Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2007-08-28FILE_ Prepared 8/20/07 *Revised 8/27/07 -. 2-*49'{.1*··.--1/4/NIFf·..1'* 9.....,A jn Ill TOWN;Of:i.{ST{flii#Kto« -; - , <ktis , .,12/"4 ..% - r The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, August 28,2007 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 August 14,2007 and Study Session Minutes dated July 10,2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, August 16,2007: 1. 2007 International 7400 Aerial Bucket Truck - $211,451, Budgeted. B. Public Safety, August 23,2007. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 17, 2007 (acknowledgement only). lA. 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: A. AMENDED PLAT 1. Amended Development Plan/Location and Extent Review-Special Review 06-01A, Estes Park Medical Center, Hospital Addition, Park Hospital DistricVApplicant 2. ACTION ITEMS: . 0 4/ 1. BLIGHT STUDY - ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY. Director Smith and Chairman Swank. 2. 2 nd QUARTER SALES TAX REPORT. Finance Officer Mcfarland: 3. ORDINANCE #17-07 AMENDED CHAPTER 17.66.050(3) - OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, UPDATE FLAG REGULATIONS. Deputy Town Administrator Halburnt. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 5. ~ REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(e), C.R.S. - For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators - Proposed Lease for the Performing Arts Theatre at Stanley Park. Motion: I move the Town Board go into Executive Session - For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, develobing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators, under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e). 6. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 1 hp LaserJet 3015 HP LASERJET FAX invent Aug-27-2007 5:03PM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 701 8/27/2007 4:55:39PM Send 6672527 0:59 2 OK 702 8/27/2007 4:56:43PM Send 5869561 1:00 2 OK 703 8/27/2007 4:57:48PM Send 5869532 0:57 2 OK 704 8/27/2007 4:58:50PM Send 5866336 0:58 2 OK 705 8/27/2007 4:59:53PM Send 5861691 0:00 0 No Answer 706 8/27/2007 5:01:00PM Send 6353677 0:45 2 OK 707 8/27/2007 5:01:51PM Send 2247899 0:46 2 OK 708 8/27/2007 5:02:42PM Send 5771590 1:05 2 OK Prepared 8/20/07 *Revised ....:;5%*43.....:-<.r..i.<r.::.104?~?f..6< .·)*:..~'.b·. >€ The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, August 28,2007 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 August 14, 2007 and Study Session Minutes dated July 10, 2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, August 16, 2007: 1. 2007 International 7400 Aerial Bucket Truck - $211,451, Budgeted. B. Public Safety, August 23,2007. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 17,2007 (acknowledgement only). 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: A. AMENDED PLAT 1. Amended Development Plan/Location and Extent Review-Special Review 06-01A, Estes Park Medical Center, Hospital Addition, Park Hospital District/Applicant 4..... ' 7 -4/4.1 4 i hp LaserJet 3015 HP LASERJET FAX invent Aug-24-2007 9:49AM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 687 8/24/2007 9:40:16AM Send 6672527 1:07 2 OK 688 8/24/2007 9:41:29AM Send 5869561 1:05 2 OK 689 8/24/2007 9:42:39AM Send 5869532 1:04 2 OK 690 8/24/2007 9:43:48AM Send 5866336 1:06 2 OK 691 8/24/2007 9:44:59AM Send 5861691 1:21 2 OK 692 8/24/2007 9:46:26AM Send 6353677 0:50 2 OK 693 8/24/2007 9:47:22AM Send 2247899 0:50 2 OK 694 8/24/2007 9:48:18AM Send 5771590 1:11 2 OK J Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 14, 2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 14~h day of August, 2007. Meeting called to order by Mayor Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Bill Pinkham, Mayor ProTem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer Richard Homeier Chuck Levine Wayne Newsom Also Present: Town Attorney White Randy Repola, Town Administrator Jacquie Halbumt, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and invited any person desiring to participate to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT. David Habecker/1100 Big Thompson Avenue read a statement regarding the Town's incorporation of God into Board meeting through the recitation of the Pledge. He requested the Town review the Improvement Guarantee policy and include the payment of interest when cash is used. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Eisenlauer thanked Dir. Zurn and his staff for their help during the recent library book sale at the Holiday Inn. Mayor ProTem Pinkham announced Bill Hettinger the author of Living and Working in Paradise will be in Estes Park on the morning of October 1, 2007 to discuss the needs of housing in gateway communities. Please contact the Estes Park Housing Authority if you are interested. Mayor Baudek thanked the Parks Department for their efforts in maintaining the landscaping downtown this season. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated July 24,2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, July 26,2007: 1. Longs Peak Scottish/Irish Highland Festival Fireworks Permit, September 8 - 10, 2007. 2. IGA with RMNP for Structural Fire Suppression. 3. Ford 4X4 Expedition SSV, $29,467 - Budgeted. 4. Resolution #8-07 - L.E.T.A. 2008 Telephone/Wireless Access Charges of $.45 per month. B. Community Development, August 2,2007. 1 Board of Trustees - August 14, 2007 - Page 2 C. Public Works, August 9,2007: 1. RHEEM 5-Ton Air Conditioning Unit for Computer Server Room, Advantage Mechanical - $12,371.00. 2. Fish Creek Trail Phase 3A, A-1 Excavating - $35,602.50. 3. Curb & Gutter at Hwy 34/CVB - $18,000.00. 4. Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) Board Appointment - Police Chief Lowell Richardson for 2-yr term. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. PLANNING REVIEW FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2007/2008. Dir. Joseph provided the Board with a background on the development plan review fees within Town limits. He stated the Town has been collecting the Larimer County fees for development within the unincorporated portions of the Estes Valley since 2000. In 2004 and 2005, the Board adopted a new fee schedule in an effort to recover costs and since then has continued to discuss the level of cost recovery for the department. Staff recommends the adoption of the proposed 2007 fee schedule for planning review fees to meet a 50% cost recovery for the Planning Department and to bring fees in line with Larimer County with the ultimate goal of adopting one unified fee schedule for the Estes Valley planning area. Staff also suggested the proposed fee schedule could be implemented in 2 equal steps. Administrator Repola stated the Town is following the benchmark established by Larimer County Planning for a 50% cost recovery. Trustee Blackhurst voiced a concern with hiring trained personnel to perform tasks and then charging the developer for their work. He stated the end result. would be higher costs to the citizens of Estes Park. Discussion followed and is summarized: the taxpayers should not subsidize development; developers are making money on their projects and should pay for the services they use; the General Fund should not subsidize development; a cost recovery of 50% is reasonable; and who pays for planning services if they were outsourced. Mayor Baudek stressed the need to keep costs reasonable for the single-family home development. Administrator Repola suggested the Board could outsource all plan reviews at the developer's expense or convert the Planning Department to an Enterprise Fund and significantly increase development fees. Discussion was heard on whether or not fees would be accumulative, capped or discounted for multiple submittals. Dir. Joseph stated the proposed fee schedule anticipates an accumulative fee structure; however, fees collected for a variance pre-application would be applied to the submittal. Matthew Heiser/600 Freeland Ct. requested the Town Board work with the County Commissioners to develop one fee schedule for the entire Estes Valley. He stated the customer is the general public who receives better development within the valley, not the developer. He also stated the proposed fee structure is considerably lower than other jurisdictions in Colorado. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) to adopt the fee schedule in two steps with the first increase effective October 1, 2007 and the fee Board of Trustees - August 14, 2007 - Page 3 schedule will be reviewed prior to the 2009 budget process, and it passed unanimously. Mayor Baudek requested a footnote be added to the Street Name Change to denote a fee would be collected if the change is requested by the applicant. 2. ORDINANCE 16-07 TEMPORARY TURNING AREA EASEMENT VACATION, LOT 15 TRANQUIL VAIL SUBDIVISION Dir. Joseph stated the Town was approached by the owners of Lot 15, Tranquil Vail to vacate a portion of a temporary turning easement encroaching upon their property. The original subdivision anticipated a future street connection; therefore, a temporary turning area was needed prior to the future connection. The applicant's house encroaches into the temporary easement which has never been in use. Trustees questioned why Lot 14 was not requesting vacation at the same time. Staff stated the owners of Lot 15 initiated the surveying and incurred the expense to vacate the easement on their property. The Town Board would likely hear a request for the vacation of the easement on Lot 14 in the near future. Attorney White read the Ordinance into the record. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisenlauer) to approve Ordinance 16-07, and it passed unanimously. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. • The Intergovernmental Agreement approved by the Town Board for fire department service outside town limits will be discussed at an upcoming meeting on August 28th with the Board of County Commissioners. An earlier meeting was postponed due to questions/concerns by the Sheriff's Department. The modified IGA will be presented to the Board for approval. • The Fire Department was broken into and the Police Department has arrested one suspect. • Senior Center is hosting the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute tomorrow from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. with seating still available. Please contact Lori Mitchell if you are interested. 4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(B), C.R.S. - Conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions - Sale of Lot 4 Stanley Historic District and Chamber of Commerce Lawsuits. Trustee Blackhurst recused himself from the Chamber of Commerce discussion. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) the Town Board enter into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions - Lot 4 Stanley Historic District and Chamber of Commerce lawsuits, under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(B), and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 8:30 p.m. Mayor Baudek reconvened the meeting to open session at 9:20 p.m. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 10, 2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 1 001 day of July, 2007. Committee: Mayor Baudek, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Homeier, Levine, Newsom and Pinkham Attending: All Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Administrator Repola, Deputy Administrator Halbumt, Directors Goehring, Joseph, Kilsdonk, McFarland, Pickering, Chiefs Dorman and Richardson, Mgr. Mahany, Attorney White and Town Clerk Williamson Absent None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. POLICY GUIDANCE FOR 2008 BUDGET. • Affirm or revise fund balance targets - GF, L&P, Water, Catastrophic Loss • Department Priorities - 3 to 5/Department • Town Priorities -10 taken from Department Priorities • Community Services grants - Priorities • Funding & Use of Vehicle Replacement Fund • Staffing additions/deletions - Criteria DRAFT BUDGET OVERVIEW The 2008 budgets were drafted last year as part of a two-year budget. Administrator Repola reviewed the projected budgets stating the General Fund continues to show a projected increase for the next several years with expenses increasing in 2007 and a decrease in 2008; transfers are projected to decrease in 2007 by approximately $1,000,000 and increase in 2008; funds from the sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District will be placed in the Community Reinvestment Fund and used for future improvements at the Stanley Fairgrounds. The Utility Funds show substantial revenue increases in 2008. This is due to the issuance of bonds for major capital projects in both Light & Power and Water in 2008. Expenses for L&P will increase due to an unanticipated increase from Platte River Power Authority rail and coal contracts. FUND BALANCE TARGETS The Town Board has adopted fund balance targets in the past of 30% of Operations and Maintenance (0&M) for the General Fund and 25% of 0&M plus a fraction of depreciation in the Utility Funds that are industry standards and recommendations from consultants that have provided financial studies for the Town. In addition, the Enterprise Funds have target debt coverage ratios based upon minimum requirements in bond covenants for existing debt. The Town intentionally began spending down the GF reserves a few years ago to fund various projects including trails, a new visitor center and parking improvements. The fund is approaching the 30% target balance. Special Revenue Funds do not have a target fund balance due in large part to their reliance on GF transfers; however, a 5% O&M balance is usually carried to avoid potential deficit spending. f I , Finance Officer McFarland · stated municipalities with unsteady revenue streams have fund balance targets in the 20-30% range of O&M and those with steady (property tax) revenue streams have targets well below 20% with some as low as 5%. He stated 30% is conservative if you factor in the other fund balances such as the Catastrophic Loss Fund. Questions to consider: 1) Is it the best use of the taxpayers money? 2) What percentage would the Board accept? 3) What is the purpose of the reserve and how is it tied to the Catastrophic Loss Fund (CLF)? Administrator Repola stated the General Fund balance would be used to operate the Town during a short term revenue interruption and the CLF would be used for a larger Town wide catastrophe. Trustees questioned how and when the CLF was created and if other funds or CIRSA would be available during a major event. Discussion followed concerning the Town's vision and mission statements, defining level of service, how the additional funds would be spent if the fund balance was lowered and could it benefit the town in the future, how the fund balance is determined, set a range for the fund balance in lieu of a fixed percentage and use additional funds for capital improvements before adding personnel. Administrator Repola encouraged the Board to consider lowering the fund balance to complete current projects such as the Stanley Fairgrounds Master Plan. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The Town adopted a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in 2004 that is limited to certain General Fund and most Special Revenue Fund capital projects. This plan is updated annually to reflect actual revenues, expenses and projects per the Board's priorities. The Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF) continues to decline with money budgeted for improvements at the Stanley Fairgrounds. Capital investment is declining due to the GF approaching the 30% target b~lance. Even with the reduced spending, the GF balance is predicted to drop below 30% in 2011. The CIP will need to be modified if the revenue and expense assumptions hold true. VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND The Vehicle Replacement Fund (VRF) was initiated in 2002 with the purpose of funding depreciation of vehicles and to accumulate funds necessary to replace vehicles. At present, the VRFis not being funded at a level that would allow full utilization of the fund. Contributions would need to double to begin using the fund to purchase vehicles. Finance Officer McFarland reported the Town could save significAnt money over the next 5 years if contributions increased and the fund were used to purchase vehicles immediately. Administrator Repola would like to see a line item in each department's budget for the depreciation of the vehicles currently operated by that department. Discussion was heard in regards to developing a motor pool that would own the vehicles with each department paying for their use of the vehicles. Vehicles would be purchasdd from the VRF to eliminate capital purchases within the department budgets and to save money on vehicle loans or leases. Administrator Repola would advocate for the increase in funding *of the VRF and begin purchasing vehicles in 2008. BUDGET PRIORITIES The following are the Board's priorities by department: Administration • Management Training • Travel Policy - Flexible • Public Information - Structure • Minutoc More Detail • Document Imaging - Digital --Ethics-Peliey I t Finance Department • Customer Service Training Planning • Update the EVDC • Rewrite the Sign Code Municipal Code • Records Archiving • Rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan • Clarifying fees versus expenses *Iitmpact-fees • GIS Services Government Buildings • Update Public Restrooms (Plan) • Cleaning Contract • Energy Efficiency • Evaluate Employee Housing Police • Restorative Justice • Expand CSO program • Outsourcing Dispatching 911 - Analysis • Zone Initiative • Develop a Comprehensive Code Enforcement Program. Fire • Training Staff Member Analysis • Recruitment and Retention of Volunteers • Analysis/Impact of a Fire Code • Wildfire Mitigation Building • Customer Service Training for Building Inspectors (Improved Relationship) • Records Archival • GIS/Mapping Options Streets • Update PCI Data - Identify a minimum PCI • Capital Improvement Plan for Public Works Infrastructure • Maintain Snow removal policy • Improve curb and gutter maintenance and sidewalk • Evaluate and Update Drainage Master Plan Parks • Maintain current planting levels • Maintenance of trash cans • Removal of dead trees in ROW • Tree Replacement • Bark Beetle Management Light and Power • Investigate Renewable Energy • Competitive Compensation for Skilled Personnel • Maintain Holiday Lighting Water • Leakage Index of 85% • Security of Water Distribution 1 1 Senior Center • Increasing Programming Museum • Investigate the operation of hydro plant • Collect storage facility CVB • Continue to increase revenue • Expand web presence • Re-evaluate the media • Evaluate the make-up of the Marketing Advisory Committee • Add off-season event • Stanley Park Improvements • Local Marketing District. There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 16, 2007. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 16th day of August 2007. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Attending: All Also Attending: Administrator Repola, Deputy Administrator Halburnt, Utilities Director Goehring, Finance Director McFarland, Superintendent Mahany, Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: None Chairman Homeier called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Michael Dzik, Sustainable Mountain Living (SML) Group, read a statement from fellow SML member, Tom Street, indicating that the minutes from the July Utilities Committee meeting did not reflect comments made by Utility Director Goehring in regard to net metering. The Sustainable Mountain Living Group made a presentation at the July meeting, after which Dir. Goehring stated that the Utilities Department would come back to Committee in either September or October with a more complete report addressing net metering, credits, and incentives. Chairman Homeier acknowledged that the Town realizes that the SML Group is eager to pursue this topic and that information regarding net metering credits and incentives will need to be studied due to their budgetary implications. LIGHT & POWER DEPARTMENT BUCKET TRUCK REPLACEMENT (VEHICLE 93325A) - REQUEST APPROVAL. The 2007 Light & Power Department budget includes $260,000 for the replacement of Bucket Truck 93325A, a 1996 International 4900 Series 4x2 truck, equipped with a bucket aerial device which is used by the line crew for aerial line and transformer repairs. The vehicle is 11 years old with 7,850 hours and 67,540 miles. (Replacement Type 13 Policy - 8,500-9,000 hours or 12 years; this vehicle is not included in the replacement fund.) The Light & Power Department requests the purchase of a 4x4 vehicle with a similar aerial device. The choice of aerial devices is limited by the storage building door height of 12' and the taller truck chassis due to Tier 111 emissions. Bids were solicited with the following results: Altec Industries - Denver, Colorado/St. Joseph, Missouri Meets specification (Height 11'11") 2007 International 7400-4x4 w/Altec AM855 Series Aerial Bucket $226,451 Trade-in: Equipment #93325A $ 15,000 Bid Price: $211,451 Terex Utilities - Denver, Colorado/Watertown, South Dakota Vehicle did not meet specifications (Height 12'3") 2007 International 7400-4x4 w/Hi-Ranger HRX55 Series Aerial Bucket $221,017 Trade-in: Equipment #93325A $ 15,000 Bid Price: $206,017 Versalift Utilities - Colorado Springs, Colorado/Waco, Texas DECLINED TO BID r -1 '.. ..~ 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - August 16, 2007 - Page 2 Staff recommends purchasing the new truck and aerial bucket device from Altec Industries, St. Joseph, Missouri at a cost of $211,451 after a $15,000 trade-in. The Committee recommends approval to purchase a 2007 International 7400 4x4 w/Altec AM855 Series Aerial Bucket as outlined above at a cost of $211,451 from account #502-7001-580-34-42, as budgeted. The Committee commented that the budgeted amount for this replacement vehicle was substantially lower than the actual cost and requested that, if possible, any surplus funds be placed in the vehicle replacement fund. Due to the similarities in the next two agenda items, Chairman Homeier requested Dir. Goehring make a presentation that included both Utility Plans to the Committee for consideration. SECTION 3 LIGHT & POWER FINANCIAL PLAN - REQUEST APPROVAL. In January of 2007, HDR Engineering presented a Light & Power Department Financial Plan to the Utilities Committee for review. HDR incorporated Committee comments into the plan and completed it in March 2007. The plan recommends rate adjustments of +2.5% for each consecutive year, from 2008 through 2013, and reflects a cumulative increase of 15.97% by 2013. The proposed rate adjustments are necessary to fund the Capital Improvement Plan including: the Mary's Lake Substation expansion and increase in size from 20 MW to 50 MW; and Mary's Lake Substation to Estes Substation 600 amp duct bank*, ensuring electrical system redundancy and reliability. In addition, the proposed rates will allow for the completion of these projects while maintaining a projected fund balance of $2,400,000 in 2013. Mary's Lake Substation expansion $4,000,000 Account #502-7001-580-33-30 Budgeted *Mary's Lake Substation to Estes Substation, 600 amp duct bank $2,400,000 Project withdrawn Staff requests approval to accept the Light & Power Utility Financial Plan, dated March 2007, compiled by HDR Engineering, and recommends increasing the electric rates by 2.5% each year 2008, 2009, and 2010; with an update of the Light and Power Financial Plan in 2010, and a reevaluation and recalculation of any additional rate increases. SECTION 2 WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN - REQUEST APPROVAL. In January of 2007, HDR Engineering presented a Water Department Financial Plan to the Utilities Committee for review. HDR incorporated Committee comments from this meeting into the Financial Plan and completed it in March of 2007. The Plan recommends water rate adjustments of +5.6% for each consecutive year from 2008 to 2013, and reflects a cumulative increase of 38.67% by 2013. The proposed rate adjustments are necessary to fund Phase One of the Mary's Lake Water Plant Expansion/Treatment upgrade increasing plant capacity from 2 million gallons per day (MGD) to 4 MGD to meet growing demands; change the treatment type from conventional to membrane technology; and ensure compliance with upcoming State Health Department and EPA regulations. The proposed rate adjustments will allow the Water Department to implement the Mary's Lake Water Plant expansion/treatment upgrades, and maintain a projected fund balance of $1,259,000 in 2013. Mary's Lake Water Plant expansion/treatment upgrade $ 4,741,337 Account #503-7000-580-32-22 Budgeted RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - August 16, 2007 - Page 3 Staff requests approval to accept the Water Utility Financial Plan, dated March 2007, by HDR Engineering, and recommends increasing the water rates by a 5.6% each year for 2008, 2009, and 2010; with an update to the Water Utility Financial Plan in 2010 and a reevaluation and recalculation of any additional rate increases. The Committee discussed the financial plans for both utilities, noting that they are similar with the differences being the capital projects involved. Dir. Goehring indicated that public hearings will be held on October gth for Water and October 23rd for Light & Power to comply with requirements for notification of rate increases to utility customers and allow for public input on the matter. The Committee requested the rate increases for both utilities be included as action items on the Town Board agenda, and that a budget study session related to Utilities be held prior to the October 23rd Town Board meeting. Discussion followed and included: transfer of funds from Utilities to the General Fund; reduction of the percentage of this transfer to the General Fund; items expensed to the Utilities Department; budget to reflect the cost of doing business; request for an annual summary of debt service; the monitoring of financial reserves; water accounts have minimum monthly charge with no minimum usage to encourage conservation; water customers have been using less water as a possible result of more second homes in the area. The Committee recommends approval to accept both the Section 3 Light & Power Financial Plan, and the Section 2 Water Utility Financial Plan, compiled by HDR Engineering, dated March 2007, as follows: 1) a recommendation to increase the electric rates by 2.5% each year 2008, 2009, and 2010; with an update of the Light & Power Financial Plan in 2010, and a reassessment and recalculation of any additional rate increases; and 2) a recommendation to increase the water rates by a 5.6% each year for 2008, 2009, and 2010; with an update to the Water Utility Financial Plan in 2010 and a reassessment and recalculation of any additional rate increases. REPORTS LIGHT & POWER 1. Financial Reports - Dir. McFarland reviewed the report. WATER 1. Water Financial Reports - Dir. McFarland reviewed the report. The Committee discussed the financial reports including the following topics: budgeting processes, revenue projections, capital projects and bonding, depreciation, sole sourcing as it relates to water plant membrane treatment system; and a timeline for bond market announcements. The Committee requested that Dir. McFarland bring an approximate bond market timeline to the September Utilities Committee meeting. There being no further business, Chairman Homeier adjourned the meeting at 9:04 a.m. Cynthia A. Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 23,2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 23rd day of August, 2007. Committee: Chairman Newsom, Trustees Blackhurst and Eisenlauer Attending: All Also Attending: Deputy Town Administrator Halbumt, Chief Richardson, Chief Dorman and Clerk Williamson Absent Administrator Repola Chairman Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Arthur Bloom/651 Cedar Circle voiced his concern regarding the speed of the traffic between the Donut Haus and Tiny Town and jack-braking of the larger trucks. He is also concerned about the pedestrian traffic that walks along the roadway without proper sidewalks or crosswalks. Trustee Blackhurst stated a trail system is being developed and easements are being established as properties in the area are developed or redeveloped. FIRE DEPARTMENT Addition of One Full Time Emplovee (FTE) Admin/Training Captain - Request Approval. Chief Dorman provided the Committee with background on training of the volunteers since the inception of the department in 1907 stating training has been delegated to a volunteer training coordinator, volunteer training officer, training committee, line officers and the Fire Chief throughout the years. In the past 10 years, the Fire Chief has been coordinating and/or delivering all training for the Fire Department. Since September 11, 2001, the Federal and State requirements have increased the training requirements and certifications for firefighters making it difficult for a volunteer to be proficient as a training officer. The varied and ever increasing tasks of the Fire Chief have left no time for proper training of the volunteer staff. A State of Colorado Firefighter I certification requires a firefighter to perform 42 different Job Performance Requirements (JPRs) which can equate to more than 100 hours of training per year. In addition, every firefighter is trained in hazardous materials operations and medical training each equating to 36 hours of training per year. For a department of 35 volunteers this requires 6,020 hours of training per year with an average of 4 hours of preparation for every hour of instruction and an estimated 8 hours per week of administration. In order to meet the training requirements, an average of 50 classes per year would be required with additional training required for Firefighter 11, Wildland Firefighter and specialized rescue operations. Previous years training has been inconsistent and insufficient