Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2011-03-08Prepared 2/28/11 *Revised TOWN OF ESTES The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high -value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, March 8, 2011 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated February 22, 2011. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development/Community Services Committee, February 24, 2011. 1. Resolution # 04-11, Surprise Sidewalk Sale, May 7-8, 2011. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated February 1, 2011 (acknowledgement only). 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. TRUSTEE LIAISON REPORTS. 2. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Town Administrator Halburnt. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. INVESTMENT SERVICES CONTRACT AWARD. Finance Officer McFarland. 2. HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE REVIEW. 3. BOND PARK STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT. Administrator Halburnt. 4. BOND PARK PHASES I AND III CONSTRUCTION BID. Superintendent Mahany. 5. TRANSPORTATION HUB CONSTRUCTION BID. Project Manager McBride. 6. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 22, 201 1 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 22'd day of February, 2011. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pinkham. Present: Also Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Mark Elrod John Ericson Wendy Koenig Jerry Miller Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Twn Administrator Town Attorney White Cynthia Deats, Deputy 'o`"vn Clerk Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meetirk+ recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Pinkham asked tho memory of Bob Dekker w Park Light & Power River Power Autha„ Town Board of Try 1996. PUBLIC COM LENT. Johan n° Darden wn resident, read a statement into the record expressing disappointment with Vie' Town Board's decision to support an application for Regional Tourfunding for a proposed development at Elkhorn Lodge. se in attera assed a' order at 7:00;';p.m. and all desiring to do so, n,, him in; _.a moment of silence in th A former Town of Estes Dekker was instrumental in the formation of Platte After hitlitetirement, Mr. Dekker was elected to the flamed M yor Pro Tem in 1994, and elected Mayor in Corrine Dyelr asked for Bo Town residents and the owner/operators of Atlas Disposal and Recycling, upport for cardboard recycling for downtown businesses. Charley Dickey pin!n 'resident, voiced support for the proposed Elkhorn Lodge development and o `recycling by private industry. Johanna Darden, Town resident, expressed support for recycling. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Mayor Pro Tem Levine informed the public that nomination forms for the Estes Park Pride Awards are being accepted until March 31st, and encouraged the nomination of deserving community members. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated February 8, 2011, and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated February 8, 2011. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: Board of Trustees — February 22, 2011 — Page 2 A. Public Safety, Utilities, Public Works Committee, February 10, 2011. 1. Resolution #03-11 GOCO Planning Grant Application for the Estes Park Wildlife Walk. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated January 18, 2011 (acknowledgement only). It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. TOWN BOARD LIAISON UPDATES. Trustee Ericson said the Transportation Visioning Committee (WC) will be holding a work group session on Wednesday, February 23rd, at 3 p.m. in Room 130, on traffic information and intelligent transportation system (ITS) communications. Trustee Koenig reported that the Rooftop;,,, ommittee welcomed several new full-time members and noted that Sister Cities members are preparing for a trip to Costa Rica to pavekthe way for futuregroups including a student trip scheduled for June. Trustee Miller reported the Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee's second public outreach forum will be held on Thursday, February 24th at 6:30 p.m. in the Town Board room. He thanker! the Committee for their hard work and dedication. Mayor Pinkham reported that parties `involved ith the proposed Elkhorn Development expect to have non-profit, status by the end of the week and said private funding is ire place to move ahead with/the RTA application. Town Administrator Halburnt said a consultant from the SE Group, a resort planning company, saw potenti yin the project and will study its potential to generate sales tax. 2. FOURTH, QUARTER / YEAR Tt)'®"ATE SALES TAX. nance` Officer M' Arland reviewed sales tax trends and the 2010 sales tax report and noted'that .sales tax exceeded budget by 1.6%, and was 2.3% higher than 2009;,, He said after six consecutive "down" quarters, Estes Park :as had two consecutive "up" quarters which may be an indication of improving conditions and an upward trend. He said the main components used when forecasting sales tax trends are visitation counts, traffic counts on Highways 34 and 36, and hotel occupancy. He noted that in comparing sectors food is increasing and accounts for the largest category, with lodging trending up and retail decreasing. 3. GREENPLAY PROFORMA FOR MULTI PURPOSE EVENT CENTER (MPEC). Greenplay LLC was contracted by the Town to perform a market study and provide a proforma for the proposed Multi -Purpose Event Center (MPEC), focusing on the additional/incremental revenues and expenses that would be generated by the addition of the facility. Chris Dropinski and Pat O'Toole, representing Greenplay LLC, reviewed the components that were considered for the study which included the demographics of the community; a market analysis to look for comparisons and trends; creation of an activity profile of events that could be held at the center and utilizing these activities to estimate expenses, revenues, and attendance numbers; partnering opportunities; income projections; and economic impact to the area. Budget projections were based on scheduling the equivalent of 18 full trade shows at the facility with an average attendance of 1,500 on a Friday through Board of Trustees — February 22, 2011 — Page 3 Monday schedule from September through May, and assumed that the facility will function as support for equine events and fairground activities during the summer months. Taking in to consideration staffing and operating expenses, the report estimates total expenses at $261,035, and direct revenue of $77,625, for an operating net loss of $183,410. They noted that their research indicated that, in general, facilities of this type are subsidized to some degree. They noted it takes an average of three to five years to get fully operational in the market place and that there is competition for events. Trustee Elrod voiced concern that the report did not provide the information the Board requested; that there was no definitive of specific information related to who would use the facility, or if there was even a need to construction the 38,000 square foot facility. Discussion is summarized: assumptions are on the conservative side; need to know the economic impact on the Estes Valley; and concern about availability of the center for use by community members. The Board requested staff schedule a study session for additional in descussion about the market • study and pro -forma for the MPEC and whethra facility>this size is needed. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. • Pre -bid meetings for Bond Park Phases I and III, and the; Transportation Hub were held this week and Were well attended. Recommendations for both projects will be forthcoming at the March 8 Town Board rneeting. • A neighborhood meeting to provide information and answer questions related to the Transportation Hub will lie held for area residents on Wednesday, February 23r1. • A new phone number for the reporting of power and water outages has been added. The new number is 970-:586-5 3. LIQUOR ITEMS,; 1. RENEWALAPPLICATION FILED:BY HESS ENTERPRISES, INC., dba HUNTERS CHOP HOUSE,<16.90 BIG..THOMPSON AVENUE. On January 22, 20 1, the'''LiquorEnforcement Division with the support of the s Park Police Department conducted an alcohol compliance check, during ich an employee of Hunters Chop House served alcohol to an underage person. The state Liquor Division will be administering the penalties related to .the violation. When a Liquor Code violation such as this occurs, the Town Board requests that the licensee appear before the Town Board prior to the license being renewed. The license expired on January 4, 2011, but remains in force ?for 90 days after the expiration date. In addition, the licensee has not completed:TIP training that is required by the Town. Mayor Pro Tem Levine recused himself from the discussion. Trustee Blackhurst said that the Town Board relieon the licensee to be the first line of defense in upholding the states liquor laws and said he is opposed to renewing the license until the required TIPS training has been completed. The licensee, Don Hess, stated he is scheduled for a TIPS training class on March 11, 2011, offered by Anheuser Busch in Fort Collins. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Ericson) to postpone the renewal of the liquor license for Hess Enterprises, Inc., until proof of successful completion of TIPS training is received, and it passed unanimously, with Mayor Pro Tem Levine abstaining from the vote. The liquor license renewal will be reviewed again at the March 22, 2011, Town Board meeting. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. Mayor Pinkham opened the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. property. p posed description; the -z ni g,,, ip Attorney White read Ordinance #,06 11 into the record. It was moved and seconded (Miller/Ericson) to approve Ordinance #06-11, and it passed,unanimously. B.DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING PERIOD EXTENSION evelopment Plan 07 09, Lots 2 & 3, Stone Bridge Estates bdivision," Stone Bridge Estates Condominiums, Fish Creek enng, Applicant. Board of Trustees — February 22, 2011 — Page 4 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAT 1. Lots 26 & 26, University Heights Subdivision, 821 University Drive, Kathy B. Brown, Applicant. B. AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Units A4 and A5/6, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, 800 MacGregor Avenue, Dwight Petty, Applicant. As there were no comments, the Mayor closed the public hearing and it was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) the Consent Agenda be approved subject to the findings and conditions recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: A. REZONING ORDINANCE #06-11, Lot:1 Vitsitor Center Subdivision, and Lot 1 B, of the replat of a portion of `Lopt 4 and all of Lot 1, Stanley Meadow Addition to the Town of Estes arkerom CO -Commercial Outlying to CD -Commercial Downtown, Convention &Visitors Bureau, 500 & 610 Big Thompson Avenue, Town of Estes Park,;plicant. legal Planner Shirk stated that aVisitor Cen approved six ears a o contained anincorrect legal description for the 9 CD -Commercial fer zoning ordinance that was pp y g g p The ro� rezoning corrects this clerical error in the o 'rl will rema ` Downtown. approval of Development Plan 07-09 on August 21, 2007, allowed for:a,,three-year vesting period, to expire in August 2010. In July2010, the Town Board passed Ordinance #17-10 which provided for the expiration of development plans at the end of a three-year period if construction activities cease. Due to economic conditions, construction activity has not continued on the Stone idge'Estates project, with only two of the approved 24 units being U Therefore, both the vesting period and the development plan have expired. Van Horn Engineering, on behalf of Rock Castle Development, is requesting a three-year extension of development plan approval and vesting period through August 2013. Planner Shirk said that erosion control and revegetation has not been completed within required time frames and that the developer has been directed by the state to actively manage the storm water management plan (SWMP) for the property. Due to these concerns, staff requested a revegetation management plan prepared by Van Horn Engineering, which states that revegetation and containment of disturbed soils will begin by March 7, 2011, or as soon as the weather permits. Staff anticipates voluntary compliance of the implementation of this plan. Planner Shirk said approval of the three-year extension would result in the developer retaining development rights for the property, whereas, rejecting the extension would require the Board of Trustees — February 22, 2011 — Page 5 developer to submit a new development plan application for the site. He noted that comments related to the extension have been received from neighborhood residents who have concerns related to the lack of progress on the project, erosion and the lack of revegetation, and traffic on Fish Creek Road. Trustee Elrod questioned the timeframe in which a request for an extension is allowed, noting the expiration date of August 2010. Staff stated that a notice about the expiration was mailed to the developer, but that due to a change of address, the applicant did not receive the notification, therefore, the extension request was delayed. Trustee Elrod inquired as to why the developer's letter of credit was not utilized to complete the erosion control and revegetation. Director Chilcott stated that other enforcement and compliance tools are in place and would be utilized prior to pulling a letter of credit. She said that staff strivesfor-voluntary compliance, and reiterated that is the outcome expected in this case. Trustee Ericson said the deteriorating situate on the property must be resolved. Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn';: 'Engineering, Frank Theis, CMS Planning, and Robert Koehler developer, addressed the Board, speaking to confusion:ato when the vesting period begins, the lack of notification related o the expiration of the vesting period and the development plan andy the developer's history of contributions and cooperation th5fhe Town. /%, Trustees Blackhurst developed quality had no concerns over plan and vesting period. It ackhurstlKoenig) to approve iller co mCtl nted that Mr. Koehler has Town pf Estes Park and that they erasion of the development was moved and seconded the development plan and esting period extension for Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision Trough August 2013, and it passed, with Trustee Ericson voting _. .� requested that staff clarify whether the vesting egins with Planning Commission approval or with Town roval, and refine a notification process prior to expiration. REPORT Problem Statement for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). Over the past;, year, staff and the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) have been working on items outlined in the PUD problem statement that was approved by the Town Board in March 2010, including reviewing ;current PUD regulations, researching the PUD ordinances of other `municipalities, and considering the benefits and unintended consequences of making changes to the existing PUD regulations. Making changes to the regulation would provide an opportunity to evaluate what built -environment is desired but that may not be achieved with current zoning regulations, and would allow for an opportunity to craft PUD regulations that are more likely to incentivize desired development or redevelopment. The current PUD regulations have been rarely used with only two PUDs being approved since 2000, The WorldMark and Fall River Village, possibly due to current PUD limitations. Director Chilcott reviewed staff recommendations for code amendments including allowing PUDs in all non-residential zoning districts except for A- 1; no minimum lot size; increasing density; vary setbacks on all lots; allow variations to parking standards upon review and approval of a parking study; public benefits to a PUD; and provide concept plan review as an option to developers. Board of Trustees — February 22, 2011 — Page 6 Trustee comments are summarized: PUD mixed use could potentially be utilized in any area of downtown providing more flexibility in a variety of circumstances; do not exclude residential districts, as potential usage of a PUD is multi -family residential; concerns about limited supply of commercially zoned property, do not allow commercial property for strictly residential use; a well written PUD ordinance will be vital to redevelopment; consider different regulations for residential and commercial properties, with mixed use restricted to commercial zone as part of commercial project; give density incentive to go through PUD process; implement a point system to gain bonuses; require neighborhood meetings; ensure historic preservation is taken into account and is voluntary, not required; support for a point system to encourage critical public infrastructure, historic preservation, and building green; and provide a way for developers to think outside the box. Mayor Pinkham thanked staff and the Planning Commission and encouraged communication between the Town Board and the EVPC throughout the amendment process. Mayor Pinkham called for a break at 9:58 p.m. a „reconvened he meeting at 10:10 p.m. 5. ACTION ITEMS: 1. REAPPOINTMENT OF ERIC BLACKHURS " TO THE ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR 5-YEAR TERM BEGINNING APRIL 25, 2011, AND EXPRING ON APRIL26, 2016. The Estes Park Housing Authorit+ (EPHA) requests the reappointment of Trustee Eric Blackhurst to the EPHA Bo rd of Commissioners for a five-year term. Trustee Blackhurst was on finally appoi ted to "the Board in 2000, prior to being elected Trustee He�is a key member oftae Board, and currently serves as the Chair Although; it is not required that a Town Trustee serve on the EPHA Board, it has been a practice which provides for liaison fora working relationship between the two Boards. It was moved and seconded (Miller/Levine) to approve'the t appo ntment of Trustee Eric Blackhurst to the„ saes Park H aSing Authority Board for a five-year term ending April 2016, and it passed unanimously with Trustee Blackhurst abstaining from he vote. REVISED CREATIVE SIGN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD BYLAWS. On December 14 2010, the Town Board approved bylaws for the new Creative Sign= Design Review Board (CSDRB). Recently, Town staff conducted interviews of appttcants to serve on the five -member board. Subsequent to this interview 0r4cess staff is recommending revising the bylaws to allow for the appointmenof an alternate member to the Board. This member would attend meetings when a regular member is absent. Trustee Elrod questioned the need for an alternate member at this time when the CSDRB has not yet met, and said a provision for an alternate member should have been included in the Sign Code ordinance, not added as a revision to the bylaws. Attorney White stated that the Code allows for additional procedures to be established by a vote of the Town Board and it is his opinion that changing the bylaws can be considered a procedure. Director Chilcott stated that having an alternate member works well for the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, but that an alternate could be added later after observing how the CSDRB functions. She noted that revisions to the Sign Code related to LED lighting are forthcoming and that a revision related to the CSDRB alternate member could be made at that time. Trustee Koenig supported the bylaw revisions stating that adding an alternate member is a proactive move. Board of Trustees — February 22, 2011 — Page 7 It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Miller) to approve the revision to the Creative Sign Design Review Board bylaws with the condition that an amendment to the Sign Code related to adding an alternate member to the composition of the CSDRB will be made at a later date, and it passed with Trustee Elrod voting "No". 3. CREATIVE SIGN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPOINTMENTS. The Creative Sign Design Review Board will review applications for the Creative Sign Program, sign variances, and appeals of staff decisions on the Estes Park Sign Code. The Mayor, with Town Board confirmation, will appoint the five -member volunteer Board. The Board will consist of Estes Park residents, two of whom are local business owners, one architect or other design professional, and two residents who may or may not have local business interests. Earlier this evening staff requested the addition of an alternate member to serve if a regular member is unable to attend a meeting. The CSDRB positions were advertised and posted and�ight applications were received. Following interviews, staff is recommending the following appointments and terms: Name Diane Muno, business owner Jeffrey Moreau, business owner Joe Calvin, architect Charley Dickey, resident Arthur Blume, resident Amy Plummer, resident It was moved and second Moreau, Joe Calvin, Cherie the Creative Sign Des,;agn passed unani m One Year 3/1/11 — 3/1/12 Three Year 3/1/11 — 3/1/14 Two Year 311/11 — 3/1/13 One Year 3/1�111 — 3/1/12 • Three Year 3/1/11 — 3/1/14 e — Three Year 3/1/11 — 3/1/14 ed (Layne/Miller) to'a �`Rickey, Arthur BI eview Board forte,,. oint Diane Muno, Jeffrey rye, and Amy Plummer to tfins as outlined above, and it 4. COMMON '; ;.INTEREST,,,,;' JOINT ';DEFENSE AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT,;;,,. WIND.Y,,,GAP,FIRMING. PROJECT. The Town of ste ;park is a participant in the Windy Gap Project which diverts ier Colorado River through the Colorado Big Thompson BT) Proje t facilities to its participants located in northeastern Colorado. All %i, Windy Gap participants, except the City of Boulder and the Town of Estes "/^ ark, are also participants n the Windy Gap Firming Project. Since 2000, the V ndy Gap Firming Project participants have been engaged in the design, financing and construction of a reservoir to store Windy Gap water at a site just west ©f Carter Lake in Larimer County, and all necessary approvals are expected rn:the ear future. Since the project will enhance the ability of the Firming Project participants to divert water from the Upper Colorado River and transfer water through the CBT facilities to the eastern slope, western slope interests have been viewing and questioning this project. Firming Project participants anticipate that western slope interests may file a lawsuit designed to prevent construction of Chimney Hollow Reservoir and/or request the inspection of documents pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act. Therefore, as a group, the participants have decided to enter into the Common Interest, Joint Defense and Confidentiality Agreement whereby the parties to the Agreement agree to cooperate in the defense of any lawsuits and share confidential information and communication. The Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) does not contemplate cost -sharing and requires no monetary commitment from the Town. Although the Town is not a Windy Gap Firming Project participant, it does receive information and participates in discussions, negotiations and agreements which involve Windy Gap Firming Project and the Windy Gap Project. Staff recommends approval of the entering into the Agreement and authorizing Town Attorney White to Board of Trustees - February 22, 2011 - Page 8 execute said agreement. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Elrod) to approve the Common Interest, Joint Defense, and Confidentiality Agreement to be executed by Town Attorney White, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 24, 2011 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT / COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 24th day of February, 2011. Committee: Chair Levine, Trustees Elrod and Miller Attending: Chair Levine, Trustees Elrod and Miller Also Attending: Directors Kilsdonk and Chilcott, Managers Fortini, Mitchell, Pickering, Salerno, and Winslow, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: Town Administrator Halburnt and Deputy Town Administrator Richardson Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 8: PUBLIC COMMENT. None COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPART SURPRISE SIDEWALK SALE RESOLUTI The Surprise Sidewalk Salle.is scheduled�.for May 7�8, 2011 and will be held the same weekend as the Rota 's annual Duck Race allowing the ability to partner with advertising opportunit � 'The sale is open to all Estes Park businesses. In past years, businesses located out of the downtown area were allowed to reserve a space in Bond Park for the sale.' is year, spaces may be'ttreserved in Bond Park or, if Bond Park is under construction nd unavailable for use, spaces will be made available in the Dairy Queen parktf l Due tt, regulations refaced to outdoor sales, it is necessary for the Town Board to pass a resolution approving a variance to allow this sale to occur. In addition staff is proposing allowing the use of sandwich boards during the sale, provided the signs do not encroach into the required four -foot clearance for pedestrians. Staff will ensure that business owners are educated on the rules and regulations pertaining to the Sidewalk Sale. PUBLIC COMMENT: Charley Dickey, Town resident, voiced support for the changes made to the sale and holding the event in conjunction with the Duck Race. The Committee recommends approval of a resolution to allow the Surprise Sidewalk Sale on May 7 — May 8, 2011, to be included on the consent agenda at the next Town Board meeting. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. • Department Annual Report — Dir. Kilsdonk said accomplishments of the department in 2010 included national recognition of the Rooftop Rodeo, the construction and opening of the $2.1 million grandstands at the fairgrounds, and partnering with the Light and Power department and Platte River Power Authority to provide energy saving facility improvements at the museum and senior center. She said 650,000 visitors and residents were served through the department in 2010, and over 450 people served as volunteers throughout the department logging over 27,000 volunteer hours. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development / Community Services — February 24, 2011 — Page 2 • Senior Center: Manager Mitchell said that in 2010 the Senior Center saw a 35% increase in visitation and that attendance at programs and activities continues to rise. She said partnering with local businesses allows the center to offer quality programs to the community. She said the meal program remains flat and that a focus group will be formed to study the operation of the dining room program. • Facilities Sales and Marketing: Manager Pickering reported the number of conferences remained flat in 2010 with fewer attendees at the conferences. He said that competition in the marketplace is a factor in booking groups at the conference center and noted that Forever Resorts is making improvements which should increase the attractiveness of the facility. • Museum: Manager Fortini said 2010 highlights included the premier of In the Footsteps of Isabella Bird, improvements to facility lighting resulting in dramatic, dynamic lighting and improved energy efficiency, and the receipt of grant funds that allowed for the hiring of a technician to convert the museum's 4,200 photographs to a digital format. • Visitor Services: Manager Salerno reported that 325,000"people came through the visitor center in 2010. She thanked the Ambassadors for their contribution and said that a training program is held annually fot new: Ambassadors to ensure they have the information they need to do the best lob po Bible. She noted that the number of telephone calls received at the center are down,, while website hits and downloads have increased. • Fairgrounds and Events: Manager Winslow noted that four events were held at one time on a weekend in August 2010, maxing out the facility, and commended fairgrounds staff and the Rooftop Rodeo :Committe`for meeting the challenges this created. He said over 140,000 people:ttended events at the fairgrounds in 2010. Trustee Elrod asked for input from :staff related t the proposed multi -purpose event center (MPEC) and a recent proforma performed by Greenplay, LLC. Manager Winslow said there is a need fora facility and horse stalls that meet industry standards arid;said that heehas spoken with groups that have expressed interest in coming to Estes Park "if a larger facility was available. Manager Pickering Ord, shows such;as the train"show and a Victim Advocates convention are two examples of evens that had outgrown the conference center. He said the MPEC may attract more agricultural or craft type events which are a different type ser than those using the conference center. He said that it would take o grow%tic usa`of the MPEC and noted there is considerable competition arger marke COMMUNIrt DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. REPORTS. Reports provided for; informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. • Monthly Building Permit Summary. • Financial Report. Director Chilcott said future committee reports will include information related to trends in building and development. She said new software will facilitate in the retrieval of information and improve office efficiencies. She noted that code enforcement staff had completed an outreach program related to the new sign code by visiting with downtown business owners. There being no further business, Chair Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:42 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 04-11 WHEREAS, on July 23, 1991, the Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance 15-91 pertaining to "containment" within the C-D District, and subsequent adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code (Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, specifically paragraph a. Outdoor Sales, Use, Storage and Activity in the C-D Zoning District, Number (3) Exceptions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the following guidelines shall be adopted for the "Surprise Sidewalk Sale Days" being sponsored by the Events Department that is scheduled May 7 and 8, 2011: 1. Hours of operation shall be from 9 a.m. — 5:30 p.m. 2. The Sale Weekend is available to all Estes Park businesses. 3. The Sale Weekend will be held rain or shine. 4. Businesses will be allowed to sell merchandise in front of their stores only during the hours specified above. 5. Each business will be allowed selling space in front of store only. 6. Sidewalk displays, including signage, shall provide a minimum clearance of four feet for pedestrian ways and handicapped accessibility. Displays and/or merchandise will not be allowed in any street. 7 Those merchants without sidewalk frontage may contact the Events Department at 586-6104 to reserve a space in Parking Lot 2, the Children's Lot, if Bond Park is under construction (10x10 spaces only). 8. Advertising posters will be provided. 9. All participating businesses must possess a current Town Business License. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that every business is urged to participate in this Surprise Sidewalk Sale Days annual event. DATED this day of , 2011. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment February 1, 2011, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Bob McCreery, John Lynch, Chuck Levine, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Jeff Moreau Attending: Chair Newsom, Members McCreery, Levine, Smith, Moreau Also Attending: Interim Director Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member Lynch, Planner Shirk Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT Approval of minutes of the January 4, 2011 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Smith) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. LOT A, CLATWORTH ESTATES (A PORTION OF LOT 22, RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION), 255 CYTEWORTH ROAD Interim Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated the application was a request for a variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires a 15-foot front setback from property lines in the R-Residential zone district. The request was to construct a proposed one -car garage, with additional living space above the garage. The lot size is 0.17 acres, which is undersized for the R zoning district. The variance would allow the southwest corner of the proposed addition to be six -feet from the front property line, and the southeast corner of the same proposed addition to be three feet from the property line. The applicant desires to be four feet from the property line, but given the nature of the property records and past surveying, the exact distance is questionable. The applicant requested three feet to allow for error in the final survey. Either way, the proposed garage would not exceed 17 feet in width. Interim Director Chilcott stated the design of the garage was unusual due to the tight turning radius coming off of the street into the garage. This tight turning radius was a result of the proposed garage location (close to the road). Because of this, vehicles would have to enter the garage at an angle. Staff determined that special circumstances exist. Interim Director Chilcott stated the lot was small for the zone district, and was surrounded on three sides by Cyteworth Road. Therefore, the 15-foot front yard setback applied to three sides of the lot, and the 10-foot side yard setback applied to one side. The lot has a slope on the north side of the existingstructure,which could createpotential drivewaysloe drainage, and p� g� site distance issues if a were located elsewhere on the lot. garage Staff reviewed the application to ensure compliance with EVDC Section 3.6.C, and found the application complies with the code, including special circumstances and practical difficulty. The request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. The Estes Valley Fire District reviewed the site and approved the design and location. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment February 1, 2011 Public Comment: Jim Gunter/Applicant commended Interim Director Chilcott for her willingness to work with him on the design and location of the addition. Barbara Fisher/Adjacent property owner stated the neighborhood was in support of this variance. Staff and Member Discussion: None. Conditions: 1. Compliance with the site plan and building design as approved by the Board of Adjustment; 2. Setback Certificate. Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall provide to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved variance, and shall include a specific reference to the distance to property lines. Staff recommends a surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the approved variance. It was moved and seconded (Levine/McCreery) to approve the variance request for Lot A, Clatworthy Estates (a portion of Lot 22, Riverside Subdivision), with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 4. REPORTS Interim Director Chilcott reported the document titled "Powers and Duties of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment" contained a reference to the Municipal Sign Code. The recently approved revisions to the Sign Code established a Creative Sign Design Review Board, which will review future sign code variances and applications for non -typical signs located within the Town limits. An amendment to the Powers and Duties would remove the reference to the Municipal Sign Code. Members were supportive of the amendment, stating that signs have become more specialized, and the newly -created Board would be a welcomed addition to the Town. The Board agreed to relinquish authority concerning signs to the new Creative Sign Design Review Board. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:17 a.m. Bob McCreery, Vice -Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary 4 Memo To: From: Date: RE: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Steve McFarland, Finance Officer March 8, 2011 Investment Services Contract Award Background: The Town of Estes Park (Town) typically has between $18-22,000,000 of investments on hand, depending upon time of year. Monies are distributed throughout 10-12 funds, and the monies themselves are invested in multiple locations (please see chart below for sample of funds/locations. As can be seen, the largest portion of the monies is under the care of our existing investment manager. Funds Balance General Community Reinvestment Conservation Trust Open Space Community Services L&P Water Fleet IT Vehicle Replacement $5,224,000 2,526,000 57,000 479,000 107,000 6,393,000 2,829,000 181,000 160,000 2,228,000 Location of Funds Balance Cutwater mngd: Wells Fargo, Colo Trust CSAFE (MMF) FNB (CD) Keybank (MMF) $19,370,000 539,000 56,000 219,000 L&P - Bond 170,000 restricted Colo Trust (MMF) 170,000 FOSH 457,000 restricted CSAFE (MMF) 457,000 $20,811,000 $20,811,000 As of 01/31/11- amounts rounded for easier reference The Town employs an investment advisory service because the level of sophistication and resources needed to manage the Town's investments is beyond the scope of staff. The Town is limited by statute regarding what investment instruments can be utilized. These types of investments (institutional money market funds, certificates of deposit, treasury securities (bills, notes, bonds), investment -grade obligations of state, provincial and local governments and public securities) often involve expertise in sector rotation and duration/yield curve management, as well as access to capital markets. As an additional safeguard, it is important to note that Town monies are managed in a non - discretionary fashion, which means that a town representative must grant written (signatory) permission for trades/deployments of monies. Investment decisions are made according to the priorities stated in the Investment Policy of safety, liquidity and yield. As an aside, the selected investment advisory service will be assisting the Town in updating its 2001 Investment Policy. The Town of Estes Park has been employing Cutwater Asset Management (formerly MBIA) as the Town's investment advisory service since 2002. An RFP process was undertaken in late 2010 to solicit bids for said service for 2011-13. The RFP process generated four responses. Telephone interviews were conducted with each firm. The proposals were then graded and weighed on responses in the following areas: experience of firm/managers, reporting capabilities, clarity/timeliness in response to RFP questions, management/philosophy/approach towards generating superior results in portfolio, and fee structure. The findings were thoroughly discussed with the Audit Committee on Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011. The conclusion of the Audit Committee is to recommend renewal - extension of the Cutwater Asset Management Group (Cutwater) for a 3-year term (3 one-year contracts). Provided references have been checked and have produced favorable responses. Budget: There are no budget ramifications per se. Investment fees are netted out with investment income and spread over all funds in proportion to fund balances. Staff Recommendation: Based on analysis of submitted proposals and after conferring with the Audit Committee, staff recommends selecting Cutwater as the Town's Investment Services Manager. Sample Motion: move for the approval/denial of awarding the investment services agreement to Cutwater. 3/3/2011 Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee Final Recommendations to Estes Park Town Board March 8, 2011 1 Committee Members, Advisors, and Staff • John Baudek, Chair • Ron Norris, Vice -Chair • Sharry White • Dave Tanton • Paula Steige • Bill Van Horn • Jim Pickering, Advisor • Jerry Miller, Town Board Liaison • Derek Fortini, Alicia Mittelman, Kate Rusch: Staff 2 1 3/3/2011 Obiectives of This Presentation • Review what was requested at our November 9, 2010 study session, and highlight changes made to the draft ordinance • Summarize public feedback and other key learnings from the past 3 months • Make final recommendations to the Town Board 3 Recap of Committee's Work • Charge from Town Board: Draft an ordinance and get public input • Began work in July 2010 • 27 Meetings to Date & Total of Over 800 Volunteer Hours • Reviewed 38 Colorado Cities' Ordinances and Dozens of Additional County/State/Federal Information & Guideline Documents • Obtained Input from Town Attorney Greg White & Dan Corson of the State Office of Historic Preservation • Revised the draft ordinance as requested in the November 9, 2010 study session (see highlighted copy) • Solicited and received extensive public feedback 4 2 3/3/2011 Public Outreach • Held one open house and two public forums. Made in -person presentations to 10 organizations and over 200 people. Presentations made to: • Estes Valley Historical Society • Board of Estes Park Museum Friends & Foundation • Estes Park Board of Realtors • Association for Responsible Development • Local Marketing District Board & Staff • League of Women Voters • RMNP Superintendent & staff • Estes Valley Land Trust Board • Estes Park History Rescue Project • Via e-mail and weekly articles in both newspapers we have reached residents throughout the Valley. $ Public Feedback- Overview • A small group of people opposed the ordinance. • Others publicly voiced specific concerns and/or offered suggestions. • All input has been reviewed and many suggestions have been incorporated into the revised ordinance. • We have received strong, enthusiastic support from organizations representing over 1100 people. • Overall response has been extremely supportive of the ordinance. 6 3 3/3/2011 Major Concerns in Opposition to the Ordinance (with Committee comments in blue) • Too much bureaucracy and government control. Town Board will make a policy decision on whether to enact these regulations. Most citizens support the ordinance and expect the community to benefit from it. • Even though ordinance is described as voluntary, a future Board (or citizens' initiative) could amend the ordinance and make it mandatory. True for any ordinance. But our citizens have been traditionally opposed to any mandatory measures. • Ordinance will increase tourism and traffic. Traffic is not addressed in the ordinance, but goal of the Town and LMD is to encourage tourism. Town is working on ways to address traffic control options. • More paperwork, and negative impact on my property value. Paperwork required only for those who want historic designation. Long-term national studies show positive impact of 8-20% higher property values for designated properties. • Objections to tax credits. Current federal and state policies make credits available for restoration. Committee believes our citizens should be able to take advantage of these credits. • Delete Section 12 (which requires a 60-day waiting period before demolition). 60-day period does not prevent demolition, & is no longer than the time often required for gathering paperwork, conducting environmental assessments, and obtaining a demolition permit. 7 Other Concerns/Suggestions (with Committee responses in blue) • Guard against overcontrol/overly strict Commission (from an individual's experience with an historic commission in another state). Commission will be advisory to elected officials (Section 3.1), subject to confirmation by Town Board (Section 3.2), and serve at the pleasure of the Town Board (Section 3.3). Commission procedures and bylaws must be approved by the Board (Section 3.11). • Strengthen and clarify Owner consent/opt out provisions. Done: Sections 6.3, 7.1.3, 7.3. Only Owners may nominate properties for historic designation. • Do not overburden staff with new responsibilities. Historic Commission will be a working commission. Staff roles are being defined by Administration, and no new staff is needed. We may seek grants to help fund the cost of surveys, etc. • Clarify purpose of grants to be solicited, and how they will be used. Done: Section 4.11. • Clarify what the Town and Property Owners are expected to pay for. Done: Sections 6.11, 7.7B, and 11.3. • Clarify how Owners may choose to be excluded from an Historic District. Done: Section 7.3 extensively revised. 8 3/3/2011 Typical Comments in Support for the Ordinance • Why hasn't the Town done this sooner? • Why doesn't the ordinance include the entire valley? • How soon can the Town put this in place? • How can I get involved? • Committee is doing a great service for the community. • Historic preservation is a great idea for Estes Park. 9 Letters of Support Received from... • Board of Estes Park Museum Friends and Foundation: "We applaud John Baudek and his committee for the work it has done in producing this draft, and urge its adoption by the Board of Trustees." • Association for Responsible Development: "We believe that the voluntary nature of the proposed ordinance, and its emphasis on preserving the rich heritage of Estes Park, are well -aligned... with responsible development. We strongly urge passage of the ordinance." 10 3/3/2011 Other Kev Learnings • The proposed ordinance is unique in that only those owners who seek historic designation and its benefits will be impacted. Many other communities are much more restrictive. • National research studies over the past 20 years show that historic designation adds to property values (8-20% above similar, undesignated properties), and promotes local economies (especially tourism and the craft trades). • Cultural heritage tourism is the fastest -growing branch of tourism in the U.S., and is being strongly promoted by the State of Colorado. • A number of local Citizen -Leaders have already come forward and expressed interest in serving on an Historic Preservation Commission. • Once an ordinance is passed and a Commission is formed, it is only a matter of weeks (not months) before Certified Local Government status can be obtained. • Extensive state and national information is available to citizens on grants, tax credits, and restoration techniques. 