No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2020-06-23(Instructions continued on page 2, Agenda begins on page 2) BOARD OF TRUSTEES – TOWN OF ESTES PARK TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY Tuesday, June 23, 2020 7:00 p.m. Board Room – 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 The Town Board of Trustees will participate in the meeting remotely due to the Declaration of Emergency signed by Town Administrator Machalek on March 19, 2020 related to COVID-19 and provided for with the adoption of Ordinance 04-20 on March 18, 2020. Procedures for quasi-judicial virtual public hearings are established through Emergency Rule 06-20 signed by Town Administrator Machalek on May 8, 2020 and outlined below. ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT Options for the Public to Provide Public Input: 1.By Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written public comment on a specific agenda item by completing the Public Comment form found at https://dms.estes.org/forms/TownBoardPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 12:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 23, 2020. All comments will be provided to the Board for consideration during the agenda item and added to the final packet. 2. By Telephone Message: Members of the public may provide public comment or comment on a specific agenda item by calling (970) 577-4777. The calls must be received by 12:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 23, 2020. All calls will be transcribed and provided to the Board for consideration during the agenda item and added to the final packet. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DURING BOARD MEETING Options for participation in the meeting will be available by call-in telephone option or online via Zoom Webinar which will be moderated by the Town Clerk’s Office. CALL-IN (TELEPHONE OPTION): Dial public participation phone number, 1-346-248-7799 Enter the Meeting ID for the June 23, 2020 meeting: 982 1690 2040 followed by the pound sign (#). The meeting will be available beginning at 6:30 p.m. the day of the meeting. Please call into the meeting prior to 7:00 p.m., if possible. You can also find this information for participating by phone on the website at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by clicking on “Virtual Town Board Meeting Participation”. Request to Speak: For public comment, the Mayor will ask attendees to indicate if they would like to speak – phone participants will need to press *9 to “raise hand”. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Board. Once you are announced by phone: State your name and address for the record. DO NOT watch/stream the meeting at the same time due to streaming delay and possible audio interference. The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. Prepared 06-12-2020 *Revised 06-23-2020 1 NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (ONLINE): Individuals who wish to address the Board via virtual public participation can do so through Zoom Webinar at https//zoom.us/j//98216902040 – Zoom Webinar ID: 982-1690-2040. The Zoom Webinar link and instructions are also available at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by clicking on “Virtual Town Board Meeting Participation”. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site, and not via the website, due to the streaming delay and possible audio interference. Start Time: The Zoom Webinar will be available beginning at 6:30 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Participants wanting to ensure their equipment setup is working should join prior to the start of the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Request to Speak: For public comments, the Mayor will ask attendees to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Board. You will experience a short delay prior to re-connecting with the ability to speak. State your name and address for the record. In order to participate, you must: Have an internet-enabled smartphone, laptop or computer. o Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio experience. Join the Zoom Webinar. o The link can be found above. Click “Participate Virtually in the Regular Town Board Meeting of the Board of Trustees”. DO NOT watch/stream the meeting via the website at the same time due to delays and possible feedback issues. WATCH THE MEETING: The Town Board meetings will be livestreamed at www.estes.org/videos and will be posted within 48 hours of the meeting at the same location. Documents to Share: If individuals wish to present a document or presentation to the Board, material must be emailed by Monday, June 22, 2020 by 8:00 a.m. to the Town Clerk’s office at townclerk@estes.org. Quasi-Judicial Proceedings (Quasi-Judicial items will be marked as such) Written Testimony Must be submitted by mail to Town Clerk, PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 or by completing the Public Comment form at https://dms.estes.org/forms/TownBoardPublicComment. Members of the public may provide public comment or comment on a specific agenda item by calling (970) 577-4777. All calls must be received by 8:00 a.m., Monday, June 22, 2020. All comments received will be provided to the Board and included in the final packet material. Oral Testimony To ensure your ability to provide comments during the meeting, you must register by emailing townclerk@estes.org or calling (970) 577-4777 by Monday, June 22, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. During the meeting, any individual who did not register to speak on a quasi-judicial item may join public participation by following either the Call-In or Online option previously mentioned. Individuals who do not register prior to the meeting risk being unable to testify due to administrative/technical difficulty during the meeting. Written presentation materials or exhibits must be delivered to townclerk@estes.org by 8:00 a.m. Monday, June 22, 2020 in order to be presented during the meeting. No other written presentations or exhibits will be accepted during oral testimony by any member of the public. Packet Material The packet material can be accessed through the following link: Town Board Packet or under the Town Board section at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings or you may request a paper packet by emailing townclerk@estes.org or calling (970) 577-4777. 2 NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. AGENDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES – TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, June 23, 2020 7:00 p.m. Board Room – 170 MacGregor Avenue PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PROCLAMATION - RECOGNITION OF GARY & KRIS HAZELTON YEARS OF SERVICE RECOGNITION AGENDA APPROVAL. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Bills. 2.Town Board Minutes dated June 9, 2020 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated June 9, 2020. 3.Estes Park Planning Commission Minutes dated May 19, 2020 (acknowledgment only). 4.Revised Policy 306 Leave. 5.Resolution 33-20 Intergovernmental Agreement for Fiscal Year 2020 Certifications and Assurances as Required by the Federal Transit Administration for Funding Recipients with CDOT. 6.Resolution 34-20 Grant Agreement for the Big Thompson River Recreational and Picnic Area with Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO). 7.Contract for 2020 Overlay & Patching Program with Coulson Excavating Co., Inc., $740,449.50, Budgeted. 8.Resolution 35-20 Financing Agreement for Glacier Water Treatment Plant Sedimentation Basin Construction with USDA, $2,369,000 Grant and $7,675,000 40- Year Loan at 1.375% Interest. 9.Contract for 2020 Shuttle Services with Rapt Dev USA, dba Rocky Mountain Transit Management Inc., $344,718.46, Budgeted. 10. Resolution 36-20 Setting the Public Hearing date of July 14, 2020 for a New Beer & Wine Liquor License filed by Mountain Home Café, Inc. dba Mountain Home Café, 457 East Wonderview Avenue #C1, Estes Park, CO 80517. 11. Resolution 37-20 Setting the Public Hearing date of July 14, 2020 for a New Beer & Wine Liquor License filed by Discovery Lodge, Inc. dba Discovery Lodge, 800 Big Thompson Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517. 12. Resolution 38-20 Setting the Public Hearing date of July 14, 2020 for a New Beer & Wine Liquor License filed by Coyote Mountain Lodge, LLC dba Coyote Mountain Lodge, 1340 Big Thompson Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517. Prepared 06-12-2020 *Revised 06-23-2020 3 NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 13. Resolution 41-20 IGA (Memorandum of Understanding) Related to the Distribution of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act Funds. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities). 1.ESTES PARK HEALTH. CEO Vern Carda. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. ACTION ITEMS: Following items are quasi-judicial, see procedures for public comment. A. ORDINANCE 10-20 REZONING, ROCKY MOUNTAIN HEALTH CLUB, 1230 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, ADESTES, LLC/OWNER. (Quasi-Judicial) Planner Bergeron. Proposal to rezone from A (Accommodations) to CO (Commercial Outlying). B. ORDINANCE 05-20 ELKHORN LODGE PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), 600 ELKHORN AVENUE, ZAHOUREK CONSERVANCY, LLC, OWNER, EAST AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A TEXAS LLC, C/O JUSTIN MABEY, APPLICANT. (Quasi-Judicial) Planner Woeber. Applicant requests approval of a Preliminary PUD, on a site 18.6± acres in size, currently zoned CO. The PUD proposes various Accommodations, Commercial, and Residential uses on 13 lots. C.RESOLUTION 18-20 ELKHORN LODGE PRELIMINARY PLAT, 600 ELKHORN AVENUE, ZAHOUREK CONSERVANCY, LLC, OWNER, EAST AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A TEXAS LLC, C/O JUSTIN MABEY, APPLICANT. (Quasi-Judicial) Planner Woeber. Elkhorn Lodge Subdivision, proposing 13 lots, ranging from 0.276 to 3.291 acres in size. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION 39-20 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS. Director Hudson. Authorize filling a vacant fleet mechanic position in July instead of waiting until September. 2.RESOLUTION 40-20 APPEAL OF STAFF DENIAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE ALARADO DEVELOPMENT. (Quasi-Judicial) Director Hunt. Certificate of Occupancy has been denied for the Jimmy John's sandwich shop in Alarado, based on the fact that the new traffic signal at US 34 and Steamer Dr. is not yet installed. ADJOURN. * 4 Public Comment Received by Noon 06-23-2020 Start dateAgenda_Item_TitleName Stance_on_item Comments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_File_Upload6/23/2020 12:08 PM General Public CommentBelle Morris ForHello Honorable Mayor Koenig & Trustees,Today during a Congressional hearing, Dr. Fucci, a physician & an immunologist who serves as the Director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases advised, "Do NOT congregate in crowds and if you do, wear a mask". He continued to confirm that it is dangerous to be around an asymptomatic COVID19 carrier. The dangers of spreading the contagious virus are significant as every individual responds differently. "Even though the overwhelming majority then do well, what you can’t forget is if you get infected and spread the infection, even though you do not get sick, you are part of the process of the dynamics of an outbreak." Several states, including Texas, Florida and Arizona, are seeing a “disturbing surge” of new coronavirus infections. The role of government is to protect & serve, I hope you will consider needed protections for residents, visitors & all workers in Estes Park. COVID19 is not going away any time soon. Thanx, BellePublic Comment Received by Noon 06-23-2020 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 9, 2020 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall and Virtually in said Town of Estes Park on the 9th day of June, 2020. Present: Wendy Koenig, Mayor Patrick Martchink, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Carlie Bangs Marie Cenac Barbara MacAlpine Cindy Younglund Ken Zornes Also Present: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator Dan Kramer, Town Attorney Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Koenig called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA APPROVAL. It was moved and seconded (Zornes/Cenac) to approve the Agenda, and it passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Dick Spielman/Town citizen stated dissatisfaction with the Board’s discussion on the Land Use IGA during the Study Session. TRUSTEE COMMENTS. Trustee Bangs stated she participated in the recent Restorative Justice meeting where Captain Pass outlined the program is an asset to the community and reinforces the Police Department’s community-based policing in Estes Park. The program has cancelled their annual fundraising golf tournament; however, they continue to accept donations. Trustee Younglund met with Assistant Town Administrator Damweber and EPNRC Director Dale-Marshall to receive a review of the activities of the Family Advisory Board. Mayor Koenig stated the Visit Estes Park Board discussed the district’s move to its new location and the need to reduce the cost of remodeling due to budget constraints. The 2021 advertising budget continues to be developed. Trustee Cenac presented a mask Visit Estes Park designed and produced for the community. Mayor Pro Tem Martchink commented the Economic Development Corporation would hold its next meeting on June 18, 2020. Trustee MacAlpine stated she attended her first Estes Park Board of Adjustment meeting. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Town Clerk Williamson provided the Board a review of the recent changes to the liquor law which allows liquor license establishment to apply for temporary modifications for outdoor seating and liquor service. The Town has been developing a program “Embrace the Views” which would allow all dining establishments and retail establishments the ability to extend their businesses outdoors, including public rights of ways, green spaces, sidewalks, etc. DRAFT5 Board of Trustees – June 9, 2020 – Page 2 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Bills. 2. Town Board Minutes dated May 26, 2020. 3. Estes Park Board of Adjustment Minutes dated March 3, 2020 (acknowledgement only). 4. Updated Terms for Appointments to the Estes Park Housing Authority originally approved by the Town Board on April 28, 2020:  Eric Blackhurst, 5-year term beginning May 1, 2020 and expiring on April 30, 2025.  Dan Centurione, 5-year beginning November 1, 2020 and expiring on October 31, 2025. 5. Resolution 31-20 Electric Rate Public Hearing Reschedule to August 25, 2020. 6. Policy 101 Division of Responsibilities – Revise to Remove the Larimer County Open Space Appointment. It was moved and seconded (Martchink/Bangs) to approve the Consent Agenda with the correction to Item 3 to read Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION 32-20 AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION CARES ACT FUNDING TO SUPPORT ESTES TRANSIT. Manager Solesbee stated CDOT notified the Town it was eligible for $94,975 from the federal government’s COVID-19 relief effort, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. The funds would support the 2020 Estes Transit administration and operating expenses. The funds would support the transit operations to prevent, prepare for and respond to COVID-19, including investments in personal protective equipment, additional vehicle cleaning and other public health measures to protect drivers and passengers. The Town estimates 50% of the funds would be used for administrative expenses and 50% for operating expenses. The funds would not require funding/cost sharing by the Town. It was moved and seconded (Bangs/Zornes) to approve Resolution 32- 20, and it passed unanimously. 2. ORDINANCE 09-20 AMENDED WATER RATE SHEET FOR PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE WATER COMPANY LOAN REPAYMENT. Director Bergsten stated the Town entered into a Voluntary Water System Transfer agreement with the Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company. The water distribution system was in disrepair and must be replaced. The Town applied for and received USDA funding to finance the reconstruction of the water system. The USDA loan requires the Town approve a loan repayment schedule to be paid by the customers of the system, setting the rates, by ordinance. He reviewed the amended water rate schedule. It was moved and seconded (Martchink/MacAlpine) to approve Ordinance 09-20, and it passed unanimously. 3. REQUEST TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved and seconded (Martchink/Cenac) to enter executive session for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions - Section 24-6-402(4}(b} C.R.S. – Development Code Procedures, and it passed unanimously. The Board entered executive session at 7:53 p.m. and concluded the executive session at 9:38 p.m. Mayor Koenig reconvened the regular meeting at 9:40 p.m. DRAFT6 Board of Trustees – June 9, 2020 – Page 3 Whereupon Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Wendy Koenig, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFT7 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado June 9, 2020 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Board Room and Virtually in said Town of Estes Park on the 9th day of June, 2020. Board: Mayor Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink, Trustees Bangs, Cenac, MacAlpine, Younglund, and Zornes Attending: Mayor Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink, Trustees Bangs, Cenac, MacAlpine, Younglund, and Zornes Also Attending: Town Administrator Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator Damweber, Town Attorney Kramer and Recording Secretary Disney Absent:None Mayor Koenig called the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m. HOUSING AUTHORITY PEAK VIEW. Director Hawf presented consultants Rita Kurelja, and Sam Betters, and provided an update on the Housing Authority Peak View project. She highlighted the economic and social impacts, long-term benefits, details of the apartments and requirements for residency, costs of the project, and financial sources. Director Hawf stated the Housing Authority would submit a formal request for fee waivers for the water tap fee, building permit fee, and plan review fee. The Board discussed previous Town support of the Housing Authority, fee waivers which have been granted for other entities, budget amendment to the General Fund for accommodating the request, costs associated with building fee waivers due to third party building review, previous loan requests from the Housing Authority for the project, other funding options the Town could review for the project, schedule for finalizing funding of the project, and Housing Authority budgeting impacts as a result of COVID-19. The Board directed staff to review funding options and provide recommendations to the Board at the June 23, 2020 Town Board Meeting. DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP QUARTERLY UPDATE. Director Muhonen presented the Downtown Estes Loop quarterly update, and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). They provided progress updates on Right-of-Way (ROW) acquisitions, budget, schedule timeline, and the Memorandum of Agreement with Central Federal Lands Highway Division. TAC proposed continuing work on the design and ROW acquisition efforts through the remainder of 2020, and bid the construction work in early 2021. Additionally, staff has submitted a grant application to the US Department of Transportation for funding from the 2020 Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) program. The Board discussed TABOR as part of the memorandum, the original timeline of completion of the project, cost growth of the project due to delays, and budgeting issues. STAY HEALTHY STREETS PILOT PROGRAM FOR DOWNTOWN. Director Muhonen, Transportation Advisory (TAB) Board Chair Morris, and Co-Chair Street presented the drafted Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program for Downtown Estes Park as a result of public health executive orders from the state and county mandating physical distancing of at least 6 feet between people, in efforts to slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The drafted program would address physical distancing needs in the downtown area. The program consisted of four options, and public outreach and an online survey was conducted. The program would review the use of existing vehicular traffic lanes allowing for pedestrian, bike, and trolley usage. Staff proposed the Town select one weekend during summer 2020 to test option two, of the four proposed DRAFT8 Town Board Study Session – June 9, 2020 – Page 2 options, and following review of the test weekend, consider implementing one of the options for additional days during the summer guest season. The Board discussed input from the Estes Valley Fire Department for emergency services, options to borrow equipment from other entities and municipalities, concerns on alternate routes, costs of barriers, additional test weekends, constant changing information related to COVID-19, public outreach, and personnel costs. Staff would continue to pursue a potential test weekend and review new information as received with the Board. LAND USE PLANNING IGA. Director Hunt provided background on the three options of the Land Use Planning Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) which were previously presented to the Town Board and Larimer County Commissioners. The two Boards did not reach consensus on how to proceed with land use in the Estes Valley, thus an IGA does not currently exist. Director Hunt highlighted the separated development codes, official zoning maps, procedures for review among town and county staff, and jurisdictional boundaries. The Board discussed properties on the boundary, scheduling individual conversations with Director Hunt to review background information regarding decisions which were made on the IGA. The Board directed staff to work with county staff on revisiting the options for an IGA with the county. TRUSTEE & ADMINSTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. None. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. Mayor Koenig requested a discussion about creating a webpage on the Town website for Board media responses and the discussion was scheduled for June 23, 2020. Trustee Bangs requested Chief Kufeld provide a presentation to the Town Board on Police Department policies and trainings regarding de-escalation and it was determined to tentatively schedule the presentation for July 14, 2020. Town Administrator Machalek requested the review of open container restrictions be scheduled for the Study Session on June 23, 2020 and the Stanley Historic District overview be scheduled for July 14, 2020. It was determined to schedule both discussions for the requested dates. There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:51 p.m. Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary DRAFT9 Start dateAgenda_Item_TitleNameStance_on_item Comments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_File_Upload6/23/2020 11:08 AM Town Board and Study Session Minutes dated June 9, 2020. Donna R. Carlson NeutralIn conversations with business owners about the Safe & Healthy Streets initiative, 60% did not take the town survey because "they never listen to what I say anyway." Efforts to collect responses online yielded little results, so I have asked door to door what the business community on Elkhorn feels. I hope you find the results constructive to tonight's conversation.While I was unable to reach every business owner, of 35 merchants surveyed, five were supportive of the pedestrian walkway, 25 were against and 5 were uncertain. Some who were in favor of the proposal changed their minds after researching the three proposed options. This yields our deduction that 1. the bias for and against this ped experience is equally vehement2. the timing of the test plays heavily into their prejudice3. we need to survey the guest experience to accurately gauge interest.The Chamber is happy to engage a third party to conduct a survey of guests, residents and merchants that willyield more data.Public Comment Received by Noon 06-23-2020 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission May 19, 2020 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 Commission: Acting Chair Matt Comstock, Commissioners Steve Murphree, Joe Elkins, Matthew Heiser, Howard Hanson Attending: Acting Chair Comstock, Commissioners Murphree, Elkins, Heiser, Hanson Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Alex Bergeron, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund, Town Board Liasion Barbara MacAlpine, Town Attorney Dan Kramer Absent: None OPEN MEETING Acting Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The three new Planning Commission members (Elkins, Hanson, Heiser) introduced themselves. Director Hunt explained how the session would work for public comment in its virtual format. Attorney Kramer read the Emergency Rule 06-20 regarding public hearings. Acting Chair Comstock thanked the new Commission members and staff for stepping up during this difficult time. The meeting was held virtually via Google Meet and live-streamed on YouTube and Viebit. APPROVAL OF AGEND A Commissioner Heiser suggested voting on officer positions. Director Hunt thought that the June meeting would be a more appropriate time to do this. It was moved and seconded (Elkins/Heiser) to approve the agenda and the motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: None CONSENT AGENDA 1. Study Session Minutes dated February 18, 2020 2. Meeting Minutes dated February 18, 2020 3. Meeting Minutes dated February 25, 2020 Commissioner Heiser questioned approving minutes from the previous, now defunct Planning Commission meetings, which mostly encompassed different Commission members. Attorney Kramer advised that under the circumstances, this body is the only body that can plausibly approve them, and although not common, is allowed. Acting Chair Comstock, who was in attendance at those meetings, stated that the minutes were accurate. 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission May 19, 2020 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 It was moved and seconded (Hanson/Heiser) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 5-0 ACTION ITEMS REZONE REQUEST, 1230 Big Thompson Avenue, Rocky Mountain Health Club, David and Alix LaSalle, owners Planner Bergeron Director Hunt reviewed the staff report for the rezone request. This request proposes to return the subject property to CO (Commercial Outlying) zoning, from A (Accommodations) zoning, a designation for which the site has been designed and has functioned for at least six decades. It was stated that this would relieve the site of the burdens caused by Code technicalities and allow current and future property owners to expand the existing functional uses of the site within the permissions of the law, including privately-operated office space. Spot-zoning was defined as one type of zone surrounded by different zoning districts. Staff feels that this is an occasion where it is appropriate. A development plan, when and if submitted (it was waived with this application), could come to this Commission. Staff recommended approval of the request. Commission Comments/Questions: Commissioner Elkins asked what the waived fee was for. Director Hunt answered that permit fees go into the Town’s general revenue fund to offset the costs in processing applications. Given what the proposed use for this property is, Comstock questioned why Commercial and not Office zoning was applied for and if it would have been easier to have a code amendment allowing Health Clubs in Accommodations zoning. Hunt answered that Health Clubs are not allowed in Office zoning and that code amendments are more complex and are all-encompassing, altering the Development Code principle for uses in that zone district. Rezonings are organic and need to be carefully considered. Comstock raised the concern of how the public will feel about this being the first post-IGA decision. Hunt felt that since this was a corrective rezoning it does not open up the welcome mat for all rezonings. Attorney Kramer stated that the decision, whether approved or denied, should be based on the review criteria for this and all projects going forward. Hanson wondered if there was an alternative way to accomplish the same result making the planned uses legal, preventing CO zoning abuse in the future. Hunt answered that there aren’t too many alternatives in a case like this. Variances are not allowed for Uses. Heiser wanted to make sure the applicant was aware of the landscape buffer requirements in the Development Code and how the neighboring properties feel about this. Hunt answered that there are flexible choices for this. Many development plans have landscaping alternatives that can be approved at a Staff level. The Planning Commission can waive requirements. As a footnote, 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission May 19, 2020 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 Hunt added that he is hoping to do a code amendment for landscaping requirements in the future. Heiser and Hanson both expressed favorability for the request and planned use of the property, especially in light of the current pandemic. Having the property occupied and not vacant is a good thing. Applicant response: David LaSalle, 1237 Timber Mountain Lane, thanked the Commission for hearing their request. He explained that the building became nonconforming with the 2000 rezoning. Rocky Mountain Health Club (RMHC) was grandfathered in at that time and allowed to continue operating. With the opening of the Estes Park Community Center, RMHC membership went from 600 to 25 members. A-Zoning was very limited on allowed uses causing a dilemma in filling the space. Plans for the future include a flexible workspace and, with the onset of COVID 19, some designs are changing, sometimes daily. An exterior deck is planned, redoing the parking lot and repainting of the outside of the building. The current footprint of the fitness and wellness facilities would stay the same at about 4,000 square feet of the 15,00 total square footage of the building. Accessibility is an issue on the inside, with the possibility of a lift or elevator installation. An on-site commercial mail processing site is also being considered, with the approval of the USPS. A five-minute recess was taken at 2:58 for any additional public comments to come in. There were none. The meeting resumed at 3:05. It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson) to recommend approval of the request by AdEstes LLC to rezone 1230 Big Thompson Avenue from A (Accommodations) to CO (Commercial Outlying), in accordance with the findings as presented. The motion passed 5-0. REPORTS Voluntary DOLA training on Thursday, May 21, 2020, for all Commissioners. Thanks for bearing with us in this first virtual quasi-judicial post-pandemic meeting. ADJOURN There being no further business Chair Comstock adjourned the meeting at 3:12 p.m. _________________________________ Matt Comstock, Chair _________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 13       Town Clerk Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: June 23, 2020 RE: Amending Policy 306 Leave Objective: To amend Policy 306 Leave to allow the reinstatement of forfeited accrued vacation leave on an employee’s anniversary date with justification. Present Situation: The current policy states on the employee’s anniversary date (date of hire), they will forfeit any accrued vacation leave which exceeds the maximum carry over as outlined in the policy. The current policy contains a provision for accrued leave to be carried over only if an employee’s vacation leave was denied. As COVID-19 restricted employees from traveling during the Stay at Home orders, vacations were cancelled by tour companies, airlines, etc., and the Town’s COVID-19 policy discouraged travel out of state, Human Resources received questions from employees on the possibility of extending the use of forfeited leave. Proposal: To revise Policy 306 Leave to allow for an employee to reinstate up to 80 hours of forfeited vacation leave. An employee formally request reinstatement and provide justification for why they were unable to use their leave prior to their anniversary date. Request must be filed within 30 days of the employee’s anniversary date. It is staff’s opinion this would be a rare occurrence. This change would not allow an employee to continually rollover excess accrued leave and would only be approved with justification. In addition, the leave carried over would not be payable to the employee should the employee leave prior to their next anniversary date. Any accrued leave above the cap on the next anniversary date, including reinstated leave, would be forfeited. Advantages: •To provide a method to reinstated vacation leave for employees who are unable to use leave due to circumstances outside of their control. 15 • Provide employees with vacations planned during COVID a mechanism for extending the use of their accrued leave. Disadvantages: • Extending the use of accrued leave may require some employees to be out of the office on extend leave to ensure they are able to use the reinstated leave and any additional accrued leave prior to the employee’s next anniversary date. Action Recommended: Approve the revisions to Policy 306 Leave. Budget: None as the reinstated leave would not be eligible for pay out if the employee leaves prior to their anniversary date. Level of Public Interest: Low Sample Motion: I approve/deny the amendments to Policy 306 Leave. Attachments: Amended Policy 306 Leave with redlines. 16 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 6/17/20 Revisions: 12 Town of Estes Park, Administrative ServicesHuman Resources Page 1 of 16 Effective Period: Until superceded Review Schedule: Annually Effective Date: 2/12/201906/01/2020 References: Governing Policies Manual 3.2, 3.8 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESHUMAN RESOURCES 306 Leave 1.PURPOSE The Town recognizes and respects its employees’ need for leave time away from work. Such leave time is important in allowing employees to renew their physical and mental capabilities and remain productive. To this end, the Town strives to create and maintain a balanced work schedule for its employees by promoting quality of life through leave time. 2. POLICY In accordance with state and federal laws, the Town provides leave time to eligible employees as set forth in the following procedure. Leave accountability is the responsibility of the employee and the supervisor. 3.PROCEDURE a.Reporting Absences and Tardiness i.Expectations Employees are expected to report to their place of work every day as scheduled, unless on approved leave. Time off of any kind must be taken in accordance with this policy and other applicable Town policies. ii.Absent or Tardy Notifications Employees who will be absent or late to work must notify their immediate supervisor (or the supervisor’s designee) as soon as they learn of the need to be absent or late. Failure to provide prompt notice of an absence or tardiness is an unapproved absence and may result in disciplinary action. iii.Process for Reporting Absences or Tardiness Unless otherwise directed in written departmental work rules, employees must notify their immediate supervisor no later than fifteen (15) minutes after the start of the employee’s work shift if they will be absent or late. When notifying the supervisor of the need to be absent or late, the employee must report: 1)The reason for the absence (or tardiness). 2)The date (or time) when the employee expects to return to work. 17 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 6/17/20 Revisions: 12 Town of Estes Park, Administrative ServicesHuman Resources Page 2 of 16 iv. Exceptional Circumstances The Town recognizes that under exceptional circumstances, neither the employee nor someone on his or her behalf may reasonably be able to call within the time required. In such a case, the employee or representative must contact the employee’s supervisor as soon as possible after the beginning of the shift. If the supervisor, at his or her discretion, believes the employee had a compelling reason which prevented the employee from obtaining prior approval for the absence, or from calling in on time, the supervisor may approve pay for the period of absence or tardiness. b. Vacation Leave i. Eligibility Vacation leave is accrued by all full-time, part-time employees and eligible contract employees. Vacation leave is pro-rated for part time employees (50% for 20-29 hour part-time employees, 75% for 30-39 hour part-time employees). ii. Amount of Hours Earned Vacation accrual begins upon initial date of hire and hours are earned for the first two pay periods of each month according to the schedule below. The date of initial hire does not change with changes in employment within the Town organization (i.e. promotions and transfers). However, if an employee leaves employment with the Town, the initial date of hire will change for the purposes of vacation accrual should the employee return to work for the Town. The amount of hours earned per pay period is pro-rated for eligible part-time employees. The maximum vacation leave carry over allowed is equal to double the amount of hours that can be earned in a year. An employee moves through the “Years of Service” brackets at the completion of the final year in the bracket. For example, an employee would move from the “0 through 3” bracket into the “4 through 7” bracket at the completion of the employee’s third year of service (36 months). Years of Service Hours Earned per Month Maximum Carry Over 0 through 3 8.00 192 Hours 4 through 7 10.00 240 Hours 8 through 15 12.00 288 Hours 16 or more 14.00 336 Hours iii. Amount of Hours Earned by At-Will Employees Years of Service Hours Earned per Month Maximum Carry Over 0 through 3 10.00 240 Hours 4 through 7 12.00 288 Hours 8 through 15 14.00 336 Hours 16 or more 16.00 384 Hours 18 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 6/17/20 Revisions: 12 Town of Estes Park, Administrative ServicesHuman Resources Page 3 of 16 iv. Authorization of Vacation Leave 1) Vacation leave shall be requested in advance and is granted at the discretion of each employee’s supervisor. 2) Requests for vacation leave may be deferred based upon workload. Supervisors and Department Directors shall ensure that every effort is made for the employee to use vacation leave requests previously cancelled due to department work load. v. Forfeiting of Vacation Leave 1) On the employee’s anniversary date (date of hire), they will forfeit any accrued vacation leave exceeding the maximum carry over articulated in Section 3.b.ii and 3.b.iii of this policy. If an employee’s vacation leave denial was unavoidable, the employee will be allowed to carry over that amount of leave for a period of time determined by the employee’s supervisor with the completion of a personnel action form . 2) An employee may request reinstatement of forfeited accrued vacation leave of up to 80 hours for up to one (1) year from their anniversary date at the discretion of the Town Administrator. The request must justify why the employee was unable to use forfeited accrued vacation leave. All requests must be submitted within 30 days from the date accrued vacation leave was forfeited. Reinstated hours shall not be subject to payout if the employee terminates employment prior to their next anniversary date. vi. Use of Vacation Leave Vacation leave shall be taken in no less than one (1) hour increments. At no time may an employee have a negative vacation leave balance. vii. Separation of Employment Payout Upon separation of employment, an employee receives payment for all accrued vacation leave. The payment for accrued vacation will be based on the employee’s pay rate at the time of separation. This payment is taxed at the supplemental earnings rate c. Holiday Leave i. Eligibility Holiday leave is granted to all full-time, part-time employees and eligible contract employees. Holiday leave is pro-rated for part time employees (50% for 20-29 hour part-time employees, 75% for 30-39 hour part-time employees). ii. Holidays Observed Holiday leave is observed and granted for the following holidays: Nominal Date Holiday 19 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 6/17/20 Revisions: 12 Town of Estes Park, Administrative ServicesHuman Resources Page 4 of 16 January 1st New Year’s Day May (Last Monday) Memorial Day July 4th Independence Day September (First Monday) Labor Day November (Fourth Thursday) Thanksgiving Day December 24th Christmas Eve Day December 25th Christmas Holidays that occur on a Saturday will be observed on the preceding Friday, and those that occur on a Sunday will be observed on the following Monday. If an employee is not normally scheduled to work on the day that a Town-observed holiday lands (i.e. a Friday for an employee working a 4/10 schedule), then such employee shall receive one additional eight (8) hour floating holiday. If an employee is normally scheduled to work on the day that a Town-observed holiday lands, and does not work the holiday, such employee receives eight (8) hours of holiday pay. iii. Use of Holiday Leave Holiday leave granted by the Town shall be used in the following manner: 1) Holidays must be taken unless the employee is scheduled to work by the employee’s supervisor. 2) Holidays which occur during an employee’s absence due to vacation or sickness shall not be counted as vacation or sick leave. 3) Employees, other than Department Directors and Police Department personnel, who are required to work on a holiday will receive pay for the hours worked as well as holiday pay. iv. Use of Holiday Leave – Police Department As the Police Department is required to be staffed on a 24/7/365 basis, Town- observed holidays will be handled by the Police Department as described below: 1) Non-exempt patrol personnel and non-exempt dispatch personnel will receive eight (8) hours of straight holiday pay for every holiday, regardless of whether the day is worked or not. These hours will not count towards overtime. 2) Non-exempt police personnel on an administrative schedule will receive eight (8) hours of holiday pay for each Town-observed holiday. These hours will count towards overtime. v. Floating Holidays In addition to the Town-observed holidays above, employees are allotted three (3) floating holidays to be taken at their discretion, with supervisor approval. Floating 20 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 6/17/20 Revisions: 12 Town of Estes Park, Administrative ServicesHuman Resources Page 5 of 16 holidays must be used during the year accrued or they will be forfeited on December 31st. Floating holidays are pro-rated for new employees. Floating holidays are pro-rated for part-time employees (50% for 20-29 hour part-time employees, 75% for 30-39 hour part-time employees). d. Sick Leave i. Eligibility Sick leave is accrued by all full-time, part-time employees and eligible contract employees. Sick leave is pro-rated for part time employees (50% for 20-29 hour part-time employees, 75% for 30-39 hour part-time employees). ii. Amount of Hours Accrued Sick leave will be accrued at the rate of four (4) hours for the first two bi-weekly pay periods of each month (pro-rated for eligible part-time employees). Sick leave accumulation is capped at 480 hours. When any employee accumulates more than 480 hours of sick leave, all excess sick leave will be converted to vacation leave (on a two-for-one basis) on that employee’s anniversary date. iii. Use of Sick Leave Sick leave shall be used in the following manner: 1) Sick leave may only be used for: a. A non-occupational personal illness that renders an employee unable to perform their job. b. Non-occupational, necessary medical, optical, and dental health examinations and treatments, including reasonable travel time, when such appointments cannot be scheduled outside of regularly scheduled work hours. c. When an employee’s family member has a medical appointment or is ill and requires the care of the employee. For the purposes of this policy, “family member” is defined as an employee’s child, spouse, sibling, parent, grandparent, or grandchild, including natural, step, in-law, and foster relatives, regardless of whether or not said relative is living within the employee’s home. d. For a Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) qualifying event as outlined in Policy 311. e. For a single day, weather-related closure of Town facilities as determined by the Town Administrator. 2) Sick leave may not be used during a scheduled vacation or compensatory time off. 21 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 6/17/20 Revisions: 12 Town of Estes Park, Administrative ServicesHuman Resources Page 6 of 16 3) Employees who are eligible for holiday time and who are on sick leave during a designated holiday must record holiday time for that day and not sick leave. An employee who is scheduled to work on a holiday and becomes sick must record holiday time only for the day. 4) During paid sick leave under the terms of this policy, all benefits will continue as though the employee were at work. 5) Sick leave shall be taken in no less than 30-minute increments. 6) At no time may an employee have a negative sick leave balance. 7) A Department Director may require an employee to take sick leave for any of the reasons specified in 306.3.d(iii)(1). 8) Employees are prohibited from using sick leave except under the circumstances described above. Employees who, in the Town’s judgment, misuse sick leave are subject to disciplinary action. When there appears to be a possibility that sick leave is being misused, the Department Director or supervisor may: a. Make further inquiry of the employee about past or ongoing use of the leave time. b. Require the employee to provide the type of information or submit to medical examinations as provided in the “Medical Certification” section of this policy (3.c.vi). c. Require the employee to provide written medical verification or be seen by the Town’s designated physician in order to use any further sick leave. iv. Notice of Brief Absence (3 days or less) This portion of the leave policy applies to non-occupational absences for brief illnesses, injuries, and minor medical procedures where the employee reasonably expects to be absent three (3) days or less, even if the absence ends up being longer. 1) Employees who need to use sick leave for an unexpected, brief illness or injury must contact their supervisor within 15 minutes after the beginning of the shift each day of the absence, or within a time frame set by the employees’ Department Director. 2) Employees who need to be absent for a scheduled medical procedure or short-term treatment must notify their supervisor as soon as the need for the absence is scheduled with the health care provider. 22 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 6/17/20 Revisions: 12 Town of Estes Park, Administrative ServicesHuman Resources Page 7 of 16 v. Notice of Prolonged Absence (More than 3 Days) or Intermittent Leave This portion of the leave policy applies to employees who need to be absent for non-occupational illnesses or medical procedures for more than three days, or who need to use sick leave intermittently. Employees seeking job protection under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) should refer to Policy 311. vi. Medical Certification 1) The Town reserves the right to require employees to substantiate and/or document their need for sick leave, whether it is based on their own physical condition or the condition of an immediate family member. 2) The Town reserves the right to evaluate requests for, and extensions of, sick leave by consulting with the physician of the employee, or with the Town’s own medical consultants, and retains the right to request that the employee seek a second opinion of the illness/disability from a physician of the Town’s choice. Employees who request sick leave, or who have used sick leave, may be required by their supervisor (in consultation with Human Resources) to provide written verification of the following from the physician or other health care provider treating the employee: a. Date on which the condition commenced; b. Nature and extent of illness or injury, but only as is necessary to determine the employee’s ability to perform job functions; c. Probable duration of illness or injury; d. Confirmation that the employee is unable to perform essential job functions; e. Anticipated date on which the employee may return to work; and/or f. Release stating that the employee is able to return and perform his or her duties without endangering the health and safety of himself/herself or others, and describing restrictions on the employee’s work activities. 3) Any illness or injury of an employee or an employee’s immediate family member requiring an employee to miss more than three (3) regularly scheduled work days may, at the discretion of the Department Director, require a physician’s statement verifying the condition of the person under the physician’s care. 4) At the end of any sick leave, the Town may require a physician’s statement verifying the employee’s fitness to return to work. 23 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 6/17/20 Revisions: 12 Town of Estes Park, Administrative ServicesHuman Resources Page 8 of 16 vii. Payment upon separation A terminating employee that has completed 20 years of continuous service shall be compensated for fifty percent (50%) of their accumulated sick leave hours. Said compensation will be computed at the employee’s rate of pay at time of termination. This payment is taxed at the supplemental earnings rate. e. Family and Medical Leave Act The Town of Estes Park complies with the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, as amended. The Town posts the mandatory FMLA Notice and, upon hire, provides all new employees with notices required by the United States Department of Labor (DOL) on Employee Rights and Responsibility under the Family and Medical Leave Act. For more details on the Town’s compliance with FMLA, please see Policy 311. f. Jury Duty and Witness Appearance Leave The Town recognizes jury duty as an important civic obligation. If called to report to jury duty or required to serve on a jury, an employee will be granted the necessary time required and will be compensated at his or her regular pay rate. i. Notification If an employee is served with a summons to jury duty, the employee must inform his or her supervisor by the next regular work day and provide a copy of their summons (in electronic format or otherwise). ii. Exempt Employee Compensation Exempt employees will receive their regular wages for regularly scheduled work hours for jury duty. iii. Non-Exempt Employee Compensation Non-exempt employees will receive their regular wages for regularly scheduled work hours during each of the first three days of jury duty served during regular work hours. Thereafter, any pay they receive for jury duty is paid by the governmental entity requesting the employee to participate in the jury service. iv. Compensation Requirements The Town has no obligation to pay wages for time spent on jury duty until and unless the employee’s supervisor verifies on the Court website that the employee was on jury duty during that period. v. Return to Work Employees are expected to return to work on any day or portion of a day they are released from jury duty as reasonable. vi. Witness Appearance Leave 1) Exempt employees will be paid during time they are subpoenaed or otherwise required by law to appear as a witness in any personal matter that overlaps with scheduled work time up to a maximum of two working days in any 12-month period. To receive this pay, the employee must pay 24 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 6/17/20 Revisions: 12 Town of Estes Park, Administrative ServicesHuman Resources Page 9 of 16 to the Town any witness pay received by the employee, excluding mileage reimbursement. Any further time that an employee is required to appear as a witness is unpaid by the Town unless the employee chooses to use accrued paid leave time. A matter is considered personal if, in the discretion of the supervisor, it is not directly related to the employee’s essential job functions. An employee’s appearance as a witness in non-personal matters is considered regular working time and will be compensated accordingly. 2) Non-exempt employees will be granted all necessary time off when required to appear as a witness in personal matters, but such time is unpaid by the Town unless the employee chooses to use accrued paid leave time. An employee’s appearance as a witness in non-personal matters is considered regular working time and will be compensated accordingly. g. Voting Leave i. Eligibility To qualify for voting leave, employees must: 1) Be a registered, eligible elector entitled to vote at an election. 2) Advise their manager of the leave of absence prior to the day of the election. 3) Have less than three (3) hours between the time the polls open and the time the polls close during which they are not required to be on the job for the Town. ii. Benefit Eligible employees shall be entitled to up to two hours off, with pay, for the purpose of voting on the day of the election during the time the polls are open. The Town may specify the hours during which the employee may be absent. h. Workers’ Compensation The Town complies with all applicable federal and state laws pertaining to Workers’ Compensation. Employees who are injured on the job may be eligible for leave time and other benefits. Any employee who suffers an occupational injury must report the injury to Human Resources and follow the incident reporting policy. Questions about workers’ compensation should be directed to Human Resources. i. Military Leave i. Eligibility All Town employees, regardless of employment category, are eligible to take military leave for active duty or active or inactive duty training if they are members of the reserves or enlisted in any branch of the United States Armed Forces, or are members of the National Guard of any state in the United States. Employees must present official documentation of the military duty prior to the leave and upon returning from leave. 25 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 6/17/20 Revisions: 12 Town of Estes Park, Administrative ServicesHuman Resources Page 10 of 16 ii. Length of Paid Military Leave 1) Employees are provided with paid leave for a maximum of 15 working days (120 hours for full-time employees, pro-rated for less than full-time employees) per calendar year for active duty or active or inactive duty training with the National Guard or any branch of the United States Armed Forces. If the intermittent schedule of a part-time employee makes it difficult to determine the number of hours the employee would have worked during the leave period for proration purposes, the number of hours the employee actually worked during the 21 calendar day immediately preceding the leave shall be used to calculate the maximum length of the paid military leave. 2) After exhausting the 15 days of paid military leave, an employee may choose to use accrued vacation time, compensatory time, accrued but unused holiday time, and/or take leave without pay for active duty or active or inactive duty training with the National Guard or any branch of the United States Armed Forces. If an employee chooses to use the above described accrued paid leave, such use must be at the rate of 40 hours per week (prorated for part-time employees based on their FTE) and can only be used during the initial portion of the leave. Once the leave becomes unpaid, and employee cannot begin using accrued paid leave. An employee may not use any other type of paid leave during military leave, including, but not limited to, sick leave or injury leave. iii. Continuation of Medical, Dental, and Vision Insurance 1) After the first 30 continuous calendar days of unpaid leave for active military service, the Town-sponsored medical, dental, and vision insurance for the employee and covered dependents will terminate. After coverage terminates, the employee may elect to continue coverage at his or her own expense, and will be provided with detailed notice of the right to continue coverage. 2) Employees who are reinstated after completing active duty or active or inactive duty training will be eligible for immediate coverage under any applicable medical insurance plans existing at the time without a waiting period. iv. Retirement Plans Employees who are participants in any Town-sponsored retirement plan will continue to accrue service credits during military leave, and such leave will not constitute a break in service, so long as the employee complies with requirements for reinstatement after completing active duty or active or inactive duty training. v. Life and Disability Insurance After the first 30 continuous calendar days of unpaid leave for active military service, coverage under the life and disability insurance plans sponsored by the Town will terminate. These plans may contain limitations on coverage for death 26 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 6/17/20 Revisions: 12 Town of Estes Park, Administrative ServicesHuman Resources Page 11 of 16 and disabilities which occur during a declared or undeclared war. For more information about the policy provisions of these plans, contact Human Resources for a copy of the summary plan descriptions or policies. vi. Reinstatement When all of the following conditions for reinstatement are met, an employee will be reinstated to the same position they had at the time the military leave commenced, or to a position of like status and pay, provided that: 1) The cumulative period of military service was no longer than five years, unless a longer period is required by federal or state law. 2) The individual employee must return to work, or apply in writing, for reinstatement in a timely manner as defined by federal and state law. While these laws contain exceptions which could extend the time an employee has to return to work, they generally define timely manner as follows: a. Military service time of less than 31 days: reporting for work the next regularly scheduled work day following safe travel time plus eight (8) hours. b. Military service time of more than 30 days but less than 181 days: submitting an application for reinstatement within 14 days after release from military service. c. Military service time of more than 180 days: submitting an application or reinstatement within 90 days after release from military service. 3) The employee must provide documentation from the National Guard or United States Armed Forces that he or she honorably completed military service or active or inactive duty training, such as discharge papers. 4) An employee has the same right to reinstatement as if he or she had been continuously employed during the leave period. For example, the employee is not eligible for reinstatement if the job for which he or she was hired was for a specific time period which expired, or for a project which was completed during the absence, or if the position has been eliminated. 5) The employee is qualified to perform the duties of the pre-service position. If the employee is no longer qualified to perform the job with reasonable accommodations, he or she will be re-employed in another existing job that he or she is capable of performing. j. Administrative Leave i. Imposition of Administrative Leave 1) All Town employees, regardless of employment category, may be placed on administrative leave at any time, with or without cause or notice, at the 27 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 6/17/20 Revisions: 12 Town of Estes Park, Administrative ServicesHuman Resources Page 12 of 16 sole discretion of the Town Administrator. Placement on administrative leave is not disciplinary in nature. Circumstances under which such a leave may occur include, but are not limited to, the following: a. To make inquiries into or investigate a work-related matter; b. To remove the employee from the workplace pending a determination of job action; c. To protect the employee; d. To protect the public; e. To protect other employees or property in the workplace; or f. To further any other work-related or business-related purpose. 2) Unless it would harm an administrative or criminal investigation, and after consultation with Human Resources, the supervisor or manager shall place an employee on administrative leave as soon reasonably practical upon determination that such leave is appropriate under Section 306.j.ii of this policy. ii. Paid and Unpaid Administrative Leave 1) Administrative leave shall be with pay except under that following circumstances, in which case administrative leave may be without pay: a. The employee has been formally charged or indicted for a felony or misdemeanor and: i. The employee occupies a position of public trust and public visibility; or ii. The felony or misdemeanor relates to the performance of the employee’s official duties b. The employee has been formally charged or indicted for a crime of theft, a sex offense, or an offense that involves minors. 2) Before an employee is placed on unpaid administrative leave, the employee must be provided with a pre-determination hearing pursuant to Policy 308 for the purpose of providing the employee with the opportunity to be heard and present information concerning whether or not there are reasonable grounds to support the placement on unpaid administrative leave. 3) During paid administrative leave, an employee will continue to receive their regular, straight-time wages and benefits based on their position’s designated FTE. An employee eligible for holiday time and on paid 28 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 6/17/20 Revisions: 12 Town of Estes Park, Administrative ServicesHuman Resources Page 13 of 16 administrative leave during a designated holiday will receive holiday pay for that day in lieu of pay for administrative leave. iii. Employee Required to Remain Available An employee on paid or unpaid administrative leave must remain available during their regular working hours, and be available to return to work within one (1) day if requested to do so. This means that an employee on administrative leave may not consider the leave time as vacation or personal time. The employee must provide his or her supervisor with telephone numbers where he or she can be reached during regular working hours and must promptly return calls from the supervisor or Human Resources. In addition, the employee must obtain the prior permission of the supervisor and use accrued vacation time, compensatory time, or other leave time in order to be out of contact with his or her supervisor for longer than a single workday. iv. Employee Restrictions during Administrative Leave During administrative leave, an employee may not contact other employees or be at the work site unless directed to do so by their supervisor. k. Bereavement Leave i. Eligibility In the event of a death in an employee’s immediate family (defined in Section iii below), the Department Director may authorize paid leave of up to 40 hours for full-time employees to manage family affairs and attend the funeral. Part-time employees may be authorized paid leave at a prorated rate of 20 hours for an employee working on average 20 – 29 hours and 30 hours for an employee working on average 30 – 39 hours by their Department Director. ii. Requesting Bereavement Leave In order to request bereavement leave, an employee shall submit a written request to his or her Department Director, who shall approve, deny, or reduce of leave requested by the employee. In authorizing any requests for bereavement leave, consideration shall be given to the distance to be travelled and personal demands placed on the employee. iii. Immediate Family For the purposes of bereavement leave, the Town defines “Immediate Family” to include a spouse, a child, a parent, a parent in-law, a sibling, a brother or sister in- law, a grandparent, a grandchild, a stepparent, a stepchild, a stepbrother, a stepsister, a legal guardian, or a person with whom the employee shares a household with in a personal relationship. l. Domestic Violence Leave The Town complies with C.R.S. 24-34-402.7 as it relates to leave for victims of domestic violence. An employee eligible for leave under C.R.S. 24-34-402.7 will receive up to three (3) working days of unpaid leave from work in any twelve-month period. 29 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 6/17/20 Revisions: 12 Town of Estes Park, Administrative ServicesHuman Resources Page 14 of 16 m. Emergency Volunteer Service Leave The Town complies with C.R.S. 24-33.5-801 through C.R.S. 24-33.5-828 as it pertains to emergency volunteer service leave for employees. n. Volunteer Firefighter Leave The Town complies with C.R.S. 31-30-1131 as it pertains to the employment of volunteer firefighters. o. Volunteer Leave The purpose is to create community engagement opportunities for Town staff that support the Estes Valley. In addition, the Town recognizes that participating in volunteer projects and encouraging philanthropy will also enrich and inspire the lives of our employees and build strong work teams. Activities performed in the use of Volunteer Leave are considered personal in nature and not representative of the Town. i. Eligibility: Eight hours is granted to all full-time and part-time employees annually. Volunteer leave is pro-rated for part-time employees (50% for 20 - 29- hour part-time employees, 75% for 30 - 39-hour part-time employees). ii. Ineligibility: 1) Employees are ineligible if their employment terminates for any reason. 2) If the Volunteer leave program is discontinued for any reason, all leave previously granted and unused will become null and void. 3) The Town reserves the right to modify, amend, suspend or discontinue the program at any time without prior notice. 4) The Town reserves the right to revoke previous approval if it is determined the employee is misusing the program. iii. Leave Authorization: 1) Volunteer leave shall be requested in advance and is granted at the discretion of each employee’s supervisor. 2) Employees must receive the approval of their supervisor for the use of volunteer leave. It is the responsibility of the supervisor to ensure the leave approved is in compliance with the requirements of this policy. 2) Work demands shall take priority over the volunteer leave request. 3) Volunteer leave may be used individually or with other employees as a team volunteer activity. 4) Volunteer leave shall not be used in the computation of overtime and compensatory time. iv. Use of Volunteer Leave: 1) Volunteer leave must be used during the year accrued or it will be forfeited on December 31st. 2) Employees will be paid at their regular wage for volunteer leave hours. 3) Following the use of volunteer leave, the employee must enter the time into Paylocity using the Volunteer Leave code and insert a note regarding the project. 4) Examples of appropriate volunteer leave include but are not limited to: 30 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 6/17/20 Revisions: 12 Town of Estes Park, Administrative ServicesHuman Resources Page 15 of 16 a. Working with an organization to clean up a road or trail. b. Performing restoration work in a natural area. c. Volunteering at a food bank. d. Participating in childhood mentoring or educational programs. 5) Examples of inappropriate volunteer leave include but are not limited to: a. Taking a ski vacation and charitably giving ski lessons. b. Attending your child’s PTA conference. c. Canvassing for a political campaign. d. Religious, professional, or political activities. e. Town events associated with an employee’s normal job duties per the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 6) Volunteer Leave may be used in one day or spread over the calendar year in one (1) hour increments, depending on the work needs of the employee’s department and supervisor approval. 7) Volunteer Leave shall be used for nonprofits and taxing districts within the Park R-3 School District boundary. The organization must serve the Estes Valley. 8) Situations not addressed in this policy would require the approval of the Town Administrator. p. Education Leave Eligible employees, when necessary, and upon approval of the Department Director, may be granted a maximum of four hours per week of paid educational leave to attend classes (see Policy 305.f for more information). For the purposes of this policy, Town- sponsored and/or mandatory training is not considered education leave. q. Leave without Pay i. Eligibility Any full-time, part-time employee and contract employee in good standing is eligible for leave without pay. ii. Benefit When in the best interests of the Town and the employee, the Town Administrator may grant a leave without pay to any eligible employee for a period of up to three (3) months. Such leave shall not constitute a break in employment, and the employee shall return to his or her position at the expiration of the leave period. Temporary help may be obtained during the employee’s absence. iii. Interaction with other Benefits Annual and sick leave shall not accrue while the employee is on leave without pay. Failure to return to work at the expiration of a leave of absence shall be considered a resignation. If applicable, leave without pay may run concurrently with FMLA leave subject to required medical certification. The employee will be responsible for all insurance premiums, and must pay these in advance of leave. 31 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 6/17/20 Revisions: 12 Town of Estes Park, Administrative ServicesHuman Resources Page 16 of 16 iv.Requesting Leave without Pay In order to request a leave without pay, an employee shall submit a written request to his or her Department Director. Requests for leave without pay will be considered in the following manner: 1)If the request is for two (2) days or less, and will not exceed the two (2) days per month limitation, the Department Director may approve, deny, or change the requested leave. 2)If the request is for three (3) or more days, or if the two (2) days per month limitation is to be exceeded, the Department Director shall forward this request to Human Resources and the Town Administrator along with a recommendation to approve, deny, or change the requested amount of leave. In this case, the Town Administrator makes the final determination on whether to approve, deny, or change the requested amount of leave without pay. Approved: _____________________________ Todd JirsaWendy Koenig, Mayor _____________ Date 32 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Vanessa Solesbee, Parking & Transit Manager Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date: June 23, 2020 RE: Resolution 33-20 Intergovernmental Agreement with CDOT for Fiscal Year 2020 Certifications and Assurances as required by the Federal Transit Administration for funding recipients. (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Public Works staff seeks approval of Resolution 33-20, approving an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for Fiscal Year 2020 Certifications and Assurances required by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for recipients of FTA funding for public transportation. Present Situation: Before the FTA may award federal assistance for public transportation in the form of a federal grant, cooperative agreement, loan, line of credit, or loan guarantee, certain pre- award Certifications and Assurances are required. CDOT has requested that each transit program review the FTA’s Certification and Assurance overview and select those categories that will apply to any application for which the agency (Town) might seek or receive federal assistance from FTA during the fiscal year listed (FY 2020). Staff are bringing these certifications to the Town Board for approval as an intergovernmental agreement. Proposal: Public Works staff propose the that Town Board authorize the Parking & Transit Manager to complete CDOT’s request on behalf of the Town and submit the FY 2020 Certifications and Assurances using CDOT’s online document management portal COTRAMS. 33 Advantages: • By completing the requested FY 2020 Certifications and Assurances the Town will ensure that it remains in compliance with State and Federal requirements for agencies that receive grant funding for public transportation projects. Disadvantages: • Without authorization to complete the requested FY 2020 Certifications and Assurances the Town would not be eligible to receive FTA grant funding, which could jeopardize both reimbursement for the Town’s first electric trolley and an existing grant application for a trolley barn. Action Recommended: Staff recommend approval of Resolution 33-20. Finance/Resource Impact: This item does not require funding or resources from the Town. Level of Public Interest Public interest in this item is low. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny Resolution 33-20. Attachments: 33-20 Resolution FY 2020 FTA Certification and Assurances Overview 34 RESOLUTION 33-20 APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES AS REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) FOR RECEIPIENTS OF FTA FUNDING FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, the Town Board desires to enter into the intergovernmental agreement referenced in the title of this resolution for the purpose of receiving grant funding for public transportation in Estes Park from the Federal Transit Administration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the intergovernmental agreement referenced in the title of this resolution in substantially the form now before the Board. DATED this day of , 2020. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 35 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 1 Not every provision of every certification will apply to every applicant or award. If a provision of a certification does not apply to the applicant or its award, FTA will not enforce that provision. Refer to FTA’s accompanying Instructions document for more information. Text in italics is guidance to the public. It does not have the force and effect of law, and is not meant to bind the public in any way. It is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. CATEGORY 1. CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES REQUIRED OF EVERY APPLICANT. All applicants must make the certifications in this category. 1.1. Standard Assurances. The certifications in this subcategory appear as part of the applicant’s registration or annual registration renewal in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) and on the Office of Management and Budget’s standard form 424B “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs”. This certification has been modified in places to include analogous certifications required by U.S. DOT statutes or regulations. As the duly authorized representative of the applicant, you certify that the applicant: (a) Has the legal authority to apply for Federal assistance and the institutional, managerial and financial capability (including funds sufficient to pay the non-Federal share of project cost) to ensure proper planning, management and completion of the project described in this application. (b) Will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller General of the United States and, if appropriate, the State, through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the award; and will establish a proper accounting system in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards or agency directives. (c) Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or presents the appearance of personal or organizational conflict of interest, or personal gain. (d) Will initiate and complete the work within the applicable time frame after receipt of approval of the awarding agency. (e) Will comply with the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4728– 4763) relating to prescribed standards for merit systems for programs funded under one of the 19 statutes or regulations specified in Appendix A of OPM’s Standards for a Merit System of Personnel Administration (5 C.F.R. 900, Subpart F). 36 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 2 (f) Will comply with all Federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: (1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, as effectuated by U.S. DOT regulation 49 C.F.R. Part 21; (2) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681– 1683, and 1685–1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, as effectuated by U.S. DOT regulation 49 C.F.R. Part 25; (3) Section 5332 of the Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. § 5332), which prohibits any person being excluded from participating in, denied a benefit of, or discriminated against under, a project, program, or activity receiving financial assistance from FTA because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or age. (4) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicaps, as effectuated by U.S. DOT regulation 49 C.F.R. Part 27; (5) The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 6101–6107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; (6) The Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; (7) The comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (P.L. 91–616), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; (8) Sections 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. §§ 290 dd-3 and 290 ee-3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (9) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of housing; (10) Any other nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s) under which application for Federal assistance is being made; and, (11) the requirements of any other nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply to the application. (g) Will comply, or has already complied, with the requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (“Uniform Act”) (P.L. 91-646) which provide for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced or whose property is acquired as a result of Federal or federally-assisted programs. These requirements apply to all interests in real property acquired for project purposes regardless of Federal participation in purchases. The requirements of the Uniform Act are effectuated by U.S. DOT regulation 49 C.F.R. Part 24. 37 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 3 (h) Will comply, as applicable, with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 1501–1508 and 7324–7328) which limit the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds. (i) Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Davis–Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 276a to 276a-7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. § 276c and 18 U.S.C. § 874), and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 327–333), regarding labor standards for federally assisted construction subagreements. (j) Will comply, if applicable, with flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) which requires recipients in a special flood hazard area to participate in the program and to purchase flood insurance if the total cost of insurable construction and acquisition is $10,000 or more. (k) Will comply with environmental standards which may be prescribed pursuant to the following: (1) Institution of environmental quality control measures under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) and Executive Order (EO) 11514; (2) Notification of violating facilities pursuant to EO 11738; (3) Protection of wetlands pursuant to EO 11990; (4) Evaluation of flood hazards in floodplains in accordance with EO 11988; (5) Assurance of project consistency with the approved State management program developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.); (6) Conformity of Federal actions to State (Clean Air) Implementation Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.); (7) Protection of underground sources of drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended (P.L. 93-523); and (8) Protection of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (P.L. 93–205). (l) Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1271 et seq.) related to protecting components or potential components of the national wild and scenic rivers system. (m) Will assist the awarding agency in assuring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 470), EO 11593 (identification and protection of historic properties), and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. §§ 469a-1 et seq.). (n) Will comply with P.L. 93-348 regarding the protection of human subjects involved in research, development, and related activities supported by this award of assistance. (o) Will comply with the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-544, as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 et seq.) pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of warm blooded 38 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 4 animals held for research, teaching, or other activities supported by this award of assistance. (p) Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4801 et seq.) which prohibits the use of lead-based paint in construction or rehabilitation of residence structures. (q) Will cause to be performed the required financial and compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Subpart F, “Audit Requirements”, as adopted and implemented by U.S. DOT at 2 C.F.R. Part 1201. (r) Will comply with all applicable requirements of all other Federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies governing the program under which it is applying for assistance. (s) Will comply with the requirements of Section 106(g) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, as amended (22 U.S.C. § 7104) which prohibits grant award recipients or a sub-recipient from: (1) Engaging in severe forms of trafficking in persons during the period of time that the award is in effect; (2) Procuring a commercial sex act during the period of time that the award is in effect; or (3) Using forced labor in the performance of the award or subawards under the award. 1.2. Standard Assurances: Additional Assurances for Construction Projects. This certification appears on the Office of Management and Budget’s standard form 424D “Assurances—Construction Programs” and applies specifically to federally assisted projects for construction. This certification has been modified in places to include analogous certifications required by U.S. DOT statutes or regulations. As the duly authorized representative of the applicant, you certify that the applicant: (a) Will not dispose of, modify the use of, or change the terms of the real property title or other interest in the site and facilities without permission and instructions from the awarding agency; will record the Federal awarding agency directives; and will include a covenant in the title of real property acquired in whole or in part with Federal assistance funds to assure nondiscrimination during the useful life of the project. (b) Will comply with the requirements of the assistance awarding agency with regard to the drafting, review, and approval of construction plans and specifications. (c) Will provide and maintain competent and adequate engineering supervision at the construction site to ensure that the complete work confirms with the approved plans and specifications, and will furnish progressive reports and such other information as may be required by the assistance awarding agency or State. 39 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 5 1.3. Procurement. The Uniform Administrative Requirements, 2 C.F.R. 200.324, allow a recipient to self-certify that its procurement system complies with Federal requirements, in lieu of submitting to certain pre-procurement reviews. The applicant certifies that its procurement system complies with: (a) U.S. DOT regulations, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards,” 2 C.F.R. Part 1201, which incorporates by reference U.S. OMB regulatory guidance, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards,” 2 C.F.R. Part 200, particularly 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.317–200.326 “Procurement Standards; (b) Federal laws, regulations, and requirements applicable to FTA procurements; and (c) The latest edition of FTA Circular 4220.1 and other applicable Federal guidance. 1.4. Suspension and Debarment. Pursuant to Executive Order 12549, as implemented at 2 C.F.R. Parts 180 and 1200, prior to entering into a covered transaction with an applicant, FTA must determine whether the applicant is excluded from participating in covered non-procurement transactions. For this purpose, FTA is authorized to collect a certification from each applicant regarding the applicant’s exclusion status. 2 C.F.R. § 180.300. Additionally, each applicant must disclose any information required by 2 C.F.R. § 180.335 about the applicant and the applicant’s principals prior to entering into an award agreement with FTA. This certification serves both purposes. The applicant certifies, to the best of its knowledge and belief, that the applicant and each of its principals: (a) Is not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily or involuntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; (b) Has not, within the preceding three years, been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against him or her for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public or private agreement or transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes, including those proscribing price fixing between competitors, allocation of customers between competitors, and bid rigging; commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, receiving stolen property, making false claims, or obstruction of justice; or commission of any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty; 40 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 6 (c) Is not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or local) with commission of any offense described in paragraph (b) of this certification; (d) Has not, within the preceding three years, had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default. 1.5. Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment. The applicant certifies that, consistent with Section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Pub. L. 115-232 (Aug. 13, 2018), beginning on and after August 13, 2020, it will not use assistance awarded by FTA to procure or obtain, extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain, or enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain “covered telecommunications equipment or services” (as that term is defined in Section 889 of the Act) if such equipment or services will be used as a substantial or essential component of any system or as critical technology as part of any system. CATEGORY 2. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AGENCY SAFETY PLANS Beginning on July 20, 2020, this certification is required of each applicant under the Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program (49 U.S.C. § 5307), each rail operator that is subject to FTA’s state safety oversight programs, and each State that is required to draft and certify a public transportation agency safety plan on behalf of a small public transportation provider pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 673.11(d). This certification is required by 49 C.F.R. § 673.13. This certification does not apply to any applicant that receives financial assistance from FTA exclusively under the Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors Program (49 U.S.C. § 5310), the Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program (49 U.S.C. § 5311), or combination of these two programs. An applicant may make this certification only after fulfilling its safety planning requirements under 49 C.F.R. Part 673. If an applicant is making its fiscal year 2020 certifications prior to completing its requirements under 49 C.F.R. Part 673, it will make all other applicable certifications except this certification; the applicant may add this certification after it has fulfilled its requirements under 49 C.F.R. Part 673. FTA’s regional offices and headquarters Office of Transit Safety and Oversight will provide support for incorporating this certification in 2020. On and after July 20, 2020, FTA will not process an application from an applicant required to make this certification unless the applicant has made this certification. 41 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 7 If the applicant is an operator, the applicant certifies that it has established a public transportation agency safety plan meeting the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 673. If the applicant is a State, the applicant certifies that: (a) It has drafted a public transportation agency safety plan for each small public transportation provider within the State, unless the small public transportation provider provided notification to the State that it was opting-out of the State-drafted plan and drafting its own public transportation agency safety plan; and (b) Each small public transportation provider within the state has a public transportation agency safety plan that has been approved by the provider’s Accountable Executive (as that term is defined at 49 C.F.R. § 673.5) and Board of Directors or Equivalent Authority (as that term is defined at 49 C.F.R. § 673.5). CATEGORY 3. TAX LIABILITY AND FELONY CONVICTIONS. If the applicant is a business association (regardless of for-profit, not for-profit, or tax exempt status), it must make this certification. Federal appropriations acts since at least 2014 have prohibited FTA from using funds to enter into an agreement with any corporation that has unpaid Federal tax liabilities or recent felony convictions without first considering the corporation for debarment. E.g., Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. 116-93, div. C, title VII, §§ 744–745. U.S. DOT Order 4200.6 defines a “corporation” as “any private corporation, partnership, trust, joint-stock company, sole proprietorship, or other business association”, and applies the restriction to all tiers of subawards. As prescribed by U.S. DOT Order 4200.6, FTA requires each business association applicant to certify as to its tax and felony status. If the applicant is a private corporation, partnership, trust, joint-stock company, sole proprietorship, or other business association, the applicant certifies that: (a) It has no unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability; and (b) It has not been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months. CATEGORY 4. LOBBYING. If the applicant will apply for a grant or cooperative agreement exceeding $100,000, or a loan, line of credit, loan guarantee, or loan insurance exceeding $150,000, it must make the following 42 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 8 certification and, if applicable, make a disclosure regarding the applicant’s lobbying activities. This certification is required by 49 C.F.R. § 20.110 and app. A to that part. This certification does not apply to an applicant that is an Indian Tribe, Indian organization, or an Indian tribal organization exempt from the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 20. 4.1. Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements. The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: (a) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (b) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions. (c) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 4.2. Statement for Loan Guarantees and Loan Insurance. The undersigned states, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: If any funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan, the undersigned shall complete and 43 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 9 submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions. Submission of this statement is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required statement shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. CATEGORY 5. PRIVATE SECTOR PROTECTIONS. If the applicant will apply for funds that it will use to acquire or operate public transportation facilities or equipment, the applicant must make the following certification regarding protections for the private sector. 5.1. Charter Service Agreement. To enforce the provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 5323(d), FTA’s charter service regulation requires each applicant seeking assistance from FTA for the purpose of acquiring or operating any public transportation equipment or facilities to make the following Charter Service Agreement. 49 C.F.R. § 604.4. The applicant agrees that it, and each of its subrecipients, and third party contractors at any level who use FTA-funded vehicles, may provide charter service using equipment or facilities acquired with Federal assistance authorized under the Federal Transit Laws only in compliance with the regulations set out in 49 C.F.R. Part 604, the terms and conditions of which are incorporated herein by reference. 5.2. School Bus Agreement. To enforce the provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 5323(f), FTA’s school bus regulation requires each applicant seeking assistance from FTA for the purpose of acquiring or operating any public transportation equipment or facilities to make the following agreement regarding the provision of school bus services. 49 C.F.R. § 605.15. (a) If the applicant is not authorized by the FTA Administrator under 49 C.F.R. § 605.11 to engage in school bus operations, the applicant agrees and certifies as follows: (1) The applicant and any operator of project equipment agrees that it will not engage in school bus operations in competition with private school bus operators. (2) The applicant agrees that it will not engage in any practice which constitutes a means of avoiding the requirements of this agreement, part 605 of the Federal Mass Transit Regulations, or section 164(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (49 U.S.C. 1602a(b)). 44 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 10 (b) If the applicant is authorized or obtains authorization from the FTA Administrator to engage in school bus operations under 49 C.F.R. § 605.11, the applicant agrees as follows: (1) The applicant agrees that neither it nor any operator of project equipment will engage in school bus operations in competition with private school bus operators except as provided herein. (2) The applicant, or any operator of project equipment, agrees to promptly notify the FTA Administrator of any changes in its operations which might jeopardize the continuation of an exemption under § 605.11. (3) The applicant agrees that it will not engage in any practice which constitutes a means of avoiding the requirements of this agreement, part 605 of the Federal Transit Administration regulations or section 164(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (49 U.S.C. 1602a(b)). (4) The applicant agrees that the project facilities and equipment shall be used for the provision of mass transportation services within its urban area and that any other use of project facilities and equipment will be incidental to and shall not interfere with the use of such facilities and equipment in mass transportation service to the public. CATEGORY 6. TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN. If the applicant owns, operates, or manages capital assets used to provide public transportation, the following certification is required by 49 U.S.C. § 5326(a). The applicant certifies that it is in compliance with 49 C.F.R. Part 625. CATEGORY 7. ROLLING STOCK BUY AMERICA REVIEWS AND BUS TESTING. 7.1. Rolling Stock Buy America Reviews. If the applicant will apply for an award to acquire rolling stock for use in revenue service, it must make this certification. This certification is required by 49 C.F.R. § 663.7. The applicant certifies that it will conduct or cause to be conducted the pre-award and post- delivery audits prescribed by 49 C.F.R. Part 663 and will maintain on file the certifications required by Subparts B, C, and D of 49 C.F.R. Part 663. 7.2. Bus Testing. If the applicant will apply for funds for the purchase or lease of any new bus model, or any bus model with a major change in configuration or components, the applicant must make this certification. This certification is required by 49 C.F.R. § 665.7. 