Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2008-05-27·r c., //. 1 8 p-I I '' 4.4 f 5 3% I :61 F<LE- 1 Prepared 5/19/08 *Revised 1111 TOWN Of {SE PARK 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, May 27,2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated May 13, 2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities - Special Meeting, May 15, 2008. B. Public Safety, May 15, 2008: 1. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Larimer County Department of Human Services for HUB Juvenile Assessment Center. C. Public Works, May 22,2008: 1. .Drainage Master Plan, RC Consulting Engineering, $50,000 - Budgeted. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, February 5,2008 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, April 15,2008 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Special Meeting, April 17, 2008 (acknowledgement only). 7. Intent to Annex Resolution #12-08 - Big Bear Estates Addition. Public Hearing scheduled June 24,2008. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Update on Hermit Park. Meegan Flenniken 2 ..» A . 3. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of) Mayor Pinkham: 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. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. The Promontory at Kiowa Ridge Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #4, Lot 6, Mary's Lake Replat, The Promontory, LLC/Applicant. B. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. The Peaks at Mary's Lake Lodge Condominiums, Lots 3A & 3B, Mary's Lake Replat of Mary's Lake Subdivision, Don DeBey/Applicant. 2. The Timbers of Estes, Lot 3, Schroeder Resubdivision, Mark Theiss/Applicant. C. AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. The Promontory at Kiowa Ridge Condominiums, Lot 6, Mary's Lake Replat, The Promontory, LLC, Ken & Cherie Martin, Jeff & Patricia Van Bogaert, & William & Sandra Cepica/Applicants 2. Rivers Pointe Downtown Condominiums, Units F, 2B, 2C, & 2D, James Haber & Sandra Petrie/Applicants D. SPECIAL REVIEW, REZONING, DEVELOPMENT PLAN 08-04, PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Sapling Green Development, Lot 35, Grand Estates Subdivision; Basis Architecture/Applicant--Staff requests continuance to June 10, 2008. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1.1St QUARTER SALES TAX REPORT. Finance Officer Mcfarland. 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATISTICAL UPDATE. Director Joseph 3. TOWN POLICY FOR USE OF TOWN FACILITIES. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 5. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the prlenrip w:aq nrengrpri Jackie Williamson From: EP Administration [ir3045@estes.org] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 12:33 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 0347 ST. TIME 05/23 12:22 PGS. 2 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5866336 Chamber of Commerce 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1 t Tom Ewing, 1082 Fall River Ct. May 27,2008 Concerning the Elkhorn Lodge development proposal You may have been surprised at the recent action ofthe Planning Commission. We want you to know that many of us living here agree with and applaud their decision, not just the "nimbys", but many concerned citizens from all over the Valley. We heartily commend the Planning Commission for doing its job - not just rubber-stamping a craftily-designed Staff proposal, but carefully studying the proposal and its implications, honoring our development Code, and making a decision based on sound reason and legal documents and what they believe is best for our Town and all who live and visit here. First, know that we appreciate the developer - a man of excellent reputation and accomplishment who has made every effort to meet with and listen to neighbors and make suggested adjustments. BUT - we understand-tliatihis original plan did not include affordable housing units and the so-called bypass road, that these were forced on him by others, resulting in the need for high-density housing along the so-called by-pass in order for the developer to make the project financially feasible. As far as the proposed by-pass, which isn't really a by-pass, but in reality just a connecting road, twisting and snaking up and down the steep slopes on both sides through a proposed high density residential area made possible only by cuts and fills. Someone has called the road as platted "a horror in the middle and a disaster at both ends" as it dumps traffic into Elkhorn and Moraine Avenues. How can you justify packing private homes on 1/3 acre of land now zoned for 2.5 acres? There was purpose in that designated zoning. Is there anything other than the $ sign that would suggest such a dramatic change? Have you looked recently at the south side of our Town along route 7 behind Park Hardware and other store fronts, the triangle between Stanley Avenue and Comanche Street? It's disgusting! Let's clean up that disgraceful "blight" and make a nice park-like area of affordable housing, using EPURA money for which that kind of project is intended. As for the Elkhorn property, in addition to restoring historic buildings and some retail, accommodations, and homes complying with present zoning, how about some imagination and creativity. With little effort and impact on precious land, there can be a wonderful sledding hill with a pond below for ice-skating for residents and to bring into Estes Park families for winter fun who will also patronize downtown shops and eating places. Around the pond winter-sport-related retail and snack shops will provide winter full-time and part-time employment for first or second family incomes, including weekend jobs for students. The same land would be preserved in other seasons for family picnics, etc., and for wildlife habitat and viewing close to town, all to benefit Estes Park and its economy. What is the purpose ofthe "by-pass"? Ifthe Town leaders believe a true by-pass is needed, for security concerns, emergencies, or to relieve downtown traffic, make it a priority project, construct it in the most direct and economical location without trying to gain approval and financing by linking it into a development project where maybe it can be approved on sentimental and nostalgic feelings ofthose who wish to retain the historic buildings.. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 13, 2008 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 13th day of May, 2008. Meeting called to order by Mayor William C. Pinkham. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Chuck Levine, Mayor ProTem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer John Ericson Richard Homeier Jerry Miller Also Present: Attorney Greg White Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Pinkham 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. PROCLAMATION: Mayor Pinkham read a proclamation for Arbor Day and proclaimed May the month of the Tree. PUBLIC COMMENT David Habecker/Town Citizen stated he has requested the Town Board refrain from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of their meetings. Now in addition to that request, he asked the Board to send a letter to the State Representatives stating the Trustees of Estes Park are no longer able to recite the Pledge due to the violate of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom from religion. He also requested the Town publicly apologize for any offense caused by the recitation of the Pledge and for the recall. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Estes Park Housing Authority would meet Wednesday, May 14th at 8:30 a.m. in Room 203. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated April 22,2008 and Joint Town Board and EPURA Study Session dated April 30,2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, April 24,2008: a. Policy Manual - Cash in Lieu of Construction for Required Improvements. b. Prospect Ave. Surveying/Engineering - Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, $8,500 - Budgeted. Board of Trustees - May 13, 2008 - Page 2 B. Community Development, May 1, 2008: CVB 1. Estes Park Fun Run Festival, June 14, 2008. 2. Praise in the Park Concert, June 20,2008 and July 25,2008. MUSEUM 1. New Sign, DaVinci Sign System, $12,552 - Budgeted. C. Utilities, May 8,2008: 1. Small Wind Energy Pilot Agreement, $25,000. 2. 2009 Ford Escape 4x4 Hybrid, $27,179 - Budgeted. 3. Policy Manual - Net Metering Policy and Interconnection Agreement. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Cash in Lieu of Construction for Required Improvements. Director Zurn reviewed the policy that would allow developers to pay cash for required improvements such as sidewalks for an in-fill lot. These improvements would be completed in the future when additional improvements are made in the area for which the cash was being held. 2. Town Hall Light Fixture Upgrade. Director Zurn stated the Platte River Power Authority "Lighten Up" program has paid for approximately 50% of the cost to replace the light fixtures in Engineering, Administration and Community Development. The new fixtures will save the Town 42,900 kWh and reduce the annual electric bill by $3,697. A third phase will be completed in 2009. 3. Wind Energy. In March, the Light & Power Department submitted a letter to the Governor's Energy Office indicating an interest in partnering on a Small Wind Energy Pilot Project. The L&P has been selected to participate in this 50/50 cash incentive program with an agreement to match up to $25,000 to be used for the promotion and a $5,000 cap per installation. Per the GEO the equipment must conform to the land use policies of the local governing body. 4. Net Metering Policy and Interconnection Agreement. Director Goehring commented the policy would credit the customer at one kWh for one kWh produced month-to-month for up to one year. The policy stipulates if a customer has produced any net excess electricity at the end of one year, the Utility would purchase the electricity from the customer at the Utilities avoided cost. The proposed Interconnection Agreement provides a mechanism that allows the connection of privately owned and maintained renewable Energy sources such as wind and solar to connect to our distribution system in a safe manner. 5. Campground Shuttle Route, Estes Park Campground Stop. Town Administrator Halburnt stated the Town has entered into the third year of a three-year program to provide a shuttle bus system to the public during the summer season. The campground route was added to the system in 2007. Complaints were received shortly after the addition from the residents on Hwy 66, specifically regarding the EP Campground stop. In the spring of 2008, the residents continue to complain and have asked that the bus stop be eliminated from the route and/or use smaller buses for the route to address their concerns with safety, speed and noise. Highway 66 is classified as a minor collector to provide a connection between destinations and as such the roadway is adequate to support a transit system. Smaller buses would not adequately serve the route and a two hour route would not be viewed by users as reliable. A successful transit system should be consistent. Board of Trustees - May 13, 2008 - Page 3 Deputy Town Administrator Richardson commented the Police Department has been collecting base ambient roadway noise levels and speed data. The average ambient noise level for the roadway has been measured at 72 dba, an allowable noise level range. The noise from the diesel· buses range from 68 to 73 dba. Staff has located a gasoline powered 25 passenger bus at a cost of $2,000/month with maintenance an additional cost. Carol Beidleman/County Resident was present to represent the neighborhood on Hwy 66. She reiterated that the Tunnel Road residents would like the EP Campground stop eliminated as a shuttle stop due to the noise, safety and speed of the buses. She stated the Town has overreached its authority with the shuttle system that extends into a county residential area. The neighborhood complaints included the buses were too big, loud, fast, frequent, disruptive, irritating, inefficient, wasteful and polluting. The residents contend that the bus drove by mostly empty in 2007. The neighborhood requests the Town address their concerns and if the stop can not be eliminated they would propose smaller buses less frequently. Matt Riley/Estes Park Campground Concessionaire commented the shuttle service provides service for campers that do not have a car, eliminates increased traffic from guest that chose to drive their large vehicles to town or to the National Park and provides transportation for employees, family and friends to the campground. The campground received 100% positive support for the shuttle that provided reliable transportation to town to purchase supplies, shop and dine. The free shuttle has become a "reservation decision maker" for many of the campgrounds customers. He stated the shuttle numbers will grow as the route is advertised and tourist become more aware of the service. Trustee comments were heard and are summarized: the three year experimental program has provided information on the problems and successes of the program; the feedback is appreciated and will help facilitate a future capital program during the upcoming budget cycle, a gas powered bus may be an acceptable solution to address the noise concerns, if ridership continues to be low the route should be adjusted, would like staff to investigate the possibility of only stopping at the campground every other hour, the campground stop is important and should be maintained, the service is needed in the community, the continuation of a shuttle system is an advantage for Estes Park now and in the future. Administrator Halburnt stated that if you increase the campground stop to every two hours ridership will decrease and the stop should then be deleted. Staff will come back to the Board with final costs of the gas powered bus. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. APPOINTMENT: ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY. Trustee Blackhurst/Chairman of the Housing Authority requested the appointment of Matthew Heiser for a five year term commencing on May 14, 2008 and expiring on May 14, 2013. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Levine) to approve the appointment, and it passed unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION #09-08 ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - FIRE FEES AND RESOLUTION #10-08 APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION. Finance Officer McFarland stated the creation of the Fire Services Special Revenue Fund would aid in allocating funds collected for fire services and allow the fund to carry over from year to year for purposes set forth by the Fund during the budget process. The fund would also segregate fire activities Board of Trustees - May 13, 2008 - Page 4 previously listed in the General Fund and transfer budgeted revenues and expenditures to the newly created fund. The new account would require a transfer from the General Fund in an estimated amount of $800,000. The fire service billing is estimated to yield approximately $125,000 for a total of $925,000. The 2008 Fire Department budget was approved for $921,027. Minor adjustments have also been made including the addition of interest and the increase in the purchase price of the budgeted fire truck. Trustee Blackhurst requested the entire 2008 budget of $921,000 be transferred to the new fund. This would allow the fund to retain the fees paid in 2008 for fire services in the county. Trustee Homeier agreed stating the reduction in General Funds to the new account gives the perception that county fees are indirectly going into the General Fund. Bill Van Horn/Task Force representative reiterated without the approved 2008 budget amount transferred to the new account, the perception would be a diversion of fire subscription fees paid by county residents into the Town's General Fund. The county residents want assurance that the funds raised by the subscription would be used for fire services only. He also expressed a concern with the reduction of donations received by the firefighters. Jim Austin/Task Force representative restated the subscription fee would eliminate donations used by the firefighters to buy equipment at their discretion. He would encourage the Board to refund money to the volunteer firefighters for the donations lost. Mike Richardson/Volunteer Firefighter commented the donations have decreased. He stated concern that the new subscription fee would decrease Town funding for the Fire Department. David Habecker/Town Citizen questioned the need to transfer the entire 2008 budgeted funds. He understood the subscription fee was needed to reduce the Fire Department's reliance on the General Fund. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Ericson) to approve Resolution #09-08 and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Miller) to approve Resolution #10- 08 with the appropriation to be amended from $800,000 to $921,000 as budgeted in 2008, and it passed unanimously. 3. BARK BEETLE ORDINANCE #08-08. Director Zurn commented the Mountain Pine Beetle is beginning its proliferation in the Estes Valley and its immediate adjacent forests. The Town is in a position to decide to actively manage this infestation through education, identification and enforcement. The proposed Ordinance would authorize staff to regulate the management of the beetle on privately owned properties. The Ordinance is similar to the current State and County regulations that are enforceable within Town limits. Resources for these agencies are limited. Therefore, the proposed Ordinance would be enforceable within the Municipal Court and if required as a referral to the Larimer County Forestefs office. The process was reviewed as outlined in the Ordinance. Mike Richardson/Town Citizen questioned who would be responsible for removing the trees and if the air curtain burner would be available to contractors. He stated local contractors should be used when possible. Director Zurn stated the air curtain would be available to dispose of any tree within the valley. 4- - Board of Trustees - May 13, 2008 - Page 5 Frank Theis/Town Citizen expressed a concern with the potential of a different level of enforcement for property owners within Town limits versus the County. Attorney White read the Ordinance. It was moved and seconded (BlackhursVLevine) to approve Ordinance #08-08, and it passed unanimously. Mayor Pinkham called for a break at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:13 p.m. 4. RESOLUTION #11-08 APROVING THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY CONDITIONS ANAYLSIS (BLIGHT STUDY) AND PLAN. A joint meeting of the Town Board and the EPURA was held on April 30,2008 with discussion including changes to the Urban Renewal Area. EPURA recommends revising the map to include the addition of the Stanley Park ball fields, the old elementary school building and a triangular area east of the intersection of Highway 36 and St. Vrain Avenue. EPURA opposes the elimination of the businesses on East Elkhorn Avenue as the fagade improvement program should be available to all businesses downtown. The Conditions Analysis provides no justification for inclusion of Lots 4,5 and 6, Stanley Historic District or Stanley Village. Director Smith stated he received public comment this morning to include the Stanley Hotel Carriage House within the new URA plan. Trustee Blackhurst requested clarification as to the inclusion of the Elkhorn Avenue corridor. Director Smith stated the downtown corridor was included to address aging infrastructure and to provide seed money for a potential fagade program. EPURA Chairman Swank commented the inclusion of the entire downtown provides equal opportunity for improvement in the future. EPURA Commissioner Wilcocks stated there may be an unforeseen improvement in the next 25 years to the downtown corridor. Town Attorney White stated the boundaries of the new plan must be contiguous for TIF financing. In 1988, the Town and EPURA entered into a cooperation agreement providing review of EPURA projects by the Town Board through a concept review. Bill Van Horn/County Resident requested the inclusion of the Stanley Village. Byron Hall/Town Citizen requested the inclusion of the Stanley Carriage House for the benefit of the Stanley Museum. Marie Richardson/Town Citizen questioned how EPURA affects property owner rights. Administrator Halburnt stated projects would only be public improvements unless the property owner agrees to a public/private partnership. Attorney Benedetti stated eminent domain can be used by the Authority with the Town Board's approval. Dick Brett/Town Citizen questioned the need to include Lots 4,5 and 6 Stanley Historic District as the area does not contain development and therefore not blighted. Mayor Pinkham noted that letters have been received from the School Board, Library Board and the Hospital Board for the discontinuance of EPURA. Board comments included concerns with the fagade program and the need for historical preservation, the uncertainty of the old elementary building, no urgency or immediate need for the continuation of EPURA, areas can be added later to the plan, without EPURA the Town would lose a funding source Board of Trustees - May 13, 2008 - Page 6 for public projects, additional information is needed prior to the new areas being included in the plan, the Town needs to continue reinvesting in the infrastructure, EPURA provides financing options and the possibility of public/private ventures·, the Board needs to work jointly with the EPURA Board on improvements. Trustee Homeier questioned the renewal of the Authority at a time when there is no clear objective. EPURA has been misunderstood and there is significant skepticism amongst the community at this time. He does not support the continuation of EPUFU\. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Miller) to approve Resolution #11-08 with the inclusion of the Stanley Park ball fields, the old elementary school building and a triangular area east of the intersection of Highway 36 and St. Vrain Avenue, and it passed with Trustee Homeier voting 'No". 5. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT TIME EXTENSION AND FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT STONE BRIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. Town Board approved the preliminary subdivision plat on November 27,2007 with staff conditions. The plat would subdivide the 4.9-acre parcel into three separate lots. The northern lot, where the Van Horn Engineering building is located, would be one lot and the southern two lots would be developed in accordance with the approved Development Plan with 24 detached residential dwelling units. The final plat complies with the preliminary plat and the staff conditions including the approval of the flood plain map revisions from FEMA. Corey La Bianca/Town Citizen stated FEMA flood insurance maps are developed for flood insurance and do not take into account whether or not an area would be a hazard or major flooding events. The local community has the option to establish more restrictive regulations that are above those of FEMA. Dr. Ken Czamowski/Town Citizen with 33 years of experience in Natural Resource Management and Water ' Resource Management with the Department of Interior expressed concern with the flood plain on this property. The Fish Creek Water Association request the final plat be continued to allow the Town's official flood plain manager and the Association's consultant to review the new FEMA map. Attorney Randy Willard/representing the . Fish Creek Water Association requested the Board give further consideration to the FEMA process, wildlife considerations and safety issues prior to making a decision on the subdivision. Bob Trump/ Fish Creek Water Association President stated citizens have the right to object to safety standards along Fish Creek and object to the impact on the view corridors the development would have on the adjacent properties. He urged the Board to reconsider the subdivision. Ron Norris/ Association of Responsible Development President read a statement from Larimer County Commissioner Randy Ubanks. He requested the Board consider the affects on wildlife and the quality of life for those living in Estes Park when making a decision on the Stone Bridge Estates subdivision. Frank Theis/CMS Planning and Development and Bill Van Horn/Town Citizen stated the concerns raised are those related to an approved development plan. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Blackhurst) to approve the time extension of the Preliminary Plat and the Final Subdivision Plat for Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision, and it passed with Trustee Ericson abstaining. Board of Trustees - May 13, 2008 - Page 7 6. TOWN POLICY FOR USE OF TOWN FACILITIES. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson reviewed the current policy for use of Town meeting facilities. Currently the rooms are available for use by non-profit organizations, charitable organizations and other government agencies. There is no policy outlining acceptable uses of Town facilities. The proposed policy outlines acceptable uses, unacceptable uses, alcohol uses, appropriate fees and identifies staff members responsible for managing use of Town facilities. The room agreement and use form have been modified to include a non- refundable $25 fee for the use of the Board room and the Training room and a $50 per hour fee for staff time to operate the audio/visual room, if requested. Board discussion is summarized: the Town Board room should not be used to promote a specific political candidate, candidate forums are an acceptable use, caucus trainings and town hall meeting are an allowable use of Town facilities, addition of E.5 - other recognized clubs/groups/individual, addition to policy to address a refund of fees when a meeting is cancelled by the Town. The Town Board requested staff bring the policy back to the next meeting with suggested changes outlined above. 7. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. Attorney White reviewed the current status of lawsuits with David Habecker (Recall of Mr. Habecker), Fish Creek Water Association (Stone Bridge Development), Stanley Hotel (sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District and Technical Review of development proposal), Chamber of Commerce (Town's ability to market Estes Park). 8. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e) C.R.S. - Conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions and determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators - Sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District . It was moved and seconded (Levine/Blackhurst) the Town Board enter into Executive Session for the purpose of a conference with Town Attorney White to receive legal advice under C. R. S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) and to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators Section 24-6-402(4)(e) with regard to the sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 11:50 p.m. Mayor Pinkham reconvened the meeting to open session at 12:10 a.m. and adjourned the meeting at 12:10 a.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 15, 2008. Minutes of a Special 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 15th day of May 2008. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Blackhurst and Ericson Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Utilities Director Goehring, Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent None Chairman Homeier called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m., and opened the Public Hearing regarding Water Activity Enterprise: Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant Upgrades. In 2006, the Town of Estes Park contracted with HDR Engineering to perform a study of its water treatment facilities to evaluate capacity and determine how to meet future drinking water demands and EPA requirements. Sarah Clark, HDR Engineering, reviewed the study which addresses the Utilities' desire for water treatment plant upgrades to provide reliable and sufficient capacity; be adaptable to regulatory changes; minimize risk to the potable water supply, minimize operational costs; and be adaptable to the existing water system. Phase I upgrades will utilize submerged membranes to expand the treatment capacity at the Mary's Lake Plant to 4 MGD. Costs for Phase I include $2,518,348 for membrane procurement, construction costs of $2.5 million for a total of $5.5 million, including contingencies and funding costs. Discussion followed and is summarized: if current system were to meet peak demand, problems would be evident in the distribution system storage tanks resulting in a drop in water pressure and outages in higher elevation areas; tank storage capacity holds approximately 24 hours worth of water usage; major costs would be involved in upgrading the Glacier Creek Plant (Phase 11) as the entire facility must be brought up to code, and the location is remote; redundancy in the system is important and is being addressed by providing multiple treatment areas in the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant; need to consider unforeseen disaster or fire at plant when addressing redundancy; the Town's current water rights will not be exceeded for approximately 15 to 20 years; when needed, water rights may be available through purchases of Windy Gap water or through options available to the Town possibly through Platte River Power Authority; sampling for cryptosporidium will be required by 2012; don't delay planning for Phase 11 of project to meet ultimate capacity; and research sites and building costs for new treatment plant. Dir. Goehring reported that drawings are 95% complete and will be reviewed by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), as the facility is located on BOR land. He stated that construction bids will be solicited in June and that a recommendation on a contractor will be brought to the July Utilities Committee meeting. The plant will be completely turned over to the contractor in the fall necessitating the use of a temporary treatment facility from October 2008 through February 2009. Chair Homeier closed the public hearing. He described the project as being proactive in meeting EPA standards earlier than necessary and protecting the safety and welfare of the community's water supply. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - May 15, 2008 - Page 2 There being no further business, Chairman Homeier adjourned the meeting at 9:38 a.m. Cynthia A. Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 15, 2008 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 15th day of May, 2008. Committee: Chair Eisenlauer, Trustees Ericson and Homeier Attending: Chair Eisenlauer, Trustees Ericson and Homeier Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Chief Kufeld, Chief Dorman, and Deputy Clerk Deats Absent None Chair Eisenlauer called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None POLICE DEPARTMENT. HUB JUVENILE ASSESSMENT CENTER IGA - REQUEST APPROVAL. Juveniles who are taken into custody for violent or serious felony crimes are processed through the Larimer County Human Services Department Juvenile Assessment Center, known as the HUB. The juvenile offender is screened and services are rendered, or the individual is placed in a juvenile detention facility. Certain costs are associated with these juvenile cases, one of the most common being transportation to the detention facility and to and from court. County law enforcement agencies have agreed to contribute to the cost of operating the HUB and to pay their share of costs related to juvenile transports. Staff participated in the development of the IGA with a term beginning January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2012, and negotiated a set fee based on historical data and the projected future needs of the Estes Park Police Department. The fee will pay for court transport fees and transport of the juvenile to the HUB facility. Based upon estimates provided by the Larimer County Human Services Department the costs are not expected to exceed the $1700 budgeted in 101-2100-421-22-98. Future costs will be determined based on usage and therefore budgeted accordingly. The Committee recommends approval of the IGA for juvenile transport services to the HUB at a cost for 2008 not to exceed $1700 from account #101-2100-421-22-98 budgeted. REPORTS. 