Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2022-07-26The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, July 26, 2022 7:00 p.m. In Person Meeting – Mayor, Trustees, Staff and Public ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT By Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written public comment on a specific agenda item by completing the Public Comment form found at https://dms.estes.org/forms/TownBoardPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 12:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 26, 2022. All comments will be provided to the Board for consideration during the agenda item and added to the final packet. REMOTE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DURING BOARD MEETING Remote participation in the meeting will be available by call-in (telephone) or online via Zoom Webinar which will be moderated by the Town Clerk’s Office. Instructions are also available at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by clicking on “Virtual Town Board Meeting Participation”. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site, and not via the website, due to the streaming delay and possible audio interference. CALL-IN (TELEPHONE):877-853-5257 (toll-free) Webinar ID: 982 1690 2040 ONLINE (ZOOM WEBINAR): https://zoom.us/j/98216902040 Webinar ID: 982-1690-2040. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PROCLAMATION – ESTES RECYCLES DAY. AGENDA APPROVAL. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Bills. 2. Town Board Minutes dated July 12, 2022 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated July 12, 2022. 3. Estes Park Board of Adjustment Minutes dated April 5, 2022 (acknowledgment only). 4. Resolution 59-22 Memorandum of Understanding to Provide Mutual Aid and Assistance in Investigations and Intervention Concerning Allegations of Child Abuse and Neglect with Larimer County and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Prepared 07-15-2022 * NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 5. Revised Policy 306 Leave – To Provide Sick Leave to All Employees Including Season Employees and Employees Working Fewer Than 20 Hours Per Week as Required by the Colorado Healthy Families and Workplaces Act. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities). 1. DISCUSS REQUEST FROM THE ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR LAND-BANKING OPPORTUNITY. Assistant Town Administrator Damweber. To consider a request for financial support from the Town in order to purchase a property located at 0 Mary’s Lake Road to be used for a future workforce and/or attainable housing development PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. ACTION ITEMS: A. ORDINANCE 11-22 REZONE TOWN-OWNED PARCEL 3522400923 FROM RURAL ESTATE RE-1 TO TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-2. Director Garner. To consider a request to rezone 800 Castle Mountain Road. B. ORDINANCE 12-22 PARCEL DISCONNECTION REQUESTS FROM ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK PER §31-12-501(3), C.R.S. Director Garner. To consider a petition to disconnect 91+ acres from the Town of Estes Park for jurisdictional, planning and law-enforcement purposes. C. ORDINANCE 13-22 ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS TO REMOVE RURAL ESTATE RE-1 ZONE DISTRICT. Director Garner. To consider an amendment eliminating the Rural Estate RE-1 Zone District. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ORDINANCE 14-22 AMENDING CHAPTER 8.06 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING NOISE. Director Muhonen. To consider amendments to allow nighttime construction during the summer hours of 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to expedite the Downtown Estes Loop construction. 2. PUBLIC WORKS REORGANIZATION. Director Muhonen. One new staff position is needed to facilitate the administrative restructuring of the Public Works Department. 3. RESOLUTION 60-22 AMENDING THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND THE REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENT FOR THE DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP. Director Muhonen. Increases Town contribution to the Downtown Estes Loop by up to $500,000. ADJOURN. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 12, 2022 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 12th day of July, 2022. Present: Wendy Koenig, Mayor Scott Webermeier, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Marie Cenac Kirby Hazelton Barbara MacAlpine Patrick Martchink Cindy Younglund Also Present: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator, Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator Dan Kramer, Town Attorney Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Bunny Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Koenig called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA APPROVAL. It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Martchink) to approve the Agenda as presented, and it passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS. John Meissner/Town citizen commended Jason Van Tatenhove for his testimony to the January 6th Congressional Committee and recommended commendation of his citizen duty. TRUSTEE COMMENTS. Board comments have been summarized: Board of Adjustment elected officers with Jeff Moreau/Chair and Wayne Newsom/Vice Chair; another successful Rooftop Rodeo was held at the fairgrounds by Western Heritage; Linda Volker announced as the new Larimer County Manager; the new facility off Trilby has been named the Larimer County Behavioral Health Services at Longview; new round of grant funding from Larimer County Behavioral Health announced; thanked the Police Auxiliary for their assistance at the rodeo; the Family Advisory Board met and discussed responses in the event of a crisis and resources available to the community; the community has access to a licensed clinician to assist with mental health issues through SummitStone; Board members, staff, and community members attended the Thumb Open Space ribbon cutting; and Mayor Koeing would represent Larimer County on the Regional Air Quality Committee. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. POLICY GOVERNANCE MONITORING REPORT – POLICY 3.3, 3.12, AND 3.13. Town Administrator Machalek stated compliance in all areas. CONSENT AGENDA: 1.Bills. 2.Town Board Minutes dated June 28, 2022 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated June 28, 2022. 3.Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Minutes dated June 9, 2022 (acknowledgment only). 4.Estes Park Planning Commission Minutes dated April 19, 2022 (acknowledgment only). DR A F T Board of Trustees – July 12, 2022 – Page 2 5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated May 19, 2022 (acknowledgement only). 6. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated May 18, 2022 (acknowledgement only). 7. Consider the Donation and Installation of Wildfire Educational Signs. 8. Consider the Addition of the Space Force Plaque and Laverne R. Mertz Plaque to the Veterans Monument Park. 9. Resolution 54-22 Intergovernmental Agreement for State of Colorado Senate Bill 267 Grant Funding to Redesign the Visitor Center Parking Lot with CDOT, $250,000 - Budgeted. (CDOT PO #491002882). 10. Appointments to the Parks Advisory Board: • Elizabeth Kostiuk to fulfill the remainder of Rex Poggenpohl’s term expiring December 31, 2022. • Donovan Colegrove to fulfill the remainder of Kirby Hazelton’s term expiring December 31, 2023. 11. Acceptance of Town Administrator Policy Governance Monitoring Report. 12. Resolution 58-22 Agreement for Police Canine Transfer of Ownership and Waiver and Release with the City of Greeley. It was moved and seconded (Hazelton/Younglund) to approve the Consent Agenda, and it passed unanimously. LIQUOR ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION 55-22 TRANSFER OF A HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE FROM URIBE, LLC DBA EL MEX-KAL TO APOLUNA LLC DBA EL MEX-KAL, 160 1ST STREET, ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Mayor Koenig opened the public hearing. Town Clerk Williamson presented a transfer of a Hotel and Restaurant liquor license located at 160 1st Street. The application was received on June 13, 2022 and all necessary paperwork and fees were submitted. A background check was completed for members of the LLC. The members of the LLC have assisted with the operation of the business and are now the owner/operators. A temporary liquor permit has been issued to allow operation of the business during the transfer process. The applicant was presented and stated she and her husband have been managing the business for the past 11 years. Mayor Koenig closed the public hearing and it was moved and seconded (Webermeier/MacAlpine) to approve Resolution 55-22, and it passed unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION 56-22 TRANSFER OF A LODGING AND ENTERTAINMENT LIQUOR LICENSE FROM BOWL FORT COLLINS LLC DBA CHIPPERS ESTES PARK LANES TO EP LANES LLC DBA THE BULL PIN, 555 S. ST. VRAIN AVENUE, ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Mayor Koenig opened the public hearing. Town Clerk Williamson presented the transfer of a Lodging and Entertainment liquor license at 555 S St Vrain Avenue. The application was received on June 24, 2022 and all necessary paperwork and fees were submitted. A background check was completed for members of the LLC. A temporary liquor permit has been issued to allow operation of the business during the transfer process. The applicant was present to answer questions and stated he and his business partners have begun to make improvements to the property. He stated all bar staff and members of the LLC are or would become TIPS certified. Mayor Koenig closed the public hearing and it was moved and seconded (Hazelton/MacAlpine) to approve Resolution 56-22, and it passed unanimously. 3. RESOLUTION 57-22 TRANSFER OF A LODGING AND ENTERTAINMENT LIQUOR LICENSE FROM CS & CS LLC DBA COFFEE ON THE ROCKS TO CS & MS INC. DBA COFFEE ON THE ROCKS, 510 MORAINE AVENUE, ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Mayor Koenig opened the public hearing. Town Clerk Williamson presented the transfer of a Lodging and Entertainment liquor license at 510 Moraine DR A F T Board of Trustees – July 12, 2022 – Page 3 Avenue. The application was received on June 27, 2022 and all necessary paperwork and fees were submitted. A background check was completed for the members of the Corporation. A temporary liquor permit has been issued to allow operation of the business during the transfer process. The change in structure from an LLC to a Corporation required the transfer of the current license. Chuck Scott continues to be a member of the new corporation along with the addition of his daughter Mackenzie Scott. TIPS training was completed previously. The applicant was present to answer questions. Mayor Koenig closed the public hearing and it was moved and seconded (Younglund/Hazelton) to approve Resolution 57-22, and it passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: 1.ORDINANCE 08-22 AMENDING CHAPTER 10.04 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE MODEL TRAFFIC CODE FOR COLORADO REVISED 2020. Mayor Koenig opened the public hearing and Interim Captain Polucha presented the ordinance to adopt the latest version of the Model Traffic Code (MTC). He stated the Town adopted the 2018 revision to the MTC in 2019, however, the department recently became aware the revision was only a draft. Adopting the most recent MTC ensures the safety and traffic laws are being met by citizens and visitors of the community. As the MTC would be adopted as a code by reference the Town set the public hearing on June 14, 2022 and published notices as required by state statute. Mayor Koenig closed the public hearing and it was moved and seconded (Martchink/Webermeier) to approve Ordinance 08-22, and it passed unanimously. 2.ORDINANCE 10-22 AMENDING CHAPTER 5.20 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE USE OF SOLID FUEL BURNING EXTERIOR APPLIANCES ON VACATION HOME AND BED AND BREAKFAST INN PROPERTIES. Mayor Koenig opened the public hearing. Town Clerk Williamson presented the ordinance to prohibit the use of solid fuel burning appliance by renters of short-term rentals to align with the current Larimer County Land Use Code. The proposed ordinance would provide consistency throughout the Estes Valley for the Estes Valley Fire Protection District (EVFPD). The restriction would not prohibit the use of such devices by the owners of a vacation home and/or operators of a bed and breakfast. Fire Chief Wolf provided a letter of support and stated in the letter that 60% of the residential fires in the Estes Valley involve short- term vacation rentals over the past five years. It was further noted the Town and the valley have seen a significant increase in fire danger over the years and as such the ordinance includes an emergency order to take effect immediate upon passage by the Board. All owners, operators and property managers of short-term rentals were notified of the proposed regulation and general feedback received by the Clerk’s office was in support. As there was no further comments Mayor Koenig closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Younglund/MacAlpine) to approve Ordinance 10-22, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 7:51 p.m. Wendy Koenig, Mayor Bunny Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk DR A F T Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 12, 2022 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of July, 2022. Board: Mayor Koenig, Trustees Cenac, Hazelton, MacAlpine, Martchink, Webermeier and Younglund Attending: Mayor Koenig, Trustees Cenac, Hazelton, MacAlpine, Martchink, Webermeier and Younglund Also Attending: Town Administrator Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator Damweber, Attorney Kramer, Town Clerk Williamson, and Deputy Town Clerk Beers Absent: None. Mayor Koenig called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. LIQUOR CODE AMENDMENTS. Town Clerk Williamson stated Municipal Code related to liquor licensing requires updates to bring the code current with the Colorado State Liquor Code. Prosecuting Attorney Kristen Brown assisted the Town with liquor violation prosecutions in 2021 and 2022 and was retained by the Town to identify Municipal Code amendments for Board consideration. She stated the Town Board acts as the Liquor Licensing Authority (LLA) for new, transfer and change of locations. Ordinance 01-22 passed by the Board identified the Municipal Judge as the Authority for show cause orders and hearings on suspensions, revocations, and other disciplinary actions. Prosecutor Brown reviewed the requirements of the LLA recommending amendments to the code, and creating a new chapter to identify unlawful acts to include open container and underage possession. Items for consideration included: local control of special event licensing, codify tastings, eliminate the 500’ school zone; entertainment district/festival permits and updates to the fee schedule. Staff requested Board interest in moving all functions of the LLA to the Municipal Judge and highlighted benefits including: Municipal Judge can build an initial rapport with licensee’s during the application process, establishing a relationship of trust and a desire to not disappoint, consistency with approach to liquor licensing and violations, and removing responsibility from the Board to meet statutory liquor code requirements. Attorney Kramer stated the current Board would have ultimate authority over the ordinances and changes to the code. Town Clerk Williamson stated if the LLA was moved to the Municipal Judge minutes would be produced and a report would be provided to the Board to keep them informed. Staff requested direction on the code amendments. Board comments have been summarized: Whether there are any identified disadvantages to moving the LLA to the Municipal Judge; financial implications; how the administrative processing would be handled in the Clerk’s office; undue hardship for applicants being required to attend the LLA with the Municipal Judge instead of the Board such as the time of day; how other communities handle the needs and desires; how the 500’ limit impacts the Town; how special events are handled and whether they would be moved to the LLA or handled administratively; and questioned whether outreach to current licensees had been conducted. The Board requested more information before determining a decision on continuing to act as the LLA for new, transfer, and change of location licenses or moving all functions to the Municipal Judge. Staff would bring recommended code changes to the Board at a future meeting. CLASSIFICATION & COMPENSATION PLAN OVERVIEW & CURRENT TRENDS. Consultant Laurie Graves with Graves Consulting LLC provided an overview of the compensation process, classification, and current trends. Highlights of her presentation included: the Town’s defined market; data sources and job matching, placement in range; classification and reclassification; pay structure; annual market update process DR A F T Town Board Study Session – July 12, 2022– Page 2 and the current labor market. The Estes Park defined market was proposed to include Arvada and several markets were proposed to be removed to maintain a fair market area primarily due to size and lower pay structures. She presented the identified smaller previously defined market for sworn police officers and did not recommend any changes. She discussed moving the administrative pay family into technical and professional due to negative perceptions for the classification ‘administrative’. She stated each pay structure would be adjusted annually based on the average market increase of the positions in one of the six pay families. Changes in the labor market has placed stress on hiring and has forced municipalities to revise their compensation practices. She stated any recommendations would include data which has been aged forward to ensure pay ranges stay competitive through 2023. The Board requested a benefits comparison along with the market review. Staff would bring forward changes to the compensation philosophy and the policy to help address challenges identified by the Retention and Recruitment Task Force. QUARTERLY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE. Director Garner introduced Jeremy Call, Logan Simpson Consultant for Estes Forward and Planning Commissioners in attendance for the presentation. He presented the draft vision, nine guiding principles, and the draft future land use plan. Conversations are ongoing to identify recommendations in the land use plan to address the needs identified in the Housing Needs Assessment. Board questions have been summarized: how property owners can request zoning corrections; clarification was requested on removing density limits in mixed-use zones; zoning limitations for allowing large single- family homes to be converted into multiple units; and the hierarchy of regulations established by homeowner associations or covenants and whether they can further restrict areas. The Board and members of the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee participated in a survey to provide feedback on the proposed future land use categories, goals and priorities. Staff and CompPAC would meet to further review the land use draft and would host community outreach events to obtain additional feedback. TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. None. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. Mayor Koenig requested a discussion prior to the budget hearing reviewing recession and inflation implications, to which the Board were in agreement to add a discussion to future unscheduled items. There being no further business, Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 6:39 p.m. Bunny Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk DR A F T       Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 5, 2022 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held virtually in said Town of Estes Park on this 5 day of April 2022. Committee: Chair Wayne Newsom, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Board Member Joe Holtzman Attending: Chair Newsom, Vice-Chair Moreau, Board Member Holtzman, Community Development Director Jessica Garner, Senior Planner Woeber, Planner II Bergeron, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund, Town Board Liasion Barbara MacAlpine Absent: Newsom Vice-Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Holzman/Moreau) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 2-0. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Holtzman/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 2-0. VARIANCE REQUEST 460 Valley Road Planner II Bergeron Planner Bergeron reviewed the staff report. The applicants seek a 23-foot setback variance to construct an accessory structure two feet from the northern property line. The accessory structure would contain garage space on the lower level and, if authorized through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process outlined in EPDC §3.16 and §5.2, an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Staff recommended the Board of Adjustment approve the variance request, subject to the findings described in the staff report. DISCUSSION: Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, was available for questions. Owner Mary Peterson thanked the Board for their consideration and confirmed that the ADU would not be used as a short-term rental. PUBLIC COMMENT: none It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the variance request as written with the requirement of an approved setback certificate from a licensed engineer. The motion passed 2-0. VARIANCE REQUEST Estes Village Inn Senior Planner Woeber Senior Planner Woeber reviewed the staff report. This request is to grant a variance to allow 50 Accommodation Units, four more units than the existing 46. The subject property contains a lodging/motel use within an A (Accommodations) Zone District. The original owner received approval of a Development Plan in 1985, approving 43 Accommodation Units (rooms). Three additional units were added during the following 37 years without documentation or record of when they were constructed. Staff does not find special circumstances or conditions of the type described nor practical difficulty. The applicant does indicate problems in adding ADA-accessible units, but it is unclear what the difficulties are. Staff recommended the Board of Adjustment deny the variance request, subject to the findings described in the report. DISCUSSION: Vice-Chair Moreau suggested combining smaller rooms into one to make them ADA accessible. Applicants Craig Middleton and David Rochefort explained the reasons for their variance request. Architect Marissa Richen discussed the challenges involved in working with the constraints of the existing structure. The footprint of the Board of Adjustment, April 5 , 2022 – Page 2 building is not changing, and the addition of sprinklers and landscaping would bring the property up to current building codes, meeting the City's standards. There is adequate parking, with 52 spaces. Moreau stated that this variance goes against the intent of the code, and just because it has been non-conforming doesn't mean that it should be granted. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hannah Breining, 232 Big Horn Dr., noted that this will set the precedence for future hotels wanting the same. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to deny the variance request as written. The motion passed 2-0. REPORTS Members Newsom and Holtzman have been reappointed to their positions on the Board of Adjustment. Since not all members are present today, the Board Elections will be held at the next meeting date. The Members desire to return to in-person meetings. Training will be provided. The Comprehensive Plan is on track and on schedule. There will be a community event on April 28 to get the public's opinion. There being no further business, Vice-Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 10:20 a.m. Jeff Moreau, Vice-Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary POLICE DEPARTMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Corey P. Pass - Interim Chief of Police Date: July 26, 2022 RE: Resolution 59-22 Memorandum of Understanding to Provide Mutual Aid and Assistance in Investigations and Intervention Concerning Allegations of Child Abuse and Neglect with Larimer County and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (Mark all that apply) ☐ PUBLIC HEARING ☐ ORDINANCE ☐ LAND USE ☒ CONTRACT/AGREEMENT X RESOLUTION ☐ OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL ☐ YES ☒ NO Objective: The purpose of this MOU is to define the agreement by which the Estes Park Police Department and Larimer County Department of Human Services will cooperate in providing mutual aid and assistance in investigation and intervention concerning allegations of child abuse and neglect occurring within the territorial limits of Larimer County, Colorado. Present Situation: LCDHS and EPPD have previously entered into an agreement, in which we had agreed to cooperate with one another in providing mutual aid and assistance in investigation and intervention concerning allegations of child abuse and neglect occurring within the territorial limits of the Town of Estes Park. The past agreement and this one moving forward Includes all law enforcement agencies in Larimer County. LCDHS and EPPD now desire to enter into this MOU and intend for it to supersede in all respects and revoke their previous Intergovernmental Agreements related to child abuse investigations. Proposal: To enter into this agreement. Advantages: The advantage of this MOU is to ensure that both LCDHS and EPPD are providing the best services possible to the victims of Child Abuse and Neglect. Disadvantages: None Action Recommended: The Board approves, and authorizes the mayor to sign the agreement in the title of this resolution in substantially the form now before the Board. Finance/Resource Impact: None Level of Public Interest Low Motion: I move to approve Resolution 59-22. Attachments: 1. Resolution 59-22 2. Memorandum of Understanding Between Larimer County Department of Human Services and the Estes Park Police Department RESOLUTION 59-22 APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH LARIMER COUNTY AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO PROVIDE MUTUAL AID AND ASSISTANCE IN INVESTIGATION AND INTERVENTION CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to enter the memorandum of understanding referenced in the title of this resolution for the purpose of providing mutual aid and assistance in investigation and intervention concerning allegations of child abuse and neglect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor and Chief of Police to sign, the agreement referenced in the title of this resolution in substantially the form now before the Board. DATED this day of , 2022. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Attachment 1 Memorandum of Understanding between Larimer County Department of Human Services and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, City of Fort Collins Police Department, City of Loveland Police Department, Colorado State Patrol, Colorado State University Police Department, Estes Park Police Department, Timnath Police Department, Johnstown Police Department, Windsor Police Department, and Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office Page 1 of 11 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND LARIMER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, CITY OF FORT COLLINS POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF LOVELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, COLORADO STATE PATROL, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ESTES PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT, TIMNATH POLICE DEPARTMENT, JOHNSTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT, WINDSOR POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND EIGHTH JUDICAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE I.Parties. The parties to this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) are Larimer County Department of Human Services (LCDHS) whose address is 1501 Blue Spruce Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 and Larimer County Sheriff's Office (LCSO) whose address is 2501 Midpoint Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525; City of Fort Collins Police Department, whose address is: 2221 South Timberline Road, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525; City of Loveland Police Department, whose address: is 810 East 10th Street, Loveland, Colorado 80537; Colorado State Patrol, whose address is: 3832 I-25, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525; Colorado State University Police Department, whose address is: Green Hall, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521; Estes Park Police Department, whose address is: 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado 80517; and Timnath Police Department, whose address is, 4800 Goodman Road, Timnath, Colorado 80547; Johnstown Police Department, whose address is 430 South Parish Avenue, Johnstown, Colorado 80534, Windsor Police Department, whose address is 200 North 11 th Street, Windsor, Colorado 80550, Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office, whose address is 201 LaPorte Avenue, #200, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521, collectively referred to as Local LE (Law Enforcement) in this MOU. II.Purpose. The purpose of this MOU is to define the agreement by which Local LE and LCDHS will cooperate in providing mutual aid and assistance in investigation and intervention concerning allegations of child abuse and neglect occurring within the territorial limits of Larimer County, Colorado. III.Background. 1.LCDHS is a governmental agency which exists for several purposes including assessment and intervention, regarding allegations of child abuse and neglect within the territorial limits of Larimer County, Colorado; and 2.The Local LE exist for the purposes of providing law enforcement protection services within the geographical limits of Larimer County, Colorado which services include investigation and referral of allegations of child abuse and neglect; and 3.The District Attorney’s Office is a law enforcement agency and is involved in the on-going investigation and prosecution of cases involving child abuse and neglect, and 4.The General Assembly, as stated in CRS 19-3-308(5.5), expects that Human Services and Local LE agencies develop and implement cooperative agreements to coordinate the investigation of child abuse and neglect cases; and 5.LCDHS and the Local LE have previously entered into an agreement, in which they have agreed to cooperate with one another in providing mutual aid and assistance in investigation and intervention concerning allegations of child abuse and neglect occurring within the territorial limits of Larimer County; and DocuSign Envelope ID: A4315FC5-CC8E-4EAF-BF2E-98AC3E11AE75 Attachment 2 Memorandum of Understanding between Larimer County Department of Human Services and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, City of Fort Collins Police Department, City of Loveland Police Department, Colorado State Patrol, Colorado State University Police Department, Estes Park Police Department, Timnath Police Department, Johnstown Police Department, Windsor Police Department, and Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office Page 2 of 11 6. LCDHS and the Local LE now desire to enter into this MOU and intend for it to supersede in all respects and revoke their previous Intergovernmental Agreements related to child abuse investigations. 7. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and any other good and valuable consideration the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: IV. Term of MOU. This MOU shall commence upon the day and date last signed and executed by the duly authorized representatives of the parties to this MOU and shall remain in full force and effect until terminated. This MOU may be terminated, without cause, by any party. Termination shall become effective immediately upon notification being received in writing by the other party. Notice must be sent to the chief law enforcement officer for the Local LE and the Director of LCDHS. V. Payment. No payment shall be made to any party by the other parties as a result of this MOU. VI. Guidelines For Contact Between LCDHS and Local LE - LCDHS shall as soon as possible notify law enforcement when LCDHS becomes aware of a case of child abuse or neglect. 1. When Local LE is not easily identified: (a) LCDHS employees may contact the communications division of the relevant law enforcement agencies to determine whether the Local LE is in possession of the necessary information. LCDHS employees will provide an address representing where the incident occurred, and if that is not known, the LCDHS employee will provide an address of relevant family members. When jurisdiction is not known or out of state, the LCDHS employee will contact the LCSO who will coordinate primary jurisdiction. VII. Guidelines for the Investigation of Intra-Familial Abuse or Neglect 1. Mandated Referrals by Local LE– LCDHS shall be responsible for coordination of all investigations of all reports of suspected intra-familial abuse or neglect. (a) Local LE shall contact LCDHS to refer a case for investigation by contacting an Intake Specialist at the Hub to make an intake report, 970-498-6990. If Local LE need to make a referral between the hours of 1900 hours and 800 hour, the Local LE will call 1-844-264-5437. (b) If a Local LE is investigating a case without LCDHS and it becomes aware of an intra-familial abuse or neglect situation, including domestic violence situations as such is defined in CRS 18-6-800.3 and there are indications that a child is in the home, the Local LE shall report the incident to LCDHS as soon as practicable, as set forth in Section VII 2.(a) above. 2. Intake Reports and Assignment - Differential Response – Pursuant to CRS 19-3-308.5.3, LCDHS has been designated to respond to allegations of child abuse and neglect with a Differential Response Model. A Differential Response Model allows for County Departments to use more than one approach to address reports of alleged child abuse or neglect. Response assignment is determined by; presence of imminent danger, level of risk, number of previous reports, and presenting case characteristics such as type of alleged maltreatment and age of alleged victim. DocuSign Envelope ID: A4315FC5-CC8E-4EAF-BF2E-98AC3E11AE75 Memorandum of Understanding between Larimer County Department of Human Services and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, City of Fort Collins Police Department, City of Loveland Police Department, Colorado State Patrol, Colorado State University Police Department, Estes Park Police Department, Timnath Police Department, Johnstown Police Department, Windsor Police Department, and Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office Page 3 of 11 (a) High Risk Assessment Approach - is required for circumstances alleging allegations of egregious harm, near fatal, fatal child abuse, and sexual abuse. Intake reports assigned for High Risk Assessment will be conducted jointly in accordance with this MOU. All intake reports that meet LCDHS requirements for High Risk assessment will be assigned to an intake child protection caseworker, who must coordinate the investigation with the appropriate Local LE. Prior to contacting family, the caseworker must make direct contact with the Local LE to discuss coordination of the assessment and investigation. (b) Services offered through a Child Advocacy Center (CAC) will be utilized when deemed appropriate by the lead Local LE. (c) The parties recognize that Local LE may not be able to immediately respond, but LCDHS will make all efforts to coordinate its assessment with the Local LE. (d) LCDHS is required by state regulation to respond to reports of abuse and neglect, which includes face to face contact with the alleged victim(s), within the following time frames: (Response time begins at the point of referral being called into the Hub): i. Immediate (response within 8 hours) – Child is in imminent danger and there is a significant and clearly observable threat to child safety that is actively occurring and will likely result in severe harm to child. ii. 3 calendar days – Threats to child are not occurring presently, but likely to occur in near future and likely to result in severe harm to child. iii. 5 Working Days – Maltreatment or risk of maltreatment indicating an absence of present or impending danger iv. Response times for Institutional abuse or neglect is the same as Intra- Familial response times. (e) Family Assessment Response Approach – will be initiated for family circumstances involving low to moderate risk and includes a family risk assessment, service need determination and non-court involved case services. 