45 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 11 The applicant certifies that the bus was tested at the Bus Testing Facility and that the bus received a passing test score as required by 49 C.F.R. Part 665. The applicant has received or will receive the appropriate full Bus Testing Report and any applicable partial testing reports before final acceptance of the first vehicle. CATEGORY 8. URBANIZED AREA FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAM. If the applicant will apply for an award under the Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program (49 U.S.C. § 5307), or any other program or award that is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 5307, including the Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors Program (49 U.S.C. § 5310); “flex funds” from infrastructure programs administered by the Federal Highways Administration (see 49 U.S.C. § 5334(i)); projects that will receive an award authorized by the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (“TIFIA”) (23 U.S.C. §§ 601–609) or State Infrastructure Bank Program (23 U.S.C. § 610) (see 49 U.S.C. § 5323(o)); formula awards or competitive awards to urbanized areas under the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program (49 U.S.C. § 5339(a) and (b)); or low or no emission awards to any area under the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program (49 U.S.C. § 5339(c)), the applicant must make the following certification. This certification is required by 49 U.S.C. § 5307(c)(1). The applicant certifies that it: (a) Has or will have the legal, financial, and technical capacity to carry out the program of projects (developed pursuant 49 U.S.C. § 5307(b)), including safety and security aspects of the program; (b) Has or will have satisfactory continuing control over the use of equipment and facilities; (c) Will maintain equipment and facilities in accordance with the applicant’s transit asset management plan; (d) Will ensure that, during non-peak hours for transportation using or involving a facility or equipment of a project financed under this section, a fare that is not more than 50 percent of the peak hour fare will be charged for any— (1) Senior; (2) Individual who, because of illness, injury, age, congenital malfunction, or any other incapacity or temporary or permanent disability (including an individual who is a wheelchair user or has semi-ambulatory capability), cannot use a public transportation service or a public transportation facility effectively without special facilities, planning, or design; and (3) Individual presenting a Medicare card issued to that individual under title II or XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq., and 1395 et seq.); (e) In carrying out a procurement under 49 U.S.C. § 5307, will comply with 49 U.S.C. §§ 5323 (general provisions) and 5325 (contract requirements); 46 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 12 (f) Has complied with 49 U.S.C. § 5307(b) (program of projects requirements); (g) Has available and will provide the required amounts as provided by 49 U.S.C. § 5307(d) (cost sharing); (h) Will comply with 49 U.S.C. §§ 5303 (metropolitan transportation planning) and 5304 (statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning); (i) Has a locally developed process to solicit and consider public comment before raising a fare or carrying out a major reduction of transportation; (j) Either— (1) Will expend for each fiscal year for public transportation security projects, including increased lighting in or adjacent to a public transportation system (including bus stops, subway stations, parking lots, and garages), increased camera surveillance of an area in or adjacent to that system, providing an emergency telephone line to contact law enforcement or security personnel in an area in or adjacent to that system, and any other project intended to increase the security and safety of an existing or planned public transportation system, at least 1 percent of the amount the recipient receives for each fiscal year under 49 U.S.C. § 5336; or (2) Has decided that the expenditure for security projects is not necessary; (k) In the case of an applicant for an urbanized area with a population of not fewer than 200,000 individuals, as determined by the Bureau of the Census, will submit an annual report listing projects carried out in the preceding fiscal year under 49 U.S.C. § 5307 for associated transit improvements as defined in 49 U.S.C. § 5302; and (l) Will comply with 49 U.S.C. § 5329(d) (public transportation agency safety plan). CATEGORY 9. FORMULA GRANTS FOR RURAL AREAS. If the applicant will apply for funds made available to it under the Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program (49 U.S.C. § 5311), it must make this certification. Paragraph (a) of this certification helps FTA make the determinations required by 49 U.S.C. § 5310(b)(2)(C). Paragraph (b) of this certification is required by 49 U.S.C. § 5311(f)(2). Paragraph (c) of this certification, which applies to funds apportioned for the Appalachian Development Public Transportation Assistance Program, is necessary to enforce the conditions of 49 U.S.C. § 5311(c)(2)(D). (a) The applicant certifies that its State program for public transportation service projects, including agreements with private providers for public transportation service— (1) Provides a fair distribution of amounts in the State, including Indian reservations; and (2) Provides the maximum feasible coordination of public transportation service assisted under 49 U.S.C. § 5311 with transportation service assisted by other Federal sources; and 47 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 13 (b) If the applicant will in any fiscal year expend less than 15% of the total amount made available to it under 49 U.S.C. § 5311 to carry out a program to develop and support intercity bus transportation, the applicant certifies that it has consulted with affected intercity bus service providers, and the intercity bus service needs of the State are being met adequately. (c) If the applicant will use for a highway project amounts that cannot be used for operating expenses authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 5311(c)(2) (Appalachian Development Public Transportation Assistance Program), the applicant certifies that— (1) It has approved the use in writing only after providing appropriate notice and an opportunity for comment and appeal to affected public transportation providers; and (2) It has determined that otherwise eligible local transit needs are being addressed. CATEGORY 10. FIXED GUIDEWAY CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS AND THE EXPEDITED PROJECT DELIVERY FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS PILOT PROGRAM. If the applicant will apply for an award under any subsection of the Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Program (49 U.S.C. § 5309), including an award made pursuant to the FAST Act’s Expedited Project Delivery for Capital Investment Grants Pilot Program (Pub. L. 114-94, div. A, title III, § 3005(b)), the applicant must make the following certification. This certification is required by 49 U.S.C. § 5309(c)(2) and Pub. L. 114-94, div. A, title III, § 3005(b)(3)(B). The applicant certifies that it: (a) Has or will have the legal, financial, and technical capacity to carry out its Award, including the safety and security aspects of that Award, (b) Has or will have satisfactory continuing control over the use of equipment and facilities acquired or improved under its Award. (c) Will maintain equipment and facilities acquired or improved under its Award in accordance with its transit asset management plan; and (d) Will comply with 49 U.S.C. §§ 5303 (metropolitan transportation planning) and 5304 (statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning). CATEGORY 11. GRANTS FOR BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES AND LOW OR NO EMISSION VEHICLE DEPLOYMENT GRANT PROGRAMS. If the applicant is in an urbanized area and will apply for an award under subsection (a) (formula grants) or subsection (b) (competitive grants) of the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program (49 U.S.C. § 5339), the applicant must make the certification in Category 8 for Urbanized Area Formula Grants (49 U.S.C. § 5307). This certification is required by 49 U.S.C. § 5339(a)(3) and (b)(6), respectively. 48 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 14 If the applicant is in a rural area and will apply for an award under subsection (a) (formula grants) or subsection (b) (competitive grants) of the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program (49 U.S.C. § 5339), the applicant must make the certification in Category 9 for Formula Grants for Rural Areas (49 U.S.C. § 5311). This certification is required by 49 U.S.C. § 5339(a)(3) and (b)(6), respectively. If the applicant, regardless of whether it is in an urbanized or rural area, will apply for an award under subsection (c) (low or no emission vehicle grants) of the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program (49 U.S.C. § 5339), the applicant must make the certification in Category 8 for Urbanized Area Formula Grants (49 U.S.C. § 5307). This certification is required by 49 U.S.C. § 5339(c)(3). Making this certification will incorporate by reference the applicable certifications in Category 8 or Category 9. CATEGORY 12. ENHANCED MOBILITY OF SENIORS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES PROGRAMS. If the applicant will apply for an award under the Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program (49 U.S.C. § 5310), it must make the certification in Category 8 for Urbanized Area Formula Grants (49 U.S.C. § 5307). This certification is required by 49 U.S.C. § 5310(e)(1). Making this certification will incorporate by reference the certification in Category 8, except that FTA has determined that (d), (f), (i), (j), and (k) of Category 8 do not apply to awards made under 49 U.S.C. § 5310 and will not be enforced. In addition to the certification in Category 8, the applicant must make the following certification that is specific to the Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program. This certification is required by 49 U.S.C. § 5310(e)(2). The applicant certifies that: (a) The projects selected by the applicant are included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan; (b) The plan described in clause (a) was developed and approved through a process that included participation by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers, and other members of the public; (c) To the maximum extent feasible, the services funded under 49 U.S.C. § 5310 will be coordinated with transportation services assisted by other Federal departments and agencies, including any transportation activities carried out by a recipient of a grant from the Department of Health and Human Services; and 49 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 15 (d) If the applicant will allocate funds received under 49 U.S.C. § 5310 to subrecipients, it will do so on a fair and equitable basis. CATEGORY 13. STATE OF GOOD REPAIR GRANTS. If the applicant will apply for an award under FTA’s State of Good Repair Grants Program (49 U.S.C. § 5337), it must make the following certification. Because FTA generally does not review the transit asset management plans of public transportation providers, this certification is necessary to enforce the provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 5337(a)(4). The applicant certifies that the projects it will carry out using assistance authorized by the State of Good Repair Grants Program, 49 U.S.C. § 5337, are aligned with the applicant’s most recent transit asset management plan and are identified in the investment and prioritization section of such plan, consistent with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 625. CATEGORY 14. INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE PROGRAMS. If the applicant will apply for an award for a project that will include assistance under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (“TIFIA”) Program (23 U.S.C. §§ 601–609) or the State Infrastructure Banks (“SIB”) Program (23 U.S.C. § 610), it must make the certifications in Category 8 for the Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program, Category 10 for the Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants program, and Category 13 for the State of Good Repair Grants program. These certifications are required by 49 U.S.C. § 5323(o). Making this certification will incorporate the certifications in Categories 8, 10, and 13 by reference. CATEGORY 15. ALCOHOL AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES TESTING. If the applicant will apply for an award under FTA’s Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program (49 U.S.C. § 5307), Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Program (49 U.S.C. § 5309), Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program (49 U.S.C. § 5311), or Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program (49 U.S.C. § 5339) programs, the applicant must make the following certification. The applicant must make this certification on its own behalf and on behalf of its subrecipients and contractors. This certification is required by 49 C.F.R. § 655.83. The applicant certifies that it, its subrecipients, and its contractors are compliant with FTA’s regulation for the Prevention of Alcohol Misuse and Prohibited Drug Use in Transit Operations, 49 C.F.R. Part 655. 50 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 16 CATEGORY 16. RAIL SAFETY TRAINING AND OVERSIGHT. If the applicant is a State with at least one rail fixed guideway system, or is a State Safety Oversight Agency, or operates a rail fixed guideway system, it must make the following certification. The elements of this certification are required by 49 C.F.R. §§ 659.43, 672.31, and 674.39. The applicant certifies that the rail fixed guideway public transportation system and the State Safety Oversight Agency for the State are: (a) Compliant with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. part 659, “Rail Fixed Guideway Systems; State Safety Oversight”; (b) Compliant with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. part 672, “Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program”; and (c) Compliant with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. part 674, “Sate Safety Oversight”. CATEGORY 17. DEMAND RESPONSIVE SERVICE. If the applicant operates demand responsive service and will apply for an award to purchase a non-rail vehicle that is not accessible within the meaning of 49 C.F.R. Part 37, it must make the following certification. This certification is required by 49 C.F.R. § 37.77. The applicant certifies that the service it provides to individuals with disabilities is equivalent to that provided to other persons. A demand responsive system, when viewed in its entirety, is deemed to provide equivalent service if the service available to individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, is provided in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual and is equivalent to the service provided other individuals with respect to the following service characteristics: (a) Response time; (b) Fares; (c) Geographic area of service; (d) Hours and days of service; (e) Restrictions or priorities based on trip purpose; (f) Availability of information and reservation capability; and (g) Any constraints on capacity or service availability. CATEGORY 18. INTEREST AND FINANCING COSTS. If the applicant will pay for interest or other financing costs of a project using assistance awarded under the Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program (49 U.S.C. § 5307), the Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants Program (49 U.S.C. § 5309), or any program that must comply with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 5307, including the Formula Grants for the 51 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 17 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors Program (49 U.S.C. § 5310), “flex funds” from infrastructure programs administered by the Federal Highways Administration (see 49 U.S.C. § 5334(i)), or awards to urbanized areas under the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program (49 U.S.C. § 5339), the applicant must make the following certification. This certification is required by 49 U.S.C. §§ 5307(e)(3) and 5309(k)(2)(D). The applicant certifies that: (a) Its application includes the cost of interest earned and payable on bonds issued by the applicant only to the extent proceeds of the bonds were or will be expended in carrying out the project identified in its application; and (b) The applicant has shown or will show reasonable diligence in seeking the most favorable financing terms available to the project at the time of borrowing. CATEGORY 19. CONSTRUCTION HIRING PREFERENCES. If the applicant will ask FTA to approve the use of geographic, economic, or any other hiring preference not otherwise authorized by law on any contract or construction project to be assisted with an award from FTA, it must make the following certification. This certification is required by the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. 116-94, div. H, title I, § 191. The applicant certifies the following: (a) That except with respect to apprentices or trainees, a pool of readily available but unemployed individuals possessing the knowledge, skill, and ability to perform the work that the contract requires resides in the jurisdiction; (b) That the grant recipient will include appropriate provisions in its bid document ensuring that the contractor does not displace any of its existing employees in order to satisfy such hiring preference; and (c) That an y increase in the cost of labor, training, or delays resulting from the use of such hiring preference does not delay or displace any transportation project in the applicable Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or Transportation Improvement Program. CATEGORY 20. CYBERSECURITY CERTIFICATION FOR RAIL ROLLING STOCK AND OPERATIONS. If the applicant operates a rail fixed guideway public transportation system, it must make this certification. This certification is required by 49 U.S.C. § 5323(v), a new subsection added by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Pub. L. 116-92, § 7613 (Dec. 20, 2019). For information about standards or practices that may apply to a rail fixed guideway 52 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 18 public transportation system, visit https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework and https://www.cisa.gov/. The applicant certifies that it has established a process to develop, maintain, and execute a written plan for identifying and reducing cybersecurity risks that complies with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 5323(v)(2). 53 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 1 FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2020 CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES FOR FTA ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS (Signature pages alternate to providing Certifications and Assurances in TrAMS.) Name of Applicant:_____________________________________________________ The Applicant certifies to the applicable provisions of categories 01–20. _______ Or, The Applicant certifies to the applicable provisions of the categories it has selected: Category Certification 01 Certifications and Assurances Required of Every Applicant 02 Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans 03 Tax Liability and Felony Convictions 04 Lobbying 05 Private Sector Protections 06 Transit Asset Management Plan 07 Rolling Stock Buy America Reviews and Bus Testing 08 Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program 09 Formula Grants for Rural Areas 10 Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants and the Expedited Project Delivery for Capital Investment Grants Pilot Program 11 Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities and Low or No Emission Vehicle Deployment Grant Programs 54 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 2 12 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Programs 13 State of Good Repair Grants 14 Infrastructure Finance Programs 15 Alcohol and Controlled Substances Testing 16 Rail Safety Training and Oversight 17 Demand Responsive Service 18 Interest and Financing Costs 19 Construction Hiring Preferences 20 Cybersecurity Certification for Rail Rolling Stock and Operations FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2020 FTA CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES SIGNATURE PAGE (Required of all Applicants for federal assistance to be awarded by FTA in FY 2020) AFFIRMATION OF APPLICANT Name of the Applicant: BY SIGNING BELOW, on behalf of the Applicant, I declare that it has duly authorized me to make these Certifications and Assurances and bind its compliance. Thus, it agrees to comply with all federal laws, regulations, and requirements, follow applicable federal guidance, and comply with the Certifications and Assurances as indicated on the foregoing page applicable to each application its Authorized Representative makes to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in federal fiscal year 2020, irrespective of whether the individual that acted on his or her Applicant’s behalf continues to represent it. FTA intends that the Certifications and Assurances the Applicant selects on the other side of this document should apply to each Award for which it now seeks, or may later seek federal assistance to be awarded during federal fiscal year 2020. The Applicant affirms the truthfulness and accuracy of the Certifications and Assurances it has selected in the statements submitted with this document and any other submission made to FTA, and acknowledges that the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, 31 U.S.C. § 3801 et seq., and implementing U.S. DOT regulations, “Program Fraud Civil Remedies,” 49 CFR part 31, apply to any certification, assurance or submission made to FTA. The criminal provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 apply to any certification, assurance, or submission made in connection with a federal public transportation program authorized by 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 or any other statute 55 Certifications and Assurances Fiscal Year 2020 3 In signing this document, I declare under penalties of perjury that the foregoing Certifications and Assurances, and any other statements made by me on behalf of the Applicant are true and accurate. Signature Date: Name Authorized Representative of Applicant AFFIRMATION OF APPLICANT’S ATTORNEY For (Name of Applicant): As the undersigned Attorney for the above-named Applicant, I hereby affirm to the Applicant that it has authority under state, local, or tribal government law, as applicable, to make and comply with the Certifications and Assurances as indicated on the foregoing pages. I further affirm that, in my opinion, the Certifications and Assurances have been legally made and constitute legal and binding obligations on it. I further affirm that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no legislation or litigation pending or imminent that might adversely affect the validity of these Certifications and Assurances, or of the performance of its FTA assisted Award. Signature Date: Name Attorney for Applicant Each Applicant for federal assistance to be awarded by FTA must provide an Affirmation of Applicant’s Attorney pertaining to the Applicant’s legal capacity. The Applicant may enter its electronic signature in lieu of the Attorney’s signature within TrAMS, provided the Applicant has on file and uploaded to TrAMS this hard-copy Affirmation, signed by the attorney and dated this federal fiscal year. 56 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Brian Berg, Parks Maintenance Supervisor Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date: June 9, 2020 RE: Resolution 34-20 Approve GOCO Grant Agreement for the Big Thompson River Recreational and Picnic Area (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Approve the Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) grant agreement for the Big Thompson River Recreational and Picnic Area. Present Situation: On October 8, 2019, the Town Board approved the GOCO grant application for financial assistance to improve and enhance a gathering place for resident and guests. This area is located at the Visitors Center, adjacent to the Transit Facility/ Parking Structure, and next to the Big Thompson River. These improvements will include additional seating with access for people with disabilities, two shelters with picnic tables, two additional concrete padded tables, a concrete path, and landscaping. This application was awarded to the Town on March 12, 2020. The grant award is for $45,000, the Town’s match is $15,000, provided in the form of project materials and labor from our Public Works Parks Division. As presented in the application, this location is highly used and is a welcoming area for guests to our community. The area has incredible opportunities for families to gather and as a meeting place. Its location easily leads to the Estes Lake Trail, historic downtown and accommodates for parking and offers transit services. Proposal: Approve the GOCO Grant Agreement to support the Big Thompson River Recreational and Picnic Area. Advantages: • This GOCO grant agreement has a completion date of March 2022, giving the Parks Division flexibility to hold off on starting the project until the fall or following year. • Approving this grant agreement finalizes GOCO to free up money for this project. This project that has been on the Parks Division list for many years. 57 • This project directly responds to the Board’s strategic goal to offer exceptional guest services as a preferred Colorado mountain destination. Disadvantages: • Not approving this Grant Agreement will result in loss financial assistance to support this recreational opportunity for the Town. • For a short time, during demolition and constructing the new recreational area it will be closed to the public. • The GOCO Grant requires a 25% cost share. Action Recommended: Public Works staff seeks approval/denial of GOCO grant agreement for financial support for the Big Thompson River Recreational and Picnic Area. Finance/Resource Impact: The total project costs are estimated at $60,000.00. The Town’s cost share is $15,000.00, and of this, $6,000.00 is cash and $9,000.00 in kind labor and materials from the Parks Division. Level of Public Interest The level of interest is moderate now; however, we anticipate that it will be highly used similar to the Veterans Memorial just across the river from this proposed site. Sample Motion: I move for the approval of Resolution 34-20. Attachments: Resolution 34-20 GOCO Grant Agreement Budget Resolution 32-19 58 RESOLUTION 34-20 APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH GREAT OUTDOORS COLORADO FOR GRANT FUNDING FOR THE BIG THOMPSON RIVER RECREATIONAL AND PICNIC AREA WHEREAS, the Town Board desires to enter into the intergovernmental agreement referenced in the title of this resolution for the purpose of receiving grant funding for the Big Thompson River Recreational and Picnic Area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the intergovernmental agreement referenced in the title of this resolution in substantially the form now before the Board. DATED this day of , 2020. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 59 Page 1 of 16 Updated 1/2019 GRANT AGREEMENT Project Name: Big Thompson River Recreational & Picnic Area Project Completion Date: March 12, 2022 Great Outdoors Colorado Contract No.: 20312 PARTIES TO AGREEMENT Board/GOCO: The State Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund Address: 1900 Grant Street, Suite 725 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 226-4520 Contact name: Matt Brady Grantee: Town of Estes Park Address: P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Contact name: Brian Berg Date: April 3, 2020 EXHIBITS Exhibit A Project Summary Exhibit B Resolution Exhibit C Approved Budget Exhibit D Intergovernmental (or other) Agreement (if required) DocuSign Envelope ID: BE1C85D1-055F-4935-8F52-BFC16DDB3045 60 Page 2 of 16 Updated 1/2019 RECITALS A. The State Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund (“GOCO” or “Board”) is a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, created by Article XXVII of the Colorado Constitution, adopted at the November 1992 General Election, which article appropriates a portion of the net proceeds of the Colorado Lottery to GOCO and directs GOCO to invest those proceeds in the state’s parks, wildlife, open space, and recreational resources. B. In 1994, GOCO created a statewide grant program pursuant to which eligible entities could apply for grants for local government parks and outdoor recreation projects. Grantee listed above (“Grantee”) submitted a detailed project application (“Project Application”) that contemplates the execution of the project entitled above and described in GOCO’s project summary (“Project Summary”), attached and incorporated as Exhibit A (“Project”). GOCO approved Grantee’s Project Application, which is incorporated into this Agreement by reference, on March 12, 2020, subject to the execution of a detailed grant agreement. GOCO and Grantee each have on file a copy of the Project Application. C. The parties intend this agreement to be the detailed grant agreement required by GOCO (“Agreement”). AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the parties’ mutual covenants contained in this Agreement and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: SECTION 1 – PROJECT 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are incorporated into this Agreement. 2. Representations and Warranties of Grantee. Grantee is a Municipality, duly organized in accordance with the laws of Colorado and has full and lawful authority to enter into, and comply with the terms of, this Agreement. Grantee’s governing body has authorized entering into this Agreement as evidenced by the resolution attached and incorporated as Exhibit B. 3. Grant and Project. GOCO awards to Grantee a grant in the amount not to exceed $45,000.00 (“Grant”), subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. The Grant shall be used by Grantee solely to complete the Project in substantial conformity with the final plans, specifications, designs, and uses approved by GOCO. In the event of a conflict between the Project Application and the Project Summary, the parties shall resolve the conflict by mutual agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: BE1C85D1-055F-4935-8F52-BFC16DDB3045 61 Page 3 of 16 Updated 1/2019 4. Project Scope. Grantee shall not materially modify the Project without the prior written approval of the Executive Director of GOCO (“Executive Director”) or the Executive Director’s designee, such approval to be in GOCO’s sole discretion. Any material modification to the Project undertaken without GOCO’s prior written consent may be deemed a breach of this Agreement, entitling GOCO to all remedies available under this Agreement. If Grantee determines with reasonable probability that the Project will not or cannot be completed as approved by the Board, Grantee will promptly so advise the Board and cooperate in good faith to seek a resolution before any further funds are advanced. 5. Grantee Efforts. Grantee agrees to use its best efforts to complete the Project in a timely fashion, in a good and workmanlike manner, and consistent with this Agreement and GOCO’s approvals related to the Project. 6. Approved Budget. Grantee has completed a detailed budget that reflects all anticipated sources and uses of funds for the Project, including a detailed accounting of Grantee’s anticipated direct costs associated with the Project, a copy of which is attached and incorporated as Exhibit C (“Budget”). Eligible costs are described in Paragraph 10 of this Agreement. The Project Application contains a budget that may not match the approved version attached as Exhibit C and which, therefore, shall not be relied upon by GOCO or Grantee. Where discrepancies exist, the approved Budget in Exhibit C shall control until such time as GOCO approves the final version. 7. Property Ownership. All properties on which GOCO-funded projects are located must be owned by or under the control of the grant recipient for the useful life of the project. Grantee warrants that it has good and sufficient title to the property or properties on which the Project is to be located (the “Property”). GOCO may require Grantee to provide evidence of its ownership of the Property and encumbrances against the Property satisfactory to GOCO in GOCO’s discretion prior to funding. 8. Waiver. Prior to the disbursement of funds, the Executive Director in his or her discretion may waive certain conditions set forth in this Agreement. Anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, the exercise by GOCO staff (“Staff”), the Executive Director, or GOCO of any right or discretion reserved to them under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver. Furthermore, no waiver by them under this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any other requirements, actions, or conditions, nor shall any waiver granted be deemed a continuing waiver. No waiver by the Staff, the Executive Director, or GOCO shall be effective unless in writing executed by them. Additionally, any failure by the Staff, the Executive Director, or GOCO to take any actions as set forth in this Agreement shall have no legal effect on the contractual duties of Grantee. Further, no waiver with respect to this Project, Grant, or Agreement shall constitute a waiver in any other GOCO-funded project. 9. Project Operation and Maintenance. A. Subject to annual appropriations, Grantee shall operate, manage, and maintain the Project in a reasonable state of repair for the purposes specified and for the useful life of the Project stated in the Project Application, in accordance with product warranties and/or the generally accepted standards in the parks/recreation community. Grantee has estimated a useful DocuSign Envelope ID: BE1C85D1-055F-4935-8F52-BFC16DDB3045 62 Page 4 of 16 Updated 1/2019 life of 15 years in the Project Application. Grantee also shall provide and maintain access to the Project and to the Property, regardless of the Property’s ownership. Failure to comply with this paragraph may be deemed a breach by Grantee under Paragraph 20 below. B. GOCO shall not be liable for any cost of maintenance, management, or operation of the Project. C. Within 60 days of a reasonable request by the Board, Grantee will provide the Board with adequate records reflecting the operating and maintenance costs of the Project and provide the Board with such other information concerning the use of the Project by the public and the impact of the Project. D. Grantee’s staff shall request during the Grantee’s annual budget process an appropriation sufficient to meet the financial obligations of Grantee under this Agreement. Grantee will use its best efforts to fully consider such appropriation. The parties understand that the Board is relying upon fair and full consideration of annual appropriation in its decision to extend its resources and the Grant and to enter into this Agreement. In the event that Grantee fails to appropriate sufficient funds to meet the obligations of this Agreement, Grantee shall provide notice to the Board of the specific reason(s) for any decision not to appropriate funding. Grantee’s staff shall notify the Board of any recommendation not to fund or to partially fund the annual appropriation necessary to fulfill Grantee’s obligations under this Agreement. 10. Public Access. Grantee agrees, for itself and its successors in interest, to allow reasonable public access to the Project for the term specified in Paragraph 8.A. Grantee may temporarily close such public access for construction, maintenance, emergency situations, or other reasonable purposes. 11. Insurance. Grantee shall maintain general liability insurance or self-insure for the entire period of the Project for protection in the event of injury and/or damage. The insurance limits shall not be less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate. If the Grantee contracts with another organization to complete the Project, it is the responsibilit y of the Grantee to ensure its contractor carries insurance that fulfills this requirement. 12. Future Funding. This Agreement and the Grant only apply to the Project specifically described in this Agreement. GOCO makes no representations regarding future funding for future phases of the Project, whether or not described in the Project Application, Project Summary, or otherwise. SECTION 2 – GRANT PAYMENT 13. Eligible Costs. The Grant and all matching funds shall be used only for the cost of fixed assets, including construction of new facilities and enlargement or renovation of existing facilities; these costs are eligible for reimbursement on the basis of costs actually incurred by Grantee and supported by written documentation (receipts, bills, etc.). The Grant and all DocuSign Envelope ID: BE1C85D1-055F-4935-8F52-BFC16DDB3045 63 Page 5 of 16 Updated 1/2019 matching funds may not be used to pay for maintenance costs, administrative costs (such as salaries associated with administering the Grant, office supplies, telephone, or travel expenses), non-fixed assets (such as athletic or maintenance equipment), or any other costs deemed to be ineligible by the Board, at the Board’s sole discretion. 14. Payment of Grant. A. Progress Payment. Grantee may opt to receive a portion of the Grant after starting but prior to completing work on the Project (“Progress Payment”). Grantee shall provide GOCO with a progress report detailing expenditures and progress made to date (“Progress Report”). The Progress Report must be submitted using GOCO’s Progress Report form (available at www.goco.org or by contacting GOCO). GOCO may, in its discretion, request additional documentation to support making a Progress Payment. A Progress Payment shall not exceed 50% of the Grant or the maximum percentage of funds GOCO can expend for the project to date based on the program’s matching requirements, whichever is less. A Progress Payment shall be considered a loan until the Project is complete and Final Payment (as defined below) has been made. B. Final Payment. Grantee shall submit a final report to GOCO detailing the accomplishments of and expenditures related to the Project and its completion (“Final Report”). The Project is “complete” when all facilities, trails, or other improvements included in the GOCO-approved Project scope have been built and are ready for their intended use. The Final Report must be submitted using GOCO’s Final Report form (available at www.goco.org or by contacting GOCO). GOCO may, in its discretion, request additional documentation before its approval of the contents of the Final Report. Upon GOCO’s review and approval of the Final Report, GOCO shall pay the outstanding balance on the Grant (“Final Payment”), subject to any reductions contemplated by any provision of this Agreement. C. GOCO Review. GOCO shall have 30 days to review any Progress Report and Final Report and respond to Grantee. D. Waivers of Liens and Claims. GOCO may, in its discretion, depending on the nature of the Project, require documentation of mechanics’ lien waivers or waivers of claims to public project performance bonds as a precondition to any disbursement under this Agreement. E. Modifications. Payment of the Grant is subject to the Project being completed with no material modifications made, except as otherwise agreed to in advance by GOCO in accordance with this Agreement. The Grant will not be increased, but GOCO may reduce the Grant if the Project changes in any way that GOCO deems material. “Material modifications” may include, but are not necessarily limited to, a reduction in the total cost of the Project, a reduction in the size or number of recreational development components to be constructed, changes to the nature of the recreational development components to be constructed, or any other variance from the Project as presented in the Project Application. It is the sole responsibility of Grantee to inform GOCO of any such modifications to the Project. GOCO strongly encourages Grantee to contact GOCO in writing when it becomes aware of or wishes to make any such modifications, however seemingly minor, to the Project. DocuSign Envelope ID: BE1C85D1-055F-4935-8F52-BFC16DDB3045 64 Page 6 of 16 Updated 1/2019 F. Net Lottery Proceeds. Payment of the Grant is also subject to GOCO’s determination in its sole discretion that it has received and has available sufficient net lottery proceeds to fund the Grant. In determining the sufficiency of net lottery proceeds, GOCO may consider all facts and circumstances as it deems necessary or desirable, including but not limited to adequate reserves, funding requirements, and/or commitments for other past, current, and future grants, and past, current, and future GOCO operating expenses and budgetary needs. 15. Withdrawal of GOCO Funding; Termination of Agreement. Anything in this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, with prior notice to Grantee, GOCO reserves the right to withhold or withdraw all or a portion of the Grant, to require a full or partial refund of the Grant, and/or to terminate this Agreement if GOCO determines in its sole discretion that: A. Altered Expectations. Facts have arisen or situations have occurred that fundamentally alter the expectations of the parties or make the purposes for the Project or the Grant as approved by GOCO infeasible or impractical; B. Material Project Changes. Material changes in the scope or nature of the Project have occurred from that which was presented in the Project Application, approved by GOCO and reflected in the Project Summary, without prior written approval of the Executive Director; C. Inaccuracies. Any statement or representation made or information provided by Grantee in the Project Application, this Agreement, the Progress Report, the Final Report, or otherwise is untrue, inaccurate, or incomplete in any material respect; D. Reporting. The results of GOCO’s review of the Progress Report or the Final Report are not acceptable to GOCO; E. Conditions Precedent Not Fulfilled or Unsatisfactory. Any of the conditions precedent to funding listed in Section 3 below is not fulfilled by Grantee or is unsatisfactory to GOCO, in its sole discretion; F. Delays. The Project will not or cannot be completed by the Completion Date or any extensions granted, or delays in the implementation of the Project have occurred that make the Project impracticable in the Board’s judgment; G. Costs. The Project will not or cannot be completed within the Budget or any approved modifications, or the total Project cost and/or Grantee’s matching funding are reduced; or H. Property. Title to or encumbrances against the Property are or become such that Grantee is unable to complete the Project, or the Project and/or the Property are or become unavailable for public use. DocuSign Envelope ID: BE1C85D1-055F-4935-8F52-BFC16DDB3045 65 Page 7 of 16 Updated 1/2019 SECTION 3 – CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 16. Completion Date. Grantee shall complete the Project and submit its Final Report no later than March 12, 2022 (“Completion Date”), which is 24 months after the date of GOCO’s approval of the Project. Grantee may request an extension of the Completion Date in compliance with GOCO’s Overdue Grants procedure, as may be amended from time to time by GOCO in its sole discretion. GOCO may elect to terminate this Agreement and deauthorize the Grant in the event this Completion Date is not met and/or Grantee fails to comply with the Overdue Grants procedure. 17. Conditions Precedent to Funding. Anything else in this Agreement or otherwise to the contrary notwithstanding, the Grant is expressly conditioned upon Grantee’s fulfillment of all terms and conditions of this Agreement to GOCO’s satisfaction in its sole discretion, including but not limited to the following: A. Matching Funds. Matching funds in the minimum amount required by GOCO policy or procedure and as set forth in the approved Budget, or as modified and approved in compliance with GOCO procedures, must have been received by Grantee, or the status of efforts to secure matching funding was disclosed and has been deemed satisfactory by Staff. Grantee shall provide evidence of matching funds as GOCO may require in its reasonable discretion. B. GOCO Policies and Procedures. The Project must comply with all of GOCO’s policies and procedures, which may be amended from time to time by GOCO in its sole discretion, and must meet any special Board conditions as listed in the attached Project Summary (Exhibit A). SECTION 4 – OTHER PROVISIONS 18. Publicity and Project Information. GOCO has the right and must be provided the opportunity to use information gained from the Project; therefore, Grantee shall acknowledge GOCO funding in all news releases and other publicity issued by Grantee concerning the Project. If any events are planned in relationship to the Project, GOCO shall be acknowledged as a contributor in the invitation for the event. GOCO shall be notified of any such events 30 days in advance. Grantee shall cooperate with GOCO in preparing public information pieces, providing access to the Property for publicity purposes, and providing photos or other imagery of the Project from time to time, which GOCO reserves the right to use and duplicate in any print or electronic publication or platform for publicity, illustration, advertising, web content, and other purposes at any time without the need to seek pre-approval from Grantee. Grantee shall give timely notice of the Project, its inauguration, significance, and completion to the local members of the Colorado General Assembly and members of the board of county commissioners of the county or counties in which the Project is located, as well as to other appropriate public officials. At no time shall Grantee represent in any manner to the public or to any party that it is affiliated with GOCO or acting on behalf of GOCO. DocuSign Envelope ID: BE1C85D1-055F-4935-8F52-BFC16DDB3045 66 Page 8 of 16 Updated 1/2019 19. Signage. Grantee shall erect one or more signs at a prominent location(s) on the Project site acknowledging the assistance of Great Outdoors Colorado and the Colorado Lottery. GOCO will provide such signs at no cost to Grantee. Alternatively, GOCO will provide reproducible samples of its logo to Grantee for custom signs. GOCO shall approve in advance the design of any permanent sign materially varying from the signs provided by GOCO. To obtain such approval, Grantee shall submit to GOCO plans describing the number, design, placement, and wording of signs and placards prior to completion of the Project. The Board may withhold Final Payment pending evidence of placement of permanent signage. 20. Liability. A. Indemnity. To the extent allowed by law, Grantee shall be responsible for and shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless GOCO, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, damages, or costs (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) resulting from, growing out of, or in any way connected with or incident to Grantee’s performance of this Agreement. Grantee waives any and all rights to any type of express or implied indemnity or right of contribution from the State of Colorado, GOCO, its members, officers, agents, or employees for any liability resulting from, growing out of, or in any way connected with or incident to this Agreement. Grantee acknowledges that Grantee is the owner of the Project and the Property upon which it is located, or has control of the Project and the Property, and that GOCO neither possesses nor controls the Project, the Property, nor the operations of the Project. B. No CGIA Waiver. No term or condition of this Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, either express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits or protections provided to GOCO under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act as amended or as may be amended in the future (including without limitation any amendments to such statute, or under any similar statute that is subsequently enacted) (“CGIA”). This provision may apply to Grantee if Grantee qualifies for protection under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101, et seq. GOCO and Grantee understand and agree that liability for claims for injuries to persons or property arising out of the negligence of GOCO, its members, officials, agents, and employees may be controlled and/or limited by the provisions of the CGIA. The parties agree that no provision of this Agreement shall be construed in such a manner as to reduce the extent to which the CGIA limits the liability of GOCO, its members, officers, agents, and employees. C. Compliance with Regulatory Requirements and Federal and State Mandates. Grantee assumes responsibility for compliance with all regulatory requirements in all applicable areas, including but not limited to nondiscrimination; worker safety; local labor preferences; preferred vendor programs; equal employment opportunity; use of competitive bidding; permits; approvals; local, state, and federal regulations and environmental laws; and other similar requirements. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Grantee agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless GOCO, Executive Director, and Staff from any cost, expense, or liability for any failure to comply with any such applicable requirements. DocuSign Envelope ID: BE1C85D1-055F-4935-8F52-BFC16DDB3045 67 Page 9 of 16 Updated 1/2019 D. Nondiscrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, Grantee and its contractors, subcontractors, and agents shall not unlawfully discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, age, sex, or any other basis prohibited by local, state, or federal law. Grantee and its contractors shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination. Further, Grantee and anyone acting on behalf of Grantee shall not engage in any unlawful discrimination in permitting access and use of the Project. 21. Audits and Accounting Records. Grantee shall maintain standard financial accounts, documents, and records relating to the use, management, operation, and maintenance of the Project. Grantee shall retain the accounts, documents, and records related to the Project for five years following the date of disbursement by GOCO of the Grant funds, and they shall be subject to examination and audit by GOCO or its designated agent during this period. While Grantee is not required to use GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), Grantee shall use reasonable and appropriate accounting systems in maintaining the required records under this Agreement. 22. Inspection. Throughout the term of this Agreement, GOCO shall have the right to inspect the Project to ascertain compliance with this Agreement. 23. Breach. In addition to other remedies available at law or in equity, in the event that Grantee breaches any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, GOCO shall have the following non-exclusive remedies: A. Prior to Payment of Grant. GOCO reserves the right to withdraw funding, terminate this Agreement, and/or deny Grantee eligibility for participation in future GOCO grants, loans, or projects. B. After Any Payment of Grant. GOCO reserves the right to seek specific performance of Grantee’s obligations under this Agreement, receive reimbursement in full of any disbursements made under the Grant, including in the event that Grantee does not fulfill its obligations under Paragraph 8 due to lack of annual appropriations, and/or deny Grantee eligibility for participation in future GOCO grants, loans, or projects. In the event GOCO must pursue any remedy under this Agreement and is the substantially prevailing party, GOCO shall be awarded its costs and reasonable legal fees, including costs of collection. 24. GOCO Policies and Procedures. With regard to all named GOCO policies and procedures referenced in this Agreement, Grantee acknowledges it has received a copy of the policies and procedures or otherwise has access to the documents in connection with this Agreement and is familiar with their requirements. DocuSign Envelope ID: BE1C85D1-055F-4935-8F52-BFC16DDB3045 68 Page 10 of 16 Updated 1/2019 25. Miscellaneous Provisions. A. Good Faith. Both parties have an obligation of good faith, including the obligation to make timely communication of information that may reasonably be believed to be of interest to the other party. B. Assignment. Grantee may not assign its rights or delegate its obligations under this Agreement without the express written consent of the Executive Director, who has the sole discretion to withhold consent to assign. Any assignment shall require that, at a minimum, the assignee is eligible to receive grants from the Board and assumes Grantee’s ongoing obligations under this Agreement. C. Applicable Law. Colorado law applies to the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue for any dispute under this Agreement shall lie exclusively in the state courts of the City and County of Denver. D. No Joint Venture. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create a joint venture, partnership, employer/employee, or other relationship between the parties other than independent contracting parties. Except as permitted under the remedies provisions of this Agreement, neither party shall have the express or implied right to act for, on behalf of, or in the name of the other party. E. Status of Grantee. The parties acknowledge that GOCO lacks the power and right to direct the actions of Grantee. Grantee acts in its separate capacity and not as an officer, employee, or agent of GOCO or the State of Colorado. F. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. G. Survival. The terms and conditions of this Agreement, including but not limited to Grantee’s obligations, shall survive the funding of the Grant and the completion of the Project. H. Fax and Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute one agreement. In addition, the parties agree to recognize signatures to this Agreement made electronically and transmitted electronically or by facsimile as if they were original signatures. I. Third-Party Beneficiary. GOCO and Grantee acknowledge and agree that this Agreement is intended only to cover the relative rights and obligations between GOCO and Grantee and that no third-party beneficiaries are intended. J. Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that either party desires or is required to give the other shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses shown on Page 1 of this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: BE1C85D1-055F-4935-8F52-BFC16DDB3045 69 Page 11 of 16 Updated 1/2019 K. Construction; Severability. Each party has reviewed this Agreement, and therefore any rules of construction requiring that ambiguities be resolved against a particular party shall not be applicable in the construction and interpretation of this Agreement. If any provision in this Agreement is found to be ambiguous, an interpretation consistent with the purpose of this Agreement that would render the provision valid shall be favored over any interpretation that would render it invalid. If any provision of this Agreement is declared void or unenforceable, it shall be deemed severed from this Agreement, and the balance of this Agreement shall otherwise remain in full force and effect. L. Entire Agreement. Except as expressly provided, this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties. No oral understanding or agreement not incorporated in this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties. No changes in this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties to this Agreement. M. Termination of the Board. If Article XXVII of the Colorado Constitution, which established GOCO, is amended or repealed to terminate GOCO or merge GOCO into another entity, the rights and obligations of GOCO under this Agreement shall be assigned to and assumed by such other entity as provided by law, but, in the absence of such direction, by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources or its successor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties by signature below of their authorized representatives execute this Agreement effective as of \d3\. STATE BOARD OF THE GREAT GRANTEE: OUTDOORS COLORADO TRUST FUND Town of Estes Park By: By: \s3\ \s1\ Chris Castilian Title: \t1\ Executive Director GOCO Program Staff: Route Grant Agreement to Executive Director for signature: *NOTE* Signee should be the same individual authorized to sign the grant agreement per Grantee’s resolution \s2\ DocuSign Envelope ID: BE1C85D1-055F-4935-8F52-BFC16DDB3045 70 Page 12 of 16 Updated 1/2019 EXHIBIT A Project Summary Rank: 5 Overall Score: 88.25 GOCO Staff Score: 86 Reviewer Average: 90.5 Applicant: Town of Estes Park Project Title: Big Thompson River Recreational & Picnic Area County: Larimer Log #: 20312 Funding Summary: Project Description: The Big Thompson River Recreational and Picnic Area project will improve and enhance a gathering place for the Town of Estes Park. These improvements include additional seating with access for people with disabilities, a shelter with picnic tables, a concrete path, and landscaping. Staff and Peer Reviewer Comments: The Big Thompson River Recreational Area and Picnic Shelter includes access to the River Walk that meanders through historic downtown, and the trail around Lake Estes that also leads to Stanley Park, Fish Creek Trail and Dry Gulch Trail; transit services around town and to Rocky Mountain National Park; new 400+ parking structure; the Veterans Monument; interactive musical instruments along the River Walk; and the Visitors Center. This will be the only picnic tables in the vicinity that are protected from the elements. This picnic shelter will accommodate a variety of people including residents, seasonal workers, visitors, and those using the Lake Estes Trail and River Walk. Naturists would also use this shelter as this location often has excellent wildlife viewing for elk, deer, birds, marmots, etc. In -town trails see over 400,000 users per year according to trail counts conducted by volunteers in the summer of 2014. The Lake Estes Trail has a mix of 20 percent cyclists, 75 percent walkers/ joggers/ hikers, and 5 percent others on any given day. Based on this information and the number of guests recorded at the Estes P ark Visitors Center (450,000 in 2017), the number of users of this picnic shelter could be as high as 100,000 people. Applicant Funding $15,000 Partner(s) Funding GOCO Grant Amount $45,000 Total Project Cost $60,000 DocuSign Envelope ID: BE1C85D1-055F-4935-8F52-BFC16DDB3045 71 Page 13 of 16 Updated 1/2019 The current shelter is well over 30 years old and has been moved twice to accommodate past construction on the other side of the river. It is small and in disrepair. A new shelter would be twice the size and accommodate more people. DocuSign Envelope ID: BE1C85D1-055F-4935-8F52-BFC16DDB3045 72 Page 14 of 16 Updated 1/2019 EXHIBIT B Resolution DocuSign Envelope ID: BE1C85D1-055F-4935-8F52-BFC16DDB3045 73 Page 15 of 16 Updated 1/2019 EXHIBIT C Approved Budget DocuSign Envelope ID: BE1C85D1-055F-4935-8F52-BFC16DDB3045 74 Page 16 of 16 Updated 1/2019 EXHIBIT D Intergovernmental (or other) Agreement (if required) DocuSign Envelope ID: BE1C85D1-055F-4935-8F52-BFC16DDB3045 75 Source of FundsDate SecuredGOCO Grant RequestApplicant Match ($)Partner Match ($)Total Funding ($)CASHGOCO Grant Request 45,000.00 $45,000.00Town of Estes Park cash match 6,000.00 $6,000.00$0.00$0.00IN-KINDTown of Estes Park in-kind match 9,000.00 $9,000.00$0.00$0.00TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS$45,000.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 $60,000.00 CASHUse of FundsNumber of Units Cost Per Unit GOCO FundsApplicant FundsPartner FundsTotal Funding ($)$0.00Will conduct competitive solicitation according to Town policy$0.00Materials & Installation$0.00TBD Concrete 1.00 8,000.00 $8,000.00TBD Picnic shelter 1.00 37,000.00 $37,000.00TBD Metal roof 16.00 39.84 637.44 $637.44Parks Division Picnic tables 2.00 1,135.00 2,270.00 $2,270.00Parks Division Irrigation supplies (cash match) 1,553.56 1,553.56 $1,553.56Parks DivisionInstall Bear-Proof/ Recycling Trash Container1.00 1,539.00 1,539.00 $1,539.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00USE OF FUNDS - CASH SUBTOTAL$45,000.00 $6,000.00 $0.00 $51,000.00Project Budget176 IN-KINDUse of FundsNo. of Units / Hours / AcresCost Per Unit / Hour / Acre GOCO FundsApplicant FundsPartner FundsTotal Funding ($)Town Parks Division staff Demolition of current shelter 30.00 40.00 1,200.00 $1,200.00Town Parks Division staff Haul material5.00 40.00 200.00 $200.00Town Parks Division staff Irrigation installation80.00 40.00 3,200.00 $3,200.00Town Parks Division staff Landscaping istallation (trees, shrubs, turf, perennials)45.00 40.00 1,800.00 $1,800.00Town Parks Division staff Picnic tables3.00 866.67 2,600.00 $2,600.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00SUBTOTAL$0.00 $9,000.00 $0.00 $9,000.00Contingency 10% (not required, cannot be GOCO funds)$0 $0$0TOTAL PROJECT COST$0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00Remember: the Total Project Cost row must equal the Total Source of Funds row above277 RESOLUTION32-19SUPPORTINGTHEAPPLICATIONANDGRANTAGREEMENT,IFAWARDED,FORAMINI-GRANTLOCALPARKSANDRECREATIONFROMTHESTATEBOARDOFTHEGREATOUTDOORSCOLORADOTRUSTFUNDFORTHEREPLACEMENTOFTHEBIGTHOMPSONRIVERRECREATIONALAREAPICNICSHELTERWHEREAS,theTownofEstesParksupportstheGreatOutdoorsColoradograntapplicationfortheBigThompsonRiverRecreationalAreaPicnicShelterlocatedwestoftheEstesParkVisitorCenterparkingstructure;andWHEREAS,ifthisgrantisawarded,theTownofEstesParksupportsthecompletionofthisproject.NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDBYTHEBOARDOFTRUSTEESOFTHETOWNOFESTESPARK,COLORADO:1.Ifawarded,theBoardofTrusteeswillauthorizetheexpenditureoffundsnecessarytomeetthetermsandobligationsoftheGreatOutdoorsColoradogrant.2.TheprojectsitefortheBigThompsonRiverRecreationalAreaPicnicShelterisownedbytheTownofEstesParkandwillremainaTown-ownedfacilityforatleast25years.3.TheTownofEstesParkBoardofTrusteesrecognizesthatastherecipientofaGreatOutdoorsColoradolocalgovernmentgranttheprojectsitewillprovidepublicaccess.4.TheTownofEstesParkBoardofTrusteeswillensurethemaintenanceoftheBigThompsonRiverRecreationalAreaPicnicShelterlocatedwestoftheparkingstructureattheEstesParkVisitorsCenterinahigh-qualityconditionandtoappropriatefundsformaintenanceinthe annualbudget.5.Ifawarded,theTownofEstesParkBoardofTrusteeswillauthorizetheMayortosignthegrantagreementwithGreatOutdoorsColorado.6.AlltheTown’sfinancialobligationsunderanygrantawardedarecontingentuponappropriation,budgeting,andavailabilityofspecificfundstodischargethoseobligations.Nothinginthisresolutionoranygrantawardedconstitutesadebt,adirectorindirectmultiplefiscalyearfinancialobligation,apledgeoftheTown’scredit,orapaymentguaranteebytheTown.TheTownAdministratorordesigneeisauthorizedtoexecutealldocumentsnecessarytosubmitsaidgrantapplication.7.Thisresolutiontobeinfullforceandeffectfromandafteritsapproval.78 DATEDthis2”dayofçcTp2019.TOWNOFSARK.MayorATTEST:79       80 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Ryan Barr, EI, Pavement Manager Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date: June 23, 2020 RE: 2020 Overlay & Patching Program contract to Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Public Works staff seeks Town Board approval of a contract extension with Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. (Coulson) for the 2020 Overlay & Patching Program which will perform repaving of multiple roads and one parking lot, plus asphalt patching on multiple roads in the Town of Estes Park. Present Situation: On February 11, 2020 staff presented information regarding the Street Improvement Program (STIP) during a Town Board Study Session. A modified version of that presentation was then presented at the March 10, 2020 Town Board Meeting. The information presented included pavement condition updates, planned work for 2020, and an overview of pavement work performed utilizing the 1A street improvement funds. To implement the plan in 2020, a qualified contractor is required. Through a competitive bid process, Coulson was the low bidder and was awarded the contract in 2019. Coulson has a good reputation and extensive experience performing repaving work in Estes Park, and the Town was satisfied with their work in 2019. The 2019 contract documents included a provision that allows the Town to extend the contract for an additional three years in one-year periods. Coulson will be able to continue this work in 2020 through this Board approved extended contact. Proposal: Staff proposes extending the 2019 Coulson contract for the 2020 Overlay & Patching Program. 81 Advantages: • Performs repaving of multiple roads and a parking lot in Estes Park. • The Town voters supported the 1A sales tax for street improvements and expect the Town to repair and maintain roads with these funds. • Coulson and their concrete subcontractor are involved in the Wonderview- MacGregor Roundabout project with CDOT, so there will be a cost savings associated with them needing to mobilize less equipment into Town. Disadvantages: • Road maintenance will temporarily impact traffic flow and could result in brief disruption of neighborhoods and business; however, the Town will make every effort to inform impacted property owners, residents, and business owners in advance of the construction. • Funds could be used for other street improvement purposes; however, this usage is consistent with the approved 2024 STIP Program goals. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the attached Contract Change Order to extend the contract with Coulson for the 2020 Overlay & Patching Program to perform street and parking lot repairs in Town. Staff recommends authorizing Public Works to spend up to the budgeted amount of $800,000.00 for any additional overlay work encountered during construction. Finance/Resource Impact: This project is funded from the Street Improvement Fund. Level of Public Interest Public Interest is expected to be moderate. Sample Motion: I move for approval/denial of the Contract Change Order and Contract Extension to extend the contract with Coulson for the 2020 Overlay & Patching Program in the amount of $740,449.50, and to authorize Public Works to spend up to the budgeted amount of $800,000.00 if needed to address unanticipated conditions encountered during construction. Attachments: Construction Change Order 2020 Overlay & Patching Program – Contract Extension and Exhibits A, B and C 82 3 Date 6/4/2020 Contractor Coulson Excavating Co. Submitted by Ryan Barr Address 3609 Madison Ave Project name 2020 Overlay & Patching Program City State Zip Loveland, CO 80538 Project #OVRLAY Instructions: Complete all sections with sufficient details. If not applicable insert "NA". Expand narrative space or attach additional pages as needed. 1 Reason for change (narrative) A Adding 2020 Overlay & Patching Program quantities B Provide contract time extension to perform the 2020 program work 2a Description of change (narrative) A Add 2020 program quantities, at the 2019 bid unit costs, or at modified unit prices as agreed upon by the Contractor and Owner. Items that were not bid in 2019 have fair and negotiated 2020 unit costs. B The Town plans to exercise its right to extend the Coulson contract another year, and must increase contract time to allow for completion of the 2020 program 2b NO.ITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION CURRENT QTY UNIT UNIT COST CURRENT ITEM COST CHANGE ORDER QTY CHANGE ORDER AMT ADJUSTED ITEM COST 2020 A 202-00201 Removal of Curb 0 LF 9.00$ -$ 1,649 14,841.00$ 14,841.00$ A 202-00220 Removal of Asphalt Mat 0 SY 8.00$ -$ 2,707 21,656.00$ 21,656.00$ A 202-00240 Removal of Asphalt Mat (Planing)0 SY 6.00$ -$ 2,143 12,858.00$ 12,858.00$ A 210-00810 Reset Ground Sign 0 EA 350.00$ -$ 1 350.00$ 350.00$ A 210-01710 Adjust Water Valve 0 EA 350.00$ -$ 10 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$ A 210-04010 Adjust Manhole 0 EA 550.00$ -$ 17 9,350.00$ 9,350.00$ A 304-09100 Aggregate Base Course (RAP-from Town yard)0 CY 37.00$ -$ 75 2,775.00$ 2,775.00$ A 306-01000 Reconditioning (Subgrade)0 SY 3.50$ -$ 2,417 8,459.50$ 8,459.50$ A 403-00720 HMA (Patch 4")(Gr SX)(75)(PG 58-28)0 TON 155.00$ -$ 1,175 182,125.00$ 182,125.00$ A 403-34721 HMA (Gr SX)(75)(PG 58-28)0 TON 90.00$ -$ 1,772 159,480.00$ 159,480.00$ A 403-34721.2 HMA (Gr SX)(75)(PG 58-28)(Leveling Course)0 TON 90.00$ -$ 832 74,880.00$ 74,880.00$ A 608-00001 Concrete Sidewalk Joint Repair (Epoxy)0 LF 50.00$ -$ 3 150.00$ 150.00$ A 608-10010 Sidewalk Drain (6.5 feet)0 EA 4,200.00$ -$ 1 4,200.00$ 4,200.00$ A 609-21010 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section I-B)0 LF 40.00$ -$ 75 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ A 609-21020 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section II-B)0 LF 40.00$ -$ 1,531 61,240.00$ 61,240.00$ A 609-21021 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section II-M)(Modified)0 LF 55.00$ -$ 459 25,245.00$ 25,245.00$ A 609-24004 Gutter Type 2 (4 foot) (6" Driveway)0 LF 90.00$ -$ 84 7,560.00$ 7,560.00$ A 609-24006 Gutter Type 2 (6 foot) (8" Street Pan)0 LF 155.00$ -$ 40 6,200.00$ 6,200.00$ A 609-40010 Curb Type 4 (Section B)(Modified)0 LF 40.00$ -$ 42 1,680.00$ 1,680.00$ A 626-00000 Mobilization 0 LS 50,000.00$ -$ 1 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ A 627-00011 Pavement Marking Paint (Latex/Waterborne)0 GAL 300.00$ -$ 3 900.00$ 900.00$ A 630-00016 Traffic Control (Special)0 LS 90,000.00$ -$ 1 90,000.00$ 90,000.00$ 740,449.50$ 2019 2019 OVRLAY Items BID QTY UNIT BID UNIT COST CURRENT ITEM COST CHANGE ORDER QTY CHANGE ORDER AMT ADJUSTED ITEM COST 202-00201 Removal of Curb 360 LF 7.00$ 2,520.00$ 0 -$ 2,520.00$ 202-00220 Removal of Asphalt Mat 4360 SY 6.00$ 26,160.00$ -613 (3,678.00)$ 22,482.00$ 210-04010 Adjust Manhole 2 EA 550.00$ 1,100.00$ -1 (550.00)$ 550.00$ 210-04010 Adjust Water Valve 3 EA 350.00$ 1,050.00$ 3 1,050.00$ 2,100.00$ 403-00720 HMA (Large Patch 4") Gr SX (75) PG 58-28 407 TON 155.00$ 63,085.00$ -119.2 (18,476.00)$ 44,609.00$ 403-00720.2 HMA (Patch 4") Gr SX (75) PG 58-28 137 TON 155.00$ 21,235.00$ 0 -$ 21,235.00$ 403-00720.3 HMA (Patching) Gr SX (75) PG 58-28 30 TON 155.00$ 4,650.00$ -30 (4,650.00)$ -$ 403-34721 HMA Gr SX (75) PG 58-28 720 TON 90.00$ 64,800.00$ -175.39 (15,785.10)$ 49,014.90$ 608-00015 Detectable Warnings 1 LS 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 0 -$ 1,500.00$ 609-21020 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section II-B)420 LF 38.60$ 16,212.00$ 105 4,053.00$ 20,265.00$ 609-24006 Gutter Type 2 220 LF 150.00$ 33,000.00$ 36 5,400.00$ 38,400.00$ 626-00000 Mobilization 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 0.15 2,250.00$ 17,250.00$ 627-00003 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking (Inlaid)200 SF 16.50$ 3,300.00$ -132.5 (2,186.25)$ 1,113.75$ 630-00012 Traffic Control 1 LS 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 0 -$ 11,000.00$ 264,612.00$ (32,572.35)$ 232,039.65$ CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. (6/4/2020) U:\Engineering\00-PROJECT FILES\Ballot 1A Projects\2020 Projects\2020 Overlay and Patching\01 Project Management\Town Board and PUP Memos file name: 2020 Change Order 83 PROJECT #4STLR ELKPAV OVRLAY PROJECTS FOURTH ST E. ELKHORN OL&PATCH TOTALS COSTS Original contract amount 619,403.50$ 333,780.50$ 264,612.00$ 1,217,796.00$ Change in contract costs previous change order/s #77,809.73$ 128,013.63$ (32,572.35)$ 173,251.01$ Change in contract costs this change order -$ Adjusted contract amount (2019 Final)697,213.23$ 461,794.13$ 232,039.65$ 1,391,047.01$ Change in contract costs this change order (2020)740,449.50$ Adjusted contract amount (2020)740,449.50$ 740,449.50$ Percent change to contract costs (informational only)% TIME Original contract time 31 13 75 working days Change in contract time previous change order/s #3 18 4 working days Change in contract time this change order working days Adjusted contract time (2019 Final)34 31 79 working days Final completion date (2020)8/28/2020 date 8/28/2020 APPROVAL: This Change Order is accepted and the Contract is amended to conform thereto. TOWN OF ESTES PARK CONTRACTOR Approved by Project Manager Date Contractor signature Date Approved by Engineering Manager Date Contractor title Approved by Public Works Director Date TOWN SIGNATORY AUTHORITY THRESHOLDS ENGINEERING MGR $30,000 DIRECTOR $50,000 Approved by Town Administrator Date TOWN ADMINISTRATOR $100,000 Copies to: project file, Finance Dept, Town Clerk Approved by Town Board, Signed by Mayor Koenig Date (6/4/2020) U:\Engineering\00-PROJECT FILES\Ballot 1A Projects\2020 Projects\2020 Overlay and Patching\01 Project Management\Town Board and PUP Memos file name: 2020 Change Order 84 2020 OVERLAY & PATCHING PROGRAM Town of Estes Park Public Works Department 2020 Overlay & Patching Program – Contract Extension EXTENSION: The Town of Estes Park (Town) has chosen to exercise its option to extend the 2019 Street Overlay Program contract with Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. (Coulson) for an additional year. During the extension period, the terms and conditions of the 2019 Contract Documents shall remain in effect. Revisions to the 2019 Street Overlay Program contract The 2019 contract is modified as follows for implementation of the 2020 Overlay & Patching Program: Article 1. WORK 2020 Overlay & Patching Program The scope of work for 2020 will include repaving of multiple roadways and one parking lot, plus asphalt patching in the Town of Estes Park. Contractor shall supply all labor, materials, and equipment necessary to complete the work in accordance with the contract specifications. The Work is generally described as follows: 1. Davis Parking Lot – Mill 4”, HMA overlay 4”, re-striping; some concrete curb replacement, install sidewalk drainage chase section 2. Lexington Lane – Leveling course, HMA overlay 2”; some concrete curb and gutter and driveway replacement 3. Big Horn Drive – Leveling course, HMA overlay 2”; some concrete curb and gutter and driveway replacement, 6’ concrete street pan 4. Columbine Avenue - Leveling course, HMA overlay 2” 5. Homestead Lane – Mill 3”, HMA Overlay 4”; some full-depth patching 6. Summerset Lane (straight-away) – Mill 3”, HMA Overlay 4” 7. Summerset Lane (cul-de-sac) – Overlay 2” 8. Perform 4” HMA Patching at various locations, as detailed in Exhibit B – Site Maps Article 3. CONTRACT TIMES SCHEDULE OF 2020 ACTIVITIES: 85 2020 OVERLAY & PATCHING PROGRAM Town Board Approval June 23, 2020 Notice of Award June 24, 2020 Pre-Construction Meeting TBD – June 16, 2020 (target) Notice to Proceed TBD – June 25, 2020 (target) Construction Completed August 28, 2020 COMMENCEMENT OF WORK: The Contractor on this project shall commence work under this contract on the date of the Notice to Proceed (variable) and completing all work, including cleanup and demobilization, by August 28, 2020. Article 9. MISCELLANEOUS Contractor shall extend/adjust their Payment and Performance Bond to cover the 2020 program. Contractor accepts this Extension as satisfactory for 2020 under section 5.0 of the Special Conditions of the 2019 Street Overlay Program contract. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor Date State of ) ) ss: County of ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Wendy Koenig, as Mayor of the Town of Estes Park, a Colorado municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation, this day of , 2020. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires . Notary Public 86 2020 OVERLAY & PATCHING PROGRAM CONTRACTOR _____________________________ State of ) ) ss: County of ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by , (Name of party signing) as of (Title of party signing) (Name of corporation) a corporation, on behalf of the corporation, this (State of incorporation) day of , 2020. Witness my hand and official Seal. My Commission expires . Notary Public Attached 2020 Contract Documents Exhibit A – Overview map of the 2020 Overlay & Patching Program Exhibit B – Site Maps Exhibit C – Construction Details for 2020 Program 87 ¯0 2,000 4,000 6,000 Feet Mill and Overlay or Patch Boundaries EP-Maintained Roads Town of Estes ParkPublic Works Dept.2020 Overlay & Patching Program Overview of Patch Locations,Overlay Locations, andDavis Parking LotExhibit A 88 Mill and Overlay or Patch Boundaries Curb & Gutter Replacement Curb repair Driveway / Pan EP-Maintained Roads Town of Estes Park 2020 Overlay & Patching Program EXHIBIT B – Site Maps Davis Parking Lot 89 Big Horn Dr, Mummy Ln patch Lexington Ln 90 Columbine Ave, Aspen Ave patch 91 Homestead Ln, Summerset Ct Castle Mountain Rd patch 92 Fall River Ln patches, Old Man Mountain Ln patches West Elkhorn Ave patches 93 Ptarmigan Trail patch, Redtail Hawk Dr patch Matthew Cir patch 94 Comanche St patch Pine Knoll Dr patches 95 Pinewood patches Uplands Cir patch 96 ;J 6" D 1' . l"· l FL f,f . 6· . . C> . 6 . j CURB AND GUTTER TYPE 2 (SECTION 18) (6 IN. BARRIER - 1 FT. GUTTER) CURB AND GUTTER TYPE 2 (SECTION IM) (6 IN. MOUNT ABLE - 1 FT. GUTTER) ).. SEE PLANS FOR WIDTH (4' MIN.) I I :._ 2% MAXIMUM SLOPE ' . . .. 2'~ r6 6" D _(D 1' C> C> 1. .. . . A I, 6· 6 . 6" l FL 6' 6 . j CURB AND GUTTER TYPE 2 (SECTION 118) (6 IN. BARRIER - 2 FT. GUTTER) r 1' C> 6· . ~ 1. 6" l C> • j . C> • C> . . . • C> CURB AND GUTTER TYPE 2 (SECTION IIM) (6 IN. MOUNT ABLE - 2 FT. GUTTER) • SEE GEN. NOTES . . Yz" PREFORMED JOINT MATERIAL 6· Wf2 'I' Wf2 0211 E"W"-VARIABLE (SEE PLAN~) l '/FT. MAX. SLOPE !"/FT. MAX. 6" A · , · , r 'i. 0 2 IN. DEPTH WHEN USED AS A CROSSPAN IN AN INTERSECTION GUTTER TYPE 2 F---------6'-7" ----------i GENERAL NOTES 1. ON ROADWAY CURVES WITH A RADIUS OF 1,900 FT. OR LESS, CURBS AND GUTTERS ARE TO BE PLACED ON THE ARC OF THE CURVE,UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLANS.A MAXIMUM CHORD LENGTH OF 10 FT.MAY BE USED WHEN THE CURVE RADIUS IS GREATER THAN 1,900 FT. 2. CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS 8. 3. PROFILE GRADE OF CURBS AND GUTTERS SHALL BE LOCATED AT THE FLOW LINE. 4. CURB TYPE 4 (KEY-WAY) MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF CURB AND GUTTER TYPE 2 (SECTIONS 18 AND IM) UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS. 5. GUTTER CROSS SLOPES MAY BE ADJUSTED TO FACILITATE DRAINAGE FOR PROFILE GRADES AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 6. THICKNESS OF CURB AND GUTTER SECTION SHALL MATCH CONCRETE PAVEMENT THICKNESS IF SHOWN ON THE PLANS.CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE CLASS P CONCRETE IF PLACED MONOLITHICALLY WITH CONCRETE PAVEMENT. 7. INCREASE SIDEWALK THICKNESS TO 6 IN. AT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 8. MINIMUM SIDEWALK WIDTH IS 4 FT. • EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN ABUTTING EXISTING CONCRETE OR FIXED STRUCTURE. EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL SHALL BE Y2 IN. THICK AND SHALL EXTEND THE FULL DEPTH OF CONTACT SURFACE. (,"I GUTTER CROSS SLOPES SHALL BE Y2 IN./FT. WHEN DRAINING AWAY FROM CURB AND ~ I IN./FT. WHEN DRAINING TOWARD CURB (WITH EXCEPTION TO IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO CURB RAMPS -SEE STANDARD PLAN M-608-1 FOR SLOPE REQUIREMENTS). • WHEN TIE BARS ARE REQUIRED, THE GUTTER THICKNESS SHALL BE INCREASED TO THE PAVEMENT THICKNESS (T).BARS SHALL BE EPOXY-COATED #4 CONFORMING TO AASHTO M 284 AND SPACED AT 3 FT. INTERVALS. THEY SHALL BE INSERTED Tjz AND 1#2 LENGTH INTO THE GUTTER . LEGEND r 21 ~l 7;:, i---------2%-. M:~~U-M_S_L-OP_E __ _ -(D -l-:;:::=_j~::::;::::;;:===.===:==::===-:-:-----i ~I . -411-T7C> • C>. ~ T511 6" ~ . • . • . • . C> • • C> • . C> • • _f FOR RADII A =Ya" TO 1/4" L . 6 I SIDEWALK I 2'-3" • I J • • 3'-9Y2" ---· 6Y2" CURB AND GUTTER TYPE 2 (SECTION MS) (4 IN. MOUNTABLE WITH SIDEWALK) B =1" C =tY211 D =Wz" TO 2" ).. A TOOLED JOINT IS REQUIRED WHETHER SEE PLANS FOR THE CURB AND SIDEWALK ARE POURED CURB & GUTTER SEPARATELY OR MONOLITHICALLY. NOTES: 1. EXP ANS ION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED IN THE SIDEWALK AT INTERVALS OF NOT MORE THAN 500 FT. TYPE CONCRETE SIDEWALK 2. EXPANSION JOINTS MAY BE SEALED WHEN SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS. SIDEWALK EXP ANS ION JOINT Com uter File Information Creation Date: 07 /31/19 Designer Initials: JBK Last Modification Date: 07 /31/19 Detailer Initials: LT A CAD Ver.: MicroStatian V8 Scale: Not to Scale Units: English Sheet Revisions Colorado Department of Transportation ~ 2829 West Howard Place ~:=~ ~ ---------------~ g~~:er~~'o3rd86i~°I t------+-------------1 ~ Phone: 303-757-9021 FAX: 303-757-9868 CR-X> cR-x> 1-----+-----------1 Project Development Branch JBK Date: Comments P7I THIS AREA SHALL BE POURED MONOLITHICALLY WITH CURB AND IL.d GUTTER AND PAID FOR AS "CONCRETE PAVEMENT". • FLOW LINE LOCATION WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY Wjz SHOWN ON PLANS. CONSTRUCTION OF CONCRETE GUTTERS AT INTERSECTION CURB, GUTTERS, AND SIDEWALKS Issued by the Project Development Branch: July 31, 2019 STANDARD PLAN NO. M-609-1 Standard Sheet No. 1 of 4 Project Sheet Number: EXHIBIT C - Construction Details for 2020 Program97 CURB TYPE 2 (SECTION 8) 6 IN. BARRIER CURB TYPE 2 (SECTION M) 6 IN. MOUNT ABLE 1" ± 1/4". ~ ll 1" W2" DIA. HOLES (6 FT. SPACING) I>. I>. . ll. . . . I>. 6" · < PRESENT CONCRETE~ . j ~ / . PAVEMENT . '\,.._" . ll %" DIA. x 12" DEFORMED REINFORCING BARS AT 6 FT. SPACING SHALL BE GROUTED IN IY4" DIA. HOLES IN EXISTING CONCRETE. ll W2" DIA. HOLES (6 FT. SPACING) GROUT SHALL CONSIST OF 2 PARTS CLEAN SANO ANO 1 PART CEMENT. COST OF INSTALLATION SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE BID FDR CURB. CURB TYPE 4 (SECTION 8) 6 IN. BARRIER CURB TYPE 4 (SECTION M) 6 IN. MOUNT ABLE Fj_ [6"~411 B ll · . . I> I> . ~l~"~~a.......:;.· -/l~· ~---=-.__...,....._~ _l A 6" . ll I>. . ll I>. .. I>. c,. t>. 1" ± 1/4" . ll. ll ll. . ll T ASPHALT OR CONCRETE PAVEMENT AT SHOULDER 1" ROADWAY FILL SLOPE CURB TYPE 6 (SECTION M) 4 IN. MOUNT ABLE NOTE: BITUMINOUS DR CONCRETE * UNLESS DTHWISE SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS. ASPHALT OR CONCRETE PAVEMENT AT SHOULDER .a. KEY-WAY MAY BE OMITTED WHEN PLACED UNDER GUARDRAIL. LEGEND FOR RADII A=Ya TD 1/4'' B=l" C=W2" D =W2" TD 2" ASPHALT DR CONCRETE PAVEMENT (SECTION 8) (SECTION M) * CONCRETE CLASS B SHALL CONTAIN 1.5 POUNDS PER CUBIC YARD OF APPROVED POLYPROPYLENE FIBERS AND MAY HAVE A NOMINAL AGGREGATE SIZE OF % IN. * CURB TYPE 4 (KEY-WAY) ---r---TRANSITION WHEN THERE IS NO SIDEWALK AT BACK OF CURB OR WHEN SIDEWALK IS SET BACK FROM CURB (TYP.) / / / / / 4 FT. MIN. DRIVEWAY TRANSITION (SEE PLANS) CURB TRANSITIONS,---ORIVEW AY AND WING SHALL BE FLOWLINE CURB ACROSS MEASURED AND PAID FOR AS DRIVEWAY AND GUTTER CONCRETE PAVEMENT IN THE CURB CUT SHALL BE MEASURED AND PAID FOR AS "CURB AND GUTTER" POURED JOINT MATERIAL I> .. . ll. ll t 6" 1>. l ...____'--&...--___ ____, NOTE: RECOMMENED JOINT SPACING IS EVERY 8 FOOT ALONG THE WIDTH AND LENGTH OF DRIVEWAY. FDR DRIVEWAYS WIDER THAN 12 FEET, JOINTS ARE REQUIRED. 1" TO BE POURED MONOLITHICALLY -----SECTION A-A TRANSVERSE CONTRACTION JOINT FOR CONCRETE PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAYS) CONCRETE PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAYS) ROADWAY FILL SLOPE Com uter File Information Sheet Revisions Colorado Department of Transportation CURB, GUTTERS, AND SIDEWALKS STANDARD PLAN NO. Creation Date: 07 /31/19 Date: Comments Ii Q 2829 West Howard Place Designer Initials: JBK ( R-X l CDOT HQ, 3rd Floor ---------------1 Last Modification Date: 07 /31/19 CR-X) ~ Denver, CO 80204 ~ Phone: 303-757-9021 FAX: 303-757-9868 Detailer Initials: LT A C R-X) CAD Ver.: MicroStation VB Scale: Not to Scale Units: English (R-X) 1-----+-----------1 Project Development Branch JBK M-609-1 Standard Sheet No. 2 of 4 Issued by the Project Development Branch: July 31, 2019 Project Sheet Number: 98 99       100 UTILITIES Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Utilities Director Bergsten, Superintendent Eshelman, Finance Director Hudson, Town Attorney Kramer Date: June 23, 2020 RE: Resolution 35-20 USDA Financing Agreement for the Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant Sedimentation Basin Construction Project, Comprised of a $2,369,000 Grant plus, $7,675,000 as a 40-Year Loan at 1.375% Interest (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Approval of this resolution accepting the generous USDA financing. This project supports high-quality, reliable drinking water service for the benefit of our citizens, guests and employees. Present Situation: The Town acting by and through its Water Activity Enterprise provides drinking water service to most of the Estes Valley with two water treatment plants. The State's Disinfection Outreach and Verification Effort (DOVE) program reclassified the Glacier Creek Plant from Conventional to Direct Filtration. The Town's finished water remains excellent; however, this reclassification has reduced the plant’s capacity. Regaining that lost capacity requires new, larger sedimentation basins. Planning to replace our 50-year-old Glacier Creek Plant is underway. We are now phasing reconstruction to accelerate the new sedimentation basins. Time is of the essence to lock in this interest rate before July. Proposal: Staff requests approval of the resolution to accept the generous USDA financing of this project. If the Board approves the resolution, the USDA would process these documents and prepare a loan agreement and bond document for further Town Board action. 101 Advantages: • The favorable financing will help reduce rate pressure • The Town has two existing USDA financing agreements in place • We will begin reconstruction of the 50-year-old Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant • We will regain the lost treatment capacity from the Glacier Creek Plant Disadvantages: • USDA financing comes with many conditions and processes; however, we are familiar with the program and conditions • The project is expensive; however, the project costs were included in the last rate study Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the resolution Finance/Resource Impact: $10,142,000 comprised of $10,044,000 USDA financing and $98,000 from the Water Enterprise Fund Level of Public Interest Medium; Our customers have a high interest in water rates; however, interest at this level of detail is limited to accountants and water professionals Sample Motion: This item is on consent. If it is removed from consent the following sample motion can be made: I move to approve/deny Resolution 35-20. Attachments: Resolution 35-20 USDA Letter of Conditions USDA Water and Waste System Grant Agreement (RUS Bulletin 1780-12) USDA Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions (Form RD 1942-46) USDA Request for Obligation of Funds (Form RD 1940-1) 102 RESOLUTION 35-20 APPROVING INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR GRANT FUNDING AND LOAN FINANCING TO SUPPORT THE GLACIER CREEK WATER TREATMENT PLANT SEDIMENTATION BASIN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT WHEREAS, the Town acting by and through its Water Activity Enterprise desires to enter into the USDA project financing agreement supporting the capital construction of new sedimentation basins at the Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant, and WHEREAS, the USDA project financing is composed of a $2,369,000 grant plus a $7,675,000 40-year loan at 1.375% interest, and WHEREAS, the project is required to ensure high-quality, reliable drinking water service for the benefit of our citizens, guests and employees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, a water and waste system grant agreement and a request for obligation of funds, as referenced in the title of this resolution, in substantially the form now before the Board. DATED this day of TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 103 USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. Rural Development Colorado State Office Denver Federal Center P.O. Box 25426 Denver, CO 80225 Voice: 800-424-6214 Fax: 866-587-7607 June 4, 2020 Town of Estes Park, acting by and through its Water Activity Enterprise Chris Eshelman PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 SUBJECT: Recipient Name: Town of Estes Park Project Name: Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant Project Water Application CFDA NUMBER – 10.760 Loan: $7,675,000 Grant: $2,369,000 Applicant: $98,000 Dear Mr. Eshelman: This letter establishes conditions which must be understood and agreed to by you before further consideration may be given to your application. The loan and/or grant will be administered on behalf of the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) by the State and Area staff of USDA Rural Development, both of which are referred to throughout this letter as the Agency. Any changes in project cost, source of funds, scope of project, or any other significant changes in the project or applicant must be reported to and concurred with by the Agency by written amendment to this letter. If significant changes are made without obtaining such concurrence, the Agency may discontinue processing of the application. All conditions set forth under Section III – Requirements Prior to Advertising for Bids must be met within 4 months of the date of this letter. If you have not met these conditions, the Agency reserves the right to discontinue the processing of your application. If you agree to meet the conditions set forth in this letter and desire further consideration be given to your application, please complete and return the following forms within 5 days: Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions” Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds” RUS Bulletin 1780-12 “Water and Waste System Grant Agreement” The loan/grant will be considered approved on the date Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds,” is signed by the approving official. Thus, this letter in itself does not constitute loan and/or grant approval, nor does it ensure that funds 104 Glacier Creek WTP Project – Letter of Conditions 2 are or will be available for the project. When funds are available, the Form 1940-1 will be provided to you for your signature. After you sign and return the form to the Agency, the request will be processed and loan/grant funds will be approved and obligated. Extra copies of this letter are being provided for use by your engineer, attorney, bond counsel and accountant. All parties may access information and regulations referenced in this letter at our website located at www.rd.usda.gov. The conditions are as follows: SECTION I - PROJECT DETAIL 1. Project Description – Funds will be used for the pretreatment improvements of the Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant. Facilities will be designed and constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices and must meet the requirements of Federal, State, and local agencies. The proposed facility design must be based on the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) as concurred with by the Agency. 2. Project Funding – The Agency is offering the following funding for your project: Agency Loan - $7,675,000 Agency Grant - $2,369,000 This offer is based upon the following additional funding being obtained. Applicant Contribution - $98,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST - $10,142,000 This funding is offered based on the amounts stated above. Any changes in funding sources following obligation of Agency funds must be reported to the processing official. Project feasibility and funding will be reassessed if there is a significant change in project costs after bids are received. If actual project costs exceed the project cost estimates, an additional contribution by the Owner may be necessary. Prior to advertisement for construction bids, you must provide evidence of applicant contributions and approval of other funding sources. This evidence should include a copy of the commitment letter. Agency funds will not be used to pre-finance funds committed to the project from other sources. 3. Project Budget – Funding from all sources has been budgeted for the estimated expenditures as follows: Project Costs: Total Budgeted: Construction $5,910,805 105 Glacier Creek WTP Project – Letter of Conditions 3 Contingency $1,673,195 Engineering Fees $2,007,000 Includes: RPR $527,000 Basic Services $1,403,000 Additional Services $77,000 Legal Services $40,000 Land & Rights $311,000 Interest - Interim $200,000 TOTAL $10,142,000 Obligated loan or grant funds not needed to complete the proposed project will be de-obligated prior to start of construction. Any reduction will be applied to grant funds first. An amended letter of conditions will be issued for any changes to the total project budget. SECTION II – LOAN AND GRANT TERMS 4. Repayment – The interest rate will be the lower of the rate in effect at the time of loan approval or the time of loan closing, unless you request otherwise. Should the interest rate be reduced, the payment will be recalculated to the lower amount. Your loan will be scheduled for repayment over a period of 40 years. Payments will be equal monthly amortized installments, beginning one month after closing. For planning purposes, use a 1.375% interest rate and an amortization factor of 2.71, which provides for an monthly payment of $20,800. The precise payment amount will be based on the interest rate at which the loan is closed, and may be different than the one above. The payment due date will be established as the day that the loan closes. Due dates falling on the 29th, 30th, and 31st day of the month will be avoided. 5. Security – The loan will be secured by a Revenue bond with 2nd lien position in the amount of $7,675,000. The bond will be fully registered as to both principal and interest in the name of the United States of America, Acting through the United States Department of Agriculture. Additional security requirements are contained in RUS Bulletin 1780-12, “Water and Waste System Grant Agreement,” and 1780-27, “Loan Resolution (Public Bodies).” A draft of all security instruments, including draft bond resolution, must be reviewed and concurred in by the Agency prior to advertising for bids. The bond resolution and Loan Resolution must be duly adopted and executed prior to loan closing. The Grant Agreement must be fully executed prior to the first disbursement of grant funds. 6. Electronic Payments – Payments will be made on the day your payment is due through an electronic preauthorized debit system. You will be required to complete Form RD 3550-28, “Authorization Agreement for Preauthorized Payments,” for all new and existing indebtedness to 106 Glacier Creek WTP Project – Letter of Conditions 4 the Agency prior to loan closing. It will allow for your payment to be electronically debited from your account on the day your payment is due. 7. Construction Completion Timeframe - All projects must be completed and all funds disbursed within five years of obligation. If funds are not disbursed within five years of obligation, you must submit to the Agency a written request for extension of time with adequate justification of circumstances beyond your control. Requests for waivers beyond the initial extension will be submitted to the Assistant Administrator for concurrence decision. 8. Disbursement of Agency Funds - Agency funds will be disbursed into the borrower’s depository account through an electronic transfer system. SF 3881, “ACH Vendor/Miscellaneous Payment Enrollment Form,” must be completed and submitted to the Agency prior to advertising for bids. Any applicant contribution will be the first funds expended, followed by other funding sources. Interim financing or Agency loan funds will be expended after all other funding sources unless a written agreement is reached with all other funding sources on how funds are to be disbursed prior to start of construction or loan closing, whichever occurs first. Interim financing funds or Agency loan funds must be used prior to the use of Agency grant funds. The Grant Agreement must not be closed and funds must not be disbursed prior to loan funds except as specified in RUS Instruction 1780.45(d). In the unlikely event the Agency mistakenly disburses funds, the funds will be remitted back to the Agency electronically. 9. Reserves – Reserves must be properly budgeted to maintain the financial viability and sustainability of any operation. Reserves are important to fund unanticipated emergency maintenance and repairs, and assist with debt service should the need arise. The following reserves are required to be established as a condition of this loan: a. Debt Service Reserve – As a part of this Agency loan proposal, you must establish a debt service reserve fund equal to at least one annual loan installment that accumulates at the rate of 10% of one annual payment per year for ten years or until the balance is equal to one annual loan payment. Ten percent of the proposed loan installment would equal $2,280 per month; this amount should be deposited monthly until a total of $22,79 has accumulated. Prior written concurrence from the Agency must be obtained before funds may be withdrawn from this account during the life of the loan. When funds are withdrawn during the life of the loan, deposits will continue as designated above until the fully-funded amount is reached. b. Short-Lived Asset Reserve – In addition to the debt service reserve fund, you must establish a short-lived asset reserve fund. Based on the preliminary engineering report, you must deposit at least $342,553 into the short-lived asset reserve fund annually for the life of the loan to pay for repairs and/or replacement of major system assets. It is your responsibility to assess your facility’s short-lived asset needs on a regular basis and adjust the amount deposited to meet those needs. 107 Glacier Creek WTP Project – Letter of Conditions 5 Current assets can also be used to establish and maintain reserves for expected expenses, including but not limited to operation and maintenance, deferred interest during the construction period, and an asset management program. SECTION III –REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO ADVERTISING FOR BIDS 10. Environmental Requirements – The project as proposed has been evaluated to be consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act. Other Federal, State, tribal, and local laws, regulations and or permits may apply or be required. If the project or any project element deviates from or is modified from the originally-approved project, additional environmental review may be required. 11. Engineering Services – You have been required to complete an Agreement for Engineering Services, which should consist of the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC) documents as indicated in RUS Bulletin 1780-26, “Guidance for the Use of EJCDC Documents on Water and Waste Projects with RUS Financial Assistance,” or other approved form of agreement. The Agency will provide concurrence prior to advertising for bids, and must approve any modifications to this agreement. 12. Contract Documents, Final Plans, and Specifications a. The contract documents must consist of the EJCDC construction contract documents as indicated in RUS Bulletin 1780-26 or other Agency-approved forms of agreement. b. The contract documents, final plans, and specifications must comply with RUS Instruction 1780, Subpart C – Planning, Designing, Bidding, Contracting, Constructing and Inspections, and must be submitted to the Agency for concurrence prior to advertising for bids along with an updated cost estimate. The Agency may require another updated cost estimate if a significant amount of time elapses between the original submission and advertising for bids. c. The use of any procurement method other than competitive sealed bids must be requested in writing and approved by the Agency. 