, sewer, pad/campsites pad/campsites drainage, or lighting on the premises (Ord 18-01 #7) Note to Table 3-3: [1] All Special Review Uses shall be subject to Planning Commission and Board review and approval of development plans. ITEM 13 - BUILDING SEPARATION Section 5.2.D General Dimensional and Operational Requirements. The following standards shall apply to all accessory uses and structures in all zoning districts, except for: (1) Satellite antenna dishes accessory to residential uses that are one (1) meter or less in diameter; and (2) Satellite antenna dishes accessory to nonresidential uses that are two (2) meters or less in diameter. 1. Time of Establishment. No Change Proposed. 2. Setbacks. No Change Proposed 3. Setbacks from Easements. No Change Proposed. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 29 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM 4. Maximum Building or Structure Size. No Change Proposed. 5. Building or Structure Height. No Change Proposed. 6. Building Separation. Unless attached to the principal structure, accessory structures containing moro than ono hundred twenty (120) square fect of gross floor aroa shall bo located at least ton CIO) feet from any other structure. ITEM 14 - SEPARATE LOT DETERMINATIONS Summary Table-Standard Development Review Process by Application Type. Step 2 Step 1 Application/ Step 3 Pre-Application Completeness Staff Review & Step 4 SteD 5 Conference Certification Report EVPC Action Board Action Code Amendments-Text/Map M A A A A - Preliminary Subdivision M A A A A - I - Final Subdivision Y A A N/A A - PUD-Preliminary Plan M A & A A -- PUD-Final Plan V A A N/A A - Special Review Uses M & A & A Variances (Ord. 18-01 #5) M A A N/A BOA Minor Modifications V A A-SR A-SR N/A - Development Plan Review M A A-SR A-SR APP Use Classification X A N/A - A APP Separate Lot Determinations Y A A APP , N/A I - Temporary Use Permits MA A N/A N/A - Minor Subdivision (Ord. 18-01 M A A A A - #5) Annexations (Ord. 18- M A A N/A A 01 #5) "V" = Voluntary "M" = Mandatory "A" = Applicable "N/A" = Not Applicable "APP" = Appeals "BOA" = Board of Adiustment "SIC' = Special Requirements (Refer to Text) Section 12.1 Appeals C. Appeals from Final Decisions by Staff. A party-in-interest may appeal a final decision made by Staff in administrating or interpreting this Code. All such appeals shall be taken to the Board of Adjustment, except that appeals from Staff decisions \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 30 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM on use classifications and separate lot determinations shall be taken to either the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees, as applicable. Section 13.3 Definitions Of Words, Terms And Phrases 183. Party-in-Interest shall mean a person or organization that has standing to appeal the final decision of a Decision-Making Body. Such standing to appeal shall be limited to the following parties: a. The Applicant; b. Any party holding a proprietary or possessory interest in the real or personal property that was the subject of the decision by the Decision-Making Body whose action is to be appealed; c. Owners of property located within five hundred (500) feet of the boundaries of the subject property, except for appeals of separate lot determinations; or d. The Boards as represented by the request of a single member of either Board. ITEM 15- SIDEWALKS/TRAILS Section 7.4.A Applicability. 1. Trai/s. All new fesideatial subdivisions containing five (5) or more dwclling units shall provide for public trails pursuant to this Section and Chapter 4, "Zoning Districts." Section 10.5 Subdivision Design Standards F. Private Open Areas and Trails. All plans for residential-subdivisions of land shall provide for private open areas and public trails as specified in Chapter 4, "Zoning Districts," and Â§7.4, "Public Trails and Private Open Areas," of this Code. ITEM 16 - ACCESSIBLE PARKING Section 7.11.J Accessible Parking for Disabled Persons 1. Number of Spaces. The minimum number of accessible spaces to be provided be-a portion of the total number of off ctrcct parking spaces required, as determined from \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 31 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM the following schedule shall comply with applicable Town, County, State and Federal codes and/or regulations. Table (To be numbered bv codifier) provides guidelines for provision of accessible parking spaces. Standards mav varv depending on the proposed use. Parking spaces reserved for persons with disabilities shall be counted toward fulfilling off-street parking standards. Table - To -40 numbered by coglifier Minimum Total Parking Minimum Number Minimum Number Number of Car- Spaces of Accessible of Van-Accessible Accessible Provided Spaces Spaces Spaces 1-25 1 1 0 26-50 2 1 1 51-75 3 1 2 76-100 4 1 3 101-150 5 1 4 151-200 6 1 5 201-300 7 1 6 301-400 8 1 7 401-500 9 2 7 501-1,000 2% of total spaces 1 out of every 8 7 out of every 8 Over 1,000 20 + 1 per each 100 accessible spaces accessible'spaces spaces over 1,000 ITEM 17 - OUTDOOR SEATING (PAGE 5-4) Section 5.1.M.1. Outdooi Seating Areas c. In approving outdoor seating areas, the Decision-Making Body may impose conditions relating to the location, configuration and operational aspects (such as lighting) of such outdoor seating areas to ensure that such outdoor seating areas will be compatible with surrounding uses, will be maintained in an attractive manner and will comply with applicable Building and Fire Codes. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 32 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM ITEM 18- WETLANDS AND STREAM PROTECTION Section 7.6.C Other Regulations 1. This Section does not repeal or supersede any existing federal, state or local laws, easements, covenants or deed restrictions. When this Section imposes a higher or more restrictive standard than found in another applicable ordinance, statute or regulation, this Section shall apply. 2. No person shall engage in any activity that will disturb, remove, drain, fill, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area, including vegetation, within a wetland that falls in the jurisdiction of the federal government and its agencies, except as may be expressly allowed under applicable federal laws or regulations. 3. The Decision-Making Body shall not grant final approval to any development or activity, including subdivisions, in a wetland that falls within the federal government's jurisdiction until all necessary federal approvals and permits have boon obtained. ITEM 19 - REFUSE DISPOSAL Section 7.8.G.1.e "Refuse Disposal" of the Estes Valley Development Code states "Developments on sites containing important wildlife habitat, such as black bear, must use approved animal-proof refuse disposal containers. With Division of Wildlife approval, refuse disposal containers and enclosures mav be electrified." ITEM 20 - EXTERIOR LIGHTING Section 7.9.D. Design Standards. 1. Light sources shall be concealed or shielded with luminaires with cut-offs with an angle not exceeding ninety (90) degrees to minimize the potential for glare and unnecessary diffusion on adjacent property. In no case shall exterior lighting add more than one (1) foot-candie to illumination levels at any point off-site. See Figure 7-11. \\Sen'era\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 33 fur May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM /1-/ UNSHIFI DiD f|llll~bille - Lt.J#"'ll/"4' SHIELD CREATES GLME Al~ ___~F LIGHT AT TO ADJACE,#l PROFâ‚¬~GREES ORLESS 7 9 EXTERIOR LIGHTING Figure 7-11 No Yes . r B %:, WJ' IL'.3....p---+ Unshielded light sources Shieldedto cutoffli#tai 90 creates glare and ci ffusion to degrees or less. adjacent property. SeÂ·,irce Irienlational D 6 - Sky Associatice, \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 34 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM ITEM 21 - PARKING SPACES FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING Section 7.11.D: Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements. The following Off-Street Parking Schedule establishes the minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be provided for the use categories described in this Code. Minimum Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces OfT-Street (See Â§7.11.C above for Loading Group Use Classification Specific Use measurement rules) (See Â§7.11.N) RESIDENTIAL USES Single-family, two-family, 2 per dwelling unit. n/a or town home dwelling (including employee housing) Multi-family dwelling â€¢Efficiency or 1 -bedroom unit: 1.5 I'la Household Living $44*di- excluding spaces. employee housing) â€¢2-bedroom or larger unit: 2 spaces. + 0.25 guest spaces per unit Mobile home park 2 per dwelling unit + 0.50 guest il/a spaces per unit ITEM 22 - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTIONS Standard language throughout Estes Valley Development Code is "...except for development on lots that wore approved for single-family residential use prior to tho effective dato of this Code" Except for single-familv residential development on a lot created and approved for such use prior to the effective date of this Code. ITEM 23 - MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW Chapter 2 Table 2-1: Code Administration and Review Roles. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 35 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY PROCEDURE Staff EVPC Boards [1] BOA [1] Code Text Amendments R R DM --- Zoning Map Amendments R R DM --- Comprehensive Plan R DM R --- Adoption/Amendment Subdivisions~ Preliminary Plat R R DM --- Final Plat R -- DM --- Minor Subdivisions 151 8 R DM - NOTES TO TABLE 2-1: [1] The Boards and the BOAs shall have decision-making authority on the applications shown in Table 2-1 only as applied to properties located within their respective Town or County jurisdictions. [2] The Boards shall have authority only for appeals taken from the EVPC (not Staff) action on applications for minor modifications. [ 3 ] The Staff shall have decision-making authority on development plan applications specified for "Staff Review" in Table 3-3 of this Code. See Â§3.8, "Development Plan Review." The EVPC shall have decision-making authority on those development plans specified for "EVPC Review" in Table 3-3 of this Code. Appeals from Staff decisions on a development plan shall be to the EVPC. Appeals from EVPC decisions on a development plan shall be to the respective Board. [4] The Staff shall have decision-making authority on applications seeking minor modifications of Code standards by no more than 10%; whereas, the EVPC shall have decision-making authority on all applications seeking minor modifications of Code standards by 10% or more, but in no case greater than 25%. See Â§3.7, "Minor ., Modifications. Appeals from Staff decisions on applications for minor modifications shall be to the EVPC. [5 1 Land Consolidation Plats shall not be subiect to review by the Planning Commission. Section 3.9.B Applicability. All