Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Town Board 2016-01-26
The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, January 26, 2016 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Policy Governance Report. Larimer County Childcare Assistance Downtown Plan Final Scope and Schedule. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1.Town Board Minutes dated January 12, 2016 and Town Board Study Session January 12, 2016. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, Utilities, and Public Works Committee, January 14, 2016. 1. Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation Project Change Order #3 – Fransworth Group, $6,460 – Street Improvement Fund. 2. 2013 Flood Repair Material Testing Change Orders #1, #2 and #3 – Ground Engineering, $19,566, $4,000 and $5,000 - Street Fund. 4.Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated December 16, 2015 (acknowledgement only). 5.Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated December 18, 2015 (acknowledgement only). 6.Estes Valley Library Reappointment of Kaye Orten for a four year term beginning January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2019. Correction to Bill Gerritz’s appointment to complete Peter Plaut’s appointment to end December 31, 2017. Prepared 1/18/16 * Revised: 1/22/16 NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1.CONSENT ITEMS: A. RIVERVIEW PINES TOWNHOMES DEVELOPMENT PLAN & AMENDED PLAT, Tract 56B, Replat of Tract 56, Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deercrest Subdivision & Tracts 56 & 57, Fall River Addition; 1150 W. Elkhorn Avenue; Frederick Kropp/Applicant. Planner Kleisler. Item Continued to February 9, 2016, at the applicant’s request. 2.ACTION ITEMS: A. SPECIAL REVIEW 2015-01, ROCKYKMOUNTAIN PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, 116 E. Elkhorn Avenue; Estes Performance Inc./Applicant. Planning Consultant Mallory Baker. B. AMENDED PLAT, ROCKY MOUNTAIN PERFORMING ARTS CENTER; Lots 17-19, Block 5, Town Of Estes Park & Lot 34 & A Portion Of Lot 33, 2nd Amended Plat Of Riverside Subdivision, And A Portion Of Land Within The Banks Of Fall River; 116 E. Elkhorn Avenue; Estes Performance Inc./Applicant. Planning Consultant Mallory Baker. C. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014-01C, EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER, Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, 520 Steamer Parkway. Planning Consultant Mallory Baker. 3.ACTION ITEMS: 1.ORDINANCE #01-16 – AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5.20 – BUSINESS LICENSES AS IT RELATES TO VACATION HOMES AND FEE SCHEDULE. Planner Kleisler. 2.MAYOR RIGHT TO VOTE (CRS 31-4-302 – MAYOR - POWERS). Attorney White. 3.RESOLUTION #02-16 - BARNES DANCE REINSTATEMENT REQUEST TO CDOT AT RIVERSIDE/ELKHORN AND ELKHORN/MORAINE. Director Muhonen. 4.HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR FALL RIVER, UPPER BIG THOMPSON RIVER, BLACK CANYON CREEK & DRY GULCH CONTRACT AWARD. Planner Kurtz. 5.LARIMER COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICU COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT. Administrator Lancaster. 4.REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: For discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees. 5.ADJOURN. * TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Frank Lancaster Town Administrator 970.577.3705 flancaster@estes.org MEMORANDUM DATE: January 26th, 2016 TO: Board of Trustees FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS (QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORT POLICY 3.3) Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide information to the Board. Policy 3.3, Financial Planning and Budgeting requires quarterly reporting of compliance in April, July, October and January. Policy 3.3 states: “With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities with a fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or fiscal integrity of Town government.” This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this date. ________________________ Frank Lancaster Town Administrator 3.3.1. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Deviates from statutory requirements. REPORT: The current budget and any proposed budget revisions have all been prepared in compliance with applicable statutory requirements. I am therefore reporting compliance. 3.3.2. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Deviates materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among competing budgetary needs. REPORT: The current budget and any proposed budget revisions have all been prepared in following the Board stated priorities expressed during the budget adoption process. I am therefore reporting compliance. 3.3.3. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which contains inadequate information to enable credible projection of revenues and expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow and subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning assumptions. REPORT: The current budget was prepared with adequate information as requested by the Board of Trustees. I am therefore reporting compliance. 3.3.4. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which plans the expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available. REPORT: The current budget for all town funds do not contain any plans for expenditures in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available. I therefore report compliance. 3.3.5. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which reduces fund balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that established by the Board of Trustees. REPORT All Town funds, other than the General Fund, which are subject to this provision are within the Board determined limits. The fund balance in the General fund is anticipated to fall below the 25% level set by the board due to use of the fund for emergency flood recovery expenditures. I have kept the Board informed of the status of the fund balance and the use of funds for flood recovery and this drop in fund balance is not unanticipated. I am therefore reporting conditional compliance. 3.3.6. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Fails to maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to significant shortfalls within the Town’s budget. REPORT: The current budget includes appropriate contingency funding. I am therefore reporting compliance. 3.3.7. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to provide for an annual audit. REPORT: The 2015 audit is planned to begin in the next quarter. I am therefore reporting compliance. 3.3.8. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the current or future bond ratings of the Town. REPORT: Nothing in the current budget as adopted fails to protect the integrity of the current or future bond ratings of the Town. I am therefore reporting compliance. 3.3.9. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which results in new positions to staffing levels without specific approval of the Board of Town Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve positions funded by grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in addition to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing budgeted funds are allocated. REPORT: No new positions or additions to the staffing document have been added without specific approval of the Board of Trustees other than temporary positions or those grant positions that are 100% grant funded, as allowed by adopted policy. I am therefore reporting compliance. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 12, 2016 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of January 2016. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees John Ericson Bob Holcomb Ward Nelson Ron Norris John Phipps Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator Greg White, Town Attorney Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PROCLAMATION. Mayor Pinkham proclaimed 2016 the Centennial Year of the Library as the Estes Valley Library celebrates it 100th year. Claudine Perrault/Library Director invited the community to the events the library has planned throughout the year to celebrate the centennial. PUBLIC COMMENTS. None. TRUSTEE COMMENTS. Trustee Norris stated the Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works committee would meet on January 14, 2016. Visit Estes Park held their monthly meeting and selected Scott Webermeier/President of the Board, Karen Ericson/Vice President, and Lindsay Lamson/Secretary. He announced his bid for re-election as Trustee during the April 5, 2016 Municipal Election. Trustee Holcomb recognize the dedicated professionals in the Public Works department and their efforts to complete complicated projects. Trustee Phipps stated the January Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting had been cancelled. He confirmed the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners would be holding their second public forum on vacation rentals on January 25, 2016. Trustee Ericson commented the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) would meet January 20, 2016 to develop a work plan that would tie into the Town Board’s strategic plan. CDOT attended the December TAB meeting to discuss transportation issues in Estes Park. The Community Development/Community Services committee would meet on January 28, 2016. He reported the sales tax collection for 2016 through November was $9.2 million versus $8.2 million the year prior. The increased sales tax dollars would help to cover the flood expenses. Mayor Pinkham reported the Town Board’s Strategic Plan can be viewed on the Town’s website. The plan provides the Town with long range planning and guidelines for the next five years and outlines annual goals. He stated Grand Lake’s Mayor Judy Burke would be seeking re-election during the upcoming election as they do not have term Board of Trustees – January 12, 2016 – Page 2 limits. He would be entering the Mayor’s challenge during the Winter Festival chili cook- off and encouraged everyone to attend. Town Clerk Williamson provided an update on the election process stating petitions for the Mayor and Trustee positions are due by 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 2016. The Town has received and certified petitions for Chuck Levine and Todd Jirsa for Mayor and Charley Dickey, Paul Fishman, Ron Norris and Cody Walker for Trustee. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Administrator Lancaster introduced Rob Hinkle hired as the Fairgrounds and Events Director in charge of Events, Fairgrounds, Conference Center and Visitor Center. 1.CONSENT AGENDA: 1.Town Board Minutes dated December 8, 2015, Special Town Board Meeting December 15, 2015, and Town Board Study Session December 8, 2015. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, Utilities, and Public Works Committee, December 10, 2015 – cancelled. B. Community Development / Community Services Committee, December 17, 2015 – cancelled. 4.Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated September 1, 2015 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated August 18, 2015 and November 17, 2015 (acknowledgement only). 6. Transportation Advisory Committee Minutes dated November 18, 2015 (acknowledgement only). 7. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated November 20, 2015 (acknowledgement only). 8. Resolution #01-16 - Public Posting Area Designation. Johanna Darden/Town citizen requested Town Board minutes from December 15, 2015 be removed for discussion. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to approve the Consent Agenda Items 1.2 – 1.8, and it passed unanimously. Action Item: Consent Item 1.1 - Town Board Minutes dated December 8, 2015, Special Town Board Meeting December 15, 2015, and Town Board Study Session December 8, 2015. Johanna Darden/Town citizen stated the December 15, 2015 minutes state Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting. She requested the minutes be amended to show Mayor Pro Tem Koenig adjourned the meeting. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve Consent Item 1.1 with the correction mentioned, and it passed unanimously. 2.REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Outside Entities): 1.WELLNESS CENTER UPDATE. Diana Van der Ploeg/ Estes Park Medical Center Board President stated the hospital continues to be committed to the Wellness Center and has begun fundraising efforts to move forward with the original stand alone center on Lot 4, Stanley Historic District. The Foundation Board along with Sheila Schwartz, Interim Foundation Executive Director are committed to raising the funds Board of Trustees – January 12, 2016 – Page 3 necessary to complete the project. The hospital decided to decline the Stanley Hotel’s offer to incorporate the wellness program into the first floor and fourth floor of the accommodations building in order to meet the deadline set by the April 2014 election of April 1, 2016 to begin construction. The addition of the fourth floor would require a height variance, a controversial issue for the community. The hospital has been grateful to the Stanley for assisting them in securing the Wellness Center. The Foundation has contracted with a certified fundraising executive who has extensive capital building campaign experience for guidance in the process, and they have had promising meetings with several prospective donors for the stand alone building. She stated in order to move the project forward and withdraw the proposed fourth floor on the accommodation building; the hospital would need to extend the deadlines, including an extension of the final $650,000 payment to the Town for the purchase of Lot 4. The stand alone Wellness Center would be a destination wellness center for visitors and guests staying at the Stanley Hotel. Board members Norris, Ericson and Holcomb stated support in meeting with hospital representatives to discuss the stand alone Wellness Center and associated deadlines. Attorney White reminded the Board the hospital is not the applicant for the Special Review and the Stanley Hotel would have to alter or withdraw the application which includes the Wellness Center on the first and fourth floor of the accommodation building. Wayne Park/Estes Park Medical Center Foundation Vice President and Chair of the Wellness Steering Committee stated the 13 member committee has begun the fundraising efforts for the $8.5 to $10 million stand alone not-for- profit center. The center would generate funds for the hospital. One contact has already been made and offered significant financial support. 3.LIQUOR I TEMS: 1.TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM CASA CASA, LLC DBA GRUMPY GRINGO TO TAYLOR LEGG, LLC DBA FAJITA RITA'S, 1560 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson presented the application to transfer the current Hotel and Restaurant liquor license. All required paperwork and fees were submitted and a temporary was issued on January 2016. TIPS training has not been scheduled. Owners stated TIPS training would be completed in January. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to approve the Transfer of Ownership from Casa Casa, LLC dba Grumpy Gringo to Taylor Legg, LLC dba Fajita Rita's, 1560 Big Thompson Avenue, Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License, and it passed unanimously. 4.PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. 1.CONSENT ITEMS: A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #9, Stone Bridge Estates Condominiums, 1195 Fish Creek Road, Kingswood Homes, Inc. /Applicant. Planner Gonzales It was moved and seconded (Norris/Ericson) to approve the Planning Commission Consent Item with the findings an conditions recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission, and it passed unanimously. 5. ACTION ITEMS: 1.ENERGY IMPACT ASSISTANCE FUND GRANT FOR ESTES PARK FLOOD RECOVERY. Finance Officer McFarland stated the Town has received grant funding from the Department of Local Affairs Energy Mineral Impact Assistance Board of Trustees – January 12, 2016 – Page 4 Fund through EAIF #9044 to hire a Flood Recovery Planning Technician for one year ($67,911), a Flood Recovery Project Associate for two years (156,386), and a Flood Recovery Project Manager/ Civil Engineer for two years (218,080). EAIF #7634 has been extended to provide one additional year for the Environmental Planner ($97,758). Grant funding would cover salary and benefits for all positions. The positions were not budgeted for in the approved 2016 budget. A budget amendment would be presented at a later date to address the additional revenues and expenditures. Johanna Darden/Town citizen questioned what other funds would be needed to hire the individuals and what funds would be needed for the employees to complete their jobs. She also questioned if the hiring of the additional staff would affect the completion of the Scott Pond project. Finance Officer McFarland stated additional funds would be needed to create work spaces which would include items such as a computer and phone. Town Administrator Lancaster commented the grant funding of the positions would not affect the grant funds for the Scott Pond project as they are unrelated. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve the hiring the Flood Recovery Planning Technician (1 year), Flood Recovery Project Associate (2 years), Flood Recovery Project Manager/Civil Engineer (2 years) and a one year extension of the Environmental Planner/Planner III through December 2017 as funded by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) with specifics outlined in support documents EAIF #7634 and EAIF #9044, and it passed unanimously. 