3. Egregious Harm Near Fatal and Fatal Child Abuse Cases: (a) 7.106.1 Egregious incidents of abuse and/or neglect, near fatalities, or child fatalities: An incident of suspected abuse and/or neglect involving any of the following: i. Significant violence, torture, use of cruel restraints, or other similar, aggravated circumstance ii. A child has died; or, iii. A physician has determined that a child is in serious, critical, or life-threatening condition as a result of sickness or injury. (b) If a Local LE is investigating an egregious harm, near fatal or fatal child abuse case, immediate notification shall be made to LCDHS. LCDHS shall respond and coordinate their efforts on cases when the egregious harm, near fatal situation or death of a child is suspected to be the result of non-accidental trauma or there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the death. DocuSign Envelope ID: A4315FC5-CC8E-4EAF-BF2E-98AC3E11AE75 Memorandum of Understanding between Larimer County Department of Human Services and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, City of Fort Collins Police Department, City of Loveland Police Department, Colorado State Patrol, Colorado State University Police Department, Estes Park Police Department, Timnath Police Department, Johnstown Police Department, Windsor Police Department, and Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office Page 4 of 11 (c) In the event a child death occurs with no surviving siblings, LCDHS will, through the records custodian, provide all known information regarding the immediate family to the Local LE. The requesting party must state in writing that they are investigating allegations of abuse and neglect. 4. Sexual Child Abuse Victim Interviews (a) Minimal Facts: Minimal facts should be obtained from someone other than the child victim, whenever possible. Multiple “minimal facts” interviews with a child victim should be avoided. The main forensic interview of the child shall be conducted as provided below. (b) Pursuant to CRS 19-3-308.5(3) sexual child abuse victim interviews are strongly encouraged to be video recorded and shall be conducted by a competent interviewer, preferably at a CAC. Only one interview is required so long as both LCDHS and the Local LE have the opportunity to be present. (c) LCDHS and the Local LE shall jointly schedule the interview at the CAC, or an alternative location, so that both parties can be present for the interview. Each agency will use their best efforts to schedule the interview so that both agencies are present at the interview. However, if scheduling conflicts occur, the lead Local LE shall make the final scheduling decision but take into consideration the Department of Human Service’s response timeframes and need to interview the child within that time frame. Each party shall receive a copy of the recorded forensic interview. (d) In some circumstances, law enforcement may decide to conduct a forensic interview with a victim without utilizing the CAC. (e) If additional interviews are deemed necessary, they should be done by the same interviewer whenever possible. LCDHS and Local LE shall give notice to the other prior to scheduling additional interviews and will consult with the District Attorney’s Office. Each party shall receive a copy of the additional interview. 5. Human Trafficking (a) Pursuant to C.R.S. 19-3-317, LCDHS will conduct uniform screening of children/youth to identify victims of human trafficking. If LCDHS becomes aware of a child/youth being a victim of human trafficking they will notify local law enforcement immediately but no later than 24 hours. If law enforcement identifies a victim of Human Trafficking, they shall report to LCDHS. 6. Investigation and Assessment of Risk (a) LCDHS will be responsible for the safety and risk assessment of the child, the capacity of the parents to properly care for the child, and the need for filing of a Petition in Dependency and Neglect with the Juvenile Court. LCDHS may request the issuance of a protective custody or “police hold” (hereinafter a “Hold”) which will be placed pursuant to the criteria set forth in CRS 19-3-401 and remain at the discretion of the Local LE. If necessary, LCDHS shall be responsible for arranging out-of-home placement for the child. LCDHS may request the Local LE conduct a criminal history check on persons in whose custody emergency placement of a child may be placed pursuant to CRS 19-3-406. The Local LE will provide LCDHS a verbal response regarding the person’s criminal history. (b) The Local LE may conduct criminal history checks in compliance with CRS 19-3- 406, on its own initiative. (c) Placement of Children – LCDHS will conduct background checks to include Trails, Colorado Courts, National and Colorado Sex Offender Registry and will have the DocuSign Envelope ID: A4315FC5-CC8E-4EAF-BF2E-98AC3E11AE75 Memorandum of Understanding between Larimer County Department of Human Services and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, City of Fort Collins Police Department, City of Loveland Police Department, Colorado State Patrol, Colorado State University Police Department, Estes Park Police Department, Timnath Police Department, Johnstown Police Department, Windsor Police Department, and Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office Page 5 of 11 Alternative Sentencing Unit conducts NCIC checks on any person being considered for placement of a child. i. LCDHS will be responsible for having the person with whom the child is placed satisfy the fingerprinting requirement; the fingerprinting may be done at Larimer County Sheriff's Office, Loveland Police Department or a county law enforcement agency where the care provider resides. The cost of the fingerprinting and submittal to CBI will not be borne by the Local LE. LCDHS or LCDHS’s contracted vendor will be responsible for submitting fingerprint cards to CBI regardless of where they are completed. 7. Criminal Investigations (a) The Local LE will be responsible for conducting any criminal investigation; determining if cases should be referred to the District Attorney’s office for prosecution; and providing, when law enforcement resources are available, security in situations where the parents or alleged perpetrators are threatening or dangerous. (b) LCDHS will, through the records custodian, provide information to the District Attorney's Office during the ongoing investigation of these abuse and neglect cases. VIII. Guidelines for the Investigation of Institutional Abuse or Neglect: The procedural guidelines for the investigation of cases involving allegations of institutional abuse or neglect shall be the same as those delineated for investigation of allegations of intra-familial abuse or neglect. In addition, LCDHS will be responsible for coordinating any investigation with the licensing authority responsible for the specific childcare facility. IX. Guidelines for the Investigation of Third-Party Abuse or Neglect 1. Completed Investigations – The Local LE shall be responsible for coordination and investigation of all reports of third-party abuse or neglect. Upon the completion of an investigation, the Local LE shall forward a copy of its investigative report to the Hub Manager at LCDHS in compliance with the requirements of state records release laws, for its review to determine whether the report should be filed with the State in accordance with CRS 19-3-308.(5.3)(a), which report, upon such determination, shall be filed with the State within sixty days of the receipt of the report by LCDHS. 2. LCDHS Reports of Crimes to Law Enforcement – If LCDHS is assessing a case without law enforcement and during such assessment it becomes aware of incidents of criminal child abuse or neglect, or any other criminal conduct, LCDHS shall immediately report such incidents by contacting the dispatch unit of the appropriate Local LE. 3. Requests for Services or Referrals by Law Enforcement – A Local LE may request that LCDHS provide services or referrals for appropriate services for the child and/or family in third-party cases. Such requests will be initiated by either the Local LE or the parents by contacting the Intake Specialist the HUB. Services shall be contingent upon service and funding availability and family eligibility. 4. Requests for Assistance by Law Enforcement – A Local LE may request assistance from LCDHS in the investigation in cases that may include third-party abuse or neglect cases. All such requests will be given serious consideration and prioritized based DocuSign Envelope ID: A4315FC5-CC8E-4EAF-BF2E-98AC3E11AE75 Memorandum of Understanding between Larimer County Department of Human Services and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, City of Fort Collins Police Department, City of Loveland Police Department, Colorado State Patrol, Colorado State University Police Department, Estes Park Police Department, Timnath Police Department, Johnstown Police Department, Windsor Police Department, and Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office Page 6 of 11 upon the need for LCDHS involvement to ensure the success of the investigation, however LCDHS participation shall be at the discretion of LCDHS. X. Law Enforcement Guidelines for Taking a Child into Protective Custody 1. Notification by LCDHS – If LCDHS believes that a child needs protective custody, the LCDHS caseworker shall provide all relevant facts to the Local LE in order for them to determine whether to sign the requested Hold. 2. Notification by Law Enforcement – The parties acknowledge that, pursuant to CRS 19- 3-401, Hold decisions are at the sole discretion of the Local LE. However, whenever practicable, the Local LE shall notify LCDHS prior to taking a child into protective custody to allow LCDHS to provide input regarding the need for protective custody. When prior notification is not possible, the Local LE shall, as soon as practicable, notify LCDHS of the Hold and the grounds for it. The names and ages of the children shall be given to LCDHS, as well as any information regarding potential out -of-home placements. The guidelines contained in Section VII, 6. Investigation and Assessment of Risk set forth above will then be implemented. 3. Release Conditions – On each Hold, the Local LE shall specify under what conditions or to whom the child may be released. Such release does not terminate the Hold, but simply specifies conditions regarding the child’s care during the 72-hour hold period. 4. To Rescind Holds – At times, LCDHS or the Local LE after consultation with LCDHS may deem it necessary to rescind the Hold. A rescission is a termination of the Hold. A rescission must be indicated on the written form placing the Hold and may only be rescinded by the issuing peace officer, the peace officer’s supervisor, or anyone else superior in the Local LE’s chain of command. XI. Mutual Training of Law Enforcement and Child Protection 1. Responsibility for Training – It is the responsibility of each party to train their investigators and other staff of their respective responsibilities. To assure training opportunities and to facilitate mutual understanding, LCDHS and the Local LE may coordinate, plan, and implement joint trainings. The organizing agency shall be responsible for funding such training. XII. Release of Reports, Documents, Evidence and Recordings to Persons or Entities who are not Parties to this MOU: Each agency will agree to use its best efforts to keep records confidential. 1. Release of Records – Shall be governed by this MOU and CRS 19-1-303 and 307 and the appropriate sections of the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act (§ 24 -72-301 et.seq., C.R.S.) regarding confidentiality. 2. The Official Custodian – The official custodian for purposes of the release of information of any Local LE reports referred to in this MOU (and all accompanying documents, recordings, and evidence) is the Local LE’s Records Custodian. (a) Requests to a Local LE for LCDHS records – Requests for any LCDHS materials, including reports, documents, recordings and evidence, shall be referred to the DocuSign Envelope ID: A4315FC5-CC8E-4EAF-BF2E-98AC3E11AE75 Memorandum of Understanding between Larimer County Department of Human Services and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, City of Fort Collins Police Department, City of Loveland Police Department, Colorado State Patrol, Colorado State University Police Department, Estes Park Police Department, Timnath Police Department, Johnstown Police Department, Windsor Police Department, and Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office Page 7 of 11 LCDHS Records Custodian or released to persons authorized by state statute or court ruling. (b) Requests from a Local LE for LCDHS records – Requests for any LCDHS materials, including reports, documents, recordings and evidence shall be referred to the LCDHS Records Custodian and released in accordance with CRS 19-1-303 and 307. If the District Attorney’s Office (DA) makes a request for LCDHS materials and states that the records request is part of an investigation into child abuse or neglect those records shall be provided by LCDHS. (c) Requests from LCDHS for Law Enforcement Records –Any requests made to the LCDHS custodian for the law enforcement records shall be referred by the LCDHS custodian to the relevant law enforcement records custodian. However, upon request by LCDHS to the Law enforcement custodian, LCDHS will receive a courtesy copy of the records. (d) Requests to LCDHS or Law Enforcement Records for Third Party Records – Requests for any records, including reports, documents, recordings, and evidence, that were created by a third party and not LCDHS or the Local LE shall be referred to that third party’s records custodian. XIII. Guidelines for Problem Solving and Evaluation of this MOU 1. Conflict Resolution – The Local LE’s Officer and LCDHS Caseworker may at any time request assistance of a Supervisor to discuss differing opinions on cases and to obtain clarification on departmental policies and procedures. Supervisors of respective agencies are committed to resolving disputes. XIV. General Provisions. 1. Amendments. Any party may request changes in this MOU. Any changes, modifications, revisions, or amendments to this MOU which are mutually agreed upon by the parties to this MOU shall be incorporated by written instrument, executed and signed by all parties to this MOU. 2. Choice of Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue. Colorado law shall be applied in the interpretation, execution, and enforcement of this Contract. All suits or actions related to this Contract shall be filed and proceedings held in the State of Colorado and the venue shall be in Larimer County, Colorado. 3. Entirety of Agreement. This MOU, consisting of eleven (11) pages and represent(s) the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersede (s) all prior negotiations, representations and agreements, whether written or oral. 4. Prior Approval. This MOU shall not be binding upon either party unless this MOU has been reduced to writing before performance begins as described under the terms of this MOU, and unless this MOU is approved as to form by the County Attorney or their representative. 5. Prohibition of Pledging Credit and No Aid to Corporations. Pursuant to Colorado Constitution Article XI, Sections 1 and 2 and Article X, section 20, the County shall not DocuSign Envelope ID: A4315FC5-CC8E-4EAF-BF2E-98AC3E11AE75 Memorandum of Understanding between Larimer County Department of Human Services and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, City of Fort Collins Police Department, City of Loveland Police Department, Colorado State Patrol, Colorado State University Police Department, Estes Park Police Department, Timnath Police Department, Johnstown Police Department, Windsor Police Department, and Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office Page 8 of 11 indemnify or hold harmless any party related or operating under this MOU. No provision in the MOU shall limit or set the amount of damages available to the County to any amount other than the actual direct and indirect damages to the County, regardless of the theory or basis for such damages. Any provision included or incorporated herein by reference which purports to negate this provision in whole or in part shall not be valid or enforceable or available in any action at law or equity, whether by way of complaint, defense, or otherwise. Any provision rendered null and void by this provisio n shall not invalidate the remainder of the MOU. 6. Separate Entities. All parties shall perform its duties hereunder as independent entities, and neither shall be deemed an employee or agent of the other. 7. Severability. Should any portion of this MOU be judicially determined to be illegal or unenforceable, the remainder of the MOU shall continue in full force and effect, and the parties may renegotiate the terms affected by the severance. 8. Signature Authority. This MOU shall not be valid unless it has been approved and signed by someone authorized by Larimer County Administrative Policy and Procedure 100.2N. This Contract may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. The parties approve the use of electronic signatures, which shall be governed by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, C.R.S. §24-71.3-101 et seq. If this Contract is electronically signed it: (a) Is considered a "writing" or "in writing"; (b) Is deemed for all purposes as physically "signed"; (c) Is deemed an "original" when printed or copied from electronic files or records established and maintained in the normal course of business; and (d) Satisfies any legal formalities requiring agreements be in writing. Neither party will contest the admissibility of copies (or printed versions) of this Contract under either the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the best evidence rule or otherwise on the basis the Contract was originated, signed, or maintained in electronic form. Other than an original hand-written signature or an electronic signature of the same formality used to originally execute this Contract, no other communication between the parties (such as email, voice mail, or fax without a signature) shall be construed as a signature to this Contract (or any amendments to it or waiver of it). 9. Sovereign Immunity. Larimer County, LCDHS and Local LE do not waive sovereign or governmental immunity by entering into this MOU, and each fully retains all immunities and defenses provided by law with respect to any action based on or occurring as a result of this MOU. This includes, but is not limited to, the understanding that no term or condition of this Contract shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections, notice requirements, or other provisions, of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. 24-10-101 et seq. as applicable now or hereafter amended. There is no intent to waive or restrict governmental immunity. 10. Third Party Beneficiary Rights. The parties do not intend to create in any other individual or entity the status of third party beneficiary, and this MOU shall not be construed so as to create such status. The rights, duties, and obligations contained in this MOU DocuSign Envelope ID: A4315FC5-CC8E-4EAF-BF2E-98AC3E11AE75 Memorandum of Understanding between Larimer County Department of Human Services and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, City of Fort Collins Police Department, City of Loveland Police Department, Colorado State Patrol, Colorado State University Police Department, Estes Park Police Department, Timnath Police Department, Johnstown Police Department, Windsor Police Department, and Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office Page 9 of 11 shall operate only between the parties to this MOU and shall inure solely to the benefit of the parties to this MOU. The provisions of this MOU are intended only to assist the parties in determining and performing their obligations under this MOU. THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. DocuSign Envelope ID: A4315FC5-CC8E-4EAF-BF2E-98AC3E11AE75 Memorandum of Understanding between Larimer County Department of Human Services and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, City of Fort Collins Police Department, City of Loveland Police Department, Colorado State Patrol, Colorado State University Police Department, Estes Park Police Department, Timnath Police Department, Johnstown Police Department, Windsor Police Department, and Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office Page 10 of 11 XV. Signatures. The parties to this MOU, through their duly authorized representatives, have executed this MOU on the dates set out below, and certify that they have read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of this MOU as set forth herein. The effective date of this MOU is the date of the signature last affixed to this page. LCDHS: Larimer County Department of Human Services ______________________________________________________ _________________ Heather J. O’Hayre, Director Date Local LE: _______________________________________________________ _________________ Justin Smith, Larimer County Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Date _______________________________________________________ _________________ Jeff Swaboda, City of Fort Collins Police Department, Chief of Police Date _______________________________________________________ _________________ Eric Stewart, City of Loveland Police Department, Acting Chief of Police Date ________________________________________________________ _________________ Frank Johnson, Colorado State University, Captain Date ________________________________________________________ _________________ Rob Marone, Colorado State Patrol Date ________________________________________________________ _________________ Corey Pass, Estes Park Police Department, Interim Chief of Police Date ________________________________________________________ _________________ Terry Jones, Timnath Police Department, Chief of Police Date ________________________________________________________ _________________ Brian Phillips, Johnstown Police Department, Chief of Police Date ________________________________________________________ _________________ Rick Klimeck, Windsor Police Department, Chief of Police Date ________________________________________________________ _________________ Gordon McLaughlin, District Attorney Eighth Judicial District Date County Attorney Approval ___________________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: A4315FC5-CC8E-4EAF-BF2E-98AC3E11AE75 Memorandum of Understanding between Larimer County Department of Human Services and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, City of Fort Collins Police Department, City of Loveland Police Department, Colorado State Patrol, Colorado State University Police Department, Estes Park Police Department, Timnath Police Department, Johnstown Police Department, Windsor Police Department, and Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office Page 11 of 11 TOWN OF ESTES PARK ________________________________________________________ _________________ Wendy Koenig , Mayor Date ATTEST: ________________________________________________________ _________________ Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________________________________ _________________ Dan Kramer, Town Attorney Date DocuSign Envelope ID: A4315FC5-CC8E-4EAF-BF2E-98AC3E11AE75 Human Resources Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Jackie Williamson, HR Director Date: May 24, 2022 RE: Revised Policy 306 - Leave PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER – Policy Revision QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: To amend Policy 306 Leave to address new sick leave requirements enacted by the Colorado Healthy Families and Workplaces Act. Present Situation: The Town’s current policy does not provide seasonal and employees working less than 20 hours a week leave accruals such as vacation or sick leave. Employees working part-time (20 – 30 hours per week) and full-time (30+ hours per week) receive sick leave on a prorated basis, up to eight (8) hours per month, based on the hours worked per week, i.e. employees working 20 hours a week receive four (4) hours of sick leave per month. Proposal: The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment issued a notice for the revisions to the Colorado Healthy Families and Workplaces Act which outlined the requirement for employers with 16 or more employees to provide sick leave for all employees regardless of their status with the Town. The Act more specifically states, “Each employee earns at least one hour of paid sick leave for every thirty hours worked by the employee; except that an employee is not entitled under this section to earn or use more than forty-eight hours of paid sick leave each year…” As the current policy does not address employees working seasonally or less than 20 hours per week a revision is required to be compliant with the new Act. The revisions provide one (1) hour of sick leave per 30 hours worked as required by the Act for this group of employees with a maximum accrual of 48 hours. Any hours not used upon separation of employment would not be paid out, however, a seasonal employee returning within six (6) months would retain their accruals upon rehire. Advantages: • To bring the Town into compliance with the Colorado Healthy Families and Workplaces Act. • Provides sick leave for all employees to be used if they or a family member gets sick • Increase productivity and morale • Sick employees are not coming to work and possibly infecting others further impacting Town operations. Disadvantages: • Impacts the business operations when an employee has an unplanned absence and has to use sick leave. • Potential abuse of time off. Action Recommended: Approve the revisions to Policy 306 Leave as outlined and bring the Town into compliance with the Act. Budget: Cost of sick time used by employees. Level of Public Interest: Low Sample Motion: I approve/deny revisions to Policy 306 Leave. Attachments: 1. Revised Policy 306 Leave with redlines. Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 1 of 17 Effective Period: Until superceded Review Schedule: Annually Effective Date: 05/24/2022 References: Governing Policies Manual 3.2, 3.8 HUMAN RESOURCES 306 Leave 1.PURPOSE The Town recognizes and respects its employees’ need for leave time away from work. Such leave time is important in allowing employees to renew their physical and mental capabilities and remain productive. To this end, the Town strives to create and maintain a balanced work schedule for its employees by promoting quality of life through leave time. 2. POLICY In accordance with state and federal laws, the Town provides leave time to eligible employees as set forth in the following procedure. Leave accountability is the responsibility of the employee and the supervisor. 3.PROCEDURE a.Reporting Absences and Tardiness i.Expectations Employees are expected to report to their place of work every day as scheduled, unless on approved leave. Time off of any kind must be taken in accordance with this policy and other applicable Town policies. ii.Absent or Tardy Notifications Employees who will be absent or late to work must notify their immediate supervisor (or the supervisor’s designee) as soon as they learn of the need to be absent or late. Failure to provide prompt notice of an absence or tardiness is an unapproved absence and may result in disciplinary action. iii.Process for Reporting Absences or Tardiness Unless otherwise directed in written departmental work rules, employees must notify their immediate supervisor no later than fifteen (15) minutes after the start of the employee’s work shift if they will be absent or late. When notifying the supervisor of the need to be absent or late, the employee must report: 1)The reason for the absence (or tardiness). 2)The date (or time) when the employee expects to return to work. Attachment 1 Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 2 of 17 iv. Exceptional Circumstances The Town recognizes that under exceptional circumstances, neither the employee nor someone on his or her behalf may reasonably be able to call within the time required. In such a case, the employee or representative must contact the employee’s supervisor as soon as possible after the beginning of the shift. If the supervisor, at his or her discretion, believes the employee had a compelling reason which prevented the employee from obtaining prior approval for the absence, or from calling in on time, the supervisor may approve pay for the period of absence or tardiness. b. Use of Leave 1. The intent of the leave types outlined in this policy are to provide employees with accrued and other leave to backfill any time away from work and complete their timecards with their normal work hours for the week, and are not to be used outside of the employee’s normal work schedule in order to create overtime. 2. As the Police Department is required to be staffed on a 24/7/365 basis, Town-observed, sworn officers and dispatchers may be called in for duty when on leave and may not utilize both leave and work on the same day in excess hours of a normal work day. In this circumstance the employee’s leave time would be adjusted to account for the hours worked when called in by their supervisor. (i.e., if an employee were scheduled to take 10 hours of vacation leave and got called in to work for 5 hours, their vacation time would be adjusted to 5 hours) c. Vacation Leave i. Eligibility Vacation leave is accrued by all full-time, part-time employees and eligible contract employees. Vacation leave is pro-rated for part time employees (50% for 20-29 hour part-time employees, 75% for 30-39 hour part-time employees). ii. Amount of Hours Earned Vacation accrual begins upon initial date of hire and hours are earned for the first two pay periods of each month according to the schedule below. The date of initial hire does not change with changes in employment within the Town organization (i.e., promotions and transfers). However, if an employee leaves employment with the Town, the initial date of hire will change for the purposes of vacation accrual should the employee return to work for the Town. The amount of hours earned per pay period is pro-rated for eligible part-time employees. The maximum vacation leave carry over allowed is equal to double the amount of hours that can be earned in a year. An employee moves through the “Years of Service” brackets at the completion of the final year in the bracket. For example, an employee would move from the “0 through 23” bracket into the “34 through 57” bracket at the completion of the employee’s third second year of service (end of month 2536). Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 3 of 17 Years of Service Hours Earned per Month Maximum Carry Over 0 through 2 (0 months – 24 months) 8.00 192 Hours 3 through 5 (25 months through 60 months) 10.00 240 Hours 6 through 12 (61 months through 144 months) 12.00 288 Hours 13 or more (145 months or more) 14.00 336 Hours iii. Amount of Hours Earned by At-Will Employees Years of Service Hours Earned per Month Maximum Carry Over 0 through 2(0 months – 24 months) 10.00 240 Hours 2 through 5(25 months through 60 months) 12.00 288 Hours 6 through 12(61 months through 144 months) 14.00 336 Hours 13 or more(145 months or more) 16.00 384 Hours iv. Authorization of Vacation Leave 1) Vacation leave shall be requested in advance and is granted at the discretion of each employee’s supervisor. 2) Requests for vacation leave may be deferred based upon workload. Supervisors and Department Directors shall ensure that every effort is made for the employee to use vacation leave requests previously cancelled due to department work load. v. Forfeiting of Vacation Leave 1) On the employee’s anniversary date (date of hire), they will forfeit any accrued vacation leave exceeding the maximum carry over articulated in Section 3.b.ii and 3.b.iii of this policy. 2) An employee may request reinstatement of forfeited accrued vacation leave of up to 80 hours for up to one (1) year from their anniversary date at the discretion of the Town Administrator. The request must justify why the employee was unable to use forfeited accrued vacation leave. All requests Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 4 of 17 must be submitted within 30 days from the date accrued vacation leave was forfeited. Reinstated hours shall not be subject to payout if the employee terminates employment prior to their next anniversary date. vi. Pay Out of Vacation Leave 1) At the sole discretion of the Town Administrator, payout of an employee’s vacation leave prior to separation of employment may be approved. This is approved only in extraordinary circumstances. Such payment will be taxed at the supplemental earnings rate. vii. Use of Vacation Leave Vacation leave shall be taken in no less than 30 minute increments. At no time may an employee have a negative vacation leave balance. viii. Separation of Employment Payout Upon separation of employment, an employee receives payment for all accrued vacation leave. The payment for accrued vacation will be based on the employee’s pay rate at the time of separation. This payment is taxed at the supplemental earnings rate d. Holiday Leave i. Eligibility Holiday leave is granted to all full-time, part-time employees and eligible contract employees. Holiday leave is pro-rated for part time employees (50% for 20-29 hour part-time employees, 75% for 30-39 hour part-time employees). ii. Holidays Observed Holiday leave is observed and granted for the following holidays: Nominal Date Holiday January 1st New Year’s Day January (Third Monday) Martin Luther King Day May (Last Monday) Memorial Day June 19th Juneteenth Day July 4th Independence Day September (First Monday) Labor Day November 11th Veterans Day November (Fourth Thursday) Thanksgiving Day December 24th Christmas Eve Day December 25th Christmas Day Holidays that occur on a Saturday will be observed on the preceding Friday, and those that occur on a Sunday will be observed on the following Monday. Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 5 of 17 If an employee is not normally scheduled to work on the day that a Town-observed holiday lands (i.e., a Friday for an employee working a 4/10 schedule), then such employee shall receive one additional eight (8) hour floating holiday. If an employee is normally scheduled to work on the day that a Town-observed holiday lands, and does not work the holiday, such employee receives eight (8) hours of holiday pay. iii. Use of Holiday Leave Holiday leave granted by the Town shall be used in the following manner: 1) Holidays must be taken unless the employee is scheduled to work by the employee’s supervisor. 