The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2003-02-25Prepared 02/21/03 The Miseion of the Town of Eetes Fark le to plan and provide reliable, hieh-value eervicee for our citizens, visitors, and | ~ employees. We take 0reat pride eneurine and enhancin0 the quality of life in our community by Deirte good etewarde of public resources and natural eettine BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, February 25,2003 7:00 p.m. AGENDA GROUP PHOTO: Chief Elected Officials and Administrators GRADUATION CEREMONY: 2003 CITIZEN'S INFORMATION ACADEMY (CIA) PARTICIPANTS. Mayor Baudek, Museum Director Kilsdonk and Assistant Town Administrator Repola - Present Participation Plaques to the following: Peter F. Bolay Peggy Campbell M. Paul Garrett Mary Ellen Garrett Kay Gibbs Bruce Grant Alice Gray Charles B. Hall Barbara Hoffman Wes Hoffman Sarah Holdt John C. Mason Dennis Minard A. Joe Minker Ralph Nicholas Marlys Poison Andrew Purdes Joan Sapp Don Saucier David Tavel Everyone in attendance is invited to attend the Graduation Reception planned in the Lobby during Intermission. MAYOR BAUDEK: PLAQUE PRESENTATION - RECOGNIZING CORY BLACKMAN FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE TO THE TOWN AS A MEMBER OF THE MARKETING ADVISORY COUNCIL & ADVERTISING POLICY COMMITTEE, 1998 - 2003. PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated February 11, 2003. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, February 13, 2003: 1. Black & Veatch Consultants - Scope of Services for Light and Power 5-yr. Financial Plan, $9,800. 2. Cornerstone Engineering - Scope of Services for Marys Lake Raw Water Pump Project, with Cornerstone acting as General Contractor, $706,150, plus $10,000:t for the cost of a Performance and Payment Bond. 1 Continued on reverse side B. Public Works, February 20,2003: 1. Proceed with Community Reinvestment Fund Projects: Sidewalk Heater Installation, $25,000, and Audible/Visible Pedestrian Countdown Timers at Moraine/Elkhorn Avenues, $8,000. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. INTRODUCTION OF THE HONORABLE STATE SENATOR STEVE JOHNSON AND HONORABLE STATE REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN LUNDBERG. MAYOR BAUDEK. 2. JOINT MEETING WITH LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT - LARIMER COUNTY OPEN LANDS SALES TAX DISTRIBUTION. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR WIDMER. 3. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK UPDATE. RMNP SUPERINTENDENT VAUGHN BAKER. 4. ESTES PARK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 2002 ANNUAL REPORT. FIRE CHIEF SCOTT DORMAN. INTERMISSION - CIA GRADUATION RECEPTION 5. PUBLIC HEARING: KNOLL-WILLOWS MASTER PLAN. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JOSEPH. 6. MANAGER REGISTRATION - OLD GASLIGHT PUB, 246 MORAINE AVE., HOTEL & RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. TOWN CLERK O'CONNOR and POLICE CHIEF RICHARDSON. 7. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 11, 2003 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 11* day of February, 2003. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker Stephen W. Gillette David Habecker Lori Jeffrey-Clark G. Wayne Newsom Also Present: Randy Repola, Assistant Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS None. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 28,2003. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, February 6,2003. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, January 7, and February 4, 2003 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, January 21, 2003 (acknowledgement only). - 6. Organizational Chart: Re-organization of Light and Power/Public Works Departments. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) the consent agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Board of Trustees - Februaryll, 2003 - Page 2 Mayor Baudek opened the public hearing. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS: A. Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map VII, Lots 1 and 2, Park River West Subdivision, Richard H. Wille TrusVApplicant. Trustee Habecker declared a Conflict of Interest, and stated he would not participate in discussion nor vote on this item. There being no public testimony, Mayor Baudek closed the public hearing, and it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Gillette) Supplemental Map VII for Park River West Condominiums, Lots 1 and 2, Park River West Subdivision be approved, and it passed with Trustee Habecker Abstaining. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION #3-03 - RE-APPROPRIATION OF 2002 ENCUMBERED FUNDS TO THE 2003 BUDGET. Finance Officer Brandjord read the Resolution increasing appropriations in the 2003 budget for outstanding 2002 budget encumbrances, and it was mov6d and seconded (Gillette/Newsom) Resolution #3-03 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ORDINANCE #5-03 - WINDY GAP WATER TRANSFER - SUPERIOR METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1. Town Attorney White briefed the Board on the original 1987 contract with M.D.C. Land Corporation for the sale of 35 units of the Town's Windy Gap water, and subsequent transfer to the Superior Metropolitan District #1 and their sale of 4 units to the Town of Erie, and bond payment liability thereof. Trustee Habecker questioned the process to alleviate the Town of said liability, with Attorney White responding that as the Town was a party to the original pledge on the bonds, the liability cannot be removed for the Town. The bonds mature in 2017, and should Erie default on the payments, the units would be returned to the Town at a much greater value than when transferred. Attorney White read Ordinance #5-03. Public comment was heard from Rich Wille who supports purchasing additional water units and Wes Hoffman who questioned "emergency clause" procedure contained in the ordinance. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Doylen) Ordinance #5-03 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT (NCWCD): (1) RESOLUTION #4-03, and (2) ORDINANCE #6-03 - PERPETUAL WATER CONTRACT FOR TOWN'S 211 CBT UNITS. Town Attorney White reviewed the Town's previous purchase of 211 units of CBT water and the procedure required by the NCWCD to either renew the Temporary Use Permits (by March 1, 2003) or apply for a permanent renewable allotment contract for said 211 units. The NCWCD has implemented new policy, and it requires conversion of.Temporary Use Permits to Section 131 Contracts effective November 1, 2003, thus Town Attorney White read Resolution #4-03 canceling the Temporary Use Permit for the 211 units and Ordinance #6-03 converting said units to a Section 131 Contract. It was moved and seconded (Barker/Jeffrey-Clark) Resolution #4-03 and Ordinance #6-03 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 4. ORDINANCE #7-03 - AMENDING CHAPTER 2.08 STANDING COMMITTEES. Assistant Town Administrator Repola reported that acting upon Town Administrator Widmer's recommendation for reorganization of the Public Works, Water and Light and Power Departments, an ordinance was prepared amending Section 2.08.010 that abolishes the Light and Power Committee, replacing it with Board of Trustees - February 11, 2003 - Page 3 the "Utilities Committee" as a Standing Committee of the Town. The Utilities Committee would consider all water and electric items; the Public Works Committee would then consider those items related to streets, parks, and the like. Attorney White read Ordinance #7-03 and it was moved and seconded (Habecker/Gillette) Ordinance #7-03 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 5. APPOINTMENTS. Mayor Baudek submitted the following appointments for approval: A. ADVERTISING COMMITTEE. Jeff Barker, Deeva Boleman, Jerry Donner, Kyle Patterson, Rob Pieper, and Town Staff Members: Randy Repola, Tom Pickering/Chairman, Peter Marsh, and Linda Hinze. One-year terms, expiring 2/11/04. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) the appointments be approved, and it passed with Trustee Barker Abstaining. B. PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS. BILL LINNANE, term expiring 12/31/03 (Replacing Richard Matzke). It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Jeffrey-Clark) Director Linnane's appointment be approved, and it passed unanimously. 6. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A. None. Mayor Baudek acknowledged attending Citizen Information Academy participants. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 7:29 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 13, 2003. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting hold in the Municipal .Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 13th day of February, 2003. Committee: Chairman Jeffrey-Clark, Â·Trustees Gillette and Newsom Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Public Works Director Linnane, and Deputy Town Clerk van Deutekom Absent: None Chairman Jeffrey-Clark called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. LIGHT AND POWER DEPT. A. Light and Power 5-Year Financial Plan Scope of Services - Request Approval. Director Linnane presented a Scope of Services for a 5-Year Financial Plan for the, Light and Power Dept. from Black and Veatch at a cost of $9,800. The Financial Plan will assist Staff in deleting future projected deficits, increase the projected future year's Fund Balance, and assist Staff with revenue rate planning and the preparation and management of a 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). John Gallagher/Black and Veatch addressed questions raised regarding the preparation process, operating and capital reserves, cash flow forecasting, and plan adjustments. The Budget includes $17,500 for professional services. The Committee recommends approval of the Scope of Services from Black & Veatch for the 5-Year Financial Plan for the Light and Power Dept. at a cost of $9,800. WATER DEPT. A. Second Paid Tap on Single-Familv Residential Lot - Request Approval. The Water Dept. Policy and Procedure Manual allows only one tap per lot to prevent the potential connection of two service lines which could result in a backflow cross connection situation. John Spooner, owner of a portion of Lot 1, Summervilla Subdivision, has requested a policy variance to purchase a second tap for his property for a proposed horse barn, approximately 700 R. from his existing home. There is a water main 40 ft. from the proposed barn site. Staff foresees virtually no cross connection potential and categorizes his request as a "hardship" case. The Committee recommends approval of a second tap on a Portion of Lot 1, Summervilla Subdivision as presented. This second tap will be subject to the proposed tap fee increase on March 3,2003. B. Marvs Lake Raw Water Pump Proiect - Request to Proceed. This project will allow the Plant to generate potable water during periods when the CBT Tunnel is off line for maintenance and to ensure a dependable water supply during drought years due to the lack of water in the CBT reservoir system located west of the Divide. Director Linnane presented a proposal from Cornerstone Engineering for $706,150 to include construction management fees, general contractor fees, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - February 13, 2003 - Page 2 construction sub-contractor costs, and all pump, electrical and SCADA material costs, and a 10% construction cost contingency to complete the project. Discussions were held regarding the Fall River Tank Project, lake elevations, and project schedule. The Bureau of Reclamation will drain Marys Lake the last two weeks of March to allow for pump station and pipe construction. Town Administrator Widmer noted that the Town requires a Performance and Payment Bond, thus the cost of the project should be increased by approximately $10,000 to cover this amount. Concluding all discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the proposal from Cornerstone Engineering to proceed with the Marys Lake Raw Water Pump Project at a cost of $706,150 plus the $10,000 Performance and Payment Bond cost, as presented. REPORTS. Financial Report. The December 2002 and January 2003 financial statements were reviewed. Areas discussed include statement format changes, transfers, Source of Supply, and the Light and Power and Water Fund cash flow analyses. Director Linnane reported that the Light and Power Dept. actual 2002 ending Fund Balance exceeded the budget estimate by approximately $640,000. Project Updates. The Big Horn and Country Club water line projects are substantially complete. The EPA-required filter changes at the Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant are nearing completion. The plant should be online in early March. 1-4- .-- A power outage occurred February 6~h on Big Thompson Circuit. Installation of a new cabinet and approximately 100' of cable was required to restore power. Underground lines are being installed to connect Solitude Subdivision and the new substation. The Christmas lights will be removed after Valentine's Day. Discussions were held regarding the higher costs associated with allowing lights to remain year-round. This option will be included in any future bid packages. Discussions were also held regarding hiring full-time employees to perform the Christmas light project in-house. Contractor vs. in-house costs will be prepared prior to the mid-year budget process. Chairman Jeffrey-Clark directed staff to provide a progress report on the Olympus Dam Project at the March meeting. There being no further business, Chairman Jeffrey-Clark adjourned the meeting at 8:56 a.m. Rebecca van Deutekom, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PRbCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 20,2003 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the MuAicipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 200 day of February, 2003. Committee: Chairman Barker, Trustees'Doylen and Habecker Attending: All Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Public Works Director Linnane, Construction Manager Sievers, Clerk O'Connor Absent: None Chairman Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND PROJECTS - REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT PRICES & PROCEED. Heated Sidewalk System (Electric) - Installation. The Community Reinvestment Fund includes funding for a heated sidewalk system be installed at the northeast entrance to the Municipal Building, from the handicapped parking spaces to the rear door (approx. 50' long, 10' wide). Due to sidewalk's northern exposure and ice melUfreeze, pedestrian accidents have occurred resulting in injuries. Sidewalk heaters were initially installed on this walkway; however, they were damaged during library construction. The budget contains $25,000 for this project. Audible/Visible Pedestrian Countdown Timers. The Community Reinvestment Fund also contains $8,000 to purchase the hardware for the installation of said timers with audio alert (chirping) at the Moraine/Ave./Elkhorn Ave. Intersection. CDOT will perform the installation, wiring, timing and traffic control design. Police Chief Richardson noted that in his experience with the chirping devices, there were no noise annoyance complaints expressed by adjacent shop owners. Additionally, the devices could assist in public safety concerns when the Summer Community Service Officers (CSO's) are not on-site. The Police Department intends to have the CSO's monitor these devices informally during the summer season. The Committee recommends staff be authorized to solicit prices and proceed with both projects for the budget costs of $25,000 and $8,000 respectively. HIGHWAY 34 GATEWAY SIGN PROJECT - REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS. A second gateway sign is planned on Highway 34, across from Mall Rd., near Olympus Lodge (adjacent and east of existing Town limits-in CDOT right-of-way). Staff has obtained preliminary CDOT approval of the design and location with the project; however, CDOT must issue final approval prior tothe Town proceeding with the project. Thorp Associates has agreed to assist with design/materials, and Cornerstone Engineering would serve as general contractor. Staff confirmed that the Rotary logo is not'included on this sign. The budget line item for this project is $30,000: Discussion followed on this particular location and the potential traffic hazards, alternate sites, urgency, existing traffic speed, and financial value to continue with this project at this time. The Committee recommends delaying the project at this time, directing staff to provide digital photos of this site and alternate sites, to be presented at a future Public Works Committee meeting. FISH CREEK TRAIL. PHASE I CONSTRUCTION - REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS. The Public Works Committee approved the design and construction scope of services submitted by Cornerstone Engineering in January, 2003 for this first phase of the Trail from Brodie Ave. to Country Club Dr./CreeksideCrt. The project timetable is to bid the project in March, and this timeframe would facilitate construction in April, with completion anticipated in June, weather RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - February 20,2003 - Page 2 permitting. The Committee recommends staff be authorized to solicit construction bids, returning to the Committee in March for bid approval. REPORTS. Estes Park Trail System Map. The Committee reviewed said map and Cost Sheet: EXISTING TRAILS LAKE ESTES UNDERPASS, ETC. FUNDING LEVELS TOWN OTHER FUNDING FUNDING TOTAL TOWN $1,444,000 ] $1,444,000 $1,444,000 $2,888,000 EVRPD $122,000 ] CDOT $907,000 ] GOCO $198,000 ] LARIMER $150,000 ] BOR $67,003 + Land J' OTHER TRAILS (Stanley Ave., Riverwalk) TOWN $1,200,000 --- $1,200,000 TOTAL EXISTING $2,644,000 $1,444,000 $4,088,000 2003/04 PROPOSED TRAILS Fish Creek, Brodie to Carriage Dr., Phase I & 11 TOWN 1 $ 540,000 --- $ 540,000 Fall River, Performance Park to Sleepy Hollow Sub., Phases 1,11,111 ' TOWN $ 770,000 --- $ 770,000 TOTAL PROPOSED 2003/2004 $1,310,000 TOTAL TRAILS CONSTRUCTED BY 2004 $3,954,000 $1,444,000 $5,398,000 Director Linnane confirmed that: (1) the EVRPD maintains the Lake Trail (includes snowplowing); and (2) the Hwy. 36 west detached trail redesign (Beaver Pt. area) has been delayed due to CDOT's budget constraints. Staff anticipates a funding delay of at least 3 yrs.; however, ttils project is included on the 6-yr. State Transportation Plan for potential funding in 2006. Riverside Dr. Roadwav/Utilities Proiect. Construction/Facilities Mgr. Sievers gave an overview of the Project and the upcoming Phase 11. Pursuant to the sewer main location and deepness of the trenches required for sewer and electric facilities, staff reported that the optimum alternative is to close Riverside Drive for the duration of construction, estimated at 2 months. Discussion followed on opening the roadway on weekends, however, this option would delay the project. The Committee recommends closing Riverside Dr. throughout the entire construction period, with the intent that this complete closure will facilitate a much shorter construction period, directing staff to improve the construction signage to better facilitate traffic movement. Fall River Trail, Phase 11 - Update. Staff anticipates that the Fall River Village easement currently under negotiation will hopefully be converted into an Outlot for public use to encompass access to the river. Staff will submit the proposed construction cost td the March Public Works Committee meeting for review/approval. There being no further business, Chairman Barker adjourned the meeting at 8:51 a.m. gruboib.J Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk Memo Date: February 13, 2003 TO: Rich Widmer From: Gregory A. White RE: Intergovernmental Agreement Concerning County Open Lands Sales Tax Distribution - IGA Dear Rich: Pursuant to your email of February 10, 2003, I have reviewed the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement Concerning County Open Lands Sales Tax Distribution whose purpose is to provide the towns of Johnstown and Windsor with Open Space money created by sales tax originating in those portions of those municipalities located within Larimer County. I have the following comment with regard to the proposed IGA. 1. In Paragraph 4 and 6 of the IGA the municipalities agree "to pay" a portion of the sales tax to Windsor and Johnstown. It is my opinion that Estes Park should agree to relinquish its portion of the tax to Windsor and Johnstown in these two paragraphs. This will prevent any claim that this tax revenue going to Windsor and Johnstown should be revenue to the Town with regard to revenue calculations under TABOR. Other than the above I have no other comments concerning the IGA. LARIMER OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER ~COUNTY *-1 Frank Lancaster County Manager Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-7004 Fax (970) 498-7006 E-Mail flancaster@larimer.org Background INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CONCERNING COUNTY OPEN LANDS SALES TAX DISTRIBUTION OBJECTIVE - To equitably distribute to the municipalities of Johnstown and Windsor a proportional share of the Larimer County Parks and Open Lands sales tax collected from business within those communities. SITUATION - The original concept of the citizen initiated county parks and open lands sales tax included a sharing of the revenues from the tax back with the communities in the county, for use on open lands and parks projects. The ballot specified that the sales tax must be distributed 55% to the municipalities and 45% to Larimer County. The municipalities share is based on either the proportion of tax collected from the municipality or the proportion of county population residing in Larimer County, whichever is higher. At the time that the original ballot initiative passed, there were no municipalities straddling the county line. A clause in the ballot language stated that the share back provisions of the ballot apply to municipalities wholly within Larimer County. , Since that time, the towns of Windsor and Johnstown have annexed into Larimer County, and the town of Berthoud has annexed into Weld County. Berthoud has continued to receive a share of the open lands tax, however Windsor and Johnstown. have not, even though businesses in those towns within Larimer County do collect the sales tax. Because Windsor and Johnstown don't have a funding source for open lands projects similar to other communities, it has limited their ability to partner with the County and other jurisdictions on projects, and to provide matching funds for other dollars, such as The fact that these two communities pay the same tax as all other communities but don't receive the benefit, raise a question of fairness of the current situation. OPOSAL - The proposal is for all the communities in Larimer County to enter into an intergovernmental agreement (attached) to allow the towns of Johnstown and Windsor ~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 4O4MITTED TO EXCELLENCE to receive a share of the open lands sales tax revenue collected from business in their communities, the same as all the other towns and cities in the County. Specifically, Larimer County would make the calculations of revenue sharing, as defined in the ballot language, to determine a pot of funds to be shared with the municipalities. This would comply with the letter of the approved ballot language. In a second calculation, agreed upon in the IGA, the County would take that previous pool of funds, and recalculate the distribution, this time including the towns of Johnstown and Windsor. The rules would be the same: the greater of the calculation based on population or tax collection for each community. The County would then distribute these funds based on this new calculation. For communities that are not wholly in Larimer County, the calculation will be based only on the population of Larimer County residents in the municipality and on sales tax collected within Larimer County. Likewise, the same use restrictions on the funds will apply (only for parks and open lands purposes, only willing buyer/ willing seller, etc) as defined in the ballot language. Funds may only be used for projects within Laritner County. 