11 Excerpts from -Jim Pickering's Letter "The proposed ordinance..." • "... is a model of its kind. Entirely voluntary in nature... those who choose not to participate are not required to do so." • "... speaks directly to many of the goals and core values [of the town]. It will promote historic tourism, the fastest -growing segment of America's tourist industry, and thereby have a long-lasting impact upon the town's economic prosperity." • "... will strengthen our identity as a unique and historically important mountain town." "[This] is simply the right thing to do." 12 6 3/3/2011 Recommendations The Committee recommends enacting the proposed ordinance, and suggests the following implementation schedule: • Adopt bylaws, interview potential commissioners, & form commission by May 2011 • Have other procedures in place by August 2011 • Get Certified Local Government status and begin taking applications for historic designation by October 1, 2011 • Collaborate with LMD and local businesses (especially skilled craft trades and tourist -focused businesses) to maximize benefits to the community • Monitor progress and assess status in 1 year • 1st Quarter 2012: Consider/discuss whether to expand to include the entire Valley 13 7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK: SECTION 1: PURPOSE The pttr o e of this Ordinance is to promote public safety, health, and the general welfare in a way that preserves Estes Park's historic character, and creates a balance between private property rights and the public interest. This shall be accomplished by: [Note 1: This statement is found in many Colorado ordinances as a summary statement of purpose. The phrase "public health, safety, and welfare" points out that Historic Preservation ordinances serve a valid public purpose. The establishment of such ordinances is a legitimate function of local government as authorized by the public welfare component of police power.] 1. Fostering civic pride in the Town of Estes Park through increased awareness of its unique history, heritage, and accomplishments of the past. 2. Securing Estes Park's historic character for the benefit of present and future generations by promoting the Preservation of Buildings and Sites which have historic, cultural, archeological, or architectural value and which, as such, are unique and irreplaceable community assets. [Note 2: "Preserve our unique character and history" is part of the Town's Vision Statement. "Historic, cultural, archeological, and architectural value" comes from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and CLG Handbook, Section 3.A] 3. Promoting and encouraging continued private Ownership of such Buildings and Sites while maintaining and improving property values through Preservation activities that maintain and strengthen economic vitality, and continue to increase the community's attractiveness to residents and visitors. [Note 3: the phrase "Maintain and strengthen our economic vitality" is part of the Town's Vision Statement.] 1 4. Ensuring that exterior Alteration, Relocation, or Demolition of a Building of historic value is carefully considered for its impact on that Site's historic contribution to Estes Park's heritage. [Note 4: This item is taken from Pagosa Springs' historic Preservation resolution, Section 8.1.2.D. To the extent an historic Preservation ordinance preserves existing historic resources, it "consider(s) the impact of our action on the environment" —a goal that is part of the Town's Vision Statement. Historic Preservation has been called the ultimate form of recycling. In addition, by reusing existing Buildings and infrastructure, fewer municipal dollars are spent on. the construction of new roads, sewer and water lines and other utilities.] 5. Encouraging historic tourism and its economic benefits to the community. [Note: 5 "Enhance recreational and cultural opportunities" is part of the Town's Vision Statement. One of the main reasons people travel is to learn and enjoy the diversity of locales. "Heritage tourism" is a large and growing component of the travel industry world-wide. People seek out historic places, which serve as destinations or complement other attractions in the area (in our case a national park), bringing increased tourism dollars to the communities visited.] 6. Conserving valuable material and energy resources through the ongoing use and maintenance of the existing built environment. [Note 6: This stresses adaptive reuse and its economic and social benefits. The phrase "preserve our unique character and history" is one of the Town's Core Values.] SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS. "Alteration" means any act or process that changes one or more of the exterior architectural features of a Building or Site, including but not limited to its erection, construction, Reconstruction, or removal. "Alteration Certificate" means a certificate issued by the Estes Park Historic Preservation Commission after its review of an application to significantly alter, move, or demolish any designated Historic Building or Site to make sure that such actions are in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. These Standards are listed in Section 8.1.2 of this Ordinance. "Building" means any structure created for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, or property of any kind and which is permanently affixed to the land. 2 "Certified Local Government (CLG)" is a program enabled under federal legislation encouraging the establishment of partnerships between local and state governments for the purposes of historic Preservation. To be eligible for CLG Designation, a local government is required to adopt certain standards and regulations specified by the state. In return, the local government is eligible for additional grant money, and local historic properties may be eligible for state and federal tax credits and other financial incentives. "CLG Guidelines" refers to the guidelines and standards established for Local Certified Governments in Colorado as set forth the Colorado Certified Local Government Handbook, as may be amended. "Commission" means the Estes Park Historic Preservation Commission as created in Section 3. "Compatible" means that the proposed Alteration to a Designated Historic Landmark or a Building or Site within a Designated Historic District is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. "Comprehensive Survey" means a systematic, detailed examination of an area designed to gather information about Historic Buildings, Sites, or neighborhoods sufficient to evaluate them against predetermined criteria. [Note 7: This definition is taken from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.] "Contributing Structure ors Property" means a Building, structure, Landmark, feature or object within an Historic District that embodies the Historic Significance, or adds to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities or archaeological values identified for the Historic District, and was present during the Period of Significance, relates to the documented significance of the property, and possesses historic integrity or is capable of yielding important information about the period. "Demolition" means any act or process that destroys in part or in whole any Building or Site. "Designation/Designated" means official recognition by the Town Board of a Building, Site, or District as historic. "Design Guidelines" mean set of standards of actions or activities appropriate to the Preservation of the historic and architectural significance of a Building or Site and that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. "District" means an Historic District as defined by this Ordinance. "Estes Valley Planning Area" means that portion of the Estes Valley described in the Estes Valley Development Code and its associated maps. 3 "Excluded Property" means a property within a Designated Historic District boundary that the Owner chooses to exclude from the District and,fromLLallguidemes$estabhshed by tle District Such properties may be located within the District boundary but are subject only to the Town of Estes Park's building code and the Estes Valley Development Code. "Exterior" means the architectural style and general arrangement of the exterior of a Building, including the type and texture of the Building materials and all windows, doors, lights, signs, and other fixtures appurtenant thereto. "Historic Building" means any Building at least fifty (50) years of age that is of Historic Significance to the Town of Estes Park. "Historic District" means a geographically definable area possessing a concentration, linkage, or continuity of Buildings, structures, and/or Sites united by past events, plans, social activities or physical development. In order to qualify as an Historic District, the proposed boundary must contain a minimum of five (5) Contributing properties whose Owners wish to have a District Designated. Designated Historic Districts do not include properties whose Owners elect to be Excluded from said District during its formation, in accordance with the provisions described in Section 7 of this Ordinance. [Note 8: This definition is derived from the Pagosa Springs Historic Preservation Ordinance.] "Historic District Significance" means a collection of Buildings, objects, Sites, properties, and spaces that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that are of Historic Significance to the Town of Estes Park. "Historic Significance" means having importance for the history, architecture, culture, or archeology of the Town of Estes Park. "Landmark" means a local Site or property that has been so designated because of its Historic Significance and its importance to the Town of Estes Park. "Local Registry" means The Registry of Designated Local Historic Landmarks and Landmark Districts in the Town of Estes Park, that lists the local historic properties determined to meet specified criteria of significance. . [Note 9: This definition is the one for "Inventory" taken from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards .for the Treatment of Historic Properties. It echoes the term used in recognizing Historic Buildings and Sites at the State and National level.] "National Register" means the National Register of Historic Places: the official list maintained by the National Park Service. 4 "Noncontributing" means a structure that is described as such in the Ordinance establishing a Designated Historic District. Noncontributing structures do not add to the historic or architectural qualities of an Historic District, were not present during the Period of Significance, or, because of Alterations or deterioration, have lost their physical integrity. [Note 10: This definition is derived from Denver's Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Section 30.2 (6) a and b.] "Ordinary Maintenance" means any Work where the purpose and effect is to correct an • prevent deterioration or decay of a structure or any part thereof and that does not affect a significant change or Alteration of the external appearance of the Building or Site. "Owner" means the property Owner or Owners of record. "Period of Significance" means the time period during which a structure or District gained its architectural, historic, or geographic importance. A District's Period of Significance may cover a longer period of time than a structure's, in order to encompass the period during which the District developed. [Note 11: This definition is derived from Denver's Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Section 30.2 (6.1).] "Preservation" means the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity and materials of an historic property. [Note 12: This definition is taken from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, for the Treatment of Historic Properties.] "Reconnaissance Survey" means an initial examination of an area in sufficient detail to give a general idea of the Historic Buildings and properties at least 50 years old that may be present, resulting in a list of Sites and properties which may be eligible for Designation. [Note 13: This definition, like the ones for "Reconstruction," "Rehabilitation, and "Restoration" below, is taken from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.] "Reconstruction" means the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the exterior form, features, and detailing of a non -surviving Building, Site, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time in its historic location. "Rehabilitation" means the act or process of making possible a Compatible use for a Building through exterior repair, Alterations, and additions, while preserving those portions or features which convey its Historic Significance. 5 "Relocation" means the movement of a structure or part of a structure from one location to another location on the same property, or to a different property. "Restoration" means the act or process of accurately depicting the exterior form, features, and character of a Building as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and the Reconstruction of missing features from the Restoration period. "Site" means a location or area without Buildings determined to have significant merit for historic Designation under this Ordinance. [Note 14: In RMNP roads and trails have been listed on the National Register; CDOT has similarly listed bridges in the Big Thompson Canyon.] "Standards for Rehabilitation" refers to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, Revised 1990, that sets forth ten general standards to guide Alterations to Landmarked properties. The standards are "to be applied in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility." "State Register" means the Colorado Register of Historic Properties: the official list maintained by the State of Colorado containing cultural properties across the state that have been thought worthy of Preservation. "Work" means any Alteration, Demolition, new construction, Restoration, remodeling or modification that results in a significant change in the external appearance of a Building or Site, except ordinary maintenance of the same. SECTION 3: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION There is hereby created the Historic Preservation Commission of the Town of Estes Park. The Commission shall: 1. Be advisory to the Town Board. Its powers and duties are confined and limited to those established by this Section. 2. Be appointed by the Mayor through Estes Park's appointment process, subject to confirmation by the Town Board. 3. Be composed of seven (7) voting members, providing balanced, community -wide representation. All members must have a demonstrated interest or expertise in historic Preservation. Members must live within the corporate limits of Estes Park or the Estes 6 Valley Planning Area. At least four of these members must be Town residents. Members serve at the pleasure of the Town Board. [Note 15: This language is derived in part from Durango's Historic Preservation Resolution. The CLG Handbook specifies a minimum of five members. The Committee recommends 7 members as sufficient to ensure a quorum, without making the Commission too large. We believe the Commission should be a Working Commission, and that by having 7 Working members less Staff time will be required.] 4. Be composed of both professional and lay members, selected, as much as possible, from the fields of history, architecture, architectural history, prehistoric or historic archaeology, engineering, planning, or related disciplines such as the Building trades, cultural geography, cultural anthropology, real estate or law. The applications of Commission members, describing their credentials, shall be kept on file in the Office of the Community' Development Department and be available to the public. [Note 16: With the exception of where the credentials are to be kept and made available this paragraph is taken verbatim from the CLG Handbook, page 4, B. 2.] 5. Be comprised of at least three members who are professionals in Preservation related disciplines such as architecture, architectural history, archaeology, engineering, history, planning, American Studies, American civilization, cultural geography or cultural anthropology. Recognizing that such professionals may not always be available for appointment, this requirement may be waived upon the good faith effort by the Town Board to recruit such individuals and the demonstration that the individuals chosen are capable of carrying out Commission responsibilities. [Note 17: Adapted from CLG Handbook, page 4, B. 3.] 6. Monitor existing and future Building codes and fire codes to assess the implications of these codes on historic Preservation, and advise the Town Board and other agencies of these implications. 7. Be initially appointed as follows: Two members of the Commission shall be appointed for a one (1) year term; two members shall be appointed for a two (2) year term; and three members shall be appointed for a four (4) year term. Thereafter, the term of service shall be for four consecutive years. Members may be reappointed by the Town Board. When vacancies occur, they shall be filled by the Town Board, in the same manner as the original appointment. 7 [Note 18: Four year tern -is are consistent with the terms of most other Estes Park boards and committees. The CLG Handbook (page 4, B. 5) requires that terns Commission be staggered and be at least one year in duration.] 8. Annually elect three (3) officers: Chair, Vice -Chair, and Recording Secretary. The Chair shall preside at meetings, call special meetings, issue public statements for the Commission, and in general assume the duties of directing the activities of the Commission. The Vice -Chair shall act in the place of the Chair in the event of the latter's absence. The Secretary shall keep a complete and current agenda, the minutes of each meeting, and be responsible for the publication and distribution of minutes, proceedings, and reports (including those reports and documents required for CLG participation). The minutes of all Commission meetings shall include a record of all decisions and actions, and shall be kept on file and be available for public inspection. [Note 19: (1) CLG status requires that "Minutes of all Conunission decisions and actions, which include the reasons for making those decisions, must be kept on file and available for public inspection." CLG Handbook, page 7, D. 3. (2) CLG participation requires that minutes be sent to the State Historic Preservation Office, CLG Handbook, page 5, B. 8 andl0.] 9. Define a quorum for the transaction of business as a simple majority of the total number of appointed members. All Commission meetings shall be open to the public and follow the provisions of the Colorado Open Meeting Law (CR 24-67-40, et seq.), and all Commission decisions shall be made in open public session with the exception of those specified by law. [Note 20: Following the provisions of the Colorado Open Meeting Law is a condition of CLG participation. See CLG Handbook, page 5, B. 5, and page 7, D. 2. The instances where public disclosure is not required are specified in the CLG Handbook, page 5, B. 7.] 10. Meet as necessary, but at least quarterly, at such times and places as it may determine, or upon call of the Chair. [Note 21: CLG participation requires at least four meetings/ year. CLG Handbook, page 5, B. 9.] 11. Establish other procedures or by-laws, consistent with this Ordinance and the ordinances and policies of the Town of Estes Park, as deemed necessary to meet the requirements of Certified Local Government status as outlined herein. Such procedures: and/or bylaws shall be approvedG by the Town Board; and shall be made available to the public. [Note 22: This final phrase ("to meet the requirements of Certified Local Government status") is important for it addresses all the reporting issues mandated by the CLG Handbook. The issue of 8 availability of procedures or by-laws is a requirement for CLG status. See CLG Handbook, Page 5, B. 6.] SECTION 4: POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ESTES PARK HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION The Estes Park Historic Preservation Commission Shall: 1. Conduct on -going Reconnaissance Surveys to identify the general location and nature of cultural resources, such as Historic Buildings and Sites in the area. These surveys shall be Compatible with federal and state established methods and consistent with Colorado's historic Preservation planning processes. 2. Establish, maintain, and make available to the public the results of such surveys in the Office of the Community Development Department The Commission may also choose to provide these records at the Estes Park Public Library, the Estes Park Museum, and at other such locations The Reconnaissance Surveys shall be published, and individual property Owners shall be notified in writing if their properties are included on these surveys. [Note 23: See CLG Handbook, page 6, C.1, 2, 4, and 5. The Department of the Interior's Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning (1977, Revised in 1985.)] 3. Review nominations and applications for the Designation of Buildings and Sites as local historic Landmarks, and nominations and applications for the Designation of Local Historic Districts. Advise and offer guidance to nominators and applicants regarding procedures, Design Guidelines, and resources available. See Section 6, below. 4. Establish, maintain, and make available a Local Registry that lists the local historic properties determined to meet specified criteria of significance. Make this Local Registry available in the Office of the Community Development Department (official copy), the Estes Park Public Library and the Estes Park Museum. The purpose of this Local Registry is to provide the Town with a permanent record of its designated historic resources and to encourage their Preservation, enhancement, and perpetuation. 5. Participate, as required for CLG status, in the process for nominating local Buildings and Sites for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. [Note 24: This meets the requirements of Section VI (pages 12-13) in CLG Handbook.] 6. Review and decide on issuing Alteration Certificates as described in Sections 9 and 10 of this Ordinance. 9 7. Recommend revocation of Designation in case of noncompliance with the requirements of local Landmark status, as described in Section 11 of this Ordinance. 8. Advise and offer guidance to Owners of Designated Historic Landmarks who wish them listed on the State and National Registers. 9. Advise property Owners and others of the benefits, fmancial and otherwise, of historic Preservation and the value to the community of protecting, preserving, and enhancing Buildings and Sites of historic importance. 10. Direct Owners of designated historic Landmarks to resources that can assist with their Alteration, Rehabilitation, Restoration and/or Reconstruction. 12. Carry out and assist others in studies and programs designed to identify and evaluate Buildings and Sites worthy of Preservation. [Note 25: The Town and the Commission could cooperate on interesting (and fundable) projects with RMNP, state and national universities, and other organizations -- for example with MacGregor Ranch. Such a clause will encourage and remind the Commission of this opportunity and remind others to approach the Commission with their projects.] 13. Work with the Estes Park Museum and other local organizations to develop and promote on -going public education programs about the value of preserving local Historic Buildings and Sites. [Note 26: This addresses a central responsibility mandated by CLG Handbook, see page 7, D. 5.] 14. Provide to the Town Board, at least once annually, a report summarizing current Commission activities. 15. Advise, as requested, the Town Board on matters having to do with the Historic Buildings, Sites, and resources of the Town of Estes Park and their Preservation, and related matters. 16. Consult with, and provide information to, civic groups, public agencies, and citizens interested in historic Preservation. 17. Cooperate with History Colorado, the Colorado Historical Society, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on matters having to do with historic Preservation and with the requirements and duties of being a Certified Local Government. 