to meet the requirements, i.e. 2004/2939 hours, 2005/5535 hours, and 2006/3669 hours. In order to perform this difficult job safely and effectively, firefighters must be trained properly and consistently. A fully trained firefighting staff will decrease the potential impacts of an emergency incident, reduce the risk of injuries to the firefighter and maintain the current insurance levels for ISO and CIRSA. This position would be responsible for all department training, plan reviews of commercial properties and the development, implementation and maintenance of pre- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - August 23,2007 - Page 2 incident planning. A salary survey was conducted and yielded a salary range of $58,000 to $75,000 annually with a pay grade of 60. Staff requests consideration of the position for the 2008 Budget. Trustee Blackhurst questioned if training could be outsourced rather than add an FTE to the department. Chief Dorman reviewed a cost benefit analysis of four scenarios including a full time Admin/Training Captain, continue with the Fire Chief training the volunteers, volunteer training officer or outsource the training. He stated the Training Captain could hold the fire academy in house and save the department $400/volunteer plus travel cost a year. Chief Dorman conducted a survey and determined most departments of similar size have a training officer on staff in addition to the Fire Chief. All scenarios with the exception of the additional FTE would not provide backup to the Fire Chief as it relates to administrative duties and on call duties. Currently Chief Dorman is the only personnel that is on call 24/7. Trustee Blackhurst recommend staff provided information on the necessary guidelines for training as it relates to the Town's insurance through CIRSA and ISO. Discussion followed on the requirements for the position. Chief Dorman stated a qualified individual would have 1 year to meet certification requirements for the position. The department would first seek out qualified volunteers for- the position and then conduct a regional search if a volunteer is not selected. The Committee recommends adding the position to the Fire Department's proposed 2008 Budget for further discussion during the budget study sessions. Proposed Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Fee Schedule for Fire Service in the Unincorporated Estes Vallev - Request Approval. The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County are in the process of developing an IGA for fire services in the unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley. This agreement would allow the Town to recoup a portion of the expenses incurred for certain fire responses. A fee schedule has been developed and includes the hourly operational costs for fire apparatus with a minimum daily rate and an hourly rate for personnel that reflect the Town's cost for workers compensation, other insurance and pension funding. An additional fee schedule has been developed for properties within a legally organized property owners association that enter into an IGA with the Town for fire protection. This fee was calculated by using the median value of a home in Estes Park of $330,000 at 5.25 mils (4.25 mil levy proposed by Fire District with a 1 mil for Administrative cost) which equates to $130 per home per year. The revenue collected would be used to offset the expenses of the Fire Department. Jim Austin/1161 Windham Court stated the 4.25 mil levy proposed by the Fire District would have generated approximately $425,000 per year for properties outside Town limits. The Glen Haven Fire Department charges a flat fee of $300 per property per year. He stated a fee of $150 - $300 would be reasonable and still one of the lowest fees collected within Larimer County. After further discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the fee schedule as presented and requests the item be included as an action item with0 the Intergovernmental Agreement at an upcoming Board meeting. Reports: 1. Fire Station Break-In and Security Concerns: Sergeant Rose updated the Committee on the break-in at the Fire Department. A local video enhancement company provided photos of the suspects for the local papers from which a local identified the suspect. The equipment was recovered the same afternoon along Hwy 34. The suspect provided a full confession and was arrested and transported to Larimer County. The second suspect has not been proven to be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - August 23,2007 - Page 3 involved at this time; however, further forensic evidence will help to determine his level of involvement. Chief Dorman informed the Committee that the incident identified flaws in the security system that are being reviewed: delay in security system of up to 10 minutes, delay in recorded message heard by dispatchers, need for an audible alarm, the need for interior cameras that record, improved resolution quality for exterior cameras. Administrator Repola has requested that all Town alarms be placed on a monthly maintenance program to be facilitated by the Police Department. 2. Chip Grant for Wildfire Slash: The Fire Department has received a matching in-kind grant of $4,000 for the chipping and hauling of wildfire mitigation slash from property owners in the Estes Valley this fall. Additional information will be provided to the community in the near future. POLICE DEPARTMENT Reports: 1. Estes Valley Victim Advocate: Executive Director Mary Mesropian reviewed the Estes Valley Victim Advocates program. The program will continue to offer counseling and advocacy as well as work with the Park R-3 School District to gain a Readiness and Emergency Management grant. The Safehouse is new for 2007 and since its inception in February up through June the house has been occupied with the exception of one week. The home has been upgraded to meet requirements including ADA. She reviewed a breakdown of Safehouse donations to date that exceeds $102,000 in cash and in-kind donations. Since January through June of 2007 the program has provided 375 advocate hours and 2,754 on call hours. The Federal Domestic Abuse Assistance Program has awarded the EWA program $25,000 for 2007 commenting that the new shelter is an asset to the community and offers a welcoming atmosphere for the clients. MISCELLANEOUS Chief Richardson stated the 21St annual Estes Park Police Chief Golf tournament will take place tomorrow. There being no further business, Chairman Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:33 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I L17 T Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission July 17, 2007,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, Bruce Grant, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Attending: Chair Hull; Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Planner Chilcott Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated June 19, 2007. b. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, Grueff-Edwards Subdivision, Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, LoMED, LLC/Applicant-Request withdrawn by applicant c. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-09, Stone Bridge Condominiums, Metes & Bounds Property located at 1043 Fish Creek Road, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant-Request for continuance to August 21, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting It was moved and seconded (Klink/Grant) that the consent agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN/LOCATION & EXTENT REVIEW-SPECIAL REVIEW 06-01 A, Estes Park Medical Center, Hospital Addition, 555 Prospect Avenue, Applicant: Park Hospital District Director Joseph summarized the staff report. A development plan was approved in January 2006 for a major renovation of the Estes Park Medical Center. This amended development plan request is to allow the remodel of the existing emergency room facilities on the southern side of the building. The proposal includes an addition of approximately 6,900 square feet and renovation of approximately 3,000 square feet in the existing building. Ambulances will continue to use the same area but the porte cochere will be reconstructed to provide an enclosed area .for ambulance patients to be dropped off/picked up. Planning staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in compliance with applicable standards in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of one area of stormwater RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 July 17, 2007 drainage, as outlined below. The application mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. The proposed addition is in an area that has previously been disturbed. Site protection, slope protection, and site disturbance standards are not applicable. While some trees on the west side of the building will be removed (possibly relocated on site), the three coniferous trees in the south landscape island will be retained. The proposed landscaping exceeds the requirements of the EVDC. Planning staff recommends the storm drainage plan be revised such that drainage from the roof on the south side of the building does not flow across the sidewalk. The project engineers have indicated their willingness to make this change. This request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and cdmment. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department and the Water Department. No comments were received from neighboring property owners. Planning staff recommends approval of the revised special review. Public Comment: Ross Stephen/Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, was present to represent the applicant. He stated a sidewalk chase will be added such that storm drainage will flow under the sidewalk rather than over it.~ ' It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Tucker) to recommend approval of the Amended Development Plan/Location & Extent Review-Special Review 06-01 A to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. The routing of the roof stormwater discharge shall be redesigned 'to avoid surface flows across the sidewalk at the street. 2. Submittal of Site Construction drawings consistent with these approved plans upon application for a building permit. 1 4. PROPOSED BLOCK 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE This request is to make a number of changes and corrections to the Estes Valley Development Code. Director Joseph and Planner Shirk presented information on each proposed change. Chair Hull stated amendments to each Code section would be discussed and voted upon individually. Section 4.3.C.5, Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts, regarding floor area ratio and lot coverage applicability Proposed changes specify that all development in residential zoning districts, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%. This will affect the development of allowed uses such as day care centers, senior institutional living facilities, and private schools, which are not currently subject to these standards. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Grant) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 4.3.C.5, Table 4-2 of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 July 17, 2007 Section 7.1, Slope Protection Standards, regarding development on steep slopes Proposed changes remove the exception regarding development on steep slopes for lots approved for single-family residential use prior to the effective date of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). These properties would then be subject to EVDC Section 7.1, Slope Protection Standards. This would require applicants to provide a site plan prepared by a professional engineer for development in areas where the average slope across the proposed building footprint is 20% or greater (rather than the current 30% or greater), which should result in better design for slope stabilization, stormwater drainage mitigation, and access across steep slopes. Planning staff believes the expertise of a professional engineer is warranted for building on slopes of 20% or greater. Much of the remaining vacant land in the Estes Valley is within such areas. Staff's experience is that revisions and redesign of poorly prepared site plans for single-family homes on slopes of 20% or greater in order to address stabilization, drainage, or access issues results in unnecessary delays and additional costs for building permit applicants. Proposed Code revisions would ensure that a property owner is aware of these issues up front and would allow the owner to work with an engineer from the beginning of the project rather than having to redesign midstream. Discussion followed between Planning Commissioners and staff. Concerns expressed by Commissioners are summarized as follows: • Commissioner Tucker: Possible reduction of property value for affected lots. Addition of more restrictions on development. Changes should not be adopted to make the review process more convenient for staff and the Planning Commission to administer the EVDC. • Commissioner Klink: Elimination of grandfathering rights for properties created prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. Planning Commission should be concerned with impacts of regulations on property values. • Commissioner Kitchen: Development on small lots that are steeply sloped results in a proportionately larger amount of land disturbance than development on large lots; proposed code amendments should address this. Additonal comments: • Commissioner Hull: Development standards should not be lowered to ensure property values. • Commissioner Amos: Proposed changes are directed at lots that are not preferred for development; the value of these lots will continue to increase. The requirement to hire a professional engineer would ensure all issues are addressed and would not decrease the value of the property nor prevent development of a lot. • Public Works Director Scott Zurn: The Town is currently dealing with over thirty problems areas where last week's rains caused runoff from development on steep slopes that is impacting adjacent properties. Development in these areas occurred in such a way that revegetation of the properties is not possible. The entire community pays to clean up for individual sites that are not dxcavated, developed, and revegetated properly. • Commissioner Tucker: EVDC Section 7.1.B.2.b(4) already requires applicants to demonstrate a good plan for development. • Director Joseph: EVDC Section 7.1.B.2.b(4) only applies to properties with a 30% or greater slope. • Town Attorney White: Per the current language in the EVDC, no single-family- residential-zoned lot, whether it has a steep slope or not, will be reviewed for compliance with Section 7.1.B.2.b(4). That is the purpose of the proposed changes. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 July 17, 2007 • Director Joseph: The public is notified of proposed Code changes via legal notice in the local paper, information on the Town website, and public hearings before the Town Board and County Commissioners. Public Comment: Frank Theis, 450 Fish Creek Road, stated there is growing opposition in the community to increasing restrictions on development. He questioned how proposed changes would impact new subdivisions and expressed concern that the exact location of future homes and garages would have to be shown on plans for any new subdivision. He stated the 30% slope limit works from a developer's point of view and that he is in favor of making his own mistakes. He urged planners/Commissioners to be very careful when proposing restrictions. Director Joseph stated the proposed amendments would most frequently apply to old subdivisions rather than new ones. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 7.1 of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of, Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion FAILED. Those voting in favor: Amos, Eisenlauer, Hull. Those voting against: Grant, Kitchen, Klink, Tucker. Section 7.2, Grading and Site Disturbance, regarding site disturbance standards The proposed change removes the exception regarding grading and site-disturbance standards for development on lots approved for single-family residential use prior to the effective date of the EVDC. The standards may restrict building location and associated driveways to a location that results in highest degree of compliance with these standards, thereby minimizing site disturbance. The proposed changes are intended to implement several policies in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, including minimizing visual impact of development, visual/environmental quality, and development on skylines/ridgelines. Specifically, changes would address extremely long cuts for driveways on steep slopes and subsequent erosion problems. Although this proposed revision was meant to work hand-in-hand with the proposed changes to Section 7.1, it still has some meaning as a stand-alone revision. Public Comment: Frank Theis, 450 Fish Creek Road, stated he likes this proposed change a lot. His objection to proposed changes to EVDC Section 7.1 was changing the definition of a steep slope from 30% to 20%. He does not object to changing the Code language as it relates to exemptions for lots developed prior to the effective date of the Code. Jim Tawney, 1820 Fall River Road, expressed concern that there are too many regulations, citing his current situation of having to apply for two grading permits in order to move the same dirt on his property at two different times. He also expressed his dissatisfaction with the recently adopted Town ordinance regarding cats at large. Following the vote on this item, Director Joseph clarified that Mr. Tawney would not have been required to obtain two gradihg permits had he considered the entire scope of the work when he applied for his original grading permit. It was moved and seconded (Amo&/Grant) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 7.2 of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion PASSED. Those voting in favor: Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, Hull, Kitchen, Klink. Those voting against: Tucker. DRAFT ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 July 17, 2007 Section 7.11.F, Off-Street Parking and Loading; Location, regarding location of guest parking spaces The proposed change adds a condition regarding guest parking requirements for multi- family developments. Specifically, "Driveways may not be counted toward guest parking requirements. Guest parking shall be located to provide convenient access to all units and shall be dispersed throughout the site." Some approved development plans that technically met the Code requirements for guest parking have resulted in unworkable guest-parking spaces. The proposed change impacts multi-family development but not bed-and-breakfast uses in single-family-residential zoning areas. Discussion followed between Commissioners and planning staff. It was agreed that it would be possible for longer driveways to meet the requirements for guest parking and the proposed change was amended thus: "Shared driveways may not be counted toward guest parking requirements unless it is demonstrated the design will not interfere with adjoining traffic movements. Guest parking shall be located to provide convenient access to all units and shall be dispersed throughout the site." Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Amos) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 7.11.F of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. Section 7.11.0.5. Basins and Drainage Facilities, regarding Larimer County Stormwater Control Manual applicability The proposed change adds the words "as amended" to the current code language, such that drainage facilities must comply with the Larimer County Stormwater Control Manual, as amended to ensure compliance with the most recently adopted regulations. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (GranUKIink) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 7.11.0.5 of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. Section 10.4.A.2 regarding lot width Planning staff recently discovered conflicting Code language regarding minimum-lot- width requirements. The proposed change corrects this conflict by adding the following language (addition italicized): Lot width shall comply with standards set forth in Tables 4-2 and 4-5 and shall be no less than thirty (30) feet at the front lot line. Flagpole lots shall comply with S 10.4.A.c and shall be no less than thirty (30) feet at the front lot line or seventy-five (75) feet at the building line, or such greater width as may be required by this Code. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Amos) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 10.4.A.2 of the Estes Valley Development e *... L>RAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 July 17, 2007 Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. Secuon 10.5.H, Condominiums, Townhouses, and Other Forms of Airspace Ownership, Exemptions, regarding exemption for review of two-unit condominium projects The EVDC currently does not require review of condominium developments consisting of two units or less. EVDC standards for subdivision of property still apply to such development, but there is no opportunity for planning staff to communicate that information to the property owner. The proposed change removes subsection 3, Exemptions, which exempts condominium projects of two units or less from the appropriate review and approval. Public Comment:- None. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Tucker) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 10.5.H of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. Appendix D.1, General, regarding the Larimer County Road Standards Manual applicability The proposed change adds the words "as amended" to the current code language, . such that Larimer County Road Standards, as amended, apply in order to ensure compliance with the most recently adopted regulations. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Appendix D.1 of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion PASSED. Those voting in favor: Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, Hull, Klink, Tucker. Those voting against: Kitchen. Appendix D.111, General Site Access, regarding driveway design The proposed changes add the requirement that no driveway may be so located as to block or alter access to adjoining properties or uses and require driveway aprons to be either less than five feet in length or greater than twenty feet in length unless it is demonstrated that the design will not interfere with adjoining traffic movements. Planning staff has observed poor traffic circulation within a number of multi-family developments in the Estes Valley and has received complaints from property owners regarding this issue. Staff seeks to ensure provision of safe and reasonable access by all users of roads/drives within such developments. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (GranUKIink) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Appendix D.111 of the Estes Valley Developrrient Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. DRAFT ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 July 17, 2007 5. REPORTS Chair Hull recently represented the Estes Valley Planning Commission at a water quality forum in Loveland. Strategies to reduce impervious coverage and conserve water were discussed; many recommended standards are currently reflected in the Estes Valley Development Code. She expressed an interest in the use of porous paving materials and requested staff to research the use of these materials as time permits. Director Joseph stated the proposed Code amendments reviewed today will be presented to the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners as Block 10 amendments. There will be some additional proposed amendments for Planning Commission review at the August 21, 2007 meeting, which will be included in Block 10 if the Commissioners recommend them for approval. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:14 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary DRA_FT MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: 8-20-07 Subject: Estes Park Medical Center Location & Extent Review Revised Special Review #06-01 A Background: The Estes Park Medical Center is proposing to remodel and add 6,900 sf to the Emergency Department along the southern side of the existing building and 2,985 sf of renovation in the existing building. With this remodel and addition the layout of the Emergency area will change from the existing 3 bay trauma area, 1 exam room, and 1 ortho exam room to the proposed design of a 2 bay trauma area, 6 exam rooms, and 1 cardiac trauma room. Part of the added square footage is in an area that is an infill area along the south side of the existing building. The emergency department will be expanded there on the upper level and the lower level will be used as a file storage area. The proposed construction will not increase the height of the building as it is today. The exterior finish will be consistent with the rest of the existing building. The existing ambulance parking structure will be removed and rebuilt in the same location to better accommodate the emergency vehicles. This expansion will result in the reduction of time spent for patients waiting for emergency care, but no added personnel are anticipated at this time. Budget: No Impact Recommendation: Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of the Revised Special Review #06-01A CONDITIONAL TO: 1. The routing of the roof storm water discharge shall be re-designed to avoid surface flows across the sidewalk at the street. 2. Submittal of Site Construction drawings consistent with these approved plans upon application for a building permit. Memorandum August 23,2007 TO: Mayor Baudek, Town Board of Trustees From: Gerald Swank, Wil Smith 4 WL ~S Re: An Analysis of Existing Conditions Relating to Blight Consistent with the Town Board Goal of extending the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) beyond 2008 and consistent with the Town Board delegating to EPURA the mechanics of achieving this goal, we are pleased to transmit the attached Analysis of Existing Conditions Relating to Blight (Blight Study). This is the first step in the process of extending EPURA beyond 2008. EPURA has retained the firm of Sammons/Dutton LLC to assist in the preparation of a new Urban Renewal Plan. Sammons/Dutton LLC will be working with EPURA, Town staff and later with the Town Board. This endeavor will be completed over the next four months. Key decisions to be made in the planning process are decisions by the Town Board, not EPURA; however, EPURA will make recommendations as appropriate. The steps in the process to extend EPURA are as follows: Using the Blight Study and the evolving list of possible EPURA projects, an Urban Renewal Area WRA) will be established. This may be different from the existing URA. The URA does not have to be contiguous. A plan will be prepared, geared toward the elimination of blight and the achievement of Town goals. An analysis will be conducted to examine approximate costs of desired improvements and an estimate of potential revenues, both property tax increment and sales tax increment. When completed in draft form, the Urban Renewal Plan will be presented to the Planning Commission to ensure consistency with the Town Comprehensive Plan. Upon determination of consistency with the Town Comprehensive Plan, after public input and a public hearing and after a recommendation by the EPURA Board, the Town Board will approve an Urban Renewal Plan. Based on the Plan, and in view of financial capabilities, an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) will be drafted between The Town and EPURA to address a community improvement program beyond 2008. An Analysis of Existing Conditions Relating to Blight Town of Estes Park, Colorado July, 2007 n Epl Prepared for the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority And the Town of Estes Park By Terrance Ware Associates Table of Contents 1.0 Blight Survey Definition and Scope 2 1.0 Survey Methodology 4 1.0 Existing Conditions Survey Area Description 5 1.1 Location and Boundaries 1.1 Existing Land Use 1.1 Existing Planning and Zoning 1.0 Determination of Blight 9 1.1 Slum, Deteriorated, or Deteriorating Structures 1.1 Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout 1.1 Faulty Lot Layout . ... 1.1 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions 1.1 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements 1.1 Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities 1.1 Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title. . . 1.1 The Existence of Conditions that Endanger Life . . ... 1.1 The Existence of Health, Safety, or Welfare Factors..... 1.0 Summary of Findings 14 1.0 Sources 17 Figures Figure 1: Regional Location Map 5 Figure 2: Base Map 6 Figure 3: Zoning Map 8 Figure 4: Flood Hazard Map 11 Figure 5: Slopes Map 13 Appendices Appendix I: Photo Inventory Sheets 18 F:,rictino r-'nnrlitinng qurvpv - Tr,wn nf Eqtpq Park Tervinro~Inro Aggicint,g -1- 1.0 Blight Survey Definition and Scope The determination that an area constitutes a blighted area is a cumulative conclusion, attributable to the presence of several physical, environmental, social and economic factors. Blight is attributable to a multiplicity of conditions which, in combination, tend to accelerate the deterioration of an area. For the purposes of this survey, the pertinent portion of the definition of a blighted area is articulated in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law (the "Act"), Colorado Revised Statute 31-25-103(2), as follows: A "blighted" area means "...an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of at least fourl (or five under certain circumstances under the Act), Of the following factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare: a. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures; b. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout; c. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness; d. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions; e. Deterioration of site or other improvements; f. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities; g. Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable; h. The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire and other causes; i. Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate facilities; j. Environmental contamination of buildings or property; k.5. The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels Of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings or other improvements; or l. U there is no objection by the property owner or owners and the tenant or tenants of such owner or owners, if any, to the inclusion of such property in any urban renewal area, "blighted also means an area that in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of any one of the factors specified in paragraphs (a) to (k.5) of this subsection (2), substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. For purposes Of this paragraph ( 1), the fact that an owner of an interest in such property does not object to the inclusion of such property in the urban renewal area does not mean that the owner has waived any rights of such owner in connection with laws governing condemnation. Some legal principles have been developed by Colorado courts to guide the determination of whether an area constitutes a blighted area under the Act, including but not limited to: The absence of widespread violation of building and health codes does not, by itself, 1 Under the provisions of C.R.S. 31-25-105.5, "Blighted area" means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of at least five factors specified in section 31-25-103 (2) (a) to (2)(1), " substantially impairs...... Wriftino ranrlitinng qurvpv - Tnwn nf 14tpq PArlr Terranre'Nnre Arinrinter -7- preclude a finding of blight. The presence of one well maintained building does not defeat a determination that an area constitutes a blighted area. An authority' s determination as to whether an area is blighted.... is a legislative question and the scope of review by the judiciary is restricted. The principal purpose for determining blight and the related urban renewal plan and programs and/or projects of redevelopment is to eliminate blight or to prevent the spread of blight and/or the further deterioration of blighted areas (Sec. 31-25-107 (4.5) CRS). Terrance Ware Associates were retained by the Town of Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority to conduct an independent survey of the project area and to determine if it constitutes a blighted area as defined above. Based upon the conditions existing in the Survey Area, this document will make a recommendation as to whether the Survey Area contains the characteristics of a blighted area. The actual determination itself remains the responsibility of the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees. Exigtino rnnrlitinng flirvev - Tnwn nf 17qtpq Parlr TorrnnreAN,lro ArrnAnter -1- 2.0 Survey Methodology An important objective of this Survey is to obtain and evaluate data, where possible, on a wide range of physical and non-physical conditions present in the Survey Area. Data was collected from various public agencies and field research was conducted on these various topics: parcel and ownership patterns, titles of properties and history; traffic, circulation and parking; utilities; street, building, and site conditions; property titles; land use; environmental conditions; and compliance with the Town of Estes Park' s Comprehensive Plan and Town ordinances. Supplemental information was sought from various professionals and public agencies concerning the conditions of public facilities, services and issues in the Survey Area. Several variables have been considered, as required by the state statutes. The Blight Survey is divided into several tasks as follows: Task 1: Collect base data associated with the project and research, as well as prepare base maps of, existing conditions for the central business district survey area Task 2: Conduct interviews with individuals from various departments within the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County. Task 3: Conduct field surveys to determine if conditions of blight, as defined in the Act, exist in the survey area Task 4: Document survey findings in graphic and report forms, and present the findings as required by the signed contract Elrigtin o (™nnrlitinng Kilrvpv -- Tnwn nf Nqtpq PArlr Torrnnro Ulnre AN.Anteq -4- 3.0 Survey Area Description 3.1 Survey Area Location and Boundaries The Survey Area is located within the Town of Estes Park, which is part of Larimer County, Colorado. It is located approximately 72 miles northwest of Denver and adjacent to Rocky Mountain National Park and near the communities of Allenspark and Glen Haven. A Wyomi:18 287 1-25 Fort Collins o tes Park Loveland Rocky Min. National Park Grand Lnke I 0 Granby Boulder e Winter Park • 36 . 1 J t rn Centr , r:.., )Iden • , I .... - --·-·07,Denver .'L i.~=---- 1-70 14/1 Vail 1 1-25 FIGURE 1 The Town and the Survey Area are in a narrow mountain valley through which flow the Big Thompson and Fall Rivers. This physical setting, while responsible for Estes Park attractiveness, places severe constraints on development and/or the utilization of properties within the community. The Survey Area is an irregularly shaped area of approximately 260 acres, generally bounded by Overlook Court and Overlook Lane on the north, Community Drive on the Uvictino (-'nnrlitinng Qi,rvev - Tnwn nf liqteq PArk Torranre Ware Attarinter east, Old Ranger Drive on the west and Riverside Drive and Stanley Avenue on the south. (see Figure 2). 3.2 Existing Land Use The Survey Area is composed of a variety of commercial office, retail, civic, institutional, residential, and industrial uses. Retail uses are primarily located along Elkhorn Avenue with additional retail uses along Moraine and St. Vrain Avenues. Office and civic uses are generally located in the central business district along Elkhorn with industrial uses east in the streets off of St. Vrain Avenue. Residential uses are found throughout the study area. The age of structures varies greatly beginning in the early 1900's with new development scattered through the study area. 3.3 Existing Planning and Zoning 3.3.1 Existing Planning The 1996 Estes Park Comprehensive Plan is the applicable land use policy for the area. The survey area contains several districts identified on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the Official Zoning Map, but consists primarily of the Commercial Downtown (CBD) district which is described as: allowing many uses with the purpose of establishing the downtown as the retail, cultural, and entertainment center of Estes park." Additional districts identified in the Comprehensive Plan include: Accommodations (A), Commercial (C), Multi- family Residential (MF), Commercial Recreation (CR) and Accommodations - Low Density (A-1). Additional policies within the Comprehensive Plan address use, functional operation and design guidelines. The Town of Estes Park Land Use Code is the applicable regulatory document for the Study Area. 3.3.2 Existing Zoning The zoning map provided on the following page indicates zoning designations in the Existing Conditions Survey Area (see Figure x). Currently, the study area is comprised of several zoning districts including: Commercial Downtown (CD); Office (O); Commercial Outlying (CO); Commercial Heavy (CH); Multi-family Residential (RM) and; Accommodations (A and A-1). The combination of zoning districts permits a wide variety of uses including: civic, public, institutional, industrial, recreational, residential, office, hotels, motels, restaurants and retail uses. Fxhitino Cnnrlitinn. €111-vev - Tawn nf Ftteq P:lrk Torrnnee Ware Awncintor 6 - . I .. . a m..., m. ' U 0 =UZ' 1*: daill-illipa *@0#»1~ 0 =/ 1 ..11'f 1 dll *R · ty'" 2.183 - & ./W •,49 , - . - r... fas A weaw®*' tr # 411' :lamm.· :162.,h A i~'£~~1~~.~~~~ ~ .'*** f '*. ~ f L, 41 40'4 li2~3=diff, 61*di 0:1 .J...0- 't,!)1411,1,9.m';3.1.11!-M 1 '61!SH·"hil"R. 11,1/<.03 1,14",1,·dini:t,r lii'. - - ai „4* 4424 ~ i *.1 1,¥ Will '*0~1- ..1 14!Il *_5449-60- - 71,19,$2„"AR' *,4€4i~ . /1:'tijwtdit'TAB 1. T .kE* Aill\9'.%61<. 0, /520 P, 1 rM 1. D 4 1 talli~/Frigi~ . :AE~ed, ?bdth ®;.3 , , a Pet 4%* 9#R,%2.56 6%44,1 322>, f 115„ 318 . 424 •461- 1 *}i A 45/-5 *t€ 15.- ..... ¥ 4 - 1. 4: 1 t. · 4. n k .fi J , F••6 Zoning Districts Map of the Estes Valley 0 ---3 1 = .1, 0 0.5 1 2-7 Miles 1 1-' - ./ I . y. -1 - \ ,>% I- - il K~~~~i fl~&,~~r 1; .·r -- , U-, 1 1 1. 1 e- I /1 - *j E i I · „ 6 r '4*04 ; 77 0 «i -„ Lh ~, 9 2 - arrl l.u:1 ./1/BJEWIC, - · /1,> MIS,evy L 1 . *37-1- 1-1* , ih - ir,- _1_tiC¥~ . 11ITC 1 - 4, 4/ $11 <VA\. 1 - 2 .t..1-, 1 -1'-1/1 ' . 'W.'h ' 4' 77 LEGEND: Exieting Private Open Space Existing Public Open Space h/ E-Va.,Develof*rientCode(EVOC)Botnifuly ~ Town 01 Elles Park Boundary Estes Valley Zoning Districts m Single Family Residential Commercial LL] Rural Estate . 10 acre min. (RE-1) 621 Commercial Outlying (CO) CIE] Rural Estate : 212 acre min (RE) I Commercial Downtown (CD) CE] Estate ; 1 acre min. (E-1) [23 Commercial Heavy (CH) EL] Estate : 1/2 acre min. CE) I Office (0) Important Disclaimer I Residential . 1/4 acre min. (R) Industrial -„.4M.*I .*--*u-:141 J -,Il-*I·· --.- L.W*/w, 4'6--1-.4-J.. I blf- I Residential : 5,000 s.f. min. (R-1 ) 2 Restricted Industrial (I-1) G..*e, coum../**4 L,k4,0,~ -106~, •·-tim~-4) u,-W.-h I./.AW-..~1~~./.Ill,0~ ./6*'-Ill--UF--*- L.1,4,/ 0,64,4 aN * Tch, / Eit"PIA c-11¤* ele,pi:v I' 2,; i©! a,Kn·~ /."961'ht, 4' bilti.·I k~ bUDSB~-ri ,~aiN,i~ , U.„"01 Ulk.1r,~} Multi-Family Residential Accommodations Mo rep·-mat=9 / m/numi, as NY=////// / d/EAM, m# 101 .....er UU· ger,=0·.e .·I:~id.:i at .:...... EL Two Family : 27,000 S.F. min (R-2) I Accommodations (A) EL] Multi-Family : 3-8 du/acre (RM) [2 Accommodations (A-1) OFFICIAL ZONING MAP Ct·~Int,:Ma·,ey PL,·.r.ng kmrn,68,~r, Adopted Nov.3,1999 Revised September, 2006 -0 m 21; - 0 9 00 m W 4.0 Determination of Blight The significant findings of the Existing Conditions Survey Study Area are presented in this section. This evaluation is based on an analysis of documents and reports, interviews, and several field surveys and title review, conducted in January, February, March and April 2007. Each parcel and building along with all public improvements within the survey area were evaluated and deficiencies noted. The purpose of this existing conditions survey is to determine whether conditions of blight, as defined by the Act, exist within the boundaries of the survey area. The following standards were applied to aid with the consideration of structures and improvements: Standard, Sound These buildings or sites contain no or relatively minor defects, are adequately maintained and require no treatment outside of normal ongoing maintenance. Substandard, Minor Deficiencies These buildings or sites contain deficiencies which require minor/major repairs to secondary structural elements, such as fascia/soffits, gutter/downspouts, exterior finishes, windows, doors, stairwells and fire escapes. Sites with surface pavement deterioration of 25-75% of the survey area are considered minor deficiencies. These types of deficiencies might possibly be corrected through normal maintenance, however, replacement or rebuilding of components by people skilled in the building trades is recommended. Substandard, Major Deficiencies These buildings or sites contain major defects over a widespread area and would be difficult to correct through normal maintenance. Buildings in the major deficiency category would require replacement or rebuilding of components by people skilled in the building trades. Sites with surface pavement deterioration of 75% of the survey area are considered major deficiencies. The following conditions were observed in the Survey Area, and the factors that contribute to the blight conditions are described below. They are not listed in order of importance. Representative photos showing blight conditions in the Existing Conditions Survey Area are provided in Appendix I. 4.1 Slum, Deteriorated, or Deteriorating Structures Within the Existing Conditions Survey Study Area, a significant number of structures show evidence of deterioration. In most instances, the major structural issues resulted from buildings which are adjacent to either hillsides or waterways. Buildings built near or over the Big Thompson or Fall Rivers, are obviously subject to erosion of retaining walls and other structural elements. Buildings adjacent to steep hillsides, have similar issues, these resulting from hydrostatic pressure in the soil pushing against foundation and retaining walls. Runoff also plays a role in these issues. Many structures in the survey area exhibit minor deterioration including: deteriorating exterior finishes, caused by weathering and a lack of maintenance. Exterior walls, gutters, stairways, facades, and fencing require painting, trim repair, and/or tile replacement. Exictino Pnnrlitinng €111·vpv - Tawn nf Nqtpq PArk Te¥¥nnce Wave Aggnrintor -Q- 4.2 Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout The Study Area has numerous instances of faulty and defective street layout creating unsafe vehicular and pedestrian movements. Traffic and parking facilities are inadequate to meet peak demands resulting in serious congestion during the tourist season. Several intersections are poorly configured with extremely poor visibility. Roadways are severely constrained by buildings, limited public-right-of-way and/or topography. The limited street width has an impact on the provision of sidewalks throughout the study area as there is inadequate space for pedestrian facilities as well. Numerous parking lots throughout the study area are poorly configured and unsafe. A lack of directional aids (signage, landscape islands and curbs) within the parking facilities is a contributor to vehicular accidents due to confusion of motorists of travel laneage and legitimate parking areas. Some parking areas are unpaved. 4.3 Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility, or Usefulness The overall configuration of lots within the survey area is a significant constraint to redevelopment or utilization of the properties as well as the provision of safe vehicular access and off-street parking facilities. The long, narrow lotting pattern particularly along Elkhorn Avenue is a constraint to contemporary development practices. Redevelopment or utilization of many properties would require aggregation of several lots thereby increasing the cost and complexity of development. The multiplicity of small ownerships is an additional hindrance to redevelopment and utilization of properties or areas assembled for such purposes. Building encroachment onto adjacent lots across property boundaries is a fairly common situation in the central business district core, particularly in the Virginia Drive neighborhood north of downtown. 