1. Public Safety Fair Update - Officer Solano reported on the Public Safety Fair scheduled for Saturday, May 17, 2008, from 10:00 a.m. till 4:00 p.m. at the Fairgrounds. The Fair has evolved over the past 17 years from the Estes Park Bike Rodeo to the current event which is made possible by over $2,600 in donations from approximately 35 donors. Highlights of the fair include: demonstrations by the Rope Rescue team from Rocky Mountain National Park, the Larimer County Dog Rescue, LETA, and the Estes Park Fire Department; visits from Smokey the Bear and Sparky the Fire Dog; a skateboard competition; jump castles; and informational booths. In addition, Flight for Life helicopters and a Blackhawk helicopter will be on the premises for viewing. 2. 1St Quarter Statistics - Chief Kufeld presented a report containing statistics for the first quarter of 2008 including the total number of calls for service; the number of 911 calls received; the number of administrative calls received; and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - May 15, 2008 - Page 2 the number of arrests/disposition of cases. He commented on the positive role of the restorative justice program, the availability and capabilities of reverse 911 service, and discussions taking place regarding the possible relocation of the dispatch center. Chief Kufeld stated that at this time, there are no plans to move the center and that current discussion is precipitated by staffing costs, and is specific to calls coming into the dispatch center between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. FIRE DEPARTMENT. REPORTS. 1. Firefighter ll Academy - Chief Dorman reported that the fire department hosted a voluntary Firefighter Il Academy which ran from January to April. 12 members of the department participated in the class that was taught by Chief Dorman. The Firefighter 11 course included information related to technical skills, teamwork, flammable liquid fires, and vehicle extrications. Chief Dorman stated that Derek Rosenquist will begin his duties as the Fire Department Training Officer on May 23rd. 2. WUI Educational Coordinator Position/Wildfire Fair - Wildland Urban Interface Educational Coordinator Sue Pinkham reported on activities slated for this season. She provides information on wildfire mitigation and creating defensible space, at the Duck Race, the Tree Symposium, the Public Safety/Wildfire Fair, the Farmers Market, the Heritage Festival, and the Elk Festival. She plans to record public service announcements for airing during the summer on local radio stations KEPL and KREV and continues to work on the Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 3. Wildfire Refresher Training - The annual wildfire refresher training has been completed in preparation for the upcoming wildland fire season. The training included information on fire behavior and emphasized safety and survival skills. Firefighters who complete the wildfire training receive their "red card" and become certified at a national level which allows them to respond to a national- commanded fire. 4. Hose Coupler Purchase - The Volunteer Fire Department purchased a used hose coupler which can be utilized to repair hose that previously had to be discarded. The Committee recommended staff include this story in a future edition of the Bugle. There being no further business, Chair Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 22,2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 22nd day of May 2008. Committee: Chairman Blackhurst, Trustees Levine and Miller Attending: Trustees Levine and Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Director Zurn, Superintendent Mahany, Facilities Mgr. Sievers, Town Clerk Williamson Absent Chairman Blackhurst Trustee Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. Members of the League of Women Voters including Sue Pinkham/President, Diane Burkpile, Irene Little/Vice President and Jim Martinsen were present to provided a history of the League's involvement in recycling and other organizations attempts to establish recycling programs with in Estes Park including the EPHS National Honor Society and the Town of Estes Park. The League conducted a survey in March 2007 and determined that 85% of residents who responded recycle; however, the diversion rate to the Larimer County landfill is less than 5%. The survey also found that businesses are interested in recycling. The Leagues Recycling Committee has developed a proposal to create and operate a new recycling center in Estes Park and includes: political partnership (Larimer County, Town of Estes Park, potential landowner and operator of the facility), physical requirements (three sided building to house three roll-off containers and a cardboard compacter with three phase power), financial requirements (Building cost include all infrastructure estimated at $120,000 - propose the Town provide the building), operations and education (Signage, informational meetings, brochures, flyers, phone book, Vacationland, possible television ads). New locations for the center could be the L&P yard on the east side of Elm Road, Larimer County CDOT properly on the west side of Elm Road, Upper Thompson Sanitation District property on the east side of Mall Road or the Bureau of Reclamation property on the east side of the Mall Road. The Committee questioned if the money collected from the recycling would be enough to offset the cost to operate the facility. They commented a recycling facility should not be significant cost to the Town. They also questioned whether or not the facility operator could provide some or all of the necessary equipment. Mr. Martinsen stated the League has not been able to ascertain financial information regarding recycling costs at the time of the meeting. However, contact has been made with Recycle America to obtain the information. Eco-Cycle has stated the company would provide the cardboard compacter and the containers if the current roll-offs from the County were not available. In addition, Eco-Cycle uses single stream recycling to simplify recycling for the user. Director Zurn requested the League provide the Committee with detailed numbers on how much it would cost to operate the facility. He stated conversations with another mountain community suggest the costs are significant. The Committee extended their appreciated for the work conducted to date by the League on the issue and are in favor of moving the issue forward to the 2009 budget cycle. The Committee requested additional information on costs be provided and requested staff verify that a separate recycling operation by the Town would not violate RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - May 22,2008 - Page 2 the Town's current contract with Waste Management. Administrator Halburnt stated recycling has been added to the five year Capital· Improvement Plan for the Town Board's consideration during the budget cycle. DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN - Request Approval. In 1985, the Public Works Department received a drainage master plan for the Northeast quadrant of Prospect Mountain that lead to the construction of several major underground stormwater collection projects. The majority of complaints in recent years have been generated in the southeast quadrant with a surface flow terminus into Fish Creek. The second area of concern is the drainage near Elm Road with a terminus into the Big Thompson River. A Request for Proposals was sent to eleven professional consultants with extensive backgrounds in producing drainage master plans. The following companies responded: RG Consulting Engineers Denver $39,780 HDR Engineering Fort Collins $50,000 Nolte Engineering Fort Collins $49,999 The RFP would be used to develop a plan to address drainage and project needs, reduce and mitigate localized flooding, and improve water quality. Staff recommends the approval of RG Consulting Engineering, Inc. with the opportunity to expand the scope of the work to complete additional efforts up to $50,000 as budgeted. The Committee recommends approval of RG Consulting Engineering, Inc. for the drainage master plan as described above at a cost not to exceed $50,000 from account #204-5400-544-35-35. FALL RIVER TRAIL PHASE 4 - Request To Bid. This phase of the Fall River Trail Corridor plan would begin on West Elkhorn Ave. (Hwy 34 Business) proceeding west approximately 4,000 feet and ending near the Castle Mountain Lodge covered bridge. Preliminary and final designs have been completed and bid packages are anticipated to go out by late June. Bid results would be brought to Committee in August for review and approval. The Committee recommends approval to bid Phase 4 of the Fall River Trail system. REPORTS. 1. Downtown Transportation Study - Dir. Zurn stated CDOT and the Public Works Department are in the final stages of the downtown transportation study being completed by PBS&J. The results indicate downtown congestion can be improved substantially within the existing Right-of-Way boundaries. The results are computer modeled and incorporate the latest Upper Front Range 2035 population and traffic projections. Improvements in the downtown are, such as additional traffic signals and a reconfiguration of the traffic flow on the 100 block of Elkhorn and Moraine. Proposed modifications include the elimination of northbound traffic on Moraine to Elkhorn Ave. Traffic would be diverted to Rockwell St. and create a 12 foot wide sidewalk on the east side of Moraine north of Rockwell. The intersection of Rockwell and Riverside may need to include a traffic light to facilitate traffic across the intersection. In addition, improvements could be made to the right turn from Riverside onto Elkhorn to create a continuous flow of traffic. Funds have been budgeted for 2008 to complete improvements to the East Side Parking Lot (Dairy Queen) and could be used to make traffic improvements at this intersection. The Committee recommends staff continue conversations with CDOT, move forward on improvements to the Riverside/Elkhorn intersection, continue discussions with CDOT on acquiring matching funds, and hold public informational meetings as the Town and CDOT move closer to a commitment on the other proposed projects. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - May 22,2008 - Page 3 2. Treqent Park Improvements - Park staff is nearing the completion of the improvements to the park with a budgeted cost of $10,000. All work was done in house. 3. Engineering Seasonal - Jeremy Plume will provide information on the current conditions of all roadways throughout Town and catalog culverts within the Drainage Master Plan area. There being no further business, Trustee Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:35 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment February 5,2008,9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair John Lynch, Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, Wayne Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Lynch; Members Dill and Sager Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Members Levine and Newsom, Alternate Member Grant Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of the minutes of the January 8,2008 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Dill) to approve the minutes. There being no changes or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. 3. METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF 1895 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, Owner/Applicant: Yakutat Land Corporation - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow an existing fenced-in structure for hay storage to remain located 30.7 feet from the front property line in lieu of the required 50-foot front-yard setback in the RE-1 - Rural Estate zoning district, and variance from Section 7.6.E.1.a.2.b to allow the structure to remain 16.7 feet from the annual high-water mark of the stream corridor in lieu of the required 30-foot setback Director Joseph summarized the staff report. This is a request for variance from the setback required for the front property line and from the required stream setback to allow completion of the construction of a hay shed in the historic location used for hay storage for the commercial horse stables, Sombrero Ranches. The hay storage shed is located on an undeveloped parcel in unincorporated Larimer County, immediately north of the stables, and encroaches into the front-yard setback and stream setback. Construction of a metal framework to provide a roof over the hay was started without a building permit but halted pending resolution of this variance request. The applicant was required to request a waiver from the Larimer County Flood Plain Review Board prior to appearing before the Board of Adjustment due to the hay shed's location within the floodplain and floodway; this wavier was granted. The primary focus of this variance request is the stream setback. A prominent reason for the required setback from streams (aside from the potential impact to the floodplain and/or floodway) is to protect the natural vegetation found along streams, which has value as wildlife habitat in addition to its scenic and aesthetic value. In planning staff's opinion, the requested variance to the stream setback, which reduces the setback from 30 feet to 16.7 feet, is substantial. Staff has determined that there can be beneficial use of the property without the requested variances, that approval of the variances would not adversely affect the delivery of public services, and that the applicant purchased the property before the adoption of the current setback standards. The key question is whether the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through another method. Staff's opinion is that a conforming location for the hay shed could be found elsewhere on the property; however, the applicant should have the opportunity to present a persuasive argument as to the value of the proximity of the hay shed to the stables. The Board members should use their best judgment in determining whether the applicant's request represents the least deviation to afford relief and may choose to consider the historic pattern of use of the hay storage location and its proximity to the stables. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 February 5,2008 If the Board chooses to approve the requested variances, it may require conditions that secure the objectives of the Estes Valley Development Code, and staff recommends the applicant be required to restore a similar-sized area of habitat (approximately 3,000 square feet) along the stream bank to offset the loss of habitat in the hay shed location. Although use of that particular location for hay storage began years ago, stacking hay did not create a permanent footprint on the land, while construction of the hay storage shed does. If the applicant had not begun construction of the shed without a building permit, the hay storage location could easily have been moved to a conforming location, and this area could have been restdred to its natural condition. Although the stream is intermittent in some locations, it is perennial in others, and it is a mapped drainage shown in the Estes Valley Development Code. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No comments were received. Public Comment: Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He confirmed that the stream is a "good-sized creek" when it flows. He provided information on evidence submitted to the Larimer County Flood Plain Review Board, which approved a waiver for the location of the hay storage shed. He contended the only change to the use of this historic location for hay storage is the addition of a roof over the hay. Use of this location is necessary to provide room for large trucks to deliver the hay and turn around, as well as for fork lifts used to move the hay to the horses. The applicant would prefer to use the well-worn paths already established on the site. The property owner has stated the location has been used for hay storage for approximately 45 years, well predating floodplain mapping. The applicant would have to move the location of the hay storage over 300 feet to the north to comply with the required setbacks due to the location of the property line and the creek; this would create a hardship for the applicant. Mr. Sheldon stated the applicant is willing to comply with the recommended conditions of approval; however, Mr. Sheldon questioned the rational between the requested variances and the requirement to revegetate an equivalent area of land. If the requested variances are not approved, the applicant will not move the hay stack (no approval is required for the hay stack alone). Discussion continued between the Board members, planning staff, and Mr. Sheldon and is summarized as follows: In lieu of revegetation, Chair Lynch suggested the applicant be required to clean up the appearance of the hay storage area. Director Joseph stated his desire to have a nexus between the purpose of the required stream setback (to protect native vegetation) and the proposed condition of approval (revegetation of an equivalent area of habitat along the stream). The purpose of the condition is to mitigate the adverse impacts of creating a permanent structure for storing the hay in its present location. In staff's opinion, the only reason provided by the applicant to perpetuate the adverse impact to the stream corridor is for the applicant's convenience and the fact that construction was begun without a building permit. Mr. Sheldon contended that the applicant would have to bring in top soil, seed, mulch, and monitor the site of revegetation, which is unreasonable in light of the variance requested. Following further discussion, including the benefits of cleaning up the appearance of the site, Member Sager moved to approve the requested variances with the condition that the applicant prepare a reasonable restoration plan for revegetation along the stream, which should be submitted prior to approval of the building permit. Mr. Sheldon agreed to the condition on behalf of the applicant. Director Joseph stated the condition should include successful implementation of the revegetation plan. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Dill) to approve the variance request for the Metes and Bounds property located immediately north of 1895 Big Thompson Avenue to allow an existing fenced-in structure for hay storage to remain located 30.7 feet from the front property line in lieu of the required 50-foot front-yard setback and to allow the structure to remain 16.7 feet from the annual high-water mark of the stream corridor in lieu of the required 30-foot setback, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 February 5,2008 CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted application. 2. The applicant shall successfully revegetate and restore an area of 3,000 square feet along the stream, thus returning a presently non-vegetated stream bank area to a naturally vegetated condition in order to offset the long-term loss under the footprint of the shed as proposed. The applicant shall prepare this restoration plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit for the structure. 4. LOT 1 A, AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, & 3, PROSPECT VILLAGE SUBDIVISION, 460 Prospect Village Drive, Owner: Edward J. & Gisela Grueff, Applicant: Bret & Jan Freedman - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.4, Table 4-5, to allow stairs to be constructed within the required 15-foot side-yard setback by up to four feet; variance from Section 7.5.G.2.b(2) to allow one parking space to encroach into the required eight-foot side-yard landscape buffer by seven feet; and variance from Section 7.5.G.2.b(3) to allow the parking lot and landcape buffer to be 40 feet from the annual high-water mark of the Big Thompson River in lieu of the required 50-foot setback/landscape buffer Chair Lynch recused himself in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Member Dill acted as Chair for this agenda item. Director Joseph stated that so long as the meeting is opened with a quorum of three members, action may be taken on an item. Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. The applicant has submitted a development plan application (#08-03), which will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission at their February 19, 2008 meeting, to develop a two-story, 2,000-square-foot real estate office with a 450-square-foot garage and ten parking spaces on an undeveloped lot. The lot is zoned CO - Commercial Outlying, \s located behind the Estes Park Brewery, and is approximately lh-acre in size. The Big Thompson River runs through the site. In order to construct the building and associated parking as proposed on the development plan, the applicant is requesting approval of three variances: 1. Variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Table 4-5 in order to build fire-escape stairs eleven feet from the side property line in lieu of the 15-foot setback required in the CO-Commercial Outlying zoning district; 2. Variance from Section 7.5.G.2.b(2) in order to construct one parking space one foot from the side property line in lieu of the requirement to provide an eight-foot-wide planting area between all parking areas and side and rear property lines; 3. Variance from Section 7.5.G.2.b(3) in order to construct the parking lot 40 feet from the river in lieu of the requirement that all parking lots shall be separated from the high-water mark of river banks by a minimum of 50 feet. In considering whether special circumstances or conditions exist, planning staff finds that there are special circumstances associated with this property-the required setbacks from property lines and the river leave a small building area on the lot, and a portion of the 1/2- acre lot lies within a flagpole that can only serve as a driveway entrance. The applicant has worked to provide a design that saves existing trees, which further reduces the buildable area of the lot. Practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with EVDC standards. Beneficial use of the property could occur without the requested variances. A smaller-scale development could be proposed that would comply with the setbacks. Staff finds the variance requests are not substantial. Approximately 68 square feet of stairs will encroach into the 15-foot side-yard setback. One 17.5-foot-long parking space will encroach into the eight-foot planting area. The requested variance to the river setback would allow a small portion of the parking lot to encroach into the setback. Although there is a platted 30-foot-wide river setback, there is question whether this applies to the parking lot or only to buildings and structures. A stormwater-quality pond is proposed to filter runoff from the parking lot before it enters the river. The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered, and the variances, if granted, represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. The applicant proposes a two-story building, which reduces the footprint on the lot, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 February 5,2008 and the building is stepped back to meet the river setback requirement and reduce impact to the site. Office use is a permitted use in the CO zoning district. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department and Upper Thompson Sanitation District. No comments in support or opposition to the requested variances were received from neighboring property owners. Approval of the requested variances will not affect the delivery of public services. Upper Thompson Sanitation District desires to ensure access to the sewer main adjacent to the Big Thompson River. This concern can be addressed with the development plan review. Planning staff recommends approval of the requested variances with threeconditions of approval. Public Comment: Joe Coop/Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant had originally wanted to construct a single-story building but had altered the plans to better fit the lot. The proposal minimizes impervious coverage, and the applicant has made a good effort to minimize impact on the site. Lon Kinnie, neighboring property owner, raised questions regarding whether the applicant would be required to extend existing curb and gutter beyond his driveway, whether the Town would require upgrades to Prospect Village Drive (a private road), and who would pay for any required upgrades. Director Joseph stated that all property owners along this private road have a collective responsibility to maintain shared access in a reasonably functional condition. These issues are not pertinent to the variance requests and should be brought forward during review of the development plan. Member Sager stated there are reasons for all three variance requests, and the requests are acceptable to him. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Dill) to approve the variance request for Lot 1 A, Amended Plat of Lots 1, 2, & 3, Prospect Village Subdivision, to allow stairs to be constructed within the required 15-foot side-yard setback by up to four feet; to allow one parking space to encroach into the required eight-foot side-yard landscape buffer by seven feet; and to allow the parking lot and landcape buffer to be 40 feet from the annual high-water mark of the Big Thompson River in lieu of the required 50-foot setback/landscape buffer, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent and with Chair Lynch abstaining. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted application. 2. Planning Commission approval of the development plan application. 3. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes prior to construction, shall verify compliance with the variances, and shall provide a setback certificate. 5. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 10:11 a.m. John Lynch, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission April 15, 2008,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Ike Eisenlauer; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bruce Grant, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Attending: Chair Eisenlauer; Commissioners Amos, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Attorney White, Town Board Liaison Homeier, Public Works Director Zurn, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioner Grant The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. Chair Eisenlauer called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Ron Norris/President of the Association for Responsible Development (ARD) discussed ARD's written request that the Planning Commission provide educational workshops that explain the steps in the development process to the public and immediately appoint and involve citizens' advisory panels to work with the Town staff and developers on significant new development projects. Commissioners Hull and Amos expressed support for providing educational workshops for the public. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes dated March 18, 2008. b. SPECIAL REVIEW 08-01, Cricket Communication Tower, A Portion of S36-T5N- R73W of the 6th P.M., 1435 Prospect Mountain Drive, Cricket Communications/Applicant-Request for continuance to the May 20,2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting It was moved and seconded (Hull/Amos) to accept the consent agenda, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. REZONING REQUEST and DEVELOPMENT PLAN 08-04, SAPLING GREEN, Lot 35, Grand Estates Subdivision, TBD Grand Estates Drive, located immediately behind Grumpy Gringo Restaurant, Basis Architecture/Applicant Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to rezone a 0.95-acre parcel from CO-Commercia/ Out/ying to RM-Mu/ti-Fam#y Residentia/ in order to develop nine residential dwelling units and a daycare center/preschool/school. This project includes review of a development plan, preliminary condominium map, and special review of the daycare center/preschool use in addition to the rezoning request. The current zoning would allow construction of the proposed school; the proposed rezoning is required to allow multi-family use on the lot. If the rezoning from CO to RM zoning is approved, the applicant's requested use of the site as a daycare center triggers the special review process. There is currently an approved development plan for the property which would allow construction of a metal building (a mechanical contractor's business) on this undeveloped lot. There is a mix of commercial, accommodations, and multi-family residential zoning around the property. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 April 15,2008 At the request of Town staff, the applicant proposes to dedicate additional public right-of- way along Grand Estates Drive, which would move the western property line eastward. The developer was informed of this need for additional right-of-way after the proposed school/condominium building was designed. The proposed location of the building has been moved as far to the east as possible to accommodate the additional right-of-way, but existing water and sewer mains limit this distance, resulting in the applicant's request for a minor modification to the required setback from the western property line. If this minor modification is granted, the building will still be located farther from the original western property line than required prior to right-of-way dedication. Staff is supportive of this request. The proposed building would be located on the northern half of the lot. The daycare/preschool/school would occupy the western, single-story portion of the building and serve children from ages 21/2 to 5, as well as kindergarten, first-, and second-graders. The eastern portion of the building would consist of nine residential condominiums and would be two to three stories in height. The site is gently sloping and drains generally from northwest to southeast. Currently, undetained stormwater runoff from the adjacent Grumpy Gringo restaurant runs across the subject property, across the eastern boundary line, and thence southward. Several adjacent property owners to the south have expressed concern about this runoff. The applicant proposes to collect stormwater drainage at the southwest corner of the lot, which would improve drainage. The applicant is requesting approval of a second minor modification to allow a maximum impervious coverage of 52% rather than the 50% required by the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) in the RM zoning district. The developer proposes to provide more parking spaces than required by the Code to accommodate the anticipated "morning rush" at the daycare/school. In order to help mitigate the effects of this additional parking, the applicant proposes to use grass block pavers on a portion of the site. Planner Shirk noted that under the current commercial zoning, the maximum impervious coverage is 65%; staff is supportive of this requested minor modification. Although planning staff typically discourages requests to rezone CO-Commercial Outlying properties, the proposed development plan addresses two identified needs in the community-daycare and attainable housing-which staff considers equal to the need for commercial zoning. Additionally, the proposed uses of school/multi-family-residential would help buffer the existing multi-family development from the existing commercial development. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Public Works, Building, and Light and Power departments, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Final approval from the Public Works Department on the stormwater drainage design and from CDOT are pending and are included as recommended conditions of approval. A letter from neighboring property owner Michael Myers was received expressing concern about stormwater runoff and potential drainage problems caused by development of the property, and a letter from neighboring property owner Sandra Jokinen expressing concerns regarding the safety of children due to the traffic volume in the area. Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning, development plan, special review, and preliminary condominium map. Applicant Presentation: Steve Lane/Basis Architecture stated he is the architect and applicant for this proposal. He discussed the difficulty of finding a property suitable for school use in a residential neighborhood. By utilizing one lot for both school use and attainable housing, the amenities on the site, as well as the cost of development, can be shared by the two uses, and the site can be used to give back to the community in two ways. The requested rezoning is for the purpose of allowing the attainable housing/multi-family housing component of the project. Use of the site as a school helps retain some of the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 April 15, 2008 "commercial" aspect. With existing multi-family housing on two sides, the proposed uses of this site help to "step down" the zoning from the adjacent commercial property. The location of the property one block from the hike/bike path along Highway 34 and close to the Lake Estes trail provides easy access to town and is a critical component of the proposed attainable housing. Four of the nine units are proposed to be deed-restricted- two units at 100% of average median income and two units at 115% of average median income. This helps address the need for another level of attainable housing, as reflected in the housing study released in March. Many local families can't afford to purchase area homes but make too much income to qualify for current attainable housing opportunities. All the proposed units will have two or three bedrooms, and amenities on the site, such as the playground and picnic area, will be shared by the school and residents. The units are not intended as vacation condos, but as apartments for local families. Mr. Lane provided a visual presentation of the proposed project. There will be an enclosed and protected play area for children, which will be available for use by residents when school is not in session. Floor plans and rooflines are proposed to be varied; wood, stucco, and/or other low-maintenance materials in earth tones will be used on the exterior of the building. Additional landscaping is proposed along perimeters of the lot. Drainage from Grand Estates Drive will be captured in a drainage swale along the south property line, and other drainage improvements will help to capture runoff from Grumpy Gringo Restaurant. Thirty- five parking spaces are proposed; grass pavers will be installed in an area intended for overflow, visitor, and/or staff parking. He requested approval of the proposed development. Nancy Johnson/Founder and Director of Lifelong Learning of Estes Valley provided information about the history and current status of the learning center, which is currently housed in two local churches and serves 54 preschoolers and 13 kindergarten and 1 graders. Continuing growth is anticipated. She expressed a desire to continue to provide an affordable, early-childhood experience for local families in a single location. Commissioner Tucker stated the applicant has done a good job of site design; the transition from commercial zoning to multi-family zoning is a good fit for the neighborhood. The Public Works Department has indicated that drainage on the site, which is currently an issue, will be improved. Public Comment: Tom Partridge/Daybreak Condominiums HOA President and Adjacent Property Owner questioned the accuracy of the traffic impact study. He stated his belief there will be problems with traffic. He questioned whether the applicant proposes daycare services in the summer. He referenced the letter submitted by Sandra Jokinen and her concerns for children's safety given the traffic in the area. He questioned who determines the number of attainable housing units. He also stated the catch basins for runoff look adequate and are needed. Planner Shirk stated the applicant currently proposes to provide daycare and school services on the same days/times as the public school district. The number of attainable units is determined by the development code; the applicant is utilizing the allowance for bonus density for deed-restricted housing, as prescribed by the Code. Commissioner Klink noted the applicant may choose to change the day and hours of operation in the future. Rita Kurelia/Estes Park Housing Authority Director expressed her support for the proposal. She stated the housing authority is currently unable to serve households earning greater than 80% of median income due to lack of funding. The 2008 housing needs assessment indicates that by 2015, forty-seven units will be needed to fill home- ownership gaps for those who earn between 100% and 120% of average median income. Few homes are available for those in this income range, and the number is declining. Families and young professionals move out of the area due to housing costs. She urged the Commissioners to support the proposal. Jane Rutledge/Adjacent Property Owner stated her view would be of the west end of the proposed building; she is impressed with the design. She expressed concern that the view from the windows and patio on the south side of the Grumpy Gringo Restaurant would be blocked by the proposed building. She questioned the need for 1St & 2nd grades in the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 April 15, 2008 proposed school and questioned whether an alternate location, such as the former Auto Mall, had been considered. Commissioner Hull questioned whether the owners of the Grumpy Gringo Restautant had been notified of the proposed development. Planner Shirk stated they had; no feedback was received. Director Joseph noted they were in attendance. Sally Patridge/Adjacent Property Owner stated she was impressed by the proposal. She expressed concern about the intersection of Grand Estates Drive and Highway 34, noting it is difficult to find the turn, and drivers entering the Grumpy Gringo Restaurant parking lot frequently cut across the intersection. She also expressed concern about the center turn lane on Highway 34 at this location because westbound traffic turning south to Grand Estates Drive is often in conflict with eastbound traffic using the same lane to turn north on Lone Pine Drive. Planner Shirk reiterated that one of the suggested conditions of approval is CDOT approval. The applicant must obtain an access permit from CDOT. Mr. Lane stated there were two traffic accidents in this area in 2005, one in 2006, and none in 2007, which indicates that traffic conditions are fairly safe. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Tucker) to recommend approval of the request for Rezoning of Lot 35, Grand Estates Subdivision, from CO-Commercia/ Out/ying zoning to RU-Multi-Family Residential zoning; approval of Development Plan 08-04, Sapling Green; approval of the Special Review for the proposed daycare center; and approval of the Preliminary Condominium Map for Sapling Green Condo- miniums, Lot 35, Grand Estates Subdivision; to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff; and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS FOR REZONING: 1. Town Board approval of the Sapling Green Development Plan 08-04 and the proposed Special Review for the daycare center. CONDITIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 08-04, SPECIAL REVIEW, & PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP: 1. Town Board approval of the proposed rezoning, Special Review, and Preliminary Condominium Map. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the stormwater management plan shall be subject to review and approval of Public Works, and the applicant shall dedicate drainage easements consistent with said plan. 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis shall be subject to review and approval of CDOT. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit verification the utility easement described in Reception number 20040094695 has been vacated to allow the proposed location of the building, and an easement for the relocated utilities has been recorded. 5. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall dedicate 7.5 feet of right-of-way along the entire western property line. Acceptance of this right-of-way shall be subject to acceptance of the Town Board. 6. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a postal cluster box shall be located adjacent to the existing "box cluster" on Grand Estates Drive. 7. Prior submittal of the Final Condominium Map, the applicant shall submit condominium declarations for review and approval of Staff. 8. Compliance with Upper Thompson Sanitation District requirements. 9. Compliance with memo from Mike Mangelsen to Bob Goehring dated March 19, 2008. 10. Compliance with memo from Public Works Engineering dated March 31, 2008, or alternative approved by the Town Engineer. Regarding the next item on the agenda, Elkhorn Lodge Redevelopment, Commissioners Amos and Hull commended Planner Chilcott for her diligent, complete, and excellent work in preparing staff reports, providing documentation, and coordinating the Commissioners' site visit to the property. All the Commissioners expressed appreciation for Planner Chilcott's efforts on this proposal. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 April 15, 2008 4. REZONING, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, and PRELIMINARY P.U.D. 08-01, ELKHORN LODGE REDEVELOPMENT/BIG BEAR ESTATES SUBDIVISION, Four Metes and Bounds Parcels (parcel identification numbers 35261-00-001, 35261-05- 046, 35261-06-001, 35252-53-018, Portion of 35261-06-001) and Outlet A, Sallee Resubdivision, currently known as the Elkhorn Lodge property, including 600 West Elkhorn Avenue, Zahourek Conservatory, LLC/Owner, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This proposal for a mixed-use development consists of three applications-a rezoning request, preliminary subdivision plat, and preliminary PUD 08-01-that constitute a single package for development of approximately 63 acres. Surrounding properties are zoned RE-1-Rura/ Estate (10-acre), RE-Rural Estate (2.5 acre), E-1-Estate (1 acre), E-Estate (0.5 acre), RM-Multi-Family Residential, A-Accommodations, and \-1-Industrial. The Elkhorn Lodge and its associated complex of lodge buildings are located primarily on the lower portion of the property, which consists of approximately 20 acres zoned CO- Commercial Outlying. The upper portion of the site consists of approximately 40 acres zoned RE-Rura/ Estate and is adjacent to industrial-, commercial-, and residential-zoned land. Adjacent residential-zoned land to the east consists of low-density properties with conservation easements (10-acre minimum lot size), while adjacent residential-zoned land to the north is in 1/kacre zoning. The proposed mixed-use development includes single-family homes on the upper portion of the site, multi-family homes in a "transition area," and a commercial core on the lower portion of the site that would include accommodations, commercial retail, and residential uses. The applicant proposes construction of a bypass road to connect Moraine Avenue to West Elkhorn Avenue, as well as renovation of the Elkhorn Lodge and the addition of a new wing to the lodge. The application for a PUD (planned unit development) overlay district encompasses the entire property, which consists of four parcels and an outlot. In order to establish the PUD, the entire property must be zoned CO-Commercial Outlying, thus the applicant's request for rezoning of three parcels-the upper lot of 40 acres, which is currently zoned RE- Rura/ Estate, and two E-Estate parcels, one 3 acres in size, the other 0.14 acre. Approval of the PUD would establish design guidelines for the entire property. It is the role of the Planning Commission to review each of these applications (rezoning, preliminary plat, and preliminary PUD) for compliance with requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. The Planning Commission is the recommending body; the final decision-making body will be the Town Board. The applications have been routed to reviewing agencies for consideration and comment. All property owners within 500 feet of the subject property were notified via postcard of the proposed development, and the required legal notice has been published. All comments from reviewing agencies and from the public are available on the Town's website, which is updated as additional information is received. The applicant has requested the Town's participation in this project, which will be addressed separately through an annexation agreement and a development agreement. Due to the extensive nature of the proposed development, today's review will focus on the proposed single-family subdivision on the upper 40 acres and proposed Lot B-1, which the applicant envisions for attainable housing use. A special meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled Thursday, April 17, 2008 for review of the commercial core proposed on the lower portion of the site. The bypass road will be discussed at each meeting. Town staff believes the proposed bypass road is a significant opportunity for the community. It is needed for the proposed development, it would be helpful to local residents during the busy summer season, it would be used by truck traffic from the adjoining industrial area, and it would benefit emergency personnel/vehicles. Construction of the bypass road will result in a change to the current access to the neighborhood to the west of the proposed development as well as the Range View Road intersection with Elm RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 April 15,2008 Road. The bypass is planned as a two-lane road. The portion to be constructed by the applicant would be approximately 4,800 feet long (slightly less than one mile), with a maximum grade of 12%, and would include a bridge over Fall River. Public Works Director Scott Zurn provided details from a 2003 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) study, which focused on future traffic congestion issues. Given no change in current circulation patterns, projected population growth along the Front Range, and projected growth in visitation, CDOT estimates that in 2028 vehicles will wait at local signal lights through five cycles for 90 days of the year. Two solutions are generally considered, one being a western bypass road. The other solution would involve a one- way couplet, acquiring properties along Riverside Drive, and widening Riverside Drive from two lanes to three or four lanes. The western bypass road would lessen impacts to the downtown area. The applicant was asked to design the proposed road as a minor collector road consisting of two lanes with a 25 m.p.h. speed limit. In answer to questions from Commissioners Amos, Tucker, and Klink, Director Zurn provided additional information as follows: the capacity of the existing system is currently so close to its maximum that an increase in traffic of 25% to 30% will result in the traffic delays indicated above. Closure of Elkhorn Avenue downtown to create a pedestrian mall would increase the need for improvements to Riverside Drive; it would not lessen traffic impacts. The applicant's traffic study indicates approximately 3,500 vehicle trips per day on the proposed bypass road, which is roughly equivalent to current traffic volumes on Mall Road. The bypass road would provide a valve for future traffic pressure, as would improvements to Riverside Drive; the next long-term solution to consider would be mass transit. Planner Chilcott continued her presentation, stating the applicant is proposing realignment of a portion of Elm Road onto a parcel owned by Larimer County. The Town is looking into acquiring a portion of that parcel from the County. Access to some properties immediately northwest of this area would change, with future access to be taken from the bypass road via proposed Bear Rock Court thence westward on proposed Bear Run Court. Staff is examining whether Bear Run Court would be publicly or privately maintained and whether a hammerhead turnaround would be functional for snowplow/emergency vehicle access. Addressing for these properties would change if the proposal is approved. Placement of a portion of the bypass road on the County-owned property would also impact the alignment of the Range View Road/Elm Road intersection. The applicant has stated that rezoning of the upper 40 acres and proposed Lot B-1 is necessary to provide financing for the proposed bypass road. The Planning Commission must consider whether the proposed rezoning is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected, whether the rezoning is consistent with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and existing growth and development patterns, and whether adequate public facilities can be provided. Planning staff finds that the rezoning is necessary to address changing conditions-construction of the bypass road presents a significant opportunity for the community and the proposed attainable housing on Lot B-1 addresses a communily need. Staff also finds the application consistent with many goals in the Comprehensive Plan, which identifies construction of a western bypass road as a way to improve transportation in the Estes Valley. The Plan also identifies redevelopment of the Elkhorn Lodge property and provision of attainable housing as important goals. A list of areas the applications are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan can be found in the staff report prepared for this meeting. Adequate public facilities are available or can be constructed to serve the proposed development. Planning staff is supportive of the request for the rezoning to permit the P.U.D. overlay district. The 40 acres proposed for development of the single-family residential subdivision is currently undeveloped with the exception of trails/horse trails leading to the adjacent property owned by the University of Northern Colorado and to Rocky Mountain National Park. The applicant proposes 57 single-family lots and one commercial lot on this parcel, with single-family lot sizes ranging from approximately 34 to 1/2 acre. A total of approximately 13.8 acres is proposed to be set aside in private open-space outlots. The northwestern portion of the parcel is steeply sloped and heavily treed; approximately 9 acres in this area have been proposed as a private open-space outlot. The majority of the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 April 15,2008 most significant drainage on the 40 acres is proposed to be placed in the open-space outlots. The single-family development is proposed on the more gently sloped portion of the site. Properties to the east have been placed in conservation easements; these property owners have expressed concern. The applicant proposes 50-foot setbacks along much of the outer perimeter of the 40-acre parcel. There are no proposed changes to the existing water main. It is not completely contained within the existing easement; this would be corrected with the PUD plat. Portions of the water main easement are proposed to cross residential lots. The applicant plans removal of most of the existing trails and proposes a single trail to be placed within a dedicated non-motorized public trail easement, which would continue to provide access to the national park. Development of the single-family neighborhood will result in tree removal, with more trees to be removed in the northeast portion of the site than other areas. Planning staff recommends that additional work be done to ensure the single-family lots comply with limits of disturbance standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), including keeping development off slopes of 30% or greater and off heavily treed areas. Cut will be necessary to construct the road such that it does not exceed a 12% slope, which makes access to some of the proposed lots difficult. The applicant is reviewing loUdriveway placement to ensure compliance with EVDC standards. A mapped ridgeline area exists on the central southeast portion of this parcel. Future homes are proposed in this area. The ridgeline is one of the less prominent in the Estes Valley, and staff is supportive of development in this area, provided ridgeline protection standards are carefully applied. Visual impact of the development should be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Lighting standards should apply, including the requirement that exterior light sources be concealed or shielded with completely cut-off luminaires. Planning staff has requested the applicant provide an analysis to assess the visual impacts of the proposed roads from three points in the Estes Valley-Highway 34 near the Discovery Lodge, Wonderview Avenue near Far View Drive, and the Riverside Drive/Riverside Lane intersection. Staff recommends that additional landscaping be required for lots platted along the eastern boundary of the 40-acre parcel. As trees are removed from the northeast area of the parcel, mitigation should include planting tree seedlings to screen right-of-way and cut-and-fill slopes. Landscaping should be proposed to plan for replacement of trees on lots, including plantings that will withstand pine beetle outbreaks. The applicant's plans call for proposed Lot 1, along the southwest portion of the southern property line, to be used for commercial development to buffer the single-family neighborhood from the adjoining industrial area. Proposed Lot B-1, which is located at the northeast corner of the 40-acre parcel, is approximately 2.6 acres in size, with a slope of approximately 20%. Approximately 30% of the lot is proposed to be set aside as private open space. Rock outcroppings and trees should be located within the open space as much as possible. The applicant is currently. negotiating to sell Lot B-1 to the Estes Park Housing Authority for development of attainable housing. This would provide a transition area between the single-family development on the upper portion of the site and the lower commercial core. Lot B-1 is adjacent to an existing single-family residential neighborhood and an open-space lot owned by the Town of Estes Park. The adjoining E-Estate-zoned property is accessed via Old Man Mountain Lane, which is an existing unpaved right-of-way. Staff does not recommend vacating this right-of-way at this time, as it may be needed for future access to Lot B-1; however, staff does recommend that construction access be prohibited through this right-of-way. The applicant envisions 30 attainable units on proposed Lot B-1. Future development plan review for this lot will determine whether 30 units and the required parking can be constructed on the lot in compliance with EVDC standards. At that time, the application will be carefully reviewed to see how proposed buildings fit on the land and whether EVDC standards are met, including cut-and-fill standards. The applicant's current plans show a 10-foot setback for this lot; staff recommends the setback be increased to provide RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 April 15,2008 a greater buffer from the existing residential development on the north and west. Staff recommends a lighting study be prepared for this lot, as for all lots that will be created if this development is approved, to ensure lighting is minimized. Given the extensive nature of the applicant's proposal, Planning staff recommends the remaining portion of the development (the commercial core) be discussed at the April 17, 2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting. Discussion followed between Commissioners and staff and is summarized as follows: • Ridgeline protection standards in the EVDC apply to structures with rooflines that are silhouetted against the sky. Application of modified ridgeline protection standards, as referred to on page 18 of the staff report, would result in staff review of construction plans for all single-family houses to ensure that any adopted design guidelines are met. This may include requirements for roof materials that are non-reflective, minimization of cut and fill and lighting, and other design guidelines to ensure houses fit with the land. Design guidelines can be adopted through the PUD process. • Receipt of federal funding for the proposed bypass road is unlikely because the road would have to be built to federal standards, including a maximum of an 8% grade, which would require extensive cut, and construction of an overpass to James Street. • The housing authority's initial concept for development of proposed Lot B-1 includes five or six townhome-style, two-story, narrow buildings on the lot. The units would be used for rental purposes rather than home-ownership. • Engineering staff is currently working with CDOT in re-examining possible traffic impacts on the intersection of Elm Road and Moraine Avenue (the southern terminus of the proposed bypass road) and determining whether a traffic signal might be warranted, particularly when summer traffic is heavy. Applicant Presentation: Frank Theis/ CMS Planning & Development Co. representing Rock Castle Development Co. provided Commissioners a copy of a letter from property owner Jerry Zahourek/Zahourek Conservatory, LLC, which states there have not been negotiations with a party other than Rock Castle for sale of the property, nor do they intend to conduct any such negotiations while the Rock Castle contract is operative. Mr. Theis stated Rock Castle began conversations with Town staff prior to the time their contract with Zahourek Conservatory was signed in July 2007 and has addressed concerns as they were raised by staff in weekly meetings that began in October 2007. The property cannot be developed without developing as a whole, thus the applicant's request for PUD approval. Other interested parties prepared development plans for the property in the past. He stated there has always been a tacit understanding of the need for additional density to justify the cost of bypass road construction, and the purchase price of the property was based on these assumptions. The bypass road will not be constructed without increased' density. The proposed development meets the purposes of planned unit developments as stated in EVDC Section 9.1.A. The proposed single-family residential area (Big Bear Estates) will be a "conservation subdivision" with homes clustered on small lots and the maximum amount of open space set aside as possible. Issues raised regarding the residential component of the proposed development include density (the primary issue), wildlife/open-space corridors, the proximity of industrial uses, landscape buffers, and ridgeline view protection. The applicant has met with Town staff, administration, Board members, and neighbors in an effort to reach out regarding these concerns. Mr. Theis displayed a photo of the ridgeline area taken from Wonderview Avenue showing homes in the approximate locations proposed by the applicant. Rita Kurelja/Estes Park Housing Authority Director displayed a photo of Talons Pointe, a local condominium development of the housing authority, stating it is a goal of the housing authority to ensure that their developments fit with the environment (regarding possible development of proposed Lot B-1). Dividing the attainable housing units into separate buildings allows a better fit with the topography of the land and breaks up the visual impact of development. In response to a question from Commissioner Amos, she stated elk herds do not pass through the Vista Ridge development but go around it. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 April 15, 2008 Mr. Theis continued, stating over 30% of the proposed Big Bear Estates would be set aside in open-space outlots, building envelopes are proposed for each lot, and fencing will be prohibited. The open-space corridor envisioned for use by wildlife is 100 feet wide at its narrowest point; this corridor is proposed through an area the Division of Wildlife indicated is important to maintain. Commissioner Hull expressed concern regarding proposed Lots 31, 32, and 33, noting the slope of the lots is very steep and there is no direct access to a road. Mr. Theis stated a private drive is proposed to serve these lots from Lot 30, running along the edge of the open-space outlot. Homes on these lots will be top-loaded; the slope does not exceed 30%. Site-specific surveys will be provided for each lot that is of a concern to staff. The applicant understands that construction will not be allowed on lots that "won't work." A public trail is proposed through a portion of Outlot C where horse/animal trails currently exist. Mr. Theis stated the plans shown in his presentation are not those submitted for Planning Commission review at this meeting. The plans have undergone changes for the last six weeks and have been resubmitted for Planning Commission review in May. Housing units proposed in the single-family residential area will be very similar to those found at The Promontory near Mary's Lake Lodge in terms of design and colors. The applicant proposes the identical density to that found in adjacent Elkhorn Club Estates but is setting aside open space and creating smaller lots. In response to neighbors' concerns about the development of proposed Lot B-1, Mr. Theis displayed an illustration of the lot with a buffer, stating the applicant is now proposing an open-space set-aside of more than 30% for this lot. He stated the closest existing residence would be approximately 120 feet from the nearest future building on this lot. Regarding concerns expressed about the proximity of the industrial area to the proposed single-family residential area, Mr. Theis stated the applicant has meet with neighbors and discussed buffers, as well as a consent form for future homeowners that would become a part of their title work and would disclose the potential for noise, odors, and other impacts from nearby industrial uses. The applicant proposes buffering development on the 40 acres through the planting of approximately 100 trees in three areas-to the east, west, and south. Chair Eisenlauer called a recess at 3:30 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 3:45 p.m. Public Comment: Verd Bailey/Adjoining Property Owner cautioned against following too big of a "carrot" (the proposed bypass road)-the rezoning request should not be approved if it would be disapproved if not for the bypass road. The bypass may not alleviate traffic congestion given the significant addition of commercial development just west of downtown, which in itself will create more traffic in the downtown area. Impacts of the proposed development on neighbors should be minimized. Urged bypass road alignment with James Street. Requested waterfall behind Elkhorn Club Condominiums be protected. Stated Estes Park Sanitation District has indicated the sewer line that creates the waterfall need not be removed, only capped. Questioned whether removal of the line is required to address floodplain issues; lowering the waterfall is different than removing it. John Spahnle/Adjoining Property Owner urged careful review of this complex project. Impacts to adjoining neighborhoods should be lessened as much as possible. Light, wildlife, and noise studies should be required; the proposal should comply with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Expressed concern that Old Man Mountain Lane (currently unpaved right-of-way) will become a bypass to Old Ranger Drive. Requested it be vacated. Questioned the required setbacks for proposed Lot B-1, which abuts his property, noting that in her staff report, Planner Chilcott stated the setback would be ten feet but Mr. Theis indicated it would be 100 feet. Would like setbacks established before the lot is sold to the housing authority. Planner Chilcott stated the application submitted for today's Planning Commission review proposed setbacks of 10 feet for Lot B-1. Mr. Theis showed a slide during his presentation that indicated an open-space area that would provide a 120-foot buffer from Mr. Spahnle's house; planning staff had not been ffrovided this information prior to today's meeting. If this development proposal is continued to the May Planning Commission meeting, changes to the proposed setback/open-space area for the lot can be considered at that time. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 April 15, 2008 Mr. Spahnle also stated the submitted plans show 14 units allowed on proposed Lot B-1 but 30 units were discussed today. Planner Chilcott and Director Joseph explained that use of the lot for attainable housing provides the developer a density bonus for the attainable housing. The applicant is also requesting a density reallocation. If the rezoning is approved, a total of 141 units would be allowed on the entire property. The applicant is proposing to transfer some of the density that would be allowed as a result of the rezoning/PUD approval from the single-family residential area to Lot B-1. Calculations to determine the total allowable density include the open-space areas. A specific amount of increased density for attainable housing or from a density transfer is not guaranteed; density will be reviewed when a development application for the lot is submitted. The increased density would not be granted if development of attainable housing was not proposed. Because this is a PUD application, none of the proposed density is a use-by- right. Judy Schreiber/Adjoining Property Owner requested the bypass road have speed and load restrictions. Expressed concern about use of the road by trucks/commercial vehicles. Does not want any vehicular ingress/egress from the proposed development to Old Ranger Drive. Requested parking for the public trailhead be placed on the applicant's property rather than in the neighboring subdivision. Tim Ortiz/Fort Collins ResidenULocal Business and Property Owner expressed support for the proposed redevelopment, stating it will provide potential business for many individuals in the community. It is a large project that will continue for many years. Theis and Koehler (agenUapplicant) have demonstrated their abilities in many developments around Estes Park. Mike Griffith/Local Resident stated he and his family have worked for the applicant for many years. Stated Koehler is a first-rate developer who never cuts corners, routinely exceeds Code requirements in many areas, hires local contractors. Linda Farrell/Adjoining Property Owner requested buffering for all surrounding neighborhoods like that shown by Mr. Theis for Lot B-1. Stated the bypass road should also be buffered; it should be routed through the center of the property where it will affect neighbors the least. The proposed commercial area should be prohibited from manufacturing, industrial, and coffee-roaming uses. She expressed appreciation for the developer's willingness to meet with neighbors, as well as Planning Commission and Town Board consideration of neighbor comments. In reference to the applicant's traffic study, questioned how many trips would be generated by new residents of the development. Planner Chilcott and Director Zurn responded: total site-generated daily trip ends is projected to be 5,700, which does not include traffic generated solely by use of the bypass road (as much as 3,500 average daily trips). Director Zurn stated there could be up to 7,000 trips/day at the bypass road/Elkhorn Avenue intersection in 2035. Kristin Edgar/Attorney with Caplan & Earnest, LLC addressed the Commissioners on behalf of the Chamberlain, Cravens, and Arcidiacono families/Adjoining Property Owners. Expressed concern about the proposed residential density and its impact on wildlife migration corridors. The property proposed for development is a primary corridor for elk migration from the national park; the proposed wildlife corridor will not work. The open nature of the area is beneficial to the wildlife and the Town and should be protected. The bypass road and affordable housing are driving the development, resulting in zoning decisions that would not otherwise be made. Adjacent properties were placed in a conservation easement; the high density proposed is not consistent with existing zoning of surrounding properties. Stated her clients' objection to the proposed rezoning and annexation. The proposal is being rushed through; impacts should be studied prior to consideration of the proposal. Eli Feldman/Attorney with Caplan & Earnest, LLC addressed the Commissioners on behalf of the Corley and Hurley families/Adjoining Property Owners. His clients' property consists of approximately 60 acres, which have been placed in a conservation easement that allows only four homes in an effort to preserve the wildlife corridor recognized and defined in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The conservation easement was a gift to the community on the part of the landowners. The proposed development is dense and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 11 April 15, 2008 will be a barrier to elk movement. His clients object to the proposed density. He urged the Planning Commission to take time to thoroughly review the proposal, which is "massive" in scale and "moving too quickly," to ensure it is done the right way with consideration for wildlife. Sandy Osterman/Town Resident expressed concern about impacts of the proposed development to all wildlife, not just deer and elk. Urged consideration of all information, including whether the proposed wildlife corridor is sufficient and whether proposed open space will provide adequate habitat for other species' needs, prior to making a decision on the proposed development and bypass road. In response to a question from Commissioner Hull, Director Joseph stated the valley-wide wildlife study recently approved by the Town Board will be complete near the end of June. The purpose of the study is to set objective standards for prioritization of wildlife habitat across the Estes Valley. At staff's request, the applicant for this proposal had a site- specific wildlife study completed. This provides a finer level of analysis than the valley- wide study would provide. A key element for prioritizing wildlife habitat is species diversity, which is typically provided by low-lying, riparian areas rather than dry hillsides. The applicant's property contains both; the applicant proposes habitat restoration along the river, which will enhance wildlife habitat. Max Burkhalter/President of Range View HOA expressed concern about the terminus of the proposed bypass road (currently Elm Road) at Moraine Avenue. Trucks currently have difficulty exiting Elm Road and often have to wait for another truck driver to block traffic in order to exit onto Moraine Avenue. Expressed concern that local residents know that Range View Road can also be used to connect to Moraine Avenue and may use it as an alternative to waiting on the bypass to exit onto Moraine. Increased traffic on Range View would cause negative financial and aesthetic impacts to the homeowners who are responsible for this privately maintained road. Dave Shirl</Neighboring Property Owner stated if the rezoning is approved, lots in the single-family residential area should specifically be restricted to allow one unit per lot due to the commercial zoning that will underlie the PUD; multi-family use should be disallowed on these lots. He noted the application is currently being revised and stated his desire to reserve the right to address the Planning Commission with further comments on this application at the May meeting. Commissioner Klink and Director Joseph indicated further public comment would be taken. Commissioner Amos questioned how the decision would be made regarding the alignment of the proposed bypass road at Elkhorn Avenue. Director Joseph stated the decision would be made by the Town Board. With the proposed lot configuration, the developer has provided flexibility to accommodate alignment with James Street or Far View Drive. Eileen Allbritten/Neighboring Property Owner expressed concern about impacts of the proposed development on their quality of life. A parking lot proposed near her property may flood their property with light. Increased traffic will affect her, as will loss of deer, elk, fox, other wildlife. The applicant proposes a trailhead for national park access below their home; this trailhead should be located within the development, not in the adjoining residential neighborhood. The proposed trailhead location is on a dangerous corner where traffic already speeds and will result in increased traffic on Old Ranger Drive. Ron Norris/Town Resident summarized the number and type of public comments received on the proposal as of April 14, as posted on the Town's website. Forty-five letters with a total of 204 comments were received; 19 comments were positive or expressed support; 185 were in opposition or expressed concern, including concerns about density, the location/design of the bypass road, noise and/or light pollution, and impacts to wildlife. Judy Ayres/Adjoining Property Owner expressed concern about the location of the intersection of the proposed bypass road with Elkhorn Avenue. Alignment of the bypass with Far View Drive would result in the road being located within 20 feet of her condominium. Submitted plans show a bus stop across the street from her residence. The traffic and noise would be overwhelming. She urged careful consideration of the impacts RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Valley Planning Commission 12 April 15, 2008 of the road alignment, stating the bypass could be routed through the middle of the property without impacting neighboring property owners. Director Joseph stated there are constraints on the road alignment that would not be apparent to a layperson, including the requirement for CDOT approval. The intersection of the bypass road with Elkhorn Avenue cannot be offset from an existing intersection. Chair Eisenlauer closed the meeting to public comment at 4:50 p.m. Commissioner Kitchen expressed her appreciation for hearing both perspectives on the proposal. Frank Theis and Bob Koehler/Rock Castle Development Co. provided concluding remarks, summarized as follows. Theis: The property under consideration is the last location available to construct a bypass road; there is some urgency to do so. The adjacent RE-1-zoned properties are within walking distance of downtown and, as such, are not rural. The applicant proposes wildlife corridors and to enhance the river corridor. The proposed density is not inconsistent with the adjacent industrial area to the south or with the adjacent Elkhorn Club Estates on the north. Koehler: The proposed density is the biggest decision the Planning Commission is grappling with. From a planning perspective, it is appropriate to concentrate density along collector roads such as the proposed bypass road. There are costs associated with bypass road construction, sale of a lot to the housing authority for construction of attainable housing, and renovation of the historic lodge. All are expensive; the proposed density is necessary to pay for these costs. Commissioner Hull stated for the record that she takes this proposal very seriously. It may be the largest development to occur in the Estes Valley. She expressed her desire to ensure that all needed information is made available and will take the necessary time to review it. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Tucker) to continue agenda items #6 (Proposed Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block 11-Appeals and Vacation Home Regulations) and #7 (Reports) to the May 20, 2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. Chair Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 5:03 p.m. Ike Eisenlauer, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission April 17, 2008,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Ike Eisenlauer; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bruce Grant, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Attending: Chair Eisenlauer; Commissioners Amos, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Town Attorney White, Town Board Liaison Homeier, Public Works Director Zurn, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioner Grant, Planner Shirk The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. Chair Eisenlauer called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Linda Farrell/Town Resident stated the three-minute time limit for public comment does not allow time for the public to provide positive comments. Sandy Osterman/Town Resident expressed concern regarding a comment made by Commissioner Amos at the April 15, 2008 planning commission meeting to wit: people in attendance at planning commission meetings are neighboring property owners to proposed developments, not the general public. She stated she and her husband attend meetings to learn and to be active citizens in the community. Commissioner Amos stated most people attend due to concern over a particular project, not just to learn about the process; his remark was not intended to be derogatory. Commissioner Klink noted that until recently most planning commission meetings were very poorly attended. He is happy to see the number of people in attendance. 2. REZONING, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, and PRELIMINARY P.U.D. 08-01, ELKHORN LODGE REDEVELOPMENT/BIG BEAR ESTATES SUBDIVISION, Four Metes and Bounds Parcels (parcel identification numbers 35261-00-001, 35261-05- 046, 35261 -06-001, 35252-53-018, Portion of 35261-06-001) and Outlot A, Sallee Resubdivision, currently known as the Elkhorn Lodge property, including 600 West Elkhorn Avenue, Zahourek Conservatory, LLC/Owner, Rock Castle Development CoJApplicant Planner Chilcott stated this is a continuation of the review begun Tuesday, April 15, 2008 of a proposed rezoning, preliminary subdivision plat, and preliminary PUD 08-01 for the Elkhorn Lodge property. Today's meeting will focus on proposed development on the lower portion of the property (approximately 20 acres), which would include a commercial core-"Elkhorn Village," renovation of the Elkhorn Lodge and addition of a wing to the lodge, and the bypass road alignment and connection to Elkhorn Avenue. These 20 acres are well suited to development to serve as a western anchor for the downtown area. Staff is supportive of the development concept for this area and of the proposed renovation of the lodge. Elkhorn Village is envisioned as a pedestrian-scale commercial development along a proposed interior road, Elkhorn Village Lane. The development proposal presents an opportunity for the Town to review and approve design guidelines for the commercial core and the entire 63 acres, which will guide how the property develops in the future and will provide a level of architectural and design review not found with the vast majority of development in Estes Park. Planning staff recommends the applicant provide a strong vision for this pedestrian-scale commercial core. The proposed development of this area avoids large-scale retail or "big box" type development, which corresponds with guidelines RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Special Meeting 2 April 17, 2008 found in Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan chapter 6. Review of this portion of the proposal includes the riverwalk, streetscapes, and parks. Staff recommends the applicant consider how public spaces can be designed to reinforce a connection to downtown and increase the viability of commercial areas. The applicant does propose restoration of Fall River in this area. Planner Chilcott provided a brief overview of proposed lots and their uses: • Lot E - approximately three acres; would include the Elkhorn Lodge, a new wing addition, courtyard space, and retail/commercial space. • Lot B-3 - a small, triangular-shaped lot, approximately 0.7 acre; difficult to develop unless it is developed in conjunction with proposed Lot E. Shared parking is envisioned between Lot B-3 and Lot E; this would require shared-access easements and shared-parking agreements. • Lot C - adjacent to Fall River. The applicant envisions 20 accommodations units on the west side and a retail/commercial building on the east, with parking between. Staff supports this transition to accommodations use; nightly stays should be limited to 30 days or fewer; use should not be for multi-family development. Additional work is needed on the concept plan for this lot because proposed parking in this area would be the focus for those looking west down Elkhorn Village Lane toward Old Man Mountain, particularly if the parking pad is converted to a parking structure in the future. • Lot D - envisioned for commercial/restaurant use. • Outlots F and G - to be dedicated to the Town; includes restoration of Fall River riparian habitat. • Lot F-1 - a key lot in the development of this property; a strong vision for use of this lot to reinforce the connection to downtown should be presented; development should be pedestrian-scale. • Lot F-2 - contains the Elkhorn Lodge coach house, which is listed on the national historic register and will be retained; proposed for single-family residential development. • Lot F-3 - contains a cabin (church), which will be retained; commercial development is also proposed. • Lot F-4 - currently- contains a number of old cabins; the applicant contemplates additional multi-family development on this lot. However, the 14.5% driveway slope exceeds the maximum slope allowed. Staff is not supportive of the envisioned multi-family development with the current driveway alignment. • If bypass road alignment with James Street is decided upon, changes to the overall concept plan would be required. Draft design guidelines for the property have been submitted by the applicant and are available for review on the Town website. Additional work is needed on the design guidelines. Staff recommends that the concept plan for the lower 20 acres of the property be completed in conjunction with determining the bypass road alignment, planning for river and wetland habitat restoration, review of the shared-parking study, and historic preservation planning. The timing of this process can be addressed with any vote to approve the preliminary PUD, should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval. Information in the utility plans submitted by the applicant for April Planning Commission review did not fully address the adequate public facilities required. This information has been refined with a revised submittal, which was routed April 14, 2008 to affected agencies for review and comment. The applicant proposes a public trailhead to be located on adjacent town-owned property accessed off Old Ranger Drive. It has not yet been determined whether this proposed location is feasible in terms of the slope of the property and the number of vehicles that could park there. The number of parking spaces needed has not yet been determined. Fall River runs through the property; proposed Lots C and D and Outlots F and G, as well as a portion of Elkhorn Avenue near Far View Drive, lie within the 100-year floodplain. The applicant proposes to revise the location of the floodplain, which would be subject to FEMA and Town Board review and approval. Review of the proposed floodplain revision RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Sliecial Meeting 3 April 17,2008 would ensure that the flood hazard is not increased on adjacent properties and may result in reducing the flood hazard on some properties. An old sewer main (and subsequent water main) that crosses Fall River above grade near Elkhorn Plaza Condominiums created a waterfall, backed up the river and changed its configuration, and increased the land within the floodplain. Review of this proposal includes returning the river to its natural condition, making it less likely to flood in the future. If the sewer and water mains are relocated, the waterfall would be affected. Elkhorn Plaza Condominium unit owners have expressed concern about potential loss of the waterfall, which muffles traffic noise from Elkhorn Avenue, provides a soothing environment, and creates fishing pools. Staff believes the benefits of returning the river to its natural state, restoration of fish habitat along the entire stretch of river through the applicant's property, and removing properties from the floodplain are compelling reasons to remove or lower the waterfall. If the waterfall is lowered, care would be taken to ensure the maximum amount of buffering of road noise is retained as is possible, thus minimizing impact to the adjacent property owners. The applicant proposes two open-space outlots adjacent to Fall River, Outlots C and D, and restoration of wetlands. Final determination of the bypass road alignment may impact existing wetlands. Staff recommends that approval of the submitted applications be conditioned on replacement of all wetlands that are removed with a one-for-one replacement of jurisdictional wetlands either on-site or immediately adjacent to the site. A wetlands study determined that lower-quality wetlands found on proposed Lot F-1 were created by raising Elkhorn Avenue, which causes water to collect there. The wetlands on Lot F-1 are not connected to Fall River and are therefore not under federal jurisdiction. The applicant submitted a Wildlife Habitat Evaluation and Impact Analysis. Staff recommends requiring compliance with the recommendations in this analysis, including, but not limited to, preparation of a restoration plan for the river and wetland/riparian habitat. In accordance with this plan, no use or minimal use of riprap should be proposed for bank stabilization. Portions of the riverbank have been degraded by horses stabled in this area. The lower 20 acres of the property has very different topography and site conditions than the upper 40 acres; it is generally open with few trees. The only steeply sloped, treed area is proposed Lot F-4, which the applicant shows as 3.785 acres with 2.426 acres set aside as private open space. There are some significant spruce trees on the lower 20 acres that the applicant is working to preserve. Staff is supportive of the proposed limits of disturbance. The Elkhorn Lodge property was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as an historic district in the 1970s. The applicant proposes to renovate and preserve the main lodge building and construct a new hotel wing and has stated that the coach house and cabin (church) on Lot F-2 will remain. The ranch house is in the location of the bypass road if alignment with Far View Drive is chosen and is proposed to be removed, as are the bunkhouses. Staff recommends that compliance with comments received from Estes Park Museum Director Betty Kilsdonk be a condition of approval; these comments address historic documentation of the buildings. The applicant has hired the firm City Visions to prepare the historical assessment. Staff recommends the overall design of development on the lower 20 acres be reviewed to ensure the existing lodge and the pedestrian-scale development complement one another. Removal of any existing buildings should be addressed in the annexation agreement or development agreement between the applicant and the Town. The applicant proposes to remove all horses from the site with the redevelopment and does not plan to keep horses on the site. Staff recommends this be a condition of approval. Staff recommends that permitted uses for each proposed lot be clearly established. The single-family residential portion of the development should be limited to single-family use only. The type of retail or commercial development proposed on each lot on the lower portion of the site should be itemized. The PUD should clearly define which zoning district regulations apply on each lot. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Special Meeting 4 April 17, 2008 Staff has received a number of comments from neighboring property owners regarding concerns about lighting impacts. Staff recommends that a lighting study be required with each future development plan application to ensure that offsite lighting impacts are minimized. Until the final alignment of the bypass road with West Elkhorn Avenue is determined by decision of the Town Board, the applicant proposes to use the current driveway entrance to the Elkhorn Lodge as the northern terminus of the road. Once the permanent bypass road has been constructed, this temporary access could be converted to a less intense use. Consideration should be given to converting this section of road to pedestrian and/or shuttle bus use at that time. Bypass road alignment with Far View Drive is the option preferred by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Town staff. This would impact property owners on Far View Drive, as well as Elkhorn Plaza Condominiums, who would then have roads on three sides of their property. If bypass road alignment with James Street is chosen, the Old Ranger Drive connection to W. Elkhorn Avenue would be removed and Old Ranger Drive traffic would be routed through the applicant's property. It is also possible that James Street access to W. Elkhorn Avenue would be closed. In that circumstance, upgrades to the W. Elkhorn Avenue/Wonderview Avenue intersection may be made. Staff will need to look closely at the overall functionality of the bypass road to ensure it functions as needed to move traffic from Highway 34 (Wonderview Avenue) to Highway 36 (Moraine Avenue) and is a good design for the proposed development. There will be impacts to neighboring property owners regardless of where the bypass road is constructed; consideration should be given to mitigation of impacts to affected property owners. If no bypass road is constructed, that choice would have impacts on the community as well. Director Zurn stated the determination regarding whether to complete the bypass road connection from W. Elkhorn Avenue to Wonderview Avenue will be made in the future. At this time, consideration must be given to providing a workable alignment for this possible future connection. He reiterated that CDOT has discussed the need to remove the Old Ranger Drive connection to Elkhorn Avenue if the James Street alignment for the bypass road is chosen. The proposed bypass road is one solution to future traffic congestion in the community. Director Zurn once again reviewed traffic projections and possible road improvements (bypass road, Riverside Drive improvements), as outlined in the minutes from April 15, 2008. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and staff, summarized as follows: • Use of the current driveway into Elkhorn Lodge as a temporary bypass road terminus would provide time for a decision to be made regarding the final road alignment while allowing the applicant to construct the early phases of the proposed development. • The configuration of the mixed-use portion of the development cannot be determined until the primary vehicular access to the bypass road is determined. • Far View Drive is considered the optimum location for bypass road alignment by those who have a traffic engineering background and make projections about future traffic needs; however, Far View Drive is not currently designed for the traffic volume or truck traffic that may eventually use it. • The use of James Street as a connection to Wonderview Avenue would require a significant and costly overpass structure. Far View Drive or Filbey Court would provide better access to Wonderview Avenue. • It is important to consider off-site impacts of the development and bypass road and to mitigate those impacts to the extent feasible. • The proposed off-site trailhead parking is immediately adjacent to a large parking area within the proposed development. The applicant's parking study indicates more parking is needed than is currently proposed. It may make more sense for the trailhead parking to be located on-site; this should be reviewed further. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Special Meeting 5 April 17, 2008 • The applicant proposes a trail connection through the town-owned property to the future riverwalk connection/sidewalk. • It is unclear to what extent the public may have an historic, prescriptive right of horse use on trails on the property; all trail use would be non-motorized. • A connection from the parking area contemplated between proposed Lot B-2 and Lot C to the trailhead parking on the town-owned lot would provide an ingress/egress point in the event of flood or fire; it is likely that a connection will be maintained there. Traffic would not be encouraged to use this connection. • Old Man Mountain Lane (currently unpaved right-of-way) adjacent to proposed Lot B-1 (proposed for attainable housing development) is not currently contemplated to provide formal access to Lot B-1. Options include using this right-of-way to provide access to Lot B-1, vacating the right-of-way, or retaining an access easement in the current location of the right-of-way. Applicant Presentation: Frank Theis/CMS Planning & Development Co. representing Rock Castle Development Co. stated the applicant is requesting approval of the plat. The rezoning is necessary because the PUD (which requires the underlying zoning to be commercial) allows additional density on the upper 40 acres and proposed Lot B-1. Each lot on the lower portion of the property will be subject to complete development plan review in the future. The PUD will designate the uses and the maximum allowable development on individual lots; the concept plan was developed to convey this information. Design guidelines will set the bar for the level and quality of future development on the property. Location of the bypass road constrains development potential on the property. The most direct road connection would have entailed removal of the Elkhorn Lodge. The applicant has routed the proposed bypass road as far from the lodge as possible while still accommodating the Far View Drive alignment preferred by the Town's Public Works Department and CDOT; this requires removal of historic cabins. The applicant plans to construct a basic road from Elm Road through the property, exiting at the current Elkhorn Lodge driveway location, which is opposed by the current landowner and owners of the adjacent Elkhorn Plaza Condominiums. The applicant requests that limited traffic be allowed until a permanent connection to Elkhorn Avenue is made and suggests not making the connection through to Elm Road until that time. In terms of commercial development of the core area, the most advantageous location for the intersection of the bypass road with Elkhorn Avenue would be midway between Old Ranger Drive and James Street. The applicant proposes right-of-way to accommodate three possible road alignments (James Street, Far View Drive, or Filbey Court), with unused right-of-way for either the James Street alignment or the Far View Drive alignment to be vacated following a decision by the Town Board on the final road alignment. The applicant requests this decision be made by the time the final plat is considered by the Town Board. Mr. Theis stated the proposed density and uses are consistent with surrounding properties, noting the lodge property has always been zoned for commercial use and provides a commercial anchor to the downtown area. He argued that the large parcels to the east are anomalies. Residential use is proposed on lots adjacent to Elkhorn Club Estates as a buffer. Planner Chilcott clarified that these lots are proposed for commercial use. Mr. Theis stated the applicant proposes accommodations use in order to achieve the desired density on these lots. The applicant is willing to provide a significant buffer on Lot B-1 (proposed for attainable housing) via a platted building envelope to lessen impact to the neighboring property owners. Mr. Theis stated the applicant is sympathetic to the concerns of Elkhorn Plaza Condominium owners regarding road impacts and is willing to do whatever it takes to help buffer them. The applicant is committed to river restoration on the property and will restore the north bank that is within the current Elkhorn Avenue right-of-way. The Commissioners proceeded with questions for Mr. Theis; his responses are summarized as follows: • The applicant is open to what will be developed on proposed Lot F-1; plans currently show 5,000 square feet of retail and a parking area on this lot. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Special Meeting 6 April 17, 2008 • Platted open space on proposed Lot B-1 could not be changed by a future owner such as the Housing Authority. • The applicant plans 20 rooms/suites in the Elkhorn Lodge with an additional 55 rooms in the new wing addition and intends to retain management of the lodge. • The concept plan for the core commercial area was designed to provide workable lots and density regardless of the final alignment of the bypass road; however, the applicant will need a determination of the road alignment by the time construction of the new wing addition to the lodge begins. • Open space is proposed in front of the Elkhorn Lodge. The applicant is trying to preserve the biggest trees along the proposed bypass road near the lodge. Few trees are proposed for removal on the lower portion of the property. The applicant will have a wildfire mitigation plan prepared by professional foresters. • The Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Celine LeBeau of Van Horn Engineering, the applicant's engineering/surveying firm. Ms. LeBeau is well- qualified to prepare the assessment; she has a degree in biology, is trained as a wildlife biologist, and has 10 years of field experience, including work for Rocky Mountain National Park. • The primary concern expressed by Colorado Division of Wildlife Officer Rick Spowart was loss of potential elk harvest if the property is developed. Celine LeBeau/Van Horn Engineering and Surveying addressed the Commissioners and provided her professional qualifications. Mule deer and elk move from Deer Ridge to Fall River through the applicant's property, but it is not a major migration corridor. Her report recommends providing wildlife corridors and limiting or prohibiting fencing; the proposed wildlife corridors are sufficient. Alteration of habitat or environment effects what is living there; the effects can be positive (such as the proposed river restoration) or negative. Wildlife officials are trying to manage elk and deer populations; the proposed development will affect them but will not adversely affect their populations. Chair Eisenlauer called a recess at 3:25 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 3:32 p.m. Public Comment: Linda Farrell/Adjoining Property Owner requested the project not move forward until all neighborhood rights are addressed. Requested waterfall impact study with documentation of sound levels and rock formations. Requested James Street alignment for bypass road intersection with Elkhorn Avenue or other location not aligned with Far View Drive. Expressed concern about proposed shuttle bus stop across from Elkhorn Plaza Condominiums, RVs, traffic, exhaust fumes. Stated there will be too many impacts on Elkhorn Plaza Condominiums. Requested green belt buffer of 200 feet or more for adjoining properties. Commercial uses should be limited to prohibit manufacturing or industrial uses, including brew pubs, coffee roasting, or uses that would affect noise levels or air quality. Requested light study. Stated the applicant's property is an extension of Old Man Mountain and Rocky Mountain National Park; urged Commissioners to ensure quality of life. Ms. Farrell also addressed the Commissioners at the end of the public comment period, expressing appreciation for the willingness of Mr. Theis and Rock Castle Development Co. to work with neighbors and come up with creative solutions. She stated planning staff have been willing to meet with concerned citizens on short notice, and Mr. Zahourek has been an excellent neighbor. James Tawney/Town Resident stated the Commissioners will see more and more companies (such as the applicant's engineering firm) that will provide employees with a broad range of expertise. Questioned why a bypass road is needed in the proposed location. Stated the bypass road is over-magnified. Encouraged the Commissioners to get the developer through the process as soon as possible. Wayne Newsom/Neighboring Property Owner stated he strongly supports the proposed bypass road and is in favor of the "western" alignment, which would route the bypass in front of the existing barns rather than past Elkhorn Plaza Condominiums. The road should not run through the commercial part of the proposed development. Use of the "western" alignment would allow vehicles to disperse in five different directions rather than funneling RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Special Meeting 7 April 17, 2008 all traffic up Far View Drive. Required improvements to Far View Drive would be very costly; signage could be used to direct drivers who may wish to avoid the downtown area. The proposed development would be a nice addition to the town. John Spahnle/Adjoining Property Owner expressed concern about development of proposed Lot B-1, which could severely impact his property; requested minimum of 120- foot buffer. Also concerned about public trail proposed adjacent to his property, trailhead parking, and horse use of the trail. Objected to bypass road alignment with James Street, which would require closure of Old Ranger Drive at W. Elkhorn Avenue and would impact Elkhorn Club Estates subdivision. Requested Old Man Mountain Lane right-of-way be vacated; does not want this used as an entrance to Lot B-1; expressed concern that Old Man Mountain Lane could be used as a cut-through from the bypass to Old Ranger Drive. Diane CollineVAdjoining Property Owner echoed Mr. Spahnle's concerns regarding Old Man Mountain Lane and requested the right-of-way be vacated. Vee O'Farrell/Neighboring Property Owner also requested vacation of Old Man Mountain Lane right-of-way. Expressed concern about potential impacts of use of this right-of-way, as well as noise and dust from heavy equipment during construction of the proposed development. Neighborhood quiet and serenity will be lost; home values may decline; wildlife will be impacted by parking, people, and condominium development. Requested consideration of neighboring property owners. Kathleen Murray/Adjoining Property Owner expressed concern about impacts of the proposed development, including the proposed bypass road that may be 17 feet from her front door. Reiterated Mr. O'Farrell's concerns regarding impacts of construction, heavy equipment, dirt, noise, dust over a long period of time. Impacts of the bypass road would be permanent. Requested the bypass road intersection with Elkhorn Avenue be located on the western portion of the property. Kristin Edgar/Attorney with Caplan & Earnest, LLC addressed the Commissioners on behalf of the Chamberlain, Cravens, and Arcidiacono families/Adjoining Property Owners and on behalf of the clients of Attorney Eli Feldman (the Corley and Hurley families/Adjoining Property Owners). Expressed concern that the historic significance of the property has not been addressed. The letter submitted by the applicant from City Visions is not an historic analysis; it calls for additional investigation, which should be completed prior to approval of a PUD for the property. Requested the Commissioners take time to consider the surroundings of the area and whether the proposal is consistent with the Estes Valley Development Code and Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The project is very complex and would add 60 acres of development to the town, which is almost the size of Estes Park's existing commercial core. Encouraged the Commissioners to consider impacts of the proposed development to future generations. Ken Schwarz/Local Resident stated Mr. Koehler (applicant) is an ethical developer. Elk don't have any problem getting around existing development. Opposition to the proposed development is based on fear; encouraged ,those with concerns to speak directly to Koehler. Keith Keenan/Trout Unlimited stated he has served on the state board of directors for Trout Unlimited and was past president of the local chapter. Expressed his support for the proposed development, which presents the opportunity to turn a stretch of Fall River into a premier trout stream (a benefit to the community). Sandy Osterman/Town Resident expressed concern about the applicant's Environmental Impact Assessment. Elk movement has been impacted by development near her. Elk and deer habitat would be destroyed by the applicant's proposed development. Tourists come to see wildlife; loss of habitat and wildlife visibility will have a negative economic impact. Verd Bailey/Adjoining Property Owner stated elk spend a lot of time on proposed Lot F-1; expressed concern about the wetland on this lot. The town is made up of people, not infrastructure; consideration should be given to the development's effects on people. Encouraged bypass road alignment with James Street; expressed concern about alignment with Far View Drive, which would route traffic past Elkhorn Plaza RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Special Meeting 8 April 17, 2008 Condominiums and result in removal of wetlands along Fall River in this location. Use of the current driveway for the Elkhorn Lodge as a temporary bypass road terminus would also impact them; this use may continue for many years given construction timeframes. The bypass road would be a collector road, which means the temporary road would carry the same traffic volumes. The Estes Valley Development Code has specific requirements for construction of collector roads, and Section 7.12.H requires demonstration of no significant adverse impact on existing transportation levels of service... within one- quarter mile of the site or that any such adverse impact has been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. If future bypass road traffic is routed up Far View Drive, these requirements could prove very costly. Expressed concern that the applicant's traffic impact analysis did not include effects of pedestrian traffic, including riverwalk connection and lighting for pedestrians. Judy Ayres/Adjoining Property Owner stated if the bypass road runs past her condominium, her quality of life will suffer greatly; urged consideration of impacts to current and future neighboring property owners. Use of Far View Drive as an extension of the proposed bypass road will not work unless properties along Far View are purchased. Requested bypass road not be located adjacent to her property and requested "green space" (buffers) as proposed for other neighboring properties. Jerry Zahourek/Elkhom Lodge Property Owner stated the "western" alignment for the bypass road is the only one that should be considered. Visitors to the lodge drive past the existing driveway without ever seeing it. The western alignment will allow people driving by to see the commercial development and lodging opportunities. Dave Mechem/Neighboring Property Owner stated he is fully in support of the project; it will be good for the town and will provide jobs. Elk and deer will find their way through/amongst buildings just fine. Chair Eisenlauer closed the meeting to public comment at 4:26 p.m. Frank Theis provided concluding remarks, summarized as follows. The Town Board will make the final decision on the proposed bypass road alignment; the applicant has provided several options. There will be opportunity for Planning Commission review of every development plan for the property in the future. All historic buildings will be carefully documented. None that are listed as historically significant are proposed for removal in the first phase of the project. The applicant hopes to move some of the buildings rather than tear them down. Offered to set up an open workshop with experts who prepared the various analyses and studies to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. Stated habitat improvements along Fall River will benefit the elk as well as the fish. Requested a speedy decision on the proposal. Planning Commission Comments: Commissioner Tucker-Acknowledged applicant's repeated requests to expedite review of the proposal; is willing to proceed as quickly as possible while still arriving at a sound decision. The fundamental concept for the development is good; the town will benefit. Elkhorn Plaza Condominiums are located next to an existing commercial-zoned property; expressed sympathy for possible impacts to the condominiums. Stated in order to receive his support, the bypass road intersection with Elkhorn Avenue would need to be located on the western portion of the property. Stated he thinks the wildlife will be okay. Was originally opposed to proposed density on upper 40 acres; now recognizes some increase in density is necessary. Concerned about traffic impacts at Elkhorn Avenue intersection and particularly at Moraine Avenue intersection in the summer. Expressed need for thorough evaluation of potential traffic impacts at these locations prior to moving forward with the development. Stated he is not happy with Lot B-1 as currently proposed. Large buffers should be mandatory for Old Ranger Drive properties and the Elkhorn Plaza Condominiums. Expressed concern that more weight may be given to historic buildings than to impacts on neighboring property owners; would support removal of Elkhorn Lodge over negative impacts to neighbors. Stated the proposed commercial core will be good for the community. Requested the applicant fix proposed Lot B-1, move the bypass road away from Elkhorn Plaza Condominiums, and solve the traffic problems. He encouraged RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estds Valley Planning Commission - Special Meeting 9 April 17, 2008 staff to involve the Planning Commission from the beginning. Stated he is wrestling with the issue of the waterfall behind Elkhorn Plaza Condominiums because the dam is manmade. If the river must be lowered, he would like future input from the condominium unit owners regarding which is worst-having the bypass road closer or removing the dam. Commissioner Amos-Stated he would defer providing complete comments until he is ready to vote on the proposal. He is not influenced by the proposed bypass road and will look at the proposed single-family residential area on the upper 40 acres as if it were a "stand-alone" development. Any developer of this upper portion of the property would be required to provide access via Elm Road as well as any required roads internal to the development. Commissioner Eisenlauer-Stated a bypass road from Elm Road to Elkhorn Avenue has been discussed for as long as he's been a resident (16 years). He expressed support for the proposed bypass road and preference for the "western" alignment at Elkhorn Avenue. He stated consideration should be given to use of a roundabout rather than a traffic signal at this intersection. Expressed his agreement with many of Commissioner Tucker's comments, but not all of them. Stated the elk will go where they want to; the development will not be a problem to them. Commissioner Klink-Stated he is unconvinced that the numbers provided in the applicant's traffic study have any validity. He noted there is a "hell of a push" at the Town level to make the bypass road happen. The Planning Commission does not make the decision; it is the recommending body. Given the assumption that the bypass road will be constructed, he has made peace with the proposed density on the upper 40 acres. Stated the bypass road should not be opened until final connection is made at both ends of the road, including installation of traffic signals. Alignment of the bypass road/Elkhorn Avenue intersection should be on the western portion of the lower acreage to be fair to adjoining property owners. Expressed concern about proposed Lot B-1; requested the units proposed for that lot be placed elsewhere on the property or that development of the lot otherwise mitigate impacts to neighboring property owners in Elkhorn Club Estates. Commissioner Kitchen-Expressed appreciation for members of the public who missed work to attend the meeting. Stated the concept plan is good, but the proposed trailhead needs work and real buffers should be provided for Elkhorn Plaza Condominiums. The single-family homes proposed for the upper portion of the property should please those who are opposed to condominium development. The proposed mixed use reflects our society and current conditions. The Colorado Department of Transportation has the ultimate say in the road alignment. Stated she is pleased the Elkhorn Lodge will remain. Commissioner Hull-Stated she does not have too much problem with the proposed development on the lower 20 acres; expressed hope that the applicant will work with Elkhorn Plaza Condominium owners. Stated her concerns with the proposed density of the single-family residential lots. Three goals were stated at the joint meeting held early this year between the Planning Commission, Board of County Commissioners, and Town Board, one of which was to lessen density. Also noted she has concerns about proposed Lot B-1. Stated this is the largest development proposal that has come before the Planning Commission; it will be the Commission's legacy and she takes the proposal very seriously. Commissioner Klink asked if the applicant would agree to a continuance to the May Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Theis stated "Yes." It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to continue the request for Rezoning, and the Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Preliminary P.U.D. 08-01 for Elkhorn Lodge RedevelopmenUBig Bear Estates Subdivision, to the May 20, 2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Special Meeting 10 April 17, 2008 Chair Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m. Ike Eisenlauer, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 12-08 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., hereby states its intention to annex the area described herein. The Board of Trustees finds and determines that the Petitions filed with the Town Clerk requesting annexation of the area described herein is in substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1)(g), C.R.S. The Board of Trustees further finds and determines that the Petitions are signed by persons comprising one hundred percent (100%) of the landowners in the area proposed to be annexed and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, and any land owned by the annexing municipality. Such area, if annexed, will be known as " BIG BEAR ESTATES ADDITION" to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. Such area is described as follows: The Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as: Beginning at the Center Quarter Corner of Said Section 26, monumented by a 2" aluminum cap flush in concrete PLS #6499; thence along the westerly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26 NOO°43'22'W 1329.83', more or less, to the Center-North sixteenth corner of said Section 26, monumented by a 2" metal cap PLS #6499 on a #6 rebar; thence along the northerly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26 S89°49'30"E 1311.23', more or less, to a point half way to the North Sixteenth corner common to Sections 25 and 26, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., said North Sixteenth corner monumented by a 1 W metal cap #6499 on a #6 rebar; thence along the easterly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26 SOO° 57'47"E 1330.18', more or less, to the Center-East sixteenth corner of said Section 26, monumented by a 2" Aluminum cap #6499 on a 1" pipe; thence along the southerly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26 N89°48'50"W 1316.81', more or less, to the point of beginning. Containing 40.11 acres, more or less. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 31-12-108, C.R.S., the Town Board Public Hearing shall be held Tuesday, June 24,2008 at 7:00 p.m., in Town Hall, located at 170 MacGregor Ave., Estes Park, Colorado, for the purpose of determining if the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall give the notice of the hearing as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. DATED this day of ,2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 1 1 Ul TOWN Of [STES PARK Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: May 22,2008 Re: The Promontory at Kiowa Ridge Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #4, Units 9,12, and 13, Lot 6, Mary's Lake Replat, The Promontory LLC/Applicant Background. The applicant has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for The Promontory at Kiowa Ridge Condominiums. The property is located on Lot 6 of the Mary's Lake Replat and is zoned A-Accommodations Highway Corridor. A total of twenty-two detached accommodations/residential units are proposed on the 8.6-acre lot. The third supplemental condominium map application was approved at the January 8, 2008 Town Board meeting. This map condominiumizes three units; six remain to be condominiumized. Budget. 0/ Lots 2 /. 5 & 0•1201.1 of All„,l'tury Mary * t.nk•· It•Plat . None. .'O.-,4 ..94.. ,£.. ed 'Al G:. ij P I luum If Kitc. Park. Calit'I -, 41 t.lk-T Sint. .! C... . .,1 Action. r .2 4. \ Approval of the final condominium 1 Bingle-Famlly 4' ho; map application conditioned on F~-1-w*--12-2 .84 Lot 2\\F-- submittal and approval of plans to correct ongoing erosion problems at -~ the Promontory Drive cul-de-sac . Lt:v™ «1~ 46~ bulb. --16 4... M L.4 7£11 ~ i Bingl-Family M 4 .4 Kiow• Ridge Subdivlsion Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Bob Joseph, Director Date: May 22,2008 Subject: The Peaks at Mary's Lake Lodge Condominiums, Lots 3A and 3B, Mary's Lake Replat of Mary's Lake Subdivision, Ram's Horn Development Co./Applicant. Background. This is a request for approval of a final condominium map application for property located at 2625 Marys Lake Road. The property is located on two lots, Lots 3A and 3B of the Replat of Mary's Lake Subdivision. Both lots are zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor. This map splits four dwelling units (Units 26,27,28 and 29) within MLL-2 Condominiums into twelve "hotel" units consistent with Mary's Lake Lode Development Plan approval #4. Budget. . p-4 k 9 2 4 'V Nor#& Rai.g® 7 * / k None. . 0/ Lanme· ..4 V G ·im.I P V row•, O, F £·, par J.'It, , , 1 Action. Approval of the condominium map _ . single-Family / ." 4 m application conditioned on (1) compliance < \SF ~ LU·- Lor,B with the comments in Greg White's memo a« Iwig: 3,•-=w•3::n~.624 dated May 15,2008; (2) provision of measurements for sidewalk limited ' L LK, v#Weir/p4%A f 4 common elements; (3) the condominium - Lot l 7.Flf .1 L.,2'11> name and owner names shall match in the I ' ~ LOT SA $ Single-Family declaration and on the map. Kiowa Ridge Subdivigion Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: David Shirk, Planner Date: May 22,2008 Subject: Phase I, Units 1170,1180 and 1190; The Timbers Final Condominium Map, The Sanctuary LLC applicant Background. This proposed - condominium subdivision is to --- < allow individual sale of Units ompson Ave 1170,1180 and 1190 (3 of 13 units g I Travel ; R Lodge' / proposed) Timber Mountain Lane \ 1 \ on a 2-acre "A" Accommodations i~-"----7 1 zoned lot. The property is located 01 f 1 on the east side of Grand Estates ~ - Drive, immediately south of the -4-~ i 4 Travel Lodge. 1 I , N i The development plan allowing -li construction of these units has been approved by the Estes Valley Planning Commission; this request is only for the condominium map to allow individual sale. Budget. N/A Action. Approval with the following conditions: Compliance with Scott Zurn's memo of May 16, 2008. Compliance with Christine Bebow's letter of May 8, 2008. Compliance with Greg White's memo dated May 15, 2008. TOWN Of ESTES PARK Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: May 22,2008 Re: The Promontory at Kiowa Ridge Condominiums, Amended Condominium Map of Units 14, 17, 20, 21, and 22, Lot 6, Mary's Lake Replat, The Promontory, LLC, Ken and Cherie Martin, Jeff and Patricia Van Bogaert, and William and Sandra Cepica/Applicants Background. The applicants have submitted an amended condominium map application for The Promontory at Kiowa Ridge Condominiums. The property is located on Lot 6 of the Mary's Lake Replat and is zoned A-Accommodations Highway Corridor. A total of twenty-two detached accommodations/residential units are proposed. As described in the statement of intent, four of the unit owners have added decks or patios. A fifth unit owner has changed their proposed concrete deck to a patio. This amended condominium map will reflect these revisions to the property. Budget. ... 2 4. 5 4 0."D. A ed /4·. ti minanj VJ) u ~, / ub A, PA.a AM-¥ s Lah Subduiswn A None. .21: 'trin.1 25 7.4 /IA 1 P W tinin 4 F. 51" Park. Counky I Of t./.mer ... W rear.... .../ Action. . -6 -0 I. f / 0% 1 Approval of the amended SIngle-Family condominium map application. ./*/F--I'&--- /~~ A*~ Lot € ~-- --7 A Lot 7 rk, 4 Vt -open .pac. .F ~ Lot 4 1> -- Lot i 10... Or. 1 Single-Family t¢ 01 13-- >--1 1 Kiow• Ridge 4 M 1.1 Subdivision 1 .. 1+15;hr: · - 1,i>*A · /41 0.1 K *·~ 3rv:p~ ,~ *- 4 Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: May 22,2008 Re: 2nd Amendment to the Map of Rivers Point Downtown Condominiums, Background. The condominium map and declaration of Rivers Pointe Downtown Condominiums was approved by the Town of Estes Park Town Board at the June 28, 2005 meeting. The condominium map for Rivers Pointe Downtown Condominiums was recorded on August 20, 2005 at Reception #2005-0073352 and the Condominium Declaration of Rivers Pointe Downtown Condominiums was recorded August 30, 2005 at Reception #2005-0073353 in the records of the County Clerk. A previous amendment was approved at the January 8, 2008 town board meeting that divided existing Unit E into Units E & F. Proiect Description This Amendment will divide existing Unit F into Units F & G. This Amendment will also combine the existing Units 28,20 & 20 and create a new unit, which will be defined as Unit 2B. This Amendment will create a total of fourteen (14) units. A maximum of 17 units is allowed within the condo declaration. Owners/Lien Holders The current unit owners of the Rivers Pointe Downtown Condominiums are: Whipp Investments, LLC, Windy City, LLC, OTB Properties, LLC, Russell J. & April P. Sorenson, James Haber & Kiel Bassett Morris, Donna Oktavee, Gerald C & Donetta J. Patrick, Freemont Investments, LLC, Edward W. Kueteman, Michael D. Harris and WAG Corporation, Inc. Budget None. Action. Approval of the final condominium map with the following conditions: Address the Amended Condo Declaration as per Greg White's letter of May 15, 2008. Finance Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Halbumt From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Date: May 27th, 2008 Subject: First quarter 2008 sales tax Background Attached please find the report on sales tax progress through the first quarter of 2008, as well as discussion on the reclassification of sales tax revenues. Documentation Key points ofthe presentation: RECLASSIFICATION. In 2007, Staff and the Town Board discussed the need to consider reclassification of existing sales tax categories. The reasons for reclassification were threefold: • Many of the existing classifications were/are so old that new technologies and even new industries have arisen since the creation of the list. Deb Parrack noted that the existing categories have been in place for at least 20 years. • An audit needed to be performed of the 1,121 vendors to make sure that they had been initially categorized correctly. This involved review of both the 6-digit US NAICS Descriptions as well as our own 2-digit coding system. • Staff felt that there were too many 'tninof' categories and that several of the existing categories could be merged with retaiFgeneral merchandise. The results ofthe reclassification exercise were as follows: • 152 ofthe 1,121 vendors were reclassified (14%). Most of these were minor changes (within the same larger category). • $402,731 ofthe $7,233,707 in 2007 sales tax was reclassified (6%). • Many of the original 49 line items were edited, merged, created or deleted (see "Comparative Sales Tax Chart - Categories" - not part of Powerpoint presentation, but included in your Board Books). • 3 of the major categories (Apparel, Arts & Crafts, and Furniture) were merged with Retail. This resulted in the "Big 5" (Food, Lodging, Retail, Utilities, and Construction) increasing from 90% to 96% of the total sales tax revenue (see graph entitled "2007 Classification Comparisons"). SALES TAX BUDGETING PROCESS. Since sales tax is the Town's #1 revenue source, I spend a great deal of time and energy creating/monitoring forecasting models, reviewing charts and graphs, and projecting for the future. This is ultimately manifested when we settle on an annual number for the budget. Page 10 ofthe Summary Budget (2008) lists sales tax numbers by month, including projections for 2008. To arrive at the monthly numbers, I worked backwards from the annual projection of $7,406,463, taking 5-yr averages and then applying percentages to the total. For example, the 5-yr average for January is 4.1429% ofthe fiscal year. 4.1429% x the annual forecast of $7,406,463 is $306,844. Other than creating this page for the budget, little attention has ever been paid it. With the national economy in the doldrums, more attention is now being paid to the "page 10" document, on a monthly basis, as a measuring stick for the budget. Referring to the 2007 Sales Tax Presentation given to the Board in February 2008, sales tax has really begun to accelerate over the past two years. The year-year increases from 2002-2007 are 2.20%, 2.13%, 1.91%, 5.36%, and 6.89%. In addition, we also noted that there is shifting in the quarters, with the 2~d and 3rd quarters taking up a larger share of the pie. I decided to consauct an alternate monthly budget (using 3-yr instead of 5-yr trends); it is displayed in the "Budget vs Actual Sales Tax 2008" graph. The resulting two lines reflect the above trends. Specifically the 5-yr trend calls for a stronger 1St quarter, while the 3 -yr line reflects a stronger 24/34 quarter. I am frequently asked questions along the lines of"Are we in line to make budget? At what point should we be concerned?" I think that this graph could help with part of the answer. I would say that if the yellow line - the "actual" line at any time trails BOTH the short and long term trend lines, we should probably take notice. There are other graphs that need to be brought to bear to determine what level of concern is appropriate. Incidentally, at the end ofthe first quarter, the yellow line is between the two trend lines. I would say that this merits some caution, but not to the point ofmaking budgetary cuts. • Page ~ 2 1sr O 08 REPORT. 