10 [Note 27: This addresses the annual training requirement for continuing CLG participation.] 18. Develop detailed administrative procedures for coordination with other relevant government agencies. 19. Fulfill the roles summarized in the following table (roles of Staff and Town Board are also shown for reference): Item Staff Support Commission Town Board Conduct Reconnaissance & Comprehensive Surveys X X Make Nominations X X Review Applications X Recommend Designation X Approve Designation X Maintain Local Registry X X Advise Property Owners X Approve Alteration Certificates X Recommend Revoking Designation X Ap 'rove Revoking Designation X Promote Public Education X X Consult with Citizens X X Collaborate with the SHPO X SECTION 5: CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATING A LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK AND LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT To be designated a Landmark or part of an Historic District, a Building or Site must meet two or more of the following criteria: 1. In the case of a Building, be at least fifty (50) years of age, unless exceptional Historic Significance can be demonstrated. 2. Has significant character, interest or value, as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the Town of Estes Park, the State of Colorado, or the United States; or is associated with the life of a person significant in the past; or 3. Is the Site of an historic event with a significant effect on society; or 4. Exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social or historic heritage of the Estes Park community. 11 5. Be archeologically significant if a Site has yielded, or is likely to yield, important information regarding history or prehistory. SECTION 6: PROCEDURES FOR THE VOLUNTARY DESIGNATION OF A LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK 1. No Building or Site may receive Designation as a Local Historic Landmark without the consent in writing of the property Owner. 2. Only the C Designation. es nee may nominate a Building or Site for 3. Nominations shall be made on a signed nomination form to be established by the Commission and available in the Office of the ommuniiy;Development�Depaetmen [Note 28: Timing requirements in this draft Ordinance are in the sane range as the time periods allowed in the Estes Valley Development Code.] 4. The applicant for a property desiring historic Designation shall submit supporting documentation and materials as required by the Commission. The application shall include the written consent of the Owner to this Designation. Owner benefits (e.g., potential tax credits), requirements, obligations, and standards for modification shall be provided along with the application form for historic Designation. [Note 29: Longmont has a simple, one -page form for this that can be used as a guide.] 5. Nominations and applications shall be reviewed by the Commission according to the criteria established in Section 5 of this Ordinance. 6. If the Building or Site is not already on the State or National Register, the Commission shall ensure that a Comprehensive Survey of the Building or Site for which an application has been received is conducted within a reasonable time period, in accordance with accepted guidelines. The results and findings of this survey shall be made a matter of public record. 7. Following completion of the Comprehensive Survey, the Commission shall hold a public hearing on the application within sixty (60) days. 8. On the basis of the survey, its own review, and the public hearing, the Commission shall take one of the following actions within thirty (30) days: (1) Recommend Landmark Designation to the Town Board for its approval; (2) Return the application to the applicant of record with a request for additional information; or (3) Recommend that the Town Board deny the Designation application. All recommendations and requests shall be accompanied by written fmdings of fact. 12 9. The Town Board shall hold a public hearing within sixty (60) days of receiving the Commission's recommendation to Designate a Site as a Local Historic Landmark, and decide whether to Designate a Local Historic Landmark. This decision shall be accompanied by a written fmding of fact. 10. If a Building or Site is Designated by the Town Board, the Owner shall be notified by mail, e-mail, or fax describing the basis for Designation, and the benefits and obligations created by Designation. A copy of this Ordinance shall be included with the communication to the Owner. 11. The documentation Designating the property as a Landmark shall be filed with the County Clerk and Recorder within fifteen (15) days of its effective date.Costs associate er Documentation shall include a description of the characteristics of the Landmark which justify its Designation, a description of the particular features to be preserved, and a legal description of the Landmark. Properties or Sites achieving Landmark status shall, after Designation, receive both public recognition and a plaque to be displayed in accordance with guidelines established by the Commission. The plaque shall be provided and owned by the Town of Estes Park, and maintained by the Owner. 12. If the Town Board disapproves a proposed Designation, no person shall submit an application that is substantially the same for at least six (6) months from the effective date of the final action on the original proposal. 13. A schedule of fees may be adopted from time to time by the Town Board. [Note 30: This language is similar to that in the sign code. Fees may include filing fees, postage, and other out of pocket expenses incurred by the Town. 30 of the 38 local Colorado ordinances we reviewed had no fees.] SECTION 7: PROCEDURES FOR THE VOLUNTARY DESIGNATION OF A LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT 1. Nomination: Only a property Owner or group of property Owners within the proposed boundary of the District may submit a nomination for the creation of a Local Historic District. 1.1 Nominations shall be made on a form established by the Commission and available at the Office of the Community Development Department, and shall either be signed by, or be accompanied by a signed petition with signatures of at least fifty percent (50%) of the property Owners within the proposed District indicating consent to the nomination. 13 1.2 In addition to the nomination form and/or petition, nominations shall be accompanied by the required fee (if any), a sketch plan of the proposed District boundary, a list of all property owners within the proposed District along with their mailing addresses, phone numbers and email addresses, if applicable, and other supporting documentation as may be required to demonstrate why consideration should be given for the formation of an Historic District for the nominated area. 1.3 Upon receipt of the nomination, the Commission shall undertake a preliminary review to determine if the nomination meets the requirements of this Ordinance, including but not limited to, the fifty percent (50%) property owner consent and signatures on the ,pet ti by O within the proposed boundary. on in 1.4 Within sixty (60) days of receipt of the nomination, the Commission shall notify all Owners of properties within the proposed District via mail, e-mail, or fax. This notification shall include the proposed District boundary, the findings of the Commission regarding the nomination and reference the privileges, obligations, and restrictions which may apply, along with requirements for submitting an application for Designation, if warranted. 2. Application: Any property Owner, or group of property Owners, within the proposed Historic District may submit an application for the creation of a Local Historic District whose nomination has previously been reviewed and approved by the Commission. [Note 31: A nomination can be made by almost anyone, but an application is restricted to the property Owners within the District, similar to the requirements for a Landmark designation. 2.1 Applications shall be made on a form established by the Commission and available in the Office of the Community Development Department, and shall be accompanied by a petition signed by at least seventy five percent (75%) of the property Owners within the proposed District, including the Owners 'of at least fi 5 Cont y structures, indicating consent to the formation of the proposed rib District. uting 2.2 In addition to the application form and supporting petition, applications shall be accompanied by the required fee (if any), a plan and legal description of the proposed District boundary, a list of all property Owners within the proposed boundary and their mailing addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses, if applicable, proposed exterior Design Guidelines (if different from the Standards for Rehabilitation), photographs of significant structures, a brief written history of the proposed District, including dates of applicable events, and other supporting documentation as may be required by the Commission. 14 2.3 Upon receipt of the application, the Commission s received, and shall undertake a preliminary review to determine if the application meets the requirements of this Ordinance, including but not limited to, the seventy five percent (75%) property Owner consent, a minimum of five (5) Contributing structures within the proposed boundary, and conformance to the provisions of this Ordinance. If the information submitted does not meet requirements, the Commission shall notify the applicants of the deficiencies and give them a minimum of thirty (30) days to address those deficiencies. [Note 32: The Town Board should decide, as policy, what the appropriate percentages should be. The petition process above avoids the cost and complexity of holding a formal public vote on each proposed District, and places the burden of doing the work on those citizens who wish to form the District. This process will be time-consuming but fair, and ensures that people interested in forming such a District are responsible for working with their neighbors to make it happen. Such an approach will tend to create neighborhood cohesiveness and pride.] 2.4 Upon completion of the preliminary review and acceptance of the application, the Commission shall conduct a Comprehensive Survey of the proposed District, and determine if the application meets all applicable requirements of this Ordinance. The Comprehensive Survey shall be conducted within a reasonable time period, in accordance with accepted guidelines. The results and findings of this Survey shall be made a matter of public record. 2.5 Upon completion of the Commission's review of the application, but not more than ninety (90) days from receipt of the application, the Commission shall either: A. Notify all Owners of properties within the proposed District via mail, e- mail, or fax, that a formal application for the creation of the District, supported by the required percentage of property Owners, has been received, reviewed and accepted by the Commission. This notice shall state the Commission's findings regarding the application, the proposed schedule for public hearings and, if applicable, reference the privileges, obligations, and restrictions which may apply upon becoming a District, along with a request for their response; or B. Return the application to the applicant with a written request for additional information. The Commission shall stipulate a reasonable time period for furnishing the additional required information. 2.6 Property Owners, within the proposed District boundary shall have thirty (30) days, from date of the notice, to submit a written response to the Commission with 15 their comments in support of or against the proposed application. The Commission shall consider these comments during its review of the application. 2.7 Upon its determination that the application meets the requirements of this Ordinance, the Commission shall schedule a public hearing within sixty (60) days of the deadline for the receipt of comments from property Owners. Exclusion from or Inclusion into a Historic District: 3.1 Exclusion: Property owners who wish to have their property Excluded from tlj proposed District may do so, prior to its formation, by submitting a notarized, written request to the Commission within 120 days after receipt of notification of a application for creation of said Historic District, and prior to the Commission's public hearing on the proposed District. The request for Exclusion shall include t reason for exclusion and a legal description of the property to be Excluded. to 33: A notarized statement ensures that it is the property Owner requesting This provision also allows the Owner to out after the application process (when it ious) but prior to the Commission's public hearing. Once they opt out, they're out e nothing further to do with the District. Notifications to property Owners may include veloped by the Commission that explains how to apply for Exclusion.] A. Properties whose Owners request Exclusion shall be Excluded from the District and shall not be subject to any rules adopted for the District. Nor shall Excluded property be considered to be part of said District or entitled to any benefits the District may receive. B. The Commission shall ensure the legal description of the boundary of the proposed District specifically excepts Excluded properties. Further documentation of the District shall specifically list Excluded properties and shall note that they area not subject to any controls nor any benefits the District may be entitled to. 3.2 Inclusion: Property owners whose property has been Excluded at any time,,p Section 3.1 of this Ordinance, or whose property has erroneously been excluded from a District, may petition the Commission to be included into the applicable, District. The request for inclusion shall state the reason for the request and prove a legal description of the property requested to be incorporated into the District, Upon receipt of a request for inclusion, the Commission shall review the request' verify that the property in question meets the requirements of this Ordinance at determine if the property is a Contributing or Non -Contributing Site. 16 ce the Commission has completed its review, a notice shall besent:. the property Owner .This notice shall state the Commission's findings'. regarding the application, the proposed schedule for a public hearing an applicable, reference the privileges, obligations, and restrictions w. apply once the property is included in the District, including a co specific development guidelines. e Commission shall also notify property Owners within the H'storm rict of the request for inclusion and ask for written comments, in supy of or against the proposed inclusion, within thirty (30) days from the da nonce. ice, the, period for property Owner comments has expired, the mmission shall give hold a public hearing on the request and take for awcrto ereon. 1. If the action grants the request for inclusion, the Commission s notify the applicant and shall amend the official District bounc and legal description as required. In addition, the Commission sb file appropriate documentation with the County Clerk, and Recorder amending the District boundary as required. Recording fees for documentation shall be paid by the applicant. 2. If the action denies the request for inclusion, the applicant may appeal that decision to the Town Board, as provided for in this Ordinance. sons make it easy to opt back :in, , but also ensure that those alrea+ o the process. CLG G requirements require public hearingsand inpu ission takes. Because this isn't as major as the formation of the Dis" )lvernent is as an appellant body only.] 4. A Historic District may contain Contributing and Non-contributing properties: 4.1 Contributing properties of the proposed Historic District shall be determined to contribute to the overall character of the district, meet the requirements of the definition in Section 2 of this Ordinance, have Historic Significance as defined in Section 2, and meet the criteria described in Section 5 of this Ordinance. A Historic District shall contain a minimum of five (5) Contributing properties. All Contributing properties, within the District, shall be identified on a list retained by the Community Development Department. 17 4.2 Non-contributing properties within the District, as defined in Section 2 of this Ordinance, do not contribute to the overall significance of the district and do not meet the criteria described in Section 5 of this Ordinance. [Note 34: These provisions are derived from the Pagosa Springs Ordinance and .] 5. On the basis of the Comprehensive Survey, its own review and public comments, the Commission shall take one of the following actions at the public hearing: A. Recommend Historic District Designation to the Town Board for its approval, or B. Recommend that the Town Board deny Historic District Designation. All recommendations and requests shall be accompanied by written fmdings of fact. 6. The Town Board shall hold a public hearing within 60 (sixty) days of receiving the Commission's recommendation to Designate a Local Historic District, and decide whether or not to Designate a Local Historic District. This decision shall be based on the Commission's recommendations and written findings of fact. 7. If the Town Board Designates a Local Historic District, the following shall occur: A. All property owners within the District shall be notified of the Designation by the Town via mail, e-mail, or fax. The notification shall, at a minimum, describe the basis for Designation, the benefits and obligations created by the Designation, the legal description of the boundary and a list of Contributing properties within the District. A copy of this Ordinance, and the Design Guidelines adopted with the District, shall be included with the communication to the Owners. B. A document stipulating the Designation of the Local Historic District shall be filed with the County Clerk and Recorder within fifteen (15) days of its effective date. Costs associated with Ming -shall be paid,,byvthe applicantsThe documentation shall include a brief description of the characteristics of the District which justify its Designation, a list of Contributing properties, the location, a legal description of the boundary of the District and a copy of any Design Guidelines approved for the District C. Approval of a District shall also create an appropriate "Historic District Overlay Zone", the boundary of which shall be shown on the Estes Valley Zoning Districts Map, in order to help provide public notification and recognition of the existence of the Historic District. 18 [Note 35: These steps further document the District, its location and boundary, and emphasize that Districts are a form of Zoning and not like an HOA or other "controlling body". They provide a simple way for someone researching an area to see that it is not only zoned E-1, for example, but is also part of a Historic District and therefore may be subject to additional requirements under the requirements of the District.] D. Local Historic Districts shall, upon Designation, receive public recognition of Designation. All Contributing properties shall receive plaques to be displayed in accordance with guidelines established by the Commission. The plaques shall be provided and owned by the Town of Estes Park, and maintained by the Owners. 8. If the Town Board disapproves a proposed Designation, an application that is substantially the same shall not be accepted for a minimum of six (6) months from the effective date of the fmal action on the original proposal. 9. A schedule of fees, for review of Historic Districts, may be adopted from time to time by the Town Board. [Note 36: This language is similar to that in the sign code. Fees may include filing fees, postage, and other out of pocket expenses incurred by the Town. 30 of the 38 local Colorado ordinances we reviewed prescribed no fees.] SECTION 8: RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OWNER OF A DESIGNATED LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK, AND THE OWNER OF A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING OR SITE WITHIN A LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT 1. It is the responsibility of the Owner of a Building or Site Designated a Local Historic Landmark, who chooses to renovate his or her property, to do so in accordance with the standards and guidelines set forth in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. By applying for or agreeing to such Designation, it is understood that the Owner accepts these requirements. 2. It is the responsibility of the Owner of a Contributing Building or Site within a Local Historic District, who chooses to renovate his or her property, to do so in accordance with the standards and guidelines set forth in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. By applying for or agreeing to such Designation, it is understood that the Owner accepts these requirements. 3. Any property Designated as an historic Landmark, and any Contributing property within a Designated Historic District, shall continue to be subject to the provisions of the building code of the Town of Estes Park, and the Estes Valley Development Code. 19 [Note 37: Item 1 and 2 above are derived from the Pagosa Springs Historic Preservation Ordinance, Sections 8.1.4 and 8.1.5, and the Denver Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Section 30-8.] SECTION 9: ALTERATIONS TO A DESIGNATED HISTORIC LANDMARK OR TO A BUILDING OR SITE WITHINA DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICT SUBJECT TO COMMISSION REVIEW 1. This Section sets forth for the Owners of Designated local historic Landmarks and the Owners of Contributing properties within Local Historic Districts the Alterations that are subject to review by the Commission and for which an Alteration Certificate is required. Nothing in this Ordinance shall preclude compliance with applicable building or land use codes. 2. Requirements for maintaining historic Designation shall be included with all application forms so that applicants and property Owners will understand expectations and requirements prior to applying for historic Designation. Minimum requirements are listed in Section 8.2 of this Ordinance. [Note 38: These items are "must do" requirements for a property Owner who chooses to opt in to an Historic Designation.] 3. No Owner, lessee, or occupant of any Designated Landmark shall fail to comply with all applicable provisions of this Ordinance and the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code regarding property maintenance. Structures designated for Preservation, or Contributing structures in Districts Designated for Preservation, shall be preserved against decay and deterioration and kept free from structural defects by the Owner. The Owner shall notify the Commission in writing prior to: a) Reconstruction or Alteration of the Exterior improvements located on the Site, or; b) Construction, Relocation, or Demolition of Designated structures on the Site. 4. If the Commission finds that an Owner fails to meet these requirements, the Owner shall be notified in writing and given sixty (60) days to correct any problems. If no action is taken to correct the problems, the Site's Designation may be revoked by action of the Town Board, after a public hearing on the matter. 5. The standards for issuing Alteration Certificates for maintaining historic Designation are listed below. These Standards are to be applied to specific projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. 