2) Holidays which occur during an employee’s absence due to vacation or sickness shall not be counted as vacation or sick leave. 3) Employees, other than Department Directors and Police Department personnel, who are required to work on a holiday will receive pay for the hours worked as well as holiday pay. iv. Use of Holiday Leave – Police Department As the Police Department is required to be staffed on a 24/7/365 basis, Town- observed holidays will be handled by the Police Department as described below: 1) Non-exempt patrol personnel and non-exempt dispatch personnel will receive eight (8) hours of straight holiday pay for every holiday, regardless of whether the day is worked or not. These hours will not count towards overtime. 2) Non-exempt police personnel on an administrative schedule will receive eight (8) hours of holiday pay for each Town-observed holiday. These hours will count towards overtime. v. Floating Holidays In addition to the Town-observed holidays above, employees are allotted four (4) floating holidays to be taken at their discretion, with supervisor approval. Floating holidays must be used during the year accrued or they will be forfeited on December 31st. Floating holidays are pro-rated for new employees. Floating holidays are pro-rated for part-time employees (50% for 20-29 hour part-time employees, 75% for 30-39 hour part-time employees). e. Sick Leave i. Eligibility Sick leave is accrued by all full-time, part-time employees, seasonal employees, and eligible contract employees. Sick leave is pro-rated for part time employees (50% for 20-29 hour part-time employees, 75% for 30-39 hour part-time employees). Sick leave is pro-rated for seasonal employees and employees Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 6 of 17 working fewer than 20 hours per week, earning (one) 1 hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked. ii. Amount of Hours Accrued Sick leave will be accrued at the rate of four (4) hours for the first two bi-weekly pay periods of each month (pro-rated for eligible part-time employees). Sick leave accumulation is capped at 480 hours. When any employee accumulates more than 480 hours of sick leave, all excess sick leave will be converted to vacation leave (on a two-for-one basis) on that employee’s anniversary date. Seasonal employees and employee working fewer than 20 hours per week may accrue up to 48 hours of sick leave. When any employee accumulates more than 48 hours of sick leave, all excess sick leave will be cleared after each pay period. If a seasonal employee is re-hired within 6 months of separating employment with the Town, they shall retain the sick leave banks they had upon separating employment. iii. Use of Sick Leave Sick leave shall be used in the following manner: 1) Sick leave may only be used for: a. A non-occupational personal illness that renders an employee unable to perform their job. b. Non-occupational, necessary medical, optical, and dental health examinations and treatments, including reasonable travel time, when such appointments cannot be scheduled outside of regularly scheduled work hours. c. When an employee’s family member has a medical appointment or is ill and requires the care of the employee. For the purposes of this policy, “family member” is defined as an employee’s child, spouse, sibling, parent, grandparent, or grandchild, including natural, step, in-law, and foster relatives, regardless of whether or not said relative is living within the employee’s home. d. For a Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) qualifying event as outlined in Policy 311. e. For a single day, weather-related closure of Town facilities as determined by the Town Administrator. e.f. For the first 3 days of missed shifts following a qualifying workers compensation injury. 2) Sick leave may not be used during a scheduled vacation or compensatory time off. Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 7 of 17 3) Employees who are eligible for holiday time and who are on sick leave during a designated holiday must record holiday time for that day and not sick leave. An employee who is scheduled to work on a holiday and becomes sick must record holiday time only for the day. 4) During paid sick leave under the terms of this policy, all benefits will continue as though the employee were at work. 5) Sick leave shall be taken in no less than 30-minute increments. 6) At no time may an employee have a negative sick leave balance. 7) A Department Director may require an employee to take sick leave for any of the reasons specified in 306.3.d(iii)(1). 8) Employees are prohibited from using sick leave except under the circumstances described above. Employees who, in the Town’s judgment, misuse sick leave are subject to disciplinary action. When there appears to be a possibility that sick leave is being misused, the Department Director or supervisor may: a. Make further inquiry of the employee about past or ongoing use of the leave time. b. Require the employee to provide the type of information or submit to medical examinations as provided in the “Medical Certification” section of this policy (3.c.vi). c. Require the employee to provide written medical verification or be seen by the Town’s designated physician in order to use any further sick leave. iv. Notice of Brief Absence (3 days or less) This portion of the leave policy applies to non-occupational absences for brief illnesses, injuries, and minor medical procedures where the employee reasonably expects to be absent three (3) days or less, even if the absence ends up being longer. 1) Employees who need to use sick leave for an unexpected, brief illness or injury must contact their supervisor within 15 minutes after the beginning of the shift each day of the absence, or within a time frame set by the employees’ Department Director. 2) Employees who need to be absent for a scheduled medical procedure or short-term treatment must notify their supervisor as soon as the need for the absence is scheduled with the health care provider. Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 8 of 17 v. Notice of Prolonged Absence (More than 43 Days) or Intermittent Leave This portion of the leave policy applies to employees who need to be absent for non-occupational illnesses or medical procedures for more than three four days, or who need to use sick leave intermittently. Employees seeking job protection under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) should refer to Policy 311. vi. Medical Certification 1) The Town reserves the right to require employees to substantiate and/or document their need for sick leave, whether it is based on their own physical condition or the condition of an immediate family member. 2) The Town reserves the right to evaluate requests for, and extensions of, sick leave by consulting with the physician of the employee, or with the Town’s own medical consultants, and retains the right to request that the employee seek a second opinion of the illness/disability from a physician of the Town’s choice. Employees who request sick leave, or who have used sick leave, may be required by their supervisor (in consultation with Human Resources) to provide written verification of the following from the physician or other health care provider treating the employee: a. Date on which the condition commenced; b. Nature and extent of illness or injury, but only as is necessary to determine the employee’s ability to perform job functions; c. Probable duration of illness or injury; d. Confirmation that the employee is unable to perform essential job functions; e. Anticipated date on which the employee may return to work; and/or f. Release stating that the employee is able to return and perform his or her duties without endangering the health and safety of himself/herself or others, and describing restrictions on the employee’s work activities. 3) Any illness or injury of an employee or an employee’s immediate family member requiring an employee to miss more than three four (43) regularly scheduled work days mayshall be required to submit a, at the discretion of the Department Director, require a physician’s statement verifying the condition of the person under the physician’s care. 4) At the end of any sick leave, the Town may require a physician’s statement verifying the employee’s fitness to return to work. Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 9 of 17 vii. Payment upon separation A terminating employee that has completed 20 years of continuous service shall be compensated for fifty percent (50%) of their accumulated sick leave hours. Said compensation will be computed at the employee’s rate of pay at time of termination. This payment is taxed at the supplemental earnings rate. f. Family and Medical Leave Act The Town of Estes Park complies with the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, as amended. The Town posts the mandatory FMLA Notice and, upon hire, provides all new employees with notices required by the United States Department of Labor (DOL) on Employee Rights and Responsibility under the Family and Medical Leave Act. For more details on the Town’s compliance with FMLA, please see Policy 311. g. Jury Duty and Witness Appearance Leave The Town recognizes jury duty as an important civic obligation. If called to report to jury duty or required to serve on a jury, an employee will be granted the necessary time required and will be compensated at his or her regular pay rate. i. Notification If an employee is served with a summons to jury duty, the employee must inform his or her supervisor by the next regular work day and provide a copy of their summons (in electronic format or otherwise). ii. Exempt Employee Compensation Exempt employees will receive their regular wages for regularly scheduled work hours for jury duty. iii. Non-Exempt Employee Compensation Non-exempt employees will receive their regular wages for regularly scheduled work hours during each of the first three days of jury duty served during regular work hours. Thereafter, any pay they receive for jury duty is paid by the governmental entity requesting the employee to participate in the jury service. iv. Compensation Requirements The Town has no obligation to pay wages for time spent on jury duty until and unless the employee’s supervisor verifies on the Court website that the employee was on jury duty during that period. v. Return to Work Employees are expected to return to work on any day or portion of a day they are released from jury duty as reasonable. vi. Witness Appearance Leave 1) Exempt employees will be paid during time they are subpoenaed or otherwise required by law to appear as a witness in any personal matter that overlaps with scheduled work time up to a maximum of two working days in any 12-month period. To receive this pay, the employee must pay Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 10 of 17 to the Town any witness pay received by the employee, excluding mileage reimbursement. Any further time that an employee is required to appear as a witness is unpaid by the Town unless the employee chooses to use accrued paid leave time. A matter is considered personal if, in the discretion of the supervisor, it is not directly related to the employee’s essential job functions. An employee’s appearance as a witness in non-personal matters is considered regular working time and will be compensated accordingly. 2) Non-exempt employees will be granted all necessary time off when required to appear as a witness in personal matters, but such time is unpaid by the Town unless the employee chooses to use accrued paid leave time. An employee’s appearance as a witness in non-personal matters is considered regular working time and will be compensated accordingly. h. Voting Leave i. Eligibility To qualify for voting leave, employees must: 1) Be a registered, eligible elector entitled to vote at an election. 2) Advise their manager of the leave of absence prior to the day of the election. 3) Have less than three (3) hours between the time the polls open and the time the polls close during which they are not required to be on the job for the Town. ii. Benefit Eligible employees shall be entitled to up to two hours off, with pay, for the purpose of voting on the day of the election during the time the polls are open. The Town may specify the hours during which the employee may be absent. i. Workers’ Compensation The Town complies with all applicable federal and state laws pertaining to Workers’ Compensation. Employees who are injured on the job may be eligible for leave time and other benefits. Any employee who suffers an occupational injury must report the injury to Human Resources and follow the incident reporting policy. Questions about workers’ compensation should be directed to Human Resources. j. Military Leave i. Eligibility All Town employees, regardless of employment category, are eligible to take military leave for active duty or active or inactive duty training if they are members of the reserves or enlisted in any branch of the United States Armed Forces, or are members of the National Guard of any state in the United States. Employees must present official documentation of the military duty prior to the leave and upon returning from leave. Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 11 of 17 ii. Length of Paid Military Leave 1) Employees are provided with paid leave for a maximum of 15 working days (120 hours for full-time employees, pro-rated for less than full-time employees) per calendar year for active duty or active or inactive duty training with the National Guard or any branch of the United States Armed Forces. If the intermittent schedule of a part-time employee makes it difficult to determine the number of hours the employee would have worked during the leave period for proration purposes, the number of hours the employee actually worked during the 21 calendar day immediately preceding the leave shall be used to calculate the maximum length of the paid military leave. 2) After exhausting the 15 days of paid military leave, an employee may choose to use accrued vacation time, compensatory time, accrued but unused holiday time, and/or take leave without pay for active duty or active or inactive duty training with the National Guard or any branch of the United States Armed Forces. If an employee chooses to use the above described accrued paid leave, such use must be at the rate of 40 hours per week (prorated for part-time employees based on their FTE) and can only be used during the initial portion of the leave. Once the leave becomes unpaid, and employee cannot begin using accrued paid leave. An employee may not use any other type of paid leave during military leave, including, but not limited to, sick leave or injury leave. iii. Continuation of Medical, Dental, and Vision Insurance 1) After the first 30 continuous calendar days of unpaid leave for active military service, the Town-sponsored medical, dental, and vision insurance for the employee and covered dependents will terminate. After coverage terminates, the employee may elect to continue coverage at his or her own expense, and will be provided with detailed notice of the right to continue coverage. 2) Employees who are reinstated after completing active duty or active or inactive duty training will be eligible for immediate coverage under any applicable medical insurance plans existing at the time without a waiting period. iv. Retirement Plans Employees who are participants in any Town-sponsored retirement plan will continue to accrue service credits during military leave, and such leave will not constitute a break in service, so long as the employee complies with requirements for reinstatement after completing active duty or active or inactive duty training. v. Life and Disability Insurance After the first 30 continuous calendar days of unpaid leave for active military service, coverage under the life and disability insurance plans sponsored by the Town will terminate. These plans may contain limitations on coverage for death Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 12 of 17 and disabilities which occur during a declared or undeclared war. For more information about the policy provisions of these plans, contact Human Resources for a copy of the summary plan descriptions or policies. vi. Reinstatement When all of the following conditions for reinstatement are met, an employee will be reinstated to the same position they had at the time the military leave commenced, or to a position of like status and pay, provided that: 1) The cumulative period of military service was no longer than five years, unless a longer period is required by federal or state law. 2) The individual employee must return to work, or apply in writing, for reinstatement in a timely manner as defined by federal and state law. While these laws contain exceptions, which could extend the time an employee has to return to work, they generally define timely manner as follows: a. Military service time of less than 31 days: reporting for work the next regularly scheduled work day following safe travel time plus eight (8) hours. b. Military service time of more than 30 days but less than 181 days: submitting an application for reinstatement within 14 days after release from military service. c. Military service time of more than 180 days: submitting an application or reinstatement within 90 days after release from military service. 3) The employee must provide documentation from the National Guard or United States Armed Forces that he or she honorably completed military service or active or inactive duty training, such as discharge papers. 4) An employee has the same right to reinstatement as if he or she had been continuously employed during the leave period. For example, the employee is not eligible for reinstatement if the job for which he or she was hired was for a specific time period which expired, or for a project which was completed during the absence, or if the position has been eliminated. 5) The employee is qualified to perform the duties of the pre-service position. If the employee is no longer qualified to perform the job with reasonable accommodations, he or she will be re-employed in another existing job that he or she is capable of performing. k. Administrative Leave i. Imposition of Administrative Leave 1) All Town employees, regardless of employment category, may be placed on administrative leave at any time, with or without cause or notice, at the sole discretion of the Town Administrator. Placement on administrative Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 13 of 17 leave is not disciplinary in nature. Circumstances under which such a leave may occur include, but are not limited to, the following: a. To make inquiries into or investigate a work-related matter; b. To remove the employee from the workplace pending a determination of job action; c. To protect the employee; d. To protect the public; e. To protect other employees or property in the workplace; or f. To further any other work-related or business-related purpose. 2) Unless it would harm an administrative or criminal investigation, and after consultation with Human Resources, the supervisor or manager shall place an employee on administrative leave as soon reasonably practical upon determination that such leave is appropriate under Section 306.j.ii of this policy. ii. Paid and Unpaid Administrative Leave 1) Administrative leave shall be with pay except under that following circumstances, in which case administrative leave may be without pay: a. The employee has been formally charged or indicted for a felony or misdemeanor and: i. The employee occupies a position of public trust and public visibility; or ii. The felony or misdemeanor relates to the performance of the employee’s official duties b. The employee has been formally charged or indicted for a crime of theft, a sex offense, or an offense that involves minors. 2) Before an employee is placed on unpaid administrative leave, the employee must be provided with a pre-determination hearing pursuant to Policy 308 for the purpose of providing the employee with the opportunity to be heard and present information concerning whether or not there are reasonable grounds to support the placement on unpaid administrative leave. 3) During paid administrative leave, an employee will continue to receive their regular, straight-time wages and benefits based on their position’s designated FTE. An employee eligible for holiday time and on paid Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 14 of 17 administrative leave during a designated holiday will receive holiday pay for that day in lieu of pay for administrative leave. iii. Employee Required to Remain Available An employee on paid or unpaid administrative leave must remain available during their regular working hours, and be available to return to work within one (1) day if requested to do so. This means that an employee on administrative leave may not consider the leave time as vacation or personal time. The employee must provide his or her supervisor with telephone numbers where he or she can be reached during regular working hours and must promptly return calls from the supervisor or Human Resources. In addition, the employee must obtain the prior permission of the supervisor and use accrued vacation time, compensatory time, or other leave time in order to be out of contact with his or her supervisor for longer than a single workday. iv. Employee Restrictions during Administrative Leave During administrative leave, an employee may not contact other employees or be at the work site unless directed to do so by their supervisor. l. Bereavement Leave i. Eligibility In the event of a death in an employee’s immediate family (defined in Section iii below), the Department Director may authorize paid leave of up to 40 hours for full-time employees to manage family affairs and attend the funeral. Part-time employees may be authorized paid leave at a prorated rate of 20 hours for an employee working on average 20 – 29 hours and 30 hours for an employee working on average 30 – 39 hours by their Department Director. ii. Requesting Bereavement Leave In order to request bereavement leave, an employee shall submit a written request to his or her Department Director, who shall approve, deny, or reduce of leave requested by the employee. In authorizing any requests for bereavement leave, consideration shall be given to the distance to be travelled and personal demands placed on the employee. iii. Immediate Family For the purposes of bereavement leave, the Town defines “Immediate Family” to include a spouse, a child, a parent, a parent in-law, a sibling, a brother or sister in- law, a grandparent, a grandchild, a stepparent, a stepchild, a stepbrother, a stepsister, a legal guardian, or a person with whom the employee shares a household with in a personal relationship. m. Domestic Violence Leave The Town complies with C.R.S. 24-34-402.7 as it relates to leave for victims of domestic violence. An employee eligible for leave under C.R.S. 24-34-402.7 will Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 15 of 17 receive up to three (3) working days of unpaid leave from work in any twelve-month period. n. Emergency Volunteer Service Leave The Town complies with C.R.S. 24-33.5-801 through C.R.S. 24-33.5-828 as it pertains to emergency volunteer service leave for employees. o. Volunteer Firefighter Leave The Town complies with C.R.S. 31-30-1131 as it pertains to the employment of volunteer firefighters. p. Volunteer Leave The purpose is to create community engagement opportunities for Town staff that support the Estes Valley. In addition, the Town recognizes that participating in volunteer projects and encouraging philanthropy will also enrich and inspire the lives of our employees and build strong work teams. Activities performed in the use of Volunteer Leave are considered personal in nature and not representative of the Town. i. Eligibility: Eight hours is granted to all full-time and part-time employees annually. Volunteer leave is pro-rated for part-time employees (50% for 20 - 29- hour part-time employees, 75% for 30 - 39-hour part-time employees). ii. Ineligibility: 1) Employees are ineligible if their employment terminates for any reason. 2) If the Volunteer leave program is discontinued for any reason, all leave previously granted and unused will become null and void. 3) The Town reserves the right to modify, amend, suspend or discontinue the program at any time without prior notice. 4) The Town reserves the right to revoke previous approval if it is determined the employee is misusing the program. iii. Leave Authorization: 1) Volunteer leave shall be requested in advance and is granted at the discretion of each employee’s supervisor. 2) Employees must receive the approval of their supervisor for the use of volunteer leave. It is the responsibility of the supervisor to ensure the leave approved is in compliance with the requirements of this policy. 2) Work demands shall take priority over the volunteer leave request. 3) Volunteer leave may be used individually or with other employees as a team volunteer activity. 4) Volunteer leave shall not be used in the computation of overtime and compensatory time. iv. Use of Volunteer Leave: 1) Volunteer leave must be used during the year accrued or it will be forfeited on December 31st. 2) Employees will be paid at their regular wage for volunteer leave hours. Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 16 of 17 3) Following the use of volunteer leave, the employee must enter the time into Paylocity using the Volunteer Leave code and insert a note regarding the project. 4) Examples of appropriate volunteer leave include but are not limited to: a. Working with an organization to clean up a road or trail. b. Performing restoration work in a natural area. c. Volunteering at a food bank. d. Participating in childhood mentoring or educational programs. 5) Examples of inappropriate volunteer leave include but are not limited to: a. Taking a ski vacation and charitably giving ski lessons. b. Attending your child’s PTA conference. c. Canvassing for a political campaign. d. Religious, professional, or political activities. e. Town events associated with an employee’s normal job duties per the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 6) Volunteer Leave may be used in one day or spread over the calendar year in one (1) hour increments, depending on the work needs of the employee’s department and supervisor approval. 7) Volunteer Leave shall be used for nonprofits and taxing districts within the Park R-3 School District boundary. The organization must serve the Estes Valley. 8) Situations not addressed in this policy would require the approval of the Town Administrator. q. Education Leave Eligible employees, when necessary, and upon approval of the Department Director, may be granted a maximum of four hours per week of paid educational leave to attend classes (see Policy 305.f for more information). For the purposes of this policy, Town- sponsored and/or mandatory training is not considered education leave. r. Leave without Pay i. Eligibility Any full-time, part-time employee and contract employee in good standing is eligible for leave without pay. ii. Benefit When in the best interests of the Town and the employee, the Town Administrator may grant a leave without pay to any eligible employee for a period of up to three (3) months. Such leave shall not constitute a break in employment, and the employee shall return to his or her position at the expiration of the leave period. Temporary help may be obtained during the employee’s absence. iii. Interaction with other Benefits Annual and sick leave shall not accrue while the employee is on leave without pay. Failure to return to work at the expiration of a leave of absence shall be considered Document Title Policy 306 - Leave 7/20/22 Revisions: 4 Town of Estes Park, Human Resources Page 17 of 17 a resignation. If applicable, leave without pay may run concurrently with FMLA leave subject to required medical certification. The employee will be responsible for all insurance premiums, and must pay these in advance of leave. iv. Requesting Leave without Pay In order to request a leave without pay, an employee shall submit a written request to his or her Department Director. Requests for leave without pay will be considered in the following manner: 1) If the request is for two (2) days or less, and will not exceed the two (2) days per month limitation, the Department Director may approve, deny, or change the requested leave. 2) If the request is for three (3) or more days, or if the two (2) days per month limitation is to be exceeded, the Department Director shall forward this request to Human Resources and the Town Administrator along with a recommendation to approve, deny, or change the requested amount of leave. In this case, the Town Administrator makes the final determination on whether to approve, deny, or change the requested amount of leave without pay. Approved: _____________________________ Wendy Koenig, Mayor _____________ Date       TOWN ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE Report To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator Date: July 26, 2022 RE: Discuss Request from the Estes Park Housing Authority to Provide Financial Support for Land-Banking Opportunity Objective: Discuss the potential use of Town funds to assist the Estes Park Housing Authority with the purchase of a property located at 0 Mary’s Lake Road, which would eventually be used to develop workforce and/or attainable housing. Present Situation: A property located at 0 Mary’s Lake Road recently became available for sale. The property is 11.35 acres with an asking price of $1,375,000. Located in the County (outside of Town limits), the property is currently zoned E (Estate). The market listing with additional details is attached to this memo. Upon learning of this opportunity, the Estes Park Housing Authority approached Town staff to discuss the potential for financial assistance to purchase the property as a land- banking opportunity for future workforce housing and, depending on the financing options available, possibly for other required pre-development costs. Attached to this Report is the formal written request sent to the Town Board from the Housing Authority on July 14. The memo outlines four potential “partnership opportunities” for consideration. Proposal: Staff proposes that the Town Board discuss whether to provide financial assistance to the Estes Park Housing Authority to purchase the property located at 0 Mary’s Lake Road (assuming it is still on the market at the time the Board is considering the request or will be back on the market in the near future). If the Board indicates a desire to proceed, formal approval and allocation of funds would occur through a budget amendment. Per Town Policy 227: Workforce Housing Guidelines, the Town’s role with respect to workforce housing includes: o Support the Estes Park Housing Authority both financially and as an active partner and participant in its housing development and strategic planning efforts. o Provide financial support for the development of workforce housing. o Work with Larimer County to further the Town’s workforce housing goals within the school district in areas that fall outside of Town limits. Regarding the use of funds from the Workforce Housing Reserve, Policy 227 states that funds can be used for the “acquisition of real property to be used for workforce housing,” and for “pre-development activities for developments that offer workforce housing.” The Town’s Workforce Housing Reserve currently has a balance of $500,000. Advantages: • Land-banking property as it becomes available is a common method of securing property for future development. Disadvantages: • Because the property is located outside of Town limits, there is uncertainty regarding the amount of density that could be permitted on the site. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the use of up to $415,000 from the Workforce Housing Reserve to assist the Estes Park Housing Authority with the purchase of the property at 0 Mary’s Lake Road for land-banking, recognizing that there may be further opportunities to assist financially with the development of workforce and/or attainable housing on the property in the future. Finance/Resource Impact: Budget account number: 101-1945-419-37-98 Account name: Workforce Housing Reserve Level of Public Interest High Attachments: 1. Market Listing for 0 Mary’s Lake Road 2. Written Request from the Estes Park Housing Authority 7/6/22, 9:38 AM Listing Detail for 0 Mary's Lake Rd https://www.iresis.com/cwa/link/listing?llid=ybp8xng3r4w&lid=1272425 1/5 Report created on Jul 2, 2022 by Eric Blackhurst 0 Mary's Lake Rd Estes Park, CO 80517 Vacant Land/Lots $1,375,000  Est. Payment: $5,674.05 IRES MLS # 969998 For Sale 11.35 Acres EV E Zoning 494,406 SqFt Lot Larimer County Has 1st HOA: No  Summaries 1 of 1 11.35 acres adjacent to Marys Lake Road Attachment 1 7/6/22, 9:38 AM Listing Detail for 0 Mary's Lake Rd https://www.iresis.com/cwa/link/listing?llid=ybp8xng3r4w&lid=1272425 2/5 NA Subdivision Rarely does one see an opportunity like this one come on the market... Over 11 acres of pristine, level land with panoramic views into Rocky Mountain National Park, private spring-fed ponds, mature Ponderosa pines and 5 minutes to just about anything you'll need. Lots of peace & quiet, abundant wildlife & those big blue Colorado skies. Multiple access points, all city utilities available and ready for subdividing or to create your own private oasis. Act sooner than later, as this is a once-in-a lifetime offering at $1,375,000. View this property on Google Maps General Features # Living Units Allowed See Remarks Lot Improvements Street Paved, Fire Hydrant within 500 Feet Dev Status Undeveloped, Zoned for Development Horse Property Horse(s) Allowed Fences Partially Fenced Legal Description:BEG AT PT 469.19 FT E OF CEN 35-5-73, TH N 89 16' 34" E 446.86 FT; TH S 01 45' 33" W 637.5 FT; TH S 89 16' 34" E (W) 420 FT; TH S 01 45' 33" W 652.26 FT, SD PT BEING SE COR FERGUSON; TH S 89 25' 44" W 980.31 FT; TH IN N Schools School District Estes Park District Elementary Estes Park Estes Park Middle/Jr High Estes Park High Estes Park Resource Rights Has Irr Water Rights No Has Irr Ditches No Taxes and Fees Taxes/Tax Year $5,069.81 / 2021 Metro Dist - Utilities W /S Ci W Ci S Streets © OpenStreetMap contributors 7/6/22, 9:38 AM Listing Detail for 0 Mary's Lake Rd https://www.iresis.com/cwa/link/listing?llid=ybp8xng3r4w&lid=1272425 3/5 Water/Sewer City Water, City Sewer Utilities Electric, Cable TV Available, Electricity at Property, Satellite Avail, High Speed Avail Documents / Floor Plans Additional Property Remarks/Brochure Surveys & Plat Maps (Copyright Release Required) Surveys & Plat Maps (Copyright Release Required) Surveys & Plat Maps (Copyright Release Required) Wire Disclosure Form Additional Features Possible Usage Single Family, Farm/Ranch Location Description Corner Lot, Wooded Lot, Evergreen Trees, Deciduous Trees, Native Grass, Level Lot, Rock Out-Croppings, Abuts Pond/Lake, Meadow, House/Lot Faces N, House/Lot Faces S, House/Lot Faces W, Mountains Driving Directions South of Spring Street along Marys Lake Road Walkscore 7/6/22, 9:38 AM Listing Detail for 0 Mary's Lake Rd https://www.iresis.com/cwa/link/listing?llid=ybp8xng3r4w&lid=1272425 5/5 Visit Office Website Listing Agent: Christian J. Collinet | Listing Office: First Colorado Realty Information deemed reliable but not guaranteed. MLS content and images copyright 1995-2022, IRES LLC. All rights reserved. WARNING: This database record is provided subject to limited license rights. Duplication or reproduction is prohibited. DMCA Notice Accessibility: IRES MLS is conducting periodic site audits in order to identify potential accessibility issues and is implementing changes to improve accessibility. For more information, contact IRES. Estes Park �Housing Authority July 8, 2022 Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and Staff RE: Request of Funds for Housing Development Opportunity 'O Mary's Lake Rd.' Dear Board of Trustees and Staff, The Estes Park Housing Authority is formally requesting funds on behalf of the Estes Park community to further the development of attainable housing in the Estes Valley. Outlined below is a description of the opportunity, along with the funding request partnership opportunities which would be used to fund the acquisition of 'O Mary's Lake Rd.' The funding request ranges from $412,500 to $1,375,000 in a combination of direct funding and/or loan structures. Historical Context and Example During consideration of this partnership opportunity, please reflect on the positive impact a partnership enacted in 2006 between the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) and the Town of Estes Park (TOEP) had. In 2006 EPHA borrowed $2.7 million dollars to purchase and redevelop 48 units. Half of the development was set aside to serve as income-qualified rentals for our 55+ population. The other half was repositioned and offered ownership opportunities. The original loan was paid back in full with interest to the Town of Estes Park. Fast forward 14 years, in 2020 EPHA leveraged this fully owned asset for $700,000 to use as part of the equity investment in the development of Peak View, our 26-unit workforce apartment complex. Financial partnerships of this nature highlight the residual positive impact potential. The original loan provided by the Town of Estes Park resulted in the development of 23 condo ownership opportunities, 24-age & income-restricted rental opportunities, and 26 below-market rate workforce rental opportunities in the Estes Valley. Property Details -'0 Mary's Lake Rd.' Listing price: $1,375,000 I 11.35 Acres I Located in Larimer County I Zoning: EVE (two dwellings per acre) Preliminary Development Vision The Estes Park Housing Authority's preliminary vision and intent are to complete the acquisition and due diligence for a single-family home ownership development. Market research has indicated residents of the Estes Valley desire additional homeownership opportunities. The goal of the development would be to provide single-family detached dwellings for purchase with an income cap target of 150% or less of Area Median Income (AMT) (2022 = $144,900 3-person household). This vision and plan are subject to revision as the land could possibly support an increase in density allowing for multiple housing styles on the same site. (subject to rezoning or other land use amendment/approval process through Larimer County). Established Need Housing needs in the Estes Valley cover the ENTIRE housing spectrum from income-qualified to ownership up to and beyond the 200% AMI level. Solutions are needed across the spectrum. According to the 2016 Housing Needs Assessment (2016 HNA) about 39% of units needed should be for homeownership. This would equate to between 590 -650 based on the 2016 needs assessment. Also according to the 2016 needs assessment, affordable homeownership prices should range between $300,000 to $700,000 (based on 2016 figures 8% appreciation annually). Preferred product types identified in the 2016 HNA are single-family, townhomes, and duplexes. A key recommendation from the 2016 HNA was, "Pursue the development of additional ownership housing immediately .. .'' Also taken from the 2016 HNA, " ... entry-level ownership seems to be the most in-demand, but the shortage is extensive." Attachment 2 PartnershiQ OQQOrtunit)l One -Loan OQtlon PartnershiQ OQQortunit)l Two -DirectLCash Funding Sales Price $ 1,375,000 Sales Price $ 1,375,000 Down Payment 5.5% 30 Year TOEP to EPHA Loan $ 1,375,000 (50%) $ 687,500 Amortization 2.75% defer 36 months 15 Carrying Cost (24 $4,000 Per 10 year Amortization months) $ 96,000 Month Or other agreeable terms with TOEP Pre-development 100,000 Estimate Total Cash Commitment or Total Loan Commitment 1,315,000 Loan Option 883,500 PartnershiQ OQQOrtunit)l Three -DirectlCash Funding PartnershiQ OQQOrtunitv Four -Direct Funding Sales Price $ 1,375,000 Sales Price $ 1,375,000 5.5% 30 Year Down Payment 5.5% 30 Year Down Payment (30%) $ 412,500 Amortization (30%) $ 412,500 Amortization $5,500 Per Carrying Cost (24 months) $ 132,000 Month Pre-development $ 100,000 Estimate Total Cash Commitment Total or Loan Option 5g�hSOO Commitment g1z,soo 1 PROCEDURE FOR LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Applicable items include: Annexation, Amended Plats, Boundary Line Adjustments, Development Plans, Rezoning, Special Review, Subdivision 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEM 1.A, ORDINANCE 11-22 REZONE TOWN-OWNED PARCEL 3522400923 FROM RURAL ESTATE RE-1 TO TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-2.  At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, from the Applicant, public comment, and written comments received on the application.  Has any Trustee had any ex-parte communications concerning this application(s) which are not part of the Board packet.  Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public hearing which may be responded to at that time.  Mayor declares the Public Hearing open. 2. STAFF REPORT.  Review the staff report.  Review any conditions for approval not in the staff report. 3. APPLICANT.  The applicant makes their presentation. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT.  Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the application. All individuals must state their name and address for the record. Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per person. 5. REBUTTAL. 2  The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal that is limited to or in response to statements or questions made after their presentation. No new matters may be submitted. 6. MAYOR.  Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application which are not in the Board packet.  Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the application.  Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications presented will be accepted as part of the record.  Declare the public hearing closed.  Request Board consider a motion. 7. SUGGESTED MOTION.  Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. 8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. Discussion by the Board on the motion. 9. VOTE ON THE MOTION. Vote on the motion or consideration of another action. To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director Date: July 26, 2022 RE: Ordinance 11-22 Rezone Town-Owned Parcel 3522400923 from Rural Estate RE-1 to Two-Family Residential R-2 (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Conduct a public hearing to review a Town-initiated Code Amendment (Rezoning) from the RE-1 (Rural Estate) Zoning District to R-2 (Two-Family Residential) Zoning District for a Town-owned parcel at 800 Castle Mountain Road, review the request for compliance with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and Estes Park Development Code (EPDC), and render a decision to approve, deny, or continue the item. Present Situation: The RE-1 Zoning District is a low-density, large-lot residential zoning district with a very small presence in Estes Park. Only three parcels are zoned RE-1 in Town, and none of them are developed for single-family use. Of the three parcels zoned RE-1, two are owned and managed by the National Park Service, which is petitioning to disconnect the parcels from Estes Park. The one remaining westernmost parcel (800 Castle Mountain Road) above the Castle Mountain Road cul-de-sac is owned by the Town of Estes Park, and is the site of a large water tank. The Zone District’s creation pre-dates the Joint Planning Area and the adoption of the former Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) in Nov. 1999, and the wholesale Valley-wide rezoning that accompanied those changes. Although the history is unclear, staff has anecdotal evidence that the Zoning District was originally created by Larimer County in the early- to mid-1990s – pre-dating the EVDC, although not by many years. Before Nov. 1999, RE-1 zoning only applied to land in unincorporated Larimer County, as the Town had no RE-1 or equivalent Zoning District. Memo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff has also submitted a request to amend the Estes Park Development Code to eliminate the RE- 1 Zoning District, which affects the three parcels mentioned above. Since The National Park Service is petitioning to disconnect the two parcels (and an additional parcel not associated with this request) from the Town, the only affected parcel is Parcel 3522400923, which if approved, would be zoned as R-2 to reflect the adjacent parcel zoning designations. Proposal: Staff is seeking approval to rezone the RE-1-zoned parcel to R-2. The purpose for rezoning the parcel is also detailed in the accompanying staff request for a Code Amendment to eliminate the RE-1 Zone District, and staff requests to change the zoning of the Town-owned parcel from RE-1 to R-2 to remove the defunct Zoning designation and reflect the surrounding zoning of the adjacent parcels. An additional rationale for the rezone request pertains to the acreage of the parcel, which does not meet the development standards for RE-1 currently. RE-1-zoned sites require a maximum of one unit per ten acres, and the site acreage is 4.07 acres, which falls below the minimum threshold for development. The Town has no stated intention to redevelop the parcel, and anticipates the site being used indefinitely for water storage. Location and Context: Map 1 Zoning Map Map 2 Project Location Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses Parcel 3522400923 Public (INS) RE-1 (Rural Estate) Water Storage North Parks, Recreation, Open Space Federal Land (N/A) RMNP South Residential R-2 Residential East Rural Estate RE-1 (Rural Estate) RMNP West Rural Estate R-2 Residential Project Analysis: The text amendments comply with EPDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for Review). All applications for Town-Initiated Code Amendments (Rezonings) shall be reviewed by the Estes Park Planning Commission and Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of the EPDC. In accordance with Section 3.3.D. “Standards for Review”, all applications for rezoning shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria as follows: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. Staff Finding: Affirmative. Staff recommends the Planning Commission and Town Board eliminate the RE-1 Zoning District from the EPDC, and if approved, this parcel will require a new Zoning designation to complement the surrounding parcels, which is R-2. 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with the existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. Staff Finding: Not applicable. The development plan for this application has been waived as there are no changes in use or intensity of use to the site being proposed with this application. Staff has routinely waived this requirement in recent years, per authority of EPDC §3.3.B.1. 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Staff Finding: Affirmative. Staff finds that the Town maintains the ability to provide adequate services and facilities to this location, and comments received from affected agencies indicate no concern with the proposal, including the Utilities Department. Reviewing Agency Comments: Staff consulted with the Town Utilities Department regarding the proposed amendment. The Town has no other identified uses for its property, aside from the storage tank. Water tanks and similar utility infrastructure are an allowed use by right in all zoning districts. Based on discussions with the Town Utilities Dept., the Town-owned parcel is not likely to redevelop, and if this changes, the Zoning designation will mirror adjacent parcels (R-2). No objection or concern about zoning changes to the remaining one parcel has been noted. Advantages: • Generally complies with the EPDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. • Rezones a parcel to align with adjacent surroundings and to remove a Zoning designation that will no longer be in effect, if approved. • Provides for the opportunity to simplify the Development Code and rezone the Town- owned parcel to a more complementary designation in the area. Disadvantages: • There may be the impression that “it’s not broken, so why fix it?” Staff would suggest that waiting until something breaks, and then trying to fix it, isn’t good planning. If the Code Amendment request is approved, there is no RE-1 Zone District, and this site will require a new Zoning designation. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning request as proposed. Budget: None. Level of Public Interest: Medium, in conjunction with the proposed Code Amendment. Staff held an online neighborhood meeting via Zoom on Monday, November 1, 2021. To review the meeting recording, please use this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1- Z__boustY8jeDK0zHB63Rhz5i57GJJ_/view?usp=sharing The meeting was attended by seven community members, and questions ranged from the use of the Town-owned parcel and if it would change, and if the National Park Service had plans for their parcels, which the NPS does not have plans to develop, but in the current circumstances, they are not required to comply with local codes and regulations. A question was posed about how people would be notified about the RMNP disconnection when it goes to the Town Board for review, and the sites will be posted with a sign, along with a notification to adjacent property owners, on the Town’s website, and in the newspaper. Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with Town and State public noticing requirements. As of the time of writing this report no other public inquiries were received aside from the inquiries during the neighborhood meeting, noted above. • Legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on July 1, 2022. • Information was posted on the Town’s “Code Amendments” webpage as of June 3, 2022. Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC public noticing requirements. As of the time of writing this report, no written comments have been received for the application. Written comments will be posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications, if received after finalization of this staff memo. Sample Motions: • I move to approve Ordinance 11-22. • I move to deny Ordinance 11-22, finding that … [state findings for denial]. • I move to continue Ordinance 11-22 to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Attachments: 1. Ordinance 11-22 2. Water Division email 3. Exhibit A: Photos of Public Notice Signs ORDINANCE NO. 11-22 AN ORDINANCE REZONING A PROPERTY AT 800 CASTLE MOUNTAIN ROAD FROM RE-1 (RURAL ESTATE) TO R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) WHEREAS, Town-owned parcel 3522400923, located at 800 Castle Mountain Road and described in the attached Exhibit A, is currently zoned RE-1 (Rural Estate); and WHEREAS, the Town is proposing a Code Amendment to eliminate the RE-1 zoning district also at the July 26, 2022 Town Board meeting; and WHEREAS, the Town (as owner/applicant) has requested that the property be rezoned to R-2 (Two-Family Residential) to reflect the adjacent parcel zoning designations; and WHEREAS, the Estes Park Planning Commission has recommended approval of the rezoning as proposed; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that the rezoning application meets all review criteria of the Estes Park Development Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The application for rezoning from RE-1 to R-2 is hereby approved. The Town Administrator or designee shall record this Ordinance with the County Clerk and Recorder. The effective date of this rezoning shall be the date that this Ordinance is recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder. To the extent only that they conflict with this Ordinance, the Council repeals any conflicting ordinances or parts of ordinances. Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced 30 days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado this ____ day of _______________, 2022. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2022 and published by title in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2022, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Attachment 1 EXHIBIT A Legal Description BEG AT E 1/4 COR 22-5-73, S 0 36' W ALG SEC LN 221.07 FT, S 72 30' W 527.48 FT, N 17 30' W 409.13 FT TO N LN SE 1/4, S 89 1' 30" E ALG SD N LN 628.57 FT TPOB Re: Rezoning Castle Mtn. water tank property to R-2 Inbox Chris Eshelman 4:07 PM (11 minutes ago) Repl y to all to me, Reuben, Steven, Travis, Jessica, Planning Hi Randy, The Water Division has no issues with the zoning change. At this time, we have no plans to develop for a different use. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Chris On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 8:51 AM Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> wrote: Reuben, Steve, Chris, As noted last week, Planning Commission has asked that we move ahead on eliminating the RE-1 Zoning District. Doing so would be we have to rezone the water tank property to another zoning district, since we can't legally have property zoned for a district that doesn't exist. The water tank site is the only Town property affected. The other two parcels on the attached map are National Park; we're working with them on rezoning for those. All Estes Park zoning districts allow utility infrastructure, so in one sense the choice doesn't matter. Other things equal, it's a best practice to have zoning districts match the zoning around them and nearby. The map shows adjacent properties in Town are all zoned R-2 (Two Family Residential.) Rezoning the tank property would not change any existing land-use permissions for the property or structure, and wouldn't involve any changes on the ground. Do you have any concerns if the tank property is rezoned to R-2? If no concerns, could one of you please email planning@estes.org with a statement that Utilities / Water Division has no objection to this rezoning? I would say it's also helpful if you can state in the email that Utilities has no plans to develop the property for two-family residential use. That will help calm community concerns if any emerge. We're looking at holding a neighborhood meeting in early November, and we'll invite you to attend. The Planning Commission public hearing is expected on Nov. 16, and Town Board will hold a final hearing later - the Dec. 14 TB seems to be a likely date. Attachment 2 None of these would be mandatory attendance, but I think it wouldn't be a bad idea, especially the neighborhood meeting. We're happy to answer any questions or discuss further as you wish. Thanks, RAH ----- Randy Hunt Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 direct: 970-577-3719 (working remotely; email is preferred) main: 970-577-3721 email: rhunt@estes.org http://www.estes.org -- Chris Eshelman Water Superintendent, Town of Estes Park 970-577-3630 ceshelman@estes.org 3 ..1, (. E, lJ 10 13 14 15 18 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL UNDER REVIEW FOR THIS PROPERTY Attachment 3 7/27/2022 1 Zone Change Request Board of Trustees July 26, 2022 Community Development Director Jessica Garner, AICP Three parcels are affected*, all are publicly owned: •Owned by the Town, currently contains a water tower (above Castle  Mountain Rd)‐no other use is intended for the site * Two  are RMNP parcels, part of Disconnection request 800 Castle Mountain Road Zoned RE‐1 4.07 acres Parcel #3522400923 1 2 7/27/2022 2 Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses Parcel 3522400923 Public (INS) RE-1 (Rural Estate) Water Storage North Parks, Recreation, Open Space Federal Land (N/A) RMNP South Residential R-2 Residential East Rural Estate RE-1 (Rural Estate) RMNP West Rural Estate R-2 Residential RE-1 RURAL ESTATE ZONE DISTRICT: •Established to protect and preserve some of the most rural areas of the Estes Valley in which significant view sheds, woodlands, rock outcroppings, ridgelines, other sensitive environmental areas and low-density residential development comprise the predominant land use pattern. This zone implements the "Rural Estate (RE-1)" future land use designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The district regulations allow for the development of low-density single- family residential uses, generally at densities no greater than one (1) dwelling unit per ten (10) acres. 3 4 7/27/2022 3 R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT •Established to encourage development of relatively denser residential housing, including two-family dwellings (duplexes) as well as single-family detached housing, primarily within the town limits of Estes Park. •Implements the "Two-Family (R-2)" future land use designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. District regulations will allow a minimum lot area of eighteen thousand (18,000) square feet for single-family uses and twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet for two-family dwellings (duplexes). •Government Facilities are permitted in all Residential Districts Why Rezone the parcel? 1. If the amendment is approved, the RE-1 Zoning District will no longer exist in Estes Park. 2. The parcel is 4.07 acres, which doesn’t comply with development regulations for RE-1. 3. No proposed changes to the parcel’s current use, this Zoning District is consistent with surrounding R-2 parcels. 5 6 7/27/2022 4 Standards & Criteria for Review 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas  affected.  •Affirmative. Staff recommends the Planning Commission and Town  Board eliminate the RE‐1  Zoning District from the EPDC, and if approved, this parcel will require a new Zoning designation  to complement the surrounding parcels, which is R‐2.  2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would  allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the  Comprehensive Plan and with the existing growth and development  patterns in the Estes Valley •Not applicable. The development plan for this application has been waived as there are no  changes in use or intensity of use to the site being proposed with this application. Staff has  routinely waived this requirement in recent years, per authority of EPDC §3.3.B.1. 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability  to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the  application were approved.  •Staff finds that the Town  maintains the ability to provide adequate services and facilities to this  location, and comments received from affected agencies indicate no concern with the proposal,  including the Utilities Department.  Next Steps •The Planning Commission recommends approval of the R‐2 Zoning  District change to the Town  Board 7 8 7/27/2022 5 Questions, Comments? 9       1 PROCEDURE FOR LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Applicable items include: Annexation, Amended Plats, Boundary Line Adjustments, Development Plans, Rezoning, Special Review, Subdivision 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEM 1.B, ORDINANCE 12-22 PARCEL DISCONNECTION REQUESTS FROM ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK PER §31-12-501(3), C.R.S.  At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, from the Applicant, public comment, and written comments received on the application.  Has any Trustee had any ex-parte communications concerning this application(s) which are not part of the Board packet.  Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public hearing which may be responded to at that time.  Mayor declares the Public Hearing open. 2. STAFF REPORT.  Review the staff report.  Review any conditions for approval not in the staff report. 3. APPLICANT.  The applicant makes their presentation. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT.  Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the application. All individuals must state their name and address for the record. Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per person. 5. REBUTTAL. 2  The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal that is limited to or in response to statements or questions made after their presentation. No new matters may be submitted. 6. MAYOR.  Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application which are not in the Board packet.  Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the application.  Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications presented will be accepted as part of the record.  Declare the public hearing closed.  Request Board consider a motion. 7. SUGGESTED MOTION.  Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. 8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. Discussion by the Board on the motion. 9. VOTE ON THE MOTION. Vote on the motion or consideration of another action. To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director Date: July 26, 2022 RE: Ordinance 12-22 Parcel Disconnection Requests from Rocky Mountain National Park per §31-12-501(3), C.R.S. (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider a Disconnection petition for compliance with Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). Present Situation: The National Park Service acquired three parcels, approximately 91.7 acres in size, in the mid- 2000s in order to protect bighorn sheep habitat and prevent further development adjacent to Rocky Mountain National Park. Two of the lots are zoned RE-1, and one is zoned RE, and all three parcels border the Town boundaries on the north side of Fall River Road. The Park Service is petitioning the Town to disconnect the three parcels from the Town, and has already completed a minor boundary revision to incorporate the sites into the Park. None of the parcels have been developed, and all are vacant of structures. Two of the three parcels are incorporated in the Town’s proposal to eliminate the RE-1 Zoning District from the Development Code, and more information regarding that request will be considered by the Town Board on July 26th, and is included the packet. Memo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Location and Context: Map 1 Project Location Map 2 Zoning Map Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses Parcel 352318901 Rural Estate RE-1 (Rural Estate) RMNP North Parks, Recreation, Open Space Federal Land (N/A) RMNP South Accommodations MF (Multi-Family) Residential East Rural Estate RE (Rural Estate) RMNP West Rural Estate R-2 Residential Table 1a: Zoning and Land Use Summary Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses Parcel 3523322901 Rural Estate RE (Rural Estate) RMNP North Parks, Recreation, Open Space Federal Land (N/A) RMNP South Accommodations RM, A Residential, Accommodations East Rural Estate RE-1 (Rural Estate) RMNP West Rural Estate RE-1 RMNP Table 1b: Zoning and Land Use Summary Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses Parcel 3523400914 Rural Estate RE-1 (Rural Estate) RMNP North Parks, Recreation, Open Space Federal Land (N/A) RMNP South Accommodations A (Accommodations) Accommodations East Rural Estate Larimer County Vacant West Rural Estate RE RMNP Proposal: The Applicant submitted a petition to disconnect the 91+ acres from the Town of Estes Park, for jurisdictional, planning and law-enforcement purposes. The land was acquired by the Park Service in order to extend the Park’s boundaries further south, protect bighorn sheep habitat, and prevent development from advancing closer to the Park. The parcels are not developed, and the Park Service states in their application that there are no plans to develop the sites. Per Colorado Revised Statutes, the Town is obligated to "give due consideration to the disconnection application, and, if such governing body is of the opinion that the best interests of the municipality will not be prejudiced by the disconnection of such tract, it shall enact an ordinance effecting such disconnection." (§ 31-12-501(3), C.R.S.) Town staff referred the petition to reviewing agencies, including Larimer County, in accordance with CRS § 31-12-501(1)-(2). The statute requires the following: “The owner shall also provide notice and a copy of the application [for disconnection] to the board of county commissioners of the county in which the tract of land that is the subject of the application is located and to the board of directors of any affected special district. . .. Not more than thirty days after receiving the notice required by subsection (1) of this section, either the board of county commissioners or the board of directors of any affected special district may request a meeting with the owner and the governing body of the municipality, or its appointee, to discuss and address any negative impacts on the county that would result from the disconnection. If such meeting is requested, the owner and the governing body or its appointee shall meet with either the board of county commissioners, or its appointee, or the board of any affected special district, or its appointee, not more than thirty days after the meeting was requested. Failure by either the board of county commissioners or the board of any affected special district to request a meeting constitutes an acknowledgment by the particular board that the disconnection will not adversely affect the county or an affected special district, as applicable.” Larimer County staff had no comments on the request, and did not request a meeting. Advantages: • The disconnection doesn’t negatively impact adjacent property owners, and has no financial impact on the Town. • The parcels will not be developed, which provides additional open space on the north side of Fall River Road. Disadvantages: • There aren’t any discernable disadvantages to the disconnection. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the Disconnection request, per § 31-12-501(3), of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Budget: None. Level of Public Interest: Medium. Staff held an online neighborhood meeting via Zoom on Monday, November 1, 2021. To review the meeting recording, please use this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1- Z__boustY8jeDK0zHB63Rhz5i57GJJ_/view?usp=sharing The meeting was attended by seven community members, and questions ranged from the use of the Town-owned parcel and if it would change, and if the National Park Service had plans for their parcels, which the NPS does not have plans to develop, but in the current circumstances, they are not required to comply with local codes and regulations. A question was posed about how people would be notified about the RMNP disconnection when it goes to the Town Board for review, and the sites will be posted with a sign, along with a notification to adjacent property owners, on the Town’s website, and in the newspaper. Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with Town and State public noticing requirements. As of the time of writing this report no other public inquiries were received aside from the inquiries during the neighborhood meeting, noted above. • Legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on July 1, 2022. • Information was posted on the Town’s “Code Amendments” webpage as of June 3, 2022. Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC public noticing requirements. As of the time of writing this report, no written comments have been received for the application. Written comments will be posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications if received after finalization of this staff memo. Sample Motions: • I move to approve Ordinance 12-22. • I move to deny Ordinance 12-22, finding that … [state findings for denial]. • I move to continue Ordinance 12-22 to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Attachments: 1. Ordinance 12-22 2. Application Packet 3. Application Comments 4. Plat ORDINANCE NO. 12-22 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE DISCONNECTION FROM THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK OF THREE PARCELS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF FALL RIVER ROAD AND OWNED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WHEREAS, the National Park Service has applied for disconnection of the three parcels described in Exhibit A from the Town of Estes Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Board hereby finds and determines that the best interests of the Town will not be prejudiced by the requested disconnection, that this disconnection does not conflict with any state statute, and that this disconnection is authorized under section 31-12-501, C.R.S. The Board therefore approves and ratifies the application to disconnect the land described in the application. Section 2: The disconnection of property described in Exhibit A is hereby approved, and said property is hereby disconnected from within the boundaries of the Town of Estes Park. Upon approval, the Town Administrator or designee shall record this Ordinance with the County Clerk and Recorder and provide them copies thereof. The effective date of this disconnection shall be the date this Ordinance is recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder. Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication by title. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado this ____ day of _______________, 2022. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2022 and published by title in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2022, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Attachment 1 EXHIBIT A Legal Descriptions Parcel Number 3523318901: TRACT 69A, REPLAT TRACT 69, FALL RIVER ADDITION, EP Parcel Number 3523400914: TR IN SE1/4 OF 23-5-73, COM AT S1/4 COR OF SD SEC, TH N 0 21’ 34” E 1493.40 FT TO PT ON ROW LN OF HWY 34 AND TPOB; TH N 0 21’ 34” E 1175.37 FT TO C1/4 COR; TH N 89 59’ 43” E 1252.08 FT; TH S 0 37’ 52” Parcel Number 3523322901: LOT 1, CASTLE RIDGE MINOR SUBDIVISION, EP \ IN REPLY REFER TO: A3823 (ROMO) Jackie Williamson Town Clerk PO Box 1200 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Dear Ms. Williamson: United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Rocky Mountain National Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 DEC 1 3 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park is requesting that three Larimer County parcels be disconnected from the Town of Estes Park. These parcels were acquired in the mid 2000s and are wholly within the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park. A map is enclosed showing the location of these parcels and our overlapping boundaries. This letter serves as our statement of intent. The parcels are known as: Parcel Number: 3523318901 (the National Park Service calls this Tract 06-142) •TRACT 69A, REPLAT TRACT 69, FALL RIVER ADDITION, EP•First Replat of Tract 69 is enclosed; we did not locate a metes and bounds description in our files Parcel Number: 3523400914 (the National Park Service calls this Tract 10-110) •TR IN SEI/4 OF 23-5-73, COM AT S1/4 COR OF SD SEC, TH NO 21' 34" E 1493.40 FT TO PT ON ROW LN OF HWY 34 AND TPOB; TH NO 21' 34" E 1175.37 FT TO Cl/4 COR; TH N 89 59' 43" E 1252.08 FT; TH SO 37' 52•••Metes and bounds description is enclosed, which includes both parcel 3523400914 and 3523322901; it references Amended Plat of Tracts 65 & 66 Fall River Addition, which is enclosed Parcel Number: 3523322901 (the National Park Service calls this Tract 10-110) •LOT l, CASTLE RIDGE MINOR SUBDIVISION, EP (2001063951)•Plat of Castle Ridge Minor Subdivision is enclosed•Metes and bounds description is enclosed, which includes both parcel 3523400914 and 3523322901; it references Amended Plat of Tracts 65 & 66 Fall River Addition, which is enclosed All parcels are undeveloped and the park has no plans to develop them. The park acquired these parcels to protect bighorn sheep habitat and to prevent additional development adjacent to the park boundary. We completed a minor boundary revision that incorporated them into the park. The disconnection is necessary for jurisdictional purposes in both planning and law enforcement. Attachment 2 -----'-\ "loo --- I I I \ ...... -·· -,� I I ... b.,... ru.:•1;1"11• I ' �----------.. --------------------�----.... •-.....S.