1* quarter sales tax for 2008 was 6.5% better than 2007. As seen in the previous graph, the $923K falls almost midway between the budgeted 1St quarter ($984K) and "revised 3-yr average" budget amount of $874K. First quarter revenues almost always play out to 12-13% of the total revenues for the year. Although seemingly a narrow scope, that only reduces revenues to a $7.1 - $7.7m range. Note that our budget of $7.4m falls right in the middle. The graph ("% of total Sales Tax by Type") illustrates the difference in the Estes Park economy from a year-round vs winter perspective. All of the lines add up to 100%. The years 1998-2007 were reviewed as part ofthe 2007 report. When adding the 1* Q 08 data, some categories change fairly dramatically. The Estes Park winter (off-season) economy has a much higher percentage of sales tax income from Utilities and Construction, and a much smaller percentage coming from Lodging. The Other category has been mostly absorbed into Retail, giving a false impression that retail remains strong in the off-season. A final graph ("Sales Tax Trends") shows average sales tax revenue by month (blue line) and the average rate of change of the sales tax revenue (maroon line). The average sales tax revenue is currently $607]Umo, or $7.29m. That's a little short of our budget projection of $7.4m. Fortunately, the maroon line - the rate of change - is increasing at an 8.2% pace. That extrapolates out to a sales tax figure ($7.7m) at the end of the year that handily exceeds budget. Whether or not the rate of change is sustainable remains to be seen, but so long as the maroon line stays above the black trend line, we should make budget. Action steps requested None. • Page 3 isi. .. a ' ·'79 -~ ~ ~ 143 0 21 N .. .1 +J lili Sales Tax Report: Jeo!#0 eoueu!:1 - PUBIJB:IOIN GAms W - E > 2 i*2 W -*-*1*/13 - wri ¤d323 A m EEA * O U = . M 02 23883* 3------- A---- -IM.MIN --en . 00©000© lo- - - 0 M Z J & 5 9 8 U - - I 2 - g EN 2 US 9% - E 1 2 = i 311 8-8 5 B JL U ka 06 2 -m 8 - St J 9 Le .W. REARITRA 32 2 5 = € -Pil 2 8 Eg-g - .1 r,1 7- -Chi en 000 r---- D--- U 1.ef, 9 23- 1 3 0- 70 I = iallif bl O• U 0 = = 0 - 6. U U I. : 0 CO U U 1 2 -1 E -m / U C4 -- to t. 59 0 f . -1 -. Af53 1%1# m O 05 . EC < a 09223; *322 *2222*KiE 2 2 12 Recreation 82 Cottages, rentals, sales 82 Cottages. rentals. sales 21 Boot and Shoe Stores 91 Constructions, remodels tions, remodels 33 Special Events Advertising, publishing, computers Automobiles, Motorcycles 105 Insurance, real estate mobiles. Motorcycles eal estate. banks. leasing Oil & Gas 44 Oil & Gas eum. other organizations tre. paint. clean vets ctors. vets 11 Arcades, Theaters 81 Hotel & Motel 11 Arcades, Theaters Hotel & Motel Garages. Repair Shop 106 Maintenance, clean intenance. clean ries, Candy. Cheese elephone Rename "telecommunications" OLD NEW (changes/new categories In red) 32 Crafts and Craft Stores PERSONAL/PROFESSIONAL ed w e m /PROFESSIONAL 13 To P'Wpp oz t P@UIsse[oun on 3JI GE,MISS¥10?<n DaldISSV-[JNfl COMPARATIVE SALES TAX CHART - CATEGORIES AMUSEMENTS/RECREATION LODGING AMUSEMENTS/RECREATION Accessories, Trailers 104 Photography ssories, Trailers solois 0046 puu loOEI JUIE.101?Fl 'UJUA '3.Iqed SNU![ISI S,IES *U.JAU 11011?ieo 'loop/·looa I L suononv OIL 45 Service Stations 45 Service Stations Res a rants, Liquor xoloX 'soriddnS @000 94 APPAREL LUMBER/BUILDING APPAREL 23 F~ic.~arn,Nlacrame i Emon:Clie mber Buitding supplies ARTS/CRAFTS 95 Electrical, plumb n g supplies ARTS/CRAFTS AUTOMOTIVE 1 Bar er, AUTOMOTtVE Galle ies Uw J puu sue spoofi S1112.3 IC!,Ods EE x01OX 'soliddns 231 0!Pull 'sjouunddy 69 SMUS 301010 6L sololS Snia EL A'NUA 'SUID EL spoog 5utuodS LL 613*013 ¥ slue|d BL I L# 411/% P'NJOLU 6L FOOD 710 deleted 9 Landscaping nursery merged with retail 31 Artists and Galleries · 51UOUInliSUI Iuo!snIN EISIGNVHOMEIGN 1VM3{NEID SJOA,0 Electrical. plumbing supplies r..2.-2.... i. fu ~.2 CD j, UUU, UOU - '. :1·-.~A-**&.WWI...1.:.i~•,Wku~r~w:,IW,,h~/$·..ir,e,*.. ' ._1 ..J 5,- i:%:1~~W.-d·-qW·9¢61,·4 , ..': . 400- 90% 1,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 000'000'E 000'000'Z 000'000' L len}ov 000'000'9$ (M g) 8001 186png - 000'000 14$ w £) 186png - 080 AON }00 des 6nv inf unr Xe'N KI¥ Jew gag uer 2008 SALES TAX VS BUDGETING OPTIONS $8,000,000 - . 4~ IZ 1=a--I-- t~~4 -*./.1-~1vt... I "?=:3 ,4 v~='m U./1©14W=. TD'.1~-4*1.;-1.*.-.-I k. X4*-1-WI . :I »-m .2-- .V-0-p- I~*4-V-K '-Aky~-•~Acr .0-4,€w $7,000,000 $6,000,000 000'000'£$ 000'0002$ 000'000': $ 1 1 1 1 0$ O rt *G 108pnq Jo %5 ZI 'N£Z6$ ABUDiIno Sales Tax Facts 1~ Q 2008 complete. 25% of calendar; 12-14% of fiscal year. 6.5% ahead of 2007; 3.1% increase in CPI-adjusted *GS I+ HAOEBIV @le SOnUOAO-21 growth 1 44 4 C) Al fo 1 i 0 0 11 - iL #15% r " 12 & .O GbG6 Bu©pol --+- uo!lon]}suoo . Food 1!elehl se!1!lirl x -ar--nA---u==-m---1, °62 J8410 --Iitil 01'lv - Chart and Graphs OL 9002 9002 DOOZ £001 2001 LOOZ 000Z 6661. 8661. 40% AOH OAV Jo 81[0 % OIN 21 £2%£% - M e 1 11 1 t-- €6 66 11 m OO P KE 00 t- N 9 9/ 54 ZA - 100< V/:b d, 47 » 45 4260- r (-4 - c~%> 0 r S ati[03UI March-08 12 MoRev. - 20% - 15% %51- 000'00I$ %0Z- $700,000 - 2007 = 7.23 94444 944 44444¢ SALES TAX TREND S (,0 om ZI) IEOUrp-- (0Av 0* ZI) marni- % oul ZI - @Av ok ZI-~ $600,000 $500,000 000'004$ 000'00£$ 80-Ip.Iew 000'OOES lilli I Chapter Three • Economi Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Bob Joseph, ComDevDir Date: May 22,2008 Subject: Statistical Update: Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Background. A statistical Update to Chapter Three and Appendix 1 of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan has been completed. Please see attached documents. The Town Board is a recommending body and the Estes Valley Planning Commission is the adopting body. Staff will be making a complete presentation, including build-out statistics at the Town Board Meeting. Budget. none Action. Recommend to the Estes Valley Planning Commission that the statistical updates be adopted as a revision to the applicable chapters of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. <ESTES VALLEY c C~-!1 PR E H E N S I V E PLAN> Chapter Three • Economic Overview A. Economic Overview |NTRODUCTION Chapter Three - Economic Overview was originally prepared in 1996, as a component of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Chapter Three is part of a 2007 Update to the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and updates the statistical information, found in the 1996 Plan. The text of the 1996 Chapter Three is maintained, with the addition of updated statistical information. We cannot know where we are going unless we first understand where we are and where we came from. This economic market analysis of the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley is an attempt to provide a baseline scenario of where the community will be in the year 2010 if no special action is taken to shape the direction of economic growth. It is difficult to obtain consistent data series for an economic unit below the county level. Because Larimer County is so dominated by the City of Fort Collins, it does not provide a dependable guide to economic activity in Estes Park, which comprises only 2% of the County's population base. We have attempted to overcome this problem by combining what little data are available for the Town *rimarily construction and retail sales data) with data from the decennial census, conversations with people who live and work in the community and the judgment acquired over almost 20 years of studying the Colorado economy. This analysis is designed to provide the basis for exploring various options to strengthen and diversify the : Estes Park economy over the next ten years. It ·provides a snapshot of where the community is in late 2007, as well as a measure of the momentum in place as a result of the trends of the last twenty years. Estes Park Area Economic Profile POPULATION Population data are available only once every ten years, when the decennial census is conducted by the Department of Commerce. In the intervening years, all population data are estimates. <ESTES VALLEY c 61-2 PREHEN SIVE PLAN> Chapter Three • Economic Overview There are two problems with the 1990 Census data. The first is that Census Tract 28 that comprises the Estes Valley was redefined, making data not strictly comparable. The second is that the Town of Estes Park believes there was a substantial undercount of the resident population, due to the way the Census questionnaires were distributed. The 2007 Update uses the 2000 Census data. Census Tract 28 is comparable to the 1990 Census Tract 28 boundary. The population of the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Park Valley has grown steadily since 1960 (See Figure Al.1 - 3 on Appendix One). The most rapid growth occurred during the 1970s, when the Town added 1,087 residents at an annual growth rate of 5.3%. The Valley grew even faster, adding 3,179 residents at an annual growth rate of 6.6%. During the decade of the 1980s, population growth slowed. According to the Census, the Town added 481 people at an annual growth rate of 1.7%. According to estimates prepared by the Town of Estes Park, the Town added 969 residents at an annual growth rate of 3.1%. The Valley added 2,406 residents at an annual growth rate of 3.1%. During the decade of the 1990's, population growth was significant. According to the Census, the Town added 2,229 people from 1990 to 2000, at an annual growth rate of 5.45%. Between 2000 and 2007, the growth rate tended to slow down. According to Colorado Department of Local Affairs data, the Town added 307 residents, at an annual growth rate of 1.13%. The Estes Valley had a slight decrease in residents (250) from 1990 to 2000, due partially to annexations of portions of the Estes Valley into the Town of Estes Park. Note: All tables supporting the Estes Park area economic pr~le will bejound in Appendix One. In 1996, there were 5,038 residents in the Town of Estes Park and 9,861 residents in the Estes Valley, according to estimates by the Town of Estes Park. The Town of Estes Park future population estimates for 2010, indicate a population base of 8,013 residents in the Town of Estes Park, and 11,500 residents in the Estes Valley (which includes the Town of Estes Park). School enrollment data support continued rapid growth in the Estes Park area in the 1990's, but moderating in the 2000's with young families as well as retirees coming into the community. During the 1993/94 school year, the Park School District had 1,273 students. In September of 1994, 1,388 students were enrolled, a 9% increase. In September of 1996, 1,349 students were enrolled. In the 2006 - 2007 school year, 1,250 students were enrolled in the Park School District. <ESTES VALLEY C C?-I@ P REHENSIVE PLAN» Chapter Three • Economic Overview During the 1980s, the Town of Estes Park added 462 households (See Figure Al.4 Households on Appendix One), based on the Town of Estes Park population estimates (214 households based on Census data). The decline reported for the Estes Valley is probably due to the change in the boundaries of Census Tract 28. The Economic Market Analysis prepared by Browne, Bortz & Coddington (BBC) in April 1983 said the Valley had 5,400 residents and 2,300 households. The average household size in the Town remained fairly stable at 2.17 in 1990, after declining from 2.59 in 1970 to 2.2 in 1980. This was below the state average of 2.51 per household, reflecting the Town's older population. During the 1990's, the Town of Estes Park added 1,017 households (See Figure Al.4 Households in Appendix One), based on Census data. The unincorporated portion of the Estes Valley added 274 households. During the last three decades, the population of the Estes Valley and the Town of Estes Park grew faster than the state. During the 1970's and 1980's, the most rapid growth was in the unincorporated portion of the Estes Valley. During the 1990s, the Town of Estes Park grew at a significantly higher rate than the unincorporated portions of the Estes Valley. Socioeconomic Characteristics DEMOGRAPHICS Estes Park residents were considerably older than those of Larimer County or the State of Colorado. In 1990, the average Estes Park resident was 42.6 years old, 10.1 years older than the average Coloradan. In 2000, the average Estes Park resident was 45 years old, 10.7 years older than the average Coloradan. This confirms the perception that the Town has a high number of retirees. PROPERTY In 2000, the percentage of Estes Park homes that were owner occupied was about the same as the State at 67.3%. The Town's vacancy rate was 8.9% for rentals, versus 4.1% for Larimer County and 5.50% for the state of Colorado. The vacancy rate for owner occupied housing was 1.80% for the Town versus 1.20% for the County and 1.40% for the State. In 1990, the median housing value in the Town of $103,300 was 125% of the state median. The median rent was $353, only 84% of the state and Valley median and below the median for the County. By 2000, the median housing value in the Town of $233,900 was 140% of the state median. The median rent was $572,85% of the state. <ESTES VALLEY C C? -I# PREHENSIVE PLAN> Chapter Three • Economic Overview Since all of the socioeconomic data are based on the 2000 Census, they must be used with some caution. If the population count was distorted by the survey methodology, the socioeconomic characteristics may also be unreliable. EMPLOYMENT The only employment data available below the county level are those from the 1990 and 2000 Census (See Figure Al.6 Employment Base on Appendix One). They are subject to distortions if the undercount was significant, but are all that are available. The 1990 Census reported that there were 1,612 people at work or looking for work in Estes Park, for a labor force participation rate* of 63.3%. In the Valley, there were 3,129 in the labor force for a labor force participation rate of 62.3%. In 2000, the Census reported that there were 2,798 people at work or looking for work in Estes Park, for a labor force participation rate of 64.0%. In the Valley, there were 4,555 in the labor force for a labor force participation rate of 61.7%. These labor force participation rates were significantly below Larimer County's 71.9% and Colorado's 70.3%. In Estes Park, in 2000, 51.6% of the population was either working or looking for work, according to Census data (43.9% using Town population estimates), while in the Valley, 51.2% of the population was either working or looking for work. In Larimer County, 54.4% of the population was working or looking for work. The average commuting time of 11.1 minutes for Estes Park workers in 1990 increased to 15.9 minutes in 2000. This indicates that local residents still work close to home. For Larimer County as a whole, the average commuting time in 2000 was 35% higher at 21.4 minutes. An examination of where Estes Park residents work (See Figure Al.8 Distribution of Employment Base on Appendix One) shows the skewed distribution of jobs relative to Larimer County as a whole. Manufacturing provides 14.8% of the county's employment, versus 4.5% for the Town and 5.7% for the Valley. Manufacturing is one of the highest paid sectors of the Larimer County economy, with an average annual wage of $61,935 in 2005. Retail trade is a low-wage sector of the economy, with an average annual wage of only $12,678 in 1990. At that time, retail trade provided 23.6% of the jobs in Estes Park and 21.8% of the jobs in the Valley, but only 17.6% of the jobs in the county. By 2000, percentage of retail trade jobs declined to 13.7% for Estes Park, 16.2% for the Valley, and 12.8% for Larimer County. In 2000, the average annual wage for retail trade was $22,994. <ESTES VALLEY C ~-I~ P R E H E N S I V E PLAN> Chapter Three • Economic Overview The service sector pays an average wage of $19,107, but this average spans a wide range. At the low end is amusement and recreational services, paying $8,534, and at the high end is health services, paying $27,898. Estes Park service employment is heavily concentrated in recreation services (7.1%) and personal services (11.8%), which pay very low wages. Together these sectors comprise 18.9% of the Town's jobs, 16.4% of the Valley's jobs and only 4.6% of the County's jobs. In 2000, the Census groupings for the service sector were slightly modified, and included arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, food service, and other services. Estes Park and Estes Valley employment is highly concentrated in these areas. These sectors comprise 34.4% of the Town's jobs, 31.7°/oof the Valley's jobs, and only, 13.5% of the County's jobs. The average annual wage is $12,451 for the arts, entertainment recreation, accommodation and food service sector, and, $25,385 for other services. On the positive side, Estes Park holds its own in medical service jobs, with an average wage of $27,898, and construction, with an average wage of $39,015. It is only slightly underrepresented in communications and public utilities, with an average wage of $30,753, and the federal government with an average wage of $63,065. In 2000, Estes Park employment was comparable to Larimer County in the Construction, Finance, and Professional sectors. * The labor force is dejined as people working or actively looking for work. The labor force participation rate is the percentage of people 16-65 either zoorking or actively seeking employment. Wholesale trade is a small but high paying sector, with an average wage of $43,438. It provides 1.4% of the Town's employment base versus 2.6% of the County's. The Town has a larger proportion of jobs in finance, insurance and real estate compared to the County, at 7.4%. The average wage of $38,319 is slightly higher than the average wage for all sectors. |NCOME Personal income data are available annually at the county level with a two year lag. Unfortunately, Larimer County data are so dominated by the City of Fort Collins that they provide little useful information about the Town of Estes Park. The only income data available at the Town of Estes Park level are from the decennial census (See Figure Al.10 Per Capita Income on Appendix One). During the decade of the 1980s, household income rose at an annual rate of 7.1% to $29,387, while family income rose at a 7.5% annual rate to $37,565. During the 1990's household income rose at a 3.9% <ESTES VALLEY C ~ -I~ PRE H E N S I V E PLAN> Chapter Three • Economic Overview annual rage to $43,262, while family income rose at a 4.0% annual rate to $55,667. The 1980 ten-year period encompassed several years of rapid inflation, which reached double-digit levels in 1979-81. Using the consumer price index for the Denver-Boulder metropolitan area (the only inflation index calculated for the state of Colorado), we find that after adjustment for inflation, household income in Estes Park rose at a 1.9% annual rate during the 1980s, while family income rose at a 2.2% annual rate. This was well above the County growth rates of 0.4% and 0.7% respectively, confirming that the in-migrants to Estes Park were relatively wealthy. The ten-year period of the 1990's, after adjustment for inflation, household income in Estes Park rose at a 0.20% annual rate, while family income rose at a 0.30% annual rate. In the 1990's, this income growth was below both the income growth for Larimer County and the State. Per capita income (Figure Al.10 on Appendix One) experienced a similar pattern of growth. Over the ten year period ending in 1989, per capita income in the Town of Estes Park grew at an annual rate of 7.3% to $17,010 in 1989. Per capita income in Larimer County grew at an annual rate of 6.5% to $13,821. Per capita income in the Town was 115% of the state average. Income in the Valley was slightly higher. Over the ten year period ending in 1999, per capita income in the Town of Estes Park grew at an annual rate of 6.1% to $30,499 in 1999. Per capita income in Larimer County grew at an annual rate of 5.4% to $23,689. Per capita income in the Town was 126% of the state average. Per capita income in the Estes Valley continued to be slightly higher than the Town. After adjustment for inflation, per capita income in the Town still showed solid gain, up at a 2.1% annual rate. This was well above the county growth rate of 1.3%. Both the per capita income level and the rate of growth confirm the relatively high income level of the people who moved to Estes Park during the 1980s. After adjustment for inflation, per capita income gains followed the trend of the 1980's at a 2.2% annual rate. Again, this was above the county growth rate of 1.7%. The per capita income level and income growth continue to confirm the relatively high income of people moving to Estes Park. RETAIL SALES Retail sales in Estes Park grew at an annual rate of 7.9% during the 1980s (See Figure Al.12 Estes Park Retail Sales on Appendix One). After adjustment for <ESTES VALLEY C ~ ~ PRE H E N S I V E PLANS Chapter Three • Economic Overview inflation, sales growth averaged 3.3% annually. During the 1990s, retail sales growth unadjusted for inflation averaged 7.3%, while inflation adjusted retail sales growth averaged 2.4%. Growth rates usually decline as the base from which they are calculated increases. From 2000 to 2006, retail sales tax rece*ts grew at an annual rate of 2.04%. After adjustment for inflation, sales tax growth has been relatively flat with an annual average of 0.035 % The highly seasonal nature of retail sales can be seen from the monthly sales tax data (See Figure Al.13 Sales Tax Revenues on Appendix One). In 1993, 57.3% of sales came during the summer tourist months of June, July, August and September. Over the last eight years, this proportion has fluctuated between 57% and 60%. From 1998 through 2006, the June, July, August and September sales trends have continued. Over that nine year period, this proportion of total sales fluctuated between 52.9% and 55.9%. Two things stand out in these data. First sales tax revenues have grown steadily. Second, tourism has declined only slightly in its relative importance to the economic base of Estes Park, despite rapid population growth and an increasing number of retirees. In interviews conducted during July of 1993, a recurring theme was the leakage of business out of the Town of Estes Park into surrounding towns (e.g., Loveland, Longmont, Boulder, Fort Collins) that offer a wider selection of merchandise. Merchants believe that residents go to other communities to obtain goods and services that cannot be purchased in Estes Park and while there buy a number of items they could have purchased in Estes Park (e.g., groceries, lunch or dinner, household staples). The business owners interviewed were almost unanimous in their belief that the Town needs a Wal-Mart or similar retailer. They recognized that the big box retailer would take some of their business, but believed it would be less than they are currently losing to surroun ding communities. The sales leakage hypothesis is difficult to test without conducting extensive, expensive surveys of Estes Park residents shopping outside the Town. Retail sales data for the first quarter of the year, when tourist visits to Estes Park are at a minimum, show that per capita retail sales are high relative to the state as a whole (See Figure Al.14 Per Capita Retail Sales on Appendix One). They have also increased about twice as fast as they have statewide over the last three years. This could be because winter tourism has grown in importance or because local residents are spending a higher percentage of their incomes in Estes Park. <ESTES VALLEY C ~~ PR, E H E N S I V E PLAN» Chapter Three · Economic Overview An examination of October retail sales over the last decade shows a similar pattern (See Figure Al.15 October Retail Sales on Appendix One). Real per capita retail sales more than doubled between 1982 and 1993, supporting the local perception that more tourists are visiting Estes Park during the shoulder season. There was a 106% increase in retail sales, which swamped the 25.4% increase in real per capita income over the same period. The tax revenues generated by retail sales are extremely important to the Town of Estes Park. In 1994, 62% of the General Fund Budget was derived from sales tax receipts. The General Fund Budget provided 43% of the Town's total revenue stream. In 2007, 71% of the General Fund Budget was derived from sales tax receipts. The General Fund Budget provided 37% of the Town's total revenue stream. THE RETIRED POPULATION Estes Park has a growing retired population, as shown by the 19% increase in the median age of the population between the 1980 and 1990 censuses. National consumer surveys show that older consumers exhibit significantly different spending patterns from younger consumers. It is no surprise to find that retirees devote a higher proportion of their expenditures to health care: 10.3% for young retirees (65-74) and 14% for older retirees (75 and older) versus only 4.1% for those under 65. The mix of health care expenditures is also different. Insurance premiums consume 39% of the health care dollars of those under 65, but 46.9% of retirees' health care spending. Older residents are also more generous in their charitable giving than younger residents. Philanthropy accounts for 4.6% of young retirees expenditures and older retirees donate 7.6%, versus 2.6% for those under 65. Retirees designate a larger proportion of their expenditures to food: 17.9% versus 15.7%. However, both retirees and those under 65 spend about 4.4% of expenditures on food away from home. Shelter consumes a smaller percentage of retirees' expenditures, especially the non-utilities segment, as do apparel and transportation. These statistics are based on national surveys and must be applied to the Estes Park population with some caution. However, they are suggestive of changing spending patterns in the community that are likely to accompany a growing retired population. One question that comes to mind is whether lack of availability of medical services causes retirees to go to communities outside of Estes Park to obtain medical care. This leakage of health care dollars might be compounded by people purchasing goods <ESTES VALLEY C C~ -P~ PRE H E N S I V E PLAN> Chapter Three • Economic Overview and services that could be obtained in Estes Park while they are in other communities obtaining health care. The sketchy data that are available on health care in the 1990 Census (See Figure Al.17 Health Care Workers on Appendix One) suggest there is a higher than average number of health care workers in Estes Park. In 1990, 12.9% of the labor force worked in the health services industry, providing one health care worker for each 14.8 Estes Park residents. For Larimer County, there was one health care worker for each 28.7 residents and health services employed 6.5% of the labor force. There was a significant shift in this sector as reported in the 2000 Census, as 6.2% of the labor force worked in health care services, providing one health care worker for each 30.5 residents. For Larimer County, there was one health care worker for each 20.6 residents and health services employed 8.5% of the labor force. These data are merely suggestive. Some of the health care workers living in Estes Park may have commuted to work outside of the Town. There is no information about the type of health care services provided. Estes Park required more health care workers per capita than Larimer County, since a much higher percentage of the Estes Park population was age 65 and over - 23% - than in Larimer County - 9.6%. When the ratio of health care workers per resident age 65 or over is calculated, there was one worker for each 3.5 elderly residents in Estes Park versus one for each 2.8 in Larimer County. This supports the hypothesis that people are leaving the Town for health care, taking service and retail sales dollars out of the community. In 2000, the Estes Park population age 65 and over was 20.7%, compared to Larimer County at 9.6%. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY Housing construction declined in Estes Park during the 1980s (See Figure Al.18 Residential Construction Building Permits on Appendix One), as it did throughout the State. Single family construction peaked in 1984, a year later than statewide, was down by 50% or more through 1989, then began to climb in 1990 as it did statewide. The year 1993 was the second best year in the 23 years of available data, only three units below 1983. In 1998, a new residential construction record of 126 dwelling units was set. From 2000 through 2006, building permits were issued for 678 dwelling units, for an average of 96 units per year. A little over 40% of the units were single-family dwellings. Multi-family construction is very erratic. It has ranged from a low of four units in 1977 to a high of 77 units in 1983. Multi-family construction accounted for 31% of the units during this seven year period, ranging from a low of 9 units, to a high of 46, with an average of 29 multi-family units per year. <ESTES VALLEY C ~ -1~ PRE H E N S I V E PLAN> Chapter Three • Economic Overview In 1994, the median selling price for an Estes Park home was $141,183. There were 155 home sales, with a median time on the market of 148 days. Note: These data are multilist data for 1994, while the data in Figure Al.5 Socioeconomic Characteristics (See Appendix One) are for 1990 and are from the 1990 Census. In 1993, apartment rental rates averaged $600 per month for a three bedroom unit and $500 per month for a two bedroom unit. There were 72 units of senior housing and 44 units of rent adjusted housing. In 2006, the average selling price for an Estes Park single-family home was $399,996. The average time on the market was 110 days. The average sales price for townhomes and condominiums was 274,911, with an average time on the market of 140 days. In 2006, the average rental price for a two-bedroom house/condo was $840, and, $1,125 for a three- bedroom house/condo. In addition, there were 208 units of senior housing and 155 units of rent adjusted housing, plus a Section 8 Rental Assistance Program available in the community. The value of commercial construction is available beginning with 1983 (See Figure Al.19 Commercial Construction on Appendix One). It is very volatile, peaking at $3.6 million in 1985 and dropping to as low as $253,000 in 1988. The data in later years appear stronger than they actually are relative to the early part of the decade, because of the inflation factor. In 1993, the value of commercial construction contracts increased after a two year decline. Since 1994, with the exception of 1999 and 2000, the value of commercial construction has shown consistent increases, peaking in 2005 with a value of $10.9 million. UTILITY SERVICE The Town of Estes Park provides electrical (See Figure Al.20 Electric Utility Service on Appendix One) and water (See Figure Al.21 Water Meters on Appendix One) service to a larger area than the Town itself. The number of residential and commercial customers has grown steadily over the last decade, in line with the expanding population base. From 2000 through May 2007, the number of residential Electric Utility Service Accounts grew from 7,205 to 8,145; and the number of commercial accounts grew from 1,470 to 1,727. Similarly, from 2000 to May 2007, the number of residential water meters (urban) grew from 2,136 to 2,682, and the number of rural residential meters grew from 1,243 to 1,301. The number of urban commercial water meters grew from 613 to 777, while the number of rural commercial water meters was stable for the period. BANK DEPOSITS <ESTES VALLEY C (~ =I~ PRE H E N S I V E PLAN» Chapter Three • Economic Overview The number of commercial banks in the Town of Estes Park increased from three to four in 1986. Bank deposits (See Figure Al.22 Bank Deposits on Appendix One) have grown steadily over the last 15 years. It is clear that the growing population base prefers the convenience of local services, when they are available. The number of banks in Estes Park in 2007 remains at four. From 1999 through 2004, bank deposits continued to show a steady increase. PARK VISITATION The number of visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park has fluctuated between 2.5 million and 3 million for the last 20 years (See Figure Al.23 RMNP Visitation on Appendix One). However, these figures are somewhat distorted by a change in 1984 in the estimated number of visitors per automobile. Since the change, the number of visitors has grown fairly steadily from 2.2 million to 3.2 million. From 1996 through 2006, visitation to Rocky Mountain National Park has consistently remained at 2.9 million to 3.1 million visitors. The increased importance of the non-summer tourist season can be seen from the declining percentage of visitors coming during the June through September period. In 1982 and 1983 it was over 78%, but fell fairly steadily to 73.7% in 1992. In 1993, it rose to 75.8%. The June through September visitation ranged from 73.7% in 1996 to 77.5% in 2006, and remained consistent through that period. The capacity of Rocky Mountain National Park to accommodate 3.7 million visitors annually in 2000 is open to debate. During the month of August 1994, the Park had over 730,000 visitors. If this pace were sustained over a 12-month period, the Park would accommodate almost 9 million visitors. If an additional 700,000 visitors come outside the peak months of July and August, they can be handled without too much strain. If they attempt to crowd into the Park in mid-summer, serious congestion problems will result. If measured against a yardstick of the crowds that throng to Yosemite, many more visitors can spend part of their summer vacation in Rocky Mountain. But increasing crowds will dampen some of the Park's unique attraction and at some point the congestion will discourage people from coming. Visits to Rocky Mountain National Park rose 6.8% in 1994, after increasing only 0.2% in 1993. Across the United States, national parks, monuments and recreation areas reported a 0.3% decline in recreational visits in 1993 and a 1.6% decline in of 1994. Information provided by Rocky Mountain National Park, Branch of Planning and Compliance, indicates that park visitation is expected to remain stable, <ESTES VALLEY C @-AP PREHENSIVE PLAN> Chapter Three • Economic Overview except, visitation may grow in relation to the population growth of the Front Range. The Park may initiate programs such as providing real time information to distribute visitor use. In 2006, Rock Mountain National Park initiated a hiker shuttle system connecting the Park and the Town. In 2006, the shuttle carried 9,323 passengers, growing to 12,023 passengers in 2007. The Park also operates an internal shuttle system for the Bear Lake loop and Moraine Park loop, initiated in 1987. In 1987, the Bear Lake loop shuttle carried 121,461 passengers; and the Moraine Park loop carriec 3,477 passengers. In 2007, the passenger levels had grown to 278,657, and 35,881 passengers, for the Bear Lake and Moraine Park loops, respectively. In 2006, the Town began a three-year program to provide free public transportation to residents and guests during the busiest times of the summer season. The Town was able to provide a cost effective service by joining Rocky Mountain National Park's contract with McDonald Transit. McDonald Transit provides transportation to RMNP and uses the surplus bus inventory to provide transportation to the Town. The Town currently runs two shopper shuttle routes and a campground route. The shopper shuttle routes run either west of the visitor's center to downtown, or east of the visitor's center to Highway 34. The campground route was added in 2007 and is designed to pick up visitors who may not have a vehicle at the outlying campgrounds. The shuttles run primarily in July and August, with September weekends added in 2007. In 2006, the two shopper shuttles ran 1,803 hours, moved 18,764 passengers at a cost of $99,710. In 2007, the shopper shuttles and campground route ran 3,180 hours, moved 32,253 passengers and cost $169,560. CONFERENCE CENTER A 22,000 square foot conference center capable of handling up to 1,000 delegates opened in August of 1991. Usage grew steadily from 1991 through 1999, but has leveled off from 2000 through 2006 (See Figure Al.25 Conferences on Appendix One). The Town estimates that in 1994 each delegate spent about $295.50 in Estes Park on items such as food, shopping and lodging. In 2006, the estimated expenditure per delegate is $447.68. B. Trend Projections Through 2010 The trend projections look at past rates of growth in Estes Park and projected growth rates prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis for Larimer County. They provide a baseline forecast of what the Town can expect under a'business as usual" scenario. <ESTES VALLEY c A-P P REHENSIVE PLAN> Chapter Three • Economic Overview Population growth will average just under 3%. Employment growth will average 2.4% through 1995, then 2.7% thereafter. The employed population will continue to decline as a proportion of the total population, as Estes Park continues to attract a growing number of retirees. Personal income after adjustment for inflation will grow more rapidly than population, indicating a modest increase in the standard of living. This is consistent with the increase in relatively affluent retirees. In the 2000's population growth has averaged 1.13% per year, based on population information from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). The 2005 DOLA population estimate for the Town of Estes Park is 5,720. The Town of Estes Park's population estimate is 8,013 for the year 2010, which reflects a higher rate of growth than data prepared by DOLA. From 2000 through June 2007, the Town added 718 dwelling units. During the next two and a half years, it is anticipated that an additional 200 dwelling units will be constructed. For the last 20 years, the Town of Estes Park has built about the same number of multifamily as single family units. This trend is expected to continue. During the 1970s, Estes Park gained 605 households and 419 housing units, for an average of 0.7 units per household. The Town was absorbing vacant space. During the 1980s, the Town gained 462 households and 516 housing units or 1.1 units per new household. New housing was being built to absorb the immigrants and replace substandard housing, as well as provide vacation homes for nonresidents. From 1990-1993, Estes Park added 155 households and 237 housing units. This equates to 1.5 housing units per new household. This ratio is probably unsustainable for an entire decade. From 1990 to 2000, the Town added 2,229 persons, 1,097 households, and 869 housing units. This equates to 0.79 housing units per new household, which reflects market absorption. Park visitation has stabilized over the last 10 years between 2.9 million and 3.1 million visitors. This number is not expected to significantly change. <ESTES VALLEY c 3-lf' p REHENSIVE PLANk . Chapter Three · Economic Overview ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES In order to identify the correct economic development strategies for the Estes Park Valley; a fairly straight forward process should be followed: 1. Identify where you are. 2. Decide where you want to go. 3. Identify strategies for/obstacles to getting there. 4. Consider constraints and costs to implementing strategies. 5. Check desired state for internal inconsistencies 6. Modify vision. 7. Develop action plan (economic development strategies). 8. Monitor and modify plan as it is implemented. 9. Make mid-course corrections, if needed. There are no right or wrong answers to the question, "How should Estes Park plan for future growth and development?" The only requirements for a good plan are that it be internally consistent and meet the objectives of the planners, in this case the citizens of the Estes Park community. Internal consistency can be an elusive goal. For example, a community that wants to attract young families but refuses to provide funding for schools has an internally inconsistent plan. The same is true for a community that wants to attract retirees but is unwilling to provide good medical services. Implicit in any plan are the consequences that flow from it. In order to meet these objectives, consequences must be made explicit and accepted by the community either as desirable or as the price that must be paid to achieve other goals. In the most global sense, there are two possible economic development strategies for the Town of Estes Park. Either it can strive to become a self-contained economic unit -- a balanced community where people live, work and play - or it can choose to be a sub-unit of a larger economic entity. Growth trends in a community are not equivalent to destiny. Certainly, the easiest economic development strategy is to encourage the trends already underway. The residents of Estes Park are generally positive about the current trends. It is unrealistic for <ESTES VALLEY C 3-P PREHENSIVE PLAN> Chapter Three • Economic Overview a community to think it can make a 180 degree turn and go off in a new direction. But it is possible to nudge the economy in new directions, to make incremental changes that will have a large impact several years into the future. It is also important for the community to plan for a sustainable economy. The Future Land Use Plan that the residents have developed provides for substantial growth, from about 9,000 residents in the Estes Valley today to a maximum of 22,115 (2007 Build-out estimate) in the 21st century. |MPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN Over the past 2.5 years, the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan has been broadened and modified. It now presents a more balanced plan for growth in the Estes Park Valley. The current plan continues to recognize that the Town of Estes Park is not a stand alone economic unit. It will continue to be a part of a larger economic entity encompassing southeastern Larimer County and parts of metropolitan Denver. Some residents will shop and work outside the Estes Valley and the sales tax base will be important tot he provision of services and amenities for a growing and relatively affluent citizenry. The current plan wisely calls for joint planning that includes a combined Planning Commission with representatives from the Town and from the Estes Park Valley. Planning also involves the Urban Renewal District and Rocky Mountain National Park. While the Town of Estes Park will never be a stand alone economic unit, the current plan takes several steps to provide jobs and housing for people of various ages and income levels. Steps taken to broaden the economic base of the Town include expanding the job base, revenue base and housing base. Economic activity in the Town of Estes Park is centered on two basic industries (industries that bring new dollars into the community). These industries are tourism and retirees. Any attempt to broaden the job base must be sensitive to the impact on these industries. The current plan increases the area zoned industrial from 15 acres to 48 acres. An I-1 Light Industrial District, with performance standards, will be developed. The performance standards are an important component since environmental and scenic quality are critical to both the tourism and retiree base. Broadening the job base to include more industrial jobs, which usually pay more than the retail and service jobs supporting the tourist and <ESTES VALLEY C (~-~ PREHENSIVE PLAN» Chapter Thre'e • Economic Overview retirement communities, will offer families more job opportunities and the potential for higher household income. It will also provide balance to the seasonality of tourism-related jobs. Broadening the revenue base to keep pace with population growth and its accompanying demand for services is one of the major challenges facing the Town of Estes Park. The Town is heavily reliant on sales tax revenues, which in 1994 (most current data available) provided 62% of the General Fund budget. The General Fund budget provided 43% of the Town's total revenue stream. A study by Zax and Hester (August 1996) confirmed that sales tax revenues over the past decade have grown less quickly than the effective residential population. They concluded that residents are meeting increasing proportions of their consumption needs outside of the Town. Local business people interviewed two years ago expressed similar concerns. Attractive, interesting shopping opportunities are also important to Estes Park's tourist visitors. An intercept study by Blackhurst, Zax and Hart (November 1996) indicated that shopping is an important vacation component. Ninety-one percent of study participants had shopped or planndd to shop (sightseeing was in second place, at 87%). It was the favorite activity of day visitors (29%) and ranked sixth for overnight visitors. The fact that the survey was conducted on Elkhom Avenue, in the heart of the shopping district, skewed the data in favor of shopping. However, it is clearly an activity that attracts people into the Town. The current plan addresses the need for increased sales tax revenues by classifying 360 acres for commercial activity, including retail and banks. Acreage formerly classified as commercial that is actually used for activities other than retail (e.g., accommodations, golf courses, multifamily residential, office) was reclassified. A new land use policy will require that lands zoned commercial or industrial be developed with this as the principal use, rather than being converted to residential, as currently happens. Infill development as well as space for a mall anchored by a big box retailer will potentially increase the sales tax base. Within the current downtown district, there are 615,706 feet of developed commercial space, with the potential for development of an additional 558,000 square feet, with potential expansion of 386,000 square feet. The combined space, which encompasses the Estes Park Urban Renewal District totals 763,972 square feet of total space (office, bank and retail), which generated $2,621,787 in sales tax receipts in 1995. The Town estimates that 77% of this space, or 588,258 square feet is retail. Of this, about 92% or 541,197 square feet is gross leasable area (GIA). This equates to sales of $121.14 per square foot of GLA and sales tax revenues of $4.85 per square foot. With the potential to develop an additiona1944,000 square feet of space, including 726,880 of retail (668,703 GLA), sales tax revenues could <ESTES VALLEY C ~~ PREHENSIVE PLAN> Chapter Three • Economic Overview more than double, adding an additional $3.24 million in sales tax revenues (in 1995 dollars), if existing ratios are maintained. A community shopping area center composed of in-line retail in a small town/ nonmetropolitan area generates median sales per square foot of GLA in the following range: Discount department store (62,200 square feet) - $140.51 Smaller general merchandise - $81.18 - $95.82 Restaurants - $152.66 - $234.11 Clothing and accessories - $131.15 - $190.00 Gifts and cards - $106.25 Jewelry - $377.06 The Estes Park sales per square foot of $121.14 is in line with this and is an appropriate estimate to use for future development. If the Stanley Village area is developed for an additional 20,000 S. F. retail, additional retail sales could reach $2.4 annually, generating $97,000 annually in additional sales tax revenues.* If the mall were anchored by a big box retailer such as WalMart or Kinart with average annual sales of $140.51 per square foot, a 62,200 square foot store could generate $8.7 million in sales annually, with sales tax revenues of $348,000. *revised 1-20-98 [Note: Currently, sales tax revenues average approximately 4% of total retail sales, which is the figure used for these calculations.] A best case scenario under the current plan has annual sales tax receipts increasing to $6.3 million in 1995 dollars. This will support a population of 22,500 in the Estes Park Valley, based on the 1995 ratio of approximately $280 of sales tax revenues per capita. Of course, zoning land for retail does not ensure that development will occur or that sales will reach the national average. However, the zoning in conjunction with policies and incentives to encourage such development increase the probability that the sales tax base will support the projected population growth. The Town of Estes Park faces a problem common to all resort communities, the lack of affordable housing for low-paid retail and service industry employees. With a finite amount of land available for housing and an increasing population, rising land costs will continue to preclude a large amount of affordable housing. The current plan takes several steps to mitigate this problem. Provision is made <ESTES VALL E Y C ~-~ PREHENSIVE PLAN> Chapter Three • Economic Overview for higher density residential zoning including the creation of a small lot (1.4 acre) single family category. The town will grant enhanced residential density bonuses for the provision of affordable housing. Fifty-seven units of affordable housing are currently under construction. Infill development, such as accessory structures and second floor housing over retail establishments, will provide opportunities for less expensive lodging for lower paid workers. Caution should be exercised in mandating that businesses provide employee housing, since it may drive needed jobs out of the conununity rather than providing new jobs accompanied by affordable housing. The Town must constantly analyze its strategies to be sure that is does not inadvertently have unintended results. For example, suggestions to relieve traffic congestion by providing a by-pass to route people around Estes Park rather than through it might have serious implications for consumer spending in the Town itself. When the Town of Frisco realized in the early 1980's that the highway to Breckenridge was being rerouted to avoid Main Street it spent millions of dollars to attract tourists back into the downtown area. A better solution to the congestion problem might be to relocate basic services for the residents of Estes Park away from the downtown area and the main tourist routes. The current plan is realistic in its approach to the future. The problems and challenges identified two years ago will not disappear even if the best policies are put on paper and then adopted. The plan recognizes that tourism and retirees will be the Town's primary economic base for the foreseeable future. It recognizes the importance of environmental quality, convenient parking, residential zoning and a reasonable tax base to ensure a viable community. It is realistic about the competition from surrounding communities for its residents' sales tax dollars, recognizing that it will not become a stand alone economic unit. However, it provides for a broader economic base with jobs and housing for various ages and income levels. It also focuses on the need to enlarge the sales tax base to provide services for a growing population. It proposes reasonable policies to mitigate the problems that accompany economic growth, while acknowledging that they will not be completely eliminated. C. Potential Economic Development Strategies The Town of Estes Park has completed the first two steps of the nine step economic development strategy described above. It has identified where the Town is and decided where it wants to go. It is now ready to develop the strategies and action plans to accomplish the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. As the Town of Estes Park develops an economic development strategy to support its Comprehensive Plan, there are a number of things it should take into consideration. First <ESTES VALLEY C A-lb PREHENSIVE PLAN> Chapter Three • Economic Overview and foremost it needs to make a fundamental change in the way it thinks about its two major industries, tourism and retirees. The debate over which is more important is nonproductive at best and destructive at worst. The two industries complement each other and in aggregate add more to the economy than each would individually. It is truly a case where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. As American Demographics (November 1994, p. 30) noted: "It is no coincidence that the most popular retirement concentrations are overwhelmingly in or near places that attract tourists and vacationers. Retirees often "check out" potential new home sites while on vacation trips. Fond memories of childhood summer camps andfamily vacations can also have a powerful influence on choices in retirement living." Retirees are attracted to Estes Park because they came here first on vacation, some 50 or more years ago. The amenities that support the tourist industry - excellent restaurants and shops, for example - make the Town more attractive than a similar Town with no summer visitors. The natural beauty that attracts tourists also appeals to retirees. Thanks to sales taxes paid by tourists, the tax burden on retirees is lessened. Just ab the tourist industry benefits retirees, so retirees benefit the tourist industry. Retirees keep Estes Park from being a one or two season economy. Restaurants and shops are able to remain open year round, thanks to retiree spending during the off season. Retirees broaden the tax base, adding to the revenue stream. 1. The Town must work within the realm of the possible. What are the strengths of Estes Park? . Physical environment . Clean industry base (tourism and retirees) . Community spirit . Lack of crime . Good health care . Good schools . Arts community What are the weaknesses of Estes Park? . Lack of affordable housing . Congestion . Conflicting needs of young, less affluent renters versus older, wealthier <ESTES VAL L E Y C ~~~ PREHENSIVE PLAN> Chapter Three • Economic Overview homeowners . Possible conflict between creating jobs and preserving environment . Lack of year round economy 2. What are the trends in the US and in Colorado that will affect Estes Park? - Shortage of cheap labor (baby bust in entry-level market) - Aging of the population (baby boom approaching 50) - Communications technology increases choice in workplace location - People may have more leisure time in the future - Growing importance of international marketplace - Increasing pressure on open space and environment - Opening of Denver International Airport 3. How important a role should tourism play in future growth in Estes Park? - Role of the Park and implications of overcrowding there. - How can the needs of a growing tourist base be balanced with the needs of the local, resident population? 4. How can the Town work in partnership with the Valley and the County to provide new job opportunities without harming the tourist and retirement industries? It is critical to focus on attracting basic industry, industry that brings new dollars into the community. This doesn't mean industries that produce goods - agriculture, manufacturing and mining. In fact the Town's current basic industries, tourism and retirees, are both in the service sector. The secondary jobs, those that recirculate the new dollars, will follow. However, there are certain infrastructure jobs that do not qualify as basic industry but are critical to attracting basic industry - business services, for example - that are an appropriate focus of economic development activities. Schools and health care are other examples. Expanded job opportunities fall into two categories: Those that build on the important tourism/retiree base and those that are in very different areas, but don't negatively impact tourism or retirees. <ESTES VALLEY C el-lp PREHENSIVE PLAN> Chapter Three • Economic Overview Tourism 1. Eco-tourism: This is the current buzzword in the travel industry. Ihe Audubon Society defines eco-tourism as 'purpos€Al travel to natural areas to understand the cultural and natural history of the environment while maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem, making the conservation ofnatural resourcesjinancially ben€gcial to the inhabitants of the host region. " The adventure traveler, or ecotourist, has traditionally been young and poor, but the demographics have changed. Nature-based tourism is enjoyed by older, more affluent travelers who want a good, outdoor nature experience but want a comfortable bed and a flush toilet at night. What are the possible niches for Estes Park in this, the most rapidly growing segment of the tourist industry? • Possible niche: Nature-based tourism for people who can't afford, don't chose to "ecotour" in the Peruvian rainforest, Antarctica, New Zealand, etc. • The largest segment of the Estes Park tourist market is between the ages of 35 and 44, family- oriented with children living at home, relatively affluent and highly educated. These are likely two income families who feel guilty about the amount of time their children spend in day care. - family inclusive outdoor activities - drop in day care with a strong environmental education component for the days when parents and children need time apart • Programs for older travelers who want to enjoy the out-of-doors but may be bothered by the altitude. • Appeal to the mountain bike-roller blade market, as well as be on the lookout for similar popular, growing outdoor activities. What are the pros and cons? • Builds on existing strengths. • Increases the sales tax base to support future population growth. • Continues to introduce people to the Town, attracting some to relocate/ move businesses there. • More low paying jobs. Exacerbates current problems. 2. Expand existing tourism industry. • Alternative winter vacation site for people who don't want glitz/expense of Vail and Aspen, prefer a lower key escape. • Destination site for people waiting to visit Park and for small conventions. - offer vacation packages <ESTES V ALLEY c 3-17 pREHENSIVE PLAN; Chapter Three • Economic Overview - Central Reservation service (such as Winter Park's) - what kind of activities will these people want? <ESTES VALLEY C @-17 PREHENSIVE PLAN> . Chapter Three • Economic Overview BUILDING ON EXISTING STRENGTHS <ESTES VALL E Y C ~-~ PREHENSIVE PLAN> Appendix One • Economic Profile Retirees Between 1985 and 1990, 4.5% of Americans 65 and older moved to a new state. Retirement migration is important in most states and in a community like Estes Park, it is a major industry. Retirees provide a rich monthly infusion of money from pensions, investments and Social Security checks, no different from dollars flowing in from the sale of agricultural or manufactured goods or tourism services. Although 24% of all retirees moving to a new state go to Florida and 56% move to only ten states (Colorado is not one of these), migration patterns are changing. This is good news for areas that want to attract retirees. There is growing evidence that age segregated retirement developments may carry the seeds of their own destruction and that communities like Estes Park that maintain a balance of young and old people are the retirement communities of the future. There are several questions Estes Park needs to consider as it develops strategies to build on its existing retirement base. What does Estes Park offer retirees? What will happen when today's younger, physically active retirees become older and frailer? Will they leave? What can Estes Park offer baby boomers when they begin to retire ten years from now that will set it apart from other retirement communities? What can Estes Park do to prevent becoming too crowded or too old, thus making it less desirable as a retirement destination? According to a 1992 survey by the American Association of Retired Persons, what retirees want most is access to basic services. Living near a grocery store was listed as important by 62% of older adults. About the same number wanted to be near a pharmacy or hospital. Getting away from crime and congestion was a priority, with 37% indicating a preference for small Town life. Studies of retirees in resort communities show that over 50% knew someone in the area before they moved there. This is referred to as network recruitment. Selective recruitment or marketing is also important. Studies find that about 20% of retiree migrants were first approached by a developer or Realtor. Potential strategies to attract retirees might include: 1. Target marketing to states with the largest share of older migrants. 2. Official relocation and retirement guide, such as is produced by the State of South Carolina. This could include a survey asking readers for their demographics and lifestyle preferences. 3. Center providing healthy living; spa, health care. 4. Congregate care facilities. <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> Appendix One • Economic Profile Pros and cons? • Compatible with preserving environment • Potential clashes with needs of tourist population • Will retirees be willing to help pay for schools, recreation services for younger residents? OTHER NEW DIRECTIONS 1. Education center • Some experience with the Eagle Rock School. • There is a lot of interest among universities in developing residential training programs for business and government officials from developing nations. Estes Park could provide an ideal site for CU, CSU. • Training programs for people entering lodging/recreation industry Pros and cons • Compatible with/builds on tourist industry. • Provide higher paying jobs. • Might not add much td the tax base. 2. Encourage lone eagle/telecommuters. With the advent of computers, fax machines, overnight mail and other communications technology, many people can work virtually anywhere. The Center for the New West describes telecommuting as the most significant thing that has happened in the work force since the two-wage-earner family. They report that the average telecommuter brings work orders into the community ranging from $50,000 to $150,000. Pros and cons: • Quality of life in Estes Park meets requirements of these people. • Does/when will the Town have the fiber optic and digital switching capabilities this requires? • Proximity to Denver International Airport. Near enough? • Are the requisite business services available? • How about building a video conferencing center to support these people? • Would there be enough potential business to cover the start-up costs? Have a chicken/egg situation? Should it be in conjunction with the convention center? <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> . Appendix One • Economic Profile GROWTH PROJECTION A residential growth projection was provided in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. The growth projection used the following assumptions: 1. County Assessor records were used to determine "vacant" parcels. 