13. Legal Services – You have been required to execute a legal services agreement with your attorney and bond counsel, if applicable, for any legal work needed in connection with this project. The agreement should stipulate an hourly rate for the work, with a “not to exceed” amount for the services, including reimbursable expenses. RUS Bulletin 1780-7, “Legal Services Agreement,” or similar format may be used. The Agency will provide concurrence prior to advertising for bids. Any changes to the fees or services spelled out in the original agreement must be reflected in an amendment to the agreement and have prior Agency concurrence. 14. Property Rights - Prior to advertising for bids, you and your legal counsel must furnish satisfactory evidence that you have or can obtain adequate continuous and valid control over the 108 Glacier Creek WTP Project – Letter of Conditions 6 lands and rights-of-way needed for the project. Acquisitions of necessary land and rights must be accomplished in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. Such control over the lands and rights will be evidenced by the following: a. Right-of-Way Map – Your engineer will provide a map clearly showing the location of all lands and rights-of-way needed for the project. The map must designate public and private lands and rights and the appropriate legal ownership thereof. b. Form RD 442-20, “Right-of-Way Easement” – This form may be used to obtain any necessary easements for the proposed project. c. Form RD 442-21, “Right-of-Way Certificate” – You will provide a certification on this form that all right-of-way requirements have been obtained for the proposed project. d. Form RD 442-22, “Opinion of Counsel Relative to Rights-of-Way” – Your attorney will provide a certification and legal opinion on this form addressing rights-of-way, easements, and title. e. Preliminary Title Work (Title Opinion) – When applicable, your attorney will provide a preliminary title opinion for any property related to the facility, currently owned and to be acquired, along with copies of deeds, contracts or options for purchasing said property. Form RD 1927-9, “Preliminary Title Opinion,” may be used. The approving official may waive title defects or restrictions, such as utility easements, that do not adversely affect the suitability, successful operation, security value, or transferability of the facility. Any such waivers must be provided by the approving official in writing prior to closing or the start of construction, whichever occurs first. You are responsible for the acquisition of all property rights necessary for the project and for determining that prices paid are reasonable and fair. The Agency may require an appraisal by an independent appraiser or Agency employee in order to validate the price to be paid. 15. System Policies, Procedures, Contracts, and Agreements – The facility must be operated on a sound business plan. You must adopt policies, procedures, and/or ordinances outlining the conditions of service and use of the proposed system. Mandatory connection policies should be used where enforceable. The policies, procedures, and/or ordinances must contain an effective collection policy for accounts not paid in full within a specified number of days after the date of billing. They should include appropriate late fees, specified timeframes for disconnection of service, and reconnection fees. A draft of these policies, procedures, and/or ordinances must be submitted for Agency review and concurrence, along with the documents below, before closing instructions may be issued unless otherwise stated. a. Conflict of Interest Policy – Prior to obligation of funds, you must certify in writing that your organization has in place an up-to-date written policy on conflict of interest. The policy will include, at a minimum: (1) a requirement for those with a conflict or potential conflict to disclose the conflict/potential conflict; (2) a clause that prohibits interested members of the applicant’s governing body from voting on any matter in which there is a conflict, and (3) a description of the specific process by which the governing body will manage identified or potential conflicts. 109 Glacier Creek WTP Project – Letter of Conditions 7 You must also submit a disclosure of planned or potential transactions related to the use of Federal funds that may constitute or present the appearance of personal or organizational conflict of interest. Disclosure must be in the form of a written letter signed and dated by the applicant’s official. A negative disclosure in the same format is required if no conflicts are anticipated. Sample conflict of interest policies may be found at the National Council of Nonprofits website, https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/conflict-of-interest, or in Internal Revenue Service Form 1023, Appendix A, “Sample Conflict of Interest Policy,” at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1023.pdf. Though these examples reference non-profit corporations, the requirement applies to all types of Agency borrowers. Assistance in developing a conflict of interest policy is available through Agency- contracted technical assistance providers if desired. b. Contracts for Other Services/Lease Agreement – Drafts of any contracts or other forms of agreements for other services, including audit, management, operation, and maintenance, or lease agreements covering real property essential to the successful operation of the facility, must be submitted to the Agency for review and concurrence prior to advertising for bids. c. Other agreements with governments or other entities regarding joint operation of facilities, granting authority to Agency borrower for providing service within another entity’s service area, etc. – [describe the agreement] – The draft agreement must receive Agency concurrence prior to advertising for bids. Fully executed copies of any policies, procedures, ordinances, contracts, or agreements must be submitted prior to loan closing, with the exception of the conflict of interest policy, which must be in place prior to obligation of funds. 16. Closing Instructions – The Agency will prepare closing instructions as soon as the requirements of the previous paragraphs are complete, as well as a draft of the security instrument(s). Closing instructions must be obtained prior to advertising for bids. 17. Interim Financing – For all loans exceeding $500,000, where loan funds can be borrowed at reasonable interest rates on an interim basis from commercial sources for the construction period, such interim financing will be used to preclude the necessity for multiple advances of Agency loan funds. You must provide the Agency with a copy of the interim loan financing agreement for review prior to advertising for bids. The Agency approving official may make an exception when interim financing is cost prohibitive or unavailable. Grant funds from the Agency will be disbursed by multiple advances through electronic transfer of funds after interim financing or Agency loan funds are expended, in accordance with RUS Instruction 1780.45. 18. Construction Account – You must establish a construction account for all funds related to the project. Construction funds will be deposited with an acceptable financial institution or 110 Glacier Creek WTP Project – Letter of Conditions 8 depository that meets the requirements of 31 CFR Part 202. A separate account will not be required for Federal funds and other funds; however, the recipient must be able to separately identify, report, and account for all Federal funds, including the receipt, obligation and expenditure of funds. Financial institutions or depositaries accepting deposits of public funds and providing other financial agency services to the Federal Government are required to pledge adequate, acceptable securities as collateral, in accordance with 31 CFR Part 202. All funds in the account will be secured by a collateral pledge equaling at least 100% of the highest amount of funds expected to be deposited in the construction account at any one time. Your financial institution can provide additional guidance on collateral pledge requirements. Agency funds will be disbursed into the borrower’s depository account through an electronic transfer system. SF 3881, “ACH Vendor/Miscellaneous Payment Enrollment Form,” must be completed and submitted to the Agency prior to advertising for bids. 19. System Users – This letter of conditions is based upon your indication at application that there will be at least 4,082 residential users, 1,360 non-residential users, and 5 bulk / wholesale users on the existing system when construction is completed. Before the Agency can agree to the project being advertised for construction bids, you must certify that the number of users indicated at application are currently using the system or signed up to use the system once it is operational. If the actual number of existing and/or proposed users that have signed up for service is less than the number indicated at the time of application, you must provide the Agency with a written plan on how you will obtain the necessary revenue to adequately cash flow the expected operation, maintenance, debt service, and reserve requirements of the proposed project (e.g., increase user rates, sign up an adequate number of other users, reduce project scope, etc.). Similar action is required if there is cause to modify the anticipated flows or volumes presented following approval. If you are relying on mandatory connection requirements, you must provide evidence of the authorizing ordinance or statute along with your user certification. 20. Other Funding – Prior to advertising for bids, you must provide evidence of applicant contributions and approval of other funding sources. This evidence should include a copy of the commitment letter from each source. 21. Proposed Operating Budget – You must establish and/or maintain a rate schedule that provides adequate income to meet the minimum requirements for operation and maintenance (O&M), debt service, and reserves. Prior to advertising for bids, you must submit a proposed annual operating budget to the Agency which supports the operation, maintenance, debt service, and reserves, as well as your proposed rate schedule. The operating budget should be based on a typical year cash flow after completion of the construction phase and should be signed by the appropriate official of your organization. Form RD 442-7, “Operating Budget,” or similar format may be utilized for this purpose. It is expected that O&M will change over each successive year and user rates will need to be adjusted on a regular basis. 111 Glacier Creek WTP Project – Letter of Conditions 9 Technical assistance is available at no cost to help you evaluate and complete a rate analysis on your system. This assistance is available free to your organization. If you are interested please contact our office for information. 22. Permits –The owner or responsible party will be required to obtain all applicable permits for the project, prior to advertising for bids. The consulting engineer must submit written evidence that all applicable permits required prior to construction have been obtained with submission to the Agency of the final plans, specifications, and bid documents. 23. Vulnerability Assessment/Emergency Response Plan (VA/ERP) – The Agency requires all financed water and wastewater systems to have a VA/ERP in place. Borrowers with existing systems must provide a certification that a VA/ERP has been completed prior to advertising for bids. The VA/ERP documents themselves are not submitted to the Agency. The VA/ERP must address potential impacts from natural disasters and other emergency events. In particular, it should include plans to address impacts of flash flooding in areas where severe drought or wildfires occur. The documents should be reviewed and updated every three years at a minimum. For new systems, see Section V of this letter of conditions. For VA/ERP requirements throughout the life of the loan, see Section VII. Technical assistance at no cost is available in preparing these documents. 24. Bid Authorization - Once all the conditions outlined in Section III of this letter have been met, the Agency will authorize you to advertise the project for construction bids. Such advertisement must be in accordance with applicable State statutes. SECTION IV - REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION 25. Bid Tabulation – Immediately after bid opening, you must provide the Agency with the bid tabulation and your engineer’s evaluation of bids and recommendations for contract awards. If the Agency agrees that the construction bids received are acceptable, adequate funds are available to cover the total project costs, and all the requirements of Section III of this letter have been satisfied, the Agency will authorize you to issue the Notice of Award. a. Cost Overruns. If bids are higher than expected, or if unexpected construction problems are encountered, you must utilize all options to reduce cost overruns. Negotiations, redesign, use of bidding alternatives, rebidding or other means will be considered prior to commitment of subsequent funding by the Agency. Any requests for subsequent funding to cover cost overruns will be contingent on the availability of funds. Cost overruns exceeding 20% of the development cost at time of loan or grant approval or where the scope of the original purpose has changed will compete for funds with all other applications on hand as of that date. b. Excess Funds. If bids are lower than anticipated at time of obligation, excess funds must be deobligated prior to start of construction except in the cases addressed in this 112 Glacier Creek WTP Project – Letter of Conditions 10 paragraph. In cases where the original PER for the project included items that were not bid, or were bid as an alternate, the State Office official may modify the project to fully utilize obligated funds for those items. Amendments to the PER, ER, and letter of conditions may be needed for any work not included in the original project scope. In all cases, prior to start of construction, excess funds will be deobligated, with grant funds being deobligated first. Excess funds do not include contingency funds as described in this letter. 26. Contract Review – Your attorney will certify that the executed contract documents, including performance and payment, if required, are adequate and that the persons executing these documents have been properly authorized to do so in accordance with RUS Instruction 1780.61(b). Once your attorney has certified that they are acceptable, the contract documents will be submitted to the Agency for its concurrence. The Notice to Proceed cannot be issued until the Agency has concurred with the construction contracts. 27. Final Rights-of-Way – If any of the rights-of-way forms listed previously in this letter contain exceptions that do not adversely affect the suitability, successful operation, security value, or transferability of the facility, the approving official must provide a written waiver prior to the issuance of the Notice to Proceed. For projects involving the acquisition of land, you must provide evidence that you have clear title to the land prior to the issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Final Title Work - Your attorney must furnish a separate final title opinion on all existing real property related to the facility, now owned and to be acquired for this project, as of the day of loan closing or start of construction, whichever occurs first. Form RD 1927-10, “Final Title Opinion” may be used. 28. Insurance and Bonding Requirements - Prior to the start of construction or loan closing, whichever occurs first, you must acquire and submit to the Agency proof of the types of insurance and bond coverage for the borrower shown below. The use of deductibles may be allowed, providing you have the financial resources to cover potential claims requiring payment of the deductible. The Agency strongly recommends that you have your engineer, attorney, and insurance provider(s) review proposed types and amounts of coverage, including any exclusions and deductible provisions. It is your responsibility and not that of the Agency to assure that adequate insurance and fidelity or employee dishonesty bond or insurance coverage is maintained. a. General Liability Insurance – Include vehicular coverage. b. Workers Compensation – In accordance with appropriate State laws. c. Fidelity or Employee Dishonesty Bonds or Insurance – Include coverage for all persons who have access to funds, including persons working under a contract or management agreement. Coverage may be provided either for all individual positions or persons, or through blanket coverage providing protection for all appropriate workers. During construction, each position should be bonded in an amount equal to the maximum 113 Glacier Creek WTP Project – Letter of Conditions 11 amount of funds to be under the control of that position at any one time. The coverage may be increased during construction based on the anticipated monthly advances. After construction and throughout the life of the loan, the amount of coverage must be for at least the total annual debt service of all outstanding Agency loans. The Agency will be identified in the fidelity bond for receipt of notices. Form RD 440-24, “Position Fidelity Schedule Bond,” or similar format may be used. d. National Flood Insurance - If the project involves acquisition or construction in designated special flood or mudslide prone areas, you must purchase a flood insurance policy at the time of loan closing. e. Real Property Insurance – Fire and extended coverage will normally be maintained on all structures except reservoirs, pipelines and other structures if such structures are not normally insured, and subsurface lift stations except for the value of electrical and pumping equipment. The Agency will be listed as mortgagee on the policy when the Agency has a lien on the property. Prior to the acceptance of the facility from the contractor(s), you must obtain real property insurance (fire and extended coverage) on all facilities identified above. Insurance types described above are required to be continued throughout the life of the loan. See Section VII. 29. Initial Compliance Review – The Agency will conduct an initial compliance review of the borrower prior to loan closing or start of construction, whichever occurs first, in accordance with 7 CFR 1901, Subpart E. SECTION V – REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO LOAN CLOSING 30. Interim Financing – Loan closing will occur near the end of construction when interim funds are about to be completely disbursed. Documents detailed above from Sections II and III regarding security, electronic payments (Form 3550-28), and system policies, procedures, contracts, and agreements must be adopted and/or executed and submitted to the Agency prior to loan closing. In addition, the following items are required prior to closing: 31. Vulnerability Assessment/Emergency Response Plan (VA/ERP) – The Agency requires all financed water and wastewater systems to have a VA/ERP in place. New water or wastewater systems must provide a certification that an ERP is complete prior to the start of operation, and a certification that a VA is complete must be submitted within one year of the start of operation. Borrowers with existing systems must provide a certification that a VA and ERP are completed prior to authorization to advertise for bids. The VA/ERP documents are not submitted to the Agency. Technical assistance is available in preparing these documents at no cost to you. The VA/ERP must address potential impacts from natural disasters and other emergency events. In particular, it should include plans to address impacts of flash flooding in areas where severe drought or wildfires occur. The documents should be reviewed and updated every three years at a minimum. 32. Other Requirements – All requirements contained in the Agency’s closing instructions, as well as any requirements of your bond counsel and/or attorney, must be met prior to loan closing. 114 Glacier Creek WTP Project – Letter of Conditions 12 a. System for Award Management. You will be required to maintain a Dun & Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and maintain an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) database. Renewal can be done on-line at: http://sam.gov. This registration must be renewed and revalidated every twelve (12) months for as long as there are Agency funds to be expended. See Appendix A. To ensure the information is current, accurate and complete, and to prevent the SAM account expiration, the review and updates must be performed within 365 days of the activation date, commonly referred to as the expiration date. The registration process may take up to 10 business days. (See 2 CFR Part 25 and the “Help” section at http://sam.gov). b. Litigation. You are required to notify the Agency within 30 days of receiving notification of being involved in any type of litigation prior to loan closing or start of construction, whichever occurs first. Additional documentation regarding the situation and litigation may be requested by the Agency. c. Certified Operator. Evidence must be provided that your system has or will have, as defined by applicable State or Federal requirements, a certified operator available prior to the system becoming operational, or that a suitable supervisory agreement with a certified operator is in effect. SECTION VI – REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AND POST CONSTRUCTION 33. Resident Inspector(s) – Full-time inspection is required unless you request an exception. Such requests must be made in writing and the Agency must concur with the request. Inspection services are to be provided by the consulting engineer unless other arrangements are requested in writing and concurred with by the Agency. A resume of qualifications of any resident inspector(s) will be submitted to the owner and Agency for review and concurrence prior to the pre-construction conference. The resident inspector(s) must attend the pre-construction conference. 34. Preconstruction Conference – A preconstruction conference will be held prior to the issuance of the Notice to Proceed. The consulting engineer will review the planned development with the Agency, owner, resident inspector, attorney, contractor, other funders, and other interested parties, and will provide minutes of this meeting to the owner and Agency. 35. Inspections - The Agency requires a pre-construction conference, pre-final and final inspections, and a warranty inspection. Your engineer will schedule a warranty inspection with the contractor and the Agency before the end of the one-year warranty period to address and/or resolve any warranty issues. The Agency will conduct an inspection with you of your records management system at the same time, and will continue to inspect the facility and your records system every three years for the life of the loan. See Section VII of this letter. 115 Glacier Creek WTP Project – Letter of Conditions 13 36. Change Orders – Prior Agency concurrence is required for all Change Orders. 37. Payments – Prior Agency concurrence is required for all Invoices and Partial Payment Estimates before Agency funds will be released. Requests for payment related to a contract or service agreement will be signed by the owner, project engineer, and contractor or service provider prior to Agency concurrence. Invoices not related to a construction contract or service agreement will include the owner’s written concurrence. 38. Use of Remaining Funds – Applicant contribution and connection or tap fees will be the first funds expended in the project, followed by non-Agency sources of funds. Remaining funds may be considered in direct proportion to the amounts obtained from each source and handled as follows: a. Remaining funds may be used for eligible loan and grant purposes, provided the use will not result in major changes to the original scope of work and the purpose of the loan and grant remains the same. b. Loan funds that are not needed will be cancelled (de-obligated) prior to loan closing. 39. Technical, Managerial and Financial Capacity - It is required that members of the Board of Directors, City Council members, trustees, commissioners and other governing members possess the necessary technical, managerial, and financial capacity skills to consistently comply with pertinent Federal and State laws and requirements. It is recommended members receive training within one year of appointment or election to the governing board, and a refresher training for all governing members on a routine basis. The content and amount of training should be tailored to the needs of the particular individual and the utility system. Technical assistance providers are available to provide this training for your organization, often at no cost. Contact the Agency for information. 40. Reporting Requirements Related to Expenditure of Funds a. Financial Audit– An annual audit under the Single Audit Act is required if you expend $750,000 or more in Federal financial assistance per fiscal year. The total Federal funds expended from all sources shall be used to determine Federal financial assistance expended. Expenditures of interim financing are considered Federal expenditures. All audits are to be performed in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR Part 400. Further guidance on preparing an acceptable audit can be obtained from the Agency. The audit must be prepared by an independent licensed Certified Public Accountant, or a State or Federal auditor if allowed by State law, and must be submitted within 9 months of your fiscal year end. If an audit is required, you must enter into a written agreement with the auditor and submit a copy to the Agency prior to the advertisement of bids. The audit agreement may include terms and conditions that the borrower and auditor deem appropriate; however, 116 Glacier Creek WTP Project – Letter of Conditions 14 the agreement should include the type of audit to be completed, the time frame in which the audit will be completed, and how irregularities will be reported. b. Subawards and Executive Compensation – You as a recipient of Federal funds and your first-tier contractors are required by 2 CFR Part 170 to report disbursements to subrecipients in accordance with Appendix B of this letter and www.fsrs.gov. Your Agency processing office can provide more information. SECTION VII – SERVICING REQUIREMENTS DURING THE TERM OF THE LOAN 41. Prepayment and Extra Payments - Prepayments of scheduled installments, or any portion thereof, may be made at any time at the option of borrower, with no penalty. Security instruments, including bonding documents, must contain the following language regarding extra payments, unless prohibited by State statute: Prepayments of scheduled installments, or any portion thereof, may be made at any time at the option of borrower. Refunds, extra payments and loan proceeds obtained from outside sources for the purpose of paying down the Agency debt, shall, after payment of interest, be applied to the installments last to become due under this note and shall not affect the obligation of borrower to pay the remaining installments as scheduled in your security instruments. 42. Graduation - By accepting this loan, you are also agreeing to refinance (graduate) the unpaid loan balance in whole, or in part, upon request of the Government. If at any time the Agency determines you are able to obtain a loan for such purposes from responsible cooperative or private sources at reasonable rates and terms, you will be requested to refinance. Your ability to refinance will be assessed every other year for those loans that are five years old or older. 43. Security/Operational Inspections – The Agency will inspect the facility and conduct a review of your operations and records management system and conflict of interest policy every three years for the life of the loan. You must participate in these inspections and provide the required information. 44. Annual Financial Reporting/Audit Requirements – You are required to submit an annual financial report at the end of each fiscal year. The annual report will be certified by the appropriate organization official, and will consist of financial information and a rate schedule. Financial statements must be prepared on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and must include at a minimum a balance sheet and income and expense statement. The annual report will include separate reporting for each water and waste disposal facility, and itemize cash accounts by type (debt service, short- lived assets, etc.) under each facility. All records, books and supporting material are to be retained for three years after the issuance of the annual report. Technical assistance is available at no cost with preparing financial reports. The type of financial information that must be submitted is specified below: 117 Glacier Creek WTP Project – Letter of Conditions 15 a. Audits – An annual audit under the Single Audit Act is required if you expend $750,000 or more in Federal financial assistance per fiscal year. The total Federal funds expended from all sources shall be used to determine Federal financial assistance expended. Expenditures of interim financing are considered Federal expenditures. All audits are to be performed in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR Part 400. Further guidance on preparing an acceptable audit can be obtained from the Agency. It is not intended that audits required by this part be separate and apart from audits performed in accordance with State and local laws. To the extent feasible, the audit work should be done in conjunction with those audits. The audit must be prepared by an independent licensed Certified Public Accountant, or a State or Federal auditor if allowed by State law, and must be submitted within 9 months of your fiscal year end. If an audit is required, you must enter into a written agreement with the auditor and submit a copy to the Agency prior to the advertisement of bids. The audit agreement may include terms and conditions that the borrower and auditor deem appropriate; however, the agreement should include the type of audit or financial statements to be completed, the time frame in which the audit or financial statements will be completed, what type of reports will be generated from the services provided, and how irregularities will be reported. b. Financial Statements – If you expend less than $750,000 in Federal financial assistance per fiscal year, you may submit financial statements in lieu of an audit which include at a minimum a balance sheet and an income and expense statement. You may use Form RD 442-2, “Statement of Budget, Income and Equity,” and 442-3, “Balance Sheet,” or similar format to provide the financial information. The financial statements must be signed by the appropriate borrower official and submitted within 60 days of your fiscal year end. 45. Annual Budget and Projected Cash Flow - Thirty days prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, you will be required to submit an annual budget and projected cash flow to this office. With the submission of the annual budget, you will be required to provide a current rate schedule, and a current listing of the Board or Council members and their terms. The budget must be signed by the appropriate borrower official. Form RD 442-2 or similar format may be used. Technical assistance is available at no cost to help you evaluate and complete a rate analysis on your system, as well as completing the annual budget. If you are interested, please contact our office for information. 46. Vulnerability Assessment/Emergency Response Plan (VA/ERP) – You will be required to submit a certification to the servicing office every three years that the VA/ERP is current and covers all sites related to the facility. The documents themselves are not submitted to the Agency. The VA/ERP must address potential impacts from natural disasters and other 118 Glacier Creek WTP Project – Letter of Conditions 16 emergency events. In particular, it should include plans to address impacts of flash flooding in areas where severe drought or wildfires occur. The documents should be reviewed and updated every three years at a minimum. 47. Insurance. You will be required to maintain insurance on the facility and employees as previously described in this letter for the life of the loan. 48. Continuation of Financing Statements -- At the direction of Rural Development, you will periodically submit to Rural Development adequate funds for the continuation of the Financing Statement(s) associated with the loan(s). 49. Statutory and National Policy Requirements – As a recipient of Federal funding, you are required to comply with U.S. statutory and public policy requirements, including but not limited to: a. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 – Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), no handicapped individual in the United States shall, solely by reason of their handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Agency financial assistance. b. Civil Rights Act of 1964 – All borrowers are subject to, and facilities must be operated in accordance with, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) and 7 CFR 1901, Subpart E, particularly as it relates to conducting and reporting of compliance reviews. Instruments of conveyance for loans and/or grants subject to the Act must contain the covenant required by Paragraph 1901.202(e) of this Title. c. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 – This Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, State and local government services, public transportation, public accommodations, facilities, and telecommunications. d. Age Discrimination Act of 1975 – This Act (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.) provides that no person in the United States shall on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. e. Limited English Proficiency (LEP) under Executive Order 13166 - LEP statutes and authorities prohibit exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under Federally-assisted and/or conducted programs on the ground of race, color, or national origin. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers program access for LEP persons. LEP persons are individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English. These individuals may be entitled to language assistance, free of charge. You must take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons receive the language assistance necessary to have meaningful access to USDA programs, services, and information your organization provides. These protections are pursuant to Executive Order 13166 entitled, 119 Glacier Creek WTP Project – Letter of Conditions 17 “Improving Access to Services by Persons with Limited English Proficiency” and further affirmed in the USDA Departmental Regulation 4330-005, “Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Persons with Limited English Proficiency in Programs and Activities Conducted by USDA.” Agency financial programs must be extended without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, age, or physical or mental handicap. You must display posters (provided by the Agency) informing users of these requirements, and the Agency will monitor your compliance with these requirements during regular compliance reviews. 50. Compliance Reviews and Data Collection – The Agency will conduct regular compliance reviews of the borrower and its operation in accordance with 7 CFR Part 1901, Subpart E, and 36 CFR 1191, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities; Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Accessibility Guidelines. Compliance reviews will typically be conducted in conjunction with the security inspections described in this letter. If beneficiaries (users) are required to complete an application or screening for the use of the facility or service that you provide, you must request and collect data by race (American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, White); ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino, Not Hispanic or Latino); and by sex. The Agency will utilize this data as part of the required compliance review. SECTION VIII – REMEDIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE Non-compliance with the conditions in this letter or requirements of your security documents will be addressed under the provisions of 7 CFR 1782 and other applicable regulations, statutes, and policies. We look forward to working with you to complete this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at 720-544-290 or by e-mail at allison.ruiz@co.usda.gov Sincerely, ALLISON RUIZ Community Programs Loan Specialist 120 RUS Bulletin 1780-12 Water and Waste System Grant Agreement United States Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service THIS AGREEMENT dated ______________________, between _________________________________________________________________________________________ a public corporation organized and operating under _________________________________________________________________________________________ (Authorizing Statute) herein called ``Grantee,'' and the United States of America acting through the Rural Utilities Service, Department of Agriculture, herein called ``Grantor,'' WITNESSETH: WHEREAS Grantee has determined to undertake a project of acquisition, construction, enlargement, or capital improvement of a (water) (waste) system to serve the area under its jurisdiction at an estimated cost of $________________ and has duly authorized the undertaking of such project. Grantee is able to finance not more than $ ________________________ of the development costs through revenues, charges, taxes or assessments, or funds otherwise available to Grantee resulting in a reasonable user charge. Said sum of $ __________________________ has been committed to and by Grantee for such project development costs. Grantor has agreed to grant the Grantee a sum not to exceed $_________________________ or _____ percent of said project development costs, whichever is the lesser, subject to the terms and conditions established by the Grantor. Provided, however, that the proportionate share of any grant funds actually advanced and not needed for grant purposes shall be returned immediately to the Grantor. The Grantor may terminate the grant in whole, or in part, at any time before the date of completion, whenever it is determined that the Grantee has failed to comply with the Conditions of the grant. As a condition of this grant agreement, the Grantee assures and certifies that it is in compliance with and will comply in the course of the agreement with all applicable laws, regulations, Executive orders and other generally applicable requirements, including those set out in 7 CFR 3015.205(b), which hereby are incorporated into this agreement by reference, and such other statutory provisions as are specifically set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of said grant by Grantor to Grantee, to be made pursuant to Section 306(a) of The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act for the purpose only of defraying a part not to exceed _______ percent of the project development costs, as defined by applicable Rural Utilities Service instructions. Grantee Agrees That Grantee Will: A. Cause said project to be constructed within the total sums available to it, including said grant, in accordance with the project plans and specifications and any modifications thereof prepared by Grantee and approved by Grantor. 121 Bulletin 1780-12 Page 2 B. Permit periodic inspection of the construction by a representative of Grantor during construction. C. Manage, operate and maintain the system, including this project if less than the whole of said system, continuously in an efficient and economical manner. D. Make the services of said system available within its capacity to all persons in Grantee's service area without discrimination as to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, or physical or mental handicap (possess capacity to enter into legal contract for services) at reasonable charges, including assessments, taxes, or fees in accordance with a schedule of such charges, whether for one or more classes of service, adopted by resolution dated ______________________, as may be modified from time to time by Grantee. The initial rate schedule must be approved by Grantor. Thereafter, Grantee may make such modifications to the rate system as long as the rate schedule remains reasonable and nondiscriminatory. E. Adjust its operating costs and service charges from time to time to provide for adequate operation and maintenance, emergency repair reserves, obsolescence reserves, debt service and debt service reserves. F. Expand its system from time to time to meet reasonably anticipated growth or service requirements in the area within its jurisdiction. G. Provide Grantor with such periodic reports as it may require and permit periodic inspection of its operations by a representative of the Grantor. H. To execute any agreements required by Grantor which Grantee is legally authorized to execute. If any such agreement has been executed by Grantee as a result of a loan being made to Grantee by Grantor contemporaneously with the making of this grant, another agreement of the same type need not be executed in connection with this grant. I. Upon any default under its representations or agreements set forth in this instrument, Grantee, at the option and demand of Grantor, will repay to Grantor forthwith the original principal amount of the grant stated herein above with the interest at the rate of 5 percentum per annum from the date of the default. Default by the Grantee will constitute termination of the grant thereby causing cancellation of Federal assistance under the grant. The provisions of this Grant Agreement may be enforced by Grantor, at its option and without regard to prior waivers by it previous defaults of Grantee, by judicial proceedings to require specific performance of the terms of this Grant Agreement or by such other proceedings in law or equity, in either Federal or State courts, as may be deemed necessary by Grantor to assure compliance with the provisions of this Grant Agreement and the laws and regulations under which this grant is made. J. Return immediately to Grantor, as required by the regulations of Grantor, any grant funds actually advanced and not needed by Grantee for approved purposes. K. Use the real property including land, land improvements, structures, and appurtenances thereto, for authorized purposes of the grant as long as needed. 1. Title to real property shall vest in the recipient subject to the condition that the Grantee shall use the real property for the authorized purpose of the original grant as long as needed. 2. The Grantee shall obtain approval by the Grantor agency for the use of the real property in other projects when the Grantee determines that the property is no longer needed for the original grant purposes. Use in other projects shall be limited to those under other Federal grant programs or programs that have purposes consistent with those authorized for support by the Grantor. 122 RUS Bulletin 1780-12 Page 3 3. When the real property is no longer needed as provided in 1 and 2 above, the Grantee shall request disposition instructions from the Grantor agency or its successor Federal agency. The Grantor agency shall observe the following rules in the disposition instructions: (a) The Grantee may be permitted to retain title after it compensates the Federal Government in an amount computed by applying the Federal percentage of participation in the cost of the original project to the fair market value of the property. (b) The Grantee may be directed to sell the property under guidelines provided by the Grantor agency. When the Grantee is authorized or required to sell the property, proper sales procedures shall be established that provide for competition to the extent practicable and result in the highest possible return. [Revision 1, 04/17/1998] (c) The Grantee may be directed to transfer title to the property to the Federal Government provided that in such cases the Grantee shall be entitled to compensation computed by applying the Grantee's percentage of participation in the cost of the program or project to the current fair market value of the property. This Grant Agreement covers the following described real property (use continuation sheets as necessary). L. Abide by the following conditions pertaining to equipment which is furnished by the Grantor or acquired wholly or in part with grant funds. Equipment means tangible, non-expendable, personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit. A grantee may use its own definition of equipment provided that such definition would at least include all equipment defined above. [Revision 1, 04/17/1998] 1. Use of equipment. (a) The Grantee shall use the equipment in the project for which it was acquired as long as needed. When no longer needed for the original project, the Grantee shall use the equipment in connection with its other Federally sponsored activities, if any, in the following order of priority: 1) Activities sponsored by the Grantor. (2) Activities sponsored by other Federal agencies. (b) During the time that equipment is held for use on the property for which it was acquired, the Grantee shall make it available for use on other projects if such other use will not interfere with the work on the project for which the equipment was originally acquired. First preference for such other use shall be given to Grantor sponsored projects. Second preference will be given to other Federally sponsored projects. 123 RUS Bulletin 1780-12 Page 4 2. Disposition of equipment. When the Grantee no longer needs the equipment as provided in paragraph (a) above, the equipment may be used for other activities in accordance with the following standards: (a) Equipment with a current per unit fair market value of less than $5,000. The Grantee may use the equipment for other activities without reimbursement to the Federal Government or sell the equipment and retain the proceeds. (b) Equipment with a current per unit fair market value of $5,000 or more. The Grantee may retain the equipment for other uses provided that compensation is made to the original Grantor agency or its successor. The amount of compensation shall be computed by applying the percentage of Federal participation in the cost of the original project or program to the current fair market value or proceeds from sale of the equipment. If the Grantee has no need for the equipment and the equipment has further use value, the Grantee shall request disposition instructions from the original Grantor agency. The Grantor agency shall determine whether the equipment can be used to meet the agency's requirements. If no requirement exists within that agency, the availability of the equipment shall be reported, in accordance with the guidelines of the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR), to the General Services Administration by the Grantor agency to determine whether a requirement for the equipment exists in other Federal agencies. The Grantor agency shall issue instructions to the Grantee no later than 120 days after the Grantee requests and the following procedures shall govern: (1) If so instructed or if disposition instructions are not issued within 120 calendar days after the Grantee's request, the Grantee shall sell the equipment and reimburse the Grantor agency an amount computed by applying to the sales proceeds the percentage of Federal participation in the cost of the original project or program. However, the Grantee shall be permitted to deduct and retain from the Federal share ten percent of the proceeds for Grantee's selling and handling expenses. (2) If the Grantee is instructed to ship the equipment elsewhere the Grantee shall be reimbursed by the benefiting Federal agency with an amount which is computed by applying the percentage of the Grantee participation in the cost of the original grant project or program to the current fair market value of the equipment, plus any reasonable shipping or interim storage costs incurred. (3) If the Grantee is instructed to otherwise dispose of the equipment, the Grantee shall be reimbursed by the Grantor agency for such costs incurred in its disposition. 3. The Grantee's property management standards for equipment shall also include: (a) Records which accurately provide for: a description of the equipment; manufacturer's serial number or other identification number; acquisition date and cost; source of the equipment; percentage (at the end of budget year) of Federal participation in the cost of the project for which the equipment was acquired; location, use and condition of the equipment and the date the information was reported; and ultimate disposition data including sales price or the method used todetermine current fair market value if the Grantee reimburses the Grantor for its share. (b) A physical inventory of equipment shall be taken and the results reconciled with the equipment records at least once every two years to verify the existence, current utilization, and continued need for the equipment. 124 RUS Bulletin 1780-12 Page 5 (c) A control system shall be in effect to insure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the equipment. Any loss, damage, or theft of equipment shall be investigated and fully documented. (d) Adequate maintenance procedures shall be implemented to keep the equipment in good condition. (e) Proper sales procedures shall be established for unneeded equipment which would provide for competition to the extent practicable and result in the highest possible return. This Grant Agreement covers the following described equipment(use continuation sheets as necessary). M. Provide Financial Management Systems which will include: 1. Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each grant. Financial reporting will be on an accrual basis. 2. Records which identify adequately the source and application of funds for grant-supported activities. Those records shall contain information pertaining to grant awards and authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, liabilities, outlays, and income. 3. Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property and other assets. Grantees shall adequately safeguard all such assets and shall assure that they are used solely for authorized purposes. 4. Accounting records supported by source documentation. N. Retain financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to the grant for a period of at least three years after grant closing except that the records shall be retained beyond the three-year period if audit findings have not been resolved. Microfilm or photo copies or similar methods may be substituted in lieu of original records. The Grantor and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the Grantee's government which are pertinent to the specific grant program for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts and transcripts. O. Provide information as requested by the Grantor to determine the need for and complete any necessary Environmental Impact Statements. P. Provide an audit report prepared in accordance with Grantor regulations to allow the Grantor to determine that funds have been used in compliance with the proposal, any applicable laws and regulations and this Agreement. Q. Agree to account for and to return to Grantor interest earned on grant funds pending their disbursement for program purposes when the Grantee is a unit of local government. States and agencies or instrumentality’s of states shall not be held accountable for interest earned on grant funds pending their disbursement. 125 RUS Bulletin 1780-12 Page 6 R. Not encumber, transfer or dispose of the property or any part thereof, furnished by the Grantor or acquired wholly or in part with Grantor funds without the written consent of the Grantor except as provided in item K above. S. To include in all contracts for construction or repair a provision for compliance with the Copeland ``Anti-Kick Back'' Act (18 U.S.C. 874) as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR, Part 3). The Grantee shall report all suspected or reported violations to the Grantor. T. To include in all contracts in excess of $100,000 a provision that the contractor agrees to comply with all the requirements of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7414 ) and Section 308 of the Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §1318) relating to inspection, monitoring, entry, reports, and information, as well as all other requirements specified in Section 114 of the Clean Air Act and Section 308 of the Water Pollution Control Act and all regulations and guidelines issued thereunder after the award of the contract. In so doing the Contractor further agrees: [Revision 1, 11/20/1997] 1. As a condition for the award of contract, to notify the Owner of the receipt of any communication from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicating that a facility to be utilized in the performance of the contract is under consideration to be listed on the EPA list of Violating Facilities. Prompt notification is required prior to contract award. 2. To certify that any facility to be utilized in the performance of any nonexempt contractor subcontract is not listed on the EPA list of Violating Facilities pursuant to 40 CFR Part 32 as of the date of contract award. [Revision 1, 11/20/1997] 3. To include or cause to be included the above criteria and the requirements in every nonexempt subcontract and that the Contractor will take such action as the Government may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions. As used in these paragraphs the term ``facility'' means any building, plan, installation, structure, mine, vessel or other floating craft, location, or site of operations, owned, leased, or supervised by a Grantee, cooperator, contractor, or subcontractor, to be utilized in the performance of a grant, agreement, contract, subgrant, or subcontract. Where a location or site of operation contains or includes more than one building, plant, installation, or structure, the entire location shall be deemed to be a facility except where the Director, Office of Federal Activities, Environmental Protection Agency, determines that independent facilities are co-located in one geographical area. Grantor Agrees That It: A. Will make available to Grantee for the purpose of this Agreement not to exceed $__________________ which it will advance to Grantee to meet not to exceed _______ percent of the project development costs of the project in accordance with the actual needs of Grantee as determined by Grantor. B. Will assist Grantee, within available appropriations, with such technical assistance as Grantor deems appropriate in planning the project and coordinating the plan with local official comprehensive plans for sewer and water and with any State or area plans for the area in which the project is located. C. At its sole discretion and at any time may give any consent, deferment, subordination, release, satisfaction, or termination of any or all of Grantee's grant obligations, with or without valuable consideration, upon such terms and conditions as Grantor may determine to be (1) advisable to further the purpose of the grant or to protect Grantor's financial interest therein and (2) consistent with both the statutory purposes of the grant and the limitations of the statutory authority under which it is made. 126 RUS Bulletin 1780-12 Page 7 Termination of This Agreement This Agreement may be terminated for cause in the event of default on the part of the Grantee as provided in paragraph I above or for convenience of the Grantor and Grantee prior to the date of completion of the grant purpose. Termination for convenience will occur when both the Grantee and Grantor agree that the continuation of the project will not produce beneficial results commensurate with the further expenditure of funds. In witness whereof Grantee on the date first above written has caused these presence to be executed by its duly authorized _________________________________________________________________________ attested and its corporate seal affixed by its duly authorized _________________________________________________________________________ Attest: _________________________________________________________________________ By _____________________________________________________________________ (Title) ___________________________________________________________________ By ______________________________________________________________________ (Title) ___________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE By _____________________________________________________________________ (Title) 127 Position 3 Form RD 1942-46 FORM APPROVED OMB NO. 0575-0015 OMB NO. 0570-0062 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT(Rev. 6-10) LETTER OF INTENT TO MEET CONDITIONS Date TO: United States Department of Agriculture (Name of USDA Agency) (USDA Agency Office Address) We have reviewed and understand the conditions set forth in your letter dated them not later than (Name of Association) BY (Title) According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a persons is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0575-0015 and 0570-0062. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data. needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Form RD 1942-46 (Rev. 6-10) It is our intent to meet all of. . Town of Estes Park, acting by and through its Water Activity Enterprise 128 According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0570-0062. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. USDA Form RD 1940-1 REQUEST FOR OBLIGATION OF FUNDS (Rev. 06-10) INSTRUCTIONS-TYPE IN CAPITALIZED ELITE TYPE IN SPACES MARKED ( ) Complete Items 1 through 29 and applicable Items 30 through 34. See FMI. FISCAL YEARLOAN NUMBER1. CASE NUMBER BORROWER IDST 2. BORROWER NAME 3. NUMBER NAME FIELDS (1, 2, or 3 from Item 2) 4. STATE NAME 5. COUNTY NAME GENERAL BORROWER/LOAN INFORMATION 9. EMPLOYEE8. COLLATERAL CODE7. TYPE OF APPLICANT6. RACE/ETHNIC 5 - ASSOC. OF FARMERS RELATIONSHIP CODECLASSIFICATION1- REAL ESTATE 4 - MACHINERY ONLY SECURED 5 - LIVESTOCK ONLY 6 - ORG. OF FARMERS 1 - EMPLOYEE2-REAL ESTATE 6 - CROPS ONLY AND CHATTEL 7 - SECURED BY4 - HISPANIC1 - WHITE 1 - INDIVIDUAL 2 - MEMBER OF FAMILY2 - BLACK 5 - A/PI 2 - PARTNERSHIP 3 - CLOSE RELATIVE3 - NOTE ONLY OR BONDS3 - AI/AN 3 - CORPORATION 4 - ASSOC.CHATTEL ONLY 10. SEX CODE 13. CREDIT REPORT12. VETERAN CODE11. MARITAL STATUS 1 - MARRIED 3 - UNMARRIED (INCLUDES4 - ORGAN. MALE OWNED 1 -YES1 -YES5 - ORGAN FEMALE OWNED1 - MALE 2 -NO2 -NO2 -FEMALE 6 - PUBLIC BODY 2 - SEPARATED WIDOWED/DIVORCED) 14. DIRECT PAYMENT 16. FEE INSPECTION15. TYPE OF PAYMENT 1 -YES(See FMI)2 - NO 18. USE OF FUNDS CODE17. COMMUNITY SIZE 1 - 10 000 OR LESS (FOR SFH AND (See FMI)2 - OVER 10,000 HPG ONLY) COMPLETE FOR OBLIGATION OF FUNDS 19. TYPE OF 22. TYPE OF ACTION20. PURPOSE CODE 21. SOURCE OF FUNDS ASSISTANCE 1 -OBLIGATION ONLY 2 - OBLIGATION/CHECK REQUEST(See FMI)3 - CORRECTION OF OBLIGATION 23. TYPE OF SUBMISSION 24. AMOUNT OF LOAN 25. AMOUNT OF GRANT 1 - INITIAL 2 -SUBSEQUENT 26. AMOUNT OF IMMEDIATE ADVANCE 29. REPAYMENT TERMS27. DATE OF 28. INTEREST RATE APPROVAL MO DAY YR COMPLETE FOR COMMUNITY PROGRAM AND CERTAIN MULTIPLE-FAMILY HOUSING LOANS If the decision contained above in this form results in denial, reduction or cancellation of USDA assistance, you may appeal this decision and have a hearing or you may request a review in lieu of a hearing. Please use the form we have included for this purpose. Position 2 ORIGINAL - Borrower's Case Folder COPY 1 - Finance Office COPY 2 - Applicant/Lender COPY 3 - State Office CO 3 - FAMILY UNIT 30. PROFIT TYPE 1 - FULL PROFIT 3 - NONPROFIT 2 - LIMITED PROFIT COMPLETE FOR EM LOANS ONLY 31. DISASTER DESIGNATION NUMBER (See FMI) FINANCE OFFICE USE ONLY 33. OBLIGATION DATE MO DA YR COMPLETE FOR CREDIT SALE-ASSUMPTION COMPLETE FOR FP LOANS ONLY 32. TYPE OF SALE 1 -CREDIT SALE ONLY 3 -CREDIT SALE WITH SUBSEQUENT LOAN SUBSEQUENT LOAN 2 - ASSUMPTION ONLY 4 -ASSUMPTION WITH 34. BEGINNING FARMER/RANCHER (See FMI) 1 - MONTHLY 3 - SEMI-ANNUALLY 2 - ANNUALLY 4 - QUARTERLY % 4 - PUBLIC BODY 7 - NONPROFIT-SECULAR 8 - NONPROFIT-FAITH BASED 9 - INDIAN TRIBE 11-OTHER FORM APPROVED OMB No. 0570-0062 10-PUBLIC COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY 8 - RLF ACCT 129 CERTIFICATION APPROVAL EM, OL, FO, and SW LoansFor All Farmers Programs This loan is approved subject to the availability of funds. If this loan does not close for any reason within 90 days from the date of approval on this document, the approval official will request updated eligibility information. The undersigned loan applicant agrees that the approval official will have 14 working days to review any updated information prior to submitting this document for obligation of funds. If there have been significant changes that may affect eligibility, a decision as to eligibility and feasibility will be made within 30 days from the time the applicant provides the necessary information. If this is a loan approval for which a lien and/or title search is necessary, the undersigned applicant agrees that the 15-working-day loan closing requirement may be exceeded for the purposes of the applicant's legal representative completing title work and completing loan closing. 35.COMMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL 36.I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am unable to obtain sufficient credit elsewhere to finance my actual needs at reasonable rates and terms, taking into consideration prevailing private and cooperative rates and terms in or near my community for loans for similar purposes and periods of time. I agree to use the sum specified herein, subject to and in accordance with regulations applicable to the type of assistance indicated above, and request payment of such sum. I agree to report to USDA any material adverse changes, financial or otherwise, that occur prior to loan closing. I certify that no part of the sum specified herein has been received. I have reviewed the loan approval requirements and comments associated with this loan request and agree to comply with these provisions. (For FP loans at eligible terms only) If this loan is approved, I elect the interest rate to be charged on my loan to be the lower of the interest rate in effect at the time of loan approval or loan closing. If I check ''NO'', the interest rate charged on my loan will be the rate specified in Item 28 of this form.YES NO WARNING: Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.'' Date (Signature of Applicant) Date , (Signature of Co-Applicant) 37.I HEREBY CERTIFY that all of the committee and administrative determinations and certifications required by regulations prerequisite to providing assistance of the type indicated above have been made and that evidence thereof is in the docket, and that all requirements of pertinent regulations have been complied with. I hereby approve the above-described assistance in the amount set forth above, and by this document, subject to the availability of funds, the Government agrees to advance such amount to the applicant for the purpose of and subject to the availability prescribed by regulations applicable to this type of assistance. (Signature of Approving Official) Date Approved:Title: 38.TO THE APPLICANT: As of this date , this is notice that your application for financial assistance from the USDA has been approved, as indicated above, subject to the availability of funds and other conditions required by the USDA. If you have any questions contact the appropriate USDA Servicing Office. ,20 20 Typed or Printed Name: 130 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Vanessa Solesbee, Parking & Transit Manager Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Date: June 23, 2020 RE: Contract for 2020 shuttle services with RAPT Dev USA, dba Rocky Mountain Transit Management Inc. (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Public Works staff seeks Town Board approval of a service agreement contract with RAPT Dev USA dba Rocky Mountain Transit Management Inc. (RMTM) to continue operating the Town’s free shuttle service (Estes Transit) for the 2020 season. As in previous years, the Town’s contract with RMTM is a “piggyback” off of the service contract between Rocky Mountain National Park with RAPT Dev USA. Present Situation: As reported to the Town Board during its regular meeting on May 26, the start of the 2020 service season for Estes Transit was delayed from May 23 to July 1. Staff continue to monitor the fluid situation with public transit in Colorado and around the nation, and have been participating in weekly calls with peer agencies from around the State. At this point, the majority of transit agencies (in communities with both essential riders and choice riders) are continuing to operate at reduced service levels and/or with delayed service start dates. Very few, if any, agencies are completely cancelling all 2020 service. Proposal: While acknowledging that the situation with public transit continues to be very fluid, staff propose to move forward with beginning 2020 Estes Transit service on July 1. Staff plan to actively monitor ridership and public health trends as the season progresses. Staff are coordinating closely with RMTM leadership to identify the most pragmatic and cost- effective way to deliver service in 2020, and language has been included in the 2020 service contract to allow maximum flexibility for the Town if service needs to be reduced or suspended prior to the proposed season end date of October 4. 131 Details of the 2020 service contract include: • RMTM will lease three vehicles from Davey Coach not to exceed the prices listed in Exhibit A of the attached 2020 Service Proposal, for each vehicle per month and the Town of Estes Park will reimburse vehicle lease costs. This is a reduction of the originally budgeted four vehicle leases as the Town plans to use the gasoline-powered trolley to service the Green Route. • The hourly service rate for 2020 will be $66.45 which includes routine maintenance, shuttle drivers, insurance, and fuel costs up to $2.75 a gallon for the five full-service routes scheduled and additional services provided as listed in Exhibit A. • Reduced special service costs due to the cancellation of two events that were included in the 2020 budget (e.g. Wool Market and 4th of July Fireworks). • Additional costs for manufacturer-installed driver protection barriers. Staff have continued to coordinate with RMTM on a number of proposed public health measures to help protect both riders and drivers. A detailed outline of those measures is included in the Attachments and will be posted online (www.estes.org/shuttles) and on each vehicle. Advantages: • Offering continued shuttle service (fifteenth season) for locals and guests. • Estes Transit is one of only a few transportation options available in Estes Park, and it is the only fee-free option that is available to riders of all ages and abilities. • Shuttle use helps decrease traffic and congestion by offering a viable alternative to driving. The trolley in particular could provide refuge for riders from busy downtown streets as passenger capacities will be limited. Disadvantages: • There are many unknowns about whether or not “choice” riders (which make up the majority of Estes Transit ridership) will use transit this summer; however, other seasonal / “choice” systems in Colorado are planning delays/reductions rather than full-scale cancellations of service. • Estes Transit is fully funded by the General Fund and there is uncertainty about the financial impact of COVID-19 on the Town; however, recent Federal grant funding awards to Estes Transit will help lighten the General Fund burden and the proposed agreement represents a roughly 24% reduction from the originally-budget amount for transportation fees in 2020. Action Recommended: Staff recommend acceptance of the service agreement proposal with RAPT Dev USA dba Rocky Mountain Transit Management (RMTM) to provide shuttle services for the Town of Estes Park, as detailed in the attached 2020 Contract for Services proposal. Finance/Resource Impact: This item is budgeted in the Transportation Fees line item (#101-5600-456-22.60). 132 In Fall 2019, the Town Board approved this line item at $408,168. In April 2020, this line item was reduced as part of the Phase I Budget Reductions to $359,853 (in response to the anticipated financial impacts on the Town). The 2020 Service Proposal total from RMTM is $344,718.46 which is within the currently budgeted amount. Additionally, the Town was awarded $94,975 in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) CARES Act funding. No local match is required and the funds can be used for qualifying administrative and operating expenses. Town staff anticipate that $47,487.50 (50% of the allotted CARES Act funding) will be used to cover transit operations, reducing the anticipated overall impact to the Transportation Fees line item by roughly 24% to $312,365.50. Level of Public Interest Public interest in this item is moderate. Anecdotally, staff have seen an increase in calls inquiring about 2020 shuttle service information and brochures over the past few weeks. The Transportation Advisory Board has been briefed on 2020 Estes Transit service plans and provided a letter of support for the process that staff has been undertaking to adjust Estes Transit service during this uncertain time. Sample Motion: I move for approval/denial of the agreement with RAPT Dev USA to provide 2020 shuttle services for the Town of Estes Park, as specified in the agreement. Attachments: • 2020 Contract for Services Proposal between RAPT Dev USA and the Town of Estes Park • Rocky Mountain Transit Management Safety Plan (COVID-19 Safety Protocols) • Letter of Support from the Transportation Advisory Board 133 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 2020 by and between the Town of Estes Park (hereinafter referred to as the “TOWN”), and RATP Dev, INC. (dba Rocky Mountain Transit Management, Inc.), located at 3800 Sandshell Drive, Suite 180, Fort Worth, Texas 76137 (hereinafter referred to as the “CONTRACTOR”). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the TOWN desires the services of the CONTRACTOR to manage and operate a deviated fixed route transportation service; and WHEREAS, the CONTRACTOR has the requisite personnel and experience, and is capable of managing and operating said service. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed by the TOWN and the CONTRACTOR as follows: ARTICLE 1. Complete Agreement A. This Agreement, including all exhibits and documents incorporated herein and made applicable by reference, constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the term(s) and condition(s) of the agreement between the TOWN and the CONTRACTOR and it supersedes all prior representations, understandings and communications. The invalidity in whole or in part of any term or condition of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of other term(s) or condition(s). B. The TOWN’S failure to insist in any one or more instances upon the CONTRACTOR’S performance of any term(s) or condition(s) of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of the TOWN’S right to such performance or to future performance of such term(s) or conditions(s) and the CONTRACTOR’S obligation in respect thereto shall continue in full force and effect. 134 ARTICLE 2. TOWN DESIGNEE The Town Administrator or his/her designee shall have the authority to act for and exercise any of the rights of the TOWN as set forth in this Agreement. ARTICLE 3. STATEMENT OF WORK A. The CONTRACTOR shall perform the work necessary to complete in a manner satisfactory to the TOWN the services set forth in Exhibit A attached to and by this reference incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. All services shall be provided at the times and places designated by the TOWN. B. The CONTRACTOR shall provide all operators, mechanics, and supervisors to perform the above-specified services. All key personnel under this agreement will be subject to the advice and consent process currently in place with the Town of Estes Park. ARTICLE 4. TERM OF AGREEMENT A. This Agreement shall commence upon execution by both parties, and shall continue in full force and effect until December 31, 2020 (“Initial Term”), unless earlier terminated or extended as provided in this Agreement. B. If this Agreement is extended by the Parties for any additional years, prior to March 31 of each calendar year the Parties agree to negotiate to the routes, dates, costs, number of vehicles, fuel costs, and other items as more fully set forth on Exhibit A. which will be effective for that year’s services. C. The TOWN’s election to extend the Agreement beyond the Initial Term shall not diminish its right to terminate the Agreement for the TOWN’s convenience or CONTRACTOR’s default as provided elsewhere in this Agreement. D. If the service is to be provided for less than an entire month, the CONTRACTOR will invoice the TOWN for revenue hours for the month(s). E. The Town’s obligation to pay the Contractor for the services in any fiscal year shall be 135 subject to and contingent on the appropriation by the Town, in its annual budget process, of sufficient funds to meet its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as creating a multiple fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation of the Town within the meaning of any Constitutional or Statutory debt limitation. This Agreement shall not directly or indirectly obligate the Town to appropriate funds beyond the Town’s then current fiscal year. ARTICLE 5. PAYMENT A. For the CONTRACTOR’s full and complete performance during the billing period of the Services under this Agreement, the TOWN agrees to pay CONTRACTOR as set forth in Exhibit A. ARTICLE 6. NOTICES All notices hereunder and communication regarding the interpretations of the terms of this Agreement, or changes thereto, shall be effected by delivery of said notices in person or by depositing said notices in the United States mail, registered or certified mail, return requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: TO THE CONTRACTOR: TO THE TOWN: RATP Dev dba Rocky Mountain Transit Management, Inc. Town of Estes Park 3800 Sandshell Drive, Suite 180 P O Box 1200 Fort Worth, Texas 76137 Estes Park, CO 80517 Attn: Matt Booterbaugh Attn: Travis Machalek Senior Vice President Operations Town Administrator Phone: (970) 577-3707 Phone: (817) 232-9551 Fax: (970) 586-2816 Fax: (817) 232-9560 ARTICLE 7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The CONTRACTOR’s relationship to the TOWN in the performance of this Agreement is that of an independent contractor. The CONTRACTOR’s personnel performing services under this Agreement shall at all times be under the CONTRACTOR’s exclusive direction and control and shall be employees of the 136 CONTRACTOR and not employees of the TOWN. The CONTRACTOR shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due its employees in connection with this Agreement and shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting them, such as social security, income tax withholding, unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation and similar matters. ARTICLE 8. INSURANCE A. The CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain insurance coverage during the entire term of the Agreement. Coverage shall be full coverage and not subject to self –insurance provisions. The CONTRACTOR shall provide the following insurance coverage: 1. Commercial General Liability, to include Premises/Operations, Contractual Operations, independent Contractors, and Personal Injury Liability with at least $5,000,000 of coverage; 2. Automobile Liability Insurance with the following limits: A. Combined Single Limit of $5,000,000 B. Uninsured/Underinsured Bodily Injury coverage per person in compliance with the State of Colorado statutory requirements; and C. Uninsured/Underinsured Bodily Injury per accident in compliance with the State of Colorado statutory requirements; 3. Workers’ Compensation with limits as required by the State of Colorado 4. Employer’s Liability with limits of $1,000,000 B. Proof of such coverage, in the form of an insurance company issued policy endorsement and a broker-issued insurance certificate, must be received by the TOWN within ten (10) calendar days from the date of execution of the Agreement with THE TOWN, its officers, directors, employees, agents, and self-insurance pool (CIRSA) designated as additional insureds. Furthermore, the TOWN reserves the right to request certified copies of all related insurance policies. C. The CONTRACTOR shall furnish to the TOWN a broker-issued certificate of insurance showing the required coverage for the CONTRACTOR and further providing that: 1. The coverage shall be primary and noncontributory as to any other insurance with respect to performance hereunder; and 2. Thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation in 137 insurance coverage to be given to the TOWN. D. Governmental Immunity Act. The parties agree and understand that the TOWN is relying on and does not waive, by any provision of this Agreement, the monetary limitations or terms (presently Three Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($350,000)per person and Nine Hundred Ninety Thousand and 00/100 ($990,000) per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protection provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to the TOWN or any of its officers, agents, volunteers or employees. ARTICLE 9. CHANGES By written notice or order, the TOWN may, from time to time, order work suspension or make changes in the general scope of this Agreement, including, not limited to, the services furnished to the TOWN by the CONTRACTOR as described in Exhibit A. If any such work suspension or change causes an increase or decrease in the price of the Agreement or in the time required for its performance, the CONTRACTOR shall promptly notify the TOWN thereof and assert its claim for adjustment within ten (10) days after the change or work suspension is ordered, and an equitable adjustment shall be negotiated. However, nothing in this clause shall excuse the CONTRACTOR from proceeding immediately with the agreement as changed. ARTICLE 10. NOTICE OF LABOR DISPUTE Whenever the CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any actual or potential dispute may delay performance of the Agreement, the CONTRACTOR shall immediately notify and submit all relevant information to the TOWN and assist the TOWN in developing a plan to continue service. ARTICLE 11. TERMINATION A. The TOWN may terminate this Agreement for its convenience any time, in whole or part, by giving the CONTRACTOR written notice thereof. Upon termination, the TOWN shall pay the CONTRACTOR its pro rata portion of its fee for services incurred to the date of termination. B. The TOWN may terminate Agreement for the CONTRACTOR’s default if a federal or state proceeding for the relief of debtors is undertaken by or against the CONTRACTOR, or if the 138 CONTRACTOR makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or if CONTRACTOR breaches any term(s) or violates any provision(s) of this Agreement and does not cure such breach or violation within ten (10) calendar days after written notice thereof by the TOWN. The CONTRACTOR shall be liable for any and all reasonable costs incurred by the TOWN as a result of such default including, but not limited to, re-procurement costs of the same or similar services defaulted by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. ARTICLE 12. INDEMNIFICATION The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the TOWN, its officers, directors, employees, agents and self-insurance pool (CIRSA) from all losses, damages, claims for personal injury or damages to real or personal property to the extent caused by the CONTRACTOR’s negligence. The CONTRACTOR agrees to indemnify the TOWN against expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, and liability arising from any such claim or infringement provided the CONTRACTOR has the right to control the defense or settlement of any such claim in accordance with the following: (i) The CONTRACTOR, at its own cost and expense, shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the TOWN from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, suits, damages, liabilities, losses and expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees and disbursements) for personal injury or property damage asserted by third parties to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the CONTRACTOR in connection with the CONTRACTOR’s performance, or failure to perform this Agreement hereunder (“Third Party Claims”). (ii) The TOWN shall promptly give written notice to the CONTRACTOR after obtaining knowledge of any potential or actual Third Party Claim against the TOWN as to which recovery may be sought against the CONTRACTOR because of the indemnity set forth in clause (i) above. (iii) The CONTRACTOR will have the right to defend the TOWN against any Third Party Claim with counsel mutually agreed upon by the CONTRACTOR and the TOWN. In addition: a) The TOWN may retain separate co-counsel at its sole cost and expense to monitor the defense of the Third Party Claim provided however, that the CONTRACTOR shall have the right to control the defense of such Third Party Claim in the CONTRACTOR’s sole discretion. 139 b) The TOWN will not consent to the entry of any judgment or enter into any settlement with respect to such Third Party Claim without the prior written consent of CONTRACTOR; c) The TOWN shall cooperate with all reasonable requests of CONTRACTOR in connection with the defense of such Third Party Claim. (iv) To the extent reasonably possible, the TOWN shall use its good faith efforts to mitigate any losses which the CONTRACTOR is obligated to indemnify against pursuant to this indemnification paragraph. ARTICLE 13. WARRANTY The CONTRACTOR represents that it is fully experienced and properly qualified to perform the services required for this Agreement and that it is properly licensed, equipped, organized, and financed to perform the Services. The CONTRACTOR warrants that all Services shall be in accordance with this Agreement and shall comply with the performance standards of Exhibit A. In the event of a breach of this warranty, the CONTRACTOR shall take the necessary actions to correct the breach and the consequences thereof, at the CONTRACTOR’s sole expense, in the most expeditious manner as permitted by existing circumstances. If the CONTRACTOR does not promptly take steps to correct the breach upon notification by the TOWN, the TOWN, without waiving any other rights or remedies it may have at law or otherwise, may do so or cause others to do so and the CONTRACTOR shall promptly reimburse the TOWN for all expenses and cost incurred in connection therewith. ARTICLE 14. ASSIGNMENTS AND SUBCONTRACTING Neither this Agreement nor any interest herein nor claim hereunder may be assigned by the CONTRACTOR either voluntarily or by operation of law, nor may any part of this Agreement be subcontracted by the CONTRACTOR, without the prior written consent of THE TOWN. Consent by THE TOWN shall not be deemed to relieve the CONTRACTOR of its obligations to comply fully with all terms and conditions of this Agreement. 140 ARTICLE 15. FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS The CONTRACTOR warrants that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall comply wi th all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes and ordinances and all lawful orders, rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. ARTICLE 16. OWNERSHIP OF REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS The originals of all letters, documents, reports and other products and data produced under this Agreement shall be delivered to, and become the property of the TOWN. Copies may be made for the CONTRACTOR’s records but shall not be furnished to others without written authorization from THE TOWN. Such deliverables shall be deemed works made for hire and all rights in copyright therein shall be retained by the TOWN. ARTICLE 17. PATENT AND COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT A. In lieu of any other warranty by the TOWN or the CONTRACTOR against patent or copyright infringement, statutory or otherwise, it is agreed that the CONTRACTOR shall defend at its expense any claim or suit against the TOWN on account of any allegation that any item furnished under this Agreement or the normal use or sale thereof arising out of the performance of this Agreement, infringes upon any presently existing U.S. letters patent or copyright and the CONTRACTOR shall pay all costs and damages finally awarded in any such suit or claim, provided that the CONTRACTOR is promptly notified in writing of the suit or claim and given the TOWN, information and assistance at the CONTRACTOR’s expense for the defense of same. However, the CONTRACTOR will not indemnify the TOWN if the suit or claim results from: (1) the TOWN’s alteration of a deliverable, such that said deliverable in its altered form infringes upon any presently existing U.S. letters patent or copyright; or (2) the use of a deliverable in combination with other material not provided by the CONTRACTOR when such use in combination infringes upon an existing U.S. letters patent or copyright. B. The CONTRACTOR shall have sole control of the defense of any such claim or suit and all negotiations for settlement thereof. The CONTRACTOR shall not be obligated to indemnify the TOWN under any settlement made without the CONTRACTOR’s consent or in the event the TOWN fails 141 to cooperate fully in the defense of any suit or claim, provided, however, that said defense shall be at the CONTRACTOR’s expense. If the use or sale of said item is enjoined as a result of such suit or claim, CONTRACTOR, at no expense to THE TOWN, shall obtain for the TOWN the right to use and sell said item, or shall substitute an equivalent item acceptable to the TOWN and extend this patent and copyright indemnity thereto. ARTICLE 18. FORCE MAJEURE Either party shall be excused from performing its obligations under this Agreement during the time and to the extent that it is prevented from performing by an unforeseeable cause beyond its control including, but not limited to: any incidence of fire, flood, strike; pandemics; acts of God; commandeering of material, products, plants or facilities by the federal, state or local government; national fuel shortage; or a material act of omission by the other party; when satisfactory evidence of such cause is presented to the other party, and provided further that such nonperformance is unforeseeable, beyond the control and is not due to the fault or negligence of the party not performing. The parties agree to mutually negotiate cost impacts of a Force Majeure event. ARTICLE 19. DEFAULT In the event either Party shall fail to observe or perform any of the terms and provisions of this Agreement and such failure shall continue for a period of ten (10) days after receipt of written notice from the non-defaulting party ("Default"), then the non-defaulting party may terminate this Agreement, provided however, that where such Default cannot reasonably be cured within such period, and the defaulting party has proceeded promptly to cure the same and is prosecuting such cure with diligence, the time for curing such Default shall be extended for an amount of time, not to exceed ten (10) days, as may be necessary under the circumstances to complete such cure. ARTICLE 20. COSTS Except as otherwise expressly provided above, each Party shall bear all of its own attorney's fees and other expenses related to this Agreement. ARTICLE 21. BINDING EFFECT This Agreement shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. 142 ARTICLE 22. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado with venue in the District Court, Larimer County, Colorado. ARTICLE 23. SEVERABILITY In the event any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement, or the application of such term covenant or condition, shall be held invalid as to any person or circumstance by any court having jurisdiction, all other terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, but shall remain in force and effect unless a court holds that the invalid term, covenant or condition is not separable from all other terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement. ARTICLE 24. WAIVER No delay or omission by either Party to exercise any right or power occurring upon non-compliance or failure of performance by the other Party shall impair that right or power or be construed to be a waiver. A waiver by either Party of any of the covenants, conditions or Agreements to be performed by the other Party shall not be construed to be a general waiver. ARTICLE 25. INTEGRATED AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS This Agreement is an integration of the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the matters set forth herein. The parties shall only amend this Agreement in writing with the proper official signatures attached thereto. ARTICLE 26. WORK BY ILLEGAL ALIENS PROHIBITED A. CONTRACTOR hereby certifies that, as of the date of this Agreement, it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien and that CONTRACTOR has participated or attempted to participate in the basic pilot employment verification program as defined in C.R.S. § 8-17.5-101(1) (“Program”) in order to verify that it does not employ illegal aliens. 143 B. CONTRACTOR shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform works under this Agreement or enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to CONTRACTOR that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement. C. CONTRACTOR hereby certifies that it has verified or attempted to verify through participation in the Program that CONTRACTOR does not employ any illegal aliens and, if CONTRACTOR is not accepted into the Program prior to entering into this Agreement, that CONTRACTOR shall apply to participate in the Program every three (3) months until CONTRACTOR is accepted or this Agreement has been completed, whichever is earlier. D. CONTRACTOR is prohibited from using Program procedures to undertake pre- employment screening of job applicants while this Agreement is being performed. E. If CONTRACTOR obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under this Agreement knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, CONTRACTOR shall be required to: i. notify the subcontractor and the TOWN within three (3) days that CONTRACTOR has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and ii. terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three (3) days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this subparagraph the subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that Contractor shall not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three (3) days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. F. CONTRACTOR shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (“Department”) made in the course of an investigation that the Department is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in Article 17.5 of Title 8 C.R.S. 144 G. If CONTRACTOR violates this paragraph, the TOWN may terminate this Agreement for breach of contract. If this Agreement is so terminated, CONTRACTOR shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the TOWN. This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first above written. RATP Dev dba Rocky Mountain Transit Management, Inc. By Matt Booterbaugh, Senior Vice President Operations TOWN OF ESTES PARK By Wendy Koenig, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 145 Exhibit A Town of Estes Park 2020 Proposal 146 147 Rocky Mountain Transit Management, Inc. Safety Plan: COVID-19 Safety Protocols revised 06/02/2020 Rocky Mountain Transit Management, Inc. SAFETY PLAN - COVID-19 SAFETY PROTOCOLS RMTM Staff Training  All staff members will receive training for the prevention of spreading the COVID-19 virus infection (including but not limited to hand washing, use of hand sanitizers, proper use and condition of PPE, social distancing, and the need to self-quarantine after potential exposure and/or symptoms). Driver/Passenger Protection (Buses)  RMTM has installed have plastic barriers between the driver and passengers in all company owned vehicles; regular inspection will take place during cleaning and repair or replacement will take place as warranted  RMTM recommends face coverings for all passengers Bus Cleaning Regimen  RMTM staff will train to use and follow all manufacturer guidelines for cleaning and sanitizing solutions and products  Once every 24 hours, each bus will be cleaned and fogged with a disinfectant certified to eliminate the Covid-19 virus: o Fog the interior of the bus prior to cleaning o Clean the exterior bus windows, lights, etc. o Wait 15 minutes or more, post-first fogging before entering the bus to clean o Wipe off seats and seatbelts where included on the bus o Sweep the floors and mop with a soap and disinfectant o Wipe down all hand rails and drivers area with a disinfectant o Fog the bus with disinfectant approved to negate the Covid-19 virus; the bus will sit overnight or for a minimum of 30 minutes following the second administration of the disinfectant, as directed  Additional cleaning will take place on a case-by-case scenario with any bus needing significant cleaning removed from service and replaced with a clean bus  All reusable cleaning towels, mops and brooms will be washed and dried or air dried daily as appropriate  The fogging machine will be cleaned, disinfected and allowed to air dry RMTM Staff Protection  All RMTM staff are instructed to wear a face covering while on duty; replacement masks are available for damaged or worn out PPE  All RMTM staff are instructed to wear provided disposable gloves and wash hands and/or use hand sanitizer regularly 148 Rocky Mountain Transit Management, Inc. Safety Plan: COVID-19 Safety Protocols revised 06/02/2020  RMTM has added a portable hand washing station to the kiosk office at the Bear Lake Road Park and Ride location. The hand washing station will be cleaned regularly and only be made available to RMTM personnel  RMTM has regular handwashing access at the main office/garage and these facilities will be cleaned regularly  Lunch break relief drivers will wipe down the steering wheel and all control panel surfaces before and after their relief shift (a clean bus will be used if necessary)  Additional relief drivers will wipe down the steering wheel and all control panel surfaces before starting their shift (a clean bus will be used by the relief driver if necessary and available).  