------··:i'i:------ ... ""' .;.: .. -�----... , .... ; .-··. ·--=�:.:·-.... -.. _ :···-.... _ ···-.. �. ··-·-�--.�·-- 3523318901 3523322901 .r--.----._ t'"' \ I 'i "" ·,. ------·-\ \') ... '-...,..-----·:)._ '-..., ' )1;:DOII' I );,_ .... Disconnection of U.S. Government Parcels from the Town of Estes Park ,...,�I---- "'' 41JUliC· "' .. ...., This rs not a legal documenr. It Is nor intended to replace official survey plats. It is to be used for basic reference only. r.:J NPS Tracts included in Petition L' Larimer County Parcel -Highway Roads -Park Boundary N W*E 0 0.05 0.1 I inch equals 600 feet Rodcy Mountain Nedoflll Pane .......,p.,._ -2021 0.2 Miles Prodl.ad B;· ROMO G.oepabal Program 0.... $cl.l,Q; NP$ Pen Oata, L.•imer County NAO 1983 201 I UTM Z«. 13N V ' ·- PETITION FOR DISCONNECTION TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: In accordance with Article 12, Title 31, CRS, 1973, as amended, the undersigned hereby petition the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado disconnection from the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, the following described unincorporated territory located in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to-wit: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel Number 3523318901 •TRACT 69A, REPLAT TRACT 69, FALL RIVER ADDITION, EP Parcel Number 3523400914 •TR IN SE1/4 OF 23-5-73, COM AT S1/4 COR OF SD SEC, TH NO 21' 34" E 1493.40 FT TO PT ON ROW LN OF HWY 34 AND TPOB; TH NO 21' 34" E 1175.37 FT TO C1/4 COR; TH N 89 59' 43" E 1252.08 FT; TH SO 37' 52" Parcel Number 3523322901 •LOT 1, CASTLE RIDGE MINOR SUBDIVISION, EP (2001063951) AND, in support of said Petition, petitioners state that: 1.It is desirable and necessary that the above-described territory be disconnected from the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. 2.The petitioner requests that the Town of Estes Park approve the disconnection of said property from the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. 3.The mailing address of the petitioner, the legal description of the land owned by the petitioner, and the date of signing are all shown on this petition. 4.Accompanying this petition are four (4) copies of an annexation map and digital file of the map containing the following information: a.A written legal description of the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed. b.A map showing the boundary of the area proposed to be disconnected. Page 1 of 2 Annexation Petition Property Owner Signature Printed Name: n� St 1::> \...E-S Date: _\ _'2_�_i_l,_· 1.._\ __ _ Address: �l� tv\.--y-WA, 10N� PMLl<----------+-. ------- } DOO � 3lo STATE OF COLORADO } } ss COUNTY OF LARIMER } The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this \to'°" day of �e&. , 20� by _l>Au,,,-.......,,-=-...._A......_..S_;i_�=-.z::ES::-... _______ _ Witness my hand and official seal this \\o-n" day of 1>� My commission expires: Q:1-M--AA� SEAL VZOZ·6Z·LO SBJ!dX3 UO!SS!WWO:) Al/'i czaaiov9 Loi• 01 f-JeloN opaJOIO:) jO 8l8lS 011qnd AJ&lON sij338 vn::101:,1A ANNna Annexation Petition , 20.:;;..;.�\.;..._' _ Page 2 of 2 Deed prepared by and to be returned to the National Park service Intermountain R egion Land Resources Program Center P.O. Box 728 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0728 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II 1-1dllllll llll llll Ill 1239786 SCOTT DOYLE, RECORDER, UIRil'IER COUNTY CO RCPTNi 2883-8134818 18/22/2883 89:86:49 PAG&S - 3 FG $18.11 DOC $1.18 WARRANTY DEED Rocky Mo�tain National Park Tract 10-110 STATE DOCUMENTARY FEE . � �. EXl:MPT ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST, a Colorado Non-profit Corporation, GRANTOR, for and in consideration of the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND N0/100 DOLLARS ($750,000.00), cash in hand paid to it by the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GRANTEE, and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has GRANTED, SOLO AND CONVEYED, and by these presents does hereby GRANT, SELL AND CONVEY unto the said GRANTEE, and unto its assigns forever, the following described lands lying in the County of Larimer and State of Colorado, to-wit: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATI'ACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF TOGETHER WITH all and singular the tenements, heredi taments, and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues, and profits thereof, and all the estate, title, claim or demand whatsoever of the GRANTOR. TOGETHER WITH the buildings and improvements thereon and all rights and appurtenances thereto. SUBJECT TO: (1) Existing easements of record for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads, pipelines, ditches, and canals; (2)Any oil, gas or mineral rights of record reserved to or outstanding in third parties. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above-described premises, together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereto in anywise belonging, unto the said GRANTEE, and unto its assigns forever; and GRANTOR does hereby bind itself, its suc cessors and assigns, to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND all and singular the said premises unto the said GRANTEE, and unto its assigns, against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof. The GRANTOR further remises, releases, and forever quitclaims to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and its assigns, all right, title, and interest which the GRANTOR may have in and to water rights, banks, beds, and wa.ters of any stream or river bord ering or traversing the said land to be conveyed and also all interest in and to any alleys, roads, streets, ways, strips, gores, or railroad rights-of-way abutting or adjoining said land, and in any means of ingres s or egress appurtenant thereto. The land is being acquired by the Department of the Interior, National Park Service. IN WITNESS WHERBOF, the said GRANTOR, through its d�ly appointed officer, has hereunto set hand and seal this� day of �P'Tl:/rl8f:J1.-20Q1. .. State of t(X0RIJIJO County of -LA/tlUIL'7/... ss. ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST, a Colorado Non-profit corporation ACKNOWLEDGMENT (-:(JI) Ke"NU.7f.l R.tX.IJl/tJIU, (/iJ!Jr/J/UT �1:7/'JILf Before me, the unaersign uthor:fty,· on this day personally appeared JAMBS V. WHITE, Vice President ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST, a Colorado Non-profit Corporation, known to me to be the person whose names is subscribed to the forego ing instrument, and acknowled ged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expres sed. Given under my hand and seal on this� day of S,f:keb•r , 2003. My commi ssion Expires: \\\1l,, \o5 d A -kflQ,_otary Pub ic ► ARBA: 63.38 ACRlfS� ROCltY MOllNTAIJI' NATIOlfAL PARlt DATB: February 25, 2002 DITBRBST TO BB ACQOIRBD, FBB-0 TRACT NO. 10-110 Situated in the State of Colorado, County of Larimer, in a portion of the South half of Section 23, of Township 5 North, Range 73 Neat of the 6th Principal Meridian, bei -,i 1110re particularly deacribed •• follow•: Parcel A Beginning at the center 1/4 corner of Section 23; Thence s.s9°53'32"N., 320.00 feet: Thence s.00•12•01••w., 1096.84 feet to the northerly right-of-way of u.s. Highway 341 Thence S.80°13'01"B., 103.92 feet along aaid right-of-way; Tbence continuing along aaid right-of-way S.73°55'0l"B., 226.16 feet to the north-south centerline of said Section 23; Thence N.00°12'07''B., 1175.70 feet to the Point of Beginning of Parcel A. Containing 8.32 acres, more or leaa. Parcel B The Weaterly 300.00 feet and the Northerly 570.00 feet of Tract 65A, Pall River Addition, except the Ba&terly 320.00 feet thereof. Containing, after exception, 14.70 acrea, more or lea■• Parcel C Beginning at the center 1/4 comer of section 23; Thence N.89°59'43''B., 1252.oa feet along the eaat-we■t centerline of aaid Section 23; Thence s.00•37•s2"B., 1364.10 feet; Thence s. 19•53 • 3 3" B. , 154. 59 feet; Thence s.27°24'00"N., 304.38 feet to the northerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway 34; Thence N.66°21'00"W., 603.53 feet along aaid right-of-way line; Thence N.67°22'00"W., 153.60 feet along aaid right-of-way line; Thence 115.50 feet along ■aid right-of-way line on the arc of a curve concave to the aoutbweat, aaid curve haa a radiua of 790.95 feet, a delta angle of oa•22•00", and i• aubtended by a cbord which bears N.71°33'W., 115.40 feet; Thence N.?5"44'00"W., 153.60 feet along aaid right-of-way line; Thence u.1s•4s•oo••w., 212.10 feet along said right-of-way line; Tbence N73"53'22''N., 74.09 feet; Thence"H.00•21•34,••s., 1175.3? feet along the north-south centerline of aaid Section 23 to the Point of Beginning of Parcel C. Containing 40.36 acres, more or leaa. The above-deacribed parcel, deaignated aa Tract 10-110 of Rocky MOuntain National Park, ia intended to be all that land deacribad in a warranty Deed to BSTBS VALLBY LAND TRUST, from James Ji'. Cook Family Truat, recorded April 13, 2001 a■ record• t2001021t12 and 1200�027413, and all that land deacribed in a Quit Claim Deed to BSTBS VALLBY LANO TROST, from Pieter Hondiua and Helen R. Hondiua, recorded December 27, 2000 •• RCPTH #2000087532, Larimer County. Reference is made to a aurvey entitled "Amended Plat of Tract■ 65 • 66 Fall River Addition, Subdiviaion of Portion• of the HBl/4 of the SNl/4 of Section 23-'' by William G. Van Hom, RCB S4B5. _,_., ,; .. l,., .. tte� r ....: .,, Cl.GI J t/T �\I CIIII'. ,-,, ilfi 3'7.:'_4/,� ...... . . lf1 ;;; I nH ..... 1 • AMENDED PLAT OF TRACTS 65 AND 66 FALL RIVER ADDITION, A SUBDIVISION OF PORTIONS OF THE NE 1 / 4 OF THE SW 1/4 Of SECTION 23, T5N, R73W, OF THE 6TH P.M., FALL RIVER ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO. �--•I•�-;::;: ====:::::::::::::::---::- �.,,: . I (�.:.i\ I I I ,..,,., MCI M� ' ' I U ... I ' .,....,,,a c,_.., ....... � ·v = iii<,, .. : ... ..., ....... ...._ -·------ Ii l� -HI. " .. nt I I I .. ,: .. # : , / r,.U,J,Qll.,,,,., ' .,,_ . I J � -�-� r� ... ax .. t=". �� i'.psr·:·: .t: ·rn·· 1�-�..,...'-W-'--. --� .......-. -- e!I s-1 'S' -... --�.,,., ...t;l ----------. ---------. ,•.t:.:r:,.� -.AO • :l:.t?..:O .... !L�.:r.�· z.:: :-.. -.. � �:;-;��-1-.... �� 111 !'E�4::"� ... .z.R;. --·s--a:�;":,w .. +.,v"r-'Z.. .. ==---=�r.:;r��i==-.. :=..· ... �--.:..� -u.r-'----. ._,.-_.__.._ ci:::.. • �-!!!.<i=-•.r:t--�· a-A.� .... s�� .. .t/:4,4r�c I,.:�-• -----.... , ... ,�· ��.,:ur:r�a=... ac......... f}.!:lll f I ·----·------·--.. -:a.-r:-=:-=--=...�-:=.�.::: ... T" --w �-�,---- :A.�-=--�-r-..:"' ....... � .................. �.:a.�.­ � -�t:Jif= &lf.C Mm«..,«< =.. .. :� ··-::-,,a;..-,.-��-:.=-...:.----... -�-,.:;,•� - ,, .. ~.-)-.lf�4,•----��. - � ...... '!llll .......... c.« ....... -.-.... .12.-----·- � a -•-an:ewr =- CASTLE RIDGE MINOR SUBDIV ISION OF TRACT 65A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF TRACTS 65 AND 66 FALL RIVER ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, LOCATED IN THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TSN, R73W OF THE 6th P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. ltOO<'l""°"H'IN�Mro.i.:_� � .. �, ..-q ·-· - .=------/-'-l.l•t,cCNI,,""" ::::u�t�:-1• ,w -1..s u , ,,,_a..,.,, =..It lfi r- 1� j.& 1 ........ , . .,,., .. � -I 1/r MAa CII'. IUI _ill' "T"' ;;� �§ �) •• 88 ., 'Rml•QIIIIMl P.Olll<GID ....... ,-.... a,""''� I\,_.,, .. _ tt--11,,r _.,.,_ •ll'WX"r ••01· r,,wvro 1,,..,1 :1; \� ii., UlL.J WJ. • 10022$1.39 SQ" (23.00I AICRES) Llll..2 _,. • 304754.U SG n (LIN ......,.) r,u, "'-<Ai --� •.:•,21:"'��· c:=::1:n . ..,., ...... �L ... 1 -� ·t:ll.:.,., .. !�!t ,�!�•""t -. .,.. .... ,.,a. ,. f/Gltt-1' ,,,, .... .,._ .,-,..,-q• • 111;.l.O .,,,._, •e:r---• NU.­(•-W• 11112•1 p-- .1:.•:----:"11 ---, . I :• I ,, I 1; I 8 I • , . I I , , I I I I I I '' I I ,,. ---=-�-... ,.,..,1/tlCOlt ,......,.,avr ....... _ •• �! .c " cc ii .. J;i iii �HI.. �-;H; ,an ""C "'C Jll<1.I! I �··-- � = ...,..., --!tit�"'-,..., taCJeoirrt.llCICllfa.i'11H� .... �---c,o,.....,,.r .. ,..a ® �...&:"..s� ,.....��·-l".t!snc�': .... ::t;.�� ...... rs,n..,.r, ... � j>Jl�.-»,,11111 CIIU-.co .. ,, -�--.... �-­fflf'S-,e.-,, £>;V.O:.: -,.,.....__ .. IICWftliCSV'lnwa:tn.....,..,_-...,.,.._'-_.._, =-��..:r:=-:r=.,;:.==:i:t:a"���...:... ,..........,10,......""o,."111C-otutor1-cl'l.• .... •.u-:"��-JU..=-.,'='����� ..,.'11-.n -wn, • r ••---•"" -,o, ,;,.'" lfli.c..,.. ----..0DC1 ..... llrlllltilrt: .. �10--�""'---­���,.,..llol ........ lO,-�f//l !--..ift-=.a.--:---:�'1!-.'IO��� ... ..,rrm o,.=•"' 'lf,,:,r� "' ...,..._4r� ����£�-:7:i ��='" =--��-J 1,�11•=-.i .. � .. --.=. "'«- r'!y ........ .;::: �-=-=-"".._�OU II' """'"--::"t� � ., --·--� . ...,...JD ' _ __, -P.r-4 "� "F wen:::e:tUIUCilS ��,--..... ----- ....... �• ..... 11'[0,��. �=����-�z :z;�•-,.oi-. ..1.#13....._,... �- nw, oocrr CA:Wttt .,. �_,.filC..,Dlll'IQll•UID......._UllmlDO.,.,t.Q.o-,.o,� � moma::amnc:rwwx,rr ............... ---.ort.Kl'\.-Cfltam•IIUltO�-,o.-.,,.n,a-,o,.1Mr,""-.ltt t•loa.lllCloCIIID --' �- ........... ...._,.._'"'� ........... u..,..,, ..,,..-. ........ _. .. ,,..... 1 "°1Cl:�-ca..wio-• ..... �-,nw.-..a ""°"-O(l'(C,,. • ._.._f!oCl«--11:A--.,l'llff�M> IIU(CI'. 1o,oncwi--c-...a,aa>,...,_..u,.., ... 1.......a-• -.n,IIQIIIJ_,fU,_JNlltMCUIMCfd'Orl.....,....,. 1,1� l!lf I l :z: :z: Q 0 Illetil �t) � ll::� 0� gi �0., rn 0:: r.:i rn 0 c,;� �r.:i ::r :i .u --�1-64-ts-"'1 1 1 --.tWi&�I0-01' ' I I 1/20/22, 7:58 AM Town of Estes Park Mail - Application Comments: RMNP Disconnection https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f7fd0cc745&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar6754987165862645547&simpl=msg-a%3Ar681612907…1/2 Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org> Application Comments: RMNP Disconnection 1 message Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org>Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 7:58 AM To: "Yost, Cheria K" <Cheri_Yost@nps.gov> Cc: Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> Good morning, Your application for the “RMNP Disconnection” request yielded the following comments after the first review: Advisory Comments. These comments are intended for future consideration and no immediate action is necessary. ESTES PARK PLANNING “The Estes Park Community Development Department (EP ComDev) notified Larimer County of the disconnection request by routing the application to the County's planning, building, and engineering divisions. No comments objecting the disconnection were received, and EP ComDev generally sees little impact on the County given the location of the subject parcels within the federally owned and managed National Park. At any rate, be advised that C.R.S. 31-12-501 (Disconnection/Notification of Board of County Commissioners) may apply to the application, and if so, ultimate compliance with this statute may be the responsibility of the applicant.” ESTES PARK ENGINEERING “Public Works finds that the application from RMNP to disconnect three parcels from the Town is acceptable. The resulting jurisdiction boundary change is logical. The following comments are applicable: Parcels 3523322901 and 3523400914 include frontage adjacent to Fall River Rd and W Wonderview Ave (same as State Highway 34). The [Colorado Department of Transportation] CDOT label for this highway is 034A (see attached map). Both currently and with the deannexation, the CDOT ROW boundary is expected to occur at the frontage property line for the parcels. [graphic representation attached] Upon official completion of the deannexation, FEMA will be notified that NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Number 08069C1093G should be updated with the new Jurisdiction Boundary. The SFHA does not occur on these parcels.” CDOT “Annexation, or in this case having parcels leave the town, typically is not a concern for the highway department… Nothing here changes any of our jurisdiction.” LARIMER COUNTY ENGINEERING “Larimer County engineering does not have any comments with this request. We would review any future proposals for development under the applicable planning process and associated Engineering standards at the time of the proposal.” LARIMER COUNTY BUILDING “Since these parcels reportedly ‘are undeveloped and the park has no plans to develop them,’ this proposal raises no building code issues. The Larimer County Building Division has no concern or objection to the application. Whether the parcels were inside Town boundaries and subject to Estes Park and National Park Service (NPS) administration, or in unincorporated Larimer County and subject only to NPS administration, either way Larimer County Building would not be the authority having jurisdiction over building codes.” “No comments or objections” was also written by Upper Thompson Sanitation District, Estes Valley Park and Recreation District, and Northern Water. Attachment 3 1/20/22, 7:58 AM Town of Estes Park Mail - Application Comments: RMNP Disconnection https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f7fd0cc745&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar6754987165862645547&simpl=msg-a%3Ar681612907…2/2 Action comments. Please make the changes outlined in the comments below and resubmit the relevant materials prior to 5:00PM on Friday, January 28, 2022. ESTES PARK PLANNING “The review did not identify a clear dimensional representation of Parcel 3523400914. The included "Amended Plat of Tracts 65 and 66 Fall River Addition..." is hard to read, and does not readily show the boundary as it exists today. The metes and bounds description - while valuable - is difficult to interpret for lay people, and does not adequately depict the legal boundaries of the parcel in question. Please provide a survey, plat, or like instrument clearly showing the dimensions of this parcel. The other two parcels are adequately represented.” Thank you, - Alex Bergeron Planner II Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 970-577-3729 RMNP Deannex at 34A_2022.pdf 120K ! I I ! i i I I! l I \l -�--' .. ' ,, I ,. ',1 : . ·:;�:·�-:!:f-' ! ;,. .. -�· I. -,.::·· -}:;,�t!ti�:m,,' .. . ,_ ! ,,. \ .: ___ ·1\-" --��-:$:.-TOTAL ACREAGE NORTH OF U.S. 34 BY-PASS 1 I i.ri I I I .. ., � .S(l' ifl:ON f'IW fN. i►AVt:'.!IG£N1'>�F-�.S. 34 • ); 1 --,�- i ' 49,34 \ACRES . : · . .cl. '·:t··,,,,., __ , ,. : 1, I,' ·11 •if .. .. )i: -· I. 2 5'-ACRES ·''t:40.2.9-ACRES •·,; ,,. -, -- ) ;: \':ft'.,(,,' ·-C.E$S THAT PORTION BEING; :,. ',. . .-_ ENCROACHED ), ,, ' - 'TOTAL ACREAGE WITHOUT -ANY ENCROACHMENTS OR" -INFRINGEMENTS NORTH OF JJ�S.34 BY-l?ASS ·s-:: . , . .,. ... ,:f ., :-i�r::..: .,,.-:, ''•ft? ,_., - -HONDIUS. PARCEL. 'A"-.,,-a' . . . ' , - - . ;., .... : .- ' i ··'. < -·• ,. I;,': . .' : ; Zi- /sou-rtt 1/4 cor..er se.cno.N2,�3�1-,; .. J FOUND BRASS CA.Pf-ll!D PIP,E' ,.·, ··"1/ !/ @ -- SCALE. I"" 100'-, --�*�IOQ 10 Ml ta 0 !!$�--:-J if_ T :r_.,11�,: IH!T U! - �00 2,0i) -�(10 ,- I ENLARGEMENT OF THE HONDIUS PROPERTY, LOCATED IN -, 1/16 COR, SET 1RON PIN"\-�,,---- // ----O---·--//· ! l ., 'I 4f. 7// / (/ / I ,/--/ I/ / 1 _ _.-/ 1_.- 1 ./' j/-_/ I/_ 1--1.· I/ '/ I v· 1-1 / i/ I ' • / 1 .. / I/ / 1// j /�// I///,,, ( I -'' 'r..: / 10 I. I "' ; -- /I _. -ol. / "' z .J I \ -: I,:-'°I/"' -1 1:I / / I.-rr-, ---C1 1-·.b1�,:"., o COtiRAL!; SUll.T I­I I-. i ... : / fP ili;,¥ARO-CHf:NEY :I r:::-_J I I ' -' j!; I, "" 1 ·· I,[) / // ��; :�, 0 ' o I,_. 0 / /Z\ I i/ J •• / \ I __ ,-' .,, '' r 1,--/ w (I) ,;-"' 0 0 0 z tr.:_:,".).,:,,CtU-tiNT ON HONDJ:JS Pl>Vi":.·HTY 3'1 Ci1£t,!,;'.Y I // N00"06't. 25.ltl' , 11 .,:, liJ t:jTf.5 f'AIH, ) /j,�, 1 ,-) co. 19�1, r\ ;:il,\;., :11 l, t'AC,E 262: ' ,'<I/ .. POUNQ 8RAfS CAPPED WITNESS CGH. N0-0406' t 3.30' FROM THf TRUE COR. WEST J/� CCr>. �i.':C.23-5-7;j c:OUNP ai,ASS c.,•?£0 PIP£ ----(;, SCALE 1''-:.00' DL.r_v ! \ ;, ---",Ii " .,.I ¼ 7 ""-'•·· vv f,----· ;:.� .1 Q.,..;..,,,.;, tJOTE- THE HIGHWAY R.O.W. 'tiJ..S SURVE':t:.,, Accu�--;..''• (, Le t , -:::,--73, TO LEGAI-.DESCR!PTION AND DO,_� i·JOT AG:'-"" WITH THE HIGHWAY R.O.W. MARJ<E,-,:; '.SHOWING THE ENCROACHMENT ONTO THE HONDIUS PROPEHTY /.:,,. ,,i,G THE ', . ? . '· .-<-_,,- _,. .,· lEAST LINE' OF THE -NW li4.0F THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 23-5-·r 3. l;, - , . .· . , :· ,, ,·.·' " --. ··<• ,; I", ,, '� .,,-------------------------·------·---"·--·· ... --·•---'!{;�;\;f :Iljj\lf i�;l!�Itr�;_:"'· "..---l,.!":',_.-,.,.:·. ·_ .. \. ,'. ·: ,: 1/1..,ltt.COH.-. ---~ St T !HON ?IN 7-_: __ ' m �i-• ' �,, ... � i;) r� L C"'-, "-.J N• 00 "' ,, -NOKT�l l/4 COH.OF :,i.,:.�3�5-73'(,\ _,. F"OUND ur{ASS CAf'f•,�L, r'Wt-: C�li rt:n !/•• co A. SL1: LJ � 5 - 73 /si;:-r 1Hc.n i-' .·� w HO•:>< / / ' t/lb TH.COR.-SfT !RON PIN d ••• . ·! EAST !/4 coR. SEC, 2�-,-7� FOUNO "X" ON ROCK 1.l : '/ ,,- N \II 1/-t 0( ·r rji: St'. !/4 DF !.d ... ,'.;li-,., .;'.'!,•5-1;;} tlE V4 OF THE S£ 1/4 OF SECTION 2'�-5-73 ., ,- w. 1 ._ N' C " / _,-· . $\/-11/4 Of' THE SE t/-" or s�cTIOii23-5�7J r�tl'J,..44'w 1:1ob.0£'.' w., "' ' 0 0 u> SE 1/4 Of THE SE 1/4 Of SECTION 23-5-73 ; 0 "'"' w "' 0 • 0 0 " ''·\.•' ' -,' t ·-: ,, ' ,.,, r,--,r•1i·•.· ·> ·;jf '.&(1?-· � . :r)����!J£' i .. ...,. ··•:":.·_;,.�,,(i_'_ • - u � � w "' 0 • 00 '�:,�,,.,«-.:.,_,_,. fJd9"44'W 13o!J.ai' :z __ se coR.of a.Ec.:n, .. a�1;5 .'(::�,t�;�?!i," ' '(}----------c�--------__::__::_:_:_::_=--.. __ -(_Q,6ll)•-FOUM.o BRA3S' GAfftO ,p 'pt,.,,._·_,, \i: t;.,t·l··. ' l, -i .. -:tDt�\: '-SOUTH 1/4 CG/,.-!>i:C.2;5�5- /j fOUtdO bRA$,j C.A.Pf'EO PW£ ·,tr .. -,� , cc•· if-'-"� l.�. �3ECTION 23, T5N ' �� l .. �ARIMER C .. OU r.tfr,GVJN, LlCENSED IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO Ht.ht:uY CC!fflFY THAT I HAVE SURVEYED THE ELEANORE . HONDiU2, PF:•JPE1:i'fY LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 23 ... 5� -'.ii, •r�- ., 73 Al\ID HAT THiS PLAT ACCURATELY-�EPRESENTS SAID SURVEY'. -,i O C \. _..,_ .. __ ......... � 1 \ .,,, . ,__,, .,. .. I,;, -1°" - ; ,_ ·-·r·•i:-V � ... JV 1\JO. 6499 ... , ,,,, •-•-"'• l' .'( ( � ... '\ 0 �: ,�c . .,.iN ._;,,. _t°,�1.V�'i,)_,f'.(:;� :,,.,: , ; ' --,-� > ;l�-,;��;.i,i�,.,,ir:��i; .... i)<l•-.; .' · _: h J ---� ·1:1:,'��i�li�1.@� ·-~' -l >. ,t��:,1,�J-:.��,,,t.t•1;:�,,;:;:;-1r1: •12'·· ·1·. -:-�..er�}\.'.'l i�f.�:-.:;f;-.. i:ctr.·: ,l <]}):!R�k!it�l��}:i, -;:f:l:-\1 ·. '·_-•r�:�O�./;ts:tit-MY.'.•.'f;/ _\f)·.i: -1 ·•· -11([::�Ji ½ i .. ,,�_._':_:>i::/HN;\';�r:�t(S'f'.: . t:;··' .• · .. :j' •:;," ,1t�tl,,\.ifil�'•rt;i!!1 i��ir 1>ii�\t1H���[!l:ii •::1 . ;_, .;-'(,,j,, / -� JiJti��\)}f.•�,1t1l1F .-;:�:,. ·�;-. ·;;,"-"} '. Cl,1, -�- . ,,. ,-'1... 1 •,.;_·,. '' -! -:·•J '.! �· . ·'-·' .:,_. ti ,v•, -. :·}_(.;_ Attachment 4 7/27/2022 1 Disconnection Request Board of Trustees July 26, 2022 Community Development Director Jessica Garner, AICP Three parcels are affected, all are owned by the National Park Service: •Undeveloped •Acquired to increase Bighorn Sheep habitat in early 2000s and prevent  development adjacent to Park RE‐1, 41 acres 3523400914 RE‐1, 28 acres 3523318901  RE, 23 acres 3523322901 1 2 7/27/2022 2 Tables: Zoning and Land Use Summaries Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses Parcel 352318901 Rural Estate RE-1 (Rural Estate) RMNP North Parks, Recreation, Open Space Federal Land (N/A) RMNP South Accommodations MF (Multi-Family) Residential East Rural Estate RE (Rural Estate) RMNP West Rural Estate R-2 Residential Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses Parcel 3523322901 Rural Estate RE (Rural Estate) RMNP North Parks, Recreation, Open Space Federal Land (N/A) RMNP South Accommodations RM, A Residential, Accommodations East Rural Estate RE-1 (Rural Estate) RMNP West Rural Estate RE-1 RMNP Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses Parcel 3523400914 Rural Estate RE-1 (Rural Estate) RMNP North Parks, Recreation, Open Space Federal Land (N/A) RMNP South Accommodations A (Accommodations) Accommodations East Rural Estate Larimer County Vacant West Rural Estate RE RMNP Why Disconnect? 1. The parcels were acquired to extend the Park boundaries further south • Bighorn Sheep habitat preservation • Prevent development close to the Park boundaries 2. Necessary for jurisdictional purposes in both planning and law enforcement 3. Petitioner is in compliance with Colorado Revised Statutes §31-12-501(3) 3 4 7/27/2022 3 Questions, Comments? 5 PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING Applicable items include: Rate Hearings, Code Adoption, Budget Adoption 1.MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on PLANNING ACTION ITEM 1.C. ORDINANCE 13-22 ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS TO REMOVE RURAL ESTATE RE-1 ZONE DISTRICT.  At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, public comment, and written comments received on the item.  Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public hearing which may be responded to at that time.  Mayor declares the Public Hearing open. 2.STAFF REPORT.  Review the staff report. 3.PUBLIC COMMENT.  Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the item. All individuals must state their name and address for the record. Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per person. 4. MAYOR.  Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the item which are not in the Board packet.  Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the item.  Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications presented will be accepted as part of the record.  Declare the public hearing closed.  Request Board consider a motion. 7.SUGGESTED MOTION.  Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. 8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. Discussion by the Board on the motion. 9. VOTE ON THE MOTION. Vote on the motion or consideration of another action. *NOTE: Ordinances are read into record at the discretion of the Mayor as it is not required to do so by State Statute. To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director Date: July 26, 2022 RE: Ordinance 13-22 Estes Park Development and Estes Park Municipal Code Amendments to Remove Rural Estate RE-1 Zone District (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Amend the Development and Municipal Codes to eliminate the RE-1 (Rural Estate) Zoning District. Note: This Code amendment is accompanied by a rezoning ordinance that rezones one Town- owned parcel currently zoned RE-1 to another Zoning District (R-2), following the standard protocols for the rezoning process. Present Situation: The RE-1 Zoning District is a low-density, large-lot residential zoning district with a very small presence in Estes Park. Only three Town parcels are zoned RE-1, and none of them are developed for single-family use. Of the three parcels zoned RE-1, two are owned and managed by the National Park Service, and are petitioning to disconnect from Estes Park. In the Joint Planning Area era, the RE-1 District was almost completely a Larimer County zoning district, which is still the case today. The Zone District’s creation pre-dates the Joint Planning Area and the adoption of the former Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) in Nov. 1999, and the wholesale Valley-wide rezoning that accompanied those changes. Although the history is unclear, staff has anecdotal evidence that the Zoning District was originally created by Larimer County in the early- to mid- 1990s – pre-dating the EVDC, although not by many years. Before Nov. 1999, RE-1 zoning Memo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT only applied to land in unincorporated Larimer County, as the Town had no RE-1 or equivalent Zoning District. Around the time of the Valley-wide rezoning in 1999, RE-1 zoning was applied to the three parcels inside Town. From older County and EVDC zoning maps, it appears the RE-1 District remained fairly unchanged on the map from its creation until the IGA dissolution in 2020. See Attachment 3 for the Estes Valley Zoning Map as it existed in January 2018 - not long before the IGA ended on April 1, 2020. The vast majority of land zoned RE-1 during the Joint Planning Area timeframe was in unincorporated Estes Valley, as the 2018 Zoning Map shows. Judging from spot-checks of Town zoning maps over the years, it seems not much land inside Town was ever zoned RE-1. Presently, only three parcels inside the Town currently are zoned RE-1. Map 1 below is a close-up of the Town’s Zoning Map in the upper Fall River corridor, showing all three of the parcels, which are very near each other. The light greenish-gray color is RE-1, with three asterisks showing each of the three parcels. A more detailed map and discussion is found in the exhibits. All three parcels are publicly owned. The westernmost parcel above the Castle Mountain Road cul-de-sac is owned by the Town and is the site of a large water tank. The two larger parcels to the east are part of Rocky Mountain National Park and are undeveloped. Proposal: Staff is seeking approval to amend both the Development and Municipal Codes to eliminate the RE-1 Zoning District. The Purpose for eliminating RE-1 zoning is twofold: 1. The amendment will remove a Zoning District that serves no useful purpose inside the Town of Estes Park. It is a residential Zoning District that requires a 10-acre minimum lot size. As noted, (a) there are only three parcels currently zoned RE-1; (b) all are essentially undeveloped; (c) none are likely to ever develop as RE-1 parcels; and (d) the one viable parcel is easily shifted to the R-2 Zoning District. Otherwise, there aren’t many eligible 10-acre parcels feasible to rezone to RE-1. Essentially, eliminating the RE-1 District declutters the Development Code. 2. A second reason is more fundamental. In an environment in which attainable and workforce housing is a critical need, it is hard to see how a 10-acre lot, single-family- only Zoning District has a role to play in the Town of Estes Park. Estes Park and vicinity have no shortage of sizeable single-family houses on large individual lots - i.e., unattainable housing for most citizens or families. Additionally, in many planning textbooks and research articles and papers, 10-acre-lot residential zoning is identified as sprawl development. For an example, please refer to the following link from the US Environmental Protection Agency: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/essential_smart_growth_fixes_rural_0 .pdf (see especially Section 6 [p. 30] forward.) It is important to note that nothing in the Town’s proposal to eliminate RE-1 zoning is designed to push the same proposal in unincorporated Estes Valley. Discussion and decisions about that are Larimer County’s choice and prerogative. Other parcels measuring 10 acres or more do exist inside the Town in various locations. Attachment 4 is a list of all the 27 parcels inside the Town measuring 10 acres or more. Of the 27 such parcels, seven are residentially zoned and the other 20 are various types of commercial zoning. A review of this list reveals the following: • Approx. 40 percent of the parcels (12 out of 27) are owned by a public or quasi-public entity (Town, Federal, etc.) – entities that are highly unlikely to propose a single house on a 10-acre or larger lot; • As the Comments column shows, nearly all are already developed, and most in ways that would almost certainly preclude (re)developing them under single-family 10-acre zoning. Theoretically, any of these 27 properties could someday be rezoned to RE-1 under current Code. In practice, the odds of that happening are very small. Staff would conclude that few or none of our current 10-acre-plus parcels in Town would likely need or benefit from rezoning to RE-1. Attachments 1 and 2 (Exhibits A and B) are the proposed actual Code language for the Development Code and the Municipal Code respectively. Both exhibits consist almost entirely of struck-through language; nothing is added except a few conjunctions and commas to keep the grammar and syntax appropriate. Location and Context: Map 1 Project Location Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses Parcel 3522400923 Public (INS) RE-1 (Rural Estate) Water Storage North Parks, Recreation, Open Space Federal Land (N/A) RMNP South Residential R-2 Residential East Rural Estate RE-1 (Rural Estate) RMNP West Rural Estate R-2 Residential Table 1a: Zoning and Land Use Summary Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses Parcel 352318901 Rural Estate RE-1 (Rural Estate) RMNP North Parks, Recreation, Open Space Federal Land (N/A) RMNP South Accommodations MF (Multi-Family) Residential East Rural Estate RE (Rural Estate) RMNP West Rural Estate R-2 Residential Table 1b: Zoning and Land Use Summary Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses Parcel 352342014 Rural Estate RE-1 (Rural Estate) RMNP North Parks, Recreation, Open Space Federal Land (N/A) RMNP South Accommodations A (Accommodations) Accommodations East Rural Estate Federal Land (N/A) RMNP West Rural Estate RE RMNP Project Analysis: The text amendments comply with EPDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for Review). §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review “All rezoning and text amendments to the EPDC shall meet the following criteria:” 1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected;” Staff Finding: The amendment to the Code is limited to eliminating one Zoning District that demonstrably serves no useful purpose in the Town, and may serve to undercut efforts to resolve the workforce and attainable housing shortage. 2. “The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley:” Staff Finding: There is no specific “development plan” associated with this Code Amendment. Rather, the amendment addresses specific policy goals arising from various adopted policies, including the 2022 Town Board Strategic Goals and the 2016 Housing Needs Assessment. 3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.” Staff Finding: Town, County, or other relevant service providers would not be significantly impacted regarding their respective services and facilities if this Code Amendment is approved. Advantages: • Generally complies with the EPDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. • Removes a Zoning District that serves no discernible purpose in Town, which simplifies the Development Code. • Provides for the opportunity to create much needed housing units by eliminating a Zoning District that could result in less-affordable housing in Town. Disadvantages: • There may be the impression that removing a large-lot, low-density residential district will compromise the Town’s image and character as a “small mountain village.” This term does not accurately characterize Estes Park in 2021, and in any case, there is nothing inherently “village-like” about 10-acre single-family lots. • There may be the impression that “it’s not broken, so why fix it?” Staff would suggest that waiting until something breaks, and then trying to fix it, isn’t good planning. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the Code amendment as proposed. Budget: None. Level of Public Interest: Medium. Staff held an online neighborhood meeting via Zoom on Monday, November 1, 2021. To review the meeting recording, please use this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1- Z__boustY8jeDK0zHB63Rhz5i57GJJ_/view?usp=sharing The meeting was attended by seven community members, and questions ranged from the use of the Town-owned parcel and if it would change, and if the National Park Service had plans for their parcels, which the NPS does not have plans to develop, but in the current circumstances, they are not required to comply with local codes and regulations. A question was posed about how people would be notified about the RMNP disconnection when it goes to the Town Board for review, and the sites will be posted with a sign, along with a notification to adjacent property owners, on the Town’s website, and in the newspaper. Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with Town and State public noticing requirements. As of the time of writing this report no other public inquiries were received aside from the inquiries during the neighborhood meeting, noted above. • Legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on July 1, 2022. • Information was posted on the Town’s “Code Amendments” webpage as of June 3, 2022. Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC public noticing requirements. As of the time of writing this report, no written comments have been received for the application. Written comments will be posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications if received after finalization of this staff memo. Sample Motions: • I move to approve Ordinance 13-22. • I move to deny Ordinance 13-22, finding that … [state findings for denial]. • I move to continue Ordinance 13-22 to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Attachments: 1. Ordinance 13-22 2. Exhibit A: Proposed text amendment to the Estes Park Development Code 3. Exhibit B: Proposed text amendment to the Estes Park Municipal Code 4. Estes Valley Zoning Map, January 2018 5. List of parcels inside Town boundaries measuring 10 acres or more ORDINANCE NO. 13-22 AMENDING THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL AND DEVELOPMENT CODES TO REMOVE THE RE-1 (RURAL ESTATE) ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the Estes Park Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to the Estes Park Development Code to eliminate the RE-1 (Rural Estate) Zoning District in the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS, the Estes Park Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text amendment complies with Estes Park Development Code section 3.3.D and has determined that it, and conforming edits to the Municipal Code, are in the best interest of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Estes Park Development Code and the Estes Park Municipal Code are hereby amended, by adding underlined material and deleting stricken material, as set forth on Exhibits A and B respectively. Ellipses indicate material not reproduced as the Board intends to leave that material in effect as it now reads. Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication by title. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado this ____ day of _______________, 2022. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2022 and published by title in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2022, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Attachment 1 EXHIBIT A ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE . . . CHAPTER 4. ZONING DISTRICTS § 4.1 - Establishment of Districts The following zoning districts are hereby established. They may be referred to by their name or their district letter abbreviations. A.Residential Zoning Districts. 1.RE-1 Rural Estate 21.RE Rural Estate 32. E-1 Estate 43.E Estate 54.R Residential 65. R-1 Residential 76. R-2 Two-Family Residential 87.RM Multi-Family Residential . . . § 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts A.List of Districts/Specific Purposes. 1.RE-1 Rural Estate Zoning District. This district is established to protect and preserve some of the most rural areas of the Estes Valley in which significant view sheds, woodlands, rock outcroppings, ridgelines, other sensitive environmental areas and low-density residential development comprise the predominant land use pattern. This zone implements the "Rural Estate (RE-1)" future land use designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The district regulations allow for the development of low-density single-family residential uses, generally at densities no greater than one (1) dwelling unit per ten (10) acres. 21.RE Rural Estate Zoning District. . . . 32.E-1 Estate Zoning District. . . . 43.E Estate Zoning District. . . . 54.R Single-Family Residential Zoning District. . . . 65.R-1 Single-Family Residential Zoning District. . . . Attachment 2 76. R-2 Two-Family Residential. . . . 87. RM Multi-Family Residential. . . . B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts. Table 4-1 Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use Zoning Districts Additional Regulatio ns (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) “P” = Permitted by Right “S1 or S2” = Permitted by Special Review “—" = Prohibited RE- 1 RE E-1 E R R- 1 R-2 RM RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS Household Living Single- family dwelling P- P P P P P P P In R-1, §4.3.D.4 applies (Ord. 18- 01 §13) Two- family dwelling — — — — — — P P (Ord. 15- 11 §1) Multi- family dwelling — — — — — — — P §5.1K (Ord. 02- 10 §1) Mobile home park — — — — — — — S §5.1I Group Living Facility, Large Senior care facility — — — — — S2 S2 S2 §5.1I Large group living facilities — — — — — S2 S2 S2 §5.1I Group Living Facility, Small P P P P P P P P INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC AND PUBLIC USES Day Care Center (Ord. 6-06 §1) S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1F Family Home Day Care, S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1F; As accessory to a Use Classification Specific Use Zoning Districts Additional Regulatio ns (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) “P” = Permitted by Right “S1 or S2” = Permitted by Special Review “—" = Prohibited RE- 1 RE E-1 E R R- 1 R-2 RM Large (Ord. 6-06 §1) principal residential use only Government Facilities Public Safety Facilities P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review Trail/Trail Head P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review Utility, Major — — — — — — — — §3.13, Location & Extent Review Utility, Minor P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review; Use shall not include office, repair, storage or production facilities All other Governme nt Facilities P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review Hospital — — — — — — — S2 Park and Recreation Facilities— Public P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities— Private S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1.W, Specific Use Standards Use Classification Specific Use Zoning Districts Additional Regulatio ns (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) “P” = Permitted by Right “S1 or S2” = Permitted by Special Review “—" = Prohibited RE- 1 RE E-1 E R R- 1 R-2 RM Park and Ride Facilities — — — — — P P P Religious Assembly — — — — — — S2 S2 §5.1.O (Ord. 19- 11 §1) Cultural Institutions S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1.V (Ord. 13- 18 §1(Exh. A)) Schools — — — — — — S2 S2 §3.13, Location & Extent Review (Ord. 19- 11 §1; Ord. 13- 18 §1(Exh. A)) Senior Institutional Living Continuing Care Retirement Facility — — — — S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1I Congregat e Housing — — — — S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1.I Skilled Nursing Facility — — — — — — — S2 §5.1.I Transportati on Facility Without Repairs — — — — — P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review ACCOMMODATION USES Low- Intensity Accommo- dations Bed and Breakfast Inn: 8 and under occupants P P P P P P P P §5.1U Use Classification Specific Use Zoning Districts Additional Regulatio ns (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) “P” = Permitted by Right “S1 or S2” = Permitted by Special Review “—" = Prohibited RE- 1 RE E-1 E R R- 1 R-2 RM Bed and Breakfast Inn: 9 and over occupants S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 P §5.1U Vacation Home: 8 and under occupants P P P P P P P P §5.1B Vacation Home: 9 and over occupants LV LV LV LV L V L V LV LV §5.1B (Large Vacation Home Reviews may be approved by Planning Commissio n only, subject to specified criteria) COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USES Wireless Telecommuni - cation Facilities Attached and concealed (stealth) antennas P P P P P P P P §5.1T Antenna towers, microcells P/S 1 P/S 1 P/S 1 P/S 1 — — P/S 1 P/S 1 §5.1T RECREATION USES Golf Course P S2 S2 S2 — — — — §5.1C ACCESSORY USES: SEE §5.2 “ACCESSORY USES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.” TEMPORARY USES; SEE §5.2, “TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES.” C. Density/Dimensional Standards. . . . 4. Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts. Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Zoning District Max. Net Density (units/acre) Minimum Lot Standards [1] [4] (Ord. 25-07 §1) Minimum Building/Structure Property Line Setbacks [2] [7] (Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11 §1) Max. Building Height (ft.) [8] Min. Building Width (ft.) Area (sq ft.) Width (ft.) Front (ft.) Side (ft.) Rear (ft.) RE-1 1/10 Ac. 10 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20 . . . . . . D. Additional Zoning District Standards. . . . Table 4-3 Minimum Private Open Areas Zoning District Minimum Private Open Areas (% of Gross Land Area) Adjusted Minimum Lot Size/Area (Ord. 2- 02 #4) RE-1 30 7.00 acres . . . . . . 2. Lot Size. . . . b. Exception for Lots with Private Water/Sewer . The minimum lot size for lots serviced by private wells or private septic systems shall be two (2) acres in all districts, except the RE-1 zoning district. . . . CHAPTER 5. – USE REGULATIONS § 5.1 – SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS . . . F. Day Care Centers and Large Family Home Day Care. Day care centers and large family home day care shall be subject to the following standards: . . . 5. Day care centers in the E, E-1, and RE and RE-1 residential zoning districts shall be adjacent to an arterial street. . . . § 5.2 – ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES . . . B. Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. . . . . . . Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Accessory Use Residential Zoning District Additional Requirements "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted "CUP" = Conditional Use Permit RE- 1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Accessory dwelling unit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No §5.2.B.2.a 1.33 times minimum lot area required Barns and stables Yes Yes Yes No No No No No None (Ord. 15-03 §1) Day care center (Ord. 6-06 §1) No No No No No No No Yes §5.1.F; §5.1.O; as accessory to a permitted religious assembly use Family home day care, small (Ord. 6- 06 §1) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.B.2.d Home Occupation As accessory to a principal residential use only Fences and walls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §7.5.H Accessory Use Residential Zoning District Additional Requirements "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted "CUP" = Conditional Use Permit RE- 1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Garages, carports, and off-street parking areas used to serve the residents of the property Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.B.2.d and §7.11 Golf clubhouses, including space for the sale of golf or other sporting equipment, food and refreshments Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No As accessory uses to golf courses only Home occupation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.B.2.e (Ord 18-01 §18) Kitchen, Accessory (Ord. 08-17 §1) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No §5.2.B.2.f (Ord. 03-10 §1) Kitchen, Outdoor (Ord. 08-17 §1) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Micro wind energy conversion systems Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.B.2.g (Ord. 05-10 §1) Office (Ord. 20- 18 §1) No No No No No No No S2 §5.2.B.2.i Private greenhouses Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes • Private schools No No No No No No Yes (Ord. 19- 11 §1) Yes As accessory to a permitted religious assembly use only; §5.1.O Accessory Use Residential Zoning District Additional Requirements "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted "CUP" = Conditional Use Permit RE- 1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Satellite dish antennas 39 inches (1 meter) or less in diameter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Accessory to a principal residential use only •To the maximum extent feasible, but only where there is no impairment to acceptable signal quality, such satellite dish antenna shall be located in the rear yard of the residential use Satellite dish antennas greater than 39 inches (1 meter) in diameter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes •Accessory to a principal residential use only •To the maximum extent feasible, but only where there is no substantial impairment to acceptable signal quality, such satellite dish antenna shall be located in the rear yard of the residential use. •To the maximum extent feasible, the satellite dish antenna shall be screened from view from adjacent public rights-of-way (including trails) Small wind energy conservation systems (Ord. 21-10 §1) CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP §5.2.B.2.h Accessory Use Residential Zoning District Additional Requirements "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted "CUP" = Conditional Use Permit RE- 1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Solar collector (Ord. 11-11 §1) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Square footage of ground-mounted solar collectors shall be calculated as the area of the solar panels, not the structure footprint. Storage or parking of trucks, cars, or major recreational equipment, including but not limited to boats, boat trailers, camping trailers, motorized homes, and house trailers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.B.2.h Swimming pools/hot tubs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes . . . CHAPTER 7. - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS § 7.1 - SLOPE PROTECTION STANDARDS A. Density Calculation for Residential and Accommodation Development on Steep Slopes in Excess of 12%. 1. Applicability. These density calculation provisions shall apply to all new residential and accommodation development in the Estes Valley, except for the following: a. Ssingle-family residential development on a lot created and approved for such use prior to the effective date of this Code. b. Development within the RE-1 Zoning District. 2. General Rule. Notwithstanding the maximum densities permitted by the underlying zoning district, the minimum lot area for new residential and accommodation development on parcels containing slopes twelve percent (12%) or greater shall be determined by the following formulas: a. All Residential Zoning Districts (Except RM) : For each percentage point by which average slope exceeds twelve percent (12%), the base zone minimum lot area requirement shall be increased by one thousand (1,000) square feet, as shown in Table 7-1 below. Table 7-1 Density Calculation/Lot Area Adjustment for Steep Slopes by Zoning District Zoning District Base Minimum Lot Area Adjusted Minimum Lot Area (Square Feet) @ "x"% Slope 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% RE-1 10 acres No Slope Adjustment Required . . . . . . CHAPTER 10. SUBDIVISION STANDARDS . . . § 10.4 – LOTS . . . C. Flag or Flagpole Lots. Flag lots (also known as flagpole lots) may be allowed subject to the following standards: 1. Permitted Zoning Districts. Flag lots shall be allowed only in the RE-1, RE, E- 1, E, R and R-2 Residential Zoning Districts. . . . § 10.5 - SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS . . . D. Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections and Trails. . . . 2. Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be required as follows: a. Sidewalks shall be required on one (1) side of any public or private street in all zoning districts, except in the RE-1 and RE Zoning Districts. Sidewalks may not be required where unusual topographic or environmental conditions make installation infeasible or would result in a significant adverse impact on sensitive natural resources. b. In all zoning districts, including the RE-1 and RE Zoning Districts, sidewalks on both sides of a street may be required along roads where the EVPC Estes Park Planning Commission determines there will be significant pedestrian usage. c. In all residential zoning districts, including the RE-1 and RE Zoning Districts, when a residential lot abuts an arterial street, sidewalks shall be provided to provide public access and connection to adjacent properties. . . . CHAPTER 11. – INCENTIVES . . . § 11.3 - OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENTS . . . B. Eligibility. Residential open space developments are permitted in the RE-1, RE and E-1 zoning districts. . . . E. Development and Design Standards . . . 2. Lot Size. a. General Rule. Subject to the exceptions listed below, the minimum lot sizes for single-family detached lots within approved open space developments shall be as follows: Zoning District Minimum Lot Size/Area for Single-Family Detached Lots RE-1 2.5 acres . . . . . . 4. Open Areas. a. Minimum Amounts Required . Open space developments shall provide the following minimum amount of private and/or public open areas: Zoning District Minimum Open Areas (% of Gross Land Area) RE-1 70% . . . . . . EXHIBIT B ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE . . . Title 5 - Business Regulations and Licenses . . . Chapter 5.20 - Business Licenses . . . 5.20.110 - Additional provisions for vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns. . . . (b)Residential zone vacation home cap. (1) Vacation home licenses in residential zoning districts (designated for the purposes of this Section as zoning districts E, E-1, R, R-1, R-2, RE, RE-1, and RM) shall be held at a maximum total ("cap") of 322 licenses in effect at any given time. . . . . . . Title 17 – Zoning . . . 17.66.130 - Sign regulations in all single-family residential zones (R-1, R, E-1, E, RE, RE-1). . . . Attachment 3 CUMULUS DR L A R K S PUR RD C O N C O R D L N BIG HORN DR RAVE N A V E BOYD LN OTIS LN F I R AVE GRAVES AVE R I V E R SI D E D R MOCCASINCIRC L E D R C LAR A D R D A V I S S T FALLRIVERRD UPPE R HIGHDR S U M M I T D R E W O N D E R V I E W A VE VIRGINIA DR E ELKHORN A V E R A M S HORNRD H I L L CREST L N K E R R R D LIT T L E V A L L E Y R D NO B L E L N LITTLEV A L L E Y D R 4THST C O U N T Y R O A D 6 1 HIGH PINE DR WINDCLIFF D R BLUEBIRDLN WINDHAM DR EAGLEROCK D R S U N DA N C E CIR ZIOLACT S U M MI T L N FISH CREEK WA Y N SAINT VRAIN AV E WWONDERVIEWAVE N O B L ELN WILDFIRER D EAGLECLIFFRD DEVON DR C E N TENNIAL D R WI N DHA M L N BLUEBIRD LN DRYGULCHRD R E U N I O N LN LAND E R S AVE HIGH DR L A K E S H O R E D R PROSPECT AVE BI R C H A V E GL ACIER VIEW LN RAMBLING DR NORTH RIDG ELN R A NGEVIEW RD COUNTRY CLUB DR HIGH ST G O L F C O U R SERD CASTLEMOUNTAIN R D W PEAKVIE W D R MANFORDAVE RAINBOWDR HIGHDR CLEAVE ST S T A NL E Y C I R C L E D R PEAK VIEW DR BRODIE AVE P O W E R PLANT KO R A L C T BROOK DR L AKEWOOD CT SPR U CEAVE PINEWOOD LN RIV ERSIDE LN BA I L E Y L N LUMPYRIDGERD C LIFF RD G R I F F I T H C T 3RDST T Y R O L E RNEL N BIGTHOMPSONAVE H B A RGRD MC C R E E R Y L N C H EROK E E D R CHICKADEE LN ELM AVE N O T A IA H R D SPRINGST PA W N E E D R B E A C H L N M I N D ST STONEGATE DR COYOTERUN C A N Y O N R I V E R R D 1STST CIRCLE D R 5T H ST L O N G S T R L COLEMANR D TRAILBLAZERWAY ASPEN DR B RO A D V IEW R D SOUTH LN SUNN Y LN S U N S E T L N LO T T S T SUN R I SE CT D A R C Y D R ASSO CIATIO N DR FAR VIEW LN BAK E R DR B L U E B ELL D R JUNIPER LN HOLID AY LN 2N DST PA W NEE LN RAMSHORNDR SAMPSONCT WILDLIFE L N MORAINE AV E H I G H L A N D L N CHEROKEECT DUNRAVEN ST P R O S P E C T O R L N COMANCHE ST MEEKER DR P I O N E E R L N CH A S M DR PINE LN VE N N ERRANCHR D PONDEROSALN CARING L N SANBORN DR PROSPECT PARKDR ACACIA DR I N D IAN TRL WOODSTOCKDR C Y T E W O RTH R D ASPENVALL E Y R D S A N B O R N D R K A L EY C OT TAG E R D W NOR T H L A K E A V E HONDIUS WAY C O M M U N I T Y D R WILLOW LN PARKVI E W LN PINEMEADOWDR CIRR U S L N J A C O B R D C OLUM B I N E D R M A C CRACKE N LN E A G L E C L I F F D R SSAINTVRAINAVE WHISPERINGPINESDR L O W E R B R O A D V I E W AV A L O N D R MILLSDR MILLSDR COOKOUT W A Y C R AGSDR CR A G S D R E A G LE C L I FF CI R CLE D R E L M R D MOSSROCKDR ROCKRIDGERD JUNIPERDR U PLAND S CIR UPLANDSCIR STANLEY CIRCLEDR POWELLY LN LA U R E L L N CREEKSID E C T F I S H C R E E KRD L A R K S P U R AV E HUMMINGBIRDDR C U R R Y L N NORTH LN PINE KNOLL DR P I NEKNOLL D R SW S T E A M E R P K WY A U D U B O N ST FALLRIV ERLN SUTTON LN POND E R O S A DR OV E R L OOKC T BEL L E VUE DR H I G H W A Y 6 6 HIGHWAY66 CH A S M D R L O R Y L N M C G R A W R A N C H RD PUMADR PUMA DR ASPENA V E ASPEN AVE F ISH HATCHERYRD MESA D R MESADR WIND RIV E RTRL K I OWA DR KIOWADRMOUNTAINSIDEDR J U N G F R A U T R L R O C K CANYONRD CIRCLED R CIRCLE D R E V E R G REENLN LONGS DR SE R E NITY L N R I D G E R D RIDGERD S A D D L E B A C K L N ASSOCIA TIONDR JOELES T E SDR T A N A G ER RD FAIRW A YCLUB CIR WELKHORN AVE P U Z ZLEG RASS C I R TRAN Q U I L L N M O R AI N E A V E MO R A I N E A V E B I G H O R N TRL U T E LN U T E LNCLIFFLN PTARMIG A N T R L P T A R M I G AN T RL RA V E N C I R RAVEN CIR HIGHWAY 7 FLOWERLN DAVIDDR W I N D H A M C T D U N RAV E NLN D O LL A R L A K E D R M O O N TRAILWAY B L A C KSQUIRRELDR FAITHWAY T U N N E L R D TUNNE L R D W I L D W O O D D R SLEEPYHOLLOWRD GAILLAR D I A RD BA K ERDR FA M IL Y LN S A I N TFRA NC I SWAY VI S T A VIEW L L O YD LN SPIRIT L N DEER PA T H C T CARYSPL SI L V E R T R E E L N PINEWOOD LN SOLOM O N DR HIGH A C R ES DR SU N N Y MEAD LN M O O N R I D G E R D RANCH CIR M E A DOW CI R DEKKERC IR OURAYDR CEDAR LN HAYBARN HILL RD ASPEN G L ENCA M P G R OUN D RD L I T TLEBEA V E R D R H E R M IT PAR K RD H E R MIT PA RKRD RIVERSIDE DR HUMMING B I R D LN CENTER LN NIMBUS DR UPPER HIGH DR IVY ST ELK ISLAND WAY DR I F T W O O D A V E UPPER VENNER RD WOODLAND CT BR A E S I D E L N CANYON COVE LN MOC C A S I N PIN E C O N E W A Y MOUNTAINSIDE DR UT E C T EVE R G R E E N POIN T R D UPPER LARKSPUR RD EA G L E L N BI R D I E L N BLUE S P R U C E D R CO L U M B I N E A V E FAWN CT C T THU N D E R L N PA R L N ROCK CANYON RD ROC K W O O D CIR VA I L C T B A K E R D R STE A M E R CT TIMBERMOUNTAIN LN MOU N T A I N VIEW C T GRAY HAWK CT WILLOWSTONE DR C R E S T V I E W C T LOOK O U T S T LO W E R CO O K O U T FA I R W A Y C L U B L N CONIFER LN ASPEN BRAN C H C T MO U N T A I N VI E W L N PR O S P E C T ES T A T E S C T P O N D E R O S A D R EA S T L N CA M E L O T C T WALLACE LN BI E R S T A D T L N BR O O K C T SUN R I S E C T WA P I T I PL F E R N O D E S S A L N WILLO W S T O N E CT AVAL O N DR STEELE CT PI K A L N WAPITI CIR WI L D W O O D L N RESPONSIBILITY DR MON I D A C T BIRC H A V E F A I R W A Y L N GI A N T T R A C K R D BROOK DR JUNC O L N SU M M E R S E T LN LAUREL LN EL K ME A D O W CT KI N N I K I N N I C C T BROOK LN SKYLINE D R MIDDLE HIGH DR UNIVERSITY DR TA N A G E R R D RANG E VIEW C T KENDALL DR L A W N L N P E C K L N TURQ U O I S E T R L BLUE MIST LN DALL M A N DR PROSPECT PARK DR WI L L O W C T EL K RI D G E CT STAGELINE RD HA L L E T T HE I G H T S D R N S H A R O N C T OUTPOST LN SIOUX C T WES T O N LN SUNRISE LN RAVEN CT FALCON LN SU T T O N L N WIL D E R N E S S LN PR O S P E C T V I L L A G E D R WESTVIEW LN KAL E Y COT T A G E R D E KE R R R D COLUMBINE AVE TW I N D R GIANT TRACK RD SAINT VRAIN LN SP U R L N BRADL E Y L N BU C K A R O O CT N MO R R I S C T S SH A R O N C T R O C K W O O D LN S CLOVER LN MISTY MANOR DR HIGHW A Y 3 6 S MO R R I S C T NORT H C T SO U T H C T ASPE N TREE D R S C R A B B I T W A Y CRA G S C T FIL B E Y C T RE S P E C T L N HONDIUS CT DOLLAR LAKE DR BROADVIEW LN BO D Y D R G R E E N P I N E C T 6TH GREEN LN S SA I N T VRAI N A V E KALLENBERG DR ROCKWOOD LN E DEL LN SHADOWMOUNTAIN C T CT RID G E VIEW L N RO C K W O O D L N W EA G L E C L I F F L N SIERRA SAGE LN G O V E R N O R S L N PRO M O N T O R Y DR AS P E N L N DR CHAL E T RIDG E C T SLE E P Y H O L L O W C T L A K O T A C T HA L B A C H L N D R RIVERRO C K CIR OL Y M P U S L N E ASPENCLIFF CT GEM L A K E T R L GLACIER DR CA R R I A G E D R HIGH VISTA DR S S A I N T V R A I N A V E HIGH VISTA LN CEDAR RIDGE C I R SU N N Y AC R E S C T BERTHOUD DALE LN P I N E R I V E R L N SH A D Y L N PAR K L N PROSPECT HIGHLANDS RD MCGRAW RANCH RD M A C G R E G O R A V E UTILI T Y D R DRIPPING SPRINGS LN R A M S H O R N R D C H A S E PINE RIVER CT HIGH PINE S D R OL Y M P U S L N W RO C K W O O D LN N BERTHOUD DALE LN S T A R W A Y HOT SPUR LN R I D G E L N UP P E R HI G H D R TH U N D E R MO U N T A I N L N PARK RIVER P L C H R I S T M A S TR E E L N OLYMPIAN LN FIN D L E Y CT H O M E S T E A D LN SUMMERSETCT OLD M A N M O UNTAINLN VIRGINIALN VIRGINIAD R NSAINTVRAINAVE STAN L E Y A V E WIE S T D R COURTNE Y LN V A LLEY VIE W RD FALL RI V E R C T F A L L RIVER D R BL U E SPRUCEDR UPPERHIG H DR TANAGER RD LARKS P U R R D M ILL S L N A L P INE C I R HI G H W A Y 6 6 CHIEFS HEAD RD PTA R M I G A N L N L O C H VALE YPSILON LN N A R CISSUS D R A V A LN MA R M O T DR LA U RELL N CHAR-FALL RIV E RC T D E E R M O UNTAIN M A RI GOLD LN F A R V I E W D R O L D R A N G E R D R KEN W O OD L N IVY L N FRIE N D S HIPLN M INERAL RD EAGLECLIFFDR W IN D CLIF F D R TE R R A C E L N CLIFF RD A S P E N K N O L L DR S I L VE R WINDCIR R O C KLNFELLOWSHIP B EAR L A KE R D S N U G G LERS C O V E DR F L O W E R CIR MESAD RLONGHOUSEWAY C E D A R C L I F F DR Z E R M A T T T R L E I G ER TRL N IMBUS D R T E DDYS TEE T H D R DORSE Y D R B I G H O R N TRL SI LVERSAGE CTM A RIPOSACT S AIN T M O R IT Z T R L SUTTON LN CUL V E R R D S HADCT W PRO SPECT MOUN T AINRD PROSP E C T MOU N T AINDR PR O S P E C T M O U N T AIN C T M A R Y S L A KERD ACA C I A D R BAL D PATECT LO N G V I E W D R F I S H C R E E K R D PON D E R O S A A V E WHISPERIN G PI N E S D R ARAPAH O R D BRISTL E C O N E C T U P L A N D S C I R FISH CREEKRD GR A H A M L N JOHNSE N L N W IN D H A M D R SK E T C H B O X LN MATTHEW CIR CO M M U N I T Y D R P R O S PEC T M O U NTAIN RD VIL L A G E G REENLN MORGAN ST VALLEY RD JAME S S T M A R Y S L A K E RD HIL L R D ME A D O W L N RIVERSIDE DR HI G H VI S T A LN M I D D L E BROA D V I E W ST R O N G A V E HOND I U S CIR MA C G R E G O R L N CR A B - LO N E P I N E D R AP P L E LN R ED TAIL HAW K D R PTARMIGAN L N KIO W A T R A I L PINE W OOD S C O T T AVE PROSPECT ESTATES CT E L K HOL L O W C T R A N GEVIEW RD GRA N I TELN M U M M Y L N CHIQUITAL N CHAPIN L N C H A P IN L N BIGHORNDR BIG H O R N D R F R E E L A N D EL K T R AILCT VISTA L N PONDEROSA DR DANDIEWAY BLUEVALLEYDR FISH CREEK RD ROCKWOOD LN R O C K W O O D L N BR O A D V I E W L N KIOWA C T GR E Y F O X D R RAMBLING D R R OCKWELLST W R I V E RSIDEDR ST FAWN LN E R IVER S I DEDR BL A C K C A N Y O N D R WE S T L N NORTH LN EA S T L N HOMESTEADER L N P A N O R A MA C I R LAKEFRON T S T G R A N DESTATES D R HILL S I D E L N S P R U C E DR S T E A M ER D R HO N D I U S L N LA R K S P U R LN U P P E R HEINZ PKWY HIGHVIE W H E I N Z PKWY UPPER BROADVIEW TURQUOI S ETRL AX M I N S T E R L N P RO S P E C T M OUN T AIN RD JU N I P E R D R TA L L P I N E S D R PINE KNOLLLN L E X I N G TONLNL E X INGTON L N LEXINGTON LN M O R GAN ST MARCUS LN S S A I N T V R A I N A V E FALL RIVER RD HIGH W A Y 3 6 HO N E S T Y P L ST O R M L N RAINBO W D R B E A R L A K E R D H I D E A WAYLN LITTLEP R O SPECT R D LIGHTNING R D MORAINE PARK C A M P G ROUNDRD DEVILSGULCHRD ASPENBRO O K D RASPE N G ROVECIR LITTLE B E A V E R DR ROOFTOPWAY MARYS LAKE RD R-1 R-1 A s p e n B r o o k EastForkFish Creek Buc k C r e e k Wind Riv e r Fi shCree k Big H orn C ree k EastFork F i s h Creek BlackCanyonCreek B i g T h o m p s onRiver B i g T h o m p s o n River W in d R iv er G l a c i e r C r e e kGlacierCreek B lackCanyon C r eek B i g Thom p s onRiver FallRiver Fish Cre e k Beaver Brook Aspen Brook Fall River F ish C r eek Bi g ThompsonRiv e r FallRiver LAKEESTES MARYSLAKE LILYLAKE A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 CD CD CD CD CD CH CH CH E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E EE EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E I-1 I-1 I-1 I-1 R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE-1 RE-1 RE-1 RE-1 RE-1 RE-1 RE-1 RE-1 RE-1 RE-1 RE-1 RE-1 RE-1 RE-1 RE-1 RE-1 RE-1 RE-1 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2R-2 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 O O O O O O RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RMRM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM £¤36 £¤34 £¤36 £¤34 £¤34 £¤36 UV7 UV66 Important Disclaimer: This map shall be used to identify the boundaries of the zoning districts shown hereon. These boundaries followproperty boundaries as delineated on this map. This map shall not be used to:Establish specific legal lots lots of record, or individual parcel boundaries; orEstablish property descriptions for legal conveyance of parcels of land. Individual property boundaries are subject to frequent change, and recent changes may not be reflected on this map. Larimer County and the Town of Estes Park cannot anticipate and do not assume responsibility or liability forsubsequent, secondary use of this map. No representation or warranty is made as to the completeness or accuracy of this map for any use other thanthe intended use of identifying zoning district boundaries. Estes ValleyOfficial Zoning Map Printed: 4/7/2018 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Multi-Family Residental Two Family: 27,000 sqft min. (R-2) Multi-Family: 3-8 du/acre (RM)Commercial Commercial Outlying (CO) Commercial Downtown (CD) Commercial Heavy (CH) Office (O) Single Family Residental Rural Estate: 10 acre min. (RE-1) Rural Estate: 2 1/2 acre min. (RE) Estate: 1 acre min. (E-1) Estate: 1/2 acre min. (E) Residential: 1/4 acre min. (R) Residential: 5000 sqft min. (R-1)Adopted Nov. 3, 1999 Revised Jan 8, 2018 Accomodations Accomodations (A-1) Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Boundary Town Boundary Planned Unit Development Existing Open SpacePrivatePublic Industrial Restricted Industrial (I-1) Stanley History District Accomodations (A)[ File: Zoning42x53.mxd Attachment 4 List of parcels inside Town boundaries measuring 10 acres or more Address Zoning Acres Comments 1.650 Elk Trail Ct.E-1 10.5 Town-owned open space 2.555 Prospect Ave.RM 10.5 Estes Park Health (hospital) 3.1501 David Dr.RM 12.3 privately owned 4.465 W. Wonderview Ave.E-1 12.4 'Rockside LLP' 5.961 Old Ranger Rd.RE 16.0 privately owned 6.1901 Ptarmigan Tr.RM 17.5 Good Samaritan Society 7.1950 Fall River Rd.E-1 33.0 privately owned 1.640 Elm Rd.1-1 10.3 Town (landfill, recycle) 2.1050 Marys Lake Rd.A 10.5 Spruce Lake RV Park 3.189 Twin Owls Ln.A 13.1 Black Canyon Inn 4.451 E. Wonderview Ave.co 13.9 Stanley Village S.C. 5.3501 Fall River Rd.A 14.4 Della Terra 6.1260 Fall River Rd.A 16.8 Streamside 7.380 Community Dr.co 17.0 Community Center EVRPD 8.1001 N. Saint Vrain Ave.co 17.3 FED -Bur. of Reclamation 9.600 W. Elkhorn Ave.co 22.0 Elkhorn Lodge 10.370 Fish Creek Rd.co 27.7 FED -Bur. of Reclamation 11.1520 Fall River Rd.A 28.9 Castle Mtn. Lodge 12.1665 Highway 66 A 30.7 Elk Meadow RV Park 13.333-A E. Wonderview Ave.A 34.4 Stanley Hotel Lot 1 campus 14.2225 Fall River Rd.A-1 35.0 privately owned 15.1601 Brodie Ave.co 37.0 Estes Park R-3 School District 16.400 N. Saint Vrain Ave.co 39.8 FED -Bur. of Reclamation 17.1600 Fish Hatchery Rd.A 42.1 Harmony Foundation 18.220 4th St.co 49.0 Fairgrounds 19.1754 Fish Hatchery Rd.A-1 75.5 Town owned tract 20.1480 Golf Course Rd.co 181.0 EP Golf Course Attachment 5 Board of Trustees Public Comment Form Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Stance on item:* The Board of Trustees want to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for general public comment or public comment on any agenda items. The Town Board of Trustees will participate in meetings remotely due to the Declaration of Emergency signed by Town Administrator Machalek on March 19, 2020 related to COVID-19 and provided for with the adoption of Ordinance 04-20 on March 18, 2020. Regular meetings of the Town Board are held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7 p.m. Agendas and the agenda item list below will be posted the Wednesday prior to each meeting. Click here to view the current Agenda. Public comment must be received by noon the day of the Town Board meeting. All comments will be compiled for Board distribution prior to the meeting. Agenda items are available the Wednesday prior to each Town Board meeting. To provide public comment on an upcoming item please use the drop down below to select the Agenda item title. Agenda Item Title * Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Board of Trustees:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. G. Wayne Newsom For Against Neutral Ordinance 13-22. If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to townclerk@estes.org. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. For comments over 1000 characters please use the Upload feature above. I am opposed to increasing the density, population and authenticity (character) of Estes Park buy reducing lot size to allow construction of more houses. Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Proposed elimination of RE-1 from the Estes Park Development Code 1 message Frederic Barber <fredbarber@alum.mit.edu>Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 10:48 AM To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "swebermeier@estes.org" <swebermeier@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org> Cc: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "Town of Estes Park - Planning Division (planning@estes.org)" <planning@estes.org> I am writing to oppose the Staff-initiated proposal on your agenda this week to remove the RE-1 zoning classification from your Development Code. The reason for my opposition is simply that the proposal is not timely. There is no urgent need to undertake this level of strategic change to the Code – no pending or anticipated proposals to rezone anything in Town to RE-1 – and therefore no need to make the change at this time. In case anyone has missed it, there is a joint Town/County effort ongoing to write a new Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley. In addition to elected government, staff and outside expert input, this effort involves careful thought on the public’s view of desirable long-term land use patterns in the Valley. The expected outcome of this effort is the adoption of a new joint Comprehensive Plan by the Town and County, to be followed by enactment of Code revisions, either in separate Town and County Codes or in a single shared Code, implementing the vision of the Plan. The present proposal might make sense as a part of that effort, but it makes no sense now. The Staff statement that “it is hard to see how a 10-acre lot, single-family-only Zoning District has a role to play in the Town of Estes Park” does not merely anticipate the results of the Comp Plan discussions, it preempts them. It serves to remove what should be an outcome of a planning process that enjoys a high level of public interest and engagement into a premature, minimally visible “housekeeping” process. It is grossly disrespectful to those who have volunteered their time to thoughtfully consider future land use as participants in the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee and as public commenters. Furthermore, the statement that “There may be the impression that removing a large-lot, low-density residential district will compromise the Town’s image and character as a ‘small mountain village.’ This term does not accurately characterize Estes Park in 2021, and in any case, there is nothing inherently ‘village-like’ about 10-acre single-family lots.” mischaracterizes the public view of Estes Park, where charm, a small town atmosphere and preservation of the natural environment are key attributes that both visitors and residents alike seek to preserve. Image and character are incredibly important. Intentional urbanization of the whole of the Estes Valley is abhorrent as a goal, as will be borne out by the ongoing planning process. The claim that “nothing in the Town’s proposal to eliminate RE-1 zoning is designed to push the same proposal in unincorporated Estes Valley. Discussion and decisions about that are Larimer County’s choice and prerogative.” is at least naïve and possibly intentionally deceptive. It ignores the Town’s outsized role in setting land use policy for the Valley, a role that is expected to increase under the new Comp Plan. When the now-expired IGA was in place, the County deferred to the Town on virtually all land-use decisions. Are we really to believe that this proposal does not project the Town’s view of future land use Valley-wide? Please reject this ill-timed proposal. Best regards, Fred Barber 2190 Devils Gulch Rd 7/27/2022 1 Elimination of RE-1 Zone District Board of Trustees July 26, 2022 Community Development Director Jessica Garner, AICP Three parcels are affected, all are publicly owned: •Two  are owned by RMNP, are undeveloped, and they will be formally disconnecting  (de‐annexing) from Estes Park •One is owned by the Town, currently contains a water tower (above Castle  Mountain Rd)‐no other use is intended for the site 1 2 7/27/2022 2 RE-1 RURAL ESTATE ZONE DISTRICT: •Established to protect and preserve some of the most rural areas of the Estes Valley in which significant view sheds, woodlands, rock outcroppings, ridgelines, other sensitive environmental areas and low-density residential development comprise the predominant land use pattern. This zone implements the "Rural Estate (RE-1)" future land use designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The district regulations allow for the development of low-density single- family residential uses, generally at densities no greater than one (1) dwelling unit per ten (10) acres. Why Amend the Code? 1. The amendment will remove a zoning district that serves no useful purpose inside the Town of Estes Park. 2. The RE-1 Zoning District is a residential zoning district that requires a 10-acre minimum lot size. As noted, there are only three parcels already zoned RE-1. 3. There aren’t many eligible 10-acre parcels likely to rezone to RE-1. In this respect, eliminating the RE-1 District could be thought of as “housekeeping” or decluttering our Code. 3 4 7/27/2022 3 Why Amend the Code? 4. Town and vicinity have no shortage of sizeable single-family houses on large individual lots -i.e., unattainable housing for most citizens or families. 5. In an environment in which attainable and workforce housing is a critical need, it is hard to see how a 10-acre lot, single- family-only zoning district has a role to play in the Town of Estes Park. Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses Parcel 3522400923 Public (INS) RE-1 (Rural Estate) Water Storage North Parks, Recreation, Open Space Federal Land (N/A) RMNP South Residential R-2 Residential East Rural Estate RE-1 (Rural Estate) RMNP West Rural Estate R-2 Residential 5 6 7/27/2022 4 Table 1a: Zoning and Land Use Summary Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses Parcel 352318901 Rural Estate RE-1 (Rural Estate) RMNP North Parks, Recreation, Open Space Federal Land (N/A) RMNP South Accommodations MF (Multi-Family) Residential East Rural Estate RE (Rural Estate) RMNP West Rural Estate R-2 Residential Table 1b: Zoning and Land Use Summary Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses Parcel 352342014 Rural Estate RE-1 (Rural Estate) RMNP North Parks, Recreation, Open Space Federal Land (N/A) RMNP South Accommodations A (Accommodations) Accommodations East Rural Estate Federal Land (N/A) RMNP West Rural Estate RE RMNP 7 8 7/27/2022 5 Next Steps •The Planning Commission recommends approval of the elimination of  the RE‐1 Zoning District to the Town  Board Questions, Comments? 9 10 PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING Applicable items include: Rate Hearings, Code Adoption, Budget Adoption 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on ACTION ITEM 1. ORDINANCE 14-22 AMENDING CHAPTER 8.06 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING NOISE.  At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, public comment, and written comments received on the item.  Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public hearing which may be responded to at that time.  Mayor declares the Public Hearing open. 2. STAFF REPORT.  Review the staff report. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT.  Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the item. All individuals must state their name and address for the record. Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per person. 4. MAYOR.  Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the item which are not in the Board packet.  Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the item.  Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications presented will be accepted as part of the record.  Declare the public hearing closed.  Request Board consider a motion. 7. SUGGESTED MOTION.  Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. 8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. Discussion by the Board on the motion. 9. VOTE ON THE MOTION. Vote on the motion or consideration of another action. *NOTE: Ordinances are read into record at the discretion of the Mayor as it is not required to do so by State Statute. PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Wendy Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date: July 26, 2022 RE: Ordinance 14-22 Amending Chapter 8.06 of the Estes Park Municipal Code Regarding Noise PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER: QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Ordinance 14-22 amends Title 8 of the Estes Park Municipal Code (EPMC) pertaining to noise generated by construction, maintenance, or repair activities. Present Situation: The EPMC prohibits the generation of construction-related noise between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. A waiver or exception process does not exist. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) representing the three partner agencies working on the Downtown Estes Loop (DEL) have proposed, in the project construction specifications, restrictive seasonal time limitations on the construction activities in the public right of way that may be performed on both Town and CDOT roadways. The intent is to limit the additional adverse business disruption and traffic and pedestrian delays caused by summer construction. The concept of allowing nighttime construction during the summer in order to expedite project completion was presented to the Transportation Advisory Board on April 20 and May 20, 2022, and to the Town Board at the study session on May 24, 2022. The TAC has created an estimated sequence of construction activities for the project and concluded that the current restrictions on daytime construction activity will likely extend the completion of the DEL into the summer of 2025. This delay is influenced by the requirements that hot mix asphalt paving and pavement markings be placed only when the air and surface temperatures exceed 50 degrees. This work cannot be pursued in the colder months of late fall, winter, and early spring. The TAC believes the construction completion could be expedited if nighttime construction is permitted downtown for this project. No expedited completion date has been identified at this time. Proposal: The attached ordinance amends Title 8 of the EPMC pertaining to noises. It gives administrative authority to the Town Engineer to issue a Right of Way Permit that allows construction activity in the public right of way between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. The criteria for issuing the discretionary approval are contained in the ordinance and focus on three considerations. 1. A discretionary judgment decision concludes that the nighttime construction will produce fewer cumulative detrimental impacts to the public than delayed completion associated with daytime only construction. 2. The contractor’s work zone illumination plan requires shielded light fixtures to reduce light spillage outside the work zone. 3. The Estes Police Department and the property owners and occupants located within 500 feet of the nighttime work zone receive at least 48 hours’ notice prior to the commencement of nighttime work. As an additional incentive, CFLHD intends to offer a prorated $1M early completion incentive bonus to the contractor if the work is completed in advance of the completion date to be listed in the contract documents. This will be paid with Federal Land Access Funds, and no additional local match funding is required. Advantages: • The proposed code update would empower the Town Engineer to authorize nighttime work to potentially expedite completion of the DEL construction and other future construction activity that meets the eligibility criteria. • A shorter overall construction disruption period for any project reduces the adverse impacts on roadway users and downtown businesses. • Shorter construction duration typically translates to lower costs for construction. Disadvantages: • Allowing nighttime construction work can frustrate residents living near the construction zone; however, the expedited completion of the project is considered to be a desirable compensation. Action Recommended: Public Works staff recommend adoption of Ordinance 14-22 amending Title 8 of the Estes Park Municipal Code pertaining to noises. Finance/Resource Impact: This ordinance has no direct cost impact on the Town budget. Implementation of the code change could save construction cost for both the Town on publicly funded projects and residents performing private work in the public right of way. It could also reduce revenue losses for businesses impacted by daytime construction activities of long duration near their property. Level of Public Interest The level of public interest is believed to be low. This may reflect a low level of awareness. After this topic was presented to the Town Board in May, no public feedback was received. Public interest may increase with increased awareness. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Ordinance 14-22. Attachments: 1. Ordinance 14-22 Amending Title 8 of the Estes Park Municipal Code ORDINANCE NO. 14-22 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.06 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING NOISE WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to amend certain sections of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Ellipses in this ordinance indicate material not reproduced as the Board intends to leave that material in effect as it now reads. Section 2: Chapter 8.06 of the Estes Park Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of underlined material and the deletion of stricken material, to read as follows: Chapter 8.06 - Noises . . . 8.06.030 - Restrictions on amplified outdoor sound. . . . It shall be unlawful for any person to make, cause to be made or to permit amplified outdoor sound upon any premises possessed or controlled by such person where such sound occurs between the hours of 10:00 p.m., through 10:00 a.m., of the next day except that on Friday and Saturday nights amplified outdoor sound is permitted until 11:00 p.m. Amplified outdoor sound is also subject to the prohibitions set forth in section 8.06.020. . . . 8.06.040 - Exceptions. . . . The prohibitions set forth in Subsection 8.06.020(1) shall not apply to sound from: . . . (6)Any construction, maintenance, or repair activities between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., or at other times as may be authorized under section 8.06.045; . . . 8.06.045 - Nighttime construction noise in the right of way. The prohibitions set forth in section 8.06.020 shall not apply to sound from any construction, maintenance, or repair activities at any time on public right of way, if the Town Engineer specifically approves the sound occurring between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on the permit issued under chapter 12.08 for the work in the right of way. In determining whether to approve such sound, the Town Engineer shall consider: (a) whether the cumulative detrimental impacts to the public, including Attachment 1 roadway users and adjacent property owners, would be lesser with nighttime construction or, if applicable, with delayed completion of daytime construction; and (b) whether the nighttime work will comply, as required, with all the Town’s restrictions on exterior lighting, including those applicable to new development under chapter 7.9 of the development code, as shown on a work zone illumination plan. The permittee must notify the Estes Park Police Department, and the owners and occupants of all properties located within five hundred feet of the work occurring between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., of the activities and associated sound. Notice shall be given in the manner identified in the permit, which may include written notice and attempting personal contact at the properties. Notice must be given at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of the work, and the Town Engineer’s approval of the sound shall not be effective until 48 hours after all such notice is given or attempted as specified. . . . Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication by title. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado this day of , 2022. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2022 and published by title in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2022, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney       PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Wendy Koenig Board of Trustees Through: From: Date: RE: Town Administrator Machalek Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director July 26, 2022 Public Works Reorganization PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER: QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: The Public Works Department (PWD) purposes an administrative reorganization to structure and resource the Public Works Department to successfully meet the service delivery expectations of the community and the Town Board as set forth in the annual Strategic Plan. The goal is to maintain reasonable and balanced workloads for the Public Works Department staff in order to encourage retention and improve recruitment. Present Situation: In 2014 the Public Works Department consisted of 14 employees organized into two Divisions (Operations and Engineering) as shown in the attachment. The passage of the 1A sales tax in 2014 created a new funding stream for street maintenance and trail expansion. This prompted a growth trend in the department that started with adding a new Project Engineer and a new Equipment Operator, and continued with the creation of a Facilities Division supported by a Facilities Manager. The Facilities Division grew to include a Facilities Maintenance worker. A few years later, when floodplain administration was relocated from Community Development to the Public Works Department, the position of Development Review Engineer was added. The creation and adoption of the Downtown Parking Management Plan in 2018 spawned relocation of transit services from the Events & Visitor Services Department and expanded effort in parking management services, both of which required the support of a new Parking & Transit Manager position. More recently, the Town adopted a Stormwater Management Plan (2019) and Thumb Open Space Management Plan (2022) which has created a need for more management oversight and long-range planning. Additionally, the Town enacted several operational changes, such as launching Trailblazer Broadband in the Utilities Department, which expanded the need for Public Works to support the in-house Utilities construction crews. Public Works has expanded equipment maintenance support to the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. By 2021, the Public Works Department had expanded to 22 employees organized into six Divisions (Parks, Street, Fleet, Facilities, Parking & Transit, and Engineering) as shown in the attachment. The Parks, Street, and Fleet Divisions continued to be overseen by the Operations Manager. The cumulative impact of these actions is straining the service delivery capabilities of the department. The need to restructure the department has been growing as the department expands to 27 FTE currently in 2022 budget. The existing organizational structure of the Public Works Department has placed all field operations (Fleet, Parks and Streets) under the Operations Manager resulting in work overload and a need for more effective management, planning, and high-level visioning for these three Divisions. Additionally, having one administrative support position does not provide the necessary support breadth and depth of service delivery expected from the department. As a department, we are struggling to complete many of the Strategic Plan Objectives for 2021 and 2022. These performance delivery struggles are expected to compound in the future with the adoption and implementation of a new Facilities Master Plan. A ripe opportunity to act now exists with increased workload combined with current vacancies in three positions (Facilities Manager, Grants Specialist, Civil Engineer I) and pending vacancies in two other positions due to retirement. The addition of four new positions (three stormwater workers and an engineering inspector/project manager) in the approved 2022 budget further supports the need to evaluate restructuring the department. Proposal: PWD proposes to reorganize the department into four divisions. This re-organization will include: - Eliminating the existing Public Works Operations Manager position and relocating managerial oversight of the three divisions (Parks, Street, Fleet) to other managers. - Eliminating the existing Parking and Transit Manager position and transitioning responsibilities to: o Mobility Services Manager Position (new job description) which will also supervise the Fleet staff and the proposed new Fleet Asset Specialist. o Parking and Transit Supervisor Position (new job description) - Revising the following job descriptions to rebalance and broaden work load responsibility: o Facilities Manager position will be restructured to an expanded Facilities and Parks Manager (new job description) who will oversee both the Facilities and Parks staff. o The Town Engineer position will have added responsibilities to include oversight of the Streets and Stormwater operations staff. o Grants Specialist job description has been revised to include fiscal as well as administrative duties to support Public Works. - Adding one new FTE: o Fleet Asset Specialist (New position) referenced under Mobility Manager. The proposal includes the assembly of four primary work groups within the Public Works Department: 1. Administration 2. Mobility Services & Fleet 3. Facilities & Parks 4. Street & Stormwater Engineering & Operations Overall, a net increase of 1 FTE (Fleet Asset Specialist) is proposed. 2022 Budget FTE Proposed FTE Operations Manager 1 0 Parking and Transit Manager 1 0 Parking and Transit Supervisor 0 1 Mobility Services Manager 0 1 Facilities and Parks Manager (vacant FM Position) 1 1 Town Engineer 1 1 Grants Specialist 1 1 Fleet Asset Specialist (New Position) 0 1 5 6 The proposed new FTE for the Fleet Asset Specialist will perform some of the administrative duties once housed under the Operations Manager position, specifically pertaining to fleet management and fleet procurement for the entire organization. The tasks completed by this position are specialized and are not additional duties that can be absorbed by the current positions in Public Works. Advantages: • Reassignment of divisional oversight from the Operations Manager to three Managers (Mobility Services Manager, Facilities & Parks Manager, and Town Engineer) is expected to rebalance the workload and deliver greater attention to work groups’ day to day needs, long-term vision, and implementation of annual Strategic Plan Objectives set by the Town Board. • This structure better fills gaps for service found in our existing structure. • The additional staff resources reflected in this plan positions the Public Works Department for successful implementation of the recently adopted and pending master plans and interagency agreements. • This staffing structure equips the Public Works Department to keep pace with growing service demands from internal and external customers. Disadvantages: • The proposed restructuring would create a large work team in the Streets & Stormwater Engineering & Operations group. This should be revisited after a few years of expanded stormwater maintenance efforts and/or in light of creating a potential stormwater utility. • This plan does not reflect additional staff resources needed to implement the Facilities Master Plan. It may be necessary to hire a limited-term contract Project Manager. Action Recommended: Public Works recommends the addition of the new Fleet Asset Specialist position and implementation of the new organizational structure in the third quarter of 2022. Finance/Resource Impact: There are ample funds in the 2022 budget to absorb the cost of the proposed restructuring due to the long duration of vacant positions in the department. The restructuring proposal has an estimated ongoing change in yearly expense up to $100,000 (depending on individual hiring placement in the pay plan and benefits elected). Level of Public Interest The level of public interest is believed to be low. Existing staff has done an exemplary job of continuing service delivery in spite of the short-staffed condition. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of one additional staff position, Fleet Asset Specialist in the Public Works Department. Attachments: 1. 2014, 2021, and proposed 2022 organizational charts PAGE 7 OF 9 170 MACGREGOR AVE.P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG 2014 Public Works Department Structure Public Works Director (14 employees) Administrative Assistant Town Engineer Operations Manager Street Supervisor Two Street Maint Workers Parks Supervisor Three Parks Maint Workers Sixteen Seasonal Parks Maint Workers Fleet Supervisor Two Mechanics Attachment 1 PAGE 8 OF 9 170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG 2021 Public Works Department Structure Public Works Director (22 employees) Facilities Manager (2 FTE) Facilities Maintenance Worker Custodial & Misc Maint Contractors Parking & Transit Manager (1 FTE) Parking Contractor Transit Contractor Administrative Assistant Engineering Manager (4 FTE) Civil Engineer I STIP Civil Engineer I Dev Rev, FP Grants Specialist Operations Manager (13 FTE) Street Supervisor Three Equipment Operators Parks Supervisor Four Parks Maint Workers Eight Seasonal Parks Workers Fleet Supervisor Two Mechanics PAGE 9 OF 9 170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG Proposed 2022 Public Works Department Structure DR = direct reports Blue = existing position Yellow = future unbudgeted position Green = revised existing position Red outline = vacant existing position PW Director (5 DR, 28 employees) Mobility Services Manager (3 DR, 7 employees) Parking & Transit Supervisor Transit Contractor Parking Contractor Seasonal Worker Fleet Asset Specialist (new) Fleet Supervisor (3 DR, 4 employees) Lead Mechanic Mechanic II Mechanic II,III Facilities & Parks Manager (2DR, 7 employees) Facilities Maint Worker II Custodial & misc maintenance Contractors Parks Supervisor (4 DR, 5 employees) Parks Maint Worker III (Horticulture) Parks Maint Worker III (Turf) Parks Maint Worker III (Arborist) Parks Maint Worker III (Irrigation) Seasonal Workers Town Engineer (4 DR, 11 employees) Street & Stormwater Supervisor (6DR, 7 employees) Lead Equipment Specialist (2023) Equipment Specialist I,II,III Equipment Specialist I,II,III Equipment Specialist I,II,III Equipment SpecialistI,II,III Equipment SpecialistI,II,III Civil Engineer I Pavement Mgmt Civil Engineer I Dev Rev, FP Civil Engineer I, II Inspection, PM Admin Asst I Communication Grants Specialist Finance PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Wendy Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Dan Kramer, Town Attorney Date: July 26, 2022 RE: Resolution 60-22 Amending the Memorandum of Agreement and the Reimbursable Agreement for the Downtown Estes Loop PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER: QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Public Works staff seek Town Board approval of Resolution 60-22, which amends the existing Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) and the Reimbursable Agreement (RA) with Central Federal Lands Highway Division for the design and construction of the Downtown Estes Loop (DEL). Present Situation: In 2014 the Town, Central Federal Land Highway Division (CFLHD), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), and Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) entered into agreements to fund, design, and construct roadway and bridge improvements to Elkhorn Avenue, Moraine Avenue, and West Riverside Avenue to improve access to RMNP by reducing traffic congestion in downtown Estes Park. This route is the primary travel corridor to RMNP. These improvements were to be funded by a Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant and CDOT Responsible Acceleration of Maintenance and Partnerships (“RAMP”) funds. Construction of the project was expected to occur in 2016. Community controversy and a lengthy process for acquiring additional rights of way for the project delayed construction to 2018, then to 2021. New Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) modeling and mapping procedures for the revised floodplains within the project (triggered by the 2013 flood) further delayed submittal of FEMA floodplain permit applications, which has delayed construction to 2022/2023. In 2019 and 2020, CDOT acquired eight parcels and demolished multiple commercial and residential buildings to provide sufficient area to construct the realignment of West Riverside Avenue and a new bridge over the Big Thompson River. Also in early 2020, the Town requested revisions to the MoA and RA to clarify refinements to the project scope, costs, schedule, and funding responsibility. The Town also requested the insertion of a Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) clause to confirm in writing that the MoA obligations comply with the provisions of this state law. These changes were approved in Modification 1 to the MoA and Modification 4 to the RA. At the Town Board Study Session on May 24, 2022, the project Technical Advisory Committee members shared updated estimates on the project’s increased construction cost and extended construction duration expected due to the recent, significant cost escalation of materials and fuel as well as supply chain challenges. Proposal: The project cannot progress to bidding until sufficient funding is documented to pay for the construction. The attached amended MoA and RA update the project personnel, budget, and schedule, and reflect an increased local funding match in the amount of $500,000 from the Town of Estes Park. The Period of Performance is extended to March 31, 2025. A separate action, under consideration by the Town Board, could allow nighttime construction that could potentially expedite completion of the project. As an additional incentive, CFLHD intends to offer the contractor a prorated bonus payment in the amount of $1M if the project in advance of the completion deadline to be provided in the contract documents. This will be paid with FLAP funds, and no increased local match funding is required. If bids exceed the current revised project budget, another discussion among the project partners will be necessary to determine next steps pertaining to funding and scheduling. Advantages: • The project benefits are numerous and include relief to the Town’s downtown traffic congestion problems; improved downtown mobility for bicyclists; reduction in downtown flood risk from the Big Thompson River; improved water delivery for fire protection; and closure to property owner uncertainty surrounding the DEL. • Delaying bidding to September 2022 is expected to deliver more competitive bids for work starting in 2023. Disadvantages: • Some community members do not support the partner agency’s efforts to build the DEL. • The construction activity in the heart of downtown is disruptive to businesses and users of the impacted roadways. Action Recommended: Public Works staff recommend adoption of the amended MoA and RA. Finance/Resource Impact: The Town has expended no additional funds for this project since the previous quarterly update. The Town remains obligated to pay a local match of $4.2 million (CDOT devolution funds) for the Phase 1 project. An additional contribution from the Town—of up to $500k—is necessary due to a variety of contributing factors discussed at the Study Session on May 24, 202. The additional funds are available in the unallocated General Fund (101) balance. The Town has spent $3,823,977 to date. A total of $10.3 million for this project has been obligated by CFLHD to date. PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY Year Project Cost FLAP Share CDOT Share Town Share 2014 $17.2 million $13 million $4.2 million* $9,070 (scoping) 2021 $22.58 million $22 million $580,000 $4,209,070 2022 $30.80 million $25.5 million $580,000 $4,709,070** *CDOT RAMP funds donated to Town **The Town has the option to spend an additional estimated $950k for the milling, overlay, & restriping of West Elkhorn Avenue by this project. Level of Public Interest: Public Works staff expect a moderate level of public interest in this item. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Resolution 60-22. Attachments: 1. Resolution 60-22 2. 2022 Revised Memorandum of Agreement (Modification 2) 3. 2022 Revised Reimbursable Agreement (Modification 5) 4. 2022 Admin Mod #005 signatures for Reimbursable Agreement RESOLUTION 60-22 APPROVING THE SECOND MODIFICATION TO THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND FIFTH MODIFICATION TO THE REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENT WITH THE CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OF THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR PROJECT FUNDING OF THE DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP WHEREAS, the Town Board desires to amend the existing intergovernmental agreements referenced in the title of this resolution for the purpose of constructing bridge, roadway, and intersection improvements in downtown Estes Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the modified intergovernmental agreements referenced in the title of this resolution in substantially the form now before the Board. DATED this day of , 2022. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Attachment 1 1 FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM PROJECT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Modification 2 Project / Facility Name: Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive Project Route: CO FLAP 34(1) & 36(1) State: Colorado County: Larimer County Owner of Federal Lands to which the Project Provides Access: National Park Service Entity with Title or Maintenance Responsibility for Facility: Town of Estes Park Type of Work: The project is to include preliminary engineering, construction and construction engineering for the reconstruction on Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive in the Town of Estes Park. The routes are currently two lane routes at varying widths. The Schedule A- Downtown Estes Park Loop- Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive project segment would reconfigure the circulation system through Estes Park by realigning and reconstructing West and East Riverside Drives into a continuous one-way (eastbound) roadway and reconfiguring Elkhorn Avenue/Moraine Avenue to a one-way configuration (westbound) creating one-way couplets through Estes Park that would be US Highway 36. The reconfiguration would also include upgrades to Rockwell Street to accommodate additional traffic from the change of Elkhorn Avenue to one-way in the westbound direction. In addition, a segment of West Elkhorn Avenue (Option X) was identified as a need following the project application process and programming of Schedule A- Downtown Estes Park Loop- Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive. The purpose of Option X is to improve the riding surface and to extend the useful life of the pavement as part of the devolution of the U.S. 34 Business Route. This segment of the project will be paid for by the over-match that is provided by the Town of Estes Park. After bids for the construction of Option X are received, if funds are insufficient to cover a minimum match for Schedule A with Option X (17.21% of overall project costs) or if the bids are higher than $1,800,000 for Option X, then the Town will need to fund the additional amount needed to award Option X, if Option X is to be implemented. This Agreement does not obligate (commit to) the expenditure of Federal funds, nor does it commit the parties to complete the project. Rather, this Agreement sets forth the respective responsibilities as the project proceeds through the project development process. ATTACHMENT 2 - UPDATED 2022-07-22 2 Parties to this Agreement: Town of Estes Park (TOEP), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), NPS, and Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD). The Program Decision Committee approved this project on August 26, 2013. AGREED: Town of Estes Park Date Colorado Department of Transportation Date National Park Service Date Chief of Business Operations, Central Federal Lands Highway Division Date TOWN OF ESTES PARK ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 3 A. PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT This Agreement documents the intent of the parties and sets forth the anticipated responsibilities of each party in the development, construction, and future maintenance of the subject project. The purpose of the Agreement is to identify and assign responsibilities for the environmental analysis, design, right-of-way, utilities, acquisition and construction as appropriate for this programmed project, and to ensure maintenance of the facility for public use if improvements are made. The parties understand that any final decision as to design or construction will not be made until after the environmental analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is completed (this does not prevent the parties from assigning proposed design criteria to be studied in the NEPA process.) Any decision to proceed with the design and construction of the project will depend on the availability of appropriations at the time of obligation and other factors such as issues raised during the NEPA process, a natural disaster that changes the need for the project, a change in Congressional direction, or other relevant factors. The modified Memorandum of Agreement for the subject project is further modified by this Modification 2 with additions and deletions displayed as red text and strikethrough text throughout. If Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) funds are used for the development or construction of this project, Town of Estes Park, Colorado agrees to provide a matching share equal to 17.21% or more of the total cost of the project, as detailed more fully in Section J below. B. AUTHORITY This Agreement is entered into between the signatory parties pursuant to the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 204. C. JURISDICTION AND MAINTENANCE COMMITMENT Town of Estes Park, Colorado has jurisdictional authority to operate and maintain the existing facility and will operate and maintain the completed project at its expense. D. FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY COORDINATION Town of Estes Park, Colorado has coordinated project development with the National Park Service. The National Park Service support of the project is documented in the original project application. Each party to this agreement who has a primary role in NEPA, design, or construction shall coordinate their activities with the National Park Service. E. PROJECT BACKGROUND/SCOPE Schedule A- Downtown Estes Park Loop- Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive The project application for Schedule A was submitted under the FLAP project call for applications in May of 2013. The project traverses thru the Town of Estes Park via Elkhorn Avenue (US34/36), Moraine Avenue (US 36) and West and East Riverside Drive. The proposed project would reconfigure the circulation system through Estes Park by realigning and reconstructing West and East Riverside Drives into a continuous one-way (eastbound) roadway and reconfiguring Elkhorn Avenue/Moraine Avenue to a one-way configuration (westbound) creating one-way couplets through Estes Park that would be US Highway 36. The reconfiguration would also include upgrades to Rockwell Street to accommodate additional traffic from the change of Elkhorn Avenue to one-way in the westbound direction. 