HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2017-12-12The 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, December 12, 2017
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated November 28, 2017.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes - None.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated November 7, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
5. Family Advisory Board Minutes dated November 2, 2017 (acknowledgment only).
6. Estes Park Board of Appeals Appointment.
Amy Plummer, replacing John Spooner, term expiring on December 31, 2019.
7. Parks Advisory Board Appointments.
Geoffrey Elliot, replacing Celine Lebeau, term expiring on December 31, 2019.
Wade Johnston, for a 3-year term expiring December 31, 2020.
Merle Moore, Reappointment, 3-year term expiring December 31, 2020.
8. Resolution 31-17 – Fair Housing. Director Hudson. Request to continue to January
9, 2018.
9. Revisions to the Federal Transit Administration Title VI Plan. Director Hudson.
10. Award Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Americawest/Prairie Fire
Development for Fish Hatchery Workforce Housing Project. Manager Landkamer.
11. Award Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Americawest/Prairie Fire
Development Group for Dry Gulch Workforce Housing Project. Manager
Landkamer.
Prepared 12/01/17
*Revised 12/07/17
*
1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
2. REPORTS & DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY. Executive Director Kurelja.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. APPEAL, RAVEN ROCK TOWNHOMES DEVELOPMENT PLAN, JAMES &
SUSAN MACKEY, OWNERS. APPEAL OF ESTES VALLEY PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION OF DP-2017-07 ON NOVEMBER 14, 2017. Director
Hunt & Town Attorney White.
B. PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT, RAVEN ROCK
TOWNHOMES, METES & BOUNDS PARCEL, TBD PROMONTORY DRIVE,
JAMES & SUSAN MACKEY, OWNERS. Director Hunt.
C. ORDINANCE 33-17 – REZONING FROM E-ESTATE TO RM-RESIDENTIAL
MULTI-FAMILY, LOT 20 LITTLE PROSPECT MOUNTAIN ADDITION, 260
STANLEY AVENUE, MICHAEL & CYNTHIA KINGSWOOD, OWNERS.
Planner Gonzales.
D. SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT – ESTES PARK RESORT, LOT 1, LAKE ESTES
2ND ADDITION, 1700 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, ROCKY MOUNTAIN
HOTEL PROPERTIES I, LLC/OWNER. Planner Gonzales.
E. ORDINANCE 34-17 – AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE CHAPTER 13 §5.4 & §3-17, REGARDING OUTDOOR MOBILE FOOD
VENDORS & VENDING PERMITS. Planner Becker.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. 2018 CONTRACT WITH HOST COMPLIANCE FOR VACATION HOME
SERVICES. Director Hunt.
2. RESOLUTION 32-17 – 2017 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS.
Director Hudson.
3. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2018-2022. Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek.
4. AGREEMENT REGARDING EXERCISE OF RIGHTS OF FIRST REFUSAL TO
ACQUIRE FUTURE WINDY GAP WATER UNITS FROM PLATTE RIVER POWER
AUTHORITY. Attorney White.
5. BRODIE AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS CONSULTANT CONTRACT, AWARDED TO
DREXEL, BARREL & CO. Engineer Stallworth.
6. ORDINANCE 35-17 TOWN BOARD COMPENSATION. Town Clerk Williamson.
7. RESOLUTION 33-17 SETTING THE APRIL 3, 2018 MUNICIPAL ELECTION. Town
Clerk Williamson.
5. ADJOURN.
Town Board Meeting for December 26, 2017 Has Been Cancelled.
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 28, 2017
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 28th day of November, 2017.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Rex Walker
Also Present: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary
Absent: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Mayor Jirsa 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 (Walker/Holcomb) to approve the Agenda, and it
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
None.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS.
Trustee Martchink encouraged citizens to apply for the vacancies on the Parks Advisory
Board, closing December 1, 2017.
Trustee Norris announced the next Family Advisory Board (FAB) meeting would be held
December 7, 2017. The Planning Commission met November 14, 2017, Director Hunt
reported on the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) changes, 8 of which pertained
to housing issues and workforce housing. The Planning Commission continues to
discuss the roles of the elected board versus the commission. He stated Director Hunt
and Town Attorney White provided the commission with memos outlining the land use
review process. He also indicated a special Study Session prior to the December 12,
2017 meeting might be beneficial to discuss the Raven Rock Appeal.
Trustee Walker publicly thanked CDOT for traffic control on Highway 34. On behalf of
Estes Park R-3 School District, he thanked the voters of Estes Park for their support of
Ballot Issue 3A. He mentioned the first 100 memberships for the Estes Valley
Community Center (EVCC) received a Trailblazer Club membership.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated the annual Sister City meeting would be held in February;
more information for public attendance would be provided closer to the event.
Trustee Nelson mentioned the cancellation of the December Open Lands Advisory
Board meeting. He thanked the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District for a tour of
the EVCC.
Trustee Holcomb stated the Transportation Advisory Board met on November 15, 2017
where they discussed potential paid parking implementation and the location of an
additional prospective parking structure. The Visit Estes Park (VEP) Board met on
November 21, 2017 and new board members were sworn in. Sean Jurgens was
selected as Chairman and Lowell Richardson as Vice Chair. The board was updated on DRAFT
Board of Trustees – November 28, 2017 – Page 2
the activities of VEP and policy governance. The Partnership for Age Friendly
Communities (PAFC) has begun advertising for an Executive Director and Trustee
Holcomb announced he would be President of the PAFC Board in 2018.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Town Clerk Williamson presented an update on Vacation Home Registrations (VHRs)
informing the Board and the public of the upcoming VHR deadline of December 31,
2017. She highlighted the 367 issued residentially zoned VHRs and those VHRs in-
process at 198. These numbers totaled 565, with 23 residential VHRs still available per
the VHR cap estimate. She clarified a VHR application secures a registration within the
cap estimate when it is received and deemed complete by staff. Town Clerk Williamson
focused on the 100 VHRs without a scheduled inspection, the 52 VHRs with
discrepancies and voided VHRs; defining how these would be dealt with moving
forward.
Clarification was sought on those VHRs needing re-inspections and the 100
unscheduled VHRs. It was confirmed the majority of VHRs to be re-inspected are due to
issues with dark skies lighting, and those 100 unscheduled inspections are not all
residential. Code Enforcement Officer Hardin stated those VHRs needing to be
inspected are not due to the Town’s inability to meet demand.
Trustee Norris asked if Host Compliance Technologies have been effective in rooting
out unregistered VHRs, and how Host Compliance processes VHR complaints. He
questioned if it was efficient to have a time gap between complaints being received by
Host Compliance and forwarded to the Town, and if there were more services the Town
wants them to provide. Director Hunt mentioned the Host Compliance contract would be
reconsidered in December 2017, with more service options available to the Town.
Trustee Nelson asked whether the residential cap estimate was over estimated,
considering the 100 VHRs with unscheduled inspections. It was communicated any
overestimation could not be determined until after December 31, 2017. Town Clerk
Williamson noted registrations were being used as an advertising tactic to add resale
value. Trustee Martchink asked the Board to be cognizant of the total number of VHRs,
736, and to consider the amount of commercially zoned VHRs.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated November 14, 2017 and Town Board Study
Session dated November 14, 2017.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes - None.
4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated October 17, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated October 26, 2017 (acknowledgment
only).
6. Policy 101 Updates including Local Marketing District Liaison Appointment.
Koenig sought confirmation on Policy 101 containing the Sister City Liaison. This
was confirmed by Assistant Town Administrator Machalek
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities).
1. FIRE DISTRICT UPDATE. Chief Wolf presented an update on the work of the
Estes Valley Fire Protection District (EVFPD) for 2016 and 2017, and the future DRAFT
Board of Trustees – November 28, 2017 – Page 3
of 2018. He outlined the mission, motto, history, financing, facilities, and
equipment of the EVFPD. The EVFPD hosted the Regional Fire Academy,
which had participants from all neighboring agencies. This was a benefit to the
community by increasing the amount of certified firefighters in the area. Chief
Wolf highlighted the long term strategic plan of the EVFPD would be to upgrade
department apparatus’, reduce fleet size, and planning for emergencies with
other agencies.
Trustee Holcomb asked about attrition issues as a result of being a volunteer
agency. Chief Wolf acknowledged this as a cost of doing business and stated
an effort needs to be made for supporting volunteers, due to the current plans
to remain a volunteer agency.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT, Raven Rock
Townhomes, Metes & Bounds Parcel, TBD Promontory Drive. Request to
continue to December 12, 2017.
B. SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT – ESTES PARK RESORT, Lot 1, Lake Estes
2nd Addition, 1700 Big Thompson Avenue, Rocky Mountain Hotel
Properties I, LLC/Owner. Request to continue to December 12, 2017.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve the Planning
Commission Consent Agenda items, and it passed unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
A. ORDINANCE 31-17 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING BED & BREAKFASTS. Mayor
Jirsa opened the public hearing. Code Enforcement Officer Hardin
presented Ordinance 31-17 as a result of the changes to VHR regulations.
The Ordinance would allow Bed & Breakfasts (B&B) to operate in all
residential zones, with the benefits of having a smaller density, with an
operator living on the premises. At this time, staff cannot determine the
number of B&Bs which may open due to the code change, however, the
Town would be able to regulate and license B&Bs.
The difference between B&Bs and Airbnb was explained, with Airbnb
being a website for advertising rentals, seen mostly as a room without the
amenities or the hospitality associated with B&Bs. It was pointed out by
Trustee Martchink and Assistant Town Administrator Machalek of the
difficulties of enforcing amenity stipulations defined by the EVDC
amendments, specifically the wording of Section 2.c. Meal Service. Code
Enforcement Officer Hardin stated Section 2.c. was included to eliminate
the ability of B&Bs to act as venues for large scale events.
Tony Schetzsle/Town citizen stated the code amendment lacked language
there to distinguish B&Bs from VHRs, he asked the Board to remand the
Ordinance to the Planning Commission to consider including B&Bs within
the residential cap.
Those speaking in favor of the amendment included Jeff Robbins/Town
citizen, Maggie Treadway/Town citizen, and Frank Theis/County citizen.
The amendment would allow for a vital part of a tourism community to
return to Estes Park. Benefits would include having either the owner or
manager on premises at all times, a high level of service, and the
appreciation of neighbors.
DRAFT
Board of Trustees – November 28, 2017 – Page 4
Robert Welch/County citizen saw benefits in both VHRs and B&Bs; he
questioned the possibility of being able to operate both types of
businesses at one location. Director Hunt responded stating it would be
possible to operate both a VHR and B&B at the same location with a
determined operating time frame for each.
Trustees expressed concerns with allowing another avenue of loss in
housing for residents considering the current housing issues. B&Bs, it was
noted, should not become a similar situation as VHRs, and a provisional
cap should be considered. It was acknowledged by the Board any
concerns could be reevaluated in a year, after data has been collected.
Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. Attorney White read the Ordinance
into the record. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Nelson) to
approve Ordinance #31-17, amending the Estes Park Development
Code regarding Bed & Breakfasts, and it passed with Trustee Walker
voting “No”.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. PUBLIC HEARING – 2018 BUDGET:
Mayor Jirsa reopened the public hearing from November 14, 2017, and Director
Hudson presented the 2018 Budget as ready to be adopted.
Sharon Gartner/County citizen spoke as President of the Estes Park Gun and
Archery Club, in appreciation of community service funding in previous years,
and the Community Initiative Fund the club might receive for 2018. She
described the benefits the club has experienced a result of previous funding.
Frank Theis/County citizen explained the issues he experienced as a developer
and general contractor in Estes Park due to increased fees. As treasurer of the
Estes Valley Watershed Coalition, he thanked the Board for their ongoing
support
Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Norris), to approve the Highway User’s Trust Fund and it passed
unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Holcomb), to approve Resolutions
#28-17, #29-17, and #30-17 and it passed unanimously.
2. AWARD AUDIT CONTRACT FOR THE YEARS ENDING DECEMBER 31,
2017 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2021. Director Hudson explained 2016 was
the final year of a five year engagement with CliftonLarsonAllen LLP as the
Town’s auditors. The Audit Committee advertised for and received 5 proposals
from qualified audit firms which the selection committee ranked based on
experience and expertise. The top three ranked firms met with the Audit
Committee on November 17, 2017. From those meetings the audit committee
recommended the Audit Contract be awarded to Swanhorst and Company LLC.
Mayor Jirsa expressed his concerns with selecting Swanhorst and Company
LLC, in consideration of their previous work with the 2002 - 2003 audit of the
Saint Vrain School District. These concerns were discussed at length and those
Trustees on the Audit Committee explained their decision process. They cited
Director Hudson’s previous experience with Swanhorst and Company LLC,
Swanhorst’s history with the Town and government auditing, and the pricing
structure Swanhorst provided.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig), to
award the Audit Contract to Swanhorst and Company LLC for the years ending
December 31, 2017 through December 31, 2021, and it passed with Mayor
Jirsa and Trustee Walker voting “No”. DRAFT
Board of Trustees – November 28, 2017 – Page 5
3. ORDINANCE 32-17 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL
CODE ADDING CHAPTER 10.24 USE OF OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES. Mayor
Jirsa opened the public hearing. Attorney White stated the purpose of
Ordinance 32-17 was to allow off-highway vehicles (OHV) on Town public
roads, streets, alleys, and avenues per C.R.S. Section 33-14.5-100 (1) (a).
Changes previously discussed by the Board had been incorporated into Exhibit
A of the Ordinance. Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. Attorney White read
the Ordinance into the record. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Mart
chink), to approve Ordinance #32-17 amending the Estes Park Municipal
Code adding Chapter 10.24 use of off-highway vehicles, and it passed
unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary DRAFT
4
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
November 7, 2017 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Wayne Newsom, Vice-Chair John Lynch, Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau,
Rex Poggenpohl
Attending: Members Newsom, Lynch, Smith, Moreau, and Poggenpohl
Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Jeff
Woeber, Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: None
Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were two people in
attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
1. AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Smith) to approved the agenda as
presented and the motion passed unanimously.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes dated October 3, 2017
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Lynch) to approve the minutes as presented and
the motion passed unanimously.
4. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED AT 1901 FISH CREEK ROAD; FISH
CREEK STORAGE
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The applicants, Chris and Marlys Eshelman,
requested a variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 7.2.B.2.b Grading
Standards. The variance would allow lowering original grade by approximately 24 feet in
lieu of the 12-foot maximum allowed. The property is zoned I-1–Industrial. A development
plan for the storage facility was approved in October, 2017 by the Estes Valley Planning
Commission. The site has an existing cliff along the west property line, which will need to
be cut back to increase the usable space.
Planner Gonzales reviewed the criteria for the variance, which can be viewed in the staff
report. There are very few properties in the Estes Valley zoned I-1, and the existing cliff
on this small site makes the property unique. The property to the west is platted as open
space in the Carriage Hills subdivision. The application was routed to affected agencies. 5
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
November 7, 2017
A legal notice was published in the local newspaper and the adjacent property owners
were notified by mail.
Staff, Member & Applicant Discussion
Lonnie Sheldon/project engineer stated a retaining wall will not be needed, as the cliff
face is solid rock. The original grade of the property will not be changed. There is a fence
at the top of the cliff, which will be improved.
Chris Eshelman/applicant provided a brief overview of the project, and stated the blasting
would be minimal and should not impact the neighbors.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to approve the variance from EVDC
Section 7.2.B.2.b to allow a grade change of approximately 24 feet to allow
construction of a storage facility at 1901 Fish Creek Road and the motion passed
unanimously.
5. REPORTS
There were no comments nor discussion regarding the reports listed on the agenda.
There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:17 a.m.
___________________________________
Wayne Newsom, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
6
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 2, 2017
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Family Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Administration Conference Room of
Town Hall, in said Town of Estes Park on the 2nd day of November, 2017.
Present: Nancy Almond
Courtney Hill
Bin Greer
Jodi Roman
Laurie Dale-Marshall
John Bryant
Sue Strom
Also Present: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Suzanna Simpson, Administration Executive Assistant
Ron Norris
Absent: Floyd Collins
Karen Randinitis
Rachel Balduzzi
Marion Stallworth
Maria Jimenez
Chair Greer started the meeting at 3:34 p.m.
Public Comment
None
Bylaw Quorum Update
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek updated the group on the Town Board’s
approval of a reduction needed for quorum to one-half of the Family Advisory Board
(six members).
Approval of August minutes
It was moved and seconded (Hill/Bryant) to approve the August, 2017 meeting minutes
and the motion passed unanimously.
Resource Guide and PDF Review
The board reviewed the PDF prepared by Vice-Chair Stallworth and Member Randinitis.
The board agreed that the mission/vision can be left off the document. A column will be
added to indicate whether or not resources are available in Spanish. Discussion of
adding local counselors, Member Almond will check with the Suicide Prevention Task
Force to see about linking to their resource guide. Member Dale Marshall said that
7
Family Advisory Board – November 2, 2017 – Page 2
possible hard copies could be kept in library, as Member Roman brought up the
inclusion of those community members who may not have internet. Member Almond
will also check with 2-1-1 to see about linking to their list. Habitat for Humanity will be
added. Finally, the board expressed kudos to Vice-Chair Stallworth and Member
Randinitis for their work. Trustee Norris would like to have members present the final
version at a future Town Board meeting. The Town will promote the resource on social
media through the Public Information Office.
New meeting time
Thursdays are the best time for the majority of the group – Chair Greer will talk to Vice-
Chair Stallworth about moving the meeting time up.
Youth on Boards
Member Dale Marshall explained some of the expectations for participating – be
intentional about including the member and identify projects or tasks that they can help
with – data collection, social media, etc. The idea is that they have opportunities to
learn. It was moved and seconded (Dale Marshall/Almond) to accept a youth on the
Family Advisory Board as an advisor, nominate Member Bryant as the mentor/contact
for youth and authorize Chair Greer to complete the application and the motion passed
unanimously.
Next Steps/Focus Areas/Gaps
Member Almond updated the board on recent efforts to submit a proposal to the Town
requesting that the existing Senior Center building be converted to a childcare facility.
She met with Town staff recently and was instructed to get more cost information. There
are currently three possible uses proposed for the building – childcare, museum storage
for collections, and for Senior Center, Inc. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek
explained to the board that the decision on the final use will be up to the Town Board.
There is a study session planned to discuss the topic in January. Member Almond, on
behalf of EVICS, will develop a more comprehensive proposal and would like some
assistance in the form of a task force comprised of at least some Family Advisory Board
members. The proposal will include the need in the community (current needs
assessment takes care of this), timeframe, potential operators, and costs (upfront
modifications to the building – not operating costs). Lengthy discussion ensued on the
Town’s strategic planning process, budget, allocation of existing funds, staff
recommendations and staff time, how to approach the Town Board on this topic, and
the viability of all three potential uses.
Other
Member Hill reminded the board that the League of Women Voters is having a forum
on workforce housing next week at the YMCA, and that the YMCA is holding a meeting
8
Family Advisory Board – November 2, 2017 – Page 3
next Tuesday night with their neighboring HOA to discuss an employee housing project
that will yield between 48 and 60 units.
Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Family Advisory Board will take place Thursday, Dec. 7, at 3:30
p.m. in Room 203 at Town Hall.
Seeing no further business, Chair Greer adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m.
9
10
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: December 12, 2017
RE: Estes Park Board of Appeals Appointment
Objective:
Appoint an applicant to the Town of Estes Park Board of Appeals, to fill the remainder of
an unexpired term.
Present Situation:
The Town’s Board of Appeals is a five-member board whose members are appointed by
the Town Board of Trustees. This Board is required by the various International Building
Codes, and its purpose is to hear appeals of the Building Official’s decisions and to
advise staff and elected officials on matters pertaining to code amendments and code
interpretations. Specific seats on the Board are designated to represent various building
trades and design specialties (architecture, general contractors, etc.)
The Board current has a vacancy due to the resignation earlier this year of Mr. John
Spooner. Mr. Spooner is a P.E. (Civil Engineer) and served honorably and well on the
Board in that professional capacity for many years. The remainder of this seat’s term
runs for approx. two years, ending on Dec. 31, 2019.
Proposal:
The Board vacancy has been advertised through the Administrative Services Dept.’s
standard protocols for several months. To date only one applicant with professional
engineering credentials has filed. The applicant is Amy Plummer, a retired P.E. in Estes
Park.
Staff has reviewed Amy’s application and materials and we conclude that she is fully
qualified to represent the engineering specialty matters on the Board and to serve as a
Board of Appeals member.
Although the seat could continue to be advertised, there is always a balance between a
lengthy search process and ensuring that any Board has a quorum and full
representation. In this case, staff views filling the seat expeditiously with a qualified
candidate to be the best path forward. Per the Town Board’s past policy and practice, if
11
only one applicant is in the queue, a formal appointment interview has not been deemed
necessary. Appointing Ms. Plummer this evening will accord with that approach.
Advantages:
• Provides continuity on the Board of Appeals for competent membership generally
• Provides representation on the Board for the Civil Engineering profession
Disadvantages:
• None identified
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the appointment.
Budget:
n/a
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve the appointment of Amy Plummer to
the Estes Park Board of Appeals, for the remainder on an unexpired term ending on
Dec. 31, 2019.
Attachments:
n/a
12
Parks Advisory Board Appointments
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: December 12, 2017
RE: Parks Advisory Board Appointments
Objective:
To consider the appointments recommended by the interview committee for the Parks
Advisory Board.
Present Situation:
The Administrative Service department advertised for positions on the Board to
complete the term vacated by Celine Lebeau and fill 2 additional positions expiring on
December 31, 2017 currently held by Terry Rustin and Merle Moore.
Proposal:
The interview team recommends the reappointment of Merle Moore and the
appointment of Wade Johnston to 3-year terms expiring on December 31, 2020, and the
appointment of Geoffrey Elliott to complete the term vacated by Celine Lebeau expiring
on December 31, 2019.
Advantages:
To appoint qualified individuals to the Board to meet the goals of the Parks Advisory
Board.
Disadvantages:
If the appointments are not made, the positions would remain vacant until the positions
could be re-advertised and interviews conducted.
Action Recommended:
Appointment of Merle Moore and the appointment of Wade Johnston to 3-year terms
expiring on December 31, 2020, and the appointment of Geoffrey Elliott to complete the
term vacated by Celine Lebeau expiring on December 31, 2019.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None.
13
Parks Advisory Board Appointments
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the reappointment of Merle Moore and the appointment of
Wade Johnston to 3-year terms expiring on December 31, 2020, and the appointment of
Geoffrey Elliott to complete the term vacated by Celine Lebeau expiring on December
31, 2019.
14
FINANCE DEPT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director
Date: Dec 12, 2017
RE: Resolution 31-17 – Fair Housing – Request to Continue
Objective:
Take action affirmatively furthering fair housing as required by acceptance of
Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) awards from
the US. Department of Housing and Urban Development (CFR 5.150 and Executive
Order 12892). Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended by the Fair Housing
Amendments Act of 1988, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex, familial status, national origin or disability in the sales, rental, leasing or financing of
housing or land to be used for construction of housing or in the provision of brokerage
services.
Present Situation:
The Town has accepted $3.5 million in CDBG-DR grant awards over the last few years
as part of the flood recovery and Moraine Ave bridge replacement efforts. As a
condition of acceptance of these grants, the Town is required to take actions in support
of fair housing within the community.
Proposal:
Adoption of a “Fair Housing Resolution” is a primary method used by local governments
to remind the community of these laws and regulations.
Advantages:
Demonstrate the Town Board’s commitment to promoting fair housing efforts within the
community.
Comply with grant requirements for the CDBG-DR grant awards accepted by the Town.
Disadvantages:
None identified.
15
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the Town Board adopt the Fair Housing Resolution.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None
Level of Public Interest
Staff have received no public comments or expressions of interest regarding this
resolution.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial the continuance of the Fair Housing Resolution # 31-17
to January 9, 2018.
Attachments:
Attachment A – Resolution # 31-17 Fair Housing Resolution
16
RESOLUTION #31-17
FAIR HOUSING RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national
origin in the sale, rental, leasing or financing of housing or land to be used for construction
of housing or in the provision of brokerage services is prohibited by Title VIII of the 1968
Civil Rights Act (Federal Fair Housing Law); and
WHEREAS, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act and Presidential Executive Order
12892 describes the obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing; and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Town of Estes Park to encourage equal
opportunity in housing for all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, familial
status, national origin or disability; and
WHEREAS, within available resources, the Town of Estes Park will assist all
persons who feel they have been discriminated against because of race, color, religion,
gender, national origin, disability or familial status to seek equity under federal and state
laws by referring them to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office
of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Compliance Division; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
The Town shall publicize this Resolution and through this publicity shall cause real
estate brokers and sellers, private home sellers, rental owners, rental property managers,
real estate and rental advertisers, lenders, builders, developers, home buyers and home
or apartment renters to become aware of their respective responsibilities and rights under
the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and any applicable state or local laws or
ordinances.
The Fair Housing Program, for the purpose of informing those affected of their
respective responsibilities and rights concerning Fair Housing law, will include: 1) the
printing, publicizing and distribution of the Resolution; and 2) the distribution of posters,
flyers, pamphlets, and other applicable Fair Housing information provided by local, state
and federal sources; and 3) the publicizing of locations where assistance will be provided
to those seeking to file a discrimination complaint.
DATED this ______ day of __________________, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
____________________________________
17
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________________
Town Clerk
18
FINANCE DEPT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director
Date: Dec 12, 2017
RE: Revisions to the Federal Transit Administration Title VI Plan
Objective:
Adopt needed revisions and updates to the Town of Estes Park Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Title VI Plan adopted on June 10, 2014.
Present Situation:
The Town has accepted $3,866,000 in FTA grant awards over the last few years as part
of the parking garage financial package and the Fall River Trail project work. As a
condition of acceptance of these FTA grants, the Town was required to adopt a Title VI
Plan covering nondiscrimination requirements and is required to update the plan at least
every three years. 2017 is the third year since the last revision approved June 10,
2014.
Proposal:
Town staff has reviewed and updated the accompanying Title VI Plan. The most
significant changes to the existing plan are updates to the statistical tables and
development of a Title VI Complaint Form, attached to the Title VI Plan as Appendix B.
The rest of the plan is substantively the same.
Advantages:
• Comply with grant requirements for the FTA grant awards accepted by the Town.
Disadvantages:
• None identified.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the Town Board adopt the updated Title VI Plan.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None
19
Level of Public Interest
Staff have received no public comments or expressions of interest regarding this plan.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the Dec 12, 2017 revised Federal Transit
Administration Title VI Plan of the Town of Estes Park.
Attachments:
Attachment A – Federal Transit Administration Title VI Plan
20
1
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
Town of Estes Park
Federal Transit Administration
Title VI Plan
Compliance with Title VI,
Environmental Justice and
Limited English Proficiency Requirements
Contact:
Brian Wells, Shuttle Coordinator
170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-577-3963
shuttlecoordinator@estes.org (email)
21
2
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
Town of Estes Park
Title VI Plan
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE
I Statements of Policy
Introduction 4
Title VI Non-Discrimination Statement of Policy 5
Environmental Justice and Limited English Proficiency Policy
Statement
5
Definition of Federal Financial Assistance and Recipients
Affected
5
II Title VI Assurances
Specific Forms of Discrimination Prohibited 6
Programs and Services covered by Title VI 6
Authorities 6
Assurances for Title VI and Other Non-Discriminatory Statutes 7
III Title VI and Environmental Justice – Town of Estes Park Planning
Requirements
Data Collection 9
Transit Planning 9
IV Title VI and Environmental Justice – the Public Participation Process
Public Participation Plan (PPP) 10
Communication and Notification to the Public 11
V Organization and Staff Responsibilities
Organization Overview 12
VI Title VI Coordinator and Complaint Process
Title VI Coordinator Responsibilities 13
Title VI Complaint Procedures 14
22
3
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
Reporting a Title VI Complaint 14
Filing a Title VI Complaint 15
Title VI Complaint Form 15
Title VI List of Complaints 16
Title VI Related Training 16
VII Limited English Proficiency Plan
Introduction 17
Policy 17
Needs of Area 18
Language Assistance Plan 20
Appendix A Siting Equity Analysis 22
Appendix B Title VI Complaint Form 23
Appendix C List of Transit-Related Title VI Investigations, Complaints and
Lawsuits
26
23
4
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
I. STATEMENTS OF POLICY
Introduction
The Town of Estes Park prepared this Title VI Plan in compliance with the Title VI Circular
4702.1B. The Plan also addresses Limited English Proficiency requirements.
The Town of Estes Park provides free fixed route shuttle service each summer to assist residents
and visitors in traveling around Estes Park. Shuttles travel on five routes between the Estes Park
Visitor Center, 500 Big Thompson Avenue, to 60 stops throughout Estes Park and the
surrounding valley. Shuttles make it convenient for residents and visitors to leave their vehicles
at a lodging facility or parking lot and travel around town during the busy summer season. This
is a free service and written information is available at local businesses, the visitor center, on line
at www.estes.org/shuttles, lodging properties and on each bus. On request, information is
available for hearing impaired as well as large print time schedules for visually impaired
customers. A free trolley operates in a continuous loop on peak weekends from at least 10 am to
5 pm with service about every 20 to 30 minutes depending on traffic.
A parking structure has been completed and opened for operation on July 1, 2017 to
accommodate the over three million visitors to the area. The Estes Park Transit Facility and
Parking Structure will increase parking availability in the downtown area, reduce emissions in
the Estes Valley and Rocky Mountain National Park, and serve as another hub for transit
systems. This project has been funded by grants from Federal and State governments and
matched by the Town’s community reinvestment fund.
Long range planning efforts of the National Park Service/Rocky Mountain National Park,
Colorado Department of Transportation/Region 4, Town of Estes Park, Visit Estes Park, Estes
Park Partners for Commerce, Estes Valley Economic Development Corporation, Upper Front
Range Transportation Planning Region- and the Town appointed Transportation Advisory Board
coordinated in the development of this project. Recent plans completed that support this project
include the Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study (2003) and the Integrated
Approach to Transportation and Visitor Use Management Plan (2010) completed by the ROMO.
Town of Estes Park surveys demographic ridership and travel patterns to provide optimal
service. No issues have been identified in terms of disparate impacts to any community group.
No sub-recipients provide transit services.
Transit service is seasonal, operating as a fixed route, and there are under 50 vehicles in the fleet.
No information relative to service standards or polices are required to be submitted.
The Town of Estes Park is governed by the elected Board of Trustees and currently includes six
males and one female. The Mayor Pro Tem is a female. No non-elected committees and/or
councils are authorized to direct policy or operations of transit service. The Town Board of
24
5
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
Trustees will approve revisions to the Title VI Plan at a regularly scheduled meeting and has
signed the Assurances of Title VI. The membership of the non-elected Transportation Advisory
Board (TAB), broken down by race and gender is shown below.
By Gender White All Other
Male 4 0
Female 5 0
As an example of the efforts for public participation encouraged by this group, a recent TAB
Agenda mentioned the intent to hold public forums prior to the development of an action plan.
Openings on the TAB are advertised by the Administrative Services Department. The Town
Board appoints members. No pre-screening is done; minimal residency qualifications are the
only criteria to be eligible to serve.
An Equity Analysis was completed and is presented in Appendix A.
Title VI Non-Discrimination Statement of Policy
The Town of Estes Park is committed to compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 49 CFR, part 2, and all related regulations and directives. The Town of Estes Park assures
that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or disability be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any Town of
Estes Park program, activity, or service.
Environmental Justice and Limited English Proficiency Policy Statement
Town of Estes Park is committed to assuring every effort will be made to prevent the
discrimination of low-income and minority populations, as a result of any impact of its programs
or activities in accordance with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and in Low-Income Populations.
In addition, Town of Estes Park assures every effort will be made to provide meaningful access
to persons that have Limited English Proficiency (LEP), in accordance with Executive Order
13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.
Definition of Federal Financial Assistance and Recipients Affected
Federal financial assistance is defined as any Federal dollars that are assigned to the Town of
Estes Park system to support any program and activity, by way of grant, loan or contract, other
than a contract of insurance or guaranty. The Town of Estes Park currently does not directly
receive any operational funding for transit services. However, it has been awarded capital funds
from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to carry out the transportation services as set
forth by the federal law “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21)”.
25
6
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
II. TITLE VI ASSURANCES
Specific Forms of Discrimination Prohibited
The Town of Estes Park’s efforts to prevent discrimination must address, but are not limited to:
● The denial of services, financial aid, or other benefits provided under a program.
● Distinctions in the quality, quantity, or manner in which the benefit is provided.
● Segregation or separation in any part of the program.
● Restriction in the enjoyment of any advantages, privileges, or other benefits provided to
others.
● Different standards or requirements for participation.
● Methods of administration which directly or indirectly or through contractual relationships
would defeat or impair the accomplishment of effective nondiscrimination.
● Discrimination in any activities related to a transit services, highway, infrastructure or facility
built or repaired in whole or in part with Federal funds.
● Discrimination in any employment resulting from a program, the primary purpose of which is
to provide employment.
Programs and Services covered by Title VI
The Town of Estes Park Title VI Plan applies to all programs, activities and services, regardless
of funding source.
Authorities
1. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin);
2. Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 U.S.C. §324 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the
basis of sex);
3. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.), (prohibits
discrimination on the basis of age);
4. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.) as amended,
(prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability);
5. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), (prohibits
discrimination on the basis of disability)
6. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321;
7. 49 C.F.R. Part 21 (entitled Nondiscrimination In Federally-Assisted Programs Of The
Department of Transportation-Effectuation of Title VI Of The Civil Rights Act of 1964);
8. 49 C.F.R. Part 27 (entitled Nondiscrimination On The Basis Of Disability In Programs Or
Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance);
9. 49 C.F.R. Part 28 (entitled Enforcement Of Nondiscrimination On the Basis Of Handicap In
Program Or Activities Conducted By The Department Of Transportation);
10. 49 C.F.R. Part 37 (entitled Transportation Services For Individuals With Disabilities (ADA));
11. 23 C.F.R. Part 200 (FHWA’s Title VI/Nondiscrimination Regulation);
12. 28 C.F.R. Part 35 (entitled Discrimination On The Basis Of Disability In State And Local
Government Services);
26
7
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
13. 28 C.F.R. Part 50.3 (DOJ Guidelines for Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964).
Assurances for Title VI and Other Non-Discriminatory Statutes
Town of Estes Park (hereafter referred to as the "Recipient") in keeping with our policy of
nondiscrimination, hereby agrees that as a condition to receiving Federal financial assistance
from the Department of Transportation, it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. 2000d - 42 U.S.C. 2000d-4 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and
all requirements imposed by or pursuant to: Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department
of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, nondiscrimination in Federally-
assisted programs of the Department of Transportation, Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) and other pertinent directives, to
that end in accordance with the Act, Regulations, and other pertinent directives, no person in the
United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, marital status, physical or
mental disability, religion or age be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or
be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the Recipient
receives Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation, including the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and hereby gives assurance that it will promptly take any
measures necessary to effectuate this agreement. This Assurance is required by Subsection 21.7
(a)(1) of the Regulations.
More specifically and without limiting the above general assurance, the Recipient hereby gives
the following specific assurances with respect to operating assistance projects:
● That the Recipient agrees that each "program" or "facility", as defined in Subsections
21.23(b) and 21.23 (e) of the Regulations, will be (with regard to a “program”) conducted, or
will be (with regard to a “facility”) operated in compliance with all requirements imposed by,
or pursuant to, the Regulations; and
● That the Recipient shall insert the following notification in all solicitations for bids for work
or material subject to the Regulations and made in connection with the Federal Transit
Administration, and in adapted form in all proposals for negotiated agreements;
Town of Estes Park in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat.
252, 42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000d-4 and 49, of the Code of Federal Regulations, Department
of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in
Federally-Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation issued pursuant to such
Act, hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that in regard to any
contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises
will be afforded full opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation and will not
be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, income status
or age in consideration for an award;
● The Recipient shall provide for such methods of administration for the program as are found
by the Secretary of Transportation or the officials to whom he delegates specific authority to
give reasonable guarantee that it, other recipients, sub grantees, contractors, subcontractors,
transferees, successors in interest, and other participants of Federal financial assistance under
27
8
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
such program will comply with all requirements imposed or pursuant to the Act, the
Regulations and this Assurance;
● The Recipient agrees that the United States has a right to seek judicial enforcement with
regard to any matter arising under the Act, the Regulations, and this Assurance; and
● This Assurance is given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all
Federal grants, loans, contracts, property, discounts or other Federal financial assistance
extended after the date hereof to the Recipient by the Department of Transportation under
Federal-Aid Highway Program and is binding on it, other recipients, subgrantees,
contractors, subcontractors, transferees, successors in interest and other participants in the
Federal-Aid Highway Program. The person whose signature appears below is authorized to
sign this Assurance on behalf of the Recipient.
________________________________ ____________________
Todd Jirsa, Mayor Date
28
9
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
III. TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
Town of Estes Park is responsible for ensuring Title VI and Environmental Justice compliance
for the following planning activities:
Data Collection
Census and other statistical data will be collected by the Town of Estes Park, as a means of
identifying low income and minority populations within the service area. The data will be
maintained for the purpose of planning projects and programs that serve various population
groups. The data collection process will be reviewed regularly to ensure sufficiency in meeting
Title VI requirements.
● Town of Estes Park Actions
○ Collect, maintain, and update databases of low income and minority concentrations
within the service area
○ Utilize the data when developing plans and studies
○ Develop demographic profile maps to help identify neighborhoods with high
concentrations of low income and minority populations
○ Use these maps in various planning documents
Transit Planning
The Town of Estes Park operates and plans the shuttle route system to reduce congestion and
will appropriately serve identified low income and minority neighborhoods, make meaningful
connections between housing and jobs, and ensure that transit is a viable transportation option as
possible while it continues efforts to reduce automobile congestion and environmental impacts.
● Actions
○ Using demographic profile maps, ensure that transit routes and stops fully serve those
neighborhoods with high concentrations of low income and minority populations.
○ Work with Visit Estes Park, Estes Park Partners for Commerce, and Rocky Mountain
National Park to identify necessary changes to routes.
○ Ensure bus stop locations are fully accessible for all users, both at the site and in the
vicinity.
29
10
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
IV. TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE – THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
PROCESS
Public Participation Plan (PPP)
The Town of Estes Park Public Participation Plan (PPP) describes how Town of Estes Park
communicates and distributes information to the public as well as how the public can interact
and provide comments concerning transit services. The needs of those traditionally underserved
by the existing system will be sought and considered by the Town of Estes Park system.
Through its public involvement efforts, Town of Estes Park will strive to achieve the following
Title VI and Environmental Justice (EJ) goals:
● To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations
and low-income populations.
● To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the
transportation decision-making process.
● To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by
minority and low-income populations.
Title VI states that no person shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded
from participation in, denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving federal financial assistance. Town of Estes Park will ensure that the input and
feedback from all people will be considered in the development of planning documents and
activities.
Environmental Justice concerns and goals should be considered throughout all public
engagement efforts, from project planning through construction and operation. This includes
public outreach conducted during transportation planning and during the environmental reviews
required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The following actions relating to Environmental Justice and Title VI are meant to reduce the
barriers for participation in the decision-making process by low income, minority or disabled
individuals.
1. When possible, public meetings will be held in locations that are convenient to low and
moderate income neighborhoods and accessible to disabled populations. Such locations
include community centers, senior centers and schools. Where possible, Town of Estes
Park staff will meet at the locations of businesses, neighborhood groups, stakeholders,
and other agencies.
2. Upon request, all Town of Estes Park work products and documents will be made
available in alternative formats, including Braille, large type and languages other than
English.
3. The following statement will be included in all Estes Park documents: Town of Estes
Park does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age or
disability in the provision of services. This document can be made available in
30
11
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
alternative formats by calling the Town of Estes Park Shuttle Coordinator at 970-577-
3963.
4. The following elements of this statement will be included in all meeting announcements:
If you are an individual with a disability who is in need of a reader, amplifier,
qualified sign language interpreter, a LEP individual in need of language
translation, or any other form of auxiliary aid or service to attend or participate in
the hearing or meeting, please contact the Shuttle Coordinator, Town of Estes Park,
170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO, at least one week prior to the meeting or
as soon as possible. Public documents, including the agenda and minutes, can be
provided in various accessible formats. Please contact the Town of Estes Park
Shuttle Coordinator if a summary or other type of accessible format is needed.
5. Agencies and organizations that represent low income, minority and disabled populations
will be identified and included in Town of Estes Park mailings. Staff will maintain an
active listing of contacts for these organizations.
6. Town of Estes Park will evaluate Environmental Justice actions and Title VI
requirements on an annual basis to ensure effectiveness of public involvement. This
document will be reviewed and updated in conjunction with the Public Participation Plan.
Communication and Notification to the Public
All members of the public are ensured protections against discrimination which are afforded to
them by Title VI. To ensure open communication with the public, the Town of Estes Park will
adhere to the following requirements:
The Town of Estes Park will disseminate agenda and public meeting information to members of
the public via accessible printed and electronic media, including postings on the Town’s website
and in the Estes Park Trail Gazette. Documents and agendas will be available at 170
MacGregor, Estes Park, CO 80517; Estes Park Visitors Center and at other locations identified in
the Public Participation Plan. Public notices of Town of Estes Park meetings will be posted at
the location of the meeting site.
● In appropriate documents, the Town of Estes Park will include a statement that the
organization complies with Title VI by assuring that no person shall on the grounds of race,
color, national origin, gender, age, or disability be excluded from participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity under any
Town of Estes Park program, activity, or service.
● The following statement shall be posted on site at the Town of Estes Park office, on the Town’s
website, permanently displayed on public transit vehicles; and other appropriate materials
made available to the public: (Documents will be translated into languages other than English,
upon request.)
Non-Discrimination - Your Rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) ensures full compliance with Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by prohibiting discrimination against any person on the basis
of race, color or national origin in the provisions of benefits and services resulting from
31
12
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
federally assisted programs and activities. Any person, who believes the Town of Estes Park
has violated his /her Title VI protections, should contact the Town of Estes Park at 970-577-
3963 or via email at shuttlecoordinator@estes.org.
Town of Estes Park has also developed a policy to assist individuals who are Limited English
Proficient (LEP). Translation services in order to assist LEP individuals shall be made
available to Transit’s customers upon request. The Town of Estes Park Title VI policy,
complaint procedures and LEP Plan shall be made available upon request by contacting the
Shuttle Coordinator at the above-noted information. For Federal Title VI information please
contact the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Region 8 at 303-362-2393. Federal Title
VI information, including filing complaints, can also be accessed on the FTA web site at:
www.fta.dot.gov.
Section VI of this plan describes the procedures to be followed by members of the public to file a
discrimination complaint against the Town of Estes Park transit services.
V. ORGANIZATION AND STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES
Organization Overview
Town of Estes Park operates and assists with funding the seasonal local transit system. Rocky
Mountain National Park also provides seasonal service. The Town of Estes Park is responsible
for providing public transportation within the town. Rocky Mountain National Park is
responsible for providing transportation within the park.
The service is directed by the Shuttle Coordinator as part of his/her duties. The Coordinator
oversees and will implement the Plan as part of the transit program. The Staff and Driver Team
are responsible for ensuring public transportation is accomplished as set forth by the federal
transportation bill “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century”.
Town of Estes Park staff will be responsible for the development and implementation of the Title
VI plan and for performing the actions relating to its primary public transportation requirements.
32
13
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
VI. TITLE VI COORDINATOR AND COMPLAINT PROCESS
Title VI Coordinator Responsibilities
The Shuttle Coordinator of Town of Estes Park is the designated Title VI Coordinator for the
town.
The Coordinator is responsible for oversight of the Town of Estes Park Title VI plan. The
Coordinator must ensure that transit is compliant with Title VI requirements. The Coordinator is
also responsible for Title VI training of relevant staff, conducting reviews, and assisting in
investigations of Title VI complaints. The Coordinator must also compile the Title VI
Accomplishment and Goals report on an annual basis. Town of Estes Park staff can assist the
Title VI Coordinator with compiling Title VI information from transit activities for this report.
Town of Estes Park Shuttle Coordinator and staff will be responsible for the following:
● Ensuring that the transportation services fully comply with the requirements of Title VI.
● Monitoring the transportation services goals and ensuring compliance with Title VI
requirements.
● Reviewing operational policies and procedures to ensure Title VI compliance.
● Monitoring the service equities of planning data collection and analysis for potential impacts
on social, economic, and/or ethnic groups.
● Ensuring the planning organizational membership attempts to reflect the makeup of the
population served.
● Ensuring the opinions and views of all groups within their populations are solicited and
considered in the planning of transportation projects.
● Monitoring compliance with Environmental Justice issues to identify low-income and
minority populations that may be impacted by transportation planning process.
● Providing evidence that input from minority groups/persons has been considered in the
transportation planning process. Evidence could include but is not limited to the
participation level and composition of participants in public information settings and
reporting any follow-up and conclusions to issues communicated throughout the planning
process.
● Monitoring the gathering and utilization of demographic data used to identify and locate low-
income and minority populations in order to investigate the possible benefits and detriments
of transportation plans on these populations.
● Monitor compliance with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations to improve access
and comprehension of the transportation planning process for individuals comprising the
LEP population.
33
14
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
Title VI Complaint Procedures
Town of Estes Park is committed to ensuring that all citizens have equal access to all
transportation services. It is further the intent of the Town of Estes Park that all citizens are
aware of their rights to such access. Any person believing he or she has been excluded from,
denied participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise has been subjected to discrimination
under any transportation service, program or activity (whether Federally funded or not) due to
that person’s race, color, national origin, gender, age or disability has the right to file a
complaint.
The complaint procedures cover the following:
● Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
● Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
● Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1973
● Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987
● Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
● Executive Order 12898
● Executive Order 13166
Reporting a Title VI Complaint
An individual, group of individuals or entity may file a formal Title VI complaint. If an
individual or group believes that they have received discriminatory treatment by the Town of
Estes Park on the basis of your race, color or national origin, the individual or group has the right
to file a complaint with the Town of Estes Park’s Shuttle Coordinator. The complaint must be
filed no later than 180 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory incident.
The preferred method is to file your complaint in writing using the Title VI Complaint Form
(Appendix B) and sending it to:
Attn:
Shuttle Coordinator
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
shuttlecoordinator@estes.org (email)
Verbal complaints will be accepted and transcribed by the Shuttle Coordinator. To make a
verbal complaint, call 970-577-3963 and ask for the Shuttle Coordinator.
An individual or group also has the right to file a complaint with an external entity, federal or
state agency, or a federal or state court.
34
15
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
The complaint that is submitted to the entity should include the name, address, phone number
and signature of complainant. The formal complaint should describe the alleged discriminatory
act that violates Title VI in detail.
Title VI complaints may also be filed directly with the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) within the 180 calendar day period of the alleged discriminatory act (or
latest occurrence).
Should a complaint be filed with the Town of Estes Park through the Administrative Services
Department and an external entity simultaneously, the external complaint shall supersede the
Town of Estes Park complaint and the Town of Estes Park’s complaint procedures will be
suspended pending the external entity’s findings.
If Town of Estes Park were to receive a Title VI complaint, staff will inform FTA Region 8 staff
of the complaint and the measures taken to address and resolve the complaint.
Filing a Title VI Complaint
Within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the formal complaint, the Shuttle Coordinator will
notify the complainant and begin an investigation (unless the complaint is filed with an external
entity first or simultaneously). The investigation will address complaints against the Town of
Estes Park. The investigation will be conducted in conjunction with and under the advice of the
Administrative Services Department.
The investigation may include discussion(s) of the complaint with all affected parties to
determine the problem. The complainant may be represented by an attorney or other
representative of his/her own choosing and may bring witnesses and present testimony and
evidence in the course of the investigation. The investigation will be conducted and completed
within 60 calendar days of the receipt of the formal complaint.
Based upon all the information received, an investigation report will be written by the Shuttle
Coordinator. The complainant will receive a letter stating the final decision of the Town of Estes
Shuttle Coordinator by the end of the 60-day time limit. The complainant shall be notified of
his/her right to appeal the decision. Appeals may be made to the Department of Justice (DOJ) or
Department of Transportation (DOT).
Title VI Complaint Form
Completion of a Title VI Complaint form is required when filing a complaint. Please see
Appendix B for a copy of the form. These forms are also available from the Town of Estes Park,
Shuttle Coordinator, Town of Estes Park, 170 MacGregor Avenue, PO Box 1200, Estes Park,
CO 80517.
35
16
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
Title VI List of Complaints
Currently, the Town of Estes Park has had no active investigations, lawsuits, or complaints
relative to Title VI including Limited English Proficiency. For the current list of complaints, see
Appendix C.
Title VI Related Training
The Title VI Coordinator shall ensure that staff is trained and familiar with related policies and
procedures. Related Title VI training will be provided by the Title VI Coordinator to senior
management and others to discuss practical situations and how Title VI applies to the planning
and public participation processes. Training may also be provided through FHWA or FTA
sponsored webinars and training resources.
36
17
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
VII: LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN
Introduction
This Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan for the Town of Estes Park has been developed in
response to federal requirements included under Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), which provides that no person shall “on the grounds of race, color or
national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Federal Executive Order No. 13166, issued in August 2000 by President Clinton, "Improving
Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency," was created to "... improve
access to federally conducted and federally assisted programs and activities for persons who, as a
result of national origin, are limited in their English proficiency (LEP)..." President Bush
affirmed his commitment to Executive Order 13166 through a memorandum issued on October
25, 2001, by Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Ralph F. Boyd, Jr. and Acting
Assistant Attorney General Loretta King directed a strengthening of enforcement of Title VI in a
memorandum dated July 10, 2009.
As a recipient of funds from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) this Limited English
Proficiency (LEP) Plan for the Town of Estes Park has been developed to ensure compliance
with Federal LEP regulations. It includes an assessment of the limited English proficiency needs
of our area, an explanation of the steps the Town of Estes Park is currently taking to address
these needs, and the steps to take in the future to ensure meaningful access to our transit
programs by persons with limited English proficiency.
Policy
It is the policy of the Town of Estes Park to ensure that our programs and activities, normally
provided in English, are accessible to Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons and thus do not
discriminate on the basis of national origin in violation of the Title VI prohibition against
national origin discrimination. The Town of Estes Park to the maximum extent feasible in its
official deliberations and communications, community outreach and related notifications, will
provide appropriate alternative non-English formats for persons with LEP to access information
and services provided.
37
18
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
Needs of Area
The Four-Factor Analysis developed by the FTA requires that information be included in
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plans regarding the number and percentage of LEP persons
in our area, and the nature, frequency and importance of the contact we have with LEP persons
in providing transit services. Each of these elements is addressed below.
Factor 1. Number and Percentage of LEP Persons in Our Area
Permanent Population
A summary of LEP persons in the service area indicates that 1.7% of the total population speaks
English “Not Well” or “Not at All”. Based on the proximity to several towns as well as the
potential for persons working to support the various tourist industries, the permanent population
was expanded to include neighboring towns and Larimer County.
Table 1 - Permanent Population including Nearby Communities/Alternate Languages
Source: 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, population 5 years and older speaking another
language in the home, who speak English “Not Well” or “Not at All.”
Visitor Population
Because of the regional draw of the various tourist activities, it has been recommended that the
population data for multiple Front Range Counties/Major Cities also should be reviewed. CDOT
Civil Rights & Business Resource Center provided information relative to Front Range
communities for nearby visitor-based communities to use in evaluating language demographics.
Data Category Estes Park %Berthoud %Longmont %Loveland %Larimer
County %Total %
Total Population (5 years old
& older)5,704 5,324 83,579 67485 300,772 462,864
Population Speaking English
"Not Well or "Not at All:54 0.9%- 0.0% 3,874 4.6% 694 1.0% 3,151 1.0% 7,773 1.7%
Population Speaking English
"Not Well or "Not at All
Spanish 54 100.0%- 0.0% 3,716 95.9% 626 90.2% 2,589 82.2% 6,985 89.9%
Other Indo-European - 0.0%- 0.0% 37 1.0% 52 7.5% 200 6.3% 289 3.7%
Asian and Pacific Islander - 0.0%- 0.0% 87 2.2%0 0.0% 212 6.7% 299 3.8%
Other - 0.0%- 0.0% 34 0.9% 16 2.3% 150 4.8% 200 2.6%
Total 54 - 3,874 694 3,151 7,773
38
19
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
Table 2 - Front Range Population/Alternate Languages
Source: American Community Survey 2011-2015 estimates, population 5 years and older speaking another
language in the home, who speak English “Not Well” or “Not at All.”
Summary
In summary, the total LEP population is less than 5%. The total local population reporting
speaking English “not well” or “not at all” was 1.7% or 7,773 individuals (Table 1). The total
Front Range potential visitor population reporting speaking English “not well” or “not at all”
was 3.7% (Table 2). Spanish is the predominant alternate language.
Factor 2 & 3 Nature, Frequency and Importance of LEP Contact
Nature of Contact
The Estes Park Free Shuttles provide seasonal service circulating throughout the community.
Mobility limited persons are accommodated in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act. During peak tourist season, service is provided seven days a week with hours dependent on
local activities. No fares are collected.
Contacts with all riders as well as LEP persons include:
• A printed brochure is provided outlining the details of the service.
• A poster is available at major attractions/hotels to communicate service availability.
• Service operates on a continuous route with an interval of approximately 30 or 60
minutes depending on the time of day and day of week and the individual routes.
• Phone numbers to contact for additional information are prominently displayed on both
the printed schedule and each bus.
• Information is available in Spanish
County / City Spanish Indo-
European Asian Other Speak English less
than "very well"
Total
Population
Counties
Adams 24,657 1,050 3,449 395 29,551 434,033
Arapahoe 14,902 2,401 5,342 1,692 24,337 567,763
Boulder 5,507 483 888 79 6,957 294,169
Gilpin - - - - - 5,429
Douglas 1,426 279 837 53 2,595 286,824
Jefferson 4,349 1,206 1,286 241 7,082 522,660
Cities -
Aurora 17,157 1,770 4,004 1,462 24,393 318,851
Boulder 964 193 356 14 1,527 100,302
Lakewood 2,070 264 376 52 2,762 138,903
% Speak English less
than "very well"71,032 7,646 16,538 3,988 99,204 2,668,934 3.7%
Alternate Language
Spoken 72% 8% 17% 4%
(of total
population)
39
20
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
Frequency of Contact
Based on current scheduling, riders should be able to board a vehicle within thirty or sixty
minutes depending on the chosen route. Rides are generally traveling from intercept parking
areas, hotels/lodging and other locations to core downtown activities. Based on driver feedback,
there are minimal requests for alternate language information.
Importance of Contact
In rating the importance of current contacts or potential contacts with LEP individuals, the Town
of Estes Park is taking the position that all riders are important and while there are minimal
requests for alternate languages, this service will be provided.
Factor 4. Resources Available for LEP Outreach
The Town of Estes Park’s website www.estes.org has a link to a comprehensive listing of all
community resources, including transit services prepared by United Way of Larimer County.
This resource is also available through the United Way of Larimer County by phoning “2-1-1”.
Both the printed materials and “2-1-1” resources are available in English and Spanish.
Resources available from Rocky Mountain National Park include:
• Assisted listening devices and sign language interpretation are available in alternate
languages.
• International Visitors have available assistance to “Plan Your Visit Information” in French
and German.
• The Official Park Newspaper is published in Spanish, Periodico Oficial del Parque.
The Town of Estes Park will allocate the necessary resources for LEP outreach. At this time, it
anticipates that translation service will not exceed $500 and website enhancement will not
exceed $250. As an aside, the Town of Estes Park is a “sister city” with Monteverde, Costa Rica
and expects to maintain this connection.
Language Assistance Plan
A. How Will You Identify LEP Persons Who Need Language Assistance?
• Driver Team will be front line for identifying needs.
• Visit Estes Park staff will be asked to communicate any comments from visitors
requesting alternate language assistance.
• Larimer County United Way Resource staff will be asked to communicate any comments
from community members requesting alternate language assistance.
B. How Will You Identify Language Assistance Measures?
• Actively review additional options for providing service.
• Respond promptly to requests for language assistance and be aware of the potential to
better service alternate language communities.
• Availability of “I Speak” card.
40
21
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
C. How Will Your Staff Be Trained?
• Driver Team training provided with resources to assist Limited English Proficiency riders
• Town of Estes Park, Visit Estes Park, and Este Park Partners for Commerce continually
are aware of community needs and respond promptly to customer service issues.
D. What Will Be Your Outreach Efforts?
• Brochure is translated to Spanish and updates will be provided when needed.
• Larimer County United Way Resource link and “2-1-1” phone service will provide
support with language assistance when needed by transit riders.
• Drivers provided with Basic Spanish for Transit Employees, prepared by CDOT,
Colorado Mountain College and Roaring Fork Transit Agency.
• Visit Estes Park has alternative language resources available if needed.
• Town Board of Trustees has been advised of and supports the plan.
• Rocky Mountain National Park has extensive outreach for international visitors.
E. What Is Your Monitoring and Updating Plan?
• On-going feedback from Driver Team will identify any increased demand/incidents of
needs information.
• Coordinate with Rocky Mountain National Park, Visit Estes Park, and Estes Park
Partners for Commerce to monitor changing needs for language assistance.
• Update brochure in alternate languages as needed.
F. How Will You Disseminate Your LEP Plan?
• Copies will be provided to Driver Team Supervisors
• Driver Team has Spanish Language Brochures and Handbook.
41
22
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
Appendix A – Siting Equity Analysis
TITLE VI EQUITY ANALYSIS
The project funded through the Sarbanes Transit in Park Program was for the construction of a
Transportation Hub at the Town of Estes Park Visitor Center. This Hub includes a 415-space
transit parking intercept lot to support transit service between the Town of Estes Park (a gateway
community) and Rocky Mountain National Park (ROMO).
This project is an expansion or enhancement of an existing alternative transportation system.
The site is currently the location of the Town of Estes Park Visitor Center. The location is near
the intersection of US 34/36 just before the highway turns onto East Elkhorn, the main arterial
for persons traveling to the downtown commercial business district, and is the connecting access
road to ROMO.
This location was selected without regard to race, color, or national origin. No residential areas
are impacted by this location. Residents had multiple opportunities to comment on the location
during the public participation sessions held in conjunction with the Estes Valley Transportation
Alternatives Feasibility Study (2003) and the Integrated Approach to Transportation and Visitor
Use Management Plan (2010) completed by the ROMO. There was also a three day workshop
to provide public input using Schematic Design Charette techniques. This outreach engaged
community members and organizations potentially impacted by the siting of the facility.
Because of the existing use as a transportation hub and the unique location of this site to
intercept traffic, no other sites were actively considered.
Based on the current use and ability to expand on the existing footprint of the Town of Estes
Park Visitor Center, no cumulative adverse impacts will result from the location of this expanded
facility.
This location does not result in a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
There is a substantial legitimate justification for locating the project at this site given the existing
use, the ability to intercept automobile traffic, and is a non-discriminatory alternative.
42
23
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
Appendix B – Title VI Complaint Form
Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act requires that “No person in the United States shall on the
ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits
of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial
assistance.”
Note: The following information is necessary to assist us in processing your complaint. Should
you require any assistance in completing this form, please let us know. Complete and return this
form to the Town of Estes Park, Shuttle Coordinator, Brian Wells, 170 MacGregor Avenue, PO
Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517
Complainant’s Name
Address
City, State and Zip Code
Telephone (Home): Telephone (Work):
Email Address:
Person discriminated against (if someone other than the complainant)
Name
Address
City, State and Zip Code
Which of the following best describes the reason you believe the discrimination took place?
Race
Color
National Origin
What date did the alleged discrimination take place?
In your own words, describe the alleged discrimination. Explain what happened and whom you
believe was responsible. Please use the back of this form if additional space is required.
43
24
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
Have you filed this complaint with any other federal, state, or local agency; or with any federal
or state court?
Yes
No
If so, which agency (check all that apply)
Federal agency Federal Court
State Agency State Court
Local Agency
Please provide information about a contact person at the agency/court where the complaint was
filed.
Name
Address
City, State and Zip Code
Telephone Number
You may attach any written materials or other information that you think is relevant to your
complaint.
Please sign and date below:
Complainant’s Signature Date
44
25
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
Please submit this form in person at the address below, by email, or mail this form to:
Attn: Shuttle Coordinator
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
shuttlecoordinator@estes.org
45
26
Town of Estes Park Title VI/LEP Plan
December, 2017
Appendix C
List of Transit-Related Title VI Investigations, Complaints and Lawsuits
Currently, the Town of Estes Park has had no active investigations, lawsuits, or complaints
relative to Title VI including Limited English Proficiency.
Date
(Month,
Day, Year)
Summary (include basis of
complaint: race, color, or national
origin)
Status Action(s) Taken
Investigations
1)
2)
3)
Lawsuits
1)
2)
3)
Complaints
1)
2)
3)
46
Public Works
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jon Landkamer Facilities Manager
Date: December 7, 2017
RE: Fish Hatchery Workforce Housing Exclusive Negotiation Agreement
Objective:
Formalize negotiations with AmericaWest and Prairie Fire Development Group to plan,
design, implement, and build workforce housing on the 75 acre, Town owned, Fish
Hatchery property. The Developer will be directed to create a Collaborative Community
Effort (CCE) in this process, with the intent of making a significant impact in the local
workforce housing inventory. The CCE will create a development at Fish Hatchery that
will provide opportunities for more people to live and work in our community. The focus
for this housing market is 60% to 150% of the Average Median Income (AMI).
Present Situation:
The most recent Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment (2016) identified the
need for approximately 1600 additional units in the Valley for workforce housing. The
Fish Hatchery Property currently has four Town staff rental units, several storage
buildings, the O’Connor Pavilion, and the Hydroplant Museum buildings that are actively
used on the property. It is largely undeveloped and has great potential for significant
improvement. The property is adjacent to Rocky Mountain National Park on the south
and west sides, with Aspenglen Campground immediately to the west. Discussions
have already begun with our RMNP neighbors and the Estes Valley Land Trust on the
impact this project could have on surrounding open space.
Proposal:
Formalize negotiations with AmericaWest Housing Solutions and Prairie Fire
Development Group through the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement, to plan, design,
implement, and build workforce housing on the Fish Hatchery property.
Advantages:
Increase the number of available housing units in the 60% to 150% AMI range for
workforce housing.
The project will be a recruitment and retention tool for community staffing needs.
47
Utilizes a large parcel that is mostly vacant, and is unlikely to be developed solely for
Town of Estes Park use.
Extends infrastructure closer to the boundary of Town limits.
Increased population in the area will increase the use of the Hydroplant Museum and the
areas amenities.
Completes another section of the proposed Fall River Trail and solidifies our connection
to RMNP.
Disadvantages:
However, there will be impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and RMNP, with
increased traffic and noise.
However, the subdividing and rezoning of the property will forever change it’s usage and
the potential for Town of Estes Park government uses.
Action Recommended:
The action recommended, is to approve the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with
AmericaWest Housing Solutions and Prairie Fire Development Group on the
development of workforce housing solutions for the Fish Hatchery property.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Estimate of Owner’s Representative and Legal Services:
2017 101-1700-417.22-98 $25,000
2018 101-1700-417.22-98 $20,000
Level of Public Interest
High: Workforce housing has been the recent topic of community discussion and also
the subject of a recent League of Women Voters forum.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement to formalize
negotiations with AmericaWest Housing Solutions and Prairie Fire Development Group
for the development of the Town owned Fish Hatchery properties.
Attachments:
Fish Hatchery Exclusive Negotiation Agreement
48
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT
THIS EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") dated
____________, 2017, is made by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, a
body corporate and politic of the State of Colorado (the "Town”) and AmericaWest Housing
Solutions and Prairie Fire Development Group (the "Developer"), which may be referred to
individually herein as a “Party” or collectively herein as the “Parties.”