2.PARKING STRATEGY. Kimberly Campbell/Transportation Advisory Board Chair presented a Parking Strategy with nine strategies addressing both the supply and demand issues. The strategies are conceptual in nature requiring additional effort and funding to refine the scope and cost of the implementation. The following strategies have been ranked in order of priority: Strategy 5 – Pay to Park, Strategy 1 – Increase Parking Supply, Strategy 6 – Owner/Employer Parking, Strategy 7 – Oversized Vehicles, Strategy 4 – Alternate Modes, Strategy 3 – Directional Signage, Strategy 9 – Special Event Management Plan, Strategy 8 – Protect Neighborhoods, and Strategy 2 – Simplify Parking. Public Works would use the document to guide the selection of parking topics for future funding consideration by the Town Board. Staff would recommend the strategy be reviewed annually during the budget process. Johanna Darden/Town citizen questioned if strategies could be deleted if the public does not agree with the item. Mayor Pinkham stated the items would come to the Town Board for future consideration and public comment would be taken on each at that time. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Phipps) to accept the Parking Strategy and implementation priorities as presented by the Transportation Advisory Board, and it passed unanimously. 3.POLICY #105 - AGENDAS. Town Administrator Lancaster presented the policy which outlines how agenda items are placed on the Town Board meeting agendas. Johanna Darden/Town citizen raised concern with the Board taking action on items either raised during public comment or added to the agenda without proper public notice. Administrator Lancaster stated the policy allows for emergency items to be added to the agenda with short notice and discourages action on items raised during public comment in order to give adequate notice for public participation. Board of Trustees – January 12, 2016 – Page 5 It was moved and seconded (Phipps/Koenig) to approve Policy #105 - Agendas, and it passed unanimously. 4. DOWNTOWN PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS. Trustees Ericson and Nelson along with Jon Nicholas, Director Chilcott and Planner Kleisler held interviews of 22 applicants in December. The interview committee was impressed with the applicant pool. It was noted that although individuals were not selected for the committee it was largely due to the need to ensure the committee was diverse and represented as many sectors of the community as possible. Johanna Darden/Town citizen read a prepared statement and requested Cydney Springer and Greg Rosener not be appointed to the committee. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Holcomb) to approve the appointments of Tom Dority, Frank Theis, Kimberly Campbell, Holly Moore, Ginny McFarland, Sue Doylen, Ann Finley, Faith Zimmerman, Greg Rosener, Cydney Springer and Ron Wilcocks to the Downtown Plan Steering Committee, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 12, 2016 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at the Town Hall in Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of January, 2016. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson, Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson, Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Attorney White, Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent:None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m. VACATION HOME FEES, CODE ENFORCEMENT & BUILDING CODE UPDATES. Planner Kleisler reported that in mid-2015 a project was initiated to examine current processes and regulations as they relate to vacation home rentals (VHR) in the Estes Valley. Public meetings, small group forums and public hearings on the topic have been held by both the Town and Larimer County. The meetings, designed to inform and solicit input from the public, have been well-attended by community residents. Public comment focused on a variety of issues with code enforcement, occupancy, and licensing making up the top three concerns. Additionally, concerns about the rapid increase in the number of vacation homes and the desire to implement safeguards to preserve the character of neighborhoods were also heard. Planner Kleisler noted that a public meeting hosted by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners would be held on Monday, January 25, 2016, at 4 p.m. in the Town Hall Board Room. Staff recommended two additional joint work sessions between the Town Board and the County Commissioners be held, one in February and a second in March or April. The Estes Valley Planning Commission will review the proposal for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and make comments prior to a final ordinance being brought forward for adoption, possibly in April 2016. Mayor Pinkham and the Trustees voiced their desire to move forward with the ordinance prior to seating the new Town Board in April. With an objective of striking a balance between property rights and neighborhood character, issues reviewed included, but were not limited to, licensing fees, occupancy rates, life safety concerns, enforcement and regulatory options. Public comments show a concern for code enforcement as it relates to licensing and permitting, occupancy limits, parking, the number of vehicles allowed at a vacation home, noise and other disturbances. Staff noted that the Estes Park Police Department (EPPD) responds to disturbances and calls within the Town of Estes Park with violations heard in municipal court and disturbances and calls outside of the Town limits are the responsibility of the Larimer County Sheriff’s Department with violations heard in county court. Attorney White noted that changes to the EVDC would be required to add provisions that address the transient nature of VHR occupants, such as removing the time allowed to remedy a violation when involving a VHR. Who to charge with the violation, (the renter, the owner or both) would also need to be determined based on the type of violation cited as well as a fine schedule developed and approved by the Municipal Court Judge. Staff proposed that business license fees be utilized to fund a seasonal code compliance position to work on violations primarily associated with licensing and permitting, and compliance with established occupancy limits in advertising and on websites such as Vacation Rental By Owner (VRBO). Staff researched the time involved in performing these type of tasks for approximately 200 cases and concluded that the proposed fee structure would capture adequate funds to support the position. The current charge for a vacation home rental business license within Town limits is $150. Staff proposed Town Board Study Session – January 12, 2016 – Page 2 changing the charge for a VHR business license to a base fee of $150 for a one-bedroom vacation home, plus $50 per additional bedroom with a maximum fee not to exceed $500. However, based on the General business license fee of $200, the Trustees directed staff to revise the fee schedule to include a $200 base fee plus $50 for each bedroom, with a not to exceed maximum fee of $500 and move forward with preparing an ordinance to adopt the new fee schedule at the January 26, 2016, Town Board meeting. The Larimer County Assessor’s records would be utilized to verify the number of bedrooms. Planner Kleisler reported that Larimer County will not be moving forward with implementing a fee for county vacation homes within the Estes Valley at this time, noting that the Commissioners requested that County staff delay bringing forward a fee schedule. Town Administrator Lancaster stated that the Town cannot subsidize enforcement of vacation home regulations in the County and said that the flat fee charged to the County for enforcement of the Estes Valley Development Code may need to be increased to cover Larimer County’s portion of VHR code enforcement. He said without fees the same level of VHR code enforcement could not be provided to county vacation homes. Additionally, it was noted that a discussion about a proposed sustainable work force housing fund supported by licensing and/or impact fees would be addressed as a separate topic of discussion at an upcoming Town Board Study Session. At a meeting in November 2015, the Board expressed interest in regulating larger VHRs as commercial operations as it relates to building standards. Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield said VHRs are currently regulated as single-family dwellings by their design, not their use, under the International Residential Code (IRC). To regulate as commercial properties, VHRs would be regulated by their use and fall under the International Building Code (IBC). He identified three options for the Board to consider related to larger vacation homes that would have an occupancy allowance higher than the current limit of eight: 1. No change – regulated under the IRC – Vacation homes would be licensed regardless of size or occupancy, with no inspection or additional safety requirements. 2. Regulate to the IBC – This would, at a minimum, trigger sprinkler and accessibility requirements. This option provides the greatest amount of protection to renters and nearby properties but could increase costs to the vacation home owner. 3. Adopt a compromised approach – The Board could tailor requirements to address the most critical needs of the community by making local amendments to the Building Codes. For example, the amendments could address life safety issues and require inspections to ensure proper egress, check carbon monoxide and smoke alarms and gas appliances, and give the CBO the authority to conduct these inspections. This option is recommended by staff. The Board expressed interest in local amendments and directed CBO Birchfield to draft proposals to bring to the Board at the next Town Board Study Session. Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting at 5:49 p.m. for a dinner break and resumed the meeting at 6:10 FISH HATCHERY PROPERTY STATUS UPDATE. In December, representatives of the Estes Park Housing Authority, the Estes Valley Land Trust and the Town of Estes Park met to discuss the Town-owned property on Fish Hatchery Road. Town Administrator Lancaster displayed a diagram of the property and reported on ways to utilize the land by possibly separating it into three key sections. He noted that the Town would retain ownership of, and preserve, historic areas of the parcel. Ideas discussed include using approximately 20 acres of the property for work force housing by building single-family homes, duplexes, or multi-family units. The units would be deed restricted and target those working within the boundaries of Park School District R-3 earning 80% to 150% of the area median income. The Town’s contribution to such a project would be the land at no cost. The Estes Park Housing Authority would take the lead and work with private developers to come back with a PUD for the site with the possible inclusion of a daycare facility. Discussion also included preserving a portion of the property for low-impact recreational use and open space with or without a conservation easement. Town Board Study Session – January 12, 2016 – Page 3 Discussion is summarized: portions of the parcel are quite steep and other areas are within the flood plain; some buildings and structures would need to be removed from the property; the Town has rental properties and storage facilities on the parcel; dedicate several units to the Town for employee housing if work force housing is built; what infrastructure currently exists on the property?; and need more development ideas that would optimize use of the property; Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated that the Fish Hatchery property is a prime piece of real estate and could provide the Town an opportunity to make a profit and possibly purchase additional properties for development. She said the property should be used to start a chain reaction of development possibilities to carry the Town through the next 20 years. She supported researching additional scenarios including sale of the property and discussing the pros and cons of a conservation easement. Town Administrator Lancaster said additional research would be conducted related to the best options for the larger parcel. The Board supported the EPHA moving forward with conversations with private developers related to ideas for a housing project on the approximate 20 acre site. TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. Mayor Right to Vote – Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated that this “housekeeping” topic can only be addressed every four years and requested that it be placed on the agenda for the January 26, 2016, Town Board meeting. Currently, the Municipal Code states that the Mayor shall not vote except in the case of a tie. If the Board were to consider a change to the code, it must be done within 60 days of the upcoming regular municipal election. Attorney White will prepare a report to the Board and public comment will be taken. If it is the Board’s desire to leave the code unchanged, no action would be required. If a change is to be considered, an ordinance would be prepared and brought forward to the Board as an action item at a subsequent Town Board meeting. Estes Park Pride Awards – The Estes Park High School Pride Award Scholarship will be offered again this year in the amount of $3500 with the same selection criteria as in the past. The Volunteer, Business Person, Group, and Teacher of the Year awards will not be given out in 2016 as they are seen as a duplication of awards also given out by the school district, the Nonprofit Resource Center and other local organizations. Ideas on how to rejuvenate and revitalize the Estes Park Pride Awards program will be discussed. Solid Waste Issues – Town Administrator Lancaster reported that Larimer County is seeking an Estes Park Town Board Trustee to participate in a group that will meet over the next year or two to address the transfer station, recycling, and major policy questions related to solid waste. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig voiced interest in representing the Town on this ongoing committee. Events Director – Rob Hinkle was introduced to the Board. Mr. Hinkle started work on Tuesday, January 12, 2016, as the Town’s new Events Director. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. This agenda item was not discussed due to a lack of time. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:46 p.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 14, 2016 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY/UTILITIES/PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Board Room of Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 14th day of January, 2016. Committee: Chair Norris, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Nelson Attending: Chair Norris, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Nelson Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Chief Kufeld, Commnander Pass, Directors Bergsten and Muhonen, Managers Swoboda, Ash and Landkamer, and Recording Secretary Limmiatis Absent:None Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. PUBLIC SAFETY. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1.End of Year Statistics – Commander Pass noted the total Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) incidents for 2015 increased 10% over 2014. The number of Motor Vehicle Accidents increased by 12%. Hit and Runs have also increased dramatically and the Police Department would continue to investigate the cause. In 2015, investigations, which deal mostly with felony crimes, saw a 20% increase. The clearance rate of cases in Estes Park continues to remain above the national average at 75%. 911 calls for all entities have increased by 8%. All increases are consistent with a growing population and higher visitation. Restorative Justice continues to offer Community Group Conferencing, the Girls Circle, Student Support and Accountability Circles, Restorative Community Mediation and Community Circles. The Community Circle, which aims to assist parolees reintegrate into the community, did not have any participants in 2015 mostly due to the housing challenges experienced in Town. 18 new Restorative Justice Volunteers were trained in 2015, bringing the total to 44. Several goals have been set for Restorative Justice in 2016 including developing a Boys Council, expanding the Girls Circle to the elementary school, developing Conflict Management courses and presentations for private and public use, and in-house mediation training for volunteers. 2.Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Chief Kufeld introduced two new police officers, Harmony Mason and Nicholas Stenerson, and stated the department would continue to review applications in an attempt to fill the open Police Officer and Communications Center Manager positions prior to summer. UTILITIES. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1.Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Director Bergsten stated the past few months have been very busy for the Utilities Department and outlined the activities the department has been working on including: completing capital construction projects in-house; working on voluntary water system transfers with the Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline Water Company, the Hondius Water Group, and the Prospect Mountain Water Company; flood recovery construction; document management; the AMI / Smart Meter program; installation of a new Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee - January 14, 2016 - Page 2 valve insertion; GPS Base Station; addition of a new web facing server and local artist, Jonathan Light, has offered his services to refurbish the Buell Porter holiday displays. Manager Swoboda updated the Committee on the progress of the Fish Creek Utilities, Windcliff and Glen Haven Flood Recovery Projects. Utilities construction work on Fish Creek was completed in October 2015. The Windcliff and miscellaneous water sites project was completed in July 2015 by the Light and Power Division, which lead to the costs coming in below the estimated value. Glen Haven was subdivided into three separate projects – Fox Creek, North Fork and County Road 43. Fox Creek was an entire over-head line rebuild and work was completed in October 2015 by the Light and Power Division. The project schedule ran long due to blasting needed for placement of the last poles. North Fork was also completed by the Light and Power Division in April 2015. County Road 43 was delayed while alternatives were investigated to run line through the National Forest where the temporary line exists. While waiting for approval from the National Forest Service of an amended application, Line