Staff are required to wash their uniform clothing and any used cloth masks daily  The staff members performing fogging are provided the following PPE; seamed and hooded coveralls with elastic wrists and ankles, gloves, googles, and individually assigned respirators. Replacement parts are available for damaged PPE  All staff required to perform proper hand hygiene after removal of PPE, exposed clothing, and cleaning equipment (hand washing or hand sanitizer)  RMTM Office staff will wipe down phones, desks, chair arms, computer keyboards and any other equipment touched in the due course of business  All staff are to adhere to the current social distancing requirements in all positions  All staff will have their temperature tested daily, prior to their shift, with an infrared thermometer  All staff are expected to not work if illness symptoms present  Any staff member exhibiting symptoms is encouraged to seek medical assistance  All outside vendors and visitors will be required to adhere to social distancing, face coverings and hand sanitizing guidelines at our facilities and on our vehicles Recommended Operating Procedures:  Passenger loading/unloading will occur through the rear door on our “low-floor” style buses with wheel chair access only occurring through the front door/ramp  Passenger loading/unloading on our “cutaway” style buses will occur through the normal bus entrance/exit  Recommended passenger counts during the Covid-19 event will be 50% of available seating capacity without standing room, which varies per bus style. RMTM staff will make every effort to limit passengers to the appropriate levels  RMTM will ask clients to announce the limited passenger expectation to their guests/passengers prior to boarding the transit vehicle  The CDC recommends “simple face coverings” for transit passengers due to the confined spaces and difficulty of maintaining 6 foot distances in public transit vehicles  All RMTM vehicles will utilize air conditioning systems (where available) AND open windows as available to allow for fresh air circulation 149 Rocky Mountain Transit Management, Inc. Safety Plan: COVID-19 Safety Protocols revised 06/02/2020 Continued on next page… Covid-19 Resources: RMTM utilizes the following guiding documents, but not limited to, for Covid-19 safety protocols: Centers for Disease Control. April 28, 2020. Guidance for Cleaning and Disinfecting. Accessed from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019- ncov/community/pdf/Reopening_America_Guidance.pdf American Public Transportation Association. April 13, 2020. The COVID-19 Pandemic – Public Transportation Responds: Safeguarding Riders and Employees. Accessed from https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/COVID- 19_Transit_Guide_FINAL_04132020.pdf Covid-19 Ongoing Safety Education Efforts: RMTM management will monitor, but not be limited to safety guidelines, from the Centers for Disease Control and American Public Transportation Association, respectively, for updated information related to COVID-19 safety procedures: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019- ncov/community/organizations/businesses-employers.html https://www.apta.com/public-transit-response-to-coronavirus/ Rocky Mountain Transit Management, Inc. supported by the safety efforts of our parent company, RATP Dev USA: https://www.ratpdevusa.com 150 Dear Honorable Mayor Koenig and Trustees, The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) supports the process that Town staff have undertaken to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our local shuttle service, Estes Transit, and to provide options for service reductions rather than full elimination of 2020 service. As the 2020 visitor season begins and businesses open after closures related to the public health concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic, TAB supports the 2020 Estes Park Transit Program. Reviewing the 2020 Transit Program, we appreciate the thorough planning process conducted by Transit Manager, Vanessa Solesbee and staff, which included trend research, outreach, stakeholder perspectives, economic and public health impact considerations and local impact. We are confident the program will be successful as it is designed to be flexible and safe. TAB considers the 2020 transit program to be well thought out and demonstrating awareness of the complexity of conditions that continue to evolve regarding COVID-19. TAB appreciates the flexibility of the program given the economic and public health uncertainties of an ongoing pandemic. As citizens we consider safety a major concern to be addressed in the program, which Transit has included: reduced capacity for physical distancing; face covering requirement; driver protection barrier in all vehicles; hand sanitizing stations; and self-serve disinfectant wipes available to all riders. The 2020 Transit Program continues to support citizen values when addressing local impacts such as: environmental, shuttles will reduce congestion and emissions and use the new electric trolley(s); employment, transit operator employing 26 locals; financial, the program continues seeking grant funding with the desire for year-round service and regional connectivity. The transit program incorporates valuable industry and peer agency information updates, which TAB supports for additional guidance during uncertain times. Finally, TAB appreciates the flexibility of the program, which can allow for Stay Healthy Streets integration if that is the direction of the business community and other key downtown stakeholders. The TAB thanks the Honorable Mayor, Wendy Koenig, and Town Trustees for allowing the opportunity to provide our recommendation. It is our intention to provide our collaborative decision, after a robust review of an issue. Sincerely, Belle Morris Chair, Estes Park Transportation Advisory Board 151       152 RESOLUTION 36-20 SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR A NEW BEER & WINE LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR MOUNTAIN HOME CAFE, INC., DBA MOUNTAIN HOME CAFE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the filing date of the application for a New Beer & Wine Liquor License, filed by MOUNTAIN HOME CAFE, INC., 457 E. Wonderview Avenue #C1, Estes Park, Colorado, is June 12, 2020. It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, July 14, 2020, at 7:00 P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and hearing shall be the area included within a radius of 3.5 miles, as measured from the center of the applicant's property. DATED this 23rd day of June, 2020 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 153       154 RESOLUTION 37-20 SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR A NEW BEER & WINE LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR DISCOVERY LODGE, INC. DBA DISCOVERY LODGE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the filing date of the application for a New Beer & Wine Liquor License, filed by DISCOVERY LODGE, INC., 800 Big Thompson Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado, is June 12, 2020. It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, July 14, 2020, at 7:00 P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and hearing shall be the area included within a radius of 4.30 miles, as measured from the center of the applicant's property. DATED this 23rd day of June, 2020 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 155       156 RESOLUTION 38-20 SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR A NEW BEER & WINE LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR COYOTE MOUNTAIN LODGE, LLC BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the filing date of the application for a New Beer & Wine Liquor License, filed by COYOTE MOUNTAIN LODGE, LLC., 1340 Big Thompson Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado, is June 12, 2020. It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, July 14, 2020, at 7:00 P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and hearing shall be the area included within a radius of 4.87 miles, as measured from the center of the applicant's property. DATED this 23rd day of June, 2020 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 157 158 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees From: Town Administrator Machalek Date: June 23, 2020 RE: Resolution 41-20 – IGA Related to the Distribution of CARES Act Funds (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Town Board consideration of Resolution 41-20 – A Resolution Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement (Memorandum of Understanding Related to Distribution of CARES Act Funds) with Larimer County, the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, and the Towns of Timnath, Berthoud, Windsor, Wellington, and Johnstown Related to the Distribution of CARES Act Funds. Present Situation: On May 18, 2020, Governor Polis signed Executive Order D 2020 070, directing the expenditure of Federal funds pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) of 2020. This order directs the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) to use a portion of the State’s CARES Act funding to reimburse Counties, Municipalities, and Special Districts for necessary expenditures incurred due to the COVID-19 public health emergency (COVID-19 emergency) that: 1.Were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020 (the date of enactment of the CARES Act) for the State; and 2.Were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on December 30, 2020. DOLA requires that a signed collaboration agreement be in place between the county and all of the municipalities within the county before allocating this funding and completing reimbursements. The timeline for this discussion has been compressed as counties/municipalities must “opt-in” for this funding by July 7th. Staff has been meeting with the County Manager and the managers of the towns and cities within Larimer County for the past few weeks to draft this collaboration agreement. Proposal: 158.a The proposed agreement allocates 50% of the total CARES Act funding available for Larimer County to the Larimer County government. The remaining 50% of the funding is divided among the municipalities in the county based on population (the total amount of funding received through the CARES Act was decided based on population as well). The Town has a significant amount of expenses that qualify for reimbursement. While the exact amount eligible will need to be determined in consultation with DOLA, it is possible that the Town will use its entire allocation (~$340,307). Advantages: •Provides funds for unanticipated costs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Disadvantages: •Basing the distribution on population does not recognize the disproportionately large budget/interventions the Town has taken compared to other municipalities in the County. However, the funding allocated to Larimer County was based on population alone, so this manner of distribution is justifiable. Larimer County and other municipalities in the County have all agreed to meet again in early September to share information about application of funds and consider an adjustment to the allocations in the event that one of the organizations does not reasonably expect to utilities all of their funding. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 41-20. Finance/Resource Impact: Approval of the resolution would make an estimated $340,307 available to the Town of Estes Park for eligible expenses. Level of Public Interest Low Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Resolution 41-20. Attachments: 1. Resolution 41-20 2.Memorandum of Understanding Related to Distribution of CARES Act Funds 158.b RESOLUTION 41-20 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH LARIMER COUNTY, THE CITIES OF FORT COLLINS AND LOVELAND, AND THE TOWNS OF TIMNATH, BERTHOUD, WINDSOR, WELLINGTON, AND JOHNSTOWN RELATED TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF CARES ACT FUNDS WHEREAS, the Town Board desires to enter the intergovernmental agreement referenced in the title of this resolution for the purpose of apportioning CARES Act funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the intergovernmental agreement (Memorandum of Understanding Related to Distribution of CARES Act Funds) referenced in the title of this resolution and in substantially the form now before the Board. DATED this day of , 2020. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 158.c Attachment 1 Page 1 of 16 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RELATED TO DISTRIBUTION OF CARES ACT FUNDS This Memorandum of Understanding for Funding related to the distribution of CARES Act Title V funds (“Agreement”) is made and effective on _June 30_, 2020, by and among the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado (referred to as “County”), and the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, the City of Loveland, Colorado, the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, the Town of Timnath, Colorado, the Town of Berthoud, Colorado, the Town of Windsor, Colorado, the Town of Wellington, Colorado, and the Town of Johnstown, Colorado (individually referred to as “Municipality” or collectively as “Municipalities”). (The County and Municipalities will jointly be referred to as the “Parties.”) I.RECITALS A.The novel coronavirus referred to as COVID-19 has been declared a worldwide pandemic. National, state, and local emergencies have been declared as a result of COVID-19. B.All of the Parties, as local governmental entities, have expended significant effort and funds to protect the community from the impacts of COVID-19 and to slow its spread. C.Efforts to slow the spread and protect the community are ongoing and will require continued time and funding. Recovery efforts are also ongoing and will require the additional expenditure of time and funds. D.The emergence and rapid spread of COVID-19 was unexpected and unable to be predicted. Therefore, local governments could not have adequately budgeted for such expenses. E.The State of Colorado is appropriating $30,617,332.00 of CARES Act funding to Larimer County local governments to reimburse these unbudgeted expenses through the Department of Local Affairs (“DOLA”). F.The State of Colorado has designated DOLA as the fiscal agent for the funding which will be administered as a reimbursement program following eligibility verification performed by DOLA for the expenses. G.All parties recognize that it is in the best interest of the Larimer County community to work cooperatively to ensure that all of the Larimer County allocation is applied to the benefit of Larimer County residents rather than allowing the funds to remain unspent and revert to the state-wide reserve fund pool for reallocation elsewhere in the state. H.The criteria for eligibility will be as prescribed in the CARES Act and rules which may be revised from time to time I.The Parties wish to agree on how to divide the appropriated funds for the good of the community. J.The Parties have a successful track record of working together for the benefit of the community. 158.d Attachment 2 Page 2 of 16 K.County and Municipalities are authorized pursuant to Article XIV, Section 18 of the Colorado Constitution and Section 29-1-201, et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes, and pursuant to their home-rule authority, as applicable, to enter into agreements for the purpose of providing any service or performing any function which they can perform individually. II.CONSIDERATION NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and obligations herein expressed, the County and Municipalities each agree as follows. III.TERMS AND CONDITIONS A.Commencing as of the date set forth above and continuing until such time as the CARES Act funding allocated hereunder either has been fully disbursed to the Parties by DOLA or has reverted to the state-wide reserve fund pool for reallocation, the Parties agree to the following in relation to the CARES Act funds. B.The obligations of the County and Municipalities to commit or expend funds are subject to and conditioned on the receipt of the CARES Act funds. C.The funds will be distributed among the parties as outlined in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Exhibit A contains the total estimated current and projected expenses by each unit of local government in order to establish intended “drawdown” of funds. D.Each Party is individually responsible for completing all activities necessary to become eligible to receive reimbursement from the CARES Act funds, including “opting in” to establish an account in the DOLA system for administering CARES Act funds. If a Party fails to complete such necessary activities, such Party may not be eligible for distribution of the funds. E.Each Party, at its sole discretion, may use the funds allocated to it in any manner appropriate under the CARES Act as administered by DOLA and assumes responsibility for ensuring the funds are only used for eligible expenses as determined by DOLA under the CARES Act criteria. F.Each Party will assume responsibility for covering its own costs until such time as reimbursement is received from DOLA and assumes its own risk that such reimbursement may not occur. No Party will have any expectation that other Parties to this Agreement will be providing any CARES act funds to another. Each party is liable for its own spending. 158.e Page 3 of 16 G.Any parties may seek partners on projects eligible for CARES Act reimbursement, whether or not from among the other Parties to this Agreement. Any party may seek to reallocate its funds to or from another eligible CARES Act participant as part of a separate cooperative agreement. No Party is under any obligation to participate in any such cooperative projects. H.Each Party, as a subrecipient of CARES Act funds, which are deemed federal financial assistance subject to the Single Audit Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7507), is responsible for ensuring compliance with respect to all applicable provisions of federal and state regulations and standards as it applies to the CARES Act, including, but not limited to, the Uniform Guidance (2 C.F.R. Part 200) and Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 21.019, which at effective date of MOU among parties is pending completion of registration. Should any portion of funds awarded/allocated to a Party be de-obligated pursuant to failure to comply with applicable federal and/or state requirements as they apply to the CARES Act, any re-payment of funds to the federal and/or state agency requesting repayment is the responsibility of the Party from which award/allotment amount was originally allocated. I.The parties will confer in early September 2020 to share information about the progress of each Party’s application of the funds to beneficial use in the community and to consider an adjustment to the allocations in the event a Party does not reasonably expect to utilize all of that Party’s allocated funds. J.Each Party will keep an appropriate accounting of the expenditure of funds sufficient to meet the needs of DOLA and their own accounting practices, and any other applicable CARES Act requirements. K.This Agreement is to be construed according to its fair meaning and as if prepared by all parties hereto and is deemed to be and contain the entire understanding and agreement between the parties hereto. There shall be deemed to be no other terms, conditions, promises, understandings, statements, or representations, expressed or implied, concerning this Agreement unless set forth in writing and signed by the Parties hereto. L.This Agreement cannot be modified except in writing signed by all Parties. M.This Agreement will be governed by and its terms construed under the laws of the State of Colorado. Venue for any action shall be in Larimer County, State of Colorado. 158.f Page 4 of 16 N.Nothing contained herein is deemed or should be construed by the Parties or by any third party as creating the relationship of principle and agent, a partnership or a joint venture between the Parties, or an employment relationship between the Parties. O.This Agreement is made for the sole and exclusive benefit of County and Municipalities, their successors and assigns, and it is not made for the benefit of any third party. P.If any term or condition of this Agreement is held to be invalid by final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity of such a term or condition, will not in any way affect any of the other terms or conditions of this Agreement, provided that the invalidity of any such term or condition does not materially prejudice any Party in their respective rights and obligations under the valid terms and conditions of this Agreement. Q.No Party will be deemed in violation of this Agreement if prevented from performing any of its respective obligations hereunder by reason of strikes, boycotts, labor disputes, embargoes, shortage of energy or materials, acts of God, acts of public enemies, acts of superior governmental authorities, weather conditions, rights, rebellions, sabotage, or any other circumstances for which it is not responsible or that are not within its control. R.Notification to Parties to this Agreement shall be made to the U.S. mail addresses or to the electronic email addresses listed on Exhibit B. S.This Agreement may be signed by the Parties in counterpart. 158.g Page 5 of 16 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO By: _____________________________________ Title: ____________________________________ ATTEST: ___________________________________ Approved as to form: ___________________________________ County Attorney 158.h Page 6 of 16 CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO By: _____________________________________ Title: _____________________________________ ATTEST: ___________________________________ Approved as to form: ___________________________________ City Attorney 158.i Page 7 of 16 CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO By: _____________________________________ Title: _____________________________________ ATTEST: ___________________________________ Approved as to form: ___________________________________ City Attorney 158.j Page 8 of 16 TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: _____________________________________ Title: _____________________________________ ATTEST: ___________________________________ Approved as to form: ___________________________________ Town Attorney 158.k Page 9 of 16 TOWN OF TIMNATH, COLORADO By: _____________________________________ Title: _____________________________________ ATTEST: ___________________________________ Approved as to form: ___________________________________ Town Attorney 158.l Page 10 of 16 TOWN OF BERTHOUD, COLORADO By: _____________________________________ Title: _____________________________________ ATTEST: ___________________________________ Approved as to form: ___________________________________ Town Attorney 158.m Page 11 of 16 TOWN OF WINDSOR, COLORADO By: _____________________________________ Title: _____________________________________ ATTEST: ___________________________________ Approved as to form: ___________________________________ Town Attorney 158.n Page 12 of 16 TOWN OF WELLINGTON, COLORADO By: _____________________________________ Title: _____________________________________ ATTEST: ___________________________________ Approved as to form: ___________________________________ Town Attorney 158.o Page 13 of 16 TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN, COLORADO By: _____________________________________ Title: _____________________________________ ATTEST: ___________________________________ Approved as to form: ___________________________________ Town Attorney 158.p Page 14 of 16 EXHIBIT “A” Party % of Allocation Allocation Amount Larimer County, Colorado 50.00% $15,308.666 City of Fort Collins, Colorado 29.45% $9,015,692 City of Loveland, Colorado 13.64% $4,177,151 Town of Berthoud, Colorado 1.55% $475,349 Town of Estes Park, Colorado 1.11% $340,307 Town of Johnstown, Colorado 0.26% $79,913 Town of Timnath, Colorado 0.86% $262,512 Town of Windsor, Colorado 1.32% $405,021 Town of Wellington, Colorado 1.81% $552,720 TOTAL 100.00% $30,617,332 158.q Page 15 of 16 EXHIBIT “B” To County: County Manager Larimer County, Colorado P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Email: hoffmalc@co.larimer.co.us To Fort Collins: City Manager City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Email: datteberry@fcgov.com With copy to: City Attorney City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 To Loveland: City Manager City of Loveland 500 East 3rd Street, Suite 330 Loveland, CO 80537 Email: steve.adams@cityofloveland.org With copy to: City Attorney City of Loveland 500 East 3rd Street, Suite 330 Loveland, CO 80537 To Estes Park: Town Administrator P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Email: tmachalek@estes.org 158.r Page 16 of 16 To Timnath: Town Manager 4800 Goodman Street Timnath, CO 80547 Email: wlavanchy@timnathgov.com To Berthoud: Town Administrator P.O. Box 1229 Berthoud, CO 80513 Email: ckirk@berthoud.org To Windsor: Town Manager 301 Walnut Street Windsor, CO 80550 Email: shale@windsorgov.com To Wellington: The Town of Wellington 3735 Cleveland Avenue P.O. Box 127 Wellington, CO 80549 Email: houghtkm@wellingtoncolorado.gov With copy to: March, Olive and Pharris, LLC Attn: Brad March 1312 S. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 To Johnstown: Town Manager P.O. Box 609 Johnstown, CO 80534 Email: mlecerf@townofjohnstown.com 158.s 159 TOWN BOARD MEETING June 23, 2020 Report and Discussion Item 1. Estes Park Health. There are no materials for this item. 160       1 PROCEDURE FOR LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Applicable items include: Annexation, Amended Plats, Boundary Line Adjustments, Development Plans, Rezoning, Special Review, Subdivision 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEM 1.A. ORDINANCE 10-20 REZONING, ROCKY MOUNTAIN HEALTH CLUB, 1230 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, ADESTES, LLC/OWNER.  At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, from the Applicant, public comment, and written comments received on the application.  Has any Trustee had any ex-parte communications concerning this application(s) which are not part of the Board packet.  Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public hearing which may be responded to at that time.  Mayor declares the Public Hearing open. 2. STAFF REPORT.  Review the staff report.  Review any conditions for approval not in the staff report. 3. APPLICANT.  The applicant makes their presentation. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT.  Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the application. All individuals must state their name and address for the record. Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per person. 5. REBUTTAL. 2  The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal that is limited to or in response to statements or questions made after their presentation. No new matters may be submitted. 6. MAYOR.  Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application which are not in the Board packet.  Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the application.  Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications presented will be accepted as part of the record.  Declare the public hearing closed.  Request Board consider a motion. 7. SUGGESTED MOTION.  Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. 8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. Discussion by the Board on the motion. 9. VOTE ON THE MOTION. Vote on the motion or consideration of another action. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Wendy Koenig Town Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Alex Bergeron, Planner II Date: June 23, 2020 RE: Ordinance 10-20 Rezoning, Rocky Mountain Health Club, 1230 Big Thompson Avenue, AdEstes, LLC/Owner. (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider and make a decision on a Private-Party-Initiated Code Amendment (Rezoning) from the A (Accommodations) zone district to the CO (Commercial Outlying) zone district. Location: The subject property, addressed 1230 Big Thompson Avenue, is located on the south side of Big Thompson Avenue (US 34) about 280 feet east of the Grand Estates Drive and Elk Trail Court intersection. The 1.41-acre property is legally described as LOT 1, SCHROEDER SUB, ESTES PK. The attached Vicinity Map illustrates the zoning of the subject property and that of nearby properties. Present Situation: AdEstes Properties, LLC is the Owner of the subject property. The Owner purchased the property in 2016 while it was being primarily used as a health club, a use which has persisted since 1996 when the property was zoned CO (Commercial Outlying) through today, albeit a lesser use of the site at this time. In 2019, Government Offices (in the form of Visit Estes Park) opened on this site to supplement the several Personal Services uses on the site and a diminished health club; a loss caused by the 2018 opening of the Estes Valley Recreation Center, which essentially outcompeted the business with lower, taxpayer subsidized pricing. The property has been burdened by its 2000, Town-initiated rezoning to A (Accommodations) from CO (Commercial Outlying). Upon that rezoning, the property fell into legal nonconforming status due to the fact that a “health club” is specifically identified in the definition of an Indoor Commercial Recreation Establishment in 1 §13.2.C.12.A of the EPDC; a use not permitted in the A (Accommodations) zone district), though, curiously, Private-membership Recreational Facilities or Clubs are a permitted use. In looking for ways to improve the use of the property within the limits of its legal non-conforming status more recently in light of financial hardship, the Owner has been stymied by other technical use restrictions of the A (Accommodations) zone district in the sense that they cannot expand the current, majority office use of the property in a free-market capacity, as private offices are not permitted, but Government Offices are, despite the uses being functionally the same, one could argue. Proposal: Return the subject property to CO (Commercial Outlying) zoning, a designation for which the site has been designed and has functioned as for at least six decades, to relieve the site of the burdens caused by Code technicalities and allow current and future property ownership to expand the existing functional uses of the site within the permissions of the law, including privately-operated office space. Review Criteria: All applications for Private-Party-Initiated Code Amendments (Rezonings) shall be reviewed by the Estes Park Planning Commission and Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of the EPDC. In accordance with Section 3.3.D. “Standards for Review”, all applications for rezoning shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria as follows: 1.The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. Staff Finding: Affirmative. Staff finds that the opening of the Estes Valley Community Center, while duly approved by appropriate decision-makers (including the voting public in connection with the 1A Sales Tax), has very likely directly contributed to the declining economic vitality of this site. Staff does not find that the Rec Center or its approval to be in question; the finding is meant to acknowledge the economic aspect in this case. Returning the zoning to CO (Commercial Outlying), for which the site is and has always been operated in a modern context, promotes expanded productivity of the site without substantially altering its function. 2.The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with the existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. Staff Finding: Not applicable. The development plan for this application has been waived as there are no substantial changes in use or intensity of use to the site being proposed with this application. Staff has routinely waived this requirement in recent years, per authority of EPDC §3.3.B.1. 3.The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. 2 Staff Finding: Affirmative. Staff finds that service providers have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities to this location, as comments received from affected agencies indicate no concern with the proposal. Reviewing Agency Comments: This application has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. All comments received were supportive of the rezoning request. Public Notice: Written notice has been mailed to properties in accordance with EVDC §3.15 General Notice Provisions. A legal notice was published in Estes Park Trail-Gazette and the application is posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” webpage. The applicant has also posted a “Development Proposal under Review” sign on the property. Advantages: Rezoning the subject property from A (Accommodations) to CO (Commercial Outlying) allows additional flexibility on the site, which is functionally designed for use typical of the CO (Commercial Outlying) zone district today as it has been for at least the past six decades. Disadvantages: Rezoning one parcel in an otherwise contiguous zone district to benefit property owners could in theory be viewed by some as being inconsistent with the intent of the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan. Action Recommended: The Estes Park Planning Commission (EPPC) voted and recommended approval (five in favor of approval, none opposed, none absent or abstaining) of the rezoning application on May 19, 2020. Staff recommended approval to the EPPC, and stands by that recommendation today. Finance/Resource Impact: N/A. Level of Public Interest: Low: The Community Development Department received one written public comment regarding project notification process and one written public comment expressing support for the request. Staff also received half a dozen phone calls which were inquisitive in nature, with no opposition expressed in any and a favorable sentiment expressed in one. No additional public comment was received during the May 19, 2020 public hearing. Sample Motions: I move to APPROVE Ordinance 10-20 to rezone 1230 Big Thompson Avenue from A (Accommodations) to CO (Commercial Outlying), in accordance with the findings as presented. 3 I move to deny Ordinance 10-20 which would have rezoned 1230 Big Thompson Avenue from A (Accommodations) to CO (Commercial Outlying), finding that [state findings for denial]. I move to continue the request by AdEstes, LLC to rezone their property addressed 1230 Big Thompson Avenue from A (Accommodations) to CO (Commercial Outlying) to the next regularly scheduled meeting [state reasons for continuing]. Attachments: 1.Ordinance 10-20 2.Vicinity Map 3.Application form 4.Letter of Intent 5.Referral list and affected agency comments 6.Waiver information 7.Neighborhood Meeting information and public comments 8.Full Application: www.estes.org/currentapplications 4 ORDINANCE NO. 10-20 AN ORDINANCE REZONING 1230 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE FROM A (ACCOMMODATIONS) TO CO (COMMERCIAL OUTLYING) WHEREAS, 1230 Big Thompson Avenue (legally described as LOT 1, SCHROEDER SUB, ESTES PK) is currently zoned A (Accommodations); and WHEREAS, the owner/applicant requests that their property be rezoned to CO (Commercial Outlying); and WHEREAS, the Estes Park Planning Commission has recommended approval of the rezoning as proposed; 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 recommended zoning change be granted. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: 1230 Big Thompson Avenue (legally described as LOT 1, SCHROEDER SUB, ESTES PK) is hereby zoned CO (Commercial Outlying); and Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced 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 _______________, 2020. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2020 and published in a 5 newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2020, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 DISTRIBUTION NOTES All applications in Town with a nign level 00 publIc interest lfrom pre-appt All applications ___________________________ 1 UTILI11ES Geological Survey O”ce 0’A’cheolcgv and P.s chc _______ Pese-val on ________ -1-ittonca Fcu’zat c’’- non-profit nd s:ats age.icyl All applications in geologic hazard areas per EVDC §7 7 and all subdivisions aeritv tubal Ar soc atic’s r Stey .-l’sto cD Al a cats Stanley H s:onc D.s:hd Al new development arc —ew aucd visions rev:ew postal clutter ocx iocat,ons)and to inform about new octentiat mat de[very locaticnaiadd’estw.g A I :eve:cc—ert n EV .n weila’o:e we’:an,ds satbac<. r ‘ye’cotroors ‘veftif) _____________ A’:svetccent 01 Suresu _and A:davetoc—ert tate from R.VNP 0’‘nea’a—t-es iR’ilNP -,ARRY S RETIRING 12!3’117 AGENCY/POSITIONITITLE NAME Town Administrator Travis Mactialak -Community Development Director Randy Hunt Planning Division -Senior Planner Jeff Woeber EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) WSTAFF i__-. _____________________________ tmaohalekcThestes.org I rhuntlmeatea org i1woebertestes org When lead planner Planning Division -Planner I When lead ——-.- Plarnrg Owis -.Pla-ne-I Alex Bee roe abengeron(Bes es org ?nen lead plann — /IPnnron-°ror9Te I ..-A:aocalc-s — ,—Enginee4sgIFloocaa r Won’t —‘,ti_w i a’‘ate a r acc’ical rS ri CV 50rpm Sr condors. ‘Era,’ocsnental Plains’jan N era.St S.C g i4’d cottons downtown a cat trEk’csaeo ousardingccde,,/Coze Corn:‘anon Officer ‘,tic,ae Madsc”y mrnadachSestes.org ChetBuldingOfficiat(CBO)—grusu;estesorq arnendeddsl: w”a-,escapt roeS ‘-sar .If to CEO a’so to aerc Tech affh exception of j’Buuor Safeyi’ ErsA ate eau-alleeesesog ag0r oCEOsol bfcO ‘toed san --Al ai’nexat.c”s at c’otects arta a “igfr leve of putt: Town A:torrey Dar <‘artier dksamerestes.og iinlerest arc al pt-opotec egal docunlerts e.g. ..deve.cprnecst sgreeenenits and craft eaaen’iec,:s1 All applications in Town with a high level of publicPublicWorksDwectorregMuhontngmuhonenlestes.org :interesl (from pre-app) Town Engineer --Jennifer Waters jwatersestes.org ‘OutsLde Town limits for coordination and consistency /“Town Engineer -David Hook dhookestes.org iwith Larimer Engineenng Id project involves publicPublicWorksAdmin.Asat..Megan VanHoorer rnvanhoozer(estes.org roads or drainage) ,,,,_‘ Utilities Director Reuben Bergsten rbergstenestes.org All applications in EV that involve electric or waterUtilitiesCoordinatorSteveRuscbsrusch(atestes.org F—Utilitlea Admin.Anal.Karta Sterling -,jjgLliL(stes.oC$..._. service provision .v”::g ervisor -E:mal involve water provision —‘‘LneSupeflntendent Tfer Bole:A)applications in LV ttlaunvotve electnc provreon -All applications with parking related issues andParking&Transit Program Manager Vanenaa Soletbee vsotesbee@estes.org potential transit stop review i All applications in Town for achoola or child care due Thwr Cte’lc Jackie hi ta—son adlianscnestes.ocg to bguc’icrse rev ew and as anneira’uclt :f’cm pre acc stage) Palce Deoat’ent Ere Rose ei-oseeatestes Cr0 jA:l raw dave opinsent anc subciv.ajcns r.Town Estes ParxSaritation J’m Duel jdue’escesoarksanitatiQfl.oe SaneitjonD.stn.ctorccnstntriorThatccacJnlpadt 5 !i Ron Duell rdueltt&estesparksanilation.orq •E°SD i”aTh,ail requetts for uti’ry eaae-”ent vacatton Cnns Baker Al a::caticis rvo:ving sewer service .n LrSD Upper momcson ss”nst Cr T000 K’uta ,ch.Hs -todd -Mel-ssa -mats tutsd.org oistrct Downtown c’corstruct or that could h’cact aMeseaDue,LrrSD man,al -ecueats to’ut ity eassnsen:vacatiolWattAerr ,,/‘By F’re P-ciect or cstti evenc’oncatestesval,eyfire.org Al appl cstionsilEv.-rcucfrsg County Eu ld.n; Pvc Marshal .(aramillofireaolcnrn .iPermit applications .waoon.&Pad<s District Tom carosellotDrmccatevrpd.oom RI applications with trail potantiw R-3 Sheldon Roaenlcrance sheldon rosenkrance©etIeSSchoolS.org and all new i1i44IlJ2jjf! Planning Dept.Estes Valtay Liasion Michaei Wnitley mwhitleylanimer.org All applications in EV.outside Town limits ounty Attorney &Assistant Jesnrsine Haag ,ieanninehaageatlarimer.org At appbcatia sin By.outside Town IimdsiJennifertnfeld-llnfeld@larlmer.org —--H-—-- ______. Buitding Dept.E Fred ‘- .All applications in EV,outside Town limits,including i Chief Building Official (COO)nc i e ne arimer.org variances -—Traci Shambo tshambo(atlanin,er.org Al devebpment in CV outside Town limits alongEngineeringDept.‘Development ... Review,Drainage and Floodptains Tina Kurtz tkurtzatlarimer.org river/slream corndors .floodplain management ....Clint Jones cdioneslatlarimer.oro icoordination,including variances Senior SunveyorfEngineenng Ron Perkins perkinsrlarimer org ——Anriewdevelepmentandsubdeisions in CV outsidgi Dept o’heath ant E”-vi’crmer Lea c”eidac lsols’e de1isrimer.010 Al appkcat ci-s in By Dept.of Health ano Envi’crert 0ev c theories drnenzieslanimer.org .A I apptoa:’ons io Bk’IWO ving sect-:andlo’we:s tanrner Emergency Teiepbone Kmberty CLaP kculp@letagl 1 org bbuttel1ieldIleta91 I org All new subdivisions venty ———_______— LOCAL DISTRICTS -Al devetopnsa’rt erd subdivit or a1v:v”g gas Pus .c Servica Co of CD Pat Kreage’akreagerxcelenergy.ccns serte.al developi-rent dow”town a I ut I ty .easement vaca tons 97C’225-7B4t Westen’Area Pco Adin,rjstrat on ,,- CIIAPA)—Lanos Oem -- aalona.qov ;:Trt0°5 Kns Thompson jkthonisonnorlhemwater.orq ZNCWC Century Link Juslin Wallace justin,wallaoeccenturylink.com All appucatoris nivoRting phone service or uttlity TDS Telecommunications Noola Lewis nicoleiewis(attdstelacorn.Eom service or utility Public Utilities Commission Steve Pott sleve.potltdora,state.oo.us Condo conversions in CV only -1L !All applications that involve direct access los CDOTDept.of Trans.(CDOT)Timotny DilDbran itimothy bilobran(Thstate co us highway snd sf1 applications within 114 mile ofa CDDT:i_.__L highway Div.of Psnksildlife (CDPW)Kristin Cannon krlstin.cannon(astate.co us All new development and subdivisions in EV Div of Water Resources j Deatberage ijeff.dealheragestate.co.us All tubdivisions (new lots)in By,outside Town (Karen Berry AnnyPalante ,CGS LURcmines.edu amy.pali,snote<atstale,co,us C ‘toy Nasky cincyeochf.om IFEDERAL ,Estes Park Post Office K.rnbeely Cnase kimbarIy.s.chasaatusps.gov Ary Corps of Engineers <let Dowrng ‘cel 0 dcwninousaca army aura’arge’ -ggoy (Rocky Mountain Natc’ta Pals iRNW°).Cben Yost -ofteri yosncatnos gov -Bureau of tans Management Area Headquaners wanda hobant(Bigaa gay __________________________________ iNational Forest Sereice Kevin Atchley -katchlev@fs.feb.us - OTHER date routed 20 ItS c2O2CAffectedAgenciesDistributionChecklist.xlsx2/1O/2020 14 Please note that the request to waive the development plan has been granted. The fee waiver request is pending. 15 16 17 AdEstes Properties LLC PO Box 1975 Estes Park CO 80517 Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 970-577-3729 To Whom It May Concern, Request For Waiver Of Development Plan Inclusion in Rezoning Application Reference: 1230 Big Thompson Avenue Rezone Request Statement of Intent 15 February 2020 We respectfully request that the Town of Estes Park waive the requirement to submit a development plan in conjunction with our rezoning request. As described in detail in the reference, we believe that, other than the 1-year timeline specified in the Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.3(B)(3), this request meets all criteria for a corrective rezoning. Section 3.3.(B)(1) of the Development Code indicates that Staff may waive the requirement for a Development Plan for Private-Party-Initiated Applications for Code Amendments (Rezonings) "if it finds that the projected size, complexity, anticipated impacts or other factors associated with the proposed development or subdivision clearly justify such waiver." Our corrective rezoning request leads to no change in use type or intensity. The development plan for the property currently held by the Town was filed in 1996 and we have no proposed changes to the use or built infrastructure associated with this rezoning request other than repairs and moderate expansion of a deck and patio, neither v1sible from the street. Any potential internal (we do plan some improvements to internal ADA accessibility once our rezoning request is apprpved) upgrades to the building will be submitted to the Development Office via the normal permit approval process. � you f1 considering our request. /l /) ;f; )J)c� 'df,JJiAlix L� David LaSalle Owners, AdEstes Properties LLC 18 AdEstes Properties LLC PO Box 1975 Estes Park CO 80517 Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 970-577-3729 To Whom It May Concern, Request For Waiver Of Rezoning Application Fee Reference: 1230 Big Thompson Avenue Rezone Request Statement of Intent 15 February 2020 We respectfully request that the Town of Estes Park waive the application fee for our rezoning request. As described in detail in the reference, we believe that, other than the 1-year timeline specified in the Estes Valley Development Co�e, Section 3.3(B)(3), this request meets all criteria for a corrective rezoning. According to all town records made available t9. us, our property has always had a "Commercial Outlying" (CO) actual and intended use. The rezoning of the property in 2000 to an "Accommodation" (A) designation was an error. In order to become an accommodations use, the building would have to either be scraped and rebuilt or extensively renovated. Multiple hotel operators have told us that with the height restrictions in the Development Code, redevelopment for an accommodations use is economically unviable. The CO designation aligns with both the Estes Valley Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, further convincing us that the 2000 rezoning was an administrative error. We purchased the property in 2016 and so do not meet the 1-year timeline requirement. Nevertheless, we ask that we not be penalized financially to accomplish the administratively simple process of returning the property to its original, correct zoning designation. The property is currently being used for professional offices and a health club -no change in use is proposed. The correction, however, is necessary to formally allow non-public organizations to lease office space in the building and will allow us to obtain the necessary financing for improvements to the property and creation of a co-working space for Estes Park entrepreneurs and small business owners.',ZJ; you for . considering our request /I/•��� �LaSalle� David LaSalle Owners, AdEstes Properties LLC 19 AdEstes Properties, LLC PO Box 1975 Estes Park, CO 80517 11 February 2020 To the Estes Park Development Office Re: Community Meeting Related to the Rezoning Proposal for 1230 Big Thompson Avenue The road sign notice for the Community Meeting was placed on 25 January 2020 and a time & date-stamped photo provided to the Development Office via email. A notice for the meeting was also placed in the Estes Park News and appeared in the 31 January 2020 edition. Letters notifying the neighbors as identified by the Town of Estes Park were mailed to those property owners at the addresses provided by the town on 26 January 2020. We held the community meeting at 5 pm on Tuesday, 11 February 2020 at 1230 Big Thompson Avenue. There was one in-person attendee: Barbara Davis, 601 Findley Ct, Estes Park, CO 80517. After seeing and discussing our proposal, Barbara was fully supportive of the rezoning request with no concerns expressed. We also received one email from a neighbor property owner, Grant Peck: 20 One other email was received regarding this request from Diane Ernst, 147A Stanley Circle Drive, Estes Park, CO who was concerned that there had not been the required notice for the David LaSalle <dlasalle@rmhclub.com> Rezoning for 1230 Big Thompson Ave 2 messages gpeckgolf@comcast.net <gpeckgolf@comcast.net>Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 11:21 AM To: info@rmhclub.com Dear Committee, I am the owner of the Blue Door Inn, directly west of the property at 1230 Big Thompson. I am writing to support Dave LaSalle’s effort to make a change to the CO zoning. I believe the basis for making this request to change from (A) to CO is academic. As the town of Estes Park is currently allowing the local government to office at this same building, absent the CO zoning, it would be difficult to argue that a change in rezoning should be opposed. In addition the building was previously zoned CO. I understand the intent of the owner is to improve the property such that additional Office space leasing can occur. I believe additional office space will have a positive impact by making additional office spaces available to businesses etc. that don’t have adequate alternatives elsewhere in Estes Park. Furthermore the impact of office space, as currently planned, would have minimal impact on traffic on US 34. As a motel operator, immediately adjacent to the property, I cannot see any negative impact (converting to the CO zoning) on my business or any other business along the HWY 34 corridor. I strongly support the requested change in Zoning. Respectfully, Grant Peck Owner 1220 Big Thompson Ave 720 671 0772 -- Rocky Mountain Health Club Rocky Mountain Health Club Mail - Rezoning for 1230 Big Thom... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/2?ik=c95969e818&view=pt&searc... 1 of 2 2/11/20, 5:40 PM 21 meeting (the street sign was blown down or covered by snow from the plows after the recent storm). She was provided evidence that proper notification was indeed made and thanked us for the information. Please advise if you have any other questions regarding this meeting. Sincerely, Alix & David LaSalle Owners, AdEstes Properties LLC 1230 Big Thompson Avenue 22 23 2/27/2020 Town of Estes Park Mail - Lack of Posted Notice for Neighborhood and Community of Zoning Change Proposal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=f7fd0cc745&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1658270727539630616&simpl=msg-f%3A165827072753…1/5 a) b) c) d) e) Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org> Lack of Posted Notice for Neighborhood and Community of Zoning Change Proposal 7 messages ROBERT AND DIANE ERNST <ernstb2@msn.com>Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 12:43 PM To: "rhunt@estes.org" <rhunt@estes.org> Cc: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>, "info@rmhclub.com" <info@rmhclub.com> To: Randy Hunt Re: No Posted Noce of Zoning Change Proposal neighborhood meeng at Athlec Club Per Estes Valley Development Code, Chapter 3, 3.2, Standard Development Review Procedure, b. Neighbor and Community Meeng, c.(3) Posted Noces of Neighborhood and Community Meengs is as follows: Posted Notices of Neighborhood and Community Meeting. Required posted notice requirements shall be on a standard sign with format and material as determined by the Planning Department. The following additional requirements shall apply to posted notices pursuant to this Section: Any posted notice shall be legible from a public street or public right- of-way in clear weather conditions. "Legible" is defined as meeting the legibility requirements in the Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.66 (Signs). Projects abutting more than one public street or public right-of-way shall be required to post one (1) additional sign for each abutting public street or public right-of-way. Posting of all notice(s) required by this Section shall take place no later than ten (10) days prior to any given neighborhood and community meeting for which the posting is required, and the posted signage shall remain until the close of any such neighborhood and community meeting, including the closing dates of any neighborhood and community meeting that may be continued or postponed. Proof that the required signage was posted in accord with this Section shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to the opening of any neighborhood and community meeting. A date- stamped photograph of the posted notice in context shall be deemed adequate proof for purposes of this Section. Removal, damage or destruction of a properly posted notice by weather or other natural occurrence shall not be construed as failure to comply with  the public notice provisions of this Code. As of 11:30am this morning, February 11, there was no posted notice of the neighborhood meeting tonight at the Athletic Club, 1230 Big Thompson Avenue. I have no idea if written notices were mailed to the neighbors as required by the code.24 2/27/2020 Town of Estes Park Mail - Lack of Posted Notice for Neighborhood and Community of Zoning Change Proposal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=f7fd0cc745&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1658270727539630616&simpl=msg-f%3A165827072753…2/5 This requirement is in the code to assure transparency of development projects in the Estes Valley area (soon to be Estes Park area). You attention to this issue is appreciated. Sincerely, Diane Ernst 147A Stanley Circle Drive Estes Park, CO Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 12:54 PM To: ROBERT AND DIANE ERNST <ernstb2@msn.com>, Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org> Cc: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>, "info@rmhclub.com" <info@rmhclub.com> Diane, thank you. Alex, can you please follow up with the applicants? RAH Sent from my iPhone On Feb 11, 2020, at 12:43 PM, ROBERT AND DIANE ERNST <ernstb2@msn.com> wrote: [Quoted text hidden] Claire Kreycik <ckreycik@estes.org>Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 12:55 PM To: Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> FWIW, I did give David his sign and neighborhood notification list when I was filling in for Karin. Have a good day. Cheers, Claire [Quoted text hidden] -- ∞ Claire Kreycik Executive Legal Assistant Town of Estes Park 970-577-4762 Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 12:57 PM To: Claire Kreycik <ckreycik@estes.org> Cc: Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org> Good to know - thanks. RAH Sent from my iPhone 25 2/27/2020 Town of Estes Park Mail - Lack of Posted Notice for Neighborhood and Community of Zoning Change Proposal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=f7fd0cc745&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1658270727539630616&simpl=msg-f%3A165827072753…3/5 On Feb 11, 2020, at 12:55 PM, Claire Kreycik <ckreycik@estes.org> wrote: FWIW, I did give David his sign and neighborhood notification list when I was filling in for Karin. Have a good day. [Quoted text hidden] Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org>Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 1:53 PM To: ROBERT AND DIANE ERNST <ernstb2@msn.com> Cc: "rhunt@estes.org" <rhunt@estes.org>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>, "info@rmhclub.com" <info@rmhclub.com> Hi Diane, Thank you for your message. The notice for the meeting was posted in Estes Park News, an invitational letter was mailed to adjacent property owners and those within 100 feet from there, and a sign was posted at the property back in January (see below). I just took a drive by the property and the sign post remains, suggesting recent inclement weather or some other incident may have removed the sign. Thank you for your diligence, - Alex Bergeron 26 2/27/2020 Town of Estes Park Mail - Lack of Posted Notice for Neighborhood and Community of Zoning Change Proposal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=f7fd0cc745&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1658270727539630616&simpl=msg-f%3A165827072753…4/5 Planner II Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 970-577-3729 [Quoted text hidden] David LaSalle <dlasalle@rmhclub.com>Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 1:55 PM To: ROBERT AND DIANE ERNST <ernstb2@msn.com> Cc: "rhunt@estes.org" <rhunt@estes.org>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>, "info@rmhclub.com" <info@rmhclub.com> Hi All - the sign was posted on 25 January at 3:55.  The below photo was submitted as proof. It was up since then but may have recently been covered up or knocked down by a plow's action. The ad for the meeting was published in the EP News on 31 January. The letters were all sent out as well. David 27 2/27/2020 Town of Estes Park Mail - Lack of Posted Notice for Neighborhood and Community of Zoning Change Proposal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=f7fd0cc745&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1658270727539630616&simpl=msg-f%3A165827072753…5/5 Alix and David LaSalle, Owners AdEstes Group, Inc., DBA Rocky Mountain Health Club PO Box 1975, Estes Park CO 80517 info@rmhclub.com (210)-254-0781 http://rmhclub.com On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 12:43 PM ROBERT AND DIANE ERNST <ernstb2@msn.com> wrote: [Quoted text hidden] -- Rocky Mountain Health Club 1230 Big Thompson Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-1900 ROBERT AND DIANE ERNST <ernstb2@msn.com>Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 4:30 PM To: Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org> Cc: "rhunt@estes.org" <rhunt@estes.org>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>, "info@rmhclub.com" <info@rmhclub.com> Good aernoon all: Thank you for your mely response and follow-up. We appreciate your aenon to the email. Diane Ernst From: Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 8:53 PM To: ROBERT AND DIANE ERNST <ernstb2@msn.com> Cc: rhunt@estes.org <rhunt@estes.org>; planning@estes.org <planning@estes.org>; tmachalek@estes.org <tmachalek@estes.org>; info@rmhclub.com <info@rmhclub.com> Subject: Re: Lack of Posted Noce for Neighborhood and Community of Zoning Change Proposal [Quoted text hidden] 28 Request for Corrective Rezoning 1230 Big Thompson Avenue Alix & David LaSalle, Owners 29 This is a request to correctively return the zoning for this property to its historical “Commercial Outlying” designation. It is not a request to affirmatively change the zoning to something new. •The property was zoned “CO” from construction until the 2000 Estes Valley Development Code rezoning. •The town has no documentation explaining the rationale behind the EVDC “Accommodations” re-designation. It appears to have been an administrative error. •The building has only ever had a CO use from 1960 until today. •The property is not fit for accommodations use due to small size and current building regulations –it cannot serve an ”A” purpose. Key Thoughts 30 Estes Park Zoning Map –Highway 34 Corridor 1230 Big Thompson Avenue 31 Closer view of 1230 Big Thompson Avenue & surrounding zoning 32 33 Historical uses of 1230 Big Thompson Avenue The building as originally built was a restaurant. 34 The main dining area 35 The Cocktail Lounge 36 Health Club 37 The building was originally constructed in 1960. It operated as various restaurants from 1960-1996. In Spring 1995, Dr. & Mrs. Spence purchased the property, then operating as the Villager Restaurant. The Grand Opening of the Rocky Mountain Athletic Club was held in October 1996. In September 2004, the club re-opened as the Rocky Mountain Health Club. The LaSalles purchased RMHC in January 2016. 38 Why corrective rezoning? •Prior to 2000, the property was zoned “CO”. •1230 Big Thompson Avenue has never operated as anything but a restaurant or gym. It has never had an intended accommodations use. 39 The 2000 rezoning instantly made the property non-conforming with its new “A” zoning, even though it had been recently renovated for continued CO zone usage. Source: Estes Valley Development Code 40 •The current building is not appropriate for accommodations –it would have to be either scraped and rebuilt or extensively renovated. •Redevelopment into an accommodations use is not economically feasible. Several hotel operators (e.g., Marriott, Choice Hotels) told us that the small size of the lot (1.44 acres) and the town building height regulations make accommodations development economically unviable for this property. ”A” zoning is clearly improper for this property 41 •Though nonconforming as a result of the 2000 rezoning, the property worked fine as a fitness center until the subsidized EVRPD Community Center made that business, at that scale, unviable as well. •CO zoning is common along this highway corridor. A CO-zoned lot would restore historical conformity and complement current neighborhood zoning. Our use proposal fits the 2015 Estes Valley Economic Development Plan but needs CO zoning to be allowed. •We haven’t found any apparent use or planning reason for the 2000 “A” rezoning of 1230 Big Thompson Avenue; it appears to be the result of an administrative oversight. Corrective rezoning would fix that without financially penalizing us as owners for that mistake. Other Factors 42 •Expand current professional services administrative office use (Visit Estes Park) to create “Vert Co-working”, an flexible workspace economic community hub for Estes Park, serving both residents and visitors. •“A” zoning allows for government office use, but not commercial office use. We propose no change in use; restoring the historical “CO” zoning would allow us to serve Estes Park business owners, entrepreneurs and visiting remote workers. •Flex workspaces (i.e., short-term memberships rather than traditional long-term leases) for small professional services business and nonprofit operators are in great demand. The industry is expected to grow significantly over the next two years, especially post-COVID as companies hedge against economic uncertainty. 43 •Professional services represent one of the prioritized industry clusters in the Estes Valley Economic Development Strategy, as does a coworking space. This project would help the town achieve development goals without the need for new construction. •Renovations will allow us to enhance accessibility. •Owner-provided amenities will include safe private office spaces and appropriately distanced/configured desks, broadband, indoor and outdoor conference areas, wellness facilities (fitness rooms, lockers, showers, saunas – when allowed and safe) and a nursing room for new mother business leaders. •Tenant -provided amenities in the building will include a rock climbing gym, chiropractor, & massage therapist. Community Benefits 44 •We will also provide virtual mail services for members, tenants and others, alleviating the traffic and parking burden at the current post office location and the disruption coming from the Loop project. •There will be a continued reduction in parking density from the building’s gym era when it hosted 600 members. Co-working and other tenant capacity limits will be less than 300. •Other than refreshed painting & signage, repaving & restriping the parking lot, repair & renovation of the deck and creation of a larger covered bike parking area adjacent to the front door, no external changes are planned. •We plan to eventually install EV charging stations in the parking lot. Community Benefits Continued 45 Conclusion The 2000 rezoning erroneously swept 1230 Big Thompson into an incompatible “A” zoning designation in direct conflict with its historical use and hampered the property’s redevelopment potential. We request an administrative correction to the 2000 rezoning that restores the property’s original, appropriate zoning designation of “CO”. With that corrected “CO” zoning designation, the owners are ready and able to undertake revitalization of the existing building to create a co- working space and enhanced economic services for the Estes Park community.46 COVID Post-script The injury to the Estes economy due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has re- emphasized the need for complementary non-tourism focused businesses in the Estes Valley to help reduce the fragility inherent in economic well-being dependent on tourist dollars. Our proposal to create a place for digital entrepreneurs to build resilient, global businesses seems to us to be more important than ever. That remains our intention, but we recognize the increased difficulty in obtaining financing for new projects at this time and may have to postpone the redevelopment until lenders and investors are more positively inclined to support entrepreneurial efforts. Visit Estes Park’s lease terminates in July –the corrective rezone will give us the option to seek non-government commercial tenants and stay solvent until we can redevelop the building into flexible workspace.47 1 PROCEDURE FOR LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Applicable items include: Annexation, Amended Plats, Boundary Line Adjustments, Development Plans, Rezoning, Special Review, Subdivision 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEM 1.A. ORDINANCE 10-20 REZONING, ROCKY MOUNTAIN HEALTH CLUB, 1230 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, ADESTES, LLC/OWNER.  At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, from the Applicant, public comment, and written comments received on the application.  Has any Trustee had any ex-parte communications concerning this application(s) which are not part of the Board packet.  Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public hearing which may be responded to at that time.  Mayor declares the Public Hearing open. 2. STAFF REPORT.  Review the staff report.  Review any conditions for approval not in the staff report. 3. APPLICANT.  The applicant makes their presentation. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT.  Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the application. All individuals must state their name and address for the record. Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per person. 5. REBUTTAL. 162 2  The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal that is limited to or in response to statements or questions made after their presentation. No new matters may be submitted. 6. MAYOR.  Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application which are not in the Board packet.  Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the application.  Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications presented will be accepted as part of the record.  Declare the public hearing closed.  Request Board consider a motion. 7. SUGGESTED MOTION.  Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. 8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. Discussion by the Board on the motion. 9. VOTE ON THE MOTION. Vote on the motion or consideration of another action. 163       164 1 PROCEDURE FOR LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Applicable items include: Annexation, Amended Plats, Boundary Line Adjustments, Development Plans, Rezoning, Special Review, Subdivision 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEM 1.B. ORDINANCE 05-20 ELKHORN LODGE PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), 600 ELKHORN AVENUE, ZAHOUREK CONSERVANCY, LLC, OWNER, EAST AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A TEXAS LLC, C/O JUSTIN MABEY, APPLICANT.  At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, from the Applicant, public comment, and written comments received on the application.  Has any Trustee had any ex-parte communications concerning this application(s) which are not part of the Board packet.  Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public hearing which may be responded to at that time.  Mayor declares the Public Hearing open. 2. STAFF REPORT.  Review the staff report.  Review any conditions for approval not in the staff report. 3. APPLICANT.  The applicant makes their presentation. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT.  Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the application. All individuals must state their name and address for the record. Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per person. 5. REBUTTAL. 2  The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal that is limited to or in response to statements or questions made after their presentation. No new matters may be submitted. 6. MAYOR.  Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application which are not in the Board packet.  Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the application.  Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications presented will be accepted as part of the record.  Declare the public hearing closed.  Request Board consider a motion. 7. SUGGESTED MOTION.  Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. 8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. Discussion by the Board on the motion. 9. VOTE ON THE MOTION. Vote on the motion or consideration of another action. To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Jeffrey Woeber, AICP, Senior Planner Date: June 23, 2020 RE: Ordinance 05 – 20, Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD), 600 West Elkhorn Avenue, Zahourek Conservancy, LLC, Owner, East Avenue Development, LLC, A Texas LLC, c/o Justin Mabey, Applicant (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider and make a decision on the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD). Note: The public hearing may be conducted electronically. Advance registration for testifying at the public hearing is preferred to ensure an orderly hearing. Information for participation in the public hearing will be provided in the published agenda, which will be available at https://estespark.colorado.gov/boardsandmeetings. Present Situation: The property contains 18.58± acres, and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Elkhorn Avenue and Old Ranger Drive. The property is addressed as 600 West Elkhorn Avenue. It is within portions of Sections 25 and 26, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Town of Estes Park. See attached vicinity map. The property is the longtime location of the historic Elkhorn Lodge, also the recent past location of the “Lazy B” entertainment venue. Other existing uses on the property include rental cabins and the Elkhorn Stables commercial horseback riding facility. Proposal: Memo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 The proposal involves a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a subdivision. A preliminary and final PUD are required to be reviewed and approved, as well as a preliminary and final subdivision. This review is the preliminary of each, with the final PUD and the final plat to follow accordingly. Both the preliminary PUD and plat required a review and recommendation by the Estes Valley Planning Commission (see below), which then go on to the Town Board of Trustees, who may take action to approve or deny. The final PUD and plat go only to the Town Board, and are not reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC). The final PUD and plat have been submitted, and are currently under review. Thirteen (13) lots are proposed. The applicant’s submittal provides a fairly in-depth description of the project, and the proposed uses on each lot. Below is a basic overview of what is proposed on each of the 13 lots: Lot 1 – 3.291 acres. Location of an Event Center Barn. Lot 2 – 4.534 acres. Location of the Elkhorn Lodge and expansion, with cabins, a relocated historic schoolhouse, and pool. Lot 3 – 1.026 acres. Location of the new Riverside Restaurant. Lot 4 – 2.005 acres. To contain equestrian, horseback riding facilities with a new horse barn and corral. Lot 5 – 4.674 acres. Location of the new Elkhorn Suites 132 room hotel Lot 6 – 0.254 acre. Location of the new Hillside restaurant and retail building. Lot 7 – 0.413 acre. Location of the Coach House to be renovated into a restaurant and distillery. Lot 8 – 0.472 acre. Location of existing church, to be renovated and used as wedding facility. Lot 9 – 0.379 acre. Location of existing rental cabin, to remain. Lot 10 – 0.276 acre. Location of existing rental cabin, to remain. Lot 11 – 0.583 acre. Location of existing rental cabin, to remain. Lot 12 – 0.351 acre. Location of existing rental cabin, to remain. Lot 13 – 0.348 acre. Location of existing rental cabin, to remain. PUD Review, EVDC Chapter 9 PUDs Since adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) in 2000, there have been very few PUDs proposed or approved in the Estes Valley. Staff is aware of only two or three having been processed in the last 20+ years. Below is a general overview of the PUD Chapter of the EVDC (Chapter 9): PUDs are encouraged in the Estes Valley to provide for innovations in commercial and residential development, to provide a variety in type, design, and layout of buildings, and provide a process that can relate type, design and layout of development to a particular site. PUDs are allowed only in the CO (Outlying Commercial) Zone District, as a Mixed-Use PUD overlay. The uses allowed, other than the CO uses, are limited to residential uses and accommodation uses. The PUD Chapter’s Section 9.3.D. Applicable Development Standards, 1. states, “Yard, bulk and dimensional requirement set forth in Chapter 4, including but not limited to minimum lot area, shall not apply to interior lots or building sites within a PUD that do not abut land uses 2 located outside the PUD development parcel.” Yard pertains to area between property lines and buildings, specifying minimum setbacks to property lines. Bulk generally relates to sizing, volume, area, and height of structures on a given parcel. In general terms, the purpose of a PUD is for flexibility in proposed uses and in zoning standards such as setbacks, height, lot area, etc. These often can differ in different areas within a given PUD. The PUD Chapter’s Section 9.3.D.2., All Other Zoning Requirements, also provides flexibility. Under that Section, “all other zoning development and design standards” (other than the Yard, Bulk and Dimensional Requirements), shall apply to PUDs “…unless otherwise specifically exempted, modified or varied pursuant to this Chapter (Chapter 9) or to Section 3.6, “Variances.” Although it is quite open-ended to require applying “all other zoning development and design standards” to a PUD project, this Section apparently refers to the applicable General Development Standards under Chapter 7 of the EVDC. Section 9.1, Purposes, under 9.1.C., states PUDs are encouraged in the Estes Valley “To provide a process that can relate the type, design and layout of residential and commercial development to a particular site, thereby encouraging the preservation of the site’s natural characteristics, and to encourage integrated planning in order to achieve the purposes of this Chapter.” The EVDC also provides for flexibility in a PUD under Chapter 3. Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.4.D.1.e., Planned Unit Developments, Standards for Review, Preliminary PUDs, which states, “…certain standards may be modified or varied upon a finding that the proposed PUD incorporates creative site design such that it represents an improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through strict application of the otherwise applicable district or development standards…” EVDC Section 3.4 Planned Unit Developments D.Standards for Review All applications for Planned Unit Developments shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements and review standards set forth below and in Chapter 9, “Planned Unit Developments,” and with all other application provisions of this Code. 1.Preliminary PUDs. An application for approval of a Preliminary PUD Plan, together with submitted plans and reports, shall be reviewed for conformance with the following standards: a.The PUD shall be consistent with and implement the planning goals, policies and objectives as contained in this Code and in the Comprehensive Plan; b.Adverse impacts on adjacent properties, including but not limited to traffic, noise and visual impacts, shall be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible; c.The PUD shall be integrated with adjacent development through street connections, sidewalks, trails and similar features; d.Except as provided in Chapter 9 below, all district, development and subdivision standards set forth in Chapters 4 (Zoning Districts), 7 (General Development Standards) and 10 (Subdivision Standards) shall be met; and e.As allowed in Chapter 9 below, certain standards may be modified or varied upon a finding that the proposed PUD incorporates creative site design such that it 3 represents an improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through strict application of the otherwise applicable district or development standards, including but not limited to improvements in open space provision and access; environmental protection; tree/vegetation preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads and other utilities and services; or choice of living and housing environments. Subdivision Review, EVDC Section 3.9 Subdivisions E.Standards for Review. All subdivision applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10, "Subdivision Standards," and all other applicable provisions of this Code. For minor subdivisions, the EVPC shall also find that approval will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this Code. Review Criteria Depending upon the complexity of the project, this section may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may involve a more detailed analysis of the standards based upon issues relevant to any particular project. 1.Landscaping. The site includes numerous existing, mature trees and shrubs. The applicant has proposed providing 68 additional trees and 163 additional shrubs. There are existing natural buffers (mature trees, topography, river and floodplain area), some of which are being enhanced with new landscaping. Other areas of the site do not allow for additional landscaping. Staff has reviewed the proposed landscaping plan and approves the alternative proposal for locational requirements. 2.Public Trails/Sidewalks. A 10-foot wide, multi-modal path is proposed on the south side of Elkhorn Avenue to a new Spruce Street pedestrian crossing. A new pedestrian crossing is proposed for the new entrance at Elkhorn Avenue. 3.Utilities. The property is currently served by all utilities. Estes Park Sanitation District has provided comments, with numerous requirements for extension and upgrade of wastewater infrastructure for the proposed uses, as well as relocation of a line that is currently under an existing structure. Town of Estes Park Utilities (water, electric, broadband) has “no objection” to the proposal, noting public utilities are required to be in approved easements. 4.Fire Protection. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed this proposal and has provided comments, noting District requirements for sprinklers and alarms within some structures, access road requirements, and restaurant hood and extinguishing systems. 5.Open Space. The EVDC’s PUD regulations require 30% of the gross area to be set aside as open space (open areas). This project proposes 41.1%, which well exceeds the standard. 4 6.Stormwater, Floodplain. A Preliminary Drainage Report has been submitted and has been reviewed by Town Public Works/Engineering, who requires “Adequate drainage facilities and services to support the proposed development shall be available concurrently with the impacts of such development.” The site includes significant flood plain, with Fall River located adjacent to the property, generally to the north. A floodwall is proposed. A Preliminary Floodplain Report was submitted. The Town Public Works Department had a hydraulic engineering consultant review the applicant’s report, and the consultant then wrote a memo with comments and recommendations. Public Works has incorporated these comments and recommendations in their comments for the PUD and subdivision project. 7.Parking. The project includes the appropriate amounts of required off-street parking for the proposed uses A total of 335 parking spaces are required for the uses within the project. The applicant proposes 364 parking spaces. With various uses being in close proximity to others, and the fact there are numerous individual lots, the applicant, in the Statement of Intent, states there will be shared parking and access, which will be noted on the final subdivision plat, which ultimately gets recorded. 8.Access. The site’s primary access is from Elkhorn Avenue. This access is to be reconstructed, and aligned to be perpendicular to Filbey Court, which is located to the north. An existing secondary, emergency access is located to the northwest. 9.Event Facility. An “Event Center” is proposed on Lot 1, described as an “Event Center Barn.” The use is allowable as both a CO (Commercial Outlying) and as an A (Accommodations) use. The definition of an Event Facility, from the EVDC Chapter 13, Definitions, is as follows: Event Facility. A building or portion of a building, outdoor area(s), and related parking which is rented, leased, or otherwise made available for individuals or groups to accommodate episodic or discrete functions involving participation by multiple individuals, including but not limited to weddings, banquets, anniversaries and other similar events. Such use may include kitchen facilities for the preparation or catering of food, or the sale and/or serving of appropriately permitted alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. Food service shall occur only during scheduled events and shall not be open to the general public. An event facility may be operated in conjunction with other uses, subject to all applicable provisions of the EVDC. 10.Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Future Land Use Guidelines for the Downtown Planning Sub-Area specifically identifies and categorizes the Elkhorn Lodge site as “Commercial Downtown.” The Elkhorn Lodge property has long been considered part of Downtown Estes Park, per the Comprehensive Plan, which originally included all properties within the now defunct Urban Renewal District. 5 11.The site is included in the Estes Park Downtown Plan (January 2018), which identify it as a Character Area landmark and a Community Focal Point, described as a node of activity that contributes to the physical identity of a Character Area. This proposed PUD project is consistent with a Key Objective in the Downtown Plan, which is to “Preserve and enhance the Elkhorn Lodge with new uses and activities.” Recommendations for the Elkhorn Lodge Character Area in the Downtown Plan are as follows: The Elkhorn Lodge site (s1) should be redeveloped in a manner that celebrates its historic significance and creates a major activity center and destination for Character Area 1 and the Town. Housing, lodging, entertainment, retail and other activities should be combined in a landmark project that engages the Fall River. Access to Elkhorn Lodge should be realigned to create a perpendicular entry across from Filbey Court. A formal intersection will create a safer environment for vehicles and pedestrians, while also enhancing awareness and visibility of the Lodge. The project as proposed is consistent with these Character Area recommendations. 12.PUD Waivers and Modifications. Through the PUD process, “…certain standards may be modified or varied…” See “EVDC Chapter 9 Planned Unit Developments,” above for more details. The requested waivers are outlined beginning on page 7 of the applicant’s Statement of Intent, with a detailed description and rationale for each. The requests are summarized as follows: 1.Appendix D, highway frontage sidewalk 2.Section 4.4D.2 Main entrance of structure to face front lot line 3.Table 4.7 loading space required 4. Table 4.5 maximum building height 5.Appendix D, internal access road to be up to “street standards” 6.Appendix D, internal access road to meet slope/grade standards 7.Section 7.6.D.2., wetland disturbance, wetland area 0.06 acre in size 8.Appendix B, architectural elevations for all structures Staff has reviewed these requests, and does not find there would be any significant issues or negative impacts with the development if these waivers are supported. Staff does not oppose these waivers, and notes there are provisions for such modifications within a PUD. The Estes Valley Planning Commission did not oppose the waivers. Some of the waivers are covered in the attached Public Works comments. Advantages: •The proposed project, as a whole, upgrades and improves a visible and vital entry to the downtown area, while meeting many of the specific recommendations of the Estes Park Downtown Plan. •The proposed project retains some of the longtime uses and structures that have been established on the historic property, while also improving the safety and aesthetics of the site. 6 Disadvantage: •Increases traffic in this area of Town. Action Recommended: The Planning Commission voted unanimously, 6 – 0, to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD and Preliminary plat at a special meeting on February 25, 2020. Staff recommended approval, with one condition of approval with the PUD recommendation. The Planning Commission included that condition (No. 1, below), with some revision, as well as three additional conditions. The Planning Commission recommendations are: I.A recommendation of approval to the Town Board for the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary PUD according to the findings of fact recommended by staff with the following conditions: 1)Approval of the PUD Rezoning shall also constitute an approval of the Preliminary PUD and Development Plan, as attached to the staff report, with no increase in the number of accommodations and resident units without a PUD review. 2)The Developer will bear the risk of constructing improvements in the floodplain prior to obtaining the post-construction LOMR. Should FEMA not approve the LOMR application as submitted, the Developer will be responsible for any redesign and reconstruction to achieve the No-Rise condition. No Certificate of Occupancy for the Event Center Barn or the Elkhorn Lodge addition will be issued until the Developer obtains LOMR approval from FEMA. 3)The developer will add additional parking lot perimeter landscaping. 4)Applicant will submit an employee housing plan for permanent and seasonal employees, per Chapter 9.1, items A and B, and the housing needs assessment of 2016. II.A recommendation of approval to the Town Board for the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary Subdivision Plat according to the findings of fact recommended by staff. Staff findings, included in the Planning Commission’s recommendations above are as follows: 1.The Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat are generally consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 2.The Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat are generally consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the Estes Park Downtown Plan. 3.The Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat comply with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC. 4.The Planning Commission is the recommending body, and is to forward a recommendation on the Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat to the Town Board of Trustees. 5.Adequate public facilities are currently available to serve the proposed project. 7 6.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were raised by any review agency. Staff recommendations to Town Board are 1)Approval of the PUD Rezoning shall also constitute an approval of the Preliminary PUD and Development Plan, as attached to the staff report, with no increase in the number of accommodations and resident units without a PUD review. 2)The Developer will bear the risk of constructing improvements in the floodplain prior to obtaining the post-construction LOMR. Should FEMA not approve the LOMR application as submitted, the Developer will be responsible for any redesign and reconstruction to achieve the No-Rise condition. No Certificate of Occupancy for the Event Center Barn or the Elkhorn Lodge addition will be issued until the Developer obtains LOMR approval from FEMA. 3)The developer will add additional parking lot perimeter landscaping. Staff has concerns with Planning Commission Recommendation 4 as a mandatory condition of approval. Although well-intended and reflecting genuine community issues and goals, the recommendation on its face seems to overreach the scope of a single development project – even a significant one like Elkhorn Lodge. The new Elkhorn Lodge complex will probably have a sizeable number of employees, but requiring a housing plan that covers off-site private properties and business operations raises concerns about the proportionality with regard to a single development entity. The January 2016 Housing Needs Assessment for Estes Park – or a revised and updated assessment, when that may be available – is a more appropriate instrument to gauge housing supply and demand, taking into account business/employer additions like the new Lodge complex. Staff is recommending Town Board approve the Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat with Planning Commission conditions 1 through 3. In staff’s judgment, the subject matter in the Commission’s condition 4 is best addressed in another fashion. Finance/Resource Impact: None. Level of Public Interest Medium. Written comments have been received for this rezoning. At the Planning Commission meeting, on February 18, 2020 (where the applications were continued to February 25), and at the February 25 meeting, there were property owners from the Elkhorn Lodge area who raised some concerns, primarily regarding ensuring the development was high quality, as well as ensuring the floodplain concerns were adequately addressed. Also present at both meetings were those who spoke in support of the project. All written comments are posted to: www.estes.org/currentapplications. 8 Sample Motions 1.I move to approve Ordinance 05-20 for the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary PUD according to findings of fact with findings and conditions of approval recommended by staff. 2.I move to deny Ordinance 05-20 for the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary PUD finding that … [state findings for denial]. 3.I move to continue Ordinance 05-20, for the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary PUD to the next regularly scheduled meeting. (State reasons for continuance.) Attachments: 1. Ordinance 05-20 2.Vicinity Map 3.Statement of Intent 4. Application 5.Public Works Comments 6.PUD Plan Set 7.Preliminary Plat 8.Elkhorn Suites Floorplan, Rendering 9.Event Barn Facility, Floorplan 10.Riverside Restaurant, Floorplan 11.Hillside Restaurant/Retail, Floorplan 12.Coach House Restaurant, Floorplan 9 ORDINANCE NO. 05-20 APPROVING THE ELKHORN LODGE PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), A MIXED USE PUD OVERLAY ON LAND ZONED CO (OUTLYING COMMERCIAL), LOCATED ON A PROPERTY ADDRESSED AS 600 WEST ELKHORN AVENUE, DESCRIBED AS BEING WITHIN PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 25 AND 26, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., TOWN OF ESTES PARK WHEREAS, the subject property, 18.58± acres in size, is located in portions of Sections 25 and 26, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Town of Estes Park, with the same property also proposed to be the Elkhorn Lodge Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Estes Park Development Code, Chapter 9 Planned Unit Developments, allows a Mixed-Use PUD overlay on land located in CO (Outlying Commercial) Zoning Districts, with the uses permitted in the PUD being limited to those uses allowed in the underlying CO zoning, Residential uses, and/or Accommodations uses; and WHEREAS, an application for the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary PUD has been submitted; and WHEREAS, the proposed Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary PUD is a Mixed-Use PUD overlay on land located in a CO (Outlying Commercial) Zoning District, with the uses proposed limited to those allowed in the underlying CO zoning, Residential uses, and Accommodations uses; and WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary PUD; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary PUD complies with applicable standards set forth in the Estes Park Development Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary PUD Plan and Development Plan are hereby approved, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1)No increase in the number of accommodations or resident units shall be permitted without a PUD review as described in the Development Code. 2)The Developer will bear the risk of constructing improvements in the floodplain prior to obtaining the necessary post-construction letter of map revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Should FEMA not approve the LOMR application as submitted, the Developer will be responsible for any redesign and reconstruction to achieve the No-Rise condition. No Certificate of Occupancy 10 for the Event Center Barn or the Elkhorn Lodge addition will be issued until the Developer obtains LOMR approval from FEMA. 3) The Developer will add additional parking lot perimeter landscaping adequate, in the Community Development Director’s determination, to appropriately screen the lot from neighboring residents. Section 2: The land described in Exhibit A hereto is hereby designated as a PUD-M, a Planned Mixed Use District, as an overlay to the underlying CO (Outlying Commercial) zoning district, effective upon the approval by the Town Board of the Elkhorn Lodge Final PUD Plan for all such land. The PUD-M designation shall lapse and become null and void if the Preliminary PUD Plan lapses under the Development Code. Section 3: 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 ___________, 2020. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO _____________________________________ 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 ___________, 2020 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2020, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 11 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE PORTIONS OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 26 AND THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 26, FROM WHICH POINT THE NE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26 BEARS N 1 DEGREES 11' W A DISTANCE OF 373 FEET, AND WHICH IS THE CENTER OF THE FALL RIVER ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ELKHORN PROPERTY FOUND IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 696 AT PAGE 463, LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE WESTERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF FALL RIVER ROAD AS FOLLOWS: N 84 DEGREES 30' W, A DISTANCE OF 321 FEET; THENCE S 88 DEGREES 03' W A DISTANCE OF 154 FEET; THENCE S 68 DEGREES 04' W, A DISTANCE OF 311 FEET; THENCE N 84 DEGREES 26' W A DISTANCE OF 114 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID ROAD, S 3 DEGREES 15' W A DISTNCE OF 877 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4; THENCE S 89 DEGREES 47' E A DISTNACE OF 944.9 FEET TO THE SE CORNER OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4; THENCE N 1 DEGREES 11' W A DISTANCE OF 52 FEET TO THE SW CORNER OF THE PARCEL DEEDED FROM EDWARD J. WALSH AND DE H. SIMMONS TO JAMES AND ELEANOR HONDIUS RECORDED IN BOOK 501 AT PAGE 72, LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE N 27 DEGREES 02' E A DISTANCE OF 235.5 FEET; THENCE N 18 DEGREES 34' E A DISTANCE OF 71.2 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF PARCEL DEEDED FROM ELIZA E. WHITEHEAD TO MRS. ELLA JAMES RECORDED IN BOOK 77, AT PAGE 143, LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS, SAID POINT BEING MARKED WITH A 1 INCH STEEL PIPE SET BY ORIGINAL SURVEY; THENCE N 68 DEGREES 34' E A DISTANCE OF 82.3 FEET TO THE SW CORNER OF PARCEL DEEDED FROM FLORA AND J.R. STANLEY TO EDNA JAMES AND A.N. MCKEIRMAN RECORDED IN BOOK 639 AT PAGE 314; THENCE S 75 DEGREES 26' E A DISTANCE OF 273.3 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 34 FROM WHICH POINT THE NE CORNER OF SECTION 26 BEARS N 25 DEGREES 32' W A DISTANCE OF 1153.7 FEET; THENCE N 2 DEGREES 14' E A DISTANCE OF 207 FEET TO THE CENTER OF FALL RIVER; THENCE WESTERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CENTER OF FALL RIVER ALONG THE FLORA AND J.R. STANLEY PARCEL DEEDED TO EDNA JAMES AND A.N. MCKEIRMAN AND THE PARCEL DEEDED FROM FRANK W. GORE TO WILLIAN E JAMES RECORDED IN BOOK 110 AT PAGE 302, LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 25; THENCE N 1 DEGREES 11' W A DISTANCE OF 65 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT ANY PORTION THEREOF CONTAINED IN THE AMENDED PLAT OF ELKHORN CLUB ESTATES, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF; EXCEPT THAT PARCEL CONVEYED IN DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 16, 1936 IN BOOK 639 AT PAGE 314; EXCEPT THAT PARCEL CONVEYED IN DEED RECORDED JULY 26, 1971 IN BOOK 1469 AT PAGE 785 EXCEPT RECORDED PLATS OF ELKHORN PLAZA LODGES CONDOMINIUMS, BUILDINGS A AND B. EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 9, 1987 AT RECEPTION NO. 87007530 EXCEPT THOSE PARCELS DESCRIBED IN DEEDS RECORDED AUGUST 27, 1947 IN BOOK 839 AT PAGE 334, 335 AND 338 FOR INFORMATION ONLY THE LARIMER COUNTY ASSESSOR ALSO INCLUDES IN THEIR LEGAL A PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED JANUARY 25, 1979 IN BOOK 1924 AT PAGE 745 WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN CONVEYED TO CURRENT OWNER. 12 Attachment 2: Vicinity Map ESTES PARK COLORADO Town of Estes Park Community Development Pro·ect Name: Elkhorn Lodge Pro·ect Descri tion: Preliminary PUD/Plat For Illustrative Purposes Only 0 250 500 Feet Created By: jeff woeber Printed: 2/11/2020 13 Attachment 3: Statement of Intent STATEMENT OF INTENT ELKHORN LODGE P.U.D., SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN, Being a portion of El khorn Addition and a portion of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, and the Northwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Revised 02-19-2020 Add a waiver request regarding elevations drawings for the barns and the Elkhorn Lodge addition. PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed development is a major portion of the 1958 Elkhorn Addition to the Town of Estes Park. The subject property is located south of Elkhorn A venue at the west end of the Downtown area of Estes Park. The property address for the existing developed parcel is 600 West Elkhorn A venue, Estes Park, CO This project is located within the limits of the Town of Estes Park. OWNER: The current owner (County records) is Zahourek Conservatory LLC. The entity under agreement to purchase and develop this project is East A venue Development, LLC, C/O Justin Mabey. PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR THE ELKHORN LODGE P. U.D.: This proposed project is presented as a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (PUD) that is only allowed by The Estes Valley Development Code (Code or EVDC) in the current Commercial Outlying (CO) zoning district, for which this development is included. Accommodations uses and residential uses are permitted uses in a Mixed Use PUD Proposal in the CO Zoning District. One hundred and ninety seven (197) hotel units are proposed in two ma in buildings on site. One is a new 132 Unit stand-alone hotel building and the other is an addition (36 hotel rooms) annexed to the existing Elkhorn Lodge Building which has 29 existing hotel rooms within. While the old Elkhorn Lodge is not on a Historic Registry, it will remain and include a major remodeling project with the purpose/intent of keeping that landmark present in the Estes Valley. The Developer plans to go to great extent for this historic feature to remain, and has intentionally had the new hotel building designed to be architecturally compatible to the old Lodge Building. In addition to these hotel uses, there are 2 new restaurant pads being developed and one renovation of the Coach House for restaurant use. These restaurant sites will be offered for rent or sale to regional or local restaurant venders. Below one of the restaurants (Hillside), there is a small retail use proposed (2,880 s.f.). The one remaining large existing historic barn on site (which is slated for relocation-new construction with the intent for the "skin" wood being repurposed on the new structure) will meet Building Code and the EVDC for commercial uses including an Event Facility. An additional (new) barn building for the continuing long standing horse operation on site is proposed far south of the old barn site. Lastly, there is a subdivision of the property proposed to create 13 separate lots. 14 Lot 1: This lot will contain a new 8, lO0sf Event Center Barn to replace the old barn that is being removed from the floodplain. It is similar in size and will be used for events such as weddings, corporate outings, Lazy-B sing-a-longs and other similar events. The old barn will be raised and salvaged for as much material as possible to re-side the new barn and add old-time stable character to the building. The new building is intended to look like the existing barn on the exterior. The floorspace will be significantly different since it will be an event center now instead of a horse stable. This use is permitted in the CO zone and will be consistent with the new Event Center code language. Lot 2: This lot contains the existing Elkhorn Lodge and several outbuildings, mostly used for wrangler housing and offices. The Lodge will be kept and an addition will be placed on the west side. The addition is intended to blend with the old lodge as much as possible. The original 29 units, ballroom, lobby, dining room and kitchen in the Lodge will be remodeled and the addition will contain 36 new units. Three on-site cabins will be relocated to the west of the old Lodge and remodeled for guest stay. The original Schoolhouse will be relocated as well and will be used as a small event facility and historic tours. An outdoor pool will be located at the center of all the structures. Lot 3: This lot contains the original residence for the property prior to the Elkhorn Lodge being constructed. It will be raised and a new Riverside Restaurant will be constructed in its place. The restaurant will be approximately 6,040sf in a two story structure. Lot 4: A new 1,800sf Horse Barn will be constructed to continue the livery stables on the property. It will be constructed on the southwest portion of the lot with the north portion to be mostly a corral for the horses. The building will have the same character and colors of the old barn and the new event center, however it will be have stables and a small office and bathroom for the livery's business operations. It will be open to the public with parking provided, however, it is anticipated that a majority of the customers will come from this property, likely walking to the livery. This is a use permitted by S2 in the CO zone, however since it is an existing historical use, an S2 should not required. The PUD has a similar review process to an S2, so it is being seen and reviewed by the same authorities as would an S2. Lot 5: This will be the flagship lot that will contain the new 132 unit Elkhorn Suites. There are numerous cabins in the area, most of which will be demolished. Three of the "better" cabins will be relocated and remodeled, as well as the Schoolhouse, on Lot 2. The suites will be a three story building, in three sections. Each section will rise one story as the building progresses westerly to fit the contours of the lot. A height waiver request through the PUD process is requested with this submittal as outlined later in the requested waivers. Lot 6: This lot will have a new building that will contain some retail space below and a new restaurant, the Hillside Restaurant, above. The building will be roughly 5, 7 60sf total. Lot 7: The Coach House is the primary building on this lot and it will be remodeled in to a Restaurant. A small addition will be added on the south for additional kitchen and storage space. The basement is planned to be a distillery business. The building will be roughly 5,750sf total. Lot 8: This lot contains the Old Church. It is widely believed to be the first church in Estes Park and it will be remodeled and used for small events and weddings and historical tours, much like the Schoolhouse that is being relocated and remodeled on Lot 2. Lot 9-13: These lots will be for each of the existing "Alpine" cabins on the hill along the south side of the property. Each of the cabins will be remodeled into single family residential structures as they currently exist. They will primarily be rentals through the lodge business, however, in the future, they may be sold and available for full time residential ownership. The parking for all the commercial lots (1-8) and uses will be shared by the individual lots. There is adequate parking distributed throughout the site on Lots 1-8 that can accommodate each of the uses in 15 full operation. The residential lots (9-13) will have their own private parking dedicated to their individual lots. The shared parking along with access will be addressed with a note on the plat. Maintenance will be addressed through a Property Owners Association. See the attached Preliminary Elkhorn Lodge PUD Subdivision Plat for additional details. The PUD process in the Estes Valley has its own specific Code section (Chapter 9) and associated standards. The PUD process in the EVDC cites the following five (5) abbreviated purposes: •Encourage innovations in residential and commercial development and renewa l. ...