In consideration of the following mutual covenants and other good and valuable
consideration, the sufficiency and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree
as follows:
1. Development Project. Pursuant to a competitive bidding procedure established by the
Town, the Developer submitted a proposal dated July 14, 2017 (“Proposal”), concerning the
redevelopment of the real property that is depicted on the attached map, labeled Exhibit A, and
incorporated herein by this reference, and which includes the existing Town owned structures on
Fish Hatchery Road (the "Property").
The Proposal provides for the redevelopment of the Property to deliver Workforce Housing for
Estes Valley.
The Parties acknowledge that the Proposal is conceptual and a starting point for negotiations.
Such Property and Proposals described in Section 1 above shall be referred to collectively in this
Agreement as the "Project."
The Town acknowledges that the Developer, in entering into this agreement, will be
seeking significant financial participation as indicated in their Proposal. Further, both parties agree
that the information in the Proposal is based on a conceptual design that is subject to change and
is merely a starting point for negotiations and nothing in this Agreement is commitment by the
Town to such financial participation.
On November 14, 2017, the RFP Review Committee, appointed by the Town of Estes
Park, Board of Trustees (“Town Board”) recommended the Developer as the Town’s "preferred
developer" with which to enter into an exclusive negotiation agreement for redevelopment of the
Property as described above as the Project. Such selection and the execution of this Agreement
shall not be deemed acceptance of the Proposal or the Developer by the Town. The Project shall
not be deemed accepted until the Parties execute a mutually agreeable Disposition and Re-
Development Agreement (the "DRA"), which may differ substantially from the Project; provided,
however, failure of the Parties to agree upon a material revision or alteration of the Project, without
more, shall not constitute a violation of this Agreement, including the obligation of the Parties to
negotiate in good faith to continue to negotiate the DRA.
49
2. Exclusive Negotiations. The Parties agree that for a period beginning on December 12,
2017 and expiring on December 12, 2018 (the "Negotiation Period"), they will negotiate
exclusively and in good faith with one another in an effort to reach a mutually acceptable DRA.
The Negotiation Period may be extended only by written amendment of this Agreement authorized
and executed by the Parties.
3. Deposit. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Developer shall deliver to the Town a
good faith deposit of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) in the form of a company check (the
"Deposit"). The Deposit shall be held by the Town during the term of this Agreement and all
extensions. The Town shall retain the Deposit in an interest bearing account. All interest earned
on the Deposit shall be added to and become part of the Deposit. If, in spite of the Parties' best
efforts and good faith negotiations, they are unable to agree upon a mutually acceptable DRA, the
Deposit, and all interest earned thereon, shall be promptly returned to the Developer by the Town.
In the event the Developer breaches this Agreement by failing or refusing to meet at reasonable
intervals or in accordance with a mutually established schedule to negotiate with the Town's
representatives or if the Developer otherwise fails to negotiate in good faith (collectively, “Deposit
Retention Events”), the Town shall retain the Deposit, and all interest earned thereon, as liquidated
damages. It shall be the responsibility of the Developer to provide the Town with a proposed
schedule of meetings.
4. DRA Timeline. The Parties shall negotiate and agree to the following timeline by March
1, 2018, for the development of the DRA:
DATE ITEM
TBD Effective date of this Agreement
TBD Preliminary site plan that includes the
location of various elements of the Project,
including the water storage tank and any
new or relocated infrastructure
TBD Preliminary pro forma and construction
budget and definition of the Project site
TBD Complete preliminary term sheet that
includes the major terms and conditions,
including, financing, for the DRA; Complete
first draft of the DRA to be brought before
Town Board for review and consideration.
50
3
5. Developer's Duties and Covenants. The Developer warrants and covenants as follows:
a. Developer inspected and is reasonably familiar with the general character and
location of the Property. For purposes of this section, Developer assumes all areas of land have
not had a Phase 2 environmental study performed. The Town will provide the Developer with all
available documentation regarding the environmental conditions, including all actions taken by
the Town to abate, remediate and/or cure any known environmental conditions.
b. The Developer understands and acknowledges that the Property is subject to certain
legal requirements, including the Estes Valley Development Code, as amended, and all applicable
law. The Parties will jointly seek reasonable modifications to any such requirements that may be
required by the terms of the final DRA, as agreed upon by the Parties.
c. Developer hereby certifies to the best of Developer’s actual knowledge that it
possesses the legal ability, and the ability to obtain, adequate financing to develop the Property by
constructing the improvements contemplated by the Proposal. Subject to normal financing
contingencies and market conditions, the Developer knows of no reason or circumstance that will
preclude its ability to obtain adequate financing. This warranty by Developer is subject to the
Project not materially deviating from the current Proposal.
d. The Developer will disclose to the Town, prior to the execution of the DRA, its
principals, officers, stock holders, partners, joint venturers, members, guarantors, and other
interested persons that will be involved in the ownership of the special purpose entity(ies) that will
develop, own and operate the real property and improvements located thereon of the Project. The
Town acknowledges and agrees that the ownership composition of such entities have not been
finalized.
e. As part of the Developer's obligations under this Agreement, the Developer shall
reasonably cooperate with the Town, it’s owner’s representatives, attorneys, legal advisers,
consultants, Town staff and others involved in the negotiation of the DRA.
f. The Developer shall submit to the Town periodic reports as reasonably requested
by the Town, regarding the progress of studies, reports, plans, designs and other activities that
affect the negotiation of the DRA. Reports made by the Developer at scheduled meetings shall
satisfy this Agreement.
g. The Developer shall provide, at its own expense, the professional services
necessary to complete the preliminary site design and conceptual rendering for the Project
(“Professional Expenses”), in a form reasonably satisfactory to the Town.
51
4
h. The Developer shall provide tenant commitment(s) for the retail space, at terms that
are reasonably satisfactory to the Town. Developer agrees to provide market comparable to the
Town in an effort to verify market rates.
i. The Developer shall provide, market studies (“Market Studies”) that demonstrate
rental and housing demand, in a form reasonably acceptable to the Town.
j. The Developer shall complete, at its own expense, site design and conceptual
design renderings for the Project, in a form reasonably acceptable to the Town.
k. The Developer agrees to engage in a Collaborative Community Effort (CCE) as
outlined in the Developer RFP.
6. Town Duties and Covenants. The Town represents, warrants, and covenants as follows:
a. To provide current and future site data in the Town’s possession, including maps
and civil surveys, required to complete the preliminary Project site design and concept design, full
utility and parcel maps, and title work on those portions of the Property to be conveyed;
b. Access to and prioritization of the Town’s internal design review team.
c. The Town agrees to dedicate sufficient staff to ensure timely input and review of
conceptual design renderings.
d. The Town agrees to make available space for meetings at no cost to the Developer,
to provide all available documents related to the project site, and other information as necessary.
e. The Town acknowledges that it has no claim to any work product including, but
not limited to; site design, conceptual renderings, and Market Studies. In the event that the parties
fail to reach an agreement, the Town is not entitled to use any work product without prior
agreement from the Developer.
f. During the term of this Agreement, the Town may request certain deliverables (i.e.
Phase 2 environmental studies, surveys, specific market reports, etc.) the Town deems necessary
to continue negotiation with the Developer. The Parties shall agree in writing as to the individual
deliverable is subject to the terms of this Paragraph. In the event that this Agreement is terminated
or the Parties fail to execute the negotiated DRA, the Town shall reimburse the Developer for
Developer’s costs in preparation of the designated deliverable.
52
5
7. Developer and Town Duties. The Developer and the Town agree to complete the
following no later than the close of business on , 2017, subject to the Project timeline
set forth in Section 3 above:
a. A term sheet describing the terms and conditions of the DRA;
b. The first draft of the DRA to be brought before Town Board for review and
consideration;
c. Subject to further change and revision as the Project progresses, The Project budget
and redevelopment pro-forma; and
d. To dedicate staff as needed to complete a term sheet and DRA as set forth in this
Agreement, including bi-weekly meetings at the Town beginning , 2017 through
the completion of the draft DRA.
8. Access to Property. At any reasonable time, the Developer, its employees, agents or
contractors may enter upon the Property at the sole risk of the Developer for the purpose of making
inspections or conducting such reasonable tests, investigations, studies, audits, surveys and
reviews and for the purpose of removing samples from the Property in connection with the design
and construction of the Project. Immediately after such entry on the Property, the Developer shall
restore the Property to substantially the same condition it was in prior to such entry. The Developer
shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town, and Town Board members, employees, agents,
consultants, insurance provider and attorneys for any loss, damage or claims of any loss or damage
(including reasonable legal fees) resulting from any such entry, tests and surveys. The Town may
require the Developer and any other person seeking such entry to sign reasonable and customary
license agreements and other documents confirming the terms of this provision.
9. Indemnification. The Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town, its officials,
officers, employees, agents, and insurance provider for and against any loss, damage, or claims of
any loss or damage, including reasonable legal fees, resulting from any action, representation,
commitment or activity of the Developer in connection with the proposed redevelopment of the
Property.
10. No Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned, in whole or in part, by either Party
without the prior written consent of the other Party. The Town recognizes that the Developer
intends to form separate, special purpose entity(ies) to develop, own and operate real property and
the improvements thereon of the Project, and that assignments may be required in connection with
such activities. Approval of any such assignment(s) shall not be unreasonably withheld by the
Town.
53
6
11. Covenant Against Contingent Fees and Costs. The Town shall not be liable for any fees
or costs, including real estate commissions or brokerage fees, or costs of studies, reports, or other
documents that may arise as a consequence of any transaction involving this Agreement or the
Property or any part thereof. The Parties represent that neither has engaged a broker, agent or
finder in connection with this Agreement or in connection with the sale and transfer of the Property
or any part thereof.
12. Town not a Partner. Notwithstanding any language in this Agreement or any other
agreement, representation or warranty to the contrary, the Town shall not be deemed to be a partner
or joint venturer of the Developer, or any operator or manager of the Project, and the Town shall
not be responsible for any debt or cost of the Developer except as specified in Section 6.f.
13. Defaults; Remedies. Upon a default by the other Party, and provided that such Party has
not cured the default within twenty (20) days of the receiving written notice thereof, the remedies
of the respective Parties under this Agreement shall be as follows:
a. If the Developer fails to substantially observe or perform any covenant, obligation
or agreement required under this Agreement, the sole and exclusive remedy of the Town shall be
to cancel and rescind the Agreement subject to the Town’s right to retain the Deposit as specified
in Section 3.
b. If the Town fails to substantially observe or perform any covenant, obligation or
agreement required under this Agreement, Developer shall be entitled to cancel and rescind the
Agreement. The Developer shall not be entitled to any other legal or administrative remedy, action
or proceeding including, without limitation, the right to seek damages, specific performance, or to
seek any other right or remedy at law or in equity. The Developer shall be responsible for bearing
all of its costs and expenses, direct or indirect, in connection with the Project, this Agreement or
the DRA except as specified in Section 6.f.
14. No Other Rights or Remedies. Notwithstanding any language in the Agreement or any
other Agreement, document or communication to the contrary, the Project shall not be deemed
accepted by the Parties until the DRA is executed by both Parties. The rights and remedies of the
Parties are specifically limited to those set forth in this Agreement and no rights to specific
enforcement or in the nature of equitable conversion will be deemed to have been created with
respect to the Project, the Property or otherwise.
15. Non-liability for Certain Persons. No Town Board member, employee, agent, consultant,
underwriter, insurance provider, or attorney of the Town shall be personally liable to the Developer
under this Agreement or in the event of any default or breach by the Town under this Agreement.
54
7
16. Conflicts of Interest. None of the following shall have any personal interest, direct or
indirect, in this Agreement: a member of the governing body or an employee of the Town who
exercises responsibility concerning the Project, or an individual or firm retained by the Town, who
has performed or will perform consulting or legal services in connection with the Project. Nor shall
any of the above persons or entities make any decisions relating to this Agreement that affect his
or her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he or
she is directly or indirectly interested.
17. Notices. A notice or demand under this Agreement by any Party to the other shall be in
writing and sufficiently given if delivered in person or via overnight courier service with
guaranteed next-day delivery or by certified mail, return receipt required, postage prepaid, and;
a. in the case of the Developer, is addressed or delivered to the Developer as follows:
AmericaWest Housing Solutions
Attn: Mr. Keith Meier
P.O. Box 9024
Woodland Park, CO 80866
Prairie Fire Development Group
Attn: Mr. Kelley Hrabe
401 Charlotte Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
b. in the case of the Town, is addressed or delivered to the Town as follows:
Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
with a copy to:
Town Attorney
Mr. Greg White
1423 W. 29th Street
Loveland, CO 80538
55
8
or at such other address with respect to any such Party as that Party may, from time to time,
designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this Section.
18. Authorized Contacts for Communications. The Developer and the Town agree that each
shall designate one individual as a point of contact for all communications pursuant to this
Agreement. The Town designates Jon Landkamer, Public Works Facilities Manager, as its contact
and the Developer designates Keith Meier as its contact.
19. Applicable Law and Venue. The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the
interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement and exclusive venue shall be in the Larimer
County District Court.
20. Confidentiality. Pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, C.R.S. §§ 24-72-201 et seq.
(“Act”), all information provided to the Town is subject to public disclosure unless it meets one of
the exceptions set forth in the Act. To avoid disclosure of trade secrets, privileged information,
or confidential commercial, financial, geological, or geophysical data (“Confidential
Information”), the Developer must clearly mark all Confidential Information as such and provide
a written, detailed justification to the Town of the protected nature of the Confidential Information
under Colorado law. This justification must address, at a minimum, the specific competitive harm
that may result from any disclosure, the intrinsic value of the Confidential Information to the
Developer, and any safeguards the Developer uses to protect the Confidential Information from
disclosure. By executing this Agreement, the Developer agrees to hold the Town harmless from
any claim arising from the release of Confidential Information not clearly marked as such by the
bidder or lacking written, detailed justification supported by Colorado law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town and the Developer have caused this Agreement to
be duly executed as of the day first above written.
DEVELOPER:
AmericaWest Housing Solutions
By:_________________________________
Mr. Keith Meier
56
9
Prairie Fire Department Group
By:__________________________________
Mr. Kelley Hrabe
TOWN:
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
57
10
Exhibit A
58
Public Works
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jon Landkamer Facilities Manager
Date: December 7, 2017
RE: Dry Gulch Workforce Housing Exclusive Negotiation Agreement
Objective:
Formalize negotiations with AmericaWest and Prairie Fire Development Group to plan,
design, implement, and build workforce housing on the 3.5 acre, Town owned, Dry
Gulch property. The Developer will be directed to create a Collaborative Community
Effort (CCE) in this process, with the intent of making a significant impact in the local
workforce housing inventory. The CCE will create a development at Dry Gulch that will
provide opportunities for more people to live and work in our community. The focus for
this housing market is 60% to 150% of the Average Median Income (AMI).
Present Situation:
The most recent Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment (2016) identified the
need for approximately 1600 additional units in the Valley for workforce housing. The
Dry Gulch Property currently undeveloped and is immediately adjacent to Crossroads
Ministry.
Proposal:
Formalize negotiations with AmericaWest Housing Solutions and Prairie Fire
Development Group through the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement, to plan, design,
implement, and build workforce housing on the Dry Gulch property.
Advantages:
Increase the number of available housing units in the 60% to 150% AMI range for
workforce housing.
The project will be a recruitment and retention tool for community staffing needs.
Utilizes a parcel that is vacant, and is unlikely to be developed solely for Town of Estes
Park use.
The project may also help Crossroads expand their operation by adding much needed
warehouse space.
59
Disadvantages:
However, there will be impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, with increased
population and traffic.
However, the subdividing and rezoning of the property will forever change it’s usage and
the potential for Town of Estes Park government uses.
Action Recommended:
The action recommended, is to approve the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with
AmericaWest Housing Solutions and Prairie Fire Development Group on the
development of workforce housing solutions for the Dry Gulch property.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Estimate of Owner’s Representative and Legal Services:
2017 101-1700-417.22-98 $5,000
2018 101-1700-417.22-98 $5,000
Level of Public Interest
High: Workforce housing has been the recent topic of community discussion and also
the subject of a recent League of Women Voters forum.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement to formalize
negotiations with AmericaWest Housing Solutions and Prairie Fire Development Group
for the development of the Town owned Fish Hatchery properties.
Attachments:
Dry Gulch Exclusive Negotiation Agreement
60
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT
THIS EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") dated
____________, 2017, is made by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, a
body corporate and politic of the State of Colorado (the "Town”) and AmericaWest Housing
Solutions and Prairie Fire Development Group (the "Developer"), which may be referred to
individually herein as a “Party” or collectively herein as the “Parties.”
In consideration of the following mutual covenants and other good and valuable
consideration, the sufficiency and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree
as follows:
1. Development Project. Pursuant to a competitive bidding procedure established by the
Town, the Developer submitted a proposal dated July 14, 2017 (“Proposal”), concerning the
redevelopment of the real property that is depicted on the attached map, labeled Exhibit A, and
incorporated herein by this reference, and which includes the existing Town owned structures on
Dry Gulch Road (the "Property").
The Proposal provides for the redevelopment of the Property to deliver Workforce Housing for
Estes Valley.
The Parties acknowledge that the Proposal is conceptual and a starting point for negotiations.
Such Property and Proposals described in Section 1 above shall be referred to collectively in this
Agreement as the "Project."
The Town acknowledges that the Developer, in entering into this agreement, will be
seeking significant financial participation as indicated in their Proposal. Further, both parties agree
that the information in the Proposal is based on a conceptual design that is subject to change and
is merely a starting point for negotiations and nothing in this Agreement is commitment by the
Town to such financial participation.
On November 14, 2017, the RFP Review Committee, appointed by the Town of Estes
Park, Board of Trustees (“Town Board”) recommended the Developer as the Town’s "preferred
developer" with which to enter into an exclusive negotiation agreement for redevelopment of the
Property as described above as the Project. Such selection and the execution of this Agreement
shall not be deemed acceptance of the Proposal or the Developer by the Town. The Project shall
not be deemed accepted until the Parties execute a mutually agreeable Disposition and Re-
Development Agreement (the "DRA"), which may differ substantially from the Project; provided,
however, failure of the Parties to agree upon a material revision or alteration of the Project, without
more, shall not constitute a violation of this Agreement, including the obligation of the Parties to
negotiate in good faith to continue to negotiate the DRA.
61
2. Exclusive Negotiations. The Parties agree that for a period beginning on December 12,
2017 and expiring on December 12, 2018 (the "Negotiation Period"), they will negotiate
exclusively and in good faith with one another in an effort to reach a mutually acceptable DRA.
The Negotiation Period may be extended only by written amendment of this Agreement authorized
and executed by the Parties.
3. Deposit. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Developer shall deliver to the Town a
good faith deposit of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) in the form of a company check (the
"Deposit"). The Deposit shall be held by the Town during the term of this Agreement and all
extensions. The Town shall retain the Deposit in an interest bearing account. All interest earned
on the Deposit shall be added to and become part of the Deposit. If, in spite of the Parties' best
efforts and good faith negotiations, they are unable to agree upon a mutually acceptable DRA, the
Deposit, and all interest earned thereon, shall be promptly returned to the Developer by the Town.
In the event the Developer breaches this Agreement by failing or refusing to meet at reasonable
intervals or in accordance with a mutually established schedule to negotiate with the Town's
representatives or if the Developer otherwise fails to negotiate in good faith (collectively, “Deposit
Retention Events”), the Town shall retain the Deposit, and all interest earned thereon, as liquidated
damages. It shall be the responsibility of the Developer to provide the Town with a proposed
schedule of meetings.
4. DRA Timeline. The Parties shall negotiate and agree to the following timeline by March
1, 2018, for the development of the DRA:
DATE ITEM
TBD Effective date of this Agreement
TBD Preliminary site plan that includes the
location of various elements of the Project,
including the water storage tank and any
new or relocated infrastructure
TBD Preliminary pro forma and construction
budget and definition of the Project site
TBD Complete preliminary term sheet that
includes the major terms and conditions,
including, financing, for the DRA; Complete
first draft of the DRA to be brought before
Town Board for review and consideration.
62
3
5. Developer's Duties and Covenants. The Developer warrants and covenants as follows:
a. Developer inspected and is reasonably familiar with the general character and
location of the Property. For purposes of this section, Developer assumes all areas of land have
not had a Phase 2 environmental study performed. The Town will provide the Developer with all
available documentation regarding the environmental conditions, including all actions taken by
the Town to abate, remediate and/or cure any known environmental conditions.
b. The Developer understands and acknowledges that the Property is subject to certain
legal requirements, including the Estes Valley Development Code, as amended, and all applicable
law. The Parties will jointly seek reasonable modifications to any such requirements that may be
required by the terms of the final DRA, as agreed upon by the Parties.
c. Developer hereby certifies to the best of Developer’s actual knowledge that it
possesses the legal ability, and the ability to obtain, adequate financing to develop the Property by
constructing the improvements contemplated by the Proposal. Subject to normal financing
contingencies and market conditions, the Developer knows of no reason or circumstance that will
preclude its ability to obtain adequate financing. This warranty by Developer is subject to the
Project not materially deviating from the current Proposal.
d. The Developer will disclose to the Town, prior to the execution of the DRA, its
principals, officers, stock holders, partners, joint venturers, members, guarantors, and other
interested persons that will be involved in the ownership of the special purpose entity(ies) that will
develop, own and operate the real property and improvements located thereon of the Project. The
Town acknowledges and agrees that the ownership composition of such entities have not been
finalized.
e. As part of the Developer's obligations under this Agreement, the Developer shall
reasonably cooperate with the Town, it’s owner’s representatives, attorneys, legal advisers,
consultants, Town staff and others involved in the negotiation of the DRA.
f. The Developer shall submit to the Town periodic reports as reasonably requested
by the Town, regarding the progress of studies, reports, plans, designs and other activities that
affect the negotiation of the DRA. Reports made by the Developer at scheduled meetings shall
satisfy this Agreement.
g. The Developer shall provide, at its own expense, the professional services
necessary to complete the preliminary site design and conceptual rendering for the Project
(“Professional Expenses”), in a form reasonably satisfactory to the Town.
63
4
h. The Developer shall provide tenant commitment(s) for the retail space, at terms that
are reasonably satisfactory to the Town. Developer agrees to provide market comparable to the
Town in an effort to verify market rates.
i. The Developer shall provide, market studies (“Market Studies”) that demonstrate
rental and housing demand, in a form reasonably acceptable to the Town.
j. The Developer shall complete, at its own expense, site design and conceptual
design renderings for the Project, in a form reasonably acceptable to the Town.
k. The Developer agrees to engage in a Collaborative Community Effort (CCE) as
outlined in the Developer RFP.
6. Town Duties and Covenants. The Town represents, warrants, and covenants as follows:
a. To provide current and future site data in the Town’s possession, including maps
and civil surveys, required to complete the preliminary Project site design and concept design, full
utility and parcel maps, and title work on those portions of the Property to be conveyed;
b. Access to and prioritization of the Town’s internal design review team.
c. The Town agrees to dedicate sufficient staff to ensure timely input and review of
conceptual design renderings.
d. The Town agrees to make available space for meetings at no cost to the Developer,
to provide all available documents related to the project site, and other information as necessary.
e. The Town acknowledges that it has no claim to any work product including, but
not limited to; site design, conceptual renderings, and Market Studies. In the event that the parties
fail to reach an agreement, the Town is not entitled to use any work product without prior
agreement from the Developer.
f. During the term of this Agreement, the Town may request certain deliverables (i.e.
Phase 2 environmental studies, surveys, specific market reports, etc.) the Town deems necessary
to continue negotiation with the Developer. The Parties shall agree in writing as to the individual
deliverable is subject to the terms of this Paragraph. In the event that this Agreement is terminated
or the Parties fail to execute the negotiated DRA, the Town shall reimburse the Developer for
Developer’s costs in preparation of the designated deliverable.
64
5
7. Developer and Town Duties. The Developer and the Town agree to complete the
following no later than the close of business on , 2017, subject to the Project timeline
set forth in Section 3 above:
a. A term sheet describing the terms and conditions of the DRA;
b. The first draft of the DRA to be brought before Town Board for review and
consideration;
c. Subject to further change and revision as the Project progresses, The Project budget
and redevelopment pro-forma; and
d. To dedicate staff as needed to complete a term sheet and DRA as set forth in this
Agreement, including bi-weekly meetings at the Town beginning , 2017 through
the completion of the draft DRA.
8. Access to Property. At any reasonable time, the Developer, its employees, agents or
contractors may enter upon the Property at the sole risk of the Developer for the purpose of making
inspections or conducting such reasonable tests, investigations, studies, audits, surveys and
reviews and for the purpose of removing samples from the Property in connection with the design
and construction of the Project. Immediately after such entry on the Property, the Developer shall
restore the Property to substantially the same condition it was in prior to such entry. The Developer
shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town, and Town Board members, employees, agents,
consultants, insurance provider and attorneys for any loss, damage or claims of any loss or damage
(including reasonable legal fees) resulting from any such entry, tests and surveys. The Town may
require the Developer and any other person seeking such entry to sign reasonable and customary
license agreements and other documents confirming the terms of this provision.
9. Indemnification. The Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town, its officials,
officers, employees, agents, and insurance provider for and against any loss, damage, or claims of
any loss or damage, including reasonable legal fees, resulting from any action, representation,
commitment or activity of the Developer in connection with the proposed redevelopment of the
Property.
10. No Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned, in whole or in part, by either Party
without the prior written consent of the other Party. The Town recognizes that the Developer
intends to form separate, special purpose entity(ies) to develop, own and operate real property and
the improvements thereon of the Project, and that assignments may be required in connection with
such activities. Approval of any such assignment(s) shall not be unreasonably withheld by the
Town.
65
6
11. Covenant Against Contingent Fees and Costs. The Town shall not be liable for any fees
or costs, including real estate commissions or brokerage fees, or costs of studies, reports, or other
documents that may arise as a consequence of any transaction involving this Agreement or the
Property or any part thereof. The Parties represent that neither has engaged a broker, agent or
finder in connection with this Agreement or in connection with the sale and transfer of the Property
or any part thereof.
12. Town not a Partner. Notwithstanding any language in this Agreement or any other
agreement, representation or warranty to the contrary, the Town shall not be deemed to be a partner
or joint venturer of the Developer, or any operator or manager of the Project, and the Town shall
not be responsible for any debt or cost of the Developer except as specified in Section 6.f.
13. Defaults; Remedies. Upon a default by the other Party, and provided that such Party has
not cured the default within twenty (20) days of the receiving written notice thereof, the remedies
of the respective Parties under this Agreement shall be as follows:
a. If the Developer fails to substantially observe or perform any covenant, obligation
or agreement required under this Agreement, the sole and exclusive remedy of the Town shall be
to cancel and rescind the Agreement subject to the Town’s right to retain the Deposit as specified
in Section 3.
b. If the Town fails to substantially observe or perform any covenant, obligation or
agreement required under this Agreement, Developer shall be entitled to cancel and rescind the
Agreement. The Developer shall not be entitled to any other legal or administrative remedy, action
or proceeding including, without limitation, the right to seek damages, specific performance, or to
seek any other right or remedy at law or in equity. The Developer shall be responsible for bearing
all of its costs and expenses, direct or indirect, in connection with the Project, this Agreement or
the DRA except as specified in Section 6.f.
14. No Other Rights or Remedies. Notwithstanding any language in the Agreement or any
other Agreement, document or communication to the contrary, the Project shall not be deemed
accepted by the Parties until the DRA is executed by both Parties. The rights and remedies of the
Parties are specifically limited to those set forth in this Agreement and no rights to specific
enforcement or in the nature of equitable conversion will be deemed to have been created with
respect to the Project, the Property or otherwise.
15. Non-liability for Certain Persons. No Town Board member, employee, agent, consultant,
underwriter, insurance provider, or attorney of the Town shall be personally liable to the Developer
under this Agreement or in the event of any default or breach by the Town under this Agreement.
66
7
16. Conflicts of Interest. None of the following shall have any personal interest, direct or
indirect, in this Agreement: a member of the governing body or an employee of the Town who
exercises responsibility concerning the Project, or an individual or firm retained by the Town, who
has performed or will perform consulting or legal services in connection with the Project. Nor shall
any of the above persons or entities make any decisions relating to this Agreement that affect his
or her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he or
she is directly or indirectly interested.
17. Notices. A notice or demand under this Agreement by any Party to the other shall be in
writing and sufficiently given if delivered in person or via overnight courier service with
guaranteed next-day delivery or by certified mail, return receipt required, postage prepaid, and;
a. in the case of the Developer, is addressed or delivered to the Developer as follows:
AmericaWest Housing Solutions
Attn: Mr. Keith Meier
P.O. Box 9024
Woodland Park, CO 80866
Prairie Fire Development Group
Attn: Mr. Kelley Hrabe
401 Charlotte Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
b. in the case of the Town, is addressed or delivered to the Town as follows:
Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
with a copy to:
Town Attorney
Mr. Greg White
1423 W. 29th Street
Loveland, CO 80538
67
8
or at such other address with respect to any such Party as that Party may, from time to time,
designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this Section.
18. Authorized Contacts for Communications. The Developer and the Town agree that each
shall designate one individual as a point of contact for all communications pursuant to this
Agreement. The Town designates Jon Landkamer, Public Works Facilities Manager, as its contact
and the Developer designates Keith Meier as its contact.
19. Applicable Law and Venue. The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the
interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement and exclusive venue shall be in the Larimer
County District Court.
20. Confidentiality. Pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, C.R.S. §§ 24-72-201 et seq.
(“Act”), all information provided to the Town is subject to public disclosure unless it meets one of
the exceptions set forth in the Act. To avoid disclosure of trade secrets, privileged information,
or confidential commercial, financial, geological, or geophysical data (“Confidential
Information”), the Developer must clearly mark all Confidential Information as such and provide
a written, detailed justification to the Town of the protected nature of the Confidential Information
under Colorado law. This justification must address, at a minimum, the specific competitive harm
that may result from any disclosure, the intrinsic value of the Confidential Information to the
Developer, and any safeguards the Developer uses to protect the Confidential Information from
disclosure. By executing this Agreement, the Developer agrees to hold the Town harmless from
any claim arising from the release of Confidential Information not clearly marked as such by the
bidder or lacking written, detailed justification supported by Colorado law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town and the Developer have caused this Agreement to
be duly executed as of the day first above written.
DEVELOPER:
AmericaWest Housing Solutions
By:_________________________________
Mr. Keith Meier
68
9
Prairie Fire Department Group
By:__________________________________
Mr. Kelley Hrabe
TOWN:
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
69
10
Exhibit A
70
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Greg White, Town Attorney
Date: December 12, 2017
RE: Appeal of Estes Valley Planning Commission decision on November 14,
2017 of Development Plan 2017-07 (Raven Rock Townhomes)
Objective:
Review and reach final decision on the Raven Rock Townhomes Development Plan
(DP-2017-07) on appeal from the Planning Commission’s denial of same on Nov. 14,
2017
Present Situation:
The Raven Rock Townhomes proposed development, if approved and built, would
consist of 38 two-family units (19 buildings) on an approx. 10-acre parcel. The parcel is
currently vacant (unbuilt) and is located on the northeast side of Mary’s Lake Road
across from the Promontory Drive intersection, approx. ¼ mile northwest of the Mary’s
Lake Road / State Highway 7 intersection.
On Sept. 19, Oct. 17, and Nov. 14, Planning Commission reviewed application materials
and related items and held public hearing(s) on two applications in connection with the
Raven Rock Project: a Preliminary Plat and a Development Plan. The September and
October meetings resulted in votes to continue both items to the following regular
Planning Commission meetings.
The Raven Rock Townhomes Preliminary Plat is also on the Town Board’s Dec. 12
agenda. This staff memorandum and accompanying items are in connection with the
Development Plan.
On Nov. 14, the Planning Commission voted (3 in favor of the motion, 2 against, 2
absent) to deny the Development Plan. On Nov. 15, the owner, James R. Mackey, filed
a request for appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial with the Town Clerk. A
Supplemental Notice of Appeal was filed on Nov. 30 (both are included herein).
Per EVDC Sec. 3.8.C.2, the Planning Commission’s Nov. 14 decision is considered
“final action”; however, per Sec. 12.1.B. of the EVDC, any “party-in-interest may appeal
a final decision made by the Estes Valley Planning Commission pursuant to this 71
Code…” to the Town Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners,
depending on jurisdiction. The Raven Rock site is in the Town; thus, an appeal goes to
the Town Board in this case.
Proposal:
Staff reports and exhibits for the three Planning Commission hearing dates are included
in this packet; please review these for full background. Minutes from the first two
meetings are also included. The Nov. 14 minutes are not written yet, but there is a link
at the end of this memo to the audio-video recording for the November Planning
Commission meeting. The actual motions for the Raven Rock plat and plan have been
transcribed by staff, and the transcription is included.
Two additional memorandums were provided to the Planning Commission in the Nov.
14 packets (see pp. 3-10 in the Nov. 14 Planning Commission Staff Report PDF). The
two memos, from Community Development Director Hunt and Town Attorney White,
were provided partly in response to questions and discussion by Planning Commission
and citizens before Nov. 14, concerning the three-way relationship among the
Comprehensive Plan, the Development Code, and the Raven Rock Development Plan.
Some specific Raven Rock issues are also dealt with in the memos, including
groundwater, traffic, visual sensitivity, and wildlife – all of which were discussed in the
Planning Commission hearings.
The Supplemental Notice of Appeal and the preceding original letter of appeal
(included) set forth the applicant’s basis for appeal.
The Town Board has four options in deciding and voting on this appeal. They
correspond to four possible Board motions, as the Board may see fit. The four options
are:
1. Deny the Raven Rock Development Plan as submitted on appeal, finding that it
does not meet the Estes Valley Development Code in one or more particulars
(the particulars will need to be stated in the motion).
(For example, the reason for denial by Planning Commission seems to
have been non-compliance with EVDC Sec. 3.8.D.2, which states that
“[t]he development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan…” However, no specific
Comprehensive Plan policies, goals and objectives were cited).
2. Approve the Raven Rock Development Plan as submitted on appeal, finding that
it meets the Estes Valley Development Code’s requirements for approval per
EVDC Chapter 3 (Review Procedures and Standards).
3. Approve the Raven Rock Development Plan as submitted on appeal with
conditions, finding that it meets the Estes Valley Development Code’s
requirements for approval per EVDC Chapter 3 (Review Procedures and
Standards) [with conditions stated in the motion].
(Because development plan reviews are ministerial and not discretionary,
any conditions must be grounded in established standards, such as the 72
EVDC, the Town’s Water System Engineering Design Standards, etc. For
example, an appropriate development-plan ministerial condition might
require that the exact height of a retaining wall be dimensioned on the
plan. An example of an inappropriate discretionary condition would be that
all buildings be Colonial Georgian architectural design.)
4. Continue the Raven Rock Development Plan to a future date-certain Town Board
meeting, with a request for staff to provide specific findings to support
approval/denial of the Raven Rock Development Plan.
(For example, the motion for continuance should give Staff specific
direction on what specific findings need to be provided to support the
decision of the Town Board for approval/denial of the Raven Rock
Development Plan.)
Action Recommended:
Staff recommended approval of the Raven Rock Townhomes Development Plan to the
Planning Commission in September, again in October, and again in November. Staff
stands by this recommendation today on appeal.
The record may speak for itself concerning Planning Commission’s decision.
Finance/Resource Impact:
n/a
Level of Public Interest
Very high.
Sample Motions:
I move for the approval of the Raven Rock Development Plan (DP 2017-07) on appeal
from the Planning Commission’s denial of same on Nov. 14, 2017, finding that the
Development Plan meets the Estes Valley Development Code’s requirements for
approval per EVDC Chapter 3 (Review Procedures and Standards).
I move for the approval of the Raven Rock Development Plan (DP 2017-07) on appeal
from the Planning Commission’s denial of same on Nov. 14, 2017, finding that the
Development Plan meets the Estes Valley Development Code’s requirements for
approval per EVDC Chapter 3 (Review Procedures and Standards). The following
conditions of approval are included:
[cite conditions here, including EVDC section(s)
I move for the denial of the Raven Rock Development Plan (DP 2017-07) as submitted
on appeal, finding that it does not meet Sec. 3.8.D.2 of the Estes Valley Development
Code (Standards for Review: consistency with Comprehensive Plan), including the
following particulars:
[cite particulars here, including Comprehensive Plan references]
73
I move to continue the Raven Rock Development Plan (DP 2017-07) as submitted on
appeal to _________ [date certain], and direct that staff provide additional information
prior to that date toward the ability to assess specific findings, as follows:
[state needed additional information]
Attachments:
1. Supplemental Notice of Appeal from James R. Mackey, dated Nov. 30, 2017
(includes original letter of appeal, dated Nov. 15, 2017)
2. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated September 19, 2017.
3. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated October 17, 2017.
4. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated November 14, 2017.
5. Transcribed motions from November 14th Planning Commission (verbatim)
6. Planning Commission hearing minutes from September 19th
7. Planning Commission hearing minutes from October 17th
8. Audio-video recording for Nov. 14th Planning Commission may be viewed here:
https://estesgovtv.viebit.com/player.php?hash=VYetU5GFzRl2
9. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (1996) may be consulted here:
www.estes.org/townofestespark/comprehensiveplan
74
丁o:
Copies to:
F「om:
Date:
Re二
SUPPLEMENTA」 NOTICE OF APPEAL
Jackie W冊amson, Town CIe「k
Greg White, Town Attomey
Randy Hunt, Communjty DeveIopment Dj「ector
James R, Mackey
November 3O, 2017
Suppiemental Notjce ofAppeal of the Estes Va=ey Plannjng Commissjon
Denial ofthe Raven Rock Townhomes DeveIopment Pian on Novembe「 14, 2017
As the applicant for app「oval of the Raven Rock Townhomes DeveIopment Plan (the ``Prqiect”)
and owner of the p「operty which was the subject of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
(く`EVPC”) decision to deny the PrQject on November 14, 2017, l appealed the EVPC’s decision
On Novembe「 15, 2017 (Copy attached) and file herewith this Supplemental Notice ofAppeai.
Acco「ding to Estes Va=ey Deveiopment Code (``EVDC’’) § 3.8.D, the 「ecommending and
decision-making entities [i"e・ the Town’s Community Deveiopment Department Staff (く’Staff’)
and the EVPC, reSPeCtiveiy] are to evaluate development plan applications according to the
fo=owing standards for review:
1. The development plan complies with a= app=cabie standa「ds set forth in this
Code;and
2. The development pian is consistent with the po=cies, gOals and oPjectives of the
Comp「ehensive Pian and any other 「eievant iand use, Parks and tra=s, CaPital
lmPrOVement and other sim=a「 plans.
Staff conducted its evaluation, found that the Prqiect complied with the appIicable standards of
the EVDC and the goals and policies of the Comp「ehensive Plan (See Page 6 of Staff’s report to
the EVPC). After pubiic hea「ings on September 19th, October 17th and November 14th, and
after recelVing SPeCific legal advice from the Town Attomey that the Comp「ehensive Plan was
not su冊ciently specific to be used as the basis for the EVPC’s decision (See attached Memo to
the EVPC dated November 14, 2017), the EVPC approved a motion on November 14th, On a
VOte Of 3-2, tO deny the P「Qject’s deveiopment pian application because it “does not meet the
Comp Pian standards’’and “wouId set an unacceptabie precedent moving forward.’’
We appeaI the EVPC’s denial ofthe PrQject on the fo=owing g「ounds:
A. The EVPC did not cite any poIicy, gOal o「 OPjective ofthe Comp「ehensive P!an that the
P「oject faiied to comply with,丁hree members of the EVPC made gene「al refe「ences to their
ab冊y to consider the Comp「ehensive Pian and their desire for a different process, but none
Cited any p「ovisions of the Comprehensive PIan in their comments 「egarding the Prqiect, nOr
WaS any Cited in the motion to deny the Project. This is the very definition of an arbitrary and
CaPricious decision.
B. The Comp「ehensive PIan was not intended to be 「egulatory. The Comprehensive PIan
is the vision and long-term guide forfutu「e deveiopment (See page l-1 ofthe Comprehensive
Plan), The poiicies ofthe Comp「ehensjve Plan, When adopted in 1996, PrOVided the
苗amewo「k for p「eparing future 「eguiations.” The Comprehensive Plan specjficaily states that
the policies “need to be impiemented th「ough the adoption of 「evised zoning, Subdivision, and
RECEIVED
NOVEMBER 30, 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
75
development reguIations.’’(See page 6-1) The Comprehensive Plan’s Action Pian included
“specjfjc recommended actions fo「 implementing the plan,’’one of which was the adoption of “a
unified development code combining zoning and subdivision reguIations,’’(See pages 7-1 and
7-2), According to the Town Attomey’s November 14th memo to the EVPC, COmPrehensive plan
P「OVisions must be “drafted with su冊cient exactitude’’in o「der to be used as the basis for a land
use decision; the above citations f「om the text of the Comprehensive Plan ciea「Iy indicate that
its provisions were not intended to be reguiatory, but rather that its policies be implemented in
fufure regulations.
C. The Comp「ehensive PIan was implemented with the creation ofthe EVDC in 1999, and
the EVDC contains the 「eguIations applicable to deveiopment. As pointed out by the Town
Attomey in his memo to the EVPC, the ordinance adopting the EVDC and O怖cial Zoning Map
StateS thatくくthe Code and Map a「e intended to impiement the terms of the Estes Vai!ey
Comprehensjve Plan, and to repiace and amend existing iand use regulations in the Estes
Va=ey, incIuding regu!ations fo「 zoning, Subdivision and deveiopment of land ‥. “
D. The P「Qject compiies with a= app=cable provisions of the EVDC. Afte「 thorough Staff
and refer「ai agency 「evjew invoiving numerous qualified consuitants, the Staff found the P亘yect
to be in comp=ance with al! app=cabie criteria and reguIations ofthe EVDC, and expiained in its
report to the EVPC how compliance with each 「equi「ement was attained by the Pr句ect. None
Of the EVPC membe「s cha=enged or disputed the Project’s comp=ance with the requi「ements of
the EVDC" ln fact, One EVPC membe「 actua=y acknowiedged that there had been compliance
``with the letter of the Iaw’’and anothe「 stated that the discussion of the PrQject lndi「ectly
addressed many of the issues of the Comp Plan.’’
E. The EVPC acted arbitrariIy and cap「iciousIy in denying the P「qject where the reco「d is
「eplete with evidence of compIiance with the EVDC and where the EVPC did not even cite any
SeCtions of either the Comp「ehensive Plan or the EVDC to suppo山ts deniai, let aIone fa掴ng to
Cite any evidence in the 「ecord to suppor白ts deniaI based on the Comprehensive Plan and the
EVDC" in doing so, the EVPC acted with totai dis「egard for estab=shed p「inciples of land use
law.
1 request, therefore, that the November 14, 2017 decision ofthe EVPC be ove血med, and that
the Raven Rock Townhomes Deveiopment PIan be approved based upon its comp=ance with
the applicable p「ovisions of the EVDC and the poiicies, gOals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan as impiemented in the 「eguiations of the EVDC.
76
November 15, 2017
Dear PIanning Dj「ector Hunt,
Please accept踊s Ietter as the appeal to the PIaming Commission’s decision to deny the Raven Rock
Development Plan〇十his denial occur「ed by spiit vote (3置2) on November 14, 2017. Ou「 team collectively
feels that we meet a= aspects ofthe cu「rent Estes Va=ey Development Code and that the「e were no
SPeCific 「easons for the denial given even though the Commission was given that directive prior to the
hea「ing on the same day by the Town Attomey. We heard subjective statements of noncompliance with
the Comp「ehensive Pian mentioned (OPen meadows, OPen SPaCe and neighborhood compatib冊y… ), but
no specifics or 「eason for the deniai eithe「 in the motion o「 jn the dialogue. As you know this is zoned A
and across Mary’s Lake Road is also an A zoned p「operty with sim=a「 density,丁herefore, We reSPeC帥iy
request that we be piaced on the Town Board’s Agenda for November 28, 2017 fo「 an appeaI to the
Development PIan denial decision. We understand that we are already on the agenda for the Preliminary
Platwhich we would like to pu「sue a decision f「om the Town Board on as we=.
Thank you fo「 your consideration of this request.
隅圏
James Mackey
DeveIope「 for the Raven Rock Subdivision and Development Plan
77
Memo
To: Estes Va=ey Planning Commission
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Greg White, Town Attomey
Date: November 14, 2017
RE: Raven Rock丁ownhomes: Autho「ity of the Comprehensive PIan as it
applies to development review of a specific prqject
Thjs memorandum is w「itten to address severaI related issues that have arisen with the
Raven Rock Townhomes proposal (and in other PIaming Commission discussions
during the past year or so), regarding the appiicab冊y of the Estes Va=ey
Comprehensive Plan to the review of the Raven Rock Deve10Pment PIan and
Pre=minary Plat.
Numerous Comprehensive PIan questions have been raised in discussion during the
Septembe「 and Octobe「 Plaming Commission hearings on this matte「 and in various
emaiIs and other pubIic fo「ums, Some commentary has come in the form of legaI
Citations on CoIorado case Iaw.
One question has been the reievance of EVDC Sec. 3.8,D, Whjch specifjes Standards
for Review of deveiopment pIans. Here is that section in its entirety:
D. Standa「ds for Review. The recommending and decision-making entities sha= review
development pIan app=cations and a= subm阻ed plans and reports, and evaluate them according
to the fo=owing standards:
1. The deveiopment pIan comp=es with a= app=cabIe standards setforth in
this Code; and
2. The deveiopment plan is consistent with the policies, gOals and objectives
Of the Comprehensive Plan and any other reIevant iand use, Pa「ks and traiIs, CaPitaI
improvement and othe「 sjmilar pians.
(O「d, 17-17,§ 1)
The language in the EVDC rega「djng consistency with the Comp「ehensjve PIan is
generaIlyfound in most land use codes in CoIo「ado,丁his raises the issue of howto
harmonize strict reguiatory codes such as the EVDC with the broader policies, gOaIs
and objectjves of the Comprehensive Plan,
CoIorado courts have been inconsistent in reconc冊g the advisory nature of
COmPrehensive pIans with the regulatory specificity of zoning, Subdivision, and land use
COdes.
Novembe「 14, 2017 EVPC
時間en Nov. 3, 2017)Pagel of4
78
lt is cIear in CoIorado that comprehensive pian provisions may be considered in the
review of individua=and use applications if they are p「operiy incorporated into
Iegis看ativeiy adopted zoning or land use deveIopment codes. However, me「e
inCO「POration or referencing of a comprehensive p看an in a zoning or land use
deveIopment code is not, by itself, Su冊cjent to subject deveIopment app=cations to
COmPliance with comprehensjve plan poIicjes葛
Comprehensive plan provisions must be su冊ciently specific ``to ensu「e that any action
taken by a county in response to a Iand use proposal w川be rational and consistent and
thatjudiciaI review of that action w冊be ava帽bIe and effective … tO PrOVide a看l users
and potential use of land with notice of the pa面cular standards and requirements
imposed by the county” (Beave「 Meadows v. Boa「d of County Comm’rs, 709 P.2d 928,
936 & n, 6 (CoIo,1985), Cited in Boa「d of County Com’rs v. Conder, 927 P,2d 1339
(1996)),
ln order to use comprehensive plan (master plan) po=cies to review individua1 1and use
appIications, ``the master pIan p「ovjsions at issue must be drafted with su鮒cient
exactitude so that proponents of new development are afforded due p「ocess, the county
does not retain unfettered discretion, and the basis for the county-s decision is ciear for
PurPOSeS Of reasoned judiciaI review.’’(Conder, Op. Cit,)
A review has been made ofthe 1996 Estes Va=ey Comp「ehensive Pian with regard to
Whether there are specific statements in the Comprehensive Pian as to its rote in futu「e
ZOning and land use regulations and reviews.
丁he Comprehensive Plan contains the fo=owing recommendation:
“A unified deveIopment code combining zonjng and subdivision reguIatjons
Should be adopted for the [Estes ValIey] study area and u輔zed by both the Town
and County for making land use decisions withjn this area,’’(Comprehensive
Plan, Chapter 7, Sec. A,l,3, P, 7-2)
A unified development code - the Estes VaIIey DeveIopment Code - WaS adopted by
both the Town and County in 1999 to comp!y with the Comprehensive Pian’s
recommendation,
丁he key aspect in the above section is that the new code shouid be ``u輔zed … fo「
making land use decisions within this area,’’This indicates a cIear intention to
implement the Comprehensive Plan by c「eation of the EVDC, in othe「words, the EVDC
and the O冊cia看Zoning Map are the instruments fo「 translating Comp Plan goaIs,
POlicies, and recommendations into reguIations,
This is underscored by the Town Ordinance Ianguage adopting the EVDC and O冊cial
Zoning Map in November 1999. The fo=owing is the second sectjon in Ordinance No.
13-99:
November 14, 2017 EVPC
(W冊en Nov. 3, 2017)Page2 of4
79
WHEREAS, the Code and Map are intended to impIement the terms ofthe
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and to repiace and amend exjsting Iand use
reguIations in the Estes Valley言ncluding reguIations for zoning, Subdivision and
development of iand;,.,"
The County Resoiution adopting the EVDC and O冊cial Zoning Map contain an almost
identical Whereas" section,丁he County adoption took piace at a December 1999
hea血g,
Accordingiy, the spec綱c land use regu看ations in the EVDC and the O冊Ciai Zoning Map
adopted in 1999 were determined by the two legis看ative bodies (Town Board and
County Commissione「s), tO be consistent with the poIicies, gOaIs and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Raven Rock Deveiopment Plan and PreIiminary P看at, There a「e two spec桐c
re∞mmendations of the Comprehensive PIan which may be relevant to the Raven
Rock Deveiopment Plan and Preiiminary Plat.
The O冊ciaI Zoning Map was adopted along with the EVDC, and changed zoning
designations on many properties in the Estes Vaiiey,丁his new zoning map changed the
Raven Rock property from County Business zonjng to Estes Va=ey Accommodations
ZOnjng - a less-intense zoning district. That is, the property at issue was do仰zoned in
2000, tO be consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
The most geographically specific Comp Plan segments are the Futu「e Land Use Maps
(FLUMs) for various areas. The “Mary’s Lake PIanning Sub-Area" Future Land Use Map
is one ofthem, Although FLUMs are common features in Comprehensive Plans言t is a
bit risky to rely on them for precise guidance -they look Iike, but are not, ZOning maps,
With that caveat, however言t is important to note that the FLUM for Mary’s Lake Sub-
Area shows the Raven Rock property as “Accommodations", Nearby Iow-density
「esidentiai prope巾es, SuCh as Arapaho Meadows and westem Ca面age Hilis, are
Shown as “Rural Estate" or “Residential - PUD". Ai看such designations correspond to the
Cu汀ent ZOning map, Which has not changed materially since 2000. 1n these
Circumstan∞S言t seems evident that the downzonjng of the Raven Rock property was a
direct, ∞nSequent SteP tO imp看ement the Sub-a「ea FLUM for the Maly’s Lake vicinity.
ln its continuance of the Raven Rock Deveiopment Plan and Pre=minary Plat, the
PIamjng Commission requested infomation regarding visua=y sensitive a「eas and
W=d=fe,
Visual Sensitivitv: Discussion and comments at the Plaming Commjssion hearings
indicate that visua=mpact of deveiopment is an issue fo「 some. it is not cIear to staff
Whethe「 “visua=y sensitive" refers to the aesthetics of the development itself (buiIding
design, maSSing, SPaCing, etC.), Whether the discussion refers to potentia=nterruption of
Views and vistas (e,g., View co而do「s), O「 both,
Novembe「 14, 2017 EVPC
(Wr枇en Nov. 3, 2017)Page3 of4
80
VisuaI sensitivity in the context of a new development project is not mentjoned in the
EVDC, nOr are any SynOnymS fo「 that term. Ou「 Code does refe「 to visua看impact in
SeVeral specific areas, SuCh as screening of rooftop HVAC equipment, landscape
SC「eening and buffe「ing aIong some property boundaries, and limiting deveIopment on
ridgeIines (Raven Rock and vicinity are not ridgeIine areas in EVDC Appendix A).
VjsuaI sensitivity appears f「om discussion to be one of the subject areas where interest
exists in b「inging the Comprehensive Plan to bear on deveiopment review, For the
「easons explained in this memorandum neither the Comp PIan nor the EVDC contain
any specific regulations addressing visual sensitivity. Acco「dingly, the Piaming
Commission and goveming bodies have no authority to impose criteria or condjtions
di「ectIy dealing with visuaI sensitivity.
W冊Iife二The Raven Rock app=cants have provided a wiIdIife conservation study,
P「oviding such a study goes above and beyond Code requirements. EVDC Sec. 7,8.F
does requjre submittai of a W=d=fe Conservation PIan for sites containing Iand in three
SPeCific, limited categories: (a) Endangered o「 threatened species; (b) Big Hom sheep
Or thei「 habitat; and (C) rjparian a「eas adjacent to rivers and streams and wetlands
identified on maps in Appendix A. None of these three categorleS Pertains to the Raven
Rock property.
丁here is an unde「standable emotionaI attachment to the elk popuiation in Estes Va看ley,
The voiuntari看y submitted w岨Iife conservation study does not indicate any threat or
indeed any impact anticjpated for eIk in the vicinity of Raven Rock. This is a non-issue
and cannot Iega=y be made a criterion or condition in the current pIan and plat review,
Summary: it is the opinion of Staffthat the Raven Rock Deveiopment Pian and
P「eiiminary PIat should not be subject to review by the Piaming Commission for “visual
SenSitivity” and/or “w胴Iife mitigation” as those review c「ite「ia a「e not specifica=y
addressed by the Comprehensive PIan or the EVDC as review c「iteria fo「the Raven
Rock DeveIopment Plan and Pre=minary Plat.
Novembe「 14, 2O17 EVPC
(Written Nov. 3, 2017)Page4 of4
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda
was prepared.
Prepared: October 11, 2017, 2017
* Revised:
AGENDA
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 17, 2017
1:30 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall
1. OPEN MEETING
Planning Commissioner Introductions
Introduction of Senior Planner Jeffrey Woeber
2. AGENDA APPROVAL
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not
exceed three minutes.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes of September 19, 2017
B. Estes Park Resort – Applicant request to extend deadline for meeting conditions of approval related
to the Development Plan approved June 20, 2017. Requested deadline is December 27, 2017 (60
additional days)
C. Request by staff to continue the proposed EVDC amendment regarding Outdoor Food Vendors to
the November 21, 2017 Planning Commission meeting
5. REZONING OF LOTS 1-4, MARYS LAKE ESTATES FROM RE–Rural Estate TO A-1–
Accommodations; 638, 650, 742, & 565 LAKEWOOD COURT
Owners: Siegfried & Anne Goetz; Rudy & Hilde Frank; Roy & Michele Johnson;
Flandango Properties, LLC
Applicants: Siegfried & Anne Goetz; Rudy & Hilde Frank; Roy & Michele Johnson;
Flandango Properties, LLC
Request: Rezone Lots 1-4, Marys Lake Estates from RE–Rural Estate to A-1–
Accommodations.
Staff: Planner Gonzales
6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN & PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT; RAVEN ROCK
TOWNHOMES; TBD PROMONTORY DRIVE – Continued from September 19, 2017 EVPC meeting
Owner : James & Susan Mackey
Applicant: James & Susan Mackey
Request: Proposed townhome development of 19 duplex buildings, creating 38 single-
family townhomes
Staff: Planner Gonzales
7. DEVELOPMENT PLAN; FISH CREEK STORAGE; 1901 FISH CREEK ROAD
Owner : Chris & Marlys Eshelman
Applicant: Chris & Marlys Eshelman
Request: Redevelop property by removing existing buildings and constructing two new
buildings containing 86 storage units. Existing single-family dwelling will
remain.
Staff: Planner Gonzales
Continued on next page
8. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING BED AND
BREAKFAST INNS – Continued from September 19, 2017 EVPC meeting Planner McCool
130
The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda
was prepared.
9. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD A DEFINITION IN
CHAPTER 13 FOR THE TERM “SINGLE-FAMILY USE”, AND TO AMEND TABLE 4-1 TO MATCH
THE DEFINED USE. Director Hunt
10. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELPOMENT CODE SECTIONS 11.4b AND 11.4d TO
ELIMINATE APPLICABILITY AND USE OF THE ATTAINABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS IN
THE RE-1–Rural Estate, RE–Rural Estate, E-1–Estate, E-Estate, R–Residential, & R-2–Two-
Family Residential ZONE DISTRICTS Director Hunt
11. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM
RIDGELINE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR STEEPLY SLOPED GABLED & HIPPED ROOF STRUCTURES.
Continued from September 19, 2017 EVPC meeting Director Hunt
12. REPORTS
A. Staff-Level Reviews
B. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
1. 507 Grand Estates Variance – Fred Kropp/Applicant - Denied October 3, 2017
2. 521 Grand Estates Variance – Docter Residence – Approved October 3, 2017
B. Estes Park Town Board
1. EVDC Code Amendment regarding Preferred Plant List – Approved September 26, 2017
C. Larimer County Board of County Commissioners
1. EVDC Code Amendment regarding Preferred Plant List – Approved September 18, 2017
D. Community Development Update
1. Vacation Home Update
2. Downtown Plan Update
E. Other
13. ADJ OURN
131
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING DATE & LOCATION: October 17, 2017, 1:30PM; Board Room, Town
Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue
APPLICANT REQUEST: Approval of a Development Plan for the development of
19 duplex buildings (38 townhome units). Also, request for recommendation of
approval of Preliminary Townhome Subdivision.
Staff recommends approval of the Development Plan and Preliminary Townhome
Subdivision.
PLANNING COMMISSION OBJECTIVE:
1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)
and Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan;
2. Conduct a public hearing to consider applicant’s testimony, public
comment, and Town staff’s findings and analysis; and
3. Provide a recommendation to the Town Board of approval or denial of the
Preliminary Townhome Subdivision application.
4. Approve or deny Development Plan application.
LOCATION: TBD, Marys Lake Road, within the Town of Estes Park
VINICTY MAP: See attachment
OWNER/APPLICANT: James R. and Susan M. Mackey
STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner II
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project appeared before the Planning Commission on September 19, 2017.
The PC voted to continue the item to the October 17th hearing date.
Present Situation: The subject property was annexed into the Town of Estes
Park in 2017. It is approximately 10-acres in size and is undeveloped. The
property is zoned A-Accommodations.
Proposal: The proposal entails buildings 19 duplex buildings with 38 individual
platted townhome lots. There are three Outlots proposed and three detention
ponds. Several utility easements are proposed to be dedicated with several main
extensions anticipated. There is no zone change requested with this development.
Raven Rock
Development Plan and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision
Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division
Room 210, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org
132
Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 2 of 7
Raven Rock Development Plan and P. Townhome Sub.
SITE DATA TABLE:
Engineer: Van Horn Engineering & Surveying
Parcel Number: 34021-00-024 Development Area: Approx. 10-acres
Existing Land Use: Undeveloped Proposed Land Use: 19 duplex buildings
with 38 individual townhome lots
Zoning Designation: A-Accommodations
Adjacent Zoning:
East: A-Accommodations and E-Estate North: A-Accommodations
West: A-Accommodations South: A-Accommodations
Adjacent Land Uses:
East: 2 single-family homes and
undeveloped property
North: Undeveloped
West: Church South: Mary’s Meadow Condominiums
Services:
Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation
District
Review Criteria.
1. Development Plan: 3.8.D. Development Plan Standards for Review
requires the staff review and recommend approval/denial to the EVPC. The
EVPC shall review the development plan application and all submitted
plants and reports, and evaluate them according to the following
standards:
1. The development plan shall comply with all applicable standards set
forth in the EVDC; and,
2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Preliminary Townhome Subdivision. 3.9.E. All subdivision applications
shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in
Chapter 10, “Subdivision Standards,” and all applicable provisions of this
Code.
REVIEW CRITERIA: Depending upon the complexity of the project, this section
may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may involve a more detailed
analysis of the standards based upon issues relevant to any particular project.
1. Buildings and Lots. The project consists of 19 duplex buildings, each with
two separate units. The total number of units on the property will be 38.
Each of the 38 units will be located on their own townhome lot. The lots
conform to maximum impervious coverage. The buildings conform to
maximum allowed heights.
2. Landscaping. Arterial buffer landscaping is required along Mary’s Lake
Road, non-arterial buffer landscaping is required along Promontory Drive,
133
Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 3 of 7
Raven Rock Development Plan and P. Townhome Sub.
and district buffer landscaping is required along the common border
between this development and Arapaho Meadows.
The applicant has provided more trees and shrubs than are required for
this project but offers an Alternative Landscaping Plan for the location of
this landscaping. Staff has found the Arterial, non-arterial, and district
buffering to be adequate. The applicant has proposed additional
landscaping internal to the site on each individual property.
114 trees are required and 270 shrubs. The landscaping plan proposes
164 trees and 273 shrubs. Since the overall project is over on required
landscaping Staff has accepted the alternative plan.
3. Open Space. 4 acres out of the 10 acre site are platted as outlots. These
outlots will contain the detention pond areas as well as a significant rock
outcropping on the northeast section of the site. Private open space is not
required with this type of development.
4. Water. There is a water main running through Mary’s Lake Road. This
proposal calls for tying into that main and creating a looped system
throughout the development. This will allow appropriate water pressure and
flow to be met.
5. Fire Protection. There are two fire hydrants proposed with this project.
Fire access is provided with platted public rights-of-way and using the
private drives as emergency access areas. The preliminary plat shows the
intent to dedicate these areas as emergency access easements. Portions
of these easements will run through townhome lots.
6. Electric. A 20-foot utility easement was dedicated in 2016 for new Town of
Estes Park electric lines along Mary’s Lake Road. All new electric lines for
this project will be undergrounded (primary and secondary).
7. Sanitary Sewer. There is an existing sewer main downhill from the
proposed development that borders the Arapaho Meadows subdivision.
The plan calls for tying into that existing main and providing additional
mains throughout Raven Rock. The 8” mains are proposed to run through
the internal streets/driveways and will serve all the units by gravity flow.
Stormwater Drainage. An addendum to the preliminary drainage report
was submitted to staff on October 9th for review. This additional submittal
was provided to address lingering concerns from Planning Commission
expressed at the September 19th hearing. The addendum provides
additional design calculations and drawings to further explain how the
proposed pond outlet structures will function and how storm water
discharge from the proposed development will be controlled and delivered
to existing infrastructure downstream of the project.
Three on-site detention ponds will be located on the property. They are
designed to not exceed the historic outfall quantities of stormflow release.
134
Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 4 of 7
Raven Rock Development Plan and P. Townhome Sub.
All the ponds are designed with outlet structures and orifice plate
restrictions to mimic the historic flow releases.
Several internal storm sewer catch basins and buried storm sewer pipes
will transport on-site generated flows to the ponds.
Detention Pond 1 is proposed to be located within the 50-foot wetland
buffer. This location will require a Variance as Code states that there shall
be no disturbance of the ground within wetland setbacks.
The applicant is proposing a channel and berm along the northeast
property boundary in order to properly convey outflow from Detention Pond
2 off-site. Release rates are below historic rates at this location.
A Preliminary Drainage Report was provided to Staff with the submitted
applications. A Final Drainage Report is required to be submitted with the
Final Plat for all subdivisions along with associated infrastructure
improvement plans/financial securities. It is customary that the final plans
show greater detail on the drainage systems of a project. The Preliminary
Townhome Subdivision drainage plan is a detailed conceptual plan only.