6 Rod Wensing, Windsor Town Manager, and Frank Lancaster, Larimer County .. Manager, have met with the Larimer County Open Lands Board, and th@ board supports this proposal. We havd also discussed this with one of the original citizen advocates of the ballot proposal, and there was no opposition to the idea. ADVANTAGES â€¢ Windsor and Johnstown will have a source of funds available for partnering, increasing our ability to provide matches for GOCO and other dollars. â€¢ All sales tax monies will still go to open lands and parks projects within Larimer County. â€¢ This will correct a situation that treats the towns of Johnstown ahd Windsor unfairly. â€¢ The proposal will clear up an ambiguity concerning Berthoud's eligibility for revenue sharing, now that they have annexed out of Larimer County. DISADVANTAGES â€¢ There will me a minor reduction in the share back amounts for the current participating municipalities, since they are currently receiving a share of the taxes collected in Windsor and Johnstown. â€¢ There will be more administrative work for the County for implementation. 2 QUESTED ACTION - That the governing bodies of the jurisdictions Aamed in the IGA adopt the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CONCERNING COUNTY OPEN LANDS SALES TAX DISTRIBUTION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED INTERESTS - Larimer County, the cities of Loveland and Fort Collins and the towns of Wellington, Berthoud, Timnath, Windsor, Estes Park and Johnstown. LEVEL OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION - There has been moderate interest in this issue. Interest is higher in the Windsor community where the equity issue appears to be forefront. In other areas, it appears that most understand the situation and see this as a fair and reasonable solution. 3 ' INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CONCERNING COUNTY OPEN LANDS SALES TAX DISTRIBUTION This Agreement made this day of , 2002, by and among The Municipalities of Loveland, Fort Collins, Estes Park, Berthoud, Timnath, Wellington Windsor and Johnstown and Larimer County, Colorado as follows: Recitals 1. The voters of Larimer County, on November 7, 1995 approved a county wide sales tax for parks and open space, and such tax was extended by the voters on November 2,1999; (The Initiative) and 2. The Initiative for the county wide tax required among other things that a minimum of 55% of the gross revenue, less collection and distribution costs, be distributed to the municipalities located entirely within Larimer County including, Loveland, Fort Collins, Estes Park, Berthoud, Timnath, Wellington; and 3. The Municipalities of Windsor and Johnstown now have Larimer County land area within their municipal boundaries; and, 4. The Municipalities of Loveland, Fort Collins, Estes Park, Berthoud, Timnath, and Wellington wish to pay a portion of the share of the revenue they receive from The Initiative to Johnstown and Windsor, based upon the allocation fonnulas contained in The Initiative for that portion of Johnstown and Windsor located within Larimer County; and 5. Loveland, Fort Collins, Estes Park, Berthoud, Timnath, and Wellington request Larimer County to pay the funds to Windsor and Johnstown under the terms of The Initiative in the same manner as payments are made to the other municipalities. Agreement 6. The municipalities of Loveland, Fort Collins, Estes Park, Berthoud, Timnath, Wellington agree to pay to Windsor and Johnstown a portion of their minimum 55% municipal share of revenue under The Initiative upon condition that Windsor and Johnstown shall use the funds for the purposes specified in The Initiative. 7. The portion of the revenue so paid to Windsor and Johnstown shall be calculated as required in The Initiative for division among the municipalities and shall be based upon the population formula or the sales tax formula as specified in The Initiative for that land area only within Larimer County. 8. The County agrees to create bookkeeping accounts for Johnstown and Windsor similar to the accounts required for the other municipalities by The Initiative and to pay directly to Windsor and Johnstown the revenue called for by this Agreement, with the understanding that Page 1 of 10 the total revenue to be paid to all municipalities shall remain as the amount would be without this Agreement. 9. All parties agree and understand that they are bound by all applicable provisions of The Initiative. LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO DATED: By: Chair ATTEST: Deputy Clerk DATE: APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Attorney Page 2 of 10 TOWN OF ESTES PARK DATED: By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk DATE: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town of Estes Park Attorney Page 5 of 10 2001 Mock Actual Distribute Difference Fort Collins 3,323,372.21 3,314,942.77 8,429.44 Loveland 1,321,205.34 1,318,056.29 3,149.05 Estes Park 229,885.73 229,234.20 651.53 Berthoud 122,889.23 122,592.05 297.18 Wellington 64,589.06 64,531.68 57.38 Windsor 0.00 6,644.28 -6,644.28 Johnstown 0.00 5,945.42 -5,945.42 Timnath 5,887.12 5,882.00 5.12 5,067,828.69 5,067,828.69 0.00 County 3,565,145.58 3,565,145.58 0.00 Total 0.00 Distributed 8,632,974.27 8,632,974.27 0.00 Percentage Breakdown Cities 58.70% 58.70% 0.00% County 41.30% 41.30% 0.00% Page 11 of 10 l i i 0 0 Z l "' J O lu -1 1.10 E 05 - d z O* 9 0. a E wa 11'IZZ Â©eÂ©Â®Â©Â©Â©# Â®Â©Â® 20Â®Â® Â®Â®Â® 000 0 m 0 N O tÂ® 0 N. 0 Z ID 0 21 ZZ 0 &; Z 0 0 10 0 m U) 1,1 Z co 00 111 A - lili 111 z Z0 0Â¤ Z ZÂ» mÂ¤ m= Â¤Z ZP e Â®Â®Â® CRD ~ REHABILITATE WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS ~ ROADWAY CHIP SEAL FROM AVC TO TIMBER LAKE TRAIL HISTORIC BLDGS AT MC RANCH VIOLATIONS AT THE WAREHOUSE EAR LAKE ROAD RECONSTRUCTION (AWARD JUNE 03) EY DECONSTRUCTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ED. CENTER REHABILITATE MILLS LAKE TO BLACK RIC LINE FROM GLACIER BASIN CAMPGROUND SvibIV OINOId ialsavokl 31Vll-IlaVH NOIJLVOO-13kl OVEH-IlÂ¥Ul S-WAO NINLL NOILONnr 3DMOD lia:OVID 31Â¥ll,laV,laU @ V31,V DNINkIVd MO-I:n,3AO 39â€¢IOD WaIOVID 31Vll,ISVHakl OVaH,IVUJL laVJLS&lala JLV 13-,I01 1-InVA 3HJL 31Â¥ll,laVHall aNnOUDdEVO WHId ENIVHOW JLV 31IS JLSOH,VNOIJLIaaÂ¥ 1OnkllSNOO EAST DISTRICT THE VAULT TOILET A A NSia NOUVUIHO,NI OAV 31Â¥ll,laÂ¥Hall * MNI, -Ilnll SSÂ¥d IMHOLLS (SlA) iala INUVd 31Vll-,laVHJU @ aDania avok, 3,Iv, grlon,ds alvinievHgy livul got,OD Uglov,D O mONINE.LNIVW OllOAO 1-IVM NOOM OIUOJLSIH OAV 3HOJLS3U AT ROCKY MOUNTAIN NAT AL PARK FY 2003 FACILITY MANA EN PROJECTS BY LOCATI SaNn:I INVI,DOUd NOIJLVUJLSNOINaa 333 Aa aa(]Nni Wil EH1 01 FACILITY MANAGEMENT SO ARE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATIO ~ REHABILITATE VAULT TOI AT TIMBER CREEK CAMPGROUND Â® REMOVE/REHABILITATE WALES BUILDINGS (3) Â® REMOVE/REHABILITATE YCC BUILDINGS (3) INSTALL SECOND WELL AT GRAND LAKE ENTRANCE 2 BUILDINGS AT GREEN MOUNTAIN HOUSING CAP 9 ABANDONED WELLS DISTRICT WIDE N,!Va NEEMO UmS,Ill 313-Id,dOO ~ ESTES PARK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Year End Report- 2002 71â‚¬Ti-W ..P - t .7 -4 , :f U. 2 '. 41 1,1,9 1 4. 4 - ,:,4..fi. 4' r 'Â·s :4Â·. ILIA r. ' . 3. . . t.2. t,17 - J Â·4 1.- 1 ..4 .,t 2002 ESTES PARK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT YEAR END REPORTS â€¢ ELECTION OF OFFICERS â€¢ FINANCIAL REPORT â€¢ TRAINING REPORT â€¢ INCIDENT RUN REPORTS /1 . Submitted By -Â·- 4Â£ u-4 /\Jc-C/h-_.. 2Â¤22 Â£191&,SC Scott Dorman, Fire Chief Will Birch<ld, Secretary C~,AU'.n 19' L.kaSEE Doug I~ats, Treasurer ESTES PARK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 2002 ELECTION OF OFFICERS REPORT 6 Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department A~Q.727*# PO Box 1200 114Â¥39 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970) 577-0900, fax 970 577-0923 January 1,2003 Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Town Board Trustees: Our annual election of Officers was held at our December 3,2002 business meeting. The results of that election are as follows: â€¢ First Assistant Chief- Daryl McCown â€¢ Second Assistant Chief- Robert Hirning â€¢ Secretary- Will Birchfield â€¢ Treasurer- Doug Deats We respectfully request your approval of these Officers we have chosen to lead us in 2003. Sincerely, Scott Dorman, Chief Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department ESTES PARK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 2002-YEAR END FINANCIAL REPORT 10:33 AM Estes Park Fire Department 01/17/03 Balance Sheet Cash Basis As of December 31, 2002 Dec 31, 02 ASSETS Current Assets Checking/Savings First National Bank Checking 4,424.05 First National Bank Money Ma... 180,893.98 Total Checking/Savings 185,318.03 Total Current Assets 185,318.03 Other Assets Petty Cash 100.00 Total Other Assets 100.00 TOTAL ASSETS 185,418.03 LIABILITIES & EQUITY Equity Opening Bal Equity 105,362.52 Retained Earnings -412.35 Net Income 80,467.86 Total Equity 185,418.03 TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 185,418.03 Page 1 10:34 AM Estes Park Fire Department 01/17/03 Profit & Loss YTD Comparison Cash Basis December 30 - 31, 2002 Dec 30 - 31, 02 Jan - Dec 02 Income Chaplain's Relief Fund 0.00 12,066.32 Convention 2002 Golf Tournament Income 0.00 3,043.00 Convention 2002 - Other 0.00 4,736.36 Total Convention 2002 0.00 7,779.36 Crafts Fair 0.00 29,751.00 Donations 10,515.00 116,316.08 El Pomar Foundation Grant 0.00 19,500.00 Fire Fighting Grant NPS 0.00 9,000.00 Interest Income 188.46 1,430.64 MDA Boot 0.00 11,097.03 Other Income 57.50 5,844.36 Total Income 10,760.96 212,784.79 Expense Awards 0.00 5,060.76 Bank Charges 0.00 4.95 Communications 0.00 11,228.65 Dive Team 0.00 7,590.83 Dry Hydrant Expense 0.00 3,544.78 Dues/Memberships 0.00 2,253.36 EMS Expense 0.00 4,203.11 Equipment 2,711.94 24,606.95 Fire District 0.00 24.50 Fire Prevention Materials 0.00 1,257.39 Firehouse Maintenance 0.00 2,918.53 Fundraising Expenses 0.00 983.66 Hazardous Materials 0.00 938.81 Incentives Volunteer/F Fighters 47.67 12,568.10 Insurance Policies 0.00 7,501.00 Labor Day Craft Fair Expense 0.00 1,864.83 MDA Contribution Expense 0.00 11,135.03 Miscellanious Expenses 0.00 61.57 New Members 0.00 560.18 New Truck Expense 0.00 220.80 Office Supplies 17.33 621.03 Operating Supplies 0.00 3,259.81 Other Expenses 0.00 6,639.35 Pagers 0.00 287.78 Software 0.00 3,190.00 10:34 AM Estes Park Fire Department 01/17/03 Profit & Loss YTD Comparison Cash Basis December 30 - 31, 2002 Dec 30 - 31, 02 Jan - Dec 02 State Convention Expense Entertainment 0.00 600.00 Golf Tournament 0.00 2,928.50 Memorial 0.00 41.09 Open House 0.00 500.00 Other Expenses 0.00 2,119.37 Raffle Items 0.00 2,945.00 State Convention Expense - Ot... 0.00 479.74 Total State Convention Expense 0.00 9,613.70 Tax Preparation/Audit 0.00 245.00 Telephone 0.00 2,682.18 Training 0.00 6,895.07 Truck Maintenance 0.00 297.80 Upstairs Remodel 0.00 57.42 Total Expense 2,776.94 132,316.93 Net Income 7,984.02 80,467.86 Income and Expense by Month 11Inconne January through December 2002 11 ~Expense $ in 1,000's 70 WR 60 1 Â£ 50 tÂ·,â‚¬=eâ€¢ 40Â· 30 .. ,-4 f. mi#f Im 20 13* , . . '24.- %*A Z'*. Râ‚¬ .Â· %/1 Mt: -li 10 F f i. i. t.. 6.r# pJ7/il, te~ , 41:= 2/'/15= Jan02 Mar02 May02 Ju102 Sep02 Nov02 Feb02 Apr02 Jun02 Aug02 Oct02 Dec02 Expense Summary BiEquipment %18.60 January through December 2002 IIncentives Volunteer/F Fighters 9.50 Communications 8.49 IMDA Contribution Expense 8.42 1State Convention Expense 7.27 3Dive Team 5.74 Insurance Policies 5.67 2Training 5.21 ~Other Expenses 5.02 JAwards 3.82 .other 22.28 Total $132,316.93 .//' :SS'i;"O'Â·1'f' -1,â€¢1, . 1 rtÂ¢:34 By Account ESTES PARK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 2002-YEAR END TRAINING REPORT 2002 TRAINING REPORT January 10,2003 Town Board of Trustees Estes Park, Colorado Training hours for 36 full time volunteers during 2002 totaled 2,491 hours, resulting in an average of 69 hours per volunteer. Training in 2002 included the following: Fire behavior Fire streams Fire extinguishers Fire hose Incident command system Water supply Personal protective equipment Salvage and overhaul Vehicle fires Vehicle extrication Ventilation CPR Dive rescue Ice rescue EMT Hazardous material- operations level First Responder Rescue Hose testing and inspections Arson investigation Ladders and aerial operations Wildland fire red card Defensive driving Ropes & knots ISO practical testing Live fire scenarios Pumper/engineer Inspections & Prevention Interior fire attack Forcible entry Confined space Chemical/Biological response Building construction Communications Respectfully submitted, ) \~/ C D-Â« n i Scott Dorman, Chief Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department ESTES PARK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 2002-YEAR END INCIDENT RUN REPORTS . . . 04, L.- utt, 4% Â·4Â· .' ' "tÂ·0Â·Â§' Â·if. ~ Â·5:4: 2 ~ j it + 01 4 1 -4 12: 0% % '' 4 ./ 0 '10 99 .40 0 0 ' I * Se 54,/ * 9'Go SO. le- %12 .47 1 g1. ' I. *: e T.Z . 1, L I.. 4 -6 0 11 k., Â»74 r - 94 4% Ve Vi O 1#0 1,- /% 4 1- 42,1 p- 4. . | 4 1 9 34 . â‚¬22, lili- 94, I 1 0000000000 444-904 00 (D V NO 00 (D 4 M r- r. siieo Jo JequlnN 02002 12001 02000 01999 Comparison of calls by type 6 iieo,o ed*.1. Comparison 2002,2001,2000,1999-Type of calls by number Type of Call 2002 2001 2000 1999 EMT Assists 153 122 148 124 Motor Vehicle Accidents 90 106 78 78 Wildfires 37 48 34 32 False Alarms 44 34 32 35 Other 28 32 36 14 Haz-Mat 29 32 22 30 Smoke Reports 41 30 30 Assist Other Agency 4 18 12 14 Odor/ CO Investigation 38 16 14 8 Structure Fires 19 18 24 18 Dive Team 8 11 5 5 Vehicle Fires 5 9 4 10 Dumpster & Trash Fires 4 8 7 3 Rescues 3 6 5 Cooking and Heating Equipment 5 4 5 7 Totals 508 494 456 378 Â£1 C C) 8 8 0 g C9 slieo 10 Jequ,nu le;01 ~ sligo Imol -4- 1 508 ZOOE Jea* LOOZ JeaA 000Ejeex 666 L jeaA 866 L jeeL 266 L JeeA 600 500 400 78 66' LO LO 00 Q 0 91Â· cO CO 4- * A 00 N r NO tO LO (9 (N 01 r- to " 00 O V N O M CO LO *2 LO .- LO Chi r C\1 7 e B w 4 ~ %gg 0 00 10 4- M lo LO ki E 0 EMT Assists 153 96 4.97 Motor Vehicle Accidents 90 1,267 32 799,000 5.55 Wildfires 37 1,112.50 11.51 False Alarms 44 381.5 18 2.7 28 268.5 10.76 Haz-Mat 29 7,700 7.1 Smoke Reports 41 9.17 Assist Other Agency 11.5 99 9 Sm L ge uoije6!19@AU' 00 /JOPO 48.t' 000'L90'Z 090'te, L 91.92: L SN!21 einlonns fl/Z Weel .AID 009'OZ Send eIO!4eA 937 se]13 4Seil 9 Jelsdluna 2002 EPVFD RUN REPORT TOTALS Outside Dollars Lost Dollars Saved Average Type of Fire Call Count Man Hours Ci ts City Limits (est.) (est.) response time 000'092 001'Â£ lualudinbEI 6uqeaH pue Buplooo 999.9 00-000'600 $ 00'09*'140 $ 992 Z9Z 9Â£. 809 sle,01 sanosabl EOOZ/Z L/Z E 2 2 2 226 & 00.0.0 #2--Â· '<3*j~ 27:31 & - ,:-Ii'. r 4 tw/4 i 't? 2,Â·'.-1. M C*2%-%#R 1.OP'Ntite -37 If 14 O EMT Assists 19 8 5435 â€¢ Motor Vehicle Accidents 153 Alarms spodehl eMOL houeBV Je410 lsISsv uo! je6!}SeAUI 00 /JOPO â€¢ SeJ!3 8Jnpruls O JelAI-zeH 38 '4 F - 644 44 .. A. r J :'% 19 .4 6. r.*14.1 , Â·- t. 1. -12 ..k t.-1: 3 44- 7 . 6 .4 94 -I ''.'13~ 6 1 0 6'.9 . 1% ....1 - e /4.. P , - ~ ENA#Â¢*%4 6'- e2b 1. 2 .. . - 10 &. 'P' * 9 P. 4 ' / 21 ~Â·' ~r-@t # i , 13.-79 Â·Â·Â· It .4.4 F - N- 4% 46 i. ME.3 . ' :1. tÂ·'23*f*fz i'&0_4) 19 4% I 0 4. 1 0- 1 -lf. 140 J 1,4441 0 I â‚¬b - 9% 1 . "40:4365 ..:43, Â¥N- t.* 1%7?44 1 1 9% 99& 0 8 89 o ~9 -7 g 01 Slieo JO JaqulnN OWithin City Limits I Outside City Limits 2002 Calls - within/outside City limits 80 - slieo,o adAL 0/p / 94 & 8 0 0 > N 4 1 > N (0 ../ (D b > & 8 a) 0 > CNI 40.... > CNI 55 8 (D 4.,e: 00 & 00 a) g oc C O 88#000 r- O 9%280 sleo Jo Jequtnu iejol ~ sileo lejol -0- I ~ 866 198 e A e A JeaA 900E 'OOE Â°Or 666 L la 28 5- Year projection .ggr 1000 66' 2 ~ 2 & 9 53 (,4 " " ,- 8 e r.-r/- - -53- 00 r- Q - 2 0 - 2! r- 2 5 0610 N r- Ng.-lo CVâ„¢00 C .4. t 4 " P 49 5 0 Â©Oâ„¢ cv â„¢ cv 3 (N cv cv NOIN ~100â„¢ 2 cv M N 42 fy cv fy (v 23 ~64. oo RI cv 4 y , .-I ---0- CP v 2 2-9 m m m co m I - --- 00 m m m " N 2,- M " 222-M M ,-E - 1 131 E E EEE ------ r Â·62- v /6 .2 % co u, & 2 0 -94 u, -91 ~ ~ ~~ 1 '3 : 1 0 0, rl, i to Zma) evvÂ®=vEvECCCE C W C Cc JJ -* 170=CCEJ /1/0-EJ - 8 -2%88 0958%8%%#Ef C J J (DJ J 32 5.0.0.8 c 2 EmEE.bic .C .C LO .LO m S N . . 0 22% iI LL k .2 E N m mm E ccc 0 0 JJJ J J 0 0/ 0 J m al L- 3 22 222 8 8 6 iii kn 2 02 26 -2 20 2 C " 8 ~c: 'c: dE 2 2-t: = lk Â·t!: 1& 1& 1& 1& 2 t -t: ~= t: t: e 'c e li= t~ 'C= t.: = 1Â§ 52 -lk 0 8 ti v t* c t; a. o o g. 1% R R & & & & & & & 9- & R & 1 2. * g.m.mt) R:E oa,- 12Â§%Â§@*22Â§222222222%222=52EESSSIAEâ‚¬2 ht=#9(D (D (13 ta) (13 (13 0 0 (13 03 (1) O 38 (D (D (1) 65'tot:tt (1) T .' 4 0 â‚¬ 491 e= 0 -m Â·M -M -M 0-ki MM .M.MIM .SE -M .M.~.M 0 .X 0 0 0 M Â© E w (a w cÂ» O 00(80 00000000 8000*(DO O U) U, U, o E**Â£ 'r c eS 22 E E E F E E E E E E E E EE E E E 3 2 E ~ E 2 2 2 E 2 E 2 0 3 W. a= 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u)= 0 0 0 0 030 00 00=U,im (DimZ C ~~ | e555 25250*02Â§65 1Â·LI M CN CNI CNI CNI CNI N IN N N N CNI CNI N ON N N CNI N OV CNI N CNI INCNI N INI N CNIN N N CNI W â„¢999999999999999990000999999999999 9 e co o M m o r o r- r W A 00 to co M 4 4% A A $ O N K CO p (9 91- 10 - CN M * B 1.0 0-(N (9 09 1.0 (D O NOOÂ©000000)0)000rc\1(9 4-4- 91-4- 10 (D co (D hhl~1~ 1 C) r- r- r-- 9- r- r- r- r- r ,- ,- r- .- r g- (N (N (N (N (N N (N (NI (NI N (\1 N (NI (N (NI N (NI (N UL - 9 Â£17Â£ 1 zgz 9094 i ejol (acres): ., .|>lo~:. , ~ 1 No. of Engines responded IN mber of personnel ~Ma ESTES PARK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 2002 WILDLAND FIRE REPORT Report no. ~ Situation found ~ Approximate size Cause Bulu146!1 haze JeAU00 leo 0094 4SeJO-Ue]0]!e JeAU00 leo pepur~un einl~gul46!l punoi6dweo punoJun mpfire -unfound unfound unfound unfound unfound unfound unfound ONÂ¥ 10,1510â€¢Otoi-10 9-le 10â€¢010--00000_ 1,~0010(41&tocatolotololole 0000 LO r N:* N " g~ LO (9 0 O .0000012 91419 .% -:fl :Â¥':.. 24 Â·Ne M Ne,2 :2 30,---"-MWSXE W N:2 92!- 4Â· 3-(C)-,--"r)5 4 . CNI ly.A be 3. ... Â·2' 7 '49 .i $5 4 4 3 2 00 00 4 - -26 80 r- r- r r- CM M " 2~~~r- pr- r-CV r-Me, r. M CV CV .2 ce r- _prO OOT-~ J J it E E A V .-I 9 t ..4 47 .9 -0 - 13Â¥ : 835-Â§ f J Q 2"- a fiffaiffi 2 fi c C ,2 â‚¬ â‚¬ :&2 *42 2 M 5.-C o=Â£ C orri 12 E 8 2.- =Er-c 5 0-CE.Co t= .52).ED 2 3 2 3 7Â« 4V -0 LO LO to Lo - to LO 10 ID M N N N M ~9 M N (NI N 0 0 00 00 0 O 4- â‚¬.1 .V 3-022vvvD v v v v v v .Â¤ .Â¤-Â¤-Â¤ .Â¤ ligmm Egg 5 Â®C=CCC C C ccc 5 4. 1-03071 1 3 JJJ '12:*M2222 '8~22222 8 U 2 228 2.:CLU mcccC CCccc C (9 C ccc Â¥900?939:72&331372â€¢22 -2 2 301 1 23 === tktkthÂ·tktkttt~ a & 9 9 & 2 & 2 -0 -2 & 2. & & 2. F & 1 ~Ni ~ R 2- 1- 20-5 2 eeg' 1 -* (D (D (1) cl) a) c a, 2 E + 22 a) 1 6 0 M U) O 0 0 0 0 a) t GEFNEEEEFEEEEEEeEFFEEP~~EFEEEEEEEEF I 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 OU) acÂ»~ 0 030=0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OZ 't 3 CNI CNI N CN CNI CN N CNI (N CN CNI N CNI CN N (N N N N N N CNI N CNI N (\1 N CNI N N CNI N N N .9 9999999 9999999990000000999099999991- A LO o M 7- CV V u) .- O A M W r- M 4) A d~ 6 4 cll A 4 A CV co d, M O LO (D * LO 4- A h K.00 - r 9- r- G) r- r- m (9 91Â» 4- 4- 91- * 10 10 10 10 LO tO CD CD A 00 C) G) 0 9- r- CD 4 61 92â€ž Â£ :slieo Jo Jaquln Report TE 3 4 Situation found * ~*~ ~ Appro~50 sjze 14 g Cause ~ , No. of Engines responded , ~ Number of personnel ~Ma ESTES PARK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 2002 WILDLAND FIRE REPORT ookout unded AeulUI40 papunolun p no,un-uode] ay pepunolun ode] ayo pepunolun odel e>lo 1nolooo puno,u n odeJ eMo pepunoJun puno,un - odeJ eMo pepunolun Â· puno,un - odal eMo qni 104 punoiun odeJ eyo chimney Suiu146!l eJU lieJO eu!1 JaMOd e :SaJOUSS Vâ‚¬s. ..34 lo 1< M 2 â€¢.â€¢t Â»I----- LOOM h 14- N N 4' .9 * R 0 4 1 ..r .A# 45- P tu 1 i 400000 00- 1) NÂ· r ... 20 1% S.. LoÂ·Lo P 10 10 QON O 0 1 1 0 4% f.f" .'Â· il. 02 22 en M 91.4.4- 232 C E W -a -m c:13:118 00 (N LO 4 .t -~2-5-50 -s-0 00 CC ... ai . 0 4, 92 4-: N 6,; 19./ M =.5-ZE . a) a) 42*EE= (0 (0 m 0 0 0 0 4 a- a. O- z 3 3 3 3 9 OI CN OI N .9 0 0 0 a 0900r- 1-Al-= 4 10 06 (6 -9 O 00 2 hhooaDJ J=JO 0 0 CO .- co 1743.5 Report no. ~ , Situation found Approximate size , Ca use ~ No. of Engines responded ~ Number of personnel ~M umber of calls: 72. . 4510.5 .. + . ,. f:. . a. 1.â€¢Â·. : ..,Ai. 96 ..iÂ» 1.- i -:â€žg : 0440:!4468<,s,0-:*s:A 3442 348 ESTES PARK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 2002 WILDLAND FIRE REPORT . 41 .