•Encourage more efficient use of land and public services to reflect change in technology of land development .... •To provide a process (PUD) that can relate type, design and layout of residential and commercial development to the particular site, thereby encouraging the preservation of the sites natural characteristics and to encourage integrated planning ...•To provide for well located, commercial sites and well-designed residential developments while minimizing impact on roads, streets and other transportation facilities ... and,•To conserve the value of the land. As can be ascertained by reviewing this proposal, all five PUD, "purposes" have been adhered to, addressed and used as guides for this design and the planned development of this site. SITE DENSITY AND IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: EVDC PUD Regulation 9.3.C.3 (last sentence) states: Each independently calculated land area shall be deducted from the total land area available for development to determine the permitted density on a site. This provision allows Lot 5, proposed at 4.674 Acres (calculated to a max of 113 units with the 1,800 s.f./unit factor) to propose 132 units. In the same light, Lot 2 is proposed at only 65 units, but is allowed 113 Accommodations units. What this allows overall to this site, is mixed use density with numerical accountability represented by the flexibility of a PUD with clustered density. This design allowance and concept leaves more open area around the project's perimeter and softened transition into the neighborhood (for example the very low density along the north, south and west sides of this development). See Density Table on Sheet 1 of 10 for more information/quantification. Please note that a large number of Units (nearly 29 Residential Units or 146 Accommodation Units) are, "left on the table" and not requested with this proposal. The impervious coverage limitation (65% max.) is easily met on this development as a whole with only 36.1 % proposed to be hard covered. See Statistical Information Breakdown on Sheet 1 of 10. Additionally, the open space provided by this development is 41.1 %, 30% required by a PUD. ADDITIONAL PROPOSED SITE CONSTRUCTION ITEMS TO NOTE: 1.A floodwall is proposed to provide ample room for the dynamic river, yet define the floodplain on the property and to provide a hard feature limitation for flooding. The 100 year regulatory floodplain (using best available data) will be contained on the riverside of the wall with free board. 2.The recent reconstruction of the river by the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition will remain intact ( even though the physical location of the river was constructed outside of the previously modeled CHAMP floodplain). 3.Relatively minor excavation and revegetation on the south side of the river (outside the existing actual river) is proposed to provide a "no-rise" result. 4.Given the proximity of this site and the river, no new storm water detention is proposed. Water quality is addressed as part of the Drainage Plan and Report (attached). 16 5.The Barn will be relocated out of the floodplain and used as an Event Center Barn. This will provide the river more capacity (the barn was included in the CHAMP river model as an obstruction). 6.The new smaller Barn (1,800 s.f.) for the continued horse riding will be located well out of the floodplain which will improve the water quality in the river just upstream of Town. 7.The original and existing Lodge Building east of the Elkhorn Lodge will be removed and that area will house the proposed Riverside Restaurant site. 8.The historic School House and some of the existing historic cabins will be relocated /saved. 9.The Alpine Buildings on the hill will be remodeled and saved. 10.The Coach House will remain and be converted into a restaurant. 11.Main trunk utilities will be maintained and or upgraded, including a new river crossing for sanitary sewer and appropriate easements dedicated. See below for additional detail on separately listed utilities. 12.The backdrop of thick trees on the hill south of the new hotel and existing Lodge will basically remain untouched. This will protect the roof of the new hotel from extending above the skyline or horizon when viewed from the north to the south. 13.The main entrance on Elkhorn A venue will be reconstructed to intersect basically perpendicular to Elkhorn and to directly oppose Filbey Court (to the North). A westbound, left turn lane will be constructed at the intersection with an opposing taper for the Elkhorn Lodge and Suites. 14.Vehicle and Pedestrian Access to and from the site will be improved. Walking to Downtown shopping and activities will be encouraged. An off-site (south side Elkhorn Ave) 10' wide multi-modal path is proposed Easterly to a new Pedestrian Crossing near the existing Big Horn Restaurant ( also provided will be a Ped Crossing of Elkhorn Ave at the realigned new entrance intersection with Filbey Ct.). HOTEL USES: The existing and proposed hotel buildings/units "fit" the allowed Accommodations uses in a mixed use PUD C.O. Zoning District Development. The number of hotel units proposed overall is less than allowed for the PUD as a whole. RESTAURANT USES: The 3 Restaurant pads shown on the Development Plan are intended for use as sit down restaurants. These "fit" the allowed uses in the underlying C.O. Zoning District and as part of the Mixed PUD regulations. Grease Interceptors are required by the Estes Park Sanitation District Regulations and are planned for with this Development. COMMERCIAL USES: The Event Center Barn, Horse Barn/Livery, Hillside Retail Space, Schoolhouse and Old Church will be open and available to the public for events/rides. The events can be scheduled by the public at the Event Center Barn, Schoolhouse or Old Church. Tours at the Schoolhouse and Old Church will be available. These uses are allowed and fit in the C. 0. Zoning District of the code. SUBDIVISION PROPOSED: The proposed subdivision allows for single family use in the Southeast corner of the property (Lots 9 through 13). Should the owner wish to sell lots in the future (although not the intent), this PUD and Subdivision process will allow for that. Initially (upon approval), the houses on these 5 lots are intended to be nightly rental units. 17 DOWNTOWN PLAN COMPATIBILITY: Below is an excerpt from the 2018 Downtown Plan: Elkhorn Lodge The Elkhorn Lodge site (s1) should be redeveloped in a manner that celebrates its historic significance and creates a major activity center and destination for Character Area 1 and the Town. Housing, lodging, entertainment, retail and other activities should be combined in a landmark project that engages the Fall River. Access to Elkhorn Lodge should be realigned to create a perpendicular entry across from Filby Court. A formal intersection will create a safer environment for vehicles and pedestrians, while also enhancing awareness and visibility of the Lodge. The Elkhorn Lodge site should be redeveloped in a manner that celebrates its historic signficance The subject property is mentioned several times in the current Downtown Plan. It is mentioned that the Elkhorn Lodge is a "Commu nity Anchor with historic potential". The Downtown Plan also mentions the following relative abbreviated goals (that this project includes): •Economic Vitality -year round economy of business.•Maintain or gain adequate infrastructure.•Maintain views to rivers and mountains.•Protect Wildlife patterns and sensitive areas.•Expand links to abutting neighborhoods.•Maintain resilience to flooding.•Improve safety and connectivity for peds and bikes through enhanced crossings. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY: Here is an excerpt from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan (Area 7): Significant community landmarks and historic structures which should be preserved are located downtown. While commercial development exists throughout the area, large scale retail ( or "big box") type development is encouraged to locate at Stanley Village. The Downtown Planning area is intended to develop as an exciting, mixed-use, urban core with open space along the rivers, and structures such as the Stanley Hotel providing an intimate, pedestrian scale. We believe this plan does provide the basic intent of Area 7 goals; however, the Elkhorn Lodge is on the very western fringe of Area 7 in the Comp Plan. ACCESS AND TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (TIS) SUMMARY: Currently, the existing Lodge (600 West Elkhorn Ave) gains access from West Elkhorn Avenue. This project proposes to re-align the existing Eastern access onto Elkhorn A venue to a more perpendicular approach. This will improve driver, bicycle and pedestrian safety. The Northern Elkhorn and current Stable Access includes a one lane concrete double T constructed bridge with concrete abutments. This bridge has been visually examined by Van Horn Engineering and found to be in good shape. A Structural loading analysis is forthcoming, however, we believe it is capable of supporting a fire truck in its current condition. This access will be gated and signed as an Emergency Access only. A new western access to Old Ranger Road is proposed which will increase emergency access and safety for the site and neighboring uses. The western access will not be signed, so is predicted to see little traffic. 18 The TIS calls for an additional left hand turn lane at the main Elkhorn Access with 100 feet of storage, but did not find Warrants were met for a signalized intersection to be installed. The turn lane is shown on the proposed plans for this development. OPEN SPACE: Open space is not required with CO zoned land, but it is required with the PUD as proposed. This development provides approximately 41 % open space where 30% is the Code requirement. UTILITIES: This property is currently serviced by all of the main utilities. The main lines will be accessible for connection and or extension as needed to easily serve the proposed density. A brief description of each utility and the associated changes is included: •Sewer. Several meetings with the Estes Park Sanitation District Representatives (and even the Sanitation Board) have been accomplished. The results of these meetings and discussions are as follows: o Communications continue on the agreement for the new river crossing as well as the needed easement across the Plaza Property for the new 12" sewer main. This will eliminate the current situation where the sewer main crosses directly under the historic Antonio's Pizza Building (now owned by Maxwell's). o The Sanitation District has stubbed the buried line out of the new manhole north of the old Pizza shop, but the stub ends east of the river (a future river crossing is required). o Minimum 8" diameter services are proposed into three locations on the proposed large motel building. Other smaller diameter service lines are shown and outlined on Sheet 4 (Utility Plan). All new manholes and main lines will be installed according to EPSD Standards and become property of the sanitation district upon successful acceptance by them. o Some realignment of the sewer line and an upgrade to 12" diameter sewer line crossing the property from west to east is shown and outlined on the Utility Plan mentioned above. It will be upgraded to the easterly side of the new Event Center Barn o Appropriate sewer easements will be dedicated with the Subdivision Plat.•Water/Fire Suppression. Five new fire hydrants are proposed to be added. The current eastern fire hydrant (near the Coach House) will be re-used with the proposed new waterline loop that is proposed to connect to the 6" line on the property to an existing 12" main to the East. There will also be a loop around the Elkhorn Lodge building that will service the rest of the new buildings. Fire sprinklers are proposed for each commercial building ( except the new horse barn) with a special connection for fire department access outside each building near the sidewalk. This includes each of the three proposed sections of the large new hotel building. Each section of the large building is proposed to also include 2 hour automatically closing (Mag Lock) separation doors.•Gas. There is an existing 2" gas main crossing the property. That line currently serves the Coach House, the existing and the old Lodge (that will be removed). The current 2" line does not serve the existing barn. All new construction will connect to this existing 2" gas main and no relocation of it is proposed. •Electricity. Individual meters are proposed for each building. Currently, overhead power comes from the north and east and will remain. A buried three phase loop is provided for through the new construction around the south side of the large motel building on the property. One new overhead line is proposed south of the new large hotel building, otherwise, all new power on site will be buried as shown on the Utility Sheet (Sheet 4). 19 •Cable and Telephone. Telephone and Cable TV come into the property from the east overhead, but will be buried from the Northeast corner of the Riverside Restaurant throughout the interior of the re-developed property. A separate connection for each building is proposed as well as individual billing. PARKING: This project is proposing to exceed the EVDC requirements for the associated uses and parking numbers. In short, the Code requires 335 spaces and this plan provides 364 spaces. Parking (for all uses) is tabulated on Sheet 1 and exceeds the EVDC required minimum by 108%. STORMWATER: This property is adjacent to the Fall River and generally slopes south to north toward the river. Three proposed north outlet facing western storm water culverts daylight through the proposed river floodwall. The east most storm water culvert outlets or daylights into the wetland area west of the proposed realigned main entrance-exit. A cross culvert at the new main access will allow surface water to flow east to west and out of the sump area that currently exists. A culvert will be installed under the access road to Old Ranger to accommodate a new public drainage study for the Elkhorn Estates area. Given that Fall River separates the proposed improvements from Elkhorn A venue, storm drainage improvements are not proposed along the south side of Elkhorn A venue along this project's frontage. There is little to no erosion evidence that would suggest that Curb and Gutter would be helpful along this river frontage of the property related to erosion. We feel that sheet flow from the highway should be allowed to flow freely in a distributed non erosive manner as it has historically. No Storm water detention is proposed with this development; however, water quality is proposed to be addressed through the use of relatively flat and wide grass lined swales and downstream naturally shallow flat sheet flow areas north of the proposed riverwall. A Preliminary Drainage Report is submitted with this application and a Final Drainage Report will be submitted later in the process as required by the Code. SCHEDULE: This development is proposed as a single phased sequenced development with the desire to commence construction in the spring of 2020 (upon Planning Commission and Town Board approvals). The owner would like to build everything right away, however due to floodplain issues, some things have to occur in a specific order. Building permits will be applied for sequentially, starting with the Elkhorn Suites, Elkhorn Lodge remodel and the new Horse Barn while the floodwall is being built. With the horse stalls up and running in their new location, the Hillside Retail/Restaurant, Coach House Restaurant and building relocations will be done. Once the floodwall construction and floodplain re-alignment is approved through FEMA via the LOMR process, the new Event Center Barn, Elkhorn Lodge addition and Riverside Restaurant construction will commence. As contractors are available, Alpine units will be remodeled one by one. REQUESTED WAIVERS (and related notes): 1.Highway Frontage Sidewalk, Appendix D Typical Street Section (with Curb and Gutter). As mentioned within, no curb and gutter, sidewalk or street widening is proposed along Elkhorn A venue north of the river adjacent to this proposed development and along Old Ranger Rd. 20 a.This project does not propose an Elkhorn A venue/Old Ranger Rd frontage sidewalk adjacent to the project west of the new main entrance. In lieu of this typical standard requirement, the project proposes to provide a 10' wide concrete multi-modal path along Elkhorn including the south side of the new entrance and eastward toward a Pedestrian Crossing near the Bighorn Restaurant and connect the sidewalk: to Mrs. Walsh's Garden. A new Pedestrian Crossing is also proposed at the new ma in entrance across Elkhorn A venue. b.EVDC Appendix D-5 allows the location of sidewalks on a property to be determined in a case-by-case basis. c.This highway frontage sidewalk 'waiver' is felt reasonable given there is a relatively new and wide concrete sidewalk on the north side of Elkhorn A venue in this area and no sidewalk along Elkhorn A venue to the east. At one location the river is very close to the south edge of the existing road, and any widening would impact the river there. This project is proposing improvements to the east instead due to the volume of pedestrian traffic that will be heading toward town where there currently is no sidewalk. 2.EVDC Section 4.4.D.2.a Main Entrance shall be oriented to the front lot line. The building on Lot 6 faces south with its main entrance up higher on natural sloping ground for the handicap access there at this building corner for the upstairs restaurant use. The handicap space for the downstairs retail use is located lower and to the north of the building along the street frontage. 3.EVDC Table 4.7 Loading space requirements. No loading spaces are proposed with this development. The Developer's experience is that very early morning deliveries are made in front of to the side of restaurants and/or hotel and this is a common and acceptable method of supply delivery with minimal guest interference. 4.EVDC Table 4-5 Max Building Height. The Elkhorn Suites building will be up to 38' tall and will need a waiver from the EVDC through the PUD section of the code. The building is built against a hillside that shields it from any properties to the south. It is blended into the contours of the property against the hillside. The only buildings behind it are existing residential structures on this property. The adjacent property has a house relatively close to this property, but it is roughly 60' higher in elevation than the proposed Suites. 5.EVDC Appendix D.III.B.6.d The road that accesses the Alpine Lots 9-13 must be built to street standards if it serves more than four residential units. We request that this be kept as a driveway, paved to 20', with no sidewalk, curb and gutter, and curvilinear requirements. The area is quite steep, rocky and tree' d with little room for parking spaces let alone sidewalks, curb and gutter. It is desired by the applicant to keep the area as similar to the feel it currently has. We propose that the driveway have curb and gutter up to the parking area for the Old Church, but be a driveway beyond the entrance to the Old Church parking area. We will make a 20' wide paved drive following the existing driveway. 6.EVDC Appendix D.III.B.4.a.1 The driveway serving Lots 8-13 is designed at 14.7% grade to match the existing drive. It is proposed to be widened from 14' to 20' in width and will include roadside drainage. Code maximum is 12% and Code width is 20' minimum. The slope of the hill is approximately 20% and there is not enough room to redesign the road to meet the grade requirements without clearing many trees on the hillside and creating substantial cuts and fills. It is desired by the applicant to keep the area as similar to the feel it currently has. It would maintain as much of the screening for the property to the south as well. 21 7.EVDC Section 7.6.D.2 Wetland disturbance at the new entrance-exit is proposed at only 2475 s.f. (0.06 Acres). We have worked with Darcy Tiglas for wetland identification. Her letter calls this area Sampling Point B and it is determined to be a wetland. Given the small size of this impact (less than 0.1 acres), disturbance is allowed without a permit and mitigation is not required by the US Army Corp of Engineers. A supporting document has been provided by Darcy Tiglas to mention it is likely not even under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corp of Engineers. Since it is allowed under applicable federal laws or regulations, we request a waiver to disturb this small portion of wetland. The purpose of the wetland disturbance is to re-align the current drive with Filbey Ct. This will produce a safer perpendicular approach and intersection with West Elkhorn Ave. It is also recommended in the 2018 Downtown Plan as mentioned above. 8.EVDC Appendix B.VI.A.5 Architectural Elevations. Architectural Elevations were not prepared for the Event Center Barn and the Horse Barn because this was a last minute change to the plan before submitting. The original plan was to remodel the old barn, however, moving it out of the floodplain became more important. When that decision was made, it was decided to make two separate barns, one for events and one for the livery operations. Architecturally, the barns are intended to look like the existing barn, so elevations did not seem necessary since there is an example already on site. The elevations were not prepared for the Lodge Addition either because it is intended to look like the old lodge. This project is attempting to ma intain the historical feel and architecture on the site. 22 -­r • Attachment 4: Application DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Application Type(s) Please check only one box _, Pre-Application (check application type(s)) Development Plan Special Review Preliminary Subdivision Plat Final Subdivision Plat General Information Elkhorn Suites r Minor Subdivision -Plid r Amended Plat r Boundary Line Adjustment r Rezoning Petition IX other: Please specify r Condominium Map r Preliminary Map r Final Map r Supplemental Map PUD Project Description Project Address Redevelopment of Elkhorn Lodge to a 205 Unit Mixed Use Hotel Develo ment 6QQ West Elkhorn Ave See Plat 3526106001 Site Information 18.583 acres Existing Land use Mixed Use Residential. Accom modation. Stable. Event and Restaurant Proposed Land use .Exoanded Residential. Accom modation. Stable. Event and Restaurant Existing Water Seivice Proposed Water Service Existing Sanitary Sewer Seivice Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service � Town rwen r None r Other (specify) IX Town rwen r None r Other (specify) llr EPSD r UTSD r J( EPSD r UTSD r lit" Xcel r other r None Septic r None Septic Existing Gas Service Existing Zoning _C____;-.q;.....c .... o_m..;..m�er-ci-·a-1_0;...;u-t.t,,-irg_) __ Proposed zoning __ C_-__._C_o_m_m_e_rc_i_a_l O_u....,.t �iiil.1....-1 Contact Information Attachments Statement of Intent 3 copies, 24" x 36" (folded) of plat/plans Application Fee 1 copy, 11" X 17" reduced set of plat/plans Refer to the Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B for application submittal requirements. Town of Estes Park..,. P.O. Box 1200..,. 170 MacGregor Avenue..,. Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: 970-577-3721 ..,. Emall: plannlng@estes.org ..,. www.estes.org/CommunltyDevelopment 23 pocuS_iS"1, Envelope ID: B35E951 B-F970-41 BF-82O6-FC 1 05BFEB376 Record Owner(s) _Z_a_ho_u_r_e_k_C_o_n_s_e_rv_a_t_orv_.,-=-, _L_L_C_,_: _C_a_r_o_l Z_a_h_o_u_re_k"""',_C_o_n_t_a_ct ________ ..... Mailing Address ___ 4 __ 2 __ 2_5 ___ F_a-'-w'--. ___ n_T_r_a_i!..._; _L..;;..ov--_ e.;;;..l;..;;.·a--.n--d_._, _C _O-..;8_0--5--3--7 _______________ ..... Phone 970-215-5215 --------------------------------------,1 Email CAROLZAH YAHOO.COM VALZAHOUREK GMAIL.COM Applicant _E_a_s _t_A_v_e _n _ue __ :;--D _e_v_e_l _o .... om_e _n--t:_L_L_C--1_A_T_ex_a_s_LL_C ___________ -1 Mailing Address ___ .=.;:;"'-'--___,,""""'-=-:::�""'"'"""""'.:..:...-='-'--'�=-=-_...--------------------fPhone�==��-=-....!..!���=--------------------------1 Email Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address _.&..1.1!:z.w�i.;u.�w;;;iw.1:1�.M.o,--'-'=&Q.�1.LD..,_l,,��.w.1,1�-----------------! Phone_.i.u.�-�-.w.1,,.._ __________________________ -4 Email MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. Notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: Applicant PLEASE PRINT: East Avenue Development 1gnatures: � UM}• 111,,.t;;;,°1Y"8"�by: S. �DocuSlgn•d by: Record Owner :_:-" Yj vr� 4 tkW"ll:. 9BB4CB7CF33F4E8._ 12/18/2019 Date Date 12-14-19 OWNER & APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ►As Owner, I certify the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and I am the record owner of the property. ►As Applicant, I certify the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the record owner(s) of the property. ► I grant permission for Town of Estes Park employees, reviewing agency staff, Planning Commissioners, members of the Town Board of Trustees, or Larimer County Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ►I acknowledge I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and am aware that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule may result in my application beying delayed or any approval of my application becoming null and void. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Eas t Avenu e Deve lo ment Signatures: ,�z �SU\Wofidlu""ii by: Record Owner .,, � IVDoeuSlgned by: \).MJ--�te 12/18/2019 Date 12-14-19 24 Attachment 5: Elkhorn Lodge - Public Works Comments Town of Estes Park Public Works Engineering Development Review Project: Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary Plat and PUD February 12, 2020 (Revised February 17, 2020) - Round 2 Comments Summary This review by Public Works is based on plans and documents submitted to the Town in December 2019. Submittals referenced for this review include: Preliminary Drainage Report (12/18/19; Revised 2/12/20) Preliminary Floodplain Model (12/18/19; Revised 2/12/20) Electronic data files on 8GB flash drive for flood analysis model Traffic Impact Study (12/18/19) Preliminary Elkhorn Lodge Subdivision drawing- 1 sheet (12/18/19; Revised 2/14/20) Elkhorn Lodge P.U.D. drawings - 8 sheets (12/18/19; Revised 2/14/20) Statement oflntent (12/18/19; Revised 2/13/20) Public Works (PW) does not oppose the continued processing of the Preliminary PUD subject to the stipulations listed below and discussed in detail herein. 1)The applicant must demonstrate that the project can meet all applicable Town and Federal regulations pertaining to floodplain development prior to approval of the Final PUD. 2)Public improvements must be financially guaranteed prior to recording the Final Plat. 3)An Improvement Agreement must be executed prior to recording the Final Plat or issuing building or grading permits. 4)A maintenance agreement must be recorded for the shared driveway at the time the Final Plat is recorded. Regulations and Standards All references to the Estes Valley Development Code shall be adapted as appropriate for applicability to this project according to Town of Estes Park regulations for managing the end of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Larimer County beginning on April 1, 2020. Regulations referenced for this review include: 1.Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) a.Chapter 9 -Planned Unit Developments; b.Chapter 10 -Subdivision Standards; c.Chapter 7 -General Development Standards; d.Appendix B. Submittal Requirements; and e.Appendix D. Street Design and Construction Standards. 2.Estes Park Municipal Code a.Title 12 -Streets and Sidewalks; and b.Title 18 -Flood Damage Prevention. 25 Analysis -Preliminary Plat PUD Standards (Chapter 9) As a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (PUD-lVf), the proposed project maintains some historic features while incorporating modern development standards and amenities. The new Elkhorn Lodge will be anchored to downtown Estes Park via a sidewalk along W. Elkhorn Avenue connecting the property to existing infrastructure. 1.The purposes of a PUD (§9.1) are addressed in the Statement oflntent (SOI). The only purpose not specifically met by the proposed project relates to benefits for "those who need homes." 2.Proposed Lots 1, 2, and 3 are traversed by the Fall River and encompass portions of the width of the floodplain. Ideally, no buildings or vertical bank protection would occur within these boundaries. As an advisory recommendation, Public Works proposes that the entire floodplain on the PUD property be maintained as private open area in which nothing is built due to its unique drainage function (§9.3 D.4.b.(2)). Nevertheless, the area governed by floodplain regulations may be used in accordance with what the standards allow based on appropriate analyses and design. Subdivision Standards (Chapter 10) The proposed PUD is laid out such that it is subdivided into lots each having one building and shared parking to support it (except for the Alpine buildings). 1.The layout of lots and driveways on the PUD shall be designed in a manner that preserves stream corridors (§10.5 B.1.). To preserve the Fall River corridor, its path through the Elkhorn Lodge property could be left in a natural state across the width of the floodplain. Preservation may still be achieved by the proposed PUD if improvement locations are verified by appropriate analyses and design. 2.The installation of all public improvements required by this Code must be guaranteed before approval of the Final Plat (§ 10.5 K.1.). However, this requirement may also be satisfied by providing a form of guarantee (§10.5 K.2.) before the Final Plat is Recorded. 3.The Final Plat shall not be recorded until the Improvement Agreement (aka Development Agreement) is fully executed in accordance with §10.5 K.3. 4.No building permits shall be issued until the Improvement Agreement (aka Development Agreement) is fully executed in accordance with §10.5 K.3. General Development Standards (Chapter 7) 1.Grading or building permits will not be issued until Construction Plans are approved. Such plans may be previously approved or submitted for approval in support of a permit application (§7.2 B.1.). 2.Wetland delineation by Darcy Tiglas, provider of ecological services, is noted on Grading and Drainage plan (Sheet 6 of 8) in accordance with §7.6. Discussion in the SOI of wetland 21Elkhorn Lodge -Public Works Comments 2/17/20 26 disturbance is acknowledged. Mitigation for wetland disturbance (§7.6 H.2.) may be addressed at the time of Construction Plan review. 3.No building or grading permit shall be issued unless public facilities have been financially secured (§7.12 C.1.). 4.Adequate stormwater drainage facilities and services to support the proposed development shall be available concurrently with the impacts of such development. Where multiple building permits are to be issued for a project, 25% of the permits may be issued prior to the installation and acceptance of the drainage facilities ((§7.12 F.2.). 5.The Traffic Impact Study substantially meets the requirements in §7.12 H. At the time of final plat approval all necessary transportation facilities and services to meet the applicable LOS shall be guaranteed by a development agreement that ensures they will be in place when the impacts of the proposed development will occur (§7.12 H. 4.). Submittal Requirements (Appendix B) 1.For Preliminary PUD Applications, (VI.A.), submittal requirements include: a.All requirements for a Preliminary Subdivision Plat in Section II.C. (B.VI.A.3.). b.Any other information deemed necessary by the Staff to make a fully informed and deliberate decision on the application (B.VI.A.8.). For this PUD, with buildings and improvements in the Fall River floodplain and floodway, floodplain modeling and details about FEMA requirements are necessary. 2.As required for Preliminary Subdivision Plans (II.C.), the following information is addressed in the updated SOI provided on 2/12/20. a.A schedule showing the area which is to be disturbed during each stage (B.II.C.5.u(7)). b.Anticipated phases (i.e., stages) of development (B.II.C.5.x.). The desire for the developer to start construction in spring of 2020 is acknowledged. Grading permits for staged areas in which construction plans have been finalized is the recommended path. Street Design and Construction Standards (Appendix D) 1.Referenced standards of construction include LCUASS (D.A.) which pertains to the design and installation of the left turn lane and the street improvements associated with the new sidewalk on W. Elkhorn Ave. 2.Requests for modifications and waivers shall be submitted in writing. Approval shall meet the criteria in D.I.D.1 and 2. Responses for waiver requests provided in an SOI: a.(SOI-1.) Highway Frontage Sidewalk. Request for waiver from installing sidewalk on W.Elkhorn along the property frontage, including along Old Ranger Drive, is approved since the developer has agreed to install a 10' multi-use path between Elkhorn Lodge and Mrs. Walsh's Garden. This trade-off advances the goals and purposes of the Code per D.I.D.1. b.(SOI-5.) Driveway serving six (6) single-family lots. Request for waiver regarding allowing a shared driveway for more than four (4) single-family residential units (D.III.B.6.d.) is approved. This arrangement is consistent with long-established access for buildings on a hill and thus relieves practical difficulties in redeveloping this site (D.I.D.2.). c.(SOI-6.) Driveway slope. Request for waiver for the slope of the regraded driveway to be limited to a maximum of 12% (D.III.B.4.a.(1)) is approved. The existing driveway is long-established at approximately 14.7%. This approval results in less 27 visual impact, more effective environmental or open space preservation, and relieves practical difficulties in redeveloping this site (D.I.D.2.). 3.All driveways serving eight (8) or more parking spaces shall be paved and constructed according to D.III.B.9.a. Developer agrees to pave the driveway from its beginning at Lot 6 along its entire length up to and including the parking space(s) on Lot 8. 4.Shared driveways require submittal of a maintenance agreement for recordation (D.III.B.6.c.). Streets and Sidewalks (Title 12) A ROW permit from Town of Estes Park is required for work connecting to W. Elkhorn and Old Ranger (Chapter 12.08). Flood Damage Prevention (Title 18) Many improvements planned for this project are adjacent to the Fall River and occur within its Special Flood Hazard Area as determined by FEMA and the CHAMP. The Fall River floodway contains about half the proposed vertical bank protection. A corner portion of the proposed events center, which would be constructed on the terrace created and protected by the wall, extends into the floodway. A portion of the adjacent parking lot, as well as some sidewalk and patio surfaces, are shown in the floodway. The Fall River floodplain contains about 160 feet of the new wall, area of parking lot, driveway, a relocated cabin, and a small portion of the Elkhorn Lodge Addition. Floodplain technical review, including modeling analysis, is being conducted through a consulting firm: Chris Pauley, PE, CFM, Water Resources Team Manager, at Galloway based in Johnstown, CO. Galloway was provided with the Preliminary Floodplain Model document as well as the electronic files for the floodplain model. Preliminary results from Galloway's study were made available to Town staff on Tuesday, 2/ 4/20. A technical memorandum summarizes its conclusions about the 2D model submitted by the applicant including: 1)The model was examined in a way consistent with FEMA review practices; 2)Topographic data in the model (baseline condition) does not reflect recent changes due to stream restoration and building removal; and 3)Replication of model results was not possible due to insufficient data. Full evaluation of the proposed design and floodplain analysis is ongoing and will require additional iterations as the design process advances. Additional floodplain evaluation and design are required as part of review for the Final PUD. According to the Floodplain Regulations (Chapter 18.04), a Floodplain Development Permit (FDP) must be obtained from the Town for construction in these areas. Beyond the local standards, interaction with State and Federal agencies will be necessary to satisfy requirements associated with FEMA. The Elkhorn Lodge developer intends to provide a No-Rise Certification to PW and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to FEMA. The Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLO MR) process is also available as an option for the applicant. The developer shall submit a detailed discussion of how the regulations in Chapter 18.04 will be met for the Final PUD. Final plat will not be recorded until the design meets all floodplain regulation requirements. A FDP will also be required for the sanitary sewer crossing Fall River. 28 Preliminary Elkhorn Lodge Subdivision (Revised 2/14/20) -Supplemental Review The following changes are acknowledged (including but not limited to): 1.Additional Town ROW noted adjacent to Old Ranger Drive for potential Stormwater Master Plan Project FR-005-01; sanitary sewer line relocated out of new ROW. 2.Lots 8-12 renumbered and noted for access easements. 3.Property line between Lots 7 and 8 relocated. 4.Sidewalk with curb & gutter added to horse barn driveway. Include on Final Plat: 1.Add note(s) pertaining to three waivers approved herein regarding sidewalk on W. Elkhorn, shared driveway, and driveway slope. Elkhorn Lodge P.U.D. (Revised 2/14/20)-Supplemental Review The following additional changes are acknowledged (including but not limited to): 1. Sheet 1. Note about access, easements, and parking for Lots 1-8. 2.Sheet 3. Note added for New Paved Drive serving Lots 6-13; location of parking spaces marked for Lots 12 and 13. 3.Sheet 5. Additional crosswalk and signage shown (see corrections below). 4.Sheet 6. New culvert shown for driveway connecting to Old Ranger. Corrections for Final PUD (Sheet 5) associated with discussion on 1/31/20: 1.Remove New Crosswalk Striping shown at east end of W. Elkhorn Ave. (crosswalk between Mrs. Walsh's Garden and Big Horn Restaurant is sufficient). 2.Four pairs of crossing signs are requested (two pairs at each new crosswalk). A pair of signs near crosswalk, and a pair of signs further out warning drivers approaching crosswalk. Both crosswalks in project (including main entrance crosswalk) shall have these two pairs of signs. Exact locations TBD on Construction Plans. 3.Handicap ramp alignment on each end of main entrance crosswalk shall be as close to perpendicular as possible. Exact location TBD on Construction Plans. 29 Attachment 6: PUD Plan VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1 • = 600' LEGEND � = :: :i:NG RDICMD A NEWQi."CmlCTIMNSftlRMER l!iBI NEW PRIWRY JUJCTION CABINET cm::J NEW/EX. flBER OPnCJUNCTIOM BOX Ill NEWEl£CTRICP(OF:';TAI.. ¾ NEWUGHTP0LEPtuaox �NEWUGHTP0LE @ NEW/EX.CltUPEOCSTAI. IIIIIJMEW/EX.TUEJ'M)MEPCDaTAL (IJ TELEPHONE POlSTAL TO BE REWOVEO I) NEW FliC D(P,\RTMOO CONNECTION • ti NEW/EX. WATUISHJTOFTVAl.1€ 'tJ' tf NEW/EX. fllE lfl'DfW{T @) EX.111t11,fERWINHOl.£TOBEREM1Ml @©NEW/EX.SNt'TMn"SEWERloW♦IOLE (B!I NEWSNITAA"l'CREASEIMTERCEPTOR � - SIREETSUlN(OR14FIRElANESICN) --,--SEWER IJNE-EXISTWC =l=SE'WtRIJNE-NEW =•=Jll4lERUNE-[)(IST1NG --•--Jl/41I'R UIE -NEW --0--GASUME -EXISTING --0--GASUME -NEW --•--STORMSEWER -NEW -----���1�'°D.ECTN'.:) -----r::r:= IJNES � � 5�lO�NE �-­----IIUII..DNGsrnw:K ====t\SEMENT(AANOT[J)) ----EXISTNGlO'COMTOURIMTER\IM. -----------EXIST1NC 2' CONTOUR I� ----ANISHC�E CONTOUR ----lnlof!Oltllflr ---•--.1E»INIERIW...l'ftOl'£Jfl'rtl!eo ---------'EIQ-B:R PflOPEll'1Y I.NE 0 ® 0 00.00 {00.00) f"OUNOMOMIJNEMTASMOTm f"OUNOf4REBARWITH1" PL14ST1CCJPLSl28074 S£Tf4REBARWITH1" PLASnCCJPLSl18074 =Y�W�ER MEAStMm OR CALCU114TF:0 DllEMSIOMS PIJfffEDORDEEDEDOIMENSIONS CONCRETEPA\IIMG14NOmt&iOOMPSTER P/40 W/ FENCED ENCLOSURE OWNER ZAHOUREK CONSERvATORY, LLC, CAROL ZAHOUREK, CONTACT 4225 FAWN TRAIL LOVELAND, CO 80537 DEVELOPER EAST AVENUE DEVELOPMENT LLC, JUSTIN MABEY, CONTACT 1001 CYPRESS CREEK RD CEDAR PARK. TX 78613 ENGINEER/SURVEYOR: VAN HORN ENGINEERING & SURVEYING. INC 1043 FlSH CREEK RO. ESTES PARK, CO 80517 (970) 586-9366 JOE COOP, CONTACT ARCHITECT,· BAS1 S ARCHITECTURE 1692 BIG THOMPSON AVE ESTES PARK, CO 80517 (970) 586-9140 STEVE LANE, CONTACT ARCHITECT· Af. URBIA ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS 909 W. SOUTH JQRDt,N PARKWAY SOUTH JORDAN, UTAH 84095 (801) 746-0456 RYAN MACKOWlA.K, CONTACT PRELIMINARY P. U.D. ELKHORN LODGE PORTIONS OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 26, 1/4 OF SECTION 25, NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. AND THE NW TOWNSHIP 5 ESTES PARK, COLORADO LEGAL DESCRIPTION FROM TITLE COMMITMENT (PER I.NID TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY TITLE COMMITMENT flO. FCC25162932-3) �� =�� fN��� % r;�N�F1�E��EfM�� c�� o�E�E'/,\�TE THJF �L�� J��ED /JS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 26, FROM WHICH POINT THE NE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26 BEARS N 1 DEGREES 11' WA DISTANCE OF 373 FEET, ANO WHICH IS THE CENrrR OF THE FAU. RIVER ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE EU<HORN PROPERTY FOUND IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 696 AT PAGE 463, LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE WESTERLY ANO NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE or F"1.J.. RIVER ROAD AS F()lLQWS; N 84 DEGREES 30' w, A DISTANCE OF 321 FEET; THENCE S 68 DEGREES 03' WA DISTANCE OF 154 Fm; THENCE S 68 DEGREES 04' W, A DISTANCE OF 311 FEET; THENCE N 84 DEGREES 26' WA DISTANCE OF 114 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID ROAD, S 3 DEGREES Hi' WA DISTNCE OF 877 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4; THENCE S 89 DEGREES 47' EA DISTNACE Of 944.9 FEET TO THE SE CORNER OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4; THENCE N 1 DEGREES 11' W A DISTANCE OF !i2 Fffi TO THE SW CORNER OF THE PARCEL DEED£D FROM EDWARO J. WALSH ANO DE H. SIMMONS TO JAMES AND ELEANOR HONDIUS RECORDED IN BOOK 501 AT PAGE 72, LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS; TI-IENCE N 27 DEGREES 02' E A DISTANCE OF 235.5 FEET; THENCE N 18 DEGREES 34' E A DISTANCE OF 71.2 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF PARCEL DEEDED FROM ELIZA E. WHllEHEAD TO MRS. Ell.A JAMES RECORDED IN BOOK 77, AT PAGE 143, LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS, SAID POINT BEING MARKED WITH A 1 INCH STEEL PIPE SET BY ORl�NAI... SURVEY; THENCE N 68 DECREES 34' E A DISTANCE OF 82.3 FEET TO THE SW CORNER OF PARCEL D£EDED FROM FLORA ANO J.R. STANLEY TO ED� JAMES AND A.N. MCKEIRMAN RECORDED IN BOOK 639 AT PACE 314; TI-IENCE S 75 DECREES 26' E A DISTANCE OF 273.3 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 34 FROM WHICH POINT THE NE CORNER OF SECTION 26 BEARS N 25 DEGREES 32' WA DISTANCE OF 1153.7 FEET; TI-IENCE N 2 DEGREES 14' EA DISTANCE OF 207 FEET TO THE CENTER OF FALL RIVER; THENCE WESTERLY AND NORTI-MESTERLY ALONG THE CENTER Of FN..L. RIVER ALONG THE FLORA ANO J.R. STANLEY PARCEL DEEDED TO EDNA JAMES ANO A.N. MCKEIRMAN ANO THE PARCEL DEEDED FROM FRANK W. GORE TO WIUJAN E JAMES RECORDED 1N BOOI( 110 AT PACE 302, LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS TO THE WEST LINE Of THE NW 1/4 Of THE NW 1/4 Of SECTION 25; TI-IENCE N 1 DEGREES 11' WA asTN-ICE Of 65 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT PNf PORTION THEREOF CONTAINED IN THE AMENDED Pl.AT OF ELKHORN CLUB ESTATES, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF; ElCCEPT THAT PARCEi.. CONVEYED IN DEED ijECORD£D SEPTEMBER 16, 1936 JN BOOK 639 AT PAGE 314; EXCEPT THAT PARCEL CONVEYED IN DEED RECORDED JULY 26, 1971 IN BOOK 1469 AT PAGE 785 EXCEPT RECOROED PLAlS OF ELKHORN PLAZA LODGES CONDOMINIUMS, BUILDINGS A AND B. EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 9, 1987 AT RECEPTION NO. 87007530 EXCEPT THOSE PARCELS DESCRIBED IN DEEDS R_ECORDED AUGUST _27, 1947 IN BOOK 839 AT PACE 334, 3J!i AND 338 FOR INFOR�TION ONLY THE LARIMER COUNTY ASSESSOR ALSO INCLUD£S IN THEIR LEGAL A PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED JANUARY 25, 1979 IN BOOK 1924 AT PAGE 745 WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN CONVEYED TO CURRENT OWNER. STAVSTICAL INFORMATION: ENTIRE PROPERTY ZONING -ZONED CO, TO BE TREATED AS MIXED USE PUO, WITH CO-COMMERCIAL Olffi.YING, A-ACCOMOOA.TIONS, AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN PUD GROSS PROJECT AREA • 809,475 SF, 18.58 AC AREA UNDER FlOOOPLAIN • 183,496 BOX • 146,797 NET PROJECT AREA • 809,47.:i -146,797 • 662,678 SF 2. AVERAGE SLOPE • a,i;± 3. Al..l.OWABLE DENSITY: 1,800 SF/Hom UNIT, 9,000 SF/RESIDENTIAL UNIT HOTEL UNITS SF-197°1,800 • 354,600 Sf RESIDENTIAL UNIT SF • 5°9,000 • 4.:i,000 SF TOTAL UNIT SF • 399,600 SF 4. TOTAL OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 335 SEE PARKING SPREADSHEET FOR DFTAILS 5. TOTAL OFF STREET PARKING SPACES PROVID£D 364 6. TOTAi. ACCESSORY USE SF Al.I OWED: SEE ACCESSORY USE SPREADSHEET FOR DETAILS 7. W.XIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT -JO' UNLESS GREATER HEIGHT TO BE REVIEWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE £I/DC REGULATIONS UNDER PUD'S 8. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED; 65X LOT COVERAGE TOTALS: BUILOINGS: 80,926 SF BUILDING OECKS/PATIOS: 10,482 SF PAVED DRIVE: 183,938 Sf CONC SIDEWALKS WALKS/TRAIL: 16,850 Sf TOTAL LOT COVERAGE: 292, 197 SF TOTAL PERCENTAGE: 292,197 SF / 809,47.:i SF• 36.1:1 _CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL: JUSTIN MABEY, ON BEHALF OF EAST AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, LLC BOARD OF TRUSTEES' CERTIFICATE: APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES Of THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO BY A RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON THIS ___ DAY Of ____ 20 __ TOWN CLERK MAYOR ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION: THESE PLANS FOR ELKHORN LODGE P.U.D. WERE PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRFCT SUPERVISION, 1N ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ROAD STANDA.ROS AND THE STORMWATER DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. LONNIE A, SHELDON, PE & PLS 26974 VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. INDEX OF SHEETS 1 COVER PAGE 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS DEMO 3 GENERAL SITE PLAN 4 WATERLINE, SEWER, ELEC, COMM & GAS 5 ELKHORN A VE IMPROVEMENTS 6 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN 7 LANDSCAPE PLAN 8 FIRE TRUCK TURNING TEMPLATES = 1. THE OWNER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADA ANO 1.B.C. 2. EXTERIOR LIGHTING WILL BE LOCATED AT THE REQUIRED ENTRY POINTS Of THE NEW BUILDINGS, ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING AND WILL BE SHIELDED AND DEFLECTED DOWNWARD. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 7.9 Of THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE IS REQUIRED. 3. ALL REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED OR GUARANTEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EVDC SECTIONS 7.12 AND 10.SK. 4. PER SECTION 7.13, MCONOUIT, METERS, VENTS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING OR PROTRUDING FROM THE ROOF SHALL BE SCREENED, COVERED OR PAINTED TO MINIMIZE 'v1SUAL IMPACTS.� 5. FENCES AND WALLS FOR THE TRASH ENCLOSURE SHALL CONFORM TO THOSE PREOOMINANT MATERIALS AND COLORS OF THE BUILDINGS ANO MEET APPLICABLE EVDC REGUJATIONS AND BUILDING CODES. 6. APPROVAL Of THIS PLAN CREATES A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 68 OF TITLE 24, C.R.S. AS AMENDED. 7. CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATION AND ARE SET ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988. 8. ALL BUILDINGS/UNITS WILL HAVE A PLACARD ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING DESIGNATING THE UNIT NUMBER ANO ADDRESS FACING THE DRIVEWAY AS APPLICABLE. 9. THE PROJECT IS ANTICIPATED TO BREAK GROUND FOR CONSTRUCTION DURING THE SPRING/SUMMER OF 2020 ANO IS ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED IN A SINGLE PHASE. 10. THIS DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL FlRE AND INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. 11. THIS DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WJTH THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE. 12. LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SHALL BE DESIGNATED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OR EXCAVATION, GRADING, OR CONSTRUCTION WITH CONSlRUCTlON BARRIER FENCING OR SOME OTHER METHOD APPROVED BY STAFF. 13. STOCKPILING SHALL NOT OCCUR OUTSIDE THE DELINEATED LIMITS Of DISTURBANCE. 14. THIS PRELIMINARY P.U.D. IS REPRESENTATIONAL ONLY. IT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A LAND SURVEY NOR AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT, HOWEVER, VAN HORN ENGINEERING HAS COMPLETED A ALTA SURVEY Of THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 15. THE LOT IS CURRENTLY ZONED CO -COMMERCIAL OUTLYING. 16. ACCESS AND PARKING ACROSS LOTS 1-8 IN THE PUD SHALL BE SHARED BETWEEN LOTS 1-8. THERE WILL BE A BLANKET EASEMENT ACROSS THESE LOTS FOR THE ACCESS AND PARKfNG. i t; I JWC LAS NA 12L1BL2019 SHEET 1 or 8 J. N . 2019-02-02 30 I i PRELIMINARY P. U.D. ELKHORN LODGE UNPLATI'ED PROPERTY ( CHARLESD.CHAMBERLAIN.111. LAURACHAMBERLAIN WRIGHT. AND z t EfEK) 1. THIS SITE PLAN IS REPRESENTATIONAL ONLY. IT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A LAND SURVEY NOR AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT. 2. LAND TlTLE GUARANTY COMPANY TTTl..E COMMITMENT NO. FCC25162932-3 WAS USED FOR OWNERSHIP AND EASEMENT RESEARCH. 3. TI-IE ZONING OF 11--HS LOT IS CO-COMMERCIAL OUTLYING, -40,000 SF MINIMUM. THE BUILDING SETBACKS ARE 15' FROM ALL SIDE AND REAR LOT LINES, 1S' FROM NON-ARTERIAL STREEfS AND 25' FROM ARTERIAL STREEfS AND RESIDENTIAL ZONED DISTRICTS. 4. THE POSTED ADDRESS IS 600 W. ELKHORN AVE, ESTES PARK, CO 5. UTILITIES ARE SCHEMATIC. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH THE UTILITY COMPANIES THE LOCATION OF THE UTll..llY LINES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND TO MAINTAIN THOSE LINES IF AT AU. POSSIBLE. 6. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT AND/OR RESTORE ALL PROPERTY CORNERS ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 7. NO UTILITY LOCATES WERE OBTAINED K3 PART OF lHIS PRELIMINARY P.U.D. EFFORT. UTLITIES SHOWN ARE BASED OFF OF SURFACE EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION OBTAJNED FROM ON SITE MANAGERS AND PREVIOUS VAN HORN WORK ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 8. THERE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE TREES LOCATED ON lHIS PROPERTY ALONG lHE SOUTH SIDE OF lHIS PROPERTY. ONLY lHOSE TRESS LOCATED NEAR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION HAVE BEEN LOCATED. SCALE: 1 M - 50' 0 50 ---100 150 j P-. 0 :: i!I r:i::IA A rl.lz0 - E-t - Az0u C, z - E-t rl.l i >< r:i::I DRAWN BY: JWC CHECKED BY: LAS SCALE DATE: 12 18 2019 SHEET 2 OF 8 PROJ. NO. 2019-02- 02 31 TOWN OWNED PROPERTY j I i Q :ii; E--<3 .... QUON - azz !g LOT 4 2.005 AC g,,"P PRELIMINARY P. U.D. PROPOSED ELICBORN SUrrES ALL ALPINE BUILDINGS ON BILL TO REMAIN AND BE REMODELED ELKHORN LODGE UNPLATI'ED PROPERTY ( RICf-b\RDANDHELEN!IORRISON LMNG TRUST) ZONED RE-1 SCALE: 1 M - 50' 0 50 ---100 150 O j 9 R o ....:I1"£1 01"£1 OUE-t -Afl) 0 ....:I ....:I z 1"£1Ornzg 1"£10 1"£1 DRAWN BY: JWC CHECKED BY: SCALE DATE: 12 18 2019 SHEET 3 OF 8 PROJ. NO. 2019-02- 02 32 II: r--------• I ' i I I I I l•r•·=eaSERVICE I I I I lo 1 oo 0 PRELIMINARY P. U.D. ALL ALPINE BUILDINGS ON BILL TO REMAIN AND BE REMODELED BUILDINGS TO CONTINUE TO BE SERVICED BY OVERHEAD POWER AND PROPANE GAS ELKHORN LODGE SCALE: 1" -50' 0 50 c- 100 150 UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. THIS SITE PLAN IS REPRESENTATIONAL ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A LAND SURVEY PLAT NOR AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT. 2. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH THE UTILITY COMPANIES THE LOCATION OF THE UTILITY LINES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND TO RELOCATE THE LINES, IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE SEPARATE UTILITY ENTITIES. 3. UTILITIES ARE SCHEMATIC. THE ACTUAL LOCATIONS SHOULD BE LOCATED USING THE UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO AT 1-800-922-1987 OR 811 PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR LOCATION. 4. ALL SERVICE LINES, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ARE TO BE 3" SCHEDULE 40 PVC. ALL SERVICE LINES SHALL BE BURIED 2 FEET DEEP, WITH CAUTION TAPE PLACED AT A DEPTH OF ONE FOOT FROM TRANSFORMER TO PEDESTAL. TELEPHON CONDUIT (r) ANO CABLE CONDUIT (2"0 SHALL BE BURIED WITH THE ELECTRIC CONDUIT. 5. t.-1ETER SOCKETS SHALL BE PERMANENTLY MARKED WITH THE RESIDENCE ADDRESS AND UNIT NUMBERS ALONG WITH THE STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO HOOK UP BY THE ESTES LIGHT AND POWER DEPARnAENT. 6. FOR UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC SERVICES, IT WILL BE THE ELECTRICIAN'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DIG THEM INTO THE TRANSFORMERS OR PEDESTALS. 7. THE ELECTRICIAN WILL NEED TO SCHEDULE WITH EPL&P TO UNLOCK ANO OPEN TRANSFORMERS OR PEDESTALS. 8. ALL INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONNECTION FEES ARE TO BE PAID FOR IN ADVANCE OR ADDED TO THE PERMITS. 9. ALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT ELECTRIC SERVICES WILL BE CONNECTED BY EPL&P WITHIN 5 BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION AND FEES ARE PAID. 1. ALL SEWER SERVICES ARE TO BE 4• SOR 35 PVC UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, BURIED AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE FEET. THE MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN WATERLINE AND SANITARY SEWER LINE IS 10 HORIZONTAL FEET. 2. SEE ESTES PARK SANITATION DISTRICT SPECIFICATIONS FOR MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION OF MANHOLES AND PUBLIC AND PRl"v'ATE LATERAL LINES. 3. MANHOLES THAT HAVE TO BE RAISED OR LOWERED MUST HAVE A MIN. e• AND MAX. 1a· TO FIRST STEP. 4. MAXIMUM INSIDE DROP IN SANITARY SEWER IS 0.50 FEET INSIDE MANHOLES. 5. ANY SERVICE LINE CLEANOUTS LOCATED IN A ROADWAY OR DRIVEWAY WILL BE BROUGHT TO GRADE WITH A CAST IRON CLEANOUT COVER. 6. MAINTAIN 10• HORIZONTAL MINIMUM BElWEEN WATERLINE, STORM SEWER AND SANITARY SEWER LINE. 7. ALL WATERLINE AND SEWERLINE CROSSINGS SHALL HAVE SLEEVING OF EITHER UTILITY FOR TEN FEET WITH SCHEDULE 40 PVC IN A HORIZONTAL DIRECTION UNLESS THE UTILITIES ARE SEPARATED BY 12• OR MORE VERTICALLY. 8. GREASE INTERCEPTORS WILL BE SIZED AT BUILDING PERMIT PHASE FOR EACH BUILDING, RESPECTIVELY. 9. A SAMPLING BASIN (INDl"v'IDUAL MANHOLE IN THE SERVICE LINE} WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY DISTILLERY, TO BE DESIGNED AT BUILDING PERMIT PHASE. llAXEllc 1. THE NEW WATER MAIN LINE SHALL BE WET TAPPED INTO THE EXISTING 12" WATER MAIN TO THE EAST AND HARD LINED INTO THE EXISTING 6" ON THE PROPERTY. 2. FIRE LINES WILL BE DESIGNED AND SIZED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT. 2. AS-BUILTS FOR WATERLINE ARE REQUIRED AND ARE TO BE SUBMITTED AT THE END OF CONSTRUCTION. 3. ALL WATER LINES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AND BURIED ACCORDING TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER DESIGN AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS. THE TOWN WATER DEPARTMENT WILL NEED TO INSPECT ALL LINES PRIOR TO COVERING. 1. GAS LINES SHOWN ARE THOSE FOUND IN THE FIELD AND MAY NOT BE COMPLETE. USE CAUTION WHEN DIGGING ANYWHERE AND CALL ONECALL FOR LOCATES. DRAWN BY: JWC CHECKED BY: SCALE DATE: 12 18 2019 SHEET 4 OF 8 PROJ. NO. 2019-02- 02 33 PRELIMINARY P. U.D. ELKHORN LODGE ALL ROAD SHOULDERS SHOULD BE DRILL SEEDED OR HYDROMULCHED W/ EROSION CONTROL FABRIC ON 2:1 SLOPES OR GREATER WITH ENGINEER APROVED SEED MIX. BACKFILL 1.4UST BE COMPACTED TO 90% TYPICAL DRIVE CROSS SECTION ROAD SLOPE 5' 5"-8" > B% NO SCALE 5' WIDE SIDEWALK PER PLAN, 68 CONCRETE 2-4%- 2,c;, FREE OF ORGANIC MATERIAL CONCRETE CURB AND GLJTTER PER PLAN TYPE 2 -1.lf PAN, ½_' CURB) SCALE: 1" -50' D 50 --100 NOTE: CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK WHERE APPLICABLE. CROWN OR SLOPED IN ONE DIRECTION WHERE APPLICABLE. ALL ROAD SHOULDERS SHOULD BE DRILL SEEDED OR HYDRDMULCHED W/ EROSION CONTROL FABRIC ON 2:1 SLOPES OR GREATER WITH ENGINEER APROVED SEED MIX. BACKFILL t.4UST BE COMPACTED TD 90" 10' WIDE, 6ft THICK, CONCRETE MULTI-USE TRAIL PER ESTES PARK SPECIFlCATlONS PROPOSED CURB GUTTER 2'-0" TYPICAL ELKHORN AVE. CROSS SECTION NO SCALE ROAD SLOPE < • s,r;-a,r; B• CROWN SLOPE • ,. .. 12' -0" 12' -0" 12· -0" PROPOSED ---,----TURN LANE TO UTILIZE----1-----TO UTILIZE SOUTHERN LA.NE EXISTING LANE EXISTING LANE 6ft COMPACTED AGGREGATE ROAD BASE WITH FINES, cm.1PACTION WILL BE TO 95,; OR BETTER OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT ±2% COMPACTED SUB BASE MATERIAL TO 95% OR BETTER OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT ± 2%, FREE OF ORGANIC MATERIAL CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER PER PLAN lYPE 2 -1.lf PAN, ½' CURB) NOTE: SUBGRADE AND ROAD BASE TO BE TESTED WITH A PROOF ROLL TO BE WITNESSED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OR THE ENGINEER OF RECORD WHEN IN A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. 150 DRAWN BY: JWC CHECKED BY: SCALE DATE: 12 18 2019 SHEET 5 OF 8 PROJ. NO. 2019-02- 02 34 I I I I I I \ ' II\ I\I\I\I\ I I ,,,, ,, ,, I I '' '' I i PRELIMINARY P. U.D. ELKHORN LODGE TBOC -TOPBACKOFCURB 1W -TOPOFWALL BW -BOTTOM OF" W>J..L SCALE: 1" -50' D 50 --100 150 DRAWN BY: JWC CHECKED BY: SCALE DATE: 12 18 2019 SHEET 6 OF 8 PROJ. NO. 2019-02- 02 35 36 FIRE TURNING TEMPLATE ! ,, C S IT I (Xl OJ i { •ffirucrr ELKHORN LODGE PROPERTY e O ESTES PARK, COLORADO ssMR, I;1i::;1:i ::;: ol gp--<; ::: il a ill: o,a!)a,'0' ,.,,.,.,,ill "'"'ii;; c,§,!><S'' !1a""''"' i i'l:i,!,!;!: I;.'<>-<_,"'"'"'"' =.-;;rili;g Bu;'"1 8 !li"' F D f;; [ J 6 t:i::i i:::.: ;a a b I a ;a ab t:i::i 37 Attachment 7: Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary Subdivision Plat ( TOWN OWNED PROPERTY I \ \ Ij FOUND _____ f3 REBAR \ S89'46'07"E 2622.43' N89'46'07"W 2622.43' (S89"4J'24"E 2624.JJ' GLD) PRELIMINARY ELKHORN LODGE S89"46'07"E 944.21' (S89'43'34"E 944.90') (S00'13'32"W 10.00') SUBDIVISION UNPlATI'ED PROPERTY (CliARL.5D.ow.lBERI.AIN,111, lAUAAcw.r.eERI..AIN'IIRIGJ,fT, NtD2=�) l.EJ,ENJ}_ i :: � :�NC REMCMD £_ NEWEw:TRIC11Wl5mRWER 1B NEWPRIMlrRVJUNCTIOH�ET ll![] NEW/EX.fl!!IEROPTIC.k.lMCOONBOX (ii NEWEL.lCTRICPEDESTAI. .,. NEWUGHfPOlEPUU.BO){ ,;:f"*NEWUGHfPOLE g) (£1 NEW/EX.CASl.E Pm£SfAI. Ii]@ NEW/EX.TE.D>HONEl'EOCSTAI. III TB..EPH0N[ PEDKl"AL TO 8[ ROIO','CD • t, NEW/EX • .ucRSHUTOFTVAIY( t1 NEWFlRElfl'l:llt\NT f) NEWFIR£ DEP,l,RNDITCOHN£Ctl0H i © =�=II =fQ.CIWHll � NEWSTORMS£Wl:IITYPE-R ? STREEl'SOl(OR AFIFIELANESICM) LEGEND WBX 21 --•--SEWE RUNE-CXISTNC --,--SEWERUNE-NEW --W--1111._TER LME--OISTlNC --■--1111._TER LINE -NEW --O--CASUNE-NEW --a --STORMSEWER-NEW -----='��;:•El.£CTRIC) �-=�ra���-­� FtNCE-N81' ----llluUINr:!l!TBIOC ----DSEMEJff ("5 NOTED) ;::::::::::::::= -.. -------NEW INTtlltW. PA0P0rTY LINES ----------NElGtUIOR PROPERrY UNE 0 . @ " 00.00 (00.00) ftlUNDWONIJMENTASNOTmF'OUNDf4REMR'MJH1" PLASTICCN'LSUH74 SO #4 REIWI '111TH 19 PLA5TICCN'LS#28174 ����WOR.-DI t.lEASUREDORc.Al.CUIATEOc:a«NSIONS PIATTEDOROECDEDOMENSIONS CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION: KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT EAST AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, BEING THE OWNER(S) OF THAT PART OF SECTION 25 AND 26, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, STATE OF COLOR.4DO, BEING MORE PARTICULARlY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT: THE PORTIONS Of THE NE 1/4 Of THE NE 1/4 Of SECTIClll 26 AND 1HE tfN 1/4 Of THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH. RANGE 7J WEST Of THE 6ni P.M., COUNTY Of LARIMER, STATE Of COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A PO INT ON THE EAST I.NE Of THE NE 1/4 Of THE NE 1/4 Of SAO SECllON 26, FROM WHICH POINT THE NE CORNER Of SAID SECTION 26 BEARS N 1 DEGREES 11' WA DISTANCE OF 373 FEET, ANO WHICH IS THE CENTER Of THE FAU RIVER ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN THE DESCRIPTION Of Tl-£ ELkHORN PROPElnY FOLINO IN DEED RECORDED IN 9001< 696 AT PAGE 463, LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE WESTERLY ANO t«lRTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CENltRUNE OF FAU. RIVER RCW> 1-S FOLLOWS: N 84 DEGREES lO' W, A DISTANCE Of 321 FEET; THENCE S 88 DEGREES OJ' WA DISTANCE Of 154 FEET; THOIICE S 68 DEGREES 04' W, A DISTANCE Of 311 FEET: THENCE N 84 OEGREES 26' WA DISTANCE Of 114 FEET; TH�CE LEAVING SAID RCW>, SJ [)(CREES 1.5' WA DISTNCE Of 877 FE!I' TO A POINT ON Tl-£ SOUTH LINE or Tl-£ NE 1/4 or Tl-£ NE 1/4; THENCE S 89 DEGREES 4r E A DISTNACE Of 944.9 Fffi TD TI-£ SE CORNER Of THE hE 1/4 or THE NE 1/4; THENCE N 1 DEGREES 11' WA DISTANCE OF 52 fEEr TO THE SW CORNER OF THE PARCEL DEEDED FROM EDWARD J. WALSH ANO [)( H. SIMMONS TO JAMES AND El..E.AH(J! HONDIUS RECORDED IN 80()I( 501 AT PAGE 72, LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE N 27 O£GREES 02' E A DISTANCE OF 23�.5 FEET; TI--ENCE N 18 DEGREES J4' E A DISTANCE OF 71.2 FEET ALONG niE EAST LINE Of PARCEL DEEDED FROM ELIZA E. WHrTEHEAO m MRS. ru..A J.WES RECORDED IN BOOK n, AT PAGE 143, I.ARIMER OOUNTY RECORDS, SAID POINT BEING w.RKEO WITH A 1 INCH STEEL PIPE SET 8't ORIGINAL SU�; THENCE N 68 DEGREES 34' E A DISTANCE Of 82.J FEET TO THE SW CORNER OF PARCEL DEEDED FROM FLORA ANO J.R. STANLEY TO EDNA JN.lai w !;;, 0 i;: i re � i � f :\ �:C�I � � �:� �y ij�� �:� niH���! � ��I��• �I��:"� �!;�-3or FEET .... -����---SECTION 26 BEARS N 25 DEGREES 32' WA DISTANCE Of 1153.7 FEET: THENCE N 2 DEGREES 14' EA DISTANCE Of 207 FEET TO THE CENTER OF FALL RIVER; THENCE WESTERLY ANO NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CENTER OF FM.l � M..OHG THE FlORA AND J.R. STANLEY PARCEl DEEDED TO EDNA JAMES AND A.N. MCl<EJRWN ANO THE PARCEL DEEDED FROM FRANK W. GORE TO WIUJAN E JAMES RECORDED IN BOOK 110 AT PAGE l02, LARIMER COUNTY RECORIX5 TO THE WEST LINE OF THE PHI 1/4 OF THE PHI 1/4 Of" SECTION 25; THENCE N 1 OEGREES 11' W A DISTANCE Of 65 FEET, t.«>RE OR LESS. TO THE POINT Of !£GINNING; l"XCEFT NN PORTION THEREOF CONTAINED IN THE AMENDED PlAT CF El..KHORH CLUB tsTAlF:S. AC<XIRDINC TO THE RECl'.:ROED F'tAT THEREOF"; EXCEPT TWAT PARCEL COtf.O'ED IN DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 18. 19311 IN 800K 5JII /ll <>ACE 314; EXCEPT TWAT PARCEi.. CONVE'YBl IN DEED RECOROED JULY 215, 1971 IN BOOK 1469 AT PAGE 7m EXCEPT REc::0R0ED PlAlS CF EU(HORN PLAZA LOOCai C()Noout,IJUWS. BUILDINCS A ANO 8. EXCEPT ,W.T POR110H 05CRIBE0 IN DEED R£CORO€D FEBRUARY 9. 1987 AT RECEPTION NO. 870075JO EXCEPT THOSE PARCELS DlliCRl8EO IN OEEOS RECOROED AUGUST 27, 1947 IN BOOK 839 AT PlrCE l.34,l35AN03J8 CONTAINING 18.58 ACRES MORE OR LESS: HAVE BY THESE PRESEJ\lTS CAUSED THE SAME TO BE SURVEYED ANO SUBOMDED INTO LOTS TO BE KNOWN AS THE ELKHORN LODGE SUBDMSION AND DO HEREBY DEDICATE AND CONVEY TO ANO FOR PUBLIC USE FOREVER HEREAFTER THE STREETS AS ARE LAID OUT ON THIS PLAT, AND DO ALSO RESERVE FOR PUBLIC USE FOREVER HEREAFTER THE PERPETUAL EASEMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION ANO MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE FEATURES AS ARE LAID OUT ANO DESIGNATED ON THIS PLAT, WITNESS OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS DATE __ DAY OF ____ 2019. JUSTIN MABEY MANAGER, EAST AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, LLC STATE OF COLORADO) )SS COUNlY OF LARIMER) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS __ DAY OF _______ 2020 BY JUSTIN MABEY. WITNESS MY HANO AND OFFICIAL SEAL. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ______ _ SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: NOTARY PUBLIC I, LONNIE A SHELDON, A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ELKHORN LODGE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN SECTION 25 ANO 26, T5N, R7.3W OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, TRULY AND CORRECTLY REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION. P.E. AND P.L.S. f26974 ,BOARD OF TRUSTEES' CER TIFICATE:. APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO BY A RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON THIS ___ DAY OF ____ 20_. TOWN CLERK MAYOR _TOWN ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE: APPROVED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER OF ESTES PARK THIS ___ DAY OF ____ 20_. TOWN ENGINEER NOTICE OF AP PROVAL: APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN CREATES A VESTEO PROPERTY RIGHT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 68 OF TITLE 24, C.R.S AS AMENDED. SURVEYOR NOTES: 1. t«lTE THAT ALL REQUIRED ITEMS ARE NOT SHOWN ON Tl1E PRELIMINARY SUBOMSION PLAT. All. FINAL IJTIUTIES, BUIU>INGS ANO DRIVES ARE SHOWN IN ORDER TO LOCATE NECESSARY EASEMENTS. SEE P.U.O. SET FO MORE DETAILS. 2. ACCESS AND PARKING ACROSS LOTS 1-8 IN THE PUD SHALL BE SHARED BETWEEN LOTS 1-8. THERE WILL BE A BLANKET EASEMENT ACROSS THESE LOTS FOR THE ACCESS A.NO PARKING. J. LOTS 8-13 HA.VE A BLANKET EASEMENT roR 0\/ERHEAO PRIVATE ELECTRIC LINES TO SERVICE THE BUILDINGS. 4, LANO TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY TITLE COMMITMENT NO. rcC25162932-2 WAS USED roR OWNERSHIP AND EASEMENT RESEARCH. 5. BASIS Of BEARINGS: THE EAST LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 Of SECTION 26, T5N, R7JW OF THE 6TH. P.M. AS MONUMENTED ON THE f,fQRTH BY A J.25-G.L.O. BRASS CAP A.NO ON THE SOUTH BY A 2" ALUMINUM CAP 6499; SAID LINE HAVING A BEARING OF S01'07'J2"E AS MEASURED BY GPS OBSERVATION USING THE COLORADO STATE PL.A.NE NORTH ZONE (AT GROUND). 6. THERE IS NO OEMOUS EASEMENT LOCATED IN THE TTTlE WORK FOR THE SEWER MAIN RUNNING THROUGHOUT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH BY THIS SURVEYOR COULD NOT LOCATE AN EASEMENT IN THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERI< ANO RECORDERS RECORDS. HOWEVER, THE ESTES PARK SANITATION DISTRICT MAY HAVE A RE:COROEO EASEMENT ON FILE fOR THIS SEWER MAIN. 7. THE LEGAL. DESCRIPTION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ROTATED 0-03'28" CLOCKWISE TO MATCH THE BASIS OF BEARINGS. FURTHER, AU. NEIGHBORING DEEDS AND EASEME:NTS WE:RE ROTATED AS NE:EDEO TO MATCH SAID BASIS OF BEARINGS. 8. THE LINEAR UNIT FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE U.S. SURVEY FOOT. 9. ACCORDING TO COLORAOO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE A.HY LEGAL. ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE DATE YOU FIRST DISCO\/ER SUCH OEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY Ar-If ACTION UPON IN1 DEfECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS rROM THE CERTIFICATION DATE SHOWN HEREON. VTCJNTTY MAP SCALE: 1 � = 1200' DRAWN BY: JWC CHECKED BY: LAS SCALE 1"=50' DATE: 12 1B 2019 SHEET 1 or 1 PROJ. NO. 2019-02-02 38 Attachment 8: Elkhorn Suites ,----' i i i :-------' @ !'!f>.ORPIAN LEVB.1 @�GA-LEVB.2 RDORPIAN f4} � 0 !3-3 RDORPIAN ' ! ! :---,-----; __ ,-------, ___________ ,J.J 12/18/20193:52:48PM (/) UJ t::: ::::> 0 (/) u 1€ z It0 � I �....J UJ AE2018.208 RDORPIANS - LEVB.51 - 3 D"lf12/18/2019 3:52:48 PM A111 39 4'4' 4$'$., 1* 678', 2$'$., 1* 678', 2'4.,1*(/(&4' 4' 4., 1*., 1*., 1*'4(/(& 6725$*((/(& 6725$*(' 4' 4' 4' 4' 4' 4' 4' 4' 4' 4' 4' 4' 4 4 4 522) 79 7 797 797 797 797 797'421( 50 421( 50 421( 50 421( 50 421( 50 421( 50 4$'$' 4 678', 279 B 779-7- 7979 B B 7-- 7 79 B7 40 41 Attachment 9: Elkhorn Lodge Events Barn ------------------------------------------------------------------------------•-------t BANQUET HALL I',---,-------�------­�-------�-------�------­�------­�------­�-------�-------�------- ALT. BAR LOCATION f------­ :::----+-----------------�=------------------+ , , , , , , , , , , , , ---------. --------.. -------- 1 DECK \ \, ABOVE i:TTTTT \ _______ _llllllll•H-ll++ttt� ' ' ' ' ' ' '---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------' f2ll,pp31"Roor 1/8'' = 1'-0' SECONDARY EVENTS SPACE 1 0-ourdRoor 1/8'' = 1'-0' �N GROUND FLOOR -4,900 SF BANQUET FLOOR -3,200 SF UNCOVERED DECK -1,200 SF f 0 970.586.9140 BAS1Scom ©!WilS Arcliitruure, P.C. Issue: Dev. Plan Date: 12/18/19 Cl) a, ,:s C 0 .. ..I ffl C l:G ._ CII 0 .. .C C � : w w Sheet Title: Plans Sheet No: c:: LO 0 • CX) �o <{ () C �-"' 0 � .c (1) -"' c.. iii CJ) o2 0 CJ) <OW Al 42 Attachment 10: Riverside Restaurant Plan 4'-0" 28'-0" ■ □□ □� l8l D Ground Floor 1/8" = 1'-0" 26'-0" RIVERSIDE DECK HOST () ENTRY PORCH ■ ■ 3,400 SF ■ N 28'-0" 6'-6" OOD STORAGE/PREP SERVICE ENTRY 970.586.9140 BAS1S.COTI ©B<\SIS Architgture, P.C. Issue: Concepts Date: 11/20/2019 en .. � � C ·-en r--0 .. T""" CJ � 0 .. >Q) CX) ·-�o C � ca I c o .. C ,._� :::, .. 0 ,._ ..c co ca 0 � (l_ .. .c w (/) en � o2 � -0 Cl) � w c.oW Sheet Title: PLANS Sheet No: A2.0 43 28'-0" 26'-0" �o0 �o0 �o0 �o00000 00 00 �o0 �o0 �o0 □ UPPER DECK 00 00 00 □ □o□tJ �oo 0 0 00oO WALKWAY RAILING DINING 9 ZS o◊0 0 oO OPEN TO BELOW D Upper Floor 1/8" = 1'-0"2,640 SF 28'-0" 0 �o0 �o0□00 00 □□□ 0D q OCfIREPLACE □ □ □ ooo 1□ ZS 0 0 oO STORAGE SERVING AREA N 9 � WJ u 0 ........ Q) .... -0. - I(') r--"' w Cl) 0 • co Q) 0 w.a,: � "C => C � I- 0 .2� 0 �8w E G 1--_g�- I- C. :c .21 � o Ill -C\l a,: N 1/1 a, w <( '° .... 970.586.9140 BAS1S.COTI ©B<\SIS Architkrture P.C. Issue: Concepts Date: 11/20/2019 en .. � � C ·-en r--0 .. T""" CJ � 0 .. > Q) CX) ·-�o C � ca I c o .. C ,.._ � :::, .. 0 ,.._ ..c co ca 0 �a... .. .c w (/) en � o2 � -0 Cl) � w c.oW Sheet Title: PLANS Sheet No: A2.1 44 Attachment 11: Hillside Restaurant Retail Plan 50'-0" I, -1 l --------n I\ (1 r I I RETAIL RETAIL +/-14005, +/-14005, 90 '° N D Ground Floor 1/8" = 1'-0" WJ u 0 ........ Q) .... -0. - I(') r--"' w Cl) 0 • co a,: Q) 0 w.� "C :::> ctl C: ,._ � 1--0 .2 0 "' 0 o.u w E G 1--0 "" .s:: ,._ -I- �:c .21 "' 0 Ill $ C\l a,: N Ill a, w <( '° .... 970.586.9140 BAS1S.COTI ©B<\SIS Architgture, P.C. Issue: Concepts Date: 11/21/2019 en .. a. � CJ � C ,::s r--0 ·-T"" CJ en I.!) -0 .. -Q) CX) ·-C :c �o ca I c o .. C ,.._ � :::, .. 0 ,.._ ..c co ca 0 �a... .. .c w (/) en � o2 � -0 Cl) a: w c.oW Sheet Title: PLANS Sheet No: A2.0 45 50'-0" HALL/TBD +/-3,880SF 9 0 OVERED ENTRY Upper Floor N 1/8" = 1'-0" WJ u 0 ......... Q) .... -0. - I(') r--"' w Cl) 0 • co a,: Q) 0 w.� "C :::> ctl C: ... � I-0 .2 0 "' 0 o.u w E G I-0 "" .s:: ... -I- �:c .21 "' 0 Ill $ C\l a,: N Ill a, w <( '° .... 970.586.9140 BAS1S.COTI ©B<\SIS Architgture, P.C. Issue: Concepts Date: 11/21/2019 en .. a. � CJ � C ,::s r--0 ·-T""" CJ en I.!) -0 .. -Q) CX) ·-C :c �o ca I c o .. C ,.__� :::, .. 0 ,.__ ..c coca 0 � (l_ .. .c w (/) en � o2 � -0 Cl) a: w c.oW Sheet Title: PLANS Sheet No: A2.1 46 Attachment 12: Coach House Restaurant Plan v:oo◊◊ v:o◊ DECK◊◊ □□ □□ □□ ■ v:oo □ ◊◊ UTIL/STG SERVICE ENTRY □□ □□ □ □ DECK □ COVERED DECK HOST V KITCHEN ;----1brRooo------------,ml i FOOD STORAGE □□ □QJ□□ □□ □QJ□□ LINE OF EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL Ground Floor 1/8" = 1'-0" N 2,800 SF WJ u 0 ......... Q) .... -0. - I(') r--"' w Cl) 0 • co w. a,: Q) 0 � "C :::> ctl C: ... � I-O 0 0 "'0o.uE I-0 "" .s:: ... -I- �.21 "' 0 Ill $ C\l a,: N Ill a, w 970.586.9140 BAS1S.COTI ©B<\SIS Architgture, P.C. Issue: Concepts Date: 11/25/2019 en Cl) .. en a.:::s Cl) 0CJC .c 0 CJ CJ ftS .. 0 C CJ ftS I .. C :::s .. ftS 0 .. .c en � Cl) -a: w Sheet Title: r-- T""" 0 Q) CX) �o c o ,.__� 0 ,.__ ..c co � (l_ w (/) o2 0 Cl) c.oW PLANS Sheet No: A2.0 47 0o0 o O <::o0 ◊◊ 00° ◊◊ 0o0 00 0o0◊◊ DECK ◊◊<::o0 I\ <::o0◊◊ ◊◊ r-------., , t\.� I I I : OPE,"i::: UPPER SEATING : TO:::: (�!;Jf\Af� " DN " ,-----" �I i -t r,-,--,-,J-ii : : : : : : : I I I I I I I -L------.L...L...L...L...J. ______ J 0o0 <::o0 <::o0◊◊ ◊◊ ◊◊ I I l�LINEOFWALLS BELOW _J i _J N Upper Floor 1/8" = 1'-0" +/· 750 SF 0 rf'\'1;, u � r-­l.J�a-. . a, T"" -0.. ...., LO Cl) 0 r--"' w • co Q) 0 rt'\ a: � al lJ,J,, => C '-� I- 0 . 2 0 �8 w E G ... _g�� - I- c.. :c Cl) ti) ·-Q) o Ill - a,:�� <( '° 970.586.9140 BAS1S.COTI ©B<\SIS Architgture, P.C. Issue: Concepts Date: 11/25/2019 en CP.. ena. :::s Cl) 0 CJ ::c C .C0 CJCJ ftS.. 0 C CJ ftS Ia,. C :::s .. ftS 0 .. .cen �Cl) -a: w Sheet Title: r-- T""" I.!) 0 Q) CX) �o c o ,._� _g ro � (l_ w (/) o2 0 Cl) c.oW PLANS Sheet No: A2.1 48 _, ,_, '-/ '-/ I '-/ I I '-/ I C I '-/ I I '-/ I / '-/ '- I / '-I I / '-I / '-/ '-k' _____ -,,j k' _____ -,,j � � Q. :::>� �- I (1 DISTILLERY 0 _!!E.------------- r-T�\t I I ILll.1 I I I Basement 1/8" = 1'-0" N m WJ u 0 ......... Q) .... -0. - I(') r--"' w Cl) 0 • co a,: Q) 0 w.� "C :::> ctl C: ... � I-0 .2 0 "' 0 o.u w E G I-0 "" .s:: ... -I- �:c .21 "' 0 Ill $ C\l a,: N Ill a, w <( '° .... 970.586.9140 BAS1S.COTI ©B<\SIS Architgture, P.C. Issue: Concepts Date: 11/25/2019 en Cl) .. en a.:::s Cl) 0 CJ ::c C .C r--0 CJ T""" I.!) CJ ftS 0 .. 0 Q) CX) C CJ �o ftS I c o .. C ,._� :::s .. 0 ,._..c co ftS 0 � (l_ .. .c en w (/) Cl) � o2 0 Cl) a: w c.oW Sheet Title: PLANS Sheet No: A2.2 49 Elkhorn Lodge Revitalization June 23, 2020 50 East Avenue Development is a real estate development firm specializing in the hospitality and retail markets in Colorado, Texas and Utah. Current focus in and around National Parks! Our goal is to build long term relationships, projects that enhance communities, and sustainable financial results for our partners 51 Previous Projects Moab, UT Hilton Homewood Suites & the Expedition Lodge 52 Previous Projects Zion National Park Bed & Breakfast – Nightly Rentals 53 Previous Projects 54 Why Elkhorn Lodge? •Our focus and love of National Parks •Unique opportunity with so much historical significance •Ability to revitalize an area that used to be a key part of Estes Park •Opportunity to bring high-end hotel brand into town •Chance to facilitate incredible new restaurants •Make a long term impact in Estes Park at the gateway to Rocky Mountain National Park 55 What are the goals for redevelopment? •Preserve the History and expand the story of Elkhorn Lodge Historic lodge, Coach House, Church, School house •Create a unique experience for the area •Mixed use project with focus on hospitality, restaurants and some retail 56 Potential Site Plan 57 Potential Elkhorn Suites 58 Potential Elkhorn Suites 59 Potential Elkhorn Suites 60 Potential Riverside Restaurant 61 Potential Hillside Retail - Restaurant 62 Potential Coach House Restaurant 63 Potential Elkhorn Stables Event Center 64 Engineering Highlights •New Turn Lane on Elkhorn Ave •Flood plain – New wall – zero rise •Preserving 4 of 5 buildings noted as historically significant •Upgrade of existing sewer system through property •Upgrading existing entry with paved and safer access •Required to have 30% open space – currently have 41% •Required maximum lot coverage 65%, currently have 36% •Desired 12-24 month build out of entire project 65 Estes Park Downtown Plan 66 Q&A 67 Start dateAgenda_Item_Title Name Stance_on_item Comments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_File_Upload6/23/2020 10:01 AM Ordinance 05‐20. Ryan Esch NeutralI am the owner of 550 W Elkhorn Ave Unit A4 which is one of 2 units that will be heavily impacted by the Elkhorn Lodge development.  As it currently stands, my unit's front door will face the proposed restaurant's service door.  While I'm not against the new development I do want to express a few concerns that I have in regards to my property to the board.1. Between the condo's association property line and the restaurant's property line, what can be done about noisemitigation coming from the restaurant? 2. I'd like to propose that the service door and dumpster area be moved or re‐positioned away from the front door units ofA4 and A7.  If this was one of your properties, you wouldn't care to smell trash and or cigarette smoke.3. With the increase of car traffic, what can be done to ensure that hotel guests will not be parking in the condo's parkinglot?  Can the developer install a parking lot gate with keypad that only condo owner's are able to open and close?Thank you.Public Comment Received by Noon 06-23-2020 When this project was being considered this spring by the various committees and boards, concurrently with the increasing threat of the Covid -19 pandemic, it was stated by Town authorities that final consideration of the Elkhorn project would be deferred until such time as a proper opportunity for public input was possible. It’s hard to understand how this virtual meeting fits that description. We, Judy and I, have talked with several friends and acquaintances in town, and most have only the vaguest knowledge of what’s going on with this proposal. Some are totally unaware. This is a significant project that involves the partial destruction of one of the most important historical sites in Colorado. Yet, it’s barely being covered by the local press. We found no mention of the fact that the Town Board Meeting tonight would be considering this proposal in recent issues of either of the town newspapers. This is reminiscent of the time we encountered a huge line at the main entrance to the Louvre. We were able to find a side entrance with virtually no line. An English couple we had encountered in the main line commented on the way in the side door, “This must be the best kept secret in France.” Well, I’m thinking that this proposal, and its being judged tonight, might be the best kept secret in Colorado. That’s not a good thing! In regard to the proposal itself, we recognize that the Elkhorn property is badly in need of attention, and has been for some time. Hopefully, the Board will cause the developer to salvage the essential character of the lodge and the important out buildings, the old school house, the old church, and of course, the Coach House. We understand that this is a logical place to site a couple of restaurants. But in regard to the restaurants, this proposal includes a new restaurant building to be sited immediately west of the Elkhorn Plaza Lodges, two condominium buildings constructed by a previous owner of the Elkhorn property over 50 years ago. This proposed restaurant is sited just about as close to these condos as possible, which will likely cause about as much disruption to our “quiet enjoyment” of our properties as possible. IS IT REALLY NECESSARY, IN A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE, TO JAM A DISRUPTIVE BUSINESS OPERATION UP SO CLOSE TO LONG-STANDING RESIDENCES? Further to the discussion of this proposed restaurant, the developer’s plan sites the TWO STORY BUILDING, WITH DECKS, just far enough north (toward the river), that it will block our (all condo units’) little peek at the Front Range. THIS ALSO SEEMS TO BE UNNECESSARILY HARSH TREATMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. IN FACT, THIS PROPOSAL, IN OUR OPINION, JAMMS A LITTLE TOO MUCH INTO THE AVAILABLE SPACE. WE SUGGEST THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER ALL AROUND TO JUST ELIMINATE THIS RESTAURANT BUILDING. Lastly, and probably most importantly, the hotel, the keystone of this proposed project. We have been unable to find out what “brand” of hotel it will be, and suspect that information has not been divulged. THE BOARD ISN’T GOING TO GREEN LIGHT A PROJECT LACKING THIS INFORMATION, IS IT? WE COULD FIND OURSELVES ACROSS THE PARKING LOT FROM A MOTEL SIX! PLEASE DO NOT VOTE TO APPROVE THIS PROPOSAL IN ITS CURRENT FORM! Thanks for your consideration of the above, Bob & Judy Ayres 550 W. Elkhorn Some of the power utility comes in from the West and runs underground. However, the utility pole and transformer for that restaurant appears to be sited immediately adjacent to the boundary line between the two properties and directly in the same West sight-line from the Elkhorn Plaza Association condos. Surely the developer could run all electrical utilities underground on the property as part of the new development. Thanks for your consideration of my comment. Judy Ayres 1 PROCEDURE FOR LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Applicable items include: Annexation, Amended Plats, Boundary Line Adjustments, Development Plans, Rezoning, Special Review, Subdivision 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEM 1.C RESOLUTION 18-20 ELKHORN LODGE PRELIMINARY PLAT, 600 ELKHORN AVENUE, ZAHOUREK CONSERVANCY, LLC, OWNER, EAST AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A TEXAS LLC, C/O JUSTIN MABEY, APPLICANT.  At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, from the Applicant, public comment, and written comments received on the application.  Has any Trustee had any ex-parte communications concerning this application(s) which are not part of the Board packet.  Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public hearing which may be responded to at that time.  Mayor declares the Public Hearing open. 2. STAFF REPORT.  Review the staff report.  Review any conditions for approval not in the staff report. 3. APPLICANT.  The applicant makes their presentation. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT.  Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the application. All individuals must state their name and address for the record. Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per person. 5. REBUTTAL. 167 2  The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal that is limited to or in response to statements or questions made after their presentation. No new matters may be submitted. 6. MAYOR.  Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application which are not in the Board packet.  Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the application.  Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications presented will be accepted as part of the record.  Declare the public hearing closed.  Request Board consider a motion. 7. SUGGESTED MOTION.  Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. 8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. Discussion by the Board on the motion. 9. VOTE ON THE MOTION. Vote on the motion or consideration of another action. 168 Community Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: June 23, 2020 RE: Resolution 18 – 20, Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary Subdivision Plat, 600 West Elkhorn Avenue, Zahourek Conservancy, LLC, Owner, East Avenue Development, LLC, A Texas LLC, c/o Justin Mabey, Applicant (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider and make a decision on the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary Subdivision Plat. NOTE: Please refer to staff report memo for the Elkhorn Lodge Planned Unit Development (PUD), which contains relevant information for this preliminary plat application. The PUD will be on the Town Board agenda immediately prior to this preliminary plat. Action Recommended: The Estes Valley Planning Commission, at their meeting on February 25, 2020, voted to recommend approval of the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary Subdivision Plat. Sample Motions: 1. I move to approve Resolution 18-20 for the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary Plat according to findings of fact with findings as recommended by staff. 2. I move to deny Resolution 18-20 for the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary Plat finding that … [state findings for denial]. 3. I move to continue Resolution 18-20, for the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary Plat to the next regularly scheduled meeting. (State reasons for continuance.) Attachment: Resolution 18-20 169 RESOLUTION 18-20 APPROVING ELKHORN LODGE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT WHEREAS, an application for the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary Subdivision Plat was filed by East Avenue Development, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (applicant); and WHEREAS, the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary Subdivision Plat proposes thirteen (13) lots on a parcel approximately 18.58 acres in size, located within a CO (Outlying Commercial) Zoning District, with a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development overlay (Elkhorn Lodge PUD) also proposed for the subject property; and WHEREAS, the lots created by Elkhorn Lodge Subdivision Preliminary Plat are proposed to range from 0.276 to 3.291 acres in size; and WHEREAS, a public meeting was held before the Estes Valley Planning Commission on February 25, 2020, at the conclusion of which the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat with the following findings: 1. The Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat are generally consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat are generally consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the Estes Park Downtown Plan. 3. The Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat comply with applicable standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code... 4. The Planning Commission is the recommending body, and is to forward a recommendation on the Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat to the Town Board of Trustees. 5. Adequate public facilities are currently available to serve the proposed project. 6. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were raised by any review agency. WHEREAS, a public hearing, preceded by proper public notice, was held by the Board of Trustees on February 25, 2020 and at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has reviewed and taken administrative notice of the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the testimony, application, evidence, documents submitted at the hearing, and the contents of the Community Development Director’s file; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees finds the applicant has complied with the applicable requirements of the Estes Park Development Code. 170 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary Subdivision Plat is hereby approved. DATED this day of , 2020. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 171       FINANCE DEPT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director Date: June 23, 2020 RE: Resolution 39-20 Supplemental Budget Appropriations (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Amend the budget to allow the filling of a vacant fleet mechanic position in July left vacant through September due to COVID-19. Present Situation: On April 28, 2020, the Town Board reduced the 2020 operating budget in response to anticipated revenue impacts of the COVID-19 response. One of those reductions was deferring filling of a vacant fleet mechanic position until Sept 2020. This position has been vacant all year and is now beginning to impact operations and the ability to maintain and service the Town fleet of vehicles and equipment. Nine years ago, the Fleet Division was staffed with 3.5 FTEs to maintain about 375 pieces of equipment. Since then, the number of pieces of equipment has grown to approx. 500 which the Fleet Division has been servicing with 3 FTEs. With the resignation of one of the mechanics in November 2019, the Fleet Division has been operating for months with only 2 FTE’s. At the same time, the equipment maintenance demands have increased as a result of additional equipment acquisitions and increased volume of system construction projects such as broadband construction, water line replacements, Spring maintenance and other activities. This increased equipment usage leads to increased maintenance and repair demands. The Fleet Division has been managing the workload by working overtime, delaying important preventative maintenance work, delaying annual DOT inspections, and delaying training while prioritizing urgent repairs first. The cumulative effect of this diminished staffing and increased work load has resulted in a substantial backlog of incomplete repair work for our two mechanics to address as well as significantly increasing their work pressures and stress. Equipment operators are becoming reluctant to bring in equipment for service due to this backlog and the unavoidable 172 longer turnaround times, sometimes leading to more expensive and impactful breakdowns. In April, a qualified local applicant responded to the previously open hiring recruitment. Public Works is requesting authorization to proceed in the recruitment effort with a goal of filling the vacant position in July instead of September as currently stipulated in the COVID-19 related budget reduction. Proposal: The Fleet Maintenance Fund charges other departments and funds, including the utility funds, for repairs and maintenance work done on their vehicles and equipment, similar to a vehicle repair shop. The Fleet Maintenance Fund estimated revenue from these repairs and maintenance charges was not reduced in the initial round of COVID-19 budget reductions. As a result, the revenues for the Fleet Maintenance Fund operations are still currently budgeted and left as unrestricted and unobligated fund balance in the Fleet Maintenance Fund. Staff is proposing that the appropriation to hire the vacant fleet mechanic position be increased to allow for the position to be filled and the employee start in July instead of waiting until September. This appropriation will be funded out of the Fleet Maintenance Fund reserves without additional impact to the General Fund or other operating funds. Fleet Maintenance Fund - $21,275 Increase 21,275 Authorize filling vacant mechanic position in July instead of waiting until September 2020 Advantages: Town vehicles and equipment servicing can resume, allowing for more timely repairs and maintenance. Does not impact the General Fund reserves, which are currently estimated at 20.7%. Disadvantages: Risk that the COVID-19 revenue projections are too optimistic. Staff believes that our revenue impacts are projected conservatively high (projected sales tax decrease is on the high end), but this is a fluid situation. These funds would not be available to transfer back to the General Fund if needed. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the supplemental budget resolution as presented, authorizing hiring the fleet mechanic in July instead of September 2020. Finance/Resource Impact: After reflecting these changes, the General Fund is projected to end 2020 with a 20.7% fund balance. Each fund is expected to end with a positive fund balance as well. 173 Level of Public Interest The level of public interest is expected to low. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Resolution 39-20 Supplemental Budget Appropriations to the 2020 Budget. Attachments: 1. Resolution 39-20 Supplemental Budget Appropriations to the 2020 Budget 2.Recap of Proposed Budget Amendments and Supporting Schedules 174 RESOLUTION 39-20 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS TO THE 2020 BUDGET WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has adopted the 2020 annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 26th, 2019; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to fill a vacant fleet mechanic position in July instead of later this fall as currently budgeted; and WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the revenues provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below, so as not to impair the operations of the Town of Estes Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the appropriations be increased by $21,275 for the funds specified below and these amounts are hereby appropriated from additional revenue or available fund balance of each fund. Fund # Fund Name Existing Appropriations Amendment Amended Appropriations 101 General Fund 20,817,556 0 20,817,556 204 Community Reinvestment Fund 2,023,673 0 2,023,673 211 Conservation Trust Fund 101,678 0 101,678 220 Larimer County Open Space Fund 2,504,167 0 2,504,167 236 Emergency Response System Fund 57,544 0 57,544 238 Community Center Fund 479,271 0 479,271 244 Trails Fund 1,773,917 0 1,773,917 256 Parking Services Fund 350,991 0 350,991 260 Street Fund 2,016,703 0 2,016,703 502 Power and Communications Fund 45,950,831 0 45,950,831 503 Water Fund 22,453,190 0 22,453,190 606 Medical Insurance Fund 2,493,000 0 2,493,000 612 Fleet Maintenance Fund 400,003 21,275 421,278 625 Information Technology Fund 879,656 0 879,656 635 Vehicle Replacement Fund 538,904 0 538,904 645 Risk Management Fund 307,344 0 307,344 Total All Funds 103,148,428 21,275 103,169,703 175 DATED this day of , 2020. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 176 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BUDGET RECAP BY FUND FOR YEAR ENDED 12-31-2020 BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 101 204 211 220 236 238 244 256 260 GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT CONSERVATION TRUST LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMUNITY CENTER TRAILS PARKING SERVICES FUND STREET Revenues $13,848,590 $2,026,673 $32,300 $1,906,500 $48,177 $479,271 $1,284,981 $350,991 $1,180,251 Expenses 20,817,556 2,023,673 101,678 2,504,167 57,544 479,271 1,773,917 350,991 2,016,703 Net (6,968,966)3,000 (69,378)(597,667)(9,367)0 (488,936)0 (836,452) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance, 1/1/20 11,234,832 0 92,077 704,395 90,212 23,575 758,679 0 1,244,772 Estimated Ending Fund Balance, 12/31/20 $4,265,866 $3,000 $22,699 $106,728 $80,845 $23,575 $269,743 $0 $408,320 Budgeted Reserves Thumb Open Space Reserve - Now Appropriated --------- Pkg Garage Maint Reserve 101-1700-417-37-99 24,000 -------- Nonspendable Restr Donations 192,228 -------- Fund Balance Reserves 4,971,928 -------- Total Reserved Fund Balance 5,188,156 -------- Unreserved Budgetary Fund Balance ($922,290)$3,000 $22,699 $106,728 $80,845 $23,575 $269,743 $0 $408,320 502 503 606 612 625 635 645 POWER AND COMMUNICATIONS WATER MEDICAL INSURANCE FLEET INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY VEHICLE REPLACEMENT RISK MANAGEMENT TOTAL Revenues, As Amended $17,534,551 $18,210,524 $2,501,787 $502,766 $897,729 $478,889 $307,344 $61,591,324 Expenses, As Amended 45,950,831 22,453,190 2,493,000 421,278 879,656 538,904 307,344 103,169,703 Net (28,416,280) (4,242,666)8,787 81,488 18,073 (60,015)0 (41,578,379) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance, 1/1/20 37,791,203 9,354,097 2,032,743 554,671 307,066 571,173 44 64,759,539 Estimated Ending Fund Balance, 12/31/20 $9,374,923 $5,111,431 $2,041,530 $636,159 $325,139 $511,158 $44 $23,181,160 Budgeted Reserves Thumb Open Space Reserve - Now Appropriated -------- Pkg Garage Maint Reserve 101-1700-417-37-99 -------24,000 Nonspendable Restr Donations -------192,228 Equipment Reserve 1,651,484 505,590 ---511,158 -2,668,232 Fund Balance Reserves 4,842,979 1,250,000 956,012 42,128 200,000 --12,263,047 Total Reserved Fund Balance 6,494,463 1,755,590 956,012 42,128 200,000 511,158 -15,147,507 Unreserved Budgetary Fund Balance $2,880,460 $3,355,841 $1,085,518 $594,031 $125,139 $0 $44 $8,033,653 Attachment 2 - Recap of Proposed Budget Amendments 177 TOWN OF ESTES PARK GENERAL FUND BUDGET RESERVE RATIO FOR YEAR ENDED 12-31-2020 BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC General Fund Comm Reinvestment Fund Total Fund Balance $4,265,866 $3,000 $4,268,866 Reserves to Exclude Parking Garage Maintenance Reserve 24,000 24,000 Prepaids and Restricted Donations Estimate 122,000 122,000 146,000 - 146,000 Fund Balance Subject to Reserve Calculation 4,119,866 3,000 4,122,866 Total Expenditures 20,817,556 2,023,673 22,841,229 Less Transfers Out Between GF & CRF 2,016,673 - 2,016,673 Net Expenditures 18,800,883 2,023,673 20,824,556 Less Capital Expenditures Cap Outlay - Front End Loader (Bi-annual Trade In) - Streets 20,000 20,000 Cap Outlay - Bobcat Trade Ins 2 (Annual trade in) - Parks 6,450 6,450 Cap Outlay - CIP - Town Hall VRF Phase 1 (Air Conditioners) - - CIP - Downtown Wayfinding 2020 - - CIP - Events Center Stall Leveling - - Comm Dr Roundabout 864,697 864,697 Board Room AV 45,696 45,696 Total Capital to Exclude 26,450 910,393 936,843 Total Expenditures Subject to Reserve Calculation 18,774,433 1,113,280 19,887,713 Reserve Ratio 21.9% 0.3% 20.7% 178 TOWN OF ESTES PARK SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED REVENUE FOR YEAR ENDED 12-31-2020 BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC Fund/Dept Fund Name 2020 As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended 101 GENERAL FUND 13,848,590 -13,848,590 204 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 2,026,673 -2,026,673 211 CONSERVATION TRUST 32,300 -32,300 220 LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE 1,906,500 -1,906,500 236 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 48,177 -48,177 238 COMMUNITY CENTER 479,271 -479,271 244 TRAILS 1,284,981 -1,284,981 256 PARKING SERVICES FUND 350,991 -350,991 260 STREET 1,180,251 -1,180,251 502 POWER AND COMMUNICATIONS 17,534,551 -17,534,551 503 WATER 18,210,524 -18,210,524 606 MEDICAL INSURANCE 2,501,787 -2,501,787 612 FLEET 502,766 -502,766 625 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 897,729 -897,729 635 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT 478,889 -478,889 645 RISK MANAGEMENT 307,344 -307,344 TOTAL 61,591,324 -61,591,324 179 TOWN OF ESTES PARK SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR YEAR ENDED 12-31-2020 BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC Fund/Dept Fund Name 2020 As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended 101 GENERAL FUND 101-1100 Legislative 299,675 - 299,675 101-1190 Town Attorney' Office 338,847 - 338,847 101-1200 Judicial 77,187 - 77,187 101-1300 Town Administrator's Office 375,076 - 375,076 101-1400 Town Clerk's Office 333,056 - 333,056 101-1500 Finance 573,808 - 573,808 101-1600 Com Dev ( Planning)774,615 - 774,615 101-1700 Facilities 1,363,903 - 1,363,903 101-1800 Human Resources 283,618 - 283,618 101-1900 Community Service Grants 1,338,284 - 1,338,284 101-2100 Police - Patrol 3,831,922 - 3,831,922 101-2155 Police - Communications 961,114 - 961,114 101-2175 Police - Comm Svcs 372,388 - 372,388 101-2185 Police - Code Enforcement 163,394 - 163,394 101-2300 Building Safety Divison 644,384 - 644,384 101-2400 Engineering 413,211 - 413,211 101-2600 Visitor Center 449,421 - 449,421 101-3100 Streets 1,220,321 - 1,220,321 101-5200 Parks 1,186,325 - 1,186,325 101-5500 Special Events 1,731,208 - 1,731,208 101-5600 Transportation 1,355,856 - 1,355,856 101-5700 Museum 403,679 - 403,679 101-9000 Transfers 2,326,264 - 2,326,264 101 GENERAL FUND 20,817,556 - 20,817,556 204 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 2,023,673 - 2,023,673 211 CONSERVATION TRUST 101,678 - 101,678 220 LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE 2,504,167 - 2,504,167 236 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 57,544 - 57,544 238 COMMUNITY CENTER 479,271 - 479,271 244 TRAILS 1,773,917 - 1,773,917 256 PARKING SERVICES FUND 350,991 - 350,991 260 STREET 2,016,703 - 2,016,703 502 POWER AND COMMUNICATIONS 45,950,831 - 45,950,831 503 WATER 22,453,190 - 22,453,190 606 MEDICAL INSURANCE 2,493,000 - 2,493,000 612 FLEET 400,003 21,275 421,278 625 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 879,656 - 879,656 635 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT 538,904 - 538,904 645 RISK MANAGEMENT 307,344 - 307,344 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 103,148,428 21,275 103,169,703 180 TOWN OF ESTES PARK GENERAL FUND SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 2020 Budget As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended REVENUE Taxes 9,488,616 - 9,488,616 Intergovernmental 24,675 -24,675 Rental Income 30,600 -30,600 Investment Income 60,000 -60,000 Miscellaneous 27,778 -27,778 Transfers In 1,858,565 - 1,858,565 Departmental Revenues 2,358,356 - 2,358,356 Total Revenues 13,848,590 - 13,848,590 Legislative 299,675 -299,675 Town Attorney's Office 338,847 -338,847 Judicial 77,187 -77,187 Town Administrator's Office 375,076 -375,076 Town Clerk's Office 333,056 -333,056 Finance 573,808 -573,808 Planning 774,615 -774,615 Facilities 1,363,903 - 1,363,903 Human Resources 283,618 -283,618 Community Svcs 1,338,284 - 1,338,284 Police - Patrol 3,831,922 - 3,831,922 Police - Communications 961,114 -961,114 Police - Comm Svc 372,388 -372,388 Police - Code Enforcement 163,394 -163,394 Building Safety 644,384 -644,384 Engineering 413,211 -413,211 Visitor Services 449,421 -449,421 Streets and Highways 1,220,321 - 1,220,321 Parks 1,186,325 - 1,186,325 Special Events 1,731,208 - 1,731,208 Transit 1,355,856 - 1,355,856 Museum 403,679 -403,679 Transfers Out 2,326,264 -2,326,264 Total Expenditures 20,817,556 - 20,817,556 Net Income (Loss)(6,968,966)- (6,968,966) Beginning Fund Balance 11,234,832 - 11,234,832 Ending Fund Balance 4,265,866 - 4,265,866 181 TOWN OF ESTES PARK COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 2020 Budget As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended REVENUE Intergovernmental --- Investment Income 10,000 -10,000 Miscellaneous --- Transfers In 2,016,673 - 2,016,673 Debt Proceeds --- Departmental Revenues --- Total Revenues 2,026,673 - 2,026,673 Community Reinvestment Fund 153,953 -153,953 Capital Outlay 951,393 -951,393 Debt Service 918,327 -918,327 Transfers Out --- Rounding --- Total Expenditures 2,023,673 - 2,023,673 Net Income (Loss)3,000 -3,000 Beginning Fund Balance --- Ending Fund Balance 3,000 -3,000 182 TOWN OF ESTES PARK CONSERVATION TRUST FUND SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 2020 Budget As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended REVENUE Intergovernmental 32,000 -32,000 Investment Income 300 -300 Miscellaneous --- Total Revenues 32,300 -32,300 Conservation Trust Fund 101,678 -101,678 Rounding --- Total Expenditures 101,678 -101,678 Net Income (Loss)(69,378)-(69,378) Beginning Fund Balance 92,077 -92,077 Ending Fund Balance 22,699 -22,699 183 TOWN OF ESTES PARK LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 2020 Budget As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended REVENUE Intergovernmental 1,904,000 - 1,904,000 Investment Income 2,500 -2,500 Miscellaneous --- Transfers In --- Total Revenues 1,906,500 - 1,906,500 Open Space 168,899 -168,899 Capital Outlay 2,335,268 - 2,335,268 Transfers Out --- Rounding --- Total Expenditures 2,504,167 - 2,504,167 Net Income (Loss)(597,667)- (597,667) Beginning Fund Balance 704,395 -704,395 Ending Fund Balance 106,728 -106,728 184 TOWN OF ESTES PARK EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM FUND SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 2020 Budget As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended REVENUE Taxes 47,927 -47,927 Investment Income 250 -250 Miscellaneous --- Debt Proceeds --- Total Revenues 48,177 -48,177 Emergency Response System 57,544 -57,544 Capital Outlay --- Transfers Out --- Rounding --- Total Expenditures 57,544 -57,544 Net Income (Loss)(9,367)-(9,367) Beginning Fund Balance 90,212 -90,212 Ending Fund Balance 80,845 -80,845 185 TOWN OF ESTES PARK COMMUNITY CENTER FUND SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 2020 Budget As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended REVENUE Taxes 479,271 -479,271 Intergovernmental --- Charges for Services --- Rental Income --- Investment Income --- Miscellaneous --- Transfers In --- Debt Proceeds --- Departmental Revenues --- Total Revenues 479,271 -479,271 Community Center 479,271 -479,271 Transfers Out --- Rounding --- Total Expenditures 479,271 -479,271 Net Income (Loss)--- Beginning Fund Balance 23,575 -23,575 Ending Fund Balance 23,575 -23,575 186 TOWN OF ESTES PARK TRAILS EXPANSION FUND SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 2020 Budget As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended REVENUE Taxes 239,636 -239,636 Intergovernmental 1,043,745 - 1,043,745 Charges for Services --- Rental Income --- Investment Income 1,600 -1,600 Miscellaneous --- Transfers In --- Debt Proceeds --- Departmental Revenues --- Total Revenues 1,284,981 - 1,284,981 Trails Expansion Operations 28,919 -28,919 Capital Outlay 1,744,998 - 1,744,998 Transfers Out --- Rounding --- Total Expenditures 1,773,917 - 1,773,917 Net Income (Loss)(488,936)- (488,936) Beginning Fund Balance 758,679 -758,679 Ending Fund Balance 269,743 -269,743 187 TOWN OF ESTES PARK PARKING SERVICES FUND SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 2020 Budget As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended REVENUE Taxes --- Intergovernmental 15,000 -15,000 Charges for Services 26,400 -26,400 Rental Income --- Investment Income --- Miscellaneous --- Transfers In 309,591 -309,591 Debt Proceeds --- Departmental Revenues --- Total Revenues 350,991 -350,991 Parking Services Operations 350,991 -350,991 Rounding --- Total Expenditures 350,991 -350,991 Net Income (Loss)--- Beginning Fund Balance --- Ending Fund Balance --- 188 TOWN OF ESTES PARK STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 2020 Budget As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended REVENUE Taxes 1,150,251 - 1,150,251 Intergovernmental --- Charges for Services --- Rental Income --- Investment Income 30,000 -30,000 Miscellaneous --- Transfers In --- Debt Proceeds --- Departmental Revenues --- Total Revenues 1,180,251 - 1,180,251 Street Improvement Operations 743,615 -743,615 Capital Outlay 1,273,088 - 1,273,088 Transfers Out --- Rounding --- Total Expenditures 2,016,703 - 2,016,703 Net Income (Loss)(836,452)- (836,452) Beginning Fund Balance 1,244,772 - 1,244,772 Ending Fund Balance 408,320 -408,320 189 TOWN OF ESTES PARK POWER AND COMMUNICATIONS FUND SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 2020 Budget As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended REVENUE Taxes --- Intergovernmental --- Charges for Services 17,332,051 - 17,332,051 Rental Income --- Investment Income 90,000 -90,000 Miscellaneous 112,500 -112,500 Transfers In --- Debt Proceeds --- Departmental Revenues --- Total Revenues 17,534,551 - 17,534,551 Source of Supply 7,983,854 - 7,983,854 Distribution 4,384,662 - 4,384,662 Customer Accounts 531,758 -531,758 Admin & General 2,338,316 - 2,338,316 Debt Service 1,539,928 - 1,539,928 Broadband 873,370 -873,370 Capital Outlay 26,578,914 - 26,578,914 Transfers Out 1,720,029 - 1,720,029 Rounding --- Total Expenditures 45,950,831 - 45,950,831 Net Income (Loss)(28,416,280)- (28,416,280) Beginning Fund Balance 37,791,203 - 37,791,203 Ending Fund Balance 9,374,923 - 9,374,923 190 TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER FUND SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 2020 Budget As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended REVENUE Taxes --- Intergovernmental 6,547,000 - 6,547,000 Charges for Services 5,919,274 - 5,919,274 Rental Income --- Investment Income 95,000 -95,000 Miscellaneous 40,250 -40,250 Transfers In --- Debt Proceeds 5,609,000 - 5,609,000 Departmental Revenues --- Total Revenues 18,210,524 - 18,210,524 Source of Supply 202,200 -202,200 Purification 1,169,295 - 1,169,295 Distribution 1,934,001 - 1,934,001 Customer Accounts 287,185 -287,185 Admin & General 847,489 -847,489 Debt Service 417,215 -417,215 Capital Outlay 17,457,269 - 17,457,269 Transfers Out 138,536 -138,536 Rounding --- Total Expenditures 22,453,190 - 22,453,190 Net Income (Loss)(4,242,666)- (4,242,666) Beginning Fund Balance 9,354,097 - 9,354,097 Ending Fund Balance 5,111,431 - 5,111,431 191 TOWN OF ESTES PARK MEDICAL INSURANCE FUND SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 2020 Budget As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended REVENUE Taxes --- Intergovernmental --- Charges for Services 2,486,537 - 2,486,537 Rental Income --- Investment Income 15,000 -15,000 Miscellaneous 250 -250 Transfers In --- Debt Proceeds --- Departmental Revenues --- Total Revenues 2,501,787 - 2,501,787 Medical Insurance Fund Operations 2,493,000 - 2,493,000 Rounding --- Total Expenditures 2,493,000 - 2,493,000 Net Income (Loss)8,787 -8,787 Beginning Fund Balance 2,032,743 - 2,032,743 Ending Fund Balance 2,041,530 - 2,041,530 192 TOWN OF ESTES PARK FLEET MAINTENANCE FUND SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 2020 Budget As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended REVENUE Taxes --- Intergovernmental --- Charges for Services 501,219 -501,219 Rental Income --- Investment Income 1,547 -1,547 Miscellaneous --- Transfers In --- Debt Proceeds --- Departmental Revenues --- Total Revenues 502,766 -502,766 Fleet Maintenance 390,003 21,275 411,278 Capital Outlay 10,000 -10,000 Rounding --- Total Expenditures 400,003 21,275 421,278 Net Income (Loss)102,763 (21,275) 81,488 Beginning Fund Balance 554,671 -554,671 Ending Fund Balance 657,434 (21,275) 636,159 193 TOWN OF ESTES PARK INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY FUND SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 2020 Budget As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended REVENUE Taxes --- Intergovernmental --- Charges for Services 892,729 -892,729 Rental Income --- Investment Income 4,000 -4,000 Miscellaneous 1,000 -1,000 Transfers In --- Debt Proceeds --- Departmental Revenues --- Total Revenues 897,729 -897,729 IT Operations 799,656 -799,656 Capital Outlay 80,000 -80,000 Transfers Out --- Rounding --- Total Expenditures 879,656 -879,656 Net Income (Loss)18,073 -18,073 Beginning Fund Balance 307,066 -307,066 Ending Fund Balance 325,139 -325,139 194 TOWN OF ESTES PARK VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 2020 Budget As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended REVENUE Taxes --- Intergovernmental --- Charges for Services 478,139 -478,139 Rental Income --- Investment Income 750 -750 Miscellaneous --- Transfers In --- Debt Proceeds --- Departmental Revenues --- Total Revenues 478,889 -478,889 Fleet Replacement Operations --- Capital Outlay 538,904 -538,904 Transfers Out --- Rounding --- Total Expenditures 538,904 -538,904 Net Income (Loss)(60,015)-(60,015) Beginning Fund Balance 571,173 -571,173 Ending Fund Balance 511,158 -511,158 195 TOWN OF ESTES PARK RISK MANAGEMENT FUND SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BA#8 - FLEET MECHANIC 2020 Budget As Previously Amended Amendment 2020 Amended REVENUE Taxes --- Intergovernmental --- Charges for Services 307,344 -307,344 Rental Income --- Investment Income --- Miscellaneous --- Transfers In --- Debt Proceeds --- Departmental Revenues --- Total Revenues 307,344 -307,344 Risk Management Operations 307,344 -307,344 Rounding --- Total Expenditures 307,344 -307,344 Net Income (Loss)--- Beginning Fund Balance 44 -44 Ending Fund Balance 44 -44 196 PROCEDURE FOR LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Applicable items include: Annexation, Amended Plats, Boundary Line Adjustments, Development Plans, Rezoning, Special Review, Subdivision 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on RESOLUTION 40-20 ACTION ITEM 2, APPEAL OF STAFF DENIAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE ALARADO DEVELOPMENT.  At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, from the Applicant, public comment, and written comments received on the application.  Has any Trustee had any ex-parte communications concerning this application(s) which are not part of the Board packet.  Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public hearing which may be responded to at that time.  Mayor declares the Public Hearing open. 2.STAFF REPORT.  Review the staff report.  Review any conditions for approval not in the staff report. 3.APPLICANT.  The applicant makes their presentation. 4.PUBLIC COMMENT.  Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the application. All individuals must state their name and address for the record. Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per person. 5.REBUTTAL. 1  The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal that is limited to or in response to statements or questions made after their presentation. No new matters may be submitted. 6.MAYOR.  Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application which are not in the Board packet.  Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the application.  Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications presented will be accepted as part of the record.  Declare the public hearing closed.  Request Board consider a motion. 7.SUGGESTED MOTION.  Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. 8.DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. Discussion by the Board on the motion. 9.VOTE ON THE MOTION. Vote on the motion or consideration of another action. 2 To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: June 23, 2020 RE: Resolution 40-20 Appeal of Staff Denial of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Alarado Development (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER_Appeal_______ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider and make a decision on an appeal of staff’s decision to deny a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) for the Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwiches store, within the Alarado Business Park development at 420 Steamer Drive. Present Situation: [Please see Attachment 7 for a detailed timeline of the project.] The Alarado Business Park development, at the northeast quadrant of the Steamer Drive intersection with US 34 (Big Thompson Avenue), was applied for as a Development Plan in June 2018. The project consists of an Urgent Care facility (EP Health) and a Jimmy John’s sandwich store on the ground floor, with a second floor consisting of multifamily apartment units for individuals employed in the Estes Valley. Parking, landscaping, lighting, and other typical site elements are also part of the development site. At this writing (June 2020), the site and structure are mostly completed. The building core and shell has been permitted, inspected, and received a C.O. Individual interior finishes for the Urgent Care and the apartments are also finished and have received C.O.s. The Jimmy John’s has requested, but not yet received, a C.O. at this time. Prior to construction, the Estes Valley Planning Commission – designated reviewing body for a Development Plan of this scope – held a public hearing and approved the Development Plan with conditions on October 16, 2018. A subsequent amendment to the conditions regarding a traffic signal at US 34 and Steamer Drive was proposed to and approved by EVPC in August 2019. The signal, its completion, and its relationship with the traffic circulation related to the development and specifically to the Jimmy John’s store, are the subject matter at issue in this appeal. Memo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 An original condition of the Oct. 2018 approval by PC was installation of an additional eastbound travel lane on US 34 in the Alarado vicinity. This condition was recommended by Town Public Works and Community Development staff with CDOT assent, based on analysis from the applicants’ Traffic Impact Study (TIS), showing that the development in general, including the Jimmy John’s store in particular, would generate additional traffic and would reduce projected Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection. The original TIS did not indicate that a traffic signal was warranted at the Steamer Drive intersection; however, the additional lane on US 34 was deemed an appropriate way to address the increased traffic impacts from the development. Planning Commission included the added lane as a condition of approval (see Attachment 8 – Oct. 16 Minutes.) In summer 2019, after the Development Plan was approved and preliminary site work was begun, the applicants provided additional TIS information. The new TIS information indicated that warrant(s) for a new traffic signal at this location were in fact met. The applicants’ team asked that the Planning Condition’s condition requiring the added travel lane be modified and expressed interest in returning to the Planning Commission for this purpose (see Attachment 9 – Alarado Request.) Staff agreed that an amended condition providing for a traffic signal option could go to the PC on August 20, 2019. The PC considered this matter on Aug. 20 and approved an option to install either the new signal or add the travel lane (see Attachment 10 – Aug. 20 Minutes.) At the PC meeting, the applicants indicated their preference was to install the signal, and they planned to bear the entire design and construction costs of the signal. On a separate but parallel track to the Development Plan conditions, building permits were being applied for and received. The PC had not imposed a timeline for completing work on US 34, due in part to the fact that design of the signal and/or travel lane had not been done. Such designs are complex and time-consuming to prepare and approved, especially for a new signal, and a timeline is hard to predict without designs. Staff, wishing to be accommodating to an expected new business venture (and an employee housing complex), elected to make the timeline part of the building permit and C.O. process rather than requiring the applicants to wait for design approval from Town and CDOT, then return to PC another time. To this end, staff proposed – and the applicants agreed to – a series of building-permit stipulations setting several milestones in project completion, linked to various stages in road improvements and other requirements. Two such sets of conditions were agreed to by the parties: one in July 2019, the other in December 2019 (see Attachment 4 – stipulations for building permits B-11110 and B-11223.) As pertains to this appeal, a primary focus of these conditions was that the Jimmy John’s would not received a C.O. until road improvements were installed, inspected, and accepted by the Town and/or CDOT as applicable. The December 2019 stipulations made this C.O. explicit for the traffic signal. That set also reaffirmed the July 2019 building-permit stipulations. The stipulations provide that a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (T.C.O.) could be issued for Jimmy John’s if the US 34 work were “substantially near completion” and a “clear completion date” had been identified and agreed to by the parties. At this time, the signal design is not yet completed, although it has been through several rounds of review by Town staff, CDOT, and other agencies. Staff has denied the Alarado request for a C.O., based on the stipulations in the building-permit agreements. No T.C.O. has been “formally” requested to date, although verbal and written discussions between the applicants and Town staff have indicated the applicants’ wish to pursue the T.C.O. possibility. (I should 4 explain that the Town has never actually had a formal policy for requesting a C.O. or T.C.O.; it’s traditionally been requested through a phone call, or at most an email.) Staff has also not agreed to grant any prospective request for a T.C.O.; again, this is based on non-compliance to date with the stipulations. Notwithstanding, the applicants have filed an appeal of the C.O. denial. Town Board is authorized to hear appeals of building-permit decisions per EPMC 14.04.020 (b). The section reads as follows: Any person who is denied a permit by the Building Official may file an appeal with the Board of Trustees on the basis that such refusal is not justified, is based on an unreasonable provision of the building code or that an undue hardship would be imposed upon the person by the strict compliance with the code. Said appeal must be in writing and filed with the Building Official within thirty (30) days of the denial of the permit. The Board of Trustees shall review the appeal and may uphold the decision of the Building Official or authorize the issuance of the permit with or without conditions. Proposal: [Please see appeal letter from Alarado team: Attachment 5.] In deference to the appellants’ interest in making their own case as they see fit, and also to save space in this report, staff will not repeat or summarize the appellants’ positions here. Staff would like to offer counterpoints to those positions as follows (numbers refer to pages (P.) and full paragraphs (par.)): • P.1, par. 2: Staff confirms that a financial security is posted with the Town for $600,000 and remains active for public infrastructure work in connection with Alarado. The majority of this securitized amount is to ensure completion of the traffic signal and associated roadway improvements. • P. 2, par. 2: Staff acknowledges that there was a delay from January 2020 into February 2020 in distributing full review comments to the applicants on the first-round plans for the traffic signal. However, the staff review cumulative response was sent to the applicants timely – January 28 – and included a sizeable number of review comments. Information was indicating stating that Public Works had review comments as well; however, the comments themselves were not included. This was an oversight that wasn’t rectified until late February, and staff regrets that it didn’t get rectified earlier. Nevertheless, the Jan. 28 cumulative response, which went to Van Horn Engineering and Saunders Heath (the Alarado general contractor) was sufficient to put all on notice that Public Works did have comments, and the existence of comments from Public Works, the Town’s streets- administration department, surely should have generated interest on Alarado’s part. It is unclear why the Alarado team did not ask about this matter for over a month. In any case, the alleged approximately six-week delay is small in comparison to the 19-week delay (from the Aug. 20 PC approval to the Dec. 31 first submittal) in providing signal plans to the Town for review. Some vital elements in signal design, including phasing and interconnect details for the signal (requested by staff in July 2019 and in writing in Jan 2020), had not yet been submitted through May 2020. 5 • P. 2, par. 3: The appellants’ characterization of the Town’s counter-proposal for the T.C.O. is generally accurate (see Attachment 11 - Recommended Conditions of T.C.O. Approval from Staff), except that the Town did not propose or suggest that the signal materials be “in route” before a T.C.O. is issued. Staff is aware some materials for the signal have a long lead-time to fabricate in response to an order. The Town proposed that the order be placed, but we have not proposed and do not propose that they be fabricated before a T.C.O. is issued, much less shipped. • P. 2, par. 4: See above. Additionally, staff would not agree that matters such are “draconian.” Specifically: o The additional 35% above the EPDC amount of 115% covers the cost of Town staff bidding and managing the work, a daily inspector to confirm the work is built according to the plans and specifications (CDOT won't do this for private development), cost of risk of inflation and increases due to remote location and fall/winter construction, cost of potential oversights in the plans and spec, cost of unknown conditions encountered during construction. Any excess would be fully returned to the applicant. This is simply precautionary to protect the Town's resources should the applicant not perform and the Town find itself in a position to complete the work. o The recommended conditions of T.C.O. approval from staff make allowance for bicycle deliveries (requested by the applicant) and car deliveries until such time as the traffic volume on US34 reaches an excessive level. If this does not materialize, the restriction on car deliveries does not occur. o The waiver and release of all claims is a standard element in many such agreements. The appeal appears to trivialize the traffic issue by focusing on number of new vehicular trips added to the intersection. Projected increase in delay is instead the more relevant discussion point. Trips could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, or the last strands severed before a frayed and overloaded rope breaks. Added load is not significant until it trips an unacceptable reaction or causes a failure. In this case, the numerical amount of new peak hour trips may be portrayed as small, but they alter the traffic operation significantly by causing the average motorist wait-time to increase to the point of intolerable, noncompliant delay. When that occurs, drivers may react out of frustration and take risks which often can result in increased accidents. The problems at the US 34/Steamer Drive intersection received considerable discussion at Planning Commission at both hearings in 2018 and 2019, including citizen comments that intersection traffic and delays were already frustratingly bad and would surely get worse without measures to manage increased traffic. These are anecdotal reports, but they are strongly backed up with data by the applicants’ TIS. Staff in Public Works and Community Development and the Planning Commission heard the neighbor’s concerns, matched them with evidence, and determined that the US 34 improvements were appropriate and needed. Staff consequently came up with the C.O. / T.C.O. conditions noted, which were signed by Town and Alarado. 6 Staff Findings: Staff requests that Town Board uphold our decision to deny the C.O. until the signal is complete and accepted. Alternatively, if the Board finds that a T.C.O. is acceptable with certain conditions, staff believes the list provided to the applicants on April 20 (Attachment 11) remains valid and worthwhile. We believe the process and stipulations / conditions are fair to the appellants and the public alike. Staff finds as follows: • Staff made specific efforts to accommodate the applicants by agreeing not to require them to return to PC a third time to modify the Development Plan with a required timeline. (Staff had already agreed to place them on the August 20 Planning Commission agenda on two weeks’ notice.) Instead, stipulations were placed on the building permits – the end of the process, rather than the beginning. • The appellants have been silent on why the signal option was approved in August 2019, yet no plans had been provided until the last day of December, 2019. (Holiday work schedules are understandably difficult, but that only addresses one month at most.) • No other component in the Alarado project is hampered by the Jimmy John’s stipulation. It seems unlikely that the Urgent Care is losing business because the sandwich store is not open, for example. One could argue that the rest of Alarado should have been under similar traffic-management stipulations. (Staff is not making that argument, and in any case, the rest of Alarado is already up and running.) • Most centrally: The C.O. restriction serves to limit actual impacts of the Jimmy John’s traffic to a time when the signal can accommodate it. Allowing traffic to impact the intersection before a signal is operating – or at least very close, as in the T.C.O. scenario – does a disservice to all, and in the worst case, leads to potentially serious traffic-safety issues. The Traffic Impact Study provides clear evidence that the signal is warranted and that the Jimmy John’s traffic is the primary component – as acknowledged by the applicants. • The staff’s April 20 offer of a T.C.O. with conditions was made in good faith, relies on objective evidence linking T.C.O. conditions to conditions on the ground, is in accord with the two sets of building-permit stipulations from 2019, and remains valid today. Advantages: • Development impacts are addressed at an appropriate point in time that is fair to the appellants and does not do a disservice to the public. • Aligns with the principle that signing an agreement means honoring a commitment. Disadvantage: • The delay in opening Jimmy John’s understandably is a delay in revenue to the developer, and in providing another menu choice to the public in peak season. Action Recommended: 7 Staff recommends the appeal be denied, based on staff findings as outlined herein. Should the Town Board view a T.C.O. to be acceptable with community protections, staff recommends the Attachment 11 list be incorporated as conditions in a T.C.O. issuance. Your draft Resolutions include language for these outcomes. Finance/Resource Impact: None identified. Level of Public Interest Low to medium. No written comments from the public have been received for this appeal. Any written comments are to be posted to: www.estes.org/currentapplications. Sample Motions 1.I move to approve Resolution 40-20-A, upholding the decision of the building official which denied a certificate of occupancy for the Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwiches store within the Alarado Business Park development. 2.I move to approve Resolution 40-20-B, reversing the decision of the building official which denied a certificate of occupancy for the Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwiches store within the Alarado Business Park development, and approving the application with conditions as follows: [state conditions] 3.I move to approve Resolution 40-20-C, reversing the decision of the building official which denied a certificate of occupancy for the Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwiches store within the Alarado Business Park development. Attachments: Resolution 40-20 A Resolution 40-20 B Resolution 40-20 C 1.B-11110 + B-11223 stipulations (executed) 2.Town Board Appeal Letter 051220 3.Revised Request for Alarado TCO - atty GMal - 2020-04-10 4.Alarado Traffic Signal_Timeline 20200411 final 5.EVPC Minutes 2018-10-16 6.Alarado Request for Planning Commission Hearing 2019-08-08 7.EVPC Minutes 2019-08-20 8.Recommended Conditions T.C.O. from Staff 2020-04-20 8 RESOLUTION 40-20-A A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WHICH DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE JIMMY JOHN’S GOURMET SANDWICHES STORE WITHIN THE ALARADO BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, an application for a certificate of occupancy for the Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwiches store, within the Alarado Business Park development (“Application”), was reviewed by the Community Development Department and was not approved; and WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed that denial of a certificate of occupancy to the Town Board under section 14.04.020(b). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Town Board may overturn the denial of the certificate of occupancy on the basis that such denial is not justified, is based on an unreasonable provision of the building code or that an undue hardship would be imposed upon the applicant by the strict compliance with the code. Section 2: The Board has considered the record before it, including evidence presented at the appeal hearing. On the basis of this record, the Board finds that the denial is justified, is not based on an unreasonable provision of the building code, and that no undue hardship would be imposed upon the applicant by the strict compliance with the code. Section 3: Accordingly, the Board upholds the decision of the Building Official denying the Application. DATED this day of , 2020. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 9 RESOLUTION 40-20-B A RESOLUTION REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WHICH DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE JIMMY JOHN’S GOURMET SANDWICHES STORE WITHIN THE ALARADO BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT, AND APPROVING THE APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS WHEREAS, an application for a certificate of occupancy for the Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwiches store, within the Alarado Business Park development (“Application”), was reviewed by the Community Development Department and was not approved; and WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed that denial of a certificate of occupancy to the Town Board under section 14.04.020(b). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Town Board may overturn the denial of the certificate of occupancy on the basis that such denial is not justified, is based on an unreasonable provision of the building code or that an undue hardship would be imposed upon the applicant by the strict compliance with the code. The Town Board may authorize the issuance of the certificate of occupancy with conditions. Section 2: The Board has considered the record before it, including evidence presented at the appeal hearing. On the basis of this record, the Board finds that the denial is not justified, and that an undue hardship would be imposed upon the applicant by the strict compliance with the code, so long as respective temporary and permanent certificates of occupancy are properly conditioned. Section 3: Accordingly, the Board reverses the decision of the Building Official denying the Application. The Board authorizes the issuance of the certificate of occupancy with conditions as follows: 1) [INSERT CONDITIONS] 2) … 3) … … DATED this day of , 2020. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor 10 ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 11 RESOLUTION 40-20-C A RESOLUTION REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WHICH DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE JIMMY JOHN’S GOURMET SANDWICHES STORE WITHIN THE ALARADO BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, an application for a certificate of occupancy for the Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwiches store, within the Alarado Business Park development (“Application”), was reviewed by the Community Development Department and was not approved; and WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed that denial of a certificate of occupancy to the Town Board under section 14.04.020(b). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Town Board may overturn the denial of the certificate of occupancy on the basis that such denial is not justified, is based on an unreasonable provision of the building code or that an undue hardship would be imposed upon the applicant by the strict compliance with the code. Section 2: The Board has considered the record before it, including evidence presented at the appeal hearing. On the basis of this record, the Board finds that the denial is not justified, and that an undue hardship would be imposed upon the applicant by the strict compliance with the code. Section 3: Accordingly, the Board reverses the decision of the Building Official denying the Application. The Board authorizes the issuance of the certificate of occupancy without conditions. DATED this day of , 2020. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 12 Docusign Envelope ID:CBO8EB95.17F0-4168-8A49-925852840F24 EXHIBIT A [to accompany Building Permit 8-11110] Town of Estes Pork:Stipulations appravalfor issuance of Building Permit 8-11110,location 420 Steamer Drive (Alarado Business Park:core/shell permit) Town agree5 to issues said building permit upon owner/developer’s written acknowledgement of and agreement to the following stipulations,in addition to satisfying all other obligations for permit issuance,including payment of fees: 1.The Planning Commission condition #1 for Development Plan approval (Oct.16,2018)is to be satisfied prior to,or approval and issuance of,the first-requested tenant finish building permit for the subject structure.PC Condition #1 reads as follows: The proposed eastbound through lane onUs 34 is subject to final approval by Public Works and COOT,including,but not limited to:private driveway i m p a c t , drainage analysis,and confirmation of appropriate lane length to properly mitigate level of service. 2.Security (e.g.,letter of credit)is to held by the Town for the US 34 improvements referenced above for the duration of the US 34 work,and is to be retained until completion,inspection and acceptance of the US 34 work.The security is to be provided and acknowledged by the Town prior to issuance of the first tenant finish building permit for the subject structure. 3.All US 34 improvements are to be be completed and accepted by the appropriate entity(s) (Town,COOT,or both,as may be required by project protocols)before a final CO is issued for the Jimmy John’s facility.A TCO may be available for the Jimmy John’s facility if the US 34 work is substantially near completion and a clear completion date has been identified and acknowledged by all parties. For the Town of Estes Park,CO: Name Title __________________________ Date cfWoAfl&Properties LLC: J-‘Ryan wells Name Partner Title July 11 2019 I 1:44 PM MOT Date Attachment 1 13 EXHIBIT A [to accompany Building Permit 8-11223] Town ci Estes Park:Stipulations apprcive!for issuance cf Building Permit No.8-112231(location:420 Steamer Drive -Alara cia Business Park:core/shell perm it) Town agrees to issue said buikling permit upon owner/developer’s written acknowledgement of and agreement to the following stipulations,in addition to satisfying alt other obligations for permit issuance,includir payment of fees: 1.It is acknowledged that substantial design work is underway for the traffic signalization project at the Intersection of US.Hwy.34 (Big Thompson Ave.)and Steamer Dr.in Estes Park, including preliminary cost estimates for the signal and associated materials and labor is unlikely to exceed approx.$400,000. 2.Alarado Properties LLC (‘Developer)and the Town of Estes Park (‘Town’)have agreed that thesignalizationcostandworkwillbebornebytheDeveloper,upon approval by Town’s Public Works Dept.Colorado Dept.of Transportation (CDOT),and any other permitting authorities, 3.It is acknowledged that other infrastructure work in or adjacent to the public right-of-way is also required of the Developer in association with the Alarado Business Park project,and that the cost of such work is unlikely to exceed approx.$200,000. 4.Per discussions with the Developer and their design professionals,completed and approved construction plans and finalized cost estimates are nol complete and unlikely to be immediately completed. 5,Application and plans for Building Permit No.8-11223,a tenant finish for the Urgent Medical Care facility in the Alarado building,has been filed and is in the latter stages of review toward approval; however,the items in Stipulation #4 above are unlikely to be completed arid approved by the time8-11223 permit reviews and approvals are finished. 6.Therefore,the Town and the Developer agree that the Town will accept a Letter of Credit fromDevelopei’s lender for a not-to-exceed amount of $600,000,said security Instrument having been provided to the Town In advance of the approval of construction plans and final cost estimates for the aforementioned infrastructure work. 7.Nothing in this Exhibit expressly or implicitly alters any other requirements of the Building Permit review and issuance process for Building Permit No.8-11223,nor any requirements for fulfillment of the Development Plan for Alarado Business Park. 8.All stipulations agreed to by the Town and the Developer in Exhibit A to Building Permit No. 8-11110,executed on July II,2019,remain in effect. For the Town of stes Perk,CO: ________________________ Signature j4iJn4 Name ________ Title k3,fl3,2O I Date 1’Pf’2-/Name f)LJA)t4 Title ii L3:it Date 14 Attachment 2 15 16 17 18 Revised Request for Alarado TCO Inboxx Glenn D. Malpiede <glenn@esteslegalservices.com> Fri, Apr 10, 5:13 PM Reply to all to Dan, tmachalek, gmuhonen, me, dhook, jwaters, Ryan, Phil, David, Ed, Lo nnie, Fred, Dan, Steve All, After our conversation today, another possibility was discussed that may work to everyone’s advantage. Alarado will make every effort to install a temporary strung cable traffic signal by July 1st, with permanent signal installation still projected for October. At the same time, we are wondering whether the Town might be able to see its way clear to approve a TCO for the Jimmy John’s limited to delivery only, the vast majority of which would be done by bike messengers. This has always been a part of JJ’s basic business plan, and 10 bikes had already been purchased for this purpose. Given that COVID-19 will continue to be a limiting issue until at least through the end of May, if not longer, delivery would be a welcome service for the community. At the same time, any additional traffic generated from deliveries would be minimal. Yes, there would be some delivery by automobile to further locations, but the bulk of deliveries are projected to be limited to about a 1-mile radius which JJ’s plans to cover with bike service in any case. So, here is our revised request. We would ask that the Town issue a TCO for JJ’s for “delivery only” until the temporary traffic signal is in place (by July 1st), then issue a TCO for full operation until the permanent signal is in place (by mid-October). For the record, the control box for the temporary signal is the one item that will actually take 12 weeks to receive, the rest of the necessary equipment is mostly available any time, so the bulk of the installation could possibly be done by the end of May (based on current projections). Please let us know at your earliest convenience if the Town would consider this to be a viable option. Alarado Properties would much prefer to continue operations in Estes Park rather than the alternative. Thank you, Phil Hinrichs Ryan Wells Alarado Properties, LLC Glenn D. Malpiede, Esq. Estes Legal Services, LLC 212 Virginia Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 Offc: 970-586-2874 The information contained in this communication is confidential and may also contain privileged attorney-client information or work product. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us via return email or by telephone at (970) 586-2874. Thank you Attachment 3 19 1 Alarado Traffic Signal Public Works - Timeline of Communications and Meetings Compiled by: Ilana Edge, David Hook, and Jennifer Waters; minor edits and additions by Randy Hunt April 11, 2020 [Note on acronyms: SB = southbound lane; EB = eastbound lane; etc.] 1/24/18 – Pre-Application Meeting for Alarado Business Park 2/16/18 - Matt Delich Memo about preliminary Traffic Impact Study (TIS) information with sketch; prior to preparing the TIS. June 2018 - Matt Delich TIS. Identifies that signal warrants at the intersection are not anticipated to be met and identifies poor Level of Service (LOS) for the SB left turn. No mitigation suggestions provided. 6/19/18 - Matt Delich TIS Addendum for parking generation analysis. 6/20/18 – Alarado Business Park application filed with Community Development – including a site layout, the TIS (already provide for pre-review), a Preliminary Drainage Report, general utility plans, grading/excavation concept plans, building architectural elevations, and other elements. Van Horn Engineering (VHE) filed as the engineer of record. 6/22/18 - Alarado Development Plans distributed by Community Development. Round 1. 7/23/18 - Memo with Public Works Round 1 comments about Development Plans and TIS. Request by Public Works for revise and resubmit. August 2018 - Matt Delich revised TIS. Identifies that signal warrants at the intersection are not anticipated to be met and identifies an additional EB through lane as a possible mitigation for the SB left turn LOS. 8/20/18 - Preliminary road design for proposed lane by VHE. Includes plan view & cross-section 8/21/18 - VHE Memo for apartments parking. 8/22/18 - Alarado revised Development Plans distributed by Community Development. Round 2. 9/14/18 - Memo with Public Works Round 2 comments about revised Development Plans and revised TIS. Request by Public Works for revise and resubmit. 9/14/18 - Town of Estes Park Memo including Round 2 comments from Planning, Public Works, Building, Transit, Utilities, and CDOT. 9/24/18 - VHE provides revised development plans, additional Memo for apartments parking, and Memo for Third Submittal of Development Plans (responds to 9/14 comments by departments). 10/4/18 - Memo with Public Works Round 3 comments about Revised Development Plans and Revised TIS. Conditional approval by Public Works of Development Plans (see memo for conditions). Attachment 4 20 2 10/10/18 - VHE Memo for Fourth Submittal of Development Plans, with response acknowledging PW conditions of 10/4 memo. Includes revised DP and preliminary layout of US 34 widening (as yet unreviewed by PW or CDOT) 10/16/18 - Planning Commission Staff Report for Alarado Development Plans. PC approved the DP with findings and conditions as recommended by staff. Condition #1 = The proposed eastbound through lane on US 34 is subject to final approval by Public Works and CDOT, including but not limited to: private driveway impact, drainage analysis, and confirmation of appropriate lane length to properly mitigate level of service. 12/19/18 - Site visit re US 34 widening, D Hook, K Stallworth, L Shelton 1/8/19 - Geotechnical Report by Landmark Engineering. 1/17/19 - Matt Delich Memo about US 34 Widening, including preliminary lane geometry narrative and sketch. 2/15/19 - Grading permit G-002-19 application for site grading. Grading, Drainage and Landscaping plan dated 2/7/19 submitted for rvw with original submission; revised plan dated 2/12/19 submitted soon thereafter. 3/6/19 - Public Works comments on grading plan dated 2/12 with no objection to issuance of G-002-19, subject to conditions listed. 3/8/19 - Building permit B-11090 application for footings and foundation, including full set of civil construction plans for site development, distributed for rvw comment. F&F permit. PW verbal ok on only F&F to Eris A. PW rvw of the civil construction plans separated/deferred to B-11110 (see 4/8 below). 3/29/19 - Email update, L Shelton to Brittany Hathaway, still working on design of US 34 widening. [NOTE: NOW MORE THAN 5 MONTHS SINCE PC MTG APPROVAL OF DP AND US 34 WIDENING AS MITIGATION, AND STILL NO US 34 PLANS FOR REVIEW] 4/8/19 - Building permit B-11110 application for core and shell (stamped drawings provided). 5/7/19 - Memo with Public Works comments about B-11110/civil site construction plans. Noted: fnal plans for US 34 improvements not yet submitted. Request for revise and resubmit. 5/9/19 - Email update, L Shelton to Brittany Hathaway, still working on design of US 34 widening. [NOTE: NOW ABOUT 7 MONTHS SINCE PC MTG APPROVAL OF DP AND US 34 WIDENING AS MITIGATION, AND STILL NO US 34 PLANS FOR REVIEW] 5/23/19 - Final Drainage Report by Van Horn Engineering. 6/12/19 - Memo from VHE addressing comments by Public Works for B-11110. Revised site construction plans submitted. 6/13/19 - Ed Glavin provides VHE drawings in dropbox by email to Public Works. 21 3 6/27/19 - Memo with Public Works comments about B-11110 for revised civil drawings (6/11/19). Approval pending submission of final plans for US 34 improvements (approved by CDOT). 6/28/19 - Email update, L Shelton to D Hook, G Gladov, progress update on design of US 34 widening. 6/28/19 - PW & CDOT received draft US 34 widening plans dated 6/11 by VHE for Auxiliary Lane for Alarado development. [THIS IS THE FIRST US 34 PLAN SUBMITTAL, MORE THAN 8 MONTHS AFTER PC MTG] 7/2/19 - PW provided preliminary comments to US 34 widening plans received 6/28. 7/5/19 - Conference call (G Muhonen, R Hunt, applicant atty, Heath, VHE; dgh off) re draft widening plans and concerns re timing of building permit issuance relative to US 34 plan approval and construction; GM notes available in his calendar appt and in his 7/5 followup email to DH. 7/5/19 - Email exchange, G Muhonen and L Shelton re timing of building permit issuance relative to US 34 plan approval and construction. 7/5/19 - Matt Delich Memo about US 34 Auxiliary Lane Evaluations. 7/8/19 - Conference call with CDOT/Tim B, VHE/Lonnie S, Saunders Heath/Dan D, PW/David H. Discussed a number of technical design issues related to the lane widening, mostly based on questions from VHE. CDOT shared two important points: (1) an overlay of the entire highway within the project area and addressing additional lanes at the Visitor Center are both standard requirements forthe type of lane widening project proposed to mitigate Alarado development impacts; this was news to VHE & PW, and seems to equate to a huge developer increase to cost obligation), and (2) timeline for CDOT permit review would likely not accommodate fall construction of road improvements (Lonnie indicated that they were anticipating winter construction and spring paving). Meeting notes by VHE with dgh annotations are available. [THIS APPEARS TO BE THE FIRST SERIOUS DISCUSSION BY VHE WITH CDOT RE THE US 34 PLANS, ALMOST 9 MONTHS AFTER PC MTG] 7/10/19 - Memo with Public Works comments about B-11110 for revised civil drawings (6/11/19) and draft plans for US 34 improvements. No objection to issuance of permit with conditions. Condition #1 = The stipulations as agreed to in the attached agreement. (DH note: this was the ‘first’ agreement signed by the developers, dated 7/11; see below) Condition #2 = The financial security shall address the full scope of US 34 improvements… 7/11/19 - Exhibit A for B-11110, signed by Town & developer. Requires security for US 34 improvements. Requires completion of improvements as condition of CO issuance. All US 34 improvements to be completed/accepted before CO issued for Jimmy Johns. 7/11/19 - 315p meeting at Engineering Conf Rm; VHE & PW re Alarado. See below for similar mtg on 7/12. 7/12/19 - 1130a meeting at Engineering Conf Rm; VHE & PW re Alarado. See above for similar mtg on 7/11. 22 4 DH Note: For both the 7/11 and 7/12 meetings, PW has not yet located relevant emails, agenda or meeting notes to clearly identify all details discussed. PW’s recollection is that the meeting involved mostly brainstorming discussion on options to move forward given the new requirements by CDOT (see 7/8 above). It seems to us that VHE brought up the idea of a traffic signal as an alternative to the additional lane. That said, it also could have been mentioned by CDOT in the 7/8 conference call, thus beginning the VHE thought process to explore options other than the roadway widening. 7/12/19 - 457p email DH to RAH re question on new traffic signal option relative to prior PC approvals. DH Note: this seems to indicate that at least by the 2nd mtg with VHE on the 12th, the traffic signal had surfaced as an option. 7/12/19 - 542p email, DH to VHE as follow up to the morning meeting, including these relevant points: •Traffic signal - as discussed, signal warrants are the big issue here. If your client chooses to pursue exploring this option further and a signal is warranted, we would support you in proposing this option to CDOT to determine if they will allow you to move forward with a signal design. Randy will have to confirm if this option also requires PC action. •Additional lane - you have our preliminary comments on your concept plan; the bigger issues (right turn lane and overlay) seem to be driving discussing the other two options; keep us posted if you continue to pursue this option. 7/13/19 - Email confirmation from Randy H that a traffic signal option will require consideration by the PC. 7/14/19 - Email reply from Lonnie S to DH’s email of 7/12 that includes a statement by Lonnie that seems to support PW’s recollection that VHE brought up the idea of the traffic signal option (...items related to the many options we have "tested the water on"...). 7/24/19 - Email from Lonnie S to Town, Saunders Heath, developers regarding discussion points on both the lane widening and traffic signal options. 8/1/19 - Meeting to discuss traffic signal option and revised Development Plan; also, follow up email, David H to Lonnie S, Travis, Randy re likely PW submittal requirements. August 2019 - Matt Delich US 34/Steamer Intersection Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis, finding that the warrants are met for installation of a traffic signal. 8/14/19 - W. L. Contractors Inc. prepares preliminary Urgent Care Traffic Signal Budget ( $400,688). 8/20/19 - PC meeting; approved adding traffic signal as a mitigation option at the Steamer/US 34 intersection. 8/27/19 - Meeting with VHE, PW, Water, Saunders Heath re watermain work (design and permitting issues) and traffic signal (VHE is looking at WL Contractors for design & construction). 9/6/19 - Ed Glavin provides drawings in dropbox with changes to civil drawings dated 7/31/19 pertaining to sewer line, waterline, and parking lot lighting. 9/17/19 - Eris A/Building Div distributes the plans submitted on 9/6 for rvw/comment. 23 5 9/19/19 - Public Works email about B-11110 for revised civil drawings provided on 9/6: no comments and no objection to issuance of permit (changes did not involve PW). 9/20/19 - Building permit B-11191 application for Jimmy John’s tenant finish. 10/16/19 - Public Works comments in Plan Review Record for B-11191: no comments on interior work and no objection to issuance of permit. 10/16/19 - Building permit B-11223 application for Urgent Care tenant finish. 12/13/19 - Exhibit A for B-11223. Requires security (by Letter of Credit) for traffic signalization project at US 34 and Steamer Drive. 12/18/2019 – Public Works comments in Plan Review Record for B-11223 referencing Exhibit A and the Letter of Credit “which pertains to traffic signal work and public right-of -way infrastructure.” No comments on interior work and no objection to issuance of permit. 12/20/2019 - Email from Jacob Scott about the signal light design from Fred Lantz w VHE base map background for the Alarado project 12/31/2019 - Email from Lonnie Sheldon re. attached signal design that was sent before Christmas. Informing Town of Estes park that Bruce Barnett at CDOT did receive the design when the first email was sent. Round 1 submittal. [NOTE THAT OVER 4 MONTHS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE PC APPROVED THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AS A SECOND MITIGATION OPTION BEFORE THE FIRST SET OF PLANS WERE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW] 1/6/2020 – Community Development Department distributes draft traffic signal plan for comments due by Friday, 1/17/20. Plan is one sheet prepared by Fred Lantz using CDOT title block template. 1/14/2020 – Public Works team meeting to discuss draft signal plan (Engineering Conference Room at 1:00). Attendees: David Hook, Jennifer Waters, Greg Muhonen, Ryan Barr, Brian Berg, and Kevin McEachern. Using notes from this discussion, David prepares draft comments for Jennifer to include in comments document addressing traffic signal plan. 1/17/2020 – Public Works submits comments (Round 1 Response) for proposed traffic signal. Recipients included Randy Hunt, Public Works staff, and Tim Bilobran at CDOT (not VHE or developers). [NOTE THAT PW COMPLETED OUR REVIEW COMMENTS WITHIN 2 WEEKS AND WE ANTICIPATED THAT COMDEV WOULD FORWARD THEM TO OTHERS WHEN ALL DRT COMMENTS CAME IN. ALSO NOTE THAT A SIGNIFICANT SHORTFALL OF THE FIRST SUBMITTAL WAS THE LACK OF CIVIL SITE IMPROVEMENT DESIGN ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL] 1/20/2020 - Email from Randy Hunt to confirm that the Planning division, Community Development Dept., Town of Estes Park has no comments and no concerns regarding the submitted Signal Light Design. Like the PW email of 1/17/2020, recipients included Randy Hunt, Public Works staff, and Tim Bilobran at CDOT (not VHE or developers). 1/27/2020 – Comments received from Tim Bilobran at CDOT. Documents provided include three copies of the draft signal plan marked-up by three different reviewers. Recipients include Town staff, Lonnie 24 6 Sheldon, and David Stolte. Tim used the PW email of 1-17-2020 that he received that sent him PW comments. 1/29/2020 - Email from David S acknowledging receipt of CDOT comments. 2/26/2020 – Lonnie Sheldon at VHE requests to receive the 1/17/20 Public Works comments. The comment document was emailed to him immediately. [NOTE THAT VHE DID NOT ASK SOONER; VHE HAD CDOT COMMENTS FOR OVER 4 WEEKS AT THIS POINT] 2/26/2020 - Email from Randy Hunt re. the meeting on Feb 25th. Attached two agreements which provided additional background on developers role in the traffic signal design and installation. Summarized key points from email: 1) Developer committed to pay for design and construction of the signal and associated traffic improvements at intersection, and Town has a financial guarantee instrument (LOC) ar $600,000 to ensure completion. 2) Signal must be operational before a final CO for the Jimmy John’s can be issued. Both JJ and urgent care are expected to be ready for occupancy in the next 2-3 months as understood. Top floor of multi-family employee housing expected to be ready before then, but not likely to place high traffic demand on intersection. Stipulation #1 in B-11110 was superseded by traffic signal option B011223 by planning commission in Oct. 2019. David Hook responded that PW was not aware of a timeline for final approval by CDOT or construction by developer. 2/26/2020 - Email from Ed Glavin wanting to set up meeting for next week to discuss occupancy process and define the process. Developers were requesting dates for move in’s. Set May 1st for potential move in’s. Want to know if they are receiving CO’s or TCO’s on each permit and also give a status update for the future signal work. Said that with $600K LOC in place for traffic signal the Town would issue full CO on the Alarado project including the 9 residential units. JJ and EPH jobs are on separate permits and CO’s would be issued at final inspection. Randy Hunt responded with availability and said Gary would need to be a part of the conversation. 3/2/2020 - Email from Randy Hunt informing Daivd and Jennifer that Saunders Heath is requesting a CO or TCO for residential part of Alarado. Commented that he didn’t believe we could issue a CO so it would most likely be a TCO and that Saunders would request another CO/TCO for the medical facility. Jennifer responded that March 10th would work and to include JBW and DGH on invite. 3/9/2020 - Email from Ed Galvin with Saunders Heath re. time for the meeting at the Alorado job trailer. Response from Jennifer Waters stating that 10:30am Wednesday March 11th would work between 1pm- 2pm or 4pm-5pm. 3/9/2020 - New Email from Ed Galvin requesting a meeting with Estes Park Engineering Dept., Van Horn Engineering, Saunders Heath and CDOT to address comments made by the Town and CDOT for Wednesday the 11th. 25 7 3/10/2020 – Alarado Occupancy Meeting (Town Hall Kitchen at 10:30 am). Attendees: Randy Hunt, David Hook, Jennifer Waters, David Stolte (Saunders Heath), Ed Glavin (Saunders Heath), and Gary Rusu (latecomer). Discussion addressed various issues pertaining to all five building permits active at the site. Randy told Ed Glavin and David Stolte that we were not going to release the C.O. for Jimmy John's until the signal was installed, inspected, operational, and accepted by the appropriate government entity(s). 3/11/2020 – Traffic Signal Meeting (420 Steamer, Saunders Heath Trailer at 1:00 pm). Attendees are listed in “Meeting Minutes” provided by VHE. The agenda was provided by VHE using comments previously written by Public Works (1/17/2020) and Tim Bilobran of CDOT (1/27/2020). [NOTE THAT THIS MEETING OCCURRED MORE THAN 6 WEEKS AFTER RECEIPT OF CDOT COMMENTS AND 2 WEEKS AFTER RECEIPT OF PW COMMENTS] 3/12/2020 – Lonnie distributes “Meeting Minutes from Alarado (US 34-Steamer Drive) Traffic Signal Meeting 3-11-2020” to all participants. These minutes list attendees and include annotation of the agenda with answers and decisions resulting from the discussion. Tim Bilobran responds with answers to three questions requiring CDOT response, including conditional permission to use a span wire for traffic control while materials are being fabricated. 3/13/2200 – Tim Bilobran distributes CDOT sample standard notes for traffic signal projects. Fred Lantz acknowledges and expresses his thanks. 3/18/2020 – Letter from attorney Glenn Malpiede about traffic signal issues. See separate doc with PW responses to issues mentioned in the letter. 3/19/2020 - Email between Greg Muhonen, Randy Hunt and Kate Rusch re an email from reporter Tim Mosier re additional turn lane on US34, traffic signal and Letter of Credit. 3/19/2020 - Email from Randy Hunt re. the second (B-11223) of the two stipulation documents - specifically, Sec. 8, which leaves Sec. 3 of the first (B-11110) set of stipulations intact. Sec. 8 of the B-11223 document was written to head off exactly the type of issue now being raised. (We have copies with both sets of signatures executed.) Issuing a C.O. for a significant traffic generator on the site - which presumably will quickly result in significant traffic - ahead of operational traffic control is a bad precedent. I think we already relaxed requirements to the point of marginality by saying that we wouldn't hold up the Urgent Care C.O. on the same basis. 26 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 16, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith, Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Frank Theis, Steve Murphree Attending: Chair Leavitt, Commissioners, White, Foster, Murphree. Smith and Theis, Schneider Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Brittany Hathaway, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: none Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 30 people in attendance. 1.OPEN MEETING Planning Commission/Staff Introductions 2.APPROV AL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to change the order of the agenda as presented moving item number 6 Castle Ridge Rezone to item number 5. The motion passed 6-0, with Murphree not voting. 3.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of August 21, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes. It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 7-0. 4.PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN: Beaver Point Subdivision, 1281 High Drive Planner Hathaway reviewed the project. It is located to the east of Heinz Parkway and north of Moraine Avenue, within Town limits. The property is zoned A-Accommodations. The land area is 2.85 acres and is currently developed with a single family home and garage. The proposal is to create 3 legal lots. There have been no public comments. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Preliminary Minor Subdivision Plat. Owner/Applicant Discussion: Dave Bangs, Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers, was available to answer questions. There was compliance with county regulations pertaining to fire. There were no agency comments of significance found. Attachment 5 27 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 16, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 Commission Comments: No concerns were observed in walking the property. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Murphree) to recommend that the Town Board of Trustees approve the Beaver Point Minor Subdivision Plat according to findings of fact, including findings recommended by staff. The motion passed 7-0. 5. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: Castle Ridge Minor Subdivision, Fall River Road, northwest of West Elkhorn Avenue. Planner Woeber reviewed that the applicant, Estes Park Housing Authority, is contracting to purchase this property contingent on approval of rezoning from RE-Rural Estate to RM- Multi Family Residential. The parcel is just under 7 acres in size. A conceptual development plan was submitted. Legal notices were published and letters mailed to adjacent property owners. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment. Applicant Discussion: Current property owner Bill Van Horn stated that it is an appropriate change of zoning for this property. Estes Park Housing Authority Executive Director Naomi Hawf spoke on the needs of work force housing and the plans for the lot. Thomas Beck, Architect, added that this is adequate zoning for this lot and it is possible to develop this as multi-family as long as it is kept to the bottom 1/3 of the lot. Public Comment: Jon Nicholas, Estes Park Economic Development Committee, was not asked by his board to endorse this, but the location is ideal with the Fall River corridor being commercial, and the closeness to Elkhorn Avenue. Commission Comments: Proximity to downtown and the natural zoning buffer make this a desirable project. There is no guarantee that the housing authority will buy the property, and once it is rezoned, it is rezoned with all uses that come with RM zoning. It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to recommend that the Town Board of Trustees approve the Zoning Map Amendment application for Lot 2 of the Castle Ridge Minor Subdivision, according to findings of fact recommended by staff. The motion passed 7-0. 6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Alarado Business Park, 800 Big Thompson Avenue (new address pending), Lot 1 of Stanley Hills Subdivision. Planner Hathaway reviewed the proposal of a mixed-use commercial and residential building including an urgent care facility, sandwich shop and employee housing. Written notice has been mailed to adjacent property owners, a legal notice was published and the applicant posted signs on the property. Public interest is medium, both in support of and 28 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 16, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 opposed to the project. Staff recommended approval of the Alarado Business Park Development plan with the following conditions: The proposed eastbound through lane on US 34 is subject to final approval by Public Works and CDOT, and any future change in use will require a new Traffic Impact Study and associated mitigation. Commissioner/Staff discussion: Residential use is classified as employee housing as an accessory use which is allowed in CO zoning. No housing for the general public will be allowed. Owner/Applicant discussion: Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, reviewed the timeline and details of the project with a PowerPoint presentation. A neighborhood meeting was held, which was well attended. All code requirements have been met, including the Variances approved by the Board of Adjustment on October 2. Maximum occupancy would be limited to 8 unrelated people per unit. The land has at this lot has always been zoned commercial, one of the few vacant CO lots left in town. A buffer of dedicated open space exists on north and west sides of the lot. Drainage and utilities have not been controversial. 20-year deed restrictions for employee housing have been drafted. This development meets the code of CO zoning and land use by right as well as meeting community needs. Ryan Wells, owner/developer, reviewed his background and reasoning behind the project. The property was originally planned for just a Jimmy Johns, but through numerous public conversations, it evolved into the current design. Matt Delich, Traffic Consultant, spoke at length on the traffic studies conducted, both in low and high season. Adding the Eastbound through lane meets the criteria for the Town of Estes Park and CDOT. Larry Leaming, CEO of Estes Park Health (EPH), spoke on the interest the hospital has and the importance of Urgent Care, especially after business hours. The Emergency Room should not be the only option for medical care. The traveling public are use to looking for Urgent Care. This will be available and visible for all, with x-rays, lab and pharmacy on site. Ambulances will be taking people to the ER, not urgent care. Hours will be tracked and decided based on demand. Associated expenses will not strain the Hospital or Family Medical Clinic due to revenues gained from the urgent care. Phil Heinrichs, owner/developer, stated his commitment to the long term success of the project. The on-site Jimmy John’s manager will also act as the property manager. Eight business have made commitments for leasing residences. Public Comment: Those speaking against the Development Plan, citing reasons of the disproportional residential footage ratio to the commercial footage, delivery vehicles for Jimmy Johns not calculated into the traffic study, pedestrian and automobile traffic, and not enough parking: 29 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 16, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 David Courtes, Janet Jones, Shaun Jones, Deb Seick, Kris Adams, Pete Maxwell. Those speaking in favor of the Development Plan stating the huge need for housing and meeting community needs: Tim Cashman, Randy Brigham, David Batey, Gerald Mayo, Ryan Leahy, Charlie Dickey, Bill Van Horn, John Nicholas, Guy Beesley, Naomi Hawf. Applicant Comments: Pedestrian traffic will be mostly on the north side of Highway 34, with residents going to work at Stanley Village and downtown. The unallocated space in the building is a basement, which Estes Park Health has agreed to lease. EPH and Jimmy Johns will have two units each. Leases to J-1 visa holders generate enough income to cover the whole year. Added landscaping on the eastern property line is acceptable. CDOT will not make any commitments until a full plan set is submitted. Commissioner concerns/discussion: o Impressed with the interactions with the neighborhood community. o Parking restrictions would be included in the lease: 69 spaces total, 11 for employee housing, 44 for businesses. Spaces were calculated at 1.3 per unit. If parking becomes a problem, it is up to the owner to correct. o Rentals will be strictly to businesses with contracts for a unit, and inhabitants must be employed in the Estes Valley, not leased to the general public. o EPH stated that they are renting the entire 12,000 sf. 3000 for urgent care, the extra 9,000 sf will be determined as needs arise. o Traffic study does not meet peak hour needs for a light. o The risks involved will fall on the developer, not the town. o Traffic light, cross-walk or roundabout installation discussions with CDOT. o One building will not make a huge difference in traffic compared to the benefit the project will provide. o Mixed use is a creative and thoughtful design. o Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over the Board of Adjustment’s decision. o Request for an additional traffic and pedestrian study when project is complete. It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to approve the Alarado Business Park Development Plan with the following conditions: Additional landscaping shall be installed along the eastern property line, including trees and shrubs to provide adequate screening from the neighboring property, with the landscaping to be designed and installed outside the dedicated public utility easement. The motion passed 7-0. MINUTES AMENDED AT THE 7/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS WRITTEN BELOW: 30 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 16, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5 It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to approve the Alarado Business Park Development Plan according to the findings of fact, with findings and conditions recommended by staff, with the condition that the applicant provide a plan that shows trees planted on the eastern boundary as part of a landscape buffer, and they can be on the neighbors property to satisfy that, to provide adequate screening from the neighboring property, with the landscaping to be designed and installed outside the dedicated public utility easement. The motion passed 7-0. Due to time constraints, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 4:18 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 31 Attachment 632 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 20, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Steve Murphree, Frank Theis, Nick Smith, Dave Converse Attending: Chair Leavitt, Vice-Chair White, Commissioners Murphree, Theis, Smith, Converse Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Planner I Linda Hardin, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanund, Town Board Liasion Ron Norris, Town Attorney Dan Kramer Absent: None OPEN MEETING Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were approximately 35 people in attendance. APPROVAL OF AGEND A It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0. PUBLIC COMMENT None CONSENT AGENT 1. Study Session Minutes dated July 16, 2019 2. Meeting Minutes dated July 16, 2019 It was moved and seconded (Converse/Theis) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0. ACTION ITEMS 1.DEVELOPMENT PLAN: THE MEADOW CONDOMINIUMS at WILDFIRE Senior Planner Woeber gave a synopsis of the entire Wildfire Development Plan. He reviewed the Development Plan proposal for The Meadow Condominiums. The applicant proposes to develop the vacant lot with nine condominium buildings, eight units per building, containing a total of 72 individual units. All units will be qualified as workforce housing. Workforce housing, under the EVDC §11.4.C., requires, “…at least one (1) resident in each housing unit annually submits an affidavit, including a copy of a W-2 form, to the Town certifying that the resident is employed within the Estes Park School District R-3 Boundary Map.” Attachment 7 33 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 20, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall As all units are proposed as workforce, the applicant is able to utilize the density and height bonus incentives per EVDC §11.4. The maximum permitted density for this lot using the density bonus incentive (200% of maximum base) is 84 units; however the applicant is proposing 72 with this project. A Restrictive Covenant Agreement is required. Applicant Discussion: Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, distributed a letter of support from the Estes Park Economic Development Corp. He shared a slide show explaining the project and the steps that have been taken thus far in the process as well as the architectural plans and distances from the residences to the south of the development and emergency access points. The price point of units is planned at $260,000-$425,000. A turn lane is not required per the LCUASS Standard (Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards). However, the owners have agreed to install a left turn lane at Wildfire Drive; no additional land will be required to do this. Public Comment: Anna Schonlau, town resident, asked who will be enforcing the workforce housing and commented that the emergency outlets do not meet the fire code requirements. Hold off on any advancement until these concerns are discussed. Applicant response: Reviews with the Fire Marshall have been ongoing and frequent. There are numerous emergency access points planned. Commission Discussion: Attorney Kramer noted that workforce housing will be reviewed by the Town and the Housing Authority, working together to verify employment. Modifications to the Covenants would be decided by the Town Board of Trustees. The Restrictive Covenants run for 50 years. Woeber addressed the emergency outlets, stating that the Fire Marshall thoroughly reviewed the plan and will permit some leeway with ingress and egress. It was suggested to have a letter from the Fire Marshall or have him present at the Town Board Meeting. It was moved and seconded (White/Theis) to APPROVE The Meadow Condominiums at Wildfire Development Plan application according to findings as presented. The motion passed 6-0. 2. PRELIMINARY CONDO MAP, The Meadow Condominiums Staff noted the Preliminary Condominium map is nearly identical to the Development Plan. It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to forward a recommendation of APPROVAL to the Town Board of Trustees of The Meadow 34 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 20, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Condominiums at Wildfire Preliminary Condominium Map application, according to findings of fact recommended by Staff. The motion passed 6-0. 3. THE DIVIDE CONDOMINIUMS at WILDFIRE. The applicants propose to develop the vacant lot with two condominium buildings, with eight units per building, containing a total of 16 individual units. All units will be qualified as workforce housing. Workforce housing, under the EVDC §11.4.C., requires, “…at least one (1) resident in each housing unit annually submits an affidavit, including a copy of a W-2 form, to the Town certifying that the resident is employed within the Estes Park School District R-3 Boundary Map.” As all units are proposed as workforce, the applicant can utilize the density and height bonus incentives per EVDC §11.4. The maximum permitted density for this lot using the density bonus incentive (200% of maximum base) is 16.3 units, where the applicant is proposing 16. The height bonus incentive allows a maximum height of 38 feet, with a maximum height of 34.83 feet being proposed. Applicant Discussion: see above for The Meadow Public Comment: see above for The Meadow It was moved and seconded (White/Leavitt) to APPROVE The Divide Condominiums at Wildfire Development Plan application according to findings as presented. The motion passed 6-0. 4. PRELIMINARY CONDO MAP, The Divide Condominiums Staff noted the Preliminary Condominium map is nearly identical to the Development Plan. It was moved and seconded (White/Murphee) to forward a recommendation of APPROVAL to the Town Board of Trustees of The Divide Condominiums at Wildfire Preliminary Condominium Map application, according to findings of fact recommended by Staff. The motion passed 6-0. 5. ESTES PARK CHALET DEVELOPMENT PLAN Woeber summarized the Development application proposing to rebuild the lodge, which will have 49 rooms, a restaurant, meeting space, and a craft brewing area. Staff notes the Estes Park Chalet project involves the rebuild of the lodge facility, along with a new proposed “Event Facility.” With that, staff has reviewed and evaluated the impacts of the project as a whole, while at the same time recognizing there are two distinct approval processes. The uses-by-right in the Accommodations Zoning (Hotel/Motel and Restaurant) are considered for action 35 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 20, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall by the EVPC in the Development Plan, while at the same time recognizing the project involves the Event Facility. The Event Facility use itself is subject to an S1 Level Special Review, with final action by the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees as the governing body. There is no recommendation by the EVPC for the S1 Special Review. The Special Review is scheduled for the August 27, 2019, Town Board hearing. Applicant Comments: Morgan Mulch, owner, described the past 14 months of planning this development after the devastating fire. He has received a positive consensus from the two HOA boards regarding the plans. 51 of 69 condos on site are in the rental pool, the new accommodations will allow for most event guests to be on-site. The event center will hold 200 people, the restaurant will have 50 seats. Bo Wenzl, project manager, gave a timeline of construction stating it will take between 14-16 months and is being done by Doan Construction using the 2015 Building code requirements. Dave Bangs, Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers, spoke on the emergency access points, which will be a significant improvement from what has been, including fire sprinklers and hydrants There was a drainage study done in 2006 for the entire area. The majority of the project is being done in the original footprint of the burned lodge. Sean Keller, Traffic Engineer Consultant, noted the site plan parking requirements were calculated according to the current Institute of Traffic Engineering total use and total demand, which calls for 195 spaces. Considerable discussion on parking was had between the applicants and the Commission. There is no reciprocal agreement with the church on Promontory Drive. Public Comment: John Meissner, town resident, asked what is being done for fire suppression. (see above) Commission Comments: Appreciation for the timeliness of the rebuild and the overall likeability and creativity of the plan. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Murphree) to APPROVE the Estes Park Chalet Development Plan application according to findings as presented. The motion passed 6-0. 6. BEST WESTERN-SILVER SADDLE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Planner Hardin described the current application to add 18 guest units to the motel, move the swimming pool to an indoor location, and add separate laundry facilities for guests and staff. In addition, the proposal includes employee break areas and an office. Additional parking is included to accommodate the increase in guest units. The property has 56.5% impervious coverage, improving on the 36 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 20, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall nonconforming standard. Parking spaces have been corrected to 19.5 feet, per code. Applicant comment: Wally Burke, owner, wants to bring the hotel up to modern standards, centrally locate the lobby and make most rooms indoor-corridor. Neighbor views will not be lost. Pubic Comment: Ron Stevens, town resident, objected to the plan as it will impede the view from his condo (E) in Ranch Meadows thus impacting his property value. A redesign of the roof could minimize the impact. Barbra Headley, town resident, stated that the height variance seems to be glossed over. Dave Wehrs, town resident, had questions on how the height was calculated. Applicant response: Jason McMurren, Bas1s Architecture, confirmed the roof is in line with the standard 30 foot code requirement. Building heights are calculated by taking the tallest and shortest part of the building from grade to roofline and averaging those measurements. Commission comments: Viewshed has been a concern in the past, but as long as the plan follows the Development Code there is nothing the Planning Commission can do. Submitting a cross-section of the building would make it much easier to understand the building height. It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Theis) to APPROVE the Silver Saddle Addition Development Plan application according to findings of fact and including conditions as recommended by Staff. The motion passed 6-0. 7. MODIFICATION OF ALARADO DEVELOPMENT PLAN Director Hunt explained the request of the applicants’ request to modify the conditions of Development Plan approval by adding an option for traffic management on U.S. 34 adjacent to the project site. The applicants specifically are asking that the conditional approval allows for the possibility of a traffic signal at the U.S. 34 / Steamer Drive intersection, rather than the additional traffic lane approved in Oct. 2018, provided that CDOT approves the signal and that other necessary steps (including funding) align. Approval of the motion will not lock in either option for the U.S. 34 traffic solution; it will only allow continued design of the signal and a path to possible approval of that option. Applicant comments: Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, reported that CDOT stated that a waiver could be allowed for a traffic light less than ½ mile from the closest signal if traffic warrants. A traffic study was done in mid-June 37 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 20, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall and again in August and numbers are now available to take to CDOT for review. The applicant pursued this improvement at their own cost. This request is an option to the original plan; it will be either/or. Ryan Wells, owner, noted that he will fund a traffic light 100%. Public Comment: Sean Jones, town resident, stated that 33% of Jimmy Johns business is delivery and delivery vehicles will account for more traffic. A light will back up traffic on Steamer Drive. David Cordes, town resident, stated that a traffic light may not solve all the problems, and suggested a public meeting to throw out all possible scenarios. Applicant response: A light will provide significant breaks in traffic for turning onto Highway 34. Commission Comments: Questions about the fate of the pedestrian crosswalk to the north. The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) is an excellent venue for public input. The final decision is up to CDOT, not Public Works or the Town Board. It was moved and seconded (Theis/Smith) to APPROVE the modification to conditions of approval for the Alarado Business Park Development Plan application according to findings of fact and including conditions as recommended by Staff. The motion passed 6-0. REPORTS • Park and Recreation Amendment will be on the Town Board meeting on August 27. The “Green” option will return with camping and hunting struck out. • Suggestion of having an on-site visual of proposed project heights for Development Projects. • Town and County have set a tentative meeting date of September 30 to discuss the future of the IGA. • ADJOURN There being no further business Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m. Bob Leavitt, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 38 Recommended Conditions of T.C.O. Approval from Staff: Sent to applicants’ team on April 20, 2020 [Notes on abbreviations: T.C.O. and TCO = Temporary Certificate of Occupancy EB = eastbound (lane of travel); WB = westbound; etc. 1.The traffic signal design, including the technical details for a communication link from the new signal to all the downstream signals on US 34, must be completed to the satisfaction of the Town and CDOT, as expressed in writing, prior to the issuance of a TCO for the proposed fast-food use. 2.A traffic progression analysis, confirming this new signal can communicate and interface with the downstream traffic signals on US 36 as needed to maintain an acceptable coordinated flow of traffic EB and WB on US 34 during the summer guest season, must be approved in writing by the Town and CDOT prior to the issuance of a TCO for the proposed fast-food use. 3.A copy of the contract cost and schedule for the installation of the traffic signal, and all associated civil infrastructure work at the intersection of Steamer Drive and US 34, must be approved by the Town as realistic and adequately detailed prior to the issuance of a TCO for the proposed fast-food use. 4.Evidence must be provided, to the Town's satisfaction, that all traffic signal materials have been ordered, and the expected delivery and installation dates identified, prior to the issuance of a TCO for the proposed fast-food use. 5.A letter of credit or cash deposit in the amount of 150% of the traffic signal improvements bid amount, and in a form satisfactory to the Town, must be provided for the incomplete intersection and project site work remaining prior to the issuance of a TCO for the proposed fast-food use. Securities already provided to the Town shall be accepted as contributing to this security requirement, to the extent that the Town confirms in writing at a future date that other improvements of the development no longer require their existing securities. The Town may draw upon such securities if any letter of credit is within a week of expiring or if the developer fails to comply with the conditions of approval, including if the traffic signal is not installed and operational within the deadlines described below. 6.The Town will issue a TCO for the proposed fast-food use, but restricting the use to a deliveries-only operation, with no drive-through or in-house sales permitted. The Town's Code Enforcement Officer may conduct random inspections at the Alarado Business Park to ensure compliance with the deliveries-only stipulation. The deliveries-only operations may continue under the TCO until such date that (a) the TCO would expire naturally under the Town's codes and procedures; (b) the traffic volumes on US 34 exceed 9000 vehicles per day at the CDOT count station near Mall Road; or (c) the traffic signal is installed, inspected, and accepted by the Town and CDOT as applicable; whichever occurs first. 7.If the daily traffic volume at the aforementioned CDOT US 34 count station at Mall Road exceeds 9000 vehicles per day and the traffic signal has not yet been installed, inspected, and accepted by the Town and CDOT, Town staff will notify the developer, and deliveries from the fast-food use will thereupon be further restricted to bicycles only. Deliveries via motor vehicles will be prohibited until the traffic signal is installed, inspected, and accepted. 8.The fast-food use may commence full service operations after CDOT and Town approval of a completed traffic signal at the intersection of US 34 and Steamer Drive, provided that public health directives and any other regulatory aspects pertaining to full-service Attachment 8 39 operations shall also apply. The TCO will remain in effect if a temporary traffic signal is installed, and the unrestricted CO will be issued upon completion, inspection, and acceptance of the permanent traffic signal by the Town and CDOT, provided that all other requirements for issuance of a final CO are also met to the Town’s satisfaction. 9. If the permanent signal is not installed, inspected, and accepted by the Town and CDOT by November 6, 2020, the applicant shall immediately replace the letter of credit with a cash deposit in the amount of 150% of the bid amount for the incomplete traffic signal work. The Town may for this purpose present and draw upon the letter of credit if the developer does not accomplish the cash deposit at such time. If the permanent traffic signal is not installed, inspected, and accepted by the Town and CDOT by April 1, 2021, the Town will draw upon the cash deposit to install the signal, and may engage a contractor to complete the work. In that circumstance, any unspent deposited funds will be returned to the applicant upon final completion and acceptance of the signal improvements. 40 Action Item 2 - Appellant’s Written Presentation Materials and Exhibits Appeal of Staff Denial of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Alarado Development Presentation Material Exhibit A, 1-8 Powerpoint Presentation, Town Board of Trustees, June 23, 2020 Approvals and Inspection Reports Exhibit B - 9 2020-05-01 Certificate of Occupancy, Residences at Alarado Busines Park Exhibit C - 10 2020-05-01 Certificate of Occupancy, Estes Park Health Urgent Care Exhibit D – 11 - 23 2020-05-04 LCDHE Inspection Reports, 5-4-2020 Construction Inspection, 12- 6- Exhibit E – 24 25 2020-05-06 Sign off email for Jimmy John’s (all but PW) from Eris Audette Communications from Estes Park Staff Exhibit F - 26 2019-07-11 Building Permit Exhibit A (Building Permit B-11110) Exhibit G - 27 2019-12-13 Medical Finish Building Permit Exhibit A (Building Permit B- Exhibit H - 28 2020-02-26 – Email from Jennifer Waters re: Comments from Public Works Exhibit I – 29 - 31 2020-02-27 – Email from Jennifer Waters re: Delay in returning comments from Public Works Exhibit J – 32 - 33 2020-02-27 Public Works Comments on signal, dated 1-17-2020, received 2-27- 2020 Exhibit K – 34 - 35 2020-04-20 Proposal from Estes Park Town Attorney, Dan Kramer Exhibit L – 36 - 38 2020-05-07 Email from Dan Kramer, Estes Park Town Attorney. Exhibit M – 39 - 40 2020-05-12 Letter with counteroffer to Dan Kramer Traffic Studies Exhibit N – 41 - 42 2020-06-15 Delich traffic memo Exhibit O – 43 - 105 2018-08-22 Updated Traffic Impact Study Exhibit P – 106 – 125 2019-08-01 Delich traffic signal warrant analysis Petitions and Letters of Support Exhibit Q – 126 - 159 2020-06-15 Petitions Exhibit R - 160 2020-06-15 – Support letter from Timothy Cashman – Estes Park Health Exhibit S- 161 Letter of Support Placeholder Exhibit T - 162 2020-06-15 – Support letter from Gerald Mayo – Estes Park Team Realty Exhibit U - 163 2020-06-15 – Support letter from John Thomason – Nicky’s Steak House Exhibit V - 164 2020-06-15 – Support letter from Lowell Richardson – PMI Estes Park Exhibit W – 165 - 166 2020-06-15 – Support letter from Lonnie Sheldon – Van Horn Engineering Submissions and Meeting Minutes Exhibit X – 167 - 171 2018-10-16 Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes – Approved, “Traffic study does not meet peak hour needs for a light.” Exhibit Y – 172 - 177 2018-10-16 Estes Park Staff Report prepared for Estes Valley Planning Commission Packet, excluding exhibits Exhibit Z – 178 - 183 2019-08-20 Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit AA – 184 - 186 2019-08-20 Estes Park Staff Report prepared for Estes Valley Planning Commission Packet, excluding exhibits. Exhibit AB – 187 – 192 2020-06-03 Alarado Signalized Intersection Civil Plans DRAFT (submission to CDOT) 41 J. BRADFORD MARCH STEWART W. OLIVE MARCH & OLIVE, LLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1312 S. College Avenue FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (970) 482-4322 FAX (970) 482-5719 ARTHUR E. MARCH 1908-1981 ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. 1933-2005 JOHN W. PHARRIS Retired-2019 Appellant’s Written Presentation Materials and Exhibits Appeal of Staff Denial of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Alarado Development Presentation Material Page 1 Powerpoint Presentation, Town Board of Trustees, June 23, 2020 Approvals and Inspection Reports 9 2020-05-01 Certificate of Occupancy, Residences at Alarado Busines Park 10 2020-05-01 Certificate of Occupancy, Estes Park Health Urgent Care 11 2020-05-04 LCDHE Inspection Reports, 5-4-2020 Construction Inspection, 12-6- 2019 Plan Review 2, and 10-28-2019 Plan Review 1 24 2020-05-06 Sign off email for Jimmy John’s (all but PW) from Eris Audette Communications from Estes Park Staff 26 2019-07-11 Building Permit Exhibit A (Building Permit B-11110) 27 2019-12-13 Medical Finish Building Permit Exhibit A (Building Permit B-11223) 28 2020-02-26 – Email from Jennifer Waters re: Comments from Public Works 29 2020-02-27 – Email from Jennifer Waters re: Delay in returning comments from Public Works 32 2020-02-27 Public Works Comments on signal, dated 1-17-2020, received 2-27- 2020 34 2020-04-20 Proposal from Estes Park Town Attorney, Dan Kramer 36 2020-05-07 Email from Dan Kramer, Estes Park Town Attorney. 