20 a) A property shall be used for its historic purpose, or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining Exterior characteristics of the Building and its Site and environment. b) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or Alteration of exterior features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. c) Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other Buildings, shall not be undertaken. d) Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired Historic Significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. e) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. f) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. g) Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. h) Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. i) New additions, exterior Alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new Work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be Compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. j) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. [Note 39: Items thr gh :above are tle e Standards for Rehabilitation, revised 1990]. a ct wording; t the Secretary of the Interior's 4. No person shall make any Alteration to the Exterior of a Designated Historic Landmark or to any Contributing Building or Site within a Designated Historic District without first obtaining an Alteration Certificate from the Historic Preservation Commission, and a building permit from the Town of Estes Park (when required). [Note 40: Each historic district will establish its own specific requirements, which will be used by the Estes Park Historic Preservation Commission to review App icaticl„ for l ns teration 21 5. For the purposes of this Section, Alteration includes any act or process that significantly changes, obstructs, or is incompatible with the historic character of a local designated historic Landmark, or a Building or Site within a Designated Historic District; changes one or more of the exterior architectural features of such a Building or Site, exclusive of interior renovation or remodeling; demolishes or partially demolishes such a Building or Site; changes contributing properties within a Designated Historic District; initiates new construction within a Designated Historic District or initiates additions to Buildings and Sites within such a District. SECTION 10: CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN ALTERATION CERTIFICATE 1. An Alteration Certificate shall be issued for the proposed Work providing: a. The proposed Alteration is Compatible with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. These standards are listed in Section 8.2 of this Ordinance. b. Alterations and new construction within a Designated Historic District shall comply with the requirements established by that District. These standards must meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior's Standards included in this Ordinance. 2. Procedures for obtaining an Alteration Certificate shall be as follows: a. Prior to commencement of Work requiring an Alteration Certificate, the Owner shall file an application for such a certificate with the Commission on forms available at locations designated by the Commission. b. All applications for an Alteration Certificate shall be forwarded to the Commission. c. As part of the application process the Owner shall provide the Commssion with a copy of all available information relevant to the proposed Work, as determined le Commission. The Commission and vision shall both approve plans before any work is begun, to ensure that the work described in the building permit is consistent with the Alteration Certificate. s d. Once the application for an Alteration Certificate is complete the Commission shall hold a public hearing on its merits. e. The determination by the Commission on a completed application for a Alteration Certificate shall be made no later than thirty (30) working days after 22 receipt of the completed application. This time may be extended by mutual agreement of the applicant and the Commission. f. The determination of the Commission shall be one of the following: (1) That an Alteration Certificate be issued; (2) That an Alteration Certificate be issued subject to stipulated modifications; (3) That no Alteration Certificate be issued because the application does not meet one or more of the above -listed criteria. For all decisions the applicant shall be provided a written statement containing findings of fact, based on the applicable criteria. g. If the recommendation is negative, the property Owner and the Commission shall have thirty (30) days to develop a plan that will enable the Commission to issue an Alteration Certificate under the criteria listed above, during which time the proposed work shall not proceed. h. If negotiations in Step g, above, result in no resolution, the applicant shall have sixty (60) days in which to appeal to the Town Board. 3. Unsafe or dangerous conditions exempted: Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to prevent any measures of construction, alteration, removal, or demolition necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous condition of any structure, other physical feature, or parts thereof where such condition is declared unsafe or dangerous by the building official, and where the proposed measures have been declared necessary to correct the condition, as long as only such work that is absolutely necessary to correct the condition is performed. Temporary measures may be taken without first obtaining an Alteration Certificate, but such Certificate shall be required for permanent construction, alteration, removal, or demolition. [Note 41: Item 3 was obtained from the Lafayette Historic Preservation Ordinance, Section 47- 14. The other guidelines were obtained by reviewing and selecting the most relevant ordinances from other towns. Delegation to Staff on these items reduces the Town Board's workload.] SECTION 11: NON-COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGNATED HISTORIC STATUS 1. If a Designated Landmark does not maintain compliance with the criteria and procedures outlined herein, the Commission may, after a public hearing, recommend that the Town Board revoke its Designated status. 2. If a Contributing Building or Site within a Designated Historic District does not maintain compliance with the criteria and procedures adopted by that District, the Commission may, after a public hearing, recommend that the Town Board revoke that Building's or Site's local Landmark status. 23 3. If the Town Board, after holding a public hearing, decides to revoke the historic status of a Landmark, Building, or Site, this change in status shall be documented by the Commission, and the designating plaque shall be removed within thirty (30) days [Note 42: This approach emphasizes the voluntary nature of historic Preservation, and minimizes staff time requirements.] SECTION 12: SIGNIFICANT ALTERATION, DEMOLITION, OR REMOVAL OF PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED ON THE RECONNAISANCE SURVEY 1. A waiting period, not to exceed sixty (60) days shall be imposed on any permit that would significantly Alter, Relocate, or Demolish an Historic Building or Site listed in the Reconnaissance Survey, in order to allow written and photographic documentat1 a�r aF. cession, and negotiation on. potent , approaches to what is ;planned This waiting period shall be required whether or not that Building or Site has already been Designated a Local Historic Landmark. [Note 43: This is the only case in which any restrictions are placed on a property that has not yet been officially designated as historic. This is because national and state Designation provide no protection against Alteration or Demolition: only local Designation can provide this protection. Note also that most permits will require at least 60 days to process.] 2. In any case where a duly authorized officer or agent shall order or direct the construction, Reconstruction, remodeling, repair, or Demolition of any structure, Site, or area which otherwise requires action under this Ordinance, for the purpose of remedying conditions determined by said officials or agents to be immediately dangerous to life, health, or property, nothing contained in this Ordinance shall be construed as making it a violation of this Ordinance to comply with such order or directive. [Note 44: This statement is derived from Golden's Historic Preservation Ordinance, Item 18.58.100: "Remedying Dangerous Conditions."] SECTION 13. APPEALS The following action of the Commission may be appealed within sixty (60) days of the Commission's action: Decision by the Commission to disapprove an application for an Alteration Certificate may be appealed to the Town Board. 24 zwenotowfmrm SECTION 15: SEVERABILITY: If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or application of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared severable. 25 3/3/2011 Public Outreach • Held one open house and two public forums. Made in -person presentations to 10 organizations and over 200 people. Presentations made to: • Estes Valley Historical Society • Board of Estes Park Museum Friends & Foundation • Estes Park Board of Realtors • Association for Responsible Development • Local Marketing District Board & Staff • League of Women Voters • RMNP Superintendent & staff • Estes Valley Land Trust Board • Estes Park History Rescue Project • Via e-mail and weekly articles in both newspapers we have reached residents throughout the Valley. Other Key Learnings • The proposed ordinance is unique in that only those owners who seek historic designation and its benefits will be impacted. Many other communities are much more restrictive. • National research studies over the past 20 years show that historic preservation adds to property values, and promotes local economies (especially tourism and the craft trades). • Cultural heritage tourism is the fastest -growing branch of tourism in the U.S., and is being strongly promoted by the State of Colorado. • A number of local Citizen -Leaders have already come forward and expressed interest in serving on a Historic Preservation Commission. • Once an ordinance is passed and a Commission is formed, it is only a matter of weeks (not months) before Certified Local Government status can be obtained. • Extensive state and national information is available to citizens on grants, tax credits, and restoration techniques. 2 1 3/3/2011 Excerpts from Jim Pickering's Letter "The proposed ordinance..." • "... is a model of its kind. Entirely voluntary in nature... those who choose not to participate are not required to do so." • "... speaks directly to many of the goals and core values [of the town]. It will promote historic tourism, the fastest -growing segment of America's tourist industry, and thereby have a long-lasting impact upon the town's economic prosperity." • "... will strengthen our identity as a unique and historically important mountain town." "[This] is simply the right thing to do." 3 Flowchart for Designation of an Individual Site (ref.: Section 6) Application (by Owner) Comprehensive Survey Commission Holds Public Hearing Recommendation to Town Board Yes > (or No) Designation by Town Board; Public Recognition 4 2 3/3/2011 Flowchart for Designation of an Historic District (ref.: Section 7) Nominate District (Petition by Owners) 50% of Owners Signed? Yes Comprehensive Survey No Application (2nd petition by Owners, with proposed boundaries & guidelines for district) STOP 75% of Owners Signed? Yes No Exclusion Requests* 1 Commission Holds Public Hearing Recommendation to Town Board Yes > (or No) *Any owners who do not wish to be included In the district may opt out of the process within 120 days Designation by Town Board; Public Recognition 5 Example of Potential District (Two Owners Have Opted Out) SAMP_LEHLSTORICDISTRICT BOJ IN ()ARV 3 TOWN of F STES PARK PROPOSED HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE Citizen Feedback Form The Estes Park Town Board has asked the Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee to educate the public on the proposed ordinance and collect citizen feedback. The information you provide on this form will serve as a public record of your feedback to the Town Board as it considers the proposed ordinance. Please return the form to any Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee member; or, to the Town Clerk in Room 150 of Town Hall, by mail at P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517, or email the information to jwiiliamson@estes.org. More information on the proposed ordinance is available at www.estes.org/pressreleases/HPO.aspx, in Room 150 of Town Hall and at the Estes Valley Library. Date: ./aoi/ Name: 4//66 JJC)y(J Organizational affiliation, if applicable: Town resident No: Please provide your e-mail address if you would like to receive Town news including updates on the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance via e-mail: What is your reaction to the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance? What do you like? What concerns do you h have? �/ 'I y ��Q�LG.r c eJ �%��2 1-i' " z2%; n) t a rc r�- J/ 1. ; -_ .1 Vi-`i yid✓ Do you have any additional questions or comments? Would you like someone to contact you with more information or to discuss the ordinance? If so, please provide your 'phone number here: TOWN OJ: F STIS PARIc PROPOSED HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE Citizen Feedback Form The Estes Park Town Board has asked the Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee to educate the public on the proposed ordinance and collect citizen feedback. The information you provide on this form will serve as a public record of your feedback to the Town Board as it considers the proposed ordinance. Please return the form to any Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee member; or, to the Town Clerk in Room 150 of Town Hall, by mail at P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517, or email the information to jwilliamson@estes.org. More information on the proposed ordinance is available at www.estes.org/pressreleases/HPO.aspx, in Room 150 of Town Hall and at the Estes Valley Library. Date: 2-/7,20(/ Name: Organizational affiliation, if applicable: Town residen No: Please provide your e-mail address if you would like to receive Town news including updates on the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance via e-mail: CA, r"e t t a(Ovti� What is your reaction to the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance? have? MkA/b1 o`r y € k go -cum CAe,�ra,:�1 \f V pC11iv2 §t5 CN, 4-ve_ efrdti vizu&tre `14-sec owed covkitti6t eek c r—t-- Do you have any additional questions or comments? Not x 9 e `, 6 plre,VNn ti \YLOu`; What do you like? What concerns do you Would you like someone to contact you with more information or to discuss the ordinance? If so, please provide your phone number here: l L` TO\X/N of ESTES PARic, FEB 4 2011 lt- _J€ PROPOSED HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANC Citizen Feedback Form The Estes Park Town Board has asked the Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee to educate the public on the proposed ordinance and collect citizen feedback. The information you provide on this form will serve as a public record of your feedback to the Town Board as it considers the proposed ordinance. Please return the form to any Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee member; or, to the Town Clerk in Room 150 of Town Hall, by mail at P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517, or email the information to jwilliamson@estes.org. More information on the proposed ordinance is available at www.estes.org/pressreleases/HPO.aspx, in Room 150 of Town Hall and at the Estes Valley Library. Date: i 1 1 '&• Li Name: G P -PED,g & Organizational affiliation, if applicable: Town resident? Yes .-,Jos r Or s r E. 64) isA lz-r t.z. Co (,,2031 M,{ (L- go 4 Please provide your e-mail address if you would like to receive Town news including updates on the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance via e-mail: What is your reaction to the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance? What do you like? What concerns do you have? GKrAT—( S'I(0it,L2 13 E C K PA ti.3 1c4 C RAWy C`. 7T.k Loch'rE© aft, IS itj -tattE C L-WiY (skr-t sfnE vF -Tsrrciwe )4. p T EFC2 $ t IQ 6 .rYs" Ci ,e FCr k Y3 Do you have any additional questions or comments? r1d Would you like someone to contact you with more information or to discuss the ordinance? If so, please provide your phone number here: TOWN Oi F,STES PARK PROPOSED HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE Citizen Feedback Form The Estes Park Town Board has asked the Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee to educate the public on the proposed ordinance and collect citizen feedback. The information you provide on this form will serve as a public record of your feedback to the Town Board as it considers the proposed ordinance. Please return the form to any Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee member; or, to the Town Clerk in Room 150 of Town Hall, by mail at P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517, or email the information to iwilliamson@estes.org. More information on the proposed ordinance is available at www.estes.org/pressreleases/HPO.aspx, in Room 150 of Town Hall and at the Estes Valley Library. Date: l ./iGr, 1 Name: )Rs% Organizational affiliation, if applicable: Town resident? Please provide your e-mail address if you would like to receive Town news including updatesjon the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance via e-mail: 4� `� 4- Coto �,�`� < (...o What is your reaction to the proposed Historic PreservationiiOrdinance? What do you like? What concerns do you SSee_s�'-.f` have? Do you have any additional questions or comments? i Would you like someone to contact you with more information or to discuss the ordinance? if so, please provide your phone number here: TOWN 01- ESTES PARK_ PROPOSED HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE Citizen Feedback Form The Estes Park Town Board has asked the Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee to educate the public on the proposed ordinance and collect citizen feedback. The information you provide on this form will serve as a public record of your feedback to the Town Board as it considers the proposed ordinance. Please return the form to any Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee member; or, to the Town Clerk in Room 150 of Town Hall, by mail at P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517, or email the information to jwilliamson@estes.org. More information on the proposed ordinance is available at www.estes.org/pressreleases/HPO.aspx, in Room 150 of Town Hall and at the Estes Valley Library. Date: od/ai'%/// Name: Salo ND c R Organizational affiliation, if applicable: ES1YS %all P.)J 04:y Town resident? 1-41s-h)(y Cot {. &f7' SY\ Please provide your e-mail address if you would like to receive Town news including updates on the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance via e-mail: SIB old ® es-e'Svcrile y ) iri What is your reaction to the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance? What do you like? What concerns do you have? kee fi n-UAL. - .e orAina,nce.� juSJ- `Iu)rr wv writ ccor van��S a lo4--o - s-ei Do you have any additional questions or comments? 50.0A poi\n* : �,l a-n , s&'r � F ).- ►3 o v ;ir, P) aces `i h i r p1.�.c e--E,r - t) e- l�o co Ok -ED e S erUe -04121 r kovv . ; Couck Vovl, Oku-Gabe,J- ev►c c.wa I Lo ► o.cowne,l3- Would you likesomeone to contact you with more information or to discuss the ordinance? If so, please provide your % phone number here: N OF .. PROPOSED HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE Citizen Feedback Form We live in an Arts and Crafts Style, shake -shingle cottage built in 1421- on Big Horn Drive above Woviderview. During the quarter -century we have been the custodians of this property we have professionally (Karen qualifies for licensing as an Interior Designer and son Steven is the Landscape Architect/Owner of Castlewood Custom Landscape and Design) and successfully repaired and renovated our home --at great expense because of its considerable disrepair at the time of purchase --without violating its historical integrity. The proposed historic district and landmark designations will be of no benefit to us. We have done the necessary restoration work with no expectation of reimbursement or tax credits as have many of our neighbors. After reading the proposed ordinance, we realize how much additional paperwork, expense and headaches we were spared because there was no historic preservation ordinance. The additional time and expense would have most likely curtailed our community volunteer work --including eorge's many years of service to Saud. Another concern is that the proposed historic district will, as is its stated intention, increase tourism in our now quiet neighba hood --destroying its character and decreasing our property value. It encroaches on our historical and constitutionally guaranteed rights of property ownership. Sustainable community and environmental stewardship needs to be in balance with tourism and its negative effects on our community. We believe the proposed ordinance could do irreparable harm to that balance. Dr. George and Karen Page Crislip Estes Park Museum Friends and Foundation, Inc. !Estes Park Senior Center, Inc. (current President) Estes lark Ch,R nber Visitors Bureau Ambassgdors February 24, 2021 Do you have any additional questions or comments? x. "balanced, community -wide representation" "demonstrated interest in historic preservation" Who is mare qualified than persons who have successfully preserved an historic home to provide input into the creation of this ordinance? Which local historic home owners were invited to participate and/or consulted? 2. "Section 6: Procedures for the VOLUNTARY Designation of a Local Historical Landmark" "Section 7: Procedures For the VOLUNTARY Designation of a Local Historic District" We looked for the expected INVOLUNTARY clauses and are wondering if involuntary inclusion occurs when an owner is away from their historic property for more than 60 days?! Easily accomplished in a small community where everyone knows that someone has died before the body is even cold! Would you like someone to contact you with more information or to discuss the ordinance? If so, please provide your phone number here: No, thank you. We receive town news via email, have attended public meetings regarding the proposed ordinance and read the local papers. TOWN or F_S-ITS PARI( PROPOSED HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE Citizen Feedback Form The Estes Park Town Board has asked the Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee to educate the public on the proposed ordinance and collect citizen feedback. The information you provide on this form will serve as a public record of your feedback to the Town Board as it considers the proposed ordinance. Please return the form to any Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee member; or, to the Town Clerk in Room 150 of Town Hall, by mail at P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517, or email the information to jwilliamson@estes.org. More information on the proposed ordinance is available at www.estes.org/pressreleases/HPO.aspx, in Room 150 of Town Hall and at the Estes Valley Library. Date: 3 \�� +� Name: Organizational affiliation, if applicable: Town residen No: Please provide your e-mail address if you would like to receive Town news including updates on the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance via e-mail: What is your reaction to the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance? What do you like? What concerns do you 'eve? SCteif,O O0 fT E s% — ' f2 5 v E cs. (/U .F 6i". ,fir .