~':4(acres)Â·f, A,L~ 74 * . chimney unfounded no.of calls 0 Big Elk Fire Summary Report Date Started: 07/17/02 Time Started: 2:49 pm Location: 9 Miles east of Estes Park Cause: Human (vehicle catalytic converter) 100% containment on 07/26/02 Mop-up continued for more than a month Total size: 4,413 acres Cost: $4,270,000 The Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department (EPVFD) had two Engines, E5 and E10, on scene at the Big Elk Fire providing structure protection and fire line work on County Road 47. This protection was provided twenty-four hours a day, changing crews every 12 hours, for the first six days of the fire. Additionally, the EPVFD responded to the crashes of Tanker 123 and the helicopter piloted by Gordon Knight. The EPVFD logged 1,681 man-hours. After the first six days ofthe fire the EPVFD recalled it's crews to protect the Little Valley subdivision that was then being threatened by the approaching fire-front. The fire-front extended to within 1-96 miles ofthe subdivision. The EPVFD worked under a changing incident command structure, changing from a type 4, local control, to type 2, regional, then to a type 1, national team. Although the changes didn't always transition as smoothly as hoped, it did give the EPVFD the opportunity to work under all of the systems. Local, State, and US forest service personnel, as well as the Incident Commander of the type 1 team, complimented the EPVFD for our professionalism and assistance in this difficult fire. MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph Date: 1-27-03 -9':03 Subject: Knoll Master Plan Background: (please see attached summary) The master plan explicitly recognizes the Town Board's role in adoption of this recommendation and provides for future changes by the Town Board with public input. The following "commitments" are assumed: The final design and construction will be consistent with the master plan. The area is for passive use, not active use. The seasonal trail closures during calving and rut will be implemented if/ as required. No toilets, except maybe inside the cabin. Parking will be strictly limited, no overflow. This can be done with physical barriers. The recommended use restrictions will be enforced in some manner, but not necessarily by daily patrol. The cabin and ruins will be maintained. Seasonal maintenance of the fully accessible trail surface may be required. Designation of a few handicap spaces by the trail head in the municipal parking lot. Budget: Total cost for final design and construction is estimated from $300,000 to $350,000. Construction could be phased if required. This money is currently budgeted for 2003-2004. Recommendation: Approval. I<NOLL/WILLOWS MASTER PLAN EXECTIVE SUMMARY Knolll -Willows Citigen Advisog Council DRAFT (December 2002) The KnolFWillows properties consist of approximately 20 acres of contiguous natural open space located between the Highway 34 bypass, MacGregor Ave., and the downtown, Seefig, 1. The land has been subdivided into several separate parcels and held in separate ownerships over the past seventy-five years. This property includes a historic stone ruin of a house built in 1904 on a promontory overlooking downtown Estes Park (the Knoll), Also, a historically related log cabin built in 1908 is located on the lower western portion of the property facing Black Canyon Creek (the Willows). The Town Board appointed the Knoll Citizens Advisory Council to develop a Master Plan for the property that is consistent with the Open Space Conservation Easement that is now in place. The role of the Citizens Advisory Council is to inform and guide the development of the Knoll Master Plan through the preliminary draft, public hearing(s), the final draft and the final adoption by the Town Board. The formation of a Citizen's Advisory Council to provide oversight for the Knoll master planning process was approved by the Town Board on April 9,2002, The Council includes Citizens at Large: O.W. (Bud) Hampton, Bob Jones, Jacqueline Oldham, Tobi Hale, Joan Sapp; Town Staff Bob Joseph (Chairman), Bill Linnane, Betty Kilsdonk; Downtown Business Representative: Kelly Brown; League of Women Voters Representative: Louise Lindsey; Town Trustee: Lori Jeffrey-Clark; and EPURA Executive Director Will Smith. The Citizens Advisory Council met on a regular monthly basis throughout 2002. These meetings included frequent visits to the site and discussions with consulting specialists. All meetings were open to the public. Mission Statement: Goals: â€¢ Preserve, intact and undisturbed, the stream, landforms, native To protect the natural vegetation, and associated wildlife habitats. g character of the landscape â€¢ Interpret the natural and cultural components of the site within the ~ larger context of the Estes Valley. for future generations; and â€¢ Provide a setting for quiet public enjoyment of the site. to provide for limited â€¢ Provide for appropriate educational opportunities relating directly to Â§ public access and the natural and cultural resources ofthe site. â€¢ Preserve and maintain the historic cabin and ruins. enjoyment of the area in a , Provide for limited public access to the cabin and the ruins. manner consistent with the Design and site any new construction to minimize impacts to the natural permanent preservation of character and integrity of the site. Identify, protect, restore, and enhance the natural wildlife habitats. the natural and cultural Accommodate safe wildlife viewing. resources of the site. Manage on-site and off-site water resources to protect ground and surface @ water resources and natural wetland / riparian values. Establish trails that present the spectacular vistas of the Knoll. r Obiectives: Â«65>'ce.*,it,2.y.4Ah*-4%:5::1'i~ 5&6'1'7,"IEME#/926**16Â·,flE.Â·9*i'55.<6.*Â·R,wgbd,hE W'~42Â·Uy<626>f~E'~ â€¢ Careful site planning should be followed to â€¢ Provide for safe public access to the ruins and to locate trails, benches and all other site view points at the crest of the Knoll. improvements as unobtrusively as possible. â€¢ Provide a reasonable level of accommodation for â€¢ All constructed improvements should be trail users with disabilities including designated parking designed to be complimentary with, and visually at the north parking area. subordinate to the natural setting. â€¢ Provide fully accessible routes to both the cabin â€¢ Interpretive signs: small interpretive signs and the ruins. may be used to introduce the site and interpret â€¢ Maximize accessibility of route from cabin to north natural areas. Also signs may be used as parking area, while maintaining direct alignment. required to inform, and manage users of the site. Policies: Use Restrictions: 0 Passive use only, no active recreation inside site. â€¢ No active recreation. â€¢ Public conveniences and improvements shall be minimized. â€¢ Daylight use only. â€¢ No new permanent toilets. Toilets are available in the municipal building. â€¢ No picnic tables or shelters. â€¢ No lighting: cabin security may require minimal lighting at the discretion â€¢ No horses inside site. ofthe Estes Park Historic Museum. No other lighting. â€¢ No pets inside site, except for â€¢ No trash receptacles inside site. Trash receptacles and postings to "pack disabled assistance. trash out" to be located at trail heads and north parking area. â€¢ Signage should be minimized. â€¢ No bicycles, skate boards or other wheeled recreation inside site. â€¢ Seasonal maintenance of the trails as required to maintain a smooth, level â€¢ No motorized vehicles inside the surface may be required, but winter snow removal is not expected or planned for. site, except as required for seasonal maintenance Trails: The location of trails has been carefully planned to . , 1.........1Â£,12. 1 :: -,4:',*w-LL -IM~W/# A : 1 accomplish the following goals: â€¢ Provide for appropriate educational opportunities â€¢61*dlp#SMAY'-CGâ€¢- --1 -1.--- ... -- .0 . h -' .4.- < relating directly to the natural and cultural resources - - ~7--F*libkil- 1 of the site. Â»'04# r 41 - , -, â€¢ Provide for limited public access to the cabin and p ' 2 %1- the ruins. .P ' / 4 2 Lif#El 17/ - . a ' -fa : .-=-: -i;i,I#)~~~-~ ri a,4 2 . .. f I â€¢ Accommodate the needs of disabled visitors. â€¢ Accommodate safe wildlife viewing. â€¢ Establish trails that present the spectacular vistas @0,9..,. 4 -In.Â· t. --=.11,=i'+ -1.1 of the Knoll. . I ./-1 1 / 1 . - 1 .11- 1,9- 1 â€¢ Design and site any new construction to j minimize impacts to the natural character and r / 7 integrity of the site. a 1 4 M. S..& . - Trail use is intended for pedestrian use only. This P ,-'3 - 4 - *k.- Mp. 31* , ' ' :*adi'Â· A ' use is primarily for passive recreation and education. No horses are allowed inside site. No pets are 42 + 47 /. Lk 545*#ft.40* 144> 1. ' A 43: .*L#K' allowed inside site, except for disabled assistance. t" I: -9 Also, no bicycles, skate boards or other wheeled recreation are allowed inside site. The trails are planned to control access, prevent shortcuts and -....... .... W .I. provide easy access to the cabin and the ruins. A more difficult connector trail, between the cabin and the Ruins, that provides a more direct link for able-bodied trail users is also planned. The southwest cabin trail may be closed during elk calving season. Trail Character. Surface of easy access trails should be firm, level, and wide enough to enable those using wheelchairs to turn around. The easy trail should be 4-6 feet with turnouts (minimum of 60 inches or 5 feet). Surface of connector trail not determined. As a more difficult trail it would be narrower. Easy trail - Bridge / cabin trail closed during calving and possibly during rut season. Determination of construction materials and details shall be made as a part of the final construction design process. Parking: 6<,4927~2, * ~ C~ aÂ»,f:zE=frs------------~~ 0 Create a low impact, crushed asphalt surface, parking lot at the north 4+0144%59-7-4&..'. entrance with a maximum of 8 parking places. ~~~,-2.Ika_Â·-rrat=U:.62.--- 14- â€¢ The parking area should be designed with physical barriers to prevent uhabiree. 1 E- -- I--~ over flow parking beyond the defined perimeter. ~ â€¢ Provide adequate parking for the disabled at this north lot location ..iNIBWY)Tril:Â·....Â·.:,ys:r.9#.4~ â€¢ People entering the site from the downtown can park in the lot by the - Municipal Building. f 9.. .Â·:xÂ·<a~ â€¢ Bikes can be parked at the north lot and at the municipal lot. %16*.~~~.Ll,#t.~Â·-.' ...V~"rIA ' lA /94Â·Â·. C ..5, '....:bA~93 KNOLL/WILLOWS MASTER PLAN Knoll/Willows Citizen Advisory Council DRAFT Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 1 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting /, TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1.- Background 3 1.1 Land Assembly 3 1.2 Knoll -Willows Conservancy Report 4 1.3 EVLT Open Space Agreement 5 2. Master Planning Process 6 2.1 Appointment of Citizens Advisory Council 6 2.2 Council Meetings. 6 2.3 Public Coininent 3. Existing Conditione 7 3.1 Natural Resources 7 3.2 Visual Resourreg 8 3.3 Cultural Resonrreg 8 4. Goals, Policies, and Objectivre 9 4.1 Mission Statement 4.2 Goals. 9 4.3 Policies and Objectives, Use Restrictione 10 5. Recommendationg 11 5.1 Cultural Resources Management 11 5.2 Natural Resources Management 12 5.3 Parking Plan 13 5.4 Trails PlAn 14 5.5 Implementation 6. Appendiv 17 6.1 Wetlands Report 17 6.2 Charrette Repnrt 97 6.3 Accessibility Report 47 6.4 Historic Structures Assessment 50 Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 2 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting 1. Background 1.1 Land Assembly The Knoll/Willows properties consist of approximately 20 acres of contiguous natural open space located between the Highway 34 bypass, MacGregor Ave., and the downtown, Seefig. 1. The land has been subdivided into several separate parcels and held in separate ownerships over the past seventy five years. This property includes a historic stone ruin of a house built in 1904 on a promontory overlooking downtown Estes Park (the Knoll). Also, a historically related log cabin built in 1908 is located on the lower western portion of the property facing Black Canyon Creek (the Willows). 1989: The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority [EPURA] obtained an option on the Knoll property. 1990: EPURA purchased approximately four acres on the Knoll in March for $160,000 in order to have a hill top buffer zone. 1995: EPIJRA received a positive response from a public opinion survey entitled, "Should the Knoll be purchased for the community?" 1997: EPURA commenced purchase of the remaining balance of the Knoll under a 6 year lease-purchase agreement for the price of $975,000. 1997-2001: The Town of Estes Park entered into a "lease/option to purchase agreement" with the Estes Park Willows, Inc. for the "Birch" or "Willows" property consisting of approximately 4 acres along Black Canyon Creek. Subsequently the Town of Estes Park entered into a separate "land purchase agreement" with Mr. Fred Bikle for Lot 1 of Birch Re-subdivision in June, 1998. The last payment on the Willows property was recorded on July 1, 2001 by the Town. 2002: The Estes Valley Land Trust agrees to fund the final purchase payment for the Knoll parcel in the amount of $210,000 as part of an agreement to preserve the area as permanent open space. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 3 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting Fiture 1. I I.. .-:/I Â¥L 0511,-lifietil.47'** - I .* 21Â£3911.~11#Â£~F. ~ ' 4&7 95 . . f 43.2 : tur 44472*4Â£&4*/1:65 f. / - li *p, -1 121% ~.ArÂ·Â· ' ./A.-h '1Â· I /1 di . ' I. .< & .1 I .1 9 --41; 4 , p 44; ./....9% At 0 1 ... f Â·. - I. m /1/La.,~.6/.'*4 , r. .,44 1' 1.Gu,441'f?tr*au :4-; 02-42.,/ 4 - - b '1 5 1 '80 1 .7 , . 1,4 4--LA;in 9 fzf.J~ â€¢0[1~ 1 I f\. I 5 4 561*A ' $'//I'/U9(::*....rY %821 ..\,1.. - 2..4.*t:- '4&463% Y4 *ar=C, S.. N 1.- ..11, ...1 r 1 -flintl ./2$Â»GE?2*Lf' \2 Â».- - 4- -e -* L. ~ 4,;. . 1=. 1 Â£ wri.~ #4*~ ' * t. â‚¬ Â·- . /%U (,0,31 1//1:,-2,5* .4 f + ... 'Vit#lize/~ZlÂ©!tÂ·' Â· f' . ./ - 4, *epliest. - 7 Â·1 / r. I -/2,7-16 :4 I - ... 4/U 1.2 Knoll -Willows Conservancy Report In 2001 a group of concerned Estes Park citizens (the Knoll-Willows Conservancy) organized with the goal of preserving the Knoll/Willows as open space. This effort was led by Bud Hampton, Ph.D. The group prepared the Knoll-Willows Conservancy Report which is included in its entirety in Appendix 6.5 of this master plan. The Conservancy Report provided the essential scientific basis for the master planning work that has followed. The Citizens Advisory Council gratefully acknowledges the valuable professional contributions made by the various authors of this report including: Enda Mills Kiley; Barri Bernier, Rocky Mountain National Park Biological Science Technician (plants, ecology zones, habitat); Howard H. Lipke, (BS, Wildlife Management, University of Montana, retired Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Manager); Scott Rashid, (licensed bird rehabilitator and bird habitat specialist); Bud Hampton, Ph.D. (geology and anthropology/archaeology); and attorneys at law, Glenn Mapes, Glenn Porzak, and John C. Mulvihill; and outside consultant specialist Rick Spowart, Ph.D., Colorado Division of Wildlife. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 4 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting h,.Â· f 1.3 EVLT Open Space Agreement: 02 1 .... The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park began formal consideration of a proposal to enter into an open space agreement with the Estes Valley Land Trust (EVLT) in February of 2002. The following excerpt from the minutes ofthe Town Board meeting ofFeb. 12, 2002 outlined the basic elements of the agreement: ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST - LETTER AGREEMENT & OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT FOR THE KNOLL PROPERTIES (19.4 acres). Mayor Baudek noted that this item is a "discussion only item" this evening. If an agreement is reached, this item will be placed on the 2/26 Town Board meeting for action. Town Administrator Widmer briefed the Town Board on the background of these draft agreements, and encouraged the Board to revise said agreements as need be. The Open Space Agreement is intended to preserve and protect in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the site, and the following points were noted: Letter Afreement: > EVLT agrees to pay the entire remaining balance due "Beefit" from EPURA out ofEVLT's private funds. > The Town will provide to EVLT an Open Space Agreement for property specified on Exhibit A. 1 EFLT will reimburse the Town for the first $50,000 of the actual costs and expenses incurred by the Town for and in connection with the construction of improvements (including fencing and signage) on the property contained in the Open Space Agreement. Permitted and Prohibited uses of the Open Space Agreement were also reviewed. The Town would be required to develop a Master Plan for the property, and said Plan must include public comment/input. The Plan may be updated, following the established public process, and the Town is allowed to establish rules/regulations. EVLT Director Jim White stated that the Knott/Willows property is the most important open space remaining in the Town of Estes Park. EVLT will pay $210,000 (fixed price with Beejit), and the Land Trust is not dictating what may or may not occur on the site due to the Master Plan Process. Audience comments in support of the proposal were heard from: Barbara Swartz, Vice President/League of Women Voters, Bud Hampton, Chairman/Knoll-Willows Conservancy (read a statement dated 2/12/02), Howard Lipke, Glen Mapes/Tahosa Homeowners Assn., and Jon VerSchuur/ARD. Favorable Town Board comments were heard from Mayor Baudek and all Trustees, with Trustee Gillette advising that he would be absent for the 2/26 Town Board meeting, thus he urged the Board to support this proposal. Mayor Baudek repeated that this item will return as a Action Item on February 2dh. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 5 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting The Toidy Boafdz formally approved theÂ·open, space agreement:with the EVLT at-their next meeting, Feb. 26,2002. A copy of the agreement has been incorporated into this master plan as Appendix 6.6. The agreement provided for limited public access and use of the Knoll/Willows property consistent with the conservation of the land as open space. This agreement specifically provided for the preparation of a Master Plan for the property. The purpose of this public planning process is to formulate specific recommendations concerning public use of the area within the broader context of the open space agreement. 2. Master Planning Process 2.1 Appointment of Citizens Advisory Council The Knoll Citizens Advisory Council was appointed by the Town Board to develop a Master Plan for the property that is consistent with the open space agreement now in place. The role of the Citizens Advisory Council is to inform and guide the development of the Knoll Master Plan through the preliminary draft, public hearing(s), the final draft and the final adoption by the Town Board. The formation of a Citizen's Advisory Council to provide oversight for the Knoll master planning process was approved by the Town Board April 9,2002. The Councilincludes Citizens at Large: Bud Hampton, Jacque Oldham, Tobi Hale, Joann Sapp; Town Staff: Bob Joseph (Chairman), Bill Linnane, Betty Kilsdonk; Downtown Business Representative: Kelly Brown; League o f Women Voters Representative: Louise Lindsey; Town Trustee: Lori Jeffrey-Clark; and EPURA Executive Director Wil Smith. 2.2 Council Meetings The Citizens Advisory Council met on a regular monthly basis throughout 2002. These meetings included frequent visits to the site and discussions with consulting specialists. All meetings were open to the public, and the Council wishes to acknowledge the valuable participation of the following residents: Susan Quinnell, Dorothy Gibbs, Mary Bauer, Ron Wilcocks, Bob Jones, Enda Kiley, and all others who attended the meetings and contributed to the process. The major points of concern in the planning process were the focus of an all day design charrette held in September. A summary of this discussion and resulting conclusions is provided in Appendix 6.2. 2.3 Public Comment A formal public presentation of the draft Knoll/Willows Master Plan was made on Jan.8, 2003. This presentation was followed by an all day open house on Jan.0 ..These meetings were attended by approximately ninety citizens. The primary purpose of the meetings was to receive public comment on the draft proposal. The comments received at the evening meeting indicated strong support for the Master Plan recommendations. The comments received at the open house reflected general support mixed with concerns about too much public access leading to degradation of the site. The following list is a representative sample ofwritten comments that were received: â€¢ Keep people on the walkways. â€¢ Protect the vegetation. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 6 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting â€¢ No horses, dogs or wheeled vehicles. â€¢ Southwest entrance is not necessary. â€¢ Low or no parking. Low impact. â€¢ Keep the Knoll pedectly natural, the less change the better. â€¢ Great idea, hope it happens, satisfied with the plan. â€¢ Area should be absolutely off limits during calving season. â€¢ Committee did a greatjob. â€¢ No concrete for the trail supfaces. A relatively hard material which compliments the environment and still makes the trails accessible. â€¢ 92 mile of trails is too much if the intent is to preserve the area. Keep trails and bridges to a minimum. No trails or bridges through the wetlands. â€¢ Suggest using utility billing to ask the people for their opinions on the plan. â€¢ Fewer trails. Northwest trail not needed but ifconstructed it does not need to be accessible. â€¢ As few signs as possible. â€¢ Use the old road instead of creating a new trail. â€¢ No promotion or advertising to visit the Knott. â€¢ Compromise and only have the Southwest trail and the MacGregor walkway. No parking. â€¢ Any plan should have a vote by the residences. Not a vote by the Trustees only. â€¢ Concerns for the animals in and around the Knoll, especially the elk â€¢ No Southwest trail to the Birch Cabin until there is guaranteed funding for restoration/interpretation for it as a museum site. â€¢ Infavor of the trail to the ruins. â€¢ A sidewalk/trial around the Northwest corner from the parking lot to MacGregor Avenue for people to view the elk. Significantly, there were no new concerns raised at these meetings that had not been identified and addressed in the draft. It should be emphasized that concerns about degradation of the site that could result from over-use by the public has been the central focus ofthis planning effort. 