Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2006-06-27. 1 FILE. 4 5 ' 1 .3, Prepared 6/19/06 €' 64'49:! TOWN OF ESTES. PARK . 4,· titi::~:.4:Zi~~r~.: 4/43 N Y ...4· · ·. . -;R z-?4~ ?Rf¢-~ --~... --2 -9-33:-:'irrt-9.:~:,0:32~.fl :.~'~':~~v,'.4.*Fir,<BES 5. 1 -•. ~/.'. · t ..Lfitht::~~t-, ··yity~ 23)>;72:¥%*i f f~..7...I ...\?A 5:y,<,4'2 -s~':16252:~..,- .. .3....R V.i....i ~2: .I·. .."j,315 2.1- ~ D...4'1··· 'f! fit 'Upy/3.293... . ....,S h..,W. '.. 7 2.3, .:tra:£12~74~.3 ·. The Mission of the Town of Eetee Fark ie to plan and provide reliable, high-value eervices for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We tai<8 0reat pride eneurinG and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being dood etewarde of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, June 27,2006 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address) TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated June 13, 2006. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, June 15, 2006. B. Public Safety, June 22,2006: 1. Resolution #13-06 - L.E.T.A. 2007 Telephone/Wireless Access Charges. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, June 6,2006 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, June 20,2006 (acknowledgment only). 6. Intent to Annex Resolution #11-06 - Spur 66 Phase I, Il and Ill Additions. Public Hearing scheduled September 26,2006. t l A. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. AMENDED P.U.D. 1. Fall River Village, Lot 8, Fall River Village Final P.U.D., The Lane Ill Group, Inc./Applicant. B. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Thunder Canyon Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #5, Lot 22, Stanley Hills Subdivision, Roy Johnson/Applicant. 2. Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map Phase XX, Lots 1 and 2, Park River West Subdivision, Richard H. Wille TrusVApplicant. C. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Fall River Village Condominiums, Units 184,185,186,187,188 & 189, Building 1, Lot 8, Fall River Village Final P.U.D., The Lane Ill Group, Inc./Applicant. 2. The Links of Estes Park, A Portion of Lot 3, South Saint Vrain Addition, Bud and Rachel Jarvis/Applicant. D. REVISED COST-SHARING AGREEMENT 1. Lots 1 & 3, Mary's Lake Subdivision, Lots 3A, 3B, 5,6,7, and 8, Mary's Lake Replat, and Lots 2A and 4A, Mary's Meadow Replat, CMS Planning & Development, Inc., Mary's Meadow Development, Inc., Rams Horn Development Co., Rock Castle Development Co., and Rocky Mountain Church/Applicants. 2. ACTION ITEM: Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny. A. Ordinance #02-06, Estes Valley Development Code Block 8 Amendments - Public Hearing: Changes to §4.4.D Additional Zoning District Standards and §13.3 Defin#ions to allow outdoor ATMs/Computer Kiosks in the CD-Commercial Downtown zoning district. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING - NORTH END STORAGE ADDITION ANNEXATION - RESOLUTION #12-06 & ORDINANCE #03-06 - PUBLIC HEARING. Planner Shirk. 1. Mayor- Open Public Hearing 2. Staff Report 3. Town Attorney White read Resolution #12-06 and Ordinance #03-06. 4. Public Testimony 5. Mayor - Close Public Hearing 6. Motion to Approve/Deny. - 4 2. STANLEY PARK FAIRGROUND PERFORMING ART THEATRE. Town Administrator Repola. 3. 2006 FINANCIAL PLAN. Director McFarland. 4. APPOINTMENT: ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. • Bruce Grant replacing Jeff Barker as an alternate member, a 3-yr. term, expiring 6/30/09. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. • Aquatic Center - Request for Assistance. 6. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. hp LaserJet 3015 HP LASERJET FAX invent Jun-23-2006 11:12AM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 925 6/23/2006 10:58:27AM Send 6672527 1:47 3 OK 926 6/23/2006 11:00:19AM Send 5869561 1:46 3 OK 927 6/23/2006 11:02:10AM Send 5869532 2:14 3 OK 928 6/23/2006 11:04:29AM Send 5861691 2:43 3 OK 929 6/23/2006 11:07:17AM Send 6353677 2:15 3 OK 930 6/23/2006 11:09:37AM Send 5771590 2:22 3 OK Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 13,2006 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 13th day of June, 2006. Meeting called to order by Mayor ProTem Bill Pinkham. Present: Bill Pinkham, Mayor ProTem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer Richard Homeier Chuck Levine Wayne Newsom Also Present: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: Mayor John Baudek Town Administrator Repola Mayor ProTem Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Estes Park Boy Scout Troop #8 Color Guard presented the flags and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Blackhurst thanked Construction & Public Facility Mgr. Sievers and Finance Director McFarland for taking the time to address his questions and concerns. Mayor ProTem Pinkham reminded the community of the fire restriction in the area and welcomed Town Clerk Williamson as acting Town Administrator. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated May 23,2006. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, May 25,2006: Police Department 1. Police Department Policy Manual Updates. B. Community Development, June 1, 2006: Convention and Visitor Bureau 1. Special Events - Purchase 2006 Bobcat 2200 4X4 Utility Vehicle - $10,547 - Budgeted. C. Public Works, June 8,2006: 1. Street Improvement - Chipseal $190,000 - Budgeted. 2. Visitor Center Detention Pond - $9,000 - Budgeted. 3. Playground Equipment Purchase (Children's & Riverside) - $35,000. Board of Trustees -June 13, 2006 - Page 2 4. Resolution 10-06 - Acting Town Administrator. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisenlauer) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. - Mayor ProTem Pinkham requested Trustee Levine give a brief update on the playground equipment at Children's and Riverside Parks. Trustee Levine mentioned that during a routine insurance review CIRSA recommended the playground equipment be removed and replaced due to safety issues. A $35,000 savings in the Public Works Dept. budget would be used to purchase new playground equipment with Children's Park having top priority. Trustee Homeier mentioned part of the expense will be to prepare the area. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - FROM GREGG SUNFIELD dba THE GALLERY RESTAURANT TO TRAIL INN LLC dba SMILING ELK RESTAURANT. HOTEL AND RESTAURANT, 205 Virginia Drive. Town Clerk Williamson presented the application, confirming that the required T. I.P.S. training has not been completed; however, the applicant is in the process of scheduling said training. The liquor license is being transferred through an operation of the law. Carol Brown, Vice President Trail Inn LLC, stated it will be a family restaurant with a new atmosphere. Trustee Blackhurst reiterated the importance of the T.I.P.S. training. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Blackhurst) the Transfer of Ownership Application filed by Trail Inn LLC dba Smiling Elk Restaurant be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - FROM REGNEL LLC dba CHELITO'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT TO VJ REGALADO LLC dba CHELITO'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT, 145 E. Elkhorn Avenue. Town Clerk Williamson presented the application, confirming that the required T. I.P.S. training has been completed. Velia Regalado-Kucharyson stated she has completed T. I.P.S. training two times and plans on providing tips training to new staff members. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisenlauer) the Transfer of Ownership Application filed by VJ Regalado LLC dba Chelito's Mexican Restaurant be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - FROM ILX RESORTS INC. dba GOLDEN EAGLE RESORTS TO CRAGS INC. dba THE VIEW RESTAURANT. HOTEL AND RESTAURANT, 300 Riverside Drive. Town Clerk Williamson presented the application, confirming that required T.I.P.S. training will be completed on Monday, June 19, 2006. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Homeier) the Transfer of Ownership Application filed by Crags Inc. dba The View Restaurant, be approved, and it passed unanimously. 4. FALL RIVER PICNIC GROUNDS RESTROOM. Construction & Public Facility Mgr. Sievers reviewed the proposed options for the Fall River Picnic ground restroom. Staff distributed RFP's to five local designer/builders for the construction of a small restroom facility. One bid was received from Duggan Builders. Staff recommends constructing a 'modern pit toilet' on the south side of the river. The structure would allow future upgrades for running water and flush toilets should usage support the need. Trustee Eisenlauer commented Board of Trustees -June 13, 2006 - Page 3 comfort and convenience should be taken into consideration. She recommended constructing a flush toilet on the north side of the river. Trustee Blackhurst mentioned modifications can be made if the usage increases in the area. He requested the project return to the Community Development Committee for final review. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded (BlackhursULevine) a modern pit toilet be constructed on the south side of the river near the Fall River Picnic Shelter and staff shall return a guaranteed maximum price and final design to the July Community Development Committee meeting. The motion passed with Trustee Eisenlauer voting "No". 5. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. - For discussion of a personnel matter; not involving any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees. Motion: It was moved and seconded (Levine/Blackhurst) the Town Board enter Executive Session for a conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter, under C.R.S. Section 24-6- 402(4)(f), and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor ProTem Pinkham adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 7:51 p.m. Mayor ProTem Pinkham reconvened the meeting to open session at 8:40 p.m. Whereupon Mayor ProTem Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 8:41 p.m. Bill Pinkham, Mayor ProTem Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 15, 2006. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 15th day of June, 2006. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Attending: Chairman Homeier and Trustee Newsom Also Attending: Town Clerk Williamson, Finance Director McFarland, Deputy Town Clerk Schares, Line Supt. Steichen, Water Supt. Boles Absent: Trustee Pinkham Chairman Homeier called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. LIGHT & POWER DEPARTMENT RFP for 2006 Town of Estes Park Financial Plan - Request Approval. Finance Director McFarland stated that in May 2006 the Town requested a Scope of Services for a financial plan for the General, Community Reinvestment, Light & Power, and Water Funds. Also to be included was an evaluation of the proposed 2008 Mary's Lake Substation Treatment Plant project. Two bids were received; Red Oak Consulting for $78,300 and HDR for $56,260. A previous study was completed with Black & Veatch; however, they declined to bid. The information obtained would be used for the 2007-2008 budgeting process and bonding for the proposed Mary's Lake Substation project. Funding for the financial plan is budgeted in the Water and L&P Funds under Engineering. Staff recommends reviewing the proposals, making a recommendation directly to the Town Board for approval due to the time constraints. The Committee requested that Finance Director McFarland review proposals with Public Works Utilities Superintendent Bob Goehring and forward a recommendation to the Committee via email. The resulting recommendation will be presented to the Town Board at the June 27,2006 meeting as an action item. Reports 1. Light and Power Dept. Financial Report - Dir. McFarland reviewed the report. 2. Water Dept. Financial Report - Dir. McFarland reviewed the report. McFarland noted that both Enterprise Funds appear to be operating well within budgeted parameters. Chairman Homeier requested staff provide explanations for anything unusual in the monthly financial reports. There being no further business, Chairman Homeier adjourned the meeting at 8:28 a.m. Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 22,2006 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 22nd day of June, 2006. Committee: Chairman Newsom, Trustees Blackhurst and Eisenlauer Attending: All Also Attending: Chief Richardson, Chief Dorman, Town Clerk Williamson, Deputy Clerk Schares Absent: Town Administrator Repola Chairman Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT. Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) - Request Approval of 2007 Telephone Exchange Access Facility Charge/Wireless Communications Access Charge. The Committee reviewed the standard Resolution as prepared by the LETA Board, and the rate of $.45/month remains unchanged from 2006. Chief Richardson stated the Town receives $30,000 in subsidy, which is used for dispatch councils, equipment, and services. LETA collects approximately 1.6 million dollars a year. Chief Richardson updated the Board on the possibility of consolidated dispatch services. Following discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the Resolution as presented. Reports: 1. Community Assessment - Officer Phillips presented a community assessment on drug abuse and prevention in Estes Park. Possible new approaches to consider are working with other agencies, retailers, pharmacies and educating the youth and their parents. He stated the Police Dept. is working with the Larimer County Drug Force and has assigned Officer Marciniak to the Force. Chief Richardson reviewed the plans for drug abuse prevention and education in the Estes Park schools. 2. Update on Riverwalk Complaint - Sergeant Pass updated the Board on a complaint received regarding bicycles on the Riverwalk. The Police Dept. has established an action plan that will address signage, education and enforcement. Specifically, previously posted signs along the Riverwalk stating "No Bicycling" have been replaced, launching an education campaign to educate the community of the Town ordinances through a newspaper article and a pamphlet to be provided to rental businesses and the CVB, and enforcing the current Town ordinances through a combination of verbal and written warnings. CSOs and the Police Auxiliary will be utilized in patrolling the area and educating the public and tourists. Trustee Eisenlauer stated a map outlining the areas in question should be attached to the pamphlet. . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - June 22,2006 - Page 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT. Reports: 1. Fire District Service Plan - Chief Dorman presented the iervice plan submitted by the Firewise Coalition of the Estes Valley to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners that would provide fire services to county properties within the Estes Valley. Trustee Blackhurst suggested distributing copies of the service plan to all Fire Dept. personnel to provide them with accurate information. 2. Larimer County Changes to Fire Restriction & the Sale of Fireworks - Chief Dorman stated the Town of Estes Park is currently matching the Larimer CouAty fire restrictions. Charcoal grills on non-combustible surfaces are now permissible in residential neighborhoods. Larimer County has banned the sale of fireworks. He stated the public fireworks display on July 4,2006 is currently still planned and is safer than private displays. 3. Interagencv W.U.I. Education Coordinator - Sue Pinkham, Wildland Urban Interface Coordinator, gave a brief history of her education and experience in fire education. She stated this is her second year working as the education coordinator. Her main focus is educating the public and providing individual defensible space evaluations and fire mitigation to homeowners. Grant funding will be used for a community wide slash disposal in the fall. She will be at the Farmer's Market every Thursday, providing education and networking with the community. There being no further business, Chairman Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:14 a.m. Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk RESOLUTION NO. BEING ARESOLUTIONESTABLISHINGA TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ACCESS FACILITY CHARGE AND A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ACCESS CHARGE FOR THE LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2007. WHEREAS, the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority was created pursuant to § 29-11-101, et seq., C.R.S., by an Intergovernmental Agreement Concerning the Implementation of an "E911" Emergency Telephone Service, dated November 14, 1990, between certain governmental entities located in Larimer County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforesaid statutory authority and by resolution of the Town ofEstes Park on May 8, 1990, and Ordinance No. 4-98 properly adopted by the Board ofTrustees on February 10, 1998, the Board of Trustees is authorized to raise, lower, or reestablish a telephone exchange access facility charge and a wireless communications access charge to be assessed telephone (wireline and wireless) service users in the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS 3 the BoardofTrustees deems thatreestablishing thetelephone exchange access facility charge at the rate of forty-five cents ($.45) per month and the wireless communications access charge at the rate of forty-five cents ($.45) per month is necessary and appropriate to adequately fund emergency telephone services in the Town of Estes Park; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Commencing on January 1,2007, the telephone exchange access facility charge and the wireless communications access charge shall each be reestablished at forty-five cents ($.45) per month per exchange access facility or per wireless communications access. 2. Telephone service suppliers providing telephone service in the Town ofEstes Park are authorized to collect the telephone exchange access facility charge in accordance with § 29-11-101, et seq., C.R.S. 4. . 3. Wireless telephone service suppliers providing wireless telephone service in the Town of Estes Park are authorized to collect the wireless communications access charge in accordance with § 29-11-100.5, et seq., C.R.S. Upon motion duly made, seconded and carridd, the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of ,·2006. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 2 · . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment June 6,2006,8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Cliff Dill; Members Chuck Levine, John Lynch, Wayne Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Jeff Barker Attending: Chair Dill, Members Levine, Lynch, and Newsom Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Member Sager Chair Dill called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the May 2,2006 meeting. There being no corrections or additions, the minutes were approved as submitted. 2. LOT 1, CRAGS ADDITION. 300 Riverside Drive. Applicant: Kathy Kadlecek for Craqs Lodge - Variance request from Estes Vallev Development Code Section 8.1.A to allow an off-premise sign Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to allow an off- premise sign to be located at the corner of Riverside Drive and Audubon Street. The applicant wishes to replace a sign that has been in place for several years but blew down over the winter. In researching the history of the sign, planning staff found a 1989 county citation for violation of the Larimer County Building Code, which prohibited off- premise signs. The applicant has stated that the sign was installed at the request of the police department after the police had trouble locating the lodge because although it is addressed 300 Riverside Drive, access to the lodge is actually off Audubon Street. The property was originally accessed from Riverside Drive. When the Crags Subdivision was platted in 1993, the access from Riverside Drive was removed and Audubon Street became the access road, but the address of the lodge was never changed. This has created special circumstances associated with the lot. The Chief of Police, Lowell Richardson, has indicated his support of the variance request. Planner Shirk noted that the historic use of the lodge can continue without approval of the variance. He stated the essential character of the neighborhood would not change because the sign has been in place at that location for many years. He also noted that the applicant's predicament could be mitigated by changing the address. Richard Smith, President of the Crags Property Owners' Association, indicated in a discussion with Planner Shirk that the owners' association supports the variance request. The association would also like to see a second sign-the directional sign at the intersection of Audubon Drive and the driveway to the lodge-made larger, thus reducing the amount of traffic that misses the turn to the lodge and must turn around in private driveways in the neighborhood. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Public Works Draft I . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 June 6,2006 Department and Estes Park Police Department. Written comments were also received from neighboring property owner John Gilfillan, who expressed opposition to the variance.·Staff recommends approval of the variance request. Public Comment: Kathy Kadlecek of Crags Lodge stated that changing the Addreis of the lodge would not be easy or practical because several hundred time-share unit owners hold deeds of trust, making a change of address very difficult to implement. Member Newsom stated his support of the variance request, noting the sign will provide for identification of and direction to the lodge. He also stated that enlarging the directional sign on Audubon Street would be advantageous for the homeowners who live farther up Audubon. Member Levine also stated his support of the request. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve the variance request for Lot 1, Crags Addition, to allow an off-premise sign to be located at the corner of Riverside Drive and Audubon Street, With the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Shall obtain sign permits. This includes compliance with all other applicable standards of the sign code. 2. Shall comply with memo from Public Works to Dave Shirk dated May 26,2006. 3. Sign content shall be limited to "300 Riverside", "Crag's Lodge", "The View Restaurant" (or "Golden Eagle Resort"), and a directional arrow. 4. Size shall not exceed existing sign size. 5. Shall obtain approval from Public Works Director no later than October 31, 2006. If written approval has not been obtained from the Public Works Director by October 31, 2006, the sign shall be removed immediately. 3. LOT 24. THE RESERVE 2ND FILING, 1401 Deer Path Court: Applicant: James & Susan Kutrubes - Administrative appeal of staff's determination that the proposed renovation of an existing garage space constitutes creation of an accessory dwelling unit. as defined in Estes Vallev Development Code Chapter 13 Planner Chilcott stated, the applicant, Jim Kutrubes, is appealing a decision made' by planning staff regarding the interpretation of portions of the Estes Valley De*elopment Code (EVDC) that define an accessory dwelling unit. This is an administrative appeal, not a variance request. The applicant has applied for a building permit to convert an existing 1,122-square-foot RV bay into guest quarters that include kitchen and bathroom facilities. The applicant's lot is 1.25 acres and is zoned E-1-Estate, which provides for a minimum lot size of one acre. Planner Chilcott explairied that an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is allowed if the lot in question is at least 1.33 times the minimum lot size; the applicant's lot does not meet this requirement. If the minimum-lot-size requirement is met, an ADU is limited to 800 square feet or 33% of the size of the habitable floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less. Accessory dwelling units must be fully integrated within the dwelling; they can not be detached. They may be used for guest quarters or mother-in-law apartments but may not be rented out. Staff looks at the overall design of residential building plans to determine whether an ADU is proposed, including whether there is a living and eating area, sleeping areas, cooking facilities (including kitchenettes), sanitary facilities that include a shower or bath and a toilet, and access. Of these five principal features, removal of cooking or bathroom facilities would be required for the space to be considered something less than an ADU. The applicant's submitted plans show all these features. Planner Chilcott read a letter received from The Reserve Homeowners' Association in support of the remodel as it is proposed. The letter states that the more significant issue is usage, not structure design, and that the remodeled area could not be used as a Draft RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 June 6,2006 rental unit due to covenants that prohibit commercial use. Planner Chilcott stated that when staff reviews building permits they must focus on the design, not on the proposed use, in order to administer the Code. She noted that Town Attorney White submitted a letter which states his support of staff's interpretation of the Code. She also noted that if the Board of Adjustment finds that staff's interpretation of an accessory dwelling unit was incorrect, the Board must explain how to correctly interpret the definition and the Board's interpretation will be used for all future review of accessory dwelling units. Member Levine requested the definition of a kitchenette. Planner Chilcott stated that a full kitchen is not required when considering whether an ADU is proposed. The applicant's submitted plans include a full-sized refrigerator, sink, kitchen cabinets, and dishwasher, which meets the definition of a kitchenette. Director Joseph stated that the functional definition of a kitchenette is an area that provides for food preparation on a daily basis. The combination of facilities proposed by Mr. Kutrubes meets that definition. He further stated that the question was not whether the Code is too strict or not strict enough; the decision before the Board is whether staff has correctly interpreted the Code as it is written. Public Comment: James Kutrubes, 1401 Deer Path Court, stated the definition of accessory dwelling unit does not include any specifics on design or intent and noted his intent is to convert a large RV space to allow for family gatherings. An accessory use is'defined as incidental and subordinate to the primary use. He noted that The Reserve board reviewed his proposal, as well as the EVDC definitions, and is in agreement with him. Although Town Attorney White noted that his property is less than the 1.33-acre lot size required for an accessory dwelling unit and the proposed area for remodel exceeds 800 square feet, Mr. Kutrubes stated that is not the point. He argued the Code was written for neighborhoods where covenants are not in place. He noted that many upscale homes are being designed with complete guest quarters, including kitchens. The development code currently allows wet bars. Concern has been expressed by planning staff that the remodeled area could be used as a rental unit; Mr. Kutrubes noted that covenants are in place to prohibit such use. He stated his willingness to work with planning staff to provide a deed restriction on his property to prevent use of the space as a rental unit. He requested that the Board consider upholding staff's decision but make an exception for his project because of the private covenants that are in place. Betty Nickel of The Portfolio Group stated she designs and builds custom homes and has put in numerous kitchenettes. In her experience, this is the first time the minimum- lot-size requirement has come up. She noted that a building permit is not required to plug in a microwave or refrigerator, only to install a sink. She noted that the RV bay is an existing space, including the outside doors, and stated that guest rooms are a better use of the space. She stated the definition of a kitchen should include a stove; microwaves should not count. Discussion followed among Board members and planning staff regarding the minimum- lot-size requirement for accessory dwelling units, staff's recommendation for removal of the applicant's entire kitchenette, and the current trend toward having full living quarters in the guest areas of larger homes. Director Joseph reiterated that the applicant's plans violate the minimum-lot-size requirements and include a kitchenette and bathroom facilities. Dennis Dakan, lifelong Estes Park resident, stated that his recently purchased residence at 255 Cherokee Court includes a second kitchen that was installed without a permit and created an accessory dwelling unit in violation of Estes Valley Development Code standards. He stated his support of the petitioner's request and his concern that he would be required to remove his kitchen. He noted that restrictions in the EVDC were meant to prevent two families from living in a home and stated that was not his intent. Draft I . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 June 6,2006 Mr. Kutrubes restated that his is not trying to change the Code language for this ruling; he is requesting an administrataive exception. He noted that the kitchenette in his guest quarters is integral to his home; it does not meet the accessory unit definition of , "incidental and subordinate." When questioned by Planner Chilcott whether he was still appealing staff's decision regarding the definition of an accessory dwelling. unit, he stated he is because the proposed use is not an accessory use. , Member Newsom noted that an accessory dwelling unit is a compl@te living area aside from the main liying area. He stated that it is clear that the proposed remodel includes everything that would be fourld in a dwelling unit and that staff made the corfect determination. ,Member Levine concurred and stated that the definition of accessory dwelling unit should be further defined. He urged Community Development staff to address this issue with the Estes Valley Planning Commission, Estes Park Town Board, and Board of Counti, Commissioners. Director Joseph stated that the Bgard must determine whether the planning staff is correctly interpreting Code as written, not whether Code is right or wrong. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to uphold planning staff's decision that an accessory dwelling unit, as defined in the Estes Valley Development Code, was proposed with building permit application #8053, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. REPORTS None. There being n6 further business, Chair Dill adjourned the meeting at 8:57 a.m. t Cliff Dill, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary 4 Draft RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission June 20, 2006,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Edward Pohl; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, George Hix, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Doug Klink Attending: Chair Pohl, Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Hix, Hull, Kitchen, and Klink Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: None Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated May 16, 2006. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Eisenlauer) that the Consent Agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with Chair Pohl abstaining due to his absence from the May meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. AMENDED PLAT, Lot 22 And Outlot B, Stanley Hills Subdivision, 710 - 746 Black Canyon Drive, Applicant: Thunder Canyon Homeowners & Stanley Hills Homeowners Association Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to adjust the common lot line between a lot containing seventeen condominium units and an adjacent outlot. A corner of one of the units extends over the property line of Lot 22 due to a surveying error that resulted in the property line being improperly determined. Approval of the amended plat will move the southern property line of Lot 22 only slightly; the lot sizes of both Lot 22 and Outlot B will remain the same. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Public Comment: Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying stated he had made the original surveying error; he expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to correct the error. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Hix) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 22 and Outlot B, Stanley Hills Subdivision, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, add the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Reformat plat for recording (remove improvements). 2. Compliance with memo from Town Attorney White to Dave Shirk dated May 24, 2006. 3. References to "proposed lot line" shall be labeled "lot line", and "existing lot line" shall be labeled "former lot line." Draft .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 June 20,2006 4. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, Hallett Heights Subdivision, SE h of the SE 14 of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 35, T5N, R73W of the 6rh p.M., 1836 Mary's Lake Road, Applicant: David P. & Diane M. Caddell Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He' stated this is a request to subdivide a 2.5-acre property into five lots. The request was originally scheduled for the May Planning Commission meeting but was bontinued to allow the applicant to 'make design changes to address concerns about the depth of the existing sewer line and to accommodate neighbors' requests to retain the access to their homes in its current location. The property is zoned A-1-Accommodations, which allows single-family-residential use as well as accommodations use. The proposed lots meet the lot dimension and configuration requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), and the lot sizes have been increased to account for an existing average slope of greater than 12%. The proposed lot sizes are large enough to allow the placement of one residence on each but are not large enough to allow a second unit to be built on any lot. This will provide a total of five units at full build-out. Under the EVDC, the base density for A-1-zoned lots is four units per acre; the resulting niaximum allowable density would be nine units if the applicant had proposed to develop the property as a "cabin resort" operation. Thus, the potential density has been reduced by four units. The existing residence will be located on proposed Lot 2. Lots 1 and 2 will be accessed via a long-established drive, to be named Mary's Lake Lane. The applicant is requesting waivers to EVDC Appendix D.11.1 Curb and Gutter and D.11.M Stieet Paving requirements to pave the road and provide curb and gutter; all other road standards will apply. The intersection with Mary's Lake Road will be paved. Staff supports these waiver requests. Lots 1 and 2 will need to form a road-maintenance association. Lots 3,4, and 5 will be Accessed via a shared driveway, also to be named, that will be aK extension of Silver Tree Lane, which is currently under construction as part of the adjacent Silver ·Tree Subdivision. These lots will need to join the Silver Tree Lane road association. Landscaping is - required along Mary's Lake Lane and Silver Tree Lane. The applicant requests a waiver to the district buffer landscaping requirement along the eastern property line. Because the property is zoned A-1 and accommodations use is allowed, staff does not recommend approval of this waiver. The applicant also requests a waiver of the requirement to install automatic drip irrigation; staff supports that riquest provided that 'an irrigation plan is submitted and adhered to. The EVDC specifies that all required landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy growing condition at all times. Landscaping is monitored by Community Development staff for a period of three years. . All utilities are available to serve the proposed subdivision. The residence on Lot 2 will get water from'the existing main on Mary's Lake Road; Lots 3 through 5 will get water from the main to be installed with development Silver Tree Subdivision. The new water main must be installed, and right of access via Silver Tree Lane must be approved before any building permits can be issued for Hallett Heights Subdivision, making the proposal dependent on the approval of Silver Tree Subdivision. An existing water line that crosses the applicant's property and serves two adjacent residential properties will be relocated to the road right-of-way; the owners of the residences served by this line must be notified by the applicant prior to commencement of the relocation work. This request' was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and -to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Estes Park Public Works Department, Town Attorney:White, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, Larimer County Engineerin-g Department, Larimer Draft . . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 June 20,2006 County Department of Health and Environment, Larimer County Emergency Services Specialist Tony Simons, and Colorado Geological Survey. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. The Colorado Geological Survey recommended that foundations be engineered. A variety of comments from the Larimer County Engineering Department are tied to the final plat and will be addressed as the final plat application is processed. Public Comment: The applicant, David Caddell, stated he will maintain Mary's Lake Lane up to the north boundary of proposed Lot 2, not just to the driveway as required in the suggested conditions of approval. He stated his intent to use recycled asphalt beyond the paved apron at the Mary's Lake Road intersection and that he will maintain a crown on the road to address potential drainage and erosion problems. He stated his has tried hard to work with neighboring property owners. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Klink) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat of Hallett Heights Subdivision, SE 14 of the SE lA of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 35, T5N, R73W of the 6~h p.M., to the Board of County Commissioners, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Silver Tree Lane right-of-way shall be in place prior to recording the final plat. 2. Applicant shall notify Smith and Ingram prior to water line relocation work. 3. Copy of application to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District shall be submitted with the final plat. 4. Foundations shall be engineered. 5. Documentation of a road maintenance association to account for road maintenance up to the driveway for Lot 2 shall be submitted with the final plat. 6. Lots 3-5 shall join the Silver Tree Lane road association. Documentation shall be submitted with the final plat mylars. 7. Limits of Disturbance shall be included in the Legend. 8. The access easement across Lots 4 and 5 shall be legally described. 9. Plans for the common driveway to serve Lots 3-5 shall be submitted with the final plat. 10. Landscaping plan shall be revised to delineate specific tree species instead of "deciduous" or "evergreen." Tree species shall be selected from Appendix D "Preferred Planting List." 11. Compliance with memo from Traci Downs, Larimer County Engineering, to Dave Shirk dated June 15, 2006. 12. Complaince with items 1,2,4, 5,10, and 13 listed in the memo from Estes Park Public Works to Dave Shirk dated April 24, 2006. (The other comments have either been addressed or do not apply to the revised plan; Public Works will have an opportunity to review the final plat.) 5. PROPOSED CHANGE TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 5.B.2.d TO ALLOW FAMILY HOME DAY CARE PROVIDERS TO EMPLOY ONE ASSISTANT ON SITE Planner Chilcott stated the proposed changes address family day care homes (a residential accessory use) and day care centers (a non-residential use). Staff is recommending more extensive changes to current EVDC regulations than was originally published in the legal notice and will need to republish prior to any formal action. Chair Pohl clarified that this would be an item for discussion only-no vote would be taken on this proposal during the meeting. FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES-SMALL AND LARGE: The EVDC currently allows up to eight children or adults in a family home day care setting. Staff is proposing creation of two categories of family day care home-small day care homes and large Draft . .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS . Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 June 20,2006 day care homes. Small day care homes would continue to allow up to eight children or adults. Large day care homes would allow up to twelve adults or children.and would only be permitted by special review in some .zoning districts. Proposed changes wou[d allow one employee for both small and large family day care homes, allow an outside play area, allow more than 20% of the home to be used for the day care, and clarify that adult day care can not be for ilidividuals receiving on-site medical or psychological treatment, therapy, or counseling. Other home occupations regulations would apply. Small day care homes would continue to be a use-by-right in all residential zoning districts. Large day care homes would be allowed in residential zoning districts and in non-residential zonining districts A-1 and CD by special Peview only; they would be a use-by-right in the A zoning district. DAY CARE CENTERS: A day care center is currently defined as a place for the care of four or more children or adults. This is inconsistent with- th6 EVDC definition of 'day care home, which allows up to eight children. A portion of the current definition of day care centers references a section of the itate statute that has been repealed. Proposed revisions clarify that day care centers are non-residential, add their use- by-right in the A zoning district, and add their use in the A-1 and CD zoning districts by special review. Large day care homes and day care centers would both be subject to specific use standards that are currently in place for day care centers only, including hours of operation, noise, lighting, access to a paved public street, and so forth. If a day care center is part of a religious assembly, it would be required to meet the same standards as a regular day care center. Planner Chilcott noted that current proposed revisions Lwould .allow day care centers along "collectof' streets in residential neighborhoods, which would include streets such as Carriage Drive, Scott Avenue, or Avalon Drive. She also noted that having eight children and an employee at a home in a residential neighborhood could have a significant impact on neighborhoods with dirt roads and/or shared wells. Staff is seeking input from the Planning Commission on these issues and others such as the number of trips generated per day. Public Comment: ' Janice Newman, President of Estes·Valley Investment in Childhood Success, stated her desire to see the EVDC changed to allow as much licensed day care as possible while not creating neighborhood conflicts. She noted few family day care homes will have as many as eight children at one time. There is need for additional licensed caregivers with adequate facilities; allowing an employee increases safety. Discushion followed among the Planning Commissioners, planning staff, and Ms. Newman regarding review or input from homeowners' associations, ongoing unlicensed childcare, state regulations and licensing for childcare, and special review timelines. 