subdivisions shall be subject to the approval procedures set forth in this Section. Section 3.9.D Minor Subdivisions 1. Defined. Minor subdivisions shall be defined as follows: \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 36 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM i Frontaae Lots. Division of one (1) or more lots, tracts or parcels of land into a total of not more than four (4) lots shall also be a minor subdivision, provided that each resulting lot fronts onto an existing street, and that the subdivision entails no extension of public facilities. No more than a total of four (4) lots shall be created out of a lot, tract or parcel or set of contiguous parcels in the same ownership using the minor subdivision procedure. Frontage Lot subdivisions shall be titled as a "Subdivision". b. Boundary Adiustments. Division of one (1) or more lots, tracts or parcels of land for the purpose of adjusting boundary lines between such lots, tracts or parcels of land and adjacent lots, tracts or parcels of land, which adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes, shall be considered .a minor subdivision for review procedure. Boundarv Adiustments shall be titled as a "Boundarv Line Adiustment" for properties not within a platted subdivision, or "Amended Plat" for properties within a platted subdivision. The final map shall clearly indicate the original boundaries of each lot and shall contain the following statement: " Boundary lines indicated on this map are adjustments of former boundary lines of the property depicted hereon. Such adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes. The area added to each lot shown hereon by such adjustment is to be considered an addition to, shall become a part of, and shall be conveyed together with, each lot as shown." c. Land Consolidation Plats. Unplatted contiguous legal lots approved for single- family residential development can be combined with a land consolidation plat. Land Consolidation Plats shall be titled as a "Land Consolidation Plat". The final plat shall clearly indicate the original boundaries of each lot and shall contain the following statement: " Boundary lines indicated on this map are adiustments of former boundary lines of the property depicted hereon. Such adiustments do not create additional lots or building sites for anv purposes." 2. Hazard Areas. Except Land Consolidation Plats, areas with geologic hazards as defined by Â§7.7 of this Code shall not be eligible for the minor subdivision process. (Ord. 18-01 #9) 3. Procedure for Approval of Minor Subdivisions. Applications for minor subdivision approval shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in Â§3.2 of this Chapter (Ord. 18-01 #10), except that land consolidation plats shall not be subiect to review bv the Planning Commission. Land consolidation plats shall follow the review timeframe established for Final Plats. \\Servera\comm-dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 37 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM 4. Submittal Requirements. Boundary Line Adiustments and amended plats involving exchange of land shall require deeds describing the resultant parcels, signed and dated bv owners, dated, and sealed bv a Notary Public, shall be submitted with the mvlars. (Note: This requirement was not in the copy reviewed by Planning Commission). 5. Modifications and Waivers. The Community Development Director, or designee, shall have ' authority to grant modifications and/or waive standards set forth in Chapter 10 in coniunction with a boundary adiustment or land consolidation plat. Approval of requested modifications and/or waivers shall require that the Director finds abproval of such modification and/or waiver: a. Advances the goals and purposes of this Codd; b. Either results in less visual impact, more effective environmental or open space preservation, relieves practical difficulties in developing a site, or results in the use of superior engineering standards than those required bv this Code; c. There will be no increase in the intensity of use; and d. There will be no increase in development and/or demand for services that necessitates compliance with EVDC standards. F. Effects of Approval 1. Effect of Approval of a Minor Subdivision. Within thift*{30) sixty (60) days of the Board's approval of the minor subdivision, the developer shall submit the minor subdivision final plat for recording. If the minor subdivision plan isrnot submitted for recording within this thiAy-dar-sixty-day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void. 3. Effect of Approval of a Final Subdivision Plat. Within thift*-(30) Sixty (60) days from the date of the Board's action on the final subdivision plat, the Applicant shall make all required revisions, if any (see Â§3.2.E above), and shall submit the final subdivision plat to the Town for recording. If the final plat is not submitted for recording within this sixty-dav time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void. Section 10.2 Applicability/Scope B. Minor Subdivisions. Minor Subdivisions are subject to full review and compliance with the standards set forth in Chapter 10, and the submittal requirements set forth in Appendix B. \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 38 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM , 1. Frontage Lots. Division of one (1) or more lots, tracts or parcels of land into a total of not more than four (4) lots shall also be a minor subdivision, provided that each resulting lot fronts onto an existing street, and that the subdivision entails no extension of public facilities. No more than a total of four (4) lots shall be created out of a lot, tract or parcel or set of contiguous parcels in the same ownership using the minor subdivision procedure. Frontage Lot subdivisions shall be titled as a "Subdivision". 