Staff has reviewed it and deemed it acceptable for this stage of the project.
8. Access. Access to the site will be from Mary’s Lake Road via newly
proposed Promontory Drive. This Drive will be dedicated as Town ROW on
the final plat. Gray Jay Way and Rock Wren Circle are two private drives
accessing from Promontory Drive. All duplex buildings will front onto one of
three drives proposed. The applicant has also extended ROW to the
northwest and southeast edge of the property for future connections if
needed. As noted above, emergency vehicle access is sufficient and
provided throughout the site.
A traffic impact study was provided to Staff for review. The study
concluded that no additional auxiliary lanes for the Mary’s Lake/Promontory
Drive intersection are recommended with development of the townhome
subdivision.
9. Right-Of-Way. Public Works has requested an additional 10-foot public
right-of-way dedication for Mary’s Lake Road. The applicant has provided
this on the preliminary plat. It shall be dedicated on the final plat. Also,
Promontory Drive is shown on the preliminary plat as public right-of-way
and shall be dedicated on the final plat.
10. Wetlands. Two delineated wetlands have been shown on the plans in the
southeastern section of the site. A 2015 wetland delineation was
performed by Darcy A. Tiglas. This summary of that study was revised in
September of 2017. There is a 50-foot setback to all wetlands per the
EVDC. This project proposes building a detention pond within that 50-foot
setback. This action requires a Variance.
11. Wildlife Study. A wildlife habitat report and conservation plan was
submitted with this application. According to this report, no endangered,
135
Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 5 of 7
Raven Rock Development Plan and P. Townhome Sub.
threatened, or special concern plant/wildlife species will be adversely
affected by the proposed project.
12. Comprehensive Plan. The site is located within the Mary’s Lake planning
area, which anticipates a wide-range of land uses, including the subject
property envisioned to be for Accommodation uses. The existing zoning
complies with the future land use designation. Duplexes and residential
uses are allowed within the A-Accommodation zoning district.
Development Guidelines. The guidelines for this planning area call for
protecting natural resource areas such as drainage ways, open meadows,
and wetland areas. Two wetland areas were identified on this site and
contain a 50-foot setback buffer. Major drainage areas to the north of this
property are protected as “Public Open Space” and more wetlands are
delineated to the east of this property. The subject property itself does not
contain a major drainage way that needs protecting, according to the
drainage report.
REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: This application has been submitted to
reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or
concerns were expressed by reviewing staff.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: In accordance with the notice requirements in the Estes
Valley Development Code, legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail-
Gazette. Typical mailings include a 100-foot radius.
As of October 11, 2017, two formal written comments have been received for this
application package. All written comments are posted to
www.estes.org/currentapplications.
Public concerns/comments have been about drainage, view sheds, installation of
utilities, density, building style, etc. Staff has met with the reviewing agencies to go
over public comment and have assured staff that these concerns have been
addressed with the current submittal or will be addressed with final infrastructure
plans (e.g. final drainage study).
STAFF FINDINGS:
Based on the foregoing, staff finds:
1. The development plan and preliminary townhome subdivision comply with the
goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan (e.g. Development
Guidelines and Future Land Use).
2. The Planning Commission is the Approving Body for the Development Plan
and Recommending Body for the preliminary plat.
3. Adequate public/private facilities are currently available to serve the proposed
project.
4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were received.
5. The Development Plan and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision will comply
with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC once a Variance is approved
for a detention pond within the wetland setback.
136
Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 6 of 7
Raven Rock Development Plan and P. Townhome Sub.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Development Plan and
Preliminary Townhome Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. A Final Townhome Subdivision Plat shall be approved by Town Board
within 120 days of Planning Commission decision date. The Final Plat shall
be submitted with a Final Drainage Study and all associated infrastructure
construction plans/financial guarantees. The Final Plat shall be recorded
within 60 days of Town Board approval.
2. An approved Variance to locate the detention pond within the 50-foot
wetland setback is required and shall be approved prior to town signatures
on the Development Plan.
SAMPLE MOTIONS FOR THE PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION:
1. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the “Raven Rock Preliminary
Townhome Subdivision application” according to findings of fact with
findings and conditions recommended by Staff.
2. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the “Raven Rock Preliminary
Townhome Subdivision application” according to findings of fact with
findings recommended by Staff.
3. I move to CONTINUE the “Raven Rock Preliminary Townhome Subdivision
application” to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state
reasons for continuance.]
4. I move to recommend DENIAL of the “Raven Rock Preliminary Townhome
Subdivision application”, finding that … [state findings for denial].
SAMPLE MOTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
1. I move to APPROVE the “Raven Rock Development Plan application”
according to findings of fact with findings and conditions recommended by
Staff.
2. I move to APPROVE the “Raven Rock Development Plan application”
according to findings of fact with findings recommended by Staff.
3. I move to CONTINUE the “Raven Rock Development Plan application” to
the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for
continuance.]
4. I move to DENY the “Raven Rock Development Plan application”, finding
that … [state findings for denial].
137
Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 7 of 7
Raven Rock Development Plan and P. Townhome Sub.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Statement of Intent
3. Application
4. Development Plan set
5. Preliminary Townhome Subdivision plan set
6. Building floorplans and elevations
7. Full application (including wetland study and drainage reports) can be found
at: www.estes.org/currentapplications
138
KIOWATRLSSAINTVRAINAVEKIO
W
A
D
R LAKEWOODCTPROMONTORY DRARAPAHORDARAPAHORD
M
A
R
Y
S
L
A
K
E
R
DMARYSLAKERD
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 60 120Feet
1 in = 125 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development
Vicinity MapRaven Rock(Preliminary Townhome Subdivision and Development Plan)Printed: 9/13/2017Created By: Audem Gonzales
M
a
r
y
'
s
L
a
k
e
R
o
a
d
S SAINT VRAIN AVEMARYS LA
K
E
R
D
PEAK VIEW DR
MARYS LAKE
SitePromontory Drive139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock)
Dawn James –351 Kiowa Drive, Estes Park
Submitted 10/16/2017 for consideration for the 10/17/2017 Planning Commission session.
Main concerns at this time:
1.Environmental Impact –Wildlife data not being taken into consideration
2.Traffic Impact –Additional factors not being considered in “traffic analysis”
1.Environmental Impact
•At the September 19, 2017 Planning Commission session, I had requested that the
wildlife study be re-evaluated. The developer indicated that additional wildlife studies
would be performed.
Question: Has there been additional studies performed? There has not been any public
notification of such study being conducted.
1
•In addition to the hundreds of elk in the meadow
this year, additional wildlife sightings have been
made. This picture of a young Moose, in the
wetland area of the proposed development area,
was taken by Phyllis Edelbrock from The Meadows
townhomes off Kiowa Drive on 5/21 after the May
snow storm.
171
Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock)
2Page 18Page 20https://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/
nepa/final_estes_park_ea.pdf
Request: A Resource Management Plan needs to address what actions will be instituted to protect
human-wildlife conflict during construction and post construction especially during Spring, Summer
and Fall.
**Please note below excerpts from the Parking Structure study / recommendations.
Environmental Impact -Continued
172
Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock)
Environmental Impact -Continued
Request: With a known human-wildlife conflict in this proposed extremely high density
residential development, the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) need to
participate in the planning to properly mitigate negative interaction. CPW has responsibility
of the elk when outside of the park.
Facts to Consider: Below are pictures of what happens several times each month as the elk
bed in the meadow that is planned to be developed. Excessive traffic often grinds to a halt
to view as little as four up to 200 elk or deer. Pictures below were taken at dusk, making it
even more dangerous for the humans and for the wildlife.
Over the last couple of months we had up to 100 elk make their presence in the proposed
development area nearly every day. In the Pictures below there were approximately 80 elk
and 40 cars continuously stopped.
3
173
Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock)
2.Traffic Impact –Factors that have not been considered in the “traffic analysis”
During the September 19, 2017 Planning Commission meeting it was noted that the
City Engineer saw no issues with the developer’s assessments. I had pointed out
several concerns that will not be re-reviewed today. However….
Question: How could their be no concerns over the traffic analysis, as it relates to
pedestrians and cyclists, when in fact the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan (EVMTP)
(Appendix Page 8) indicates that the Mary’s Lake Rd route from Hwy 7 and Hwy 36 is a
known route as a loop for cycling and jogging (Appendix Page 9)? Trail #23 -Mary’s Lake
Road Improvement Ranked #5, out of 27 trails, of those opportunities identified in the
Master Trails Plan’s Project Priority Table (Appendix Page 10) .
The EVMTP notes that the existing road has no shoulder to safely accommodate current
pedestrian and cyclist volume. The development is on Mary’s Lake Rd, between Hwy 7
and Hwy 36. With an increase in population, given the proposed plan, the Planning
Commission MUST address this increased hazard.
Request: Planning Commission must require the developer to enhance Mary’s Lake Rd
to accommodated their increased pedestrian and cyclists volume along Mary’s Lake Rd.
In addition to the developer’s actions, the Planning Commission must take advantage of
this construction disruption to implement the previously identified needs laid out in the
EVMTP to accommodate the current pedestrian and cyclists needs outlined.
4
174
Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock)
2.Traffic Impact Continued
Facts to Consider:There has been precedence set with the Mary’s Lake Lodge condo
development’s sidewalk, and others throughout Estes Park, whereby the developer’s
multi-family policy is to enhance and contribute to the neighborhood and neighboring
area.
When the developer’s obligation is coupled with the needs identified in the Estes Valley
Master Trails Plan, the Planning Commission must ensure that appropriate cross-walks
and the availability of sidewalks are in place to allow pedestrians and cyclists to safety
travel on Mary’s Lake Road, as shown on the next slide, and southbound toward Kiowa
Drive.
5
175
Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock)
Request: The developer extend the
current pedestrian and cycle path that
ends near Lakewood Ct. and what
appears to at the developer’s
property line.
The extension should continue across
the causeway and loop around to the
Mary’s Lake designated parking area,
as noted by the red lines on the
adjacent Google map.
The developer should also extend the
walkway/trail southbound toward
Kiowa Drive.
A natural or paved surface, multi-use
trail to provide a safer recreation
option for the developments local
residents and vacation home renters,
as well as the neighboring
community.
2.Traffic Impact Continued
6
176
Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock)
Appendix
7
177
Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock)
8
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark/TransportationStudies
178
Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock)
9
Please note that the
developer rejected
Pedestrian and
Bicyclist Traffic as
they noted there was
limited impact.
The Estes Valley
Master Trail Plan
disagrees. As with
nearly all local
development of multi
family residential
areas, there should
be some pedestrian
and bicyclist path or
trails required.
Question: How will the Town of Estes Park address the Master Plan initiatives in this
area of residential development? 179
Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock)
10
The Town of Estes
Park has identified
the need for
additional trails on
Mary’s Lake Rd,
stretching from Hwy
36 to the Fish Creek
Trail.
This appears to be an
ideal time for the
Town of Estes Park to
ensure that the
Master Trail Plan is
not disrupted.
Question: How will the Town of Estes Park address ensure that Mary’s Lake Rd
development will not interfere with a trail from Hwy 36 to Fish Creek?180
Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock)
11
Trail #23 -Mary’s Lake Road Improvement Ranked #5
in Long Term Master Trail Plan Project Priority.
Question: Knowing this, what are the Town’s plan
while the area is prime for improvement?
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
Raven Rock Motions
Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 14, 2017
SM – Commissioner Steve Murphree
GW – Town Attorney Greg White
RS – Chair Russ Schneider
RG – Commissioner Robert Foster
BL – Commissioner Bob Leavitt
RH – Community Development Director Randy Hunt
SW – Commissioner Sharry White
KT – Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
(1) SM – I move to recommend approval of the Raven Rock Preliminary Townhome Subdivision
application according to findings of fact with findings and conditions recommend by Staff and, if we
could include what the developer agreed to do here, and I don’t have that in writing, but maybe we
can throw that in, with the crosswalks and…I know it would be kind of…what do you say, Counsel,
could we do that?
GW – I think those-what the developer has proposed, offered up – that is a part of the Development
Plan, not a part of the Preliminary Plat. The Preliminary Plat is just drawing lines, dividing it into lots
and blocks. I assume that the developer’s movement of a little bit on the two lots is reflected on the
preliminary plat. If it’s not, that should be part of the motion…It’s already in there?...So anything to
do with the crosswalk, the building, the movement of the landscaping – the drainage is already in
there – would have to be part of the development plan.
SM – Could we make it a matter of record, I guess it already is, right?
RS – Do I hear a second?
KT – The Chair can also second. You have the authority to do that.
BL – She’s saying you can second.
RS – Yeah, I heard her. I’ll second that motion, and ask that the Commissioners vote.
[Display of vote: Foster=NO; Murphree=YES; Hull=[absent]; Leavitt=NO; Schneider=YES; White=NO;
Baker=[absent].
RS – We have 3-2, the motion being rejected.
RS – The second motion then is on the development plan.
236
GW – This is for the preliminary plat, correct? I would suggest that, since you have denied, ah…have
not approved the motion to recommend the preliminary plat, it would be appropriate if you want
to, to have a motion to recommend denial of the preliminary plat, so it can move forward to Town
Board.
RS – Say that again?
[unclear discussion, multiple voices]
GW – Just reversing what you’ve done so that something moves forward, because you have not –
the motion was not to recommend denial; it was to recommend approval of the preliminary plat.
RH – It’s a parliamentary device. It gives you an affirmative vote on something, to move something
forward.
RS – Do I hear a motion?
[unclear discussion, multiple voices]
SM – So moved.
BL – Well, do you want to say anything else to go along with it?
RS – Go ahead.
BL – So. I move to deny the Raven Rock development plan application, finding that it does not meet
Comprehensive Plan guidelines, which are we required to review and consider, and furthermore, it
sets a precedent that says that this kind of review going forward is acceptable.
GW – Just for clarification, this is to recommend denial of the preliminary plat, correct?
BL – OK, so…
GW – Let’s use words correctly, please so – because…
BL – I amend my – I amend my – I amend my proposal to substitute the words to subdivision…
GW – To preliminary plat.
BL – Preliminary plat, yes. Thank you.
RS – And do I hear a second?
SW – Second.
RS – Moved and seconded that we reject the request for the plat. Please vote.
237
[Display of vote: Foster=YES; Murphree=NO; Hull=[absent]; Leavitt=YES; Schneider=NO, White=YES;
Baker=[absent].]
RS – And the motion carries. The plan has been rejected.
GW – Recommended -
RS – Recommended -
GW – Recommendation.
RS – OK. Now, that takes care of the plat. Do we still have to vote on the development plan?
GW – Yes.
RS – Motion for the development plan?
BL – It’s essentially the same. I move to deny the Raven Rock development plan application, finding
that it does not meet Comprehensive Plan standards, and it is an unacceptable precedent moving
forward.
RS – Second?
RF – Second.
RS – May I have your vote, please.
SM – How are we doing this?
KT- Did I have a second?
BL – Yes
[Display of vote: Foster=YES; Murphree=NO; Hull=[absent]; Leavitt=YES; Schneider=NO, White=YES;
Baker=[absent].]
RS – And that motion is approved.
238
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 19, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Russ Schneider, Vice-Chair Bob Leavitt, Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve
Murphree, Sharry White, Robert Foster, Doyle Baker
Attending: Chair Russ Schneider, Vice-Chair Leavitt, Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve
Murphree, Sharry White, Robert Foster, and Doyle Baker
Also Attending: Planner Audem Gonzales, Planner Carrie McCool, Code Compliance Officer
Linda Hardin, Planner Robin Becker, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, and
Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, County Staff Liaison Michael
Whitley
Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. He explained the purpose of the Planning
Commission. There were approximately 45 people in attendance.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion
passed 7-0.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Tom Gootz/town resident suggested someone at Town Hall let the public know who was putting
the Comprehensive Plan together. He recommended a press release on the topic.
Pat Newsom/town resident is opposed to change in Estes Park. She is concerned about several
proposed code changes.
Betty Hull/Planning Commissioner requested an explanation about “floating” zoning. She was
confused about all the attention the nonconforming lots were getting. She was opposed to
changes in single-family zone districts.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
B. Request to continue to the October 17, 2017 meeting an amendment to the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) to add a definition for the term “Single-Family Use”.
C. Request to continue to the October 17, 2017 meeting an amendment to the EVDC to
eliminate applicability and use of the Attainable Housing Density Bonus in the RE-1, RE, E-
1, E, R, and R-2 zone districts.
It was moved and seconded Leavitt/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the
motion passed 6-0 with Commissioner Baker abstaining.
4. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 152 STANLEY CIRCLE DRIVE; MIKE & CINDY KINGSWOOD,
OWNERS – 12 OCCUPANTS
Code Compliance Officer (CCO) Hardin stated the lot size is less than one-acre minimum
requirement.
Commissioner Baker pointed out that the county records shows one less bedroom than the
application. Director Hardin clarified the update to the county records has not yet been made.
The home inspection was approved.
Public Comment
None.
239
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 19, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Hull) to approve the vacation home at 152 Stanley
Circle Drive to allow a maximum of twelve (12) occupants and the motion passed unanimously.
5. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 410 RIVERSIDE DRIVE; ANN MISEL (STANLEY KRAUS LIVING
TRUST), OWNER; 12 OCCUPANTS
CCO Hardin stated the lot size is less than one-acre minimum requirement, and the setback on the
east side is six feet less than the required 25 feet.
Public Comment
None.
It was moved and seconded (White/Baker) to approve the vacation home at 410 Riverside Drive
to allow a maximum of twelve (12) occupants and the motion passed unanimously.
6. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 3430 EAGLECLIFF CIRCLE DRIVE; JEFFREY HYLER, OWNER; 12
OCCUPANTS
CCO Hardin stated the lot size is less than one-acre minimum requirement, and the front setback
is ten feet and the rear setback is 20 feet, where 25 feet is required on all sides.
Public Comment
None.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Murphree) to approve the vacation home at 3430 Eaglecliff
Circle Drive to allow a maximum of twelve (12) occupants and the motion passed unanimously.
7. SPECIAL REVIEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN; ESTES PARK BAPTIST CHURCH EXPANSION; 2200 MALL
ROAD Continued from August EVPC meeting.
Planner Gonzales stated this project was continued from the August meeting to allow the
applicant to be present, as he was absent last month. There were lingering questions from the
public regarding landscaping, use of the building, and future intentions. The application is a
request to expand the existing church with a 9,000 square foot addition. Written permission has
been provided by the Federal government regarding access to the property from Mall Road.
Additional parking will be added to the south, with the addition being to the west of the existing
building. Landscaping on the west property line was an issue in the last meeting, and the
applicant is now proposing to add two additional trees in that area. Applicant is now proposing a
two-phased approach; finishing out a portion of the addition with classrooms, but not the entire
building. A future single-family home is allowed by right on the property, and is not part of the
special review; however, the applicant provided the plans for the benefit of the public. The total
structure count will be two parsonages, one future maintenance shed (20 x 30), one office
building, and the existing church with the addition. The proposed office building will not have a
kitchen. Planner Gonzales stated no additional public comment was received since the last
meeting.
Staff and commission Discussion
Comments included but were not limited to: there are no design standards in the EVDC; the
landscape buffer that is required is around the boundaries; landscaping of the parking area or
around the new addition is not required; no interior landscaping is required.
Public Comment
Lonnie Sheldon/project engineer introduced members of the engineering team.
Paul Logue/Pastor of the church apologized for any issues that he has caused that may have been
offensive. He stated the security lights on the parsonage will remain. He stated he spoke with one
of the neighbors regarding the relocation of the modular, and understood they were in
agreement about the placement. He stated the church often houses volunteers that come to the
240
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 19, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
area to do various types of work for the community, and they often bring their RVs and park them
at the church.
Ralph Nations/project manager with the church stated there were several incorrect statements
made by the public last month. He stated the waiver request was for landscape buffering so they
would not have to landscape the entire south side of the property. The change was not discussed
with the neighbors. Commissioner White stated parking RVs on the property was not allowed,
and recommended the applicant have a conversation with the Community Development
Department regarding allowable uses on the property. After a brief discussion, Planner Gonzales
stated the proposal calls for the planting of eight more trees around the parking area, and twelve
additional shrubs.
Joy Harvey/county resident stated the neighbors would like to have transparency from the church
representatives. The neighbors have no issues with the various church ministries, but they do
have issues with the potential impact of the proposed development to the neighbors. She
requested the Commission deny the landscaping waiver.
Laura Case/county resident was concerned about additional exterior lighting. She requested there
be no construction traffic on Joel Estes Drive if the project was approved, and was opposed to the
landscape waiver.
Jeremy Collinette/county resident was concerned about how they were really going to use the
additional 9,000 square feet, wondering if it would become housing.
Ralph Nations stated the new addition will be used for classrooms for children and youth. He
stated they would not be housing people there, except for occasional overnight volunteers. He
was working with Planner Gonzales regarding Temporary Use Permits for this use.
Lonnie Sheldon stated a neighborhood meeting was not required. The applicant is not required to
pave the gravel road.
Chris Lee/Kennedy Architecture Group stated each level of the addition would be 4,500 square
feet, and would include a warming kitchen. The upper level will allow easier access to the second
floor via two bridges, while the lower level will have natural light to the south.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Planner Gonzales reminded the Commissioners to include any additional conditions of approval in
the motion.
Commissioner comments included, but were not limited to: Temporary Use Permits may solve the
issue of the overnight RVs; a landscaping plan was requested to ensure all required landscaping
would be installed; request to have all exterior lighting be code compliant.
Lonnie Sheldon stated the church is willing to install code compliant interior and perimeter
landscaping as part of the building permit set, which would need to be completed before a
Certificate of Occupancy would be issued. They will also comply with the dark sky ordinance for all
buildings on the property.
Conditions of Approval (as recommended by the Planning Commission)
1. The landscape waiver will not be granted as requested on the south and west property
boundaries.
2. Entire site will be compliant with the dark sky ordinance.
It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to recommend approval of the Estes Park Baptist
Church Special Review to the Larimer Board of County Commissioners according to the findings
241
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 19, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
of fact and the conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission and the
motion passed unanimously.
Chair Schneider requested a five minute recess at 3:09 p.m.
8. DEVELOPMENT PLAN & PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT; RAVEN ROCK
TOWNHOMES; TRBD PROMONTORY DRIVE
Planner Gonzales stated the subject property is zoned A–Accommodations, and is approximately
10 acres in size. It was annexed into the town limits earlier this year. The applicants, James &
Susan Mackey, propose to develop the property with 38 units in 19 duplexes, including three
outlots and three detention ponds. Three utility easements would also to be dedicated on the
plat, along with a dedicated town Right-of-Way. A private circle drive is proposed, with additional
private drives that front the individual duplex buildings. The applicant has proposed an alternative
landscaping plan that will disperse the landscaping among the property. They have added
additional trees, and the buffering on the east side is considered adequate by staff. The three
outlots would protect the existing wetland areas. One of the proposed wetlands is in the setback,
and a variance application has been submitted that will be heard by the Estes Valley Board of
Adjustment. A preliminary stormwater drainage plan was also submitted and reviewed by the
Town Engineer. This plan provides for three detention ponds to collect and discharge stormwater.
There have been neighbor concerns with the preliminary drainage report. The final drainage plan
will go with the Final Plat. Regarding access, the entrance to the subdivision will align with
Promontory Drive. A wildlife study was submitted, with no mitigation efforts being
recommended. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan for Future Land Use indicates
accommodations would be appropriate for this property. No major issues were identified by
reviewing staff. There were several public comments received. The application was routed to all
affected agencies. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper, and adjacent property
owners were notified by mail. The Planning Commission is the decision-making body for the
Development Plan, and the recommending body for the Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat.
Staff recommended two conditions of approval, listed below.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Planner Gonzales clarified inquiries regarding the annexation of this property into the town limits
earlier this year. There was discussion as to whether or not the Final Townhome Subdivision Plat
should be approved prior to the approval of the Development Plan. It was noted the Planning
Commission would not be reviewing the Final Plat; however, the approval of this plat is
conditional to the approval of the Development Plan.
Public Comment
David Bangs/project engineer prepared the preliminary drainage report. The adjacent property
owners are concerned about groundwater. It was his professional opinion the amount of
groundwater flowing onto the neighbor’s property would be the same or less with the proposed
development. The surrounding existing wetlands and associated groundwater could also affect
their property. In the preliminary design, all the detention ponds are built to meet the 100-year
event (1% annual chance). The ponds will be grass-lined, pervious, and would hold the water for
hours, not days. The detention ponds are typically maintained by the HOA. There are no
standards for regulating groundwater, and Mr. Bangs assured the Commission there would not be
any additional groundwater caused by this development affecting the neighbors. He explained
where the discharge areas are on the property, stating one of the drainage areas may need to be
redesigned depending on the outcome of the variance application. Historic discharge locations
will be maintained.
Joe Coop/project engineer stated the proposed duplexes would meet all height and setback
requirements. Floor plans are still in the design phase, and will have main floor living. The sewer
manhole is located in the utility easement. There is an existing fence in the easement, which will
be replaced by the applicant.
242
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 19, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
James Mackey/applicant and property owner purchased the property in 1995 with the intention
of developing it. He has been working on the various parts of this project since 2014. The review
has been thorough and all issues are being addressed adequately. He met briefly with the
neighbors to introduce himself. He has had several conversations with Ms. Ray, but not with the
Keiltys. More than the required landscaping will be installed, to screen the buildings from the
neighbors. Units 35-38 will not be right up against the property line. Drainage plan will comply
with the required regulations. He is aware of Mr. Keilty’s ongoing groundwater issue. He originally
met with Rita Kurelja of the Estes Park Housing Authority regarding a possible affordable housing
project, but after meeting with various people decided not to pursue it.
Michael Keilty/town resident was concerned the project would create a groundwater problem on
his property, and had a private engineer review the drainage plan. He was also concerned about
the potential for trespassing. He stated the postcard he received in the mail was not adequate
notice.
Barbara Keilty/town resident was concerned about what might happen in the future. Based on
the report from their third-party engineer, their home is in imminent danger.
Claire Ray/town resident was concerned about construction phase, and requested construction
vehicles be limited to Marys Lake Road and not be allowed to use Arapahoe Road. She was
concerned about her privacy and view corridor, and water runoff during construction. She has
had a couple of phone conversations with Mr. Mackey prior to today’s meeting.
Dawn James/town resident submitted a document for the record regarding her environmental
and traffic concerns. Her comment will be posted on the Town website. She was concerned about
wildlife migration, increase in traffic, vehicle speeds, and pedestrian safety. She stated Marys Lake
Road is becoming used more and more as a route to get to Rocky Mountain National Park.
Larry Murphy/town resident was concerned about the density of the project, the wildlife, and the
view obstruction.
Kevin Conrad/town resident complained about the notification process. He stated the
maintenance of the detention ponds will be critical, and was looking forward to reviewing the
Final Drainage Report.
Tom Gootz/town resident commented on whether or not the comprehensive plan would address
areas such as this. He was opposed to the property being zoned A-Accommodations. He had
comments related to the International Building Codes that were not in the purview of the
Planning Commission.
Richard James/town resident was concerned about traffic and the possibility of having 38 new
vacation rentals in the neighborhood.
Bev Wright/town resident stated the lead planner should explain both the pros and cons of
projects. She was concerned about density, the short-term rental possibility, wildlife, and view
corridor obstruction.
Mike Gould/town resident and Promontory HOA stated this project will block their view. He was
concerned that the project would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and
traffic would be too congested. He requested additional traffic studies on other nearby
intersections nearby. He was concerned about the drainage impacts to the nearby neighbors. He
stated notifying property owners only within 100 feet is too small an area.
Michael Keilty/requested a continuance.
243
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 19, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Carly Lober/county resident stated the high density of the area was not compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Lonnie Sheldon stated the difference between the preliminary and final drainage report is small.
There is one-foot of freeboard proposed in the report, which will be more than enough to contain
high flows. If ponds are lined, they can be punctured by animal hooves, and bubbles can form
underneath and decrease the volume as designed. The preliminary report complies with the state
stormwater regulations. Regarding the traffic study, the parameters of the study were directed by
former town engineer Kevin Ash.
Joe Coop provided additional information about the proposed drainage channel along the east
side of the property. Trees will be placed on either side of the channel. The stormwater
management plan has to be approved by the county health department prior to commencing
construction. The development plan complies with the EVDC and the drainage plan complies with
the drainage requirements. The property owner has the right to develop his property in
accordance to the EVDC. The wetlands are not jurisdictional. It was noted the wetland study was
approved by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). The property owner is aware of the new building
code requirements.
James Mackey appreciated the comments. He is willing to be transparent with neighbors. He is
open to addressing the issues and would support a continuance.
Public Comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Baker was opposed to a continuance, stating if the design met the requirements of
the EVDC, there was no point in delaying the decision. The only comment that pertains to the
Commission was the one about being compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and
furthering the goals of the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Leavitt requested additional
comments from drainage experts on both sides of the issue. Conversation regarding this issue can
occur outside of the Planning Commission meeting, with results presented next month if the
meeting is continued. Commissioner Hull supported a continuance, and reminded those in
attendance that Marys Lake Lodge is also in the A–Accommodations zone district.
Conditions of Approval
1. A Final Townhome Subdivision Plat shall be approved by Town Board within 120 days of
Planning Commission decision date. The Final Plat shall be submitted with a Final Drainage
Study and all associated infrastructure construction plans/financial guarantees. The Final Plat
shall be recorded within 60 days of Town Board approval.
2. An approved Variance to locate the detention pond within the 50-foot wetland setback is
required.
It was moved and seconded (FosterLeavitt) to continue the Raven Rock Preliminary Townhome
Subdivision to the October Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed 6-1 with
Commissioner Murphree voting against.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Hull) to continue the Raven Rock Development Plan to the
October Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner
Murphree voting against.
Note: At this point in the meeting, the order of the agenda was changed, and various items will be
continued to future meetings.
9. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)
AND AMEND THE DENSITY CALCULATION STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO EMPLOYEE HOUSING
244
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 19, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Planner Gonzales stated the proposed amendment would eliminate FAR from the EVDC, and
eliminate the requirement to use FAR in the employee housing density calculation. The proposed
amendment evolved from discussions with Planning Commission, Town Board, and County
Commission, on streamlining the EVDC and removing redundancies. FAR regulates the
dimensional aspects of lots, and there are many of these in the code. FAR is the relationship
between square footage of a building and how it relates to lot size, and is an outdated planning
mechanism. Regarding the employee housing piece of the amendment, Planner Gonzales stated
we now allow employee housing in commercial zone districts, and the number of units is
dependent on the FAR on the property. If we remove FAR, we will need to recalculate how we
establish density in commercial zone district. Planning staff has proposed tying the accessory use
unit amount to being no more than the square footage of the principle use. Parking for employee
housing units shall not exceed the required parking for the principle use. Removing FAR would
make the EVDC easier to understand.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Foster) to recommend approval of the text amendment to the
Estes Park Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of Commissioners as presented in
Exhibit Red, including findings, and as recommended by staff and the motion passed
unanimously.
10. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM RIDGELINE
HEIGHT LIMIT FOR STEEPLY SLOPED GABLED & HIPPED ROOF STRUCTURES
Planner Becker stated the proposed amendment would place an upper height limit for steeply
sloped roofs (A-frames, in most instances). The recently approved height limit increase applied
only to gabled roofs. If the existing calculation was used on an a-frame structure, it could exceed
30 feet quite easily. This issue was raised by the Town Board during the building-measurement
discussion. Following discussion among the Commission, it was decided to continue this item to
the October meeting in order for Director Hunt to provide a visual regarding the calculations.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Foster) to continue the proposed code amendment regarding
maximum ridgeline height for steeply sloped roofs to the October 17, 2017 Planning
Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously.
11. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING BED AND BREAKFAST
INNS
It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to continue the proposed amendment regarding
Bed and Breakfast Inns to the October 17, 2017 Planning Commission meeting and the motion
passed unanimously.
12. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.66 - SIGNS
It was moved and seconded (White/Foster) to continue the proposed amendment regarding
Signs to the November 21, 2017 Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed
unanimously.
13. REPORTS
There were no comments regarding the report items listed on the agenda.
There being no further business, Chair Schneider adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m.
_________________________________
Russ Schneider, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
245
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
October 17, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Russ Schneider, Vice-Chair Bob Leavitt, Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve
Murphree, Sharry White, Robert Foster, Doyle Baker
Attending: Chair Russ Schneider, Vice-Chair Leavitt, Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve
Murphree, Sharry White, Robert Foster, and Doyle Baker
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner Audem Gonzales,
Planner Carrie McCool, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Planner Robin
Becker, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, and Recording Secretary Karen
Thompson
Absent: County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley
Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. He explained the purpose of the Planning
Commission. There were approximately 50 people in attendance.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion
passed 7-0.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Johanna Darden commented on the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of September 19, 2017 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
B. Estes Park Resort – Applicant request to extend deadline for meeting conditions of approval
related to the Development Plan approved June 20, 2017. Requested deadline is
December 27, 2017 (60 additional days).
C. Request by staff to continue the proposed EVDC amendment regarding Outdoor Food
Vendors to the November 21, 2017 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as amended and
the motion passed 7-0.
4. REZONING OF LOTS 1-4, MARYS LAKE ESTATES FROM RE–Rural Estate to A-1–Accommodations;
638, 650, 742, 565 LAKEWOOD COURT
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The subject property is in the unincorporated Estes
Valley. Lots 1-4 make up the entire subdivision. The subdivision consists of one vacant lot, one lot
with a single-family dwelling, and two lots with Bed & Breakfast inns (B&Bs). The existing B&Bs
were built prior to the adoption of the EVDC in 2000, and were conforming at the time they were
246
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
October 17, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
built. The applicants stated they were not aware of the rezoning in 2000. The intention of the
subdivision was to provide mixed uses (single-family and B&Bs), which is stated on the Final Plat.
The proposed A-1–Accommodations zone district allows B&Bs and single-family dwellings. Staff
has waived the development plan requirement due to the majority of the subdivision being built
out. Adequate public services are already in place. The application was routed to affected
agencies, with no significant issues. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper and
adjacent property owners were notified by mail. There were no public comments received.
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was brief discussion regarding a previous attempt to rezone the property which was
withdrawn before it went to a public hearing.
Public Comment
Matthew Gordon/Promontory Condominium Owner’s Association (COA) representative stated
the COA did not receive the adjacent property owner notice. He stated the Larimer County
Assessor’s Office does not have an address on file for this COA-owned property.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Baker stated if the current owners’ issues can be addressed in a method other than
rezoning, then he would recommend the alternative method. He did not see any justification to
rezone the subdivision to A-1–Accommodations when there is a proposed amendment on today’s
agenda dealing specifically with B&Bs.
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Hull) to recommend denial of the rezoning of Lots 1-4,
Marys Lake Estates to the Larimer Board of County Commissioners, finding insufficient
evidence to support the rezoning and the motion passed unanimously to deny.
5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2017-07 & PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT; RAVEN ROCK
TOWNHOMES; TBD PROMONTORY DRIVE
Chair Schneider disclosed he spoke with Ms. Darcy Tiglas, who performed the wetland study for
this property.
Planner Gonzales stated this item was continued from the September meeting. The Commission
directed the applicant to provide additional information regarding drainage. The project proposes
19 duplex buildings with 38 individually-platted townhome lots. Ms. Tiglas is in attendance today
to review the wetland study.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Director Hunt stated groundwater is regulated jurisdictionally by the State of Colorado, and local
jurisdictions do not have the authority to regulate groundwater. Commissioner Baker inquired
about the process of the pre-application meeting and whether or not the issues at hand had been
247
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
October 17, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
discussed at that time. Planner Gonzales stated wildlife issues are not known until a study is done.
The Town engineer was present at the pre-application meeting and provided the parameters for
the traffic study. View corridors were not discussed, and are not part of the development code
regulations. Planning and engineering concerns are revealed during the review process, not the
pre-application meeting. A future trail is proposed for the other side of Marys Lake Road, and is
not required for this project. Wildlife and conservation plans were provided by the applicant,
though the conservation plan was not required. Additional studies are not required. Town
Attorney White stated an environmental assessment (NEPA) was not required, as that is a Federal
regulation, not a local one.
Public Comment
Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated an addendum to the preliminary drainage report
was provided, specifically providing additional information regarding the channel and the outlet
structure. Mr. Sheldon did not see any evidence of nesting on the small rocky outcropping
adjacent to the property. His conclusion is the elk and deer will adapt to the development, as they
have done in other areas of the Estes Valley. He addressed Mr. Conrad’s public comment. Mr.
Conrad stated in his written comment that multi-family housing would be better suited for this
property. Mr. Sheldon stated multi-family housing would allow over 60 units on this property,
where only 38 are proposed. Regarding the Arapahoe Meadow HOA request for the Raven Rock
developer to improve a culvert in their subdivision, Mr. Sheldon stated that is a private issue of
the HOA and will not be addressed by the applicant.
Matthew Delich/traffic engineer stated he scoped out the project with the Town Engineer prior to
conducting the study. He explained the details of the study, which can be viewed on the Town
website. Traffic counts were done in July. Vacation rentals would actually create fewer numbers
of vehicle trips than full-time residential use. The analyzation uses peak hours on the street. Mr.
Delich stated this project would not have triggered a traffic study through CDOT if Marys Lake
Road were a state highway.
David Bangs/project engineer stated groundwater movement is very difficult to monitor. Soil
samples can be used, and were included in the preliminary report. The adjacent property owner
was provided with the addendum to the drainage report.
Jim Mackey/property owner stated units 37 and 38 would have a lower profile and no walk-out
lower level. He was confident the project was in compliance with the Estes Valley Development
Code.
Darcy Tiglas/environmental consultant stated the only revision to the report was in the summary.
There was one wetland community identified at the far south end of the property. The
delineation is determined mainly by vegetation, then by soil. She did not have permission to
access the neighbor’s property, so the line of demarcation only goes to the property line.
248
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
October 17, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Michael Keilty/town resident provided written comment that will be posted on the Town website.
He sent the preliminary drainage report to his consultant. He requested the Raven Rock project
be tabled by the Planning Commission until additional drainage studies can be completed.
Barbara Keilty/town resident stated a safe drainage plan has yet to be submitted. Her concerns
have not been adequately addressed, and she believes her home is in immediate danger if the
current drainage plan is approved. She requested tabling the Raven Rock project, and also
requested she have a minimum of 30 days to review any future drainage reports.
Dawn James/town resident stated an environmental study should be conducted. She requested a
24-hour traffic assessment. She was concerned about the potential for vacation rentals. She
requested other nearby intersections be included in the traffic study. She asked the walking path
be extended to include the east side of Marys Lake Road.
Matthew Gordon/Promontory COA representative stated the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
recommends lowering density as development moves from the city center. This project would not
be in line with the Comprehensive Plan.
Richard James/The Meadow Condominiums representative submitted written comments which
will be posted on the Town website. He recommended redesigning the project to have less impact
on the neighbors.
Kevin Conrad/town resident was concerned about the quality of the stormwater.
Claire Ray/town resident stated she hoped the Commission would consider some of the proposed
revisions to the project. She disagreed with the traffic study.
Ann Chandou/town resident read Danielle Wolf’s letter that was submitted the morning of the
meeting. The letter will be posted on the Town website.
Beverly Wright/town resident stated the project could complement the area if it was revised.
Johanna Darden/town resident was concerned about the project’s effect on the wildlife, and was
supportive of additional drainage studies.
Mr. Sheldon explained how the traffic study was conducted. He stated the Final Drainage Report
is very specific regarding the size of the underground pipes, etc., which the preliminary drainage
report does not provide. David Bangs/project engineer stated the infrastructure is designed for
maximum flow, and includes an additional one foot of freeboard that is not required. They have
249
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
October 17, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
gone over and beyond on several code requirements, and are proposing fewer units than
allowed. The development meets or exceeds the EVDC.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was discussion among staff and Commissioners, with comments including but not limited
to: concern about how the project met the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, the
comprehensive plan is not a regulatory document; it is important the comprehensive plan be
updated as soon as possible; some requests from the public were outside of the requirements;
concern about lack of communication with adjacent property owners; visually sensitive areas and
density should be addressed in the development plan; continued concern regarding drainage; the
development plan complies with the EVDC; concern regarding impact on neighboring properties,
traffic, drainage, and wildlife migration.
It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/White) to continue the Raven Rock Development Plan and
Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat to the November Planning Commission meeting, with
the suggestion there be dialogue with adjacent property owners on the water and drainage
issues, as well as issues related to how this intensive development is compatible with the Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan with relationship to issues such as wildlife migration, open space,
and visually sensitive areas, and the motion passed unanimously.
Director Hunt clarified with the Commission that any new information would be provided in the
meeting materials and distributed prior to the next Planning Commission meeting.
Chair Schneider called for a five minute recess at 3:52 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 4 p.m.
Chair Schneider was not in attendance for the remainder of the meeting due to a previously
scheduled commitment.
6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2017-06; FISH CREEK STORAGE; 1901 FISH CREEK ROAD
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The proposed project consists of 86 storage units
(15,000 total square feet) in two buildings. The property is zoned I-1–Industrial, and is currently
developed with multiple buildings and one single-family dwelling. The proposal includes razing all
buildings except the single-family dwelling. A paved loop driveway would circulate vehicles
through the property and allow fire truck access. The applicant is requesting a waiver to the
parking lot lighting requirement, as no parking lot lighting is proposed. Additionally, the west side
of the property has a 20-foot cliff, which staff has approved as a landscape buffer. The cliff serves
as a natural screen to the west. The project would trigger at least 15 trees, and the applicant has
requested a waiver to this requirement. A gate is proposed for the south side, which would allow
fire truck access to the property. The existing culverts on Fish Creek are not being replaced. The
Larimer County Engineering Department reviewed the submitted drainage plan and provided
250
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
October 17, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
preliminary approval, pending submittal of the Final Drainage Plan. A right-of-way of an
additional 20 feet will be dedicated and recorded. A variance has been applied for regarding the
cliff on the west side. The variance is triggered because the existing cliff cut is more than 12 feet.
The applicant has also requested waivers to parking and loading area requirements, stating
requiring eight additional parking spaces and a designated loading area is impractical because the
scope of the project is drive-in accessible storage units.
Planner Gonzales stated the Planning Commission is the decision-making body for this
application. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper, and the application was routed
to affected agencies. Adjacent property owners were notified by mail. Staff recommends approval
of the development plan, with two conditions of approval, listed below.
Public Comment
Lonnie Sheldon/project engineer described how the stormwater drainage will function.
Chris Eshelman/applicant stated he will continue to live on site, and expects the proposed project
will have less noise impact to the neighbors than what is currently there. He understands the
project approval depends on the right-of-way dedication and the approval of the variance.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
Conditions of Approval
1. An approved variance to lower original grade more than 12-feet is required and shall be
approved prior to Planning Commission signatures on the Development Plan.
2. A 20-foot right-of-way dedication for Fish Creek Road by separate instrument shall be
recorded and a copy with recordation notation shall be submitted to Community
Development staff within 60-days of Development Plan approval date.
It was moved (Foster/Murphree) to approve the Fish Creek Storage Development Plan according
to findings of fact with findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 6-
0 with one absent.
7. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING BED AND BREAKFAST
INNS
Planner McCool stated this item was continued from the September Planning Commission
meeting. This amendment would set forth an administration review process for B&Bs with eight
and under occupants. The proposed amendment states B&Bs with nine or more occupants would
be permitted by special review in all residential zone districts with the exception of the RM-
251
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
October 17, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Residential Multi-Family district where it would be permitted by right. B&Bs are currently
prohibited in all residential zone districts except RM. Staff reviewed the occupancy framework for
Vacation Homes to establish regulations for B&Bs, and are proposing B&Bs be permitted by right
in all residential zone districts for eight and fewer occupants. An on-site manager is required.
Regarding occupancy requirements for the manager, the two guests per bedroom plus two would
apply, with one of the rooms being for the manager. The extensive staff report and draft code
language can be viewed in full on the Town website.
Staff and Commission Discussion
It was noted B&Bs would not be subject to the Vacation Home cap. The B&Bs would most likely
be monitored by Host Compliance, and an annual registration would be required. They are
comparable to home occupations. Comments included but were not limited to: clarification in the
code regarding what will be monitored; B&Bs will have better control than Vacation Homes
because the operator will live on site; multiple parties can stay on one property.
Director Hunt stated there will need to be conversation with the Town and County building
departments regarding applicable building, health and fire code regulations. There was
discussion regarding an unintended consequence regarding the number of bedrooms allowed to
be rented with on-site owners. The change in the code language could be made in the motion.
Staff will do additional research to make sure all intentions are clear. Special review applications
would allow the review of parking, lighting, etc.
Public Comment
Johanna Darden/town resident was opposed to allowing B&Bs in residential zone districts, saying
it was unfair to full-time residents.
Kristi Christopher/town resident stated the requirement of an on-site owner will keep guests
under control.
Jeff Robbins/town resident agreed with Ms. Christopher’s comment. B&Bs are a vital part of
vacation communities and will add a lot to the Estes Valley. He commended Planning staff for
their hard work on this amendment.
Bob Welch/county resident was supportive of B&Bs, and questioned if a property owner could
have both a B&B and a Vacation Home license.
Tony Schetzsle/town resident was opposed to having business operations in residential
neighborhoods, stating this was de facto rezoning.
Public comment closed.
252
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
October 17, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
It was moved and seconded (Baker/Foster) to recommend the Estes Park Town Board and
Larimer County Board of Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley
Development Code as presented in Exhibit A as recommended by staff, with the following two
revisions: 2.a.(2) add to the end of the first full sentence “in residential zone districts except
the RM-Residential Multi-Family zone district”; 2.a(3) replace “subtracted from” with “added
to”, and the motion passed 6-0 with one absent.
8. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD A DEFINITION IN CHAPTER 13
FOR THE TERM “SINGLE-FAMILY USE”, AND TO AMEND TABLE 4-1 TO MATCH THE DEFINED USE
Director Hunt stated there is no definition in the code for single-family use. The proposed
amendment brings clarity to the code. There was discussion about the history behind limiting a
single-family use to eight unrelated individuals. Director Hunt suggested additional discussion
regarding the number of unrelated individuals at the November study session.
It was moved (Foster/Hull) to recommend the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer
County Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley
Development Code as presented in Exhibit Red as recommended by staff and the motion
passed 5-1 with one absent and Commissioner Baker voting against.
Commissioner Baker disagreed with the definition of single-family use being limited to eight
persons, stating it was not common language and could result in future problems.
8. AMENDMENT TO THE EVDC CODE SECTIONS 11.4.b AND 11.4.d TO ELIMINATE APPLICABILITY
AND USE OF THE ATTAINBLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS IN THE RE-1–Rural Estate, E-1–Estate,
E–Estate, R–Residential, & R-2–Two-Family Residential ZONE DISTRICTS
Director Hunt stated this text amendment would restrict the attainable housing density bonus to
the RM–Residential Multi-Family zone district. The idea is approached with caution because it
does take some potential properties off the table for workforce or attainable housing. There have
been genuine concerns to keep single-family neighborhoods as such. This amendment would
restrict the density bonus to only the RM zone district. Planning is about predictability, and this
amendment would accomplish that goal for those residents owning property in single-family zone
districts.
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was discussion regarding deed restrictions on multi-family units, and the mention that
alternative mechanisms might be used in the future. EVDC Chapter 11 (Density Bonus) will need
to be looked at more carefully to allow maximum flexibility with attainable/workforce versus
market rate units.
253
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
October 17, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Public Comment
Johanna Darden/town resident asked for clarification on the amendment. Director Hunt
explained it would the owner’s discretion as to whether or not a deed restriction would be placed
on the property.
Tony Schetzsle/town resident would support the code amendment. He was concerned about the
changes in the code affecting the single-family neighborhoods. Justification was ironic.
Public comment closed.
It was moved (Hull/Murphree) to recommend the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and
Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes
Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit Gamma Red as recommended by staff and the
motion passed 6-0 with one absent.
10. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM RIDGELINE
HEIGHT LIMIT FOR STEEPLY SLOPED GABLED & HIPPED ROOF STRUCTURES
Director Hunt stated this was continued from the September 19th Planning Commission meeting.
He stated the reason for continuance was to provide a better description as to where the
measurements were initiated. It was requested to have more understanding of some of the
construction terms that would directly affect the measurements. Charlie Phillips, residential plans
examiner, was in attendance to answer questions. Illustrations were provided as part of the
meeting materials.
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was discussion about how the measurements would apply. The Estes Valley has a lot of
custom-built homes, but there had to be a line drawn somewhere. Director Hunt stated there was
discussion with the Commission and local architects several months ago, where the
recommendation was made to use averages. The past method of measuring height was confusing
to developers. Director Hunt stated using a mean average was a classical approach for building
height.
Public Comment
None.
It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to recommend the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees
and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed code amendment as
presented in Exhibit Red and the motion passed unanimously 6-0 with one absent.
11. REPORTS
254
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
October 17, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
A. Director Hunt stated the Town Board Study Session on December 12, 2017 will include a
presentation by the Downtown Plan consultants, Winter and Company. Commissioners were
encouraged to attend. The meeting location has yet to be determined.
B. The December 12, 2017 Town Board Study Session will also include the strategic goals for
2018. Many of these goals concern planning and community development matters.
C. Senior Planner Woeber reported the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) will be
offering a Planning Commissioner refresher workshop in Estes Park on Wednesday, November
29th from 4 – 6:30 p.m. in the Town Board Room. Other jurisdictions will be invited to this free
training, and all Estes Valley Planning Commissioners are encouraged to attend.
D. Commissioner White reported the one-year time period for vacation home review was coming
up in December. She would like to revisit the provision, or absence of, the requirement for the
property manager to respond to any complaints within thirty minutes. Director Hunt stated
there are some minor amendments to propose, now that we have been working with the new
regulations for one year.
E. Director Hunt reported the County Commissioners are very interested in updating the Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan, and he saw no reason it could not be made a priority.
There being no further business, Vice Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m.
_________________________________
Russ Schneider, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
255
12/7/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - Raven Rock Development
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=vPUi2w7Prus.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1602dbd5267f9632&siml=1602dbd5267f…1/1
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Raven Rock Development
1 message
Linda Moak <pmoak@aol.com>Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:31 PM
To: townclerk@estes.org
Dear Mayor Jirsa and Town Trustees,
We would like to express our concerns regarding this proposed development between Mary's Lake Road and Highway 7.
If approved, there will be a tremendous loss of wildlife habitat and a longstanding elk calving area. While a loss of view is
a definite for the Arapahoe Estates residents as well as the Mary's Lake Lodge development, the density of the project
abutting estate zoning is an issue that should be seriously considered. When we first moved to Estes Park in 1995, we
participated in citizen input for the "comprehensive plan". It was our understanding that the view to the future for
development was to avoid this very type of proposed build. Just because a developer meets the codes, does not mean
that he fulfills the spirit of the comprehensive plan. We urge you to vote against this high density plan in an effort to
preserve what is left of our town's open spaces.
Sincerely,
Robert & Linda Moak
3960 Little Valley Rd
Estes Park, CO 80517
256
1
TO: Town Trustees, Estes Park
FROM: Thomas Gootz
DATE: December 7, 2017
REGARDING: Town Approval of Raven Rock Condo Proposal
I would like to take this opportunity to express my concern over Town Board approval of
the Raven Rock condominium proposal at Marys Lake Road.
While the land in question is zoned A-1 and was annexed by the Town in 2017, I feel that the
nature of the proposed development is not consistent with the overall development of the Marys
Lake Road/ route 7 corridors. If this project is approved by the Town Board at its meeting on
December 12, 2017, the approval will set a bad precedence for the Marys Lake rural region and
equally important, for the inadequate notification procedures employed by the Town Planning
division in this and other related projects. Should legal action against the Town result upon the
Trustee’s approval of this project as currently designed, I would have to support the plaintiffs
against this project. I have taken this position based on the following reasons.
1. The Raven Rock project plan was turned down by the Planning Commission in-part due
to the inadequate notification procedures for the proposal in terms of surrounding home
owners. The high density of this project planned on part of a large rural meadow that
abuts several higher-end, single family homes is not consistent with established
development patterns in the region.
Such inadequate notification methods appear to be standard procedures of the
Town Planning Group as cited in a public meeting of the County Commissioners in Fort
Collins on November 20, 2017. At that meeting, an agenda item included a request for
rezoning made by the Town concerning an adjacent 30-acre parcel referred to as Marys
Lake Estates (review video tape of this meeting). At this meeting, Audem Gonzales
represented the Town Planning Department advocating rezoning of this parcel from RE-1
to A1. The Commissioners declined to consider this proposal as it involved an unknown
position of the Town regarding its interest in annexation of this parcel upon rezoning.
Citizen input regarding this issue involved criticism of the inadequate notification of
adjacent neighbors and local home owners regarding the rezoning proposal. Mr.
Gonzales was reprimanded by Commissioner Gaitor regarding the habit of not practicing
adequate posting and notification of rezoning proposals by the Town. Mr. Gaiter clearly
indicated to Mr. Gonzales in general terms, that he “did not want to have the Estes Park
Planning Group come before the County Commissoners requesting a ruling on land use
changes unless the community had been properly notified in an effort to seek public input
in a fair and adequate manner.” This same issue has been brought forward to the Town
Planners regarding poor notification of the specific project plans and Town annexation of
the Raven Rock land. Town Planners stated in their position recommendation that the
257
2
level of interest regarding Raven Rock Proposal was “low.” From a legal point of view,
it could be concluded that the interest on the Raven Rock project was initially low, as a
result of the intent of the Town not to use reasonable procedures (signs and wider
neighbor contact) to allow fair public input on the project, including rezoning. This issue
is serious and is not simply an issue of “in the future, we will try to do better.” Pushing
through high density projects in a large, rural open parcel flanked by single family homes
appears to be a direct method to prevent public input from long established neighbors
who have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in their homes. Home owners feel
that this inadequate notification by the Town has enabled the approval of Raven Rock
without proper input from neighbors. This may be an issue brought up in any legal action
against the Town should this project as currently designed be approved.
2. A related issue that bothers me involves the (in)appropriate use of rezoning (with or
without appropriate notification) as a way to gain approval of dense condo projects in
rural areas of Town. While this parcel was rezoned A-1 in the 2000 Town/County
rezoning effort, the Town Planning group is attempting to down-play the importance of
the Town Comprehensive Plan as a guide for current home owners in providing input on
the development of their neighborhoods. This makes rural regions of Estes Park very
uncertain investments for current and future single family home ownership. This is a
very current issue as evidenced by the actions of elected bodies including the Town
Trustees and County Commissioners, who recently voted unanimously to limit high
density bonuses for attainable housing to the MR zone only. Unfortunately, many
developers and unelected advocacy groups such as the Economic Development
Corporation have signaled their intent to use rezoning efforts of local parcels and
denigration of the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in an effort to work-around the
wishes of the general community.
I would suggest that the land known as the “Raven Rock Project” be developed as 1 acre lots
for single family homes. If done in a sensible manner, the objections of those living in this
region should be diminished and the developer will still extract significant profit. I request that
my letter be included as part of the public record of your meeting on December 12, 2017.
Respectfully,
Thomas Gootz
Thomas Gootz
2855 Grey Fox Drive, Estes Park
tdgootz@yahoo.com
258
Matthew D. Gordon
3200 E. Cherry Creek South Drive, Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80209
mgordon@lafflaw.com
535 Promontory Drive
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
November 6, 2017
To: Members of the Estes Park Town Board
Members of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
Estes Park Planning Department
Re: Proposed Raven Rock Development
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am a homeowner in the Promontory at Kiowa Ridge subdivision (Promontory), a community of
22 freestanding single-family homes southeast of Mary’s Lake. I am writing to you today regarding
the proposed Raven Rock development, less than 100 feet from Promontory. And while I will
describe my specific objections to the proposed development, I am also writing today to express
my disappointment at the treatment that we, the residents of the Mary’s Lake neighborhoods,
have received from the Town.
I am a real estate and land use lawyer in Denver, and previously represented the Promontory at
Kiowa Ridge Condominium Owners Association (COA). I have withdrawn as counsel to the COA
so that I am free to communicate my concerns without speaking for others. I have, however,
circulated this letter to my fellow Mary’s Lake neighborhood homeowners, and several of them
have signed this letter with me.
The property we’re concerned about (Site) is an unimproved meadow just below Mary’s Lake
Lodge, north of Mary’s Lake Road. Please refer to the attached a Vicinity Map. The current owner
of the Site (Developer) intends to develop 38 five-bedroom units in 19 duplex buildings, up to 30
feet tall, as proposed in the attached plan (Development Plan).
Until this past summer, the Site was not part of the Town of Estes Park (Town). It had no access
to Town services or utilities, and had little potential for profitable development. But, in June 2017,
the Town annexed and zoned the Site (Annexation) knowing of the proposed Development Plan
and disregarding the effect on, or opinions of, the affected neighbors. Before Annexation, the
Site was undevelopable for want of utilities. After Annexation, the Developer is entitled to utility
service from the Town and is entitled to develop it according to its zoning. Before Annexation,
the Town could have just said no. After Annexation, the Town must allow some sort of
development of the Site.
The Town Complied With the Law, but Notified Nobody.
The Town Board and its staff undertook this Annexation without any practical notice to the
residents who would be affected by it. The Town appears to have complied with the requirements
The Town of Estes Park
November 6, 2017
Page 2
of State law by publishing notice of the Annexation hearings in the Legal Notices in the Estes
Park Trail-Gazette. But the Town didn’t actually contact anyone who would be affected by the
development of this beautiful meadow. Nobody really believes that published notice is an
effective or realistic way of notifying stakeholders. I have worked on dozens of annexations in
several Colorado cities, and I have never encountered a situation in which such a detrimental
annexation was undertaken without actual notice to and solicitation of input from its neighbors. I
am very concerned that the Town’s elected representatives and paid professionals would see fit
to annex and entitle a piece of meadow land without a realistic warning to the effected
homeowners. I would have thought you would have wanted to know what we thought. Had the
neighbors been notified of the Annexation and the potential development, we would have
attended the annexation hearing and objected vociferously. Instead, the Town took a piece of
undevelopable land and turned it into a bonanza for one developer at the expense of the Mary’s
Lake community, and did it under cover of darkness.1
The Town Board based its decision to annex the Site on a staff memo that reads exactly as you
would expect given a process undertaken outside the public eye: it sought no input, it raises no
questions:
Disadvantages: None.
Action Recommended: Planning Staff is recommending approval of the Raven Rock
Addition Annexation application.
Level of Public Interest: Low: There has been no written public comment received
as of June 16, 2017.2
And that was that.
Now that I have the chance, I will explain some of the disadvantages. I will question what was
behind the Town staff’s recommendation. And as to the level of public interest, had the Town
staff or the elected officials required the Developer to notify the neighbors, the Annexation would
have been as contested as this Development Plan is now.
What Were the Benefits to The Town?
Almost without exception, annexation of residential land costs municipalities more than it
generates in fees and other revenue. Generally, an annexing municipality will exact concessions
or infrastructure obligations or other Town-wide benefits to justify a residential annexation. But
the Raven Rock Developer brought nothing to the table to entice the Town staff to recommend
1 Even if you assume that the Town Board proceeded in good faith and assumed that the public would be
heard during the platting process, the Promontory was not even notified of the platting process. When I
made inquiry about this, I was told that there was no obligation to notify Promontory because our COA is
not on the County Assessor’s roles. Promontory shows on the Planning Department’s notice list and 100-
foot radius map, but they couldn’t seem to find us. Nonsense.
2 June 27,2017, Annexation Memorandum from Carrie McCool, Planning Consultant
The Town of Estes Park
November 6, 2017
Page 3
annexing Raven Rock. Raven Rock will benefit from Estes Park utilities, police and fire protection,
snow removal, and other services. The neighborhoods get increased traffic, noise, and light. The
Town annexed Raven Rock because, in the words of the Town staff, “. . . the annexation of this
property will be easy for the Town of Estes Park and profitable for the accompanying districts.”3
The Town annexed this development project so that it could act as tax collector for other taxing
districts (school, hospital, etc.), none of whom contribute to the Town's budget or pay one penny
toward the staff’s salaries. And because it was “easy.” The Town’s records tell us that it is more
important to our Town Board and its staff to enrich the out-of-state Developer and fill the outside
taxing districts’ coffers than to look out for the interests of their own citizens.
Now That It’s Annexed, What Will You Let the Developer Build?
The Mary’s Lake area is made up primarily of single family homes spread over large tracts of
land. Please see the attached Aerial Photo. While there is some townhome development around
the Mary’s Lake lodge, these were entitled before the Town adopted its Comprehensive Plan, and
were the result of a trade for a significant open space allocation from the developer. Until now,
the Mary’s Lake area has reflected the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The
neighborhood is comprised mostly of low density, single family-detached homes.4
The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan is not just a suggestion. It is incorporated into and is a
part of the Estes Valley Development Code (Code), which reads in part (emphasis mine):
Standards for Review. The recommending and decision-making
entities shall review development plan applications and all
submitted plans and reports, and evaluate them according to the
following standards: 1. The development plan complies with all
applicable standards set forth in this Code; and 2. The development
plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant land use, parks and
trails, capital improvement and other similar plans.5
Not only is it appropriate for the staff, the Commission, and the Town Board to consider the
Comprehensive Plan when evaluating this Development Plan, it is mandatory.6
3 June, 2016 Town Staff Annexation Report
4 The Promontory development contains 22 detached three-bedroom homes totaling approximately 48,000
square feet on 8.6 acres. The proposed Raven Rock development contains 38 three level, five bedroom
duplex units, 30 feet tall, containing approximately 130,000 square feet on less than 8.5 net acres.
5 Estes Valley Development Code. Chapter 3, Paragraph C.
6 The Colorado Supreme Court has held that Larimer County had the authority to require master plan
compliance since Larimer County includes a master plan compliance provision in its Larimer County Land
Use Code. See Board of County Commissioners v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (1996).
The Town of Estes Park
November 6, 2017
Page 4
And yet, throughout the Annexation and now the Development Plan approval processes, Town
officials continue to voice the misconception that compliance with Code is the sole criterion for
evaluating this Development Plan.7 On the contrary, this Development Plan must be evaluated
with an eye to the area in which it is situate, the mandates of the Comprehensive Plan, and with
fairness to the current homeowners in the area.
The Comprehensive Plan.
The original Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1996. In 2012 the Town directed the staff to
modernize the plan and this modernization is still a work in progress. Relevant text from the
Comprehensive Plan (both the 1996 plan and the updated draft contain virtually the same
language) follows (all emphasis mine).
Community Wide Policies (Future Land Use Within the Valley) The
future land use portion of the plan focuses development so that more
compact or urban types of development occur close to the Town core. More
compact development patterns are also encouraged in areas which can
easily be provided with urban services. In general, the plan focuses
commercial development within the downtown core, and transitions to
lower density commercial and accommodation uses and ultimately
residential uses as one moves away from the center of the community.
The Mary’s Lake neighborhood is five miles away from the downtown core, and has, until now,
been a low density, single-family, detached residential area.
Community Wide Policies (Natural & Scenic Resources): Maintain the
quality of Estes Valley's scenic and natural resources; these resources are
the keystone of the community's economic strength and quality of life.
Protect the scenic character and visual quality of the open space and
gateway experience to the Valley and Rocky Mountain National Park.
7 Community Development Manager, Randy Hunt, advised Commissioner Leavitt, “. . . no
Comprehensive Plan should ever be used as the basis for approval or denial of a specific
development project. Comp Plans are the basis for development codes, but they are not code or
regulations in themselves and should never be cited as such.”