2. A typical density was used, based on proposed future land use categories. 3. 25% of the land area of the vacant parcels was deducted to account for roadways. 4. Existing improved parcels that are large enough to be subdivided were considered as potential new development lots. 5. The forecast estimated 2.3 persons per household. The 1996 estimates indicated a potential Valley population of 19,000 - 20,000 people over time. 2007 BUILD-OUT ANALYSIS Residential build-out analysis for the Estes Valley was performed in GIS through the use of a spatial model developed in ArcGIS 9.2 software. The use of a spatial model allows a user to incorporate multiple layers of spatial data against a base layer, in this case the Estes Valley parcels layer with zoning data. The EVDC defines developable area for residential parcels based upon zoning type (e.g. residential, multi-family residential, etc). The EVE)C defines developable area for residential parcels based upon zoning type (e.g. residential, multi-family residential, etc). The zoning code for these various designations also includes factors for discounting of the developable area of parcels based upon constraint features. Constraint features used in the model included slope, floodplains, new road infrastructure for large parcels, and water service elevation. The first step in the model process was the removal of private open space and tax exempt properties. The water service elevation layer was intersected against the Estes Valley parcels layer. Next the developable area of parcels above the water service elevation was discounted by 80%. For parcels large enough to subdivide into 4 or more lots, the developable area was further discounted by 25% to account for future road infrastructure needs. Developable areas inside of floodplains were additionally discounted by 80%. For <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> Appendix One • Economic Profile steep slopes, the EVDC defines levels of developable area discounting based upon the steepness of different slopes unique to each zoning classification. Six categories of slope discounting were used: Slopes 0-12%, slopes 12-15%, slopes 15-20%, slopes 20-25%, slopes 25-30%, and slopes greater than 30%. The remaining developable area of parcels was discounted based upon the combined zoning/slope discounting factors. Based upon the minimum lot area size for each residential zoning classification, the number of additional housing units that could be developed on each parcel was determined. Existing housing unit numbers were provided from the Larimer County Tax Assessor and were subtracted from the total number of housing units that could be added to each parcel. It was assumed that each residentially zoned parcel would have the ability to have at least 1 housing unit. Therefore, parcels with no existing housing units had at least one unit calculated, regardless of the minimum lot area size resulting from the build-out analysis. The use of a spatial model avoided double-discounting of features that had already been discounted due to other constraint features. Spatial models can be easily updated based upon new constraint features or zoning code changes, allowing the speedy update of statistics in future analyses. The Estes Valley build-out model was provided as a deliverable product to the Town of Estes and can be used in future iterations of build-out analysis. The 2007 build-out analysis model indicated a potential yield of 12,019 units, including 3,077 units in the A-Accommodation district and, 1,164 units in the A-1 Accommodation district. See Figure 4-1 for a build-out estimate by zoning district. FIGURE 4.1 - EXISTING ZONING SUMMARY WITHIN THE STUDY AREA NUMBER PERCENTAGE EST. BUILD-OUT ZONING OF ACRES BY OF TOTAL (EXISTING + FUTURE CLASSIFICATION PARCELS CLASSIFICATION ACRES UNITS) A 532.00 780.01 5.02 3,077 A-1 260.00 880.57 5.67 1,164 CD 144.00 29.58 0.19 0 CH 33.00 9.92 0.06 0 CO 240.00 239.30 1.54 0 E 1,443.00 898.69 5.79 1,560 E-1 1,583.00 1,887.32 12.16 1,583 I-1 33.00 46.72 0.30 0 O 25.00 6.65 0.04 0 R 540.00 154.38 0.99 583 R-1 68.00 12.67 0.08 78 R-2 127.00 65.12 0.42 254 RE 608.00 4,332.22 27.90 1,121 RE-1 307.00 3,858.59 24.85 344 <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> Appendix One • Economic Profile RM 1,157.00 294.31 1.90 2,255 NULL 33.00 2,030.34 13.08 0 TOTAL 7,133.00 15,526.39 100.00 12,019 Based on development trends, and unit types being developed in the A-1 Accommodations District, the future Valley population should include A-1 unit yield in the population estimates. It is expected that future unit types in the A-Accommodations District will be also function more as dwelling units in terms of unit facilities, and occupancy, although occupancy of the units in the A - District would typically be more transient in nature, with seasonal vacancy fluctuations. The effective population of the Estes Valley will become more of a blend with permanent and transient population groups. With an average of 2.11 persons per household, the permanent "build-out" population for the Estes Valley could approach 18,867 persons, excluding units developed in the A - Accommodations district. <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> Appendix One • Economic Profile <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> Appendix One • Economic Profile Economic Profile Tables- Estes Park Thejollowing 26 tables are referenced in Chapter Three, Economic Overview. FIGURE Al.1 RESIDENT POPULATION BASE Estes Larimer State of Colorado Year Park Census Tract 28 County (000'S) 1950 1,617 43,554 1,325 1960 1,175 2,355 53,343 1,754 1970 1,616 3,554 89,900 2,225 1980 2,703 6,733 149,184 2,908 1990 3,184 9,139 186,136 3,303 1990* 3,672 9,139 1992* 3,870 1996* 5,077 2000 5,413 8,889 251,494 4,301 FIGURE Al.2 RESIDENT POPULATION BASE - GROWTH RATE <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> Appendix One • Economic Profile Estes Larimer State of Year Park Census Tract 28 County Colorado 1960 (27.3)% 22.5% 32.4% 1970 37.5% 50.9% 68.5% 26.9% 1980 67.3% 89.4% 65.9% 30.7% 1990 17.8% 35.7% 24.8% 13.6% 1990* 15.3% 2000 70.0% -2.7% 35.1% 20.2% FIGURE Al.3 RESIDENT POPULATION BASE - ANNUAL GROWTH RATE Estes Larimer State of Year Park Census Tract 28 County Colorado , 1960 (3.1)% 2.0% 2.8% 1970 3.2% 4.2% 5.4% 2.4% 1980 5.3% 6.6%5.2% 2.7% 1990 1.7% 3.1% 2.2% 1.3% 2000 5.45% -0.3% 3.1% 2.7% * Town of Estes Park estimates. Source: Decennial Census, 1950-1990. <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLANk Appendix One • Economic Profile FIGURE Al.4 HOUSEHOLDS 1980 1990 2000 Town of Estes Parkl,230 1,444 2,541 Estes Valley 2,816 2,682 4,107 Larimer County 54,086 70,472 97,164 State of Colorado 1,062,879 1,285,119 1,658,238 Source: 1980, 1990, 2000 Census. FIGURE Al.5 SELECTED 2000 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR ESTES PARK, ESTES VALLEY, LARIMER COUNTY AND THE STATE OF COLORADO Estes Estes Larinner State of Characteristics Park Valley County Colorado Population 5,413 8,889 251,494 4,301,261 Median age 45 46.1 33.2 34.3 Households 2,541 4,107 97,164 1,658,238 Median household income $43,262 $49,422 $48,655 $47,203 Persons per household 2.11 2.14 2.52 2.53 Housing units total 3,323 6,080 105,392 1,808,037 % owner occupied 60.1% 66.2% 67.7% 67.3% Vacancy rate - Rentals 8.9% 8.3% 4.1% 5.5% - Owner 1.8% 1.4% 1.2% 1.4% Medianhousingvalue $239,900 $243,100 $172,000 $166,600 <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> Appendix One • Economic Profile Median rent $572 $519 $678 $671 <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> Appendix One • Economic Profile FIGURE Al.6 EMPLOYMENT BASE - 2000 Estes Estes Larimer Park Valley County Persons 16 and over 4,492 7,606 198,990 - In labor force 2,877 4,690 143,110 - Participation rate 64.0% 61.7% 71.9% Civilian employees 2,877 4,690 142,915 - Unemployed 79 135 6,012 - Unemployment rate 1.8% 1.8% 3.0% Armed Forces 0 0 195 Average commuting time (minutes) 15.9 15.3 21.4 Source: 2000 Census. <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> Appendix One • Economic Profile FIGURE Al.7 DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT - 2000 Estes Estes Larimer Park Valley County Employed Civilian employees 2,798 4,555 136,903 Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining 39 45 . 2,039 Construction 286 390 12,257 Manufacturing 126 261 20,330 Wholesale Trade 39 55 3,547 Retail Trade 382 736 17,555 Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 66 151 4,622 Information 45 124 3,818 Finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing 208 280 6,867 Professional, scientific, management administration, waste management 240 320 14,201 Educational, health, and social services 346 628 28,556 Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food service 853 1,243 12,592 Other services 108 202 5,903 Public administration · 60 120 4,616 Civilian Employees 2,798 4,555 136,903 Private wage and salary workers 2,161 3,386 102,848 Government workers 277 570 22,057 Local 197 365 9,007 State 29 52 10,057 Federal 51 153 2,993 Self-employed workers in own, not incorporated businesses341 571 11,386 Unpaid family workers 19 28 612 Source: 2000 Census. <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> Appendix One • Economic Profile FIGURE Al.8 DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT BASE Estes Estes Larimer Larimer Park Valley County County 2000 2000 2000 Ave. 2005 Wage Partic*ation rate 64.0% 61.7% 71.9% Unemployment rate 1.8% 1.8% 3.0% Civilian employees 2,798 4,555 136,903 $36,611 Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting, and mining 1.4% 1.0% 1.5% $30,384 Construction 10.2% 8.6% 9.0% $39,015 Manufacturing 4.5% 5.7% 14.8% $61,935 Wholesale trade 1.4% 1.2% 2.6% $43,438 Retail trade 13.7% 16.2% 12.8% $22,994 Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 2.4% 33% 3.4% $30,753 Information 1.6% 2.7% 2.8% $43,693 Finance, insurance, real estate, rental, leasing Z4% 6.1% 5.0% $38,319 Professional, scientific, management, admin, waste management 8.6% 7.0% 10.4% $60,435 Educational, health, social services 12.4% 13.8% 20.9% $35,815 Arts, entertainment recreation, accommodation, food service 30.5% 27.3% 9.2% $12,451 Other Services 3.9% 4.4% 4.3% $25,385 Public administration 2.1% 2.6% 3.4% $36,611 Private wage and salary workers 77.2% 74.3% 75.1% Government workers 9.9% 12.5% 16.1% $41,296 Local 7.1% 8.0% 6.6% $36,234 State 1.0% 1.1% 73% $42,531 <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> Appendix One • Economic Profile Federal 1.8% 3.4% 2.2% $63,065 Self-employed workers in own not inc bus 12.2% 12.5% 8.3% Unpaid family workers 0.7% 0.6% 0.4% Source: 2000 Census, Colorado Employment and Wages (2005). <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN1 Appendix One • Economic Profile FIGURE Al.9 INCOME 99 Median Income 89 Median Income Annual Change ~ Household Family Household' Family Household Family Town of Estes Park $43,262 $55,667 $29,387 $37,565 3.9% 4.0% inflation adjusted 25,968 33,414 25,377 32,340 02 0.3 Estes Valley 49,422 59,468 31,809 38,492 4.5 4.5 inflation adjusted 29,665 35,695 27,469 33,240 0.8 0.7 Larimer County 48,655 58,866 29,686 36,931 5.1% 4.8% inflation adjusted 29,205 35,334 25,636 31,892 1.3 1.0 State of Colorado 47,203 55,883 30,140 35,930 4.6 4.5 inflation adjusted 28,333 33,543 26,028 31,028 0.9 0.8 Denver/Boulder CPIU (82-84=100) 166.6 166.6 115.8 115.8 Source: 2000 Census for 1999 income, US Department of Labor (BLS) for CPIU, previous comp plan report. FIGURE Al.10 PER CAPITA INCOME 1999 1989 Annual Change Town of Estes Park $ 30,499 $17,010 6.1% Adjusted for Inflation 18,307 14,689 2.2 Estes Valley $ 32,067 17,349 6.3% Adjusted for Inflation 19,248 14,982 2.5 Larimer County 23,689 13,968 5.4 Adjusted for Inflation 14,219 12,062 1.7 State of Colorado 24,049 17,815 3.1 Adjusted for Inflation 14,435 15,384 -0.6 <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> Appendix One • Economic Profile Denver-Boulder CPI-U 166.6 115.8 37 (82-84=100) Source: Census Data and Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates. FIGURE Al.11 LARIMER COUNTY PERSONAL INCOME BY MAJOR SOURCE 1990 AND 2000 moo'S) 2000 1990 alange: 1990ao* Income Distribution Income Distribution IncomePercent/yr Agricultural services $51,858 .7% $17,027 0.5% $34,831 11.8% Mining 18,998 03 11,606 0.4 7,392 5.1 Construction 449,782 5.9 140,876 4.4 308,906 12.3 Manufacturing 1,400,732 18.2 564,485 17.6 836,247 9.5 Transportation, commu- nication, public utilities 165,099 2.2 59,498 1.9 105,601 10.7 Wholesale trade 150,957 2.0 53,598 1.7 97,359 10.9 Retail trade 593,783 7.8 234,990 73 358,793 9.7 Finance, insurance, real estate 283,202 3.7 68,918 2.1 214,285 15.2 Services 1,341,504 17.4 424,947 13.2 916,557 12.2 Governrnent 992,900 13.0 497,308 15.5 495,592 7.2 Nonfarm income by place of work $5,448,815 71.2% $2,073,253 64.6% $3,375,562 10.1% Other income and adjustments 2,208,250 28.8% 1,138,041 35.4% 1,070,209 6.9% Personalincome by place of residence $7,657,065 100% $3,211,294 10056 $4,45,771 9.1% Per capita income $30,727 $17,162 $13,565 6.0% Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Local Area Personal Income, Rocky Mountain Region <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> Appendix One • Economic Profile FIGURE Al.12 ESTES PARK RETAIL SALES Retail Sales % Real Retail % Year ($000,000) Change Sales* ($000,000) Change Base 16.9 52.8 1970 17.9 5.9 51.9 -1.8 1971 18.9 5.6 52.6 15 1972 24.4 29.1 65.9 25.3 1973 25.8 5.7 65.2 -1.2 1974 28.5 10.5 64.9 -0.4 1975 31.0 8.8 64.0 -1.3 1976 34.3 10.6 67.1 4.8 1977 39.1 14.0 70.6 5.1 1978 44.0 12.5 72.6 2.9 1979 46.2 5.0 66.0 -9.1 1980 49.7 7.6 63.4 -4.0 1981 54.3 93 62.3 -1.8 1982 58.5 77 61.5 -1.2 1983 61.7 5.5 61.4 -0.2 1984 68.6 11.2 65.8 7.1 1985 75.5 10.1 70.5 7.2 1986 78.7 4.2 72.9 35 1987 87.6 11.3 79.1 8.4 1988 98.3 12.2 86.5 9.4 1989 104.1 5.9 89.9 4.0 1990 106.0 1.8 87.6 -2.6 1991 109.3 3.1 87.0 -0.7 1992 122.1 11.7 93.7 7.7 1993 130.8 7.1 96.3 2.8 1994 147.1 12.5 103.7 77 2005 160.6 Source: Colorado Department of Revenue. <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> Appendix One • Economic Profile *Retail sales adjusted for inflation using the Denver-Boulder consumer price index (CPI-U). <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN1 Appendix One • Economic Profile FIGURE Al.13 SALES TAX REVENUES TOWN OF ESTES PARK (000'S) 2 Total Revenues June-September Receipts Summer as % of Total I 1986 $2,443.5 $1,467.8 60.1% 1987 2,629.6 1,689.0 60.2 1988 2,8113 1,777.4 58.9 1989 2,903.7 1,817.8 57.4 1990 3,102.1 1,940.5 59.5 1991 3,355.0 2,048.9 59.6 1992 3,702.0 2,219.4 58.3 1993 3,884.8 2,233.7 57.5 1994 4,332.0 2,486.4 57.4 1995 4,408.7 2,495.3 56.6 1996 4,571.6 2,645.5 57.9 1997 4,787.3 17347 57.1 1998 5,383.4 2,969.1 55.2 1999 5,629.0 3,091.0 54.9 2003 154,280.6 86,734.4 56.2 2004 157,561.4 83,381.2 52.9 2005 160,572.0 88318.8 55.0 2006 166,087.5 93,972.6 56.6 2007 171,812.1 94,827.9 55.2 <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> Appendix One • Economic Profile Source: Town of Estes Park (Note: June-September tax receipts reflect May-August sales). FIGURE Al.14 PER CAPITA RETAIL SALES 2004 2005 2006 2007 04-07 Change' Estes Park $27,608 $28,072 $28,690 $29,330 6.2% FIGURE Al.15 OCTOBER RETAIL SALES Sales Population PerF Capita Salesl 2003 $ 11,959,900 5,576 $2,145 2004 13,232,975 5,707 2,319 2005 13,824,350 5,720 2,417 2006 11,932,763 5,789 2,061 2007 13,709,955 5,858 2,340 <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> . Appendix One • Economic Profile <ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN> Ir) 0 ke =11 h =11 =11 09 09 9 N "-1 N N =11 :Se=' 0 0~29°ocoN co 0 E co A 01 20.W. OR TPEL A 00 00 40 40 1-Q O .-4~OK.-ler; 00 & S =It L =M eD ,-1 0 , g 0909 m =MGO=1109 9 01 7 0 9 09 -GLO O ,-140hr-11 91·1*W LOCOCh O-5 00 + A. 0 20}h 0 hON.030 0 0 09 09 0 0 E whirl 0 000~044 1-6 04 1 4 CO CO r--1 .+ Ir?' or) 0 LA €8 44 01 Lf)990!09 1 LA N 09 h 09 * E £ g.05~ d mauNCO 10 m CO f .4 F - 34 Em Z Cf) U U Irjer)(WOO M LA N 09 h m (4 01 Loth.0 -4 tridENed Lri .4 CO f ..1 0\ CO N 01 . C. 00 . 51 0 U 4 3 9 32°00 4 1.fDer)Lr)909 1 9 4 09 09 1 h n LF) mt<K r-, *~LOY-(CO W en Al 1 0 Lr~ 11 * /4 4 91 ..1 4 4 8 3 9 CIO 3 ~1 n-9 7 2 w -1 3 21 f O h 2.C ~ .*EE €S ~~ 13 1- 14 i Za -2 0 = t .5 (110 0 3 0't 4 2 ~% d 4 £ g % 8~ # Et £ E d V Und 25 25-34 65-74 74 and up TE VOI aluoiu[ pue SUOISuad Income before taxes $45,498 $58,889 $48,108 $29,349 $20,563 expenditures $39,340 $30,782 $21,908 SPENDING BY OLDER CONSUMERS 1990 CONSUMER SURVEY ge household size 2.1 Appendix One • Economic Profile <NVUd FIGURE Al.16 AVERAGE TOTAL EXPEN I URES %39213Aaq )40110 SabLAIDS Lrb LO OR LO 00 If') A 04 Z t< 6~ ~c3 Z WJ DS E 09 ah uj LU Ul V Appendix One • Economic Profile NdMOD 1317 Source: Monthly Labor Review, Consumer Expenditure Survey 2000. Other FIGURE Al.17 HEALTH CARE WORKERS - 2000 1 1 Estes Park Larimer County Health Care Workers 177 12,201 Labor Force 2,877 143,110 % Labor Force in Health Care 6.2% 8.5% Population 5,413 251,494 Estes Park Estimate n/a n/a Residents Per Health Care Worker 30.6 20.6 Estes Park Estimate n/a n/a Population 65 and Over 1,118 24,037 Elderly Population per Health Care Worker 6.3 2.0 Source: 2000 Census. Appendix One • Economic Profile FIGUREA1.18 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION BUILDING PERMITS (# OF UNITS) TOWN OF ESTES PARK j Year Single-Family Duplex Multi-Family Total I 1972 30 51 81 1973 33 20 53 1974 12 10 22 1975 14 8 22 1976 35 18 53 1977 22 25 47 1978 19 16 35 1979 11 4 15 1980 14 39 53 1981 13 43 56 1982 12 6 18 1983 33 77 110 1984 53 8 61 1985 40 48 88 1986 17 6 23 1987 21 19 40 1988 19 23 42 1989 23 11 34 1990 29 15 44 1991 27 46 73 1992 39 18 57 1993 54 53 107 1994 83 34 117 1995 84 7 91 1996 30 22 19 71 1997 49 20 33 102 1998 46 38 42 126 1999 27 20 34 81 2000 46 22 43 111 2001 52 10 9 71 2002 38 42 13 93 2003 36 38 46 120 2004 45 26 12 83 2005 45 18 43 106 2006 32 20 42 94 • Page 19 .' Appendix One • Economic Profile 2007* 18 8 14 40 Source: 1972-1981 from BBC study. 1983-2007 totals from Town of Estes Park Annual Building Permit Summary. Single- family from Stamey data, multi-family is total residential minus single-family permits.) * = Through 6/2007 • Page 20 Appendix One • Economic Profile FIGURE Al.19 COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION, TOWN OF ESTES PARK Year Number of Value Real Value Assessed Permits ($000'S) ($000'S) Value 1983 30 2,052.9 2,042.687 1984 15 1,127.4 1,080.92 1985 26 3,562.2 3,326.05 1986 5 1,050.5 973.5867 57,805.6 1987 17 1,165.9 1,052.256 91,647.8 1988 7 253.5 222.9551 85,958.7 1989 10 337.2 291.1917 101,240.9 1990 11 1,799.6 1,487.273 96,951.3 1991 20 1,739.5 1,384.952 90,433.5 1992 16 718.3 551.2663 83,461.1 1993 11 868.8 639.8 n/a 1994 19 1,364.4 962.2 n/a 1995 24 2,011.4 1996 62 2,244.5 6,366.7 1997 28 3,109.9 4,664.8 1998 76 4,328.5 6,492.8 1999 29 1,380.6 2,070.9 2000 19 1,139.3 1,708.9 2001 29 3,344.9 5,017.4 2002 81 8,961.1 13,441.6 2003 32 3,465.8 5,198.2 2004 15 2,473.8 3,710.7 2005 61 10,892.8 16,339.2 2006 8 2,801.4 4,202.0 2007* 8 1,997.3 2,995.9 Source: Town of Estes Park * = Data through 6/2007 • Page 21 . Appendix One • Economic Profile FIGURE Al.20 ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICE ESTES PARK AREA - NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS Year Residential Commercial Total Gov't I 1972 3731 777 3731 1973 3917 793 3917 1974 4063 817 4063 1975 4014 797 4014 1976 4082 807 4082 1977 4189 822 4189 1978 4342 846 4342 1979 4498 892 4498 1980 4661 922 4661 1981 4788 938 4788 1982 5804 1983 5018 965 5018 1984 5196 976 5196 1985 5340 1012 5340 1986 5380 1033 5380 1987 5386 1043 5386 38 1988 5379 1169 5379 40 1989 5417 1191 5417 45 1990 5541 1250 5541 50 1991 5649 1284 5649 50 1992 5863 1269 7132 49 1993 6120 1160 7329 49 1994 6360 1199 7559 52 1995 6544 1254 7798 48 1996 1997 6737 1295 8032 84 1998 6935 1347 8282 86 1999 7094 1405 8499 89 2000 7205 1470 8675 94 2001 7392 1488 8880 144 2002 7534 1517 9051 188 2003 7693 1565 9258 205 20041 7810 1590 9400 204 2005 7914 1638 9552 202 2006 8079 1700 9779 204 20072 8145 1727 9872 211 • Page 22 Appendix One • Economic Profile Source: Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department 1 = Data through October, 2 = Data through May • Page 23 ' Appendix One • Economic Profile_ FIGURE Al.21 WATER METERS - ESTES PARK AREA Residential Commercial Year Urban Rural Urban Rural Total Change 1983 1228 525 410 98 2259 1984 1257 533 424 94 2308 2.2% 1985 1269 572 433 70 2344 1.6 1986 1307 572 456 69 2404 2.6 1987 1314 587 477 71 2449 1.9 1988 1347 590 484 69 2490 1.7 1989 1370 1040 492 74 2976 19.5 1990 1398 1060 500 79 3037 2.0 1991 1428 1083 514 92 3117 2.6 1992 1512 1050 526 97 3185 2.2 1993 1635 1124 544 85 3389 6.4 1994 1759 1136 531 86 3512 3.6 1995 1823 1162 542 85 3612 2.8 2000 2136 1243 613 96 4088 2001 2247 1234 612 97 4190 2.5% 2002 2336 1232 626 94 4288 2.3% 2003 2434 1253 643 93 4423 3.1% 2004 2532 1262 649 95 4538 2.6% 2005 2564 1264 683 95 4606 1.5% 2006 2663 1301 741 100 4805 4.3% 20071 2682 1301 777 90 4850 0.9% Source: Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department 1 = Data through May • Page 24 Appendix One• Economic Profile FIGURE Al.22 BANK DEPOSITS - MILLIONS OF $ 1 1 Year-end Total Number Percent Deposits of Banks Change 1977 23.7 2 1978 251 2 5.9 1979 301 2 19.9 1980 30.2 2 0.3 1981 33.5 2 10.9 1982 37.7 2 12.5 1983 54.8 3 45.4 (break) 1984 60.0 3 9.5 1985 65.4 3 9.0 1986 71.9 4 9.9 1987 70.0 4 5.7 1988 82.1 4 8.0 1989 84.7 4 3.2 1990 88.0 4 3.9 1991 95.4 4 8.4 1992 103.6 4 8.6 1993 111.0 4 7.1 1994 112.5 4 2.3 1999 138.0 2000 144.0 2001 N/A 2002 178.3 2003 N/A 2004 210.4 4 Banks, 2 Credit Unions Note: 1977-82, Estes Park Bank and First National Bank of EP 1983-85, adds Home Federal Savings (now Key Bank) 1986-92, adds Park National Bank (new bank) • Page 25 Appendix One • Economic Profile FIGURE Al.23 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK VISITATION Total Annual Visitors June- September Year (millions) as % of Total 1982 2,578,902 1983 2,704,066 78.3 1984 2,220,219 78.3 1985 2,354,480 76.4 1986 2,523,122 75.6 1987 2,665,029 74.2 1988 2,686,986 76.3 1989 2,636,662 75.8 1990 2,801,259 75.8 1991 2,903,811 75.0 1992 2,942,743 737 1993 2,950,867 75.8 1994 3,153,450 757 1995 3,008,446 74.7 1996 3,119,455 73.7 1997 3,137,186 73.1 1998 3,213,744 72.2 1999 3,366,251 71.9 2000 3,380,039 70.6 2001 3,318,303 73.3 2002 3,138,066 71.3 2003 3,192,227 72.2 2004 2,943,073 71.4 2005 2,939,099 72.8 2006 2,927,921 72.5 2007* 2,268,838 N/A Source: Rocky Mountain National Park. * = Data through August 2007 0 Page 26 Appendix One• Economic Profile An examination of the listings in the Estes Park Yellow Pages for 1972, 1982 and 1992 provides an additional measure of the growth of the tourist industry: FIGURE Al.24 YELLOW PAGES LISTINGS 1972 1982 1992 2007 1 Resorts and Motels 127 108 124 124 Campgrounds 12 10 8 9 Restaurants 58 52 73 67 Source: 1972 - Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Directory 1982 - Bell Systems Directory 1992 - U.S. West Directory. MSN Yellow Pages and Estes Park Visitor Guide • Page 27 f, Appendix One • Economic Profile FIGURE Al.25 CONFERENCES .Year # of Conferences # of Delegates Estimate of Annual Expenditures/Delegate 1991 (Aug-Dec) 15 8,600 N/A 1992 30 12,403 N/A 1993 79 14,747 N/A 1994 96 14,965 N/A 1995 88 14,635 N/A 1998 74 13,101 $373.78 1999 84 13,266 $410.24 2000 55 10,815 $450.00 2001 75 10,098 $467.91 2002 79 10,044 $465.00 2003 69 7,998 $470.24 2004 78 8,297 $490.00 2005 84 10,043 $402.42 2006 77 9,028 $447.68 Source: Estes Park Conference Center. • Page 28 Appendix One • Economic Profile FIGURE Al.26 TOWN OF ESTES PARK TREND PROJECTIONS 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 2000 2010* Population 3,672* 3,758* 3,870* 3,998 4,258* 5,413 8,013 % Change 3.1% 2.3% 3.0% 3.3% 3.0% 4.92% 4.00% Employment 1,753 1,795 1,838 1,882 1,974 2,877 N/A ~ tlfC3ed 3.3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 7.8% N/A 47.7% 47.8% 47.5% 47.1% 46.4% N/A N/A Personal Income (1990$) $63.5M $68.2M $71.3M $74.5M $79.3M $75.2M N/A % Change Z4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.54% -1.06% N/A Retail Sales (1990$) $106M $105.3M $113.4M $112.2M $112.3M $90.2M N/A % Change (2.6%) (0.7%) 7.7% (1.0%) 1.2% -4.29% N/A Residential Construction 44 73 57 107 68 97 80 Park Visitation 2.80M 2.90M 2.94M 3.01M 3.23M 3.38M 3M % Change 6.7% 3.7% 1.3% 3.5% 2.9% 0.91% -1.19% * Town of Estes Park Estimates Note: Census income and employment data for 1990 are adjusted to conform with Town of Estes Park population estimates. During the 1990-2000 period, building permits were issued for 980 housing units. From 2001 through June 2007 YTD, building permits were issued for 607 dwelling units, for an average of 93 units per year. Due to current construction trends, the construction levels are anticipated to decrease over the next two years, to 80 per year. • Page 29 Appendix One · Economic Profile • Page 30 4 Town of Estes Park Memo To: The Honorable Bill Pinkham and Town Board of Trustees From: Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator CC: Jacqueline Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: 5/27/2008 Re: "Policy" Use of Town Facilities Background Already reviewed at the previous Town Board meeting (5/13/2008) this policy is being resubmitted with minor corrections as requested. Budget/Costs None Recommendations Staff recommends adopting the proposed policy for use of Town facilities. 1 . TOWN OF ESTES PARK POLICY USE OF TOWN FACILITIES Issued: 5-13-2008 Page 1 of 3 A. Purpose To establish public use standards and operating practices for all Town owned facilities. B. Policy It is the policy of the Town of Estes Park to allow public use of meeting rooms, the Town Board Room and other specified facilities. Town owned facilities are available to Town of Estes Park residents and groups for activities which are open to the public and of general interest to Town residents and their invitees. Official Town of Estes Park government operations supersedes all other requested uses. C. Procedures The Town of Estes Park currently provides accessibility and use of the following meeting rooms and Town owned facilities for use by Town residents and groups. These facilities are located at various locations within Town Limits. Current facilities available for use are: Facility Locations 1. Municipal Building a. Town Board Room b. Town Training Room (Room 130) c. Meeting Rooms 201-202-203 2. Estes Park Senior Center 3. Estes Park Museum 4. Fall River Hydro Plant Picnic Grounds D. Administration and Scheduling The Deputy Town Administrator oversees the administration of public use of all town facilities. Given the various locations managing and scheduling for all offsite locations shall be the responsibility of the appropriate department head or their designee. The Town Clerk or designee is responsible for scheduling all rooms located within the Municipal building. TOEP Policies and Procedure 5/13/2008 TOWN OF ESTES PARK POLICY USE OF TOWN FACILITIES Issued: 5-13-2008 Page 2 of 3 1. Each Town facility available for public use shall have a set of operating instructions which outline acceptable uses for each of the facilities. 2. The department head, Town Clerk's Office or assigned designee shall maintain an updated instruction list for use and clean-up for each room. (See corresponding facility use attachments). 3. All official Town functions supersede any public use requests. E. Authorized Uses r The Town of Estes Park recognizes Town facilities are public facilities and should be available for use by town residents or groups. The Town of Estes Park reserves the right to refuse the use of any facility to any group without cause. Acceptable uses for Town facilities are in corresponding priority: 1. Use by Town of Estes Park government or its employees. 2. Use by government agencies conducting official business. 3. Local Town of Estes Park Non-profit groups. 4. Political groups conducting open meetings who are not collecting fees, campaign contributions or actively campaigning for a candidate. 5. Or any other recognized Town group/club or individual. F. Unauthorized Uses Town facilities are not available for use by groups espousing political change through the use of violence, or for any illegal, dangerous or destructive activities. Other unauthorized uses are; 1. To influence the passage or defeat of ballot issues. 2. To campaign or promote candidates for political office. G. Fees All fees and deposit amounts shall be approved by the Town Board. Fees will be collected by the appropriate department or Town Clerk designee and submitted to the Finance Department for processing. (Refer to specific town use form for all other instructions) TOEP Policies and Procedure 5/13/2008 TOWN OF ESTES PARK POLICY USE OF TOWN FACILITIES Issued: 5-13-2008 Page 3 of 3 1. Use of Town Board room audio video equipment is allowed. Operation of equipment shall be provided by Town of Estes Park employees only. H. Use of Alcohol Use of alcohol is not allowed within the Municipal Building. Alcohol consumption at other Town facilities is allowed or as outlined within the use agreement forms for those facilities. The sale of alcohol is allowed if proper licensing has been obtained by the renter. TOEP Policies and Procedure 5/13/2008 ./. TOWN OF ESTES PARK 1.1 4 Municipal Building Facilities (Board Room-Rooms 130-201-202-203) May 13, 2008 USE REGULATIONS: 1. · When reserving the Board Room a security deposit in the amount of $100.00 is required. * This deposit is refundable if the room is returned to a satisfactory condition.. 2. A non-refundable $25.00 usage fee shall be collected for the use of the Board Room and Room 130. 3. If requested video recording of meetings held in the Board Room is available at a rate of $50.00 an hour with a one hour minimum (not withstanding previous agreements already in place with the Town of Estes Park). 4. The sponsoring organization shall be held financially responsible for any damages incurred, including cleaning. 5. Town personnel and/or sponsoring organizations using the refrigerator in the kitchen adjacent to the Board Room shall remove all food items immediately following their meeting. 6. Organizations meeting after 5:00 p.m. weekdays or on weekends may make arrangements to pick up a key in the Clerk's office during regular business hours, or may access the Board Room or Room 130 via the Police Station entrance (far north entrance) and request an access key. 7. If reserving the Board Room a Board Room Setup Checklist is attached. Please note and adhere to the "Room Closure" Section. The user is responsible for restoring the room to its original condition in accordance with the Room Closure Section of the Checklist. If A/C is used, please turn it off before leaving. 8. Free-will offerings and any other methods of charging for an event or use of the Board Room or Room 130 are not permitted. 9. No alcohol is allowed on the premise. 10. PLEASE NOTE.- All room reservations are subject to cancellation should the Town of Estes Park require the room or rooms for its own use. 11. The Town Administrator may affect reasonable rules and regulations not included above. 12. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE REGULATIONS MAY LEAD TO A NON- REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT AND CANCELLATION OF FUTURE MEETING ROOM PRIVILEGES. NAME OF ORGANIZATION Contact Person Phone No.: Address: Date & Time Requested: COMPLETE AND RETURN WITH CHECK TO: TOWN OF ESTES PARK Attn. Town Clerk's Office P. O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Room Inspection completed by: Satisfactory m /Date Unsatisfactory 0 (lf unsatisfactory, reasoning)