4.4 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Drainage facilities lack adequate capacity. This includes curb and gutters, culverts, and drainage channels which are needed to convey stormwater away from the existing facilities. These factors have resulted in the deterioration of the paved areas as well as created hazards for auto and pedestrian movement throughout the study area. During winter months these areas freeze creating hazardous situations for vehicular and pedestrian travel. Sidewalks are missing along streets throughout the survey area and other sidewalk segments are inadequate in size and condition, failing to meet ADA standards. Routes between parking facilities and retail uses are undefined. Police reports indicate that vandalism, crimes against property and persons, auto theft and graffiti have showed consistent increases in the survey area from 2004 through 2006. The Big Thompson and Fall River, while tremendous physical assets are also significant liabilities. A significant portion of the survey area is located in the floodplain. The fiood F:Yictincy Cnnrlitinnq $2111·vew - Tnwn nf Frqteq Pfirle Torrnnro Wave Awnrinter -10- 91· .-1 41 ,-1 1- 1-1- O- 214 --4, N -Ad/3 9 f -¤ 13 *$ 0 0 . 2 9 - .15 00 -- h 1 ,-,FiTF]&-IllimWKrIr[Ii]2| L- L- = . 1--1 l.-44411-- ./.r - i -*-4*E i-*111¤1*WRIT m (0 all ·l<V (D (D 21£7.:-4~ ..1,:.. 5,«r-1-7-u#- -1 < 7'~ 1 7 -J \¥Ey r?clk-1 >4 A P ~1 - 9 -n -- 1 '7*---11*9- 1 00 2 00 C (C O -O LO u i 1 4 L JE -- .\ L ' th m COO 1 1 I r X L ./ 4 LU < 16211 -1* -34.- A I. - Ilt,J· 4 <\1-6&4"4. . «TCH *f - :/> \ ' t+41: 171 -U' 4. - 9t \ / a -»0 --I LA- -9 . \ -C / -1-11 44. c rA:*,rti -4 0 4911 14 0 Qt Y k.4~~ 9414 8 #5 0. / --.- FRAf;i ~ Url 14 . t»ya LL I 2 W 1 -1 <C <C 112-40" u I.t_ m ' ' -+11-nll 1-'.DE Apnis suo!1!P VER RD hazard is exacerbated by manmade factors. Several crossings of the Fall River are susceptible to being blocked by debris resulting in overfiow of the channel. The rivers have also been encroached upon by the narrowing of the channel to create more buildable land. 4.5 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements Deferred maintenance is the most common cause of site deterioration within the Study Area. This includes neglect of landscaping, and vacant areas, exterior finishes of existing structures, parking lot surfacing, and business signage. Parking facilities and roadways throughout the study area show signs of moderate to severe deterioration. Several of the buildings within the study area have unscreened trash disposals and service areas, attractive to rodents and other scavengers, which creates an additional health and safety issue. 4.6 Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities The amount of readily developable (usable/buildable) land in the downtown is limited by the narrowness and the steepness of the of the valley bottom and surrounding slopes. This is illustrated by the number of cuts into these slopes for buildings, parking lots, and other facilities, resulting in a large number of retaining walls where cuts and fill to create more buildable areas. Vehicular and pedestrian facilities are inadequate. This includes roadways, parking lots and pedestrian facilities. Topography and historic development patterns are factors adding to this condition. Drainage facilities lack capacity. There is lack of sufficient lighting, adequate sidewalks, and drainage facilities. In addition, most of the site infrastructure including drainage, irrigation, water, sanitary and storm systems are nearing the end of their life cycle and are in need of replacement. 4.7 Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable; Building encroachment onto adjacent lots across property boundaries is a fairly common situation in the central business district core and in the Virginia Drive neighborhood north of downtown. This condition negatively affects the titles and therefore sales, development and financing of the parcels. 4.8 Buildings That are Unsafe or Unhealthy for Persons to Live or Work in Because of Building Code Violations, Dilapidation, Deterioration, Defective Design, Physical Construction, or Faulty or Inadequate Facilities A significant number of structures show evidence of deterioration. In many instances, structural issues result from buildings built near to the rivers (Big Thompson or Fall River) which are subject to erosion of retaining walls and other structural elements. Buildings built into the hillsides, have similar issues, resulting from hydrostatic pressure in the soil pushing against foundation and retaining walls. Frktinu rnnrlitinng Bin/ev - Town nf Fqtpq Pgrk Tervance Wave Aginrinter -10- . LAM 1-L = t Fam mu /* 1 -~ X.1- »1--,1411-th//4- \ - r !\,LL.L__11 / L lili -r-- dED[ED) /iii-- 1 -,0213»»-1/ 1-4 *- Loa,vitjrlf- tw' 0, •1, -1 fly; 2-_ij ,--A .- 8 LI- b U CO Ll P i 1-11 r.- § 42 :4 - Jill· · j~.:+eri m &48*20 u96¥ 001 u /4@¢*1 .»4 IN =t-=~-\A flit ; b. -4- -r -,4 61 3%,1 1 rirl r k.-114412 <pti 1: 1.7 fean <1-1-34 < 1[d[-h[[iL-1.111 1 11 1 -C 1-JI la_a... h iv >+V-1 /3 i 7944 =33{¢ .\ 1 1 O 1 \ '11/1. 4.-,5 h-lyWi j = ~.9>0- - , r Ir - . .1 0 49 .-=51--44 -i / \ \-~42#11 Uk, . / -'1 L.>tjiN~Af . t.4,J, ;' r - /1 r. *~-IR __20£2.=> 1 - ' u.-4-'r , f '* 2% %43:¥-1, 1 ' 4. - E L..9 ' f A 1024 J,&*lor-{ '.1 0 %=9--1 ..b.... .. 1 k, 42. r -1 1-/ .~L---1 \ 1MVIL J k-j - Valt E-4 1 1 -=44 Er \ i Ul- *lifilimt 1 1 . ~ 1 11-1 1 Ll. 1-1 if j..Azzl-.'3*,12~c A r. .h»:AA I / f oIl 01 III!IIIIIIIIIlII und 00r' C suo!1!puoo (Iu!]s!)<3 lope Map Atepunog ea.Iv Aprls Several buildings pose fire risks, not only to the general public, but to fire fighters as well, due to their age and the minimal standards under which they were constructed. This concerns include poor internal circulation, inadequate ingress and egress, breached or absent fire walls, lack of suppression, and alarm systems and concealed interior spaces. The water distribution system, throughout the study area also lacks sufficient capacity necessary for adequate fire protection. 4.9 The Existence of Health, Safety, or Welfare Factors Requiring High Levels of Municipal Services or Substantial Physical Underutilization or Vacancy of Sites, Buildings, or Other Improvements Fire and police protection, code enforcement, public facilities repair and replacement are all issues within the survey area, each has important public finance and cost implications. The contributing factors are many including: the age of buildings, site improvements and utilities; the impact and constraints imposed by the natural environment in and around Estes Park; changes in the population demographics of the town and; the economic environment. Few vacant properties were identified during the survey of the area. Those that were have · moderate to significant topography typical of properties throughout the area, resulting in higher site improvement costs. Exicting Pnnrlitinng 0111·vpv - Tnwn nf Eqtpq PArk Torranre Wnve Arrnrinter -14- Summary of Findings It is the conclusion and recommendation of this survey that the Existing Conditions Survey Area, in its present condition and use, is a blighted area as defined in Colorado Revised Statute/ 31-25-103(2). By reason of the presence of numerous factors identified in Section 103(2) of the Act and discussed above in Chapter 4, the Survey Area substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the Town of Estes Park, retards the provision of housing accommodations, constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals and welfare. While some properties in the Survey Area are in standard or sound condition, deteriorated and substandard conditions are prevalent throughout the area. It should be noted that this conclusion is for the Survey Area as a whole and is not based on separate individual properties. As described in this survey, conditions existing in the Survey Area constitute at least five of the factors or incidents indicative of a blighted area. The conclusion of this survey is based on the following summaries of the seven blighted conditions found in the Survey Area and described previously in this report: 1. Slum. Deteriorated, or Deteriorating Structures. There is the presence in the survey area of structures which are deteriorating, due to a combination of structural, maintenance and investment issues. 2. Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout. Narrow roadway widths, constrained by topography and the existing built environment reduces the capacity of the street system and negatively impacts on the pedestrian system as well. Poorly configured sfreets create hazardous situations throughout the study area. Some parking lots lack capacity, have inefficient internal circulation, improperly located access points, steep grades, and faded parking striping create confusion for vehicular circulation within the Study Area. 3. Faulty Lot Layout. Narrow lot sizes, multiple small ownerships and irregular shapes constrain redevelopment and/or utilization of properties in the survey area. Parking facilities, vehicular and pedestrian facilities are negatively impacted by the lot size and configuration. 4. Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions. This results from one or more of the above conditions and (a) Deteriorating buildings and site improvements; (b) Floodplain hazards; (c) Unsafe vehicular and pedestrian pathways (d) increases in crimes against persons and property, and; (e) deteriorating or inadequate public infrastructure. 5. Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements. There are numerous instances of deteriorating site improvements throughout the survey area. These conditions include: retaining walls and other site features, roadways, parking facilities, sidewalks, signage, landscaping and lighting. 6. Unusual Topography Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities. Located within a river valley containing two rivers, the survey area is impacted by floods, FY;itino ennrlitinnq Knrvpv - Tnwn nf Niteq PArle Torranro Wnre Arrnrinter -19- drainage issues and hillsides constraining development and use of properties. There is the presence of inadequate sidewalks, parking, roadways vehicular, drainage facilities, sanitary and storm systems and utilities. 7. Defective or unusual conditions title. sales and redevelopment of the subject parcels. of title rendering the title non-marketable: Building encroachment onto adjacent lots across property boundaries is a fairly common situation in the central business district core and in the Virginia Drive neighborhood north of downtown, negatively affecting the properties titles, sales, and redevelopment potential. 8. Buildings that are Unsafe or Unhealthy for Persons to Live or Work in.... Poor and unsafe emergency and fire ingress and egress; poor or missing fire suppression systems in several buildings within the study area is present. Building systems in need of repair or replacement; deterioration of structural foundations and retaining walls exist with the survey area. 9. The Existence of Health, Safety. or Welfare Factors Requiring High Levels of Municipal Services or Substantial Physical Underutilization..... The existence of conditions necessitating a higher level of services form public works, fire and police services is present throughout the survey area. The lotting pattern throughout the survey area, particularly downtown is in conflict with contemporary development practices. The long, narrow lots restrict redevelopment resulting in physical underutilization. Firigtino Pnnrlitinne Qurvpv - Tnwn nf Ectpe PArlf Torrnnro Ware AMIAnter -16- 6.0 Sources Town of Estes Park, 1996 Comprehensive Plan Town of Estes Park, Municipal land Use Code Estes Park, 1983 Redevelopment Program Estes Park, River*ont West Corridor Master Plan Town of Estes Park, Parking Study, 2006, Republic Parking Consultants Town of Estes Park, Website, http://www.estesnet.com Robert Goehring, Utilities Director, Town of Estes Park Robert Joseph, Community Development Director, Town of Estes Park Lowell Richardson, Chief, Town of Estes Park Police Department Wil Smith, Executive Director, Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority David Shirk, Planner II, Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Carolyn McEndaffer, Code Compliance Officer, Community Development Greg Sievers, Construction & Public Facilities Manager, Town of Estes Park, Public Works Department Scott Dorman, Chief, Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department Terrance Ware Associates Field Surveys, January, February and March 2007. Wrictino (-'nn,-litinng #11rvp„ - Tr,wn nf Fgtpq PArk Torinnre Ware Awnrinter -17- Appendices I. Photo Inventory Sheets Frigtino rnnrlitinng Birvev - Tnwn nf Eqtp€ PArk Torranre Ware Artne~ntor -1*- 1 i /2 .Cl r 7,)1 ..JAX- . ' 11*10 1 47+ 2, .. 1 j ' RIP,„ EM I 1 -1 M .0'-1 +N m 1' 6 1111/1-1* r.p 1) Factors 4.2, 4.4,4.6 and 4.8: The narrow width of this street vehicular constrains capacity and the ability to provide for adequate and safe parking, pedestrian movement, building access and trash removal. (Cleave Street) 1 - 1 K I , i ·~ $.' f -9- I ... R. ~'41 2 , 7#<4.- .... 1 , ti I 2) Factor 4.1: The deteriorating roof of this structure is evidence of poor maintenance and declining investment. (W. Elkhorn Ave.) NY i gtincy Cnnrlitinn f C,1 rvev - Tnwn nf 17 qtee PArk Torranro Wnre Arrn-Antog _10. - J .'- - 13$ -t.. ----I- J--'- i ..7-- 9.4 U. Factors 4.2,4.4 and 4.6: The narrow width of this street constrains vehicular capacity and the lack of sidewalks creates an unsafe situation for pedestrians. (W. Elkhorn Ave.) I I /.P\\1 A -t.5ia,~-Ji WAE ':1/...../2- Factors 4.2,4.4 and 4.8: The narrow width of this street vehicular constrains capacity and the ability to provide for adequate and safe parking, pedestrian movement, building access and trash removal. (MacGregor Ave.) Exigtine Pnnrlit;nng qui·vev - Tnwn nf Fqtpq Pirk Terrance Wnro Awn,·inter - 90 - F==0 11 *ORE CAR €4 RF WASH - 1711 1 43> I, Factors 4.1 and 4.5: The deteriorating building and site signage are evidence of poor maintenance and declining investment. (S. St. Vrain Ave.) ......W.jq=#T. '47, /1,·21* '/ y, i O, - . 1.- .S 04 Factor 4.4: The multiple curb cuts along this major roadway creates an unsafe situation for motorists entering or exiting from this high speed roadway. (S. St. Vrain Ave.) Frietino Pnnrlitinng Birvev - Tnwn nf Ingtpq Pgrk TorrancoNOn·* Awnrinte: -01 - -- £ 79./4/IM/lill - . 1 - 0... - . 04 + : ./ 1 -4.--1 .. 9./., ' I#; * I .L ' I. 6., 5*'Ed · 941 1-: 44... Factors 4.2,4.4 and 4.6: The narrow width of these streets constrains vehicular capacity and creates an unsafe situation for automobiles pulling into or out of out traffic. The lack of sidewalks also creates an unsafe situation for pedestrians. (Riverside Drive) Nx igtino Pnnrlitinng qurvpv - Tnwn nf Ficte: PR,-1, Terrance Wave Arrnmater 41 3 4. -•p=- 9/Mi/'22¥=74 .....tfl:-J~.A~~~<:- J,,ik-424:~~ -ehyttli·:.: ~'· .A»i.7-™1= .Cuff,-~-4.-1 -:.1.11-9.2-:.-PM-4.61-~2....1 2.1.