Superintendent Joe Lockhart was able to negotiate the coordination of adding an additional conduit in an underground line being installed by Platte River Power Authority for fiber purposes. The conduit would soon be complete and the Light and Power Division would install the power line in 2016. PUBLIC WORKS. DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT CHANGE ORDER. Manager Ash described the unexpected hurdles encountered with the change of location to the walkway on Dry Gulch Road. The proposed extension of the trail under US Highway 34 to connect with the Lake Estes trail would cross Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) land and require a Special Use Permit. The fee for Farnsworth to meet with the BOR and prepare the Special Use Permit is $3,084.00. Upon investigating the recorded plat for Lone Pine Acres Subdivision, a 10’ strip of land was identified as private ground along the north side of US Highway 34 right of way. The proposed road alignment would cross this location. Concerns were raised that additional encumbrances may be associated with this parcel. The additional research fee is $3,376.00. The two tasks add a $6,460.00 to the design budget and represent 9.4% of the estimated construction cost, which is within industry standards. The design plans are complete. Bidding documents have been modified and the project is ready to go to bid for a second time pending clear property encumbrances. The Committee recommended approval of Change Order 3 to the professional services contract for design of the Dry Gulch Roadway Improvement Project to the Farnsworth Group for a project cost not to exceed $6,460.00 be included on the Consent Agenda at the January 26, 2016 Town Board meeting. 2013 FLOOD GROUND ENGINEERING CHANGE ORDER: MATERIAL TESTING. Manager Ash stated approval of three change orders is necessary to compensate Ground Engineering for additional Materials Testing services required to meet the prolonged flood repair work by Osmun, Inc. at over 20 roadway sites damaged by the 2013 flood. On October 7, 2014, the Town entered into a professional services agreement with Ground Engineering for FHWA and FEMA site work. On November 11, 2015, Public Works received a change order request from Ground Engineering specific to the over runs directly related to the pace of the project. Technicians have been scheduled two to six times more than the original scope of the project due to contractor cancellations and provided performance related retesting. Incomplete work remains at four sites and Ground Engineering submitted an estimate to complete the remaining materials testing needed. Change Order 1 would compensate Ground Engineering in the amount of $19,566.00 for additional materials testing services completed through October 2015 as related to FEMA work sites. Change Order 2 would compensate Ground Engineering in the amount of $3,253.00 for additional materials testing services associated with the FHWA work site at Community Drive. Change Order 3 in the amount up to $5,000.00 would fund materials testing services through the procurement of a new contractor and completion of the remaining flood repair work. These costs Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee - January 14, 2016 - Page 3 could be deducted from the funds owed Osmun, Inc. per provisions of the contract. Additional financial recourse is available through the bonding company if needed since some risk exists that the Town may not be reimbursed for this change order work from FEMA, FHWA and CDBG-DR. The Committee recommended approval of Change Order 1 in the amount of $19,566.00, Change Order 2 in the amount of $4,000.00, and provide Public Works staff budget authorization to spend up to $5,000.00 if necessary for Change Order 3 work to be included on the Consent Agenda at the January 26, 2016 Town Board meeting. REQUESTING CDOT TO REINSTATE BARNES DANCE AT RIVERSIDE/ELKHORN AND ELKHORN/MORAINE. Director Muhonen requested the Committee consider passing a Resolution in support of reinstating the Barnes Dance at the Elkhorn Avenue intersections with Riverside Drive and Moraine Avenue and issuing a public notice stating the Town accepts responsibility for potential increased traffic delays. Although the traffic study performed by CDOT in 2015 concluded the Barnes Dance would increase delays, the Public Works and Police Departments, the Transportation Advisory Board and Estes Park citizens prefer the safety benefits provided by the Barnes Dance signal timing. Director Muhonen listed several advantages of the Barnes Dance including: prioritized pedestrian flow and safety, removed conflict between turning cars and pedestrians in the crosswalk, increased intersection capacity for turning vehicles, improved separation between pedestrians and vehicles, reduced pedestrian street crossing time and associated traffic exposure, and improved guest experience. Disadvantages of increased vehicular delays, backups and driver frustration were discussed. Police Chief Kufeld stated there has been a noticeable difference in the number of complaints received since the Barnes Dance was removed in 2010 and he believes the Barnes Dance is effective with Estes Park’s unique traffic situation. Public comment was heard from Town residents Holly Moore and Paul Fishman, who were both in support of reinstating the Barnes Dance. The Committee recommended a Resolution requesting CDOT to reinstate the Barnes Dance at Riverside/Elkhorn and Elkhorn/Moraine be included as an Action Item at the January 26, 2016 Town Board meeting. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1.Update on Estes Park Sanitation District Fee Waiver for Visitor Center Restroom – Manager Landkamer provided an update on items that were mistakenly left out of the budget for the Visitor Center restroom remodel. The Estes Park Sanitation District was unable to waive permit fees of $11,938.00, but offered to spread the costs out quarterly for up to five years. Additionally, Town of Estes Park Water Tap fees of $16,616.00 cannot be waived. Landkamer provided alternatives to recoup the unforeseen costs by limiting the scope of the Conference Center interior repairs contract to save $9,700.00 which could be redirected to the Visitor Center Restroom budget and defer $18,655.40 of approved capital budget money for Town Hall windows. The Committee directed Landkamer to rearrange the allocated funds and proceed with the Visitor Center restroom remodel as designed. 2.Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Manager Ash provided an update on Scott Ponds and stated funding has been secured through the State with a better timeframe for construction. A new schedule and set of plans have been submitted which reflect the original design of one large pond with a small pool. Staff would continue to work with Cornerstone to identify the project schedule and keep the Town Board and public informed of the progress. Director Muhonen provided updates on the draft Environmental Assessment by the Bureau of Reclamation for the parking structure at the Visitor Center, the draft Environmental Assessment to be released in April 2016 on the LOOP project, and the Town’s participation in the Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing System. Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee - January 14, 2016 - Page 4 There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 9:42 a.m. Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 16th, 2015 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Rooms 202 & 203 of Town Hall, in said Town of Estes Park on the 16th day of December, 2015. Present: Kimberly Campbell Gregg Rounds Stan Black Amy Hamrick Belle Morris Ann Finley Bryon Holmes Gordon Slack Thom Widawski Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works John Ericson, Town Board Liaison Samantha Phillips, Contract Administrative Assistant Larry Haas, CDOT Region 4 Traffic Operations Engineer Michael Crow, CDOT Region 4 Traffic Engineer Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager Kate Rusch, Public Information Officer Bob Holcomb, Town Trustee Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. GENERAL DISCUSSION It was moved and seconded (Rounds/Black) to approve the November minutes with minor amendments with the motion passing unanimously. Chair Kimberly Campbell introduced Gordon Slack as the new Board member. It was announced that Kimberly Campbell would be assigned as Slack’s mentor throughout his orientation process. Transportation Advisory Board Officer Elections will be held in January for the Chair and Vice-chair. STAFF UPDATES ON TOWN PROJECTS Public Works Director Greg Muhonen gave a project update on the Transit Facility Parking Structure. The Public Works department has been in dialogue with the Bureau of Reclamation in regard to the Environmental Assessment which has been released for a 30-day public comment period. Public Works will now be waiting until the finding of ‘no significant impact’ to move forward with the final design. Involving the Downtown Estes Park Loop, conflicts currently exist with buildings, curves, and utilities. The team is