� A Do you have any additional questions or comments? c- --- a), f2_ - ! r 6 , g,.- jj kit)- f C G `„ yo like som ne to.—contazt ou�vit_hmore information or rod.i.scuss the-ort-Fin-anc-e-?--If-so,-please provide -your num er here: d'C--S Le- - S VLF, s r >s--u 5 17 C t- •a fM 0 r<--/ 0 1� j l 585 W. Wonderview Ave. Estes Park, Colorado February 24, 2011 John Baudek, Paula Steige, Dave Tanton, Ron Norris, Sharry White, Bill Van Horn The Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee Estes Park, Colorado Dear Committee Members: One of the stated objectives is to increase the interest in the community and thereby increase tourism. That will increase traffic, although traffic is already at about the maximum that the Town can handle in the summer and many times in the fall. We have just learned that you have been considering Wonderview Avenue, James Street and the Big Horn Drive areas for historical district areas. Wonderview already has heavy traffic during the tourist season as well as most weekends. Since the Town of Estes Park and CDOT determined it was necessary to change the configuration of Wonderview Ave. from MacGregor Ave. to the west thereby eliminating the "pull -off' highway shoulders and converting that space to a center turn lane, we now endure more parking traffic on the frontage access driveway to the four homes, including ours, located just across from James Street. Our privacy is already invaded; a historic designation on Wonderview Ave. will make it worse. We constantly pick up the bottles, cans, cigarette butts and trash left by thoughtless visitors. The four property owners maintain this frontage road with no help from the Town or CDOT. Traffic does decrease a residential property's value; even the Larimer County Assessor website acknowledges this and specifically states: "Traffic Heavy - Negative economic influence". This statement is on almost every Wonderview Avenue residential property. Traffic increases in designated historical districts would not only increase traffic in those areas but also in the surrounding areas. Opting out would not prevent the traffic around the opted out property or neighborhood. A street sign showing "Historic Site", usually with an arrow, will alert people to drive into that area where there is "something" to see. You are attempting to create what will be a big mess! Almost 20 years ago, I helped start the Quota Club Home Tour project. A few years later, commercial buses were bringing people up from the valley attempting to negotiate the small streets in various neighbor- hoods for this event. It is not fair to subject any homeowner or neighborhood to these unwanted traffic condi- tions. I do not want the Estes Park Visitor Center encouraging traffic through older residential areas as part of the "things to do in Estes Park". As a Real Estate Broker for 30 years here in Estes Park, many Realtors would comment that they knew when people were at the end of their vacation and needing something else to do. They would call or stop in a real estate office asking to see property - - homes. We were their "last day" of vacation activity. You are correct in your assumption that driving through neighborhoods and viewing homes is a possible tourist attraction; however, it would not be fair to the homeowners. If you want a historic district in downtown or in commercially zoned areas, work with them and leave us and our homes alone! The State Historical Society lists over 30 properties in the Estes Park area on their website that details location and historical significance. If an individual or group desires the eligible tax credits and the so-called "privileges" associated with a historic designa- tion, the ability to nominate a property or receive status as a historic district is already in place. Furthermore, this also represents that anyone can receive a state and/or national designation on their own without having the overlay of a repetitious and undesirable town ordinance that could be changed by future commissioners and Town Trustees to our serious detriment. We do not desire, need or want more government interference!! Please save the Town of Estes Park's dollars and lessen the work and time of the staff. Less government is just common sense. PLEASE, DO NOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE TO THE TOWN BOARD AS YOU PLAN TO DO ON MARCH 8TH. Connie Phipps Who initiated this ordinance? Why? February 18, 2011 Larry Jones 535 West Wonderview Estes Park ,Co. John Baudek, Paula Steige, Dave Tanton, Sharry White, And Bill Van Horn Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee Estes Park, Colorado Dear Committee Members We now spend the winters in Arizona. I'm sure that a significant number of property owners in Estes also spend winters in warmer areas, as well. We have become aware that you are interested in creating a historical district in our area of Wonderview and Sig Horn which might include our property. We believe your proposed ordinance would amount to government over controlling private property. We already have too many controls now. It sounds as though if you wanted to change things with your home that's in a district that you would have to wait 60 days till you know if they approve it even if you elected to be out. We understand that your argument is that it is voluntary, and you could opt out. But it appears that you could easily amend such ordinance or use an initiative or referendum process. We moved to Estes Park from a town in Nebraska where we witnessed several problems with a similar ordinance. The town wanted to have a new library and a perfect lot was found with an old house on it. A preservationist got involved and registered it with the state as a Historic site.That blocked the demolition and the stress to the library board and the extra costs and delays took its toll on not only the library board but on the citizens of the town as well. Another example was an old commercial bldg. that was on the square which a new bank was to buy and build on. Someone had also registered It with the state and when the state heard the news they said well that's fine but you will have to send your plans which will have to be historic in nature. After submitting several plans, none of which were approved, the bank decided to forget it. The building went into ruin with no one in it and after at least 5 years of looking at the eyesore the political folks from town finally got the state to approve plans and the bank agreed to build new. This could have happened sooner and with less stress for all if it had been allowed at first. Plus we would have had more employment 5 years earlier. We understand your selling point is that over 100 other cities have such an ordinance and yours would allow an individual to opt out. Fine, but as previously stated, this could be changed very easily. The town can encourage property preservation and have staff help the individuals that want to apply for a designation and tax credits without this ordinance that would create more problems for individuals and also I'm sure problems for all[ as happened in Nebraska]. Let's not create problems where none exist just because over 100 other small towns want problems they will wish they never started. Sincerely, Larry and Bever 585 W. Wonderview Ave. Estes Park, Colorado February 24, 2011 John Baudek, Paula Steige, Dave Tanton, Ron Norris, Sharry White, Bill Van Horn The Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee Estes Park, Colorado Your committee, its consultant, along with your advisor, have been promoting this proposed ordinance as a "voluntary" procedure regarding historical landmarks together with the availability of an "opt -out" procedure from a historical district. Without these provisions, I believe that you would be receiving overwhelming opposition as soon as people caught on. There are great number of matters which all property owners need to consider. And since you have expressed an interest in expanding all of this to the entire Estes Valley, I do mean all property owners in this Valley and not only those within the city limits. First, we have to keep in mind the history of amending ordinances in this community, which could happen in the future to this proposed ordinance if it is adopted. It is easy to miss the notice publication that such an amendment procedure is in progress, especially perhaps if a homeowner is working hard to make a living here or is gone for the winter. And the amendment procedure usually does not draw much publicity. In other words, the voluntary and opt -out provisions could be eliminated in the future with a simple amendment. Secondly, in the recent past, via the initiative and referendum procedure, a campaign was carried out by an interested group, and an election held. If you remember that situation, you may or may not have agreed with the outcome in that particular case. That is not my point here. My point is that this procedure is not difficult, and could also be used to produce an amendment to this ordinance. Thirdly, the proposed ordinance makes it abundantly clear that the appointed commission would be a working commission. The ordinance actually mandates this by providing that the commission SHALL accomplish a lot of things. Pages 9 to 11 list mandatory actions by the commission such as reconnaissance surveys; identifying cultural resources; identifying other historical sites in an area; advising and guiding people who might want to nominate someone else's property for historic landmark designation; encouraging enhancement of historical resources; advising people of the financial benefits of historic preservation; soliciting gifts to the town; assisting others in studies and programs designed to identify and evaluate buildings and sites worthy of preservation; developing detailed administrative procedures for coordination with other government agencies. Obviously, this means working constantly towards convincing owners to submit their property to either to a historic landmark designation or a historic district. -1- In addition, you have announced how many other towns and cities have such an ordinance but without the opt -out provision, which plants the seed from which an effort towards an amendment could grow. You have spent the last eight months and 700 hours promoting the ordinance with warm, fuzzy words including "landmark"; "historic district"; and "tax credits"; "economic vitality"; "safety"; "welfare"; "health"; and even inferring that it should make us feel good. So let's look a little deeper. Once a property is "nominated" by someone else to be a landmark, or a historical district is being formed which would include several properties, then those owners will pay attention and we will start to realize what this ordinance unleashed. The ordinance would provide for the establishment of a new non -elected "commission". A quorum of seven members would no doubt be four. A decision could be made by as little as three. Three people could use very subjective, restrictive "standards" and "guidelines" to deny or at least make more expensive any alterations to the exterior of a home or even the site - that is, the yard, lot or acreage. The appeal from their decision would be to the Trustees - with the same quorum, etc. situation at that level. Appeal from the Board of Trustees to the courts is expensive, time-consuming and stressful for all. Plaintiffs have considerable expense while their tax dollars help fund the Town's defense. It does not appear that any federal tax credits would be available under any local ordinance - with the only possibility being a state tax credit, assuming, of course, that our state can find its way out of insolvency without repealing tax credits. I would prefer my state tax dollars to go for education rather than something like this. Also, any such tax credit could be offset or at least diminished by the extra expense the owner would incur in complying with the commission's requirements and paying special fees required for that process. And there is no break for local real estate taxes. Your promoted ordinance provides that only 50% of properties within an area can start a historic district process, and then if the commission agrees with the plan, only 75% have to subsequently agree. Those owners can designate the boundaries of a district with input from the commission. Why not 100% of the owners? You're afraid that you wouldn't get it accomplished then. This doesn't sound like the constitution with which I am familiar. One wouldn't want to be out of town or ill too long. The proposed ordinance provides that once a property is designated a historical landmark or included in a historical district, that fact is recorded in the county real estate records. This creates a permanent cloud on the owner's title. If the owner wants to sell, the purchaser receives a title insurance commitment which will reflect this fact. The purchaser reads the ordinance. A landmark designation or inclusion in a historical district and the restrictions and regulations attendant to both would not encourage a buyer to pay the price and may well kill the deal. So there is certainly at least a question of interference with marketability here. Not to mention how a lender might look at this in today's financial environment. The language of the proposed ordinance regarding how an owner, who might change his mind too late about avoiding either a landmark designation or a historic district, is not definite or at best cumbersome. It would no doubt create a controversy. Tough to get out of quicksand. I don't know how many of you own a home that is currently 50 or more years old, but let's consider an example now - to make certain that all those people who you say were in favor of -2- this ordinance, or were silent about it, at your presentations, together with the rest of the owners in the valley, understand what can occur. Let me use Connie's and my house on Wonderview for this purpose. It was built in 1903. We have lived there for 25 years. Surely you can imagine how expensive it has been to repair, restore and maintain it. If we had been forced to deal with a commission and the opinions of its members, it would have been much more stressful, slower and more expensive. We have some things left to accomplish. There are new and better materials available all of the time, most of which would be vetoed for use by the commission. If we had to submit to a commission, the things that we still need to accomplish likely would not not occur. My daughter just advised me that a lot of the homes where she is visiting appear to be in disrepair because the owners can no longer afford to keep them up in the manner their historical district commission requires. Friends were just visiting their son in another smaller city. Their son advised them to fight like hell as what the historic ordinance did there was to result in lots of litigation. The proposed membership of the commission is to include archaeologists, professionals in American studies, in American civilization, in planning, in history, in cultural geography, in cultural anthropology, in architectural history, in engineering. What are you really up to here, besides making this scarey, restrictive and controlling? I assume that the consultant and advisor would remain as such, with the advisor being on the Board of Trustees (to which appeals are to be directed), and your consultant would remain the person who has authored the newspaper articles, has a summer home here way of town in a non -historic area and lives in Houston. Paragraph number 1 of Section 6 (page 12) states that no property will receive a designation without the written consent of the property owner. One has to go back to page 3 and look at the definition of "designation" to find that it includes both landmark and historic district. But why bother anyway, as paragraph number 2 starts out, "notwithstanding the above". It provides that ANYONE may nominate a property for designation. The only qualification then, for a nominator, would be that he be alive and on the planet. This is outrageous. Paragraph 3 of this same Section 6 provides that if a property is nominated for a designation, the owner will be notified. The word "certified" is missing - just a receipt is mentioned regarding this mailing. Also, anyone can sign the receipt unless the mailing is marked that only the addressee may do so. I have also experienced that if the mail isn't receipted for it can be more than 60 days before the sender is so notified. But if receipted for properly, the owner will have 60 days to submit a written response indicating a consent or objection. What if the owner doesn't respond due to age, illness, is in a nursing home or is gone for the winter; or the property is under contract for sale, but the owner has already moved to another state? The town already has a very restrictive development code with over 600 provisions. In addition, we also have a building code and a separate municipal code. Enough, already! Why aren't any of the owners of the properties along west Wonderview and Big Horn Drive on your committee, since it has now become known that this is an area that you have had in mind for a historical district? You have been at this since July and never even had the courtesy to talk to us about this. The newspaper articles state that this is a citizen lead endeavor. I thought that the mayor or the board of trustees appointed you as committee members. So this is a board of trustees lead -3- endeavor through you. Now I learn that trustees have even been present as you have presented and promoted this to various organizations around town, and one even advises the committee. But the trustees should be neutral at the moment this ordinance is presented to them and through the legally required public hearing. Otherwise, this would be like me promoting to a court judge my client's position in a case and out of the presence of the opposition before the trial. Section 9, paragraphs 2 and 3, page 20, provide that the owner shall preserve his property against decay and deterioration and keep it free from structural defects. Structure involves interior items sometimes. Welcome inside! Some of the so-called minimum requirements are said to be listed in Section 8.2. Section 8.2 is a repeat of Section 8.1, both of which simply refer to Secretary of the Interior Standards. Paragraph 5 of Section 9, beginning on page 20, sets forth criteria for obtaining what's called an "alteration certificate", and those do not appear to be "minimal" items to me. The first part of Paragraph 5 on the next page (which should be number 7) of this Section 9 begins with some subjective language and finishes with matters that are not minimal either. Likewise, 1 wouldn't say that the provisions of Paragraph 2c of Section 10 are minimal. The standards to be used by the commission are so subjective that I doubt if they would withstand a constitutional challenge. Why aren't you limiting this effort to only the business areas? I guess the idea is make Estes Park one big museum, including as many residential areas as the commission can think of. To satisfy a group of people and in the name of more tourism while placing the invasion of the right of privacy and private property rights in the back seat. Your proposed ordinance is greatly over -reaching and is beyond the scope of a proper governmental purpose. John Phipps 4 February 23, 2011 Re: Historical Preservation Proposal To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to express our concerns about the current Historic Preservation Proposal being presented to the Town Board. We are presently out of the state and are unable to attend the meeting on February 24, 2011. We are, however, year-round residents and homeowners residing at 621 Pinewood Lane in a home which was constructed in 1950. We have lived in Estes Park for 26 years. Our concerns about the present proposal are many. We are including only a selected few of them in this letter. Historical Preservation has such a lovely sound to it and, at first glance, it may appear difficult to understand why anyone would be opposed to such a genteel concept. However, in the fine print of the current proposal there are numerous concerns for the individual property owner. First and foremost, by designating a particular area a Historical District, we are "inviting" any and all to "tour" down our residential streets and investigate our properties. We already have issues with tourists coming onto our private property wishing to examine our homes, look at the elk and even to request that they may shoot elk on our property. Why would a private property owner desire to encourage even more tourism to clog our quiet streets with traffic and "lookie loos." Even more fascinating is that the LMD desires to encourage "Historic Tourism". Perhaps they should consider purchasing our homes and establishing tours at their expense. Second, the current proposal as written states that anyone can nominate another party's home as a Historical Landmark and that the property owners have 60 days to reject such a nomination. What if said owners are absent for a lengthy period of time, true for many of our summer residents, and fail to respond within the 60 day time constraint? Under the proposed act, the home automatically is placed in the Historical Landmark category. How presumptuous, not to mention ludicrous. According to the proposal, a resident of Texas or Georgia, or potentially even Iran, can nominate our home and we have little recourse if we are unable to respond within 60 days. The proposal calls this "Voluntary Designation." We fail to see that such a high-handed manner of selection can in any manner be considered voluntary. Third, in Section 9, #3 states that property owners of historically designated homes shall be responsible for "protecting the property from decay, and deterioration and kept free from structural defects...." The ordinance would grant the proposed Commission power to force the property owner to make any modifications and repairs deemed necessary at the property owner's expense. Whoa! This most assuredly opens up a ripe "can of worms." Who but the property owner should be able to determine what types of repairs and improvements should occur on his own property? What if the property owner is unable to financially afford to make said repairs? Is the Commission- or perhaps a sub -sub -committee entitled the Property Gestapo - going to evict the property owner? The potential for such a litigation nightmare might be amusing save for the fact that it embodies all the negatives of a home -owners association run amuck with granted powers by the Town. Is the town, meaning the citizen- taxpayers, prepared to pay for a sheer chaos of resulting legal expenses, not to mention liability insurance coverage for the members of the committee? If one consults with other towns and cities concerning enforcing "historical requirements," one will discover that such litigation expenses are considerable. AND should private property owners be forced to pay for such expenses themselves so that their community can promote the lovely concept of "Historic Tourism?" Finally, please rest assured we did not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to have our elderly home in a Historic District or be designated a Historic Landmark. We bought our home (which was in terrible condition) in order that we might lovingly restore it to the end that we might personally enjoy it and all that it encompasses. As PRIVATE PROPERTY owners, we take pride in our land and our home. We have no need for some well-meaning committee dictating what we may or may not do with our residence. We have always followed codes set out by the Town and County concerning any improvements we have made or may wish to make, and we will continue to follow those codes. Otherwise, we see absolutely no need for a Historical Preservation Commission's control over our personal property. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, P731(liiitIVL('d Elaine and Bob Winslow 621 Pinewood Lane Estes Park, CO 80517 February 22, 2011 Re: Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance From: Carol Van Horn I own the home at 1985 Moraine Ave., Estes Park, Colorado. My home was built in the early 1900's. I am strongly opposed to the Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. I live on a limited income and can only afford to improve my property in small increments. I paint one side of my house at a time and I paint my house colors which I enjoy. After all, it is MY PROPERTY. Your proposed ordinance states that "the owner (of said property) shall preserve his property against decay and deterioration and keep it free from structural defects." Whoa — that's a HUGE MOUTHFUL. Is the Historic Preservation Committee going to pay for all the corrections of decay, deterioration and structural defects which encompass my over 10o year old home? I doubt it quite seriously. This statement alone is enough to scare off any prospective buyer of my house as it implies that the buyer would have to make a monumental financial investment to correct all the "little things" that might be considered "decay, deterioration and structural defects." My home improvements are my own business as long as I follow the codes set out by the town and the county. I am not interested in any other governing body telling me what I can and cannot do with my home. The Historic Preservation Board, the Town of Estes Park, nor any other governing body has purchased my home. Consequently, they do not have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my property. This proposed ordinance sounds like more government interference into the private lives of citizens. Please VOTE AGAINST this proposed ordinance. Sincerely, C_gr01 \k-n Carol Van Horn 1985 Moraine Ave. Estes Park, CO. 80517 625 W. Wonderview Estes Park, Colorado February 24, 2011 To: Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee Estes Park, Colorado We are not in favor of the proposed ordinance. Why would you advocate that someone could try to involve another's property as either a historic landmark or as a part of a historic district? To: Mayor and Town Trustees, Estes Park, CO Re: Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance Both George and Karen are unable to attend the March 8th meeting of the Town Board. We have serious concerns about the PHO and hope that you won't be swept into the "first blush" of excitement most of us feel when someone has an idea to cherish and preserve history --but will instead be receptive to concerns that such an ordinance may not be in the best interest of our community. According to several lawyers who have expressed concerns, the ordinance lends itself to lawsuits. Why do we need a "voluntary" ordinance to restore older homes? Those who want to already have or will. Could a simple amendment at a town meeting make participation involuntary? Should a property owner be forced to make expensive renovations by a committee? Does it not impinge on our rights to at least live in neighborhoods not swarmingwith tourists during the now almost 6 months of high season? Because 110 other towns and cities in Colorado have historic preservation ordinances, does it make it right for residential areas of Estes Park? We already have 7 museums, free historic programs, permanent and temporary exhibits, historic home tours, historic lodging and dining establishments, living history areas in and adjacent to RMNP, history camps for children, area properties and districts designated as "historic" by the state and federal governments, etc., etc. for tourists to enjoy and for the town to advertise. We attended the open house at the Estes Park Museum and expressed concerns at that January 28th gathering --only to attend the February 24th forum to learn that "everyone" to whom the committee had made prior presentations were in support of the proposed ordinance!? In fact, NO ONE who spoke that evening (including historic home owners, attorneys, local contractors involved in the renovation of older homes, people who have lived elsewhere --supporting and then regretting the creation of historic preservation designations and districts, citizens with concerns about tax money expenditures involved, etc.) supported the proposed ordinance.. Thank you for considering our input. Dr. George and Karen Page Crislip Jackie Williamson From: MtWindfall@aol.com Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 4:10 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance Please put me on record in opposing the Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. In reading the full proposed ordinance I find it is a supreme example of more government interference into the lives of private citizens. My older home was not purchased by me with the intent to promote historical tourism for Estes Park. If the town wants to do just that then they should purchase all the older properties and pay for the upkeep themselves. Sincerely, Elaine Winslow 621 Pinewood Lane Estes Park, CO 80517 i February 20, 2011 Dear Wendy, I am enclosing a letter which Bob and I recently sent to our neighbors concerning the Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. As stated in the letter Bob and I are strongly in opposition to said proposal as written. We feel there are many sections which affect us as private property owners that we deem unfair and in violation of our private property rights. Our son in Kansas City lives in a historic home in a historical district. He has shared with us over the years the many law suits that have resulted from requirements of the Historical Preservation Committee. These lawsuits have put financial burdens on the private home owners as such that it is difficult to sell a property within the Historical District. We urge you to consider the rights of the private property owner. We did not buy our older homes in order to become "tourist's meccas" for marketing Estes Park. Thanks for your consideration of our view point. Sincerely, 14- cimdi Bob and Elaine Winslow 621 Pinewood Lane Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-0690 February 20, 2011 Dear Neighbors, We would like to call your attention to a proposed ordinance which is being presented before the Town Board concerning a prospective Historical Preservation Ordinance for Estes Park. Historical Preservation sounds like a lovely idea, and, at first glance, most of us would be in favor. However, we urge you to go to www.estes.org/pressreleases/HPO.aspx and read the proposed ordinance in its entirety before forming your opinion. As we interpret the proposal, this ordinance would have vast ramifications for property owners of both historical properties (those over 50 years old) as well as certain non -historical properties. If your home is deemed to be a Historical Landmark or is included in a Historical District you as the home owner would be encumbered with a number of restrictions concerning your private property. Should this proposal pass, it would require a property owner to acquire an "Alteration Certificate" from the Estes Park Historic Preservation Committee before making any exterior alternations to your home or land. "Exterior" is defined in the proposal as "the type and texture of the building materials and all windows, doors, lights, signs, and other fixtures appurtenant thereto." In Section 9, #3 the proposal states that property owners shall be responsible for "protecting the property from decay, and deterioration and kept free from structural defects..." The ordinance would give the proposed Commission power to force the property owner to make said modifications and repairs at the property owner's expense. According to the present proposal, anyone on the planet can nominate your home as a Historical Landmark. The proposal calls this a "Voluntary Designation." Upon nomination the home owner would be notified and would have 60 days to reject the nomination. If the property owner does not respond within the 60 day limit then such property would automatically become a Historical Landmark (See section 6, #3 of proposal). What if you happen to be out of the state for a lengthy period of time and fail to get your notice? Too bad — your sole recourse would be to hire an attorney and try and remove your property from the historical designation. If your neighborhood is nominated to become a Historical District, it only takes 50% of the property owners to designate your street as a Historic District. Upon such designation a "tasteful" sign would be erected directing tourist traffic to your street for viewing of your historical home. Our local Marketing District is all in favor of this as they wish to promote Historical Tourism. We don't know about you as property owners but, we did not buy our house on our nice quiet street of Pinewood Lane to have hundreds of tourist driving up and down. Since we have a number of homes on our street which are over 50 years old this is a possibility under this proposal. This part of the proposal affects all property owners as traffic impacts us all. What are we urging you to do? We need letters, together with warm bodies at meetings, and information sent to all interested parties. The committee touting this proposal is far ahead of us so time is of the essence. In passing, it is interesting to note that only one member of the committee who drew up this proposal lives in what may become a historical home. Second Public Forum - February 24, 6:30, Town Board Room, Town Hall Presentation to Town Board - March 8, 7:00, Town Board Room, Town Hall Final Vote by Town Board — March 22, 7:00, Town Board Room, Town Hall If you have questions or concerns or would like more information please feel free to call us — 577-0690. We will surely attempt to find the answers. Sincerely, Bob and Elaine Winslow 621 Pinewood Lane Estes Park, CO 80517 March 3, 2011 Trustees to the Town of Estes Park Re: Historic Preservation Ordinance My husband, Dave, and I have lived on Big Horn Drive for over 20 years, in a home built in 1930. We are not interested in a Historic District in our neighborhood and do not agree with a "new ordinance" for a Historic District because of the follow: • As a Realtor in Estes Park I have sold five properties on Big Horn Drive and all the buyers wanted the "quiet neighborhood feeling". They do not want the increased traffic on their street and would "opt out". • You will find many people walking along Bighorn for enjoyment and exercise, because it is a flat area, out of the wind and quiet. I would think public safety would be in jeopardy with more vehicle traffic of tour buses, jeeps, etc... • Values of existing homes on Bighorn will not go up with a Historic District designation. Once a buyer sees on county record that a Historic District is involved (even though you opt -out) they will shy away from the property as these districts have a "perceived stigma" that you can't do certain things to your property without permission beyond a building permit. Proponents for historic preservation claim there is no adverse affect to property rights. Diverting laws and regulations directly to the federal government has always come with unintended consequences. By designating a property under the national registry it becomes subject to the US code. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 has been amended several times since being signed into law and modified by executive order on three occasions. By granting any body of government (local, state or federal) the authority to create or amend laws concerning your property you have most certainly given some of your rights away. In addition to changes by executive order we are also handing other states the ability to affect our private property here in Estes Park, Colorado. We have seen examples recently and on more than one occasion when a member of the house or senate adds language to a 2,000 page piece of legislation that has nothing to do with the purpose of the bill. Most of the time we don't know until after its signed. I do not want a congressman (or woman) from California, or any other state affecting my property, my neighbors or my neighborhood. When these laws are changed at the state and federal level, the Trustees of Estes Park have zero voice and therefore the residents of Big Horn Drive will have zero voice. The potential federal funding assistance (aka your taxes) for a hand full of properties on this road does not justify the unintended consequences. It is not for a committee to decide what happens in our neighborhood. Sincerely, f / Dave & Ann Racine 461 Big Horn Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 March 8, 2011 To the Members of the Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park: Over the past nine months, acting at your request, a committee of citizens, chaired by former mayor John Baudek, has developed an historic preservation ordinance for consideration by the Town of Estes Park. To educate the public, it has held an open house, two public forums, authored a series of weekly newspaper columns, and made presentations to ten organizations with over 1100 members. The response of these groups has been proposed has been overwhelmingly positive. The Committee has carefully reviewed the suggestions received, and has incorporated many of them into its final draft. That draft is being formally presented to you this evening. Four points need to be underscored. First. The proposed historic preservation ordinance is a model of its kind. Entirely voluntary in nature, it strikes a reasonable balance between the rights of private property owners and the need (and opportunity) for one of the most historic communities in Colorado to identify, recognize, and preserve its physical heritage. Though numerous national research studies confirm the fact that historic designation has a quantifiable positive impact on property values, those who choose not to participate are not required to do so. Second. The proposed ordinance speaks directly to many of the goals and core values which the Board of Trustees has formally established to guide and measure its own actions. It will "Maintain and strengthen our economic vitality" by encouraging the preservation and redevelopment of our historic buildings. It will promote historic tourism, the fastest growing segment of America's tourist industry, and thereby have a long-lasting impact upon the Town's economic prosperity. It will "Preserve our unique character and history" by providing a non - intrusive means of helping building owners to preserve and enhance the value of their investments. It will "Consider the impact of our actions on the environment" by encouraging the re -adaptive use of historic buildings. And it will "Enhance recreational and cultural opportunities" by helping to preserve Estes Park's heritage so that it can be enjoyed by current and future residents and visitors. Third. As seen in the enthusiastic response the Committee has received to date, the proposed ordinance will strengthen our identity as a unique and historically -important mountain town. It will help to develop the sense of awareness and pride that every community needs in facing the problems of the present, particularly, as is the case with Estes Park, problems having to do with development and growth. Communities function best at all levels, including the level of government, when residents have a developed understanding of their heritage and their history. Fourth, and finally. As the existence of historic preservation ordinances in 101 counties and towns throughout Colorado suggests, having in place a judicious historic preservation ordinance is simply "the right thing to do." A community's historic buildings and sites are an irreplaceable asset. Good stewardship suggests that in so far as prudently possible their preservation should be encouraged and facilitated. In closing, led me add this: my involvement with John Baudek and his Committee has been both an honor and a pleasure. I look forward to participating in the equally important work which will come with the implementation of the document now before you. Sincerely, Jim Pickering Historian Laureate, Town of Estes Park Jackie Williamson From: lavern921@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:52 AM To: Jackie Williamson subject: Historic Ordnance Hi Jackie: As an outsider, I support the Historic Ordnance, and think it will be Heritage Tourism to Estes Park. However, I do see the property owner's point, as they don't want anyone to boss them as to what to do with their propert. We have a Historic District here in Lyons, of 15 old sandstone building, however, it is not binding as to being able to tear it down, all we can ask it that they be preserved. Boulder and Denver have strict Ordnances, and no doubt it has paid off for them. That is my 2 cents..from LaVern Johnson, President Lyons Historical Society dba Lyons Redstone Museum, Box 9, Lyons, Co. 303 823 5925 ^ Association for Responsible Development P.O. Box 3882, Estes Park, CO 80517 ARDestes0aoi.com Dedicated to preserving the Unique mountain character a scenic beauty o(the Estes Halley" January 17, 2011 To: John Baudek, Chairperson Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee From: Association for Responsible Development On behalf of the Association for Responsible Development, 1 wish to express our thanks and appreciation for your January 14 presentation to ARD. The presentation was well -received by our members, and we appreciate the time and effort put forth by your Committee. We believe that the voluntary nature of the proposed ordinance, and its emphasis on preserving the rich heritage of Estes Park and the Estes Valley, are well -aligned with ARD's goals of promoting responsible development. We strongly support passage of the ordinance, and urge you to consider expanding the scope of this work to include the entire Estes Valley as a logical next step. Sincerely, Robert Ernst, Director Sandy Osterman, Director Fred Mares, Director + RESOLUTION QFSUPPORT OnDecember 10,2O10, following apresentation byJohn BaudekChair ofthe Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee, the Board ofthe Estes Park Museum Friends & Foundation, |nc,unanimously adopted aresolution insupport Vfthe proposed ordinance. The mission of the Friends is to "ensure that the Estes Park Museum is the premier local history museum in Colorado." We believe that our mission can best be achieved in the context of a community which has affirmed as a matter of public policy that the preservation of our unique and irreplaceable heritage isanimportant civic goal. We applaud John Baudek and his Committee for the work it has done in producing this draft ordinance by t4 VPard nfTrustees PreoiOntEstes Park Museum Friends & Foundation, Inc. 2(K) Fourth Street a Estes Park, C0 80-5 17 070'i*6'6256 Jackie Williamson From: Pvswartz@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:13 AM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance To Whom It May Concern: Please record our names as being in FAVOR of the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. It is a mystery to us as to why anyone would be opposed to it. Too many towns across Colorado and indeed our country are losing their unique look and atmosphere, often because there is no ordinance to prevent wholesale tearing down of properties, thus changing forever the tenor of a community. It seems to us there is little downside to the proposed ordinance and everything to be gained. Loud voices in opposition would be better heard if they had positive suggestions to improve Estes Park. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the wishes of the majority of citizens. Mary Lu Swartz Glenn I. Swartz i Jackie Williamson From: Sent: c: Subject: James B. Thomas [jthomasxb@earthlink.net] Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:09 AM Jackie Williamson Nancy Thomas Suppirting the Historic Preservation Ordinance Dear Ms. Williamson, Please count me among the people who heartily favor passage of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Estes Park has a rich and fascinating history and I hope the council agrees and supports this measure. Thank you, James B. Thomas 160 Stanley Circle Ave. 1 Jackie Williamson From: Susan Kniebes [skniebes@localnet.com] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:05 AM To: Jackie Williamson Cc: Duane Kniebes Subject: Support of Historic Preservation Ordinance Dear Mr. Williamson, My husband Duane Kniebes and I are not Estes Park residents. However, for the last 10 years we have been conducting research on all of the graves and cemeteries in Larimer County, including those in the Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park areas. We are currently hard at work writing a book on the history of those graves and cemeteries, those buried there, and the property on which the graves and cemeteries are found. Consequently, we are acutely aware of how important historic preservation ordinances are, having encountered several remote graves and even whole cemeteries that were destroyed because no ordinances were in place to protect them. (Thankfully, none of these graves or cemeteries were in the Estes Park area.) Thus, we would like to express our strong support of the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance for Estes Park! Susan Briles Kniebes 4612 Hampshire St. Boulder, CO 80301 skniebeslocalnet.com 303-530-9525 1 Sent via e-mail c/o Ms. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Estes Park, CO March 3, 2011 Dear Members of the Board of Trustees, Town of Estes Park I am writing in support of the historic preservation ordinance that is on the agenda for discussion by the Board of Trustees on March 8, 2011. The ordinance is a voluntary model and will provide the important ordinance -basis for preserving the heritage of Estes Park, Colorado and in a manner that is unique to Estes Park. The numerous public meetings, along with the overwhelming public support for the ordinance, speaks loudly for the perceived benefits of such an ordinance. The significant advantages of such an ordinance include: historic designation will have a significant economic impact on the town and likely its property values; it will promote historic vacation/tourism; and it will stimulate and facilitate private, foundation, state and federal grant funds for preservation and restoration. My wife and I are homeowners and part time residents of Estes Park and appreciate the opportunity this ordinance provides to the Town of Estes Park and to its citizens. Once the ordinance is passed, we will thoroughly support implementation of the preservation program. Cordially, Jerald and Cecile Strickland Estes Park Homeowners 1510-A Raven Court, Estes Park, CO 80517 970-586-3765 strickland@ uh.edu rceciles@hotmail.com Jackie Williamson From: Randy Silverman [randy.silverman@utah.