6. REPORTS Accessory Dwelling Unit, as defined by the Estes Valley Development Code. Director Joseph 'summarized a recent appeal to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment' regarding EVDC definitions for accessory dwelling units. While the Board of Adjustment upheld planning staff's interpretation of the code, the Board also indicated the code may be too restrictive and suggested that the Planning Commission, Town Board, and Board of County Commissioners may wish to reconsider some of the language in the code. Discussion followed about the reasoning behind tho definition. of accessory dwelling units as provided ifi the Master Plan and EVDC, the currently required minimum lot size, the need for regulations that would not encourage homeowners to install kitchenettes without a permit, and thecurrent impacts of nightly rentals in residential neighborhoods. Draft . 4' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 June 20,2006 Public Comment: None. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:04 p.m. Edward B. Pohl, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary Draft . RESOLUTION NO. 11-06 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., hereby states its intention to annex the area described herein. The Board of Trustees finds and determines that the Petitions filed with the Town Clerk requesting annexation of the area described herein is in substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1)(g), C.R.S. The Board of Trustees further finds and determines that the Petitions are signed by persons comprising one hundred percent (100%) of the landowners in the area proposed to be annexed and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, and any land owned by the annexing municipality. Such area, if annexed, will be known as " SPUR 66 1, 11 & 111 ADDITIONS" to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. Such area is described as follows: PHASE I: A tract of land located in the Northwest 1 /4 of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 35 and with all bearings relative to the North line of the Northwest 1 /4 of said Section 35 considered as bearing S 89°34'00" E; thence S 82°22'41" E a distance of 2090.58' to a number 4 rebar with a plastic cap stamped LS 26974 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S 24°12'20" E 62.32'; thence along the southern right-of-way of Highway 36 S 72°58'00" W 1682.38'; thence departing said southern right-of-way N 68°49'02" E 833.52' to a number four rebar with plastic cap LS 9485, thence along the southern boundary of the Beaver Point Heights Addition N 72°52'51" E 209.76' to a number four rebar with plastic cap LS 9485, thence continuing along said boundary N 72°52'41" E 638.14' more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 1.78 acres, more or less. ' 4 . PHASE 11: A tract of land located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, and the Northeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 35 and with all bearings relative to the North line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 35 considered as bearing S 89°34'00" E; thencd S 04°31'52" E 315.78' to a 11/2" brass cap stamped N.P.S.; thence along said southern right-of-way of Park Entrance Estates Road (Highway 36) on a curve to the right a distance of 410.26', radius of 4485.99', delta angle of 05°14'24", chord bearing of S 61°17'59" E 410.11' to a brass cap stamped N.P.S and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along a curve to the right a distance of 339.92', radius of 175.00', delta angle of 111°17'29", chord bearing of S03°02'03" E 288.95'; thence N 73°18'31" E 951.81' to a number four rebar with plastic cap LS 9485 and the southwest corner of the Beaver Point Heights - Addition, thence S 68°49'02" W 833.52' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 36, thence continuing along the southern right-of-way of °Highway 36 along the arc of a curve to the left a distance of 243.25', radius of 2835.00', delta angle of 4°54'58", chord bearing of S 70°44'22" W 243.17' to a Highway right-of- way brass cap station number 81+23.8; thence departing said southern right-of- way of Highway 66 S 70°35'11" W 494.72' to a number four rebar with plastic cap LS 15760, thence N 12°08'26" W 437.33' to a number four rebar with plastic cap stamped LS 9485, thence S 85°26'38" E 254.02' to a point on the common Section of Section 34 and 35, thence along said monumented Section line N 04°34'00" E 352.82' more or less to a brass cap stamped N.P.S. and the Containing 7.89 acres, more or less. PHASE 111: A tract of land located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the Northeast corner of Section 34 and with all bearings relative to the North line of the Northeast 1/16 of said Section 34 considered as bearing S 89°00'00" E; thence S 04°33'57" W a distance of 315.83' to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S 04°33'30" W 352.82'along the west line of section 34; thence N 85°26'00" W 254.02'; thence S 12°08'26" E 437.33' to the northern right of way of Spur 66 Highway; thence along said right-of-way, along a curve to the left a distance of 68.77'; radius of. 603.00', delta angle of 06°32'04", chord bearing of S44°15'02"W 68.73'; thence continuing along said northern right-of-way S 40°59'00" W a distance of 135.16'; thence departing said northern right-of-way N 60°32'43" W a distance of 179.93'; thence S 40°38'00" W a distance of 219.25'; thence S 39°18'00" E a distance of 83.60' to the southern right-of-way of Mills Drive; thence along said southern right-of-way N 63°11'45" E a distance of 894.40' to the west line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 34; thence along said west line N 03°27'07" E a distance of 989.52' to the East 1/16th corner of Sections 34 and 27; thence along the north line of Section 34 S 89°00'00' E a distance of 449.54' to the southern right-of-way of Park Entrance Road; thence continuing along said southern right-of-way along a curve to the right a distance of 514.62 radius of 4485.99', delta angle of 06°34'22", chord bearing of S71°38'35"E 514.34'; thence departing said southern right-of-way S01°00'00"W a distance of 55.26'; thence S 89°00'00" E a distance of 139.56' to the southern right-of-way of Park Entrance Road; thence along said southern right-of-way along a non tangent curve to the right a distance of 259.69', radius of 4485.99', delta angle of 03°19'01", chord bearing of S64°46'52"E 259.65'; more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 30.75 acres, more or less. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 31-12-108, C.R.S., the Town Board Public Hearing shall be held Tuesday, September 26,2006 at 7:00 p.m., in the Municipal Building, located at 170 MacGregor Ave., Estes Park, Colorado, for the purpose of determining if the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall give the notice of the hearing as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. DATED this day of ,2006. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Director Date: June 22,2006 Subject: Fall River Village Condominiums; Units 184,185,186,187,188 & 189, Building 1, Lot 8, Fall River Village Final P.U.D.; The Lane Ill Group, Inc./Applicant Fall River Village; Lot 8, Fall River Village Final P.U.D.; The Lane 111 Group, Inc./Applicant Background. The applicant has submitted a final condominium map application for Fall River Village Condominiums to condominiumize (unitize) the first of eight residential/accommodations buildings on a 3.529-acre lot, zoned "CO" Commercial Outlying. There are ten units in Building 1. The units are addressed 180 29 through 189 Filbey Court. ···: , N:. . f\ The condominium map is consistent with -=u - 4·:4· :-Sti.ip -: 4. ....J :., litfi,fa . I ..... the approved Planned Unit Development . The-: =-0.'1··. ·y .1.~2 I .../ 1 . 2·1;.1 .9* 4·32 #04-01 with two exceptions. The first is ' 7'a.· :~ . .~~~ ~A.... I ' 4-/·#14 that residential use is permitted at a ~ -- -A.D, „ 4 ·Approx. I#ati)?11'of Fall : rm ¢{f.W .,.' . ' : Of·'P _ ..,·.,· j· , · . ge·:p·., 7..·· 1./C i density of 18 units per acre. Residential A-v - i j,PrkBB,2%£jgt°it- ·- i.- 2.<~£...~~241£04 use was not contemplated during the :e 1 - 1 4,4..\ 4 i j .- ... . ··-1-·,.In .~~. s.. :.: / * ·C PUD review so the PUD was approved = 4 #tr (60.-4- with only one parking space required per , - 2,1 -*feedier D ,.6 4{ Atest Pdrki , unit, with no guest parking required. The ' parking demand must be met on site. :13 Right-of-way and public parking cannot be used to meet the parking demand and the condominium association must manage parking to ensure this does not occur. Cluster boxes have been installed for residential use. The second exception is that the manager's office is designed as a unit. The applicant has submitted an amended planned unit development application to increase the density to allow sixty-five units rather than the sixty-four units previously approved. ~:are. . Action - Revised PUD. Approval of the revised PUD application with the following condition: 1. Submittal of a document for recordation stating that the maximum number of units for density purposes is sixty-five and the office area identified on the original PUD approval is the sixty-fifth unit. • Page 3 Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Dave Shirk, Planner 155 Date: June 27,2006 Subject: Thunder Canyon, Supplemental Condominium Map #5 Background. On April 13, 2004, the ing»-p« \ \ Site Town Board approved the map of the -Er--2---~ I i Thunder Canyon Condominiums, which are currently under construction. --- ..C~==1 - . This is the fifth supplemental map, , / which finalizes building F. 22 Condominium maps cannot be finalized Stanley Hotel .29-.4 until they are substantially complete, = Z== which is why this map is before the 2.----- Town Board now. = 36=6 The site is located at 720 Black Canyon Drive, and there is one unit left to be finalized. Budget. N/A Action. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Fifth Supplemental Condominium Map of Thunder Canyon Condominiums CONDITIONAL TO compliance with Development Plan 03-12 "Thunder Canyon;" Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Director Date: June 22,2006 Subject: Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map, Phase XX, Lots 1 and 2, Park River West Subdivision, Richard H. Wille TrusUApplicant ~ Background. Richard H. Wille Trust has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for Park River West Phase XX. Phase XX consists of four units, Units 619 and 621, in Building 28, and Units 623 and 625, in Building 29, located on Lot 1, Park River West Subdivision. The site is adjacent to River Rock Condominiums on Moraine Avenue (CO Highway 36). Lots 1 and 2 of the Park River West Subdivision are zoned "RM" Multi-Family Residential. The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan with the exception of the proposed finished floor elevations. An as-built development plan is required once construction of improvements is completed. Location Map The Town Board approved a Supplemental ~ Condominium Map for Park River West Phase X1X at the February 28,2006 meeting. )1,4 ~ r Budget. Cedar Ri~lge Circle None. 80*t--l + 0»1-uas>-.ae. \ 1 6 \\ 1 %9214 Action. -49 \8/ ~ Approval of the Supplemental Condominium 6/ Map for Park River West Phase XX. ,// A./1 -: 1.L / . . . Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Director Date: June 22,2006 Subject: . The Links of Estes Park Final Condominium Map, A Portion of Lot 3, South Saint Vrain Addition, Bud and Rachel Jarvis/ Applicant Background. The applicant has submitted a final condominium map application for The Links of Estes Park to condominiumize the first of three residential duplexes on a 1.016-acre lot, zoned "RM" Multi-Family Residential. The units are numbered 1006-A and 1006-B, are addressed 1006 A and B South Saint Vrain Avenue (CO Highway 7), and are accessed via a private driveway through the Eagles Landing Condominiums. The condominium map is consistent with the approved Development Plan #05-02. The Town Board approved a preliminary condominium map for this property at the September 27,2005 meeting. Budget. Location Map None. Ri»-135-J Trail Ridge Action. qtdn-*ve. Approval of The Links of Estes Park final A< 2 4 "RIVI" The Links of condominium map application conditional to -fit \--- 1. O 3 Landing - * Eagles -Estes Park (1 ) the dedication statement shall state, -// \9- 10 E 70- *klgle- "dedicate and convey," (2) the legal -- 1 - Family description in the dedication statement shall - Eagle .E" match the mapped legal description, (3) View -0/ fit17**10.- 18 Hole Golf deeded and surveyed measurements shall - be noted and shown in the legend,; (4) the -J Course .CO. a titles in the signature block shall match ---4 those listed on the Notorial Certificate for x Byford D. Jarvis, (5) the names and titles on the map shall match the names and titles in the condominium declaration, (6) compliance with the comments in Greg White's memo. 4 Town of Estes Park Community Development Department .1 Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Director Date: June 22,2006 Subject: Lots 1 & 3, Marys Lake Subdivision, Lots 3A, 3B, 5,6,7, and 8, Mary's Lake Replat, and Lots 2A and 4A, Mary's Meadow Replat; CMS Planning & Development, Inc., Mary's Meadow Development, Inc., Rams Horn Development Co., Rock Castle Development Co., and Rocky Mountain Church/Applicants Background. A Cost-Sharing Development Agreement was recorded on March 8, 2005 in conjunction . with the Mary's Lake Replat. The Rocky Mountain Evangelical Free Church, owner of Lot 1, and the Mary's Lake Lodge, owner of Lot 3, participated in this agreement along with the parties involved in the Mary's Lake Replat. The agreement identified how the parties would work in a cooperative manner to construct needed improvements in the area. Some of the timeframes established in the agreement have not been met. This revised agreement establishes new timeframes and expands the agreement to include construction of trail and detention facilities. Kiowa Trail is currently under construction and trail improvements are planned in conjunction with road construction. Plans for the northbound left-turn lane on Highway 7 at the intersection with Mary's Lake Road have been submitted to CDOT and construction is planned for this fall; detention basin construction is also planned for the fall. Staff is supportive of the revised agreement given that all improvements will be completed within the timeframes established in the Estes Valley Development Code. Budget. None. Action. Approval of the revised development agreement. 