-,Axa~jifu,*.,'S*·M4'769..le/ki#/ Factors 4.2,4.4 and 4.6: The narrow width of this bridge and street constrain vehicular capacity and creates an unsafe situation for pedestrians. (Craigs Drive; W. Riverside Drive, Moraine Ave) h It. ·qi 31* t /4~7 : ) i ' 4.2 4/Mb#81(:263/Wi/'14*0 /trAIL'.'14 Factors 4.2,4.4,4.6 and 4.8: There is no physical differentiation (curbs, gutters, signage, sidewalks, etc.), between the roadway, parking lot, and intersection, leading to confusion and creating and unsafe situation for motorists and pedestrians. (W. Riverside Drive and Moraine Ave.) Tivigtino Pnnrlitinng qurvpv - Tr.wn nf Eqtpq PArk Torrnnee Wnre A '<forintor - 01 - 0 1 I ·# + I :04 h.4 4 - 4. 9.u: :,42.9,7 .r . ·- ~-Lisk..3, .2.34*., 7,=U.*-2:CU- .,c.*L 2 5:r,- ·, . Factors 4.2,4.4,4.6 and 4.8: The layout of this intersection and the lack of signage, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks creates an unsafe situation for automobiles and pedestrians. (W. Riverside Drive and Moraine Ave.) --Ii=Im-9 tifimt-/1 •4 -~ 14. - 1 '.... --.. t'. ..14 &- 1 44. r 9.- Factor 4.5: The deterioration of the parking and access drive (cracking and spalding) is common throughout the study area. (W. Riverside Drive and Moraine Ave.) Flrictinornnrlitinng qurve.1 -Tnwn nf Fktpq PArk- Te¥¥nnee\klnre Awnrinter - 74 - 11 -11 <t "6 t. - ic•- '1&.9;j K 'i b + ~8>tit/¢4·- lial//84/1 22;2#fi Le , f; C . . I .., '1„ . i . ·t. . ,;4#ti~ -' Mi *2*1<~lijA~E~*Fi J..8.---' .1. 214334*EUM·'- Fy?{Pil'mr addill"irt -11 :te .v . - €5··7-75*krf:r'...6,-- -Evt'A"347 I *. git ..r~~e:~ ~* - ".... 1~.'"I'll"'. ·31*Jk>.A»frj}** 71,? Al...4.1-F-94192¢~* M . ' 4 'z*'14, ·· · '-· ~ 441· :-4«'.7:**.2 " Factors 4.1 and 4.8: This dilapidated structure is indicative of a lack of maintenance and investment. (Weist Drive) i t / 4 ' - 4 . iv ./r.- 1. --»4> I. b* AL,42#Bff..64 · .//-.*.,> . k.kf·am - ' .. 1 ' ....., - >VIA.69 e Factor 4.5: This crumbling retaining wall dilapidated structure is indicative of a lack of maintenance and investment. (Comanche Street) Rvigtinc Cnnrlitinne qurve,/ - Tnwn nf Fqtpq PArL- Torrance W,ire Acqnrinte< -75 - A / 1 J 44 , ·u t ,ir-+:-1 - lm= . - -* ./ * '34 --o- . .%..4 1 9. 41 .1."wiriel libaRJ.efi~ --~-42 - c.'/5~~- ™-42~-~ -·em>t. Factors 4.2,4.4 and 4.6: The narrow width of these streets constrains vehicular capacity and creates an unsafe situation for automobiles backing out into traffic. The lack of sidewalks also creates an unsafe situation for pedestrians.(Comanche Street, top photo, Dunraven Street, bottom photo). Nxigtincy r'nnrlitinng fill·vpv - Tr,wn nf Ect- PArl, Torinnro Ware Aunrinte< - 76 - 0 J' L - /. -- - r J - 6 -, -1-12*k.--61%244€ES- reT. .PAC . -9-7,/ 5/0% 49 ... 11 r-11::mil - - „iliblitti'vall'llihilliliB -lvi I ....„177 1 - . t: f -· - - r ' p. .-U-:#. ' ' r i.'/-1.4.· If .... f.. ).- 31-42ta-•A•=A I: iti~*·./ Factors 4.5 and 4.8: These deteriorating improvements are common throughout the survey area. (Comanche Street, top photo, Stanley Avenue, bottom photo). FY iqtino Pnnrlitinn q qi,rve.1 - Tnwn nf 14Qteq PArk Torrnne,Wnve N Trneinter 77 - , , Wi. - 42"276& 3%'4 .16//4/////'bz/r- LI,2-hi' SEED©r f/je.**Mt 1%/m/5118////I--c ~,-~ =292« -- i *.6..3 -~•»-.It• =-tor ..€. 7.- I P • 4/7-#.... 'iee.; A..Al//0~22--.yll, L - :D 4,9 -f-44'f,/1423*9/2443"/idi 1 1 . 1*1 #ft. *7 -ix . ~ V i \444.4 ~ *4 IK \\, 47-1.-44--:i--PA~ 0 1 4*, tif¢~43 4>134,¢11€,d#ime,E:3.7 0(~ *1* 0,-". 7e,U.W.., h k: Tm 0/ai-ox ' , ..F-- 1/31:,11*-, ; -4 ' ' /6/. ./. ' i g. I I - 155.:::. =L. < - , a =f =- 2 -:10.1 94% -i.J'.-I-~--/..L6&'I.- 1il .#I- J 1.$2/6 Factors 4.5 and 4.6: The unusual topography creates drainage, erosion and access issues, as well as accelerating the deterioration of site improvements. (Cleave Street) Exh:tinc Panrlitinng qi,rvev - Truvn nf F.tri PArk Tor ranre W nve A -ne;ntel -OR- 4/9." f v 1-1/9.Ly//~IR~ A///- - -...50 .. A A. 4. -*-7 ,E i,I.Jitf '1 . ..." lill 'll 1 11.-, - .,4 ki Ni = *6· h : ·· . - r - . N-,1 7 ' itt; i ,*_ , ··?t i- N . 4- d 1-· C 1 I / ., , 1 -+AE .- '' 4, i L<WA - U>-jf - - » Factors 4.5,4.6,4.7 and 4.8: The unusual topography and presence of two rivers, creates drainage, flood, erosion and access issues for many parcels located adjacent to the rivers. (Moraine Avenue) VITY'877,#316#v-,9.3/ « 7 1, 256/ -1' 91 ----7 - ..L 1/111 - I -- -r---- ----V --/ '11 I1 Factor 4.1: Secondary deterioration of structures is common throughout the survey area - evidence of poor maintenance and declining investment. (Moraine Avenue). F nitin o Cnnflitinng qi inipv - Tnwn nf Flete€ P:,rk Ter,-rinre Wnve Aftne;nter -70 - - .' . Factor 4.1: The deteriorating building fagade is evidence of poor maintenance and declining investment. (Moraine Avenue) L ig _ i, 1- _4):lk / 2 :. .1 4 - .- 1,41.- - Factors 4.5 and 4.8: The deteriorating roadway surface creates a safety hazard for pedestrians and requires a higher level of public maintenance and costs. Alley behind W. Elkhorn Avenue). Flrigtin c Cnnrlitinng flin/pv - Tnwn nf 17:te. Pariz Tervnne,>~Inve Awnrinter - 10 - .19-11/71£1/eIFI #Illl,"rili:/r g .r\·.-VAW,dial:~i r. W / I.-7 , ' 2 ' .- 1 7~m---- . *. - -11-U@C - . .....i . f. aitium""le#M~*MEN#Dr.*. 34242*"5 5:*3 : I N 4/4, . I . Factor 4.5: The site on which this vacant building sits at Monford Avenue and Woodstock Drive is beginning to show signs of deterioration indicative of decreasing investment and underutlization. ~~'- I..; 3.1 .Liwip#90/ -/49./Ejeep'Fd"MVA/V-#496/I Fl!~ .' 3~IL#:- -0 /" .1.-£.82- /4 =A- 04-·- 5, 1. -0 I :4 ~,~ .277· -D- .. Factors 4.4: The lack of sidewalks along this section of Community Drive creates an unsafe situation for pedestrians. FY{.tin e Pnnrlitinng Qui·ve.1 - Tnwn nf Tht/q Park TerrnneoUJnve Argarinter -11- F - 1 2 14 - 1 lili , . -21 · -4 - :. .7 III . . -11, 1. li .Am- 1 i * i~----:-» r -- „ -J- _ -C-% -77171 i: t. - 1 1 m U 1 .1 . .1 1 * Factor 4.1: This deteriorating fagade is evidence of poor maintenance and declining investment. (Dunraven Street)) rORE WASH - RANT 1 1 uzzzI - EN-S 11 --1 1.--- - . .L 9 ./ - I. *I -: * - .1 Factors 4.1,4.2, 4.4 and 4.5: The unpaved parking area, lack of sidewalks, lack of adequate room to maneuver vehicles, forcing them to back into the street, junk all contribute to the sense of declining investment (S. St. Vrain Ave.) Flrigtin o Cnnrlitinng .qi irvpv - Tnuin nf Fqtpq PArk Torrance Ware ANIAnter -37 - - r---~ ~• 9.1.2 1 ... f i. , f 1'911 .- 4 1 ·r 4.1 7. k 6.,9.-/ e.· M .2·t 4 - i. .,P:.k'I: .B k·i t € -hi... 'f- 4 1. .tilly - . -%'. .;22:-23¤522 Factor 4.1: This deteriorating structure is evidence of poor maintenance and declining investment. (Steamer Dr. & Highway 34) : .. 01 X i -A -1 2 . e. 1 1 . trm-- , 1 t- I ,/Z . I -.1 .. .1. . M ' 7 144 4 0 ,. , Factors 4.4: The lack of sidewalks along this section of Highway 3$ and Steamer Drive creates an unsafe situation for pedestrians. Frictino Cnnrlitinng qurvev - Tr,wn nf 17:tpe PArk Terrince Wnre ANIcinter -11- * 1, . . - 0, in =j . *1 - - < I Of-1. Factor 4.5: The land use at this site (Steamer Drive and Highway 34) is incompatible with the higher intensity uses which have developed on adjacent properties indicative of physical underutilization. Existing Conditions Survey - Town of Estes Park Terrance Ware Associates - 34 - Finance Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Repola From: Steve MeFarland, Finance Officer Date: August 28,2007 Subject: Sales tax report, 2nd quarter 2007 Background ~ Attached please find the report on sales tax progress through the second quarter of2007. Documentation Sales tax for the first half of the year, as a percent of total annual revenues, is very predictable. Since 1998, those ratios have been 37%, 37%, 37%, 38%, 38%, 36%, 38%, 37%, and 38% - remarkably consistent percentages. Based on this, one ought to be able to extract a fairly accurate estimate of annual revenues. The caveat with extrapolating an estimated revenue figure with only 37-38% of revenues on hand is that each percent margin of error equates out to roughly $200,000. Regardless, this method forecasts 2007 sales tax revenues to come in at the $7.2-7.4m range. We are continuing to develop alternate methods of projecting sales tax, primarily because the 45-day lag on sales tax would not allow us much opportunity for budget adjustments. The two existing methods we use forecast sales tax to fall between $7.1-7.3m. We are working on two more leading indicators but want to test them before pronouncing them useful. All of the above projections are encouraging as our current budget for 2007 sales tax revenue is $6.8m. We willlikely be revising this number in the budgetary process. The slide with "Estes Park Sales Tax Trends" shows that sales tax revenues are increasing at a pace of 4.9%. Slides are also provided for revenues by category for the past 3 years and for categories as a percent of total revenues for the same period. Note that the Utility category is our second largest source of income for the first quarter! Evidence suggests that we are on track for meeting our sales tax goals, the largest source of our revenues. Action steps requested None. t 1. a** Sales Tax Report: 2nd Quarter 2007 J80!#O eOUBU!.8 - PUBIJB:pl/\1 8Aels 0 *4 d U 0 GO 5% ahead of 2006; 4.0% ahead factoring in 'UIt.L Burlenbo '21151 2nd Quarter Sales Tax Facts I LB'OFL'ES OJOAA SonUOAO-H JUDX Jo JIBI[ 1Sly 'Kne)!1016!H Through first half of year: cr 0 I 1 . M b 41' ¤ ' b PJE O b pull ' - 000'00047$ ZOOZ 9001 9001 *002 €001 1001 LOOE 0001 666L 9661 REVENUES BY QUARTER $8,000,000 - $7,000,000 $6,000,000 - 000'000'9$ -- 000'000'£$ 000'000'ES - 000'0004$ 0$ .AaH OAV Jo BID % OW ZI < O 1 00 I <b. * m 13 RE i <0.4 2 -9 44 3 0044 2 36 94 i 63% I *004 4 & 9%9% 2 -13 + 3 0.00* 0 94 2 12 94 i 4%64% 3 022 9% L z 227 4, ,~ 2 *t~ ch *« 2 46 9 z 4.%6 13 4;5 2 4/ 4 + E « 9% z -73 % 2 40 + d> 2 k~, i 00. 9% 601% 9 2 4 9% gUIOOUI $6UU,UUU - -- LU'yo - 15% $579,954 - 10% %0I- - %9I- - %01- '' '''I'' June-07 12 Mo Rev. $6,959,447 = $6.77M %£617 = 001[ opy ZI LO-@unf 2nd Q 07 Sales tax Estes Park Sales Tax Trends - 12 Mo Ave - 12 mo % -Linear (12 Mo Ave) -Linear (12 mo %) ~ $500,000 $400,000 000'00£$ 000'ooz$ 000'00I$ I . hl3 HlO ¤ drION© 138¥dd¥- dnONS 3AllOWO1nVO dnOMS ONIallne 9 83£!INA-ll dn0393SIONVHObl31AI 1¥hl3N39¤ dnOND ONISGO-I[l dnobID AlllIlnl dnoble 000=1¤ Zooz 900E 9001 Revenues by Category $3,000,000 $2,500,000 000'000'2$ 000'009'LS 000'000'L$ 000'009$ 0$ I. 0 hl3 HlO ¤ dAOHO 13hl¥ddVi %09 dnOble 3AllOINO1AV¤ dnOWD ONIallne 9 &38IAIn-II drIOb!93SlaNVHOWEIN 1Vhl3N39¤ Revenues by % of Total dnoble 9NI90O1¤ dROUS Alllanl %0, dnOh19 0003 ¤ ZOOZ 900Z 9001 80% %0Z TOWN OF ESTES PARK Office Memorandum To: The Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Jacqueline Halburnt Date: August 24,2007 Re: Ordinance amending certain flag dimensions BACKGROUND: Our current municipal code allows three permanently displayed flags per lot, but only the American and State flags can be a maximum of forty (40) square feet. The third flag is limited to a maximum of fifteen (15) square feet. With the additional of an official town flag, staff is recommending changing the code to allow the American, State and Town flags to each be a maximum of forty (40) square feet. All other flags would remain limited to fifteen (15) square feet. BUDGET/COST: There is no cost implication to change the code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance to allow the Town flag to be a maximum of forty (40) square feet for consistency of our governmental flag dimensions. ORDINANCE NO. 17-07 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.66.050 AS IT RELATES TO FLAG SIZE OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO WHEREAS, in honor of the Town's ninetieth (909 anniversary of incorporation, the Board of Trustees sponsored a contest to choose an official town flag for Estes Park; and WHEREAS, 3,574 votes were cast by members of the community including students from the elementary, middle, and high schools; and WHEREAS, the existing municipal code allows the maximum individual size of permanently displayed American and State flags to be forty (40) square feet; and WHEREAS, the existing municipal code limits the size of any flag other than the American and State flags to be fifteen (15) square feet; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined the maximum dimensions of the official town flag should be equal to the American and State flags. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO. Section 1. That Section 17.66.050 (3) Exemptions, shall be amended to read: Flags shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) flags per lot. The maximum individual size of a permanently displayed American flag, Colorado flag, and official Town of Estes Park flag shall be forty (40) square feet. The maximum individual size of all other permanently displayed flags shall be fifteen (15) square feet. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO THIS DAY OF ,2007. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2007, and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of ,2007. Town Clerk F. L E TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION Tuesday, September 11, 2007 5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Rooms 201 & 202 170 MacGregor Ave. AGENDA 1. Transient Vendor Licensing of Community Special Event Vendors in the Commercial Downtown "CD" District. 