2. Boundary Adiustments. Division of one (1) or more lots, tracts or parcels of land for the purpose of adjusting boundary lines between such lots, tracts or parcels of land and adjacent lots, tracts or parcels of land, which adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes, shall be considered a minor subdivision for review procedure. Boundary Adiustments shall be titled as a "Boundary Line Adiustment" for properties not within a platted subdivision, or "Amended Plat" for properties within a piatted subdivision. The final map shall clearly indicate the original boundaries of each lot and shall contain the following statement: "Boundary lines indicated on this map are adjustments of former boundary lines of the property depicted hereon. Such adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes. The area added to each lot shown hereon by such adjustment is to be considered an addition to, shall become a part of, and shall be conveyed together with, each lot as shown." 3. Land Consolidation Plats. Unplatted contiguous legal lots approved for single- family residential development can be combined with a land consolidation plat. Land Consolidation Plats shall be titled as a "Land Consolidation Plat". The final map shall clearly indicate the original boundaries of each lot and shall contain the following statement: Section 12.1 Appeals See also Chapter 2, "Code Administration And Review Roles," Â§2.1.B. A. Appeals from Final Decisions by the Boards. Staff Note: No Change Proposed. B. Appeals from Final Decisions by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Staff Note: No Change Proposed. C. Appeals from Final Decisions by Staff. A party-in-interest may appeal a final decision made by Staff in administrating or interpreting this Code. All such appeals shall be taken to the Board of Adjustment, except that 1. Appeals from Staff decisions on use classifications and separate lot determinations shall be taken to either the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees, as applicable: and \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 39 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM r I 2. Appeals from Staff decisions on waivers of Appendix B Submittal Requirements, and minor modifications, plats shall be taken to the Estes Valley Planning Commission. D. Appeals from Final Decisions by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. A party-in-interest may appeal a final decision made by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. All such appeals shall be taken to a Colorado court of competent jurisdiction. E. Appeals from Enforcement Actions. Appeals from issuance of a notice of violation or stop work order shall be taken to a Colorado court of competent jurisdiction. F. Timing of Appeals. Unless a different time frame is set forth in a specific provision of this Code or in applicable provisions of the Colorado Revised.Statutes, all appeals shall be taken to the appropriate appeal authority or court within thirty (30) days after the final action or decision being challenged, and all decisions that have not been appealed within thirty (30) days shall become final. ITEM 24 - APPENDIX B: ATTACHMENT A CERTIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION: Know all men by these dresents that , being the owner(s) of that part of the (described quarter-section, section, township, range), Â· Larimer County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows, to wit: Beginning at (complete legal description); containing (to nearest one-hundredth) acres more or less; have by these presents caused the same to be surveyed and subdivided into lots (and blocks as appropriate) to be known as the plat of (Subdivision name), and do hereby dedicate and convey to and for public use the streets as are laid out and designated on this plat, and do also dedicate easements for the installation and maintenance of utilities and for drainage facilities as are laid out and designated on this plat, witness our hands and seals this day of ,20 Owner(s) The signature(s) shall be notarized as follows: State of ) )SS County of ) \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 40 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM The foregoing dedication was acknowledged before me this day of , 20__,by SEAL Notary Public My commission expires NOTES: (A) Where a mortgage or lienholder are involved, the dedication and signature block must be modified accordingly. (B) Where private streets are allowed, the dedication must be modified accordingly. (C) The dedication statement shall be amended to reflect the particular plat. For example, if no streets are being dedicated, the reference to streets would be removed. ITEM 25 - APPENDIX B: ATTACHMENT B LARIMER COUNTY HEALTH AUTHORITY APPROVAL: By the Larimer County Health Authority this day of ,20 All construction on this subdivision, or any lot therein, including the development of domestic water, and the provision of sewage treatment, shall be done in a manner which will meet all of the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health, and the Larimer County Public Health Department, and the officers authorized to enforce such requirements. Larimer