After the October 17, 2017, Planning Commission meeting, Planner Gonzales advised the
Developer and his consultants that they can ignore the public comments and references to the
Comprehensive Plan regarding visual sensitivity as long as they are within code.
At the last public meeting, Commissioner Schneider warned the public to limit its comments on
this matter to matters related to Code compliance, “Telling us that you don’t like the development
isn’t gonna cut it.”
The Town of Estes Park
November 6, 2017
Page 5
Ensure that new development minimizes the impact to visual and
environmental quality within the Valley.
The Site is now, and always has been, an open meadow and is a frequent grazing and migration
path for deer, elk, and other wildlife. The open meadow is an essential view corridor for the Twin
Sisters, Crags, and Mummy Range. The Development Plan before you now will destroy that
open view. It contemplates tightly packed, 30-foot tall buildings that will have negative visual
affect from all directions.
Community Wide Policies (Community Design): Buildings that must be
located in open areas should be clustered, designed and landscaped to
blend into their surroundings to the maximum extent possible. Significant
open areas should be retained between clusters of buildings to provide
visual separation of structures.
The Development Plan speaks for itself. Almost all the open space is between the buildings and
in the detention facilities.8 The Developer made no effort to lay out buildings to maintain views,
vegetation, wildlife habitat, or any other of the concerns raised by the neighbors and the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mary's Lake Neighborhood Special Considerations & Issues: Open
meadow areas make up an important visual element, especially around
Mary's Lake Lodge and the meadow along the lower portion of Cheley
Camp. Preservation of these and other meadow areas will help to maintain
the character of the area. Maintaining the visual quality along Highway 7
will become an important issue as development pressure increases within
the area.
See above. To fit the visual quality along Highway 7 in the area, only widely spaced, detached
homes should be allowed in that meadow.
Mary's Lake Neighborhood Development Guidelines: Require a
minimum percentage of natural open space in all developments. Review
density limits with incentives offered for open space.
The Development Plan certainly provides a ‘minimum’ percentage of open space. There is no
evidence that the Town sought any density limits or offered incentives for open space. Quite the
contrary.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Town Board, Commissioners, and staff have let down the Estes Park residents
in the Mary’s Lake neighborhood. You annexed and entitled the Raven Rock parcel without even
8 In response to concerns voiced about open space, the Developer’s representative responded
that the Code allowed them six to eight more units, which they “left on the table.” We should
consider ourselves lucky.
The Town of Estes Park
November 6, 2017
Page 6
hearing the community's opinions. You turned an undevelopable meadow into a construction site
for no reason. You disregarded the Code and the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. You
empowered the Developer with a sense that he is entitled to the density he’s proposing because
it is allowed by Code, and that he need not pay heed to the Comprehensive Plan or the concerns
of the neighbors.9 The Raven Rock plan is too dense, too tall, is completely out of character with
the area, and not even close to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. For all these reasons,
this Development Plan must be denied.
Sincerely,
Matthew D. Gordon
We Concur!
Mike Gould (gouldjm@icloud.com)
Brenda Gould (blgould@gmail.com)
534 Promontory Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
James Stevens, COA President
528 Promontory Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
jajstevens@hotmail.com
Bob (COA Director) and Pat Luther
518 Promontory
Estes Park, CO 80517
bob.mo.luther@partners.mcd.com
Marie Gordon, COA Director
535 Promontory Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
mariekgordon@outlook.com
Doris E. Wagner
516 Promontory Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
gmadoris1@aol.com
Arlene Aslanian
531 Promontory Drive
Estes Park, CO 80207
Sunshinesmile2@comcast.net
Kristy Killian (Krkred@aol.com)
Larry Murphy (Larry@salestraq.com)
512 Promontory Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Jeff and Patricia Van Bogaert
543 Promontory Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
hiker@tecxcel.com
9 See other public comments describing the Developer's arrogant approach to neighborhood meetings. No
invitation to such a meeting was extended to Promontory, although I identified myself and the Promontory
COA at the Planning Commission meeting.
The Town of Estes Park
November 6, 2017
Page 7
Ken and Cherie Martin
538 Promontory Dr
Estes Park, CO 80517
kerogmartin@gmail.com
James and Anne Sneary
530 Promontory Dr.
Estes Park, Co 80517
annesneary@gmail.com
Melinda Blatt
508 Promontory Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
melinda.blatt@gmail.com
Rebecca and Reid Fischer
539 Promontory Dr.
Estes Park, CO 80517
rfischer@shermanhoward.com
David and Fran Schmidt
526 Promontory Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
schmidt_dg@hotmail.com
Darren and Jason Rundell-Little.
510 Promontory Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
anns.chalet@att.net
Adam P. Schiffer
547 Promontory Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
aschiffer@sohjlaw.com
Kevin L. Conrad
2240 Arapaho Road
Estes Park, CO 80517
conradk13@gmail.com
Richard and Dawn James
351 Kiowa Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com
Tim and Bonita Pruch
321 Kiowa Drive
Estes Park, CO
timpruch@gmail.com
Beverly Wright
315 Kiowa Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
estesbev2013@aol.com
Mary and Mark Campbell
2758 Kiowa Trail
Estes Park, CO 80517
camppeony@msn.com
Greg and Phyllis Edelbrock
341 Kiowa Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
gregedel@hotmail.com
Anne and Francois Chandou
100 Ute Lane
Estes Park, CO 80517
annechandou@gmail.com
François Chandou
100 Ute Lane
Estes Park, CO 80517
fchandou@gmail.com
StephenTyman
(stephentyman@gmail.com)
Sara Beardsworth
sara.beardsworth@gmail.com
2421 Arapaho Road
Estes Park, CO 80517
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: RICHARD JAMES, ESQ., 351 KIOWA DRIVE, ESTES PARK, CO 80517
RE: RAVEN ROCK DEVELOPMENT PLAN – EVPC MEETING 11-14-2017
____________________________________________________________________________
A question that arose during the Estes Park Planning Commission meeting on October 17, 2017 was
whether a development plan application that complies with all the applicable standards set forth in the
Development Code could be denied if it is inconsistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter “Comprehensive Plan”). The Answer is Yes.
Not only does the Planning Commission have the authority to require compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan on all development plan applications, but it has a duty when reviewing
development plan applications to review and evaluate whether t he development plan is consistent
with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant land us e,
parks and trails, capital improvement and other similar plans .
[1] THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT A PLANNING COMMISSION
CAN RELY ON NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO DENY
DEVELOPMENT PLANS
In 1996, the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners denied a subdivision application on the
basis that the proposed subdivision was inconsistent with the Larimer County Land Use Plan
(hereinafter “Master Plan”) in several specified respects—in general, because the nature of the
proposed development was not consistent with the contemplated rural character of the area.
This decision was appealed all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court.
The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the issue of whether Larimer County could adopt a requirement
in the Larimer County Land Use Code that subdivision proposals comply with the county's Master Plan
provisions, and then rely upon non-compliance with Master Plan provisions in denying a subdivision
application. Wherein the Colorado Supreme Court held that Larimer County had the authority to
require master plan compliance since Larimer County includes a master plan compliance provision in
its Larimer County Land Use Code. See Board of County Com'rs v. Conder , 927 P.2d 1339 (1996).
[2] THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CAN RELY UPON NON-COMPLIANCE TO DENY
RAVEN ROCK’S DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION.
The Estes Park Planning Commission has the authority to require the Raven Rock development plan
application comply with the Comprehensive Plan since it includes a Comprehensive Plan compliance
provision in its Estes Valley Development Code, and therefore, the Planning Commission can rely upon
non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in denying Raven Rock’s development plan application.
The Estes Valley Development Code, Chapter 3 Review Procedures and Standards, Paragraph D
Standards for Review states:
D. Standards for Review. The recommending and decision-making entities shall review development
plan applications and all submitted plans and reports, and evaluate them according to the following
standards:
2
1. The development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in this Code;
and
2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant land use, parks and trails, capital
improvement and other similar plans.
(Ord. 17-17, § 1)
The Planning Commission is a “recommending and decision-making entity” that reviews development
plan applications. The Planning Commission shall review development plan applications and all
submitted plans and reports and evaluate them according to both of the listed standards. The first
standard is to insure the development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in the
Development Code. The second standard is that the development plan is consistent with the
policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant land use, parks
and trails, capital improvement and other similar plans.
The Estes Valley Development Code, Chapter 3 Review Procedures and Standards, Paragraph C
Development Plan Approval Procedures states:
C. Development Plan Approval Procedures. Applications for development plan and Special Review
development plan approval shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in §3.2 of
this Chapter, except for the following modifications:
1. Step 3: Staff Review and Report. All development plans subject to Staff review shall
be reviewed by Staff, who shall take final action by either approving, approving with
conditions or denying the application. Staff action on a development plan shall not be
final and appealable until the Applicant complies with or accepts all conditi ons of
approval.
2. Step 4: EVPC Review and Action. All development plans subject to EVPC review,
as shown in Table 3 -3 above, shall be reviewed by the EVPC, who shall take final action
by either approving, approving with conditions or denying the applica tion.
(Ord. 17-17, § 1)
Table 3-3
Development Plan Review Requirements
Determining Factor Staff Review EVPC Review
All Residential or Accommodations Development (Ord. 8-05 #1)
Number of New Dwellings, Guest Units and/or
RV pad/campsites (Ord. 8-05#1)
3 - 10 11 or more
Major alterations that also entail alteration to the
number of parking spaces, the configuration of
parking, ingress, egress, water, sewer, drainage
or lighting on the premises (Ord 18-01 #7; Ord. 8-
05 #1)
3-10 dwellings, guest
units and/or RV
pad/campsites (Ord. 8-
05 #1)
11 or more dwellings,
guest units and/or RV
pad/campsites (Ord. 8-
05#1)
(Ord. 18-01 #6, 7; Ord. 8-05 #1; Ord. 17-17, § 1)
3
The Raven Rock development plan application is subject to EVPC review, and the Planning
Commission has the authority to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. For the
reasons which follow the Planning Commission should deny the Raven Rock development plan
application as it is inconsistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and
any other relevant land use, parks and trails, capital improvement and other similar plans.
[3] THE RAVEN ROCK DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
POLICIES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SHOULD BE
DENIED.
[A] The Development Plan Does Not Minimize Its Impact to the Scenic Character and
Visual Quality of the Open Space and the Gateway Experience to the Valley and
Rocky Mountain National Park.
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Provisions
Community Wide Policies (Future Land Use Within the Valley) The future land use portion of the
plan focuses development so that more compact or urban types of development occur close to the
Town core. More compact development patterns are also encouraged in areas which can easily be
provided with urban services. In general, the plan focuses commercial development within the
downtown core, and transitions to lower density commercial and accommodation uses and ultimately
residential uses as one moves away from the center of the community.
Community Wide Policies (Natural & Scenic Resources): Maintain the quality of Estes Valley’s
scenic and natural resources; these resources are the keystone of the community’s economic strength
and quality of life. Protect the scenic character and visual quality of the open space and gateway
experience to the Valley and Rocky Mountain National Park. Ensure that new development minimizes
the impact to visual and environmental quality within the Valley.
Community Wide Policies (Community Design): Buildings that must be located in open areas
should be clustered, designed and landscaped to blend into their surroundings to the maximum extent
possible. Significant open areas should be retained between clusters of buildings to provide visual
separation of structures.
Mary’s Lake Neighborhood Special Considerations & Issues: Open meadow areas make up an
important visual element, especially around Mary’s Lake Lodge and the meadow along the lower
portion of Cheley Camp. Preservation of these and other meadow areas will help to maintain the
character of the area. Maintaining the visual quality along Highway 7 will become an important issue as
development pressure increases within the area.
Mary’s Lake Neighborhood Development Guidelines: Require a minimum percentage of natural
open space in all developments. Review density limits with incentives offered for open space.
The Raven Rock development plan is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan requirement to
transition to lower density accommodation uses as one moves away from the center of the town. The
Raven Rock community is 4 miles from the center of town.
The density of the Raven Rock development is also inconsistent with a transition to lower density in the
Accommodation zoned areas surrounding Mary’s Lake Lodge. Even if you consider Mary’s Lake Lodge
and the condos surrounding the lodge as the center of the Accommodation zoned area in the Mary’s
Lake Neighborhood as it has the most density; the Raven Rock development is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan as it does not transition to a lower density accommodation use as one moves
away from Mary’s Lake Lodge. Between the Raven Rock Development and the Mary’s Lake Lodge
and Condos is The Meadow Development which is being built on a similar size development area and
consists of 23 townhomes (standard 3 bedrooms, 2 levels, approximately 2,100sq.ft. townhomes). The
4
Raven Rock development plan has proposed 38 Townhomes (standard 5 bedrooms, 3 levels,
approximately 3,486sq.ft. townhomes per their submitted drawings). The Arapaho Development on the
other side of the Raven Rock development is a residential estate development with single family homes
on large lots. To be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, even within the Mary’s Lake
Neighborhood, the Raven Rock development plan needs to lower its density to transition to be
somewhere between the density levels of The Meadows Development and the Arapaho Development.
Because the Density of the Raven Rock development plan does not transition to a lower density as
required by the Comprehensive Plan, the density of the proposed Raven Rock development plan will
eliminate this open meadow area and adversely change the character of the area. This High Density
cluster of Townhomes will significantly impact the visual quality along Highway 7 and the scenic
character and visual quality of the open space and gateway experience to the Valley and Rocky
Mountain National Park. In addition, the Development Plan does not include “significant” open areas
between clusters of buildings to provide visual separation of structures.
[B] The Developer Refuses to Provide a Minimum Percentage of Natural Open Space
Which Is Over And Above The Designated Wetland & Detention Areas.
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Provisions
Community Wide Policies (Future Land Use Within the Valley) The future land use portion of the
plan focuses development so that more compact or urban types of development occur close to the
Town core. More compact development patterns are also encouraged in areas which can easily be
provided with urban services. In general, the plan focuses commercial development within the
downtown core, and transitions to lower density commercial and accommodation uses and ultimately
residential uses as one moves away from the center of the community.
Community Wide Policies (Natural & Scenic Resources): Maintain the quality of Estes Valley’s
scenic and natural resources; these resources are the keystone of the community’s economic strength
and quality of life. Protect the scenic character and visual quality of the open space and gateway
experience to the Valley and Rocky Mountain National Park. Ensure that new development minimizes
the impact to visual and environmental quality within the Valley.
Community Wide Policies (Community Design): Buildings that must be located in open areas
should be clustered, designed and landscaped to blend into their surroundings to the maximum extent
possible. Significant open areas should be retained between clusters of buildings to provide visual
separation of structures.
Mary’s Lake Neighborhood Special Considerations & Issues: The planning area is enclosed on
three sides by steep slopes. The character of this area is, to a great degree, defined by its openness
and views of undeveloped mountainsides. Future development within this area should preserve the
visual integrity of the hillsides. Significant rock outcrops exist within the planning area, including The
Finger, as well as Twin Sisters on the southern boundary. These outcrops are important scenic
elements within the community.
Mary’s Lake Neighborhood Development Guidelines: Require a minimum percentage of natural
open space in all developments. Review density limits with incentives offered for open space
Encourage private and public efforts to promote conservation easements.
The Comprehensive Plan provides that the Planning Commission may require a minimum percentage
of natural open space. The open space contemplated by the Developer is limited to the
wetland/detention areas and the rock outcrop areas that they could not develop on. The meadow area
that they are able to develop on is being developed at maximum Density. Not only is there insufficient
open areas retained between the clusters of buildings to provide visual separation of structures, the
development plan has units within close proximity to the rock outcrops and adjacent homes.
5
This request to review the Density and Open Space is not only provided for in the Comprehensive Plan,
but there is precedent. One example of this precedent is The Meadow Development located on the
other side of Mary’s Lake Road from this development that had also experienced similar challenges
from neighbors related to its density and the elimination of the open meadow area. The Planning
Commission recommended that the Developer meet with homeowners and COA/HOA subdivisions to
listen to their concerns and put together a plan to address these concerns. The result was a
development plan with significantly less density and a no build zone that extended beyond the
wetland/detention areas to preserve the open meadow area and maintain the character of the area.
Since the last Planning Commission meeting, the Raven Rock Out-of-State Developer (Mr. Mackey)
met with The Meadow COA and Arapaho HOA, but unlike the Developer of The Meadow Development,
Mr. Mackey failed to address any of their concerns. Mr. Mackey was unwilling to reduce the density
footprint. Mr. Mackey was unwilling to provide a significant open area between the clusters of buildings
to provide visual separation of structures. Mr. Mackey was unwilling to provide a view corridor or open
space to accommodate residents and wildlife. Mr. Mackey was also unwilling to look into a
conservation easement setting aside a natural open space between the rock outcrops and the adjacent
homes.
Why did Mr. Mackey refuse to address any of the homeowner concerns during this Meeting (which
occurred immediately after Mr. Mackey’s meeting with homeowners Barbara & Michael Keilty)? The
reason was clearly stated by homeowners Barbara & Michael Keilty on their October 30, 2017 letter to
the Planning Commission, which states in pertinent part:
….At the last Planning Commission meeting we were encouraged by the Commissioners’
discussion of the topic of visual sensitivity. We asked Mr. Mackey to consider the elimination of
units 35 through 38 both because of the uncontrolled drainage from those impervious surfaces
and proximity of the buildings rising up 48 feet relative to the ground level of our home. Mr.
Sheldon reported that shortly after the October 17th meeting of the Planning Commission, the
planner, Audem Gonzales called to tell him that that he and Mr. Mackey can ignore the
comments of the Commissioners regarding visual sensitivity as long as they are within code. …
As stated above, not only is Mr. Gonzales’ statement to Mr. Sheldon & Mr. Mackey blatantly wrong as it
ignores the requirement that the development plan application be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, but it undermined the recommendation of the Planning Commission for Mr. Mackey to meet in
good faith with the homeowners and COA/HOA representatives. As a direct result of Mr. Gonzales’
discussion with Mr. Sheldon shortly after the October 17th meeting of the Planning Commission, both
Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Mackey were under the erroneous impression that they did not have to address
any of the density, visual sensitivity or other requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. So why would
Mr. Mackey not bother to put together a plan and meet in good faith to address their concerns, many of
which were also expressed by the Planning Commissioners? Our educated guess is that it was
becoming increasing clear that the fix was in among the staff at the Planning Department that as long
as they are within code they can ignore the requirement to comply with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan as they would make sure the Planning Commissioners fall in line at the next
Planning Commission meeting and approve the development plan solely on the basis that they are
within code.
6
[C] The Planning Commission Should Request the Engagement of the Colorado
Division of Parks and Wildlife to Review and Comment on the Raven Rock
Development Plan.
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Provisions
Mary’s Lake Neighborhood (Wildlife): Wildlife is abundant within the entire planning area. The
diverse topography and vegetation, combined with Fish Creek Drainage, create excellent wildlife
habitat. Elk as well as deer can be found in the area on a year-round basis. During the summer
months, the animals retreat to the higher elevations.
Mary’s Lake Neighborhood Special Considerations & Issues: Numerous meadow areas and
drainageways create habitats that should be preserved for wildlife.
Mary’s Lake Neighborhood Development Guidelines: Develop comprehensive wildlife preservation
standards.
On October 27, 2017, an e-mail was sent to Audem Gonzales, Planner II, from homeowner Dawn
James which stated:
My question to you is specific to any actions taken by you, Mr. Hunt, the Planning Commissioners, or any
other local municipality representative that would have requested the assistance of the Colorado Division
of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) to provide input on the impact to the elk, or other migratory animals, that the
Raven Rock development would have. I understand that requests can only be made to CPW by the local
municipality, thus my question posed.
Known to many of us here in Estes Park, the CPW has the responsibility of the elk’s welfare outside of
the RMNP and would be the appropriate agency to answer many concerns raised in public comment and
by the Commissioners.
To date, there has been no reply from Mr. Gonzales. Larry Rogstad, Department of Natural Resources,
is the contact person within CPW that would assist in obtaining a CPW review and comment on the
Raven Rock development plan application. Mr. Rogstad indicated that CPW would only engage upon
request by the City. If the Staff within the Planning Department is unwilling to engage CPW, the
Planning Commissioners should request the engagement of CPW.
An advisory opinion from CPW would be utilized to address two issues: (1) to provide
recommendations to the design of the Raven Rock development to preserve wildlife habitats; and (2)
assist in the preparation of a Resource Management Plan to address what actions will be instituted to
protect human-wildlife conflict during construction and post construction. A Resource Management
Plan was required in the Parking Structure development. The Planning Commission should likewise
require a Resource Management Plan for the Raven Rock development plan which would be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan development guidelines for the Mary’s Lake neighborhood area to
preserve the habitats of the abundant elk & deer that frequent the development area.
In conclusion, the proposed Raven Rock Development Plan is incompatible with the Comprehensive
Plan. To be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Development density should be reduced to
provide more natural open space. In addition, the Planning Commissioners should request the
engagement of CPW to provide recommendations to the design of the Raven Rock development to
preserve wildlife habitats and a Resource Management Plan to protect human-wildlife conflict during
construction and post construction. Therefore, as submitted the Planning Commission should deny the
Raven Rock Development Plan application.
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490dd…1/21
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED ON TO DENY A DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT!
Rick Dawn James - New <rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com>Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:48 PM
To: townclerk@estes.org
Cc: Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>, RICKDAWNJAMES - NEW <rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com>
Town Clerk:
It appears that the public comments presented to the Planning Commissioners during the review of the Raven Rock
development are not complete in the “current packet ” that is posted online in prepara on for tomorrow ’s Town
Board Mee ng. This is very concerning as only a few documents from the ci zens of Estes Park have been
included. How can this be remedied prior to the mee ng tomorrow? The documents provided or selected for the
Trustee packets are very one-sided and has le many of the residents that had submi ed comments with the
impression that their omission may have been deliberate.
I would appreciate your assistance.
Thank you –
Dawn James
623-363-9300
From: Rick Dawn James - New [mailto:rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:39 PM
To: 'Karen Thompson' <kthompson@estes.org>; 'Robert H Foster, EVPC' <rfoster@estes.org>
Cc: 'Randy Hunt' <rhunt@estes.org>; 'Russ Schneider' <rschneider@estes.org>; 'Be y Hull' <bhull@estes.org>;
'Steve Murphree' <smurphree@estes.org>; 'Bob Leavi ' <bleavitt@estes.org>; 'Doyle Baker'
<dbaker@estes.org>; 'Sharry White' <swhite@estes.org>; 'Town of Estes Park - Planning Division'
<planning@estes.org>; 'Rnorris' <rnorris@estes.org>; 'Todd Jirsa' <tjirsa@estes.org>; 'Wendy Koenig'
<wkoenig@estes.org>; 'Bob Holcomb' <bholcomb@estes.org>; 'Patrick Martchink' <pmartchink@estes.org>;
'Ward Nelson' <wnelson@estes.org>; 'Cody Walker' <cwalker@estes.org>; 'Thomas Gootz''
<tdgootz@yahoo.com>; 'Chandou Anne' <annechandou@gmail.com>; 'kevin conrad'
<conradk13@gmail.com>; 'Ma Gordon' <mgordon@lafflaw.com>; 'beverly wright' <estesbev2013@aol.com>;
'Michael Keilty' <michaelkeilty@hotmail.com>; 'Barbara Keilty' <estesparkbarbara@gmail.com>;
'lycanman0187@outlook.com' <lycanman0187@outlook.com>; 'gouldjm@icloud.com'
<gouldjm@icloud.com>; 'rhfoster34' <robert@roberthfosterlaw.com>
Subject: RE: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED ON
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490dd…2/21
TO DENY A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT!
Importance: High
Hi Karen,
Preparing for tomorrow ’s Town Board mee ng, I no ce that nearly all of the public comments related to the Raven
Rock appeal were omi ed from the packet that was prepared for the Trustees. It appears that all of the Raven Rock
developer ’s documents, notes to Commissioners, etc and the Planning Department ’s documents are complete. Who
do I reach out to to get the wri en public comments included in the packet for the appeal process? This is very
concerning.
Thank you –
Dawn James
623-363-9300
From: Karen Thompson [mailto:kthompson@estes.org]
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 3:09 PM
To: Robert H Foster, EVPC <rfoster@estes.org>
Cc: RICKDAWNJAMES - NEW <rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com>; Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>; Russ Schneider
<rschneider@estes.org>; Be y Hull <bhull@estes.org>; Steve Murphree <smurphree@estes.org>; Bob Leavi
<bleavitt@estes.org>; Doyle Baker <dbaker@estes.org>; Sharry White <swhite@estes.org>; Town of Estes Park -
Planning Division <planning@estes.org>; Rnorris <rnorris@estes.org>; Todd Jirsa <tjirsa@estes.org>; Wendy
Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>; Bob Holcomb <bholcomb@estes.org>; Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>; Ward Nelson <wnelson@estes.org>; Cody Walker <cwalker@estes.org>; Thomas
Gootz' <tdgootz@yahoo.com>; Chandou Anne <annechandou@gmail.com>; kevin conrad
<conradk13@gmail.com>; Ma Gordon <mgordon@lafflaw.com>; beverly wright <estesbev2013@aol.com>;
Michael Keilty <michaelkeilty@hotmail.com>; Barbara Keilty <estesparkbarbara@gmail.com>;
lycanman0187@outlook.com; gouldjm@icloud.com; rhfoster34 <robert@roberthfosterlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED ON
TO DENY A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT!
Dear All,
Regarding Commissioner Foster's preference to receive comments prior to the meeting, may I please request that all
written comments for the November 14th Planning Commission meeting be submitted to me no later than noon on
Wednesday, November 8, 2017. This will allow time to get them organized and in the notebooks. The plan is for PC
notebooks to be ready for pick up by noon on Thursday, November 9th.
Comments received after this deadline will be emailed to Commissioners and staff in a timely manner. Depending on
volume, hard copies may or may not be provided.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490dd…3/21
Karen Thompson
Executive Assistant
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
Phone: 970-577-3721
Fax: 970-586-0249
kthompson@estes.org
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Robert H Foster, EVPC <rfoster@estes.org> wrote:
Re: Raven Rock Proposed Preliminary Townhome Subdivision and Development Plan
Dear All,
As a member of the Planning Commission, and pending possible further direction, I am going to assume that indeed
the Planning Commission may take into consideration comments from the public concerning a Development Plan's
consistency (or lack thereof) with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan prior to approval of the Development Plan.
In this circumstance, I would prefer to receive comments from all sources regarding consistency with the Comp Plan
prior to, rather than at, the meeting, presently scheduled for November 14, 2017. This gives me time to digest their
substance.
Thank you.
Robert H. Foster, Commissioner
(303) 901-9611
rfoster@estes.org
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:57 PM, RICKDAWNJAMES - NEW <rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com> wrote:
Randy Hunt and Planning Commissioners:
I along with the many Estes Park residents that have submitted Public Comment are very concerned with your
statements in your October 26th e-mail reply to questions from Planning Commissioner Bob Leavitt in which you
state, in pertinent part:
… No Comprehensive Plan should ever be used as the basis for approval or denial of a development
project ….
….. On the wider picture of plan review, the candid answer is that projects like Raven Rock – by which I
mean, development plans that are for uses allowed by right and are designed according to development
standards that meet Code – should not go to Planning Commission for final decision at all. I acknowledge
that our Code is written to send them to Planning Commission anyway, but that is a legally questionable
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490dd…4/21
Code requirement. Planning Commission is a quasi-judicial body and does not have discretionary authority
to make final decisions on quasi-judicial matters. You do of course have recommending authority. …
[1] THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT A PLANNING COMMISSION CAN RELY ON NON-
COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO DENY DEVELOPMENT PLANS. As set forth in more
detail in the attached Memorandum:
In 1996, the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners denied a subdivision application on the basis that the
proposed subdivision was inconsistent with the Larimer County Land Use Plan (hereinafter “Master Plan”) in several
specified respects—in general, because the nature of the proposed development was not consistent with the
contemplated rural character of the area. This decision was appealed all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court.
The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the issue of whether Larimer County could adopt a requirement in the
Larimer County Land Use Code that subdivision proposals comply with the county's Master Plan provisions, and
then rely upon non-compliance with Master Plan provisions in denying a subdivision application. Wherein the
Colorado Supreme Court held that Larimer County had the authority to require master plan compliance since
Larimer County includes a master plan compliance provision in its Larimer County Land Use Code. See Board of
County Com'rs v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (1996).
Mr. Hunt, your statement that "no Comprehensive Plan should ever be used as the basis for approval or denial of a
development project" is contrary to Colorado Law! The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, and the
Larimer County Board of County Commissioners denied a development project on the basis of its non-compliance
with their Comprehensive Plan.
As stated below and in more detail in the attached Memorandum, the Estes Valley Development Code includes a
Comprehensive Plan compliance provision…. one that I might add is more clear and unambiguous than the Larimer
County provision upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court.
[2] The staff within the Planning Commission is under the erroneous impression that if a proposed
development Plan meets all the Code requirements it must be approved. There are TWO requirements that
must be met in order for a development plan to be approved:
The Estes Valley Development Code, Chapter 3 Review Procedures and Standards, Paragraph D
Standards for Review states:
D. Standards for Review. The recommending and decision-making entities shall review
development plan applications and all submitted plans and reports, and evaluate them according to the
following standards:
1. The development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in this Code; and
2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan
and any other relevant land use, parks and trails, capital improvement and other similar plans. (Ord. 17-17,
§ 1)
[3] The Planning Commissioners appeared to acknowledge during the past two EVPC Meetings that the Raven
Rock development plan is the "Poster Child" of a development plan that meets the code requirements but is
inconsistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Again, the attached Memorandum
sets forth in detail the Comprehensive Plan requirements and the reasons why the Raven Rock development plan
application is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and must be Denied. The Comprehensive Plan is not an
advisory document; but MUCH MORE as it is one of two standards that must be met in order for the EVPC to
approve a development plan application.
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490dd…5/21
[4] At the last EVPC Meeting the Planning Commissioners recommended that the Developer meet with the
impacted homeowners and HOA/COA representatives. As set forth in attached Memorandum, any hope by the
Planning Commissioners that the Developer would address the concerns raised by the impacted homeowners and
HOA/COA representatives during these meetings was undermined by staff at the Planning Department. As clearly
stated by homeowners Barbara & Michael Keilty on their October 30, 2017 letter to the Planning Commission, which
states in pertinent part:
….At the last Planning Commission meeting we were encouraged by the Commissioners’ discussion of the
topic of visual sensitivity. We asked Mr. Mackey to consider the elimination of units 35 through 38 both
because of the uncontrolled drainage from those impervious surfaces and proximity of the buildings rising
up 48 feet relative to the ground level of our home. Mr. Sheldon reported that shortly after the October 17th
meeting of the Planning Commission, the planner, Audem Gonzales called to tell him that that he and Mr.
Mackey can ignore the comments of the Commissioners regarding visual sensitivity as long as they are
within code. …
As a direct result of Mr. Gonzales’ discussion with Mr. Sheldon shortly after the October 17th meeting of the
Planning Commission, both Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Mackey were under the erroneous impression that they did not
have to address any of the density, visual sensitivity or other requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.
[5] For all the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum, several of which were echoed by the Planning
Commissioners during the past two EVPC Meetings, the Raven Rock development plan must be DENIED at the
upcoming EVPC Meeting.
[6] I respectfully disagree that projects like Raven Rock (which are subject to EVPC Review because it is an
Accommodations proposed development plan of 11 or more buildings) should not go before before the EVPC for all
the reasons which are set forth in great detail in the attached Memorandum. I have posted the attached
Memorandum in the Public Comments section of the Raven Rock development plan application for review by the
Planning Commissioners prior to the November 14, 2017 Meeting.
[7] Furthermore, until a Standard Process is put in place within the Planning Department that includes a
comprehensive checklist and actions which must be taken to insure that development plan applications are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan there should be no changes made to the development plan review
process. There would need to be a period of oversight by the Planning Commission so that they are comfortable
that the standard processes are being followed.
[8] Mr. Hunt, we respectfully request you post in the EVPC Meeting Packet for the 11-14-2017 EVPC Meeting that is
visible to the PUBLIC the "Nov. 14 packet regarding what can and can't be considered in the Raven Rock and
similar development plan matters" so the Public has time to review and comment on it in the event the materials in
the packet attempt to restrict the Planning Commissioners from performing their duty to review the Raven Rock
development plan to insure it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commissioners are
correctly informed that they have the right to DENY the Raven Rock development plan if they determine it is
inconsistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant land use,
parks and trails, capital improvement and other similar plans.
I along with many Estes Park residents are very appreciative of the work being done by Planning Commissioners to
insure a full and fair review of the Raven Rock development plan to insure that it not only meets the Development
Code standards; but that they are putting the "Planning" back in the role of a Planning Commissioner to insure that
the Raven Rock development plan (and all future development plans submitted for their review) also satisfy the
requirement that the development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan.
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490dd…6/21
Respectfully submitted,
Richard P. James, Esq.
351 Kiowa Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
__________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Randy Hunt, AICP
Oct 26
Other recipients: blea...@estes.org, rschn...@estes.org, rfo...@estes.org, smur...@estes.org, bh...@estes.org,
swh...@estes.org, dba...@estes.org, rno...@estes.org, ktho...@estes.org, agon...@estes.org, rbe...@estes.org,
jwo...@estes.org, lha...@estes.org, tku...@estes.org, wbirc...@estes.org, ctrau...@estes.org, cphi...@estes.org,
jwi...@estes.org, flanc...@estes.org, tmac...@estes.org, whit...@co.larimer.co.us, rh...@estes.org
Bob,
These are good and useful questions; thank you for asking. Some deserve more detailed responses, and as you
note, some are better addressed in a study session. We’ll review with Russ to see if discussion can be put on the
Nov. 14 study session, or possibly a later one.
I’ve put brief replies to all of them below each question – see below.
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490dd…7/21
Thanks again!
RAH
-----
Randy Hunt, AICP
Community Development Director
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Ave.
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
direct: 970-577-3719
main: 970-577-3721
email: rh...@estes.org
http://www.estes.org
From: Bob Leavitt
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 4:49 PM
To: Randy Hunt; Russ Schneider
Cc: Karen Thompson
Subject: Re: Planning Questions
In looking this over, it's would probably be better to say, "Is it appropriate for the PC to" rather than "Should the PC".
In other words, is it reasonable for the PC to be addressing a particular topic.
Thanks,
Bob
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490dd…8/21
Bob Leavitt
Estes Valley Planning Commission
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Bob Leavitt <blea...@estes.org> wrote:
Randy,
I have some questions as a follow up to our last Planning Commission meeting. Some of these can probably be
answered by you in a subsequent email and others will need to be discussed in a study session. We can not discuss
them here due to open meeting rules. Please reply with answers where you can and place the others, in
consultation with Russ, on a future study session agenda. Also please send your response to the entire Planning
Commission.
1) When will revising the Comprehensive Plan be addressed? Will this be spearheaded by Community Development
with PC participation or the other way around?
RAH: It will be spearheaded by staff, with advice and consultation from Planning Commission, elected officials, and
stakeholders. I am waiting for a callback from the County as follow-up from some questions raised at the joint Town
+ County study session on Mon., Sep. 18, so we can discern several specifics on the Commissioners are expecting.
Meanwhile, our staff is gearing up for the Comp Plan revision with the statistical template that Commissioner Hull
and others provided this past spring. I think a reasonable goal, as we discussed at PC earlier this year on several
occasions, is a short and straightforward Comp Plan. A Comp Plan should be broad and general and should
articulate goals and objectives that touch the entire community of stakeholders, rather than narrow interest groups,
in our view.
I do not envision including a Future Land Use map, neighborhood plans, or other overly specific elements. However,
as we discussed, Corridor Plans are valuable and important. A Corridor Plan is along major transportation routes
(e.g., our state highways), but encompasses much more than just transportation issues, although those are of
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490dd…9/21
course a key element. The Corridor Plan idea is still viable and I would like to consider that next after the overall
Comp Plan is done and adopted.
2) On the website there is both the original Comp Plan and the "Modernized" version. Is it appropriate for the
Modernized version to be used by the public, the PC, and Community Development to build a case for approval or
denial of a proposed project? It is certainly being used by the public for this purpose.
RAH: I believe the Modernized version is the official updated Plan, although that needs to be checked and
confirmed. No Comprehensive Plan should ever be used as the basis for approval or denial of a specific
development project. Comp Plans are the basis for development codes, but they are not code or regulations in
themselves and should never be cited as such. We need to be clearer on this subject, as I agree that we have seen
the Comp Plan being cited in that fashion. My Nov. 14 memo on Raven Rock (see below) will cover this aspect.
3) Should future projects like Raven Rock come to the PC before they reach the point where a great deal of work
has gone into the development plan? Should there be triggers or conditions that indicate a project should come to
the PC early in the process? Should large annexations (above a certain size) come to the PC?
RAH: We will have a detailed memo in your Nov. 14 packet regarding what can and can’t be considered in the
Raven Rock and similar development-plan matters. Frankly, I think we wandered into risky territory with some of the
discussion and questions in September and October.
On the wider picture of plan review, the candid answer is that projects like Raven Rock – by which I mean,
development plans that are for uses allowed by right and are designed according to development standards that
meet Code – should not go to Planning Commission for final decision at all. I acknowledge that our Code is written
to send them to Planning Commission anyway, but that is a legally questionable Code requirement. Planning
Commission is a quasi-judicial body and does not have discretionary authority to make final decisions on quasi-
judicial matters. You do of course have recommending authority.
(As I recall, neither you, nor Commissioners Foster and Baker were there for the Vacation Homes legal discussion
last December 15th, when the County and Town Attorneys outlined the legal difficulty for Planning Commission as a
final decision-making body. It’s probably a good idea to ask the Attorney(s) to revisit this at a future PC Study
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490d…10/21
Session, as almost ½ of you are new to the Commission and did not hear that discussion. I’ll check with both
offices.)
Regarding a great deal of work going into the development plan – if we on the staff (not just Community
Development, but also Public Works, Utilities, Fire District, County Engineering, etc.) do our jobs properly, that work
will have already been done before anything reaches the PC stage. We need to find a way to make these early
stages more transparent to stakeholders, because I think it always looks like plans show up out of left field by the
time they get to formal PC review.
4) What's next for the Mary's Lake Estates properties that the PC voted against rezoning to A-1? Will it go to the
Town Board? If so, when? It's important that the Town Board have, in writing, the reasons for the PC's vote.
RAH: Mary’s Lake Estates is in the County, and will go to the Board of County Commissioners for rezoning decision
on Mon., Nov. 20. County projects don’t have a clear-cut process for directly transmitting PC reasoning to the
County Commissioners – unlike the Town Board, where our Liaison provides this information. This is an area we
need to work on. One possibility (which unfortunately involves some trouble and expense) would be for a County-
appointed PC member to attend the relevant County hearings in Fort Collins. We are working on a dedicated Skype
link for Town attendance at County hearings. (I think it’s something like Skype… the technology is a mystery to me!)
Asking a PC member to join these Skype proceedings might be an option. I’ll talk with the County about this.
I must report that the staff will convey our recommendation to the County Commissioners for approval of the Mary’s
Lake Estates rezone. We will of course convey that the PC vote was to recommend denial. In fact, we (staff) are
required by our Code of Ethics as AICP members to bring both of those recommendations forward to the governing
body.
5) Should the PC look into what's going to happen to the rest of the valley below Mary's Lake?
RAH: Yes, especially with regard to transportation, drainage, utilities, and other systems. All of Estes Valley
Development Code area inside a triangle formed by Little Prospect Mountain, Little Valley/ upper Fish Creek, and
Ram’s Horn Mountain, needs attention. Mary’s Lake Road getting its own Corridor Plan would be a good start on
that. I should note that a Corridor Plan isn’t necessarily just the properties that touch the “spinal” road corridor; it can
be a wide territory. I think the triangle area could be covered by three future Corridor Plans: Mary’s Lake Road, Hwy.
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490d…11/21
7, and Fish Creek Road + Little Valley Rd. We would want to integrate the Corridor Plans and show how they
interact along their edges and transitions.
On Corridor Plans overall: None of this will be overnight results, needless to say – it’s a task list that needs to be
developed and needs to be kept active. I would like to say it won’t take years to get them done, but under current
resources, there’s no way to do it more quickly. We have a staff of 7 in Planning division right now, and will likely be
going down to 6 in 2018, having lost a position in the proposed budget.
6) Should the PC look at other open spaces across the Estes Valley that are likely targets for development? Not that
we would necessarily oppose their development, but just to be aware of what's out there? The Modernized Comp
Plan also addresses this topic.
RAH: Yes. Some of this can be done in Corridor Plans. Many communities also have an Open Space Plan. That has
a lot of possibilities. (Caveat: That also costs money. High-quality Open Space Plans require technical input, such
as geotechnical, edaphological, environmental, and similar systems integration).
7) How many B&B requests are waiting to be licensed? When will licensing begin?
RAH: I think it’s approx. four not yet operating. We also have around the same number that are grandfathered. I
would expect the permitting to get underway after the amendment is adopted, but I think some of the owner-
operators aren’t here in the winter… so it’s hard to say. As with Vacation Homes, we’ll be glad to give updates as
patterns and trends emerge.
8) Should there be a cap on B&B's in residential zones?
RAH: In theory, it could be considered. In practice, we would need science to establish any cap that isn’t arbitrary
and capricious and thus legally suspect. You may recall that the 599 cap on vacation homes came from data
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490d…12/21
provided by iCompass on the existing number of VHs last year. I’ll talk with Linda on whether any data can be
obtained on B&Bs.
With that said, I don’t think we will be overwhelmed by B&Bs in the near future. They aren’t as popular nowadays as
vacation homes. Of course, vacation accommodations preferences are subject to trends and fads, like most any
social phenomenon. I have said for years now that Vacation Blimps might be the next cool thing, and we won’t have
to worry about land use any more because they will be air uses. (In Florida I added Vacation Submarines to the list,
but I don’t think we have the capability for those in Estes Valley…)
9) Can a property have both a B&B and a Vacation Rental License? In one person's testimony he talked about the
desirability of having this flexibility, depending on whether he was in-residence or living/traveling elsewhere.
RAH: Yes, but it’s going to need precise record-keeping! We are working on this process. The properties can in
principle have three “uses” at different, non-overlapping times during the year: Vacation Home, B&B, and regular
dwelling unit. Tis is complicated to keep sorted out and we need to get a handle on it, which we are working on
before busy season shows up in 2018.
Thanks,
Bob
Bob Leavitt
Estes Valley Planning Commission
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490d…13/21
Rnorris
Oct 26
Other recipients: rh...@estes.org, b...@bobleavitt.com, flanc...@estes.org
Good questions by Bob, and good dialogue.
Randy: A suggestion. I think it would be good for the two elected Boards to get updates from their attorneys on the
Planning Commission's authority to make only recommendations, as opposed to final decisions. Should make sure
the Boards are in agreement before this is reviewed with the PC. This will reduce the likelihood of
misunderstandings, confusion, chaos, mayhem, etc.
Thanks,
Ron
- show quoted text -
Randy Hunt
Oct 26
Other recipients: rno...@estes.org, b...@bobleavitt.com, flanc...@estes.org
Ron, I agree, and will pass along to Greg and to the County staff.
There is more nuance to the final-authority issue than I was able to do justice to in a few sentences, so the legal
clarifications will be useful. Thanks - RAH
Thanks,
RAH
-----
Randy Hunt, AICP
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490d…14/21
Community Development Director
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Ave.
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
direct: 970-577-3719
main: 970-577-3721
email: rh...@estes.org
http://www.estes.org
- hide quoted text -
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Rnorris <rno...@estes.org> wrote:
Good questions by Bob, and good dialogue.
Randy: A suggestion. I think it would be good for the two elected Boards to get updates from their attorneys on the
Planning Commission's authority to make only recommendations, as opposed to final decisions. Should make sure
the Boards are in agreement before this is reviewed with the PC. This will reduce the likelihood of
misunderstandings, confusion, chaos, mayhem, etc.
Thanks,
Ron
On Oct 26, 2017, at 7:58 AM, Randy Hunt, AICP <rh...@estes.org> wrote:
Bob,
These are good and useful questions; thank you for asking. Some deserve more detailed responses, and as you
note, some are better addressed in a study session. We’ll review with Russ to see if discussion can be put on the
Nov. 14 study session, or possibly a later one.
I’ve put brief replies to all of them below each question – see below.
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490d…15/21
Thanks again!
RAH
-----
Randy Hunt, AICP
Community Development Director
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Ave.
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
direct: 970-577-3719
main: 970-577-3721
email: rh...@estes.org
http://www.estes.org
From: Bob Leavitt
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 4:49 PM
To: Randy Hunt; Russ Schneider
Cc: Karen Thompson
Subject: Re: Planning Questions
In looking this over, it's would probably be better to say, "Is it appropriate for the PC to" rather than "Should the PC".
In other words, is it reasonable for the PC to be addressing a particular topic.
Thanks,
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490d…16/21
Bob
Bob Leavitt
Estes Valley Planning Commission
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Bob Leavitt <blea...@estes.org> wrote:
Randy,
I have some questions as a follow up to our last Planning Commission meeting. Some of these can probably be
answered by you in a subsequent email and others will need to be discussed in a study session. We can not discuss
them here due to open meeting rules. Please reply with answers where you can and place the others, in
consultation with Russ, on a future study session agenda. Also please send your response to the entire Planning
Commission.
1) When will revising the Comprehensive Plan be addressed? Will this be spearheaded by Community Development
with PC participation or the other way around?
RAH: It will be spearheaded by staff, with advice and consultation from Planning Commission, elected officials, and
stakeholders. I am waiting for a callback from the County as follow-up from some questions raised at the joint Town
+ County study session on Mon., Sep. 18, so we can discern several specifics on the Commissioners are expecting.
Meanwhile, our staff is gearing up for the Comp Plan revision with the statistical template that Commissioner Hull
and others provided this past spring. I think a reasonable goal, as we discussed at PC earlier this year on several
occasions, is a short and straightforward Comp Plan. A Comp Plan should be broad and general and should
articulate goals and objectives that touch the entire community of stakeholders, rather than narrow interest groups,
in our view.
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490d…17/21
I do not envision including a Future Land Use map, neighborhood plans, or other overly specific elements. However,
as we discussed, Corridor Plans are valuable and important. A Corridor Plan is along major transportation routes
(e.g., our state highways), but encompasses much more than just transportation issues, although those are of
course a key element. The Corridor Plan idea is still viable and I would like to consider that next after the overall
Comp Plan is done and adopted.
2) On the website there is both the original Comp Plan and the "Modernized" version. Is it appropriate for the
Modernized version to be used by the public, the PC, and Community Development to build a case for approval or
denial of a proposed project? It is certainly being used by the public for this purpose.
RAH: I believe the Modernized version is the official updated Plan, although that needs to be checked and
confirmed. No Comprehensive Plan should ever be used as the basis for approval or denial of a specific
development project. Comp Plans are the basis for development codes, but they are not code or regulations in
themselves and should never be cited as such. We need to be clearer on this subject, as I agree that we have seen
the Comp Plan being cited in that fashion. My Nov. 14 memo on Raven Rock (see below) will cover this aspect.
3) Should future projects like Raven Rock come to the PC before they reach the point where a great deal of work
has gone into the development plan? Should there be triggers or conditions that indicate a project should come to
the PC early in the process? Should large annexations (above a certain size) come to the PC?
RAH: We will have a detailed memo in your Nov. 14 packet regarding what can and can’t be considered in the
Raven Rock and similar development-plan matters. Frankly, I think we wandered into risky territory with some of the
discussion and questions in September and October.
On the wider picture of plan review, the candid answer is that projects like Raven Rock – by which I mean,
development plans that are for uses allowed by right and are designed according to development standards that
meet Code – should not go to Planning Commission for final decision at all. I acknowledge that our Code is written
to send them to Planning Commission anyway, but that is a legally questionable Code requirement. Planning
Commission is a quasi-judicial body and does not have discretionary authority to make final decisions on quasi-
judicial matters. You do of course have recommending authority.
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490d…18/21
(As I recall, neither you, nor Commissioners Foster and Baker were there for the Vacation Homes legal discussion
last December 15th, when the County and Town Attorneys outlined the legal difficulty for Planning Commission as a
final decision-making body. It’s probably a good idea to ask the Attorney(s) to revisit this at a future PC Study
Session, as almost ½ of you are new to the Commission and did not hear that discussion. I’ll check with both
offices.)
Regarding a great deal of work going into the development plan – if we on the staff (not just Community
Development, but also Public Works, Utilities, Fire District, County Engineering, etc.) do our jobs properly, that work
will have already been done before anything reaches the PC stage. We need to find a way to make these early
stages more transparent to stakeholders, because I think it always looks like plans show up out of left field by the
time they get to formal PC review.
4) What's next for the Mary's Lake Estates properties that the PC voted against rezoning to A-1? Will it go to the
Town Board? If so, when? It's important that the Town Board have, in writing, the reasons for the PC's vote.
RAH: Mary’s Lake Estates is in the County, and will go to the Board of County Commissioners for rezoning decision
on Mon., Nov. 20. County projects don’t have a clear-cut process for directly transmitting PC reasoning to the
County Commissioners – unlike the Town Board, where our Liaison provides this information. This is an area we
need to work on. One possibility (which unfortunately involves some trouble and expense) would be for a County-
appointed PC member to attend the relevant County hearings in Fort Collins. We are working on a dedicated Skype
link for Town attendance at County hearings. (I think it’s something like Skype… the technology is a mystery to me!)
Asking a PC member to join these Skype proceedings might be an option. I’ll talk with the County about this.
I must report that the staff will convey our recommendation to the County Commissioners for approval of the Mary’s
Lake Estates rezone. We will of course convey that the PC vote was to recommend denial. In fact, we (staff) are
required by our Code of Ethics as AICP members to bring both of those recommendations forward to the governing
body.
5) Should the PC look into what's going to happen to the rest of the valley below Mary's Lake?
RAH: Yes, especially with regard to transportation, drainage, utilities, and other systems. All of Estes Valley
Development Code area inside a triangle formed by Little Prospect Mountain, Little Valley/ upper Fish Creek, and
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490d…19/21
Ram’s Horn Mountain, needs attention. Mary’s Lake Road getting its own Corridor Plan would be a good start on
that. I should note that a Corridor Plan isn’t necessarily just the properties that touch the “spinal” road corridor; it can
be a wide territory. I think the triangle area could be covered by three future Corridor Plans: Mary’s Lake Road, Hwy.
7, and Fish Creek Road + Little Valley Rd. We would want to integrate the Corridor Plans and show how they
interact along their edges and transitions.
On Corridor Plans overall: None of this will be overnight results, needless to say – it’s a task list that needs to be
developed and needs to be kept active. I would like to say it won’t take years to get them done, but under current
resources, there’s no way to do it more quickly. We have a staff of 7 in Planning division right now, and will likely be
going down to 6 in 2018, having lost a position in the proposed budget.
6) Should the PC look at other open spaces across the Estes Valley that are likely targets for development? Not that
we would necessarily oppose their development, but just to be aware of what's out there? The Modernized Comp
Plan also addresses this topic.
RAH: Yes. Some of this can be done in Corridor Plans. Many communities also have an Open Space Plan. That has
a lot of possibilities. (Caveat: That also costs money. High-quality Open Space Plans require technical input, such
as geotechnical, edaphological, environmental, and similar systems integration).
7) How many B&B requests are waiting to be licensed? When will licensing begin?
RAH: I think it’s approx. four not yet operating. We also have around the same number that are grandfathered. I
would expect the permitting to get underway after the amendment is adopted, but I think some of the owner-
operators aren’t here in the winter… so it’s hard to say. As with Vacation Homes, we’ll be glad to give updates as
patterns and trends emerge.
8) Should there be a cap on B&B's in residential zones?
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490d…20/21
RAH: In theory, it could be considered. In practice, we would need science to establish any cap that isn’t arbitrary
and capricious and thus legally suspect. You may recall that the 599 cap on vacation homes came from data
provided by iCompass on the existing number of VHs last year. I’ll talk with Linda on whether any data can be
obtained on B&Bs.
With that said, I don’t think we will be overwhelmed by B&Bs in the near future. They aren’t as popular nowadays as
vacation homes. Of course, vacation accommodations preferences are subject to trends and fads, like most any
social phenomenon. I have said for years now that Vacation Blimps might be the next cool thing, and we won’t have
to worry about land use any more because they will be air uses. (In Florida I added Vacation Submarines to the list,
but I don’t think we have the capability for those in Estes Valley…)
9) Can a property have both a B&B and a Vacation Rental License? In one person's testimony he talked about the
desirability of having this flexibility, depending on whether he was in-residence or living/traveling elsewhere.
RAH: Yes, but it’s going to need precise record-keeping! We are working on this process. The properties can in
principle have three “uses” at different, non-overlapping times during the year: Vacation Home, B&B, and regular
dwelling unit. Tis is complicated to keep sorted out and we need to get a handle on it, which we are working on
before busy season shows up in 2018.
Thanks,
Bob
Bob Leavitt
Estes Valley Planning Commission
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - FW: Planning Commission - COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE RELIED …
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&msg=160490dddaaa269c&search=inbox&siml=160490d…21/21
-
--
Robert H. Foster
Rfoster@estes.org
(303) 901-9611
Ken and Cherie Martin
538 Promontory Dr
Estes Park, CO 80517
Nov 6, 2017
Estes Valley Planning Commission
Chair Russ Schneider, Vice-Chair Bob Leavitt,
Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve Murphree,
Sharry White, Robert Foster and Doyle Baker
Planner, Audem Gonzales
Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Re: Proposed Raven Rock
Townhome Development
Dear Commissioners:
Is obtaining approval for a development simply a task of making sure all the boxes have
been checked? If that were the case, one person could be assigned to verify the
checkmarks and stamp the plan Approved. But instead, we have a board of
commissioners. Boards are for exercising discretion. Judgment. For ensuring that
development decisions are consistent with the character and ethos of our unique
mountain town. That is why we need the collective judgment of the board. And we hope
and trust you will all exercise that wisely.
When we look at this application, one thing seems inescapable: The compactness of
this development just doesn’t fit the area. It seems to have been designed for a town
where building space is at an absolute premium. Vail, perhaps. A place that requires
high-density urban development if it is to grow.
Estes Park is not that place. We are just the opposite, a town that values open space,
that works to blend developments with our surroundings. Estes places a premium on
preservation of vast vistas, wildlife corridors, wetlands, the natural sweep of a valley. On
a fine fall morning, we want to be wakened by the bugle of an elk, not by our neighbor’s
alarm clock.
We all recognize that a landowner is entitled to a reasonable use of his/her property,
and we know things can’t stay exactly as they are. But the changes coming should be
changes consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The changes coming should not rob
our town of the charm that drew people here; the changes must not fundamentally alter
the look or personality of this town.
An alternative plan for this property would be a small number of single-family dwellings
scattered across this small valley--a development consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the Neighborhood Plans for Carriage Hills/Marys Lake area (attached). At the
last meeting the question was asked: Is the Comprehensive Plan a controlling
document, must it be followed? Our response is: If the plan can safely be ignored
whenever it is convenient to do so, why bother having it? If it is merely a suggestion,
why spend tax dollars updating it?
As currently drawn, the Raven Rock high-density plan doesn’t fit our community. It’s not
right for Estes. At some level that conclusion must have registered with all of us. If
approved, as early as next year we will round the curve of Mary’s Lake Road and be
struck with the notion that we’ve entered another community entirely. And there will be
no undoing the mistake once it’s done. Mistakes in developments are forever.
This decision comes down to a board because discretion is involved. Judgment. The
collective judgment of the board should incorporate the will of this community to
preserve its look, its personality, and require that developments be consistent with our
priorities. Our priorities are contained in the Comprehensive Plan, and we urge the
board to ratify the values of Estes by the simple expedient of following its own plan and
rejecting this application as currently submitted.
Sincerely,
Ken and Cherie Martin
Enc.
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - Raven Rock Development
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1604b6b236840cdd&siml=1604b34d71b…1/3
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Raven Rock Development
4 messages
K Martin <kerogmartin@gmail.com>Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 7:50 AM
To: tjirsa@estes.org, wkoenig@estes.org, bholcomb@estes.org, Matt Gordon <mgordon@lafflaw.com>,
pmartchink@estes.org, wnelson@estes.org, rnorris@estes.org, cwalker@estes.org, rhunt@estes.org, rschneider@estes.org,
bhull@estes.org, smurphree@estes.org, bleavitt@estes.org, dbaker@estes.org, swhite@estes.org, rfoster@estes.org,
planning@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, flancaster@estes.org, krusch@estes.org, jwilliamson@estes.org
Cc: blgould@gmail.com, J Michael Gould <gouldjm@icloud.com>, bob.mo.luther@partners.mcd.com, gmadoris1@aol.com,
Krkred@aol.com, Larry@salestraq.com, James Stevens <jajstevens@hotmail.com>, Gordon Marie
<mariekgordon@outlook.com>, Sunshinesmile2@comcast.net, hiker@tecxcel.com, annesneary@gmail.com,
rfischer@shermanhoward.com, anns.chalet@att.net, conradk13@gmail.com, Beverly Wright <estesbev2013@aol.com>, M
Campbell <camppeony@msn.com>, annechandou@gmail.com, stephentyman@gmail.com, sara.beardsworth@gmail.com,
fchandou@gmail.com, gregedel@hotmail.com, timpruch@gmail.com, aschiffer@sohjlaw.com, schmidt_dg@hotmail.com,
melinda.blatt@gmail.com, tdgootz@yahoo.com, K Martin <kerogmartin@gmail.com>, michaelkeilty@hotmail.com,
estesparkbarbara@gmail.com, Bob Stephan <bobstephan301@gmail.com>
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We are submitting this in opposition to the Raven Rock Development. Since this is an appeal, we would have thought that
the entire record the Planning Commission used to render its decision would have been included and provided to you.
However, we did not see the attached letter in your materials and wish to have it considered. For brevity we have omitted the
attachment, which was the Neighborhood Plan for Carriage Hills/Marys Lake from the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you.
Ken and Cherie Martin
commissioners letter.docx
119K
Bob Stephan <bobstephan301@gmail.com>Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:18 AM
To: K Martin <kerogmartin@gmail.com>
Cc: tjirsa@estes.org, wkoenig@estes.org, bholcomb@estes.org, Matt Gordon <mgordon@lafflaw.com>,
pmartchink@estes.org, wnelson@estes.org, rnorris@estes.org, cwalker@estes.org, rhunt@estes.org, rschneider@estes.org,
bhull@estes.org, smurphree@estes.org, bleavitt@estes.org, dbaker@estes.org, swhite@estes.org, rfoster@estes.org,
planning@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, flancaster@estes.org, krusch@estes.org, jwilliamson@estes.org,
blgould@gmail.com, J Michael Gould <gouldjm@icloud.com>, bob.mo.luther@partners.mcd.com, gmadoris1@aol.com,
Krkred@aol.com, Larry@salestraq.com, James Stevens <jajstevens@hotmail.com>, Gordon Marie
<mariekgordon@outlook.com>, Sunshinesmile2@comcast.net, hiker@tecxcel.com, annesneary@gmail.com,
rfischer@shermanhoward.com, anns.chalet@att.net, conradk13@gmail.com, Beverly Wright <estesbev2013@aol.com>, M
Campbell <camppeony@msn.com>, annechandou@gmail.com, stephentyman@gmail.com, sara.beardsworth@gmail.com,
fchandou@gmail.com, gregedel@hotmail.com, timpruch@gmail.com, aschiffer@sohjlaw.com, schmidt_dg@hotmail.com,
melinda.blatt@gmail.com, tdgootz@yahoo.com, michaelkeilty@hotmail.com, estesparkbarbara@gmail.com
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am also writing to oppose the Proposed Raven Rock Development. My original email to The Planning Commission is
inserted below because it appears to be deleted from the previous public record.
Thank you for your service to the community. We appreciate the thoughtfulness demonstrated by The Planning
Commission, and thank you in advance for your stewardship of Estes Park.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
With kindest regards,
Bob Stephan
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - Raven Rock Development
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1604b6b236840cdd&siml=1604b34d71b…2/3
301 Kiowa Drive
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to oppose the Raven Rock development. Friends and neighbors have raised concerns about the impact on
wildlife, traffic, drainage, etc. I echo their concerns.
My contribution to the narrative is that of an investor. I am a professional investor by trade. Specifically, part of my
responsibilities is executive oversight of a multi-billion dollar real estate portfolio. The Raven Rock development is using
a proven playbook in the real estate industry . . . maximize profit per square foot by improving as much of the available
square footage as possible with the most expensive improvements the market will bear. Questions for leaders in Estes
Park include: do we want that type of playbook applied in our community? Are we different? Why?
Trained with an MBA in finance from The University of Chicago, my wife and I made a very uneconomic decision in 2013.
We purchased 301 Kiowa Drive as a family refuge and a place we could repeatedly bring our daughters to hopefully
develop in them an appreciation for the natural beauty of Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park. We don't rent
our unit, but rather use it only for our immediate family as well as parents, siblings, nieces, and nephews. We don't apply
an economic lense to our property because Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park are not about economics. The
founding fathers knew that, which is why they preserved the land.
My wife and I were in town a couple of weeks ago for a belated 50th birthday celebration. We took video from our deck of
two bull elk fighting in the meadow near the stakes outlining Raven Rock. We see elk move through the meadow and up
by our condo in all seasons. The beauty of the place is breathtaking.
Would you please reflect on the following questions before weighing in on the Raven Rock development:
- What do we want Estes Park to look like for future generations? How do we balance that with fairness to the landowner
(who I believe has no long-term interest in the community)?
- How should we prioritize development options for the scarce land available in this special place?
- If we don't provide good stewardship of the land, who will?
Thank you for your service to the community, and we trust you will make the right decision.