39 2020-05-12 Letter with counteroffer to Dan Kramer Traffic Studies 41 2020-06-15 Delich traffic memo 43 2018-08-22 Updated Traffic Impact Study 106 2019-08-01 Delich traffic signal warrant analysis Petitions and Letters of Support 126 2020-06-15 Petitions 160 2020-06-15 – Support letter from Timothy Cashman – Estes Park Health 161 Letter of Support Placeholder 162 2020-06-15 – Support letter from Gerald Mayo – Estes Park Team Realty 163 2020-06-15 – Support letter from John Thomason – Nicky’s Steak House 164 2020-06-15 – Support letter from Lowell Richardson – PMI Estes Park 165 2020-06-15 – Support letter from Lonnie Sheldon – Van Horn Engineering Submissions and Meeting Minutes 167 2018-10-16 Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes – Approved, “Traffic study does not meet peak hour needs for a light.” 42 172 2018-10-16 Estes Park Staff Report prepared for Estes Valley Planning Commission Packet, excluding exhibits 178 2019-08-20 Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes 184 2019-08-20 Estes Park Staff Report prepared for Estes Valley Planning Commission Packet, excluding exhibits. 187 2020-06-03 Alarado Signalized Intersection Civil Plans DRAFT (submission to CDOT) 43 6/16/2020 1 ALARADO BUSINESS PARK APPEAL OF DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY June 23, 2020 Stewart OliveMarch and Olive, LLC ALARADO BUSINESS PARK •Estes Park Health Urgent Care •Employee Housing Units •Jimmy John’s Restaurant 1 2 Page 1 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 44 6/16/2020 2 TIMELINE 2018-2019 –Original planning included a new Eastbound through lane July 2019 –To issue building permit, Town required: 1. Promise of Letter of Credit as security 2. No final CO for Jimmy John’s before US34 work is completed. TIMELINE August 2019 –Traffic signal determined to be better fit for town and development needs December 2019 –To issue building permit (medical tenant finish), Town required: $600,000 Letter of Credit for traffic signal December 2019 – Design submitted to town January 6, 2020 –Town of Estes Community Development seeks comment 3 4 Page 2 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 45 6/16/2020 3 TIMELINE January 17 –Deadline for comments on signal February 27, 2020 –Public Works comments received March 11 –Colorado issues COVID emergency order March 13 –Larimer County issues COVID emergency order May 1 –CO issued for Urgent Care and Residences TIMELINE June 3, 2020 –Resubmittal of traffic signal design to CDOT. Major changes in response to town comments: Pedestrian requirements ADA modifications Increased visibility June 16, 2020 –Comments received by Public Works Still awaiting CDOT 5 6 Page 3 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 46 6/16/2020 4 JIMMY JOHN’S IS READY TO OPEN Passed inspections by Larimer County Board of Health in May (final inspection cannot be completed without CO) The traffic signal is the only delay. SUPPORT FOR JIMMY JOHN’S Petitions Timothy Cashman – Estes Park Health John W. Cullen, IV –Stanley Hotel Gerald Mayo – Estes Park Team Realty John Thomason – Nicky’s Steak House Lowell Richardson –PMI Estes Park Lonnie Sheldon –Van Horn Engineering 7 8 Page 4 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 47 6/16/2020 5 “THE JIMMY JOHN'S HAS NO OTHER PATH TO A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY” 1. Full waiver and release of all claims against town. 2. TCO for deliveries only after: a) Signal design complete, approved by town & CDOT. (1) b) Confirmed interface with signals, approved by town & CDOT. (2) c) All civil infrastructure approved by town. (3) d) Signal delivery and installation dates identified. (4) e) $900,000 Letter of Credit, 150% of expected cost. (5) 3. TCO - deliveries only. (6) 4. Bike deliveries only if US34 hits 9000 vpd. (7) 5. Full-service operation after signal is completed. (8) 6. On November 6, 2020, letter of credit must be replaced by 150% cash deposit. (9) TRAFFIC UPDATE June 2020 -24% decline from August 2019 At current rates, traffic signal wouldn’t be recommended. 9 10 Page 5 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 48 6/16/2020 6 §111.2 OF THE 2015 IBC §111.2 of the 2015 International Building Code, as amended and adopted by the Town of Estes Park After the building official inspects the building or structure and does not find violations of the provisions of this code or other laws that are enforced by the department of building safety, the building official shall issue a certificate of occupancy that contains the following [information on the applicant and inspection.] ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE14.04.020 - APPEAL PROCEDURE. b) Any person who is denied a permit by the Building Official may file an appeal with the Board of Trustees on the basis that such refusal is not justified, is based on an unreasonable provision of the building code or that an undue hardship would be imposed upon the person by the strict compliance with the code. … 11 12 Page 6 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 49 6/16/2020 7 IMPACT ON JIMMY JOHN’S Sales lost Wages Employees Expenses Sales Taxes not paid Improvements to the intersection at US 34 will be completed. The town holds a $600,000 letter of credit as security. The traffic signal and road improvements are actively underway. 13 14 Page 7 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 50 6/16/2020 8 Stewart Olive March and Olive, LLC 15 Page 8 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 51 Certificate of Occupancy 420 Steamer Pkwy This Mix Use Residential Building has been inspected for compliance with the laws and ordinances of the Town of Estes Park and is hereby issued a Certificate of Occupancy. Building Permit Number B-11110 Applicable Edition of Code 2015 I-Codes Use and Occupancy B & R-2 Type of Construction V-B Design Occupant Load 124 Sprinkler System Required NFPA 13 Zoning District CO- Commercial Special Conditions NA Building Official Date Name and Address of Owner (s) Alarado Enterprise LLC 1911 Arrowhead Dr Holdridge NE 68949 Gary Rusu, CBO 5/1/2020 Page 9 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 52 Certificate of Occupancy 420 Steamer Pkwy Suite 101 This Medical Facility has been inspected for compliance with the laws and ordinances of the Town of Estes Park and is hereby issued a Certificate of Occupancy. Building Permit Number B-11223 Applicable Edition of Code 2015 I-Codes Use and Occupancy B-I Type of Construction V-B Design Occupant Load 139 Sprinkler System Required NFPA 13 Zoning District CO- Commercial Special Conditions NA Building Official Date Name and Address of Owner (s) Alarado Enterprise LLC 1911 Arrowhead Dr Holdridge NE 68949 Gary Rusu, CBO 5/1/2020 Page 10 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 53 Page 1 of 3 Larimer County Department of Health & Environment 1525 Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524-2004 (970)498-6776 www.larimer.org/health FOOD ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTION REPORT License Posted?: NA Establishment: JIMMY JOHNS Owner: ALARADO ENTERPRISES LLC Establishment ID: 45484 Address: 420 STEAMER DRIVE, SUITE 100 ESTES PARK, CO 80521 Time In: 11:47 AM Inspection Time: 75 Inspection Date: May 04, 2020 Seating Capacity: 20 Inspection Type: Other, Construction Check FOODBORNE ILLNESS RISK FACTORS AND PUBLIC HEALTH INTERVENTIONS Risk factors are important practices or procedures identified as the most prevalent contributing factors of foodborne illness or injury. Public health interventions are control measures to prevent foodborne illness or injury. Compliance status to be designated as IN, OUT, NA, NO for each numbered item. IN=In compliance OUT=Not in compliance NO=Not observed NA=Not applicable COS=Corrected on site R=Repeat violation Compliance Status COS R Supervision 1 In Person in charge present, demonstrates knowledge, and performs duties 2 In Certified Food Protection Manager Employee Health 3 In Management, food employee and conditional employee; knowledge, responsibilities and reporting 4 In Proper use of restriction and exclusion 5 In Procedures for responding to vomiting and diarrheal events Good Hygenic Practices 6 In Proper eating, tasting, drinking, or tobacco use 7 In No discharge from eyes, nose, and mouth Preventing Contamination by Hands 8 In Hands clean & properly washed 9 In No bare hand contact with RFE food or a pre-approved alternative procedure properly allowed 10 In Adequate handwashing sinks properly supplied and accessible Approved Source 11 In Food obtained from approved source 12 In Food received at proper temperature 13 In Food in good condition, safe, & unadulterated 14 In Required records available: shellstock tags, parasite destruction Protection from Contamination 15 In Food separated and protected 16 In Food contact surfaces; cleaned & sanitized 17 In Proper disposition of returned, previously served, reconditioned & unsafe food Time/Temperature Control for Safety 18 In Proper cooking time & temperatures 19 In Proper reheating procedures for hot holding 20 In Proper cooling time and temperature 21 In Proper hot holding temperatures 22 In Proper cold holding temperatures 23 In Proper date marking and disposition 24 In Time as a Public Health Control; procedures & records Consumer Advisory 25 In Consumer advisory provided for raw/undercooked food Highly Susceptible Populations 26 In Pasteurized foods used; prohibited foods not offered Food/Color Additives and Toxic Substances 27 In Food additives: approved & Properly used 28 In Toxic substances properly identified, stored & used Conformance with Approved Procedures 29 In Compliance with variance / specialized process / HACCP Page 11 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 54 Page 2 of 3 GOOD RETAIL PRACTICES Good Retail Practices are preventative measures to control the addition of pathogens, chemicals, and physical objects in foods. OUT=Not in compliance COS=Corrected on site R=Repeat violation Compliance Status COS R Safe Food and Water 30 Pasteurized eggs used where required 31 Water and ice from approved source 32 Variance obtained for specialized processing methods Food Temperature Control 33 Proper cooling methods used; adequate equipment for temperature control 34 Plant food properly cooked for hot holding 35 Approved thawing methods used 36 Thermometer provided & accurate Food Identification 37 Food properly labeled; original container Prevention of Food Contamination 38 Insects, rodents, & animals not present 39 Contamination prevented during food preparation, storage & display 40 Personal cleanliness 41 Wiping Cloths; properly used & stored 42 Washing fruits & vegetables Proper Use of Utensils 43 In-use utensils: properly stored 44 Utensils, equipment & linens: properly stored, dried, & handled 45 Single-use / single-service articles: properly stored & used 46 Gloves used properly Utensils, Equipment and Vending 47 Food & non-food contact surfaces cleanable, properly designed, constructed, & used 48 Warewashing facilities: installed, maintained, & used; test strips 49 Non-food contact surfaces clean Physical Facilities 50 Hot & cold water available; adequate pressure 51 Plumbing installed; proper backflow devices 52 Sewage & waste water properly disposed 53 Toilet facilities; properly constructed, supplied, & cleaned 54 Garbage & refuse properly disposed; facilities maintained 55 Physical facilities installed, maintained, & clean 56 Adequate ventilation & lighting; designated areas used Page 12 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 55 Page 3 of 3 Inspection Comments A construction check was completed today and a carbon copy report was left with the construction manager during the inspection. The following was noted on the inspection report. Provide soap and paper towels at hand sinks. Seal opening where soda lines are routed through floor by bag and box rack and by drink dispenser. Seal gaps between tile and cove base in back room. Verify that electrician wired water heater elements to operate simultaneously. A Rheem ELDS water heater has been installed and if elements are firing simultaneously, this water heater is adequately sized with 60 gallon per hour recovery at 80F rise and 12 KW. Provide a minimum of 100F water temperatures at hand washing sinks. Connect splash guard to adjacent prep sink. Neatly seal connection. Provide leg kit for large CO2 tank to allow adjacent floors and wall to be accessible to cleaning. Rating:Not Rated Rating Calculation Info:http://www.larimer.org/food/RiskIndexInfo.html Follow-up Required:No Follow-up Date (on or about):NA Inspected By: MENZIES, DAVID Phone: 970-577-2051 EHS Email: dmenzies@larimer.org Received By: David Menzies Received By Email: dmenzies@larimer.org Received By Phone: Food Safety Resources: https://www.larimer.org/health/safety-sanitation-programs/food-safety-program/food-safety-resources Visit the Food Inspection Reporting web site at www.larimer.org/food Food Safety Training 970-498-6008 www.larimer.org/ext Page 13 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 56 Page 1 of 3 Larimer County Department of Health & Environment 1525 Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524-2004 (970) 498-6776 www.larimer.org/health FOOD ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTION REPORT License Posted?: NA Establishment: JIMMY JOHNS Owner: ALARADO ENTERPRISES LLC Establishment ID: 45452 Address: 420 STEAMER DR STE 100 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Time In: 9:58 AM Inspection Time: 30 Inspection Date: December 06, 2019 Seating Capacity: 1 Inspection Type: Other, Plan Review FOODBORNE ILLNESS RISK FACTORS AND PUBLIC HEALTH INTERVENTIONS Risk factors are important practices or procedures identified as the most prevalent contributing factors of foodborne illness or injury. Public health interventions are control measures to prevent foodborne illness or injury. Compliance status to be designated as IN, OUT, NA, NO for each numbered item. IN=In compliance OUT=Not in compliance NO=Not observed NA=Not applicable COS=Corrected on site R=Repeat violation Compliance Status COS R Supervision 1 In Person in charge present, demonstrates knowledge, and performs duties 2 In Certified Food Protection Manager Employee Health 3 In Management, food employee and conditional employee; knowledge, responsibilities and reporting 4 In Proper use of restriction and exclusion 5 In Procedures for responding to vomiting and diarrheal events Good Hygenic Practices 6 In Proper eating, tasting, drinking, or tobacco use 7 In No discharge from eyes, nose, and mouth Preventing Contamination by Hands 8 In Hands clean & properly washed 9 In No bare hand contact with RFE food or a pre-approved alternative procedure properly allowed 10 In Adequate handwashing sinks properly supplied and accessible Approved Source 11 In Food obtained from approved source 12 In Food received at proper temperature 13 In Food in good condition, safe, & unadulterated 14 In Required records available: shellstock tags, parasite destruction Protection from Contamination 15 In Food separated and protected 16 In Food contact surfaces; cleaned & sanitized 17 In Proper disposition of returned, previously served, reconditioned & unsafe food Time/Temperature Control for Safety 18 In Proper cooking time & temperatures 19 In Proper reheating procedures for hot holding 20 In Proper cooling time and temperature 21 In Proper hot holding temperatures 22 In Proper cold holding temperatures 23 In Proper date marking and disposition 24 In Time as a Public Health Control; procedures & records Consumer Advisory 25 In Consumer advisory provided for raw/undercooked food Highly Susceptible Populations 26 In Pasteurized foods used; prohibited foods not offered Food/Color Additives and Toxic Substances 27 In Food additives: approved & Properly used 28 In Toxic substances properly identified, stored & used Conformance with Approved Procedures 29 In Compliance with variance / specialized process / HACCP Page 14 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 57 Page 2 of 3 GOOD RETAIL PRACTICES Good Retail Practices are preventative measures to control the addition of pathogens, chemicals, and physical objects in foods. OUT=Not in compliance COS=Corrected on site R=Repeat violation Compliance Status COS R Safe Food and Water 30 Pasteurized eggs used where required 31 Water and ice from approved source 32 Variance obtained for specialized processing methods Food Temperature Control 33 Proper cooling methods used; adequate equipment for temperature control 34 Plant food properly cooked for hot holding 35 Approved thawing methods used 36 Thermometer provided & accurate Food Identification 37 Food properly labeled; original container Prevention of Food Contamination 38 Insects, rodents, & animals not present 39 Contamination prevented during food preparation, storage & display 40 Personal cleanliness 41 Wiping Cloths; properly used & stored 42 Washing fruits & vegetables Proper Use of Utensils 43 In-use utensils: properly stored 44 Utensils, equipment & linens: properly stored, dried, & handled 45 Single-use / single-service articles: properly stored & used 46 Gloves used properly Utensils, Equipment and Vending 47 Food & non-food contact surfaces cleanable, properly designed, constructed, & used 48 Warewashing facilities: installed, maintained, & used; test strips 49 Non-food contact surfaces clean Physical Facilities 50 Hot & cold water available; adequate pressure 51 Plumbing installed; proper backflow devices 52 Sewage & waste water properly disposed 53 Toilet facilities; properly constructed, supplied, & cleaned 54 Garbage & refuse properly disposed; facilities maintained 55 Physical facilities installed, maintained, & clean 56 Adequate ventilation & lighting; designated areas used Page 15 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 58 Page 3 of 3 Inspection Comments December 6, 2019 Ed Glavin 1212 Riverside Ave. Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Dear Mr. Glavin, The revised plans submitted for the construction of Jimmy Johns to be located at 420 Steamer Drive, Suite 100 in Estes park, Colorado, have been reviewed by this department. The plans are approved. Item 17 required modification in order to be in compliance with the Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations. 1. (Per review letter dated 10/28/19) A hand washing sink is not easily accessible from the open top refrigerated cooler located adjacent to the food preparation sink, item 13 in the plans. The current location of the hand sink would required a food worker to walk about 15? through the ware washing area to the far wall of the kitchen to access a hand sink, or walk approximately 15? past the drive through window and main sandwich assembly area to access the other hand sink in the kitchen. An easy to access hand washing sink must be provided for this food preparation area. The location of the handwashing sink has been revised to allow easily access for handwashing at the food preparation area by the slicer and open top cooler and will be installed between the warewashing area and the food preparation area. In addition to the $100 plan review application fee paid at the time the plans were submitted for review, a review fee is assessed for the actual review time. The review fee is assessed at a rate of $44 per hour. The final review cost for this project is $ 220. Please be advised, before the department can give any approval for operation all plan review fees must be paid. The plan review billing invoice for this project is attached to the hard copy of the final approval letter. Please feel free to contact this department if questions arise, or if I can be of further service at (970) 577-2051 or at dmenzies@larimer.org. Sincerely, David Menzies, REHS Sr. Environmental Health Specialist cc: Town of Estes Park Division of Building Safety via electronic mail Risk Index Rating: Not Rated Risk Index Calculation Info:http://www.larimer.org/food/RiskIndexInfo.html Follow-up Required:No Follow-up Date (on or about):NA Inspected By: MENZIES, DAVID Phone: 970-577-2051 EHS Email: dmenzies@larimer.org Received By: David Menzies Received By Email: dmenzies@larimer.org Received By Phone: Food Safety Resources: https://www.larimer.org/health/safety-sanitation-programs/food-safety-program/food-safety-resources Visit the Food Inspection Reporting web site at www.larimer.org/food Food Safety Training 970-498-6008 www.larimer.org/ext Page 16 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 59 Page 1 of 7 Larimer County Department of Health & Environment 1525 Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524-2004 (970) 498-6776 www.larimer.org/health FOOD ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTION REPORT License Posted?: NA Establishment: JIMMY JOHNS Owner: ALARADO ENTERPRISES LLC Establishment ID: 45452 Address: 420 STEAMER DR STE 100 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Time In: 9:42 AM Inspection Time: 270 Inspection Date: October 28, 2019 Seating Capacity: 1 Inspection Type: Other, Plan Review FOODBORNE ILLNESS RISK FACTORS AND PUBLIC HEALTH INTERVENTIONS Risk factors are important practices or procedures identified as the most prevalent contributing factors of foodborne illness or injury. Public health interventions are control measures to prevent foodborne illness or injury. Compliance status to be designated as IN, OUT, NA, NO for each numbered item. IN=In compliance OUT=Not in compliance NO=Not observed NA=Not applicable COS=Corrected on site R=Repeat violation Compliance Status COS R Supervision 1 In Person in charge present, demonstrates knowledge, and performs duties 2 In Certified Food Protection Manager Employee Health 3 In Management, food employee and conditional employee; knowledge, responsibilities and reporting 4 In Proper use of restriction and exclusion 5 In Procedures for responding to vomiting and diarrheal events Good Hygenic Practices 6 In Proper eating, tasting, drinking, or tobacco use 7 In No discharge from eyes, nose, and mouth Preventing Contamination by Hands 8 In Hands clean & properly washed 9 In No bare hand contact with RFE food or a pre-approved alternative procedure properly allowed 10 In Adequate handwashing sinks properly supplied and accessible Approved Source 11 In Food obtained from approved source 12 In Food received at proper temperature 13 In Food in good condition, safe, & unadulterated 14 In Required records available: shellstock tags, parasite destruction Protection from Contamination 15 In Food separated and protected 16 In Food contact surfaces; cleaned & sanitized 17 In Proper disposition of returned, previously served, reconditioned & unsafe food Time/Temperature Control for Safety 18 In Proper cooking time & temperatures 19 In Proper reheating procedures for hot holding 20 In Proper cooling time and temperature 21 In Proper hot holding temperatures 22 In Proper cold holding temperatures 23 In Proper date marking and disposition 24 In Time as a Public Health Control; procedures & records Consumer Advisory 25 In Consumer advisory provided for raw/undercooked food Highly Susceptible Populations 26 In Pasteurized foods used; prohibited foods not offered Food/Color Additives and Toxic Substances 27 In Food additives: approved & Properly used 28 In Toxic substances properly identified, stored & used Conformance with Approved Procedures 29 In Compliance with variance / specialized process / HACCP Page 17 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 60 Page 2 of 7 GOOD RETAIL PRACTICES Good Retail Practices are preventative measures to control the addition of pathogens, chemicals, and physical objects in foods. OUT=Not in compliance COS=Corrected on site R=Repeat violation Compliance Status COS R Safe Food and Water 30 Pasteurized eggs used where required 31 Water and ice from approved source 32 Variance obtained for specialized processing methods Food Temperature Control 33 Proper cooling methods used; adequate equipment for temperature control 34 Plant food properly cooked for hot holding 35 Approved thawing methods used 36 Thermometer provided & accurate Food Identification 37 Food properly labeled; original container Prevention of Food Contamination 38 Insects, rodents, & animals not present 39 Contamination prevented during food preparation, storage & display 40 Personal cleanliness 41 Wiping Cloths; properly used & stored 42 Washing fruits & vegetables Proper Use of Utensils 43 In-use utensils: properly stored 44 Utensils, equipment & linens: properly stored, dried, & handled 45 Single-use / single-service articles: properly stored & used 46 Gloves used properly Utensils, Equipment and Vending 47 Food & non-food contact surfaces cleanable, properly designed, constructed, & used 48 Warewashing facilities: installed, maintained, & used; test strips 49 Non-food contact surfaces clean Physical Facilities 50 Hot & cold water available; adequate pressure 51 Plumbing installed; proper backflow devices 52 Sewage & waste water properly disposed 53 Toilet facilities; properly constructed, supplied, & cleaned 54 Garbage & refuse properly disposed; facilities maintained 55 Physical facilities installed, maintained, & clean 56 Adequate ventilation & lighting; designated areas used Page 18 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 61 Page 3 of 7 Inspection Comments October 28, 2019 Ed Glavin 1212 Riverside Ave. Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Dear Mr. Glavin, The plans and specifications submitted for the construction of Jimmy Johns to be located at 420 Steamer Drive, Suite 100 in Estes park, Colorado, have been reviewed by this department. The following items were not clearly specified in the plans or were not in compliance with the Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations. These items must be clearly specified in writing or be modified to be in compliance with the above regulations prior to approval of the submitted plans. The plans are not approved at this time. All plans must be approved prior to commencement of construction. Item 17 requires modifications to the proposed plans, and revised plans must be submitted. PLEASE NOTE: This letter contains important information and advisements for the construction of the establishment. Establishment owners are responsible for items noted in this letter. Please share this letter with all involved parties, including the construction superintendent and contractors at the construction site. If there are any questions regarding information in this letter or anything else related to the construction and operation of the establishment, please contact me at (970) 577-2051 or dmenzies@larimer.org. Menu and Food Handling: 1. A menu was provided as part of the plan review submission. The menu will include a large variety of sandwiches. 1. Please review Larimer County Department of Health and Environment?s food safety resource page which includes valuable information to assist with safe food service practices including temperature logs, date marking guidance, a list of accredited food safety managers courses, a sick employee policy, and several additional resources. https://www.larimer.org/health/safety-sanitation-programs/food-safety-program 1. Written food handling procedures were provided with the plan review submittal and are included Jimmy John?s standard operating procedures (SOPs). The written SOPs did not include some key industry standards for ensuring active managerial control over food safety including: 3. a. Protocols to ensure prepared foods that rise in temperature during preparation undergo rapid cooling. Prepared foods are required to be rapidly cooled from post-preparation temperature to below 41??F within four hours. This is required for prepared products such as tuna salad, sliced tomatoes, sliced meat and cheeses, as well as canned/jarred products that require refrigeration after opening. Covering these items immediately after preparation and placing the products in the refrigeration units is not approved. Only after the product has quickly cooled to less than 41?F, may the product be covered for storage. b. Written policies for restricting and excluding ill employees was incomplete and did not include critical information detailing symptoms of illness that would require staff exclusion or restriction from food service. Additionally, exclusion periods were not detailed in the sick policy. Please be advised, The Colorado Department of Health & Environment has adopted the 2013 FDA Food Code as part of the Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations. A requirement under the Rules and Regulations is that food employees and conditional employees are informed in a verifiable manner of their responsibility to report information about their health as it relates to diseases that are transmissible through food. It is required that documentation is available upon request verifying that food employees and conditional employees are informed of their responsibility to report illness to management. For a printable illness policy template that meets these requirements, please visit: https://www.larimer.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/lcdhe-employee-illness-policy-contract.pdf An employee must be excluded from work if the food employee is symptomatic with vomiting or diarrhea, jaundice, sore throat with fever, except when the symptom is from a noninfectious condition (examples: allergic reaction/intolerance). The employee cannot return until they are symptom free for a minimum of 24 hours, but 48 to 72 hours is recommended. Page 19 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 62 Page 4 of 7 Employees diagnosed with a Health Department reportable illness such as Norovirus, Hepatitis A virus, Shigella spp., Enterohemorrhagic or Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli, Salmonella Typhi; or other enteric bacterial pathogen such as Salmonella or Campylobacter, must be excluded from work. A physician?s approval and the health department?s approval are required before an employee can return to work if diagnosed with any of the infections listed above. 1. Please be advised, procedures for employees to follow when responding to vomiting or diarrheal events within the establishment must be developed. For a printable guidance document regarding Clean-up Procedures for Vomit/Fecal Events, please visit: https://www.larimer.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/lcdhe-vomit-diarrheal-guidance.pdf 1. At the time of the opening inspection, it is required to have at least one employee, with supervisory and management responsibilities, that holds a current food protection manager certification. For a list of Certified Food Protection Manager training classes and exams, please visit: https://www.larimer.org/health/safety-sanitation-programs/food-safety-program/food-safety-resources/certified-food Equipment, Cleaning, and Accessibility: 1. Please be advised if the menu changes or if the proposed refrigeration/hot holding equipment is found to be inadequate during routine inspections, additional refrigeration will be required. 1. Heavy floor mounted equipment such as refrigerated make table coolers, reach-in coolers and freezers, and equipment stands/tables, must be mounted on casters to allow for mobility and easy cleaning of the equipment, surrounding surfaces and adjoining equipment. The following equipment will be required to be on casters or on six-inch sanitary legs: 1. The oven/proffer, the refrigerated reach in cooler and refrigerated prep coolers if they are not sealed in place. 2. The large CO2 tank and water heater must be provided with six-inch leg kits to permit easy cleaning. 1. Heavy counter mounted equipment such as soft drink carbonators and ice and beverage dispensers, mounted on stands, which cannot be easily moved for cleaning must be installed on four-inch sanitary legs or neatly sealed to counters to facilitate cleaning. 1. Hard to clean spaces or gaps around equipment, counters, utilities and plumbing must be eliminated to provide for easy cleaning. All equipment, cabinets or counters that are not mounted on casters or are not easily moveable (curb mounted or legs) must be: 1. Neatly sealed to adjoining walls, equipment, cabinets or counters; or, 2. Spaced in accordance with Section 4-402.11 of the Rules and Regulations so the surfaces of the floors, walls and exterior surfaces of equipment and cabinets can be easily cleaned; or 3. Neatly sealed to adjoining walls, equipment, cabinets or counters. 1. Please be advised an approved smooth, easily cleanable, non-absorbent, enclosure must be installed between the top of the walk-ins, exhaust hoods and/or other stationary equipment and the finished ceilings if this area is 24 inches or less. Ventilation: 1. This operation is not approved for any type of grease cooking. Equipment requiring mechanical ventilation has not been proposed. 1. Restrooms must be provided with mechanical exhaust ventilation to the outside. Information was not provided on the restroom exhaust. Plumbing: 1. It has been acknowledged that an indirectly drained food preparation sink with an 18 inch drainboard has been proposed. 1. Warewashing drain boards must be self-draining and directed to warewashing sink basins. 24 inch drainboards have been proposed. Page 20 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 63 Page 5 of 7 1. Please be advised, a splash guard is required to be installed between the food preparation sink and the 3 compartment warewashing sink to prevent contaminants splashing from one sink to the other. 1. It was indicated that no garbage disposal will be installed. 1. A hand washing sink is not easily accessible from the open top refrigerated cooler located adjacent to the food preparation sink, item 13 in the plans. The current location of the hand sink would required a food worker to walk about 15? through the ware washing area to the far wall of the kitchen to access a hand sink, or walk approximately 15? past the drive through window and main sandwich assembly area to access the other hand sink in the kitchen. An easy to access hand washing sink must be provided for this food preparation area. 1. A mop sink for the disposal of mop water and for the purpose of filling mop buckets and cleaning mops has been proposed. 1. The mop sink must be provided with hot and cold running water. 2. Mop and broom hangers have been proposed. 3. Storage shelves should also be provided to properly store cleaning supplies and chemicals. 1. It was not indicated if chemical dispensing units will be provided at the ware washing sink, mop sink, or food preparation sink. Please be advised, if installing chemical dispensing units at plumbing fixtures, the following is required: 1. Chemical dispensing units must be supplied with both hot and cold running water at 3-compartment sinks and mop sinks. 2. When installing chemical dispensers at the mop sink, chemical towers must have an integrated ASSE 1055 backflow prevention device or be equipped with an air gap, or if chemical towers lack integrated air gaps or backflow prevention devices, the use of wasting Ts in conjunction with chemical towers is approved. 3. When installing chemical dispensers above the 3-compartment sink, the dish detergent and the sanitizer must be stored above the soiled drain board and/or washing basin of the 3-compartment sink, or below the drain board/sink. 1. Restroom fixtures are based on the requirements of the 2009 International Plumbing Code. Since the total seating capacity of the establishment is 18, the following restroom fixtures are approved: 1 water closets and 1 lavatory in the men?s room, and 1 water closets and 1 lavatory in the women?s room. 1. The proposed water heating system, O.A. Smith water heater, model Del-50D, with a 61 gallons/hour recovery rate at 80?F rise and a 12 KW rating is approved. The water heating system must have a minimum recovery rate of 57.7 gallons/hour at 80?F rise or must have a 11.3 KW rating. 1. Please be advised, all drains from equipment such as ware washing sinks, food preparation sinks, ice machines, ice bins, drink dispensers, drink overflow drains, drink gun holster drains, refrigeration/freezer units not provided with evaporation pans, walk-in fan units, and water heaters, must be directed to a floor drain or floor sink and be properly air gapped. 1. All floor sinks and floor drains must be installed so they are flush with the finished floor. 1. Please be advised approved, properly installed, backflow devices must be provided on all submerged inlets soft drink carbonators, water softeners and beverage dispensers. Backflow devices on water lines subject to back pressure or continuous pressure must be equipped with backflow preventers that are designed for continuous pressure. 1. Please be advised, the excessive installation of surface mounted utility/service lines is not approved per NSF installation standards for food/beverage service operations. Utility/service lines running along the surface of finished walls, ceiling and floors, are not approved and must be installed behind cabinetry or within a framed wall. 1. Electrical conduit, plumbing (water and drain lines), data service lines, and other utility/service lines must be located behind walls, within cabinetry, above finished ceilings or below floors in finished food and beverage preparation/service areas. 2. If excessive electrical conduit, plumbing (water and drain lines), data service lines, and other utility/service lines, are found surface mounted in a finished room, the utility/service lines will be required to be boxed in or run through a durable sheath to facilitate easy cleaning. 3. External floor or wall mounted Uni-strut or hard to clean brackets are not approved to support utility/service and drain lines Structure, Finishes, General: 1. Adequate lighting must be provided where food is processed or stored, where equipment and utensils are cleansed, as well as in restrooms and bar Page 21 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 64 Page 6 of 7 area. 1. It is acknowledged that a sneeze guard will be installed above the main sandwich assembly station to prevent coughing and sneezing from customers contaminating foods. 1. To help prevent insect and rodent entry into the building all outer openings including doors and windows must be kept closed or permanent screens or air curtains must be installed on outer openings that will be left open periodically. 1. The carry out window must be self-closing or must be provided with a screen. 2. Weather stripping, threshold and/or broom sweeps must be installed on all outside doors to eliminate gaps to the outside. 3. All exit and restroom doors must be fitted with self-closures. 1. Please be advised floors, walls, ceilings, counter tops, storage shelves, cabinets and all work surfaces, located within all kitchen and food preparation areas, storage areas, custodial closets, restrooms, serving areas, wait station, ware washing areas and walk-ins must be of an approved material that is smooth, durable, non-absorbent and easily cleanable. 1. Ceramic cove tile has been proposed in the kitchen. Please be advised, the base of cove tiles must be laid at an elevation flush with the floor tile. Cove tile may not be laid on top of floor tile ?top set? which creates a difficult to clean 90? at the base of the cove tile where it sits on the floor tile. 1. The outside trash and recycling areas must be located on a cleanable surface of concrete or machine laid asphalt. 1. Please be advised, in order to protect wildlife from intrusion onto the grounds of the establishments, all refuse, oil and grease must be deposited of in a Wildlife Resistant Container or Wildlife Resistant Enclosure. 1. Wildlife Resistant containers must meet the standards of testing by the Living with Wildlife Foundation and have a ?passing? rating by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) as bear resistant for 60 minutes. 2. Wildlife Resistant Enclosures means an enclosed structure consisting of four sides, a roof, and a secure door or cover, which shall have a latching device of sufficient design and strength to prevent access by wildlife. 1. Toxic materials and surplus cleaning supplies must be stored below or away from food preparation areas, food, utensil and single service item storage areas and ware washing facilities. 1. An area for adequate storage of employee?s personal items has been proposed. 1. The following items are required: 34. a. food product thermometers scaled 0 to 220?F, digital thermometers or thermocouple b. food handlers? gloves and finger cots c. approved sanitizer d. test strips for the sanitizer e. maximum read thermometer or heat labels for the high temperature dish machine The plans cannot be approved at this time. Once item #17 have been submitted in writing, the plans will be reviewed for final approval. After the last item is submitted, the department will review the plans and resubmittals within 10 working days. Please feel free to contact this department if questions arise, or if I can be of further service at (970) 577-2051 or at dmenzies@larimer.org. Sincerely, David Menzies, REHS Sr. Environmental Health Specialist Page 22 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 65 Page 7 of 7 cc: Town of Estes Park Division of Building Safety via electronic mail Risk Index Rating: Not Rated Risk Index Calculation Info:http://www.larimer.org/food/RiskIndexInfo.html Follow-up Required:No Follow-up Date (on or about):NA Inspected By: MENZIES, DAVID Phone: 970-577-2051 EHS Email: dmenzies@larimer.org Received By: David Menzies Received By Email: dmenzies@larimer.org Received By Phone: Food Safety Resources: https://www.larimer.org/health/safety-sanitation-programs/food-safety-program/food-safety-resources Visit the Food Inspection Reporting web site at www.larimer.org/food Food Safety Training 970-498-6008 www.larimer.org/ext Page 23 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 66 1 Dan Sapienza From:Eris Audette <eaudette@safebuilt.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 9:38 AM To:Ed Glavin Cc:David Stolte Subject:Re: Jimmy Johns Sign Off This message originated outside of Saunders Construction. Even if this looks like a Saunders e-mail, it is not. Thanks Ed- Yes, that is correct, we are only pending approvals from Planning & Public Works. Jimmy Johns- Bldg: Appvd- 4/30/20 Planning: PW: L&P: appvd 4/24 Water: appvd- 4/24 Fire: Appvd- 4/28/20 Sani: APPVD - 4/29/20 State Electrical: Appvd LC Health: Appvd- 5/6/20 Thanks- Eris From: Ed Glavin <E.Glavin@saundersheath.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 9:01 AM To: Eris Audette <eaudette@safebuilt.com> Cc: David Stolte <d.stolte@saundersheath.com> Subject: Jimmy Johns Sign Off Hi Eris, See attached email from David Menzies with Larimer Health dept. This should sign off Jimmy Johns health dept hold. Along with the state electrical sign off I sent on Monday. With that said can you confirm that we just have a hold from Planning and PW’s at this point? Building and Sanitation should both be signed off based on inspections with Gary and Ron Duell. Thanks Ed Jimmy Johns- Bldg: Planning: Page 24 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 67 2 PW: L&P: APPROVED Water: APPROVED Fire: APPROVED Sani: State Electrical: APPROVED Ed Glavin Project Manager 1212 Riverside Avenue, Suite 130, Fort Collins, CO 80524 d (970) 490-8067 o (970) 221-4195 m (970) 657-1471 E.Glavin@saundersheath.com www.saundersheath.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it, may contain confidential information, some or all of which may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, please be advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this email transmission is prohibited. If you have received this email transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply email or via telephone, and destroy the original email transmission and its attachments. Page 25 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 68 EXHIBITAftoaccompanyBuildingPermitB-1111O]TownofEstesPork:StipulationsapprovalforIssuanceofBuildingPermit8-11110,location420SteamerDrive(AlaradoBusinessPark:core/shellpermit)Townagreestoissuessaidbuildingpermituponowner/developer’swrittenacknowledgementofandagreementtothefollowingstipulations,inadditiontosatisfyingallotherobligationsforpermitissuance,includingpaymentoffees:1.ThePlanningCommissioncondition#1forDevelopmentPlanapproval(Oct.16,2018)istobesatisfiedpriorto,orapprovalandissuanceof,thefirst-requestedtenantfinishbuildingpermitforthesubjectstructure.PCCondition#1readsasfollows:TheproposedeastboundthroughlaneonUS34issubjecttofinalapprovalbyPublicWorksandCDOT,including,butnotlimitedto:privatedrivewayimpact,drainageanalysis,andconfirmationofappropriatelanelengthtoproperlymitigatelevelofservice.2.Security(e.g.,letterofcredit)istoheldbytheTownfortheUS34improvementsreferencedaboveforthedurationoftheUS34work,andistoberetaineduntilcompletion,inspectionandacceptanceoftheUS34work.ThesecurityistobeprovidedandacknowledgedbytheTownpriortoissuanceofthefirsttenantfinishbuildingpermitforthesubjectstructure.3.All US34improvementsaretobebecompletedandacceptedbytheappropriateentity(s)(Town,CDOTJorboth,asmayberequiredbyprojectprotocols)beforeafinalCOisissuedfortheJimmyJohn’sfacility.ATCOmaybeavailablefortheJimmyJohn’sfacilityiftheUS34workissubstantiallynearcompletionandaclearcompletiondatehasbeenidentifiedandacknowledgedbyallparties.FortheTownofEstesPark,CO:A/\Hi’*NameCoeMnk1Q)P,,dtI.offr4fitflYCtrTitle_______________DateForAlaradoPropertiesLLC:____________________________Name__________________________________TitleDateDocuSign Envelope ID: C508EB95-17FD-4168-8A49-925852640F24Ryan WellsPartnerJuly 11, 2019 | 1:44 PM MDTPage 26 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 202069 Page 27 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 70 1 Dan Sapienza Subject:FW: Alarado Signal Crossing Hi Lonnie, Glad to provide this comment document. As you see, it was sent to Randy and copied to others in Town + CDOT. My instructions are to funnel everything through Planning which will then distribute to applicants and others outside the Town. I will always provide you and anyone at VHE any document from PW directly upon request. Never hesitate to contact me for something you are missing. I hope this helps. Jennifer Waters, EIT Page 28 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 71 1 Dan Sapienza Subject:FW: Alarado Signal Crossing Jennifer Waters <jwaters@estes.org> Thu, Feb 27, 12:00 PM to Ed, me Good morning, Since hearing about the Alarado Signal comments yesterday, I examined the source of the "Reply All" instructions. Below you will see the distribution email I received from Randy Hunt with the yellow hand emoji pointing to "Reply All." The list of recipients in that email includes neither of you. I apologize about my strict interpretation of replying with my comments only for the group above that instruction. I have learned much since January 17 when I had been on the job for less than two months. I was also not connecting VHE or Saunders Heath with the review because neither of your companies are shown in the title block of the traffic signal drawing. Should have seen VHE below Randy's email. All comments will be distributed widely and correctly in future. Jennifer Waters, EIT ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 4:49 PM Subject: Fwd: US Hwy 34 @ Steamer Drive - 420 Steamer Drive - Signal Light Design To: Steven Rusch <srusch@estes.org>, Chris Thomas <cthomas@estesparksanitation.org>, Eris Audette <eaudette@estes.org>, Karla Sterling <ksterling@estes.org>, Megan Van Hoozer <mvanhoozer@estes.org>, James Duell <jduell@estesparksanitation.org>, Ronald Duell <rduell@estesparksanitation.org>, Chris Bieker <Chris@utsd.org>, Todd Krula <todd@utsd.org>, Melissa Mason <Melissa@utsd.org>, Matt Allen <matt@utsd.org>, Prevention <prevention@estesvalleyfire.org>, <pat.kreager@xcelenergy.com>, <justin.wallace@centurylink.com>, <nicole.lewis@tdstelecom.com>, Tim Bilobran Page 29 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 72 2 <Timothy.Bilobran@state.co.us> Cc: David Hook <dhook@estes.org>, Jennifer Waters <jwaters@estes.org>, Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>, Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>, Greg Muhonen <gmuhonen@estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> TO REVIEWING AGENCIES The Town of Estes Park Community Development Department has accepted the below referenced development application(s) as complete for review. COMMENTS DUE FRIDAY, JANUARY 17, 2019. ܚܛܜ PLEASE "REPLY ALL" WITH YOUR COMMENTS. PROJECT NAME, TYPE, & LOCATION Name: US 34 at Steamer Drive - Traffic Signal Concept Design [reference: Alarado Business Park Development Plan; Town of EP Building Permit B-11110] Type: Infrastructure Design Plan Address: 420 Steamer Drive Legal Description: n/a EMAIL COMMENTS TO: Consultant: Lonnie Sheldon, lonnie@vanhornengineering.com Planner: Randy Hunt, rhunt@estes.org Description: Traffic signal proposed for design/construction by developer of Alarado Business Park in connection with traffic impacts associated with the project. Town staff will forward all comments to CDOT at review deadline. Documents attached (Sheet 1 of 1). Thanks, RAH ----- Randy Hunt, AICP Community Development Director Page 30 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 73 3 Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 direct: 970-577-3719 main: 970-577-3721 email: rhunt@estes.org http://www.estes.org Page 31 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 74 Page 1 | Public Works Comments (Round 1)—Alarado Traffic Signal Alarado (420 Steamer Drive) Traffic Signal Proposed for Steamer Drive and US 34, Estes Park Public Works – Round 1 Response January 17, 2020 Summary Narrative The traffic signal plan reviewed is dated 10/25/2019 (Lantz Associates). Although the signal will be situated within CDOT right-of-way, responsibility for design and construction (including all costs) rests with Alarado Properties which must mitigate the traffic impacts of its development at 420 Steamer Drive. The current plan is understood to represent a preliminary design review. Since this review was not coordinated with CDOT, the comments herein focus on satisfying local conditions and regulations. A future review (Round 2) must rely on CDOT participation to proceed. Public Works requests revisions and a more complete traffic signal plan submittal. The comments that follow represent analysis and discussion by a team assembled in Public Works. Comments for Revised Traffic Signal Plan 1.Town of Estes Park review comments for Round 1 shall be coordinated with CDOT comments, if provided. Consultation to resolve conflicting reviews is requested. 2.Resolve the appropriateness of using a CDOT plan template for a privately funded signal project. 3.Provide a complete progression analysis that addresses all phases of this intersection. a. Identify how the new signal will coordinate with the existing downtown progression plan and signal timing and confirm that it will remain unchanged. Include equipment compatibility and interconnect details with the downtown traffic signals going west: 1) US 34/US 36; 2) mid-block ped crossing; 3) Elkhorn/Riverside/Virginia; and 4) Elkhorn/Moraine/Big Horn. b. Include queue analysis on all legs and propose solutions if queues interfere with the function of driveways. In particular, our review yielded concern that the easternmost driveway from the Visitors Center will be blocked by queued EB traffic, thus adversely impacting the left turn exit maneuver of Town shuttle busses, RMNP shuttle busses, and other visitor/employee traffic from that parking lot. 4.Provide direct information (or resource references) to assist reviewers in understanding the Phasing Sequence diagram shown on the plan. 5.Add drawing elements including callouts, shading, symbols, and a complete legend to aid in identifying infrastructure (e.g., lanes, shoulders, crosswalks, sidewalk, trail, and cabinet). Clearly distinguish existing and proposed items. Page 32 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 75 Page 2 | Public Works Comments (Round 1)—Alarado Traffic Signal 6. Rework crosswalk alignment for Steamer Drive to achieve a crossing configuration similar to US 34/US 36 and Elkhorn/Riverside intersections. For crossing along north side of US 34: a. Cross right turn lane on US 34 from NE pedestal pole to new curbed refuge island (currently a painted island). For drainage, reference LCUASS Appendix A-Standard Drawing 709 (Standard Details for Drainage Under Sidewalk); b. Cross Steamer from new refuge island to existing refuge island with new ADA ramps; c. Cross existing refuge island using new travel path; d. Cross right turn lane on Steamer to arrive at vertex of existing sidewalk. 7. Add crosswalk design to convey pedestrians across US 34. a. Ideally, crosswalk would exist on both the east and west legs of the intersection. b. For crosswalk on only east leg, align the crosswalk from just east of the proposed signal pole on the SE corner of the intersection to a new curbed refuge island discussed in 6a. c. Crosswalk on west leg only may also be considered as viable alternative. 8. Show how pedestrians will safely cross golf course parking lot driveway in both directions along multi-use trail on south side of US 34. 9. Confirm overall layout of pedestrian paths including system of pedestrian push buttons operating signals for entering crosswalks. 10. Provide 2 feet minimum clearance between the existing shared-use path and new infrastructure (e.g., cabinets, poles, foundations). See EVDC Appendix D.V.2 and LCUASS 17.3.2. Account for cabinet front clearance per Note 6 on plan. 11. Explain why there is no need for a camera on the 40' mast arm for WB traffic (none shown). 12. The sign shown for US 34 shall read "Big Thompson Ave" and shall include the symbol for US 34 rather than the text. Signs shall conform to MUTCD Chapter 2 D.43. 13. Fifteen (15) lane control signs are identified in the quantities table. Sign S1 (left arrow) is the only sign detail shown on the plan, with S1 labeled in only 2 locations on the mast arms. Clarify the quantity and locations of other lane control signs for driver operations. 14. Confirm whether or not street lighting is proposed for this intersection. If so, provide photometric lighting design. 15. Provide complete civil site plans that address all other infrastructure improvements to support the traffic signal design submitted, including but not limited to: a. Vertical and horizontal survey control; b. Demolition and removals; c. ADA ramps and pathways; d. Striping for crosswalks, stop bars, lane lines etc; e. Sidewalks, curb & gutter, refuge islands (including snow plowing ); f. Grading and drainage. Jennifer Waters, EIT Public Works Town of Estes Park Page 33 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 76 Town staff are open to allowing the Jimmy Johns to open for deliveries only, prior to the completion of the traffic signal, under a number of conditions. I'd propose we put these into a development agreement that would also include the waiver and release of any claims the developers might have against the Town. The conditions would be as follows: 1. The traffic signal design, including the technical details for a communication link from the new signal to all the downstream signals on US 34, must be completed to the satisfaction of the Town and CDOT, as expressed in writing, prior to the issuance of a TCO for the proposed fast-food use. 2. A traffic progression analysis, confirming this new signal can communicate and interface with the downstream traffic signals on US 36 as needed to maintain an acceptable coordinated flow of traffic EB and WB on US 34 during the summer guest season, must be approved in writing by the Town and CDOT prior to the issuance of a TCO for the proposed fast-food use. 3. A copy of the contract cost and schedule for the installation of the traffic signal, and all associated civil infrastructure work at the intersection of Steamer Drive and US 34, must be approved by the Town as realistic and adequately detailed prior to the issuance of a TCO for the proposed fast-food use. 4. Evidence must be provided, to the Town's satisfaction, that all traffic signal materials have been ordered, and the expected delivery and installation dates identified, prior to the issuance of a TCO for the proposed fast-food use. 5. A letter of credit or cash deposit in the amount of 150% of the traffic signal improvements bid amount, and in a form satisfactory to the Town, must be provided for the incomplete intersection and project site work remaining prior to the issuance of a TCO for the proposed fast-food use. Securities already provided to the Town shall be accepted as contributing to this security requirement, to the extent that the Town confirms in writing at a future date that other improvements of the development no longer require their existing securities. The Town may draw upon such securities if any letter of credit is within a week of expiring or if the developer fails to comply with this development agreement, including if the traffic signal is not installed and operational within the deadlines described below. 6. The Town will issue a TCO for the proposed fast-food use, but restricting the use to a deliveries- only operation, with no drive-through or in-house sales permitted. The Town's Code Enforcement Officer may conduct random inspections at the Alarado Business Park to ensure compliance with the deliveries-only stipulation. The deliveries-only operations may continue under the TCO until such date that (a) the TCO would expire naturally under the Town's codes and procedures; (b) the traffic volumes on US 34 exceed 9000 vpd at the CDOT count station near Mall Road (expected in June 2020); or (c) the traffic signal is installed, inspected, and accepted by the Town and CDOT as applicable; whichever occurs first. 7. If the daily traffic volume at the aforementioned CDOT US 34 count station at Mall Road exceeds 9000 vpd and the traffic signal has not yet been installed, inspected, and accepted by the Town and CDOT, Town staff will notify the developer, and deliveries from the fast-food use will thereupon be further restricted to bicycles only. Deliveries via motor vehicles will be prohibited until the traffic signal is installed, inspected, and accepted. 8. The fast-food use may commence full service operations after CDOT and Town approval of a completed traffic signal at the intersection of US 34 and Steamer Drive, provided that public health Page 34 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 77 directives and any other regulatory aspects pertaining to full-service operations shall also apply. The TCO will remain in effect if a temporary traffic signal is installed, and the unrestricted CO will be issued upon completion, inspection, and acceptance of the permanent traffic signal by the Town and CDOT, provided that all other requirements for issuance of a final CO are also met to the Town’s satisfaction. 9. If the permanent signal is not installed, inspected, and accepted by the Town and CDOT by November 6, 2020, the applicant shall immediately replace the letter of credit with a cash deposit in the amount of 150% of the bid amount for the incomplete traffic signal work. The Town may for this purpose present and draw upon the letter of credit if the developer does not accomplish the cash deposit at such time. If the permanent traffic signal is not installed, inspected, and accepted by the Town and CDOT by April 1, 2021, the Town will draw upon the cash deposit to install the signal, and may engage a contractor to complete the work. In that circumstance, any unspent deposited funds will be returned to the applicant upon final completion and acceptance of the signal improvements. Town staff are willing to discuss their rationale behind these conditions if that is something your clients request. In short, it comes down to trip counts and level of service at the intersection. If your clients are amenable, I would draft up the agreement. Page 35 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 78 1 Dan Sapienza From:Dan Kramer <dkramer@estes.org> Sent:Thursday, May 7, 2020 1:00 PM To:Stewart Olive Cc:Dan Sapienza; Kristine Smith Subject:Re: Alarado Stewart, No, that's when the group is available. We provided a detailed path forward for the Jimmy John's on April 20, in response to the developer's request. The Jimmy John's has no other path to a CO at this time, due to conditions of the building permit that the developer agreed to. We have already had that conversation with the full group. Dan On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 12:34 PM Stewart Olive <stewart@olivelaw.com> wrote: Dan Thanks for getting back to me. Is there any way we could do the call tomorrow or at the latest Monday? The building and the Jimmy John have apparently passed all inspections at this time. Stewart W. Olive Attorney at Law March & Olive, LLC 970-484-3990 970-482-5719 fax CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and attorney-client or attorney-work-product privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the recipient named above and any other person who has been specifically authorized to receive it, and the referenced legal privileges are not waived by the virtue of the information having been sent by e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, distribution, copying, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information contained in his e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, or if any problems occur with the transmission, please notify the sender. Thank you. From: Dan Kramer <dkramer@estes.org> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 11:52 AM To: Stewart Olive <stewart@olivelaw.com> Page 36 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 79 2 Cc: Dan Sapienza <Dan@bmarchlaw.com>; Kristine Smith <kristine@olivelaw.com> Subject: Re: Alarado Stewart, We could do next Thursday at 3. Would that work for you all? Dan On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:23 AM Stewart Olive <stewart@olivelaw.com> wrote: Dan Any word on setting up the conference call between you, town staff, me and Alarado construction representatives? Please advise. Thank you. Stewart W. Olive Attorney at Law March & Olive, LLC 970-484-3990 970-482-5719 fax CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and attorney-client or attorney-work-product privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the recipient named above and any other person who has been specifically authorized to receive it, and the referenced legal privileges are not waived by the virtue of the information having been sent by e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, distribution, copying, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information contained in his e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, or if any problems occur with the transmission, please notify the sender. Thank you. Page 37 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 80 3 -- To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Daniel E. Kramer Town Attorney Town of Estes Park (970) 577-4761 -- To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Daniel E. Kramer Town Attorney Town of Estes Park (970) 577-4761 Page 38 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 81 Page 39 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 82 Page 40 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 83 Page 41 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 84 Page 42 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 85 Page 43 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 86 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 3 Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 3 Roads .............................................................................................................................. 3 Existing Traffic ................................................................................................................. 3 Existing Operation ........................................................................................................... 6 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 7 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 7 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................... 9 Traffic Assignment........................................................................................................... 9 Background Traffic Projections ....................................................................................... 9 Total Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 9 Signal Warrants ............................................................................................................... 9 Operations Analysis ...................................................................................................... 16 Geometric Requirements .............................................................................................. 19 IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 23 LIST OF TABLES 1. 2018 High Season Peak Hour Operation .................................................................. 6 2. Trip Generation ......................................................................................................... 7 3. Short Range (2023) Background Peak Hour Operation .......................................... 17 4. Long Range (2040) Background Peak Hour Operation ........................................... 17 5. Short Range (2023) Total Peak Hour Operation ..................................................... 18 6. Long Range (2040) Total Peak Hour Operation ...................................................... 20 Page 44 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 87 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Location ............................................................................................................. 2 2. Existing Intersection Geometry.................................................................................. 4 3. 2018 High Season Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................................ 5 4. Site Plan .................................................................................................................... 8 5. Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 10 6. Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................................... 11 7. Short Range (2023) Background Peak Hour Traffic ................................................ 12 8. Long Range (2040) Background Peak Hour Traffic................................................. 13 9. Short Range (2023) Total Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................... 14 10. Long Range (2040) Total Peak Hour Traffic ............................................................ 15 11. Short Range (2023) Geometry ................................................................................ 21 12. Long Range (2040) Geometry ................................................................................. 22 APPENDICES A. Recent Peak Hour Counts B. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions C. Peak Hour Signal Warrants D. Short Range (2023) Background Peak Hour Operation E. Long Range (2040) Background Peak Hour Operation F. Short Range (2023) Total Peak Hour Operation G. Long Range (2040) Total Peak Hour Operation Page 45 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 88 I. INTRODUCTION This traffic impact study (TIS) is for the proposed development of Alarado Business Park, located northwest of (adjacent to) Big Thompson Avenue/U.S. Highway 34 (US34) and north of (adjacent to) Steamer Drive in Estes Park, Colorado. The location of this site is shown in Figure 1. This TIS addresses the operation at the key intersections for the short range (2023) and long range (2040) futures. This study involved the collection of data, a review of previous developments and studies in the area, trip generation, trip distribution, trip assignment, and the operation analyses of the key intersections in the area for the existing conditions, the short range (2023) future, and the long range (2040) future. During the course of this analysis, numerous contacts were made with Town of Estes Park staff, CDOT staff, the project developer (Alarado Properties LLC), and Van Horn Engineering staff. This land is within the Town of Estes Park and traffic impact study guidelines from the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (Loveland) were used. The following intersections, as agreed to in the scoping discussions, were addressed in this traffic study: US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access and Steamer/Gas- Site Access intersections. This TIS is a revision of the “800 Big Thompson Avenue Traffic Impact Study” dated June 2018. The revision reflects actual high season peak hour traffic counts at the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access intersection and newly proposed land uses at the site. Page 46 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 89 Steamer Dr.B ig Th o m pson A ve.34 W o n d e r v i e w A v e . 36 St. Vrain Ave. 7 34 36 Alarado Business Park SCALE: 1"=1000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Alarado Business Park TIS, August 2018 Page 2 Page 47 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 90 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS Land Use The project site is currently vacant. The land surrounding the site consists of primarily commercial and residential uses. There are residential uses north and east of the site. There are commercial uses to the south and west of the site. The Lake Estes Golf Club is to the south of the site. The center of Estes Park lies to the west of the Alarado Business Park site. Roads A schematic of the current geometry at the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access and Steamer/Gas Access intersections is shown in Figure 2. The key existing streets are US34 and Steamer Drive. U.S. Highway 34 is categorized as an NR-A road according to CDOT. Currently in this area, US34 has a two through lanes in the westbound direction and one through lane in the eastbound direction. The posted speed on US34 is 35 mph in this area. At the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access intersection, US34 has eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes, one eastbound through lane, two westbound through lanes, and a westbound right-turn lane. The shoulder on the south side of US34 acts as an eastbound right-turn lane for the golf course. The US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access intersection has stop sign control on Steamer Drive. Steamer Drive is a street serving residential and commercial uses to the north and west. It is assumed that Steamer Drive functions as a major collector street. At the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access intersection, Steamer Drive has a southbound left- turn lane and a southbound right-turn lane. The right-turn lane is channelized and enters into a westbound acceleration lane. All movements on the Golf Course Access leg are combined into a single lane. At the Steamer/Gas Access intersection, Steamer Drive has a westbound left-turn lane and one through lane in each direction. The Steamer/Gas Access intersection has stop sign control on the Gas Access. The posted speed on Steamer Drive is 20 mph. Existing Traffic The previous TIS utilized synthesized peak hour traffic counts, since it was begun prior to the “high season” in Estes Park. However, the planning approval process has extended into the “high season” in Estes Park. Therefore, peak hour traffic counts were obtained in July 2018. The raw traffic data is provided in Appendix A. Page 48 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 91 EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Alarado Business Park TIS, August 2018 Page 4 U S3 4Stea m er Go l f Co u r s eGas AccessSTOPSTOP- Denotes Lane - Right-turn Acceleration Lane STOP Page 49 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 92 2018 HIGH SEASON PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES Alarado Business Park TIS, August 2018 Page 5 U S34 Stea m er 61/92310/5715/390/110544/4342/16 1 / 1 1 5 0 / 2 8 8 / 1 9 2 1 / 2 0 / 0 3 / 1 Gas Access143/194 8/8 138/294 14/24 11/1711/15Go l f Co u r s e AM/PM Page 50 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 93 Existing Operation Using the volumes shown in Figure 3, the 2018 high season peak hour operation at the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access and Steamer/Gas Access intersections is shown in Table 1. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix B. The key intersections were analyzed using the unsignalized intersection techniques from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (2010 HCM). Acceptable operation is defined (Loveland criteria) as level of service (LOS) C or better overall for intersections. On CDOT Highways, overall LOS D is acceptable. At major intersections, any leg can operate at LOS D and any movement can operate at LOS E. A description of level of service at unsignalized intersections is provided in Appendix B. The Loveland Motor Vehicle LOS Standards are also provided in Appendix B. As can be seen in Table 1, the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access and Steamer/Gas Access intersections are currently operating acceptably with existing control and geometry. TABLE 1 2018 High Season Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM Average Delay (secs) PM Average Delay (secs) US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT C 15.0 C 16.4 SB LT/T C 19.1 D 34.3 SB RT A 0.0 A 0.0 SB APPROACH C 19.1 D 34.3 EB LT A 8.8 A 8.6 WB LT A 7.9 A 8.7 OVERALL A 1.6 A 3.7 Steamer/Gas Access (stop sign) NB LT/RT A 9.9 B 11.6 WB LT A 7.6 A 8.0 OVERALL A 0.9 A 0.8 Page 51 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 94 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Alarado Business Park site is a proposed mixed-use development. Figure 4 shows the site plan for the Alarado Business Park site. The Alarado Business Park site, as analyzed in this TIS, will consist of 1,500 square feet of fast-food restaurant, 12,712 square feet of urgent care, and nine multi-family (apartment) dwelling units. The analyses in this TIS assumed that the Alarado Business Park site will be built out over the next 3-4 years, following approval. The analysis year for the short range future was assumed to be the year 2023 and the long range future was assumed to be the year 2040. There will be one full-movement access to/from Steamer Drive that will line up with the Gas Access. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development on the existing and proposed street system. Trip Generation, 10th Edition, ITE was used to determine the trips that would be generated at the Alarado Business Park site. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from origin to destination. A leasing agreement exists between the developer and the Stanley Hotel with regard to employee housing. This will likely cause a reduction in the residential trip generation due to travel mode and vehicle pooling, given the location of the Stanley Hotel to the north. However, to be conservative, conventional low-rise multi-family housing was used for the residential component of this development. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation from the site on a daily and peak hour basis. The full development trip generation resulted in 1,090 daily trip ends, 78 morning peak hour trip ends, and 73 afternoon peak hour trip ends. TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 934 Fast-Food Restaurant 1.5 KSF 470.95 706 20.50 31 19.69 29 16.99 25 15.68 24 650 Urgent Care 12.712 KSF 24.94 318 0.56 7 0.56 6 0.70 9 0.82 10 220 Low-Rise Multi- Family 9 D.U. 7.32 66 0.11 1 0.35 3 0.35 3 0.21 2 Total 1090 39 39 37 36 Page 52 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 95 SCALE: 1"=60' SITE PLAN Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Alarado Business Park TIS, August 2018 Page 8Gas AccessSite AccessU S 34 (B ig T hom pson A venue)Page 53 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 96 Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the Alarado Business Park site was estimated using knowledge of the existing and planned street system, existing traffic patterns, development trends, and engineering judgment. Figure 5 shows the trip distribution used in the following analyses. The trip distribution analysis was agreed to in the scoping discussions. Traffic Assignment Trip assignment is the product of both the trip generation and trip distribution processes. Figure 6 shows the site generated peak hour traffic at the key intersections. Background Traffic Projections Background traffic projections for the short range (2023) and long range (2040) future horizons were obtained by factoring the 2018 traffic volumes on US34 by the CDOT 20-year factor of 1.23. Figures 7 and 8 show the short range (2023) and long range (2040) background peak hour traffic at the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access and Steamer/Gas Access intersections, respectively. Total Traffic The traffic volumes generated by the proposed Alarado Business Park site were added to the background traffic volumes to produce the total traffic volume forecasts for the short range (2023) and long range (2040) futures. Figures 9 and 10 show the short range (2023) and long range (2040) total peak hour traffic, respectively. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location until such time that signal installation warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. It is acknowledged that peak hour signal warrants should not be applied, but since the peak hour forecasts are readily available in a traffic impact study, it is reasonable to use them to estimate whether other signal warrants may be met. If peak hour signal warrants will not be met at a given intersection, it is reasonable to conclude that it is not likely that other signal warrants would be met. If peak hour signal warrants are met, it merely indicates that further evaluation should occur in the future as the development occurs. However, a judgment can be made that some intersections will likely meet other signal warrants. In the short range (2023) and long background and total futures, the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access intersection will not meet peak hour signal warrants. Since the peak hour warrants are not met, it is unlikely that the 8-Hour or 4-Hour signal warrants would be met. Peak hour signal warrants are provided in Appendix C. Page 54 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 97 TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Alarado Business Park TIS, August 2018 Page 10 U S 34St eamer Gas Access10%30%60%Go lf Co u r s e Page 55 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 98 SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Alarado Business Park TIS, August 2018 Page 11 U S34 St ea m er Site AccessGas Access23/2212/111 2 / 1 1 2 3 / 2 14/435/3235/33 4/4 AM/PM Go lf Co u r s e Page 56 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 99 SHORT RANGE (2023) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Alarado Business Park TIS, August 2018 Page 12 U S34 St ea m er 61/92328/6045/390/118575/4592/16 1 / 1 1 5 0 / 2 8 8 / 1 9 2 1 / 20 / 0 3 / 1 Gas Access143/194 8/8 138/294 14/24 11/1711/15AM/PM Go lf Co u r s e Page 57 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 100 LONG RANGE (2040) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Alarado Business Park TIS, August 2018 Page 13 U S34 St ea m er 60/90390/7155/590/120680/5455/56 0 / 1 1 5 5 / 5 9 0 / 1 9 5 5 / 55 / 5 5 / 5 Gas AccessAM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles 145/205 10/10 145/300 15/25 15/2010/15Go lf Co u r s e Page 58 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 101 SHORT RANGE (2023) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 9 DELICH ASSOCIATES Alarado Business Park TIS, August 2018 Page 14 U S34 St ea m er 11/17NOM11/154/4NOM35/324/4 138/294 14/24 35/33 143/194 8/8Site AccessGas Access84/114328/6045/37 3 / 1 2 6 0 / 2 1 1 1 / 2 1 3 102/129575/4592/11 / 20 / 0 3 / 1 AM/PM Go lf Co u r s e Page 59 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 102 LONG RANGE (2040) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 10 DELICH ASSOCIATES Alarado Business Park TIS, August 2018 Page 15 U S34 St ea m er 15/20NOM10/155/5NOM35/355/5 145/300 15/25 35/35 145/205 10/10Site AccessGas AccessAM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles 85/115390/7155/57 0 / 1 2 5 5 / 5 1 1 5 / 2 2 0 100/130680/5455/55 / 55 / 5 5 / 5 Go lf Co u r s e Page 60 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 103 Operation Analysis Operation analyses were performed at the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access and Steamer/Gas-Site Access intersections. The operations analyses were conducted for the short range future, reflecting a year 2023 condition, and long range future, reflecting a year 2040 condition. The long range (2040) operational analyses are used for planning and informational purposes only. Table 3 shows the short range (2023) background peak hour operation at the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access and Steamer/Gas Access intersections. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. At the US34/ Steamer-Golf Course Access intersection, the southbound left-turn/through movement operates at level of service E in the afternoon peak hour. As mentioned earlier, any leg can operate at LOS D and any movement can operate at LOS E at major intersections. Since the southbound right-turn movement is a channelized “free” right-turn (no delay), the left-turn/through movement delay is the same as the delay for the entire southbound leg. Therefore, the level of service of the southbound approach is not applicable at this intersection. The Steamer/Gas Access intersections will operate acceptably in the short range (2023) background future. Table 4 shows the long range (2040) background peak hour operation at the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access and Steamer/Gas Access intersections. Given the link volumes on US34, by/before the long range (2040) future, there is an expectation that US34 would have an additional eastbound through lane by/before 2040. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix E. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 9, Table 5 shows the short range (2023) total peak hour operation at the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access and Steamer/Gas-Site Access intersections. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix F. The Steamer/Gas Access intersections will operate acceptably in the short range (2023) total future. Similar to the background traffic operation, the southbound left-turn/through movement at the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access intersection operates at level of service E in the afternoon peak hour. A possible mitigation measure to improve the level of service for the southbound left-turn/through movement would be to add a through lane to eastbound US34. Currently, two eastbound through lanes exist from the US34/Wonderview-St. Vrain intersection. The right-most lane becomes a dedicated right-turn deceleration lane for the Estes Park Visitors Center. Further to the east, this lane acts as a shoulder or right-turn lane for the Golf Course Access. East of the Golf Course Access, this lane continues for approximately 100-150 feet where it narrows into a 5-6 foot shoulder. The right-most through lane could be extended through the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access intersection by making a combined through/right-turn lane at the Estes Park Visitors Center Access. The operation of the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access intersection is shown on Table 5 with two eastbound through lanes. With two eastbound through lanes, the southbound left-turn/through movement improves significantly with approximately a 40 percent improvement in the average delay during the afternoon peak hour. Page 61 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 104 TABLE 3 Short Range (2023) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM Average Delay (secs) PM Average Delay (secs) US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT C 15.6 C 17.1 SB LT/T C 20.1 E 37.6 SB RT A 0.0 A 0.0 SB APPROACH C (N/A) 20.1 (N/A) E (N/A) 37.6 (N/A) EB LT A 8.9 A 8.7 WB LT A 7.9 A 8.8 OVERALL A 1.6 A 3.8 Steamer/Gas Access (stop sign) NB LT/RT A 9.9 B 11.6 WB LT A 7.6 A 8.0 OVERALL A 0.9 A 0.8 TABLE 4 Long Range (2040) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM Average Delay (secs) PM Average Delay (secs) US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT C 20.1 D 31.4 SB LT/T C 21.9 D 33.2 SB RT A 0.0 A 0.0 SB APPROACH C (N/A) 21.9 (N/A) D (N/A) 33.2 (N/A) EB LT A 9.3 A 9.0 WB LT A 8.1 A 9.3 OVERALL A 1.8 A 3.3 Steamer/Gas Access (stop sign) NB LT/RT B 10.1 B 12.5 WB LT A 7.6 A 8.0 OVERALL A 1.0 A 0.9 Page 62 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 105 TABLE 5 Short Range (2023) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM Average Delay (secs) PM Average Delay (secs) US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access (stop sign) (one EB through lane) NB LT/T/RT C 16.5 C 17.9 SB LT/T C 22.2 E 47.1 SB RT A 0.0 A 0.0 SB APPROACH C (N/A) 22.2 (N/A) E (N/A) 47.1 (N/A) EB LT A 9.0 A 8.8 WB LT A 7.9 A 8.8 OVERALL A 2.1 A 4.9 US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access (stop sign) (two EB through lanes) NB LT/T/RT C 16.8 C 16.9 SB LT/T C 20.0 D 29.2 SB RT A 0.0 A 0.0 SB APPROACH C (N/A) 20.0 (N/A) D (N/A) 29.2 (N/A) EB LT A 9.0 A 8.8 WB LT A 8.0 A 8.8 OVERALL A 1.9 A 3.3 Steamer/Gas Access (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT B 10.3 B 12.4 SB LT/T/RT B 11.5 B 14.1 EB LT A 7.6 A 7.7 WB LT A 7.6 A 8.0 OVERALL A 1.9 A 1.6 Page 63 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 106 Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 10, Table 6 shows the long range (2040) total peak hour operation at the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access and Steamer/Gas-Site Access intersections. Given the link volumes on US34, by/before the long range (2040) future, there is an expectation that US34 would have an additional eastbound through lane. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix G. Geometric Requirements Figures 11 and 12 show the respective short range (2023) and long range (2040) approach geometry at the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access and Steamer/Gas-Site Access intersections. It is expected that there will be two through lanes in each direction on US34 by/before the long range (2040) future. Page 64 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 107 TABLE 6 Long Range (2040) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM Average Delay (secs) PM Average Delay (secs) US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT C 21.7 D 34.4 SB LT/T C 24.3 E 41.0 SB RT A 0.0 A 0.0 SB APPROACH C (N/A) 24.3 (N/A) E (N/A) 41.0 (N/A) EB LT A 9.4 A 9.1 WB LT A 8.1 A 9.3 OVERALL A 2.2 A 4.2 Steamer/Gas Access (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT B 10.6 B 12.8 SB LT/T/RT B 11.4 B 14.4 EB LT A 7.6 A 7.8 WB LT A 7.6 A 8.0 OVERALL A 2.0 A 1.7 Page 65 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 108 SHORT RANGE (2023) GEOMETRY Figure 11 DELICH ASSOCIATES Alarado Business Park TIS, August 2018 Page 21 U S34 St ea m er Gas AccessSTOPSTOP- Denotes Lane - Right-turn Acceleration Lane STOP Site AccessSTOP Go lf Co u r s e OR Page 66 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 109 LONG RANGE (2040) GEOMETRY Figure 12 DELICH ASSOCIATES Alarado Business Park TIS, August 2018 Page 22 U S34 St ea m er Gas AccessSTOPSTOP- Denotes Lane - Right-turn Acceleration Lane STOP Site AccessSTOP Go lf Co u r s e Page 67 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 110 IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS This study assessed the transportation impacts associated with the development of the Alarado Business Park site in Estes Park, Colorado. This study analyzed the transportation impacts in the short range (2023) and long range (2040) futures. As a result of these analyses, the following is concluded: • Development of the Alarado Business Park is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. The full development trip generation resulted in 1,090 daily trip ends, 78 morning peak hour trip ends, and 73 afternoon peak hour trip ends. • The 2018 high season peak hour operation at the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access and Steamer/Gas Access intersections is acceptable based upon City of Estes Park evaluation criteria. • In the short range (2023) and long background and total futures, the US34/ Steamer-Golf Course Access intersection will not meet peak hour signal warrants. Since the peak hour warrants are not met, it is unlikely that the 8-Hour or 4-Hour signal warrants would be met. • Using the short range (2023) total peak hour traffic, the Steamer/Gas Access intersection will operate acceptably in the short range (2023) future. The southbound left-turn/through movement at the US34/Steamer-Golf Course Access intersection operates at level of service E in the afternoon peak hour. A possible mitigation measure would be to add a through lane to eastbound US34. With two eastbound through lanes, the southbound left-turn/through movement improves significantly with approximately a 40 percent improvement in the average delay during the afternoon peak hour. • The short range (2023) range and long range (2040) geometry is shown in Figures 11 and 12, respectively. Page 68 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 111 APPENDIX A Page 69 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 112 DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 7/24/2018 Observer:Vickie Day: Tuesday Jurisdiction: Estes Park R = right turn Intersection: US34 (Big Thompson)/Steamer S = straight L = left turn Time Northbound: Golf Access Southbound: Steamer Total Eastbound: US34 Westbound: US34 Total Total Begins L S R Total L S R Total north/south L S R Total L S R Total east/west All 7:00 0 0 0 0 5 0 11 16 16 6 42 0 48 0 85 10 95 143 159 7:15 0 0 0 0 4 0 15 19 19 9 39 0 48 0 90 13 103 151 170 7:30 0 0 0 0 8 0 17 25 25 6 48 1 55 1 117 9 127 182 207 7:45 0 0 1 1 15 0 21 36 37 14 74 0 88 0 146 18 164 252 289 # 8:00 1 0 0 1 17 0 16 33 34 16 84 1 101 1 126 21 148 249 283 # 8:15 1 0 0 1 15 0 27 42 43 18 75 2 95 1 134 22 157 252 295 # 8:30 1 0 0 1 14 0 24 38 39 13 77 2 92 0 138 29 167 259 298 # 8:45 0 0 0 0 13 0 23 36 36 14 73 1 88 0 142 23 165 253 289 # 7:45-8:45 3 0 1 4 61 0 88 149 153 61 310 5 376 2 544 90 636 1012 1165 PHF 0.75 n/a 0.25 1 0.9 n/a 0.81 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.92 0.63 0.93 0.5 0.93 0.78 0.95 0.98 0.98 4:00 1 0 1 2 25 0 41 66 68 25 145 0 170 1 92 29 122 292 360 4:15 0 0 0 0 27 0 45 72 72 20 139 1 160 0 85 27 112 272 344 4:30 0 0 0 0 22 0 54 76 76 27 155 0 182 0 118 23 141 323 399 4:45 0 0 0 0 24 1 48 73 73 25 142 1 168 0 112 32 144 312 385 # 5:00 1 0 2 3 37 1 55 93 96 17 141 2 160 1 91 27 119 279 375 # 5:15 0 0 0 0 32 0 35 67 67 23 133 0 156 0 113 28 141 297 364 # 5:30 0 0 0 0 24 0 30 54 54 21 98 0 119 0 90 17 107 226 280 # 5:45 0 0 0 0 26 0 36 62 62 24 104 0 128 0 93 22 115 243 305 # 4:30-5:30 1 0 2 3 115 2 192 309 312 92 571 3 666 1 434 110 545 1211 1523 PHF 0.25 n/a 0.25 0.25 0.78 0.5 0.87 0.83 0.81 0.85 0.92 0.38 0.91 0.25 0.92 0.86 0.95 0.94 0.95 Page 70 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 113 DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 7/24/2018 Observer:Karen Day: Tuesday Jurisdiction: Estes Park R = right turn Intersection: Steamer/Gas Access S = straight L = left turn Time Northbound: Gas Access Southbound: Total Eastbound: Steamer Westbound: Steamer Total Total Begins L S R Total L S R Total north/south L S R Total L S R Total east/west All 7:00 1 2 3 0 3 14 1 15 2 14 16 31 34 7:15 1 2 3 0 3 17 2 19 2 20 22 41 44 7:30 2 2 4 0 4 23 3 26 2 13 15 41 45 7:45 3 3 6 0 6 33 2 35 3 29 32 67 73 # 8:00 3 3 6 0 6 30 3 33 2 35 37 70 76 # 8:15 3 2 5 0 5 40 4 44 1 39 40 84 89 # 8:30 2 3 5 0 5 35 5 40 2 40 42 82 87 # 8:45 3 3 6 0 6 33 4 37 2 35 37 74 80 # 7:45-8:45 11 0 11 22 0 0 0 0 22 0 138 14 152 8 143 0 151 303 325 PHF 0.92 n/a 0.92 0.92 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.92 n/a 0.86 0.7 0.86 0.67 0.89 n/a 0.9 0.9 0.91 4:00 3 4 7 0 7 62 4 66 2 52 54 120 127 4:15 6 5 11 0 11 67 5 72 2 45 47 119 130 4:30 3 3 6 0 6 73 9 82 1 49 50 132 138 4:45 4 5 9 0 9 68 5 73 3 54 57 130 139 # 5:00 6 4 10 0 10 89 4 93 2 42 44 137 147 # 5:15 4 3 7 0 7 64 6 70 2 49 51 121 128 # 5:30 3 4 7 0 7 50 7 57 3 35 38 95 102 # 5:45 3 3 6 0 6 59 4 63 2 44 46 109 115 # 4:30-5:30 17 0 15 32 0 0 0 0 32 0 294 24 318 8 194 0 202 520 552 PHF 0.71 n/a 0.75 0.8 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.8 n/a 0.83 0.67 0.85 0.67 0.9 n/a 0.89 0.95 0.94 Page 71 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 114 APPENDIX B Page 72 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 115 HCM 2010 TWSC Recent AM 4: US34 & Motel Access/Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report recent am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 61 0 88 3 0 1 61 310 5 2 544 90 Future Vol, veh/h 61 0 88 3 0 1 61 310 5 2 544 90 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 150 - - - 250 - 250 250 - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 62 0 90 3 0 1 62 316 5 2 555 92 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1000 1000 - 723 1000 316 555 0 0 316 0 0 Stage 1 559 559 - 441 441 - - - - - - - Stage 2 441 441 - 282 559 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.33 6.53 - 7.33 6.53 6.23 4.13 - - 4.13 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 4.019 - 3.519 4.019 3.319 2.219 - - 2.219 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 209 242 0 327 242 724 1013 - - 1243 - - Stage 1 482 510 0 594 576 - - - - - - - Stage 2 594 576 0 702 510 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 199 227 - 311 227 724 1013 - - 1243 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 317 342 - 311 227 - - - - - - - Stage 1 452 509 - 558 541 - - - - - - - Stage 2 557 541 - 701 509 - - - - - - - Approach SE NW NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 19.1 15 1.4 0 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1SELn1SELn2 SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h)1013 - - 363 317 - 1243 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.061 - - 0.011 0.196 - 0.002 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 - - 15 19.1 0 7.9 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C C A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0 0.7 - 0 - - Page 73 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 116 HCM 2010 TWSC Recent PM 4: US34 & Motel Access/Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report recent pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.7 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 115 2 192 1 0 2 92 571 3 1 434 110 Future Vol, veh/h 115 2 192 1 0 2 92 571 3 1 434 110 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 150 - - - 250 - 250 250 - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 121 2 202 1 0 2 97 601 3 1 457 116 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1255 1254 - 1027 1254 601 457 0 0 601 0 0 Stage 1 459 459 - 795 795 - - - - - - - Stage 2 796 795 - 232 459 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.33 6.53 - 7.33 6.53 6.23 4.13 - - 4.13 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 4.019 - 3.519 4.019 3.319 2.219 - - 2.219 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 138 171 0 200 171 499 1102 - - 974 - - Stage 1 552 566 0 380 398 - - - - - - - Stage 2 380 398 0 751 566 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 128 156 - 185 156 499 1102 - - 974 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 242 267 - 185 156 - - - - - - - Stage 1 503 565 - 347 363 - - - - - - - Stage 2 345 363 - 747 565 - - - - - - - Approach SE NW NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 34.3 16.4 1.2 0 HCM LOS D C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1SELn1SELn2 SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h)1102 - - 319 242 - 974 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.088 - - 0.01 0.509 - 0.001 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - - 16.4 34.3 0 8.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C D A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0 2.6 - 0 - - Page 74 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 117 HCM 2010 TWSC Recent AM 3: Gas Access & Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report recent am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 138 14 8 143 11 11 Future Vol, veh/h 138 14 8 143 11 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 50 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 152 15 9 157 12 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 167 0 334 159 Stage 1 - -- -159 - Stage 2 - -- -175 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 -6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -- -5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -- -5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 -3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1411 -661 886 Stage 1 - -- -870 - Stage 2 - -- -855 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1411 -657 886 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -- -657 - Stage 1 - -- -870 - Stage 2 - -- -850 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 9.9 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)755 - - 1411 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 - - 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 - - 7.6 - HCM Lane LOS A - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Page 75 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 118 HCM 2010 TWSC Recent PM 3: Gas Access & Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report recent pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 294 24 8 194 17 15 Future Vol, veh/h 294 24 8 194 17 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 50 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 313 26 9 206 18 16 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 338 0 549 326 Stage 1 - -- -326 - Stage 2 - -- -223 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 -6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -- -5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -- -5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 -3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1221 -497 715 Stage 1 - -- -731 - Stage 2 - -- -814 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1221 -493 715 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -- -493 - Stage 1 - -- -731 - Stage 2 - -- -808 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 11.