County Health Authority SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: 1, (surveyor's name), a duly registered land surveyor in the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that this plat of (subdivision name) truly and correctly represents the results of a survey made by me or under my direct supervision. Surveyor /Seal APPROVAL OF SURVEY PLAT (for properties within the unincorporated Estes Valley) This final plat has been reviewed and is hereby approved as to form as complying with all current survey requirements of Larimer County and of State law pertaining to platting \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 41 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM and monumentation: This approval constitutes neither a warranty by Larimer County concerning such compliance, nor a release or indemnity of the subdivider and his surveyor concerning any noncompliance of this plat with current survey requirements. Date: , Colorado P.L.S. No. (Signature) ,Larimer County Engineering Department (Printed Name) TOWN ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE (for properties within the Town of Estes Park) Approved by the Town Engineer of Estes Park, Colorado this day of , 20-. ,Town Engineer (Printed Name) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVAL: Approved by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners this day of , 20 . All dedications are hereby accepted on behalf of the public. This approval does not constitute acceptance of responsibility by the County for construction, repair, or maintenance of any streets, highways, alleys, bridges, rights-of-way or other improvements designated on this plat. Chair ATTEST: Clerk of the Board \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 42 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM ITEM 26 - KENNEL DEFINITIONS Section 13.3 Definitions Of Words, Terms And Phrase (Page 13-28) 129. Konno/ shall mean a commercial use with indoor and/or outdoor facilities for tho keeping, breeding, boarding or training of animals; or a noncommercial use for tho keeping, breeding, boarding or training of six (6) or more adult animals. 129. Kennel shall mean a commercial or noncommercial use with indoor and/or outdoor facilities for the keeping, breeding, boarding or training of four (4) or more adult canine or feline animals (i.e. animals over the age of three months). \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Block 7 Town Board Review\EVDC Block 7- Town Board Review (revised on May 19) 43 for May 24 TB.doc Town Board Review - Block 7 Last printed 5/19/2005 3:44 PM Community Development Memo To: Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Bob Joseph CLâ‚¬Â£24 CC: Randy Repola Date: May 4,2005 Re: Proposed Floor Area Ratio Exemption: Illustrations Two different building examples (each using two different formulas) are illustrated with the attached sheets. The first example uses a two level building with a roof pitch of 2:1. This example illustrates the floor area exemption that results from a walkout lower level that is 50% below grade: where the exclusion is a function of the total building volume including attic space an exclusion of 800s.f. of floor area is reached; where the exclusion is a function of the volume of just the lower level an exclusion of 1,000 s.f. of floor area is reached. The second example uses the same two level building, with the same 50% bury of the lowest level, but with the roof pitch increased to 1:1. In this example where the exclusion is a function of the total building volume including the larger attic space a reduced exclusion of 667s.f. of floor area is reached, but where the exclusion is a function of the volume of just the lower level the exclusion of 1,000 s.f. of floor area is unchanged. It is the staff and Planning Commission recommendation to use the Mfa/ bu#ding vo/ume fonnu/a because it is more likely to produce the intended result of limiting the visible bulk of the building as these two examples illustrate. 1 E3256-_251 Z: 1 -BCOF P'1-1-(4-l - ::.>~ 20 ft A- ]V 10 ft V -d~~0 ft > 40 ft Two-level building 40'x 50' each level (2000 sf/leveD Total floor area = 4,000 s.Â£ Ceiling height lowest level = 10 ft. Volume lowest level = 20,000 c.f Total Bldg Volume = 40,000 cf + 10,000cf (attic) = 50,000 cf EX el-al=,t co-+ -A-%, rudc-nod E'-P -12rrAL- eputoni 14Â£6 4% LUM E- ,Â· - 1 Zom OF -T35-{11-- \*UÂ©G=1 VE,L l -5, EELOGJ Â£262;6.b 50,000 ce. 7*azeporae- : 30% c>F -imAL rl-g:â‚¬>F- AR=Â·64 19 eXE=hrn-- <F 8,1,0 '62 f? EXCLL-1-122613> Â·~UnÂ¥2-. &62:Ek- 'Walkout lowest level 50% below grade ..14-162 1 50 * OF LAOPST- 4' b Nt .?'.1-m LEVEL- i S FDELAAD 4 <b#:=2Â».32:155 ,- '-I , OF< 91 LI.,1, - - 1- EXCL.deted Aip eudc-nod c~ 40(,DEÂ·ST- LEUE-L__ JC>Lut--â‚¬ : --0 \0 10(50 C=f= r 49/,% Or LOD-De.sr- LEUEL 92'L. 13,61=PG-) a=FEADE 2-010.00 te ~7*512:Â·e t-Ul<kE- 1 Â·55-076 d>F' LOUTE ST LECEl- Â·F.l-Â£Z>Â¥2:- A-Â·fa (24- 1%> EXEVI \7 1 t/FL 1 06262 91, IF, EXCLLUDED> FLZPDA Â·AÂ»42>k Walkout lowest level 50% below grade Z: 112~20 --1 19'71 .. *' ;~- ~~~ ~i~~~ - I.>---1 - me=ph#. 9014, A= UCC>ESY . Led al_ 4 5 EDELE)0-) 1 i . 25, 1=4 - . 0 ~ loic>c>o C.,tE ~~*18* ~4 , .6*: , ",0.:4:L' F, - ~ = - .E><Al-AFLE TRVT) - P. 1 Â»cor= prrr-.14 / ZON 20 ft -& Jv 10 & T /55557 50 ft < 5 40 ft Two-level building 40'x 50' each level (2000 sf/ level) Total floor area = 4,000 s.f Ceiling height lowest level = 10 ft. Volume lowest level = 20,000 c. f Total Bldg Volume = 40,000 cf + 20,000cf (attic) =60,000 cf Exe.