With kind regards,
Bob Stephan
301 Kiowa Drive
Estes Park
Permanent residence:
1410 Broad Creek Road
Bloomington, IL 61704
Sent from my iPhone
[Quoted text hidden]
<commissioners letter.docx>
Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:48 AM
To: Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org>
[Quoted text hidden]
--
Jackie Williamson
Administrative Services Director/Town Clerk
170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-577-4771 (p) direct line
970-577-4777 (p) general line
970-577-4770 (f)
jwilliamson@estes.org
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - Raven Rock Development
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1604b6b236840cdd&siml=1604b34d71b…3/3
commissioners letter.docx
119K
Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:49 AM
To: Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org>
[Quoted text hidden]
--
Jackie Williamson
Administrative Services Director/Town Clerk
170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-577-4771 (p) direct line
970-577-4777 (p) general line
970-577-4770 (f)
jwilliamson@estes.org
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - Raven Rock Development
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1604b7092e0f9be7&siml=15f93208360a…1/8
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Raven Rock Development
8 messages
Matt Gordon <mgordon@lafflaw.com>Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 1:56 PM
To: "tjirsa@estes.org" <tjirsa@estes.org>, "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "bholcomb@estes.org" <bholcomb@estes.org>,
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "wnelson@estes.org" <wnelson@estes.org>, "rnorris@estes.org" <rnorris@estes.org>,
"cwalker@estes.org" <cwalker@estes.org>, "rhunt@estes.org" <rhunt@estes.org>, "rschneider@estes.org" <'rschneider@estes.org'>, "bhull@estes.org"
<'bhull@estes.org'>, "smurphree@estes.org" <'smurphree@estes.org'>, "bleavitt@estes.org" <'bleavitt@estes.org'>, "dbaker@estes.org"
<'dbaker@estes.org'>, "swhite@estes.org" <'swhite@estes.org'>, "rfoster@estes.org" <'rfoster@estes.org'>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>,
"townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "flancaster@estes.org" <flancaster@estes.org>, "krusch@estes.org" <krusch@estes.org>,
"jwilliamson@estes.org" <jwilliamson@estes.org>, "agonzales@estes.org" <agonzales@estes.org>
Cc: "gouldjm@icloud.com" <gouldjm@icloud.com>, "blgould@gmail.com" <blgould@gmail.com>, "bob.mo.luther@partners.mcd.com"
<bob.mo.luther@partners.mcd.com>, "gmadoris1@aol.com" <gmadoris1@aol.com>, "Krkred@aol.com" <Krkred@aol.com>, "Larry@salestraq.com"
<Larry@salestraq.com>, "jajstevens@hotmail.com" <jajstevens@hotmail.com>, "mariekgordon@outlook.com" <mariekgordon@outlook.com>,
"Sunshinesmile2@comcast.net" <Sunshinesmile2@comcast.net>, "hiker@tecxcel.com" <hiker@tecxcel.com>, "annesneary@gmail.com"
<annesneary@gmail.com>, "rfischer@shermanhoward.com" <rfischer@shermanhoward.com>, "anns.chalet@att.net" <anns.chalet@att.net>,
"conradk13@gmail.com" <conradk13@gmail.com>, "estesbev2013@aol.com" <estesbev2013@aol.com>, "camppeony@msn.com" <camppeony@msn.com>,
"annechandou@gmail.com" <annechandou@gmail.com>, "stephentyman@gmail.com" <stephentyman@gmail.com>, "sara.beardsworth@gmail.com"
<sara.beardsworth@gmail.com>, "fchandou@gmail.com" <fchandou@gmail.com>, "gregedel@hotmail.com" <gregedel@hotmail.com>, "timpruch@gmail.com"
<timpruch@gmail.com>, "rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com" <rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com>, "aschiffer@sohjlaw.com" <aschiffer@sohjlaw.com>,
"schmidt_dg@hotmail.com" <schmidt_dg@hotmail.com>, "melinda.blatt@gmail.com" <melinda.blatt@gmail.com>, "kerogmartin@gmail.com"
<kerogmartin@gmail.com>
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Please see the attached letter and exhibits. These are for the public record in connection with the proposed Raven Rock development. I
hope you’ll take time to read this letter.
Sincerely,
Matthew D. Gordon
535 Promontory Drive
mgordon@lafflaw.com
5 attachments
Mary's Lake Neighborhood.jpg
627K
Letter to Town Final.pdf
78K
Raven Rock Building Schematics_2017-07-20.pdf
3260K
Site Development Plan.pdf
6537K
Vicinity Map.pdf
3959K
Matt Gordon <mgordon@lafflaw.com>Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:12 PM
To: "tjirsa@estes.org" <tjirsa@estes.org>, "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "bholcomb@estes.org" <bholcomb@estes.org>,
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "wnelson@estes.org" <wnelson@estes.org>, "rnorris@estes.org" <rnorris@estes.org>, "cwalker@estes.org"
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - Raven Rock Development
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1604b7092e0f9be7&siml=15f93208360a…2/8
<cwalker@estes.org>, "rhunt@estes.org" <rhunt@estes.org>, "rschneider@estes.org" <'rschneider@estes.org'>, "bhull@estes.org" <'bhull@estes.org'>,
"smurphree@estes.org" <'smurphree@estes.org'>, "bleavitt@estes.org" <'bleavitt@estes.org'>, "dbaker@estes.org" <'dbaker@estes.org'>, "swhite@estes.org"
<'swhite@estes.org'>, "rfoster@estes.org" <'rfoster@estes.org'>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>,
"flancaster@estes.org" <flancaster@estes.org>, "krusch@estes.org" <krusch@estes.org>, "jwilliamson@estes.org" <jwilliamson@estes.org>,
"agonzales@estes.org" <agonzales@estes.org>
Cc: "gouldjm@icloud.com" <gouldjm@icloud.com>, "blgould@gmail.com" <blgould@gmail.com>, "bob.mo.luther@partners.mcd.com"
<bob.mo.luther@partners.mcd.com>, "gmadoris1@aol.com" <gmadoris1@aol.com>, "Krkred@aol.com" <Krkred@aol.com>, "Larry@salestraq.com"
<Larry@salestraq.com>, "jajstevens@hotmail.com" <jajstevens@hotmail.com>, "mariekgordon@outlook.com" <mariekgordon@outlook.com>,
"Sunshinesmile2@comcast.net" <Sunshinesmile2@comcast.net>, "hiker@tecxcel.com" <hiker@tecxcel.com>, "annesneary@gmail.com"
<annesneary@gmail.com>, "rfischer@shermanhoward.com" <rfischer@shermanhoward.com>, "anns.chalet@att.net" <anns.chalet@att.net>,
"conradk13@gmail.com" <conradk13@gmail.com>, "estesbev2013@aol.com" <estesbev2013@aol.com>, "camppeony@msn.com" <camppeony@msn.com>,
"annechandou@gmail.com" <annechandou@gmail.com>, "stephentyman@gmail.com" <stephentyman@gmail.com>, "sara.beardsworth@gmail.com"
<sara.beardsworth@gmail.com>, "fchandou@gmail.com" <fchandou@gmail.com>, "gregedel@hotmail.com" <gregedel@hotmail.com>, "timpruch@gmail.com"
<timpruch@gmail.com>, "rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com" <rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com>, "aschiffer@sohjlaw.com" <aschiffer@sohjlaw.com>,
"schmidt_dg@hotmail.com" <schmidt_dg@hotmail.com>, "melinda.blatt@gmail.com" <melinda.blatt@gmail.com>, "kerogmartin@gmail.com"
<kerogmartin@gmail.com>
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Commissioner Foster provided a copy of City Attorney White’s memo regarding the applicability of the Comprehensive Plan to individual land
use decisions. My response to Commissioner Foster is below. A copy of City Attorney White’s memo is attached. Commissioner Foster
suggested that I add my message to the public record.
Please add this message and the enclosure to the public record regarding Raven Rock.
Robert,
Thank you for sending these materials.
Mr. White’s memorandum makes an argument based entirely on a contextual recital, and simply ignores the clear language of the substantive
(and legally binding) provisions of the EVDC. Of course the Comp Plan will and should have been the basis of provisions of the EVDC as
provided in the recital quoted by Mr. White. But that doesn’t limit the clear language of the Code itself:
Standards for Review. The recommending and decision-making entities shall review development plan applications and all submittedplans and reports, and evaluate them according to the following standards: 1. The development plan complies with all applicable standardsset forth in this Code; and 2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan andany other relevant land use, parks and trails, capital improvement and other similar plans.5
Mr. White’s memo is an argument in defense of the Staff’s actions in this matter, but is, in my opinion, simply wrong on the law. The memo
completely ignores the Colorado Supreme Court which ruled that an ordinance similar to the above quoted provision of the Code is a
legitimate basis for the reviewing (quasi-judicial) body to deny a proposed plan which, although in compliance with applicable code, was
inconsistent with the jurisdiction’s Master Plan.
I’m afraid that Mr. White and Mr. Hunt are turning the Raven Rock development plan into a contest over the authority of the Town staff, and is
ignoring common sense and the law. Mr. White seeks to carve out an argument pursuant to which the Commission can ignore the Comp Plan,
the history of development in Mary’s Lake, and the duty of the Town, through its staff and elected officials, to follow its own rules. If the Town
follows Mr. White’s (and the staff’s) argument, then the Comp Plan is meaningless.
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - Raven Rock Development
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1604b7092e0f9be7&siml=15f93208360a…3/8
When I purchased my home in Promontory, I carefully checked the development rights of the properties below (after all, I’m a land use
lawyer!), and was confident that something like Raven Rock could never happen. The parcels within the Town were already platted. The rest
were in unincorporated Larimer County, had no utilities and were, I thought, no development threat. I did not anticipate that the Town staff
would ignore the interests of the Mary’s Lake residents and annex land for development without real notice to the neighbors (let alone to
facilitate development of a density similar to the Warsaw Ghetto). If land owners and potential land owners in Estes Park cannot rely on the
law and the Town administration’s responsibility to represent the interests of its citizens, then Estes Park is a very risky place to buy property and
reside. Estes Park is like the Deadwood mining camp in 1876: “There’s no law in Deadwood.”
Mr. White and I seem to be preparing for legal dispute. In that regard, please remember that I am advocating on my own behalf in a political
matter pursuant to my right as a citizen to petition my governmental representatives.
Thank you for reaching out to me. If you would like to discuss this further, I will be happy to meet with you.
Thank you.
Matt Gordon
Matthew
D.
Gordon
3200 East Cherry
Creek South Drive
Suite 200
Denver, Colorado
80209
Phone: 303.740.7200
Direct: 720.484.3939
mgordon@lafflaw.com
www.lafflaw.com
2 attachments
Memo.Raven Rock Town homes Development Plan -Comp Plan.11-08-2017.gaw+rah.Clean.pdf
59K
Memo - Raven Rock Town homes Development Plan & PC authority - 2017-11-14 (rah c).pdf
62K
Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:26 AM
To: Matt Gordon <mgordon@lafflaw.com>
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - Raven Rock Development
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1604b7092e0f9be7&siml=15f93208360a…4/8
Cc: "tjirsa@estes.org" <tjirsa@estes.org>, "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "bholcomb@estes.org" <bholcomb@estes.org>,
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "wnelson@estes.org" <wnelson@estes.org>, "rnorris@estes.org" <rnorris@estes.org>,
"cwalker@estes.org" <cwalker@estes.org>, Russ Schneider <rschneider@estes.org>, Betty Hull <bhull@estes.org>, Steve Murphree
<smurphree@estes.org>, Bob Leavitt <bleavitt@estes.org>, Doyle Baker <dbaker@estes.org>, Sharry White <swhite@estes.org>, Robert Foster
<rfoster@estes.org>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>, "krusch@estes.org" <krusch@estes.org>, "jwilliamson@estes.org" <jwilliamson@estes.org>, "agonzales@estes.org"
<agonzales@estes.org>, "gouldjm@icloud.com" <gouldjm@icloud.com>, "blgould@gmail.com" <blgould@gmail.com>, "bob.mo.luther@partners.mcd.com"
<bob.mo.luther@partners.mcd.com>, "gmadoris1@aol.com" <gmadoris1@aol.com>, "Krkred@aol.com" <Krkred@aol.com>, "Larry@salestraq.com"
<Larry@salestraq.com>, "jajstevens@hotmail.com" <jajstevens@hotmail.com>, "mariekgordon@outlook.com" <mariekgordon@outlook.com>,
"Sunshinesmile2@comcast.net" <Sunshinesmile2@comcast.net>, "hiker@tecxcel.com" <hiker@tecxcel.com>, "annesneary@gmail.com"
<annesneary@gmail.com>, "rfischer@shermanhoward.com" <rfischer@shermanhoward.com>, "anns.chalet@att.net" <anns.chalet@att.net>,
"conradk13@gmail.com" <conradk13@gmail.com>, "estesbev2013@aol.com" <estesbev2013@aol.com>, "camppeony@msn.com" <camppeony@msn.com>,
"annechandou@gmail.com" <annechandou@gmail.com>, "stephentyman@gmail.com" <stephentyman@gmail.com>, "sara.beardsworth@gmail.com"
<sara.beardsworth@gmail.com>, "fchandou@gmail.com" <fchandou@gmail.com>, "gregedel@hotmail.com" <gregedel@hotmail.com>, "timpruch@gmail.com"
<timpruch@gmail.com>, "rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com" <rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com>, "aschiffer@sohjlaw.com" <aschiffer@sohjlaw.com>,
"schmidt_dg@hotmail.com" <schmidt_dg@hotmail.com>, "melinda.blatt@gmail.com" <melinda.blatt@gmail.com>, "kerogmartin@gmail.com"
<kerogmartin@gmail.com>
Mr. Gordon,
Thank you for your comments. As to legal points, I will defer to Attorney White for any necessary response.
With regard to annexation, which you allude to below and have addressed in prior communications: Annexation in the Estes Valley does not change zoning,
as is the case elsewhere in Colorado. Our Estes Valley Development Code and Official Zoning Map were created in part to unify zoning designations
without regard to Town or County. To my knowledge, no Town of Estes Park annexation in recent years changed zoning or was accompanied by an
ordinance changing zoning, including the Raven Rock property. As the staff report notes, the zoning on that property was last changed in 2000 (or possibly
a few years earlier), and has been A (Accommodations) since then.
Utility service from the Town or other entities in Estes Valley also is not affected by annexation, except that there is a differential in the monthly rates – less
costly for ratepayers inside the Town. Service by the two Town-operated utilities, water and electricity, is equally available to the Raven Rock property
whether annexed or not.
Staff will address application of the Comprehensive Plan to specific development review, including Raven Rock, during Planning Commission tomorrow.
I must take strong issue with you, personally and on behalf of the community, on one of your comments below, in which you make a comparison
between the Raven Rock proposal and the Warsaw Ghe o. During World War II, between 300,000 and 400,000 people died as a result of German
occupa on of the Warsaw Ghe o. Many were killed in the Ghe o itself; others were shot trying to flee; others were sent to their deaths at the
Treblinka concentra on camp. There is no parallel to the Raven Rock project, which consists of building 19 buildings on a 10-acre site. There are valid
ways to make a point about popula on density that do not involve reference to horror and evil. The Holocaust affects me personally and I am sure
many others in the Estes Valley. Your reference is sickening and beyond the bounds of appropriate comment. It is shameful that public dialog in this
ma er, and in our community, would come to such a disgus ng moment. I hope you will apologize.
Thanks,
RAH
-----
Randy Hunt, AICP
Community Development Director
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Ave.
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
direct: 970-577-3719
main: 970-577-3721
email: rhunt@estes.org
http://www.estes.org
[Quoted text hidden]
Matt Gordon <mgordon@lafflaw.com>Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:40 AM
To: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>
Cc: "tjirsa@estes.org" <tjirsa@estes.org>, "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "bholcomb@estes.org" <bholcomb@estes.org>,
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "wnelson@estes.org" <wnelson@estes.org>, "rnorris@estes.org" <rnorris@estes.org>,
"cwalker@estes.org" <cwalker@estes.org>, Russ Schneider <rschneider@estes.org>, Betty Hull <bhull@estes.org>, Steve Murphree
<smurphree@estes.org>, Bob Leavitt <bleavitt@estes.org>, Doyle Baker <dbaker@estes.org>, Sharry White <swhite@estes.org>, Robert Foster
<rfoster@estes.org>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>, "krusch@estes.org" <krusch@estes.org>, "jwilliamson@estes.org" <jwilliamson@estes.org>, "agonzales@estes.org"
<agonzales@estes.org>, "gouldjm@icloud.com" <gouldjm@icloud.com>, "blgould@gmail.com" <blgould@gmail.com>, "bob.mo.luther@partners.mcd.com"
<bob.mo.luther@partners.mcd.com>, "gmadoris1@aol.com" <gmadoris1@aol.com>, "Krkred@aol.com" <Krkred@aol.com>, "Larry@salestraq.com"
<Larry@salestraq.com>, "jajstevens@hotmail.com" <jajstevens@hotmail.com>, "mariekgordon@outlook.com" <mariekgordon@outlook.com>,
"Sunshinesmile2@comcast.net" <Sunshinesmile2@comcast.net>, "hiker@tecxcel.com" <hiker@tecxcel.com>, "annesneary@gmail.com"
<annesneary@gmail.com>, "rfischer@shermanhoward.com" <rfischer@shermanhoward.com>, "anns.chalet@att.net" <anns.chalet@att.net>,
"conradk13@gmail.com" <conradk13@gmail.com>, "estesbev2013@aol.com" <estesbev2013@aol.com>, "camppeony@msn.com" <camppeony@msn.com>,
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - Raven Rock Development
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1604b7092e0f9be7&siml=15f93208360a…5/8
"annechandou@gmail.com" <annechandou@gmail.com>, "stephentyman@gmail.com" <stephentyman@gmail.com>, "sara.beardsworth@gmail.com"
<sara.beardsworth@gmail.com>, "fchandou@gmail.com" <fchandou@gmail.com>, "gregedel@hotmail.com" <gregedel@hotmail.com>, "timpruch@gmail.com"
<timpruch@gmail.com>, "rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com" <rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com>, "aschiffer@sohjlaw.com" <aschiffer@sohjlaw.com>,
"schmidt_dg@hotmail.com" <schmidt_dg@hotmail.com>, "melinda.blatt@gmail.com" <melinda.blatt@gmail.com>, "kerogmartin@gmail.com"
<kerogmartin@gmail.com>
I apologize for my intemperate remark. This is an exceedingly upsetting matter.
Matthew D. Gordon
3200 East Cherry Creek South Drive
Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80209
Phone: 303.740.7200
Direct: 720.484.3939
mgordon@lafflaw.com
www.lafflaw.com
From: Randy Hunt [mailto:rhunt@estes.org]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 8:27 AM
To: Ma Gordon <mgordon@lafflaw.com>
Cc: tjirsa@estes.org; wkoenig@estes.org; bholcomb@estes.org; pmartchink@estes.org; wnelson@estes.org; rnorris@estes.org;
cwalker@estes.org; Russ Schneider <rschneider@estes.org>; Be y Hull <bhull@estes.org>; Steve Murphree <smurphree@estes.org>; Bob
Leavi <bleavitt@estes.org>; Doyle Baker <dbaker@estes.org>; Sharry White <swhite@estes.org>; Robert Foster <rfoster@estes.org>;
planning@estes.org; townclerk@estes.org; flancaster@estes.org; krusch@estes.org; jwilliamson@estes.org; agonzales@estes.org;
gouldjm@icloud.com; blgould@gmail.com; bob.mo.luther@partners.mcd.com; gmadoris1@aol.com; Krkred@aol.com;
Larry@salestraq.com; jajstevens@hotmail.com; mariekgordon@outlook.com; Sunshinesmile2@comcast.net; hiker@tecxcel.com;
annesneary@gmail.com; rfischer@shermanhoward.com; anns.chalet@att.net; conradk13@gmail.com; estesbev2013@aol.com;
camppeony@msn.com; annechandou@gmail.com; stephentyman@gmail.com; sara.beardsworth@gmail.com; fchandou@gmail.com;
gregedel@hotmail.com; timpruch@gmail.com; rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com; aschiffer@sohjlaw.com; schmidt_dg@hotmail.com;
melinda.blatt@gmail.com; kerogmartin@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Raven Rock Development
[Quoted text hidden]
Matt Gordon <mgordon@lafflaw.com>Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 8:29 PM
To: "tjirsa@estes.org" <tjirsa@estes.org>, "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "bholcomb@estes.org" <bholcomb@estes.org>,
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "wnelson@estes.org" <wnelson@estes.org>, "rnorris@estes.org" <rnorris@estes.org>,
"cwalker@estes.org" <cwalker@estes.org>, "rhunt@estes.org" <rhunt@estes.org>, "rschneider@estes.org" <'rschneider@estes.org'>, "bhull@estes.org"
<'bhull@estes.org'>, "smurphree@estes.org" <'smurphree@estes.org'>, "bleavitt@estes.org" <'bleavitt@estes.org'>, "dbaker@estes.org"
<'dbaker@estes.org'>, "swhite@estes.org" <'swhite@estes.org'>, "rfoster@estes.org" <'rfoster@estes.org'>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>,
"townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "flancaster@estes.org" <flancaster@estes.org>, "krusch@estes.org" <krusch@estes.org>,
"jwilliamson@estes.org" <jwilliamson@estes.org>, "agonzales@estes.org" <agonzales@estes.org>
Cc: "gouldjm@icloud.com" <gouldjm@icloud.com>, "blgould@gmail.com" <blgould@gmail.com>, "bob.mo.luther@partners.mcd.com"
<bob.mo.luther@partners.mcd.com>, "gmadoris1@aol.com" <gmadoris1@aol.com>, "Krkred@aol.com" <Krkred@aol.com>, "Larry@salestraq.com"
<Larry@salestraq.com>, "jajstevens@hotmail.com" <jajstevens@hotmail.com>, "mariekgordon@outlook.com" <mariekgordon@outlook.com>,
"Sunshinesmile2@comcast.net" <Sunshinesmile2@comcast.net>, "hiker@tecxcel.com" <hiker@tecxcel.com>, "annesneary@gmail.com"
<annesneary@gmail.com>, "rfischer@shermanhoward.com" <rfischer@shermanhoward.com>, "anns.chalet@att.net" <anns.chalet@att.net>,
"conradk13@gmail.com" <conradk13@gmail.com>, "estesbev2013@aol.com" <estesbev2013@aol.com>, "camppeony@msn.com" <camppeony@msn.com>,
"annechandou@gmail.com" <annechandou@gmail.com>, "stephentyman@gmail.com" <stephentyman@gmail.com>, "sara.beardsworth@gmail.com"
<sara.beardsworth@gmail.com>, "fchandou@gmail.com" <fchandou@gmail.com>, "gregedel@hotmail.com" <gregedel@hotmail.com>, "timpruch@gmail.com"
<timpruch@gmail.com>, "rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com" <rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com>, "aschiffer@sohjlaw.com" <aschiffer@sohjlaw.com>,
"schmidt_dg@hotmail.com" <schmidt_dg@hotmail.com>, "melinda.blatt@gmail.com" <melinda.blatt@gmail.com>, "kerogmartin@gmail.com"
<kerogmartin@gmail.com>
Ladies and Gentlemen,
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - Raven Rock Development
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1604b7092e0f9be7&siml=15f93208360a…6/8
I am writing in opposition to the development plan for the Raven Rock site. I have attached a copy of my prior letter to the Town Trustees and
others setting forth my detailed position. I urge each of you to read it carefully.
With regard to the November 15, 2017, notice of appeal from James Mackey, please note the following:
Mr. Mackey devalues the validity of the Planning Commission’s action because the vote was split. The Commissioners heard this matter
three times, and reached their conclusion in the face of pressure from Mr. Mackey’s team and the Town staff. Their rejection of the
plan was considered and decisive.
Contrary to the feelings of Mr. Mackey’s team, the proposed plan completely fails to comply with the Estes Valley Development Code.
The Code incorporates the Comprehensive Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan prohibits a development with this density and impact.
Please see my attached letter for the legal and practical reasons why.
It is not the Commissioners’, the Town staff’s, or the neighbors’ responsibility to offer specifics or counterproposals to the Raven Rock
proposal.
Finally, I must protest, once again, the Town’s failure to give actual notice of Tuesday night’s meeting. I was assured in writing by Mr. Hunt that
written notice was posted to all homeowners in Promontory. I received no such notice.
Sincerely,
Matthew D. Gordon
535 Promontory Drive
mgordon@lafflaw.com
Letter to Town Final.pdf
78K
RICKDAWNJAMES - NEW <rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com>Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:07 PM
To: tjirsa@estes.org, wkoenig@estes.org, bholcomb@estes.org, Matt Gordon <mgordon@lafflaw.com>, pmartchink@estes.org, wnelson@estes.org,
rnorris@estes.org, cwalker@estes.org, rhunt@estes.org, rschneider@estes.org, bhull@estes.org, smurphree@estes.org, bleavitt@estes.org,
dbaker@estes.org, swhite@estes.org, rfoster@estes.org, planning@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, flancaster@estes.org, krusch@estes.org,
jwilliamson@estes.org
Cc: blgould@gmail.com, gouldjm@icloud.com, bob.mo.luther@partners.mcd.com, gmadoris1@aol.com, Krkred@aol.com, Larry@salestraq.com,
jajstevens@hotmail.com, mariekgordon@outlook.com, Sunshinesmile2@comcast.net, hiker@tecxcel.com, annesneary@gmail.com,
rfischer@shermanhoward.com, anns.chalet@att.net, conradk13@gmail.com, Beverly Wright <estesbev2013@aol.com>, M Campbell
<camppeony@msn.com>, annechandou@gmail.com, stephentyman@gmail.com, sara.beardsworth@gmail.com, fchandou@gmail.com,
gregedel@hotmail.com, timpruch@gmail.com, aschiffer@sohjlaw.com, schmidt_dg@hotmail.com, melinda.blatt@gmail.com, tdgootz@yahoo.com,
kerogmartin@gmail.com, michaelkeilty@hotmail.com, estesparkbarbara@gmail.com, Bob Stephan <bobstephan301@gmail.com>
Ladies & Gentlemen:
In reviewing the Raven Rock Development appeal packet on the town board website, the majority of the written comments from the public presented to the
Planning Commissioners before each of the three Planning Commission meetings were not included in the packet for review by the Trustees.
Thanks Matt Gordon for sending your e-mail and attaching your prior written comment. I was under the mistaken impression that since the packet had
included all the written materials submitted by the Developer and the Planning Commission Staff for consideration at each of the three Planning
Commission meetings; that all of the written comments submitted by the good citizens of Estes Park opposing the development plan would likewise all be
included in the packet for the Trustees to review.
Attached for your review and consideration is a memorandum that I prepared and submitted for consideration well in advance of the third Planning
Commission meeting which should have been included in the Raven Rock Development Appeal packet. The Planning Commission decision denying the
Raven Rock Development Plan as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan is amply supported in fact and law. The Trustees should appropriately deny
the Developer's appeal as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - Raven Rock Development
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1604b7092e0f9be7&siml=15f93208360a…7/8
I would encourage the many good residents of Estes Park that took time to present written comments, some of which are copied on this e-mail, to review
the Raven Rock Development appeal packet on the Town website and you will find that your materials were most likely omitted also.
Sincerely,
Richard James, Esq.
351 Kiowa Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
From: Matt Gordon [mailto:mgordon@lafflaw.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 8:30 PM
To: tjirsa@estes.org; wkoenig@estes.org; bholcomb@estes.org; pmartchink@estes.org; wnelson@estes.org; rnorris@estes.org; cwalker@estes.org;
rhunt@estes.org; 'rschneider@estes.org'; 'bhull@estes.org'; 'smurphree@estes.org'; 'bleavitt@estes.org'; 'dbaker@estes.org'; 'swhite@estes.org';
'rfoster@estes.org'; planning@estes.org; townclerk@estes.org; flancaster@estes.org; krusch@estes.org; jwilliamson@estes.org; agonzales@estes.org;
rhunt@estes.org
Cc: gouldjm@icloud.com; blgould@gmail.com; bob.mo.luther@partners.mcd.com; gmadoris1@aol.com; Krkred@aol.com; Larry@salestraq.com;
jajstevens@hotmail.com; mariekgordon@outlook.com; Sunshinesmile2@comcast.net; hiker@tecxcel.com; annesneary@gmail.com;
rfischer@shermanhoward.com; anns.chalet@att.net; conradk13@gmail.com; estesbev2013@aol.com; camppeony@msn.com; annechandou@gmail.com;
stephentyman@gmail.com; sara.beardsworth@gmail.com; fchandou@gmail.com; gregedel@hotmail.com; timpruch@gmail.com;
rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com; aschiffer@sohjlaw.com; schmidt_dg@hotmail.com; melinda.blatt@gmail.com; kerogmartin@gmail.com
Subject: Raven Rock Development
[Quoted text hidden]
Memorandum to Planning Commission EVPC Meeting 11-14-2017 - PC Can Rely on Non-Complaince with the Comprehensive Plan To Deny
Development Plans.pdf
490K
Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:55 AM
To: Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org>
[Quoted text hidden]
--
Jackie Williamson
Administrative Services Director/Town Clerk
170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-577-4771 (p) direct line
970-577-4777 (p) general line
970-577-4770 (f)
jwilliamson@estes.org
Memorandum to Planning Commission EVPC Meeting 11-14-2017 - PC Can Rely on Non-Complaince with the Comprehensive Plan To Deny
Development Plans.pdf
490K
Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:55 AM
To: Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Matt Gordon <mgordon@lafflaw.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 8:29 PM
Subject: Raven Rock Development
[Quoted text hidden]
--
12/12/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - Raven Rock Development
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=gNJGSxrCYso.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1604b7092e0f9be7&siml=15f93208360a…8/8
Jackie Williamson
Administrative Services Director/Town Clerk
170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-577-4771 (p) direct line
970-577-4777 (p) general line
970-577-4770 (f)
jwilliamson@estes.org
Letter to Town Final.pdf
78K
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Audem Gonzales, Planner II
Date: December 12, 2017
RE: PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT, RAVEN ROCK
TOWNHOMES, METES & BOUNDS PARCEL, TBD PROMONTORY
DRIVE
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing and make a decision on a Preliminary Townhome Subdivision
Plat in compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
The subject property was annexed into the Town of Estes Park in 2017. It is
approximately 10-acres in size and is undeveloped. The property is zoned A-
Accommodations. The project is located northeast of Mary’s Lake Road at Promontory
Drive.
Proposal:
The proposal entails buildings 19 duplex buildings with 38 individual platted townhome
lots. There are three Outlots proposed and three detention ponds. Several utility
easements are proposed to be dedicated with several main extensions anticipated.
There is no zone change requested with this development.
This project has two applications associated with it; a Development Plan and
Preliminary Townhome Subdivision. The Planning Commission is the decision-making
body for the Development Plan and recommending body for the Preliminary Townhome
Subdivision. Town Board is the decision-making body for the Preliminary Townhome
Subdivision.
This action item is only for the Preliminary Townhome Subdivision plat.
Advantages:
• Develops an underutilized property along the Mary’s Lake Road corridor.
• This project is aligned with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
designation of A-Accommodations for this particular property.
259
• Provides more accommodation units in the Estes Valley in the A-
Accommodations zone district.
• Does not maximum the allowed density for this property.
Disadvantages:
• Increases density on an undeveloped property.
Action Recommended:
Planning Commission voted and recommended denial (3 in favor, 2 opposed, 2 absent)
of the Preliminary Townhome Subdivision map application on November 14, 2017.
Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Townhome Subdivision to the Planning
Commission in September, again in October, and again in November. Staff stands by
this recommendation today.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Very high.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of the Raven Rock Preliminary Townhome Subdivision
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
Preliminary Plat
Full Application: www.estes.org/currentapplications
260
KIOWA TRLSSAINTVRAINAVE
KIOWA DRLAKEWOODCTPROMONTORY DRARAPAHORDARAPAHORDMA R Y S LA K E R D
MARYSLAKERDThis draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.060120Feet1 in = 125 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentVicinity MapRaven Rock(Preliminary Townhome Subdivision)Printed: 12/7/2017Created By: Audem GonzalesMary's Lake
Road S SAINT VRAIN AVEMARYS LAKE RDPEAK VIEW DRMARYS LAKESitePromontory Drive261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Audem Gonzales, Planner II
Date: December 12, 2017
RE: ORDINANCE 33-17 – REZONING FROM E-ESTATE TO RM-
RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY, LOT 20 LITTLE PROSPECT MOUNTAIN
ADDITION, 260 STANLEY AVENUE
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing to consider a Rezoning application for compliance with the
Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
The project area is located within the Town of Estes Park off of Stanley Avenue and is
currently developed with a Single-Family Home. The existing lot is zoned E-Estate and
is 0.48 acres in size. The lot size does not conform to Estate zoning by a small degree.
Minimum lot size in this zone district is 0.5 acres.
Proposal:
The proposal entails re-zoning the entire lot to RM-Multifamily Residential. The purpose
of this request is to accommodate multifamily housing on the property and utilize the
attainable housing density bonus. At least half of the units in a density bonus project are
required to be either “attainable” or “workforce” housing. The intention with this property
is to develop 4 workforce housing units in an 8 unit townhome development.
This project has several applications associated with it; Development Plan, Preliminary
Townhome Subdivision, Final Townhome Subdivision and Rezoning. The Planning
Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the Development Plan and
Recommending Body for the Preliminary Townhome Subdivision and Rezoning. Town
Board is the Decision-Making Body for the Final Townhome Subdivision and Rezoning.
Only the Rezoning is on tonight’s agenda; assuming approval of that element, others
will appear on future agendas as applicable.
A small triangular property adjacent to the north would also be proposed in the overall
development. This Town-owned property is in the process of transfer to the owners of
the primary lot, per Town Board action earlier this fall. Rezoning of this area and lot
consolidation are anticipated in the course of the development.
269
Advantages:
• Provides additional RM zoned property in the Estes Valley. This is the target
zone district for developing workforce and attainable housing.
• Allows a property to be eligible for a density bonus to provide workforce housing
Disadvantages:
• None recognized
Action Recommended:
Planning Commission voted and recommended approval of the Rezoning application on
November 14, 2017. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning request.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of the 260 Stanley Avenue, A Portion of Lot 20 Little Prospect
Mountain Addition rezoning application (Ordinance No. 33-17)
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
General Site Plan
Ordinance No. 33-17
Full Application: www.estes.org/currentapplications
270
DUNRAVEN STS TANLEY
A
V E
STANLEY AVE260175173300300330841840179321707350801753800This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.02550Feet1 in = 50 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentVicinity MapStanley Avenue RezoningE-Estate to RM-Multi-FamilyPrinted: 11/9/2017Created By: Audem GonzalesStanley
A
v
e
n
u
e E HIGHWAY 36BIG THOMPSON AVEMORAINE AVERIVERSIDE DRS SAINT VRAIN AVEN SAINT VRAIN AVEW WONDERVIEW AVEE ELKHORN AVELAKE ESTESSiteDunraven Street271
272
ORDINANCE NO. 33-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
TO REZONE A PORTION OF LOT 20, LITTLE PROSPECT MOUNTAIN ADDITION
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
recommended approval of an Official Zoning Map amendment to rezone A Portion of Lot
20, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, addressed 260 Stanley Avenue, from E-Estate to
RM-Multifamily Residential.
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds that this Official
Zoning Map amendment complies with the Standards for Review established in Section
3.3.D of the Estes Valley Development Code and it is best interest of the Town that the
recommended zoning amendment be granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The zoning of A PORTION OF LOT 20, LITTLE PROSPECT
MOUNTAIN ADDITION, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT OF THE EAST LINE OF LOT 20, LITTLE PROSPECT
MOUNTAIN ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, FROM
WHENCE THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT BEARS SOUTH 21 DEGREES
44 MINUTES EAST 279.3 FEET; THENCE NORTH 21 DEGREES 44 MINUTES WEST
171 FEET MORE OR LESS TO STATION 93, THENCE NORTH 57 DEGREES 07
MINUTES WEST 50.9 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE
PENSTOCK TO POWER PLANT NO.1, THENCE SOUTH 23 DEGREES 13 MINUTES
WEST 218.2 FEET ALONG SAID LINE; THENCE NORTH 87 DEGREES 55 MINUTES
EAST 194.5 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
shall be changed from E-Estate to RM-Multifamily Residential.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS 12th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________________
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
273
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular
meeting of the Board of Trustees on the 12th day of December, 2017 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the
day of , 2017, all as required by the Statutes of the State of
Colorado.
Town Clerk
274
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Audem Gonzales, Planner II
Date: December 12, 2017
RE: SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT – ESTES PARK RESORT, LOT 1, LAKE
ESTES 2nd ADDITION, 1700 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, ROCKY
MOUNTAIN HOTEL PROPERTIES I, LLC.
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing and make a determination regarding a Final Subdivision plat
for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
The project area is located between Big Thompson Ave. and Lake Estes, just west of
the Lake Estes Marina. The property is currently zoned A-Accommodations. The area is
approximately 9 acres in size. The property consists of two legal lots. The western lot is
undeveloped and the eastern lot is developed with the Estes Park Resort. There is a
designated wetland area on the western property.
Proposal:
The proposal entails replatting the area as a Townhome Subdivision with a total of 33
lots and one outlout. The subdivision will be named Mountain Village At Lake Estes
Townhomes. 32 of the lots will be for individual accommodations units and one lot will
be for the existing hotel/lodge. A Variance was granted On December 6, 2016 by the
Board of Adjustment to allow structures to encroach into the 50-foot wetland setback by
up to 25-feet.
This project has three applications associated with it; Development Plan, Preliminary
Townhome Subdivision and Final Townhome Subdivision. The Planning Commission is
the Decision-Making Body for the Development Plan and Recommending Body for the
Preliminary Townhome Subdivision. Town Board is the Decision-Making Body for the
Final Townhome Subdivision.
The attached Development Agreement between the Owner and Town of Estes Park
contains two key elements. One is a density transfer between Lot 33 and Lots 1-32 and
Outlot A. A transfer of 34,150 SF of Lot 33 density to Lots 1-32 and Outlot A is required
for the project. The density transfer leaves 7,000 SF of unused density for future
development on Lot 33.
275
The second element is an Impervious Coverage Transfer. Lot 33 requires a maximum
impervious coverage percentage of 50%. The lot 33 layout and existing development
are at a 62.9% impervious coverage. The Owner will utilize the entire subdivision area
when calculating the maximum impervious coverage allowed, thus creating a transfer of
impervious coverage area from Lots 1-32 and Outlot A to Lot 33. All development within
the subdivision will then have a maximum impervious coverage of 49.84%.
Advantages:
• Complies with the approved Preliminary Plat.
• Creates legal lots for additional accommodations units in an A-Accommodations
zoned area.
• Creates opportunity for additional tax revenue to the Town.
Disadvantages:
• None identified
Action Recommended:
Town Board voted unanimously to approve the Estes Park Resort Preliminary
Townhome Subdivision plat application on July 25, 2017.
Staff recommends approval of the Final Townhome Subdivision plat application with
one condition:
1. The title of the final plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plat.
The proposed final plat is labeled as Mountain Village At Lake Estes Townhomes
Final Plat. The final plat shall be labeled as “Estes Park Resort Final Plat”
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low: The Comm. Dev. Dept. has not received any written public comments to date.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of the Estes Park Resort final plat with the recommended
condition by staff.
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
Final Plat
Development Agreement
Full Application: www.estes.org/currentapplications
276
BIGTHOMPSONAVEGRAND ESTATES DRLAKEESTESUNITS2A - 2CUNIT 1AThis draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.060120Feet1 in = 108 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentVicinity MapEstes Park Resort(Final Townhome Subdivision)Printed: 12/7/2017Created By: Audem GonzalesHWY 34277
278
1
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Development Agreement made this ____ day of _______________, 2017,
by and between ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOTEL PROPERTIES I, LLC (the “Owners”) and
the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, Colorado, a municipal corporation, (the “Town”).
RECITALS
The Owners own the following described real property located within the Town:
Estes Park Resort (the “Property”).
The Property is currently zoned A-Accommodations pursuant to the Estes Valley
Development Code. The Owners have filed a Final Townhome Subdivision application
with the Town to create 33 individual lots and one outlot (Outlot A) pursuant to the Estes
Valley Development Code; and
The Board of Trustees of the Town has approved the Final Townhome
Subdivision application subject to the execution of this Development Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above Recitals which are
incorporated herein and other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as
follows:
1. DENSITY TRANSFER. The Property is composed of 33 separate lots and
one outlout (Outlot A) as shown on the Estes Park Resort final subdivision plat.
Lots 1-32 and Outlot A require 288,000 SF of land per EVDC density requirements in
the A-Accommodations zone district for 32 single-family homes. The project area
consists of ~253,851 SF of land area.
Lot 33 requires 100,800 SF of land area per EVDC density requirements in the A-
Accommodations zone district for 56 accommodation units. Lot 33 consists of ~141,923
SF of land area.
The applicant proposes to utilize the entire subdivision area of ~395,799 SF of land area
when calculating the density requirements for Lots 1-32 and Lot 33, thus creating a
density transfer from Lot 33 to Lots 1-32 and Outlot A . The required land area for the
project is 388,800 SF. What is provided with the Estes Park Resort final subdivision is
~395,799 SF.
279
2
2. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE TRANSFER. Lot 33 requires a maximum
impervious coverage percentage of 50%. The lot layout and existing development are at
a 62.9% impervious coverage. The applicant proposes to utilize the entire subdivision
area when calculating the maximum impervious coverage allowed, thus creating a
development rights transfer from Lots 1-32 and outlot A to Lot 33. All development
within the subdivision is proposed to have a maximum impervious coverage of 49.84%.
3. NO WAIVER: No waiver of any provision of this Agreement will be
deemed or constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor will it be deemed or constitute
a continuing waiver unless expressly provided for by a written amendment to this
Agreement signed by both the Town and Owner; nor will the waiver of any default under
this Agreement be deemed a waiver of any subsequent default or defaults of the same
type. The Town’s failure to exercise any right under this Agreement will not constitute
the approval of any wrongful act by the Owner or the acceptance of any improvement.
4. AMENDMENT OR MODIFICATION: The parties to the Agreement may
amend or modify this Agreement only by written instrument executed by the Town and
the Owner.
5. SCOPE: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties and no statement(s), promise(s), or inducement(s) that is/are not contained in
this Agreement will be binding on the parties.
6. SEVERABILITY: If any part, term, or provision of this Agreement is held
by the courts to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such illegality or unenforceability
will not affect the validity of any other part, term, or provision and the rights of the
parties will be construed as if the part, term, or provision was never part of the
Agreement.
7. NOTICE: Any notice required or permitted by this Agreement will be
deemed effective when personally deliver in writing or three (3) days after notice is
deposited with the U.S. Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified, and return receipt
requested, and addressed as follows:
Developer: Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC
7502 Pinnacle Peak Rd., Unit B118
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Town: Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
8. RECORDATION: The Town shall record a copy of this Agreement in the
Clerk and Recorder’s Office of Larimer County, Colorado.
280
3
9. PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE: Personal jurisdiction and
venue for any civil action commenced by either party to this Agreement arising out of or
relating to the Agreement, will be deemed to be proper only if such action is
commenced in the District Court for Larimer County.
10. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: The terms of this Agreement shall be
binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, personal representatives, successors and
assigns.
11. VIOLATIONS: The Town shall have right to prevent and correct violations
of this Development Agreement. If the Town finds a violation of this Agreement, the
Town shall immediately notify the Owner in writing of the nature of the alleged violation.
Upon receipt of this written notice, the Owner shall immediately restore the Property to
its proper use prior to the violation. In the event that the Owner does not terminate the
alleged violation and restore the Property to its proper use, the Town may bring an
action in the District Court, Larimer County, Colorado to enforce all of its legal and
equitable remedies. In said action, the Town shall be entitled to all reasonable
attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees and court costs incurred if the Owner is found to
have violated the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement.
12. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Provisions of this Agreement affect the following
described real property:
Estes Park Resort of the Town of Estes Park, State of Colorado (the
“Property”)
13. AGREEMENT TO RUN WITH THE PROPERTY: The parties understand
and agree that the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement will run with
the Property and will extend to and be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives,
transfers, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
OWNER(S)
______________________________
Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss:
COUNTY OF __________ )
281
4
The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
____________, 2017, by _________________________________.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
SEAL
______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission expires: __________
TOWN OF ESTES PARK:
By: _________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Town Clerk
282
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Robin Becker Planner I
Date: December 12, 2017
RE: Ordinance # 34-17 Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley
Development Code: EVDC §5.4 Temporary Uses and Structures:
Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit, §3-17 Outdoor Mobile Food
Vending Permit Review Procedures and Standards, §4.4
Nonresidential Zoning Districts, Chapter 13 Definitions, and
Appendix B Submittal Requirements
Objective:
Review and Recommendation on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) regarding the inclusion of an Outdoor Mobile Food
Vending Permit.
The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to do the
following:
Provide an opportunity for a current unsatisfied need in the Estes Valley for
Outdoor Mobile Food vendors to operate with a permit specific to the use.
Provide a clear interpretation of how and where this operation is allowed in
specific zoning districts in the Estes Valley Zoning Code.
Update our plan to accommodate current mobile food vendor needs that are
economically beneficial to the Town and local business owners.
Present Situation:
Currently the process to regulate these outdoor mobile food vendors is through a
temporary use permit. It is common planning practice around the United States to
provide a more streamlined and activity specific permit.
This lack of applicable code and or permit specific to this use due to the fact that
outdoor mobile food vendors were limited in existence and they have evolved in the
past ten to fifteen years. It is our time to adapt to meet the changing food requests and
needs of the population.
Proposal:
An outdoor mobile food vending permit would allow local and new entrepreneurs to
become invested and involved in the Estes Valley. These businesses would also serve
a need for alternative food options for businesses that find it cost prohibitive to have a
kitchen on site, i.e. distilleries, breweries and beer gardens. The one year permit would
allow for flexibility with both the businesses being served and the outdoor mobile food 283
vendor. Furthermore by providing this permit to local businesses and outdoor mobile
food vendors we are allowing our community to both have their cake and eat it too.
It is staff’s recommendation that including this outdoor mobile food vending permit in
the EVDC would meet a growing need for both new and local businesses and locals
and visitors alike. This is shown through our outreach with many current mobile food
vendors and local businesses. These include feedback and code amendment
contributions from Elkins Distilling Co, Lumpy Ridge Brewing Co, Rock Cut Brewing
Co, and Snowy Peaks Winery. Further feedback was provided from Rations LLC, and
Ladybug BBQ (food trucks operating in Town). We appreciate their time and energy in
the public outreach process and hope to provide them the best with this Code
Amendment.
Amend EVDC section §5.4, §3-17, §4.4, Chapter 13 Definitions, and Appendix B
Submittal Requirements, as stated in Exhibit A [“TB Draft”], dated December 12, 2017,
attached.
Advantages:
Provides a specific permit for outdoor mobile food vendors instead of attempting
to add them to permits not applicable to their use; e.g., Temporary Use Permits.
Provides more food variety and options to locals, business owners and visitors.
More organized structure and health and safety regulation for Outdoor Mobile
Food Vendors.
Disadvantages:
Local restaurants may perceive a strain or more competition.
Action Recommended:
Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review for a decision to approve, deny, or
approve with conditions.
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
High: This issue has attracted the interest of local business and restaurant owners.
Low: This particular Code Amendment
Sample Motion:
APPROVAL
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve Ordinance No. 34-17, amending the
Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibit A, finding that the amendment is in
accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code.
Attachments:
Ordinance #34-17
Exhibit A-
284
ORDINANCE NO. 34-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
REGARDING OUTDOOR MOBILE FOOD VENDING PERMIT
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
conducted public hearings on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code, Sections §5.4 Temporary Uses and Structures: Outdoor Mobile
Food Vending Permit, §3-17 Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit Review Procedures
and Standards, §4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts, Chapter 13 Definitions, and
Appendix B Submittal Requirements; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
voted to recommend approval of the text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text
amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review and has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that
the amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, as set forth on Exhibit A, be
approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code is set forth
on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more
fully set forth on Exhibit A.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days
after its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF _, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
285
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting
of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2017 and
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on
the ________ day of , 2017, all as required by the Statutes of
the State of Colorado.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
286
EXHIBIT A
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees
[December 12, 2017]
Chapter 3. Review Procedures and Standards
Table of Contents
§3-17 OUTDOOR MOBILE FOOD VENDING PERMIT…………………………………………3-23
A. Applicability.
B. Procedures for Approval of Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit.
C. Conditions of Approval.
D. Time Limits on Permit.
287
§ 3.17 Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit
A. Applicability. All outdoor mobile food vendor uses and structures shall obtain an
Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit pursuant to the procedures set forth in this
Section, prior to commencing operation and continuing throughout the entire period
(s) of operation.
B. Procedures for Approval of Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit. The
procedure for processing or approving an application for an outdoor mobile food
vending Permit shall be as follows:
1. Step 1: Pre-application Conference. A pre-application conference shall be
voluntary for outdoor mobile food vending permit.
2. Step 2: Staff Review and Action. Within (10) days from the date a complete
application is submitted, the Staff shall review the application according to the
standards set forth in this code, and make a final decision to approve, approve with
conditions or deny the application.
C. Conditions of Approval. In approving an outdoor mobile food vending permit, the
Staff may impose conditions, regarding control of nuisance factors (e.g., glare, noise,
smoke, dust), provision of security and safety measures, and limitations on hours of
operation, storage and parking, provided that staff determines such conditions are
necessary to:
1. Achieve the general purposes of this Section and not interfere with specific
purposes of the zoning district in which the outdoor mobile food vending use will be
located, or to be consistent with the Code;
2. Protect the public health, safety and general welfare; or
3. Ensure operation and maintenance of the outdoor mobile food vending use in a
manner compatible with existing uses on adjoining properties and in the surrounding
area.
D. Time Limits on Permit. Outdoor mobile food vending permits shall be valid for a
specified period of time, not to exceed one year (365) days.
288
§4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts
D. Additional Zoning District
Standards……………………………………………………………………………………………4-21
1. Operational Requirements.
a. Outdoor Sales, Use, Storage and Activity in the CD Zoning District.
(3)Exceptions . Notwithstanding paragraph (1) above, the following outdoor uses,
storage or activity shall be permitted within the CD zoning district:
(f) Outdoor Mobile Food Vendor Uses.
289
Chapter 5. Use Regulations
Table of Contents
§5.4 OUTDOOR MOBILE FOOD VENDING USES………………………………………………5-27
A. Permit Required
B. Permit
C. General Standards for Review
D. Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Uses Allowed
290
§ 5.4 – Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit Uses
A. Permit Required.
All outdoor mobile food vending shall obtain an outdoor mobile food vending permit
pursuant to the procedures set forth in §3.17 of this Code prior to commencing
operation and continuing throughout the entire period (s) of operation.
B. Permit.
An outdoor mobile food vending permit authorizing an outdoor mobile food vending
use shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of §3.17, and shall be
reviewed, approved or revoked only in accordance with the regulations of this Section
and §3.17.
C. General Standards for Review.
All outdoor mobile food vendors shall meet the following requirements:
1. Outdoor mobile food vending uses shall not violate any applicable conditions of approval
that apply to the principal use on the site.
2. Outdoor mobile food vendors shall be classified as accessory uses in the zone districts
in which they are permitted provided they are on lots that contain a principal building
wherein active operations are being conducted. Outdoor vendors that qualify as
accessory uses shall not be subject to change-of-use regulations which would otherwise
require the properties upon which they are located be brought into compliance with the
standards of this Code.
3. The proposed outdoor mobile food vending use shall be located, operated and
maintained in a manner consistent with the policies and the provisions of this Code.
4. The outdoor mobile food vending use shall not be detrimental to property or
improvements in the surrounding area or to the public health, safety or general welfare.
5. Outdoor mobile food vendors shall be prohibited on undeveloped lots.
6. The proposed outdoor mobile food vending shall comply with all applicable general and
specific regulations of this Section and §3.17.
7. Permanent signs shall be prohibited. All approved temporary signs associated with the
temporary use shall be removed when the activity ends.
8. The following additional requirements shall apply to outdoor mobile food vendor permits,
as specified:
a) Vend only on lots in zone districts (CD, CO, I1, A, and CH);
b) Permanently affixed or paint any signage only on the mobile food facility, with
no signs/banners in or alongside street right-of-way or across roadways.
c) No permit applicant shall use, for the purpose of onsite storage, display, or
sale, any vehicle, cart, kiosk, table, chair, stand, box, container or other
structure or display device not described on the permit.
291
9. The vehicles, structures, devices and other similar items described by the permit for
any outdoor mobile food vendor shall not be located by the vendor in any of the
following manners or places:
a) Within the extended boundaries of a crosswalk
b) Within ten (10) feet of the extension of any building entranceway, and or
doorway;
c) In an location in which the vehicle, structure or device may impede or interfere
with or visually obstruct;
1) the safe movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic;
2) parking lot circulation; or
3) access to any public street, alley or sidewalk;
10. Each permittee shall pick up and dispose of any paper, cardboard, wood or plastic
containers, wrappers or any litter which is deposited within twenty- five (25) feet of the
center point of the designated location or within twenty-five (25) feet of the point of any
sale or transaction made by the permittee if any transect of the designated location
exceeds twenty-five (25) feet. The permittee shall have available a suitable container for
the placement of such litter by customers or other persons.
11. Each permittee shall not leave the outdoor mobile food facility unattended for more than
fifteen (15) minutes at any one time while engaged in business operations described in
the permit.
12. Each permittee shall prominently displace the permit issued hereunder in a location
readily visible to the public on each vehicle, structure, device and any other item
described in the permit.
13. Each permittee shall comply with the provisions of all applicable rules regulations and
ordinances of the Town and County as well as requirements of all state and federal laws,
including, but not limited to noise restrictions, sign regulations, limitations on discharge
of liquid waste, sales tax requirements, food safety, wildlife protection and other related
requirements.
14. No permittee shall operate from a location that is not authorized in the permit.
15. All lighting on vehicles must be compliant with applicable regulations.
16. The outdoor mobile food vending regulations of this Section shall not exempt the
Applicant from any other required permits, such as health department permits or
business licenses.
292
CHAPTER 13. DEFINITIONS
§ 13.3 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES
Outdoor Mobile Food Vendor; shall mean any person, whether as owner, agent, consignee or
employee, who sells or attempts to sell, or who offers to the public free of charge, any services,
goods, wares or merchandise, including, but not limited to, food or beverage, from any outdoor
location.
293
Appendix B. Submittal Requirements
Table of Contents
XI. OUTDOOR MOBILE FOOD VENDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL
REQUIREMENTS………………..B-19
A. Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit Application Requirements
Appendix B
XI. Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit- Submittal Requirements
A. Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit application requirements
The Application shall contain the following information:
1. An address or legal description for each location for which the application is made;
2. Written consent of the property owner(s) or lessee (s) of location(s) for which the
application is made;
3. A sketch plan of each location for which the application is made, showing the location
and approximate dimensions of existing and proposed structures, access, equipment
and parking;
4. Statement of Intent: A written Statement of Intent explaining:
a) The type or types of mobile food vendor operation the permittee will conduct;
b) The period of time within which the applicant proposed to operate;
c) The hours and days of proposed operation;
5. A brief description of any vehicle, cart, kiosk, table, chair, stand, box, container or other
structure or display device to be utilized by the permittee;
6. Any special terms and conditions of issuance;
7. A statement that the permit is personal and not transferable in any manner;
8. A statement that the permit is valid only when used at the location or locations
designated on the permit; a statement that the permit is subject to the provisions of this
Article.
9. Any other information the Applicant believes illustrates the proposed activity.
10. Documentation of a sales tax license in good standing issued by the Colorado
Department of Revenue, the County and or the Town;
11. Documentation of regulatory approval as a retail food establishment by the County.
12. Fee. All applicable fees as set forth by the Community Development Department.
294
13. Any proposed grease trap disposal within the boundary of the Estes Valley
Development Area shall require written prior approval by the appropriate sanitation
district.
295
296
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: December 12, 2017
RE: 2018 Contract between Town of Estes Park and Host Compliance, LLC for
Specified Vacation Home Services
Objective:
Continue and modify an annual contractual agreement with Host Compliance, LLC, to
provide services in connection with administration and enforcement of vacation home
regulations in the Estes Valley.
Present Situation:
The Town and Host Compliance, LLC (essentially the same entity often known as
“iCompass”) have been working together under contract since Jan. 1, 2017. Host
Compliance (“HC”) has provided specific services under this contract during that time.
As you may recall, Larimer County is obligated under our IGA (4th Amendment) to share
in the HC contract cost 50/50 with the Town.
The full list of current services is attached – see excerpt from the current 2017 Contract
(“Scope of Services”). However, the primary value of their services to the Town and
Valley has been in connection with two elements in the Scope: (a) Monitoring
advertising and marketing of VHs in the Estes Valley, and flagging unauthorized VHs to
staff’s attention; and (b) providing a 24-hour complaint/questions hotline for citizens and
others.
Staff’s judgment is that service (a) has worked very well. HC has brought a sizeable
number of Vacation Homes in Estes Valley to our attention that do not match
authorized, registered VHs in our database. Some of these turned out to be legitimate in
other ways – for example, our practice has allowed centrally managed, individually
owned condominium units to register under a single VH registration. (These are often
known as “condo-tels”. The EVDC does need clarification on how those should be
registered; this clarification will be underway in early 2018.)
But we have also caught a number of genuinely unauthorized VH operations, and
shepherded them into our registration process. (Staff is still compiling the number of
unauthorized VHs from HC data at this writing, on Dec. 7; we will have the totals at the
Dec. 12 meeting.)
297
With respect to function (b): This has also been working well; however, staff needs to
confess that we did not fully understand HC’s procedure until recent weeks. Contrary to
several of our staff public statements earlier, HC does in fact contact property owners
directly - when the caller asks them to do so. We did not know (although we should
have known) that HC was doing this in specific cases. Any caller to HC with a complaint
of question is asked by HC (via voicemail menu) to state whether they (caller) wish to
have HC contact the property manager for a given property. All HC calls are reported to
our department, but only some callers opt to have the manager notified, too.
As we did not know the managers were being called, it isn’t yet possible to know directly
how well it is working. (Curiously, although we talk to many VH managers often, none of
them have ever mentioned getting a HC referral, so we have no local feedback, either.)
We can say that indirectly, we know of very few breakdowns in the communication
process, although no doubt there are some we aren’t aware of.
This glitch is not good, but we cannot say it is any failing on HC’s part. Staff continues to
believe that the 24-hour hotline is a valuable service. We are looking into ways this can
be a full 24/7 service, including weekend monitoring. We will hope to have additional
information on this aspect in the Dec. 12 Town Board meeting.
Proposal:
The new contract is much like the old one, except there is one major difference: We
worked with HC to identify and trim out several services that we haven’t been utilizing
this year. The effect is a contract in the coming year that saves over 40 percent of
current contractual cost. Comparing the draft 2018 contract with the Scope of Services
in the 2017 contract will show which services were trimmed out; please compare p. 8 in
the draft 2018 Agreement with pp. 8-9 in the current Scope, both attached.
The new contract is $28,508 for services from Jan. 1, 2018 through Dec. 31, 2018. Per
the IGA, the County will reimburse the Town for 50 percent of this amount.
Advantages:
• Provides a continuous and efficient way to monitor vhacation home operations in
Estes Valley
• Provides citizens the ability to have a central point of contact for questions and
concerns about vacation homes
Disadvantages:
• As with all service contracts, there is a direct cost to the public via Town and County
General funding in this case.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the contract as drafted
Budget:
$28,508.00 for one year, shared 50/50 with Larimer County; Town cost = $14,254.00 298
Level of Public Interest
Low interest in this specific contract; high interest in vacation home and in the issue of
administering and enforcing compliance with adopted regulation.
Sample Motion:
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve the “Host Compliance Software and
Services Agreement”, for term Jan. 1, 2018 through Dec. 31, 2018, and authorize the
Mayor and Clerk to sign the Agreement.
Attachments:
1. “Host Compliance Software and Services Agreement”, for term Jan. 1, 2018
through Dec. 31, 2018 (unsigned – staff will provide original with Host
Compliance signature for execution)
2. Copy of existing Host Compliance Scope of Services for 2017 (pp. 8-9 of 10 in
existing contract)
299
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 1 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678) San Francisco, CA 94103
Host Compliance Software and Services Agreement
THIS SOFTWARE AND SERVICES AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into as of the January 1, 2018 (the
"Effective Date"), between Host Compliance LLC, ("Host Compliance") and Town of Estes Park, with an address at
170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517 (the "Customer"). This Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions
under which Host Compliance agrees to license to Customer certain hosted software and provide all other services
necessary for Customer's productive use of such software (the "Services") as further described in the attached
Schedule 1.
1.0 Services.
1.1 Subscriptions. Unless otherwise provided in the attached Schedule 1, (a) Services are purchased as
subscriptions, (b) additional service subscriptions may be added during a subscription term, with the
pricing for such additional services, prorated for the portion of that subscription term remaining at the
time the subscriptions are added, and (c) any added subscriptions will terminate on the same date as
the underlying subscription.
1.2 Provision of Services. Customer and Customer's end-users ("End Users") may access and use the
Services and any other Services that may be ordered by the Customer from time to time pursuant to a
valid subscription in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
1.3 Facilities and Data Processing. Host Compliance will use, at a minimum, industry standard technical
and organizational security measures to store data provided by Customer, or obtained by Customer
through the use of the Services ("Customer Data"). These measures are designed to protect the
integrity of Customer Data and guard against unauthorized or unlawful access.
1.4 Modifications to the Services. Host Compliance may update the Services from time to time. If Host
Compliance updates the Services in a manner that materially improves functionality, Host Compliance
will inform the Customer.
2.0 Customer Obligations.
2.1 Customer Administration of the Services. Host Compliance' responsibilities do not extend to internal
management or administration of the Services. Customer is responsible for: (i) maintaining the
confidentiality of passwords and accounts; (ii) managing access to Administrator accounts; and (iii)
ensuring that Administrators' use of the Services complies with this Agreement.
2.2 Compliance. Customer is responsible for use of the Services and will comply with laws and regulations
applicable to customer's use of the Services, if any.
2.3 Unauthorized Use & Access. Customer will prevent unauthorized use of the Services and terminate any
unauthorized use of or access to the Services. Customer will promptly notify Host Compliance of any
unauthorized use of or access to the Services.
300
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 2 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678) San Francisco, CA 94103
2.4 Restricted Uses. Customer will not and will ensure that its End Users do not: (i) sell, resell, or lease the
Services; or (ii) reverse engineer or attempt to reverse engineer the Services, nor assist anyone else to
do so.
2.5 Third Party Requests.
2.5.1 "Third Party Request" means a request from a third party for records relating to Customer's
or an End User's use of the Services including information regarding an End User. Third
Party Requests may include valid search warrants, court orders, or subpoenas, or any other
request for which there is written consent from End Users permitting a disclosure.
2.5.2 Customer is responsible for responding to Third Party Requests via its own access to
information policies. Customer will seek to obtain information required to respond to Third
Party Requests and will contact Host Compliance only if it cannot obtain such information
despite diligent efforts.
2.5.3 If Host Compliance receives a Third Party Request, Host Compliance will make reasonable
efforts, to the extent allowed by law and by the terms of the Third Party Request, to: (A)
promptly notify Customer of Host Compliance's receipt of a Third Party Request; (B) comply
with Customer's reasonable requests regarding efforts to oppose a Third Party Request; and
(C) provide Customer with information or tools required for Customer to respond to the
Third Party Request (if Customer is otherwise unable to obtain the information). If
Customer fails to promptly respond to any Third Party Request, then Host Compliance may,
but will not be obligated to do so.
2.5.4 If Customer receives a Third Party Request for access to the Services, or descriptions,
drawings, images or videos of the Services' user interface, Customer will make reasonable
efforts, to the extent allowed by law and by the terms of the Third Party Request, to: (A)
promptly notify Host Compliance of Customer's receipt of such Third Party Request; (B)
comply with Host Compliance's reasonable requests regarding efforts to oppose a Third
Party Request; and (C) provide Host Compliance with information required for Host
Compliance to respond to the Third Party Request. If Host Compliance fails to promptly
respond to any Third Party Request, then Customer may, but will not be obligated to do so.
3.0 Intellectual Property Rights; Confidentiality
3.1 Reservation of Rights. Except as expressly set forth herein, this Agreement does not grant (i) Host
Compliance any intellectual Property Rights in the Customer Data or (ii) Customer any Intellectual
Property Rights in the Services, any other products or offerings of Host Compliance, Host Compliance
trademarks and brand features, or any improvements, modifications or derivative works of any of the
foregoing. "Intellectual Property Rights" means current and future worldwide rights under patents,
copyright, trade secret, trademark, moral rights and other similar rights.
3.2 Suggestions. Host Compliance may, at its discretion and for any purpose, use, modify, and incorporate
into its products and services, and license and sub-license, any feedback, comments, or suggestions
301
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 3 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678) San Francisco, CA 94103
Customer or End Users send Host Compliance or post in Host Compliance' online forums without any
obligation to Customer.
3.3 Confidential Information. Customer understands and agrees that it will not reveal, publish or
otherwise disclose to any person, firm or corporation, without written authorization of Host
Compliance, or except as required by law, any Confidential Information of Host Compliance, including
without limitation any trade secrets, confidential knowledge, data or other proprietary information
relating to the Services. "Confidential Information" means all information, written or oral, relating to
the business, operations, services, facilities, processes, methodology, technologies, intellectual
property, research and development, customers, strategy or other confidential or proprietary materials
of Host Compliance.