looking to confirm collective comfort with the idea that a signal or roundabout will fit. Draft EA for the Downtown Estes Park Loop is now anticipated to be released in April. Public Works Engineering Manager Kevin Ash presented a brief project update involving the Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation Project. Public Works has the easements for the drainage and sanitary lines done. It is to be determined whether or not a special use permit is needed or if The Town is able to amend the current one. Pavement Manager Kelly Stallworth is within 8-9 days of finishing his pavement assessment of Transportation Advisory Board - December 16th, 2015 - Page 2 The Town’s roads. There is hope of going to the Town Board with both updates and recommendations for how to move forward with the new pavement program, PAVER. Stallworth plans to present the assessment rankings of roads and justification to values and numbers for recommending a certain direction. TRAFFIC Q & A WITH LARRY HAAS Larry Haas, CDOT Region 4 Traffic Operations Engineer, held the guest speaker position for the December TAB meeting. He began the Q & A session by discussing signals and timing, specifically involving Elkhorn Avenue and the intersection of 34/36. He explained that the programming is based on fixed time coordination for Highway 34. Haas further elaborated on the seasonal timing programs that CDOT uses which includes a summer program (May 1st to October 31st) and a winter program (November 1st to April 30th). All of the intersections in Estes Park are sensor driven. Haas made it clear that CDOT had no plans to reinstate the Barnes Dance; citing the summer study which showed that traffic is greater when all 4 directions must stop for pedestrian crossing. Chair Campbell suggested that at night, lights could flash yellow and red. CDOT will not support this suggestion for liability reasons. Haas clarified that Manford Avenue is on the same timing as 34/36. The concern regarding the speed limit on 36 entering Estes Park was addressed. Larry Haas warned of unintended consequences when requesting a change involving speed limit. CDOT is obligated to enforce the speed limit of the 85 percentile of drivers which means that the speed could potentially be raised if the study finds that 85% of drivers drive a higher speed. He advised that The Town conduct a study first so that way, the speed limit could remain the same if the study was found to be against what TAB desired. Many other possibilities were discussed involving speed, signage, bicycle lanes, etc. OTHER BUSINESS The Board will now have the Town Board Trustee Liaison present his/her updates at the start of the meeting each month. With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 1:56 pm. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 18th, 2015 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall Rooms 202 & 203, in said Town of Estes Park on the 18th day of December, 2015. Present: Merle Moore Celine Lebeau Dewain Lockwood Terry Rustin Ronna Boles Carlie Bangs Vicki Papineau Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works Bob Holcomb, Trustee Liaison Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor Sam Phillips, Contract Administrative Assistant Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 11:05 a.m. GENERAL BUSINESS It was moved and seconded (Lockwood/Boles) to approve the November meeting minutes and the motion passed unanimously. Chair Lebeau formally introduced the two new members, Carlie Bangs and Vicki Papineau, who have officially been appointed to the Parks Advisory Board. AIPP FINALIZATION Merle Moore presented the inventory sheets which link certain artwork to a particular location and emphasized that there should be an update for name changes to park locations so the inventory list is accurate and doesn’t become confusing. Chair Lebeau made a motion to send the AIPP policy to Town Administrator, Frank Lancaster for final authorization and signature. It was moved and seconded (Lockwood/Bangs) for approval. POLICY DISCUSSION Parks Maintenance Supervisor Brain Berg initiated discussion regarding the Naming of Town-Owned Property and Facilities policy. The goal of this policy is to structure the process for naming of Town-owned property and facilities. The Board issued no further comments on this policy. The decision was made to take it to Assistant Town Administrator, Travis Machalek, for approval with staff and movement for finalization to the Town Board. Chair Lebeau made a motion for approval of Naming of Town-Owned Property and Facilities. The motion was moved and seconded (Lockwood/Boles). NEW PROJECT SELECTION Brian Berg expanded on the Tree Board ordinance to further clarify purpose for the new Board members. Under this ordinance, if you have a beetle infested tree, specifically Pine Beetle, Estes Park citizens are in charge of taking it down immediately before it has the chance to spread. Currently, there exists a Tree Protection Zone Ordinance to protect the larger trees and their root zones during construction. Parks Advisory Board - December 18th, 2015 - Page 2 Brian Berg gave a sneak peak presentation of the Musical Walkway addition. He suggested that we add “Wee Notes” to make it a walkway. The proper process must be followed including paperwork for official quote and completion of artwork donation form. The musical walkway is expected to be installed before Mayor Bill Pinkham’s term expires, weather permitting. Public Works Director Greg Muhonen questioned if since it is mass produced, is it within the PAB AIPP jurisdiction to make a decision on it due to the fact that it doesn’t fall under mandates of the Parks policy. In the spring, the Public Works department is hoping to start paver work of musical notes to highlight the musical walkway. Chair Lebeau argued that is appropriate for the Board to approve, just not under the AIPP policy and should be added to next month’s agenda. Trustee Liaison Bob Holcomb voiced concern involving vandalism. Chair Lebeau responded with the possibility of putting a lighted walkway in hopes that it might deter vandalism. Ronna Boles suggested elk signage in the area of the musical instruments as a deterrent and warning for visitors who use the area. Options that were discussed included temporary log fences surrounding the area. While discussing new project selections, the Board also reevaluated their agenda items and decided that it would be the most effective method to list all active projects starting at their conception and promptly remove the item after completion. OTHER BUSINESS Officer elections for the Chair and Vice-Chair will be held in January. An update was given that the River coalition is working on a grant application to restore the riverbank at the Visitor’s Center. Multiple large rocks and the north bank were displaced. Currently, The Town has no project identified to repair that river bank. The River Coalition is in the process of scheduling funds for repair. The Parks department is remodeling the landscape bed adjacent to Elkhorn Avenue in front of the library. Involving the new Transit Hub Parking Structure, the Parks Department’s main focus is the significant landscape feature to be featured on the East face of that structure. Discussion of a landscape plan has not yet been initiated. Also, not yet determined is whether or not the landscape plan will need to be presented to the PAB. With no other business to discuss, a motion was made and seconded (Boles/Moore) to adjourn the meeting at 12:08 pm, with all voting in favor. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Mallory Baker, Planning Consultant Date: January 21, 2016 RE: Special Review and Amended Plat– Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center; Lots 17-19, Block 5, Town of Estes Park and Lots 33-34, 2nd Amended Plat of Riverside Subdivision; 116 E. Elkhorn Avenue; Roger M. Thorp/Applicant. Objective: Review of the Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center Special Review and Amended Plat applications for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. Present Situation: The 0.68 acre proposed building site is presently vacant, and includes frontage on both Elkhorn Avenue and Rockwell Street. The building site also crosses and includes a portion of Fall River. The land uses surrounding the site are predominately small-scale retail businesses, including The Caramel Crisp, Outdoor World, and Chelitos Restaurant. Part of the proposed building site includes a 7,775 square foot portion of the Town-owned Riverside parking lot. Proposal: The applicant requests approval of concurrent Special Review and Amended Plat applications to accommodate a 760-seat performing arts center, 20-unit hotel and spa, publicly accessible Winter Garden, restaurant, and related accessory uses on a 0.68 acre site located at 116 E. Elkhorn Avenue. The design of the proposed structure includes a portion of Fall River running through the building, serving as the site for a future Riverwalk connection and linking the commercial uses proposed for construction on the northern portion of the site fronting E. Elkhorn Avenue