~sted AS fbkkÂ»014 23:~ 1-*TAL BUILD i 46 45 LU Ke- 1 \ O ) OCDC> err. 72- -- 1 9 1% oF -TMAL- Ei--Par \2) L t<5 BELDLJ Of=Â·'*E (DO, eDo e--*Â¥-1 TMEFLe aplaa : 1 6. E- 72 gl== -1-2:5~2LL_ F~L-CCJFt. Aeâ‚¬-A 1 6 e.,><Â»11=sT- 42: 66,7 5,6 EXCLucen> f,LOCÂ¥=- ts*:SA Walkout lowest level 50% 0~ below grade --j 22* OF lÂ»kEST- LEO El_ lt> ff>El-olo ..' M. t.... -' 4 to,oce> 6.9 ci- ~-~}.~.< f- ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~- I; ~- -~f ~~i 444** 6% Bide,014 -AÂ» ruga-1014 ef LDUEÂ«T' LE\)-EL VOLLL ME ; - = 6-0 06 t>f LE) l.-3.6-â‚¬:F l-EUEL- SEL-Z;txS &446Â£36 20) coE> e-f= 1-8-Eg=(EFA'E- 1 SO96 OF: LOUOEST- \2OEL â‚¬Ute=*- +-*aâ‚¬A \75 E->(2Â»%=r OF< ic=20 9.,A 81<61_.U Ezâ‚¬33 f~UDEDÂ¥2:~ 0.*:GA. Walkout lowest level 50% below grade /t 5-0 Â°4:p * 1-Due-ST-- Le-VaL 19 TEâ‚¬l-00-3 * G21*Â·02_. 851=4 IC>) Doe e..fi ~emorandum To: Town of Estes Park Board of Directors CC: Town Administrator From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Date: 5/20/2005 Re: Update on sales tax data BACKGROUND Town Administrator Repola and I have been striving to find ways to analyze sales tax trends. Attached please find information that I will discuss at the Tuesday May 24,2005 Town Board Meeting. I will present: â€¢ Correlation between 1St quarter and annual sales tax numbers â€¢ Moving-average and change-in-moving average trends â€¢ Standard deviation o f sales tax revenues All of the indicators are mildly positive, offering encouragement for 2005. ACTION REOUIRED None. If ..... I 4 1 0 2 i Â·- 44 f e. , . g 14 m .=6'; 1 t--*- ~ .# Wit ' 3 4 1 . 9 2 '4.4 L I Â· 4 N 6 0 [Fr--1 >: 39 1 . M ~ C. 00 r. 45 1.Trfl 2 J . en 4 4 A A Fi| 5% & S r.1 N 68 92 Â£ -0 0. >. O/ 89= 3 e' fl . 0 g > 61 #2&242 8 4 3 2 0 =Ch Oui= /4 0:ing; 22*2e%R M N . h 0 00 00 . M N 8- M >.- 0 Â£15 0 - ..4 4 4 M d el 0\ - E Ze,b /3â‚¬= 1,731 219,615 -0.95% 253,113 15. 5% 274,452 8.43% 246,462 -10.20% 244,444 -0.82% 268,212 9.72% 255,795 -4.63% 2 2,203 282,663 3.84% 233,275 -17.47% 42.07% 301,480 -9.04% 2 313,702 6.48% 317,515 1.22% MONTH 1998 1999 2000 % ind 2001 % inc/ % inc/ 2003 0 2004 2005 16,038 246,150 13.94% 251,076 2.00% 291,508 16.10% 260,415 -10.67% 243,192 -6.61% 300,897 23.73% 279,811 -7.01% [El'Â£58 154'ZOE'9 9U'tL!'9 E I Â¢8Â£0'9 050091'9 9 !'116'5 t+0'6Z9'6 /8Â£'Â£809 264,186 256,815 -2.79% 329,263 28.21% 267,675 -7.57% 374,411 412,874 10.27% 452,373 9.57% 38 6 6.69% 432,022 -1.37% 06,713 17.29% June 649,522 667,229 2.73% 687,192 299% 751,262 2.23% 716,004 -4.69% 57,378 5.78% %56 F BL6'iL 56â‚¬*'01 IBL'9Z0'I %0EI- 9@L'~6 96â€¢01 EL!'968 58â‚¬98 %ZE-Â£ 1- Z88'09 5.G-4 KLK'966 %48'El OLE'E56 526'9 Elf'*58 H 6 9L9'88L ;snNnv %501 500'it, %LL'I- 6[1'ZiL 5'log'El- LLZ'*t7L %LL-L Ot,9' %[6 9 88Z'68L %62'6 KI' 51â‚¬gl.9 â€žqtuoidis %t,9-01 61['61 %96-+1 96â‚¬'BLD %19'9- Â£52'9/4 %[0-01- OOL'gD %40 59['56+ L[6'OLD 12(10100 V.El'g 9Â£Z' ILÂ£ %Â£6'11 â‚¬08'15Â£ %66'Ll- BOE'5[E %â‚¬0 5: oLZ'178 560Â£'17 0,Â£'LOE %Â£1-5 659'462 Â£81'082 10qUIC,AON %Â£9.11 Lyf'60* %907 EL'99Â£ 5651.t 684'kLÂ£ i.lve 8L<'69Â£ %9VI I QSE'ELÂ£ %81-9 610'MJE 165't,IE 1OqUI@30(] Â£0, A,0. 00. A 10. 5698'/1 %69'11 240 b is i %Et'E %*0 4 %5'. a-1-A TOWN OF ESTES PARK ALES TAX REVENUES 'AaN .AV Jo 34 0 % OIN ZI 222 0 M 0 1 1 30 3% o %. gUIOOUI 600000 - - 20% 15% - 10% %0 I- - %51- - %OE- $506,651 %990Â£*0 Estes Park Sales Tax Trends (% otu ZI).IE@Ual- 0/0 OUI ZI)JIBOU!1- COAV OW ZI)18@ur-I- % OW ZI- 0/LV OVV ZI--Â·~ -- 400000 300000 00000Z 000001 1 1 .0 8 h 9 5 6 H 00 7 .7= c f f 4 M 0 0 00 0 . f ri 0. 5 N g h- : - - 4 0 . % 0 0 c~ M N - 20- d Â£Â£0 r ZERA Â» . - 9 . Â« 9 4 5 5 9 206 6 # ,; & r.1 r, 0 $ 5, 0% - câ‚¬52<-i,7 w zz 61- eN-N 0 930:veR Z -NNNâ„¢NN . T.T*0 8 9 - 2 8 22 N = 0 5 2 y 000,0 - f. e W 0, 8 &2 2 REVENUES Jan Feb Mar Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 1998 221,731 216.038 272103 264.186 274,411 649,522 855,485 788,676 675,415 470,937 280.187 314.591 5.283.382 219,615 246.150 282,663 256,815 412,874 667,229 886.921 798,749 738.133 491.217 294.659 334,019 5,629,044 253,113 251,076 233,275 329.263 452,373 687,192 896.173 854.412 789.288 495,365 307,340 372,285 5.921.155 274.452 291,508 331,425 291.313 410.545 734,863 942,029 844.027 850,640 445,700 384,270 359,578 6,160,350 246.462 260,415 301.480 308,495 438,016 751.262 929,786 952,370 744.277 416,253 315.208 374,489 6,038,513 244,444 243,192 294.622 289.585 432.022 716.004 1,026,781 995,474 731.119 478.396 352.803 366,784 6,171,226 268,212 300,897 313.702 267,675 506713 757,378 975,978 860.882 741,005 529319 371,236 409,457 6,302,454 255,795 279,811 317,515 853.121 Total 1,983,824 2,089,087 2,346,885 2,007,332 2.926,954 4,963.450 6,513.153 6.094.590 5,269,877 3.327,187 2.305,703 2.531,203 42.359,245 LDL'89[ Et'L'ZZ 595'82 929'95 058'9 OIL'89 915'8* an/ lot;'It 8ZF.OZ 599'6 EZ9'6Z 6L t'[ l 253.728 271,079 306,830 288.585 458,917 741.548 977.515 936.242 738.800 474,656 346,416 383,577 6,177,892 0 4.39% 4.97% 4.67% 7.43% 12.00% 15.82% 15.15% . 