4.0 Fees & Payment.
4.1 Fees.
4.1.1 Customer will pay Host Compliance for all applicable fees upfront annually.
4.1.2 Customer will pay any amounts related to the Services as per payment terms detailed on
the applicable invoice. Unless otherwise indicated, all dollar amounts referred to in the
Agreement are in U.S. funds.
4.1.3 Customer acknowledges that while it may choose to delay the implementation of the
Services, this is not a valid reason for withholding payment on any invoices. Furthermore,
the Customer will not withhold payment on any invoices for any other reason.
4.1.4 Except as expressly provided on Schedule 1, renewal of promotional or one-time priced
subscriptions will be at Host Compliance's applicable list price in effect at the time of the
applicable renewal. Unless Host Compliance provide Customer notice of different pricing at
least 75 days prior to the applicable renewal term, the per unit pricing during any renewal
term will increase by the larger of the 12-Month Consumer Price Index (not seasonally
adjusted), as published by the United States Department of Labor, or five (5) percent.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, any renewal in which the number of monitored
short-term rental listings has increased or decreased from the prior term will result in re-
pricing at renewal without regard to the prior term's per-unit pricing.
4.2 Taxes. Customer is responsible for all taxes. Host Compliance will charge tax when required to do so.
If Customer is required by law to withhold any taxes, Customer must provide Host Compliance with an
official tax receipt or other appropriate documentation.
4.3 Purchase Orders. If Customer requires the use of a purchase order or purchase order number,
Customer (i) must provide the purchase number at the time of purchase and (ii) agrees that any terms
and conditions on a Customer purchase order will not apply to this Agreement or the Services provided
hereunder and are null and void.
5.0 Term & Termination.
302
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 4 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678) San Francisco, CA 94103
5.1 Term. The initial term of this Agreement shall be one year commencing on the Effective Date, which
shall automatically renew for a further period of one year upon each expiry of the then current term,
unless either party provides written notice to the other party of it intention not to renew at least 45
days prior to the end of the then current term. That said, the time period until the earlier of (a) the 6-
month anniversary of the Effective Date, or (b) the start date of Customer's systematic or mass
outreach activities utilizing the data obtained through the Services (traditional mail, electronic mail,
and/or telephone campaigns), or (c) termination by Host Compliance in our sole discretion, shall be
considered a trial period ("Trial Period").
5.2 Termination for Convenience. If, for any reason during the Trial Period, Customer is dissatisfied with
the Services, Customer may terminate the Subscription and all funds paid under this Agreement will be
refunded and future commitments waived.
5.3 Effects of Termination for Convenience. If this Agreement is terminated by Customer in accordance
with Section 5.2 (Termination for Convenience): (i) the rights granted by Host Compliance to Customer
will cease immediately and Customer will no longer have the right to utilize the data obtained through
the use of the Services for systematic or mass outreach activities (including traditional mail, electronic
mail, and/or telephone campaigns); and (ii) after a reasonable period of time, Host Compliance may
delete any Customer Data relating to Customer's account. The following sections will survive expiration
or termination of this Agreement: 2.5 (Third Party Requests), 3.0 (Intellectual Property Rights;
Confidentiality), 4.0 (Fees & Payments), 5.2 (Termination for Convenience), 5.3 (Effects of Termination
for Convenience), 6.0 (Indemnification), 7.0 (Exclusion of Warranties; Limitation of Liability), and 8.0
(Miscellaneous).
5.4 Termination for Breach: Following the Trial Period, a party may terminate this Agreement for cause
upon 45 days written notice to the other party of a material breach if such breach remains uncured at
the expiration of such period.
5.5 Refund or Payment upon Termination for Breach. If this Agreement is terminated by Customer in
accordance with Section 5.4 (Termination for Breach), Host Compliance will refund Customer any
prepaid fees covering the remainder of the term of all Subscriptions after the effective date of
termination. If this Agreement is terminated by Host Compliance in accordance with Section 5.4
(Termination for Breach), Customer will pay any unpaid fees covering the remainder of the term of the
Agreement. In no event will Customer's termination after the first 6 months relieve Customer of its
obligation to pay any fees payable to Host Compliance for the period prior to the effective date of
termination.
5.6 Effects of Termination for Breach. If this Agreement is terminated in accordance with Section 5.4
(Termination for Breach): (i) the rights granted by Host Compliance to Customer will cease immediately
(except as set forth in this section); (ii) Host Compliance may provide Customer access to its account at
then-current fees so the Customer may export its Customer Data; and (iii) after a reasonable period of
time, Host Compliance may delete any Customer Data relating to Customer's account. The following
sections will survive expiration or termination of this Agreement: 2.5 (Third Party Requests), 3.0
(Intellectual Property Rights; Confidentiality), 4.0 (Fees & Payments), 5.5 (Refund or Payment upon
303
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 5 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678) San Francisco, CA 94103
Termination for Breach), 5.6 (Effects of Termination for Breach), 6.0 (Indemnification), 7.0 (Exclusion of
Warranties; Limitation of Liability), and 8.0 (Miscellaneous).
6.0 Indemnification.
6.1 By Host Compliance. Host Compliance will indemnify, defend and hold harmless Customer from and
against all liabilities, damages, and costs (including settlement costs and reasonable attorney's fees)
arising out of any claim by a third party against Customer to the extent based on an allegations that
Host Compliance' technology used to provide the Services to the Customer infringes or misappropriates
any copyright, trade secret, patent or trademark right of the third party. In no event will Host
Compliance have any obligations or liability under this section arising from: (i) use of any Services in a
modified form or in combination with materials not furnished by Host Compliance and (ii) any content,
information, or data provided by Customers, End Users, or other third parties.
6.2 By Customer. Customer will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Host Compliance from and against
all liabilities, damages, and costs (including settlement costs and reasonable attorney's fees) arising out
of any claim by a third party against Host Compliance regarding: (i) Customer Data; (ii) Customer's use
of the Services in violation of this Agreement; or (iii) End Users' use of the Services in violation of this
Agreement.
6.3 Possible Infringement. If Host Compliance believes the Services infringe or may be alleged to infringe a
third party's Intellectual Property Rights, then Host Compliance may (i) obtain the right for Customer, at
Host Compliance' expense, to continue using the Services; (ii) provide a non-infringing functionally
equivalent replacement for the Services; or (iii) modify the Services so that they no longer infringe. If
Host Compliance does not believe the options described in this section are reasonable then Host
Compliance may suspend or terminate this Agreement and/or Customer's use of the affected Services
with no further liability or obligation to the Customer other than the obligation to provide the Customer
with a pro-rata refund of pre-paid fees for the affected portion of the Services.
6.4 General. The party seeking indemnification will promptly notify the other party of the claim and
cooperate with the other party in defending the claim. The indemnifying party will have full control and
authority over the defense, except that: (i) any settlement requiring the party seeking indemnification
to admit liability requires prior written consent, not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed and (ii) the
other party may join in the defense with its own counsel at its own expense. The indemnities above are
Host Compliance' and Customer's only remedy under this Agreement for violation by the other party of
a third party's Intellectual Property Rights.
7.0 Exclusion of Warranties; Limitation of Liability.
7.1 Exclusion of Warranties. Except as explicitly set forth in this Agreement, Host Compliance makes no
other representation, warranty or condition, express or implied, and expressly excludes all implied or
statutory warranties or conditions of merchantability, merchantable quality, durability or fitness for a
particular purpose, and those arising by statute or otherwise in law or from a course of dealing or usage
304
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 6 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678) San Francisco, CA 94103
of trade with respect to the Services. Host Compliance does not make any representations or
warranties of any kind to client with respect to any third party software forming part of the Services
7.2 Limitation on Indirect Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, except for Host Compliance and
Customer's indemnification obligations hereunder, neither Customer nor Host Compliance and its
affiliates, suppliers, and distributors will be liable under this Agreement for (i) indirect, special,
incidental, consequential, exemplary, or punitive damages, or (ii) loss of use, data, business, revenue, or
profits (in each case whether direct or indirect), even if the party knew or should have known that such
damages were possible and even if a remedy fails of its essential purpose.
7.3 Limitation on Amount of Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Host Compliance' aggregate
liability under this Agreement will not exceed the amount paid by Customer to Host Compliance
hereunder during the twelve months prior to the event giving rise to liability.
8.0 Miscellaneous.
8.1 Terms Modification. Host Compliance may wish to revise this Agreement from time to time. If a
revision, in Host Compliance' sole discretion, is material, Host Compliance will notify Customer and
possibly request that an Amendment to this Agreement be agreed upon and signed. If Customer does
not agree to the revised Agreement terms, Customer may terminate the Services within 30 days of
receiving notice of the change.
8.2 Entire Agreement. The Agreement including the invoice and order form provided by Host Compliance,
constitutes the entire agreement between Customer and Host Compliance with respect to the subject
matter of this Agreement and supersedes and replaces any prior or contemporaneous understandings
and agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. If
there is a conflict between the documents that make up this Agreement, the documents will control in
the following order: this Agreement, then the invoice, then the order form.
8.3 Governing Law. This Agreement will in all respects be governed exclusively by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
8.4 Severability. Unenforceable provisions will be modified to reflect the parties' intention and only to the
extent necessary to make them enforceable, and the remaining provisions of the Agreement will
remain in full effect.
8.5 Waiver or Delay. Any express waiver or failure to exercise promptly any right under the Agreement will
not create a continuing waiver or any expectation of non-enforcement.
8.6 Assignment. Customer may not assign or transfer this Agreement or any rights or obligations under
this Agreement without the written consent of Host Compliance. Host Compliance may not assign this
Agreement without providing notice to Customer, except Host Compliance my assign this Agreement or
any rights or obligations under this Agreement to an affiliate or in connection with a merger,
acquisition, corporate reorganization, or sale of all or substantially all of its assets without providing
notice. Any other attempt to transfer or assign is void.
8.7 Force Majeure. Except for payment obligations, neither Host Compliance nor Customer will be liable
for inadequate performance to the extent caused by a condition that was beyond the party's
305
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 7 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678) San Francisco, CA 94103
reasonable control (for example, natural disaster, act of war or terrorism, riot, labor condition,
governmental action and Internet disturbance).
8.8 Procurement Piggybacking. Host Compliance agrees to reasonably participate in any "piggybacking"
programs pertinent to local government.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Host Compliance and the Customer have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.
Town of Estes Park
by its authorized signatory:
Name:
Title:
Date:
Billing Contact:
Billing Email:
Billing Direct Phone:
Host Compliance LLC
by its authorized signatory:
Name: Ulrik Binzer
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:
Account Executive:
Account Executive Email:
Account Executive Phone:
306
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 8 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678) San Francisco, CA 94103
Schedule 1
Scope of Services:
Trend Monitoring
Monthly email-delivered report and live web-delivered dashboard with aggregate statistics on the short-term
rental activity in the Estes Valley Development Area (“jurisdiction”):
• Active monitoring of jurisdiction's short-term rental listings across 25 STR websites
• Monthly analysis of jurisdiction's STR activity scale, scope and trends
Address Identification
Monthly email-delivered report and live web-delivered dashboard with complete address information and
screenshots of all identifiable STRs in Town of Estes Park's jurisdiction:
• Up-to-date list of jurisdiction's active STR listings
• High resolution screenshots of all active listings (captured weekly)
• Full address and contact information for all identifiable STRs in jurisdiction
• All available listing and contact information for non-identifiable STRs in jurisdiction
Compliance Monitoring
Ongoing monitoring of the short-term rentals operating in Town of Estes Park's jurisdiction for zoning and permit
compliance coupled with systematic outreach to non-compliant short-term rental property owners (using Town of Estes
Park's form letters)
● Ongoing monitoring of STRs for zoning and permit compliance
● Pro-active and systematic outreach to unpermitted and/or illegal short-term rental operators (using
jurisdiction's form letters)
● Monthly staff report on jurisdiction's zoning and permit compliance:
● Up-to-date list of STRs operating illegally or without the proper permits
● Full case history for non-compliant listings
7/24 Short-term Rental Hotline
24/7 staffed telephone and email hotline for neighbors to report non-emergency problems related to STR
properties:
● Incidents can be reported by phone or email
● Full documentation of all reported incidents
● Digital recordings and written transcripts of all calls
● Ability for neighbors to include photos, video footage and sound recordings to document complaints
307
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 9 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678) San Francisco, CA 94103
● Real-time outreach to owners/managers of problem properties (whenever contact info is known)
● Weekly staff reports containing:
○ The # and types of reported incidents
○ List of properties for which incidents have been reported
● Custom reports and analysis of hotline related activities
Total Annual Subscription Service Price $28,508
Note: Above pricing assumes 869 short-term rental listings in Town of Estes Park's jurisdiction.
308
309
310
FINANCE DEPT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director
Date: December 31, 2017
RE: Resolution #32-17, Supplemental Budget Appropriations for 2017
Objective:
This resolution amends the 2017 budget to include appropriations for items not included
in the original budget or other amendments adopted through the year.
Present Situation:
This is the final budget amendment for 2017. As such, departments were asked to
review the current budget and then revise the estimated total 2017 expenditures for
each account in their respective functions. This involves numerous smaller changes
and revisions to estimates throughout many of the accounts. The revenue estimates
are also reviewed for any needed adjustments as well.
The following summarizes some of the most significant appropriation changes included
within this budget amendment:
a. General Fund: $246,384 Net Decrease
• Executive Dept. - $43,877 Increase
Increase in other benefit costs of $24,200 for payment of interest on past
PERA EAD & SAED contributions for Exec Dept. personnel in ICMA paid in
2017
Increase in land improvement costs of $35,214 for the Willow’s Knolls Legacy
project not previously budgeted – paid for by centennial logo licensing fees
and donations
• Engineering Dept. - $55,948 Increase
Increase in estimate of total payroll and benefit costs of $12,057 resulting
from position changes and vacancies
Increase in other benefit costs of $6,900 for payment of interest on past
PERA EAD & SAED contributions for personnel in ICMA paid in 2017
Increase in general engineering consulting costs of $37,233
• Parks Dept. - $11,695 Increase
Decrease in estimate of total payroll and benefit costs of $20,930 resulting
from position changes and vacancies
Increase in appropriations for utilities of $ 32,625 based upon actual
311
• Various Other Depts. - $357,904 Decrease
Much of this decrease is due to estimates of total payroll and benefit costs
resulting from position changes and vacancies
b. Community Reinvestment Fund: $202,859 Net Increase
• Street Improvements - $216,891 Increase
Increase for Moraine Ave Bridge project – offset by increased grant revenues
c. Street Fund: $302,875 Net Increase
• Street Improvements - $299,950 Increase
Increase for additional road repairs
d. Light & Power Fund: $880,924 Net Decrease
• Various L&P Depts. - $171,872 Decrease
Decrease in estimate of total payroll and benefit costs resulting from position
changes and vacancies
• GIS Expenses - $145,000 Decrease
Decrease based on actual costs incurred
• Capital Outlay - $586,052 Decrease
Decrease based on actual project costs as detailed on Attachment E –
Summary of Budgeted Projects
e. Water Fund: $256,390 Net Decrease
• Capital Outlay - $246,000 Decrease
Decrease based on actual project costs as detailed on Attachment E –
Summary of Budgeted Projects
f. Vehicle Replacement Fund: $129,000 Net Increase
• Capital Outlay - $129,000 Increase
Increase to move acquisition of new JD excavator from Water Fund to
Vehicle Replacement Fund to account for all vehicle and equipment
acquisitions in the same manner – additional funds were transferred from the
Water Fund to the Vehicle Replacement Fund to pay for this new addition to
the fleet
Proposal:
Staff is seeking approval of the amendments to the 2017 budget and its accompanying
resolution with the modifications proposed above.
Advantages:
The Town will have budget authorization to pay operational and capital costs as
needed.
Disadvantages:
The disadvantage to not approving the supplemental budget for 2017 is that the Town
would not have budget authority to complete these items as planned.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the 2017 supplemental budget appropriation resolution.
312
Finance/Resource Impact:
The Funds identified above will be impacted as a result of this amendment.
Level of Public Interest
There has been no public interest expressed about this budget amendment.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Resolution 32-17 appropriating additional sums of
money for the Town of Estes Park for the budget year ended December 31, 2017.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution No 32-17, Supplemental Budget Appropriations for 2017
Attachment B: Recap of Proposed Budget Adjustments
Attachment C: Summary of Anticipated Revenue Adjustments
Attachment D: Summary of Supplemental Appropriations
Attachment E: Summary of Budgeted Projects
313
RESOLUTION FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS for 2017
NO. 32-17
A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL SUMS OF MONEY FOR THE VARIOUS
FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSES AS SET
FORTH BELOW FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO FOR THE BUDGET YEAR
BEGINNING ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY 2017 AND ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF
DECEMBER 2017.
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has adopted the annual
budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on December 13th, 2016; and
WHEREAS, over the course of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2017, the projects
and estimates included in the adopted budget have been revised to include some additional
projects; and
WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the revenues
provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below, so as not to impair the
operations of the Town of Estes Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
That the appropriations be decreased by $767,445 for funds specified below and these
amounts are hereby appropriated from additional revenue or available fund balance of each
fund.
Fund # Fund Name Existing
Appropriations
Amendment Amended
Appropriations
101 General Fund 23,780,842 (246,384) 23,534,458
204 Community Reinvestment Fund 11,789,308 202,859 11,992,167
211 Conservation Trust Fund 32,716 0 32,716
220 Larimer County Open Space Fund 3,160,211 (1,329) 3,158,882
236 Emergency Response System Fund 75,842 0 75,842
238 Community Center Fund 694,632 (11,000) 683,632
244 Trails Fund 1,014,371 0 1,014,371
260 Street Fund 2,788,372 302,875 3,091,247
502 Light & Power Fund 20,027,487 (880,924) 19,146,563
503 Water Fund 7,138,957 (256,390) 6,882,567
606 Medical Insurance Fund 2,340,020 0 2,340,020
612 Fleet Maintenance Fund 407,680 (9,185) 398,495
625 Information Technology Fund 1,044,556 3,033 1,047,589
635 Vehicle Replacement Fund 474,013 129,000 603,013
Total All Funds 74,769,007 (767,445) 74,001,562
314
ADOPTED this 12th day of December, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
315
Town of Estes ParkRecap of Proposed Budget AdjustmentsFor Year Ended 12-31-2017Resolution 32-17As of Dec 12, 2017101204211220236238244260GENERAL FUNDCOMMUNITY REINVESTMENTCONSERVATIONTRUSTLARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACEEMERGENCY RESPONSECOMMUNITY CENTER TRAILS STREETRevenues, As Amended22,964,283$ 11,005,907$ 32,371$ 3,410,188$ 67,761$ 683,632$ 457,246$ 2,793,758$ Expenses, As Amended23,534,458 11,992,16732,716 3,158,88275,842683,632 1,014,371 3,091,247Net(570,175) (986,260)(345)251,306(8,081)0(557,125) (297,489)Estimated Beginning Fund Balance, 1/1/175,422,086 1,206,84235,558(247,404)36,0131703,829 3,445,370Estimated Ending Fund Balance, 12/31/174,851,911$ 220,582$ 35,213$ 3,902$ 27,932$ 1$ 146,704$ 3,147,881$ Budget Restrictions - Nonspendable Prepaid Fund Balance45,000 20.4%502 503 606 612 625 635LIGHT & POWER WATERMEDICAL INSURANCE FLEETINFORMATIONTECHNOLOGYVEHICLE REPLACEMENT TOTALRevenues, As Amended17,058,510$ 6,436,445$ 2,398,946$ 397,797$ 618,582$ 927,936$ 69,253,362$ Expenses, As Amended19,146,563 6,882,567 2,340,020398,495 1,047,589603,013 74,001,562Net(2,088,053) (446,122)58,926(698) (429,007)324,923(4,748,200)Estimated Beginning Fund Balance, 1/1/178,330,241 6,723,761 322,386 285,138 626,722 1,026,878 27,917,421Estimated Ending Fund Balance, 12/31/176,242,188$ 6,277,639$ 381,312$ 284,440$ 197,715$ 1,351,801$ 23,169,221$ Attachment B316
Town of Estes Park
Summary of Anticipated Revenue Adjustments
For Year Ended 12-31-2017
Resolution 32-17
As of Dec 12, 2017
Fund/Dept Current Budget
Budget
Amendment #4
Budget
As Amended
101 GENERAL FUND 23,183,061 (218,778) 22,964,283
204 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 10,789,016 216,891 11,005,907
211 CONSERVATION TRUST 32,371 - 32,371
220 LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE 3,410,188 - 3,410,188
236 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 68,861 (1,100) 67,761
238 COMMUNITY CENTER 694,632 (11,000) 683,632
244 TRAILS 462,646 (5,400) 457,246
260 STREET 2,808,858 (15,100) 2,793,758
502 LIGHT & POWER 17,038,268 20,242 17,058,510
503 WATER 6,436,445 - 6,436,445
606 MEDICAL INSURANCE 2,398,946 - 2,398,946
612 FLEET 397,797 - 397,797
625 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 618,582 - 618,582
635 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT 753,476 174,460 927,936
716 THEATER - - -
TOTAL 69,093,147 160,215 69,253,362
Attachment C
317
Town of Estes Park
Summary of Supplemental Appropriations
For Year Ended 12-31-2017
Resolution 32-17
As of Dec 12, 2017
Fund/Dept Current Budget
Budget
Amendment #4
Budget As
Amended
101 GENERAL FUND
101-1100 Legislative 199,619 (6,842) 192,777
101-1200 Judicial 53,889 1,893 55,782
101-1300 Executive 519,089 43,877 562,966
101-1400 Admin Svcs 544,325 (39,075) 505,250
101-1500 Finance 509,066 (8,157) 500,909
101-1600 Com Dev ( Planning)1,107,067 (23,187) 1,083,880
101-1700 Facilities 1,192,204 17,053 1,209,257
101-1800 Employee Benefits 136,990 (7,000) 129,990
101-1900 CS grants 993,822 (12,259) 981,563
101-2100 Police 2,923,351 (75,376) 2,847,975
101-2155 Police - Communications 1,289,756 (56,630) 1,233,126
101-2175 Police - Comm Svcs 324,442 (26,681) 297,761
101-2300 Building Safety Divison 755,579 (33,542) 722,037
101-2400 Engineering 794,581 55,948 850,529
101-2600 Visitor Center 410,828 (18,559) 392,269
101-3100 Streets 6,945,745 (5,039) 6,940,706
101-5200 Parks 1,061,868 11,695 1,073,563
101-5304 Senior Center 351,150 (10,429) 340,721
101-5500 Events 1,912,081 (31,051) 1,881,030
101-5600 Transportation 442,476 (5,866) 436,610
101-5700 Museum 334,993 (17,157) 317,836
101-9000 Transfers 977,921 - 977,921
101 GENERAL FUND 23,780,842 (246,384) 23,534,458
204 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 11,789,308 202,859 11,992,167
211 CONSERVATION TRUST 32,716 - 32,716
220 LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE 3,160,211 (1,329) 3,158,882
236 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 75,842 - 75,842
238 COMMUNITY CENTER 694,632 (11,000) 683,632
244 TRAILS 1,014,371 - 1,014,371
260 STREET 2,788,372 302,875 3,091,247
502 LIGHT & POWER 20,027,487 (880,924) 19,146,563
503 WATER 7,138,957 (256,390) 6,882,567
606 MEDICAL INSURANCE 2,340,020 - 2,340,020
612 FLEET 407,680 (9,185) 398,495
625 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1,044,556 3,033 1,047,589
635 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT 474,013 129,000 603,013
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 74,769,007 (767,445) 74,001,562
Attachment D
318
Town of Estes ParkSummary of Budgeted ProjectsFor Year Ended 12-31-2017Resolution 32-17As of Dec 12, 2017Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER 2017 Project Budget (After BA#3) 2017 Amendment Total Project Budget After Amendment VETERANS MEMORIAL PROJECTVETMON 101-1300-413-31-1385,000 - 85,000 WILLOW KNOLLS LEGACY PROJECTWILL17 101-1300-413-31-13- 35,214 35,214 DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE & EQUIP DOCMGT 101-1400-414.37-01165,554 (25,000) 140,554 DOWNTOWN ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PLANDTDOLA 101-1600-416.22-13193,627 - 193,627 FLEET/STREETS ROOF FLROOF 101-1700-417.32-22150,000 - 150,000 PAINT EXTERIOR OF FISH HATCHERY RENTALSHPAINT 101-1700-417.32-2238,800 - 38,800 TOWN HALL ROOFS ( ENGINEERING & PD WINGS)THROOF 101-1700-417.32-2290,000 - 90,000 TOWN HALL WINDOWS (CD & BS SIDE)THWIND 101-1700-417.32-2270,000 - 70,000 MPEC SERVER ROOM AC EC AC 101-1700-417.33-3210,000 - 10,000 SECURITY CAMERAS PHASE 2 SECCAM 101-1700-417.33-3226,000 - 26,000 MORAINE AVE BRIDGEMORBRG 101-2400-424.22-02207,130 - 207,130 STORMWATER MASTER PLANSTORM 101-2400-424.22-02278,547 - 278,547 SANDER REPLACEMENTS - 2STSNDR 101-3100-431.34-9816,000 - 16,000 FISH CREEK ROAD REPAIRSFHWAFC 101-3100-431.36-555,228,525 - 5,228,525 FISH CREEK ROAD REPAIRS5CATC 101-3100-431.36-55690,537 690,537 JD CART 4X4 ECCART 101-5200-452.34-9810,000 - 10,000 SANDER REPLACEMENT - 1ECSNDR 101-5200-452.34-9810,000 - 10,000 REBUILD CENTER ARENA FOOTING AT EVENT CENTER ARNAFT 101-5500-455.32-22125,000 - 125,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 7,394,720 10,214 7,404,934 MUSEUM COLLECTIONS AND RESEARCH FACILITYMUSCOL 204-5400-544.22-0270,480 - 70,480 MUSEUM REMODELMUSREM 204-5400-544.32-22210,000 - 210,000 COMMUNITY DR ENGINEERING DESIGNCOMMDR 204-5400-544.35-5150,000 - 50,000 MORAINE AVE BRIDGEMORBRG 204-5400-544.35-512,000,000 216,891 2,216,891 DOWNTOWN PARKING PLAN DTNPKG 204-5400-544.35-5245,000 - 45,000 PARKING GARAGECVBPRK 204-5400-544.35-528,315,943 (15,000) 8,300,943 PARKING LOT REPAIRSPARKLT 204-5400-544.35-52- 123,500 123,500 DMS ELECTRONIC SIGNS US36/US34 DYNMSG 204-5400-544.36-52181,960 - 181,960 TOTAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND 10,873,383 325,391 11,198,774 MORAINE AVE BRIDGEMORBRG 220-4600-462.22-0250,067 (67) 50,000 SCOTT PONDS (CARRIAGE HILLS) DAMCDBGCH 220-4600-462.22-0230,663 - 30,663 MACGREGOR AVE TRAIL MCGRTR 220-4600-462.35-60300,000 - 300,000 Attachment E319
IRRIG IMPR RIVERWALK US36 TO CHILDRENS PARKPRKIRR 220-4600-462.35-6165,000 - 65,000 IRRIG IMPROV LIBRARY, RIVERSIDE PARK & TREGENT PARKPRKIRR 220-4600-462.35-6166,500 - 66,500 VISITOR CENTER BIG T RIVERBANK STABILIZATION VCRVRB 220-4600-462.35-6113,585 - 13,585 FISH CREEK TRAIL11CATG 220-4600-462.36-612,163,915 - 2,163,915 TOTAL LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND 525,815 (67) 525,748 4TH DISPATCH CONSOLE PROJECTDCCONS 236-3600-436.33-3111,929 - 11,929 TOTAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM FUND11,929 - 11,929 MACGREGOR AVE NORTH OF WONDERVIEW IMPROVEMENTS MCGRTR 244-3400-434.36-60250,000 - 250,000 FALL RIVER TRAIL FRTRL 244-3400-434.36-6091,371 - 91,371 TOTAL TRAILS FUND 341,371 - 341,371 GENERAL ENGINEERING AND DRAINAGE DESIGN WORKGENENG 260-2000-420.22-0270,000 - 70,000 MACGREGOR AVE IMPROVEMENTSMCGRTR 260-2000-420.35-51800,000 - 800,000 DRY GULCH ROAD REBUILDDRYGUL 260-2000-420.35-51229,748 - 229,748 FLAP/RAMP ESTIMATED COSTSFLAP 260-2000-420.36-60567,271 - 567,271 TOTAL STREET FUND 1,099,748 - 1,099,748 PARKING GARAGECVBPRK 502-6301-540.25-3320,000 - 20,000 OFFICE EQUIPMENTEQUIP 502-7001-580.33-327,000 (7,000) - SERVER FOR METERING - AMI MTRSVR 502-7001-580.33-3325,000 - 25,000 METERSELMTR 502-7001-580.33-34- 80,000 80,000 TRANSFORMER PURCHASESTRANSF 502-7001-580.33-35112,052 27,948 140,000 SMART METER PURCHASESSMTMTR 502-7001-580.33-3625,000 - 25,000 NONSPECIFIC TOOLSEQUIP 502-7001-580.33-4110,000 29,000 39,000 STREET LIGHTING, POLES & FIXTURES LIGHTS 502-7001-580.35-55135,496 (105,000) 30,496 2017 ELECTRIC LINE REBUILDS LRBLDS 502-7001-580.35-57200,000 50,000 250,000 ALLENSPARK CIRCUIT UNDERGROUND WORKAP2016 502-7001-580.35-58323,206 80,350 403,556 2017 UNDERGROUND LINES WORKLRBLDS 502-7001-580.35-58543,450 (511,000) 32,450 FISH CREEK PHASE II UNDERGROUND LINES FISHC2 502-7001-580.35-58264,217 (80,350) 183,867 MORAINE AVE BRIDGE UTILITY CROSSINGMORB17 502-7001-580.35-58131,500 - 131,500 BROADBAND PROJECTBB0001 502-7001-580.35-661,092,206 - 1,092,206 MIDDLE MILE FIBER TO ALENSPARK/LITTLE VALLEYAP2016 502-7001-580.35-66532,483 (150,000) 382,483 AR & CLICK-TO-GOV UTILITY BILLING MODULESUBPRTL 502-7001-580.37-0176,027 - 76,027 TOTAL LIGHT & POWER FUND 3,497,637 (586,052) 2,911,585 BUILDING WORK AT GLACIER PLANT GPBLDG 503-7000-580.32-22215,000 (25,000) 190,000 SCADA UPGRADES AT GLACIER WTPGPSCAD 503-7000-580.33-36117,990 - 117,990 VARIOUS LAB EQUIPMENTEQUIP 503-7000-580.33-375,500 - 5,500 FEEDER REPLACEMENT WTFEED 503-7000-580.33-4017,000 - 17,000 STORAGE TANK MIXER WTMISR 503-7000-580.33-4012,000 - 12,000 Attachment E320
VARIOUS EQUIPMENTWTEQIP 503-7000-580.34-42129,000 (129,000) - NCWCD SUBDISTRICT WATER RIGHTS (INCLUSIONS) NCWTR 503-7000-580.35-5441,400 - 41,400 PRV VAULT METERING PVRMTR 503-7000-580.35-5416,000 - 16,000 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT - 201717WTRL 503-7000-580.35-54401,370 (107,750) 293,620 PEMPWCo SYSTEM DESIGN & CONSTRUCTIONPEMPWC 503-7000-580.35-541,187,000 - 1,187,000 MORAINE AVE BRIDGE UTILITY CROSSINGMORB17 503-7000-580.35-54310,000 - 310,000 REDUNDANT WATER SOURCE - BIG THOMPSON WATER RIGHTS WTRABT 503-7000-580.35-54100,000 - 100,000 UTILITY MASTER PLANWTRMPL 503-7000-580.35-6250,882 10,000 60,882 GIS WORKWTRGIS 503-7000-580.37-01- 5,750 5,750 TOTAL WATER FUND 2,603,142 (246,000) 2,357,142 PUBLIC ACCESS WIFI PROJECTSIPA17 625-2500-425.33-335,900 - 5,900 ALLENSPARK NETWORK GEAR APNETW 625-2500-425.33-988,000 - 8,000 FIBER SWITCH GEAR TO LONGMONT NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-9815,000 - 15,000 FIREWALL VLAN ENHANCEMENT NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-985,000 - 5,000 NEW NETWORK SERVER NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-9820,000 - 20,000 NEW NETWORK SWITCHES NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-985,000 - 5,000 PRPA RING SWITCHES/GEAR FOR NEW CIRCUIT NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-9815,000 - 15,000 TOTAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND73,900 - 73,900 EVENTS G-123 06 BOBCAT 2200 4X4 G-123 635-7000-435.34-4219,000 - 19,000 L&P 93323A 06 FORD F-550 4X4 93323A 635-7000-435.34-4259,666 - 59,666 PARKS G-60A FORD F-550 4X4 G-60A 635-7000-435.34-4285,603 - 85,603 POLICE G-78B 09 DODGE CHARGER G-78B 635-7000-435.34-4232,000 - 32,000 STREETS G-63A 08 FORD F-550 4X4 G-63A 635-7000-435.34-4275,000 - 75,000 STREETS G-75B 06 GMC K3500 4X4 G-75B 635-7000-435.34-4233,885 - 33,885 WATER TRUCK BEDS FOR 2 TRUCKS - 9032C & 9033BBD9032 635-7000-435.34-4240,000 - 40,000 L&P FORK LIFT REPLACEMENTS - 2 - 93387A & 93388A93387A 635-7000-435.34-4262,329 - 62,329 L&P UNIT # 93342 - NEW ADDITIONAL TRUCK93342 635-7000-435-34-4266,530 - 66,530 WATER FUND JD EXCAVATOR90393 635-7000-435-34-42- 129,000 129,000 TOTAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 474,013 129,000 603,013 TOTAL PROJECT RECAP 29,553,773 (531,728) 29,022,045 Attachment E321
322
ADMINISTRATION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Date: December 12, 2017
RE: 2018 – 2022 Capital Improvement Plan
Objective:
To present the 2018 – 2022 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Town Board
consideration.
Present Situation:
The attached 2018 – 2022 Capital Improvement Plan is the first to be developed using
the Town’s new capital improvement planning process. The development of this
document began in March and has run parallel with the budget process. The 2018
projects in the CIP are all reflected in the proposed 2018 budget with the exception of
the Downtown Estes Loop (Town Portion) project. This project has encumbered funds
which will be rolled over from the 2017 budget in early 2018.
Proposal:
The 2018 – 2022 CIP development process was a significant first step in addressing the
Town’s capital planning needs. The Town now has a repeatable process to recognize,
record, and plan for its future capital needs. Staff will continue to work to refine the
capital planning process and this document. The adoption of this CIP does not grant
any spending authority or directly allocate any resources (this is only done through the
budget).
Advantages:
• Capital improvement planning allows for the Town to more fully recognize future
needs and prioritize spending accordingly.
• Continuous improvement to the capital improvement planning process will allow
staff to refine and add value to the planning process every year.
Disadvantages:
• Changing and improving processes takes time and resources that could be
expended on other projects. However, staff believes that investing time and
323
resources in improving the capital planning process is worthwhile and advances
the Town Board’s Strategic Plan.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends adoption of the 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Plan.
Finance/Resource:
No direct budgetary impact.
Level of Public Interest
Medium.
Sample Motion:
I move to adopt/not adopt the 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Plan.
Attachments:
• 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Plan
324
Town of Estes Park
Capital Improvement Plan
2018 - 2022
325
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
Mayor Elected 2016 Todd Jirsa
Mayor Pro Tem Elected as Trustee 2010, re-elected 2014 Wendy Koenig
Trustees
Elected 2012, Re-elected 2016 Ron Norris
Elected 2014 Bob Holcomb
Elected 2014 Ward Nelson
Elected 2016 Patrick Martchink
Elected 2016 Cody Walker
Leadership Team
Frank Lancaster Town Administrator
Travis Machalek Assistant Town Administrator
Jackie Williamson Town Clerk/Director of Administrative Services
Duane Hudson Finance Director
Wes Kufeld Chief of Police
Randy Hunt Director of Community Development
Rob Hinkle Director of Community Services
Greg Muhonen Director of Public Works
Reuben Bergsten Director of Utilities
Kate Rusch Public Information Officer
CIP Development Team
Kevin Ash Engineering Manager
Reuben Bergsten Director of Utilities
Sarah Clark Light and Power Administrative Assistant
Chris Eshelman Water Superintendent
Rob Hinkle Director of Community Services
Jon Landkamer Facilities Manager
Joe Lockhart Line Superintendent
Kevin McEachern Public Works Operations Manager
Greg Muhonen Director of Public Works
Susie Parker Utilities Administrative Assistant
Cliff Tedder Water Distribution Supervisor
Megan Van Hoozer Public Works Administrative Assistant
Jackie Williamson Town Clerk/Director of Administrative Services
Brenda Wyss Water Administrative Assistant
Travis Machalek Assistant Town Administrator
326
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5
CIP Process ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Prioritization ................................................................................................................................... 9
Capital Financing Strategy ............................................................................................................ 10
Assumptions and Risk................................................................................................................... 11
Guide to Project Detail Sheets ...................................................................................................... 12
Project List by Department ........................................................................................................... 15
Project List by Funding Source..................................................................................................... 21
Index of Project Detail Sheets ....................................................................................................... 28
Project Detail Sheets ..................................................................................................................... 32
327
Introduction
Background
Capital investments made by the Town of Estes Park play a key role in ensuring the Town’s
ability to provide high-quality, reliable services to the community. As the need for funding
continues to increase across all Town Departments, it is imperative that the organization plan for
the maintenance, replacement, and expansion of its capital assets. To that end, staff has
developed a capital improvement planning process to create an annual Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP).
A CIP is a tool used by local governments to plan for major projects and acquisitions over a
select period of time (the Town has selected a 5-year timeline). A CIP is not a multi-year capital
budget, nor is it a complete list of all the Town’s capital needs. Planning for capital
improvements is a fluid process and new information and/or needs can result in significant
alterations to the projects and prioritizations contained in a CIP.
A CIP is beneficial for the Town of Estes Park because it:
•Provides for the replacement and rehabilitation of existing capital assets;
•Allows time for project design and any necessary land/easement acquisitions;
•Allows time to arrange financing;
•Provides outside entities (developers, special districts, business owners, and citizens)
with information about where the Town is planning on investing in capital improvements;
and
•Allows for the prioritization of Town capital projects.
For the purposes of the Town’s capital planning process, a capital project is any expenditure that
costs $50,000 or more and has a useful life of more than one (1) year, a Master Plan, or other
significant projects that are included at the discretion of the appropriate Department Director.
Vehicles, equipment, operating expenses, and projects with a total cost less than $50,000 or a
useful life of less than one (1) year are generally not included in the CIP.
Linkage to Strategic Plan
The connection between the Town Board’s adopted Strategic Plan and the CIP is vital. The
planned capital projects in the CIP all support the outcome areas, goals, and objectives contained
in the Strategic Plan. The project detail sheets make this connection explicit by listing the Board
Goals that are supported by each project.
Limitations
While a CIP is an excellent planning tool for the Town, it is important to recognize its
limitations.
First, the CIP does not match, dollar for dollar, the Town’s 2018 budget for capital expenditures.
There are many projects that do not meet the $50,000 threshold for inclusion in the CIP that are
328
still categorized as capital projects in accordance with the Town’s accounting capitalization
threshold ($5,000). The $50,000 CIP-inclusion threshold was selected because projects of that
magnitude and larger generally require more advanced planning and consideration. There is also
one major project (the Downtown Estes Loop – Town Portion) which will not be reflected in the
2018 budget until the rollover of 2017 encumbered funds is completed.
Second, the projects selected for inclusion in the CIP (and the prioritization of those projects) is
always subject to change. The Town operates in a complex and ever-changing environment. New
data or major events can, and likely will, shift the prioritization of projects after the CIP has been
published.
Lastly, the CIP is not a full and complete picture of the Town’s capital needs. There are projects
that have not been included in the CIP for a variety of reasons. This does not mean that non-
included projects are not important, only that they have not risen to the level of awareness of the
projects that have been included. Staff is continuing to explore cost/time-effective options to
more fully reflect all of the Town’s capital and capital maintenance needs.
Executive Summary
All-Fund Summary
The Town of Estes Park plans to spend $9,231,192 on 20 major capital projects in 2018. This
represents a significant investment in the capital assets that serve the community.
37%
6% 24%
14%
19%
2018 Planned Capital Expenditures by Fund
State Grant or Loan
General Fund
1A Sales Tax Funds
Light and Power Fund
Water Fund
329
General Fund Projects
There are five (5) General Fund capital projects planned in 2018 for a total estimated expenditure
of $523,800.
•Arena 1-4 Footing Renovation
•Document Management System
•Event Center Acoustics
•Events Complex Mobile Stage
1%
62%
4%
14%
19%
2018 Planned Capital Expenditures by
Department
Administrative Services
Public Works
Community Services
Light and Power
Water
1% 0.5%
61%
4%
14%
19%
2018 Planned Expenditures by Divison
Town Clerk
Facilities
Streets
Fairgrounds and Events
Light and Power
Water
330
•Town Hall Windows – Second Floor West
The Arena 1-4 Footing Renovation, Event Center Acoustics, and Events Complex Mobile Stage
projects reflect an investment in the future of the Town’s Community Services Department.
These enhancements will allow the Community Services Department to continue to grow
revenue and enhance the visitor/use experience at the Estes Park Events Complex.
The Town continues to implement a Document Management System (Laserfiche). The 2018
expenditures for this project also include the addition of a module that will replace critical
software in the Building Division.
The Town Hall Windows project will prolong the useful life of an existing capital asset.
Light and Power Fund Projects
Light and Power has five (5) projects planned for 2018 for a total estimated expenditure of
$1,290,000.
•Automated Meter Reading Improvements
•Dandie Way
•Goblin Castle
•Highway 34 Big Thompson Canyon
•Longs Peak Area
Four of these projects (Dandie Way, Goblin Castle, Highway 34 Big Thompson Canyon, and
Longs Peak Area) are rebuilds of existing power lines that will improve power quality and
reduce outages.
The continuation of the Automated Meter Reading Improvements project will enhance service
quality and reliability for Light and Power customers while also improving internal efficiency in
the Light and Power division. These meters enable Light and Power personnel to easily monitor
the electrical distribution system and pinpoint the location of any issue that may come up. The
meters also enable remote-reading which saves the Town time and money.
Water Fund Projects
The Water Division has planned seven (7) capital projects for 2018 for a total estimated
expenditure of $1,742,663.
•Aspen Avenue Water Main Replacement
•Big Thompson Avenue (HWY 34) Water Main Repair
•Bureau Area Phase 2
•Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant Land Acquisition
•Meter Replacement
•Rockwell/W. Riverside 16” Main
•USA Water Rights Contract (BOR Expires 2019)
331
All of these projects except the Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant Land Acquisition can be
classified as replacement projects. Investing in rebuilding water distribution system
infrastructure is critical to maintaining a high level of service to the community. The rebuilds
also increase capacity to ensure that future development is not hindered by undersized pipes or
inadequate water flow for fire protection.
The Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant Land Acquisition represents an important step in the
Water Division’s efforts to develop a redundant source of raw water. This redundancy is a matter
of public health and safety.
State Grant/Loan Projects
The Town has one (1) capital project in 2018 that utilizes a state grant, the Downtown Estes
Loop (Town Portion). The planned expenditure for this project from state grant funding (CDOT
RAMP funds) in 2018 is $3,444,381 for right-of-way acquisition and final design. These RAMP
funds have already been received by the Town. The total Downtown Loop Project budget is
approximately $17,205,000 ($13,005,000 comes from the FLAP funds which are not
administered by the Town.
1A Sales Tax Projects
The Town has planned two (2) capital projects in 2018 for the 1A Sales Tax fund totaling
$2,230,348.
The first is a $1,830,348 investment into the Town’s Street Improvement Program (STIP). This
program is intended to raise the average pavement condition index (PCI) score of the Town’s
street system to 70. The program funds crack seal, seal coat, overlay, rebuild, and spray patcher
operations. The inclusion of the STIP is unique in the CIP as the project costs reflect the total
program budget, including the personnel who run the program.
The remaining $400,000 is for extending and improving the trail at Brodie Avenue.
Out-Year Projects
Although the CIP planning horizon is five years, the Town recognizes that there are major
projects that will happen outside of that time frame that should be included in the plan to
enhance transparency of the Town’s future capital needs. These projects are reflected in the Out-
Year classification.
CIP Process
A simplified version of the process used to develop the CIP is reflected below:
1.Departments enter details for proposed capital projects into the Town’s GIS application;
2.Reports summarizing project costs by year are run;
332
3.Finance Officer prepares revenue projection estimates;
4.Departments prioritize all projects within their department;
5.Leadership team prioritizes capital projects for the next year concurrently with
prioritization of Service Level Proposals; and
6.Town Administrator makes final prioritization of all capital projects for consideration by
the Town Board.
This process is not as linear as it appears above. The projects that are included in the CIP, the
year in which they are planned, and the details of the projects change frequently as estimates are
refined, new information comes to light, and conversations occur between departments. The
development of the CIP is an iterative process.
Prioritization
Introduction to Prioritization
An important element of developing a CIP is the prioritization of the Town’s projects. In
accordance with Town Board Policy 104, staff considers the following when prioritizing capital
projects (listed in no particular order of importance):
•Life/Safety
•Legal Requirements
•Essential Improvements
•Quality of Life Improvements
•Efficiency Improvements
•Revenue Producing
•Service Improvements
•Service/Space Expansion
The Town prioritizes capital projects within funds. This ensures that projects are only prioritized
in relation to other projects that would draw from the same pool of funds. For example, a stall
barn replacement (General Fund) does not draw from the same funding source as a power line
replacement (Light and Power Fund), so the two would not be prioritized against each other.
333
Prioritization Process
Projects are first prioritized in relation to other projects in the same Department (i.e. Public
Works projects are prioritized against other Public Works projects). Departments use the criteria
contained in Town Board Policy 104, as well as other technical knowledge to prioritize these
projects. After being prioritized by the Departments, all of the General Fund projects entered for
the next budget year are prioritized by the Leadership Team in a joint exercise (enterprise fund
and other special fund projects are not prioritized by the Leadership Team as the funding sources
are only managed by a single Department). Lastly, the Town Administrator reviews the
Leadership Team prioritization and makes any necessary changes.
Capital Financing Strategy
A number of financing strategies to fund capital improvements are available to the Town. The
Town has employed a number of these strategies including capital leases, certificates of
participation, revenue bonds, loans, and “pay-as-you-go” capital financing.
Capital Leases
A capital lease is any lease agreement that the Town uses to fund a capital project. The Town
used a capital lease for the purchase of radio equipment in 2013.
Certificates of Participation
Certificates of participation are a form of lease purchase financing whereby a capital lease is
divided into shares and sold publicly to investors. The Town used this financing method to fund
the Events Center/Pavilion and Visitor Center Parking Structure projects.
General Obligation Bonds
General Obligation (GO) Bonds are debt that is backed by the full faith and credit of the Town
(all available revenue not legally restricted is available to meet debt-payment obligations). A
vote of the Town’s electorate is required to issue any GO bonds. The Town has not used this
form of financing in recent history. According to the 2016 audited financial statements, the
Town’s legal debt margin for GO debt is $5,877,432.
Grants
Grants are a gift of money from another organization (generally the state or federal government)
to the Town. Grants do not have to be repaid, but may have match requirements (i.e. the grantor
will gift $100,000 to the Town for a project if the Town contributes/matches $25,000 to that
same project). The Town has used grant financing extensively in recent years to finance capital
projects. One prominent example is the new Transit Facility Parking Structure that was partially
financed by a grant from the Federal Transit Administration.
334
Revenue Bonds
Revenue bonds are debt that is backed by user fees or other specific revenue from a self-
sustaining enterprise fund. The Town has used revenue bond financing to fund projects in the
Light and Power utility.
Tax-Increment Financing
Tax-increment financing involves the issuance of debt that is backed by growth in the sales tax
or property tax base of a particular geographic area. The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority
(EPURA) utilized tax-increment financing tied to sales tax growth. The EPURA debt was paid
off in 2008 and the Town has not utilized tax-increment financing since.
Loans
The Town has used low-interest loans from the Colorado Water Resources and Power
Development Authority (CWRPDA) to fund improvements to the water system.
“Pay-As-You-Go”
Pay-as-you-go financing is used to describe a capital funding strategy that relies on operating
funds (sales tax, property tax, fees, etc.) rather than debt to pay for capital projects. The Town’s
most notable use of pay-as-you-go financing is the Street Improvement Program that is funded
by the 1A sales tax.
Assumptions and Risk
Introduction
Planning for the future involves making assumptions about what that future will look like.
Making these assumptions exposes a plan to the risk that some or all of these assumptions will
end up being inaccurate. While it is impossible to completely eliminate risk, it is worthwhile to
examine and articulate the major assumptions that a plan is based on. Knowing the assumptions
that have been made in the creation of the CIP enables the Town to react appropriately if the
basis for an assumption were to change.
Future Construction Costs
The Town anticipates that the cost of all types of construction in Colorado will continue to rise at
a brisk pace. Departments have included construction inflation factors from their respective
industries into their cost estimates for projects occurring in later years. These estimates are
subject to changing conditions and could significantly increase or decrease the ultimate cost of
the project.
Service-Makeup Continuity
335
The CIP is predicated on the assumption that the current makeup of services offered by the Town
will continue for at least the duration of the planning period. If the service makeup of the Town
was to change (addition or removal of services provided) the CIP would change as well. The
Town should evaluate potential impacts on capital needs when considering the addition or
removal of services.
Operating Environment Stability
The Town has assumed relative stability in its operating environment when creating this plan.
Dramatic changes in the Town’s operating environment (either natural or human-caused) could
significantly alter the CIP. A natural disaster, unanticipated population boom, economic change,
or other natural/human-caused change would likely cause a shift in the projects and relative
prioritizations included in the CIP.
Financing Stability
The CIP assumes that there will be no significant changes in the financial capacity or financial
strategies currently available to the Town. If revenue sources were to change dramatically, new
revenue streams were to be added, or a different financing policy direction was established, the
CIP would change significantly.
Guide to Project Detail Sheets
Project Information
•Department
o The Town Department responsible for the project (i.e. Public Works, Community
Services, Utilities)
•Division
o The Town Division responsible for the project (i.e. Streets, Parks, Engineering,
Light and Power)
•Estimated Start Date (optional)
o The approximate beginning construction date of a capital project
•Useful Life
o The accounting useful life of the capital asset in years
•Capital Type
o Describes whether the project is new capital, a replacement of an existing capital
asset, or a rehabilitation of an existing capital asset (an expenditure that prolongs
the useful life of the asset)
•Board Goal
o The Town Board Outcome Area(s) addressed by the project
336
•Project Manager
o The person/position responsible for the capital project
•Budget Estimate
o The total project cost estimate
•Annual Change in O&M
o Estimated increase or decrease in ongoing operations and maintenance costs
o If the capital project requires an additional Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) position,
the salary and benefits for the FTE are included in this section
•Location
o The approximate physical location of the project
Project Costs Table
•Construction
o The estimated labor and materials cost for the project
•Contingency
o The estimated amount to be held for unexpected increases in project costs
(generally 20% of the total estimated project cost)
•Construction Management
o The estimated cost of any professional services retained to manage the project
(staff time not included)
•Design
o Estimated costs of the design work for the project
•Legal
o Estimated legal fees for the project
•Right of Way
o Estimated cost to purchase any necessary rights of way for the project
•Other
o Any anticipated cost that does not fit in the other categories
Funding Sources Table
The Funding Sources Table details all of the anticipated funding sources for the project over the
construction timeline. Funding sources are identified by type and include: state grants, federal
grants, General Fund, Light and Power Fund, Water Fund, and 1A sales tax.
337
Project Description and Justification
The Project Description and Justification section provides a brief description of the project and
why it is necessary.