'L... b , ·· Ld i r-6 5 · 1 111 MAY 2 4 2006 ~ 1 COST-SHARING J U i ~,zi: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1 THIS AGREEMENT, made the day of May, 2006, by and between the Town of Estes Park, a Municipal Corporation (the «Town"), Mary's Meadow Development, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, CMS Planning & Development, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Rock Castle Development Company, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Rocky Mountain Evangelical Free Church, and Ram's Horn Development Company, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company Oointly hereinafter the «Owners"). WITNESSETH: A WHEREAS, the Owners own the real property (the «Property"} located within the Town of Estes Park, described as follows: LOTS 1, 3 and Outlot A in Marys Lake Subdivision, and LOTS 2,3A, 38, and 4 through 8 in Mary's Lake Replat, located in Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th PM, Town of Estes Park, State of Colorado. WHEREAS, the Owners have filed Development Plans with the Town of Estes Park. WHEREAS, the Revised Annexation Agreement, Replat of Marys Lake Subdivision, and Development Plans define the Owners' obligations for Public Improvements on the Property. NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE RECITATIONS AND THE COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Owners have- filed the Amended Annexation Agreement, Replat of Marys Lake Subdivision, and Development Plans with the Town. 2. The Owners agree to share expenses for Public Improvements and other infrastructure required as shown on Exhibits «A" and "B». 3. It shall be the responsibility of the Owners to pay their. share of expenses for the public improvements as set forth on Exhibit A. It shall not be the responsibility of the Town to collect the- individual Owner's share. The- Town· shall not be obligated to process any building permits until such time as the public improvements are completed, inspected and accepted, and/or the appropriate improvements guarantees are in place. 4. An Improvement Agreement and Financial Guarantee, reviewed and approved by the Town Staff, shall be submitted for the Kiowa Trail Extension, Non-Motorized Trail·, and Stormwater Detention Basin prior to issuance of building permits on either LOT 2 or LOT 4. No more than five Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued on LOT 6 prior to completion of these improvements. , t ( 5. The Owners shall construct a left-turn lane on north-bound Highway 7 by March, 2007. After March 31, 2007, no additional Building Permits shall be issued for any development on the property prior to completion of said turning lane. 6. The- Owners shall designate a Project Coordinator for the construction of Public Improvements guaranteed by the Owners. The Project Coordinator shall be respongible fof any requests fof feductiong of finaricial girafarited-5 to the Town of Estes Park. 7. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding on the personal representatives, heirs, transferees, successors and assigns of the parties. IN WITNESSETH WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands the day and year first written above. TOWN OF ESTES PARK John Bandek, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk James Tawney Frank Theis, President Mary's Meadow Development, Inc. CMS Planning & Development, Inc. Robert Koehler, President Don DeBey, President Rock Castle Development Company Ram's Horn Development Company Rocky Mountain Free Evangelical Church i 4 EXHIBIT A 2/6/06 rife foliowing Tabie outlines the share Of expenses fof improvements to be paid by the- Owners: MARY'S IMPROVEMENT MEADOW CMS RCDC RHDC CHURCH 1) SEWER #1 33.3 % 15.5 % 25.6 % 25.6 % 2) SEWER #2 23.4 % 38.3 % 38.3 % 3) SEWER #3 17.8 % 51.1 % .31.1 % 4) SEWER #4 2.7 % 59.5 % 37.8 % 5) SEWER #5 4.3 % 95.7 % 9 STORM SEWER 33.4 % 33.3 % 33.3 % (in Kiowa Trail R.O.W.) 7) KIOWA TRAIL 64.0 % 18.0 % 18.0 % 81- KIOWA TRAIL 60.5 % 17.95 % 3.6 % 17.95 % ENGINEERING 9) HIGHWAY 7 25.0 % 12.5 % 25.0 % 12.5 % 25.0 % 10)STORMWATER 14.6 % 9.6 % 19.2 % 56.6 % DETENTION 11) TRAIL 50.0 % 10.5 % 16.4 % 23.1 % 111111111111111111111111111111111111Ill LARIMER COUNTY CO · SCOTT DOYLE, CLERK RCPTN# 2005-0018247 03/08/2005 15:04:00 PAGES - 3 FEE $16.00 DOC $0.00 #442479 COST-SHARING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made the 7.8 day of February, 2005, by and between the Town of Estes Park, a Municipal Corporation (the «Town"), Mary's Meadow Development, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Frank Theis, Rock Castle Development Company, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Rocky Mountain Evangelical Free Church, and Ram's Horn Development Company, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company' (iointly hereinafter the «Owners"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owners own the real property (the «Property") located within the Town of Estes Park, described as follows: LOTS 1, 3 and Outlot A in Marys Lake Subdivision, and LOTS 2,3A, 3B, and 4 through 8 in Mary's Lake Replat, located in Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th PM, Town of Estes Park, State of Colorado. WHEREAS, the Owners have filed Development Plans with the Town of Estes Park. MHEREAS, the Revised Annexation Agreement, Replat of Marys Lake Subdivision, ( and Development Plans define the Owners' obligations for Public Improvements on the Property. NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE RECITATIONS AND THE COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Owners have filed the Amended Annexation Agreement, Replat of Marys Lake Subdivision, and Development Plans with the Town. 2. The Owners agree to share expenses for Public Improvements and other infrastructure required as shown on Exhibits «A" and «B", including all costs related to the design and preparation of construction documents for the extension of Kiowa Trail. Lu 3. It shall be the responsibility of the Owners to pay their share of expenses for o the public improvements as set forth on Exhibit A. It shall not be the Ul .. OC D'esponsibility of the Town to collect the individual Owner's share. The Town U. 1- 9 0 uhhall not be obligated to process any building permits until such time as the 0 O u, O *ublic improvements are completed, inspected and accepted, and/or the 6£ R dppropriate improvements guarantees are in place. ~ ~ 9.c,An Improvement Agreement and Financial Guarantee, reviewed and - 0 d g Jpproved by the Town Staff, shall be submitted for the Kiowa Trail . z co Extension prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Lot 6. C 0 2 6 <Pproved construction plans and mylars shall be submitted within 120 -2 0.- diays of Final Plat approval. Construction of Kiowa Trail shall commence B < "" ~rior to issuance of building permits on either LOT 2 or LOT 4. \28 m TES PA K PLEAS . .... 5. Approved construction plans and mylars for the improvements to Highway 7shall be submitted within 120 days of Final Plat approval. 6. The Owners shall designate a Project Coordinator for the construction of Public Improvements guaranteed by the Owners. The Project Coordinator shall be responsible for any requdsts for reductions of financial guarantees to the Town of Estes Park. 7. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding on the personal representatives, heirs, transferees, successors and assigns of the t parties. IN WITNESSETH WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands the day and year first written above. TOWN OF ESTES PARK 'lkk'.'i, 1 ....r r C 04. 00-k,k : 3-4:¢.iKE,Ji j 2243.f £:006hn Baudek, Mayor ' j.,f@,r,433. ·'=,. 1 1..... r 71...: T#* Cler¥ · · ;t 'iliffic.Ik.-f:-..· - C ~-09/09--~-€/(224- 7'Names Tawney C / Mary's Meadow Development, Inc. Frank Theis »01. - Robert Koehler, Presiddit Rock Castle Development Company di<1- ( 4- Don 13*Bey, Presidea¢:' ~2ZZ=zz::b Ram's Horn Development Company 468 4-4 c L Rocky Mountain Evangelical Free dhurch . 4 'Ar 'A V EXHIBIT A The following Table, along with Exhibit «B", outlines the share of expenses for improvements to be paid by the Owners: IMPROVEMENT TAWNEY THEIS RCDC RHDC CHURCH 1) SEWER # 1 33.3 % 15.5 % 25.6 % 25.6 % 2) SEWER #2 23.4 % 38.3 % 38.3 % 3) SEWER #3 17.8 % 51.1 % 31.1 % 4) SEWER #4 2.7 % 59.5 % 37.8 % 5) SEWER #5 4.3 % 95.7 % 6) KIOWA TRAIL 60.5 % 17.95 % 3.6 % 17.95 % 7) HIGHWAY 7 25.0 % 12.5 % 25.0 % 12.5 % 25.0 % Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: David Shirk, Plannerz·*14 Date: June 27,2006 Subject: Estes Valley Development Code Amendment Background. During the summer of 2005, Community Development Staff processed a variance to allow a computer kiosk in the downtown area. This variance request brought a needed Code revision to Staffs attention. The code revision is intended to allow ATM machines and computer kiosks as an allowed outdoor activity in the Downtown area. Proposed text is underlined with a double line. 4.4.D. Additional Zoning District Standards. 1. Operational Requirements. a. Outdoor Sales, Use, Storage and Activity in the CD Zoning District. (1) Except as may be allowed in paragraph (3) below, all retail sales, displays and activities and all other uses, storage and activity shall be wholly contained within the interior of a building or permanent structure. (2) Retail merchandise shall not be displayed in any way on doors that provide customer access to a building or on windows that open out onto or over public ways including sidewalks, pedestrian paths/trails or permitted outdoor eating/serving area. (3) Exceptions. Notwithstanding paragraph (1) above, the following outdoor uses, storage or activity shall be permitted within the CD zoning district: . (e) Automated Teller Machine (ATM) and/or Interactive Kiosks intended to serve walk-up customers only. ATMs or Kiosks shall not obstruct the movement of pedestrians through plazas. along adjoining sidewalks or through other areas intended for public usage. 13.3 Definitions Interactive Kiosk shall mean a device that allows the public to access the internet, send and retrieve e-mail, or provide wayfinding or other information. These may be incorporated within an existing structure. or be free-standing. These shall not be used to provide off-premise signage for other businesses. The display shall comply with the adopted sign code. Display of off-site content shall be user activated. Content shall be restricted to comply with Title 9 "Public Peace. Morals and Safety" of the Municipal Code. Should the Town Board vote to approve these changes, they will then be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. If the Board of County Commissioners votes to approve, these changes will then be implemented. Budget. N/A Action. At their regularly scheduled April 18, 2006 meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed changes to Section 4.4.D and Section 13.3. • Page 2 . I ORDINANCE NO. 2-06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK EIGHT AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight; and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight set forth on Exhibit "A" and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit "A". Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2006. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2006 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2006, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: David Shirk, PlannerEW~ Date: June 27,2006 Subject: Annexation Proposal - North End Storage Addition Background. In October 2005, the «1 -<C Estes Valley Planning Commission ~ ~1_ approved a development plan for an eighty unit self-storage facility The Neighborhood SaludiA located at 1775 Wildfire Road, - ..····-..t Subdivision immediately west of the Vista Ridge development. In November of 2005, (- VmAa Ridge ~~ ~ the Board of County Commissioners approved a rezoning from "CO" Commercial to "CH" Commercial, /1 with a condition of approval for the 4.... --1,4........ ............L- (towr limits) applicant to petition the Town of N/j/ji /l/N; Estes Park for annexation. The development plan includes an extensive landscaping plan intended to provide screening from adjacent properties, and limits hours of operation. Furthermore, the rezoning was conditioned on the specified uses with the intention to minimize impact on nearby residential uses. Any changes to the proposed development plan or use of the property will require a new development plan and associated public hearing. The property is bounded by the Town on the east and north. Budget. N/A Action. Pursuant to C.R.S. 31-12-110, Staff finds: , 1. This request complies with Eligibility for Annexation standards set forth in C.R.S. 31-12-104; 2. This request complies with Limitations standards set forth in C.R.S. 31-12-105; 3. An annexation election is not required under C.R.S. 31-12-107(2). Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of North End Storage Addition and retention of the existing "CH" Commercial zoning. • Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. #12-06 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-110, C.R.S., hereby finds that with regard to the proposed annexation of the following described area, that the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12- 104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., have been met; that an election is not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms and conditions are to be imposed on the annexation. The area eligible for annexation known as "NORTH END STORAGE ADDITION" to the ToWn of Estes Park is as follows: A portion of the NW1/4 of Section 20, T5N, R72W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado being more particularly described as commencing at the Wl/4 corner of said Section 20 as monumented by a BLM brass capped pipe and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the west line of said NW1/4 considered as bearing N01°31'28"E; thence N01°31'28"E a distance of 326.64 feet; thence S89°59'36"E a distance of 705.57 feet; thence N00°02'58"E a distance of 41.70 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence N00°02'58"E a distance of 258.74 feet to the south line of the Bosan Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado; Thence 689°55'59"E a distance of 381.77 feet along the south line of said Bosan Addition to the westerly line of the Vista Ridge Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado; Thence S18°16'10"W a distance of 316.24 feet along said west line; Thence N89°56'13"W a distance of 28.57 feet along the southerly line of said Vista Ridge Addition; Thence along the northerly right-of-way line of Wildfire Road (refer to deed of dedication recorded in book 1899 at page 114) a distance of 258.40 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the southwest, said curve has a delta angle of 14°22'27", a radius of 1,030.00 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N80°37'32"W a distance of 257.73 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Containing 2.138 acres, more or less. ". DATED this day of ,2006. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 03-06 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS NORTH END STORAGE ADDITION BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That a Petition for Annexation, together with four (4) copies of the plat of said area as required by law, was filed with the Board of Trustees on the 20* day of Februarv , 2006 by the landowners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys of the area hereinafter described. The Board, by Resolution at its regular meeting on the 23rd day of May, 2006, accepted said Petition and found and determined that the provisions of Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S., were met; and the Board further determined that the Town Board should consider the annexation plat on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Building for the purposes of determining that the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and is considered eligible for annexation. Section 2. That the Notice of said hearing was given and published as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. Section 3. That the hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-12- 109, C.R.S., on the 27th day of June, 2006. Section 4. That following said hearing, the Board of Trustees adopted a Resolution determining that the proposed annexation met the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; that an election was not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms or conditions are to be imposed upon said annexation. Section 5. That the annexation of the following described area designated as NORTH END STORAGE ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, is hereby approved: A portion of the NW1/4 of Section 20, T5N, R72W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado being more particularly described as commencing at the Wl/4 corner of said Section 20 as monumented by a BLM brass capped pipe and with all bearings contained herein being . relative to the west line of said NW1/4 considered as bearing N01°31'28"E; thence N01°31'28"E a distance of 326.64 feet; thence S89°59'36"E a distance of 705.57 feet; thence N00°02'58"E a distance of 41.70 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence N00°02'58"E a distance of 258.74 feet to the south line of the Bosan Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado; Thence S89°55'59"E a distance of 381.77 feet along the south line of said Bosan Addition to the westerly line of the Vi§ta Ridge Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado; Thence S18°16'10"W a distance of 316.24 feet along said west line; Thence , N89°56'13"W a distance of 28.57 feet along the southerly line of said Vista Ridge Addition; Thence along the northerly right-of-way line of - Wildfire Road (refer to deed of dedication recorded in book 1899 at page 114) a distance of 258.40 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the southwest, said curve has a delta angle of 14°22'27", aradius of 1,030.00 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N80°37'32"W a distance of 257.73 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Containing 2.138 acres, more or less. Section 6. The Town of Estes Park, Colorado, hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-126(3.6) C.R.S., to the inclusion of lands described above into the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal SubDistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Section 7. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2006. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2006 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2006, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk I j Administration Memo To: Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Randy Repola ~2- Date: June 10, 2006 Subject: Fairgrounds Theatre Concept Background In the spring of 2004, the Town Board included a goal to determine the feasibility of building and operating a performing arts theatre. Various options have been ruled out since then until a concept evolved at the Stanley Park Fairgrounds. Goal Team 7 along with a study group of community members has collaborated to develop a concept for a theatre on the Fairgrounds property that may be viable. The concept is to build a theatre in the southeast corner of the fairgrounds where there currently are dozens of old horse stalls. This is consistent with the master plan for the fairgrounds in that a building envelope of up to 48,000 square feet is envisioned on that site. The theatre could ultimately be part of a larger facility in this location. To date, staff and a study group consisting of members of various performing arts organizations have developed a design concept and operating pro forma. Roger Thorn was retained to develop concept drawings and a construction estimate. In addition, AMS Planning & Research has completed a pro forma which estimates annual operating revenues and expenses. The theatre floor plan was developed with input from the study group. The group started with an extensive list of attributes that were desirous in a theatre. Ultimately, the group narrowed this list from thirty variables to a short list of twelve required elements. The concept includes these twelve elements in an approximately 13,000 square building. Mr. Thorn estimates that the cost of construction in current dollars is $3,000,000. This also assumes the site would be ready with current structures removed and utilities in place. The pro forma is attached to this memo. The numbers in the pro forma are based upon a "stable" year; this is assumed to be year three. The report indicates that the annual operating loss will be approximately $201 K in year three. This matter was presented at the June Community Development Committee meeting. The Committee recommended that this material be presented as an action item at a Town Board meeting. . . ' Budget There are two relevant budgets for this project: construction and operating. Construction The current construction estimate of $3M assumes that we will have used other funds to prepare the site for construction. There are two options for financing the construction. Option 1: issue Certificates of Participation ("COPs") using the Town Hall as collateral. COPs function much like a mortgage. With Town Hall pledged as collateral, the Town issues bonds in the amount of $3M. The source of funds for repayment is current revenue either from the General Fund or a special revenue fund such as the CVB fund. Annual debt service would be approximately $276K assuming twenty year bonds with a coupon rate of 5.5%. Option 2: General obligation debt. The Town could assume debt of $3M and issue general obligation bonds. This financing method would require voter approval and would carry a slightly lower coupon rate. Annual payments would be less than COPs due to the guarantee of properly tax revenue as a repayment source of the bonds. Annual debt service would be approximately $264K assuming the same circumstance as COPs but with a slightly lower coupon rate of 5%. A levy of approximately 1.8 mills would be tequired for 20 years to finance this debt (during fiscal 2005, 1.822 mills generated approximately $251K in property tax). . I Operations The annual subsidy required to operate the theatre has been estimated at approximately $201K in year three. This amount would have to be transferred from the General Fund. It is worth noting that the conference center debt will be retired in 2008. This will free up approximately $214K in current revenue. This amount would be adequate to fund the annual subsidy for the theatre. Currently this expenditure shows up in the Community Reinvestment Fund. In order to acdommodate this transfer, the Town's annual transfer to the CRF would be approximately $214K less than currently projected. Action There are two decisions to be made. First, shall the Town pursue a theatre at the Stanley, Park Fairgrounds understanding the construction costs of approximately $3M and annual operating subsidies of at least $201 K? If yes, then how shall the construction be funded? Shall the Town issue Certificates of Participation or, does the Town Board of.Trustees prefer to refer this matter to the voters requesting permission to assume general obligation debt of $3,000,000? • Page 2 . 6 ... 4 Summary Report TO: Randy Repola, Town of Estes Park FROM: Arthur Greenberg, Director, AMS Planning & Research RE: Updated Operating Projections - Cultural Center Midwest Office: 8147 Delmar, Suite 218 DATE: May 31,2006 St. Louis, MO 63130 314.727.2880 Fax 314.727.0348 AMS Planning & Research was contracted to develop operating projections for a cultural center in the Town of Estes Park. The projections htto://ams-online.com were based on updates of work undertaken in 2004 when a larger cultural email: center was envisioned. The Town subsequently scaled back the program to aareenbera@ams-online.com consist of a 300-seat theater with no additional gallery or performance spaces. Our work consisted of: • Creating a survey instrument to ascertain interest in using the smaller venue by prospective user groups identified in the previous study. • Town of Estes Park staff administered the survey to the selected groups and provided the results to AMS. • AMS completed additional telephone interviews with commercial theatrical producers to better understand the potential for a "sit- down" run of a theatrical production to be successful at the proposed Estes Park venue. • An operating pro forma was created based on a series of assumptions and input from the research tasks. This memorandum report provides an overview o f the operating pro forma. -1- f. Asia Society Texas - Asia House Operating Plan Summao Report - AMS Planning & Research 5/31/2006 Assumptions (Conservative) The following assumptions have been used to generate the operating estimates: • Theater will have 300 seats • Total square footage ofthe building is 13,080. • There are no additional rentable spaces in the building, such as black box theater, lobby, art gallery, etc. • Fringe benefits are paid to staff at 30% of salary. • 40% of audiences are expected t6 pay an average of $3.00 each for concessions. Summarv Below is the summary of revenues and expenses. Using conservative estimates with no sit-down run of a commercial theatrical production, annual operating shortfall is in the range of $200,000. Estes Park Cultural Arts Center SCHEDULE 2: SUMMARY PRO Stable Year FORMA OPERATING REVENUES Rental Income $58,815 Chargebacks & Cost Recovery $36,850 Ticket Sales $17,640 Concessions (Net Revenue) $7,664 Box Office Ticket Charges $12,774 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES ' $133,743 OPERATING EXPENSES Personnel $201,750 Administrative Overhead $17,625 Programming $32,400 Occupancy $67,885 Expense Contingency @ 5% $15,983 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $335,643 Operating Revenue as % of Expenses 39.85% OPERATING DEFICIT $201,900 -2- Town of Estes park - Cultural Center Operating Projections Memorandum - AMS Planning & Research 5/31/2006 Expenses Staffing An extremely conservative assumption has been made that the venue could operate with 2 full- time staff people - a Facility Manager, and an Operations/Technical Director. Staffing costs, with benefits, amount to $146,900 annually. Because there are only two full-time positions, about $1,500 monthly is allocated for part-time, overtime, and temporary staff, bringing total personnel costs (non-reimbursable) to $164,900. (It is assumed as well that seasonal Town staff working at the Fairgrounds will augment the Cultural Center staff as needed during summer months). Costs for stagehands and house managers are billable to renters, and add an additional (pass-through) $32,663. Administrative Overhead Standard allowances are provided for administrative overhead costs for printing, postage, telephone, equipment repair and replacement, totaling about $13,625 annually. Programming Artist Fees are provided for six presented touring shows each year, along with production and marketing costs, totaling $32,400. Occupancy Costs to occupy the building amount to $5.19 per square foot, consisting of Janitorial Services ($1.25/sf), Utilities ($1.75/sf), and maintenance contracts ($1/sf), and insurance and bonding ($1.19/sf). Total annual occupancy costs are estimated at about $68,000. Total Total operating expenses are projected at $319,660 each year, plus an expense contingency allowance of 5% (equaling $15,983), for total operating costs of $335,643. Rental Rates Theater rental rates are provided in 5 separate categories, ranging from $1/seat for local non- profit groups (performance rate), and $.33/seat for local non-profit rehearsals. Commercial rentals for performances would be charged $2.50/seat and $1.25 for rehearsals, and non- performance uses would be billed at $3/seat. Labor Chargebacks The costs of stagehands for performances and rehearsals is a pass-through to facility renters; fees of $150 for stagehand labor and $50 custodial services are charged for 75% of uses (so that, in -3- 6 Town of Estes park - Cultural Center Operating Projections Memorandum - AMS Planning & Research 5/31/2006 part, the Town will not have to charge itself for using these services). Equipment rental of $35/use is assumed to be charged for half of event dates. $32,663 is the total income from this category. Revenues Revenues derive from rentals of the theater ($58,815) and from labor chargebacks, or pass- through costs to renters for hourly and contract technical staff($36,850). Other revenues are earned through ticket sales of town-sponsored (in this case, only "presented" touring events, not self-produced shows) presentations ($17,640), net income from concessions ($7,664), and box office ticket surcharges (a recommended $1/ticket fee imposed on all tickets sold for the venue, resulting in an additional $12,774 in income). Total revenues amount to about $119,000. Utilization - Uses by the Town of Estes Park (for presented touring artists, at 6 performances/year), local non- profit cultural groups (145 performance dates plus 60 rehearsal/tech dates), and other (commercial) renters are assumed, for a total of 229 event dates, consisting of 161 performance dates. User Research AMS received positive response from twelve prospective user organizations indicating prospective usage of a 300-seat theater from 1 to 36 times annually, for a total of 40-100 identified potential uses. We have assumed an annual non-profit rental basis of 145 performances given the usage that is likely to materialize after the facility is under construction and subsequently open for rentals.1 Other Potential Activitv AMS conducted additional research with prospective commercial theatrical productions to potentially provide a stock of summer programming during the Town's busy tourist season. Our findings are equivocal at this point in time, but certainly indicate a real opportunity for the Town to contract with a theatrical producer to produce and promote summer plays. It will need to be determined the level of demand by local renters for summer dates, and the extent to which the theater could be occupied by a sit-down production. Below are summaries of our findings. 