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:54 AM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: support the historic preservation ordinance Town of Estes Park Town Clerk Jackie Williamson Dear Jackie, The proposed historic preservation ordinance is an excellent idea for the Town of Estes Park. It is entirely voluntary in nature and strikes a reasonable balance between the rights of private property owners and the opportunity to identify, recognize, and preserve one of the most historic communities in Colorado. The benefits of this proposal are legion. It will: 1. maintain and strengthen the economic vitality of the Town of Estes Park by encouraging the preservation and redevelopment of our historic buildings 2. promote historic tourism, the fastest growing segment of America's tourist industry, thereby positively impacting upon the Town's economic prosperity 3. preserve the unique character and history of Estes Park by providing a non -intrusive means of helping building owners to preserve and enhance the value of their investments 4. consider the impact of the Town's actions on the environment by encouraging the re -adaptive use of historic buildings, and 5. enhance recreational and cultural opportunities by helping to preserve Estes Park's heritage so it can be enjoyed by current and future residents and visitors. As a preservation professional and a frequent visitor to Estes Park, I strongly urge your support of this measure. With warmest regards, Randy Randy Silverman Preservation Librarian University of Utah Marriott Library 295 South 1500 East Salt Lake City, UT 84106-0860 t. 801-585-6782 / f. 801-585-3464 randy.silverman(a�utah.edu 1 Jackie Williamson From: Nancy Thomas [npthomas@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:30 AM To: Jackie Williamson Abject: Historic Preservation Ordinance As a soon -to -be new 'full time' resident of Estes Park, I want my voice to be heard in support of the Historic Preservation Ordinance soon to be voted upon. I have been "summering" in Estes Park since 1946-- and a summer resident since 2000. One of the features that makes Estes Park unique and a destination eagerly sought after by those who visit and those who long to live in this community is its historical heritage. However we can contribute to the preservation of Estes History will get my support. Please support the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Dr. Nancy P. Thomas 160 Stanley Circle Drive Estes Park, CO 1 Jackie Williamson From: Michael Sanders [mauire@eircom.net] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:23 AM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Historic Peservation Ordenance Dear Jackie, My name is Michael Sanders and I own a home on the side of Twin Sisters. For 9 months or so John Baudek and his committee have met the public numerous times to discuss the findings in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. It says and does a lot of things, but the one that stands out is that it will enhance recreational and cultural opportunities by helping to preserve Estes Park's heritage so that it can be enjoyed by my daughter, Niamh, and her children. Please pass this Ordinance. Aloha Michael Sanders 1 Jackie Williamson From: Jennifer Schroeder [jchroeder@cloud.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:22 AM To: Jackie Williamson ;ibject: Estes Ms. Williamson, Estes Park is an amazing place with deep historic roots. I know that I greatly value the preservation of its history and I sincerely hope that your vote in the Town Board action is in favor of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Voting in favor of the Historic Preservation Ordinance will help Estes Park in promoting and preserving the historic structures that make this amazing town a unique destination that is loved by so many people from around the country. have spent many hours volunteering at both Rocky Mountain National Park and in Estes Park to help preserve its history because I strongly believe it is so important. My family and I consider Estes to be one of our favorite places to vacation and I hope to be able to share its history with my children as they grow. This town is very close to my heart and I hope that you cherish it just as much and will vote to preserve its history. Thank you, Jennifer Schroeder Library Director Cloud County Community College 2221 Campus Drive Concordia, KS 66901 ischroeder@cloud.edu )35) 243-1435 X226 i Jackie Williamson From: J FONTIUS [judyfontius@q.com] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:55 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance To The Estes Park Town Board: I attended the 1/28/11 meeting presentation of the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance held at the Estes Park Museum. This e-mail "delivers" my vote of support for this effort. I strongly support historic preservation and believe that having a Historic Preservation Ordinance will encourage the preservation of historic properties and thus celebrate Estes Park's legacy as a true Colorado pioneer. It also will promote pride in our community. When I was an elementary school principal in the Denver Public Schools, my school (Dora Moore Elementary) was involved in a preservation/renovation process. The school has long held national historic status. Thus, throughout the renovation process, I was involved with the planning and implementation. Particularly interesting was my (along with school staff and the community) involvement with the architects — a group well-known for their expertise working with historic preservation. It was gratifying to see the end result. It was also gratifying to see the community pride resulting from their participation. I highly recommend that the Town Board accept the proposal and set up a commission to work with the participants. I understand that the commission would consist of seven members - four from the town. Having such a great interest in historic preservation, I would appreciate the opportunity to serve on that commission. How will members of that commission be selected? Sincerely, Judy Fontius 269 Steamer Ct. Estes Park, CO 80517 970-586-4941 1 Jackie Williamson From: Brian Brown [browncowvideo@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 8:51 PM : Jackie Williamson subject: In favor of the proposed historic preservation ordinance Hi Jackie: I want to express my support for the proposed historic preservation ordinance. Having just moved to Estes Park last October, I can tell you that one of the key factors in our moving here was the long and fascinating history of this most unique town. Unlike nearly every other Colorado mountain town, Estes was always a resort community, with a long and storied past. Its structures and neighborhoods are links to this past and still have many stories to tell. Too many of Estes Park's structures are already gone. I want the Town to do what it can to create this ordinance to assist in preservation and protection of our Town's most vulnerable built places and spaces. Sincerely, Brian Brown 551 Ponderosa Drive Estes Park, Colorado 80517 303.359.6737 Brian Brown BrownCow Productions 303.359.6737 1 Jackie Williamson From: Arthur Blume [arteut@padblume.com] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:36 AM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Historic District, etc. The Mayor and Town Trustees: I am a strong supporter of the Historic District concept and support the work of our former Mayor's committee. Please give this program and issue your strong support and vote. Arthur W. (Art) Blume III i Jackie Williamson To: Subject: Kate Rusch RE: HPO comment From: Corson, Dan Jmailto:Dan.Corson@ chs.state.co.us] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:56 AM To: Derek Fortini Subject: RE: Trail -Gazette Article Derek: This ordinance meets minimum CLG standards. I noticed one minor issue that probably should be revised. Section 6 (2) provides that the owner and the owners designee is able to nominate. I believe that the "and" should be an "or." Good luck! Dan W. Corson Intergovernmental Services Director Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation History Colorado [Colorado Historical Society] Civic Center Plaza 1560 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, Colorado 80202 '303) 866-2673 www.coloradohistory-oahp.org 1 Jackie Williamson From: Kate Rusch Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 11:27 AM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: FW: Attn: Jackie Williamson - Support for historic preservation ordinance From: FitTC©aol.com jmailto:FitTCCaaol.coml Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 11:26 AM To: town admin Subject: Attn: Jackie Williamson - Support for historic preservation ordinance Dear Ms. Williamson: I have been following the progress of the historic preservation ordinance committee and want to voice my support for such an effort. Estes Park is unique for both it's natural beauty and its history. This ordinance is needed to help residents and visitors better appreciate our history. Thank you. Tom Collingwood 1 Jackie Williamson From: bdheistkmp@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 11:40 AM To: Jackie Williamson \ subject: Historic Preservation Dear Jackie Williamson, I am an avid collector of historic postcards from Rocky Mountain National Park and Estes Park, and I truly appreciate all of the treasures the town possesses through my postcard images and their messages. Adopting the Historic Preservation Ordinance will assure many artifacts will be protected and enhanced in the years to come. There is a magnetic draw to the area which brings tourists who are curious about the beauty and historic significance of what they encounter. Personally I live in Big Elk Meadows on weekends so I have become familiar with the local history through museum programs, books on the topic and Rocky Mountain Nature Association seminars. My home, during the week in central Denver, is in the Seventh Avenue Historic District, and I have found many advantages to living in a protected area which maintains its integrity and which gives me access to financial sources to maintain the exterior of the house. Since local historic designation will be voluntary, I can see no logical reason for anyone to object to the ordinance. Sincerely, Roberta A. Heisterkamp Active Member of the League of Women Voters "Know what you're voting for." 1 Jackie Williamson From: Granny Bauer [grannybauer@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 2:54 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: FW: 7 corrected From: grannybauer@hotmail.com To: williamson@estes.org Subject: Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 07:28:09 -0600 please register my support for the historic conservation ordinance ... i am a former resident and return as often as i am able too ... i do not return to go shopping, but rather to enjoy the people and the scenery i now live in chicago with my children, but would much rather be living in estes! 1 Jackie Williamson From: leslie.v.johnson@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 2:39 PM To: Jackie Williamson bject: Historic Preservation Odinance I just sent an email and realized that I did not include my name (sorry!). Here it is again, with my name attached: I think that the Historic Preservation Ordinance is a good thing for Estes Park. Please consider this as a public comment as I cannot be there for the meeting, but I believe that we must do all that we can to preserve the history of Colorado. Let's make it easier! Leslie Johnson, 6539 Depew Ct, Arvada, CO 80003 i March 3, 2011 Attn: Members of the Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park, Colorado I would like to voice my support for the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance in currently being considered by the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees. Passage of this ordinance will only help Estes Park preserve its charm, character and rich history, while strengthening the town's economy through increase tourism. Sincerely, Richard Byrd Jackie Williamson From: brian mack [mackbrian@msn.com] Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 11:54 AM -9: Jackie Williamson ,object: Historic Ordinance J. Williams, I support the Historic Town Ordinance. Regrards, Brian Mack 1 Jackie Williamson From: Jonathan Crystal [jacrystal@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 6:01 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance Dear Ms. Williamson, It has come to my attention that a new Historic Preservation Ordinance will be considered by the Town Board later this month. I wanted to write you to express my very strong support of the proposed ordinance. While I am not a property owner in Estes Park and therefore have no visible stake in the town's future, I have been coming to Estes Park on and off for the past 30 years and now rent regularly for 5 weeks each summer. One of the wonderful things about Estes Park is its vivid sense of history. This is a real draw to me, and to many, many people I know in Houston who are familiar with Estes Park. To all of us, there is a strong connection between Estes Park's historical focus and its attraction as a "family oriented" vacation location. Too many places in the US are plastic replicas of our past while Estes Park is the "real" thing. So, I would like to put forth words encouragement to pass an ordinance which supports the preservation of the history of Estes Park. Thank you for any consideration of my position. Sincerely, Jon Crystal 102 Wynden Trace Houston, TX 77056-2534 (M) 713-302-4195 (F) 713-850-8317 jacrvstal(cr�comcast. net Jackie Williamson From: David Steiner [davidesteiner@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:41 PM 'o: Jackie Williamson Jubject: Historic Preservation As a past president of the Estes Park Area Historical Museum Board I want to express my strong support for this ordinance. Tourists' interest in our past is an important part of their desire to come here. We have a duty to protect our past from those who would destroy it without respect for those who made their lives and work possible. David E Steiner, Ph.D, 1389 Big Owl Rd Allenspark, CO 80510 (303) 747-2595 i Jackie Williamson From: David and Ann Cordero [corderoa@teleport.com] Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 10:03 AM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Preservation of Estes Park history Dear Ms. Williamson, I am a former park ranger and have enjoyed reading the history of Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park. I urge you to pass the Preservation Ordinance and keep that very interesting history available to all. Thank you. Ann Cordero corderoa(c�teleport.com 1 Jackie Williamson From: Allenspark Wind [allensparkwind@earthlink.netj Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:25 PM To: Jackie Williamson )ubject: preserving history in EP Dear Ms. Williamson and the Estes Park Town Board of Directors, I am writing this letter in support of the ordinance to preserve history in the Estes Park area. We in Allenspark have done our best to preserve the unique history we have, which is so closely tied to the history of Estes Park. Estes Park has an obligation to the world to preserve the history of Estes because so many people around the world identify with Estes and the nearby National Park. Respecting history is the key to the present as well as the future because centuries from now the history we have today will be lost unless action is taken now. Thank you for your time. Gene Mackey, Editor, Allenspark Wind. 1 Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt TOWN or ESTES PAID. From: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: March 4, 2011 RE: Bond Park Storm Water and Drainage Easement Background: Staff has been negotiating an amendment to a current pedestrian easement between the town and Abundant Properties of the Rockies, LLC. This easement is an important piece to the Bond Park redevelopment process to improve drainage. Two easements currently exist at this location, 234 East Elkhorn Avenue. The easements previously granted were an easement for the Riverwalk (the "Riverwalk Easement"), and an ingress and egress easement for the installation and future maintenance of utilities installed in the Riverwalk Easement (the "Utilities Access Easement"). Staff has been speaking with Kevin Schwery about granting a new easement to the town to replace the Utilities Access Easement and amend the Riverwalk Easement. We believe we are close to having a new agreement, but were not able to complete the negotiations by today, Friday, March 4, 2011. We will share the easement agreement as soon as it is confirmed by both parties. If we are unable to do this by Tuesday, March 8, staff recommends delaying both this item and the Bond Park Contract Award. The easement component is an important part of the request for proposal; therefore, we do not recommend proceeding until both pieces are in place. Budget: Abundant Properties of the Rockies, LLC has asked for the area to be improved with a finish similar to Confluence Park, to which staff is amenable, but can cover within the current budget. Motion: If the easement agreement is completed prior to Tuesday, a sample motion will be included. Page 1 The bid opening for Bond Park Phases I and III was held Friday, March 4, 2011, at 4 p.m. Information related to the bid opening will be available at the Town Board Meeting on March 8th TOWN or FISTES PAR Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Scott A. Zurn, PE, CFM, Public Works Director Date: March 8, 2011 RE: Bond Park Phases I and III Construction Bid Background: Advertisement for bid for Bond Park Phases I and III, offsite storm sewer and related infrastructure was published on February 11, 2011. On March 4th bids were received. XXX contractors returned a complete bid for this project. The bids contained a base bid for the construction of preferred elements, as defined by the Bond Park Stakeholders Group. In addition the base bid includes an offsite storm sewer. The Bond Park design relies on the storm sewer for drainage and is not an alternate. In addition, the bids contained deductions for several material alternates for the board's consideration. It is anticipated that the selection of materials for phases I & III will set precedence for future phases of work on Bond Park. The base bids and all material alternate deductions received at the bid opening on March 4 are included in a report attached to this document. Tonight, consultants Paul Kuhn of Winston Associates and Gary Welp of RG & Associates will present the results of the bids and the associated bid alternates for consideration. The construction schedule for this project is currently based on award of the construction contract at this board meeting, if awarded the contract stipulates substantial completion by May 26, 2011 or the contractor will be fined $2,000 per day; conversely, there is a bonus of $1,000 per day up to 15 days for early completion. Budget: Bond Park Phases I and III Larimer County Open Space 220-4600-462.35-60 $500,000 Storm Sewer Installation Community Reinvestment Fund 204-5400-511.35-53 $125,000 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendation will be presented to the Town Board tonight. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny authorization to award the contract for the construction of Bond Park Improvements Phases I and III and storm sewer infrastructure to XXXXX, for the base bid amount of $XXXX (as applicable). 7. .1t (S5 R. 0 0 CO •t3 co a) or •?; (0 CO Deduct # 7B ) ur 413 —a) O 0 .0 .0 a. s c g E c o E E 6- > 0.. ci) U. r. • • ••• • E 0 we 03 4,1 • lc c -0 • 0 co 03 03 03 CO cX) Engineers Estimate Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt '_[:?OWN et- ES' F.S PARK,_ From: Scott A. Zurn, PE, CFM, Director of Public Works Date: March 8, 2011 RE: Transit Hub Parking Lot - Contract Award Background: Advertisement for bids for the grant -funded Transit Hub Parking Lot project was published in local and regional newspapers as well as placed on the Town website on February 8, 2011. Thirty-nine contractors were represented at the mandatory pre -bid meeting held on February 22, 2011. Ten bids were received on March 1, 2011 with bid results as presented on the attached bid summary report. The bids contain a base fee for the construction of the parking Tots and the required infrastructure; Alternate A bids are for the addition of a bus shelter; Alternate B bids are for parking lot lighting; and, Alternate C bids contain the addition of trees to the landscape areas. The alternates were listed from highest to lowest priority. Bids were opened and read on Monday, March 1 at 4 pm; each alternate was added to the base bid until the budget for this project was achieved. The low bid plus all three alternates was $1,117,871.80, received from Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. The construction for this project must be substantially completed by May 27, 2011 or the contractor will be assessed liquidated damages of $1,778 per day. Should the contractor complete the project prior to May 27, 2011 he will be eligible for an early completion bonus of $1,000 a day up to 15 days. Budget: Amount Description Source $913,000 CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality) grant (secured) Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) $250,000 Local match to CMAQ grant (required)(secured) Community Reinvestment Fund, 201-5400-511.35-52 $245,750 FASTER (Funding Advancement for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery) grant Colorado Department of Transportation Total funding: $1,408,750 Staff Recommendation: Staff is requesting authorization from the Board of Trustees to award the contract for the Transit Hub Parking Lot to Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. of Loveland, for the total price (which includes the Base Bid plus Add Alternate Bids A, B, and C) of $1,117,871.80. Further, staff recommends the remaining $290,878.20 in the budget to be allocated for contingency on the project. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny authorization to award the contract for the base bid plus all alternates to Coulson Excavating, Co. Inc. for a budget plus contingency of $1,408,750.00. Base Bid + A + B + C (total) N i` 00 ts r EF} • $1,278,998 CO r CO N r Ef} $1,428,377 $1,430,4941 CO CO Cr�t r d4 co CO O LO r EF} $1,553,7971 $1,581,5031 CO O O LO c- 69- 1 W BaseBid+A+B N. C) CI C) r) r r Cr) O CO CO d NNCOMd"d r MNrCOCO r CO C5 CO r N CO r co r r I' O co r O CO N O c- N- CO r--- O) r $1,483,238 $1,532,333 $1,561,408 1 I a.r a.! A Base Bid + A 1%. 0) M t() N O r ChMNrCOCOCOM03 MrNr0rMNO CO CA COMCOLONN- r r CO CO r r CO r N r CO I� N r r M CO r M N CO r 0) (Ni toOI' CO N- 10 M ' r Nr CV r Base Bid f� 0) co iris LC) 0) M CO CO O OMC3)N-r000 r r CI) r CO co Orr r NrCOCOCO N CO 0 r r 00 00 r O CO 0O N r r CO N N r N r M M r $1,285,123 $1,303,408 Address Loveland Estes Park Denver Henderson Fort Collins CA C O U O LL0 >' L Denver Longmont Fort Collins Contractor Coulson Excavating Cornerstone Construction Concepts, Inc. Taylor Kohrs Asphalt Specialties Connell Resources, Inc. Kehn Construction Duran Excavating CEI (Concrete Express) EZ Excavating, Inc. Lafarge of North America 0 CO co 0 �i- n O CO Cr) Cfl CY) Engineers Estimate