4 Figure 1 – Project Area Map Roadway. The West and East Riverside Drive and Ivy Street segments will be reconstructed/realigned using a 25-mph design speed with two 12 foot travel lanes. The application did not include any shoulders but the Town discussed the desire for some sort of on-street bicycle lane, and CDOT standards generally require a minimum 4 foot shoulder. The application shows parallel on street parking on the southern section of the roadway, but no on-street parking on the northern end of Riverside Drive where there are existing driveways, which would lead to backing out onto the US highway. Route Segments: The project application stated current average daily traffic (ADT) as 10,000 with current seasonal ADT of 17,900 and projected ADT of 14,000 with a projected seasonal ADT of 25,060. These numbers represent the general total ADT through the project area using the existing and proposed roadway segments to travel through Estes Park towards Rocky Mountain National Park. ADT information shown for each roadway segment is an estimation of the current configuration verse proposed project configuration for each segment (Current/Proposed). Segment 1: Elkhorn Avenue (US 36/US 34 Business) from E. Riverside Dr. to Moraine Ave. Currently two lanes westbound and one lane eastbound with curb and gutter and attached sidewalk/streetscape. The Project will reconfigure this segment by restriping to two lanes in a one-way configuration in the westbound direction expanding to two left turn lanes and one through lane at Moraine Avenue intersection. 5 Figures 2 and 3 – Existing Elkhorn Avenue Segment 2: Moraine Avenue (US 36) from Elkhorn Avenue to Crags Dr./W. Riverside Dr. Currently two lanes southbound and one lane northbound expanded to include an additional northbound lane from Rockwell Street to Elkhorn Avenue. The existing roadway has curb and gutter and attached sidewalk/streetscape. The Project will reconfigure this segment by restriping to two lanes in a one-way configuration in the southbound direction expanded to include a left turn lane in addition to the two through lanes from Elkhorn Avenue to Rockwell Street. Pedestrian walkway connectivity will be provided by extending the existing sidewalk on the east side of Moraine Ave southward to connect to the proposed sidewalk on the west side of W Riverside Drive described in Segment 3 below. A new enhanced pedestrian crossing equipped with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons will be constructed on Moraine Avenue south of Davis Street. Figures 4 and 5 – Existing Moraine Avenue Segment 3: W Riverside Dr./Ivy St./E Riverside Dr. (Moraine Ave. to Elkhorn Ave.) Currently these three roadway segments make up the parallel alternative route to Moraine Avenue/Elkhorn Ave. These segments currently include a northbound and southbound lane with varied on-street and adjacent parking (parallel, diagonal, straight in, 6 driveways), and sections of curb and gutter and attached sidewalk. The Project will reconstruct and realign these segments into a continuous roadway segment with two northbound lanes with curb and gutter and attached sidewalk, and sections of parallel parking. The proposed project includes creating a new landscaped roundabout intersection of Riverside Drive/Crags Drive/Moraine Avenue to provide eastbound Moraine Avenue traffic a through movement to this segment which will become the northbound section of US 36 through Estes Park Figures 6 and 7 – Existing Riverside Drive Segment 4: Rockwell Street from Moraine Ave to E. Riverside Dr. Currently one lane from Moraine Avenue for approximately 250 feet to the existing adjacent public parking lots, then one lane eastbound and westbound to East Riverside Drive. The Project will keep this configuration; however, the amount of traffic will greatly increase as this will be the eastbound route for traffic traveling eastbound on Elkhorn Avenue west of Moraine Avenue. Figures 8 and 9 – Existing Rockwell Street 7 Segment 5: W. Elkhorn Ave from Moraine Ave to Wonderview Ave This 1.5 mile long segment of Elkhorn Ave contains one travel lane in each direction and was devolved from CDOT ownership to TOEP ownership to generate local match funds for this project. TOEP has the option to request including in the project design bid drawings a bid alternate consisting of a 2" thick mill-and-overlay hot mix asphalt resurfacing of this segment and the associated restriping. CFLHD is not obligated to award this bid alternate and the Town is not obligated to pay the extra cost if the bid alternate price exceeds $1,800,000. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if this bid alternate would increase TOEP’s local match amount, the Town may agree to further funding of Option X by irrevocably pledging additional present cash reserves toward its additional financial obligations at such time. Bridge. The project includes the reconstruction of what was the Ivy Street bridge across the Big Thompson River. This new structure will be on a skew and likely need to be raised to provide the same or better clearance above the river. Only roadway resurfacing, striping, and signing changes are proposed at the Rockwell Street and East Riverside Avenue bridges, as they appear to be wide enough to accommodate the project.. Figure 10 – Existing Ivy Street Bridge Figure 11 – Ivy Street Bridge Joint Roadway segments 1 and 2 are classified as urban minor arterial in rolling terrain with a design and posted speed of 25 mph. Roadway Segments 3 and 4 are classified as urban collector in rolling terrain with a design speed of 25 mph. Specific areas of concern or areas of required work by functional discipline are as follows: Right of Way Right of Way mapping of existing parcels/property boundaries is required. There are potentially 5-7 full relocations and 10-20 other partial right-of-way acquisitions, and numerous TCE's. The CDOT will lead the right-of-way acquisition process. Utilities Numerous utilities will need to be relocated including City wet utilities (water, sanitary sewer) and private dry utilities (electrical, gas, communications). New Street lighting 8 will be required for the project. Potholes and/or ground penetrating radar will be required to locate utilities. Environment and Permits Due to the potential for Section 4(f)/6(f), 106 issues and the overall level of change/chance for public concern, an Environmental Assessment is assumed. Survey Full survey of all roadway segments for this project is required. Use of LIDAR may be used to develop topographical mapping. Bridge The Ivy Street bridge will be reconstructed on a new alignment; the bridge will be skewed across the Big Thompson River. It is assumed that Ivy Street can be completely closed during construction. No structural improvements are proposed at the Rockwell Street or East Riverside Road bridges, as they appear to be wide enough to accommodate the project. Hydraulics The Big Thompson River channel between Ivy St and Rockwell St will be modified to improve hydraulic capacity and provide safe, interactive, recreational human access to the water from the walkway along the west riverbank. Highway Design This 4R project is short in length but full of challenges from the typical section for a US highway, curvilinear alignment, on-street parking and access, pedestrian movements, and construction phasing. New traffic signal hardware and software will be installed at four locations: Elkhorn Avenue at Riverside Avenue, Elkhorn Avenue at Moraine Avenue, Moraine Avenue at the Riverwalk pedestrian crossing, and on Riverside Avenue at the Riverwalk pedestrian crossing. A new colored concrete intersection will be provided at Elkhorn/Riverside Avenues. Pavements E. Elkhorn Ave and Moraine Ave are candidates for mill and overlay. Existing paving should be reused when possible. Pulverized asphalt can be used as high-quality fill or base course in new pavement sections. CDOT design procedures and review will be required for any State Highway pavements. Geotechnical Field investigations are anticipated for reconfiguration of the Ivy Street bridge and retaining walls at the Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive intersection. Right-of-entry agreements may be required for the retaining wall boring access. All borings will also 9 require permitting from the Town of Estes Park and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Option X: Segment 5- West Elkhorn Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation This segment was identified as a need following the project application process and programming of Schedule A- Downtown Estes Park Loop- Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive. The purpose of Option X is to improve the riding surface and to extend the useful life of the pavement as part of the devolution of the U.S. 34 Business Route. Additionally, the installation of signage would improve safety along the roadway. The Town applied for and received $4.2 million funding under the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Responsible Acceleration of Maintenance and Partnerships (RAMP) Program for the “devolution” of US 34 Business Route (West Elkhorn) back to Town ownership and maintenance between the Elkhorn/Moraine intersection and Wonderview Avenue. The devolution funds were then used for the required local agency match toward the Downtown Estes Loop FLAP project. The mill and overlay project is proposed to extend the useful life of the pavement as part of the devolution of U.S. 34 Business Route. Environment and Permits A Categorical Exclusion was performed for this work. 10 Survey Full survey of all roadway segments for this project is required. Use of LIDAR may be used to develop topographical mapping. Highway Design The proposed project is composed of milling, overlay, striping, and sign installation within the existing roadway right of way and facility footprint for this 1.3-mile segment along West Elkhorn Avenue. The milling and overlay project is proposed to extend the useful life of the pavement as part of the devolution of U.S. 34 Business Route. New signs would be installed to enhance safety along this segment of the roadway. Pavements Pavement rehabilitation for West Elkhorn is anticipated to be a mill and overlay. Existing paving should be reused when possible. Pulverized asphalt can be used as high-quality fill or base course in new pavement sections. CDOT design procedures and review will be required for any State Highway pavements. 11 F. PROJECT BUDGET Figures are estimated from assumption in the original Application, Scoping Report, and Project Delivery Documents. Cost(s) are subject to escalation increases, depending on formal programming year. PROJECT BUDGET FOR SCHEDULE A ONLY Item Estimated Cost for CFLHD Performed Services Comments Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Environmental Compliance PE Subtotal $4,380,000 Includes $900K for Stream Mitigation Schedule A $4,380,000 Option X $100,000 ROW Acquisition & Utility Relocation ROW Subtotal $6,920,000 Schedule A $6,920,000 Work conducted under Inter-agency ROW Agreement with CDOT for full acquisition parcels. Option X- $0 No ROW work required. Construction Contract (CN) CN Subtotal $17,000,000 Schedule A $17,000,000 Option X $950,000 Construction Engineering (CE) CE Subtotal $2,500,000 Schedule A $2,500,000 Option X $0 TOTAL $30,800,000 12 PROJECT BUDGET FOR SCHEDULE X ONLY Item Estimated Cost for CFLHD Performed Services Comments Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Environmental Compliance PE Total $0 Included in Schedule A ROW Acquisition & Utility Relocation ROW Subtotal $0 No ROW needed Construction Contract (CN) CN Subtotal $1,800,000 Construction Engineering (CE) CE Subtotal $0 Included in Schedule A TOTAL $1,800,000 G. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: Responsible Party Product/Service/Role Comments CFLHD • Develop and sign the Project Agreement • Develop and sign the Reimbursable Agreement • Manage project development schedule and preliminary engineering costs • Perform pavement and geotechnical investigations • Obtain necessary permits • Prepare environmental documents and make project decisions based on the NEPA documents • Prepare the PS&E • Advertise and award the contract. Bids will not be solicited by CFLHD until the TOEP and CDOT have concurred with the plans and specifications. 13 Responsible Party Product/Service/Role Comments Town of Estes Park • Review and sign the Project Agreement • Review and sign Reimbursable Agreement • Review and provide approval for Highway Design Standards • Attend reviews and meetings • Provide available data on traffic, accidents, material sources, construction costs, and any other relevant information • Review the plans and specifications at each phase of the design and provide project development support • Public Works Director of TOEP to provide 95% Plans, Specifications, and Estimate Approval for procurement process • Provide support to CFLHD, as requested, for the development of environmental documents. • Provide ROW and utility information and coordination • Provide water source(s) for design and construction use • Coordinate utility relocations • Obtain permits other than those required for Federal constructed projects PS&E activities will not commence until agreement(s) are executed Colorado Department of Transportation • Review and sign the Project Agreement • Attend reviews and meetings • Provide available data on traffic, accidents, material sources, construction costs, and any other relevant information • Review the plans and specifications at each phase of the design and provide project development support • Provide 95% Plans, Specifications, and Estimate Approval 14 Responsible Party Product/Service/Role Comments • Provide support to CFLHD, as requested, for the development of environmental documents. • Provide ROW and utility information and coordination • Procure ROW • Obtain permits other than those required for Federal constructed projects National Park Service • Review and sign the Project Agreement • Review and comment on environmental documents H. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES – SCHEDULE (This section may be abbreviated with only a tentative project schedule based on the application pending a more in-depth scoping of the proposed project. If so, a more detailed schedule thereafter should be developed and approved by the parties or the Programming Decisions Committee, as appropriate.) Responsible Lead Product/Service/ Role Schedule Start-Finish Comments CFLHD Project Development Planning See attached schedule Project Development Plan CFLHD NEPA Possible EA CFLHD Engineering Design Preliminary through Final PS&E CFLHD Geotechnical/ Pavement Investigation and Recommendations Perform site investigations and provide recommendations 15 Responsible Lead Product/Service/ Role Schedule Start-Finish Comments TOEP, CDOT 100% PS&E Approval TEOP approval by Public Works Director CFLHD Acquisitions Design and Construction Contracting CFLHD Construction Administration Construction Management and Engineering TOEP, CDOT Construction Acceptance TEOP approval by Public Works Director I. PROPOSED DESIGN STANDARDS Final design standards will be determined through the NEPA process. Criteria Comments Standard CDOT Possible width exception on Riverside Drive Functional Classification Urban Minor Arterial Surface Type Hot-Asphalt Concrete Pavement Design Volume 14,000 16 J. FUNDING Funding Source Estimated Funding % of Total Project Comments Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) $25,510,930 82.8% FLAP funds are allocated for Schedule A only. Town of Estes Park $4,200,000 17.2% Cash Match Contribution: • Local Matching Share – Town of Estes Park via CDOT RAMP. • Priority of local match is to contribute funds to Schedule A. • Does not include Option X • Agreement DTFH68-14-E- 00004 Town of Estes Park $9,070 Scoping Agreement DTFH68-13- E-00050 previously contributed to scope the project in 2013. Town of Estes Park $500,000 Shall be paid in the Town Fiscal Year 2022, by December 31, 2022. Colorado Department of Transportation $580,000 In-Kind Contribution: • Hazardous Material Abatement for Full-Acquisition Parcels • Demolition of Buildings for Full-Acquisition Parcels • Legal Fees and Settlement Costs for Seven Full-Acquisition Parcels Total For Schedule A $30,800,000 Total for Option X Paid for by Town of Estes $1,800,000 The funding priorities for the project is Schedule A, followed second by Option X. If during the implementation of the project it is determined that the total project cost exceeds $30,800,000, the Central Federal Lands Highway Division, the Town of Estes Park, and the Colorado Department of Transportation mutually agree to award Schedule A if possible within the $30,800,000. funding even if means the Option X cannot be awarded. If insufficient funds exist to award Schedule A, then the Central Federal Lands Highway Division, the Town of Estes Park, and the Colorado Department of Transportation will either mutually agree in writing to reduce the scope of the project, or execute a modification to this agreement to change funding amounts. Currently there is 17 no funding for Option X. The Town of Estes would need to provide funding prior to award of Option X. Award of this work is optional and contingent upon future written agreement to provide additional funding by the Town of Estes Park prior to award of Option X by CFLHD. In no case will any party’s funding amount be increased without its prior approval. 18 K. MATCHING SHARE REQUIREMENTS Town of Estes Park (with previous contribution from the Colorado Department of Transportation) will provide 17.21% of the total Federal Lands Access Program eligible project costs required for the project through construction contract completion, closeout, and resolution of any disputes, in an amount not to exceed that provided in separate funding agreements. Any additional funds that CDOT elects to contribute towards the project will be included as part of the Town of Estes Park’s 17.21% match requirement. Matching or cost sharing requirements will be satisfied following the obligation of funds to the project as detailed above in Section J. Matching or cost sharing requirements may be satisfied following the obligation of funds to the project by: allowable costs incurred by the State or local government, cash donations, the fair and reasonable value of third party in-kind contributions (but only to the extent that the value of the costs would be allowable if paid for by the party responsible for meeting the matching share), including materials or services; however no costs or value of third party contributions may count towards satisfying the matching share requirements under this agreement if they have or will be counted towards meeting the matching share requirements under another federal award. Costs and third party contributions counting toward satisfying a cost sharing or matching requirement must be verifiable from the records of the party responsible for meeting the matching requirements. The records must demonstrate how the value of third party in kind contributions was derived. Voluntary services sought to be applied to the matching share will be supported by the same methods that the party to this agreement uses to support allocability of personnel costs. Any donated services provided by a third party will be valued at rates consistent with those ordinarily paid by employers for similar work in the same labor market. Supplies furnished will be valued at their market value at the time of donation. Donated equipment or space will be valued at fair rental rate of the equipment or space. All records associated with valuations or costs under section K shall be accessible and be maintained for three years following project close-out. A Reimbursable Agreement (RA) will be executed to commit the match contribution and initiate project delivery for CO FLAP 34(1) & 36(1). The CFLHD will bill Town of Estes Park upon completion of the work in the RA, as tentatively outlined in the RA. The CFLHD is limited to recovery of the matching share of actual costs incurred, as reflected in the invoice provided by the CFLHD. The CFLHD shall not incur costs which result in matching funds exceeding the maximum cost stated in the Reimbursable Agreement without authorization by Town of Estes Park in the form of written modification. 19 L. PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS - POINTS OF CONTACT The following table provides the points of contact for this project. They are to be the first persons to deal with any issues or questions that arise over the implementation of each party’s role and responsibility for this agreement. Name/Title Organization Address/Phone Number/Email Greg Muhonen Director of Public Works Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 402-7400 gmuhonen@estes.org James Usher Program Engineer CDOT Region 4 10601 West 10th Street Greeley, CO 80634 (970) 350-2176 James.usher@state.co.us Cheri Yost Chief of Planning NPS- ROMO Rocky Mountain National Park Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 586-1320 cheri_yost@nps.gov Neil Ogden CFLHD Project Manager CFLHD 12300 W. Dakota Ave. Suite 380 Lakewood, CO 80228 (720) 963-3647 neil.ogden@dot.gov M. CHANGES/AMENDMENTS/ADDENDUMS The agreement may be modified, amended, or have addendums added by mutual agreement of all parties. The change, amendment, or addendum must be in writing and executed by all of the parties. The types of changes envisioned include, but are not limited to, changes that significantly impact scope, schedule, or budget; changes to the local match, either in type or responsibility; changes that alter the level of effort or responsibilities of a party. The parties commit to consider suggested changes in good faith. Failure to reach agreement on changes may be cause for termination of this agreement. A change in the composition of the project team members does not require the agreement to be amended. It is the responsibility of the project team members to recognize when changes are needed and to make timely notification to their management in order to avoid project delivery delays. N. ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES MATRIX Issues should be resolved at the lowest level possible. The issue should be clearly defined in writing and understood by all parties. Escalating to the next level can be requested by 20 any party. When an issue is resolved, the decision will be communicated to all levels below. FHWA Town of Estes Park CDOT R4 NPS Time Neil Ogden, Project Manager Public Works Director Greg Muhonen Resident Engineer Chief of Planning Cheri Yost 30 days Wendy Longley, Project Management Branch Chief Town Administrator Travis Machalek Program Engineer James Usher Park Superintendent Darla Sidles 60 days Curtis Scott, Chief of Engineering 90 days O. TERMINATION This agreement will terminate upon 30 calendar days prior written notification to the other party pursuant to the requirements of 2 C.F.R. §200.339. If this agreement is terminated by the Requesting Agency its liability shall extend to 100 percent of actual and reasonable costs of the items/services rendered and the costs of any non-cancelable obligations incurred prior to the effective date of termination. Further, should the Requesting Agency provide notice to terminate this agreement, the Requesting Agency shall, prior to the effective date of the termination, irrevocably pledge funds in the amount of 100 percent of actual and reasonable costs of the items/services rendered and the costs of any non- cancelable obligations incurred prior to the effective date of termination. The irrevocable pledge and repayment of the funds must comply with the provisions of 23 U.S.C. §201(d)(2). If this agreement is terminated by the Servicing Agency its liability shall extend only to the release of its work products and related materials to the Requesting Agency by the effective date of termination. 1 To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Town Administrator From: Belle Morris, Chair, Transportation Advisory Board Date: July 22, 2022 RE: Recommendation to Amend Memorandum and Reimbursable Agreements for the Downtown Estes Loop Dear Honorable Mayor Koenig and Trustees, Since 2013, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) has been actively engaged in the process of the Downtown Estes Loop (DEL) funding application, design, planning and public discussions. The partners - Town of Estes Park, Central Federal Land Highway Division CFLHD), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), and Rocky Mountain National Park RMNP) - intend to improve access to RMNP by reducing traffic congestion in downtown Estes Park, provide infrastructure improvements, and increase access to Downtown. The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) recommends the Town pay the increased matching fund of $500.000. At its regular meeting held on July 20, TAB discussed the history of the project, and its benefits as well as uncertainties. TAB voted 6-1 in favor of amending the agreements to include the Town of Estes Park providing the $500,000 matching fund. The discussion was robust and respectful. Support: 1. In the past eight years much has already been invested in the DEL, including land acquisition, design and producing construction documents. It would not be prudent to pull the plug" at this time. 2. The Town would be in breach of contract and would have to make reimbursement payments to cover the engineering an d design costs. 3. The Town’s return on investment is substantial. The Town's share of the total project cost is just over 15 percent while FLAP and CDOT funds amount to almost 85 percent of the total cost. 4. The design and plan include significant improvement s to Downtown: reduction of flood risk from Big Thompson River; replacement of two degraded bridges; expansion of Baldwin Park; introduction of bike lanes in the Downtown; reduced congestion; reduced vehicle idling time improves air quality; reduced stop-and-go traffic improves the visitor experience; installation of a roundabout that improves the dangerous Crags Drive intersection; and expanded Downtown area to the south. 5. Encourages competitive construction bids by September 2022. Concerns: 1. There are uncertainties and potential risks to Downtown businesses with a one -way design encouraging motorists to potentially leave the area. 2. The actual cost of the project is not secured. 3. The return on investment for businesses is uncertain. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED 2022-07-25 2 TAB is eager for the project to begin the implementation phase. From the beginning, TAB has supported the project and welcomes the final improvements to the Downtown area of Estes Park. TAB thanks Mayor Koenig and Town Trustees for allowing the opportunity to provide our recommendation. Sincerely, Belle Morris Chair, Estes Park Transportation Advisory Board Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Amending Downtown Estes Loop agreement and floodplain risk discrepancies Rick Grigsby <rkg@beyondbb.com>Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 12:06 PM To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> Cc: tmachalek <tmachalek@estes.org>, townclerk <townclerk@estes.org> July 25, 2022 RE: Amending Downtown Estes Loop agreement and floodplain risk discrepancies Dear Mayor Koenig, I hope you are well and thank you for your public service. I need to brief you of a conflict scenario our community is facing before Resolution xx-22 Amending the Memorandum of Agreement and the Reimbursable Agreement for the Downtown Estes Loop is approved by the Town Board. AECOM, acting in the capacity as consultant to the Central Federal Lands, has notified me the Downtown Estes Loop Project will elevate flood risks along the Big Thompson River. Specifically, they “identified quantifiable changes to the floodplain limits, floodway limits, and rise in the 1% annual chance water surface elevations along the Big Thompson River as a result of the Estes Park Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) Loop Project”. The elevated flood risk covers our downtown property on East Riverside Drive and vicinity, “generally located between Crags Drive and Riverside Drive along Big Thompson River”. AECOM has applied for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from the Federal Emergency Management Agency on behalf of Central Federal Lands Highway Division to revise Preliminary FIRM Panels 08069C1094G and 08069C1282G to reflect the increases in flood water surface elevations due to the Estes FLAP Loop Project. Yet in support of the proposed Amendment, Public Works is advising the Board in unequivocal terms that the Downtown Estes Loop is advantageous because the Project will result in “reduction in downtown flood risk from the Big Thompson River”. I can not reconcile these contradictory statements and discrepancies. Can you? The Preliminary FIRM is presently under review during a 90-day appeal period. The appeal period ends mid August. I’m raising objections in a formal appeal on best available data to show the new flood hazard determinations of the Preliminary FIRM are scientifically or technically incorrect. My appeal includes comments on these federal/local conflicts and requests for review. By reason of the Downtown Estes Loop Project, at least according to AECOM, the downtown riverside community is facing added risk. It appears the government Project could be taking even more private property and converting it to public use. Please confirm the Amendment provides sufficient funding for additional eminent domain proceedings and related compensation, costs to design and build improvements to minimize the quantifiable increases in flood levels, and Town liabilities for issuing a regulatory floodway permit for an activity that damages private property. Otherwise, before throwing another $500,000 toward a failed agreement, I must object to the Amendment and request you table the Resolution until after the Preliminary FIRM appeal process runs its course and much needed transparency is provided. Thank you very much in advance for your assistance in sorting out these conflicts and providing me a timely response. Of course, I will be happy to discuss with you and/or the Town Administrator the details of our appeal when complete or at electronic filing. Rick Grigsby 1950 Cherokee Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 rkgrigsby@beyondbb.com Subject: 260 E Riverside Drive cc: Town Administrator DI DI T B TB DI T B TB TB 7 5 2 3 . 5 2 DI TB T B 7 5 2 6 .0 0 DI BENCH MARK 1 1 8 4 7 7 5 2 6 . 1 1 0 TB DI TB TB DI TB TB 1 1 9 3 9 TB TB DI 7 5 2 7 . 7 7 DI TB DI 7 5 2 8 . 0 7 DI 7 5 2 8 . 2 0 DI TB TB TB F IR TBF IR TB TB TB FI R FI R FI R FI R TB FLAG POLE FI R TB TB TB TB TB F IR FI R TB TABLE PICNIC TB FIR TB TABLE PICNIC TB TB TABLE PICNIC TB T B 7 5 3 4 . 9 8 DI TB TB TB TB PP TB PPPP TB DI DI TB DI DI DI TB DI TB TABLE PICNIC DI T AN K DI 1 1 4 0 5 TB TB 1 0 8 1 6 DIDI TABLE PICNIC RMNPRMNP 36 3636 RMNP 6402 6403 6735 6091 6084 6116 6 08 3 60 82 60 81 6 02 3 6022 6080 6 73 3 STATE PROJECT CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 / 2 7 / 2 0 2 2 _ U s e r : i s a b e l . b u t le r _ NUMBER SHEET 8 : 0 6 : 1 0 P M p w : \ \ a e c o m - n a - p w . b e n t l e y . c o m : A E C O M _ D S 0 1 _ N A \ D o c u m e n t s \ 6 0 3 3 2 7 4 0 - E s t e s P a r k \ 9 0 0 - W o r k \ 9 1 0 _ C A D \ 0 2 - S H E E T S \ A - G e n _ s h t \ A 0 5 _ S I T E M A P . d g n CO Downtown Estes Park Loop CO FLAP US36(1) A-06 SITE MAP Not To Scale OPTION X W. Elkhorn Ave. U S- 3 4 7528.07 10816 11405 7534.98 7677.017677.59 7676.157675.557674.997674.48 7671.97 7669.63 7666.867665.29 7665.287665.02 7661.107661.10 7661.12 7661.18 7661.21 7661.41 7661.26 7661.06 7660.98 7660.99 7659.43 7659.307659.28 7659.09 7659.08 7658.78 7658.827658.82 7657.967657.93 7645.307645.207644.26 7644.07 7643.67 7643.777643.63 7643.82 7599.47 7599.45 7597.89 7596.64 7595.22 7594.127593.98 7593.87 7594.34 7594.837595.637596.367598.56 7598.45 7596.47 7594.14 7592.507591.74 7590.80 7590.30 7590.20 7589.08 7588.31 7587.43 7586.88 7586.677586.54 7586.307586.287586.057586.08 7585.88 7586.107586.49 7585.73 7585.47 7585.59 7585.63 7584.747584.607584.287583.427583.32 7583.90 7568.447568.147567.95 7548.58 7549.21 7549.61 7549.977550.407550.977551.327551.927552.967553.97 7562.09 7563.28 7664.847664.11 7661.067660.477659.78 7659.98 7661.937662.10 7660.89 7658.687658.06 7659.73 7661.107661.777661.86 7661.33 7654.12 7656.927658.177658.57 7582.107582.567582.937582.977581.77200 7679.327679.32 7678.94 7678.11 7678.94 7678.11 7677.55 7676.60 7674.99 7673.71 7671.29 7668.56 7665.587665.157664.94 7661.38 7660.64 7660.20 7659.88 7659.80 7659.98 7659.95 7659.80 7659.93 7659.59 7659.527659.44 7659.34 7659.16 7658.907658.847658.79 7656.80 7654.027653.537649.447658.69 7658.78 7658.72 7658.82 7658.66 7658.52 7657.53 7656.93 7655.47 7653.42 7650.55 7647.72 7645.64 7642.90 7640.91 7636.84 7635.36 7633.45 7631.45 7630.10 7628.46 7626.73 7624.96 7623.14 7621.45 7619.397617.537615.667613.767611.557609.237608.217606.867606.107605.487604.86 7603.65 7603.09 7603.70 7603.797599.957597.027595.317594.897593.357591.09 7589.90 7588.80 7587.61 7586.77 7586.48 7585.71 7584.95 7584.70 7584.39 7584.28 7583.29 7582.78 7582.76 7582.30 7582.12 7582.29 7582.22 7582.20 7582.05 7581.93 7581.71 7581.80 7581.457582.177581.627581.557581.027580.457579.807579.597578.717577.957577.117575.867574.507572.947571.347569.517568.027568.547570.377571.827573.477574.667575.897576.907577.957578.777579.197579.527579.647579.807580.147580.34 7580.16 7580.18 7580.36 7580.54 7580.93 7581.29 7581.72 7582.14 7582.69 7582.78 7582.99 7583.31 7583.927583.857583.61 7582.967582.99 7565.797563.907563.71 18170 FLAG POLE TABLEPICNIC TABLEPICNIC TABLEPICNIC TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TBTB TB TB P. C.2-8 P. C.2-9 P. C.2-10 FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR STAMPED "LS 9485" FOUND BAR W/CAP C-026 7656.0 7644.07592.0C-23 C-24 C-25 CO FLAP US36(1) Moraine West HCL Station 100+82 Begin Schedule A CO FLAP US36(1) Elkhorn HCL Station 258+48 End Schedule A CO FLAP US36(1) W Elkhorn HCL Station 701+90 Begin Option X CO FLAP US36(1) W Elkhorn HCL Station 770+35 End Option X Moraine Ave E. Riverside Dr. Ri versi de Dr. M o r a in e A v e R o c k w e l l S t .E. El k h o r n e A v e. W . E l k h o r n e A v e . Big Horn Dr. Ivy Bridge Parking Lot Post Office Piccadilly Square Big T h om p so n River Fall River ( S e e I n s e t ) O p t i o n X RW-01 Trail_01 Trail_02 Trail_03 RW-04 (See Sheet C-07) Moraine Southbound Bypass Trail_04 C-06 C-01 C - 0 8 C - 0 9 C - 0 9 C - 1 0 C-10 C-11 C- 1 3 C - 1 2 Staging Area Drop Structure Riverside Bridge Trail_05 Bridge Rockwell be removed Existing Ivy Bridge to C - 0 2 C - 0 3 C-03 C -0 4 C -05 Riverside Dr. Crags Dr. C-04 95% D E S I G N S U B M I T T A L 2 / 3 / 2 0 2 2 NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N