1 Groups expressing interest in renting the theater include Estes Park Music Festival, Estes Park Rotary Club (Estes Park Sings), Fine Arts Guild, Center Stage School of Dance, Cultural Arts Council of Estes Park, Estes Park Area Teachers Association, Dance Fest, David Tanton, ReinTarnation Bluegrass and Old Time Band, Greig Steiner Design Studios, and Estes Park Village Band and Jazz Band. -4- . Town of Estes park - Cultural Center Operating Projections Memorandum -AMS Planning & Research 5/31/2006 Triple Espresso Triple Espresso is a show that has seen long runs at small theaters around the country, and is only offered on a "presented" basis currently (e.g., cannot be self-produced). The usual arrangement is that a Presenter (in this ca'se, the Town of Estes Park) would book the show for a certain number of weeks. Financially, there are three areas for negotiation: Royalties equal 13% ofNet Box Office receipts, a Weekly Guarantee usually settles in between $18,000 and $30,000 per week (depending on the number ofweeks the Presenter commits to), and Split Point, the point in the revenue stream where the Producer/Presenter start sharing in the Box Office receipts. This is in addition to the Royalty and Weekly Guarantee as indicated above. As an example, if Estes Park presents the show in a 350 seat theater, and Triple Espresso were playing 8 performances per week, and the Theater committed to Triple Espresso for an 8-week run, with ticket prices at $35 each, then the 8 week run would generate a Gross Potential (before discounts, subscriber prices, etc...etc..) of $784,000 (e.g., 8 perfonnances per week x 350 seats x $35 x 8 weeks = $784,000 with all seats, full price, no discounts). Obviously this Gross Potential figure would never be reached, but an 8-week run break-even point might be "somewhere in the $300,000 range" according to the producers. Shear A4adness Shear Madness is another show like Triple Espresso, but in this case it is "licensed" for a local producer to produce the show. The producers indicate terms would be based on $7,500 non- returnable advance against royalties for a one-year option, plus 13 % of weekly gross box office receipts would be paid to the producer. The $7,500 fee includes the services of a Shear Madness director who would be available for three (3) days of casting, 3 M weeks of rehearsals and a minimum of five (5) days of previews. For these services Licensee shall pay $2,000 on the first day of casting, $2,000 on the first day bf rehearsals and $2,000 on the first day of the second week of rehearsals. If director is a member of S.S.D.C., Licensee shall pay S.S.D.C. agreed upon fee but no less than the above amount. Round trip tourist air transportation, car and comfortable private living quarters with kitchen facilities for said director. Company shall be under an Actor's Equity Contract. Provision for two out of town actors to include housing and per diem. The play shall be included in the subscription series. The above includes a complete prop list, set configuration, director' s script with blocking, lighting, sound and costume requirements. -5- . . Town ofEstes park - Cultural Center Operating Projections Memorandum - AMS Planning & Research 5/31/2006 Playmill Theatre, West Yellowstone, MT We identified an interesting model for the proposed venue in Estes Park, that being the Playmill Theatre in West Yellowstone, Montana, with 265 seats. Their season runs from the end of May through Labor day, with three family-friendly shows alternating throughout the summer. This year the shows include Joseph & the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, Forever Plaid, and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. Two shows are performed on most nights (6 and 8:30 p.m.), with a matinee on Saturday (sometimes two, with shows at 2,6, and 8:30), and dark on Sunday. Last summer some 33,000 tickets were sold (by our calculation, about 81% of capacity). By alternating the three shows, people in town for a week or so are able to see all three, 4 productions. Most of their audience comes year after year (people who have summer homes, or regional visitors who come to see Yellowstone Park andstay for a show in the evening). There are not many alternatives for night time entertainment in town, so their theater is quite popular (season is sold out by 3rd week of June). It is billed as an interactive, fun, family show - with actors mingling with audience and selling concessions at intermission, audience sing-along, pre- show variety show on stage - a fun evening for families with kids. Fees/royalties paid vary for each show and each producer, depends on a lot of factors (actors salaries, potential ticket sales, size of theater, etc.). For example they are paying $400 per , performance for Forever Plaid this summer. There is a break point minimum royalty, then above that, a percentage of gross profits is paid to the producer. Last year, for 771e Secret Garden, the minimum break point royalty was $3,000. Ticket prices are: : • Mon-Thu: $11 seniors and children, $12.50 adults • Fri-Sat: $15 for all This summer they are offering, for the first time, a summer theater camp, with day camps and overnight camps for various ages. Playmill players lead kids in camp workshops and classes. Data for tourism in West Yellowstone, MT are quite similar to the situation in Eites Park, as noted here: Tourism Data Yellowstone National Park • 2005 total visitors = 2.84 million West Gate = 1.2 million (43% of total) Other gates are much less. North Gate = 525,320 (18%) Northeast = 148,715 (5%) South = 686,813 (24%) East = 285,689 (10%) -6- Town of Estes park - Cultural Center Operating Projections Memorandum - AMS Planning & Research 5/31/2006 Summer visitation: • Total park visitation for June/July/Aug = 1.95 million (69% of annual total). • West Gate visitors for June/July/Aug = 845,855 (70% of all West Gate visitors come in the summer months.) Rocky Mountain National Park Visitor statistics are comparable (although not quite as concentrated in summer months as at Yellowstone). • 2005 total visitors = 2.96 million • Beaver Meadows Gate = 1.2 million (42% of total) Other gates: Fall River = 804,324 (the other east entrance near Estes Park) Grand Lake = 434,481 Longs Peak = 95,998 Wild Basin = 60,720 Minor entrances = 314,548 Summer visitation: • Total park visitation for June/July/Aug = 1.71 million (58% of annual total) • Beaver Meadows Gate for June/July/Aug = 707,171 (57% of all Beaver Meadows visitors come in summer) Conclusions on Additional Activities The Playmill Theatre model could be a wonderful opportunity for Estes Park to generate a substantial amount ofticket income, if it is willing to assume some risk, and the community is willing to devote the theater for this purpose for much of the summer tourism season. Playmill earned some $430,000 in ticket income last season (33,000 tickets at average cost of $13), which, even after royalties and production costs, could result in a substantial portion of the current projected operating deficit. Concessions income would be on top of these ticket earnings, and with that significant foot traffic, could also prove lucrative. Optimistic Scenario If we assumed an optimistic scenario in Estes Park, we would envision an operating shortfall perhaps half ofwhat is currently projected (e.g., in the range of $100,000, before any fundraising). Ticket income could net an additional $60-75,000 if a similar summer operation were pursued (even allowing for 1 -2 nights each summer week for local productions and renters). Concessions income could rise substantially - rather than 40% of audiences spending $3.00 each (resulting in net income of $7,664), we can envision 75% of audiences spending -7- . Town of Estes park - Cultural Center Operating Pro)ections Memorandum - AMS Planning & Research 5/31/2006 $6.50 per person, resulting in $31,137 net concessions income. And, these additional earned income sources are before any fundraising or sponsorship; especially with a summer theatrical season like at Playmill, sponsorships could generate up to $50,000 each year, with typical non- profit fundraising (e.g., foundations, individuals, government grants, and so on) also contributing to the bottom line. Given these data, the Town of Estes Park might be considering an annual operating contribution of $50,000 to $100,000 after these earned income sources were factored in, while a fundraising entity (e.g., a non-profit Friends of Estes Park Cultural Center) could raise a significant portion of that shortfall as well. -8- Estes Pafk Cultural Arts Center - OPERATING PRO FORMA CONTENTS Schedule # Page # Key Assumptions Schedule 1 Page 2 SUMMARY PRO FORMA Schedule 2 Page 3 REVENUE SUMMARY Schedule 3 Page 4 EXPENSE SUMMARY Schedule 4 Page 5 Theater Rental Rate Schedule Schedule 5 Page 6 Rental Additions / Chargebacks Schedule 6 Page 7 Utilization Summary Schedule 7 Page 8 Theater Utilization Projections Schedule 8 Page 9 Theater Attendance Projections Schedule 9 Page 10 Other Space Utilization Projections Schedule 10 Page 11 Concession Sales and Box Office Charges Schedule 11 Page 12 Administrative Expense Detail Schedule 12 Page 13 Staffing and Compensation Schedule 13 Page 14 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 1 of 13 5/31/2006 , Estes Park Cultural Arts Center SCHEDULE 1: KEY ASSUMPTIONS PERFORMANCE SPACE ASSUMPTIONS Theater Seating Capacity 300 Theater Rental Rates Local Non-Prom Per-Seat Rent $1.00 Other Non-Profit Per-Seat Rent $1.50 Commercial Performance Per-Seat Rent $2.50 Non-Performance (Corporate) Per-Seat Rent $3.00 ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS Fringe Benefits Rate 30% Contingency % of Operating Expenses 5% Average Concession Transaction $3.00 Concession Capture Rate 40% Concession Contribution Margin 20% BUILDING ASSUMPTIONS Square Footage 13,080 Occupancy Costs per Sq. Ft., calculated $5.19 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 2 of 13 5/31/2006 Estes Park Cultural Arts Center SCHEDULE 2: SUMMARY PRO Stabld Year FORMA OPERATING REVENUES Rental Income $58,815 Chargebacks & Cost Recovery $36,850 Ticket Sales $17,640 Concessions (Net Revenue) $31,137 Box Office Ticket Charges $12,774 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES $157,216 OPERATING EXPENSES Personnel $201,750 Administrative Overhead $17,625 Programming $32,400 Occupancy $67,885 Expense Contingency @ 5% $15,983 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $335,643 Operating Revenue as % of Expenses 46.84% OPERATING DEFICIT $178,428 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 3 of 13 5/31/2006 . Estes Park Cultural Arts Center SCHEDULE 3: REVENUE SUMMARY Reference Stable Year Facility Rental Theater Utilization $58,815 Costs Recovered from Renters Chargebacks $36,850 Sub-Total, Facility Rental $95,665 Other Operating Revenue Town-Sponsored Ticket Sales Attendance $17,640 Food/Beverage, Net Concession/Box Office $31,137 Box Office Ticket Charges Concession/Box Office $12,774 Sub-Tota/, Other Operating Revenue $61,551 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES I $157,216 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 4 of 13 5/31/2006 f·' Estes Park Cultural Arts Center SCHEDULE 4: EXPENSE SUMMARY Stable Year Personnel Reference Compensation - Staff Staffing $146,900 Stagehands, House Managers Admin Exp. $36,850 Part-Time, Overtime, & Temps Admin Exp. $18,000 Sub Total, Personnel $201,750 Administrative Overhead Printing Fees Staffing $1,250 Postage & Mailling Admin Exp. $1,000 Public Relations/Special Events $4,000 Equipmen#Supplies Admin Exp. $4,900 Travel, Subscriptions, Licenses Admin Exp. $4,075 Telephone Admin Exp. $2,400 Sub Total, Admin. Overhead $17,625 Programming Artist Fees $24,000 Production Costs $3,000 Marketing $5,400 Sub Total, Admin. Overhead $32,400 Occupancy Janitorial Services $16,350 Utilities $22,890 Maintenance Contracts $13,080 Insurances and Bonding $15,565 Sub-Total, Occupancy $67,885 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $319,660 Expense Contingency @ 5% $15,983 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 5 of 13 5/31/2006 . Estes Park Cultural Arts Center SCHEDULE 5: THEATER RENTAL RATE SCHEDULE Per-Seat Rate Code Description Capacity Charge Amount 1 Local Non-Profit - Performance Rate 300 $1.00 $300 2 Local Non-Profit - Non-Perf./Tech/Rehearsal 300 $0.33 $99 3 Commercial Rentals - Performance Rate : 300 $2.50 $750 4 Commercial Rentals - Tech/Rehearsal/Non-Perf. 300 $1.25 $375 5 Convention Meetings/Lectures/Non-Perf. Uses 300 $3.00 $900 1 1 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 6 of 13 5/31/2006 : Estes Park Cultural Arts Center SCHEDULE 6: RENTAL ADDITIONS / CHARGEBACKS Stable Year Fee Fee Amount Labor Chargebacks $150+ 75% 220 $150 $24,750 Fee Frequency # of Events Fee Amount Custodial Fees $50 ~ Frequency # of Events $50 $8,250 75% 220 Avg. Charge Per Event Frequency # of Events Fee Amount Equipment Rental $35 50% 220 $35 $3,850 TOTAL RENTAL ADDITIONALS $36,850 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 7 of 13 5/31/2006 . Estes Park Cultural Arts Center Sta)le Year SCHEDULE 7: UTILIZATION SUMMARY USES Rental dharge Theater TOTAL ESTES PARK PRESENTATIONS 9 $0 TOTAL NON-PROFIT USES . ~ 205 $49,440 TOTAL OTHER USES 15 $9,375 TOTAL - Theater ' 220 $58,815 43 11 U ./. .2 +4': 44% 121.:Lk•€* p>.Vi#Wal" TOTAL RENTAL EVENTS / RENT 220 $58,815 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 8 of 13 5/31/2006 Estes Park Cultural Arts Center Stable Year SCHEDULE 8: THEATER Rental Rental UTILIZATION PROJECTIONS Rate Uses Rate Rental Charge Code 1 Estes Park Presentations - Performance n/a 6 $0 $0 Estes Park Presentations - Rehearsals/Tech n/a 3 $0 $0 TOTAL TOWN-SPONSORED 9 $0 Local Non-Profit - Performance 1 145 $300 - - $43,500 Local Non-Profit - Tech/Rehearsal , 2 60 $99 $5,940 TOTAL LOCAL NON-PROFIT 205 $49,440 Commercial Rentals - Perfonnance 3 10 $750 $7,500 Commercial Rentals - Tech/Rehearsal 4 5 $375 $1,875 Convention Meetings/Non-Perf. 5 0 $900 $0 TOTAL OTHER USES 15 $9,375 TOTAL PERFORMANCE DAYS 161 TOTAL EVENT DAYS 229 $58,815 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 9 of 13 5/31/2006 , Estes Park Cultural Arts Center SCHEDULE 9: THEATER Stable Year ATTENDANCE Avg. Ticket Price (2006 Avg.