7.68% 5.61% 6.21% 100.00% 5,750 9,943 13.469 1.823 40,781 32,484 47,065 65,586 (14.0 <) (656) 17.03 21,976 241.211 -0.07% -0.01% 0.03% -0.16% 0.39% 0.06% 0.15% 0.49% -0.72% -0.32% 0.06 0.12% 0.00% 980516'9 090'0 525'â‚¬0+ LO6'L85 105'Z5 L COL'[LO' 1 LtÂ·5''Lo' 1 ZI Z'98Â£ 616'1)5 Dâ€¢'62[ 651'9ZE 92 E'Of[ 580'082 6[9'9+9'9 81 0904 IL6'â€¢L[ 282'IES 159'51Â£ ZL6~00' 1 I fo'9Zo'I 088' â‚¬9L 81*'009 Â£10'60[ 564'91Â£ ZOL'00[ Â£06'99Z 1 EL'OLI '9 98'94 959'kLt 008'8 EL 141'9[6 515'LL6 815'1+L L 16'854 685'882 89Cm 891'891 91'608'5 50'09[ 198'Ll f 0[0'811 056'1[L Z15'L98 666'826 91 Z'61 Â£ 9I t'Lit LG l'89Z 591'L6Z 95..It,t 86Â£'Ott'Â§ 660'BEE 90Â£'68Z 904'19[ 660'SZL Z8Â£'86Â£ [8<088 *88'969 516'SLE 8ZL'LPZ 005'L8Z ZES' IN 96of*Z %[6'11 %[6 â€¢1 %LL'l- %fIS't %~Fol %694- %L{71- %Â£19- 9.LE*Z- %19*9- %ES % oftotal revenue 4.1 8% 4.94% 4.83% 7.04% 1 15.67% 14.67% 12.68% 8.01 % 5.55% 6.09% 100.009 %6 9 %9411 %0[t %+8'0 %09 %Â£6 9 %to- 1 %66'Z %Â£5-6 %12-82 %Lt'LI- i %51 %Â£6 1.1- %19 9- %05 U- %*8'ZI %or 1 - %â‚¬Z'Z %69 9 %06'5 %40'6- %L9'01- %05 1 1 ZOOZ 247.978 261,136 293,361 286,762 418,136 09 ,064 930,4 0 870,656 752.840 475,312 329.386 361.600 5,936,68 %row %Â£0-01- %LLL 5.ZZ-i % 1-9 %â€¢6-9 %92-6- %Â£9'11- 96Â£0 Zt %01-91 %â‚¬1.1 %22'5 %t'9'01 %gEl %.Zg'fl- %56-4- %8Â£-9 %6Z'LI %Â£5'L- %8'*9 %EL'[: %2Â£6 Â£ G %,ro- %98 1- %Â£5.L %90.5 %85'* %5 L'6 %49*0 %65*4 %18-E %2['C 1.lALSJO ff u! 30p/311! % %4.9 %1[., %.Hz.1 9' %Â£L'Z %009 566Â£ 2 564'f TOWN OF ESTES PARK - SALES TAX INFORMATION Â°/on- / %10-L- %â‚¬9 t- SOO STATISTICS/TRENDS (per month avg = 8.33%) H.LNOWAil M Short term vs Long term Long term avg Short term avg (ls) Suo 11.â€žap p.1.PUâ€¢ls [Ill Sales Tax Report: 1 st Quarter 2005 Steve McFarland - Finance Officer 1Â§9.* Sales Tax 2/3 of the income to the general fund $6.37m in 2003 $6.53m in 2004 Sales Tax 2004 Other (ck)01,1, auto rec f.,n. orof) 1296 Lurrter & Buking ~ Food 8% ' ~32Â°4 0 Food A â€¢Lodg,ng O Retail O Utility 1 Lumber & Building m Other (clothing. auto, rec, Lrn, prof) 18% Lodgrl 22% Sales Tax The first quarter represents 25% of the calendar year, but only 14% of our sales tax volume. In contrast, the 3rd quarter represents 43% of our sales tax volume. Using year-to-year comparison from 1998-present, the first quarter has fared worse than the previous year in 4 of the 7 years, one being this year. In 2 of the remaining 3 cases, the year as a whole wound up surpassing the previous year, and in the third, a 10% deficit was reduced to only a 2% deficit by the end o f the year. Estes Park Sales Tax Trends 5600.000 1 -20% - 15./0 %500,00(} - -I - I li.- $522 730 - to,; 5400,000 1 51000.0 -- 5.. 0% 00157% S200,(MN} - -10% S 11)0.000 - . 15% 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 . 1 -20% 44 4 92 + # 44 * 92 4 .62 le ,;,0 -32 ~~2 ,>9Â· a.41 4 4 .cR ~ - 12 Mo Ave - 12 mo % - Likar ( 12 mo % 1 - Linear( 12 Mo .Ave)i Standard Deviation Tbc Wandarj le. 'ion .of' or,b~bilily hriout,04 :i .findi,Â·~C ~ ' ~ Ir. d V.G.----GiF , ' A.â„¢.=09 Wi,C,Â¢ , 'h: Â·c:lod .Â· pÂ·~Â·.,ad dcnoi,i,a r bc i.,re ./1 of Â·. .c ~Â· IN ..1 of ' ./[uâ€ž i hi i...,1. i....rd 1â€¢' an.5 1.1 Th, ,imp,i . .~ ''Â·. Â·ai li,hili'.plic,ted hL... .el i.'di. /.' cllÂ· u'Â·icr#d t."on H '....' :a/Mtilli .irh/Â·ii.prc,dilloâ€žâ€žto' ..1.mh,poli.Im.'.0,> ihe .arc Â·/Ii 'f Â·.bliÂ· .orâ€¢,c:ed.,rl,nce Ii,imaâ€¢~c.,J*o,n-oi,th. i:*aJ:rd ...in (3) Ihi ilin.rd .v lii'e . â€¢ |1,1 0, 1.â€¢ i, i. p crn//1. - i /:4 : . Â·Â·'i.#1 i,~Ii.* â€¢ Phi,Cal IL,nhil'fÂ·cn uicÂ·hcil,m Â·Â·' p. - :Â· '1,â€¢H.#. fof i.eJ,-3 1,vial:i/*,e,Â·-. re-toll :i,Â·/Imc,/ iquafid'*vi....1, Jual'ill fro~ 4,:Â¥,sh.,INIc 3 Â·Anl 'Av 10 94.~ % OW ZI Standard Deviation In English... Standard deviations give us the ability to predict future outcomes (in this case, sales tax revenues) with varying levels ofconfidence. Â·1 standard deviation gives us a 67% level of confidence. Â·2 standard deviations give us a 95% level of confidence. m Cumulative Sales Tax Data - 2005 $900 000 $800 000 f / $666.4-, $600 000 $500 000 9/ --32 1400.000 1 / $300 C>00 / $200)00 Jan @eb Ma - Cumulative Sales Tax Data - 2005 $900 000 - 1@- / "34 3,6 $8. DOG ./ 1j $700000 Ifil $666.34 $600 000 -..0235-1 1 500 000 8// --41 SO --1 SD -Â·2 SD 11 // 11 // $400 000 1300 000 4~91 $200 000 J.r Feb Mar Cumulative Sales Tax Data - 2005 $900 000 / / WIll, $800 000 1 1 1 j :~21335 $700 000 MOO 000 Il / / - .2 SO | - +1 SD $500 000 )1// 02*4 49 1 -Â·1 so ~ -.2 sO 1 .00 000 1300 000 Â»>/ $200 200 Eec . af 5 Cumulative Sales Tax Data - 2005 $900.000 $09- ...10 $800.000 /~ $791,41)1 $700,000 lil// $666,5-~ - â€¢2 SO $600 000 -.SO -A,tual $500.000 H/// 02-04 Avg -Â·1 SO $400 000 Ut// -Â·2 30 ill/ 9Â» lilli $200 000 jan Feb Mar Standard Deviations o f Cumulative Sales Tax Revenue 1 - 1 -I . 1 $7,000 000 1 ..913.'84 -: 36 5.6 ' 1, 58.000.000 1 ~3,44'i /q $5,000 000 ~ - â€¢2 SD j 11-01 SD 1 54 000 000 ll Actual 1 E~ Â· 0204 Avg | --( SO 1 13 000 000 -.2 SD S 2 000 000 : $1 000 000 $0 ~ Jan Fel Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nci Dec 6 Sales Tax Report - 1St Quarter 2005 i '--Â·'*. 1 1 1 - 3-1 1 4 1 i *#A 11 .'h Â¢51 n 09; A, Pl'tlj 32&, (â‚¬4~t' ~~tit-~~~~~,9Â¢9 44fV&i~~1 j 1. ] r'-~i Â«~ 'CÂ·'>4 ~'*- + 6-9 2* 9 .43.4 li) M~.6.1 39//444 ' 464--,-'<, Wl~,~79 f~ lilli, 1.....munilly /121 Â·Â·Mr, Mcfarland. r'ay I be excused? My brain 11 full." r 7 S 2 62 rz-7-1 3 14 - I â€¢r Tt- 5=L 2:gc en .1 * :5* :~*3:2: . O 0 0 32 29 b:REE . 30 - 00 'Â·21*ZA 7 # r<EM:+1-0. .4 & 5 5 5 3 1 5 2 3 1 3 Â£ 0, 19#e,Mt-C'â€¢00 22'R# 229*#%62,%22 =U> 2 [T-;F--i U- x435355551* 1 -O .1 + --, 0 1 a *ENR31R2R5#f2 rn rn M . 239 Â£ Â£ â‚¬ v : N . 95 6 O 0 40 0 .' = .4 .O **94*.*AFRE f***5 f&Â§3f e I .. :t A b : 0/ $*Â°AA 2 2 8 8*riye, e, b D r > : 2 : ; q, * ., -7 B .1 9 - 1 P 01 M 4 9 R R R 3 3 3 5 0% y 00 C 1_*-Â©9//*= Rizimyz=:33% 29% idfi.6 4 3 568 2 2 v Â£ 01 , 2 > 7 - 40"-0 0. 8 7 + -26!22 6 4 ZFÂ§&â‚¬Z%%*W' $ 0- - I , 00 > el /4 9 ':. CL .1 5 - U - - Â£22Â£64.8.96/ 00 8 t I + + 0 0 v 1 .! n 10 el - & C E 12* 7 01*- 1. O g'Â· 2 i . 