2. Bond Park Usage. hp LaserJet 3015 < HP LASERJET FAX invent Sep-7-2007 12:07PM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 745 9/ 7/2007 12:02:19PM Send 6672527 0:36 1 OK 746 9/ 7/2007 12:03:00PM Send 5869561 0:34 1 OK 747 9/ 7/2007 12:03:39PM Send 5869532 0:32 1 OK 748 9/ 7/2007 12:04:16PM Send 5866336 0:33 1 OK 749 9/ 7/2007 12:04:54PM Send 5861691 0:37 1 OK 750 9/ 7/2007 12:05:36PM Send 6353677 0:33 1 OK 751 9/ 7/2007 12:06:14PM Send 2247899 0:32 1 OK 752 9/ 7/2007 12:06:51PM Send 5771590 0:40 1 OK IF, Administration Memo To: Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Randy Repola AL Date: 9/7/2007 Re: Special Event Vendor Licensing and Use of Bond Park Study Session The study session will focus on these two issues: the desired uses of Bond Park and the attributes of a special event vendor licensing policy to complement Bond Park uses. Furthermore, staff will discuss the impact of the special event license policy options on customers of the Fairgrounds and Conference Center. Background: At the June Community Development Committee, staff was directed to research and draft a proposal for licensing special event vendors (non-permanent businesses such as the craft fairs held in Bond Park and the seasonal Farmers' Market). The proposal was presented to Community Development Committee at its August meeting. The Committee discussion identified two issues requiring further Town Board evaluation. The general issues are creation of a new category of business license for temporary vendors and the desired uses for Bond Park. Staff began researching "Special Event Vendor' licensing in response to past complaints about the impact of craft fairs in Bond Park. In addition, licensing transientvendors could also provide a better opporturity to monitor sales tax collections from certain special events. Information on licensing practices from other communities was gathered as part of the effort to create a special event vendor licensing policy and fee structure for the Town of Estes Park. This information was presented at the August Community Development Committee meeting. However, at the meeting, concern was expressed that the proposed policy could have a negative impact on vendors using the Fairgrounds and Conference Center. The Committee directed staff to evaluate the matter further. The second issue, the use of Bond Park, is related to the licensing considerations. The current layout and surface are not conducive to many of the events held in the park. Therefore, if the Town desires to minimize the impact of events on Bond Park, then the special event licensing policy can be structured so as to encourage event organizers to use another venue such as the Fairgrounds. However, if the Town desires to continue the same level, or increase the intensity of event use of the park, then staff recommends two considerations. First, park layout and surface of Bond Park should be reconsidered via a master plan. Secondly, any new licensing category should be designed to encourage event usage that matches Town objectives for the park and the downtown area as well as the Fairgrounds. Options: There are at least three options to consider regarding the licensing of special event vendors. One is to require all special event vendors to obtain and display a special event business license. This option provides a response to complaints about temporary vendors throughout town. However, there is no indication if the proposed fees will be viewed as creating the sense of equity that certain businesses have advocated. Furthermore, without an exception for Fairground and Conference Center renters, it may impose an additional fee on customers already paying substantial rental fees for use of Town fadlities. Another option would be to only require special event vendor licensing in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district. In addition to being a possible response to concerns of downtown business operators, this option would not require Fairground and Conference Center renters to purchase licenses. Finally, status quo is alway€ an option. The current method of licensing special events is to require the organizer to obtain a business license; all vendors operate under that one $200 license. If the Board senses that the current scenario is not a problem, no action is necessary. Other options may be considered at the discretion of the Board. 1 Town Clerk's Office emo COPY To: Community Development Committee Town Administrator Repola From: Jackie Williamson Date: July 27,2007 Subject: Community Special Event Vendor Licensing Background: At the June Community Development meeting, the proposed special event licensing fees and procedures were discussed. At that time, the Clerk's office was instructed to write code language to implement the new fee schedule and licensing procedures. The Clerk's office was also instructed to work with the Farmers Market in the process. A letter was sent to the manager after the CDC meeting in June; however, no response was received as of the date of this memo. The proposed code language has been incorporated into the current business licensing language and has been reviewed by Attorney White. Budget. N/A Action: The Town Clerk's office requests the consideration of the proposed Ordinance for community special event vendor licensing. 5.20.010 Business license fee. (a) There is imposed a business license fee on the privilege of carrying on or engaging in any business, profession or occupation within the Town, which business, profession or occupation consists of the selling of goods, wares, merchandise or service; the performing or rendering of service, for charge; the leasing, renting or furnishing of accommodation units; and the carrying on or engaging in any nonresident business or community special event. Each business, profession or occupation conducted at a separate physical location, regardless of ownership, shall pay a business license fee. (b) Each individual accommodation unit which is separately owned, including but not limited to a condominium unit, shall pay a business license fee for the individual unit as provided in Section 5.20.030. An entity or company managing one (1) or more accommodation units, including but not limited to condominium units, shall also pay a business license fee for the management business separate from the business license fee paid by the owner of the individual accommodation unit. (Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 18-93 §2, 1993; Ord. 20-01 §1,2001; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004) (c) Each community special event vendor that engages in business within the corporate limits of the Town shall first obtain a license from the Town Clerk. The community special event coordinator is required to have a General business license. Anv community special event coordinator or special event vendor with a current Town business license is exempt from this business license fee.. 5.20.020 Definitions. In this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: (5) Community special events means any event at which a business, profession or occupation is conducted where goods, wares, merchandise, service or the performing or rendering of service, for charge, is conducted or sponsored by a nonprofit association or organization. 0) Community special event vendor means any business that sells or offers to sell anv goods, wares, merchandise or service in coniunction with a community special event. Community special event coordinator means the individual or organization that is responsible for the management of the community special event. (7) General business means the carrying on or engaging in any business, profes- sion or occupation within the Town which business, profession or occupation consists of the selling of goods, wares, merchandise or service or the performing or rendering of service for charge; except the carrying on or engaging in an accommodation, building contractor, community special event or home business. occupation or accommodation within the Town as follows: (1) One-half (M) the business license fee may be paid at any time, provided that full payment is required on or before June 30 of each calendar year. (2) Any new business, profession, occupation or accommodation which begind its business on or after January 1 and on or before June 30 shall pay the full amount of the business license fee. Any new business, profession, occupation or accommodation which begins its business on or after July 1 and on or before September 30 shall pay one-half (M) of the business license fee. Any new business, profession, occupation or accommodation which begins its business on or after October 1 and on or before December 31 shall pay one-fourth 01) of the business license fee. All business license fees subject to this Subsection (2) shall be due and payable upon submittal of an application to the Town Clerk's office. (3) In the event any existing business license is not renewed in the subsequent calendar year on or before July 1, the business license shall be deemed to have lapsed. A new business license fee in full must be paid by the owner. There shall be no proration of this business license fee. (Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 18-93 §5, 1993; Ord. 15-97, 1997; Ord. 20-01 §5,2001; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004) (b) Community special event vendor fees shall be collected bv the community special event coordinator and remitted to the Town Clerk with the name of the vendor, vendor's sales tax information, name of event and date(s) of event at least 10 business days prior to the start of the event. 5.20.070 Violation. It shall be a violation of this Chapter for an owner of a business, profession, occupation, ef accommodation or community special event vendor or any person subject to the business license fee imposed herein to fail or refuse to make payment to the Town of the fee or in any other manner to evade the collection and payment of the fee or any part imposed by this Chapter. (Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 4-04 §1,2004) 5.20.080 Revocation of license. The Town, after giving written notice to the owner of any business, profession, occupation, ef accommodation or community special event vendor who has either failed to pay the fee in accordance with Section 5.20.060 may revoke the license of the owner. Upon revocation of the license, the owner's right and privilege to conduct the business, profession, occupation or accommodation within the Town is terminated. (Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5.20 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO TO INCLUDE COMMUNITY SPECIAL EVENT VENDORS WHEREAS, it is necessary for Chapter 5.20 of the Municipal Code to be amended with regard to licensing of community special event vendors; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to adopt certain terms and restrictions for the licensing of all vendors associated with special events; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, has determined it is in the best interest of the Town to amend the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado by the adoption of this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: Sections 5.20.010 (c), 5.20.020 (6), 5.20.030 (6), 5.20.040, 5.20.50 (b), 5.20.060 (b), 5.20.070, and 5.20.080 Sub of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: 5.20.010 Business license fee. (c) Each community special event vendor that engages in business within the corporate limits of the Town shall first obtain a license from the Town Clerk. The community special event coordinator is required to have a General business license. Any community special event coordinator or special event vendor with a current Town business-license is exempt from this business license fee. 5.20.020 Definitions. 0) Community special event vendor means any business that sells or offers to sell any goods, wares, merchandise or service in conjunction with a community special event. Community special event coordinator means the individual or organization that is responsible for the management of the community special event. 5.20.030 Amount of license fee. The business license fee is set forth as follows: (6) Community Special Event Vendor The business license fee shall be as follows: Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2007. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2007, and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of ,2007. Town Clerk 3 Town Clerk's Office Memo To: Community Development Committee Town Administrator Repola From: Jackie Williamson Date: May 31, 2007 Subject: Special Event Vendor Licensing Background: A meeting was held on April 1 901 with Bo Winslow, Laurie Button, Jacquie Halbumt and Jackie Williamson to discuss special event vendor licensing as requested by the Community Development Committee. The following is being proposed: • Definition: Special Event Vendor means any business, whether local or not, who sells or offers to sale to consumers any goods, wares or merchandise, in conjunction with a special event. • Special event organizer would obtain a General business license for the event ($200.00). • Fee Structure for Vendors Only: 1 day $ 10.00 2 days $ 15.00 3 days $ 20.00 4-7 days $ 25.00 8-30 days $ 50.00 +30 days $200.00 • Fee would be collected by the special event organizer and submitted to the Town Clerk's office with the fee deposited into the General Fund. Sales tax information would be collected by the organizer and submitted with the payment. + A license would be issued by the Clerk's office to be displayed at the bootMent. The organizer would be responsible for delivering the licenses to the individual vendors and ensuring the license is displayed. Budget. There are approximately 16 special events held at the Fairgrounds, Bond Park and the Brewery parking lot with 536 vendors. Revenue is estimated at approximately $9,825.00. The cost associated with collecting and issuing the licenses would be minimal once the associated database is in place, estimate $100.00 in materials per year. Action: The Town Clerk's office requests the consideration of the proposed special event vendor licensing proposal and fee schedule with specific code language to be adopted and in force prior to the 2008 season. ™ N N,- (24· t.0 (NI cD NeCONC\¢9 h N N ,- O 0 0 1-0 0 r <9 0 10 1.0 0 1.0 0 0 l.O 0 0 0 0) 1-0 LO r C) C)CO r r r "t &&2 2.= S C) £8 ¥0 2 00-08 - cor 51&&1 1 5 ® Am / [1- O W LU LU .~ O O W o € € € - (D (1) m m macc etivo.O.0. C 0 O *-EWLILilli 81(0-E in E 00 Z dz cce Ae< M Culco< COE & 75 75 45 :2 43 11 22 95 ..i .5 4/ (D a 2rea g §22.22%623.2 0 U) < 1- 1- 1- 1- H O LL U.11- O- H U.10 Z 0 0 0 0 U) ~ M LL -0 -0 -0 -0 -O -f ji -Z U- 11 -f X -O -1-•CCECC 1- 6- L~ |-(0'13013%(0% 1.&/>4 <a*222220-0-0-**0-0-o O -9 c 2 5 2 8 2 -9 2 2 E E v Z k ~ 03&-m-me'%*mooococuoocof -1 00 00 1-L U_ IL LL LI_ m LO CO CO DD OO m U. 00 1 82 Z - & 02 0 8:98% -~22€22 3 g &2 be - r j, E o I o &~ € ~ E -7 1% m 1-20&€HPIU)(0..SE®(0 2 111 if ., E € € .2 3 0 0 U- 26 - :t: g c» 2 > t: E.9 00.6 Ecia.9. 5588: 1.Ll <<SIV.6 <iI_ILLI <COI C/) JLL 00918'6$ NIZATION # OF VENDORS # of DAYS (Numbers are appr xim s based upon 2006 events) ts Department s Department Volunteer e Department ial Event Vendors Park Events Department rabia Hors Clu ms - Volunteer committee airgrounds Llama Association* 4}nUJeEI UOA ueeiio 18)peIN SJ@U.lied XelleA saisa 101 supped leAnsed sloos Mied Xeluels 's ised lo airgrounds airgrounds . I U) L A Co C - C O 0 C U 0 0 c 09 C 0 2 2 2 .9 di 0 4) r - CIO co e ·0 CO L .0 45 2 3 0 2 0 C C C - n U) 4 w (0 -0 0 £ E 0 45 r.- 1 0 0 9 4 m c O 0 1 m 9 > *64 N .!9 . E ~ ~8 s 0 (0 E CE's .¤*b ££2.& 5'gISS 1 292>%4 %2113 O 4- .O Crl a v o 2 b 2 Mi 73 3# 22 8 20 2LuowS EEs O 75 3 76 2 71 0 -S o v'502~g000 0 LQ .8 C! .0 3 2 EGO CL - c m 0 ; 2 0.i % 4 M 0 - - 0 0 0 ® 0 .% M * 2 co r- a.81 0- 0 0.-1 >,93-60 2 0 0 0 00< --Joutau) 73 - .92 6 2 N 0 (0 2 ... =>- = L C CO R 2* O u) ae 6 o a) .. 6 „, 0 £ AR>,13·* c 02,5 2 0 m ro m m O 0 R >, u, S £ 33% 0000 0 9 m m >•a) C C .% 5. ·C L. E LL % 00 0 0 2 50 0 Co a) AO 3 X C d) C 0 kE (0 6 4- : T3ii et 05 2 wg 0000000 0 00 0O Ot.00 B m 0000000 0 00 0 6 0 A.E o d 0.g u,uloto ouso o 0 16 000*€ 16 0 Lri E r-NT--r-CNICNILD 10 Lf) r- r r-lf) m ~ (\1 r- r- a..O 69 69 64 64 69 64 69 69 06 64 666$09= Bee 6><J U) CD 0 0 >> CD 2 E E 0 0 Yes Annual License over 30 days $200.00 iness for less than 4 Jed lenp!A!pul MUNICIPALITY TRANSIENT/SINGLE-DAY VENDOR BUSINESS LICENSE SURVEY e Joi 1!Ulled xe V L leuo!1!Ppe ue Joi Municipality License Fee Amount Other Info. Yes Not Profits are exempt Colorado Springs e dlers License su0!Wool 000 L Lt esue SaA e JOJ 1!luled xel sales J JUGA) leped a eA!}noesuoo *L/0092$ seA Yes SeA seA seA 06BWA SSeLLIMOUS Aspen Avon Breckenridge Durango Fort Collins Fredrick Ueplog uoilounr pueJO uospung luou.I6uol 1!eA JOSPU!/\A Telluride