3. Existing Conditions 3.1 Natural Resources The following summary is an excerpt from the Knoll-Willows Conservancy Report. The Conservancy Report has been included in its entirety in Appendix 6.5 of this master plan document. The reader is directed to the Conservancy Report which contains a thorough and detailed description of the soils and geology, the various plant eco-systems of the Knoll/Willows, and their associated animal and bird habitats. Combined as a single geographic entity, The Knoll-Willows Property boasts the presence of a multitfaceted natural environment that contains 1) Three adjoining ecosystems: a) Remnant Open Ponderosa Pine Ecosystem b) Montane Riparian Ecosystem with wetland and willows c) Dry Grassland Ecosystem Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 7 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting - 2) An aquatic ecology zone (Black Canyon Creek):- -I 3) Jagged rock clijfs and rocky vegetated slopes that bound parts ofthe properties, and scattered rock outcrops and erratics across its upper meadow 4) Beautiful mature and young ponderosa pine trees and shrubs that grace both lower slopes and crestal areas 5) A grasslandmeadow withits variousplants, including wild flowers. 3.2 Visual Resources Some o f the most valued and remarkable features o f the Knoll are the expansive vistas of the Estes Park with its high mountain backdrop that can be enjoyed at various locations on the site, most notably at the crest of the knoll near the ruins. The picturesque ruins are also a distinctive landmark as viewed from below in Bond Park and along Elkhorn Ave. A key objective in the preservation of the site is protection of its natural appearance. Because the site occupies a central position in the Park, any negative visual impacts are highly visible. View-sheds into and out of the site are important. All trails and other site improvements should be planned to be as inconspicuous as possible. The trail to the Ruins provides a way to see the magnificent vistas as well as the town and the ponderosa pine and grassland ecosystems. 3.3 Cultural Resources There is tremendous potential in the Birch log cabin and nearby stone bungalow ruins. Al Birch built both structures. Birch came to Denver in 1903 as a reporter for the Denver Post and soon after began spending summers in Estes Park. He built the stone bungalow in 1907; it was destroyed by fire on December 21 that year. Two weeks later he began construction on the log cabin. His family summered there even after his death in 1972. The cabin remains in near original condition. The structure is in the rustic style commonly used in the regional mountain resort architecture of the 1910s and 1920s. The only plumbing is the kitchen sink drain. There is minimal electrical service. Above-average workmanship is indicated by tight-fitting wooden panels covering the windows, wide eaves and tight-fitting joinery. The stone bungalow ruins still frame themagnificent mountain views that Al Birch enjoyed for a short time prior to the fire. The possibility ofproviding safe public access to the interior of the ruins at the original floor level should be explored. This would allow visitors to once again experience the views that were Birch's inspiration in the original design of the bungalow. Both of the structures should be used with respect for educational purposes, not commercialized or exploited. Figure 2. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 8 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting â‚¬. , ,41Â£44/Â·1\PKS 1 r'Fi~T:.VL41* I,flf.2~.~1<9Â©--:-F--_C~L~â‚¬1~246 Iff _.j, jp~f#JV,.KEm. '4; .1.l-watiMVT' .,s. p -911=-6-=+1,Â¢ihWay-3#.Bypass 2-3243: $..i --AL â‚¬ 0LgÂ¢8191*1</Riat./-=z=~YOU_- <*444*fi,i- ' ,- PA-*74 .at 4, - , e#-:2,4 Â· Aâ‚¬t--11 9% >42 4,- 1 . t .* it Ir tlizillam . 1 .... 4 4 -1 i iiI ' 4. *1 Â¥: 1 1 2. 1 piâ€¢Â· , It . *~2 4 Ah ghttati 2*1'L Â· . .?-4-1.~42-J~JibiÂ¢: -i;ti:. 74:,.th@>'.141-7, ../ 2"4-- .l *,9 .M.,11 6 â‚¬41:*Â·....Y/.-'1 'C.*.b J. . 0- h ' 74 Â·> I .. '. 1 no A .4-4-7 d -1 , 7â„¢.4 1 -1. 1 1 2 7/1- ..7-- -T A J & b . 724 - 5. :3'd=2 ry' 4, -' I.th- A e; 4 0-er All k . 01 ~ -- -1...cr> 7-= Â·-z-ai7/ 4. Goals, Policies, and Objectives 4.1 Mission Statement Mission Statement: To protect the natural character of the landscape for future generations; and to provide for limited public access and enjoyment of the area in a manner consistent with the permanent preservation of the natural and cultural resources of the site. 4.2 Goals Goals: â€¢ Preserve, intact and undisturbed, the stream, landforms, native vegetation, and associated wildlife habitats. â€¢ Interpret the natural and cultural components ofthe site within the larger context ofthe Estes Park. â€¢ Provide a setting for quiet public enjoyment o f the site. â€¢ Provide for appropriate educational opportunities relating directly to the natural and cultural resources of the site. â€¢ Preserve and maintain the historic cabin and ruins. â€¢ Provide for limited public access to the cabin and the ruins. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 9 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting - 2 .1 .:12- Design anti"site ahy-new construction to minimize impacts to the natural character and:, ..r. :-- L integrity of the site. â€¢ Identify, protect, restore, and enhance the natural wildlife habitats. â€¢ Accommodate safe wildlife viewing. â€¢ Manage on-site and off-site water resources to protect ground and surface water resources and natural wetland / riparian values. â€¢ Establish trails that present the spectacular vistas of the Knoll. 4.3 Policies and Objectives, Use Restrictions Policies: â€¢ Passive use only, no active recreation inside site. â€¢ Public conveniences and improvements shall be minimized. â€¢ No new permanent toilets. Toilets are available in the municipal building. Except that a toilet may be incorporated into the cabin. â€¢ No lighting: The site will be designed for daylight use only. Cabin security may require minimal lighting at the discretion of the Estes Park Area Historical Museum. No other lighting. â€¢ No trash receptacles inside site. Trash receptacles and postings to "pack trash out" to be located at trail heads and north parking area. â€¢ Signage should be minimized. â€¢ Seasonal maintenance of the trails to maintain a smooth, firm, well drained surface may be required, but winter snow removal is not expected or planned for. Obiectives: â€¢ Careful site planning should be followed to locate trails, benches and all other site improvements as unobtrusively as possible. â€¢ All constructed improvements should be designed to be complimentary with, and visually subordinate to, the natural setting. â€¢ Interpretive signs: small interpretive signs may be used to introduce the site and interpret natural areas. Also signs may be used as required to inform, and manage users ofthe site. e Provide for safe public access to the ruins and to view points at the crest ofthe knoll. â€¢ Provide a reasonable level of accommodation for trail users with disabilities including designated parking at the north parking area. â€¢ Provide fully accessible routes to both the cabin and the ruins. â€¢ Maximize accessibility ofroute from cabin to north parking area, while maintaining direct alignment. Use Restrictions: â€¢ No picnic tables or shelters. â€¢ No horses inside site â€¢ No pets inside site, except for disabled assistance. â€¢ No bicycles, skate boards other wheeled recreation inside site. â€¢ No motorized vehicles inside the site, except as required for seasonal maintenance. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 10 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting 5. Recommendations - " ~--Â·- - 5.1 Cultural Resources Management Cultural Resources: â€¢ Some interpretation should be provided at the two structures: the Birch cabin and the Ruins. â€¢ At the north entrance: a Stanley tourist interpretation sign, recognizing tourism as a cultural value, with a discussion of the grassland and a map of trails on the property. â€¢ At the cabin: interpret the summer resident / weekend tourist. Access to the cabin itself will be controlled by the Estes Park Area Historical Museum. Programs at cabin will be prescheduled and supervised. â€¢ At the Ruins; topics of interpretation can include: views, town development and local land stewardship. There are key viewpoints within the Ruins. Further study is needed to determine whether access on the Ruins is possible. â€¢ The southwest corner can serve as a general interpretation area directing people to the MacGregor viewing platform and to the bridge to the cabin trail. â€¢ Further analysis is needed to determine how public could safely see the original window views from the Ruins. Potential Cabin Uses 1. Interpretive Programs A. Topics: wetlands, wildlife, history of the property, ecology of the Knoll. B. Types: form partnerships with others for Elderhostels, National Park programs, adult history camps. Hold sessions at library, municipal building, and house people at Stanley Hotel 2. Interior displays and exterior signage: photo displays showing what the town looked like when the Birches where there, interpretive plague on outside of cabin. There is an opportunity to obtain original furniture and materials. 3. Off-site materials: brochure listing TOEP historic properties (Museum, Hydroplant, Knoll), website pages Challenges â€¢ Security/vandalism â€¢ Traffic control , I â€¢ Safety, especially at the ruins â€¢ Accessibility â€¢ Historic preservation of site Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 11 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting â€¢ Ongoing maintenance â€¢ Restroom facilities â€¢ Santa display Note: The Council recommends elimination ofuse ofthis site for Christmas displays. Consultants should be hired to provide complete and detailed recommendations for preservation of the cabins and ruins. This work should also include recommendations for ongoing interpretation and education. 5.2 Natural Resources Management Natural Resources: wetlands/riparian, grasslands, and rocky cliffs. Wetlands / riparian area â€¢ Black Canyon Creek is a critical feature of the natural habitat. Impacts to upstream watershed could affect stream flows, and therefore should be monitored. â€¢ Existing wildlife travel routes need to be identified and protected. Black Canyon Creek serves as an elk calving area. Feasibility o f an underpass (under Hwy 34) for wildlife on the northwest portion of the property should be studied. â€¢ Wetlands / riparian stewardship and education are important. There may be a need for natural barriers to spread water. The source of water is the MacGregor Ranch and Rocky Mountain National Park. â€¢ MacGregor Ranch is a key partner in watershed protection. â€¢ The best way to provide for non-intrusive wildlife viewing along Black Canyon Creek is to provide a viewing platform next to MacGregor Avenue. This provides a way to stop and look without crossing the riparian area from the west. â€¢ Utility easements are necessary. Need to be sure there is landscape restoration for any disturbances. Need to develop "best practices" procedures and specifications for revegetation of underground utility installations. â€¢ Black Canyon Creek will be protected and enhanced by removing exotic plant species and restoring native riparian vegetation. â€¢ There may be a use for a self-guided nature booklet. There is evidence of a significant, recent decline ofwillows, birch and alder under-growth along Black Canyon Creek. Further investigation should be conducted to identify the reasons for this decline, and identify strategies to restore a native habitat that would support a wider variety of wildlife. It is apparent that rest from browsing by native ungulates will aid in recovery. Eight foot fencing is required to keep elk out of the riparian area. A three years rest from elk would allow for significant willow and alder recovery. Other management recommendations include clean up of the stream by removing trash and old bridge abutment Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 12 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting structures, and control of public access by building trail system, (ask that people remain on trials). Scenic Resources and View Sheds Viewsheds into and out ofthe site are important. All trails should be planned to be as inconspicuous as possible. The trail from the north to the Ruins provides a way to see the vistas as well as the town and the ponderosa pine and grassland ecosystems. A wildlife viewing platform will be built along MacGregor Avenue for those not entering the site 5.3 Parking Plan Parking: â€¢ Create a low impact, crushed asphalt surface, parking lot at the north entrance with a maximum of 8 parking places. â€¢ The parking area should be designed with physical barriers to prevent over flow parking beyond the defined perimeter. â€¢ Provide adequate parking for the disabled at this north lot location â€¢ People entering the site from the downtown can park in the lot by the Municipal Building. â€¢ Bikes can be parked at the north lot and at the municipal lot. 4 FrflgrÂ»53.357 --1- Ii-- $ 1 1"7 /&p Â»Â°=Brf,1 F 4 .- k~~|F~\2 V FLPa[king- 8.space;,maxb ~ 142*Â®# 5-':5.44 ~.~~~*"F~ Â·' ' 1â‚¬ t;-'51*Y'-4 ..~2 941Â¥rh El t] 0 6 il.,1,-i-\ , 6 - J.â‚¬22-WJF. 042 1/4 /* 4 01//Wi kt{~5 +1+23~1#OF#ZI' .1 ----* ||~ 44 ''1~4 ~~~,4.~~~ . E t -22-. 5 *31* â€¢Ill 1, I i#/,4/161 4.44 ,6 4 4 * *Â·5Â· ~ ..-t--- + 4 , 14 -2 0 ?i 'r , >r.1.=lu. . . *f. a . 2 J * S! \.9~.0 4 -4.-1 4 ~ :63 .3 F v *â€¢ T. . .~ 1 Â· +7729 N = \\~ 1. .Â¢:,14-141&3/*.6/ '. 3 - Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 13 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting t\'' k // li This parking recommendation is made with full recognition that the demand for parking in this location may eventually exceed eight spaces. The intent is to avoid the site impact of a larger lot and also to avoid the over-use ofthe site that could follow. 5.4 Trails Plan Trails: The location of trails has been carefully planned to accomplish the following goals: â€¢ Provide for appropriate educational opportunities relating directly to the natural and cultural resources o f the site. â€¢ Provide for limited public access to the cabin and the ruins. â€¢ Accommodate the needs of disabled visitors. â€¢ Accommodate safe wildlife viewing. â€¢ Establish trails that present the spectacular vistas of the Knoll. â€¢ Design and site any new construction to minimize impacts to the natural character and integrity ofthe site. Trail use is intended for pedestrian use only. This use is primarily for passive recreation and education. A few carefully sited benches are planned, but no other structural amenities, such as shelters, will be provided. No horses are allowed inside site. No pets are allowed inside site, except for disabled assistance. Also, no bicycles, skate boards other wheeled recreation are allowed inside site. The trails are planned to control access, prevent shortcuts and provide easy access to the cabin and the ruins. A more difficult connector trail, between the cabin and the Ruins, that provides a more direct link for able bodied trail users is also planned. Careful monitoring o f elk use o f the site during both the calving and the rut season should provide the basis for seasonal management decisions to minimize elk / visitor conflicts. Management tools that will be used for this purpose include seasonal placement ofwarning signs, barriers, and selective seasonal trail closure. Maintenance. â€¢ No regular internal snow clearance, (except maintenance access for Ruins trail as a possible exception). â€¢ No interior auto access. â€¢ No internal garbage collection is planned for. â€¢ Move Santa display to reduce existing road use. Trail Character. Surface o f the connector trail is not determined, but as more di fficult trail it would be narrower. Surface of full access trails should be firm, level, and wide enough to enable those using wheelchairs to turn around. These trails should be 4-6 feet wide with turnouts (minimum of 60 inches or 5 ft. in circumference) . Determination of construction materials and details shall be made as a part o f the final construction design process. Fully accessible trail surfaces shall be smooth, firm and stable, and naturalistic in color and texture. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 14 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting The trail recommendations made in this master plan are based in part on careful consideration of the following concerns: â€¢ Over use o f the area may occur, especially damage to native ground cover that might result from offtrail foot traffic. This should be monitored regularly. â€¢ Visual impacts o f the trails and o f people using the trails. â€¢ Potential damage to Historic/Archeological features of the site â€¢ Construction site disturbance â€¢ A pedestrian / bike trail connection should be made along the Hwy 34 bypass in the near future; this connection should be located within the existing ROW. â€¢ Shortcutting. â€¢ Conflicts with elk movement to and from the northwest corner of the site. â€¢ Elk calving season trail hazards and conflicts. â€¢ Avoid introduction of invasive plants in areas disturbed by over use or construction activities. Â£ .--1.459- _ --/' :4.. 41 A*t#>% 41 1..14.j. '~ le '449'f/-< -Leai.':Â· ~A" P J *11.'.,~4 ,-Â·t N, 8, Â· . A Â·,j. b# 1 A#/11"J *S /9 7 ..445 ~~~ BU . .f':f.Â·I;~,-h j.ir' f fl-M, r :20 Â¢61!*19 . 3.-i~;- J Â·ft,t.@AL, ~bi:4~2 '7 ...4~.c.Le,jk<F*plk,~~f )War<A~ -4**r64~ 4 131 '~,f:- --Â· <-I Final Adopted Trail Plan December 2002 The underlying assumption supporting this plan for public access is that it is not realistic to prohibit public use altogether, due to the location of the property. However, it is possible to manage public use with a carefully planned system of trails that provide access to the major attractions and destinations located on the property. Passive public enjoyment of the site's natural Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 15 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting beauty, and related educational and interpretive opportunities should be given a high priority along with preservation ofthe site. These two goals go hand in hand. 5.5 Implementation The implementation of the master plan recommendations is subject to Town Board adoption and approval, and funding for final design and construction. The recommendations for trail placement are subject to minor adjustment and revision during the final design, consistent with the intent of the master plan. Development of the final design will be open to public review and comment. This master plan recommendation is the product of an open public planning process that has been undertaken in fulfillment of a condition of the Open Space agreement. This agreement, in part, required an open planning process with public comment and input. Future revisions and amendments to this master plan document shall also be subject to an open process that includes meaningful public comment and input. Ultimate authority to adopt this master plan and to adopt future revisions rests with the Town Board of Trustees. It is the intent of this plan to perform the final design and construction of the public improvements with a high degree of care for protection of the natural environment. Consultants should be hired to provide complete and detailed recommendations for preservation of the cabins and ruins. This work should also include recommendations for ongoing interpretation and education, and safe management ofpubic access. Appendix Please see Vickie O'Connor to check out a copy of the appendices. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 16 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting 6. Appendix 6.1 Wetlands Report Knoll-Willows Properly, Estes Park, Colorado 17 - - ~41.1 1 <,5 1 .il,11 1 -1 1 1.1 -4/1 .14 ., 1 -'1~i~ Y.I~~ ft -' I~~ r i. , ' 1 i~' L.1 7-- - 1.1 1 r. j 1.- - ..12. i *te ~- , , -f,34:Â·.;a- ~ - 6,, 44TL, ~ -9 ~~ ~~ E-2- ~ ~~ - a , 21 4.. 41" p , tr 1' ' : '- ~Â· ~ I :2 -1 ' 3 ' -ti, Â¢ 11 1 - .1.- - , E October 4,2002 Site Assessment with Management Recommendations By Gwen Kittel Western US Vegetation Specialist and Riparian Ecologist Boulder, CO 303-541-0364 gwen_kittel@natureserve.org Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 17 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting Knolls-Willow Property, Estes Park, Colorado Table o f Contents . Natural Communities.................................................................................................19 A. Wetland / Riparian Communities......................................................................... 19 B. Upland Communities 22 II. Public Access Appendix 1. Community Characterization Abstract.............................................. 26 Regional Distribution: 26 Distribution in Colorado 27 Distribution by Watersheds: 27 Status 27 Habitat Â·Â·Â·Â· 27 Nianagement 28 Vegetation 29 References ....30 Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 18 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting Site Assessment 7/1/02 1. Natural Communities A. Wetland / Riparian Communities â€¢ Sali.r monticola/Mesic graminoids â€¢ Glyceria elam Saturated Herbaceous Vegetation I. Riparian Area Assessment The riparian area on the Knoll-Willow property is dominated by one plant association: the Rocky Mountain willow/moist grasses and grass-like plants (Satix monticola/Mesic graminoid) association. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program and the National Vegetation Classification maintained by NatupeServe give this element of biodiversity status global rank of G3. 63 means that there are between 21 and 100 places where this plant association occurs. It is known only from Colorado. The name tells us that the tall willow, Salix monticola, (Rocky Mountain or Yellow willow) is the dominant overstory shrub and that many grass and grass-like plants (niainly sedges and rushes) dominated the herbaceous undergrowth. In addition. along the stream are sniall patches of Glyceria elam (i-nannagrass), and indicator of fairly consistent water level in the stream. ~ i,,15Â·,i: -j,~-;41Â·IÂ·Â·99>.th .1Â»ft:,4.4 1.41424*i.fold â‚¬~r I . I. -9 , ..123i fuÂ», 1,1 i.fi'~*Â·,~Â·6Tki Upty:.32"re: L. Â·L..- ..' 112 *: 1 .,i,t :s~ D.~z:'51.1-.'1.5+49 U.Al.Â£4 4 - er .Ny i.:fl:=* 4*..#*44244~7* ~ Â· . Â· "*,4.>i?Â·f44*Zi. *4%4=rud:'1 Â· 2 . , I Â· iÂ·arti : fi~~P+71' $ 4 4. 1*Oon./4 ~ .al: 10% .pe.,0*..f'kÂ·k-:... 1./.,2, L 4%1 9Jtb~,f 9%4,4~ifÂ·.~49f 9-<. SVYY : R *4 t.,.35:ZAÂ¢Â¢.14.. .-~--4 I. 6,V 1% W 4 ~~.M ' r I 3416,4. Â· yv': ,9, .. tf Figure 1. Rocky Mountain willow/moist grasses and grass-like plants (Sali.r monticola / niesic graminoid) Community, with niannagrass C Gkreria elcita) in tlie foreground in the creek channel. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 19 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting '*1 1 ..i.t i " 4, If d . 34' . I . /. - $ 6 41. Figure 2. Riparian herbaceous vegetation has high biomass and is maintaining the stream channel bank. Channel stability appears high. Current Condition: Many willows and alder shrubs are damaged by excessive browsing by elk. Beaver have killed the few standing aspen trees. The herbaceous undergrowth has a variety of non-native species, but no noxious or invasive species were observed. The stream itself has sonie trash and garbage directly iii the stream channel. A city sewer line runs underground and under the stream bed, running North to South along the western edge o f the riparian area. - V Â·:. i 5:R>tiÂ· + MY /3, 4 - Figure 3. Many dead willow and alder branches. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 20 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting . 2.\- --4 4- 2- - r ... -, I ..;f:4 ; t.-, 0 422-1Â»:*Cl~ Figure 4. City sewer line runs parallel and under the creek. 4-Â·' '**Sibl=.14 -Ii - I Figure 5. Willows exhibit considerable browse mortality. Access point to old bridge (out of site to the left) in tile foreground Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 21 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting . .. r . / 13 - ' -Â· 4 .. -1. f. ...1.,2..*ffeci 4.4 1 ... . . f. - .f r 1 1 Â· . - ' 4 ~ t r Â·'. . 6. 7.:. :.L, 2.'. 4 1 Â·.. 1 -*. iljz':Â· <*314L--,1>itt? f f Â·.t Â·:Â·w LEÂ·ffic,fefttiC*- 2*4Â·,493:Â· . 'j..... * . %4 I -I.. ./. I' ' # ..1 7,.4 .-~ ~,5*-47.:tyf'.3.I;y*Â·i . 1*4.3-Â·i~43~1-2.-<1.- I .'~- : ' ... :../ 217Â·13.'.673+ - - .t:Â· '54~2 3 +4 jgpity:...Mf-: , i â€ž .4Â·:'VAN"*3*&*1Â·6 .. f.. I . y ._4.tibet/*ARKA/f..rill' 1'4.9 '4' :4-~*44.9Â°':21Â·yok,zx, .. # L' -~'2 4 -fi/3.-9'21.11.44*/,:,f Jr'92.."/-<1.19*439#tiffi~.0~424>Ji~ --*.:~- -- -/ 7.- *4Â¢{RÂ»f?f~4>t>*4*941**#9 u ..6.- 2,05Â·:U:.f VÂ·Â· - Figure 6. Old Bridge crossing point. Current riparian herbaceous vegetation growth is high. Elk are not utilizing the thick herbaceous growth, but appear to rely on the shrubs for browse, shade and cover. Management Recommendations: 1. Rest from browsing by native ungulates. Eight foot fencing is required to keep elk out of the riparian area. A three years rest from elk would allow for significant willow and alder recovery. 2. Clean up stream by removing trash aiid old bridge abutment structures. 3. Control public access by building trail system, ask that people remain on trials and keep pets on leashes at all times. B. Upland Communities â€¢ Pinus ponderosa Woodland â€¢ Boutelouagratih) Short-grass Prairie Grassland â€¢ Cercocarpos montanus Shrubland Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 22 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting I ./ >AÂ·:. . I 411 ,Â· Â·Â·le e, ' :. : 4% ''0 4$/ 1 -. fy 1 6- . 1 -; 4 - / 1 i . 1 , .* 1Â·E*-- ' i%Â·3; Im *7,Â¢ .rt ' 14 I . L E -' i '~0~lir- 4 9 *. ~4Â· 4 >-12~ ~ 1 8 If- 14 -4 1 - 1 1,4I-' 3|Pr-1 I ' /'"-'1â€ž i 91 1 1 - l . -1 241 1,--61. *- -1 -1.- - ..29â‚¬7 6. V 4 - - 11 I I *1 - T I. . 1 4,1114 .> -- 1 Figure 7. Short-grass prairie grassland (Boittelotta gracilis) in foreground, Mountain- mahogany (Cercocarpits montanus) shrubland mid-ground. Two-track can be used as location for wheel-chair accessible trail from the north access point. ' e ..,- Â·hir'.14. Â· .A t. 9- .,14/.. - =d,1 1 - ..1 - t ' 14 'lati Figure 8. Ponderosa pine woodiand. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 23 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting 1+- ---Â·4 11'4â‚¬11:r_7&.Il,I . -4-91<&1 -t, 2 : 1*271Â« /1,1 'C- W 9 Figure 9. Example of the near-weed free condition of the uplands. Current Condition of Uplands: The native grassland and shrubland are remarkable weed-free. The main threat with increased public access will be an increase in weeds along trails. Suggested placement of trails on existing impacted areas will minimize the area of disturbed ground and help maintain low weed presence. However, with increased public use, weeds will increase at the site. Diligent weed control and nionitoring is recommended. 11. Public Access The site is surrounded by urban development, and has high potential visitation by tourists coming to Rocky Mountain National Park. This posses a great opportunity for public education and nature appreciation. Construction of trails and interpretative signs to control and direct public access is the highest and best Lise ofthis property. Four trails are proposed (Figure 10.): 1. A paved perimeter trail for access from the North and East and to connect internal trials 2. Two wheel-chair accessible trails: one to access the old "ruin" and views from the top of the hill, one to access the riparian area and the more recent hornestead and surrounding Ponderosa pine woodland. 3. A footpath through the Ponderosa pine woodland connecting the hill-top "ruin" with the recent homestead site. This section of the site has the steepest slopes and rock outcroppings. The feasibility of making this trail also wheel chair accessible needs to be studied. Trails are designed to access the riparian area, the highest point on the property for scenic views, the open grassland and shrubland communities on the eastern side, and the ponderosa pine woodland on the western side of the property. Wheel-chair accessible Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 24 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting trails access all habitats and historic/cultural features on the property. Trail connections make several loop options available. T r i Â·Â·t Wheelchair ft .VÂ· ?t:i - P Accessable 4 I Footpath ~ 14,4 Sidewalk ~ Knolls-Willow Trail System 9/23/02 Gwen Kittel Figure 10. Preliminary recommendation for a trail system for Knolls-Willow Parcel, Estes Park. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 25 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting ':."br Appendix 1. COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATION ABSTRACT Association: Salix monticola / Mesic Graminoids Shrubland Common Name: Yellow Willow/Mesic Graminoid Western Vegetation Classification Level Category 1II. SHRUBLAND III.B. DECIDUOUS SHRUBLAND III.B.2. COLD-DECIDUOUS SHRUBLAND 1I1.B.2.d. TEMPORARILY FLOODED COLD-DECIDUOUS SHRUBLAND Alliance: SALIX MONTICOLA TEMPORARILY FLOODED SHRUBLAND ALLIANCE System: Palustrine Global Rank: G3 Related Literature and Synonyms: One stand from a Salix monticola-Salix planifolia/Mesic forb (yellow willow-planeleaf willow/Mesic fork) plant association (Kittel et al. 1995) is synonymous with the Colorado Salix monticola/Mesic graminoid plant association.. Similar Communities: One closely related community is the Salix boothii/-Mesic graminoid (Booth willow/Mesic graminoid) community type (Padgett et al. 1989) which includes some stands that have Salix nionticola. Vor other closely related communities with the graininoid species Calaniagrostis canadensis (bluejoint rbedgrass) in the undergrowth, see this section under the Salix monticola/Calamagrostis canadensis plant association Community Characterization Abstract. Regional Distribution: This association occurs in Colorado (CNHP 1999). Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 26 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting Distribution in Colorado: This plant association occurs in the Gunnison and South Platte River Basins (Kittel et aL 1995, Kittel et aL 1997) as well as the San Juan National Forest (Richard et aL 1996). Distribution by Watersheds: The following information is based on a total of fourteen quantitative plots: one from the White River Basin (92NL10), three from the San Juan National Forest (930351, 94DR16, 94DR32), one from the Gunnison River Basin (94MD16), four from the South Platte River Basin (96AM06,96AM44, 96AM62,96AM84), four from the Rio Grande and Closed Basins (97BG03,97EV07,97EV22,97EV29), and one from the North Platte River Basin (98BG12) (CNHP 1999). STATUS Reasons for Global Rank: This association is documented from six locations in Colorado, and an additional twenty to fi fty stands are estimated to occur. Stands with a native herbaceous undergrowth intact are threatened by improper livestock grazing, inappropriate stream flow alterations, and heavy recreational use. It has not been documented from other western states. Global Rank: Global rank is based on the range-wide status of a species. This association is ranked G3, very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range (21 to 100 occurrences). Threatened throughout its range. Reasons for State Rank: In Colorado, this association is documented at six locations, and an additional twenty to fifty stands are estimated to occur. Stands with a native herbaceous undergrowth intact are threatened by improper livestock grazing, inappropriate stream flow alterations, and heavy recreational use. State Rank: State rank is based on the status o f a species in an individual state. In Colorado, this association is ranked S3, rare in state (21 to 100 occurrences).. HABITAT General Description and Comments: The Salix monticola/Mes\c graminoid (yellow willow/Mesic graminoid) plant association is a tall (5-8 ft., 1.5-2.5 m), deciduous shrubland; with an open to closed canopy of willows on broad, gentle fioodplains, or in narrow canyon bottoms. The herbaceous undergrowth is diverse, with a variety of graminoid (grass and grass-like) and forb species. This association is distinguished from the Salix monticola/Mesic forb association by having a higher cover o f graminoid species. Stands with predominantly Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 27 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting nbninatiVE*thizlinoid species in the undergrowth are conbideredgrazing;induced:-Stands *Â· ~ with predominantly native graminoid species in the undergrowth areconsidered At potential. . , Elevation Range in Colorado: 7800-10,200 ft. (2400-3100 m). Site Geomorphology: The Salix monticolafMesic graminoid (yellow willow/Mesic graminoid) plant association dominates stream reaches in narrow to wide Parks, 65-400 feet (20-120 m) wide, with active floodplains and broad, swift-moving streams. 4Stands usually occur > 2 feet (0.5 in) above the bankfull channel along the stream edge or away from the channel up to 50 feet (15 m). The ground surface is usually undulating due to past flooding or beaver activity. Streams were classified according to the Rosgen Classification ofNatural Rivers (Rosgen 1996). Stream channels can be fairly steep and narrow with cobble beds (Rosgen's Channel Type: A4, F4), moderately wide and sinuous with cobble beds (Rosgen's Channel Type: B3) or broad, meandering rivers with a developed floodplain (Rosgen's Channel Type: C4). Some stands also occur along channels that are braided due to beaver activity (Rosgen's Channel Type: D6). Soils: Soils are fine textured clay loams and sandy clay loams of varying depths, 4-18 inches (10-45 cm). Mottling and gleyed layers often occur within 5 inches (12 cm) of the ground surface. MANAGEMENT Management: Stands with an abundance on non-native and increaser herbhceous species in the undergrowth are likely grazing induced shifts from either the native graminoid component o f the Salix monticola/Mesic graminoid plant association, or a shift from another Salix monticola dominated plant association. Improper livestock grazing can dry sites, increase non-native cover, and reduce the vigor o f willow root structure. Rest periods from grazing are recommended in order to provide time for plant regrowth. Late summer and fall grazing is not recommended because willow species are vulnerable to pruning damage due to limited regrowth at the end of the growing season (Hansen et al. 1995, Kovalchik and Elmore 1992). Disturbed stands or stands with a history o f improper grazing may respond to rest and rotation periods. These stands may have potential for higher graminoid bigmass including species such as Carex aquatilis (water sedge) and' Calamagrostis canadensis (bluejoint reedgrass). Beaver activity in the vicinity of this plant association is important for maintaining the health o f the riparian ecosystem. Beaver dams abate channel down cutting, bank erosion, Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 28 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting and downstream movement o f sediment. Beaver dams raise the water table across the floodplain and provide year-round saturated soils. Plant establishment and sediment build-up behind beaver dams raises the channel bed and creates a wetland environment. Land managers should consider maintaining 6eaver activity in an area versus tHeir removal (Hansen et al. 1995). Prescribed burning in this plant association is also an effective method of rejuvenating decadent stands ofwillows. The willow species in this plant association vigorously sprout following quick, hot fires. Slow burning fires can actually damage the plants (Hansen et al. 1995). Salix nionticola (yellow willow) is an effective stream bank stabilizer. It can probably be grown and transplanted from nursery cuttingstin the same manner as Salix geyeriana. Cuttings should be taken in the spring from dormant, 2-4 year-old wood. Cuttings should be 12-20 inches (30-50 cm) long and at least 0.5 inches (1 cm) in diameter. Roots and shoots should appear 10-15 days after planting if conditions are right (Hansen et al. 1995). Successional and Ecological Processes: The Salix monticola/Mesic graminoid (yellow willow/moist grasses and grass-like plants) plant association appears to be a stable, long-lived coinmunity. Stands with an abundance of Poa pratensis (Kentucky bluegrass) or Agrostis stotonifera (redtop) may be a grazing-induced disclimax. Stands with abundant Salix planifolia (planeleaf willow) may indicate a transition between higher elevational sites dominated by Salix planifolia and lower elevational sites where Salix monticola is more abundant. VEGETATION Vegetation: Salix nionticola (yellow willow) forms a dense to open canopy with 15-80% cover. If it is not the clear dominant, then it is the matrix willow. The matrix species is the willow with the highest abundance, even though other willow species may have a higher combined canopy cover. Other shrubs that may be present at higher elevations include: Salix planifolia (planeleaf willow) (10-40), Salix geyeriana (Geyer willow) 02-20%), Salix brachycarpa (barrenground willow) (1-3%). At lower elevations, other shrubs that may be present include: Salix irrorata (bluestehi willow) (45%), Salix lasiandra var. caudata (whiplash willow) (1-25%), Alnus incana (thinleaf alder) (4-19%), Pentaphylloides floribunda (shrubby cinquefoil) 0-21%). Total graminoid cover ranges from 10-55% and exceeds that of total forb cover. No single species is particularly dominant over the others, and no one species is present in every stand. Graminoid species that may be present include: Poa pratensis (Kentucky Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 29 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting bluegrads) (1-36%), Juncus balticus (Baltic sedge) (1:12%), Ct,rex-aqi,atilis (aquatic sedge) ( 1- 14%), and Equisetum arvense (field scouring rush) (1-47%). Forb cover' ranges from 5-20% generally is not as abundant as the total graminoid cover. Forb species that may be present include: Heracleum lanatum (cow parsnip) (1-9%), Fragaria virginiana (strawberry) (1-3%), and Achillea millefolium (yarrow) 0-8%). In stands with pronounced hummock micro-topography underneath the willow canopy, graminoids will typically dominate the low-lying swales, while forbs will dominate the better drained hummocks and ridge tops. Adjacent Riparian Vegetation: This plant association is often the only riparian community along a stream reach. However, Populus angustifolia (narrowleaf cottonwood) woodlands and Pentaphylloides floribunda (shrubby cinquefoil) shrublands can occur on adjacent floodplains of wider Parks and Picea pungens (Colorado blue spruce) forests can occur along adjacent, steeper canyon reaches. Adjacent Upland Vegetation: At lower elevations, Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine), Pinus contorta (lodgepole pine) and Populus tremuloides (aspen) forests or arid grasslands occur on adjacent hill slopes. At higher elevations, Abies lasiocarpa-Picea engelmannii (subalpine fir-Engelmann spruce) and Populus tremuloides (aspeni forests occur on adjacent hill slopes. REFERENCES Brunsfield, SJ. and F.D. Johnson. 1985. Field Guide to the Willows of East-Central Idaho. Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station Bulletin No. 39. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 1999. Biological and Conservation Data (BCD) System. Data from field surveys. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Hansen, P.E, R.D. Pfister, K. Boggs, Bj. Cook, 1. Joy, and D.K. Hinckley. 1995. Classification and Management o f Montana's Riparian and Wetland Sites. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publication No. 54. The University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 646 pp. + Posters , Kittel, G.M, RJ. Rondeau, and S. Kettler. 1995. A classification of the riparian vegetation of the Gunnison River Basin, Colorado. Report by Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, CO to Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the EPA, Denver, CO. 114 pp. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 30 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting Kittel, G.M., E. VanWie and M. Damm. 1997. A classification of the riparian vegetation of the South Platte River Basin (and part of Republican River Basin), Colorado. Report by Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, CO to Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII. Denver, CO. Kovalchik, B.L. and W. Elmore. 1992. Effects of cattle grazing systems on willow- dominated plant associations in central Oregon. In W.P. Clary, E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt, compilers. Proceedings-Symposium on Ecology and Management of Riparian Shrub Communities, May 29-31,1991, Sun Park, ID. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-289. Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT. 232 pp. Padgett, W.G., A.P. Youngblood, and A.H. Winward. 1989. Riparian community type classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Report R4-ECOL-89-01. Ogden, UT. 191 pp. Richard, C., G. Kittel, and S. Kettler. 1996. A classification of the riparian vegetation of the San Juan National Forest. Draft 1 report to be submitted to the San Juan National Forest. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. Written February 1998 By Kittel, G., E. VanWie, M. Damm. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 31 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting 6.2 Charrette Report City Visions, Inc. ESTES PARK KNOLL WILLOWS CHARRETTE REPORT Preserving and Appreciating a Jewel in the Heart of Town Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 32 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting EstesParkKnollWillows Charrette Report Preserving and Appreciating a Jewel in the Heart ofTown "Property possesses significant open space, scenic, wildlife and plant habitat and other aesthetic and ecological values, (the "Conservation Values") of great importance to the Town of Estes Park and its citizens, the people of Larimer County and the people of the State of Colorado." - Open Space Agreement "The Primary purpose of the Trust is the preservation and conservation of natural areas for scenic, open space, aesthetic and ecological purposes." -Knoll Willows Conservancy document "Protect in perpetuity this particular Estes Park historic archaeological wildlife and ecologically valuable site. " -Knoll Willows Conservancy document Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 33 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting Summary The Knoll Citizen's Advisory Councill met for a full day in September 2002 to participate in a charrette to reach consensus on how to access and interpret the Knoll - Willows Property in Estes Park. ("A charrette is a meeting to resolve a problem or issue. Often times, graphic represehtation is used to represent decisions.") The following is a report on these decisions. GOALS: At the outset, the Advisory Council discussed and agreed to two basic goals: â€¢ To maintain the open space that preserves the natural qualities of the landscape and provides for quiet enjoyment. â€¢ To interpret the natural and cultural components of the site within the larger context of Estes Park. Figure 1 - Birch Ruins OUTCOMES: The Advisory Council entered the session with several issues the group hoped to decide on that day. â€¢ What are the points of access? â€¢ Where do trails go? Interior? External? â€¢ Where is parking? , â€¢ What are the points of interpretation? â€¢ What is the material "character" of the site? (i.e., surfaces, signage, furnishing) 1 ' See Appendix A for participants. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 34 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting By the end of the day, these had all been addressed and each moved much closer to resolution. To make these decisions the group progressively added statements to a"consent agenda." By mid-day the following were agreed upon: â€¢ No active recreation inside site. â€¢ No hew permanent toilets. Toilets are : Other Co#Berns: available in town. - Ease & difficulty of adbess,~ ij,Â· â€¢ No lighting: area is closed at night, f~ (map it!) Â·~J -'~~ - ' fi<, '- ,;,4,-: r 1 1.'11 1'.;,/4.-11 lights arenot needed. Cabin security -, ViewshedsrÂ· ., ''2 f :.f.,j.Â·'.j:>*0, - Do not fence people out 91111/.1, X may require minimal lighting at the , 1. 1. '.1~111" :11,1-11 11-11-flkt::111,1 discretion of the Estes Park Historic : - f Safety, i , 1 1.-1 1, 1 1 1 11 1 111 >! 1$.S 11 , 11 11 11 I ,-' 1 1,1 : 1*, i Traffic Â·' :. Museum. No other lighting. , 111? 2 1 I . â€¢ No picnic areas. ~: L I.. AM~tinance, 4 ,Â§,i)I .i'[t:.2 .:â€ž :~Â·'652 - saitthiligplay should be..,0297Â«N.ff â€¢ No horses inside site ,Â·Â·Â· ~moved toreduceise kifittie"dit; â€¢ No pets other than Seeing Eye dogs i road.,~~ ~~~ ~~, inside site. â€¢ No bicycles (or recreational wheels) inside site â€¢ No trash receptacles inside site. Have receptacles and postings to pack trash out. â€¢ Benches [inside site, screened from view]. Benches limited, non-invasive and discreet. â€¢ Daylight access only. The difficult work of a charrette is in taking goals, Other text for Mission: - passive enjoyment objectives, and even verbal agreements and further - town's treasure orjewel refining and crafting these into a graphic - sanctuary agreement, a figurative and literal map of the - perpetuity spatial array o f desired outcomes. To hammer out - educational area these "on the ground" specifics, the group broke - preserve and protect into three groups: Natural Heritage, Access, and - conservation Interpretation. - values o f the property The next section summarizes their individual discussions, and ideas brought forth to the group as a whole. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 35 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting ... ... V. 6 . f -' The Working Groups: Morning Sessions The three working groups -- natural heritage, access, and interpretation - were each charged by the group as a whole to spend about two hours discussing, working through, and graphically representing what was important to address in their topic area. Additionally, they were asked to present back to the whole group, any recommendations they might wish to make. The following are the abridged descriptions, and notes from each of the three working groups. NATURAL HERITAGE , The Natural Heritage working group mapped zones, identified viewsheds and wildlife corridors and discussed stream Figure 2 - The Knot! with Lake Estes and peaks in background flow. Several points: 'aMffily;*MT â€¢ Black Canyon Creek is important. Need to recognize upstream occurrences. â€¢ Existing wildlife travel routes need to be considered. Serves as an elk calving area. May want to create an underpass for wildlife on the northwest portion of the property near culvert. Best to pursue other outside assistance in exploring a wildlife underpass. â€¢ Wetlands / riparian stewardship and education are important. There may be a need for natural barriers to spread water. The source of water is the MacGregor Ranch and Rocky Mountain National Park. Who has upstream water rights? There is also a condo pond where beavers reside. â€¢ May want to partner with McGregor Ranch as a conservation partner. â€¢ The creek is channelized with an outflow to Lake Estes. Leave as is and do not disturb. â€¢ The best way to protect Black Canyon Creek and the wildlife is to have a viewing platform from MacGregor Avenue. This provides a way to stop and look without crossing the riparian area from the west. By consensus the Council agreed that there is no western point of access into the property. A bridge can be placed to the south. â€¢ Utility easements are necessary. Need to be sure there is landscape restoration for any disturbances. Need to develop procedures and specifications for "restoration" in right-of-way (ROW) work. â€¢ Viewsheds are important. Any trails are planned to be as inconspicuous as possible. The MacGregor Avenue viewing platform provides a way to see Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 36 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting wildlife, the cabin and the Ruins from a distance. The trail from the north to the Ruins provides a way to see the vistas as well as the town and the ponderosa pine and grassland ecosystems. On the south and the east the cliff serves as a natural barrier. â€¢ Further analysis is needed to determine how public could safely see the original window views from the Ruins. â€¢ The southwest trail to the cabin is proposed to have a gradual elevation and be tucked into the trees. â€¢ The Ponderosa Pine and Dry Grassland eco systems are also important to understanding the variable conditions in the Estes Park. ACCESS The Access working group discussed how the property should be entered, what trails there should be, parking, accessibility, and relationship to the existing trail system. â€¢ It is intended for Figure 3 - On the Knoll, looking southeast. passive recreation and education. The trails | ---- 8 that have been selected manage access, prevent shortcuts and provide easy access to the cabin and the Ruins. There is also a more difficult connector trail betwben the cabin and the Ruins. The southwest cabin trail would be closed during calving. â€¢ A southeast access and a perimeter trail were considered and presented to the entire group. In the afternoon, the group decided not to pursue these further. â€¢ Parking. Create a low impact parking lot at the north entrance with a maximum of 8 parking places. It was not decided how many ofthe parking places would be posted for HC only. Bikes can be parked at access points. â€¢ Maintenance. No internal snow clearance except maintenance access for Ruins trail as a possible exception. No auto access. Limit use of service road. No internal garbage collection. Move Santa display to reduce road use. â€¢ Trail Character. Surface of easy access trails should be colored concrete wide enough to enable those using wheelchairs to turn around. The easy trail should be 4-6 feet with tumouts (minimum of 60 inches or 5 feet). Surface o f connector trail not determined. As a more di fficult trail it would be narrower. Easy trail - Bridge / cabin trail closed during calving and possibly during rut season. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 37 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting 0)(91!1011]Mp INTERPRETATION The Interpretation work group addressed: What stories need to be told? How should it be presented? Figure 4 Birch Ruins looking west â€¢ There should be minimal signage. 802#fii Use it to introduce site and interpret natural areas. - Kiosks or signage should provide interpretation at the MacGregor viewing platform, and at the north and south accesses. â€¢ Some interpretation should also be provided at the two structures: the Birch cabin and the Ruins. There may bea use for a self-guided nature booklet. â€¢ At the north entrance, a Stanley Tourist interpretation sign, recognizing tourism as a cultural value, a discussion of the grassland and a map oftrails on the property. â€¢ At the cabin interpret the landowner/ weekend touriht. Access to the cabin itself will be controlled by the Estes Park Area Historical Museum. Programs at cabin will be prescheduled and supervised at certain given times. â€¢ At the Ruins, topics of interpretation can include: views, town development and local land stewardship. There are key viewpoints within the Ruins. Further study is needed to determine whether access on the Ruins is possible. â€¢ The southwest corner can serve as a general interpretation area directing people to the MacGregor viewing platform and to the bridge to the cabin trail. The interpretation group discussed the stories that can be.told, from the micro level of Al Birch and the two buildings to the meaning of spiritual and physical renewal in the West and the importance of tourism in the development of Estes Park. Tourism has two important sides in Estes Park, that of the landowner summer resident and that of the tourists fromfarther away who stay in hotels. They felt that even the broadest stories could be simply told on several 16x 11 signs, some at the entrances, one at the Birch cabin and perhaps one at the Ruins. The natural history of the site (wetlands, grasslands, crag and forest ecology) should be incorporated into the entrance signs. The story Of the preservation Ofthesite should be told at the entrance too. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 38 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting Small signs pointing out individual trees or lichen spots were discussed and dismissed as more expensive and impermanent than a few larger signs at the entrance. Small signs tend to clutter the interior of the site as well. They agreed that kiosks, defined as a small roofed shelter would not be required, the signs could stand on their own. There are many stories that this place can tell, and signage should be minimized, therefore the interpretation committee suggested that a booklet be made available to flesh out the interpretation. The Santa sleigh should be moved. Key issues in the afternoon discussion Lunchtime and afternoon discussion began with presentations by the three working groups to the group as a whole. Key issues became: â€¢ Need for access to Knoll, Cabin, Ruins and views. â€¢ Trail locations. â€¢ Universal Accessibility. â€¢ Connectivity to regional trail system. Need for Internal Access Prior to the charrette, most Committee members were operating with the assumption that some public access beyond the perimeter, even ifrestricted, would be provided. However, the issue of internal access was raised in the afternoon session as a result of several public comments (written and e-mail) that called for completely limiting access. The Advisory Committee considered these concerns, but held that such extreme restrictions were not in keeping with the spirit of the governing Open Space Agreement, nor with the potential for Figure 5 - Potential creek crossing at Town Hall parking lot education and aesthetic appreciation that the site possesses. However, this discussion did spur a further discussion on the role of experiencing the Knoll Willows property in the overall interpretation ofboth the site and its larger context, the Estes Park. Ultimately, the group concluded that access to several key sites internal to the site were important to the visitor's experience. These include: â€¢ The Birch Ruins and the vantage point it affords Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 39 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting â€¢ The Birch Cabin â€¢ A "Down Park" view from a high on the Knoll However, the group also emphatically decided that fragile areas, such as the riparian ecosystem should be protected from direct access. Hence, perimeter points of interpretive significance were designated: â€¢ The view of the riparian area from a point on MacGregor Avenue â€¢ Interpretive signage and :'entry" at the Town Hall Trailhead (see Figure 5) and North Trailheads. 4 Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 40 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting North The North Trailhead is intended to provide limited vehicular Trailhead access to the Northwest and East Trails. It is anticipated that 7570' approx. this area accommodate no more than six to eight vehicles and elev. that it be considered primarily a point of access to accommodate those with mobility related needs. While a trash receptacle, a bicycle rack, bench and signage are possible, no restroom facilities are to be provided. Town Hall The Town Hall Trailhead is intended to provide principal access Trailhead for the passive enjoyment of the Willow Knoll site. Connection 7520' approx. to the Southwest Trail provides direct access to the Birch Cabin, elev. and ties into the other trails. Trash collection, restroom availability, a bicycle rack, and parking rely on coordination with the on-going operations of the Town Hall. Willow The western edge o f the site may be developed as a viewing Viewing area for the riparian area, and associated wildlife. The area Area should provide ample area to accommodate visitors, but also 7540' approx. restrict their access to the fragile eco-system to the immediate elev. east (the riparian area). This point may include interpretive signage, benches, and trash receptacles. Parking is located along MacGregor, and access may include an attached pedestrian-way to the Town Hall parking area. The Birch The Birch Cabin is both a significant visual landmark, and a key Cabin interpretive site on the property. Access to the exterior of the 7540' approx. cabin is provided for in this plan. This physical access can elev. facilitate varying degrees o f future use. The degree of access to the interior can be discussed in future refinements of the Willow Knoll management plan. The Birch The Ruins ofthe original Birch Studio are the most prominent Ruins manmade feature on the site. This site is intrinsically interesting 7595' approx. as a stabilized min, an important site for interpretation, and elev. vantage point for views to the south and west. Access to the site is recommended. Degree ofpenetration into the ruins area should be pursued in a follow-on study, i.e., Historical Structures Assessment. While benches may be provided, no trash receptacles are proposed. An emergency telephone may be instalIed. Down Park The view to Lake Estes and points east is significant. While Viewpoint excellent views are afforded from numerous points on the 7602' approx. K.noll, a designated viewing area (e.g., bench, widening in trail) elev. is possible. No trash receptacles will be provided. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 41 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting Trail Locations In the course o f the charrette the group interpreted their collectively agreed upon principles into recommendations for the treatment of access routes (trails). The discussion was at times intense and there were several passionate exchanges on the potential trade- offs between the educational value o f interpretive access as opposed to ecosystem and aesthetic disruption. Ultimately, the group struck a delicate balance in agreeing in principle to the trail system depicted in Figure 6. While the specific layout and path of each trail needs to be assessed in greater depth in a subsequent design phase, this map reflects both the sentiment of the group, and the reality of topographic constraints. In addition to what is shown on the map, it is important to note what is absent. The group decided to not include a trail to the Ruins from the southeast corner of the property. The rationale for this decision is noted in the section below on regional connectivity. r T/5- s ,2.44 1 6.1 '44 43Â·:,?ffjy , j.*. : ~ \39 j Willows. ViewIng< .1 4 t Poin171 , : 31. \. A 76.- 1169 Â· 'i t.*,44 Â· F : e A'' 'Â·Â·6 4.) 4 41 I /â€¢ 1 -hfi~0 1 I 1 i--~1 *123. . 1, 1. I .i Â·r . , Vt ,â€¢ f.4. 4. 997 1 â‚¬ 11 99...0 a- 7 3 444 .. Figure 6 - Key map of Sites, Access Points, and Trails Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 42 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting 04> - . The following table is intended to provide further planningguidance in the refinement of- - -- the Advisory Council recommended designation of trails. The specific placement and engineered design oftrails may necessitate adjustment to the exact locations shown here. The length and elevation changes noted are included for planning purposes only, and terrain specifics may alter these. Northwest 7570' to 7540', 30' net elev. loss, North Trailhead to Birch Trail Cabin. - This trail is planned to be universally accessible. Approximately 830' in length. 1:26 avg. slope, or 3.7% grade. Southwest 7520' to 7540', 20' net elevation gain, Town Hall Trailhead to Trail Birch Cabin. - This trail is planned to be universally accessible. Approximately 580' in length. 1:29 avg. slope, or 3.5% grade. East Trail 7570' to 7602', 32' net elevation gain, North Trailhead to Down (north) Park Viewpoint. l-Please note that although the group had decided to abandon/restore the existing access road in favor ofa more westerly route for environmental reasons, this premise has not been proven. City Visions recommends that the path of the access road not yet be ruled out.J - This trail is planned to be universally accessible. Approximately 1000' in length. 1:31 avg. slope, or 3.2% grade. East Trail 7602' to 7595', 7' net elevation loss, Down Park Viewpoint to (south) Birch Ruins. - This trail is planned to be universally accessible. Approximately 320' in length. 1:46 avg. slope, or 2.2% grade. Connector 7540' to 7595', 55' net elevation gain, Birch Cabin to Birch Trail Ruins. - This trail is NOT planned to be univ-ersally accessible, as the features it connects (the Birch House and Birch Ruins) are both accessible by other interconnected trails (East Trail and Northwest Trail). Approximately 370' in length. 1:7 avg. slope, or 15% grade. MacGregor 7525' to 7540', 15' net elevation gain, Town Hall parking to Walk Willow Viewing Area. - This trail is planned to be universally accessible. Approximately 400' in length. 1:27 avg. slope, or 3.8% grade. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 43 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting J Universal Accessibility The Advisory Committee expressed its commitment to providing equivalent access to the significant features ofthe Knoll Willows site. Throughout their discussions they also strove to make sure that this commitment does not detract from the natural and rustic experience of the site. Specifically, issues of surfacing and slope dominated the discussion. â€¢ The issue of surfacing relates to three concerns, each of which may be considered as a performance criterion: Suitability for wheelchair Firmness, stability and ease of use. /77:is use criterion is keeping with current developments in the drafting of Section 16 of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibilitv Guidelines (ADAAG)1 "Natural appearance" Fits in with the natural, "not hard" character of the site. Maintenance Does not require an extraordinary on- going maintenance or repair effort. Although the Advisory Council did not designate a material, they did rule out wooden platforms and "gray concrete." They advise that additional research be conducted to find the best fit. City Visions suggests that the Council and the Town of Estes Park further investigate several sburces of information. Recent technological developments in the binding of aggregates, i.e., "crushed rock," have seemingly made this material one that meets all three criteria. The National Center on Accessibility at Indiana University, together with the National Park Service, is conducting a study to compare the effectiveness of surface treatments for creating a trail accessible to people with mobility impairments. Specifically, this study is examining the longitudinal effects , of surface treatments on surface firmness and stability, the costs df applying the treatments, and their relative maintenance demands. Conclusions based on two years of weathering are encouraging, in that at least some stabilizers are performing very Well. A synopsis of the study is available at http://www. ncaonline.org/trails/surstudy.htm . A companion document to the research study is an annotated guide to commercial stabilizers and binders http://www.ncaonline.org/trails/surfman.htm . â€¢ Issues of slope are important to consider in the design oftrails. Currently the officially adopted ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) limit ~ slope to 1:20 (5%) throughout without handrails; or, 1:12 (8%) with rails and resting points: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has recognized that this limitation is Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 44 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting often impractical for outdoor recreational trails. Hence, the Regulatory Negotiation Committee on Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas was established in June 1997. The work of the Committee has not yet been incorporated into federal law, but their working report, Regulatory Negotiation Committee on Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas Final Report, is a good_starting point on current "best practices." Ofparticular interest are the provisions ofproposed Section 16.2.7.2: 16.2.7.2 Running slope. Running slope of trail segments shall Â· comply with one or more of the provisions of this section. No more than 30 percent of the total trail length shall exceed a running slope of 1:12. 16.2.7.2.1 Running slope shall be 1:20 or less for any distance. 16.2.7.2.2 Running slope shall be 1:12 maximum for 200 feet (61 m) maximum. Resting intervals complying with 16.2.8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 200 feet (61 m) apart. 16.2.7.2.3 Running slope shall be 1:10 maximum for 30 feet (9150 mm) maximum. Resting intervals complying with 16.2.8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 30 feet (9150 mm) apart. 16.2.7.2.4 Running slope shall be 1:8 maximum for 10 feet (3050 mm) maximum. Resting intervals complying with 16.2.8 shall be provided at r: distances no greater than 10 Comments on trails feet (3050 mm) apart. â€¢ Don't link access with current trailsystem. â€¢ Direct connections could take await>from Following this proposed provision passive and educational use.27., 14 would allow design flexibility in keeping existing grades to as close â€¢ Concentrate on conservationl'not, ~r:'~ ~. i y.1,1 recreation. to natural as possible, while adhering to the expert opinion of a 0 Concern over Cliff trail SE. and 11I).Â· -7~joltrail SE corner to North entrance. diverse, federally appointed Committee on accessibility. â€¢ Encourage use of walkway on by#ash â€¢ Need to control where and how pedpie go Connectivity to Regional Trails to these places. â€¢ A more difficult and more steeply*hkled trail will provide a shorterÂ·access bdtwden The Advisory Council discussed and rejected a the cabin and the Ruins. this Will prdvent Perimeter walk around the property. They chose damage from alternative shortcuts.i.) Ii, to discourage an Estes Lake recreation link at this ~ time. Alternatives around the Knoll Willows property exist or are in the planning stages. For additional information, please refer to the Estes Park Trails Plan and the Public Works Department. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 45 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting Appendix A Those in attendance on September 18, 2002: Toby Hale Lori Jeffrey-Clark Bob Jones Kelly Brown Jacqueline Oldham Joan Sapp Betty Kilsdonk Louise Lindsay - Bob Joseph and Wil Smith Bill Linnane attended' at end of the day. Also in attendance: O.W. Bud Hampton, Mary Bauer, and Enda M Kiley Facilitating: Chris Koziol, Katherine Woods, and Susan Zietkiewicz [Ron Wilcox called to discuss charrette on Thursday, September 19, 2002] Proposed schedule: 9:00 -9:30 Intro and Definitions: Mission, charrette goals, graphic agreement 9:30 - 10:00 Discussion of Groups and agreement on respective tasks 10:00- 11:30 Group work Draft mapby 11:30 11:30- 12:00 Accountability & Reality check Presentations 12:00 - 12:30 Working Lunch 12:30 - 1:30 Walk and Talk 1:30 - 3:00 Group Work 95 Percent draft map by 3:00 p.m. 3:00 - 4:00 Forging the Graphic Agreement Actual schedule by agreement: 12:00 - 4:00 Working Lunch, Photo presentation ofthe Property, and Group Discussion Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 46 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting 6.3 Accessibility Report The trail planning involved careful consideration ofneeds ofthe disabled trail user. The following "best practices" information provided by planning consultants, City Visions, was incorporated into the trail planning process. â€¢ The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is itself not like a building or zoning code, in that it doesn't prescribe what you need to do to be in compliance. Rather, it is civil rights legislation, which establishes the right of "Americans with disabilities" to equal treatment and reasonable accommodation "similar to those available on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin and religion and prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the private sector and in state and local governments, public accommodations and services, including transportation, provided by public and private entities." â€¢ What constitutes "equal" and "reasonable" is subject to legal questioning and litigation. A dozen years of case law, since 1990, has answered some questions, but in general the courts have set the bar for accommodation quite high. â€¢ The federal government has attempted to offer some design guidance through the work of the Access Board, an independent federal agency (www.access-board.gov). This agency is responsible for the development of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). The "chapters" of the ADAAG are being developed, refined, and adapted through the long and involved federal rule-making process. Right now, and since 1996 the Board has been working on Chapter 16, "Outdoor Developed Areas." While these rules have yet to be formally codified into federal law, City Visions has consulted the.most recent draft of this chapter in making trajl recommendations for the Knoll-Willows site, and our suggestions regarding surfacing and grade issues are in keeping with this evolving Â·standard. â€¢ Draft Chapter 16's language defines its purview "Outdoor Developed Areas" functionally and broadly. 16. OUTDOOR DEVELOPED AREAS Outdoor developed areas covered by this section shall comply with the applicable requirements of section 4 and the special application sections, except as modified or otherwise provided in this section. 16.1 General. All newly designed and constructed pedestrian trails or altered portions of existing pedestrian trails connecting to designated trailhead or accessible trails shall Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 47 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting ~,4 I - - Â· comply with 16. All newly desigihbdand Eonstructed catÂ®ing facilities, picnic areas, and beach access routes or altered portions thereof shall comply with 16. 16.1.1 Extent of Application. Departures from specific technical provisions of this section shall be permitted where specified, and where at least one ofthe following conditions is present. The conditions in this section do not obviate or limit in any way obligations to comply with 16 at any point that the conditions are not present. 1. Where compliance would cause subsiantial harm to cultural, historic, religious, or significant natural features or characteristics; or, 2. Where compliance would substantially alter the nature of the setting or the purpose of the facility, or portion of the facility; or, 3. Where compliance would require construction methods or materials that are prohibited by federal, state, or local regulations or statutes; or, 4. Where compliance would not be feasible due to terrain or the prevailing construction practices. Definitions. Trail. A route that is designed, constructed, or designated for recreational pedestrian use or provided as an pedestrian alternative to vehicular routes within a transportation system. Designated Trailhead. A designated point of access that may contain a parking area, information kiosks, restrooms, water hydrants, and may be reached by vehicular or pedestrian access. Tread width. The path or visible trail surface perpendicular to the direction of travel. The clear tread width of the trail is the width of the useable trail tread, measured perpendicular to the direction of travel and on or parallel to the surface of the useable trail tread. The minimum clear tread width is the narrowest measurement on the useable trail tread. 16.2 Trails. Where trails are provided, the trail shall comply with 16.2. Where provided, elements located on accessible trails shall comply with 16.5 through 16.21. Elements are not required to be connected by an outdoor recreation access route. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Where one or more of the conditions in 16.1.1 exists, and where one or more of the conditidns in this exception exists, the provisions of 16.2 shall not apply after the first point of departure. The segment of the trail between the trailhead and the first point of departure shall comply with 16.2 unless the trail segment is 500 feet (150 m) or less in length. Where there is a prominent feature less than 500 feet (150 m) from the trailhead, the trail segment between the trailhead and the prominent feature shall comply with 16.2. The conditions ofthis exception are: (a) The combination of running slope and cross slope exceeds 40 percent for over 20 feet (b) A trail obstacle 30 inches (760 mm) or more in height across the full tread width of the trail; or Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 48 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting .. (c) The surface is neither firm nor stable for a distance of 45 feet or more; or (d) A clear width less than 12 inches (305 mm) for a distance of20 feet (6100 min) or more 2. Where one or more of the conditions in 16.1.1 are met resulting in departures from the technical provisions in 16.2 for over 15 percent ofthe length ofthe trail, 16.2 shall not apply after the first point of departure. The segment of the trail between the trailhead and the first point of departure is required to comply with 16.2 unless the trail segment is 500 feet (150 m) or less in length. Where there is a prominent feature less than 500 feet (150 m) from the trailhead, the trail segment between the trailhead and the prominent feature shall comply with 16.2. 16.2.1 Surface. The trail surface shall be firm and stable. EXCEPTION. The provision shall not apply where a firm and stable surface can not be provided because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16.1.1 applies. 16.2.2 Clear Tread Width. The clear tread width of the trail shall be 36 inches (915 min) minimum. EXCEPTIONS 1. The clear tread width shall be permitted to be reduced to no less than 32 inches (815 mm) minimum where at least one ofthe four conditions specified in 16.1.1 apply. 2. The provision shall not apply where 32 inches (815 mm) minimum clear tread width can not be provided because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16.1.1 applies. â€¢ While the wording "recreational pedestrian use" seems to suggest some ability to argue that the intent in the Knoll-Willows is educational : rather than recreational the ADAAG Committee's commentary elaborates further, and seems to address that distinction: "A trail designed, designated, or constructed for pedestrian use may also have other uses, such as bicycling or in-line skating. It is recognized that pedestrians use all trails. However, these guidelines apply onlyto trails where travel on foot is one of the designated uses for which the trail was created. For example, a trail designated for mountain biking will not be considered a "pedestrian trail" whether or not pedestrians actually use the trail. However, a multi-use trail specifically designed and d6signated for hiking and bicycling would be considered a pedestrian trail. Trails include (but are not limited to) a trail through a forested park, a shared-use path, ora back country trail. Trails do not include pathways such as sidewalks, pathways in amusdment parks, commercial theme parks, carnivals, or between buildings on college campuses. These exterior accessible routes are already covered by ADAAG 4.37 See www.access-board.qov/outdoor/outdoor-rec- rpt. htm Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 49 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting . - I 11Â» V 6.4 Historic Structures Assessment September 10, 2002 Chris Koziol City Visions Inc. 315 S. Sherwood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Mr. Koziol: , On August 26,2002, I visited the site ofthe Birch home ruins in Estes Park, with yourself and Bob Joseph, Director of Community Development with the Town of Estes Park. During the site visit we observed the current condition of the stone ruins as well as the nearby log cabin, measured critical wall dimensions and structural supports, and identified several specific items that require stabilization. My overall impression of the stone ruins remaining from the Birch home is that the site is in good condition, and will not require major intervention for stabilization. I ran through some quick analyses of the more critical items and found that, although the walls and window lintels do not meet current building pode requirements, they do provide an adequate margin against collapse and do not represent any immediate problems. Further work is required to formulate a proper long-term respgnse to site stabilization. At two isolated locations, there are items that should be addressed immediately to prevent potential collapse: 1. The stone masonry above one lintel has as its main support a 1/4 inch thick steel plate, and the main steel angle is cut short with no bearing at the window jamb. The steel plat does not have the capacity to carry the stone weight and the lintel must be shored to prevent collapse, until a suitable long-term solution can be designed and installed. This lintel is on the south wall, above the second window west of the main entry door. 2. The west porch wall has a large hole entirely through the wall section, measuring up to 32 inches wide and 34,inches tall, with the masonry above held in place simply by arching action over the void. This stonework is in danger of falling and requires temporary support. While the site is in good condition, I recommend further work to conduct a detailed investigation and overall site stabilizalion. I anticipate that such an effort would include the following tasks: a thorough condition survey, to document as-built as well as existing conditions; stability analysis of exterior building and retaining walls; recommendations for site drainage and moisture control, specifically at chimneys and the tops of walls; and identification ofrepairs required to ensure safety of any visitors to the site. Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 50 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting /l - . w..134*?-7 I conducted a similar visual evaluation at the log cabin site, which, for the most part, appears to be in good condition. I did not see any items that require immediate action but there should be additional investigative work prior to long-term stabilization recommendations. Such a program should include a general condition survey to document the site, evaluation of the sheds and outhouse, which are deteriorating and require maintenance and stabilization, investigation of wood roof framing in the vicinity - of a roof leak for moisture damage, and determination if concrete poured against the uphill walls is damaging the wood log walls, The entire site suffers from active erosion due to surface runoff and a plan to combat erosion at the back side of the house should be part of any future work. In conclusion, both the stone house ruins and the log house are in a condition that requires little immediate attention, but both are vulnerable to long-term deterioration. I suggest a program to conduct a formal condition survey along with additional analysis to identify areas requiring stabilization. Sincerely, Michael P. Schuller, P.E. Atkinson-Noland & Associates, Inc. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Knoll Willows Draft Master Plan 51 For Review at 2/25/03 Town Board Meeting '7-9 CE R n 1 1 1 = 1 4- :<D t,/1/ It %.3 ,2 ;F.'... r 4 + . ..... . / ..%. . d ON MOL leu! uogepueunuooehl C O CU % 9.000) O 0 CO ... <9.7. t 1Â· ; i::Â· . . 6.t ...... .. 2 l. . ....7.-7â‚¬. *6 k .1- + 1 .... 1. . 4. , 4 . 4 + 4 4:11 433,. 71: . I Â¥ I 49 4 + :r . 7 1 i.. , :./ 'Fi I . 1 B..9- Ei 1, 4.4,1 .= 7 4 -V 6 I :41 ~_ 10 ' : - 1.1 . I .!1 .:. - 0- 4, - 4. , : 0.---- 1&: i f. , CL L 491 U) 0 - 92 .52-0 rt a) 9- L O 63 W %ptl CD O 8 2 >,~ 2= /1, c Â¤1 0, 1/1 = (Do 2 3 & ~ & 2 2*:5% :S-t Â§. (D 2, ~2-~ 0 5 2 0 . cO 5 g= a) o k ~2~4 2 CD E E Â°116-0 J LL u' Mig g .Â§ 1M :2 & O,_g,2 E 2 0 L 16 2 Q Clu >' 1 2 00. A)*4- W' CD t' 3252 112 2 R 22 27 5 :03-0 2 (0 - cen (1) CD ~ 2 * 47 -- co Qlz -2 0 0 0 0 98 3- 0 Â» -t~*5-Â© u.1 8 00:E.F - s 1, r- Em ::t O 5 * 8 -2 1 5 2 -2 3 3. 3} k Z h.2 m..E a~ cn B A < a) 2 8 16 & * 0 % 3} ti .6 = al 2 g =!= t; .9 -2 O CO v, _ 0 0:= CL R # 85.9 -a~-6 # a Â£ RiE 0 ov 72 2622 *4 I. . . . U'qeo 40J!8 >leaJO LIOXU ows properti s -Fi":. -3,/9~ .lizi. - *.irrA 214> :.2 :- 1,livilll&\ iti 1 '4: t..m45 1 1 - :t>*4%,G-: 2 0 --' L' 4 ' jAAL ,f.D.~'~:~~74...q;~:':ii 2 f Â·SA .- * . - I /1.- -, L ... 4- . I 6\ Nl-'~ A . , , r C. 1 r+*.,Â·>>~ Â·. 132L ~i,e~I+UÂ¢'~ -'~~ ./1 1, .1 1 4 14/lt C,$90 . I 4'iN.Z.2. fic 11 .- 'V f...1 i . 4 1%~1*'42.1 .1'- Â·. L 1~4 . 24- . 2~*Â¢,7, - 4 34 ... 9246: . Mar,1': Vowbo#haz.e., l. I L 9. $ V 1 + 4. I . i -t -Fit,-t p : 1.../.1 '46 â€¢ â€¢ / 0.,>k e.Â· .1.:..PA . 91Â£1Â·'44 &7;742 ~â€ž,f#1-1 fb' ~Â»84-4- - 5.19 , ....44-DI "40 - 1 Idly- r L Ti-=F 2-,-2-.. ' ..7441. . T.112 â€žIff:<Me ..4.,4 f. 1,14. -1 1 - U i k r -Ak_ -1 . l"/ , li .r,reE"i' -LA --Â·AMEI Â·1 34 0 -U / -1: 1 - ./2.9**C 4/e/4.- . u f Â· 1 . i *1. -9 .41 Â» 4/* .t=.-, .....he , * 6.4 . 6 - L.1 . ,--- L 7~- 'i i . =.*14 . f }641Â« 20 26 I B I 4. 4 . . 6. 1 - ... Ii. Â«t t e * /Qkj// ,/0 .r '.27, I i 'll i . 11.. ~'~ 1 1.- . , <46, iG,g , 1 R,4 1 ,14 4&4*:fu t:3,4~:~3- , .V.1 .1 , I t: 1 , , 4.1 - -I. 'll 4.........2 W.. .f ' * 'it:/Â· 1.-E nid: 1,-JI la 44.%F.yuGÂ·Ka 4 - 4 1. Â¥ .Ile. Â¥ I Art ..... - *i~~.fc<=i~,45..,12~rfÂ·.4 ~ -'Â£>*liVY - - *ir >,ea--3*f - . . .4 - Â«t- - -1.- A & -- , . d., * + hi 1 ' - 414 _t ,*941 Â»47*A~ 2hi:~ f f*- Â·Â· <Do '--7' I * j,Ir-- **2'Â·Â·t,t.' ,?439*L,L' 44 F '5%77~fÂ· Â·4 .T.Â·Â·gff .C 6- 0. +11%1. 37, . *ty , '41 .~--4-1 *1.9.'Ti : Fl CLL * 4 A, 1 4-1 tk'-.0- 2 .6,Â· .4% k *2 k..2 ': AllÂ¢ ag-Pâ€¢-Â· -#uiN-33 0-=4 : . 0 -0. C >. 2% CO t: E 92 0 & R a) -2 â‚¬ E A CO CN 2 b O >4 tr CL CD 00 2 01.16 8 20/cot 0t a D -- IN (D -1 L. CD L 111 = O-(p ELE i -Ec m O LUCD LU-Â¤ LU 2 2-2 2 g C O 2 d d tki 8 E..: 0 bL E M CO N A' C) CD C, Â£ C) -LEOO *C,r-C)(na,ba,Â¤)O-0- +J r- 99 - = r o r co co.E N t ..... â€¢ 1989: The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority [EPURA] obtained an option on rchased approximately four acres on the Knoll in March for received a positive response from a public opinion survey entitled, commenced purchase of the remain ng balance of the Knoll under a asel.pind 01 uoild~s~,~e~ju:~!p~jue 3 Jo UN\01 841: LO f Xlejeu]!xoidde Jo Dui "40J!8,1 el.11 J pe.181Ue >ped selsEI JO UM 79;12ferg~ndEp~u~~â€žEe - joi leuol Joic,lu N=*unt Jo Ned se 000'0 L $ JO lu noule ell} u! leoied Ilou>1 e der to have a hilltop buffer zone. oil be purchased for the community?" r lease-purchase agreement for th r e Valley Land Trust ed to fund A brief listory *eoeds uedo lueueuu.led se eeie ...10: 2 ..- ..41 , . i-' I #Fr .~; A . I C (D E Ecu EEÂ® (D lE E 2 (0 2 -E 2 E -Â¤ a a .- & 8 2 s.6 2 â‚¬ 0 E WC * W.. Â· . IÂ· I. /0 : . pue 'uo!1 â€¢ The Role of the Estes nt~purch~se pull E!122!10!31Sej esn *%51 '4-'22tuu:4Â° sector commitment isdepun Ju suolloejoid CO CO Cr- 02 25 Al 52 C C -m a) Â¤) a) 52: ~.9 Â¤.3 LU g * -FE D O 9) ci C f 2 2 0 a 0 m v &% L U) 4- CO v C a) BO a (D co * ~ 0 0 -E cn -E v .- C- - #f OE 0 C 4-.1- U .494;'sp. o S C,) O=r - Oft 40%15% . 7...4 CL.= 4-1 (1) 0 >, E (/5 >. 5- &25*Et 02 C 0 O~E W (0 O (0.22 ba)%* 2 1- > U) (D o a) Si 1- CO (D U) 0 -(DE g E CO - " U) N ji 0 (O -m O (t= Â¤ N 20 (1) 812 (1)2 (1) cv c E 2' c Â£ U) 1 -C 0 r- -00~ 1-(001- 0 K . I . *EM . tes Park upur&if eojnOSeJ pe~~"OJ seq ~.111 .5-,311,1 -.-.W-. - -.111 4 f ..1 . ...... . 1,9 â€¢ 2. -4. I. , Ad... A ;Â¥ I 0 4044 - / I 0 g... (D J CO CE -0 -92 Â£ 16 ..~~ Â·.~ . .. ..1, ...... 1. . % .4 %11}h .tâ‚¬. Â· ./.. * i . I V #, : Slueulliedep UMol pue 'siep Master P anning Process Authorized by the Tow n Board 1- â€¢ Composition and r le of the Knoll Citizens Advisory Appointed by The Mayor Sjuep!933 JO u0!jelues AOUWA.lesl,100 'SeSSelll s6ugeeuu uedo All.Iluol/\1 1007 ln046noilll soupeds ueld Jo 6u!1JBJCI Council as JU- 4 -C O . co.t: a)I -c CD .0 27 & P.= au) 22 RA CO -1 L > 0 = -1 H- BE (D :t= > 00 ri--1 -- IJ ./ (1) L u) S .0 v 2 -1 0 J 5 JU JE 9~ ifJM ./ 1# N 2 1 rfote ~E~~ ~~7 6 4- 0 8%}1 *RE 4~ 13 ]5 U'C)34< Aa)Â¥ 0 1 00 E = 5-4. hi.%90' :4 -5- 09 0 0 CT S (D n u) %}j *41% fw. yy, ~ 34'5 3 14 1 0 " I at 42 O 2 0 J .- 0245 2 0 , I c A# -2 EEC .-1- - CE a) B 5 0 21010.5 0< C u) 1 2 &111 E > 13% C 822= Ellis nill I ~:igul).' ir))LI' (1) 0 -0 % 2 & S -8 ~i N - *Em=-TAE~~ -L C J 03 0 851* GANnoex3 C (D Co 2*~g 1 -1 9 DE -3 - 223 25 -Bia j.- Cor K: .. C (1) CUC 6 32 (DJ A t -9 m >R 8 c co 0 0 00 0 -O " 1%&*t 14?49 0 6 -8)2 2* i 0 E -2 26 %43*0. 4 0 5 Â£ 3 IN uf F ) d.la 04%*% 0 1 0 2 f : i .-- Â¤) (0 - 0 0 'E fl) O 2 >7 0 4 0 B g '8 3-0 k CO 0- 1-- 0 il 115: .ili :imi . s]8410 11 : t' E:Zl~ to the public 01 pain q s U!188lll 841 ~puelle Counci Meet n sseooid pounoo â€¢ ilit . 4 -133. . 4 .:.5, W : 1.13.1 4 . ....1 , /: I -6 /4. ..r. 413*,F'S . f. t. .. . 2 0,7 4 . :â‚¬.F IiI 1 4 f.. 2 1 t; I J W; I. I . b 4 . . i , 0 - 41Â¥ r, 9 4, I ' 0 , , A ' N. 2.; Al .:4* 0-' 1. I. . I. I . + ... .. , 6, 4'* :. . ' i*i#%' ,.. 9/t . /1 I. 4.t., .... â€¢ + 47%44 6 Â¢* C - CO CO -C O > .-1 0 2 1- 0,-03 af 129 5 co co N. c D -C L tf '- 3 0 Â¤) 73 0 - F Z O < co co co - c 3 68 -3 0.0 89 26%6.%8+, g 0= ~92~Jo-Â¤)O;CO - 0 77 0 -E E co (0 cn ;= S u) L . N W .- O C m (1) 71 c 71 2 3 5 C) E-2,8-5%=5~-2-E C~~ 1 0Â¤,0 0(0 0-= 1-Uâ€¢,20*02(0 .- 1- Getting Beyon eop e ve Nature' .Xw6eju! les!6olooe Aieseid el! 2 0 4, â€¢â€¢ M LO 2 11 49 4, 2 2 e v E .c ge 43 71 Q' 73 4, 49 0 0 fi wevK W e .6, 11 0 @ q, S L e E ES.3; 9 '8, .2 2 L- @ 55~Am 6 v~i tg, (D rn:&3*528=/40Â§ 8 M ,/.9 = -6.-* 9 -6, e = 2 2 0- 098 2 P 49 0 9 e .61 .-0 I. ...J . 6 4&1 & ~sEÂ·Â¢26 2 Eaâ‚¬-9 &ka,E es ika /0/4 ./ Â«Â»S C CO 0 0 -0 15 O -92 - 1. 4 3//A.. ...1 71 6- 12 L 0 2050 A".; ..' ju IÂ¥ R :4 5 2 0 < . ..r# ...4.,6/. .: ; %2 tfEE C., 0-(D = Â·- . 0 0 4- , lift; 1 4*,1 .. C L. 26-EEM - 14] b . r..2 ?4~- .6 CD E . EEG a) CO 0 9) (1) -U ..64 , 1, CD z 2 4 ImII-- *,tabi *Sol . 1/Impl,.. ,-- 1 4 1~, .... 1- 0 -G E , 4 ., 4 ~ .. Jo sao.rnosa.1 Da., asa avoid th U) C 0 co c - 9 (0 82 -0 . 9 h c J - ... CO 0 9 E- A L. 0 2 0 b. -g 4~8 -E iE O(D - O (D 4-J> 0 m -C IU t:= 1.- (D C 90 â€¢ Recent thinking in the fields of landscape ecology, hi gional le41 sells eoldde + uieei ol pep! suoseei leinl'no e lie 83!J! u 6!s 41oq eje A Cu tura Landscape 40eoidde s!41 inoqe eioul Plarir .... 1 6 --51'41 4 . i ..4.4 4 4 4. 4 f '21 0 ./ 9 + $ 04,4404 / t .. (D - C Â¢ :01 .., Â«52*4 + V 0 1~, t., . 4 -, 4 f. ... 14 â€¢ C 94 . , .. b 41Lfl, CO -1 4 . .. Ale CD- J 0 8 6 53 CO .~ J v N 00 0 CO CUC- co 2 C 4= (D %3 8 8 g 624 â€¢ According to recent gui a cultural landscape \s defined as "a geographic area, including both cultural pue seoinosei leinjeu pue 0!}SelllOp JO GNIPI!/\A 341 pelepOSSe 'U!33341 Slelil W\!108 'JUGAG OP Ols!4 e 410 Bu!1!q!4xe Jo uosied ii'Genie/\ 0!1841see jo leinll Je!38 UO'leAJase.Id 0!Jols!14 SdN [3 leinlino Bulloajoidâ€ž - 98# â€žsedeospuel by the Nation -1472,. 2.. - Â· I lei . I. 7- t...S f + 9 I g -Â·.. *C. Â»:I 0. 4 . * 1 40, -2. .â€¢ â€¢:3* .1 1611 '4..% 1-7 3 -* fat/g . + .7, 9-l Â¢ r. 10, 1 i. : W. ./ :Â¥. .al 4 t.' .4' 1.~tk~ . 4 u' CD 4 " : ' ./FLZE,/IL Â· * -- ; : 75'a 6. . 4 - - Z ...1 1 (1) . . I 1 '22 FEE . I ... i.' 6 . 111 .. . I . . 1 + 9 .. . I. . . .. 3?57 ...F . 124%* b' I ' / Cn 1.: I .2 .. t. I. . . . .4,1 - . . 2 .. ++ â€¢ :t /9 1 .4 I 4.-4: .: i (7, - -- ./ I I V I. A.- .... --h..t -- 6 f.. . t~ 1 14 ..4 - .b - 9*t ' â€¢ '2 . rj 6 1 C CO 4, . -1 1 11-m/-34/1 - L gis,4.2,"Ill'.- J ./ 2..... )MI.-WI -. .. J 0 !s SAAO11!M lou>' al.11 JOJ UOIS!A s,dnoiD elll eospuel ieiniinoâ€žJO eeP! 841 I 0 -C -C Wil 4-, 440 0 0 -C C 41 (D = 01 0 E & g' 2 20 8 27-; . 0 J 0 L. 2 0 49 / a) E R CO .W CO .al 0- 0 Co 3JX = O 05 -2 E m co E 2 a way to expl re a educate A Cu tura Landscape â€¢ The challeng cing the CAC was Jeil u ! Bu !All 41!AA Pal lepue uolle'oeldle r~r~T knjols'~~~~| d!4Spie/\Aels 3411 puel 041 Jo d!4Sp]BAAels develo 434:.~7#L~ tr ....1 3 '' "*0..~ Â·- ... 4 â€ž I . . 4. .1 4 . Y.T. I . 4 4 4,1 i. .. > . i , .. 1 + 00:5 - + .. . 414 4 e + â€ž , *.3 1 2.1, I .1 + 4 . . A. P -4. I 41_â€¢+ :..... 4.4.4.'] I 41:* 1 rt â€¢ Â· 4 9'4 ~ . 4 -4 - 2 .1, 1 . 4 * 9 ... 4.Co 1 r. :' . I * .44 + . .t 4 0 1. .f I I . .. . I . 4 . a + ... - 4 $ . 5 4 . I. . 1, :, rv . t. S . â€¢ ,, â€¢ â€¢ ' 4 , - . . *./ .7:.2 2 - .. . . - .. 1, 0~ Â· r i. .... I I _lIf. I .. 1 . . 3:4 + 4. . C .. 4 + B i - I :4 1.1'W:- a -r-#Il . 1. e . . f 4. I . b A . 4 . .. n. . -. .... . -' I .. A- 44 0 4 :'. . . I '4 . 0 4 1 -4-N. f .4 .. -$ y 0 t. .1 . 4.. I . 4 1 + â€¢ 4 5 .. . . Y : .1 : /Kle ... '2 1. a â€¢â€¢ I t - 4,2 *d .. .7 .... .. 4 . 4 ' . . I * . ,- 9 1 . 2 6 '9 & , . lilli .. ..... ' t . .. 4 - -Il . .:46. I . . . I . .. :12 4 - 3 .M.It ... .4 6 . I . ..2. I . LA I '1â€ž . :.. .... f ' 6.* t: 7 . I . 4 . Â¥ t. ill"/6 -' Â£ 4, , 413' . 9 ... 1 4- 9 .. - vâ€¢g 51:+01%. atil 4 1.3 1' .,.. . 1 , 4 .. Fite â€¢' . ./ ./ I # 11. t.. .Â·m,f .lAi . 0 I ...'.; ./ 14Â¥1 b 611 31/ i :t 4. 1Â· 9 Â· m . Â· Â· . 1 + Ir. j 'A#. 4 3,1.9/ , h I 43 b Â· :.4 ' 4 4.. 4 . *f> 64 .. ' 4, . 1 ... 2 . A I . ... 14': Â¢ 1,1 41 . )1 .. 11 .'r Â· 1 ./ .. .. *W r/*1 -*, 4 -S-'i.6 ./ + 4 4.1 . 1 '. i , La. i 14 f.. - - â€¢ ....4. .A 4, 8 f 94 . . .1/'.3 ; 1 Â· 51*122 Â·, 1 6.3 04'.8 *-!Â· kâ€¢ 4 ' â€¢riaÂ·ke - 4 ~ : :t , ~f + , Â· t . â€¢ttlh 1 . :.:+Atle, 't : 1 ... W. 2,1.1 , . I .4 . I i.l .*412;3~/6 f #1. - ...6 '54. tt. C +:, '.1, $ 7 ' %242 ' 4/Wt .1 A Our cultural landscape A' 0 :9"'67:- ve< ' 4 . c 4 -,r * ' " r..: : 10; f. r.. 7..11 .... . I .. ...19 . . 5 $ 4 - 4,1 .4 +I .. ; t., .. 7 4. I ./ .1 2, , ' ...r. .1 -- ..:. 5. . * 14. 4 k *:'â€¢' C :10 hz ur' :.1 6 LA' - 1. $ I I . . 1 J .. * C-'41 U I I ... ... t-I.I- Â· . . + ZE.Jil 1.'ts .42 + . 4 4 111 * +. . . e A... - 4.- ..t . 1*V .Â· I Â¥ 1 .. .1. e I - 6. .... 0/2:~0., " 6 . - ' 4,4 .%. 4' Itu~~wo la; I . +-tzÂ·'i 1/ .. â€¢Â·Â·f .. I ,Â¥ 1 ./ . 1 1-=lll : 7/#RIE ..ti . I . 13'lli~: 04 3199) 3. S *4~ r - .4 .