338
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 5yr Total
Administrative Services
Town Clerk
Document Management System 133,800$ -$ -$ -$ 58,000$ 191,800$
Town Clerk Total 133,800$ -$ -$ -$ 58,000$ 191,800$
Administrative Services Total 133,800$ -$ -$ -$ 58,000$ 191,800$
Public Works
Engineering/Stormwater
Carriage Hills East Dam Spillway -$ -$ -$ 300,000$ -$ 300,000$
Stormwater Capital Improvement
Program -$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 8,000,000$
Trail Extension and Big Thompson
River Channel Widening -$ -$ -$ 11,440,000$ -$ 11,440,000$
Engineering/Stormwater Total -$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 13,740,000$ 2,000,000$ 19,740,000$
Facilities
Downtown Parking Program -$ 327,500$ 327,500$ 400,000$ 450,000$ 1,505,000$
Museum Collections and Research
Facility -$ 1,700,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,700,000$
Town Hall Elevator Modernization -$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ 500,000$
Town Hall Police Department Roof -$ 120,000$ -$ -$ -$ 120,000$
Town Hall Windows - 2nd Floor
West 55,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 55,000$
Facilities Total 55,000$ 2,147,500$ 827,500$ 400,000$ 450,000$ 3,880,000$
Streets
Cleave Street Resurfacing -$ -$ 600,000$ -$ -$ 600,000$
Community Drive Resurfacing -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$
Downtown Estes Loop (Town
Portion)3,444,381$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,444,381$
Dynamic Message Boards - Phase 2 -$ 120,000$ 80,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$
E Riverside Drive Resurfacing -$ -$ -$ 625,000$ -$ 625,000$
Elm Road Resurfacing -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ 500,000$
Intersection Improvements
(US36/Community Drive)-$ 510,000$ -$ -$ -$ 510,000$
Intersection Improvements
(Wonderview/MacGregor)-$ -$ -$ 1,430,000$ -$ 1,430,000$
Moraine Avenue Multi-Modal
Improvements -$ -$ 343,000$ 343,000$ 343,000$ 1,029,000$
Moraine Avenue Riverwalk
Underpass Ramps -$ 250,000$ 250,000$ -$ -$ 500,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Big Horn
Lot)-$ -$ 39,000$ -$ -$ 39,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Brownfields
Lot)-$ -$ 26,000$ -$ -$ 26,000$
Capital Expenditures by Department
339
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 5yr Total
Capital Expenditures by Department
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Davis Lot)-$ 88,000$ -$ -$ -$ 88,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (East
Riverside Lot "DQ Lot")-$ -$ -$ -$ 98,000$ 98,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (North
Visitor Center Lot)-$ -$ -$ 260,000$ -$ 260,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing
(Performance Park Lot)-$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Post Office
Lot)-$ -$ -$ -$ 145,860$ 145,860$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Spruce Lot)-$ 36,000$ -$ -$ -$ 36,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Town Hall
Lot)-$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ 100,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Tregent
Park Lot)-$ -$ 18,000$ -$ -$ 18,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Virginia
Lot)-$ -$ 30,000$ -$ -$ 30,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Weist Lot)-$ -$ 157,000$ -$ -$ 157,000$
Street Improvement Program (STIP)1,830,348$ 1,770,000$ 1,806,304$ 1,933,208$ 2,070,265$ 9,410,125$
Trail Extension (Brodie Avenue)400,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 400,000$
Trail Extension (Fall River)-$ 2,337,000$ 2,350,000$ 2,350,000$ -$ 7,037,000$
Trail Extension (Wonderview Ave)-$ 350,000$ -$ -$ -$ 350,000$
Transportation Master Plan -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$
Streets Total 5,674,729$ 6,511,000$ 5,699,304$ 6,941,208$ 3,157,125$ 27,983,366$
Parks
Baseline Irrigation Controllers -$ 66,500$ 66,500$ 66,500$ 66,500$ 266,000$
Greenhouse Expansion -$ 70,000$ -$ -$ -$ 70,000$
Parks Irrigation System
Replacement -$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 260,000$
Parks Total -$ 201,500$ 131,500$ 131,500$ 131,500$ 596,000$
Public Works Total 5,729,729$ 10,860,000$ 8,658,304$ 21,212,708$ 5,738,625$ 52,199,366$
Community Services
Fairgrounds and Events
Arena 1-4 Footing Renovation
Project 125,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ -$ 500,000$
Event Center Acoustics 60,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 60,000$
Events Complex Barn Replacement -$ -$ 4,000,000$ -$ -$ 4,000,000$
Events Complex Internal Roadway
Improvement -$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$
Events Complex Master Plan -$ 40,000$ -$ -$ -$ 40,000$
Events Complex Mobile Stage 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$
Events Complex Signage -$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ 100,000$
340
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 5yr Total
Capital Expenditures by Department
Events Complex Storage Building -$ 350,000$ -$ -$ -$ 350,000$
Fairgrounds and Events Total 335,000$ 765,000$ 4,125,000$ 125,000$ -$ 5,350,000$
Community Services Total 335,000$ 765,000$ 4,125,000$ 125,000$ -$ 5,350,000$
Light and Power
Distribution
Automated Meter Reading
Improvements (SG2016)515,000$ 190,000$ 120,000$ 120,000$ -$ 945,000$
Carriage Hills Phase 1 -$ -$ 775,480$ -$ -$ 775,480$
Carriage Hills Phase 2 -$ -$ -$ 507,000$ -$ 507,000$
Dandie Way 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 50,000$
Goblin Castle (GC2019)115,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 115,000$
Highway 34 Big Thompson Canyon 450,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 450,000$
Longs Peak Area 160,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 160,000$
Ski Road Area -$ 286,000$ -$ -$ -$ 286,000$
Skinner Road Area -$ 300,000$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$
Tahosa Park (AP2018)-$ -$ -$ -$ 67,000$ 67,000$
Distribution Total 1,290,000$ 776,000$ 895,480$ 627,000$ 67,000$ 3,655,480$
Light and Power Total 1,290,000$ 776,000$ 895,480$ 627,000$ 67,000$ 3,655,480$
Water
Distribution
Aspen Avenue Water Main
Replacement 180,760$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 180,760$
Big Horn Drive Water Main
Replacement -$ 193,397$ -$ -$ -$ 193,397$
Big Thompson Avenue (HWY 34)
Water Main Repair 507,903$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 507,903$
Bureau Area Phase 2 220,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 220,000$
Bureau Area Phase 3 -$ -$ -$ 221,846$ -$ 221,846$
Bureau Area Phase 4 -$ -$ -$ -$ 331,608$ 331,608$
Hill Streets Water Main
Replacement Phase 2 -$ -$ -$ 253,991$ -$ 253,991$
Meter Replacement 300,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$
Moraine Bridge -$ 394,000$ -$ -$ -$ 394,000$
Panorama Circle Water Main
Replacement -$ -$ -$ -$ 507,903$ 507,903$
Park View and Cyteworth Water
Main Replacement -$ -$ 622,224$ -$ -$ 622,224$
Prospect Mountain PRV Water Main -$ -$ 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Rockwell/W. Riverside 16" Main 320,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 320,000$
Spruce Drive Water Main
Replacement -$ 295,496$ -$ -$ -$ 295,496$
Stanley Circle Water Main
Replacement Phase 3 -$ -$ -$ 215,422$ -$ 215,422$
Distribution Total 1,528,663$ 882,893$ 897,224$ 691,259$ 839,511$ 4,839,550$
341
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 5yr Total
Capital Expenditures by Department
Purification
Glacier Creek Water Treatment
Plant Land Acquisition 170,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 170,000$
USA Water Rights Contract (BOR
Expires 2019)44,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 44,000$
Purification Total 214,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 214,000$
Water Total 1,742,663$ 882,893$ 897,224$ 691,259$ 839,511$ 5,053,550$
Grand Total 9,231,192$ 13,283,893$ 14,576,008$ 22,655,967$ 6,703,136$ 66,450,196$
342
Total Estimated Cost
Public Works
Engineering/Stormwater
Bridge Replacement (Crags Dr/Big Thompson River)2,500,000$
Bridge Replacement (Riverside Dr/Confluence)4,000,000$
Bridge Replacement (Rockwell)2,500,000$
Bridge Replacement (Spruce Dr/Fall River)2,000,000$
Stormwater Capital Improvement Program 67,000,000$
Engineering/Stormwater Total 78,000,000$
Facilities
Downtown Parking Program 12,090,000$
Downtown Parking Structure 17,614,500$
North Visitor Center Parking Structure 16,072,500$
Public Works Service Center Facility 12,860,000$
Town Hall Relocation 15,430,000$
Facilities Total 74,067,000$
Parks
Baseline Irrigation Controllers 199,500$
Parks Irrigation System Replacement 195,000$
Parks Total 394,500$
Streets
Intersection Improvements (Marys Lake Rd/ Moraine Ave)1,430,000$
Moraine Avenue Multi-Modal Improvements 8,939,992$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Conference Center Lot)145,860$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Events Center)400,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (South Visitor Center Lot)145,860$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Town Hall)371,000$
Street Improvement Program (STIP)2,218,286$
Trail Resurfacing (US34)715,000$
Streets Total 14,365,998$
Public Works Total 166,827,498$
Community Services
Fairgrounds and Events
Events Complex Barn Replacement 8,000,000$
Fairgrounds and Events Total 8,000,000$
Community Services Total 8,000,000$
Water
Distribution
Big Thompson Avenue (HWY 34) East to Mall Road 213,000$
Distribution Total 213,000$
Out-Years Capital Expenditures by Department
343
Total Estimated Cost
Out-Years Capital Expenditures by Department
Water Total 213,000$
Grand Total 175,040,498$
344
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 5yr Total
Federal Grant or Loan
Engineering/Stormwater
Trail Extension and Big Thompson
Channel Widening -$ -$ -$ 11,440,000$ -$ 11,440,000$
Engineering/Stormwater Total -$ -$ -$ 11,440,000$ -$ 11,440,000$
Streets
Dynamic Message Boards - Phase 2 -$ 80,000$ 80,000$ -$ -$ 160,000$
Streets Total -$ 80,000$ 80,000$ -$ -$ 160,000$
Federal Grant or Loan Total -$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 11,440,000$ -$ 11,600,000$
General Fund
Administrative Services
Document Management System 133,800$ -$ -$ -$ 58,000$ 191,800$
Administrative Services Total 133,800$ -$ -$ -$ 58,000$ 191,800$
Streets
Cleave Street Resurfacing -$ -$ 600,000$ -$ -$ 600,000$
Community Drive Resurfacing -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$
Dynamic Message Boards - Phase 2 -$ 40,000$ -$ -$ -$ 40,000$
E Riverside Drive Resurfacing -$ -$ -$ 625,000$ -$ 625,000$
Elm Road Resurfacing -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ 500,000$
Intersection Improvements
(US36/Community Drive)-$ 510,000$ -$ -$ -$ 510,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing
(Performance Park Lot)-$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$
Transportation Master Plan -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$
Streets Total -$ 1,500,000$ 600,000$ 625,000$ 500,000$ 3,225,000$
Facilities
Downtown Parking Program -$ 152,500$ 127,500$ -$ -$ 280,000$
Town Hall Elevator Modernization -$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ 500,000$
Town Hall Police Department Roof -$ 120,000$ -$ -$ -$ 120,000$
Town Hall Windows - 2nd Floor
West 55,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 55,000$
Facilities Total 55,000$ 272,500$ 627,500$ -$ -$ 955,000$
Stormwater
Carriage Hills East Dam Spillway -$ -$ -$ 300,000$ -$ 300,000$
Stormwater -$ -$ -$ 300,000$ -$ 300,000$
Parks
Greenhouse Expansion -$ 70,000$ -$ -$ -$ 70,000$
Parks Total -$ 70,000$ -$ -$ -$ 70,000$
Fairgrounds and Events
Capital Expenditures by Funding Source
345
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 5yr Total
Capital Expenditures by Funding Source
Arena 1-4 Footing Renovation
Project 125,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ -$ 500,000$
Event Center Acoustics 60,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 60,000$
Events Complex Barn Replacement -$ -$ 4,000,000$ -$ -$ 4,000,000$
Events Complex Internal Roadway
Improvement -$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$
Events Complex Master Plan -$ 40,000$ 40,000$
Events Complex Mobile Stage 150,000$ 150,000$
Events Complex Signage -$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ 100,000$
Events Complex Storage Building -$ 350,000$ -$ -$ -$ 350,000$
Fairgrounds and Events Total 335,000$ 765,000$ 4,125,000$ 125,000$ -$ 5,350,000$
General Fund Total 523,800$ 2,607,500$ 5,352,500$ 1,050,000$ 558,000$ 10,091,800$
1A Sales Tax Fund
Streets
Moraine Avenue Multi-Modal
Improvements -$ -$ 343,000$ 343,000$ 343,000$ 1,029,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Big Horn
Lot)-$ -$ 39,000$ -$ -$ 39,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing
(Brownfields Lot)-$ -$ 26,000$ -$ -$ 26,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Davis Lot)-$ 88,000$ -$ -$ -$ 88,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (East
Riverside Lot "DQ Lot")-$ -$ -$ -$ 98,000$ 98,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Wiest Lot)-$ -$ 157,000$ -$ -$ 157,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (North
Visitor Center Lot)-$ -$ -$ 260,000$ -$ 260,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Post Office
Lot)-$ -$ -$ -$ 145,860$ 145,860$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Spruce Lot)-$ 36,000$ -$ -$ -$ 36,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Town Hall
Lot)-$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ 100,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Tregent
Park Lot)-$ -$ 18,000$ -$ -$ 18,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Virginia
Lot)-$ -$ 30,000$ -$ -$ 30,000$
Street Improvement Program (STIP)1,830,348$ 1,770,000$ 1,806,304$ 1,933,208$ 2,070,265$ 9,410,125$
Trail Extension (Brodie Avenue)400,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 400,000$
Trail Extension (Wonderview Ave)-$ 262,500$ -$ -$ -$ 262,500$
Streets Total 2,230,348$ 2,256,500$ 2,419,304$ 2,536,208$ 2,657,125$ 12,099,485$
1A Sales Tax Fund Total 2,230,348$ 2,256,500$ 2,419,304$ 2,536,208$ 2,657,125$ 12,099,485$
Open Space Fund
346
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 5yr Total
Capital Expenditures by Funding Source
Streets
Moraine Avenue Riverwalk
Underpass Ramps -$ 250,000$ 250,000$ -$ -$ 500,000$
Trail Extension (Fall River)-$ 337,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ -$ 1,037,000$
Trail Extension (Wonderview Ave)-$ 87,500$ -$ -$ -$ 87,500$
Streets Total -$ 674,500$ 600,000$ 350,000$ -$ 1,624,500$
Parks
Baseline Irrigation Controllers -$ 66,500$ 66,500$ 66,500$ 66,500$ 266,000$
Parks Irrigation System
Replacement -$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 260,000$
Parks Total -$ 131,500$ 131,500$ 131,500$ 131,500$ 526,000$
Open Space Fund Total -$ 806,000$ 731,500$ 481,500$ 131,500$ 2,150,500$
Private Grant or Loan
Facilities
Museum Collections and Research
Facility -$ 1,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$
Facilities Total -$ 1,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$
Private Grant or Loan Total -$ 1,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$
Other
Facilities
Museum Collections and Research
Facility -$ 700,000$ -$ -$ -$ 700,000$
Facilities Total -$ 700,000$ -$ -$ -$ 700,000$
Other Total -$ 700,000$ -$ -$ -$ 700,000$
State Grant or Loan
Streets
Downtown Estes Loop (Town
Portion)3,444,381$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,444,381$
Intersection Improvements
(Wonderview/MacGregor)-$ -$ -$ 1,430,000$ -$ 1,430,000$
Trail Extension (Fall River)-$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ -$ 6,000,000$
Streets Total 3,444,381$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 3,430,000$ -$ 10,874,381$
State Grant or Loan Total 3,444,381$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 3,430,000$ -$ 10,874,381$
Potential Future Parking Enterprise Fund
Transportation
Downtown Parking Program -$ 175,000$ 200,000$ 400,000$ 450,000$ 1,225,000$
Transportation -$ 175,000$ 200,000$ 400,000$ 450,000$ 1,225,000$
Potential Parking Enterprise Fund Total -$ 175,000$ 200,000$ 400,000$ 450,000$ 1,225,000$
Potential Future Stormwater Fund
Engineering/Stormwater
Stormwater Capital Improvement
Program -$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 8,000,000$
347
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 5yr Total
Capital Expenditures by Funding Source
Engineering/Stormwater Total -$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 8,000,000$
Potential Stormwater Fund Total -$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 8,000,000$
Light and Power Fund
Distribution
Automated Meter Reading
Improvements (SG2016)515,000$ 190,000$ 120,000$ 120,000$ -$ 945,000$
Carriage Hills Phase 1 -$ -$ 775,480$ -$ -$ 775,480$
Carriage Hills Phase 2 -$ -$ -$ 507,000$ -$ 507,000$
Dandie Way 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 50,000$
Goblin Castle (GC2019)115,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 115,000$
Highway 34 Big Thompson Canyon 450,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 450,000$
Longs Peak Area 160,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 160,000$
Ski Road Area -$ 286,000$ -$ -$ -$ 286,000$
Skinner Road Area -$ 300,000$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$
Tahosa Park (AP2018)-$ -$ -$ -$ 67,000$ 67,000$
Distribution Total 1,290,000$ 776,000$ 895,480$ 627,000$ 67,000$ 3,655,480$
Light and Power Fund Total 1,290,000$ 776,000$ 895,480$ 627,000$ 67,000$ 3,655,480$
Water Fund
Distribution
Aspen Avenue Water Main
Replacement 180,760$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 180,760$
Big Horn Drive Water Main
Replacement -$ 193,397$ -$ -$ -$ 193,397$
Big Thompson Avenue (HWY 34)
Water Main Repair 507,903$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 507,903$
Bureau Area Phase 2 220,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 220,000$
Bureau Area Phase 3 -$ -$ -$ 221,846$ -$ 221,846$
Bureau Area Phase 4 -$ -$ -$ -$ 331,608$ 331,608$
Hill Streets Water Main
Replacement Phase 2 -$ -$ -$ 253,991$ -$ 253,991$
Meter Replacement 300,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$
Moraine Bridge -$ 394,000$ -$ -$ -$ 394,000$
Panorama Circle Water Main
Replacement -$ -$ -$ -$ 507,903$ 507,903$
Park View and Cyteworth Water
Main Replacement -$ -$ 622,224$ -$ -$ 622,224$
Prospect Mountain PRV Water Main -$ -$ 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Rockwell/W. Riverside 16" Main 320,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 320,000$
Spruce Drive Water Main
Replacement -$ 295,496$ -$ -$ -$ 295,496$
Stanley Circle Water Main
Replacement Phase 3 -$ -$ -$ 215,422$ -$ 215,422$
Distribution Total 1,528,663$ 882,893$ 897,224$ 691,259$ 839,511$ 4,839,550$
Purification
348
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 5yr Total
Capital Expenditures by Funding Source
Glacier Creek Water Treatment
Plant Land Acquisition 170,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 170,000$
USA Water Rights Contract (BOR
Expires 2019)44,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 44,000$
Purification Total 214,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 214,000$
Water Fund Total 1,742,663$ 882,893$ 897,224$ 691,259$ 839,511$ 5,053,550$
Grand Total 9,231,192$ 13,283,893$ 14,576,008$ 22,655,967$ 6,703,136$ 66,450,196$
349
Total Estimated Cost
Federal Grant or Loan
Engineering/Stormwater
Bridge Replacement (Crags Dr/Big Thompson River)2,500,000$
Bridge Replacement (Riverside Dr/Confluence)4,000,000$
Bridge Replacement (Rockwell)2,500,000$
Bridge Replacement (Spruce Dr/Fall River)2,000,000$
Engineering/Stormwater Total 11,000,000$
Streets
Intersection Improvements (Marys Lake Rd/ Moraine Ave)1,430,000$
Moraine Avenue Multi-Modal Improvements 8,250,000$
Streets Total 9,680,000$
Federal Grant or Loan Total 20,680,000$
State Grant or Loan
Facilities
Downtown Parking Structure 13,210,875$
North Visitor Center Parking Structure 12,054,375$
Public Works Service Center Facility 3,215,000$
Facilities Total 28,480,250$
State Grant or Loan Total 28,480,250$
General Fund
Streets
Moraine Avenue Multi-Modal Improvements 346,992$
Streets Total 346,992$
Facilites
Downtown Parking Structure 4,403,625$
North Visitor Center Parking Structure 4,018,125$
Public Works Service Center Facility 9,645,000$
Town Hall Relocation 11,572,500$
Facilities Total 29,639,250$
Fairgrounds and Events
Events Complex Barn Replacement 8,000,000$
Fairgrounds and Events Total 8,000,000$
General Fund Total 37,986,242$
1A Sales Tax Fund
Streets
Moraine Avenue Multi-Modal Improvements 343,000$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Conference Center Lot)145,860$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Events Center Lot)400,000$
Out-Years Capital Expenditures by Funding Source
350
Total Estimated Cost
Out-Years Capital Expenditures by Funding Source
Parking Lot Resurfacing (South Visitor Center Lot)145,860$
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Town Hall Lot)371,000$
Street Improvement Program (STIP)2,218,286$
Trail Resurfacing (US34)357,500$
Streets Total 3,981,506$
1A Sales Tax Fund Total 3,981,506$
Community Reinvestment Fund
Facilities
Town Hall Relocation 3,857,500$
Facilities Total 3,857,500$
Community Reinvestment Fund Total 3,857,500$
Open Space Fund
Parks
Baseline Irrigation Controllers 199,500$
Parks Irrigation System Replacement 195,000$
Parks Total 394,500$
Streets
Trail Resurfacing (US34)357,500$
Streets Total 357,500$
Open Space Fund Total 752,000$
Potential Future Parking Enterprise Fund
Transportation
Downtown Parking Program 12,090,000$
Transportation Total 12,090,000$
Potential Parking Enterprise Fund Total 12,090,000$
Potential Future Stormwater Enterprise Fund
Engineering/Stormwater
Stormwater Capital Impt Program 67,000,000$
Engineering/Stormwater Total 67,000,000$
Potential Stormwater Enterprise Fund Total 67,000,000$
Water
Distribution
Big Thompson Avenue (HWY 34) East to Mall Road 213,000$
Distribution Total 213,000$
Water Total 213,000$
Grand Total 175,040,498$
351
Index of Project Detail Sheets by Department
Administrative Services .............................................................................................................................. 32
Document Management System ............................................................................................................ 32
Public Works ............................................................................................................................................... 33
Engineering/Stormwater......................................................................................................................... 33
Carriage Hills East Dam Spillway ......................................................................................................... 33
Stormwater Capital Improvement Program ....................................................................................... 34
Trail Extension and Big Thompson River Channel Widening .............................................................. 35
Facilities ................................................................................................................................................... 36
Downtown Parking Program ............................................................................................................... 36
Museum Collections and Research Facility......................................................................................... 37
Town Hall Elevator Modernization ..................................................................................................... 38
Town Hall Police Department Roof..................................................................................................... 39
Town Hall Windows – 2nd Floor .......................................................................................................... 40
Streets ..................................................................................................................................................... 41
Cleave Street Resurfacing ................................................................................................................... 41
Community Drive Resurfacing ............................................................................................................ 42
Downtown Estes Loop (Town Portion) ............................................................................................... 43
Dynamic Message Boards – Phase 2 ................................................................................................... 44
E Riverside Drive Resurfacing ............................................................................................................. 45
Elm Road Resurfacing ......................................................................................................................... 46
Intersection Improvements (US36/Community Drive) ....................................................................... 47
Intersection Improvements (Wonderview/MacGregor) .................................................................... 48
Moraine Avenue Multi-Modal Improvements .................................................................................... 49
Moraine Avenue Riverwalk Underpass Ramps ................................................................................... 50
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Big Horn Lot) ............................................................................................... 51
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Brownfields Lot) .......................................................................................... 52
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Davis Lot)..................................................................................................... 53
Parking Lot Resurfacing (East Riverside Lot “DQ Lot”) ....................................................................... 54
Parking Lot Resurfacing (North Visitor Center Lot) ............................................................................ 55
352
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Performance Park Lot) ................................................................................ 56
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Post Office Lot) ............................................................................................ 57
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Spruce Lot) .................................................................................................. 58
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Town Hall Lot) ............................................................................................. 59
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Tregent Lot) ................................................................................................. 60
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Virginia Lot) ................................................................................................. 61
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Weist Lot) .................................................................................................... 62
Street Improvement Program (STIP) .................................................................................................. 63
Trail Extension (Brodie Avenue) ......................................................................................................... 64
Trail Extension (Fall River) ................................................................................................................... 65
Trail Extension (Wonderview Ave) ...................................................................................................... 66
Transportation Master Plan ................................................................................................................ 67
Parks ........................................................................................................................................................ 68
Baseline Irrigation Controllers ............................................................................................................ 68
Greenhouse Expansion ....................................................................................................................... 69
Parks Irrigation System Replacement ................................................................................................. 70
Community Services ................................................................................................................................... 71
Fairgrounds and Events ........................................................................................................................... 71
Arena 1-4 Footing Renovation Project................................................................................................ 71
Event Center Acoustics ....................................................................................................................... 72
Events Complex Barn Replacement .................................................................................................... 73
Events Complex Internal Roadway Improvement .............................................................................. 74
Events Complex Master Plan .............................................................................................................. 75
Events Complex Mobile Stage ............................................................................................................ 76
Events Complex Signage ..................................................................................................................... 77
Events Complex Storage Building ....................................................................................................... 78
Light and Power .......................................................................................................................................... 79
Distribution ............................................................................................................................................. 79
Automated Meter Reading Improvements (SG2016) ......................................................................... 79
Carriage Hills Phase 1 .......................................................................................................................... 80
Carriage Hills Phase 2 .......................................................................................................................... 81
Dandie Way ......................................................................................................................................... 82
353
Goblin Castle (GC2019) ....................................................................................................................... 83
Highway 34 Big Thompson Canyon..................................................................................................... 84
Longs Peak Area .................................................................................................................................. 85
Ski Road Area ...................................................................................................................................... 86
Skinner Road Area ............................................................................................................................... 87
Tahosa Park (AP2018) ......................................................................................................................... 88
Water .......................................................................................................................................................... 89
Distribution ............................................................................................................................................. 89
Aspen Avenue Water Main Replacement ........................................................................................... 89
Big Horn Drive Water Main Replacement .......................................................................................... 90
Big Thompson Avenue (HWY 34) Water Main Repair ........................................................................ 91
Bureau Area Phase 2 ........................................................................................................................... 92
Bureau Area Phase 3 ........................................................................................................................... 93
Bureau Area Phase 4 ........................................................................................................................... 94
Hill Streets Water Main Replacement Phase 2 ................................................................................... 95
Meter Replacement ............................................................................................................................ 96
Moraine Bridge ................................................................................................................................... 97
Panorama Circle Water Main Replacement ....................................................................................... 98
Park View and Cyteworth Water Main Replacement ......................................................................... 99
Prospect Mountain PRV Water Main ................................................................................................ 100
Rockwell/W. Riverside 16” Main ...................................................................................................... 101
Spruce Drive Water Main Replacement ........................................................................................... 102
Stanley Circle Water Main Replacement Phase 3 ............................................................................. 103
Purification ............................................................................................................................................ 104
Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plan Land Acquisition .................................................................... 104
USA Water Rights Contract (BOR Expires 2019) ............................................................................... 105
Out Years Projects .................................................................................................................................... 106
Public Works – Engineering/Stormwater .............................................................................................. 106
Bridge Replacement (Crags Dr/Big Thompson River) ....................................................................... 106
Bridge Replacement (Riverside Dr/Confluence) ............................................................................... 107
Bridge Replacement (Rockwell) ........................................................................................................ 108
Bridge Replacement (Spruce Dr/Fall River) ...................................................................................... 109
354
Public Works – Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 110
Downtown Parking Structure ........................................................................................................... 110
North Visitor Center Parking Structure ............................................................................................. 111
Public Works Service Center Facility ................................................................................................. 112
Town Hall Relocation ........................................................................................................................ 113
Public Works –Streets ........................................................................................................................... 114
Intersection Improvements (Marys Lake Rd/Moraine Ave) ............................................................. 114
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Conference Center Lot) ............................................................................. 115
Parking Lot Resurfacing (Events Center) ........................................................................................... 116
Parking Lot Resurfacing (South Visitor Center Lot)........................................................................... 117
Trail Resurfacing (US34) .................................................................................................................... 118
Water - Distribution .............................................................................................................................. 119
Big Thompson Avenue (HWY 34) East to Mall Road ......................................................................... 120
355
Document Management System
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 191,800.00
Municipal Building
10
New
Records
Jackie Williamson
$ 70,000
Estimated Start Date:
AdminServices
GovtServIntSupport
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$191,800$133,800 $- $- $- $-$58,000
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$133,800 $-$-$-$191,800$-$58,000
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs20212020201920182022
$191,800$133,800 $-$-$-General Fund $-$58,000
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$133,800 $-$-$-$191,800$-$58,000
Funding Details:Additional staff (1.0 FTE) anticipated in 2019/2020 - Records Tech/Manager
Project Description and Justification
Continued implementation of an enterprise wide document mgmt system and workflow process software utilizing
Laserfiche Rio. Ph II & Ph III in 2018 for additional licenses, public portal & public web servers . 2022 Replace sql
servers.
Final Notes
356
Carriage Hills East Dam Spillway
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 300,000.00
Across the road and south of Scott
Avenue and Baldpate Ct
50
New
Engineering / Stormwater
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$100,000$- $- $- $100,000 $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $40,000 $40,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $30,000 $30,000$-$-
Design:$- $- $- $10,000 $10,000$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $20,000 $20,000$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$100,000
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$200,000 $300,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$300,000$- $- $- $300,000General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $300,000 $300,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
East dam spillway: Install pipes and outlet. *Other Cost is to acquire water rights through water court.
Final Notes
357
Stormwater Capital Impt Program
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 75,000,000.00
Throughout Estes Park
50
New
Engineering / Stormwater
Kevin Ash
$ 260,000
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
PublicSHE
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$60,000,000$- $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $53,600,000$1,600,000
Contingency:$- $190,000 $190,000 $190,000 $7,125,000$6,365,000$190,000
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $1,875,000$1,675,000$50,000
Design:$- $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $5,625,000$5,025,000$150,000
Legal:$- $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $75,000$67,000$2,000
Right of Way:$- $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $300,000$268,000$8,000
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $2,000,000 $2,000,000
$2,000,000 $75,000,000$67,000,000$2,000,000
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$35,000,000$- $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000Enterprise $27,000,000$2,000,000
Federal Grant or
Loan
$-$-$-$-$40,000,000$40,000,000$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $75,000,000$67,000,000$2,000,000
Funding Details:TBD: Paid for by future Stormwater Utility Fee Increase $20/mo x 8466 parcel owners.
Project Description and Justification
Final Notes
358
TRAIL EXTENTION & Big T River Channel
Widening
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 11,440,000.00
120
Engineering / Stormwater
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
PublicSHE
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$8,000,000$-$-$- $8,000,000 $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $800,000 $800,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $960,000 $960,000$-$-
Design:$-$-$- $1,200,000 $1,200,000$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $80,000 $80,000$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $400,000 $400,000$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$11,440,000 $11,440,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$11,440,000$- $- $- $11,440,000Federal Grant or
Loan
$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $11,440,000 $11,440,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Widen channel to accommodate flood flow requirements. Extend trail.
Final Notes
359
Downtown Parking Program
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 13,572,500.00
Downtown Estes Park
10
MasterPlan
Facilities
Jon Landkamer
$ 160,000
Estimated Start Date:03/2018
Public Works
Transportation
RobustEcon
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$11,000,000$- $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $10,000,000$250,000
Contingency:$- $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $1,100,000$1,000,000$25,000
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $600,000$500,000$25,000
Design:$- $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $600,000$500,000$25,000
Legal:$- $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $15,000$5,000$2,500
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$280,000
Annual Cost:$- $327,500 $327,500
$327,500 $13,595,000$12,005,000$327,500
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$13,315,000$- $175,000 $200,000 $400,000Enterprise $12,090,000$450,000
General Fund $- $152,500 $127,500 $-$280,000$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $327,500 $327,500 $400,000 $13,595,000$12,090,000$450,000
Funding Details:O&M includes $110K/yr for Parking Mgr and $50K for 3 seasonal enforcement positions
Project Description and Justification
Implement Downtown Parking on 250 spaces/year over 4 yrs. Build downtown parking garage in out years.
Final Notes
General Fund support required until parking revenue exceeds O&M exp. Estimated in first 2 yrs. Repay GF from
parking revenue in subsequent years (*Other project costs)
360
Museum Collections and Research Facility
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 1,700,000.00
200 Fourth Street
50
New
Facilities
Derek Fortini
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$1,700,000$- $1,700,000 $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $1,700,000 $-
$-$1,700,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$1,000,000$- $1,000,000 $- $-Private Grant or
Loan
$-$-
Other Funding $- $700,000 $- $-$700,000$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $1,700,000 $- $-$1,700,000$-$-
Funding Details:Other funding is from to-be-determined grants.
Project Description and Justification
To provide a purpose built building to house collection of 30,000 artifacts. Will provide adequate space and allow room
for future growth. Space for researchers. Appropriate lighting, temp and humidity, theft prevention, fire/flood mitigation,
pest mgmt.
Final Notes
361
Town Hall Elevator Modernization
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 500,000.00
Town Hall
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Facilities
Jon Landkamer
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
GuestServ
GovtServIntSupport
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$455,000$-$- $455,000 $-$-$-
Contingency:$- $- $45,000 $-$45,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $500,000
$-$500,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$500,000$- $- $500,000 $-General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $500,000 $-$500,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Modernize the elevator cab to make the controls ADA compliant
Final Notes
362
Town Hall Police Dept Roof
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 120,000.00
Town Hall
10
Replacement
Facilities
Jon Landkamer
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
GovtServIntSupport
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$100,000$- $100,000 $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $20,000 $- $-$20,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $120,000 $-
$-$120,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$120,000$- $120,000 $- $-General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $120,000 $- $-$120,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Roof requires replacement
Final Notes
363
Town Hall Windows - 2nd Floor West
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 55,000.00
Town Hall Building - 2nd Floor
20
Replacement
Facilities
Jon Landkamer
Estimated Start Date:06/2019
Public Works
GovtServIntSupport
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$55,000$55,000 $- $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$55,000 $- $-
$-$55,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$55,000$55,000 $- $- $-General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$55,000 $- $- $-$55,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Windows on upper west side of Town Hall are beginning to fail. They're not very energy efficient and the coating on
them, to reduce glare, is failing and looks very bad (inside and outside of windows)
Final Notes
364
Cleave Street Resurfacing
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 600,000.00
Cleave Street from Spruce Dr to Big
Horn Dr
20
Replacement
Engineering / Transportation
Kelly Stallworth
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$475,000$-$- $475,000 $-$-$-
Contingency:$- $- $60,000 $-$60,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $45,000 $-$45,000$-$-
Design:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $10,000 $-$10,000$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $10,000 $-$10,000$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $600,000
$-$600,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$600,000$- $- $600,000 $-General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $600,000 $-$600,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Mill and fill Cleave Street
Final Notes
365
Community Drive Resurfacing
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 500,000.00
Community Drive off Hwy 7 north to
Manford
20
Replacement
Engineering / Transportation
Kelly Stallworth
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$400,000$- $400,000 $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $40,000 $- $-$40,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $40,000 $- $-$40,000$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $10,000 $- $-$10,000$-$-
Right of Way:$- $10,000 $- $-$10,000$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $500,000 $-
$-$500,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$500,000$- $500,000 $- $-General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $500,000 $- $-$500,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Mill and fill Community Dr from Hwy 7 north to Manford
Final Notes
366
Downtown Estes Loop (Town Portion)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 3,444,381.00
Elkhorn/Moraine/Riverside
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Greg Muhonen
Estimated Start Date:10/2021
Public Works
Transportation
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$-$- $- $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$3,444,381 $- $- $-$3,444,381$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$3,444,381 $- $-
$-$3,444,381$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$3,444,381$3,444,381 $- $- $-State Grant or Loan $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$3,444,381 $- $- $-$3,444,381$-$-
Funding Details:$4.2M from CDOT RAMP funds, $13,005,000 from FLAP grant. FLAP funds not administered by Town.
Town RAMP funds to apply to ROW purchases in 2018.
Project Description and Justification
Roadway realignment to reduce congestion/improve multi-modal safety. Right of way acquisition and final design
2017/2018. Construction in 2021/2022
Final Notes
367
Dynamic Message Boards - Phase 2
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 200,000.00
Mall Road, US34, US36
10
New
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Transportation
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$180,000$- $- $180,000 $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $10,000 $-$10,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$- $10,000 $-$10,000$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $200,000
$-$200,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$160,000$- $80,000 $80,000 $-Federal Grant or
Loan
$-$-
General Fund $- $40,000 $- $-$40,000$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $120,000 $80,000 $-$200,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Install additional electronic message signs on US34, US36 and CO7 to convey parking status information to arriving
guests.
Final Notes
368
E Riverside Drive Resurfacing
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 625,000.00
E Riverside Drive from Crags Dr NE
to Ivy St
20
Replacement
Engineering / Transportation
Kelly Stallworth
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Transportation
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$550,000$- $- $- $550,000 $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $25,000 $25,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $40,000 $40,000$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $5,000 $5,000$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $5,000 $5,000$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$625,000 $625,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$625,000$- $- $- $625,000General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $625,000 $625,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Mill and fill E Riverside Dr
Final Notes
369
Elm Road Resurfacing
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 500,000.00
Elm Road from Moraine north to town
boundary
20
Replacement
Engineering / Transportation
Kelly Stallworth
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$400,000$-$-$-$-$-$400,000
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$40,000$-$40,000
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$50,000$-$50,000
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$5,000$-$5,000
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$5,000$-$5,000
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$500,000$-$500,000
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$500,000$-$-$-$-General Fund $-$500,000
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$500,000$-$500,000
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Mill and fill Elm Road
Final Notes
370
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
(US36/Community Dr)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 510,000.00
Community Drive & US36
20
Replacement
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:05/2018
Public Works
Infrastructure
Transportation
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$310,000$- $310,000 $-$-$-$-
Contingency:$- $60,000 $- $-$60,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $60,000 $- $-$60,000$-$-
Design:$- $75,000 $-$-$75,000$-$-
Legal:$- $5,000 $- $-$5,000$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $510,000 $-
$-$510,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$510,000$- $510,000 $- $-General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $510,000 $- $-$510,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Add left turn lane and extend trail underpass. Triggered by Events Complex and Rec Center.
Final Notes
371
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
(Wonderview/MacGregor)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 1,430,000.00
Wonderview Ave & MacGregor Ave
Intersection
20
New
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Transportation
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$815,100$-$-$- $815,100 $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $143,000 $143,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $171,600 $171,600$-$-
Design:$- $- $- $214,500 $214,500$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $14,300 $14,300$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $71,500 $71,500$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$1,430,000 $1,430,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$1,430,000$- $- $- $1,430,000State Grant or Loan $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $1,430,000 $1,430,000$-$-
Funding Details:CDOT FASTER Funding
Project Description and Justification
Intersection Improvement
Final Notes
372
Moraine Avenue Multi-Modal Improvements
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 9,968,992.00
Moraine Ave from west of Crags to
Marys Lake Road
20
Replacement
Engineering / Transportation
Greg Muhonen
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
CommServ
Transportation
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$5,682,325$-$-$-$-$5,682,325$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$996,899$996,899$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$1,196,279$1,196,279$-
Design:$- $- $- $-$1,495,349$1,495,349$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$99,690$99,690$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$498,450$498,450$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$9,968,992$9,968,992$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$8,250,000$- $- $- $-Federal Grant or
Loan
$8,250,000$-
1A Sales Tax $- $- $343,000 $343,000 $1,372,000$343,000$343,000
General Fund $- $- $- $-$346,992$346,992$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $343,000 $343,000 $9,968,992$8,939,992$343,000
Funding Details:Funding dependent on FLAP grant award
Project Description and Justification
Road widening & trail expansion work eligible for Federal Lands Access Program grant funding.
Final Notes
373
Moraine Avenue Riverwalk Underpass Ramps
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 500,000.00
From 1/2 block west of Moraine to
1/2 block east of Moraine
10
New
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
CommServ
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$200,000$- $100,000 $100,000 $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $35,000 $35,000 $-$70,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $42,000 $42,000 $-$84,000$-$-
Design:$- $52,500 $52,500 $-$105,000$-$-
Legal:$- $3,000 $3,000 $-$6,000$-$-
Right of Way:$- $17,500 $17,500 $-$35,000$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $250,000 $250,000
$-$500,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$500,000$- $250,000 $250,000 $-Open Space $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $250,000 $250,000 $-$500,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Create/construct Fall River riverwalk underpass. Public/Private partnership with Estes Epic for Fall River riverwalk
ramps.
Final Notes
374
PARKING LOT RESURFACING (Big Horn Lot)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 39,000.00
Big Horn & Cleave
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:10/2020
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$24,570$- $- $24,570 $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $3,900 $-$3,900$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $4,680 $-$4,680$-$-
Design:$-$- $5,850 $-$5,850$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $39,000
$-$39,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$39,000$- $- $39,000 $-1A Sales Tax $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $39,000 $-$39,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Mill & Overlay Parking Lot. Assume chipseal every seven years.
Final Notes
375
PARKING LOT RESURFACING (Brownfields Lot)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 26,000.00
Elkhorn Avenue next to Brownfields
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:10/2019
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$23,400$- $- $23,400 $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $2,600 $-$2,600$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $26,000
$-$26,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$26,000$- $- $26,000 $-1A Sales Tax $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $26,000 $-$26,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Chip Seal Parking Lot. Assume chipseal every seven years. Evaluate ownership - vacate?
Final Notes
376
PARKING LOT RESURFACING (Davis Lot)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 88,000.00
Davis & Moraine
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:10/2018
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$55,440$- $55,440 $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $8,800 $- $-$8,800$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $10,560 $- $-$10,560$-$-
Design:$- $13,200 $-$-$13,200$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $88,000 $-
$-$88,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$88,000$- $88,000 $- $-1A Sales Tax $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $88,000 $- $-$88,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Crack Seal & Slurry Seal. Assume chipseal every seven years.
Final Notes
377
PARKING LOT RESURFACING (DQ-East Riverside
Lot)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 98,000.00
Elkhorn & Riverside
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:10/2021
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$61,740$- $- $- $- $-$61,740
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$9,800$-$9,800
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$11,760$-$11,760
Design:$-$-$-$-$14,700$-$14,700
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$98,000$-$98,000
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$98,000$- $- $- $-1A Sales Tax $-$98,000
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$98,000$-$98,000
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Mill and Overlay Needed. Assume chipseal every seven years.
Final Notes
378
PARKING LOT RESURFACING (N Visitor Center
Lot )
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 260,000.00
Big Thompson Ave. Visitor Center
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:10/2021
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$163,800$- $- $- $163,800 $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $26,000 $26,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $31,200 $31,200$-$-
Design:$- $- $- $39,000 $39,000$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$260,000 $260,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$260,000$- $- $- $260,0001A Sales Tax $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $260,000 $260,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Mill & Overlay Parking Lot
Final Notes
Assume chipseal every seven years
379
PARKING LOT RESURFACING (Performance Park
Lot)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 250,000.00
Performance Park
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$250,000$- $250,000 $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $250,000 $-
$-$250,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$250,000$- $250,000 $- $-General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $250,000 $- $-$250,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Mill & Overlay Parking Lot. Assume chipseal every seven years.
Final Notes
380
PARKING LOT RESURFACING (Post Office Lot)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 145,860.00
W Riverside & Ivy
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$102,000$- $- $- $- $-$102,000
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$10,200$-$10,200
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$12,240$-$12,240
Design:$- $- $- $-$15,300$-$15,300
Legal:$- $- $- $-$1,020$-$1,020
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$5,100$-$5,100
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$145,860$-$145,860
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$145,860$- $- $- $-1A Sales Tax $-$145,860
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$145,860$-$145,860
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Crack Seal & Slurry Seal. Resurfaced in 2021 by Loop Project. Assume chipseal every seven years.
Final Notes
381
PARKING LOT RESURFACING (Spruce Lot)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 36,000.00
Spruce & Cleave
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:10/2018
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$22,680$- $22,680 $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $3,600 $- $-$3,600$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $4,320 $- $-$4,320$-$-
Design:$- $5,400 $-$-$5,400$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $36,000 $-
$-$36,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$36,000$- $36,000 $- $-1A Sales Tax $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $36,000 $- $-$36,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Mill & Overlay. Assume chipseal every seven years.
Final Notes
382
PARKING LOT RESURFACING (Town Hall Lot)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 471,000.00
Town Hall - Elkhorn & MacGregor
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:10/2019
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$296,730$- $63,000 $-$-$233,730$-
Contingency:$- $10,000 $- $-$47,100$37,100$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $12,000 $- $-$56,520$44,520$-
Design:$- $15,000 $-$-$70,650$55,650$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $100,000 $-
$-$471,000$371,000$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$471,000$- $100,000 $- $-1A Sales Tax $371,000$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $100,000 $- $-$471,000$371,000$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Chip Seal 2019, Mill & Overlay in future. Assume chipseal every seven years.
Final Notes
383
PARKING LOT RESURFACING (Tregent Park Lot)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 18,000.00
Spruce & Elkhorn
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$11,340$- $- $11,340 $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $1,800 $-$1,800$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $2,160 $-$2,160$-$-
Design:$-$- $2,700 $-$2,700$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $18,000
$-$18,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$18,000$- $- $18,000 $-1A Sales Tax $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $18,000 $-$18,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Mill & Overlay Parking Lot. Assume chipseal every seven years.
Final Notes
384
PARKING LOT RESURFACING (Virginia Lot)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 30,000.00
Virginia & Elkhorn
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:10/2020
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$18,900$- $- $18,900 $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $3,000 $-$3,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $3,600 $-$3,600$-$-
Design:$-$- $4,500 $-$4,500$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $30,000
$-$30,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$30,000$- $- $30,000 $-1A Sales Tax $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $30,000 $-$30,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Mill & Overlay Parking Lot. Assume chipseal every seven years.
Final Notes
385
PARKING LOT RESURFACING (Weist Lot)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 157,000.00
Wiest & Moraine
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:10/2020
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$98,910$-$- $98,910 $-$-$-
Contingency:$- $- $15,700 $-$15,700$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $18,840 $-$18,840$-$-
Design:$- $- $23,550 $-$23,550$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $157,000
$-$157,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$157,000$- $- $157,000 $-1A Sales Tax $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $157,000 $-$157,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Mill & Overlay Parking Lot. Assume chipseal every seven years.
Final Notes
386
Street Improvement Program (STIP)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 11,628,411.00
Throughout Estes Park
10
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kelly Stallworth
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Transportation
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$10,308,411$1,610,348 $1,550,000 $1,586,304 $1,713,208 $1,998,286$1,850,265
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $900,000$150,000$150,000
Design:$70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $420,000$70,000$70,000
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$1,830,348 $1,770,000 $1,806,304
$1,933,208 $11,628,411$2,218,286$2,070,265
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$11,628,411$1,830,348 $1,770,000 $1,806,304 $1,933,2081A Sales Tax $2,218,286$2,070,265
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$1,830,348 $1,770,000 $1,806,304 $1,933,208 $11,628,411$2,218,286$2,070,265
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
1A Sales Tax Initiative - Street Improvements $70K Design, $100K Crack Seal, $600K Seal Coat, $300K Overlay,
$300K Brodie Trail, Construction Mgmt cost of $150K incl spray patch operat , $74K Parking Lot Resurfacing, $30K
Spray Patcher Emulsion/Aggregate
Final Notes
Program Expires 2024
387
TRAIL EXTENSION - Brodie Avenue
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 400,000.00
Brodie Ave. from Community Dr. to
Fish Creek
20
New
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:04/2018
Public Works
CommServ
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$400,000$400,000 $-$-$-$-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$400,000 $-$-$-$400,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs20212020201920182022
$400,000$400,000 $-$-$-1A Sales Tax $-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$400,000 $-$-$-$400,000$-$-
Funding Details:$300K from 1A Trails
Project Description and Justification
Extend and improve trail at Brodie Ave.
Final Notes
388
TRAIL EXTENSION (Fall River)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 7,037,000.00
Fall River Rd from Sleepy Hollow Ct
NW to Fish Hatchery then W to town
limits/RMNP
20
New
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
CommServ
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$7,037,000$- $2,337,000 $2,350,000 $2,350,000 $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $2,337,000 $2,350,000
$2,350,000 $7,037,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$1,037,000$- $337,000 $350,000 $350,000Open Space $-$-
State Grant or Loan $- $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $6,000,000$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $2,337,000 $2,350,000 $2,350,000 $7,037,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Extend and improve Fall River Trail. Added $200K local match. Open Lands. Total local match $537K.
Final Notes
389
TRAIL EXTENSION (Wonderview Ave)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 350,000.00
Along the north side of Wonderview
from US34/US36 intersection to
MacGregor Ave.
20
New
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
CommServ
GuestServ
PublicSHE
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$199,500$- $199,500 $-$-$-$-
Contingency:$- $35,000 $- $-$35,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $42,000 $- $-$42,000$-$-
Design:$- $52,500 $- $-$52,500$-$-
Legal:$- $3,500 $- $-$3,500$-$-
Right of Way:$- $17,500 $- $-$17,500$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $350,000 $-
$-$350,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$87,500$- $87,500 $- $-Open Space $-$-
1A Sales Tax $- $262,500 $- $-$262,500$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $350,000 $- $-$350,000$-$-
Funding Details:1A Trails Funding
Project Description and Justification
Construct trail from the US34/US36 intersection north and west to MacGregor Ave (N Side)
Final Notes
390
Transportation Master Plan
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 200,000.00
Throughout Estes Park
50
MasterPlan
Engineering / Transportation
Greg Muhonen
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Transportation
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$200,000$- $200,000 $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $200,000 $-
$-$200,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$200,000$- $200,000 $- $-General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $200,000 $- $-$200,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Final Notes
391
Baseline Irrigation Controllers
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 465,500.00
Multiple locations within Estes Park
20
New
Parks
Brian Berg
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$465,500$- $66,500 $66,500 $66,500 $199,500$66,500
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $66,500 $66,500
$66,500 $465,500$199,500$66,500
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$465,500$- $66,500 $66,500 $66,500Open Space $199,500$66,500
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $66,500 $66,500 $66,500 $465,500$199,500$66,500
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
To update irrigation controllers for water conservation and computer monitoring and control
Final Notes
392
Greenhouse Expansion
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 70,000.00
Parks Shop
50
ExtendUsefulLife
Parks
Brian Berg
Estimated Start Date:05/2018
Public Works
GovtServIntSupport
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$50,000$- $50,000 $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $15,000 $- $-$15,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$- $5,000 $-$-$5,000$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $70,000 $-
$-$70,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$70,000$- $70,000 $- $-General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $70,000 $- $-$70,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Expansion on existing greenhouse located at the Parks Shops. It will be 50'x20'. Expands flowerbeds and additional
landscaping needs (i.e. new transit facility).There will be a significant increase in the number of plants/flowers needing
maintained.
Final Notes
393
Parks Irrigation System Replacement
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 455,000.00
Throughout Estes Park
20
Replacement
Parks
Brian Berg
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$455,000$- $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $195,000$65,000
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $65,000 $65,000
$65,000 $455,000$195,000$65,000
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$455,000$- $65,000 $65,000 $65,000Open Space $195,000$65,000
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $455,000$195,000$65,000
Funding Details:Irrigation Main - 1st Stage of Riverwalk
Project Description and Justification
Replace outdated irrigation system
Final Notes
394
Arena 1-4 Footing Renovation Project
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 500,000.00
Events Complex
10
ExtendUsefulLife
Special Events
Rob Hinkle
Estimated Start Date:
Community Services
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$500,000$125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$125,000 $125,000 $125,000
$125,000 $500,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$500,000$125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $500,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Arenas need leveled at base and additional footing needed. Will require for footing to be taken out of arena allowing
base to be worked on prior to new footing addition. Base is uneven and is rising to top in areas posing safety risk for
horses.
Final Notes
395
Events Center Acoustics
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 60,000.00
Events Center
20
New
Special Events
Rob Hinkle
Estimated Start Date:
Community Services
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$60,000$60,000 $- $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$60,000 $- $-
$-$60,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$60,000$60,000 $- $- $-General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$60,000 $- $- $-$60,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Acoustic problems currently exist for concerts, festivals and meetings. Add 3,800 sf of sound dampening boards
around all four inside walls of the Events Center.
Final Notes
396
Events Complex Barn Replacement
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 12,000,000.00
Events Complex
20
Replacement
Special Events
Rob Hinkle
Estimated Start Date:
Community Services
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$12,000,000$-$- $4,000,000 $-$8,000,000$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $4,000,000
$-$12,000,000$8,000,000$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$12,000,000$- $- $4,000,000 $-General Fund $8,000,000$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $4,000,000 $-$12,000,000$8,000,000$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replace all east barns (120 stalls) and Barns U, T, V & W (202 stalls) over multiple years. Trying to expand the horse
show season generating more income. Condensing all barns into 2 or 3 pavilions will allow for more event space on
property.
Final Notes
397
Events Complex Internal Roadway Improvement
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 150,000.00
Events Complex
20
Replacement
Special Events
Rob Hinkle
Estimated Start Date:
Community Services
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$150,000$- $150,000 $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $150,000 $-
$-$150,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$150,000$- $150,000 $- $-General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $150,000 $- $-$150,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replace old roadways and parking areas on the east side of the events complex. New roadways from all gates through
middle of events complex and around Event Center including campground. Old asphalt is breaking away and has many
potholes causing issues.
Final Notes
398
Events Complex Master Plan
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 40,000.00
Events Center
10
MasterPlan
Special Events
Rob Hinkle
Estimated Start Date:
Community Services
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$-$- $- $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$- $40,000 $-$-$40,000$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $40,000 $-
$-$40,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$40,000$- $40,000 $- $-General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $40,000 $- $-$40,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Hire design firm to complete new Events Complex Master Plan to address future growth. Aligns with strategic plan for
Comm Svcs in 2017 and will help prioritize future capital projects. Plan will address rehabilitation, replacement and new
projects.
Final Notes
399
Events Complex Mobile Stage
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 150,000.00
Mobile
20
Replacement
Special Events
Rob Hinkle
Estimated Start Date:
Community Services
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$150,000$150,000 $- $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$150,000 $-$-$-$150,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs20212020201920182022
$150,000$150,000 $-$-$-General Fund $-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$150,000 $-$-$-$150,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Current stage has safety issues. Determined not to have permanent stage installed at Bond Park so stage can be
utilized in multiple locations
Final Notes
400
Events Complex Signage
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 100,000.00
Events Complex
20
New
Special Events
Rob Hinkle
Estimated Start Date:
Community Services
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$90,000$- $90,000 $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$- $10,000 $-$-$10,000$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $100,000 $-
$-$100,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$100,000$- $100,000 $- $-General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $100,000 $- $-$100,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Currently no internal directional or arrival signage. Project would design, construct and install permanent signage
throughout the Events Complex.
Final Notes
401
Events Complex Storage Building
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 350,000.00
Events Complex
50
New
Special Events
Rob Hinkle
Estimated Start Date:
Community Services
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$350,000$- $350,000 $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $350,000 $-
$-$350,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$350,000$- $350,000 $- $-General Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $350,000 $- $-$350,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
2,000 SF storage bldg to be utilized for event complex equipment. Need dry, rodent-free storage with safe/easy access.
Final Notes
402
Automated Meter Reading Improvements SG2016
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 945,000.00
Estes Valley
15
New
Light & Power
Joe Lockhart
Estimated Start Date:01/2016
Utilities
Infrastructure
GovtServIntSupport
PublicSHE
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$885,000$515,000 $170,000 $100,000 $100,000 $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $60,000$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$515,000 $190,000 $120,000
$120,000 $945,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$945,000$515,000 $190,000 $120,000 $120,000Light & Power Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$515,000 $190,000 $120,000 $120,000 $945,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Install smart meters for improved service quality and reliability. AMI meters will help trouble shoot outages, voltage
issues and will reduce driving while reading meters.
Final Notes
403
Carriage Hills Phase 1
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 775,480.00
Carriage Hills
60
Replacement
Light & Power
Joe Lockhart
Estimated Start Date:01/2020
Utilities
Infrastructure
GovtServIntSupport
PublicSHE
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$682,480$-$- $682,480 $-$-$-
Contingency:$- $- $38,000 $-$38,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $5,000 $-$5,000$-$-
Design:$- $- $50,000 $-$50,000$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $775,480
$-$775,480$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$775,480$- $- $775,480 $-Light & Power Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $775,480 $-$775,480$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replacing bare copper to insulated tree cable due to the number of outages in the area.
Final Notes
404
Carriage Hills Phase 2
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 507,000.00
Carriage Hills
60
Replacement
Light & Power
Joe Lockhart
Estimated Start Date:01/2021
Utilities
Infrastructure
GovtServIntSupport
PublicSHE
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$492,000$-$-$- $492,000 $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $5,000 $5,000$-$-
Design:$- $- $- $10,000 $10,000$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$507,000 $507,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$507,000$- $- $- $507,000Light & Power Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $507,000 $507,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replacing bare copper to insulated tree cable due to the number of outages in the area.
Final Notes
405
Dandie Way
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 50,000.00
Dandie Way
80
Replacement
Light & Power
Joe Lockhart
Estimated Start Date:06/2018
Utilities
Infrastructure
GovtServIntSupport
PublicSHE
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$50,000$50,000 $-$-$-$-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$50,000 $- $-
$-$50,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$50,000$50,000 $- $- $-Light & Power Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$50,000 $- $- $-$50,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Rebuild overhead power line with tree cable to reduce outages and improve power quality
Final Notes
406
Goblin Castle Area
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 115,000.00
Goblin Castle Road
60
Replacement
Light & Power
Joe Lockhart
Estimated Start Date:04/2018
Utilities
Infrastructure
GovtServIntSupport
PublicSHE
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$100,000$100,000 $-$-$-$-$-
Contingency:$2,500 $- $- $-$2,500$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$2,500 $- $- $-$2,500$-$-
Design:$10,000 $-$-$-$10,000$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$115,000 $-$-$-$115,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs20212020201920182022
$115,000$115,000 $-$-$-Light & Power Fund $-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$115,000 $-$-$-$115,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Install tree cable to reduce outages and improve service quality.
Final Notes
407
Hwy 34 Big Thompson Canyon
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 450,000.00
Hwy 34
80
Replacement
Light & Power
Joe Lockhart
Estimated Start Date:01/2018
Utilities
Infrastructure
GovtServIntSupport
PublicSHE
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$450,000$450,000 $-$-$-$-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$450,000 $-$-$-$450,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs20212020201920182022
$450,000$450,000 $-$-$-Light & Power Fund $-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$450,000 $-$-$-$450,000$-$-
Funding Details:$200K for tree cable and $250K for fiber optic cable
Project Description and Justification
While Hwy 34 is closed, install fiber and tree cable to improve service quality and reliability.
Final Notes
408
Longs Peak Area
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 160,000.00
Longs Peak Road Area
60
Replacement
Light & Power
Joe Lockhart
Estimated Start Date:06/2018
Utilities
Infrastructure
GovtServIntSupport
PublicSHE
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$135,000$135,000 $-$-$-$-$-
Contingency:$15,000 $- $- $-$15,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$10,000 $- $- $-$10,000$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$160,000 $-$-$-$160,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs20212020201920182022
$160,000$160,000 $-$-$-Light & Power Fund $-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
NA $-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$160,000 $-$-$-$160,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Install tree cable to reduce outages and improve service quality
Final Notes
409
Ski Road Area
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 286,000.00
Ski Road Allenspark
60
Replacement
Light & Power
Joe Lockhart
Estimated Start Date:01/2019
Utilities
Infrastructure
GovtServIntSupport
PublicSHE
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$260,000$- $260,000 $-$-$-$-
Contingency:$- $16,000 $- $-$16,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$- $10,000 $- $-$10,000$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $286,000 $-
$-$286,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$286,000$- $286,000 $- $-Light & Power Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $286,000 $- $-$286,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replacing bare copper to insulated tree cable due to the number of outages in the area.
Final Notes
410
Skinner Road Area
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 300,000.00
Skinner Road Allenspark
60
Replacement
Light & Power
Joe Lockhart
Estimated Start Date:01/2019
Utilities
Infrastructure
GovtServIntSupport
PublicSHE
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$265,000$- $265,000 $-$-$-$-
Contingency:$- $15,000 $- $-$15,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $10,000 $- $-$10,000$-$-
Design:$- $10,000 $-$-$10,000$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $300,000 $-
$-$300,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$300,000$- $300,000 $- $-Light & Power Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $300,000 $- $-$300,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replacing bare copper to insulated tree cable due to the number of outages in the area.
Final Notes
411
Tahosa Park (AP2022)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 67,000.00
Tahosa Road
60
Replacement
Light & Power
Joe Lockhart
Estimated Start Date:05/2022
Utilities
Infrastructure
GovtServIntSupport
PublicSHE
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$50,000$-$-$-$-$-$50,000
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$17,000$-$17,000
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$67,000$-$67,000
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$67,000$- $- $- $-Light & Power Fund $-$67,000
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$67,000$-$67,000
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replacing bare copper to insulated tree cable due to the number of outages in the area.
Final Notes
412
Aspen Avenue Water Main Replacement
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 180,760.00
Aspen Avenue
80
Replacement
Water
Cliff Tedder
Estimated Start Date:08/2018
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$139,050$139,050 $- $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$13,905 $- $- $-$13,905$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$13,205 $- $- $-$13,205$-$-
Design:$14,600 $- $- $-$14,600$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$180,760 $-$-$-$180,760$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs20212020201920182022
$180,760$180,760 $-$-$-Water Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$180,760 $-$-$-$180,760$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replace old galvanized pipe to improve fire flows and water quality
Final Notes
413
Big Horn Drive Water Main Replacement
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 193,397.00
Big Horn Drive
80
Replacement
Water
Cliff Tedder
Estimated Start Date:07/2019
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$140,000$- $140,000 $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $17,799 $- $-$17,799$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $16,689 $- $-$16,689$-$-
Design:$- $16,909 $-$-$16,909$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $2,000 $- $-$2,000$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $193,397 $-
$-$193,397$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$193,397$- $193,397 $- $-Water Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $193,397 $- $-$193,397$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replacement of galvanized pipe that is past its useful life
Final Notes
414
Big Thompson Avenue (HWY 34) Water Main
Repair
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 507,903.00
Big Thompson Avenue
80
Replacement
Water
Cliff Tedder
$0
Estimated Start Date:04/2018
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$458,951$458,951 $- $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$16,562 $- $- $-$16,562$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$17,390 $- $- $-$17,390$-$-
Design:$15,000 $-$-$-$15,000$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$507,903 $-$-$-$507,903$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs20212020201920182022
$507,903$507,903 $-$-$-Water Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$507,903 $-$-$-$507,903$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replace old galvanized pipe to improve fire flows and water quality
Final Notes
415
Bureau Area Phase 2
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 220,000.00
3rd and 4th streets
80
Replacement
Water
Cliff Tedder
Estimated Start Date:04/2018
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$200,000$200,000 $- $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$10,000 $- $- $-$10,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$10,000 $- $- $-$10,000$-$-
Design:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$220,000 $-$-$-$220,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs20212020201920182022
$220,000$220,000 $-$-$-Water Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$220,000 $-$-$-$220,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Rebuild distribution system to improve fire flows and quality of service
Final Notes
416
Bureau Area Phase 3
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 221,845.00
2nd and 3rd Streets
80
Replacement
Water
Cliff Tedder
$ 1,500
Estimated Start Date:04/2019
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$180,000$- $- $- $180,000 $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $20,412 $20,412$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $21,433 $21,433$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$221,845 $221,845$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$221,846$- $- $- $221,846Water Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $221,846 $221,846$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Final Notes
417
Bureau Area Phase 4
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 331,607.00
2nd and 3rd Streets
80
Replacement
Water
Cliff Tedder
Estimated Start Date:04/2020
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$270,000$- $- $- $- $-$270,000
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$30,052$-$30,052
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$31,555$-$31,555
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$331,607$-$331,607
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$331,608$- $- $- $-Water Fund $-$331,608
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$331,608$-$331,608
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
This project will involve the abandonment of water lines past their useful life and install new water lines separated from
other utilities and additionally address high pressure issues
Final Notes
418
Hill Streets Water Main Replacement Phase 2
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 253,992.00
Landers Street and Columbine
Avenue
80
Replacement
Water
Cliff Tedder
Estimated Start Date:05/2021
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$185,000$- $- $- $185,000 $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $22,997 $22,997$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $24,147 $24,147$-$-
Design:$-$-$- $21,848 $21,848$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$253,992 $253,992$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$253,991$- $- $- $253,991Water Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $253,991 $253,991$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replacement of galvanized pipe past its useful life for the improvement of infrastructure and water quality
Final Notes
419
Meter Replacement
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 300,000.00
Throughout Town
10
Replacement
Water
Cliff Tedder
Estimated Start Date:01/2018
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$300,000$300,000 $- $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$300,000 $-$-$-$300,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs20212020201920182022
$-$-$-$-Water Fund $-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $- $-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replacement of water meters past their useful life, will serve to prevent lost revenue and provide accountable water
monitoring
Final Notes
420
Moraine Bridge
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 394,000.00
Moraine Avenue
80
Replacement
Water
Chris Eshelman
Estimated Start Date:10/2017
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$309,000$- $309,000 $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $46,000 $- $-$46,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $15,000 $- $-$15,000$-$-
Design:$- $20,000 $-$-$20,000$-$-
Legal:$- $3,000 $- $-$3,000$-$-
Right of Way:$- $1,000 $- $-$1,000$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $394,000 $-
$-$394,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$394,000$- $394,000 $- $-Water Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $394,000 $- $-$394,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replacement of water lines past their useful life and relocation of water lines due to the Moraine Bridge Project
Final Notes
421
Panorama Circle Water Main Replacement
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 507,903.00
Panorama Circle
80
Replacement
Water
Cliff Tedder
$ 1,500
Estimated Start Date:05/2022
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$370,000$- $- $- $- $-$370,000
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$45,968$-$45,968
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$48,266$-$48,266
Design:$- $- $- $-$43,669$-$43,669
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$507,903$-$507,903
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$507,903$- $- $- $-Water Fund $-$507,903
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$507,903$-$507,903
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replacement of galvanized pipe that is past its useful life
Final Notes
422
Park View & Cyteworth Water Main Replacement
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 622,223.00
Cyteworth Road and Park View Lane
80
Replacement
Water
Cliff Tedder
$ 1,500
Estimated Start Date:03/2020
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$450,000$- $- $450,000 $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $57,408 $-$57,408$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $60,278 $-$60,278$-$-
Design:$- $- $54,537 $-$54,537$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $622,223
$-$622,223$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$622,224$- $- $622,224 $-Water Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $622,224 $-$622,224$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replacement of galvanized pipe that is past its useful life for improvement of infrastructure and water quality
Final Notes
423
Prospect Mountain PRV Water Main
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 275,000.00
Steele Court
80
Replacement
Water
Cliff Tedder
Estimated Start Date:03/2020
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$200,000$- $- $200,000 $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $25,000 $-$25,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $26,250 $-$26,250$-$-
Design:$- $- $23,750 $-$23,750$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $275,000
$-$275,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$275,000$- $- $275,000 $-Water Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $275,000 $-$275,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
To address flow restriction issues in the area and improve infrastructure
Final Notes
424
Rockwell / W. Riverside 16" Main
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 320,000.00
Rockwell St and W. Riverside Dr.
80
Replacement
Water
Chris Eshelman
$ 1,200
Estimated Start Date:10/2018
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$300,000$300,000 $- $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$20,000 $-$-$-$20,000$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$320,000 $-$-$-$320,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs20212020201920182022
$320,000 $-$-$-Water Fund $-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$320,000 $-$-$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Rebuild distribution system prior to construction associated with the loop project and core development for future
projects
Final Notes
425
Spruce Drive Water Main Replacement
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 295,495.00
Spruce Drive
80
Replacement
Water
Cliff Tedder
$ 1,500
Estimated Start Date:01/2019
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$215,000$- $215,000 $- $- $-$-
Contingency:$- $26,832 $- $-$26,832$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $28,173 $- $-$28,173$-$-
Design:$- $25,490 $- $-$25,490$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $295,495 $-
$-$295,495$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$295,496$- $295,496 $- $-Water Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $295,496 $- $-$295,496$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replacement of galvanized pipe past its useful life for the improvement of infrastructure and water quality
Final Notes
426
Stanley Circle Water Main Replacement Phase 3
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 215,422.00
Stanley Circle Drive
80
Replacement
Water
Cliff Tedder
$ 1,500
Estimated Start Date:02/2021
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$175,000$- $- $- $175,000 $-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $19,718 $19,718$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $20,704 $20,704$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$215,422 $215,422$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$215,422$- $- $- $215,422Water Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $215,422 $215,422$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replacement of galvanized pipe past its useful life for the improvement of infrastructure and water quality
Final Notes
427
Glacier Creek Water Trtmt Plant Land Acquisition
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 170,000.00
Glacier Creek
New
Water
Chris Eshelman
Estimated Start Date:01/2018
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$170,000$170,000 $-$-$-$-$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$170,000 $-$-$-$170,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs20212020201920182022
$170,000$170,000 $-$-$-Water Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$170,000 $-$-$-$170,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Acquisition of land to develop redundant raw water source.
Final Notes
428
USA Water Rights Contract, BOR expires 2019
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 44,000.00
Marys Lake, Ramshorn Tunnel, East
Portal
50
Master Plan
Water
Chris Eshelman
$0
Estimated Start Date:01/2017
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Contingency:$4,000 $- $- $-$4,000$-$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$-$-$-
Legal:$40,000 $- $- $-$40,000$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$44,000 $- $-
$-$44,000$-$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$44,000$44,000 $- $- $-Water Fund $-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$44,000 $- $- $-$44,000$-$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Legal negotiations for contact renewal
Final Notes
429
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (Crags Dr / Big T River)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 2,500,000.00
W Riverside Dr at Big Thompson
River
40
Replacement
Engineering / Stormwater
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
Transportation
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$1,425,000$- $- $- $- $1,425,000$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$250,000$250,000$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$300,000$300,000$-
Design:$- $- $- $-$375,000$375,000$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$25,000$25,000$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$125,000$125,000$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$2,500,000$2,500,000$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$2,500,000$- $- $- $-Federal Grant or
Loan
$2,500,000$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$2,500,000$2,500,000$-
Funding Details:Grant funding to be determined
Project Description and Justification
Replace existing bridge to accommodate new flood flows
Final Notes
430
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (Riverside Dr /
Confluence)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 4,000,000.00
Riverside Dr. between Rockwell &
Elkhorn
40
Replacement
Engineering / Stormwater
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
Transportation
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$2,280,000$- $- $- $- $2,280,000$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$400,000$400,000$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$480,000$480,000$-
Design:$- $- $- $-$600,000$600,000$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$40,000$40,000$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$200,000$200,000$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$4,000,000$4,000,000$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$4,000,000$- $- $- $-Federal Grant or
Loan
$4,000,000$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$4,000,000$4,000,000$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replace existing bridge to accommodate new flood flows and recreation trail underpass. Major sanitary sewer
realignment may be required for underpass.
Final Notes
431
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (Rockwell )
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 2,500,000.00
Rockwell Street over Big Thompson
River
40
Replacement
Engineering / Stormwater
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
Transportation
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$1,425,000$- $- $- $- $1,425,000$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$250,000$250,000$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$300,000$300,000$-
Design:$- $- $- $-$375,000$375,000$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$25,000$25,000$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$125,000$125,000$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$2,500,000$2,500,000$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$2,500,000$- $- $- $-Federal Grant or
Loan
$2,500,000$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$2,500,000$2,500,000$-
Funding Details:Grant funding to be determined.
Project Description and Justification
Replace existing bridge to accommodate new flood flows
Final Notes
432
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (Spruce Drive / Fall
River)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 2,000,000.00
Spruce Drive at Fall River
40
Replacement
Engineering / Stormwater
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
Transportation
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$1,140,000$- $- $- $- $1,140,000$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$200,000$200,000$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$240,000$240,000$-
Design:$- $- $- $-$300,000$300,000$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$20,000$20,000$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$100,000$100,000$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$2,000,000$2,000,000$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$2,000,000$- $- $- $-Federal Grant or
Loan
$2,000,000$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$2,000,000$2,000,000$-
Funding Details:Grant funding to be determined
Project Description and Justification
Replace existing bridge to accommodate new flood flows.
Final Notes
433
Downtown Parking Structure
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 17,614,500.00
Town Hall Lot
50
New
Facilities
Jon Landkamer
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Transportation
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$13,700,000$-$-$-$-$13,700,000$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$1,370,000$1,370,000$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$1,096,000$1,096,000$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$1,370,000$1,370,000$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$68,500$68,500$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$10,000$10,000$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$17,614,500$17,614,500$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$4,403,625$- $- $- $-General Fund $4,403,625$-
State Grant or Loan $- $- $- $-$13,210,875$13,210,875$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$17,614,500$17,614,500$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Estimate is based on a 500 parking space structure at the cost of $35K per space. Does not include land acquisition.
Final Notes
434
N. Visitor Center Parking Structure
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 16,072,500.00
North Visitor Center parking lot.
50
New
Facilities
Jon Landkamer
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Transportation
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$12,500,000$-$-$-$-$12,500,000$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$1,250,000$1,250,000$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$1,000,000$1,000,000$-
Design:$- $- $- $-$1,250,000$1,250,000$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$62,500$62,500$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$10,000$10,000$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$16,072,500$16,072,500$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$4,018,125$- $- $- $-General Fund $4,018,125$-
State Grant or Loan $- $- $- $-$12,054,375$12,054,375$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$16,072,500$16,072,500$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Estimate is based on a 500-space structure at $32K per parking space.This structure would go on land already owned
by the Town. It does not account for relocation of the Parks Dept.
Final Notes
435
Public Works Service Center Facility
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 12,860,000.00
Unknown
50
Replacement
Facilities
Jon Landkamer
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
GovtServIntSupport
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$10,000,000$-$-$-$-$10,000,000$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$1,000,000$1,000,000$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$800,000$800,000$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$1,000,000$1,000,000$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$50,000$50,000$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$10,000$10,000$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$12,860,000$12,860,000$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$9,645,000$- $- $- $-General Fund $9,645,000$-
State Grant or Loan $- $- $- $-$3,215,000$3,215,000$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$12,860,000$12,860,000$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
New facility would replace existing PW office.
Final Notes
436
Town Hall Relocation
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 15,430,000.00
Unknown
50
Replacement
Facilities
Jon Landkamer
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
GovtServIntSupport
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$12,000,000$-$-$-$-$12,000,000$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$1,200,000$1,200,000$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$960,000$960,000$-
Design:$- $- $- $-$1,200,000$1,200,000$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$60,000$60,000$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$10,000$10,000$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$15,430,000$15,430,000$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$11,572,500$- $- $- $-General Fund $11,572,500$-
Community
Reinvestment
$- $- $- $-$3,857,500$3,857,500$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$15,430,000$15,430,000$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Estimate is based on a 40,000 sf building at $400/sf. Does not include land acquisition.