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)577 - - 1221 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.059 - - 0.007 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.6 - - 8 - HCM Lane LOS B - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0 - Page 76 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 119 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level-of-Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A < 10 B > 10 and < 15 C > 15 and < 25 D > 25 and < 35 E > 35 and < 50 F > 50 Page 77 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 120 Table 4-2 Loveland (GMA and City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Intersection Component Major Intersection134 Minor Intersection234 Driveway Overall (City Limits) LOS C LOS C No Limit Overall (GMAs) LOS D LOS D No Limit Any Leg LOS D LOS E No Limit Any Movement LOS E LOS F No Limit 1 Includes all signalized and unsignalized arterial/arterial and arterial/major collector intersections 2 Includes all unsignalized intersections (except major intersections) and high volume driveways 3 There are no LOS standards for I-25 Interchanges 4 On State Highways, overall LOS D is acceptable Page 78 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 121 APPENDIX C Page 79 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 122 400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800100200300400500600*100*1502 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE1 LANE & 1 LANE2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESSB LT/T AM 61 VPHAM 1061 VPHPM 1277 VPHSB LT/T PM 117 VPHMINOR STREET APPROACH - VPH MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACH -VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)*Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-streetapproach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.SHORT RANGE (2023) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR WARRANT AT US34/STEAMER INTERSECTIONMUTCD, 2003 EDITION, PAGE 4C-7 400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800100200300400500600*100*1502 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE1 LANE & 1 LANE2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESSB LT/T AM 61 VPHAM 1061 VPHPM 1277 VPHSB LT/T PM 117 VPH400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800100200300400500600*100*1502 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE1 LANE & 1 LANE2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESSB LT/T AM 61 VPHAM 1061 VPHPM 1277 VPHSB LT/T PM 117 VPH400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800100200300400500600*100*1502 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE1 LANE & 1 LANE2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESSB LT/T AM 61 VPHAM 1061 VPHPM 1277 VPHSB LT/T PM 117 VPHPage 80 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020123 400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800100200300400500600*100*1502 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE1 LANE & 1 LANE2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESSB LT/T PM 128 VPHAM 1096 VPHPM 1310 VPHSB LT/T AM 73 VPHMINOR STREET APPROACH - VPH MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACH -VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)*Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-streetapproach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.SHORT RANGE (2023) TOTAL PEAK HOUR WARRANT AT US34/STEAMER INTERSECTIONMUTCD, 2003 EDITION, PAGE 4C-7 400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800100200300400500600*100*1502 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE1 LANE & 1 LANE2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESSB LT/T PM 128 VPHAM 1096 VPHPM 1310 VPHSB LT/T AM 73 VPH400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800100200300400500600*100*1502 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE1 LANE & 1 LANE2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESSB LT/T PM 128 VPHAM 1096 VPHPM 1310 VPHSB LT/T AM 73 VPH400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800100200300400500600*100*1502 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE1 LANE & 1 LANE2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESSB LT/T PM 128 VPHAM 1096 VPHPM 1310 VPHSB LT/T AM 73 VPHPage 81 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020124 400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800100200300400500600*100*1502 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE1 LANE & 1 LANE2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESSB LT/T AM 65 VPHAM 1230 VPHPM 1480 VPHSB LT/T PM 120 VPHMINOR STREET APPROACH - VPH MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACH -VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)*Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-streetapproach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.LONG RANGE (2040) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR WARRANT AT US34/STEAMER INTERSECTIONMUTCD, 2003 EDITION, PAGE 4C-7 400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800100200300400500600*100*1502 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE1 LANE & 1 LANE2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESSB LT/T AM 65 VPHAM 1230 VPHPM 1480 VPHSB LT/T PM 120 VPH400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800100200300400500600*100*1502 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE1 LANE & 1 LANE2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESSB LT/T AM 65 VPHAM 1230 VPHPM 1480 VPHSB LT/T PM 120 VPH400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800100200300400500600*100*1502 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE1 LANE & 1 LANE2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESSB LT/T AM 65 VPHAM 1230 VPHPM 1480 VPHSB LT/T PM 120 VPHPage 82 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020125 400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800100200300400500600*100*1502 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE1 LANE & 1 LANE2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESSB LT/T PM 130 VPHAM 1265 VPHPM 1515 VPHSB LT/T AM 75 VPHMINOR STREET APPROACH - VPH MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACH -VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)*Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-streetapproach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.LONG RANGE (2040) TOTAL PEAK HOUR WARRANT AT US34/STEAMER INTERSECTIONMUTCD, 2003 EDITION, PAGE 4C-7 400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800100200300400500600*100*1502 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE1 LANE & 1 LANE2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESSB LT/T PM 130 VPHAM 1265 VPHPM 1515 VPHSB LT/T AM 75 VPH400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800100200300400500600*100*1502 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE1 LANE & 1 LANE2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESSB LT/T PM 130 VPHAM 1265 VPHPM 1515 VPHSB LT/T AM 75 VPH400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800100200300400500600*100*1502 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE1 LANE & 1 LANE2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESSB LT/T PM 130 VPHAM 1265 VPHPM 1515 VPHSB LT/T AM 75 VPHPage 83 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020126 APPENDIX D Page 84 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 127 HCM 2010 TWSC Short Bkgrd AM 4: US34 & Motel Access/Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report sb am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 61 0 88 3 0 1 61 328 5 2 575 90 Future Vol, veh/h 61 0 88 3 0 1 61 328 5 2 575 90 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 150 - - - 250 - 250 250 - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 62 0 90 3 0 1 62 335 5 2 587 92 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1051 1050 - 756 1050 335 587 0 0 335 0 0 Stage 1 591 591 - 459 459 - - - - - - - Stage 2 460 459 - 297 591 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.33 6.53 - 7.33 6.53 6.23 4.13 - - 4.13 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 4.019 - 3.519 4.019 3.319 2.219 - - 2.219 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 193 226 0 310 226 706 986 - - 1223 - - Stage 1 461 494 0 581 566 - - - - - - - Stage 2 580 566 0 688 494 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 183 211 - 295 211 706 986 - - 1223 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 301 329 - 295 211 - - - - - - - Stage 1 432 493 - 544 530 - - - - - - - Stage 2 543 530 - 687 493 - - - - - - - Approach SE NW NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 20.1 15.6 1.4 0 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1SELn1SELn2 SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h)986 - - 345 301 - 1223 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.063 - - 0.012 0.207 - 0.002 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 15.6 20.1 0 7.9 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C C A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0 0.8 - 0 - - Page 85 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 128 HCM 2010 TWSC Short Bkgrd PM 4: US34 & Motel Access/Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report sb pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.8 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 115 2 192 1 0 2 92 604 3 1 459 110 Future Vol, veh/h 115 2 192 1 0 2 92 604 3 1 459 110 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 150 - - - 250 - 250 250 - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 121 2 202 1 0 2 97 636 3 1 483 116 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1316 1314 - 1074 1314 636 483 0 0 636 0 0 Stage 1 485 485 - 829 829 - - - - - - - Stage 2 831 829 - 245 485 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.33 6.53 - 7.33 6.53 6.23 4.13 - - 4.13 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 4.019 - 3.519 4.019 3.319 2.219 - - 2.219 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 125 158 0 186 158 477 1078 - - 945 - - Stage 1 533 551 0 364 384 - - - - - - - Stage 2 363 384 0 738 551 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 116 144 - 172 144 477 1078 - - 945 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 229 255 - 172 144 - - - - - - - Stage 1 485 550 - 331 349 - - - - - - - Stage 2 329 349 - 734 550 - - - - - - - Approach SE NW NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 37.6 17.1 1.1 0 HCM LOS E C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1SELn1SELn2 SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h)1078 - - 300 229 - 945 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.09 - - 0.011 0.538 - 0.001 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - - 17.1 37.6 0 8.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C E A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0 2.9 - 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Page 86 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 129 HCM 2010 TWSC Short Bkgrd AM 3: Gas Access & Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report sb am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 138 14 8 143 11 11 Future Vol, veh/h 138 14 8 143 11 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 50 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 152 15 9 157 12 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 167 0 334 159 Stage 1 - -- -159 - Stage 2 - -- -175 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 -6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -- -5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -- -5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 -3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1411 -661 886 Stage 1 - -- -870 - Stage 2 - -- -855 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1411 -657 886 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -- -657 - Stage 1 - -- -870 - Stage 2 - -- -850 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 9.9 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)755 - - 1411 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 - - 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 - - 7.6 - HCM Lane LOS A - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Page 87 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 130 HCM 2010 TWSC Short Bkgrd PM 3: Gas Access & Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report sb pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 294 24 8 194 17 15 Future Vol, veh/h 294 24 8 194 17 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 50 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 313 26 9 206 18 16 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 338 0 549 326 Stage 1 - -- -326 - Stage 2 - -- -223 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 -6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -- -5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -- -5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 -3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1221 -497 715 Stage 1 - -- -731 - Stage 2 - -- -814 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1221 -493 715 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -- -493 - Stage 1 - -- -731 - Stage 2 - -- -808 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 11.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)577 - - 1221 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.059 - - 0.007 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.6 - - 8 - HCM Lane LOS B - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0 - Page 88 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 131 APPENDIX E Page 89 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 132 HCM 2010 TWSC Long Bkgrd AM 4: US34 & Motel Access/Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report lb am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.8 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 60 5 90 5 5 5 60 390 5 5 680 90 Future Vol, veh/h 60 5 90 5 5 5 60 390 5 5 680 90 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 150 - - - 250 - - 250 - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 61 5 92 5 5 5 61 398 5 5 694 92 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1028 1230 - 883 1227 202 694 0 0 403 0 0 Stage 1 704 704 - 523 523 - - - - - - - Stage 2 324 526 - 360 704 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 - 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 - 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 188 176 0 240 177 805 897 - - 1152 - - Stage 1 394 438 0 505 529 - - - - - - - Stage 2 662 527 0 631 438 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 172 163 - 224 164 805 897 - - 1152 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 279 284 - 224 164 - - - - - - - Stage 1 367 436 - 471 493 - - - - - - - Stage 2 607 491 - 621 436 - - - - - - - Approach SE NW NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 21.9 20.1 1.2 0.1 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1SELn1SELn2 SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h)897 - - 254 279 - 1152 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.068 - - 0.06 0.238 - 0.004 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.3 - - 20.1 21.9 0 8.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C C A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0.2 0.9 - 0 - - Page 90 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 133 HCM 2010 TWSC Long Bkgrd PM 4: US34 & Motel Access/Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report lb pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 115 5 195 5 5 5 90 715 5 5 545 120 Future Vol, veh/h 115 5 195 5 5 5 90 715 5 5 545 120 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 150 - - - 250 - - 250 - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 121 5 205 5 5 5 95 753 5 5 574 126 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1152 1531 - 1245 1529 379 574 0 0 758 0 0 Stage 1 584 584 - 945 945 - - - - - - - Stage 2 568 947 - 300 584 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 - 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 - 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 153 116 0 130 116 619 995 - - 849 - - Stage 1 465 496 0 282 339 - - - - - - - Stage 2 475 338 0 684 496 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 135 104 - 118 104 619 995 - - 849 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 252 214 - 118 104 - - - - - - - Stage 1 421 493 - 255 307 - - - - - - - Stage 2 419 306 - 673 493 - - - - - - - Approach SE NW NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 33.2 31.4 1 0.1 HCM LOS D D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1SELn1SELn2 SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h)995 - - 152 250 - 849 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.095 - - 0.104 0.505 - 0.006 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - - 31.4 33.2 0 9.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - D D A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0.3 2.6 - 0 - - Page 91 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 134 HCM 2010 TWSC Long Bkgrd AM 3: Gas Access & Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report lb am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 145 15 10 145 15 10 Future Vol, veh/h 145 15 10 145 15 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 50 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 153 16 11 153 16 11 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 168 0 335 161 Stage 1 - -- -161 - Stage 2 - -- -174 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 -6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -- -5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -- -5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 -3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1410 -660 884 Stage 1 - -- -868 - Stage 2 - -- -856 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1410 -655 884 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -- -655 - Stage 1 - -- -868 - Stage 2 - -- -849 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 10.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)731 - - 1410 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.036 - - 0.007 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.1 - - 7.6 - HCM Lane LOS B - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Page 92 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 135 HCM 2010 TWSC Long Bkgrd PM 3: Gas Access & Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report lb pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 300 25 10 205 20 15 Future Vol, veh/h 300 25 10 205 20 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 50 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 316 26 11 216 21 16 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 342 0 566 329 Stage 1 - -- -329 - Stage 2 - -- -237 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 -7.12 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -- -6.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -- -6.12 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 -3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1217 -435 712 Stage 1 - -- -684 - Stage 2 - -- -766 - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1217 -432 712 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -- -432 - Stage 1 - -- -684 - Stage 2 - -- -759 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 12.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)520 - - 1217 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.071 - - 0.009 - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.5 - - 8 - HCM Lane LOS B - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0 - Page 93 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 136 APPENDIX F Page 94 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 137 HCM 2010 TWSC Short Total AM 4: US34 & Motel Access/Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report st am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 73 0 111 3 0 1 84 328 5 2 575 102 Future Vol, veh/h 73 0 111 3 0 1 84 328 5 2 575 102 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 150 - - - 250 - 250 250 - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 74 0 113 3 0 1 86 335 5 2 587 104 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1098 1097 - 803 1097 335 587 0 0 335 0 0 Stage 1 591 591 - 506 506 - - - - - - - Stage 2 507 506 - 297 591 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.33 6.53 - 7.33 6.53 6.23 4.13 - - 4.13 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 4.019 - 3.519 4.019 3.319 2.219 - - 2.219 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 178 212 0 288 212 706 986 - - 1223 - - Stage 1 461 494 0 548 539 - - - - - - - Stage 2 547 539 0 688 494 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 166 193 - 268 193 706 986 - - 1223 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 283 312 - 268 193 - - - - - - - Stage 1 421 493 - 500 492 - - - - - - - Stage 2 499 492 - 687 493 - - - - - - - Approach SE NW NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 22.2 16.5 1.8 0 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1SELn1SELn2 SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h)986 - - 317 283 - 1223 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.087 - - 0.013 0.263 - 0.002 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - - 16.5 22.2 0 7.9 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C C A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0 1 - 0 - - Page 95 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 138 HCM 2010 TWSC Short Total PM 4: US34 & Motel Access/Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report st pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.9 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 126 2 213 1 0 2 114 604 3 1 459 129 Future Vol, veh/h 126 2 213 1 0 2 114 604 3 1 459 129 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 150 - - - 250 - 250 250 - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 133 2 224 1 0 2 120 636 3 1 483 136 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1362 1361 - 1121 1361 636 483 0 0 636 0 0 Stage 1 485 485 - 876 876 - - - - - - - Stage 2 877 876 - 245 485 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.33 6.53 - 7.33 6.53 6.23 4.13 - - 4.13 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 4.019 - 3.519 4.019 3.319 2.219 - - 2.219 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 116 148 0 172 148 477 1078 - - 945 - - Stage 1 533 551 0 343 366 - - - - - - - Stage 2 342 366 0 738 551 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 106 131 - 156 131 477 1078 - - 945 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 213 240 - 156 131 - - - - - - - Stage 1 474 550 - 305 325 - - - - - - - Stage 2 303 325 - 734 550 - - - - - - - Approach SE NW NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 47.1 17.9 1.4 0 HCM LOS E C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1SELn1SELn2 SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h)1078 - - 283 213 - 945 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.111 - - 0.011 0.633 - 0.001 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 - - 17.9 47.1 0 8.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C E A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 0 3.7 - 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Page 96 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 139 HCM 2010 TWSC Short Total AM 4: US34 & Motel Access/Steamer 2 EB Lanes 08/07/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report st am 2 eb lanes.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 73 0 111 3 0 1 84 328 5 2 575 102 Future Vol, veh/h 73 0 111 3 0 1 84 328 5 2 575 102 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 150 - - - 250 - - 250 - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 74 0 113 3 0 1 86 335 5 2 587 104 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 930 1102 - 806 1100 170 587 0 0 340 0 0 Stage 1 591 591 - 509 509 - - - - - - - Stage 2 339 511 - 297 591 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 - 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 - 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 222 210 0 273 211 844 984 - - 1216 - - Stage 1 460 493 0 515 536 - - - - - - - Stage 2 649 535 0 687 493 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 207 191 - 254 192 844 984 - - 1216 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 314 310 - 254 192 - - - - - - - Stage 1 420 492 - 470 489 - - - - - - - Stage 2 592 488 - 686 492 - - - - - - - Approach SE NW NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 20 16.8 1.8 0 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1SELn1SELn2 SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h)984 - - 308 314 - 1216 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.087 - - 0.013 0.237 - 0.002 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - - 16.8 20 0 8 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C C A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0 0.9 - 0 - - Page 97 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 140 HCM 2010 TWSC Short Total PM 4: US34 & Motel Access/Steamer 2 EB Lanes 08/07/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report st pm 2 eb lanes.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 126 2 213 1 0 2 114 604 3 1 459 129 Future Vol, veh/h 126 2 213 1 0 2 114 604 3 1 459 129 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 150 - - - 250 - - 250 - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 133 2 224 1 0 2 120 636 3 1 483 136 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1043 1364 - 1122 1362 319 483 0 0 639 0 0 Stage 1 485 485 - 877 877 - - - - - - - Stage 2 558 879 - 245 485 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 - 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 - 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 184 146 0 161 147 677 1076 - - 941 - - Stage 1 532 550 0 310 364 - - - - - - - Stage 2 482 363 0 737 550 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 168 130 - 146 130 677 1076 - - 941 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 281 239 - 146 130 - - - - - - - Stage 1 473 549 - 275 323 - - - - - - - Stage 2 427 323 - 733 549 - - - - - - - Approach SE NW NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 29.2 16.9 1.4 0 HCM LOS D C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1SELn1SELn2 SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h)1076 - - 306 280 - 941 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.112 - - 0.01 0.481 - 0.001 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 - - 16.9 29.2 0 8.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C D A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 0 2.5 - 0 - - Page 98 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 141 HCM 2010 TWSC Short Total AM 3: Gas Access/Site Access & Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report st am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 138 14 8 143 35 11 0 11 35 0 4 Future Vol, veh/h 4 138 14 8 143 35 11 0 11 35 0 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 50 - - 50 - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 4 152 15 9 157 38 12 0 12 38 0 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 196 0 0 167 0 0 364 381 159 368 370 176 Stage 1 - - - - - - 168 168 - 194 194 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 196 213 - 174 176 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1377 - - 1411 - - 592 552 886 588 560 867 Stage 1 - - - - - - 834 759 - 808 740 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 806 726 - 828 753 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1377 - - 1411 - - 585 547 886 576 555 867 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 585 547 - 576 555 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 832 757 - 806 735 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 797 721 - 814 751 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.3 10.3 11.5 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)705 1377 - - 1411 - - 597 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.034 0.003 - - 0.006 - - 0.072 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 7.6 - - 7.6 - - 11.5 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.2 Page 99 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 142 HCM 2010 TWSC Short Total PM 3: Gas Access/Site Access & Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report st pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 294 24 8 194 33 17 0 15 32 0 4 Future Vol, veh/h 4 294 24 8 194 33 17 0 15 32 0 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 50 - - 50 - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 4 313 26 9 206 35 18 0 16 34 0 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 241 0 0 338 0 0 577 593 326 583 588 224 Stage 1 - - - - - - 334 334 - 241 241 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 243 259 - 342 347 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1326 - - 1221 - - 428 418 715 424 421 815 Stage 1 - - - - - - 680 643 - 762 706 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 761 694 - 673 635 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1326 - - 1221 - - 422 414 715 411 417 815 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 422 414 - 411 417 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 678 641 - 760 701 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 751 689 - 656 633 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.3 12.4 14.1 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)522 1326 - - 1221 - - 435 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.065 0.003 - - 0.007 - - 0.088 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.4 7.7 - - 8 - - 14.1 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 0.3 Page 100 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 143 APPENDIX G Page 101 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 144 HCM 2010 TWSC Long Total AM 4: US34 & Motel Access/Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report lt am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 70 5 115 5 5 5 85 390 5 5 680 100 Future Vol, veh/h 70 5 115 5 5 5 85 390 5 5 680 100 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 150 - - - 250 - - 250 - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 71 5 117 5 5 5 87 398 5 5 694 102 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1079 1281 - 934 1278 202 694 0 0 403 0 0 Stage 1 704 704 - 574 574 - - - - - - - Stage 2 375 577 - 360 704 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 - 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 - 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 173 164 0 221 165 805 897 - - 1152 - - Stage 1 394 438 0 471 501 - - - - - - - Stage 2 618 500 0 631 438 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 155 147 - 201 148 805 897 - - 1152 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 262 269 - 201 148 - - - - - - - Stage 1 356 436 - 425 452 - - - - - - - Stage 2 548 452 - 621 436 - - - - - - - Approach SE NW NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 24.3 21.7 1.7 0.1 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1SELn1SELn2 SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h)897 - - 231 262 - 1152 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.097 - - 0.066 0.292 - 0.004 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 - - 21.7 24.3 0 8.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C C A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0.2 1.2 - 0 - - Page 102 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 145 HCM 2010 TWSC Long Total PM 4: US34 & Motel Access/Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report lt pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.2 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 125 5 220 5 5 5 115 715 5 5 545 130 Future Vol, veh/h 125 5 220 5 5 5 115 715 5 5 545 130 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 150 - - - 250 - - 250 - 250 Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 132 5 232 5 5 5 121 753 5 5 574 137 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1205 1584 - 1297 1581 379 574 0 0 758 0 0 Stage 1 584 584 - 997 997 - - - - - - - Stage 2 621 1000 - 300 584 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 - 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 - 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 140 107 0 119 108 619 995 - - 849 - - Stage 1 465 496 0 262 320 - - - - - - - Stage 2 442 319 0 684 496 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 120 93 - 105 94 619 995 - - 849 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 232 199 - 105 94 - - - - - - - Stage 1 408 493 - 230 281 - - - - - - - Stage 2 378 280 - 673 493 - - - - - - - Approach SE NW NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 41 34.4 1.3 0.1 HCM LOS E D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1SELn1SELn2 SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h)995 - - 138 231 - 849 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.122 - - 0.114 0.592 - 0.006 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 - - 34.4 41 0 9.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - D E A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 0.4 3.4 - 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Page 103 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 146 HCM 2010 TWSC Long Total AM 3: Gas Access/Site Access & Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report lt am.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 145 15 10 145 35 15 0 10 35 0 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 145 15 10 145 35 15 0 10 35 0 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 50 - - 50 - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 153 16 11 153 37 16 0 11 37 0 5 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 189 0 0 168 0 0 366 382 161 368 371 171 Stage 1 - - - - - - 171 171 - 192 192 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 195 211 - 176 179 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1385 - - 1410 - - 590 551 884 588 559 873 Stage 1 - - - - - - 831 757 - 810 742 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 807 728 - 826 751 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1385 - - 1410 - - 581 545 884 576 553 873 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 581 545 - 576 553 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 828 754 - 807 736 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 796 722 - 813 748 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.4 10.6 11.4 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)673 1385 - - 1410 - - 602 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.039 0.004 - - 0.007 - - 0.07 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.6 7.6 - - 7.6 - - 11.4 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.2 Page 104 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 147 HCM 2010 TWSC Long Total PM 3: Gas Access/Site Access & Steamer 08/06/2018 Synchro 9 Light Report lt pm.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 300 25 10 205 35 20 0 15 35 0 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 300 25 10 205 35 20 0 15 35 0 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 50 - - 50 - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 316 26 11 216 37 21 0 16 37 0 5 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 253 0 0 342 0 0 597 613 329 602 608 234 Stage 1 - - - - - - 339 339 - 255 255 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 258 274 - 347 353 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1312 - - 1217 - - 415 408 712 412 410 805 Stage 1 - - - - - - 676 640 - 749 696 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 747 683 - 669 631 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1312 - - 1217 - - 408 403 712 399 405 805 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 408 403 - 399 405 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 673 638 - 746 690 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 735 677 - 652 629 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.3 12.8 14.4 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)499 1312 - - 1217 - - 426 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.074 0.004 - - 0.009 - - 0.099 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.8 7.8 - - 8 - - 14.4 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 0.3 Page 105 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 148 Page 106 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 149 Page 107 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 150 Page 108 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 151 Page 109 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 152 Page 110 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 153 Page 111 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 154 Page 112 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 155 Page 113 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 156 Page 114 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 157 Page 115 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 158 Page 116 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 159 Page 117 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 160 Page 118 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 161 Page 119 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 162 Page 120 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 163 Page 121 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 164 Page 122 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 165 Page 123 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 166 Page 124 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 167 Page 125 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 168 Page 126 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020169 Page 127 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020170 Page 128 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020171 Page 129 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020172 Page 130 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020173 Page 131 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020174 Page 132 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020175 Page 133 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020176 Page 134 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020177 Page 135 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020178 Page 136 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020179 Page 137 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020180 Page 138 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020181 Page 139 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020182 Page 140 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020183 Page 141 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020184 Page 142 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020185 Page 143 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020186 Page 144 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020187 Page 145 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020188 Page 146 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020189 Page 147 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020190 Page 148 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020191 Page 149 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020192 Page 150 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020193 Page 151 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020194 Page 152 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020195 Page 153 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020196 Page 154 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020197 Page 155 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020198 Page 156 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020199 Page 157 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020200 Page 158 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020201 Page 159 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020202 Page 160 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 203 Letter of Support Space Holder Page 161 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 204 Page 162 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 205 Page 163 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 206 Page 164 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 207 1 Dan Sapienza Subject:FW: Support for opening Jimmy Johns From: Lonnie Sheldon <lonnie@vanhornengineering.com> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 6:51 PM To: townclerk@estes.org; Leslie Conley <leslie@vanhornengineering.com>; Stewart Olive <stewart@olivelaw.com> Subject: Support for opening Jimmy Johns Jackie, I do not think my last email made it to you. It was just at 5 pm (Mountain Time) and I think it came from Airbits not G-Mail which caused the issue (if it didn't get through). I will try to recall it as best I can here (but the first version was better).... please forward this to: Mayor Koenig and Town Board Members, This email is in support of opening the Jimmy Johns Business in the Alarado Business Park as soon as possible. The Developer's have worked very long and hard at this quest for an opening in the summer of 2020. They have had challenges on several fronts (described below) and have remained diligent in promoting this business in the Estes Valley for the benefit of many. The initial development was approved with a lane addition (east bound) to improve the Level of Service (LOS) for the left hand turning vehicle from Steamer to US 34 (lessen delays for that movement). It is important to note that the delay for that movement had a failing LOS before the developer's committed to improvements at that intersection. This "in-fill" development is also a "use by right" development, yet, this development is improving both the traffic and water situation for many more than themselves. Their waterline 'looping connection' uses a 10" diameter line where an 8" would have been sufficient (shared materials cost with the Town). It also connects across US 34 which was an expensive utility crossing. There, of course, is also community benefit in the way the Urgent Care use is being provided a visible place to reside/access and for the numbers of Employee Housing the development will provide (again benefitting more than the development). This development started with the lane improvement mentioned above and at the time, traffic was still influenced by the 2013 flood and US 34 being closed. A signal light was chosen as the best alternative given the long term goals of the Public Works Department (not to widen the road and then in 5-10 years have to lessen the road width for the ultimate desired round-about there). Specific traffic counts were obt ained and the signal light was proven to meet warrants and the Developers returned to the Planning Commission and obtained approval for that required off site improvement change. CDOT and the Town PW Department have been heavily involved in this signal design as has been a specialist Signal Design Engineer (Fred Lantz). Van Horn Engineering has worked with all agencies in producing round 2 of the construction plans for this intersection which are in for review now. There are no large points of contentio n, rather only details to iron out. The Developers have secured this improvement financially and are committed to it's installation. Traffic counts are less in Estes Park this summer due to COVID restrictrictions and fears. The signal light is certainly in line for use when the traffic impacts come (best case is next summer for the 'new normal'). The Developers have done their part and more for this approval and given the circumstances, I feel they should be allowed the opportunity to open their Estes Park business this summer with the signal light installed prior to Memorial Day 2021. Thank you sincerely for your consideration of this request. Lonnie Lonnie Sheldon, Colorado PE and PLS For Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Inc. Page 165 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 208 2 Cell: 970-443-3271 Email: lonnie@vanhornengineering.com Page 166 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 209 Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith, Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Frank Theis, Steve Murphree Attending: Chair Leavitt, Commissioners, White, Foster, Murphree. Smith and Theis, Schneider Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Brittany Hathaway, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: none Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 30 people in attendance. 1.OPEN MEETING Planning Commission/Staff Introductions 2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to change the order of the agenda as presented moving item number 6 Castle Ridge Rezone to item number 5. The motion passed 6-0, with Murphree not voting. 3.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of August 21, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes. It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 7-0. 4.PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN: Beaver Point Subdivision, 1281 High Drive Planner Hathaway reviewed the project. It is located to the east of Heinz Parkway and north of Moraine Avenue, within Town limits. The property is zoned A-Accommodations. The land area is 2.85 acres and is currently developed with a single family home and garage. The proposal is to create 3 legal lots. There have been no public comments. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Preliminary Minor Subdivision Plat. Owner/Applicant Discussion: Dave Bangs, Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers, was available to answer questions. There was compliance with county regulations pertaining to fire. There were no agency comments of significance found. Page 167 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 210 Commission Comments: No concerns were observed in walking the property. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Murphree) to recommend that the Town Board of Trustees approve the Beaver Point Minor Subdivision Plat according to findings of fact, including findings recommended by staff. The motion passed 7-0. 5. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: Castle Ridge Minor Subdivision, Fall River Road, northwest of West Elkhorn Avenue. Planner Woeber reviewed that the applicant, Estes Park Housing Authority, is contracting to purchase this property contingent on approval of rezoning from RE-Rural Estate to RM- Multi Family Residential. The parcel is just under 7 acres in size. A conceptual development plan was submitted. Legal notices were published and letters mailed to adjacent property owners. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment. Applicant Discussion: Current property owner Bill Van Horn stated that it is an appropriate change of zoning for this property. Estes Park Housing Authority Executive Director Naomi Hawf spoke on the needs of work force housing and the plans for the lot. Thomas Beck, Architect, added that this is adequate zoning for this lot and it is possible to develop this as multi-family as long as it is kept to the bottom 1/3 of the lot. Public Comment: Jon Nicholas, Estes Park Economic Development Committee, was not asked by his board to endorse this, but the location is ideal with the Fall River corridor being commercial, and the closeness to Elkhorn Avenue. Commission Comments: Proximity to downtown and the natural zoning buffer make this a desirable project. There is no guarantee that the housing authority will buy the property, and once it is rezoned, it is rezoned with all uses that come with RM zoning. It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to recommend that the Town Board of Trustees approve the Zoning Map Amendment application for Lot 2 of the Castle Ridge Minor Subdivision, according to findings of fact recommended by staff. The motion passed 7-0. 6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Alarado Business Park, 800 Big Thompson Avenue (new address pending), Lot 1 of Stanley Hills Subdivision. Planner Hathaway reviewed the proposal of a mixed-use commercial and residential building including an urgent care facility, sandwich shop and employee housing. Written notice has been mailed to adjacent property owners, a legal notice was published and the applicant posted signs on the property. Public interest is medium, both in support of and Page 168 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 211 opposed to the project. Staff recommended approval of the Alarado Business Park Development plan with the following conditions: The proposed eastbound through lane on US 34 is subject to final approval by Public Works and CDOT, and any future change in use will require a new Traffic Impact Study and associated mitigation. Commissioner/Staff discussion: Residential use is classified as employee housing as an accessory use which is allowed in CO zoning. No housing for the general public will be allowed. Owner/Applicant discussion: Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, reviewed the timeline and details of the project with a PowerPoint presentation. A neighborhood meeting was held, which was well attended. All code requirements have been met, including the Variances approved by the Board of Adjustment on October 2. Maximum occupancy would be limited to 8 unrelated people per unit. The land has at this lot has always been zoned commercial, one of the few vacant CO lots left in town. A buffer of dedicated open space exists on north and west sides of the lot. Drainage and utilities have not been controversial. 20-year deed restrictions for employee housing have been drafted. This development meets the code of CO zoning and land use by right as well as meeting community needs. Ryan Wells, owner/developer, reviewed his background and reasoning behind the project. The property was originally planned for just a Jimmy Johns, but through numerous public conversations, it evolved into the current design. Matt Delich, Traffic Consultant, spoke at length on the traffic studies conducted, both in low and high season. Adding the Eastbound through lane meets the criteria for the Town of Estes Park and CDOT. Larry Leaming, CEO of Estes Park Health (EPH), spoke on the interest the hospital has and the importance of Urgent Care, especially after business hours. The Emergency Room should not be the only option for medical care. The traveling public are use to looking for Urgent Care. This will be available and visible for all, with x-rays, lab and pharmacy on site. Ambulances will be taking people to the ER, not urgent care. Hours will be tracked and decided based on demand. Associated expenses will not strain the Hospital or Family Medical Clinic due to revenues gained from the urgent care. Phil Heinrichs, owner/developer, stated his commitment to the long term success of the project. The on-site Jimmy John’s manager will also act as the property manager. Eight business have made commitments for leasing residences. Public Comment: Those speaking against the Development Plan, citing reasons of the disproportional residential footage ratio to the commercial footage, delivery vehicles for Jimmy Johns not calculated into the traffic study, pedestrian and automobile traffic, and not enough parking: Page 169 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 212 David Courtes, Janet Jones, Shaun Jones, Deb Seick, Kris Adams, Pete Maxwell. Those speaking in favor of the Development Plan stating the huge need for housing and meeting community needs: Tim Cashman, Randy Brigham, David Batey, Gerald Mayo, Ryan Leahy, Charlie Dickey, Bill Van Horn, John Nicholas, Guy Beesley, Naomi Hawf. Applicant Comments: Pedestrian traffic will be mostly on the north side of Highway 34, with residents going to work at Stanley Village and downtown. The unallocated space in the building is a basement, which Estes Park Health has agreed to lease. EPH and Jimmy Johns will have two units each. Leases to J-1 visa holders generate enough income to cover the whole year. Added landscaping on the eastern property line is acceptable. CDOT will not make any commitments until a full plan set is submitted. Commissioner concerns/discussion: o Impressed with the interactions with the neighborhood community. o Parking restrictions would be included in the lease: 69 spaces total, 11 for employee housing, 44 for businesses. Spaces were calculated at 1.3 per unit. If parking becomes a problem, it is up to the owner to correct. o Rentals will be strictly to businesses with contracts for a unit, and inhabitants must be employed in the Estes Valley, not leased to the general public. o EPH stated that they are renting the entire 12,000 sf. 3000 for urgent care, the extra 9,000 sf will be determined as needs arise. o Traffic study does not meet peak hour needs for a light. o The risks involved will fall on the developer, not the town. o Traffic light, cross-walk or roundabout installation discussions with CDOT. o One building will not make a huge difference in traffic compared to the benefit the project will provide. o Mixed use is a creative and thoughtful design. o Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over the Board of Adjustment’s decision. o Request for an additional traffic and pedestrian study when project is complete. It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to approve the Alarado Business Park Development Plan with the following conditions: Additional landscaping shall be installed along the eastern property line, including trees and shrubs to provide adequate screening from the neighboring property, with the landscaping to be designed and installed outside the dedicated public utility easement. The motion passed 7-0. MINUTES AMENDED AT THE 7/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS WRITTEN BELOW: Page 170 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 213 It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to approve the Alarado Business Park Development Plan according to the findings of fact, with findings and conditions recommended by staff, with the condition that the applicant provide a plan that shows trees planted on the eastern boundary as part of a landscape buffer, and they can be on the neighbors property to satisfy that, to provide adequate screening from the neighboring property, with the landscaping to be designed and installed outside the dedicated public utility easement. The motion passed 7-0. Due to time constraints, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 4:18 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary Page 171 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 214 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTStaff Report To:Estes Valley Planning Commission From:Brittany Hathaway – Planner II Date:October 16, 2018 RE:Development Plan – Alarado Business Park Applicant Request: Approval of a Development Plan for a mixed-use development project consisting of commercial and employee housing uses. Planning Commission Objectives: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). 2. Conduct a public hearing to consider applicant’s testimony, public comment, and Town staff’s findings and analysis; and 3. Approve or deny the Development Plan application. Location: 800 Big Thompson Ave. (new address pending), north of Big Thompson Ave. (Highway 34), and east of Steamer Pkwy., legally described as Lot 1 of Stanley Hills Subdivision. Vicinity Map:See Attachment #1 Owner/Applicant:Alarado Properties, LLC Applicant’s Representative:Lonnie Shelton, Van Horn Engineering Project Description: Present Situation:The subject property is 1.95 acres in size and is undeveloped. The site is zoned CO (Commercial Outlying). History:The property has been designated for commercial uses since its 1977 Stanley Hills PUD inception, including uses such as retail, restaurants, medical offices and hotels. However, during the 2000 valley-wide rezoning the PUD was not re-established. Therefore, the current zoning designation of CO applies along with permitted uses therein. Proposal: Development of a mixed-use commercial and residential building including a 12,846 square-foot urgent care facility, a 1,800 square-foot sandwich shop, and employee housing. The proposal for the employee housing element is for large shared units on the second and third levels of the project. 7 of the proposed 9 units are designed to be 5 bedrooms at a square footage of 3,240 each, including the south facing balcony. The remaining 2 units are designed to be 2 bedrooms each between 1,200 and 2,200 square feet. See Variances. Page 172 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 215 Planning Commission, October 16, 2018 Alarado Business Park Development Plan Page 2 of 6 To date, staff has received a number of commitment letters from Estes Valley employers (see Attachment #6)in connection with the residential space.So far, both of the 2-bedroom units have been committed and 5 of the 5-bedroom units have been committed. Additional letters of support have indicated interest as well in the remaining units. Variances: Per EVDC §5.2, employee housing units may not exceed 800 square feet. A variance was granted by the Board of Adjustment on October 2, 2018 to allow individual units at a square footage of up to 3,240 each. Additionally, per EDVC §5.2, accessory employee housing square footage may not exceed that of the principal use. A variance was granted by the Board of Adjustment on October 2, 2018 to allow the accessory employee housing use (located on the second and third floors) to exceed that of the principal commercial uses (located on the ground floor). Site Data Table: Engineer:Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering Parcel Number:2519310001 Development Area:1.95 acres Existing Land Use:Undeveloped Proposed Land Use: Mixed-use (commercial and residential) Zoning Designation:CO, Commercial Outlying Adjacent Zoning: East: E-1, Estate North: R, Residential West: R, Residential South: CO, Commercial Outlying Adjacent Land Uses: East: Stanley Heights Addition B Single- Family Residences North: Stanley Hills Subdivision Single- Family Residences, and HOA open space West: Stanley Hills HOA open space and Stanley Village (Commercial) South: Safeway Gas Station (Commercial) and Highway 34 Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Estes Park Sanitation District Review Criteria: Depending upon the complexity of the project, this section may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may involve a more detailed analysis of the standards based upon issues relevant to any particular project. 1.Buildings and Lots.One mixed-use building is proposed. A drive-through is proposed to service the Jimmy John’s on the west side of the project and residential access is gained from the rear of the building. The building and site meets height restrictions, lot coverage, and setback requirements. The applicant has provided a photo simulation to depict views from those homes facing the proposed development and Highway 34. The project is shown to mask primarily the highway and Safeway gas station, with minor obstruction of range views. Note that views are not protected within the EDVC, therefore the photo simulation is for informational purposes only. Page 173 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 216 Planning Commission, October 16, 2018 Alarado Business Park Development Plan Page 3 of 6 Additionally, the EVDC does not provide for design regulations or guidelines. As such, the overall aesthetic design of the building is not governed by code. 2.Employee Housing. A required Restrictive Covenant and Agreement regarding the employee housing restrictions and requirements is being finalized and is available electronically on the Town website at the following link: www.estes.org/currentapplications Per EVDC §5.2, employee housing units shall be deed-restricted for a period of time no less than 20 years. Such restriction shall include a prohibition of short-term rentals (less than 30 days) and/or rentals to the general public. 3.Landscaping.The project is required to plant a minimum buffer of 15 feet along the entire street frontage to include 1 tree for each 40 lineal feet and 1 shrub for every 15 lineal feet. The applicant exceeds this requirement. A minimum buffer of 8 evergreen trees and 11 shrubs per 100 linear feet of district boundary between residential and commercial zoning is required. This requirement cannot be met on the eastern boundary due to utility lines and easements, therefore the sanitation district will not permit trees in this area. Due to limited plantings allowed, the applicant has proposed to install 13 shrubs. A district buffer is not required when abutting property is visually separated as present on the western boundary by platted open space. However, the applicant has provided 14 shrubs and 3 trees along this boundary. The northern boundary buffer requirement has been met. Additionally, parking lot planting requirements of 1 tree and 2 shrubs in interior islands have been met in areas that do not conflict with utility lines (root intrusion). In areas of conflict, 2 shrubs were provided. 4.Water.Water is to be provided by the Town of Estes Park Water Division. The Division has outlined numerous requirements for the development, some of which have been addressed by the applicant on the Development Plan, and some of which are applicable to construction and the building permit stage. 5.Fire Protection. Estes Valley Fire Protection District provided comments regarding striping, FDC locations, and clearance. All of which have been addressed by the applicant. Additional requirements related to fire sprinklers and alarms will be addressed at the building permit stage. 6.Electric.Electric service is to be provided by the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division. The Division’s requirements have been met. 7.Sanitary Sewer.The Estes Park Sanitation District, who will provide central sewer service to the proposed development, had comments pertaining to easement access, line locations, cleanout locations and manhole locations. All comments have been addressed. Page 174 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 217 Planning Commission, October 16, 2018 Alarado Business Park Development Plan Page 4 of 6 8.Stormwater Drainage.A drainage study was submitted, and reviewed by engineering staff with the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department. Onsite detention is proposed, at the southeast corner of the property where water will be treated and controlled at the release rate. One off-site improvement is proposed in conjunction with the Estes Valley Recreation District to re-shape the ditch to carry stormwater from the site to the Big Thompson River. Public works has no objection. 9.Access.Access to the site is proposed to be a full service access via Steamer Parkway with grades below 9%. A traffic impact study (TIS) was conducted for the project. The TIS evaluated Level of Service (LOS) impacts resulting from the proposed development. Several measures were discussed to mitigate traffic impacts, including a partial service entrance, a traffic signal, a roundabout, turn control onto US 34, and the addition of a new eastbound through lane along US 34. As the warrant was not met for the signal, and the other options were not deemed practical, the TIS proposed an additional eastbound lane on US 34 as a mitigation measure to the LOS at the Steamer Parkway and US 34 intersection. The Proposed Lane Improvement Plan is provided in the Development Plan. Conditional approval is recommended dependent on future approval of this traffic mitigation measure and issuance of applicable CDOT permits. 10.Sidewalk/Trail.The applicant has proposed an 8’ trail along Steamer Pkwy with pedestrian crosswalks to connect to the existing walkway at the Safeway Gas Station and the walkway along Highway 34. 11.Parking.The applicant has proposed 69 parking spaces. 11 spots are dedicated for the employee housing units, 14 spots for the Jimmy John’s, and 44 spots for the Urgent Care. Use Requirement Provided Employee Housing 2 per unit @ 9 units= 18 11* Eating Establishment w/ Drive -through Service 1 per 50 sq.ft. of customer area + vehicle stacking spaces = 14 + stacking 14 + stacking Emergency Health Care Parking Study (§7.11.E) 44 * It should be noted that in addition to committed employers within walking distance, many employers employ J-1 visa program participants, therefore parking concerns are mitigated through alternative means of transportation such as bus, shuttle, and biking. Four bike racks are also proposed. 12.Outdoor Lighting.All lighting will be shielded and deflected down in compliance with EDVC §7.9. 13.Comprehensive Plan. This project conforms to goals and policies within the Comprehensive plan. Specifically as follows: Policy 5.5 – Provide for mixed-use developments which integrate commercial, housing, employment and service needs. Policy 5.7 – Identify affordable housing opportunities on an ongoing basis. Page 175 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 218 Planning Commission, October 16, 2018 Alarado Business Park Development Plan Page 5 of 6 Policy 5.9 – Support the creation of public and private funding sources for affordable housing. Policy 5.10 – Establish a linkage between new development and the provision of affordable housing. This project is also located within the North End Planning Sub-Area, which recognizes commercial development possibilities along US 34. It states that development along US 34 should be “visibly unobtrusive”. The proposed development is to be elevated in a manner that attempts to protect neighboring views of the range, and recedes into the hillside. The North End also considers potentially unsafe turning movements along US 34, which are to be mitigated through an eastbound lane extension proposed with this development. Public Notice: Written notice has been mailed to adjacent property owners in accordance with EDVC, Section 3.15 General Notice Provisions. A legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette and the application is posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” webpage. The applicant has also posted two “development proposal under review” signs on the property. Public Interest: Medium There is some opposition to the project from area residents, namely residents of the Stanley Hills Subdivision. Overall design, traffic, pedestrian safety, and access are the main concerns expressed in letters of opposition. There have also been several letters of support and commitment from local business owners and managers, which have been included in the packet. All comments received are available at: www.estes.org/currentapplications Staff Findings: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The Planning Commission is the Decision Making Body for the Development Plan. Adequate public/private facilities are currently available to serve the proposed project. 2. The development plan is consistent with the recommendations of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Concerns and issues that were raised have been addressed or will be addressed at time of building permit. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Alarado Business Park Development Plan, with the following conditions: 1. The proposed eastbound through lane on US 34 is subject to final approval by Public Works and CDOT, including, but not limited to: private driveway impact, drainage analysis, and confirmation of appropriate lane length to properly mitigate level of service. 2. Any future change in use will require a new Traffic Impact Study and associated mitigation. Sample motion: 1. I move to approve the Alarado Business Park Development Plan application according to findings of fact with findings and conditions recommended by Staff. Page 176 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 219 Planning Commission, October 16, 2018 Alarado Business Park Development Plan Page 6 of 6 2. I move to continue the Alarado Business Park Development Plan application to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 3. I move to deny the Alarado Business Park Development Plan application, finding that … [state findings for denial]. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Development Plan Set 5. Building Elevations & Floorplans 6. Letters of Commitment & Interest 7. Photo Simulation 8. Public Comments Page 177 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 220 Estes Valley Planning Commission August 20, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Steve Murphree, Frank Theis, Nick Smith, Dave Converse Attending: Chair Leavitt, Vice-Chair White, Commissioners Murphree, Theis, Smith, Converse Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Planner I Linda Hardin, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanund, Town Board Liasion Ron Norris, Town Attorney Dan Kramer Absent: None OPEN MEETING Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were approximately 35 people in attendance. APPROVAL OF AGEND A It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0. PUBLIC COMMENT None CONSENT AGENT 1. Study Session Minutes dated July 16, 2019 2. Meeting Minutes dated July 16, 2019 It was moved and seconded (Converse/Theis) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0. ACTION ITEMS 1.DEVELOPMENT PLAN: THE MEADOW CONDOMINIUMS at WILDFIRE Senior Planner Woeber gave a synopsis of the entire Wildfire Development Plan. He reviewed the Development Plan proposal for The Meadow Condominiums. The applicant proposes to develop the vacant lot with nine condominium buildings, eight units per building, containing a total of 72 individual units. All units will be qualified as workforce housing. Workforce housing, under the EVDC §11.4.C., requires, “…at least one (1) resident in each housing unit annually submits an affidavit, including a copy of a W-2 form, to the Town certifying that the resident is employed within the Estes Park School District R-3 Boundary Map.” Page 178 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 221 Estes Valley Planning Commission August 20, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall As all units are proposed as workforce, the applicant is able to utilize the density and height bonus incentives per EVDC §11.4. The maximum permitted density for this lot using the density bonus incentive (200% of maximum base) is 84 units; however the applicant is proposing 72 with this project. A Restrictive Covenant Agreement is required. Applicant Discussion: Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, distributed a letter of support from the Estes Park Economic Development Corp. He shared a slide show explaining the project and the steps that have been taken thus far in the process as well as the architectural plans and distances from the residences to the south of the development and emergency access points. The price point of units is planned at $260,000-$425,000. A turn lane is not required per the LCUASS Standard (Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards). However, the owners have agreed to install a left turn lane at Wildfire Drive; no additional land will be required to do this. Public Comment: Anna Schonlau, town resident, asked who will be enforcing the workforce housing and commented that the emergency outlets do not meet the fire code requirements. Hold off on any advancement until these concerns are discussed. Applicant response: Reviews with the Fire Marshall have been ongoing and frequent. There are numerous emergency access points planned. Commission Discussion: Attorney Kramer noted that workforce housing will be reviewed by the Town and the Housing Authority, working together to verify employment. Modifications to the Covenants would be decided by the Town Board of Trustees. The Restrictive Covenants run for 50 years. Woeber addressed the emergency outlets, stating that the Fire Marshall thoroughly reviewed the plan and will permit some leeway with ingress and egress. It was suggested to have a letter from the Fire Marshall or have him present at the Town Board Meeting. It was moved and seconded (White/Theis) to APPROVE The Meadow Condominiums at Wildfire Development Plan application according to findings as presented. The motion passed 6-0. 2. PRELIMINARY CONDO MAP, The Meadow Condominiums Staff noted the Preliminary Condominium map is nearly identical to the Development Plan. It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to forward a recommendation of APPROVAL to the Town Board of Trustees of The Meadow Page 179 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 222 Estes Valley Planning Commission August 20, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Condominiums at Wildfire Preliminary Condominium Map application, according to findings of fact recommended by Staff. The motion passed 6-0. 3. THE DIVIDE CONDOMINIUMS at WILDFIRE. The applicants propose to develop the vacant lot with two condominium buildings, with eight units per building, containing a total of 16 individual units. All units will be qualified as workforce housing. Workforce housing, under the EVDC §11.4.C., requires, “…at least one (1) resident in each housing unit annually submits an affidavit, including a copy of a W-2 form, to the Town certifying that the resident is employed within the Estes Park School District R-3 Boundary Map.” As all units are proposed as workforce, the applicant can utilize the density and height bonus incentives per EVDC §11.4. The maximum permitted density for this lot using the density bonus incentive (200% of maximum base) is 16.3 units, where the applicant is proposing 16. The height bonus incentive allows a maximum height of 38 feet, with a maximum height of 34.83 feet being proposed. Applicant Discussion: see above for The Meadow Public Comment: see above for The Meadow It was moved and seconded (White/Leavitt) to APPROVE The Divide Condominiums at Wildfire Development Plan application according to findings as presented. The motion passed 6-0. 4. PRELIMINARY CONDO MAP, The Divide Condominiums Staff noted the Preliminary Condominium map is nearly identical to the Development Plan. It was moved and seconded (White/Murphee) to forward a recommendation of APPROVAL to the Town Board of Trustees of The Divide Condominiums at Wildfire Preliminary Condominium Map application, according to findings of fact recommended by Staff. The motion passed 6-0. 5. ESTES PARK CHALET DEVELOPMENT PLAN Woeber summarized the Development application proposing to rebuild the lodge, which will have 49 rooms, a restaurant, meeting space, and a craft brewing area. Staff notes the Estes Park Chalet project involves the rebuild of the lodge facility, along with a new proposed “Event Facility.” With that, staff has reviewed and evaluated the impacts of the project as a whole, while at the same time recognizing there are two distinct approval processes. The uses-by-right in the Accommodations Zoning (Hotel/Motel and Restaurant) are considered for action Page 180 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 223 Estes Valley Planning Commission August 20, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall by the EVPC in the Development Plan, while at the same time recognizing the project involves the Event Facility. The Event Facility use itself is subject to an S1 Level Special Review, with final action by the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees as the governing body. There is no recommendation by the EVPC for the S1 Special Review. The Special Review is scheduled for the August 27, 2019, Town Board hearing. Applicant Comments: Morgan Mulch, owner, described the past 14 months of planning this development after the devastating fire. He has received a positive consensus from the two HOA boards regarding the plans. 51 of 69 condos on site are in the rental pool, the new accommodations will allow for most event guests to be on-site. The event center will hold 200 people, the restaurant will have 50 seats. Bo Wenzl, project manager, gave a timeline of construction stating it will take between 14-16 months and is being done by Doan Construction using the 2015 Building code requirements. Dave Bangs, Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers, spoke on the emergency access points, which will be a significant improvement from what has been, including fire sprinklers and hydrants There was a drainage study done in 2006 for the entire area. The majority of the project is being done in the original footprint of the burned lodge. Sean Keller, Traffic Engineer Consultant, noted the site plan parking requirements were calculated according to the current Institute of Traffic Engineering total use and total demand, which calls for 195 spaces. Considerable discussion on parking was had between the applicants and the Commission. There is no reciprocal agreement with the church on Promontory Drive. Public Comment: John Meissner, town resident, asked what is being done for fire suppression. (see above) Commission Comments: Appreciation for the timeliness of the rebuild and the overall likeability and creativity of the plan. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Murphree) to APPROVE the Estes Park Chalet Development Plan application according to findings as presented. The motion passed 6-0. 6. BEST WESTERN-SILVER SADDLE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Planner Hardin described the current application to add 18 guest units to the motel, move the swimming pool to an indoor location, and add separate laundry facilities for guests and staff. In addition, the proposal includes employee break areas and an office. Additional parking is included to accommodate the increase in guest units. The property has 56.5% impervious coverage, improving on the Page 181 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 224 Estes Valley Planning Commission August 20, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall nonconforming standard. Parking spaces have been corrected to 19.5 feet, per code. Applicant comment: Wally Burke, owner, wants to bring the hotel up to modern standards, centrally locate the lobby and make most rooms indoor-corridor. Neighbor views will not be lost. Pubic Comment: Ron Stevens, town resident, objected to the plan as it will impede the view from his condo (E) in Ranch Meadows thus impacting his property value. A redesign of the roof could minimize the impact. Barbra Headley, town resident, stated that the height variance seems to be glossed over. Dave Wehrs, town resident, had questions on how the height was calculated. Applicant response: Jason McMurren, Bas1s Architecture, confirmed the roof is in line with the standard 30 foot code requirement. Building heights are calculated by taking the tallest and shortest part of the building from grade to roofline and averaging those measurements. Commission comments: Viewshed has been a concern in the past, but as long as the plan follows the Development Code there is nothing the Planning Commission can do. Submitting a cross-section of the building would make it much easier to understand the building height. It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Theis) to APPROVE the Silver Saddle Addition Development Plan application according to findings of fact and including conditions as recommended by Staff. The motion passed 6-0. 7. MODIFICATION OF ALARADO DEVELOPMENT PLAN Director Hunt explained the request of the applicants’ request to modify the conditions of Development Plan approval by adding an option for traffic management on U.S. 34 adjacent to the project site. The applicants specifically are asking that the conditional approval allows for the possibility of a traffic signal at the U.S. 34 / Steamer Drive intersection, rather than the additional traffic lane approved in Oct. 2018, provided that CDOT approves the signal and that other necessary steps (including funding) align. Approval of the motion will not lock in either option for the U.S. 34 traffic solution; it will only allow continued design of the signal and a path to possible approval of that option. Applicant comments: Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, reported that CDOT stated that a waiver could be allowed for a traffic light less than ½ mile from the closest signal if traffic warrants. A traffic study was done in mid-June Page 182 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 225 Estes Valley Planning Commission August 20, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall and again in August and numbers are now available to take to CDOT for review. The applicant pursued this improvement at their own cost. This request is an option to the original plan; it will be either/or. Ryan Wells, owner, noted that he will fund a traffic light 100%. Public Comment: Sean Jones, town resident, stated that 33% of Jimmy Johns business is delivery and delivery vehicles will account for more traffic. A light will back up traffic on Steamer Drive. David Cordes, town resident, stated that a traffic light may not solve all the problems, and suggested a public meeting to throw out all possible scenarios. Applicant response: A light will provide significant breaks in traffic for turning onto Highway 34. Commission Comments: Questions about the fate of the pedestrian crosswalk to the north. The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) is an excellent venue for public input. The final decision is up to CDOT, not Public Works or the Town Board. It was moved and seconded (Theis/Smith) to APPROVE the modification to conditions of approval for the Alarado Business Park Development Plan application according to findings of fact and including conditions as recommended by Staff. The motion passed 6-0. REPORTS • Park and Recreation Amendment will be on the Town Board meeting on August 27. The “Green” option will return with camping and hunting struck out. • Suggestion of having an on-site visual of proposed project heights for Development Projects. • Town and County have set a tentative meeting date of September 30 to discuss the future of the IGA. • ADJOURN There being no further business Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m. Bob Leavitt, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary Page 183 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 226 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTStaff Report To:Estes Valley Planning Commission From:Randy Hunt – Community Development Director Date:August 20, 2019 RE:Alarado Business Park: Request to Modify Condition of Development Plan Approval Re US 34 Improvements Applicant Request: Approval of an applicants’ request to modify the conditions of Development Plan approval by adding an option for traffic management on U.S. 34 adjacent to the project site. The applicants specifically are asking that the conditional approval allow for the possibility of a traffic signal at the U.S. 34 / Steamer Drive intersection, rather than the additional traffic lane approved in Oct. 2018, provided that CDOT approves the signal and that other necessary steps (including funding) align. Location: 420 Steamer Drive, north of Big Thompson Ave. (Highway 34), and east of Steamer Drive, legally described as Lot 1 of Stanley Hills Subdivision. Vicinity Map:See attachment 1 Owner/Applicant:Alarado Properties, LLC Applicant’s Representative:Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering Project Description: Present Situation:The Development Plan for this project (attachment 3) was approved on Oct. 16, 2018. The Planning Commission minutes (attachment 4) indicate that the Plan was approved with an additional eastbound lane to be added on U.S. 34 adjacent to the project, in order to address additional traffic volume and complexity associated with the project. Since the Plan approval, additional traffic analysis has been done. New traffic information indicates that at least one signal warrant has been met for the U.S. 34 / Steamer Drive intersection when Alarado’s anticipated traffic is accounted for. (Signal warrants are standard threshold criteria used by transportation engineers to determine if and when an intersection qualifies for installation or modification of a traffic signal.) Meanwhile, certain difficulties have become of concern with CDOT’s approach to the additional traffic lane. These may be described as a gradual broadening of the required minimums. A detailed review may not be necessary here; suffice it to say that proportionality of cost between a new lane and a signal may not be as great as once thought. Page 184 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 227 Planning Commission, August 20, 2019 Alarado Business Park: Condition change Page 2 of 3 Proposal: The Town, and possibly CDOT, have also been interested in more comprehensive solutions for the intersection, due to Alarado and to larger traffic management issues in this vicinity as well. Again, detail would take up a lot of room in this report, but the issues can be summarized by noting that a signal may be a better option to address conflicts between pedestrians and motorists, as well as to accommodate traffic volume and complexity. All of this means that additional funding could be sought to augment funding provided by Alarado for a signal design and construction (est. cost of a new signal is upwards of $300,000.) CDOT has not formally approved this signal option, but they are aware of the discussion and have not said “No” so far. A formal CDOT approval would be necessary, as well as Town and others. We should also note that until design is done, it’s not 100 percent clear that a signal is feasible, nor is it clear it won’t be more expensive than the standard figure cited above. The added lane is still the default solution, unless Planning Commission changes the condition, and the lane design is proceeding so that no time is lost. However, if the Commission is willing to add the additional option of a signal to substitute for the lane, design and submittal for approvals could occur for that alternative. This is an “either-or” option, as the new traffic lane would be unnecessary if a signal is properly designed and installed. Approval of the modified condition would allow immediate progress toward a signal design. Time is of the essence in this matter. As even a quick look shows, the building is underway. Current permits are for constructing a core and shell (foundation is already in place); tenant- finish permits for the Urgent Care and the Jimmy John’s are not filed yet but are expected soon. Staff has stated that we need to have CDOT and Town approval for a traffic solution on U.S. 34 before tenant-finish permits are issued. The Hospital indicates that they need to open the Urgent Care in spring 2020. Staff has also stated that a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued for the Jimmy John’s until the U.S. 34 work is finished and operational. The idea is that traffic management infrastructure needs to be in place by the time the traffic shows up. Unfortunately, CDOT approvals are rarely quick. Staff and the applicants agree that a timely (Aug. 20) decision by Planning Commission is important to avoid introducing further delays. Approval of the motion will not lock in either option for the U.S. 34 traffic solution; it will only allow continued design of the signal and a path to possible approval of that option. Staff will be glad to keep PC apprised of progress on resolving the traffic situation, timetables, etc. Public Interest: Interest in the Alarado project itself last year was moderate, with more interest in the nearby residential area, including interest in traffic issues at the subject intersection. Interest in the traffic lane itself has not been high. Staff has informally notified the Stanley Hills HOA that a signal option is a possibility in this context and that there is a discussion on the PC’s Aug. 20 agenda. Staff Findings: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The Planning Commission is the decision-making Body for the Development Plan including the requested modification. Adequate public/private facilities are currently available to serve the proposed project, or will be provided in conjunction with the project. 2. The development plan is consistent with the recommendations of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Page 185 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 228 Planning Commission, August 20, 2019 Alarado Business Park: Condition change Page 3 of 3 3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Concerns and issues that were raised have been addressed or will be addressed at time of building and other required permits. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the following modified conditions, with all other condition(s) of approval remaining unchanged from the Oct. 16 Planning Commission Development Plan approval: 1. Either of the following options shall be designed and constructed to address traffic mitigation issues identified in the project’s Traffic Impact Study: a. The proposed eastbound through lane on US 34 shall be constructed, subject to final approval by the Town (Public Works) and CDOT, including, but not limited to: private driveway impact, drainage analysis, and confirmation of appropriate lane length to properly mitigate level of service; OR b. A traffic signal at the U.S. 34 / Steamer Drive intersection shall be designed and constructed, subject to final approval by the Town (Public Works) and CDOT. 2. Any future change in use will require a new Traffic Impact Study and associated mitigation. Sample motion: 1. I move to approve the modification to conditions of approval for the Alarado Business Park Development Plan application according to findings of fact and including conditions as recommended by Staff. 2. I move to continue the modification to conditions of approval for the Alarado Business Park Development Plan application to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 3. I move to deny the modification to conditions of approval for the Alarado Business Park Development Plan application, finding that … [state findings for denial]. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Alarado Request for Planning Commission Hearing 2018-08-08 3. Final Development Plan, Alarado Business Park (approved Oct. 16, 2018) 4. Planning Commission Minutes, Oct. 16, 2018 Page 186 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020 229 WONDERVIEW AVE.(STATE HWY 34)STATE HWY 36(TO LYONS/BOULDER)DOWNTOWNESTES PARKSTATE HWY 34(TO LOVELAND/FT. COLLINS)TO ROCKY MT.NATIONAL PARKBIG THOMPSON R IVER PROJECT AREA±MP 63.11STEAMERDRIVEVISTA LANEALARADO BUSINESSPARK PROJECTCDOT MP 63.00MONUMENTVISITORCENTERDRIVEWAYDRAFTPage 187 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020230 DRAFTPage 188 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020231 ””””DRAFTPage 189 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020232 (ΔONLY DRAFTPage 190 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020233 (ΔOYNLOYNLONLY DRAFTPage 191 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020234 (ΔOYNLOYNLONLY DRAFTPage 192 of 192, Alarado Business Park Appeal Exhibit, June 23, 2020235 Start dateAgenda_Item_TitleNameStance_on_item Comments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_File_Upload6/17/2020 11:04 PM Appeal of Staff Denial of C/O for Alarado Dev. Jean Lindholm AgainstI assume you are all Estes residents and if so you must know that the intersection of 34 and Steamer drive has always been a congested area. To allow Jimmy Johns to avoid adding a street light is ludicrous and asking for trouble.  The have had a long time to fulfill their contact so promises now are hollow if allowed to open prior to fulfilling their contact.6/18/2020 7:54 PMAppeal of Staff Denial of C/O for Alarado Dev. Larry Saint AgainstThe intersection is extremely dangerous right now.   I was trying to turn left onto Steamer Drive, another person was facing me trying to turn left into the golf course and more people were trying to turn left from Steamer Dr onto Highway 34.  The light was required for opening and this requirement must be kept!   That intersection is going to get someone killed.  There has already been serious accidents there and Jimmy Johns will create even more traffic which the intersection cannot support.Public Comment Resolution 40-20 Received by Noon 2020-06-19236 237 238 239 Start dateAgenda_Item_TitleNameStance_on_item Comments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_File_Upload6/20/2020 7:34 AM Appeal of Staff Denial of C/O for Alarado Dev. David Cordes, 1000 Black Canyon Drive AgainstI have followed the Alarado development process and attended the EVPC meetings on the project. While I have no issue with the development itself, I firmly believe that it must adhere to Planning Commission decisions regarding traffic mitigation. Thus, I believe the Town Board should reject Alarado’s appeal of the staff’s denial of a certificate of occupancy.Traffic is a major issue with the development. Alarado recognized that traffic mitigation is needed, given existing traffic along US‐34 plus the added traffic around the Steamer/US‐34 intersection generated by this development. Alarado originally envisioned an additional eastbound lane on US‐34 to mitigate traffic (approved by EVPC). It was Alarado who later requested to instead utilize a traffic signal (also approved by EVPC).Failure to ensure proper traffic mitigation not only introduces additional congestion along a major thoroughfare, but also sends a message to future developers about not adhering to previous commitments.6/23/2020 10:16 AMAppeal of Staff Denial of C/O for Alarado Dev. Mary Ann FrankeAgainstThe certificate should not be provided until Alarado has met its commitment to address the traffic hazards at the intersection of Steamer and Highway 34. It is already a dangerous place for left‐hand turns or pedestrian crossings even without the additional traffic that will be present when Jimmy Johns opens.Public Comment Received by Noon 06-23-2020 When this project was being considered this spring by the various committees and boards, concurrently with the increasing threat of the Covid-19 pandemic, it was stated by Town authorities that final consideration of the Elkhorn project would be deferred until such time as a proper opportunity for public input was possible. It’s hard to understand how this virtual meeting fits that description. We, Judy and I, have talked with several friends and acquaintances in town, and most have only the vaguest knowledge of what’s going on with this proposal. Some are totally unaware. This is a significant project that involves the partial destruction of one of the most important historical sites in Colorado. Yet, it’s barely being covered by the local press. We found no mention of the fact that the Town Board Meeting tonight would be considering this proposal in recent issues of either of the town newspapers. This is reminiscent of the time we encountered a huge line at the main entrance to the Louvre. We were able to find a side entrance with virtually no line. An English couple we had encountered in the main line commented on the way in the side door, “This must be the best kept secret in France.” Well, I’m thinking that this proposal, and its being judged tonight, might be the best kept secret in Colorado. That’s not a good thing! In regard to the proposal itself, we recognize that the Elkhorn property is badly in need of attention, and has been for some time. Hopefully, the Board will cause the developer to salvage the essential character of the lodge and the important out buildings, the old school house, the old church, and of course, the Coach House. We understand that this is a logical place to site a couple of restaurants. But in regard to the restaurants, this proposal includes a new restaurant building to be sited immediately west of the Elkhorn Plaza Lodges, two condominium buildings constructed by a previous owner of the Elkhorn property over 50 years ago. This proposed restaurant is sited just about as close to these condos as possible, which will likely cause about as much disruption to our “quiet enjoyment” of our properties as possible. IS IT REALLY NECESSARY, IN A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE, TO JAM A DISRUPTIVE BUSINESS OPERATION UP SO CLOSE TO LONG-STANDING RESIDENCES? Further to the discussion of this proposed restaurant, the developer’s plan sites the TWO STORY BUILDING, WITH DECKS, just far enough north (toward the river), that it will block our (all condo units’) little peek at the Front Range. THIS ALSO SEEMS TO BE UNNECESSARILY HARSH TREATMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. Public Comment Received by Noon 06-23-2020 IN FACT, THIS PROPOSAL, IN OUR OPINION, JAMMS A LITTLE TOO MUCH INTO THE AVAILABLE SPACE. WE SUGGEST THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER ALL AROUND TO JUST ELIMINATE THIS RESTAURANT BUILDING. Lastly, and probably most importantly, the hotel, the keystone of this proposed project. We have been unable to find out what “brand” of hotel it will be, and suspect that information has not been divulged. THE BOARD ISN’T GOING TO GREEN LIGHT A PROJECT LACKING THIS INFORMATION, IS IT? WE COULD FIND OURSELVES ACROSS THE PARKING LOT FROM A MOTEL SIX! PLEASE DO NOT VOTE TO APPROVE THIS PROPOSAL IN ITS CURRENT FORM! Thanks for your consideration of the above, Bob & Judy Ayres 550 W. Elkhorn Some of the power utility comes in from the West and runs underground. However, the utility pole and transformer for that restaurant appears to be sited immediately adjacent to the boundary line between the two properties and directly in the same West sight-line from the Elkhorn Plaza Association condos. Surely the developer could run all electrical utilities underground on the property as part of the new development. Thanks for your consideration of my comment. Judy Ayres Public Comment Received by Noon 06-23-2020       198