* .1. 1:=*i t. ' 4 :4 4:k .. 4Â£2%4. 204 . : .1<.. f..0 t. + ' ..':.Â·, .SLA~ . I * 1 .14 44. .1: I '6 - .. . 4 . f/ ~+ :' :~ + p /~~~ 98..Ing.*:. I.1 - 1... 1/2 - f.. I . 4 If . 1.4. D . + fi I ./ I . .. . 4... 1 f, I I $ r . , 4 4 + 1."L.1- 2 - r , F. I- 4.. 9.~$ ur cultural landscape 7!~r' 50 . *12 1 , â‚¬9 I 4 044 04 .1 . - 0 1 $1, I 4 4%/*4 Â° t..41 . I i : 404 Â¥ w %*,; (fl< *L lii r ,%02 254 4 2 ~~ 4% * 4 1 / 1 P 3 4 1Â· /5 1 4% t. 1 *Al . 'll./. 9 + a . 0 . 9/6. I Â¥ i. 4- 4 + f..Lf~ 14, -, * t la . A *â€ž322, . #..4. 4% a 723 ~ al ./* 2 ~4. 9. %: .............i.t ~ *.'01:'M; 3 1 3L:i .1, & 1/. . Â¥ 4. 41 R . v 9- . *Yrn y I ---ur ..o I . 4 * * 4% 6 */. I - , . f.H< U . 1 77- f X f ir ;Ed.<.4&* . ' I v '1 - . I %* 4 . . I h. I . 4 9 .9., I / 3/ I le * . 1. r<.. w . 19 t "4..Al. t'I> J â‚¬ a I %*-- 1,2 - I pv I i . ?%21 A -:-*~WA X # & ..P- 3~802:. %2:~ Â£%.p. V I d.>2 hAl 4 I 4 ~. + 44e. 9% - ..t-=.I- 'fe:me f W 2% 4 I C 1 : %Â» 4% 3 ..,7 .0 <Â«.W I I - ./1 Le . Of tf C li y * â‚¬00 U. * V * a .le , 7 1 t 04 . .. : Bal V -ir Â¥ p. . . ,~ It- ... ' ///////////////4 f 41,4 # 4 1- -'F .4. * 4 Y te *91Â¥1 I -4. + I 1Â· t,, 4 t. 44 3'4Â». I . 6 . 1 r./ . f 6 f I . I R. . 16 â€¢ 2 124 /2 .r 3 , : 4 t.. * 4 44:*. ~47..1 , .1* illillilliltd*: 1/il ..1.7..=1 ....: 4 .1 .= 4, 7. . 1. 4 ...1....1/ I .. .% W 34 . . . .. 7.. .:, e. ... .... 4 .. . 4 i...9 54 i -1... 4 : 14.9 -=-- ./1 . 4.... I .,1. I. .':. 1. . . . 1, . t. . . e !46. 1 .. . 6.. fl,/p : 0 : f M . ..L ' piÂ£1; â€¢ â€¢31:a- . 4 ./- I Â¥ ... ,.. . ittâ€¢â€¢. . . 4& . 1.4 ...../. :49 4 â‚¬ I. D- 4. I . - 4-- --C w ' 4.1 . * t. 1 4 .2 + ... I .... . I 4,4. 79.. , . 4 i.':.:.1~ .* t. ... .*P..:*Â·7 : :i. I : Â£:*472* -14 4 . .4 ... ... 4%Â» ,=r S .... . - ... *1 -- . * t~*3Â® m. Â¥ . 014*/. . 4/ ill'L / 21 96. . 4 --, . Â·:r . * a C :< 4 . I . -w Jf 41 . I . i. 2 . V , ..4/ , d......A#'-' . 1:42Â· .: I ./ $ 2.-,1191::lij:11:/0./U.1!A Â· .Â· I /:42Â£ *: - A.*'.44Â£ :44. 36~: + ~- =1'r> - *r i P 23..PI'll'Pilimillibbmillill,9.:#i..: 4,2. . A / 1 â€¢. I .001/.7/.==P Mxxs' X - - . 4 . Ve' ' de,t , , 'Milligi- I .- 4,J t:pl I + 1 - 4.L...41 4,< ..16*!B .$7~~*~... ..3- . b Â¥4 * rit'.4 ./ + 1 . .. '5- 'af -2.F-+ ri *:329 9 i 4~9; 2*; A Â·3 22 3,11@ 1 - il ./ =â‚¬ .Â·25 .4- litjA- 1 4 *.4&.'- 0 7.44:. e Our cultural . ndscape :3 rvw .. .7-4.-- Willm r. .., + . ..... ... . V... 4 ..t . r. . 4 . 1 : 7... S , -e -24 4- c.~ . -. 74Â·Ki.'llillillill fr . 4 13..+-â€¢ 1: - 1%. . I ./ .... I. . $... 4 $ . . . " â€¢ AÂ· '...'199 0 4 1 4 - /2 4-â‚¬'t I : 3.; A D ... .- 1 .1 4. 41,~B :64 + 4.2 1....4..t=, . .. .. Â¥ .glp -1. . . I . . .1 + . 6 5.- Â·. :.*8 I.' 4 . . r.. .:% .. *dek#t.':f.Limic,2/$ â‚¬: A. e.::3.2?.*'.,A...~AP*)-49*~~~~~~~~~,4 . r . ... .4. *14 ..1 : I 4 4.' 6Â·JÂ« 1*400<,c1 ~MLF:~.01Â£*:- . 0 0 Me .E o m U) 1- i - m U) .Er JE- a, w D - a, N & N 222 09 ~~8 9 E g 76 9= f EL,5 0 0/ c â‚¬ C /3 2 Â®EEE (D >. - a, (0000 Â· O - -v .C rji u, c 0:= 4- U) O 1- m 1-73 & f22 0 Â·52 2 0 (0.2 2 81 73 6/ &-m a) 9 0 0 (D = 0- 1% .p E .6 16 a. 6 =: m S. E .2 73 10 C 50 Â·-3, 01 0 Zi 6 3 U) 49 4, > 73 X Â¤} u,-0 a, le = 0 3 as Z g ~ 3 C *12 U, R) IE :3 2 81 Â¢0 &- 3 4/ 1- 73-m ni 3 w > m.c - O 40 0> 0- DL M CL (D C c . m . ,Â· *t 4*4~*:PU .. W.. - I the stream, ties 18!nb Joi â€¢ Preserve tact and Goals '31!S 341 JO SeoinOSeJ 4. 4 .2 0 4 >' O 0 2 -O Â£ c C .W 0-4 .- CO C J29 .eui .e -2 2 (Do 0 =C E E 0 (1) :5 E (0 -Â¤ a) 2 g E -0 2 #- 5 f co -C .!2 2 -% % a) co co c 8 .N A â€¢-0 A 15 0 = c 2 2 c 0 0 E (u co L .-- O g .% 15 8 -Â¤LE c a) cO (D Â£9 a E 3 0- & 8 Â£% E E-C = 1 ... "01!s :f 42 . .- + ...1.8 ..'.4/1././1. -A'. ' 'Â·2 1:126:.. t Â¥71 ... 1 .,. . P...... ..4.-4 . a 11/,t..ti. t F . 22 CO 43 0 0, OJ U -,-0 2 - U) co eck@ 2 *D 82 Arr O ( (D (~ CD &V LI - 26220â‚¬ov-Â®ch C 1 0 E 0 2 (D = % 8 2 -8% c . -200 J n m E E - a E (0 0 (1) O L C b L ~ -~ 2 Â£ E -5 (D .92Â¤)> J -1- bc o E .9) O) cO +< (1) A c ..w 2 (1) ME oE ER ?ii *c.g E-E w a)-ZE BE (O3Rot-0 8- -0 ~-0 E m R <C .% 2E w a w co .c u.1 n .5 .... . .m: it. Jep ~e4~sdsee41 Houy 841 JO Goals (1) -C 4 0 cu E '6 ~ 3 (0 g . 2 2 E -9=050 2=0 a) 3 Â¤16 0 Â·E 4-=E :@ o g --aâ‚¬ 1 2 0 -0 ti &1 OD 12 *e, 21 ;29 Iea <2' ENLia J CD -0 L /1,-Cr u) _ .- Cl.5: = E .2 E tr 5 2 -2 â‚¬ -O (1)00 0=JC ovm U) O 0 0-0 A, m C 8 C th v~ E-%.9-2 >.28 0.2 13 %2 L U -4- = co CO cu o g 16 2 0 0-9 (1) c 4- a) E :E Â¤~ (D (1) . th! co E-3 0 PE= c -05 E o E > 6 1% 9 0 -g :2 .g r 32 E:* 40,90 20,2 28.0@ L.5 (002 O-5 0 0- co-O a.[Lin =6~ B I . I . 00 i'*99%. U) co 2, ~ O (D #*&4*4 90**0*4 Nee a) (D u) 4Â«7 4 -O-RE -Â¤Ea, C U) -3 0 E (D .5 8 BE - 0-0 (D (13 E (1) _ E 02(n Eal 42 N -6, U'- %5 -501 2- E 15 00 112:r && TZ U) #cm n G 0 -2 m m E E'Z E-E g.b E o kv E c 0 E m o o 2 1 A~ C 0 - (D U) - E.920 w .% g, .c= g u) (1) 22 -% CO COE CO 12 Nii 22 0 - O 0 L- a.-9 1- 2,2 0 (0 +. (/5 .J tu' 2/ ;EE .2 2 OD 5 16 2 al (D ~ (D (1) O-0-(1) logg a) - -0 0 92 g -Â¤ E.E (U 00 0|) J CD - L- C.Â¤= 71 E m C) 6%) R (0 -E O -1 ab L (0 6-9 7/ 0 ~ 6 E-o v c w- C C -= 01*- -~ ~ CO 02 co J < 0 0 0 2.6.6 c J E 0... a. . access to lue ! Bulu!elule e 1 JO SJ@Sn 99# 0 0 -c (D -Â¤ L C .th' C .E J CO E 0-2 O U) .- .- IC 0 -~ 71 C co E 0 U) co (D U E (D E 0 *2 25 = .- (D 6 7022 EJ U> ./I'v:M in a) a) a) L -a L - u) L # co 91 C U) 12-2 m 2 k- . c o Cl w, n 00 1< L > Â·= 06 3 %12 3-lo I444> - = 33 -E -8 8 -Bb .g) a) --6 E Â¥Â£ z 0 0-0 c U) U).b 0 1-5- ../ *% R a) 02 % CD -5 O C 0 - /4 (0 Z (1) C 2 Ed 0 (15 0 (D C.t: a)= - -- .- 4./.; 'A - 0 0 CO -Â¤ ci) 2 6'18 111 t -AN C.C c -O.92 U) 2.9 2>E Â¤)a) CO -Â¤ W U) O 115 5 23 C > == / 2.6 e (10) Cwc E (0 2 T- '-' 4- u) - 2 CD ; a, pr 2 3 -5 0 ng BE y a.*CO h (1)- 00 h -0 Cl.- -b fl ~ ~ @i â‚¬ Â£~42 E ZO E 4%I - - J Omb .... 0- % 417222&2271 s ' lE eoueuelule elll eOepnS I planned for. anent toil ts. 38410 oN i.unesntj~ I~F' +04 772., %/P + 1/'lpff.. IM'...... ':hhbt"/"'M//t/*:43 9 43&/Imulbill.'TE 7:/1 #Ar *MAABI' 4 %*,f :rÂ·,MeN.... 4%4 -Â·47':12'ra"'- 4%* *,6,4/ r j.)4~ *t -I-,t'.-4 ..3-1.<fli 9%22.d *3 976 0 LL -C U) U 3 02 (1) IL CO= 0 - O -O 88 4 0 4. C 00 0 (1) c 2 C ~8 0 zi 2 .21 79 . Ti E (D 2 .(D a) C I* 2 1 4 -8 2 2 -% =2 k-~ c.E +- 0 Â£ (D N C J 6- LEd Â¤- C) C El' a) - -ki Cltr J .05 Ti,SE (D .- 4- (0 u) b ai C 8 & 2-5 0 9 Ti E-2 0 ES - -c U) a 6- .C Â·F C (1).52 a) (n. 22 000 EDBO (1)~ E (0 --0 - m m Col C 2 Â£ L (0 4-- L.9 -0 -6 -0 -12 C .92 J 42 2 9.2 58.0 -0 0.= 0 -- -M w (1) 2 >, 0 (1) m E S 1- -C J '.r 0 6.6 0 3 2 2 b :g co = M .0 a) E 2 E S E .53 b.b (D.C 8 8 % 3 36 82 8.1 -2 8 -m 8-= g) o u) o (1) u) a C) O 7 - O- 0-6 2 0-2 <5 <-5 LU 0 0 0.9.6 ...... . 910 e The location of trais has 1%%7'laanned to ac m 8 38 08 /tue ePs Tra i s 1. t.s - *di< - + -5' .4 I e Z Â« .2 2 .FL 1. ,; '- 0*~7 1-â€¢ Â· , :- Â· *c=.-1 . 3, -' 23 1 . I .- . 9 . 1 1. .4 1 . 1 - 1.4 ./ 1 ' . : I e Â· .- ..0.-- r t. L . . : te.. .. .. . - . I . . ..1 , * -2. .1 . . - t .. .: 2 1. . 1 ..9 LU %- â€¢f .6 - . A.-6 ' . (0 - I . . -1 X. ... IL *ap ~ I \ 1 ../- 0 tht-2. . .... ....... .. B I .. 6 . '. I .... ... 6 ./ â€¢ Â· #A- 24/*111 Â· .~f* /4-; 0/ k L 1 , . E . fil . 1&P I - 24/ -r . . 46 26, * 7 ..9 9.r . ..li . .49.1,2 .r Â·* Â· .C .4. I.,5 - Â· â€¢. O 2-'&i,511~e 4,3 ..... 5.1. - 92' 4224,12~~ . 1 d 4"3..1: ii.54Â· â‚¬Â· Â· , ........ , 1 d - . '. 4 Â· 1 ~. 64 % - *4.-d1'23=w - .40 ..4 -r'*- . 3,1.---4 't"v) Uil_ e.1 4-r :/ 2. .2 n,-'Â«L -A Â¥ 1. ueld 1!ell SAAoll!AA / IlouM Trai s I â€¢ .. .1 1 1 . 2 â€¢,1 - . '12. .1 . 0 00 C + . 1 A . r . . 4 11~ . I~JC - t. 4. Â· ./ 4 .C 92 -6 E 8 O Â£ 2 0 - I C m 2 b * 2 I * ~ co ~ :m ' C #/0.-;wino - 1/B 4/ 25 75 E :Z 8 -g . .~6 Â· I .a ./ . (D (D ' 1 - . - f .52 a) 35 -Â¤ -c ME 6 -Â¤ a) 1- ,.. 1. v c 3:18 r . t a) a) pO .. L- I. 7 1, o e ae E 2 1 -92 /1.. , . . CD = 11 . < -0 e CU $ I m. . ... I . ' 9% 0 te Â«= 0 0 1_ 02 -52 -0 -Â¤ J 4-0 d n L .8 0 0 w CO Â¤ 1% k zi 0) .0 <C 1E2 65 a) 1- C 2 H- (D :M.03 * 36 . m = 12 Â¤- E -Â¤ CU 5 0Â£232821- 1 CO aw B L a) - 4-0 -Il. LU O (0 0 2 %:m .9 6% Al Â«4Â®082 v, CD -Â¤ .1- -C 0 Z 00 -- -C CU 1- (D -77 -/ U) 2 c 2 Â¤- cli -C~-@ 1}-2 E-~ 8 L C CO 0 CO .C 1 55 E E u~Z--t-t o~*145 9 (D . c (1) 3} L ~- n .Â£) A -c -0.E :M; c o (UÂ¤- e -2 Â¤- 9 8 4 3 8 -02:Â§ 9) S .. JOJ 'SS3008 loJlllOO Ileil uiq "peuueld oe Xsee BulAIBO Mle sop eq kelli SUB13 341 uosees se is intended Trai s an use only. .. I . I . CD W AW. *e 'Ar* , C--0 o -~ co N / 1 f 1 :C; A- CO .. - I ./Â£-/-./.F- O : 44 M $ I -- *7 2 0 a) C .... 1 Â· 40&./.--Ii/~ B -O m -0 Cac . *1 -91"" .f di.I SCOCU.Q ~%C 41,1 r . w=; 12 00 U .- CO CO CUD >0 .6 .g (1) * 692 03 , 0 i & L (U CUC -0 .- CD c c O = J . 6 -1-1 0 < 3Â¥pit 2 â€¢ Mmill 4 2 AEÂ¢t'kipri . 4."L d ..r 5. 00 L -Ci T 2*:$'ll ' .- t> o 0 J 0 co O 4- a) E -ir a) CD CO 4- 1.07- CD O a) a).c (1) 4 E C (D - M -0 gri 0 J -0 0 m t E o w -Â¤ E CO -0 -b JJCC Ti .E 0 4-; 41 00 0 (D -05 JE-CLO - 4 -- 9 3 U -5 21 -Ci 2 0-4 8.- - 0 ./E * 11 0 2 4- 2.@ % 12 2.- %2 73 12 Â£2 ..33 Ed fil 45 15 22 Mi ,--C--Co~EO .- O 0 Â¢0 52 co -12 c D>% J cn E YEE (U 069(02 co-c= OEcuc -O/C (D:= O co O 0 (D Â·E co.92 0 2 a) B.Eto<-0 C J . B= H- 00 . acGregor Avenue 81!s 341 5upelue jo esoqi Joi eq 11!AA U.IJOJjeld Bu! peSJATZ' iii]. ut'C 36pug Trai s -C CO -C 1% â‚¬ ch -2 3 2 a:.5 CO co 2 02 Â¤)= -0.1 a) E- t g*u; 323,6 (g o a)28 90(D A Eg- c P O (D 4%94 -g E-E 2 g 5 40 4424 J (D a -0 *.6 2 J- b.c PE 2 &3 :@ .2 6 16 r -t -h: g 0. 0- CO 0 0-E -5 0 -0 Q. .E Â£ 00 2 & 96 2 -mo 5- -0 O C Â·t 11 -C 0 2 63 9 v 8.2 0.~ E /5 0, 12' 51 â‚¬ O -E * c RE AE â‚¬2 & 0 2& 05 E .... si men bepe ePMAO â€¢ Create a I sÂ©~t:urface, ing UBS UAAO 341 le pue Joi pa>13 ed ~| 1~1 Par<ing ... 0 - f * f 1 1 11 1 IiI. 4/ / !1 11*. 1 -r- : :.AA'. J Â¥ ...F . - 0 . 1 1 E- '-c 11 LU - 1 1 , A..2..1.9919:"F - . 2.4 0 1 1 e 01 /d~. Il, ... I l .*-I - f i Y'â€¢C..F 11 O.Aa i (% 8 4% I -I - 04 L_,3 i i $ t V $ i 'L__3 :/i 52 I i El i 1./I.-Il , , s I L.~Â».... '60, I . 4 * '' 'f â‚¬ , - /4 ./ - 1 1 ~,r~--~ # . 1 .f:. a lili j i , '1 4,0 2 11 a...Flf! 3 1/ .F -< } 1 * : 1 - 4 Al i f f 1 i . I / -61 I / ,.. , 77/, , (D 11 1 11 . 44 ... 1 k -w -1 ;6 f :a > 4 1 â‚¬â‚¬ /--27- 2./ 1 - ' 0 A < 4& i.i .11 t. . 4 ' 4Â· ~ 1 :1, it d r 1 2 1 4 -6. . : 2 2' I 4. â€¢ I l ~ f r:'ift J. i * i 't 4 . ' 4 44,-U_ 0 1% . I 4 -4 Â¥ CO Â¢=' E E I CO a) 2 E B r 46; 00 9/ 7 CO 44 4 -2 5 0 9/ O E 0- E mil 0, 1- fi 2 0 07 - C CO le -i *727 0 25* 0 * E u) trf / 26 04 #V -C 0 0 -=. - 0- E 0-0 R N 9 a e OC C CO 1 2 -1 uoesnow uedo Xep 8/\AOHOJ pepualle ele/\A 66u !18elll 416 uer suez!1!0 Xleu!u Xleleu]!xoidde Xq â€¢ A formal pu 4. C 0 0 .. ='Sibju.fle ~ f Next Steps: eview by Town Board â€¢ Implementation BullepdA 9 /V\3!Aehl 0!Po!Jed I Town Clerk's Office Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Date: February 19, 2003 Subject: Liquor License Manager Registration The Liquor and Beer Code requires that all Hotel and Restaurant and Tavern liquor licensees register their managers. The process includes submittal of a Manager Registration Form and fingerprints. The fingerprints are processed by CBI and the Police Department conducts a local records check. Manager registrations are generally processed administratively, however, pursuant to the incidents reported by the Police Department, this application is being submitted to the Town Board for consideration. Police Chief Richardson will be available for questions concerning his report. 1 - C TOWN OF ESTES PARK Police Department -<4'.4- 226Â©Fr y., ~~~t_&** jvt'4â‚¬ w-â€¢,ack 9. WAJO#R#7146/6/1), *%'Ah:~ ~,/01.-9'33%#S~~84'~i 7%4â€¢ Â· , , / 1,:43.r-iâ‚¬2fe:E".T 1 VY*k'j.14'Â·-&0.47(1$40. <F.- 4-9 //9 1 -A -1 February 6,2003 Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Gaslight Pub Hotel & Restaurant Andrews, Cavender A. DOB: 10/03/81 Dear Ms. van Deutekom: An Estes Park Police Department local records check based upon the name and date of birth on the above-named individual has been made. Please see the following information listed below: â€¢ 122999 Cavender Andrews was issued a Criminal Summons for a Controlled Substance Violation (for having less than one ounce of Marijuana.) Per the Municipal Court Clerk, he pled guilty and took a 6-month deferral. The charges were dropped after 6 months because he met the requirements of the deferral and took required counseling. â€¢ 011100 Cavender Andrews was issued a Criminal Summons for 3rd Degree Trespass. He pled guilty and paid a $50 fine. â€¢ 052900 Cavender Andrews was issued a Criminal Summons for Alcohol Violation (Underage Drinking), Citizen Welfare, Disturbance/Problem. He pled guilty to driving without a license, immediate possession and paid a $100 fine. â€¢ 010602 Cavender Andrews was a Suspect in a Trespass. No charges filed. â€¢ 093002 Cavender Andrews was a Suspect in a Theft. No charges filed. (970) 586-4465 â€¢ RO. BOX 1287 â€¢ ESTES PARK, CO 80517 â€¢ FAX (970) 586-4496 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 91*11 Police Department - 'SM,de ...Â¥, I Adir,94*~frti- -*170Â¥4>* tto~t -'<.-<_9 2,1-4Â¢~ 93'*4 4Â¥ /39 ' =57-3 * .--75'/7/,+ 33~ f &#Mbitg#Â·~=Â»1.il:) Mp i,~~10,Â»~Â·tt~~~/ 44- #228144 -- %- If rt' + At,Â»~,jÂ·<r ( f A-e<gr tre, ' 4% Also attached is a printout of incidences that have occurred at the above-named establishment. 243*4- Lowell C. Richardson Chief of Police, Estes Park Police Department (970) 586-4465 â€¢ RO. BOX 1287 â€¢ ESTES PARK, CO 80517 â€¢ FAX (970) 586-4496 E 0 -; 1 Ck: 0 Z,NWW 1% 05%%22 SES# m i 6Â£ 0 0 )- 1- 1,1 JibLJLJLMMO **mf aw WrM# 1 ~ SLE WW- am =2 83=J 0 0 3 0 <0 4 NNWONNCONN A 00 1.0 1.0 M O 1~Â· O 1.-1.-t.-MA- r-râ€¢-NAÂ®-CON N Â£060 0 GO CO (008 9.- r - 000.-0 000000000 Â® 40 r- A - N <D Er,. Ear.--Or'-Ccv U =29! 8 88 09 5000-" - 1-1~ 0000000Â® hhÂ»1--T-Â»1~.1.- 00000000 -1 2 -A .1 -J J -b -1 Gas Pub 1/2 3 FOX, GARY J ntN mber | Address Report_Numbe Disposition_Code Offi 870 GAS LIGHT C TRAFF ~ eoed Â«f\ Lo797O73O DR 8442 (06/02) Page 1 21 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 1881 PIERCE STREET #108 PERMIT APPLICATION EWOOD CO 80214 205-2300 & REPORT OF CHANGES CURRENT LICENSE NUMBER /2 -3 -2 727- 0000 ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN LOCAL LICENSE FEE $ 7-C- 1 APPLICANT SHOULD OBTAIN A COLORADO LIQUOR & BEER CODE BOOK TO ORDER CALL (303) 370-2165 DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE 1. Applicant is a t.}:PRESENT LICENSENUMBER E Corporation IR Individual E Partnership El Limited Liability Company 2. Name of Applicant , 3. Trade Name D L d. G As L .947 /0 u.1 CAUG .406/KA. A+100-4,95 /Al/5 Pwa 4. Address 146 Â»or*DJG Al,16 Â· f.0. tÂ« 23 16 City County ZIP 6 5 63- 2 472-1Â« 01 /2.ih,St C(Dsl-1 0 . 0 - * . ., - a . I on Dacte 2. t-Git-= r ~. - = -â‚¬j-14-3 SECEION AEMANAGERREÂ¢3/CHANGESilf ?>.7 Â·-tÂ·>541 Â£29>-12 -20-1- /03 24-I SECTION-C i - Â·f -6 --4.-- - --,5..2'~. 1~- - 1) [3 2210-100 (999) Retail Warehouse Storage Permit (ea) ...... $ 100.00 â€¢ License Account No. 2) 2 2200-100 (999) Wholesale Branch House Permit (ea) ...... . 100.00 1970-750 (999) E Manager's Registration (Hotel & Rest.) ...... $75.00 3) E 2260-100 (999) Change Corp or Trade Name Permit (ea)....... 50.00 2010-750 (999) Il'VIanager's Registration (Tavem) .,,.,,,,.,,,,,,,,,$75.00 4) E 2230-100 (999) Change Location Permit (ea) ........... .,....... 150.00 D Change of Manager (Other Licenses)........ NO FEE 5) El 2280-100 (999) Change, Alter or Modify Premises $150.00 x Total Fee â‚¬477. 47.'SECTION BILDUPOCAFE LlCENSE- 2 -- -' .C 6) 2 2220-100 (999) Addition of Optional Premises of Existing H/R â€¢ LIQUOR LICENSE No. $100.00 x Total Fee 2 2270-100 (999) DUPLICATE LICENSE .....,......,,,.....,,,..,........... $ 50.00 7) T 2340-100 (999) Bed and Breakfast Permit .,..,,.,...,..,.,.,.,.,..,,,,, 50.00 DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY DATE LICENSE ISSUED LICENSE ACCOUNT NUMBER PERIOD TOTAL -100(999) Select the appropriate section below an DR 8442 (06/02) Page 4 Â· 9. Change of Manager or to register the manager of a Tavem or a Hotel and Restaurant liquor license. (a) Change of Manager (attach Individual History DR 8404-1 H/R only) - Former manager's name A q>XE New manager's name /34 16'JOGA_ AROAG Â«6 ~44 (b) Compensation of Mgr. ~1)Â©OU~MOA)-TH Date of Emp. 11,~/01~'<71- Exp, Date //7~4/~2_ fet , 1 6'UY'.4 Has manager ever managed a Liquor licensed establishment? 2 Yes ~ No . ~ ' tit Does manager have a financial interest in any other liquor licensed establishment? E Yes ~ No :C#3 If yes, give name and location of .establishment Wed 42. 3%39 10. Bed and Breakfast Permit â€¢ Attach a copy of a deed or lease in ihe exact name of the applicant only, reflecting possession of the permitted area for at least the minimum duration of this permit (1 year from date of issuance). le.gGI Â· Attach a diagram of the premises which accurately reflects the area where alcoholic beverages will be stored, served, possessed or consumed. 1. Applicant is a: U Partnership U Corporation (attach DR 8177) #*ar 4. 2 Individual (attach DR 8404-1) iC] LTD Liability Company (attach DR 8177) .p Aer + 2. Name of Applicant A' Â· 2 3. Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) 4. Address of Premises (spece exact location) 5. State Sales Tax Number Business Phone ( ) Pursuant to 12-47-410, C.R.S., Applicant hereby states that it qualifies for a Bed and Breakfast Permit to serve complimentary 9 - 9- alcoholic beverages, and does certify to the State Licensing Authority: .-I That it has no more than 20 sleeping rooms, and That it provides at least 1 meal per day at no charge other than for overnight lodging, and That it does not sell alcoholic beverages by the drink or in sealed containers, and That it shall not serve alcoholic beverages for more than 4 hours in any one day, as follows: %*Ig MONDAY HOURS TUESDAY HOURS WEDNESDAY HOURS THURSDAY HOURS FRIDAY HOURS SATURDAY HOURS SUNDAY HOURS Â·Ee*r-4 + *4Â£* From: m. From: m. From: m. From: m. From: m. From: m. From: r 97Â¥3 To: m. To: m. To: m. To: m. To: m. To: m. To: r Â·fi:Â·t **i?Â·.7.Â· 5.-64 S..1.*4--~Â«:'A-#:4 519Â»*-Â·-4 1 , ... . ...,31- Â·>.... Â· ;Â· :*NyÂ·~~~7Â·:..,il:,43Â·~4-I.9- :Â·-:2.*A:~:f.c~%*-Â·-~-: --:.-~~-Â·:-~4:.-: f -{4Â·1443-*ajâ‚¬of.App&*d.ANT. .::.Â°:gf'.-7*- 02~~94:i-~.3.jÂ·t:.;.iÂ·<..Â·:.7,992'; ht:i.~82Â«02-- '1 :.Â·... .....Â·.:Â· ~ :.~Â·,t:.3Â· *3?'Â·-<f.AA.%-#4*%-23Â»*Â§%.i.-Â§'.fi t- IÂ· 9%Â·~4 -1:deddid uhddrAnafty.-of peffunfirlihe â‚¬668Ad-d-46,-e Jithat-fft-dve ~read thdfgregoing*plicifiJAn-d at-attkcbmen}-tihetdtdi *d4~131}<Afd?Mation--ffi.efeittistrd-LZEdtrbbil*id boinplet*idihdÂ·bediÂ·-of.*iknÂ»ledgfs:..RLI4*3-i.'i":.4,5'.â€ž22:::~~t~'..,~J Si Title Date C'' Â¥ 1 U->0- 07- 1tat Jeglif~,*Fln-14;#Au GEÂ»â‚¬,2. 19*4*REpoliT AND APPRd#ALJOF-1.,062082NSityd *UTA6RITY (c]Â¥41 toUNÂ«ft?Â·ft Â¢The foregbingÂ·application.has.Ue,nÂ·e#amined.andthe premisef. businestconductedÂ·and characterof.:the#pplitaht 1% satisfadtor*arfd we 39 re.fort tl~t suchÂ·permit. Lif g~Ated., wil! tomp.W with theapplihble,proGisiohs of Title 12. Artic-lk,4-49.Â·Â«-j/,,C~EkE~,432.amÂ¢ntke = 2~ ... 904:1 ...:'~03;2.9224:<,92.3.Â·.i:~THEREFORELTHIS APPUCATION ISAPPROMED. i.%.C i.1.i'Â·,Â·Â· ~6Â·9Â·-C-0 f.:32~4Â·4-f .t.. Local Licensing Authority (City or County) Date filed with Local Authority Signature Title Date (-:-,: ~-~ffit-- ,:flf'.-213~~*4-'.kEPOR'~,OFSTATE-LIC-Â¢0&.iNGA~JTA.*RI.M~.f~r# LE,j~~.4~.,:4%43%.4-:-;--~-21:.2-, 44*1.---'r,T.ti* foregeit)0 h,as been'examinkl atitl bomplidsÂ· Witti-Ule filing..requirements of,Title 1Â£ Article 47, C.R,S.. as ame-n.dedâ‚¬.1-*2 32:3 Signature Title Date 4984 p '741. .314>; 'L 4 -2 - ...d'11 + ********el@*** 69 69 60* de 50 89 696969** Lr) e C~ 00 (N ,-1 03 [- 00 h 00 0 Lr) C, 00 91 # Lo w 00 Ch, C~ O " 0............ 0............ 0 00 4 M 03 (N v-1 911 0 w 0 01 [- 0 00 G r u#m ,-1 #00 ~-1 r-1 0, ,-4 1 ILDL.01 1 1 0, ,-1 .H lili 1 0 66> de de 60 89 66> 60 66) 60 69 69 * *******de'**69* O O Ch Ch 00 (N 00 M 00 0 00 ,-1 0 1-0 1-0 00 0 00 (N C, tr) In r-1 h 9 1 1 .......... 00 00 A r-1 0 â€¢-1 [- 00 t- Y r-1 0 If-) CO (N 9!Imm[-O 1-0 0 ,-1 ,-1 w Ln ~ 41 1 IN m t-1 r-1 ,-1 1 1 1-0 14 Y 00 (N ,-1 1 * 111111 0,1111 1 * 65 * * * elp * * * ep * * do de d) de de de de de de de 80 80 El / r-1 9 h G (N =MI w LO O 00 DO ,-1 2~ e '-1 0 00 00 1-0 911 911 Ln LD r-1 (N (N .......... A . . . ......... r-1 0 h In r-1 m r-1 0 Ch Ln In O 08* 5535 97 Â°OM(Nr-IrH M i ,-1 ,-1 r--1 ~-1 ,-1 ,-1 1 1 11 Mu ll co ***e@**al@'****ep 60 * 69 06} de de de de de de 66> 69 Lr} 911 9,00 (N O LD ,-1 h r-1 (N 00 M E co cv co co r- (N O O lO (N m ....... 91 m ~n 91 o cv al m g ch m r--1 ~ 4 00 01 m LD 00 00 ,-1 (N (N 00 00 r-1 i m ,-1 1 I r--1 1 ,-1 r-1 -r-1 111 lili 1 1 1 31 * 8 *** el@ 6969*** * 88*88******* CN h O 01 h N m 00 Lf-) LO O (N 00 i 01 00003(Nt-001#0 :i ........... O 0 W N r-1 03 00 W 00 Y $46~41O~r-*ir-lar-1(N' 8.-1.Tul 1 .3 r I â€ž1 -0 p rl lilli 111 O E.'' 1' O :71 111 9 i k 60***65**8*** < 003:de * 88**** 14 % M) 0 01 [- LO Lf-) 10 914 00 W LO LO n 0 00 03 0 LD (N Zg,- m 11 01 ~ t~ Ch In Ch, 1-0 m In [- N O C~[-00(NOCNY ............ flo':9 ....... M Z 0 C d 00 00 1 .-1 1 0 (Nmr-1 O 0 40111 1 1 11 , RE. 11111 I 1 r ,-1 ,-1 ,-1 r-1 r-1 ,-1 ,-1 ~= E.0 E. 0 t.3 aPaPdPSP#P#P/Fdo 80 89 de < de ckÂ© do de do cho de cko co m#LOLO[-Chet h m 01 U.1 w 00 g,1 .-1 Ln 00 0 d 4....... ,4.0 (9 01 0 m 00 w (N < r-~ (n ul ~9Â°TTmâ€ž(vAEâ‚¬44 1 ir-1 1 1%11 0 2717 9 0 E-4 *******ep *** ~5 80 06) 86) 86) de de de do C- 00 (N 00 00 Eli m =11 r-Imt' O ~ r- m co v m co w m ........ . 0=........ 91'r--14'00 00 811<mel J -1 mrnm cv " oc~2444 lili (Nr-1 *|Z|| Rol I ''' ZZZZ **** *** * 88* * cledeclecled@chec>PchedPc)Pchede M (-9 00 LD Lf-) 00 0 Eli LA ,-1 911 00 Eâ€¢ 4 ro t- ul CO m O tr) w ,-1 00 m gil ............ 911 h O 911 Lf) w r-1,-1 5 0 1 09 M i Lr) m m 41 In m 03 rn 03 (N (N 1 11 11 03 *411**69******* mOOY A 03 Cir-Om(NLDO w O] 00 41 (N el 00 W Lf-) 0/ LO r-1 h 1 A, E-1 ............ Q H ..1 4 4 00 Lr~ r-' Lf-) LO LO L~ Ul Ul ~ 1-1.-10Ch.-1 MCN Lf-)911 [- â€¢-1Â£0911 2 0 0%<J E 01 1 1 111111 HI 1 1 H H R j CD o. p > U 5 O M U O M <Moom b ,74 010 Z A b E,1 0 4 4 010 Z A =m=:imme CD A, E-4 > U TRAFFIC COUNTS SALES AX US 34 US 36 GIFTS ACCO ECONOMIC ICATORS %9.DE- %9'02- %8'ZI- 1 - ILI CO LU 0 - Z > 11 1 0 $ 0/06-2 = 3SÂ¥31=10NI DAV ~- ACTUAL SALES TAX vs 1984$ 2002 LOOE 0008 666K 866L 2661 966L 966L t'66 L Â£66 L Z66L L66 L 066K 686L 886L Z86L 986L 986L *86 L $ *86 L NI XÂ¥1 931VS EIVEIA 140 -â€¢- $ XÂ¥1 S31VS 1VnlOV EIV31 1Â¥0 -0- 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 000'000'Â£ 000'000'g 000'000' L Estes Park Selected Sales Tax Components $1,800,000 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 Z $ 1,000,000 M . W '-Il' S i* $800,000 - ril 1 4 1 h, 4 4 $600,000 -~ c f $400,000 --~ 9- Â·4 ..1 hY:, 1 1 ex $200,000 r Restaurants Retail/Gift Accommodations Annual Comparisons 1 1996 0 1997 0 1998 m 1999 1 2000 0 2001 I 2002