Final Notes
437
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (Marys Lake
Rd/Moraine)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 1,430,000.00
Intersection of Mary's Lake Rd &
Moraine Ave (US36)
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Transportation
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$1,000,000$-$-$-$-$1,000,000$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$100,000$100,000$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$120,000$120,000$-
Design:$- $- $- $-$150,000$150,000$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$10,000$10,000$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$50,000$50,000$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$1,430,000$1,430,000$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$1,430,000$- $- $- $-Federal Grant or
Loan
$1,430,000$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$1,430,000$1,430,000$-
Funding Details:Future FLAP grant application 2022
Project Description and Justification
Improve intersection capacity and safety with new roundabout. Town to complete NEPA process prior to application.
Final Notes
438
PARKING LOT RESURFACING (Conf Ctr Lot)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 145,860.00
101 S St Vrain
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$102,000$-$-$-$-$102,000$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$10,200$10,200$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$12,240$12,240$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$15,300$15,300$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$1,020$1,020$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$5,100$5,100$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$145,860$145,860$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$145,860$- $- $- $-1A Sales Tax $145,860$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$145,860$145,860$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Resurface lot to extend life. Assume chip seal every 7 years.
Final Notes
439
PARKING LOT RESURFACING (Events Center
Lot)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 400,000.00
Fairgrounds
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$228,000$-$-$-$-$228,000$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$40,000$40,000$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$48,000$48,000$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$60,000$60,000$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$4,000$4,000$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$20,000$20,000$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$400,000$400,000$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$400,000$- $- $- $-1A Sales Tax $400,000$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$400,000$400,000$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Mill & Overlay Needed. Assume chipseal every seven years.
Final Notes
440
PARKING LOT RESURFACING (S Visitor Center
Lot)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 145,860.00
Hwy 36 SW OF Hwy 34 Intersection
20
Replacement
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
Infrastructure
CommServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$102,000$- $- $- $- $102,000$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$10,200$10,200$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$12,240$12,240$-
Design:$- $- $- $-$15,300$15,300$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$1,020$1,020$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$5,100$5,100$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$145,860$145,860$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$145,860$- $- $- $-1A Sales Tax $145,860$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$145,860$145,860$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Resurface lot to extend life. Assume chip seal every 7 years.
Final Notes
441
TRAIL RESURFACING (US-34)
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 715,000.00
Along Hwy 34 from Steamer Dr to
Ride A Kart
20
ExtendUsefulLife
Engineering / Transportation
Kevin Ash
Estimated Start Date:
Public Works
CommServ
GuestServ
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$500,000$-$-$-$-$500,000$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$50,000$50,000$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$60,000$60,000$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$75,000$75,000$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$5,000$5,000$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$25,000$25,000$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$715,000$715,000$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$357,500$- $- $- $-Open Space $357,500$-
1A Sales Tax $- $- $- $-$357,500$357,500$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$715,000$715,000$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Resurface and improve trail
Final Notes
442
Big Thompson Avenue (HWY 34) East to Mall
Road
Project Information
Department:
Division:
Useful Life:
Capital Type:
Board Goal:
Project Manager:
Budget Estimate:
Location:
Annual Change in O&M:
$ 213,000.00
Big Thompson Avenue
80
Master Plan
Water
Chris Eshelman
$ 1,500
Estimated Start Date:
Utilities
Infrastructure
Project Costs
2018 2019 2020 2021 Out Yrs Total2022
Construction:$145,000$- $- $- $- $145,000$-
Contingency:$- $- $- $-$20,000$20,000$-
Costruction Mgmnt:$- $- $- $-$21,000$21,000$-
Design:$-$-$-$-$26,000$26,000$-
Legal:$- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Right of Way:$- $- $- $-$1,000$1,000$-
Other:$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $-
$-$213,000$213,000$-
Funding Sources
TotalOut Yrs2021202020192018 2022
$213,000$- $- $- $-Water Fund $213,000$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
NA $- $- $- $-$-$-$-
Annual Cost:$- $- $- $-$213,000$213,000$-
Funding Details:
Project Description and Justification
Replacement of galvanized pipe that is past its useful life. This will also facilitate the fruition of the Master Plan to loop
the water lines to Mall Road and eventually south to Fish Creek Rd.
Final Notes
443
444
Town Attorney Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: December 12, 2017
RE: Agreement Regarding Exercise of Rights of First Refusal to Acquire Windy
Gap Water Units from Platte River Power Authority
Objective:
Approve the Agreement Regarding Exercise of Rights of First Refusal to Acquire Windy
Gap Water Units From Platte River Power Authority among the City of Fort Collins, City
of Loveland, Town of Estes Park (collectively the “Municipalities”), and Platte River
Power Authority (“Platte River”).
Present Situation:
The Municipalities were the original participants in the Windy Gap Water Project
developed by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District along with the City of Boulder, City of Longmont, and the City of Greeley. The
Municipalities, along with the City of Longmont, collectively formed Platte River. In July
of 1974, the Municipalities assigned their preferential rights to contract with the
Subdistrict for 160 units of Windy Gap water to PRPA (80 units from Fort Collins, 40
units from Loveland and 40 units from the Town). As part of that assignment, a Right of
First Refusal was reserved to the Municipalities stating as follows:
“If Platte River shall ever offer the right to the use of any such waters, through
development of reuse potential, transfer, lease or sale of any portion of the
allotment, or otherwise, to any other person or entity, it shall first offer the use
thereof, to the Municipality on substantially similar terms and conditions as those
at which such right of use is offered to such other person or entity.”
In the last few years, Platte River has annually leased some of its Windy Gap water to
third parties and obtained approval of those leases from the Municipalities.
Recently, Platte River determined that it does not need all of its allocation of Windy Gap
water to meet its current and future power generation needs. Platte River has
determined to divest some of its Windy Gap water units. In 2017, Platte River sold 23
Windy Gap water units to various third parties, and the Municipalities each waived and
refused their respective rights of first refusal with respect to those 23 Windy Gap water
units.
445
However, due to issues and questions that arose with regard to the sale of those 23
Windy Gap water units, the Municipalities and Platte River determined to enter into an
Agreement defining the procedures, roles, and responsibilities of each party with regard
to the exercise of the Municipalities’ rights of first refusal for any future transfer of Windy
Gap water units by Platte River.
The Agreement provides for the following a) Notice by Platte River of the proposed
Windy Gap transfer with a third party; b) Procedure for protecting any confidential
information with regard to potential transfer of Windy Gap water; c) Exercise or waiver
of each Municipalities’ right of first refusal; d) Joint exercise of Municipalities’ right of first
refusal in the event that two or more Municipalities wish to exercise their right of first
refusal.
Town Staff is recommending approval of the Agreement as it provides needed
clarification of the procedures, roles, and responsibilities for the exercise or waiver of
the right of first refusal for any future transfer of Windy Gap water rights by Platte River
pursuant to the Town’s July of 1974 assignment of 40 units of the Town’s Windy Gap
water to Platte River.
Advantages:
Adoption of the Agreement clarifies the Municipalities’ and Platte River’s procedures,
roles and responsibilities for any future transfer of Windy Gap water by Platte River.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
The approval of the Agreement Regarding Exercise of Rights of First Refusal to Acquire
Windy Gap Water Units from Platte River.
Budget:
There are no budget implications pursuant to this Agreement.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/not approve the Agreement Regarding Exercise of Rights of First
Refusal to Acquire Windy Gap Water Units from Platte River Power Authority.
Attachments:
Agreement Regarding Exercise of Rights of First Refusal to Acquire Windy Gap Water
Units from Platte River Power Authority.
446
1
AGREEMENT REGARDING EXERCISE OF RIGHTS OF FIRST REFUSAL TO ACQUIRE
WINDY GAP WATER UNITS FROM PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins, the City of Loveland and the Town of Estes Park (each a
“Municipality” and collectively the “Municipalities”) participated in a project developed by the Municipal
Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (“Subdistrict”) to divert and store water
from the Western Slope known as the “Windy Gap Project;” and
WHEREAS, in connection with their participation in the Windy Gap Project, each of the
Municipalities received a preferential right to contract with the Subdistrict for a certain fraction of the
waters developed by the Subdistrict; and
WHEREAS, the waters developed by the Subdistrict were ultimately represented by contractual
allotments of units of water from the Windy Gap Project (“Windy Gap Water Units”), with each unit
representing approximately 1/480th of the anticipated yield of the Windy Gap Project, or approximately
100 acre-feet of water; and
WHEREAS, in July 1974, the Municipalities assigned their preferential rights to contract with the
Subdistrict for the equivalent of 160 Windy Gap Water Units to the Platte River Power Authority (“Platte
River”), being the equivalent of 80 units from Fort Collins, and 40 units from Loveland and 40 units from
Estes Park, with copies of said assignments being attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C; and
WHEREAS, each of the Municipalities’ assignments of the Windy Gap Water Units to Platte River
reserved a right of first refusal to the Municipalities, stating:
[I]f Platte River shall ever offer the right to the use of any of such waters, through
development of reuse potential, transfer, lease or sale of any portion of the allotment,
or otherwise, to any other person or entity, it shall first offer the use thereof, to the
Municipality on substantially similar terms and conditions as those at which such right of
use is offered to such other person or entity.
The assignments, however, provided no further guidance regarding the coordination of the exercise of
the Municipalities’ respective rights of first refusal; and
WHEREAS, Platte River has previously sold 23 Windy Gap Water Units to various third parties,
leaving Platte River with 137 Windy Gap Water Units, and the Municipalities each waived and refused
their respective rights of first refusal with respect to those 23 Windy Gap Water Units; and
WHEREAS, the Municipalities and Platte River wish to provide for the efficient administration
and documentation of the Municipalities’ exercise or refusal of such rights with respect to any future
transfer of the right to use any such Windy Gap Water Units, through development of reuse potential,
447
2
transfer, lease or sale of any portion of the allotment, or otherwise (hereinafter a “Windy Gap
Transfer”);
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
undersigned parties agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect until the termination of
rights described in Section 8 below has occurred.
2. Notice of Transfer. Upon reaching agreement on the material terms of a proposed Windy Gap
Transfer with a third party, Platte River shall provide written notice to the Municipalities (“Notice of
Transfer”). The Notice of Transfer shall state, at minimum, (a) the number of Windy Gap Water Units
subject to the proposed Windy Gap Transfer and (b) the material terms of the proposed Windy Gap
Transfer. Notice shall be deemed given as of the date of receipt of the Notice of Transfer by the
Municipalities. The identity of the counterparty need not be disclosed in the Notice of Transfer.
3. Confidentiality of Terms of Notice of Transfer. It is agreed and understood that the
unauthorized disclosure of the terms of a proposed Windy Gap Transfer may cause immediate and
irreparable damage to Platte River, including but not limited to the loss of favorable transaction terms.
Accordingly, the Notice of Transfer and all terms and conditions set forth therein (hereinafter referred
to collectively as “Confidential Information”) shall be subject to the following terms and conditions:
a. Platte River shall conspicuously mark any Notice of Transfer given to the Municipalities
as “CONFIDENTIAL”.
b. The Municipalities shall maintain the Confidential Information in the strictest of
confidence and shall not disclose such terms and conditions to any third party without
the express, written consent of Platte River, subject to Paragraph 3.f. For the purposes
of this paragraph, “third party” does not refer to a Municipality’s employees, agents,
consultants, contractors, and elected or appointed officials.
c. The obligations of confidentiality and non-disclosure regarding the Confidential
Information set forth herein shall be binding upon the Municipalities and their
respective employees, agents, consultants, contractors, and elected or appointed
officials, subject to Paragraph 3.f.
d. Each Municipality shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to limit the
disclosure of the Confidential Information to a Municipality’s employees, agents,
consultants, contractors, and elected or appointed officials, with a need to know such
information in order to assist the Municipality in evaluating whether to exercise its right
of first refusal, subject to Paragraph 3.f.
e. Each Municipality shall inform any person to whom it discloses the Confidential
Information of the confidentiality obligations of this Agreement and, with respect to
persons who are not a Municipality’s employees or elected or appointed officials, shall
448
3
secure the written agreement of that person to maintain the confidentiality of such
Confidential Information.
f. Nothing herein shall affect the obligations of a Municipality to either make disclosures
or preserve the confidentiality of the Notice of Transfer to the extent required by law or
court order, including, but not limited to, requirements under the Colorado Open
Records Act, CRS §24-72-201 et seq., and other Colorado and federal statutes, court
rules, and administrative rules and regulations. If a Municipality receives a request to
produce or disclose the Confidential Information, whether pursuant to the Colorado
Open Records Act, C.R.S. §24-72-201, et seq., through a subpoena or other lawful
process, or otherwise, the Municipality shall (a) notify Platte River of the request as
soon as practicable and (b) take such steps, to the extent permitted by law, as may
reasonably be required to enforce this covenant of confidentiality against such
disclosure, unless Platte River consents to the disclosure in writing.
g. The terms and conditions regarding the preservation of the confidentiality of the
Confidential Information shall continue for a period of one year from the date of receipt
of the Notice of Transfer by the Municipalities.
Platte River may waive the requirements of subparagraphs a through g of this Section 3 upon written
notice to the Municipalities.
4. Exercise or Waiver of Right. Each Municipality shall have sixty three (63) calendar days from
receipt of the Notice of Transfer to provide Platte River notice of its intent to exercise or waive its right
of first refusal. The right of first refusal must be exercised with respect to the entire amount of Windy
Gap Water Units included in the particular proposed Windy Gap Transfer, and may not be exercised with
respect to a portion of the Windy Gap Water Units included in the particular proposed Windy Gap
Transfer. By providing written notice of its intent to exercise right of first refusal with respect to any
proposed Windy Gap Transfer (a “Notice to Exercise”), a Municipality agrees to be bound to the terms
and conditions set forth in the Notice of Transfer. Platte River and the Municipality shall thereafter
enter into a written agreement incorporating the material terms of the Notice of Transfer within sixty
three (63) days after the Municipality delivers its written Notice to Exercise to Platte River. If Platte
River does not receive a Municipality’s Notice to Exercise or a written waiver of the right of first refusal
within sixty three (63) days of the Notice of Transfer, the Municipality shall be deemed to have waived
and refused its right of first refusal with respect to that proposed Windy Gap Transfer.
5. Concurrent Pro-Rata Rights/Joint Exercise. The Municipalities’ rights of first refusal with respect
to any proposed Windy Gap Transfer shall run concurrently. If more than one Municipality delivers a
Notice to Exercise to Platte River within the sixty three (63) day period described in Section 4, the
Municipalities may exercise their rights of first refusal jointly. Platte River shall immediately notify each
Municipality in writing that more than one Notice to Exercise has been received, and the Municipalities
that have delivered the Notice to Exercise shall have seventy-seven (77) days after such notice to
negotiate an agreement among themselves and Platte River to acquire jointly the rights subject to the
proposed Windy Gap Transfer from Platte River and to deliver such joint agreement to Platte River. The
449
4
Municipalities agree that, in such negotiations, the Municipalities shall recognize their respective pro
rata rights of first refusal. The Municipalities may agree to divide the rights subject to the proposed
Windy Gap Transfer, as well as the consideration to be paid to Platte River for such rights, as among
themselves. The material terms of any such joint agreement, including the consideration to be paid to
Platte River, shall be substantially the same as set forth in the Notice of Transfer.
6. Limit on Number of Units Subject to Right. No Municipality shall have the right to acquire from
Platte River, through the exercise of its rights of first refusal, more Windy Gap Water Units than the
equivalent number of Windy Gap Water Units that such Municipality originally assigned to Platte River:
i.e. City of Fort Collins (80), City of Loveland (40), and Town of Estes Park (40). If a Municipality
exercises its right of first refusal with respect to any Windy Gap Water Units subject to a Windy Gap
Transfer, its right of first refusal shall be reduced by the number of Windy Gap Water Units acquired
thereby. If two or more Municipalities jointly exercise a right of first refusal with respect to any Windy
Gap Transfer, those Municipalities shall agree in writing and notify Platte River as to how the Windy Gap
Water Units will be apportioned among them and their respective rights of first refusal shall be reduced
by the number of Windy Gap Water Units so apportioned. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a
Municipality may increase the number of Windy Gap Water Units subject to its right of first refusal by
acquiring the rights of first refusal held by any other Municipality. Platte River shall maintain a record
of the number of Windy Gap Water Units subject to each Municipality’s right of first refusal and the
number of Windy Gap Water Units acquired through each Municipality’s exercise of its right of first
refusal.
7. Effect of Waiver of Right of First Refusal on Future Windy Gap Transfer. If a Municipality waives
or refuses its right of first refusal to any Windy Gap Transfer, it shall continue to have the right to
exercise its right of first refusal as to any future Windy Gap Transfer up to the full number of units
remaining subject to such Municipality’s right of first refusal.
8. Termination of Rights. A Municipality’s right of first refusal to acquire Windy Gap Water Units
from Platte River shall terminate if a Municipality acquires, through the right of first refusal, a number of
Windy Gap Water Units equal to the equivalent number of units it originally assigned to Platte River or,
if it has obtained additional rights of first refusal as described in Section 6 above, the sum total of all
such units attributable to those originally assigned and later acquired.
9. Sales to a Municipality. Platte River shall not offer for sale any Windy Gap Water Units to any
Municipality without offering a like number of units to the other Municipalities. In any such sales, the
Municipalities shall not have the right to exercise their rights of first refusal addressed in this Agreement
against another Municipality, provided however, that the number of Windy Gap Water Units that a
Municipality acquires shall count against that Municipality’s limit under Paragraph 6 of this Agreement.
10. Right Inapplicable to Subsequently Acquired Units. A Municipality’s right of first refusal shall not
extend to any Windy Gap Water Units that may be acquired by Platte River separate and apart from the
units attributable to those initially assigned to Platte River by the Municipalities.
450
5
11. Notices. Any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be made in writing and
delivered via email or overnight delivery to the following:
a. If to Fort Collins: City Manager and Utilities Executive Director
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
With a copy to City Attorney’s Office
b. If to Loveland: Director. Department of Water and Power
City of Loveland
200 N. Wilson Ave.
Loveland, CO 80537
With a copy to:
City Attorney
City of Loveland
500 E. 3rd St., Suite 330
Loveland, CO 80537
c. If to Estes Park: Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
d. If to Platte River: General Manager
Platte River Power Authority
2000 East Horsetooth Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(With a copy to the General Counsel at the same address)
12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement among the parties
concerning the subject matter herein, and shall supersede and replace any prior negotiations,
understandings or agreements concerning such subject matter.
13. Amendments. This Agreement may not be altered or amended except by a writing duly
executed by an authorized agent of the party to be charged with performance.
14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, all of which together shall be
considered a single agreement.
451
6
DATED this ____ day of ________________, 2017.
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO,
a Colorado municipal corporation
By: _____________________________________
Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk’s Office
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Assistant City Attorney
452
7
DATED this ____ day of ________________, 2017.
CITY OF LOVELAND
By:________________________________
Mayor
Attest:
________________________________
453
8
DATED this ____ day of ________________, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
By:________________________________
Mayor
Attest:
________________________________
454
9
DATED this ____ day of ________________, 2017.
PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY
By:________________________________
Chief Executive Officer
Attest:
________________________________
455
456
ENGINEERING
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kelly Stallworth, EI, Public Works Civil Engineer
Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: December 12, 2017
RE: Design Consultant Selection – Brodie Avenue Improvements
Objective:
The Public Works Department seeks approval of a professional services contract for the
design bid document preparation for the Brodie Avenue improvements to be built in
2018.
Present Situation:
Currently, pedestrian paths exist along Community Drive and along Fish Creek Road.
However, no such path exists connecting these two. This creates potential safety
hazards for pedestrian and bike traffic, specifically school children attempting to access
the elementary and middle schools from either of these paths. Cars parked along Brodie
Avenue in the mornings and afternoons for drop off/pick-up encroach on the only
roadside walking space available. School Zone Improvements are included in the Estes
Valley Master Trails Plan, receiving a priority rank of 6 in the ‘Short Term Opportunities’
section. Of the five trails ranked ahead, three are the responsibility of other
governmental agencies. The other two are Fall River Trail and Fall River Trail
Improvements which are currently in planning. The Public Works Department has
submitted a grant funding application for the construction of these improvements
through the Colorado Safe Routes to School (CSRTS) program. If we are not awarded
this grant, the 1A Trail Expansion Funds will be utilized to fund this trail connection
work.
The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of Brodie Avenue is also one of the lower ranked
in the Town of Estes Park System. Alligator cracking, depressions, bumps and other
distress have necessitated frequent use of the Town spray patcher to temporarily
mitigate issues.
Additionally, this project presents an opportunity to better control stormwater entering
and exiting the Town’s right-of-way and potentially mitigate some runoff issues
impacting the school district’s property. Recent flooding of school property is an
example. 457
Proposal:
In early November Public Works advertised a Request for Proposal that focused on the
following design areas:
• Evaluate the current asphalt condition and determine whether full replacement is
required or if asphalt maintenance repair methods may be adequate.
• Evaluate the on-street parking and traffic patterns.
• Design a10 foot wide multi-purpose concrete trail along Brodie Avenue,
connecting Fish Creek Trail and Community Drive Trail.
• Design needed drainage Improvements.
Seven firms responded to the Request for Proposal. Pavement Manager Kelly
Stallworth and Engineering Manager David Hook rated each of these 7 firms to select
the most qualified. Proposals were rated on 5 categories:
1. Client References and Previous Experience;
2. Adequacy of Proposal to meet Project Scope;
3. Qualification of Staff Proposed;
4. Availability of Staff and Schedule;
5. Fee and Hours.
The following chart contains the ratings for each of the firms:
Firm Name City Ranking Fee
Drexel, Barrell & Co. Boulder 1 $63,400
Tait and Associates, Inc Loveland 2 $98,600
JUB Engineers Fort Collins 3 $102,720
AVI Professional Corporation Fort Collins 4 $64,327
Farnsworth Group Fort Collins 5 $124,088
JR Engineering Fort Collins 6 $169,552
Cornerstone Engineering &
Surveying
Estes Park 7 $69,975
After the ratings were complete, Drexel, Barrell & Co. out of Boulder was the highest
ranked firm. In their proposal, Drexel, Barrell & Co. demonstrated a thorough
knowledge of the design issues in the project area and offered a detailed approach to
improve the roadway and extend a trail along the North side of Brodie Avenue. They
also displayed a thorough understanding of the drainage needs. The firm has been a
part of multiple successful CSRTS grants. Their project experience includes several
successful roadway and pedestrian walkway designs in the region. They are familiar
with the area having designed the roads, grading, water, sewer, storage, and pumping
facilities for the Eagle Rock School on Notaiah Road (for American Honda). They were
also part of a Design Build Team that replaced two US 34 / Big Thompson Bridges near
Drake. Their fee of $63,400 was also highly competitive. A project design budget not to
exceed $70,000 has been determined. This includes a 9% contingency if needed to
address unexpected, unknown conditions that may be encountered as the design effort
progresses.
458
Once design is complete, bidding documents will be provided by Drexel, Barrell & Co.
and a complete construction schedule and cost estimate will be delivered. The
schedule delivered in the RFP is to have construction underway by May 2018.
Action Recommended by Staff:
To advance this Brodie Avenue Improvement Project and meet goals for construction
this summer, Staff recommends award of a design services contract to Drexel, Barrell &
Co.
Budget:
This project will be funded from the Street Improvement Fund. The $70,000 design
budget and contingency will come out of the Professional Engineering Fees line item
within that fund (206-2000-420.22-02).
Level of Public Interest:
Public Interest on this project is expected to be high. This project will impact the School
District, make a trail connection from our trails Master Plan, repair a poor road, and
improve safety of pedestrians.
Sample Motion:
I move for approval/denial to award the professional services contract for design of
Brodie Avenue Improvements to Drexel, Barrell & Co. for a cost not to exceed $70,000.
Attachments:
Contract
459
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
This Contract is entered into this _th___ day of _December_, 2017, by and between the
_Town of Estes Park, Colorado___ (“Town”) and _Drexel, Barrell &Co. (“Consultant”).
Whereas, the parties desire to contract with one another to complete the following
project: Brodie Avenue Improvements .
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained
herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Services.
a. The Consultant shall perform the services set forth in Exhibit A (the Proposal
submitted by the consultant), attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference (“Services”). The Town reserves the right to remove any of the
Services from Exhibit A upon written notice to Contractor. In the event of any
conflict between this Contract and Exhibit A, the provisions of this Contract
shall prevail.
b. No material change to the Services, including any additional compensation,
shall be effective or paid unless authorized by written amendment to this
Contract executed by the Town. If Consultant proceeds without such written
authorization, then Consultant shall be deemed to have waived any claim for
additional compensation, including a claim based on the theory of unjust
enrichment, quantum merit or implied contract. Except as expressly
provided herein, no agent, employee, or representative of the Town is
authorized to modify any term of this Agreement, either directly or implied by
a course of action.
2. Price. The Town shall pay the Consultant a sum not to exceed $63,400_. The Town
shall make payment within thirty days of receipt and approval of monthly invoices,
which shall identify the specific Services performed for which payment is requested.
3. Term. This Contract shall be effective from _December 18, 2017, _
through December 31, 2018 . This Contract may be extended or renewed by written
agreement of the parties.
4. Appropriation. To the extent this Contract constitutes a multiple fiscal year debt
or financial obligation of the Town, it shall be subject to annual appropriation pursuant to the
Town’s annual budgeting process and Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. The
Town shall have no obligation to continue this Contract in any fiscal year in which no such
appropriation is made.
5. Independent Contractor. The parties agree that the Consultant is an independent
Contractor and is not an employee of the Town. The Consultant is not entitled to workers’
compensation benefits from the Town and is obligated to pay federal and state income
tax on any money earned pursuant to this Contract.
460
6. Insurance Requirements.
a. Policies. The Consultant and its subconsultants, if any, shall procure and
keep in force during the duration of this Contract the following insurance
policies and shall provide the Town with a certificate of insurance evidencing
upon execution of this Contract:
i. Comprehensive general liability insurance insuring the Consultant
and naming the Town as an additional insured with minimum
combined single limits of $1,000,000 each occurrence and
$1,000,000 aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises
and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury,
broad form property damage (including completed operations),
personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee
acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and
completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of
interests provision.
ii. Comprehensive automobile liability insurance insuring the
Consultant and naming the Town as an additional insured against
any liability for personal injury, bodily injury, or death arising out of
the use of motor vehicles and covering operations on or off the site of
all motor vehicles controlled by the Consultant which are used in
connection with this Contract, whether the motor vehicles are owned,
non-owned, or hired, with a combined single limit of at least
$1,000,000.
iii. Professional liability insurance insuring the Consultant against any
professional liability with a limit of at least $1,000,000 per claim and
annual aggregate. (Note: this policy shall only be required if the
Consultant is an architect, engineer, surveyor, appraiser, physician,
attorney, accountant, or other licensed professional.)
iv. Workers’ compensation insurance and all other insurance required
by any applicable law. (Note: if under Colorado law the Consultant is
not required to carry workers’ compensation insurance, the
Consultant shall execute a Certificate of Exemption and Waiver,
attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.)
b. Requirements. Required insurance policies shall be with companies
qualified to do business in Colorado with a general policyholder’s financial
rating acceptable to the Town. Said policies shall not be cancelable or
subject to reduction in coverage limits or other modification except after thirty
days prior written notice to the Town. The Consultant shall identify whether
the type of coverage is “occurrence” or “claims made.” If the type of
coverage is “claims made,” which at renewal the Consultant changes to
“occurrence,” the Consultant shall carry a six-month tail. Comprehensive 461
general and automobile policies shall be for the mutual and joint benefit and
protection of the Consultant and the Town. Such policies shall provide that
the Town, although named as an additional insured, shall nevertheless be
entitled to recover under said policies for any loss occasioned to it, its
officers, employees, and agents by reason of negligence of the Contractor,
its officers, employees, agents, subconsultants, or business invitees. Such
policies shall be written as primary policies not contributing to and not in
excess of coverage the Town may carry.
7. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Town,
its officers, employees, and agents from and against all liability, claims, and
demands on account of any injury, loss, or damage, including court costs and
attorneys’ fees, arising out of or connected with the Services, if such injury, loss, or
damage, or any portion thereof, is caused by, or claimed to be caused by, the
negligent act, omission, or other fault of the Consultant or any subconsultant of the
Consultant, or any officer, employee, or agent of the Consultant or any
subconsultant, or any other person for whom the Consultant is responsible. The
Consultant’s indemnification obligation shall not be construed to extend to any
injury, loss, or damage to the extent caused by the act, omission, or other fault of
the Town. This paragraph shall survive the termination or expiration of this Contract.
8. Professional Responsibility.
a. Consultant hereby warrants that it is qualified to perform the Services, holds
all professional licenses required by law to perform the Services, and has all
requisite corporate authority to enter into this Contract.
b. The Services shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with generally
accepted professional practices and the level of competency presently
maintained by other practicing professional firms performing the same or
similar type of work in the Denver metro area. The Services shall be done in
compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules
and regulations.
c. Consultant shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical
accuracy, timely completion, and the coordination of all designs, drawings,
specifications, reports, and other services furnished by Consultant under this
Agreement. Consultant shall, without additional compensation, correct or
resolve any errors or deficiencies in its designs, drawings, specifications,
reports, and other services, which fall below the standard of professional
practice, and reimburse the Town for costs caused by errors and omissions
which fall below the standard of professional practice.
d. Approval by the Town of drawings, designs, specifications, reports, and
incidental work or materials furnished hereunder shall not in any way relieve
Consultant of responsibility for technical adequacy of its services. Neither
the Town's review, approval, or acceptance of, nor payment for, any of the 462
Consultant’s services shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights
under this Contract or of any cause of action arising out of the performance
of this Contract.
e. Consultant hereby agrees that Consultant, including but not limited to, any
employee, principal, shareholder, or affiliate of Consultant shall not have a
financial relationship with or an ownership interest in any person and/or
entity which entity and/or person shall be the recipient of any contract or
work for the services provided by Consultant pursuant to the terms and
conditions of this Contract. Consultant understands and agrees that the
purpose of this provision is to prevent any information created as a result of
Consultant’s services herein being used by any person and/or entity in the
preparation of any bid or performance of any work for the Town.
f. Because the Town has hired Consultant for its professional expertise,
Consultant agrees not to employ subcontractors to perform more than
twenty percent (20 %) of the work required under the Scope of Services.
Upon execution of this Contract, Consultant shall furnish to the Town a list of
proposed subcontractors, and Consultant shall not employ a subcontractor
to whose employment the Town reasonably objects. All contracts between
Consultant and subcontractors shall conform to this Contract including, but
not limited to, Section 10.
9. Governmental Immunity Act. No term or condition of this Contract shall be
construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the notices,
requirements, immunities, rights, benefits, protections, limitations of liability, and
other provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101 et
seq. and under any other applicable law.
10. Compliance with Applicable Laws.
a. Generally. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state,
and local laws, including the ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations
of the Town. The Consultant shall solely be responsible for payment of all
applicable taxes and for obtaining and keeping in force all applicable permits
and approvals.
b. C.R.S. Article 17.5, Title 8. The Consultant hereby certifies that, as of the
date of this Contract, it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal
alien who will perform work under this Contract and that the Consultant will
participate in the e-verify program or Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment (“Department”) program as defined in C.R.S. § 8-17.5-101 in
order to confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly
hired for employment to perform work under this Contract. The Consultant
shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work
under this Contract or enter into a contract with a subconsultant that fails to
certify to the Consultant that the subconsultant shall not knowingly employ or 463
contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract. The
Consultant certifies that it has confirmed the employment eligibility of all
employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under this
Contract through participation in either the e-verify program or the
Department program. The Consultant is prohibited from using either the e-
verify program or the Department program procedures to undertake pre-
employment screening of job applicants while this Contract is being
performed. If the Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a subconsultant
performing work under this Contract knowingly employs or contracts with an
illegal alien, the Consultant shall be required to: (i) notify the subconsultant
and Town within three days that Consultant has actual knowledge that the
subconsultant is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and (ii)
terminate the subcontract with the subconsultant if within three days of
receiving the notice required pursuant to this subparagraph the
subconsultant does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien;
except that Consultant shall not terminate the contract with the
subconsultant if during such three days the subconsultant provides
information to establish that the subconsultant has not knowingly employed
or contracted with an illegal alien. The Consultant shall comply with any
reasonable request by the Department made in the course of an
investigation that it is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in
C.R.S. Article 17.5, Title 8. If the Consultant violates this paragraph, the
Town may terminate this Contract for default in accordance with
“Termination,” below. If this Contract is so terminated, the Consultant shall
be liable for actual and consequential damages to the Town. (Note: this
paragraph shall not apply to contracts: (i) for Services involving the delivery
of a specific end product (other than reports that are merely incidental to the
performance of said work); or (ii) for information technology services and/or
products.)
11. Termination.
a. a. Without Cause. Either party may terminate this Contract without cause
upon thirty days prior written notice to the other. The Town shall be liable to
pay the Consultant for Services performed as of the effective date of
termination, but shall not be liable to the Consultant for anticipated profits.
b. For Default. Each and every term and condition hereof shall be deemed to
be a material element of this Contract. In the event either party fails to
perform according to the terms of this Contract, such party may be declared
in default. If the defaulting party does not cure said breach within ten days of
written notice thereof, the non-defaulting party may terminate this Contract
immediately upon written notice of termination to the other. In the event of
termination of this Contract pursuant to this Section, the non-defaulting party
shall be entitled to recover all damages caused by said default. In the event
that Consultant is in default, the Town may withhold payment to the
Consultant for the purposes of setoff until such time as the amount of
damages is determined.
464
12. Notices. Written notices shall be directed as follows and shall be deemed received
when hand-delivered or emailed, or three days after being sent by certified mail,
return receipt requested:
To the Town: To the Consultant:
Kelly Stallworth, EI Contact:____________________________
Town of Estes Park Company:___________________________
170 MacGregor Avenue Address:____________________________
Estes Park, CO 80517 ___________________________________
Email: kstallworth@estes.org Email:______________________________
13. Special Provisions.
The Contract work shall be completed according to the schedule delivered in
Section 2.0 Schedule of Activities of the “Request for Proposal Consulting
Services Dry Gulch Roadway Improvements” unless otherwise modified in writing
with a subsequent Amendment to this Contract.
14. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in performance of the Services and is
a significant and material term of this Contract.
15. Entire Agreement. This Contract contains the entire agreement of the parties
relating to the subject matter hereof and, except as provided herein, may not be
modified or amended except by written agreement of the parties. In the event a
court of competent jurisdiction holds any provision of this Contract invalid or
unenforceable, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other
provision of this Contract.
16. Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign this Contract without the Town’s prior
written consent.
17. Governing Law. This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Colorado, and venue shall be in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
18. Instruments of Service. Drawings, models, specifications, research, reports,
studies, data, photographs and other documents, including those in electronic form,
prepared by Consultant and its subconsultants in the performance of obligations
under this Contract are Instruments of Service for use solely with respect to the
project identified in this Contract. Consultant and its subconsultants shall be
deemed the authors and owners of their respective Instruments of Service and shall
retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights;
except that, upon execution of this Contract, the Consultant grants to the Town a 465
non-exclusive, perpetual, fully-paid, non-revocable license to reproduce and use the
Consultant's Instruments of Service solely in connection with the above-referenced
project, including the project's further development by the Town and others retained
by the Town for such purposes. The Consultant shall obtain similar licenses from its
subconsultants consistent with this Contract. Consultant shall, during the term of
this Contract provide the Town with copies of all Instruments of Service prepared by
Consultant or its subconsultants contemporaneous with such preparation, and shall
provide them in electronic format or any other format requested by the Town.
19. Attorney’s Fees and Costs. In the event it becomes necessary for either party to
bring any action to enforce any provision of this Contract or to recover any damages
from the other party as a result of the breach of this Contract, including, but not
limited to, defective work, and the party that prevails in such litigation, the other
party shall pay the prevailing party its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as
determined by the court.
20. Electronic Signature. This Contract may be executed by electronic signature in
accordance with C.R.S. § 24-71.3-101 et seq.
466
Signed by the parties on the date written above.
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
By: ____________________________________
Title: ____________________________________
ATTEST:
________________________
Town Clerk
Consultant
By: ____________________________________
Title: ____________________________________
STATE OF ________________ )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ________________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________________,
20 by __________________________________________________.
(Insert name of individual signing on behalf of the Consultant)
___________________________
Notary’s official signature
S E A L
___________________________
467
468
Ordinance #35-17 Town Board Compensation
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: December 12, 2017
RE: Ordinance #35-17 Town Board Compensation
Objective:
Review the Town Board compensation and determine if Board compensation should be
adjusted prior to the upcoming Municipal Election on April 3, 2018 with the adoption of
Ordinance #35-17.
Present Situation:
Staff completed a review and compiled data for Board compensation utilizing the same
comparison communities used in 2012, 2014 and 2016 and presented the information to
the Town Board during the November 14, 2017 study session. The 2017 findings show
the average salary for the Mayor has increased to $11,200 a year. The average
salaries for the Mayor Pro Tem and Trustees has increased to $7,250 and $7,542
respectively. Estes Park ranks towards the bottom of the scale on how the Mayor is
compensated in relation to its peer cities.
During this meeting the Board stated the same communities used to complete the
market study annually for Town employees should be used to review the compensation
for the Board. The Board also expressed the need to consider increasing the
compensation to attract other segments of the population, such as younger working
individuals.
Proposal:
Attached for the Board’s review is the updated data staff was able to obtain for the
market study comparison cities. The datasheets provide data on compensation for the
Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Trustee positions, annual operating budget and population
for each community. In reviewing the data, staff determined the midpoint for each
position as follows: Mayor - $11,000, Mayor Pro Tem $7,000 and Trustee $7,200. The
Mayor Pro Tem and Trustee compensation are similar because most communities do
not differentiate the positions. If the goal is to compensate the Board in the same
manner as employees, 50% of the compensation market would be used to establish the
Board’s compensation. Staff would recommend the Board consider $11,000 for Mayor,
$9,000 for Mayor Pro Tem and $8,000 for Trustees.
469
Ordinance #35-17 Town Board Compensation
Staff also reviewed a subset of the information to compare the Board’s compensation to
communities with similar population. The cities reviewed included Town of Dacono,
Town of Vail, and Town of Avon. Dacono was eliminated because the compensation
was less than $1,000. In comparison, both Vail and Avon, which are tourist/ski towns
and have a higher cost of living, both provide a salary of $12,000 for Mayor, an average
of $8,250 for Mayor Pro Tem and $6,750 for Trustee.
A final review was completed on communities that have similar operating budgets as
the Town. The cities included Town of Erie, City of Steamboat Springs, Town of
Windsor and the City of Lafayette. With these communities the average population
tended to be 20,000 plus. This would be similar to the population of Estes Park during
the busier times of the year. The average salaries are as follows: $9,100 for Mayor,
$7,000 for Mayor Pro Tem and $5,500 for Trustee.
After full review of the information gathered, staff has prepared an Ordinance for the
Board’s consideration utilizing the midpoint from all the communities. This would be in
keeping with how the Town staff is compensated. The Board may wish to revise the
Ordinance during the meeting, therefore, all the data has been provided for the Board’s
review.
Advantages:
• Board salaries would be within the mid-range of other municipalities the Town uses
to evaluate staff compensation.
• An increase would provide additional compensation for those seeking office.
Disadvantages:
• Board salaries would fall behind the average pay range for municipalities.
Action Recommended:
To approve Ordinance #35-17 and increase the compensation for Mayor to $11,000,
Mayor Pro Tem to $9,000 and Trustee to $8,000.
Finance/Resource Impact:
An increase in compensation would require an update to the Legislative personnel line
item. As this would only impact the newly elected Trustees and newly appointed Mayor
Pro Tem in 2018, the budget impact would not be significant, i.e. approximately $7,800.
Level of Public Interest:
Low.
Sample Motion
I move to approve/deny Ordinance #35-17.
Attachment
Ordinance #35-17
Comparison Compensation Chart
470
ORDINANCE NO. 35-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.20.010
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
COMPENSATION OF MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, AND TRUSTEES
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-4-301 (4) C.R.S. the Mayor
and members of the Board of Trustees shall receive such compensation as fixed by
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code provides for compensation
of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and each Trustee; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is determined that it is necessary to amend
Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code to increase the compensation for the Mayor, the
Mayor Pro Tem, and each Trustee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows:
1) The Mayor shall receive as compensation for his or her services the sum of
eleven thousand dollars ($11,000.00) per year during each year of his or her
term, payable in equal monthly payments.
2) The Mayor Pro Tem shall receive as compensation for his or her services the
sum of nine thousand dollars ($9,000.00) per year during each year of his or
her term, payable in equal monthly payments.
3) Each Town Trustee shall receive as compensation for his or her services the
sum of eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00) per year during each year of his or
her term, payable in equal monthly payments.
2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 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______________, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the_____day of__________, 2017 and published in a
newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on
the________day of____________, 2017.
_____________________________
Town Clerk
Board Compensation Using Employee Compensation Municipalities
City Mayor Mayor ProTem Trustee Annual Budget Population
City of Aspen $29.06/hr $21.25/hr 66,000,000 6,871
Town of Avon $12,000/year $9,000/year $6,000/year 33,400,000 6,525
City of Black Hawk $11,200.44/year $11,200.44/year 31,000,000 127
Town of Breckenridge $14,400/year $9,600/year $9,600/year 84,000,000 4,896
City of Broomfield $9,600/year $7,200/year $7,200/year 103,600,000 65,065
City of Boulder $10,762/year $10,762/year 321,800,000 108,090
Boulder County 319,372
City of Brighton $16,800/year $14,400/year $12,000year 22,000,000 38,314
City of Central City $8,410.32/year $5,607.36/year 6,700,000 733
Town of Cripple Creek $7,477.92/year $7,079.28/year $7,345.08/year 12,500,000 1,175
Town of Dacono $900/year $600/year 8,200,000 5,090
Town of Dillon $10,800/year $4,800/year $4,800/year 17,800,000 961
City of Durango $9,000/year $6,000/year $6,000/year 74,000,000 18,503
Town of Erie $6,000/year $3600/year 51,100,000 22,803
Town of Estes Park $7,500/year $6,500/year $5,500/year 50,000,000 6,362
City of Evans $5,100/year $3,600/year $3,600/year 13,000,000 21,615
Town of Firestone $3,600/year $3,000/year $3,000/year 10,000,000 12,917
Town of Frederick $3,600/year $1,800/year $1,800/year 25,800,000 12,154
Town of Frisco $11,400/year $6,000/year $6,000/year 21,000,000 3,084
City of Fort Collins $14,424/year $9,480/year 619,400,000 164,207
City of Glenwood Springs $14,400/year $12,000/year $12,000/year 80,000,000 9,997
City of Greeley $14,393/year $9,600/year 306,700,000 103,990
Town of Johnstown 20,200,000 15,389
City of Lafayette $10,890/year $8,415/year $7,920/year 57,300,000 28,261
City of Longmont $18,000/year $12,000/year 282,000,000 92,858
City of Louisville $6,000/year $3,000/year $3,000/year 71,300,000 20,801
City of Loveland $12,000/year $9,600/year $7,200/year 618,700,000 76,897
Town of Lyons 33,000,000 2,148
Town of Mead 6,900,000 4,553
Town of Palisade $3,600/year $2,400/year $2,400/year 3,300,000 2,644
Town of Platteville $2,400/year $960/year $960/year 6,200,000 2,722
Town of Silverthorne $9,000/year $3,600/year 39,200,000 630
Town of Snowmass Village $20,400/year $12,000/year 32,700,000 2,900
City of Steamboat Springs $13,460/year $11,795/year $10,250/year 56,000,000 12,690
Town of Superior $4,800/year $1,200/year 42,000,000 13,155
Town of Telluride $18,000/year $9,600/year $9,600/year 41,600,000 2,444
Town of Vail $12,000/year $7,500/year $7,500/year 73,400,000 5,483
City of Westminster $17,136/year $14,688/year $12,240/year 230,000,000 113,875
Town of Windsor $6,000/year $4,000/year 57,000,000 22,776
Town of Winter Park $9,600/year $4,800/year $4,800/year 158,400,000 1,029
473
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
0XQLFLSDOLWLHVPDUNHGZLWKDEODFNVROLGOLQHLQGLFDWHWKHDYHUDJHΨϬΨϱ͕ϬϬϬΨϭϬ͕ϬϬϬΨϭϱ͕ϬϬϬΨϮϬ͕ϬϬϬ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ŶŶƵĂůŝnjĞĚ^ĂůĂƌLJͲ >ŽǁƚŽ,ŝŐŚDĂLJŽƌ474
0D\RU3UR7HP$QQXDOL]HG6DODU\/RZWR+LJK&LW\ 0D\RU3UR7HP 3RSXODWLRQ7RWDO2SHUDWLQJ%XGJHWLQ0LOOLRQV7RZQRI3ODWWHYLOOH 7RZQRI)UHGHULFN 7RZQRI3DOLVDGH 7RZQRI)LUHVWRQH &LW\RI/RXLVYLOOH 7RZQRI(ULH &LW\RI(YDQV 7RZQRI'LOORQ 7RZQRI:LQWHU3DUN &LW\RI'XUDQJR 7RZQRI)ULVFR 7RZQRI(VWHV3DUN 7RZQRI&ULSSOH&UHHN &LW\RI%URRPILHOG 7RZQRI9DLO &LW\RI/DID\HWWH 7RZQRI$YRQ 7RZQRI%UHFNHQULGJH &LW\RI/RYHODQG 7RZQRI7HOOXULGH &LW\RI6WHDPERDW6SULQJV &LW\RI*OHQZRRG6SULQJV &LW\RI%ULJKWRQ &LW\RI:HVWPLQVWHU $YHUDJH
0XQLFLSDOLWLHVPDUNHGZLWKDEODFNVROLGOLQHLQGLFDWHWKHDYHUDJHΨϬΨϮ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϰ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϲ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϴ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϭϮ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϭϰ͕ϬϬϬ7RZQRI3ODWWHYLOOH7RZQRI)UHGHULFN7RZQRI3DOLVDGH7RZQRI)LUHVWRQH&LW\RI/RXLVYLOOH7RZQRI(ULH&LW\RI(YDQV7RZQRI'LOORQ7RZQRI:LQWHU3DUN&LW\RI'XUDQJR7RZQRI)ULVFR7RZQRI(VWHV3DUN7RZQRI&ULSSOH&UHHN&LW\RI%URRPILHOG7RZQRI9DLO&LW\RI/DID\HWWH7RZQRI$YRQ7RZQRI%UHFNHQULGJH&LW\RI/RYHODQG7RZQRI7HOOXULGH&LW\RI6WHDPERDW6SULQJV&LW\RI*OHQZRRG6SULQJV&LW\RI%ULJKWRQ&LW\RI:HVWPLQVWHUŶŶƵĂůŝnjĞĚ^ĂůĂƌLJͲ >ŽǁƚŽ,ŝŐŚDĂLJŽƌWƌŽdĞŵ475
7UXVWHHV$QQXDOL]HG6DODU\/RZWR+LJK&LW\ 7UXVWHH 3RSXODWLRQ7RWDO2SHUDWLQJ%XGJHWLQ0LOOLRQV7RZQRI'DFRQR 7RZQRI3ODWWHYLOOH 7RZQRI6XSHULRU 7RZQRI)UHGHULFN 7RZQRI3DOLVDGH 7RZQRI)LUHVWRQH &LW\RI/RXLVYLOOH &LW\RI(YDQV 7RZQRI6LOYHUWKRUQH 7RZQRI:LQGVRU 7RZQRI'LOORQ 7RZQRI:LQWHU3DUN 7RZQRI(VWHV3DUN &LW\RI&HQWUDO&LW\ 7RZQRI$YRQ &LW\RI'XUDQJR 7RZQRI)ULVFR &LW\RI%URRPILHOG &LW\RI/RYHODQG 7RZQRI&ULSSOH&UHHN 7RZQRI9DLO &LW\RI/DID\HWWH &LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQV 7RZQRI%UHFNHQULGJH &LW\RI*UHHOH\ 7RZQRI7HOOXULGH &LW\RI6WHDPERDW6SULQJV &LW\RI%RXOGHU &LW\RI%ODFN+DZN &LW\RI%ULJKWRQ &LW\RI*OHQZRRG6SULQJV &LW\RI/RQJPRQW 7RZQRI6QRZPDVV9LOODJH &LW\RI:HVWPLQVWHU $YHUDJH
0XQLFLSDOLWLHVPDUNHGZLWKDEODFNVROLGOLQHLQGLFDWHWKHDYHUDJHΨϬΨϮ͕ϬϬϬΨϰ͕ϬϬϬΨϲ͕ϬϬϬΨϴ͕ϬϬϬΨϭϬ͕ϬϬϬΨϭϮ͕ϬϬϬ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ŶŶƵĂůŝnjĞĚ^ĂůĂƌLJͲ >ŽǁƚŽ,ŝŐŚdƌƵƐƚĞĞ476
3RSXODWLRQ&RPSDULVRQV3RSXODWLRQ7RWDO2SHUDWLQJ%XGJHWLQ0LOOLRQV0D\RU0D\RU3UR7HP 7UXVWHH7RZQRI'DFRQR \HDU\HDU7RZQRI9DLO \HDU \HDU \HDU7RZQRI(VWHV3DUN \HDU \HDU \HDU7RZQRI$YRQ \HDU \HDU \HDU%XGJHW&RPSDULVRQV7RWDO2SHUDWLQJ%XGJHWLQ0LOOLRQV3RSXODWLRQ7RZQRI(VWHV3DUN \HDU \HDU \HDU7RZQRI(ULH \HDU \HDU&LW\RI6WHDPERDW6SULQJV \HDU \HDU \HDU7RZQRI:LQGVRU \HDU\HDU&LW\RI/DID\HWWH \HDU \HDU \HDU477
478
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: December 12, 2017
RE: Resolution # 33-17 – Officially Scheduling Regular Municipal Election –
April 3, 2018
Objective:
To officially set the next regular Municipal Election on April 3, 2018 per State Statute,
determine election method (poll vs. mail ballot) and identify the Town Clerk as the
Designated Election Official.
Present Situation:
The Municipal Election Code provides that all regular elections in statutory towns shall
be held on the first Tuesday of April in each even-numbered year. As a statutory town,
Estes Park must comply with the statues outlined in Title 31 Article 10.
In the past few elections the Town has held mail ballot elections due the number of
permanent mail ballot voters and the higher turnout experienced (20-30% for poll vs 50-
60% for mail).
Proposal:
The Resolution would set the election for April 3, 2018 as a mail ballot election and
designate the Town Clerk as the Designated Election Official for the Town of Estes Park,
thereby giving authority to complete all aspects of the Municipal Election, including the
appointment of election judges. Electronic equipment would be rented from Dominion
Voting to count the ballots. Dominion would also be used to set up the ballot layout for the
printer.
Advantages:
Provides the Town Clerk the authority to perform all aspects of the election.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Approval of Resolution #33-17 setting the regular Municipal Election for April 3, 2018.
479
Resolution # 33-17 – Officially Scheduling Regular Municipal Election – April 3, 2017
Finance/Resource Impact:
The cost is estimated at $15,000 in fixed costs budgeted for the election in the
Administrative Services fund. This does not include staff time.
Level of Public Interest:
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Resolution #33-17.
Attachments:
Resolution #33-17
480
RESOLUTION NO. 33-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO, DIRECTING THE TOWN CLERK TO CONDUCT THE REGULAR
MUNICIPAL ELECTION, SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 3, 2018, AS A MAIL BALLOT
ELECTION AND AUTHORIZING THE TOWN CLERK TO APPOINT ELECTION
JUDGES
WHEREAS, by the Statutes of the State of Colorado, the 3rd day of April, 2018 is
fixed as the time for a regular municipal election to elect three Trustees.
WHEREAS, it is the duty of the Board of Trustees to provide for the holding of
such an election; and
WHEREAS, it is the decision of the Town Board by the adoption of this
Resolution to hold the Regular Municipal election of April 3, 2018 by mail ballot
pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-10-907 – 31-10-913 C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, Section 31-10-401, C.R.S., 1973, allows the Board of Trustees to
delegate to the Town Clerk, by Resolution, the authority and responsibility to appoint
the Judges of Election.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
1.That pursuant to the provisions of Sections 31-10-907 – 31-10-913 C.R.S. the
Municipal Election of April 3, 2018 shall be a mail ballot election.
2. That Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk be and is hereby appointed as the
Designated Election Official for the Town of Estes Park for the conduct of this
mail ballot election.
481
3. There shall be one (1) precinct for this mail ballot election. The mail ballot
location for said precinct shall be the Estes Park Town Hall, 170 MacGregor
Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado 80517.
4. To be eligible to vote in this regular mail ballot election, a person must be at least
eighteen (18) years of age, a resident of the town, and has resided in the State
of Colorado for twenty-two (22) days immediately preceding the election
pursuant to C.R.S. §31-10-201(b).
5. Pursuant to C.R.S. §31-10-401, the Designated Election Official is hereby
delegated the authority and responsibility to appoint judges of the election at
least fifteen (15) days before the Election Day.
6. The Judges of Election shall receive for their services the sum of $10 per hour.
7. The Designated Election Official shall establish the form of the regular mail
election ballot.
DATED this day of 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
482
12/12/2017
1
Raven Rock
Development Plan
Appeal of EVPC decision of DP‐2017‐07 on November 14, 2017
Town Board Meeting December 12, 2017
1
Process
•July 19, 2017 – submitted application for Development Plan and preliminary plat
•September 19, 2017 ‐ Estes Valley Planning Commission; Staff recommendation for
approval; resulted in a continuance to further address drainage concerns
•October 17, 2017 ‐ Estes Valley Planning Commission; Staff recommendation for
approval; resulted in a continuance to have developer/Town staff/neighbor dialog to
address water drainage and compatibility with the comprehensive plan
•October‐November, 2017 ‐ Attended meetings with neighbors and nearby HOA
representatives; provided further drainage details and revised the site plan to
reposition some units and remove the detention pond from the 50 ft wetland
setback.
2
12/12/2017
2
Process
•November 14, 2017 – Estes Valley Planning Commission Study Session with Town
Attorney to discuss appropriate legal criteria for reviewing land use projects
•November 14, 2017 – Estes Valley Planning Commission; Staff recommendation for
approval; resulted in a 3/2 vote to deny the Development Plan.
•November 15 and 30, 2017 – notice of appeal and supplemental notice of appeal
filed
3
Motion for Denial:
“does not meet the Comp Plan standards”
“would set an unacceptable precedent moving
forward”
Quotes from Video on Demand: Estes Valley Planning Commission ‐
November 14, 2017
4
12/12/2017
3
Estes Valley Development Code
§ 12.1 ‐ APPEALS
I. Form of Appeal.Each written notice of appeal shall state specific
grounds for the appeal and cite all relevant Sections of the Estes Valley
Development Code. The Board hearing the appeal shall only consider
those matters specified in the written notice of appeal.
5
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:
The Comprehensive Plan was not intended to be
regulatory.
•The Comprehensive Plan was implemented with
the creation of the EVDC in 1999, and the EVDC
contains the regulations applicable to
development.
6
12/12/2017
4
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:
EVPC did not cite any policy, goal or objective of the
Comprehensive Plan that the Project failed to
comply with.
7
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:
Project complies with all applicable provisions of the
EVDC.
•Record is replete with evidence of compliance
with the EVDC.
•EVPC failed to cite EVDC provisions or evidence in
the record to support its denial.
8
12/12/2017
5
Background
•Purchased land in December 1994 while living in Estes Park
•B‐Business / Commercial Zoning down zoned to A –Accommodation
as part of the 2000 valley‐wide rezoning
•EVDC Sec 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts:
A Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning District . This district implements the "A‐
Accommodations" land use category set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. It applies primarily in
highway‐oriented commercial areas of the Estes Valley, and allows a wide variety of
accommodation uses, including relatively higher‐intensity accommodations such as multi‐
story hotels and motels. A variety of related tourist‐serving retail and commercial uses, such as
restaurants, bars and gift shops, will be permitted, but only as accessory uses to a principal
accommodations use and only if such supporting uses are located inside the same structure as
the principal use. Stand‐alone commercial or retail uses will not be permitted in this
accommodations district; instead, such uses may be developed in the other commercial zones.
9
10
12/12/2017
6
11
Development Plan
12
12/12/2017
7
Development Plan
13
Development Plan
14
12/12/2017
8
15
16
12/12/2017
9
17
Estes Valley Development Code
•1.3 - Purpose and Intent
The regulations of this Code are intended to implement the 1996 Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan
•3.8 D Standards for Review.The recommending and decision
-making entities shall review development plan applications and all
submitted plans and reports, and evaluate them according to the following
standards:
1. The development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in
this Code; and
2.The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan
18
12/12/2017
10
Estes Valley Development Code – Review
Criteria
•Table 4‐4 “Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts”
Permitted by Right uses in A Accommodations include:
multi‐family dwelling
Hostel
Hotel/Motel
Resort lodge/cabins
duplexes
Developer proposes duplexes
19
Estes Valley Development Code – Review
Criteria
•Impervious coverage:
§ 4.4.C allows 50% coverage; 36% coverage proposed
•Density:
§ 4.4.C allows 50 townhomes; 38 townhomes proposed
•Building height:
§ 4.4.C allows 30 feet; townhomes will meet height requirements
using the existing formula
•Parking:
§ 7.11 requires 76 spaces; 152 spaces provided
20
12/12/2017
11
Estes Valley Development Code – Review
Criteria
•Landscaping:
Project provides 164 trees and 273 shrubs.
The overall project is over on required landscaping therefore the Staff
has accepted the plan.
•Public Trails and Private Open Space:
§ 7.4 Private Open Space not required
Project provides ~2 acres out of 10 acre site will be protected and
undisturbed
§ 7.4 Public Trails are not planned by the Town for the east side of
Mary’s Lake Road. The Developer will provide funds for a portion of
the sidewalk leading up to the ML Lodge.
21
Estes Valley Development Code – Review
Criteria
•Water: Complies with § 7.12.E
Water main running through Mary's Lake Road
Appropriate pressure and flow
•Fire Protection: Complies with § 7.12.G
Three fire hydrants provided
Emergency access easement provided
22
12/12/2017
12
Estes Valley Development Code – Review
Criteria
•Electric: Complies with § 7.12.I
20‐foot utility easement provided.
All new electric lines for this project will be underground.
•Sanitary Sewer: Complies with § 7.12.D
Existing downhill from the development.
Developer will repair the neighbor’s fence located in the
easement.
23
Estes Valley Development Code – Review
Criteria
•Stormwater Drainage: Complies with § 7.12.F
Three on‐site detention ponds
Will not exceed the historic outfall quantities for a 100 year event
Channel and berm provided (overdesigned with 1 foot freeboard)
Detention pond 1 was relocated outside of the 50‐ft wetland
setback
24
12/12/2017
13
Preliminary Drainage Report Raven Rock Townhomes Estes Park, CO by David A. Bangs of Van Horn Engineering
and Surveying, Inc Estes Park, CO July 19, 2017 and revised August 17, 2017.
Conclusions: Detention facilities are proposed to limit discharge to the historic rate for the 100 year event for each
proposed discharge location. Grading will be provided to direct discharges into existing downstream conveyance
measures. Final design of all outlet structures will be completed with the Final Drainage Report. The eastern most
discharge location is proposed to be diverted around the new structures through a berm diverting flow into the
wetlands as has historically taken place. The central discharge location is proposed to be captured in a new storm
sewer system and diverted into the existing wetland areas. Existing flow paths and rates of discharge are not
impacted by this development.
Raven Rock Townhomes Addendum to Preliminary Drainage Report by David A. Bangs of Van Horn
Engineering and Surveying, Inc Estes Park, CO October 6, 2017.
Conclusions: Provided more details of the drainage swale/berm at the northeast corner of the project. One
foot of freeboard is provided in the berm and details of the outlet structure are provided which will provide a
controlled release of storm water at historical rates or less.
25
Estes Valley Development Code – Review
Criteria
•Transportation: Complies with § 7.12.H
Access via a newly proposed Promontory Drive (will be dedicated
as a Town ROW).
ROW connections are provided on the N and SE edges for
internally connected roadway systems.
No additional auxiliary lanes are recommended.
Additional 10‐foot public ROW to be dedicated
26
12/12/2017
14
Traffic Impact Study by Matt Delich of Delich & Associates, Loveland,
CO, August 16, 2016
Conclusions:
Mary’s Lake/Promotory site access intersection will operate
acceptably.
No additional auxiliary lanes are recommended.
27
Estes Valley Development Code – Review
Criteria
•Wetlands: Complies with § 7.6
Two delineated wetlands identified and mapped.
50‐foot setback to all wetlands provided.
28
12/12/2017
15
Wetland Delineation by Darcy A. Tiglas Loveland, CO August 2015
and revised September 2017
Conclusions: Two Wetlands (Community A) in the southeast corner
29
Estes Valley Development Code – Review
Criteria
•Wildlife: Complies with § 7.8
▪ No endangered, threatened, or special concern plant/wildlife
species will be adversely affected by the project.
▪ Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) confirmed a
wildlife conservation plan is not required.
▪ Optional courtesy CPW review provided and advisory
comments will be followed.
▪ Elk movement through and around the project area will not be
deterred or permanently interrupted.
30
12/12/2017
16
Wildlife Habitat Evaluation and Conservation Plan by Celine M. LeBeau of Van
Horn Engineering and Surveying Inc., Estes Park , CO
Conclusions:
•No endangered, threatened, or special concern plan/wildlife species will be adversely
affected by the proposed project
•No local wildlife species will be adversely affected by the proposed project
•No CNHP designated PCA will be affected by the proposed project
•Nest surveys will be conducted the spring prior to and immediately prior to any
construction on Site that requires tree removal
•The Home Owner’s Association Covenant shall outline measures to be practiced by
residents to prevent and deter human/wildlife conflicts
•404 Clean Water Act permits shall be obtained/upheld for any activity conducted within
the wetland
•Development of the proposed lots and all infrastructure shall follow the minimization
measures outlined in this report
•Specifications in the landscape plan shall be closely followed for any development on the
Site.
•A weed management plan shall be implemented to prevent weed establishment in
disturbed areas during and post‐construction
31
Ecological Resources Inventory For A Proposed Development Project At The Mackey Property Near Estes Park, Colorado
by Darcy A. Tiglas Loveland, Colorado July 2008
Conclusions: The proposed development at the Mackey Property does not present any biological issues of concern for
federal or state sensitive species. No birds‐of‐prey occur within the project area nor is any substantial habitat or use
opportunity available to raptors within the project area.
Raven Rock Development Elk Movement/Migration Assessment by Darcy A. Tiglas Loveland,
CO November 6, 2017
Conclusions: The elk movement through and around the project area will not be deterred or
permanently interrupted and the elk will continue to move/pass from the meadow on the
site to heavy cover to the west and south.
Larry Rogstad – Colorado Parks and Wildlife November 9, 2017
Conclusions:
1. Avoid development of riparian habitat
2. Cluster buildings to extent possible
3. Perimeter fencing that allows unrestricted passage for ungulates
4. Large first floor windows to be screened
5. Open style landscaping
32
12/12/2017
17
Staff Recommendation
1. . . . comply with the goals and policies set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan and in its Future Land Use map
2. Adequate public/private facilities are currently available to serve
the proposed project
3. No significant issues or concerns were received from applicable
reviewing agency staff
4. . . . comply with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC
5. No zone change requested with this development
33