4 9 R E H i R E .els===0 - , .1 7 0 00 5 5 =mmE E.MIR@.5-51%69.3%5.1 Ir. DO TE.' eir,ArimiEREg#fi i i 284i 1 2 - - - /23#li/5311 A MONI'll 1998 1999 8'0 ind 2001 8'0 incy 2002 2005 8'o inci de: v /1 \1 1 El '08 11;)'E01'9 gMI Li:+' %!1 '1 68t't,Li 969k' 11 !;RE' %0 %Â£6 Ll- SOC'!:Ii 82,663 3.84% 3 ,275 -17.47% -9.04% TOWN OF ESTES PARK SALES '1'AX REVENLIES Â£15'8[0'9 99 1'1 :6'Â¥ %â‚¬001- 00Â£% %to t' January 219,615 -0.95% 253,113 15. 5% 246,150 13.94% 251,076 2.00% 84,16~9 RN %69-1 94, b R 874 10 'AOM .AV JO 140 % OR ZI 2 9 12 O LA 0 1 - 4Â»4 0 t. JUIOOUI 600000 - - 20% ----15% - 10% %01- - %Â§I- - %03- $506,651 %990Â£0 OP 9 40 404#40 ~4 i 0 0 19 4 10 %00 20 40> sh Aft #, Ohe60,T 6 0" *+40> 90 44,40/6/7/0/ 4 Estes Park Sales Tax Trends (% ou[ED Jeoual- (% OUI ZI) leourI- COAV OK ZI) luourI- % OUI ZI - OAV OW ZI - ~ 500000 400000 300000 000003 000001 lili 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N - d . - * f Ze 85 ..A 0 0 ae f - â‚¬ 31 I 1.E 3 01 N OC - v 0O F 8 lim r, N .I ?1?Bile a %%%%%%RE 9 5 3 M 1998 221,731 216,038 272,203 264,186 274,411 649,522 855.485 788.676 675.415 470.937 280,187 314,591 5,283,382 1999 219,615 246,150 282.663 256,815 412,874 667,229 886,921 798,749 738,133 491.217 294,659 334,019 5,629,044 2000 253,113 251,076 233,275 329,263 452,373 687,192 896,173 854.412 789,288 495.365 307,340 372,285 5,921,155 2001 274,452 291.508 331.425 291.313 410,545 734,863 942,029 844.027 850,640 445,700 384,270 359,578 6,160,350 2002 246,462 260,415 301,480 308,495 438,016 751,262 929.786 952.370 744.277 416,253 315,208 374,489 6,038,513 2003 244,444 243,192 294,622 289.585 432,022 716,004 1,026,781 995,474 731,119 478,396 352,803 366,784 6,171,226 2004 268,212 300.897 313,702 267,675 506,713 757,378 975,978 860,882 741,005 529.319 371,236 409,457 6,302,454 2005 255,795 279,811 317,515 853.121 Total 1,983,824 2,089,087 2,346.885 2.007,332 2.926,954 4,963,450 6,513,153 6,094,590 5,269,877 3.327,187 2,305,703 2,531,203 42,359,245 98-05 AVG 247,978 261,136 293,361 286,762 418,136 709,064 930,450 870,656 752,840 475,312 329,386 361,600 5,936,682 % oftotal revenue 4.18% 4.40% 4.94% 4.83% 7.04% 11.94% 15.67% 14.67% 12.68% 8.01% 5.55% 6.09% 100.00% % oftotal revenue 4.11% 4.39% 4.97% 4.67% 7.43% 12.00% 15.15% 11.96% 7.68% 5.61% 6.21% 100.00% $$ 5.750 9.943 13.469 1,823 40.781 32.484 47,065 65,586 i 14.03(h (656) 17.030 21.976 241,211 % oftotal revenue -0.07% -0.01% 0.03% -0.16% 0.39% 0.06% 0.15% 0.49% -0.72% -0.32% 2% 0.00% %90't %80-9 %NO %98 V 56[5'L %90 9 %85'* %5L'6 %t9'0 %65't %18 F %ZE-Z 11/IS Jo $5 Ul Ap/ou! % LtL'89[ ZtL'ZE 55Â§.RE 9Z9'95 058'9 OFL'89 915'8* ZEE'ZE 105'It 8Zt'OZ 599'6 Â£29'65 6LI â‚¬I as 40-Zo, 98Â£'516'9 090'6Zf 515'Fot L06'L8Â§ 105'ZSL EOL'[LO' I Ltd'+LO' I ZIZ'98L 6 I 6'I*Â§ Z+1'61 E 65 I'9Zf 92Â£'0Â£Â£ 980'08E 6â‚¬9'9*5'9 8 I Â£90* IL6'tLE 282'1Â£5 1 69'St'L 264,00'1 1 Â£0'920' 1 088'E9L 81 4'005 F 10'60E 56f 9 E ZOL'OOE Z.06'99Z IFL'OLI'9 LL5'â‚¬8 E 9It'9*Â£ 959'1Lf 008'8[L ZfZ'9Â£6 51Â¢LL6 845.1 fL L 16'89t 58Â§'8BZ 9*1'608'5 5[8'09Â£ I98'LIE 0Â£0'8 it' 056' I EL ZI5198 666'826 91 Z'6IL 9 lf'LIt Â£51'89E 59 1165 55*'M 055'0$â‚¬ 862'Off'Â§ Â£60'SEE 90E'68Z Â§0t'I 9[ 660'5ZL Z8L'86L Â£8*'088 f'88'969 9 16'SLE 8ZL'L+Z 00Â§ L8Z ZES' IZ ILE'LEE %5.9 %/1-5 %19-1 %6Z'6 %8Z' 1 %Â£.9.[ VEL'Z %9t 05 %6Z. Z- %4'f %t6'FI %56-0 ..f0*4 5.IVE %[0*SZ %[0'01- %LL'L Â°0'ZE'l- Zl'Â§ 96+6'9 %52'6- %Â£5'II- %LO'Zt %0 I'9I %EVE %ot-E 2 96Â£6'It %Â£6-*I %III- Â°/lEg + %Â£, 01 %69't %LE*l %19 9- %18'0- REVENUES Feb Mar Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 02-05 AVG 253,728 271,079 306,830 288,585 458917 741,548 977,515 936,242 738.800 474,656 346,416 383.577 6,177,892 61'5 9 1 %0Â£-17 %t'8'0 %[6'9 5'bL6'9 *04 %662 %Ld-6 %1/*8/ %Â£.FLI- %00't %5Z-51 %86-1- %L611- %19.9- %05'ZI- %*78'ZI %00- %Â£2'Z %69'9 %06'5 %l.9'01- %.Or'01- 96Â£ 1 I %ZZS %49 01 %girl Â°/6/5 E 1- %56 4- %8L'Â§ %62'LI %LE L- %8t*9 %â‚¬L-EZ %ZL'6 TOWN OF ESTES PARK - SALES TAX INFORMATION STATISTICSTRENDS (per month avg = 8.33%) HlNOW Ail EIVGIA SnOIA311 Â°/oZEI %10 L- %Â£9*f- Short term avg Short term vs Long term (ls) suolle!.ap p.1.puns Long term avg TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum May 19, 2005 TO: Town Board FROM: Bill Linnane{/0L- and Dave Maha~ 2. SUBJECT: Public Works Department Approval Request - Budgeted Item: Front-end Loader "Rollover" Payment with Forklift Attachment Purchase Background: The Public Works Department budgeted for a July 2005 Front-end Loader rollover payment and a forklift attachment for the same piece of equipment In 2001, the department purchased the large John Deere front-end loader at a cost of $90,205 from Colorado Machinery. The purchase price includes the option to receive a new loader every two years in exchange for the old one plus $2,000 and the difference in "sticker price." Colorado Machinery just informed us that the new loader price willincrease by approximately $6,000 at the end of May. They would hold the old price if the Town Board approves the purchase in May. Cost/Budget Cost â€¢ Tohn Deere Loader Exchange - Colorado Machinery, Fort Collins, CO. 2005 John Deere 4x4 Loader Exchange Price. $17,053 Trade-in: 2003 John Deere 4x4 Loader â€¢ Tohn Deere Loader Forks: - Colorado Machinery, Fort Collins, CO. 60" Loader Forks w/frame and coupler $ 3,148 Total: $15,201 Budget $18,000 (Loader Exchange / Loader Forks) Action: Staff recommends continuation of the two-year rollover exchange agreement with John Deere and exchanging the Large Loader (G70B) for a new John Deere 544J Loader at a cost of $12,053 and purchasing a set of forklift-type forks for the loader at a cost of $3,148 both from Colorado Machinery, Fort Collins, CO. BL/DM/tb