% Adjusted'Avg. Projected Projected Ticket PROJECTIONS SOM Ticket Price Attendanoe Sales $$$) Town-Sponsored - Performance 1 $14 70% $14.00 ' 1,260 $17,640 Local Non-Profit - Performance ~ $12 ~ 65% -$12.00 ~ 28,275 ~ $339,300 Commercial - Performance 1 $20 ' 1 80% $22.00 1 2,400 1 $52,800 TOTALS I I I 31,935 I $409,740 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 10 of 13 5/31/2006 42 Estes Park Cultural Arts Center SCHEDULE 11: Stable Year CONCESSION SALES & Tickets Sales TICKETS SOLD 31,935 $409,740 BOX OFFICE REVENUE Transaction Capture Concession Food & Beverage Average Rate Sales Theater Patron Sales $6.50 75% $155,683 Contribution Margin 20% $31,137 Per-Ticket Tickets Box Office Share Charge Revenue Box Office 31,935 40% $1.00 $12,774 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 11 of 13 5/31/2006 . 2 , Estes Park Cultural Arts Center SCHEDULE 12: ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE DETAIL Stable Year Admin Personnel Compensation $146,900 Stagehands & House Managers , $36,850 Part-Time, Overtime, & Temps . $18,000 Sub Total, Personnel $201,750 Overhead , Telephone - (based on headcount) $2,400 Postage & Mailing - Gen'I $1,000 Printing & Copying, General $1,250 Travel, Meetings, Mileage $2,500 Publications & Subscriptions $450 Memberships & Dues $625 Licenses/Fees/Permits $500 Office Supplies (based on headcount) $2,400 Equipment Repair/Maint./Support $2,500 Subtotal, Overhead $13,625 TOTAL ADMIN. & FIN. 1 $215,375 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 12 of 13 5/31/2006 Estes Park Cultural Arts Center SCHEDULE 13: % Taxes & BASE SALARY Stable Year STAFFING AND Benefits COMPENSATION Cultural Arts Center Manger $65,000 30% $84,500 Operations/ Technical Director $48,000 30% $62,400 TOTALS $113,000 $146,900 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 13 of 13 5/31/2006 James D. Cope 631 Findley Court -- 586-4684 June 26,2006 Mayor John Baudek Town ofEstes Park Re: Performing Arts Center Dear Mr. Mayor: I am hoping to see you before the Town Board meeting tomorrow night but this, in case we don't connect. I serve on the Town's Theatre Study Group and am delighted with the work product of the architects as well as the in-put from committee members. We fervently hope -- and we ask -- that you vote to go forward with construction of this important project now, not putting it on the November ballot, where the school board already has a tax bond issue. That could disadvantage both issues. The study committee has not formally started work on fund-raising yet but, even at this stage, the picture is fairly clear and bright: 1. FOSH funds of approximately $450,000 are held by the Town for this purpose. 2. Proceeds from the sale ofthe Stanley Historic District lot ($1.25 million?) could be used, if needed. 3. A professional fund-raiser is ready to pursue naming rights on a commission- only (15%) basis. This alone could raise most ofthe needed construction money. 4. Foundation grants are being explored. 5. A community-based effort will be mounted, a la FOSH, some years ago. Say "yes" on Tuesday and we're set to go! 0**iN91 01~ JUN 2 6 m ~ Encl: Performing Arts Center talk paper Lizzj Performing Arts Center in Estes Park "Charting a Future of High Pedormance" The following point paper does two things: It outlines the benefits of having a performing arts complex in Estes Park. It also demonstrates why our Town should be ready to make the decision to add this facility to its infrastructure now, without waiting for a bond approval process. A Performing Arts Complex • Complements the Town's vision of continuing to be "one of the premier mountain resort communities" in the country. Venues such as the high school, YMCA, the Other Side, 451 Steakhouse and churches are often unavailable and sorely lack needed stage, backstage, dressing room, toilet, storage, and set construction space as well as AC, sound, lighting and other important needs. • Enhances economic activity by providing expanded reasons for coming to and staying in Estes, lengthening and adding to lodging nights, dining before and after performances with positive impacts throughout the retail sector. • Keeps competitive edge with other vacation communities. Steamboat, Vail and Grand Lake, to name a few, have theaters. • Enhances quality of life: Both performers in community organizations and patrons grow by being part ofthe performing arts -- theater, voice, instrumental and dance. The proposed complex is flexible to provide for multiple uses. The Town Trustees are in a position to approve this infrastructure project now because: • Friends of Stanley Hall (FOSH) funds are being held by the Town for just this purpose. Each year their effective value decreases as construction costs increase. Also, the clock is ticking on their availability. • The committee named by the Town to explore the theatre has been working on this since 2005. A variety ofprojects as well as a feasibility study have been completed, resulting in a well designed, multi-use building of moderate cost. Considerable additional parking is included. • Referring the theatre project to a bond vote would create unnecessary competition with the proposed school tax bond issue. Money spent on an election could be better spent directly on the theatre project itself From the rodeo ground to the senior center to the museum, a town with vision provides for varying community needs and interests, so the overall quality oflife is constantly improved. In this case an economic return can be achieved. Alternative funding arrangements are available to the Town. • Community interests are committed to fund raising efforts. About half of the construction money is already in place. Talking Paper prepared by an ad hoc committee qfrepresentativesfrom Estes Valley pedorming groups. Jim Cope, moderator 6/16/06 PILE 1 i L.53 ,-4 ® 0 V [Fl' r.-0 : PE.- &. ' ': ) . 1 w ..a-, 11 ! , June 26,2006 Al 1 JUN 26 ~ ~ iti , .11 ~.1 41 tij/j Mayor John Baudek ~------_.._1 2.-/-/ Board of Trustees Re :Performing Arts Center, Stanley Park If you truly want a performing arts center in Stanley Park, do not ask the voters to approve a tax increase on property taxes. With a tax increase already proposed by the School Board on the November ballot, I would state with a high degree of certitude, that both issues would fail. If we can't learn from history, we are doomed to continue to fail. The Community Reinvestment Fund, exempted from Tabor restrictions, can surely be utilized for a worthwhile project like this. Spreading the development and construction over 2 or 3 years is certainly a feasible plan. After 2007 more funds will be available here, since EPURA will expire. yr #gi,L #ALX+Q- Ralph Nicholas Estes Park, CO 1 -1 Finance, Light & Power, Water Departments - Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Repola From: Steve MeFarland, Finance Officer Date: June 22,2006 Subject: Backeround In 2004/05, the consulting firm of Black & Veatch prepared a Financial Plan that was incorporated into the 2005 Goal Team #2 Master Plan. One of the goals ofthe Plan was to determine the feasibility of facility upgrades at Mary's Lake (the Likht & Power substation and the Water Plant). It is now necessary to update the Financial Plan to determine 1) the proper course of action for funding these upgrades, and 2) to integrate the action plan into the upcoming budget sessions for 2007-08. RFPs were sent to three consulting finns (Black & Veatch, Red Oak Consulting, and HDR). Specifically, the RFP called for analysis/projections for the Water, Light & Power, General and Community Reinvestment Funds, and for a Water Systems Facility R.eview. Black & Veatch declined to participate, but Red Oak and HDR responded with proposals. The proposals were reviewed at the Utilities Committee meeting on July 15, 2006. l'he Utilities Committee verified that monies were available in the budget, and that the project itself was merited. Final determination (selection of vendor) was not made during the Utility Committee meeting as further input that was needed from Bob Goehring (Public Works Utilities Superintendent), who was on vacation at the time. Documentation Upon returning from vacation, Goehring and Steve MeFarland (Finance Officer) reviewed the proposals and recommended that the committee select HDR, which had submitted the lowest bid by 39%. The HDR bid was $56,260. Expenses will be allocated by the following line items in accordance to cost per area ofproject. 1.41 1 L&P Fund: 502-6501-560.22-02 Uingineering) Water Fund: 503-6500-560.22-02 Engineering) Information was subsequently communicated to the Utility Committee via email and by telephone conversations between Chairman Homeier and MeFarland. Action steps requested Approval is requested for engaging HDR Consulting to undertake the scope of services described in the RFP dated May 31, 2006, requesting an update of the Town of Estes Park Financial Plan, in amount not to exceed $56,260, and to be allocated to the departmental line items listed above. .. • page _ 2 , 4 Memorandum m.0 To: Jackie Williamson CC: From: Steve McFarland Date: 6/28/2006 Re: Further details from Town Board Meeting June 27,2006, Action item #3,2006 Financial Plan Additional information was provided in the Town Board meeting that was not included in the initial write up. Specifically, the financial status of each of the line items involving the proposed expense was examined. The following information \vas provided: ).i i ./ k 1 The Drojdct cost is $56,260, to be divided into the L&P and Water funds in line < ~ items 502-6501-560.22-02 and 503-6500-560.22-02, respectively. These are the f'engineering" line items. Specifically, L&P will be charged $14,695, which comprises the L&P, General and CRF portions of the study. Water will be charged ~ $37,445, which includes the Water and Treatment Plant Evaluation portions of the # E broject. See attached for further details. L&P engineering began the year with a $75,000 budget. $57,086 remains available before the HDR project begins. Water engineering began the year with a $137,000 budget. $96,114 remains available before the HDR project begins. Please let me know if you need further information. r 63 jii' MRil fiar: MI wn n.rc · ·:. ,' ·: f ..i. ... .2 f" p 1 1 . 1-19(.JiA.,U hfo.5*I 11 11*.42: . ..· :·:. :U 33 0. 4 ~ f -·•0007.w.~q,**·w»,wawk,w..6.5«*wm.*ew. ·S·.I..·& 1 I I " 40»10 e> i. v j ek. + 9 44,»PKE '44 4 2 £·*f E + .J.. I 37' , ' ..p .i114{4 Pr :1?4-~i ,»£~7~# 1 . 0.•: , ·© r 18. :-M T ; t< I 4~' 2 i J ~ t.5 : k -2 .1 & - ·- 44 4%*4* / ».I' .... L ~Di~_ .~ _ ~ f p A 9*0;4 42 ~../. 9- ' ./ F Elli-111__12 2 ' ·12---1-* --_s-2 J 2006 Town of Estes Park r- III - EP Financial Plan ESTES L-1 PARK 00. I -> COLORADO 4.-i , de . - -" 63431421277-07 1 '..r. m. 1- kiwegill~-02'3~':9~~9~~g~3~~~~~. , ~42.':.3 Ji'LA~W*6~~.£.~ ... •At. '2?1 » I ··· ·,**~. - f~ 6v-A --1 '496%7 .-.--==- ---.-- I- 402* -t': .Pa / 7 r............4 '71'..... -ty_J .-, -«.7,"-7 * 1 ·6/: 1, Agrapt~&- . I ' ..99'/ W :"Ill/Pe"R ' .¥r ~ fil. . 4- r¥1 - Xe, 4 - 712 > 7"-i"/i~,1/. . 4. : 419.53 *truY#% * J'.4 ~ ~ 1, 1//9 .' I' / -19rlb&**4£98~£~dil .. 7- A-T,v--#~• i 1~ i f t --- :DEF 1.12 k :t , ~,42. ~:6.4- --1.- j- - . . *C'. ~pF I .1 44,19'. 0 - -00 - -TE£*21746 71=211 2 -t,_ 1-7// I I . j ./ ./.-.'.*I. - , I. 9.12 ---qi/~1261!* - 4 . U F> 2---w-lk q -- . ·A: 64-En - I -*.7- ---4--- f.3 E-- -1 .44€L=Ht > 1,4, , 1. 1 ---1.0'lirl- 3~ All- ,p:· '4,4~* 4' 1 -,-32.7--- 4. i' - ~TU -y <*14' 44 -p : ~- 4 1,9 - < 3/.7 ~4 lawor , ':92*6:In ' 1 1 h»ak2~ :.,{elp.~/ 47 - , 249§1- . I -* I' f .-il- '4'iR~ 0 19.42¥ 4 ..i- 14 A 1 2 -/ 4 r 04 9 13,9/pire'.44/P# I . ' '*•4 I V. ,$14· 4 -1~' -ti.I~-I t«-< Tr€7"2:3=~-'= 1 --1.42 ",1 4 . ..h 'k. -2'2 4.f71*.~,?,iii .9 ··~179 -7 ' 1 - * .- E- 211.U'· , 0--1 -I " 4 -19 - '. . rt I - 6 - 1% r. 1 2. < ~:492~»t»,-le - 1 Ar 4.4....134 2 .- June 12,2006 E 4, -- EL .*W I U L . , 1,1,1-1 1 11 ,$&j,!~4,~1 '411 , Ill 14 1 " Cost Proposal Estimated Project Fees Based upon the estimated labor needed to conduct the Town's study, HDR has developed a fee estimate for the Town's project. Estimated Project Fees General/ LighU Water Comm. Total Power Rein. Task: Taskl.1: Initial Project Meeting $490 $490 $490 $1,470 Task 1.2: Data Request 145 145 140 430 Task 1.3: Financial Plan/Revenue Requirements 3,000 3,500 2,400 . 8,900 Task 1.4: Rate/Tax Analysis 1,500 2,000 830 4,330 Task 1.5: Public Presentations (2) 1,250 1,700 800 3,750 1 Task 1.6. Written Report 1,100 1,100 1,100 3,300 Task 1,7. Computer Models (included above) N/C N/C N/C N/C Subtotal Rate Study $7,485 $8,935 $5,760 $22,180 Task 2.1: Review Existing Reports, Drawings, Other Information 3,740 _ 3,740 Task 2.2: Evaluate Raw and Finished Water Quality 1,625 1,625 Task 2.3: Review SDWA Regulations and Water Quality Impacts 1,230 1,230 Task 2.4: Evaluate Existing Treatment Plants 9,790 . 9,790 Task 2.5: Prepare Preliminary Report 6,510 6,510 Task 2.6: Conduct WTP Evaluation Workshop 3,575 3,575 Task 2.7: Prepare Final Report 3,490 3,490 Subtotal Treatment Plant Evaluation $29,960 $29,960 Expenses: Travel/Hotel/Meals $2,060 Misc (phone, fax) 280 Technology Charge 1,780 Total Expenses $4,120 GRAND TOTAL ESTIMATED FEES $56,260 HDR is willing to negotiate a final scope of services and fees for this project. The total estimated fees for this project are $56,260. 1 #Immi~-*--f= -0-7.-'*A€VT,1 - -- - .rl=?121-11!t -1-lit,fli--7=~'pagafill 'll I ' i il I _ - 1 1 . .14 1 .9 . MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: 6-21-06 Subject: Appointment to fill vacancy: Board of Adjustment Alternate Background: Bruce Grant, 1085 Pine Knoll Dr. has applied to serve as the alternate member on the Estes Valley BOA. Mr. Grant has completed the Citizens Information Academy and also holds a degree in Urban Planning. This position is called upon when a regular member is absent. Budget: No impact. Recommendation: Appoint Mr. Bruce Grant to serve a three-year term as alternate member on the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. This appointment shall be effective from July 1, 20006 through July 1, 2009.