with the performing arts center proposed for construction on the south portion of the site fronting Rockwell Street. The applicant has proposed the following measures to address and mitigate potential impact on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment: •A Riverwalk Easement dedication to accommodate a future Riverwalk connection through the subject property. This dedication, which was originally outlined in the Option to Purchase Real Estate Agreement between the applicant and the Town of Estes Park for a 7,775 square foot portion of the Riverside parking lot, has been expanded to include the portion of Fall River that runs through the property, from the southern bank to the northern bank of the River. •A number of parking arrangement strategies intended to mitigate potential negative impacts on parking infrastructure in Estes Park’s downtown core. These parking arrangement strategies include shared parking agreements with downtown private parking lots and the School District lots, a potential paid, long-term lease of a Town- owned parking lot near the subject property, and a potential capital contribution to the Town for a future designed and approved public parking structure. The applicant will also seek three variances from the Board of Adjustment as a part of this project scope to accommodate the uses and design envisioned for this project: a height variance, a river setback variance, and an exterior lighting variance. The applicant is requesting authorization to exceed the maximum 30’ height limit set forth in the EVDC by 28’ 10” to accommodate a fly gallery in the performing arts center necessary for stage crews to perform certain activities during performances. Additionally, the applicant will be requesting a variance from the river setback standard set forth in the EVDC to accommodate the project design, which includes construction over Fall River. The applicant has stated that a man-made river channel will be engineered in order to eliminate potential safety hazards typically associated with a development’s proximity to rivers and streams. Finally, the applicant will be requesting authorization to exceed the maximum one-foot candle requirement set forth in the EVDC in order to provide light and safety on the public spaces around the building, including Fall River, East Elkhorn Street, and Rockwell Street. Advantages: •Complies with standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code; •Is consistent with a number of key goals included in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, including Community-Wide Policies that address issues such as land use, community design, growth management, mobility and circulation, and economics; •Includes a publicly-accessible pedestrian connection along Fall River; •Offers mitigative solutions to potential parking congestion resulting from increased development in the Downtown Core; •Expands tourism and arts industries. Disadvantages: •Increases trip generation and parking congestion in the Downtown Core; •Necessitates an estimated 3.5 year construction period. Action Recommended: The Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing for this application on December 15, 2015. During the hearing, the Commission made the following findings: 1.The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan and the Downtown area plan. The application advances several Community-Wide policies. 2.The application for the proposed Special Review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment; 3.The Amended Plat application will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the EVDC; 4.Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development; 5.This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees. The Planning Commissions voted unanimously 5-0 (two commissioners absent) to recommend CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of the Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center Special Review and Amended Plat applications. The recommended conditions of approval are: 1.Compliance with the following reviewing agency memorandums: a.Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated November 19, 2015; b.Estes Park Utilities memo dated November 18, 2015; c.Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated November 9, 2015; 2.The applicant shall submit a planting schedule of a similar or identical value to the 28 replacement trees required by Section 7.3 of the EVDC, to be evaluated by Staff in accordance with the Valuation of Trees, Shrubs and Other Plants prepared by the International Society of Arboriculture. This document shall be submitted with construction drawings; 3.All exterior lighting installed by the applicant shall comply with Section 7.9(D)(1) of the EVDC; 4.The applicant shall submit an amended Utility Site Plan pursuant to the Estes Park Sanitation District Rules and Regulations within 30 days of Town Board approval; 5.The applicant shall execute a Development Agreement with the Town of Estes Park following Town Board approval, which shall address the following: a.Development phasing b.Site improvements c.Hours and manner of project construction d.Riverwalk easement dedication e.Riverwalk connection; including timing and manner of construction and public accessibility f.Parking g.Any additional items or conditions as determined by the Town Board. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest: The level of public interest is moderate. The Planning Commission received seven letters regarding this project, the majority of which expressed general support. The Commission also considered public testimony from nine residents during the hearing, all of which were in support of the project. Two written public comments opposed the application, and concerned the following issues: Size of the proposed structure: One public comment expressed opposition to the project due to the size of the proposed building in relation to other buildings in the Downtown Core. Parking congestion: The same public comment expressed opposition to the project due to its anticipated impacts on parking and traffic congestion. Proposed elimination of a two-foot “alleyway” between the proposed structure and a neighboring structure: The owners of a local business, The Caramel Crisp, expressed opposition to the project because of its proposed elimination of a two-foot “alleyway” that existed between The Caramel Crisp’s building and the western wall of the Park Theater Mall. The business owners stated that while this alleyway is not included in their area of ownership, it has been used as an alternate access point for over fifty years and is currently the location of the business’ exhaust fan. Additionally, the business owners stated that this alleyway enabled businesses near the Park Theater Mall to be protected from the 2009 fire. The applicant addressed these comments on June 29th, 2015, stating that the 2-foot alleyway is included in the subject property, and cannot be accommodated by changing the proposed 0-foot building side setback. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed the application and found that installing a two-hour fire wall as proposed would be consistent with their requirements. The applicant states that its proposed building design “will afford far more fire separation between the two buildings than had been available with the old Park Theater Mall building”. The 0-foot setback proposed by the applicant meets zoning requirements; further, the 2-foot alleyway referenced by The Caramel Crisp business owners is included in the subject property. The applicant has stated that they are willing to cover the cost of relocating the exhaust fan presently located in the 2-foot alleyway. Written public comments concerning this project are available at www.estes.org/currentapplications. Comments will be added to this webpage as they are received. Sample Motions: Below are the Town Board’s options related to the Special Review application: 1.I find that the applications substantially meet the review criteria, and move to APPROVE the Special Review and Amended Plat applications with no conditions; 2.I find that the applications substantially meet the review criteria, and move to APPROVE the Special Review and Amended Plat applications with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission; 3.I find that the applications do not substantially meet the review criteria, and move to DENY the Special Review and Amended Plat applications; 4.I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the applications and move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to provide adequate time to review additional materials. Attachments: 1.Statement of Intent 2.Site Plans, Floor Plans, and Traffic Control Plan 3.Landscape Plan 4.Traffic Impact Study 5.Supplemental Proposals for Development Agreement 6.Draft Planning Commission Minutes Thorp Associates, P.C. Architects and Planners 131 Stanley Ave. Suite 100 PO Box 129 Estes Park, CO 80517 970.586.9528 303.534.1378 Fax:970.586.4145 www.thorpassoc.com ROCKY MOUNTAIN PERFORMING ARTS CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL May 27, 2015 (Revised June 15, 2015) STATEMENT OF INTENT AND STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center, as conceived by the Board of Trustees of the Estes Performance InCorporated (EPIC), is a self-sustaining, state-of-the-art 760 seat performing arts theater, underwritten with private funding and made possible by the gift of the Seeley Property (formerly the Park Theater Mall) by the Seeley family, extending from Rockwell Street to East Elkhorn Avenue. The Center will be further supported by income from hotel and commercial leases fronting onto East Elkhorn Avenue. The entire project is tourist-oriented and incorporates a third level public lounge and outdoor deck overlooking the street and a unique “Winter Garden” and restaurant connecting the hotel/commercial component of the project with the Riverwalk and performing arts theater. To make the project possible, the Board of Trustees of EPIC will be requesting a variance of Section 4.4 C4 (Height Variance) as well as a variance of Section 7.6,E1a(3) (River Setback) to allow no setback from the river along the 75 foot width of the property. The Project has been designed to support and maintain the performing arts facility physically as well as financially. Income from the Hotel / Restaurant / Spa north of the Fall River will be used to subsidize the income from the Auditorium usage. This subsidy will allow local usage of the Auditorium at little or no cost, finally providing a quality performance venue for talented local theatrical, musical and artistic acts. The backstage fly loft height pushes the requirement for a height variance and the Winter Garden, along with the tourist attraction of experiencing a wild river flowing through the building, has mandated the engineering of a man-made river channel that will safely handle any foreseeable flood event, thus eliminating the need for the Town’s normal river setback requirement. Other ways the Project is responding to the Town’s “Standards For Review” are listed below. 1. Special Circumstances The “Special Circumstances” that exist with this development and are not common to the remainder of Estes Park’s downtown “CD” zoning district is the need to accommodate a full 40-foot fly gallery above the stage of the performing arts center. With an 18’-4” high proscenium arch, the fly gallery must be a minimum of 36’-8” (twice the proscenium height) in order to fully raise scenery from view. Above the 36’-8” height of the fly gallery is the automated rigging equipment as well as a small, but essential walking grate, which will add the flexibility required of the fine local and traveling shows and concerts that the theater will serve. Without the ability to fully “fly” scenery and use “automated” rigging equipment, etc., the auditorium’s ability to support a higher quality program will be drastically limited, rendering the project inadequate. As there has been no Municipal support sought for this Project, which will bring a far more substantial tourist tax base to the Community than presently exists, and since there are already a number of undersized and inadequate performance halls in the community, RECEIVED JUNE 16, 2015 COMM DEV DEPT 2 there is no impetus to pursue the project further unless it can provide a more state-of-the-art performance hall for the Community. 2. In determining “practical difficulty,” the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Other uses of the property may be possible without this variance, but it is not possible to build Estes Park a premier, fully functional auditorium without the variance that would allow the full fly gallery. b. Whether the variance is substantial; The variance needed for a fully functional fly gallery would be 28’-10” (See Height Calculation attached.), which is a substantial variance. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; The Park Theater Mall, which burned in October of 2009, was a substantial building in scale, looming over the Riverside Parking Lot to the east and attached to the retail shops, movie theatre and tower along Fall River. While the proposed performing arts theater is somewhat taller than the Park Theater Mall was, due to the fly gallery, the scale of the auditorium is “stepped” back from the parking lot by the smaller scaled “back of theater,” and still meets well with the existing retail building to the west of the auditorium. The Project addresses East Elkhorn Avenue as only a two story structure (similar to others nearby), due to the design of the roof garden, which sets back a partial third level lounge far enough as to not be visible from the street. In other words, the essential character of the neighborhood (dense, tourist-oriented, commercial properties) will change little from what it was previously and the project would add to the tourist base visiting Estes Park due to the year round nature of the performing arts theater, which would actually lend more tourist traffic (market share) to adjoining properties. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; The Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center will not in any way adversely affect delivery of public services and will even upgrade such services, for instance, the water supply, as the new 8” water line in Rockwell Street, will be a part of the Project. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Estes Performance InCorporated (EPIC) realized that a height variance would be necessary in order to construct a quality performing arts center, since the existing height limit was only 30 feet. f. Whether the Applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. The only alternative to mitigate the predicament would be to sink the auditorium 28’-10” into the ground so that the parapet walls would be the required 30 feet above grade. This alternative, based on a soils investigation (Geotechnical Exploration Report #1122054, dated July 17, 2012 performed by 3 Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc.), would be impossible because of bedrock and water levels. The design has already been lowered to the limit of the soils report. 3. How does the proposed building relate to its site and to its neighbors in terms of setbacks, height, massing, scale, frontage, materials, open space, landscape, and topography? Being in the CD Zone in downtown Estes Park, the building will have the standard eight foot setback along the street frontages (East Elkhorn Avenue and Rockwell Street), although some minor adjustments will be necessary along Rockwell Street as the project design is refined. Side yard setbacks will match the side lot lines, utilizing firewall construction. Care has been taken throughout the Schematic Design process to minimize the height of the auditorium in an attempt to maintain the iconic presence of the Park Theatre tower in the downtown community. Although the overall scale of the performing arts center is considerable, the building is made up of three components (commercial section facing East Elkhorn Avenue, Winter Garden component over Fall River, and the performance auditorium), which help in breaking up the massing of the building. Further, along East Elkhorn Avenue, the third level (lounge and roof garden) has been stepped back from the street frontage in order to maintain the predominant two-story character of the street frontages. The atrium or “Winter Garden” walls have been punctuated by large areas of glazing material and the clearstory skylight design helps maintain a bright, natural landscaped environment year round. At the same time, the mass of the performance auditorium is setback from finished grade by the lower walls of the backstage support and delivery areas. The visual height of the auditorium is further softened by strong horizontal lines capping the building. The Auditorium and Winter Garden sections of the building, as presently designed, will be finished in well detailed brick masonry and native stone, with precast concrete accents and wainscoting. Where roofing material is visible, primarily over the Winter Garden, standing seam metal panels in a quiet hemlock green color, to blend with natural foliage, will tend to soften the scale of that section of the building, which needs a larger volume of space to maintain an indoor botanical garden character. Because the building is being designed to fit within the existing topography of the site (meeting sidewalk elevations along East Elkhorn and the Riverwalk, as well as maintaining existing elevations along the Riverside Parking Lot), the performing arts theater component of the project has been located on the lowest section of the property, minimizing its height. Landscaping, except for that which will enhance the “outdoor” character of the Winter Garden, will be limited to primarily returning any construction damage to the Riverwalk to its original condition, as well as improvements to the Elkhorn Avenue and Rockwell Street frontages. Since the Winter Garden will be able to simulate an open landscaped park next to the river, including the final connection of the always accessible Riverwalk, no additional “open space” is planned. 4. What measures have been employed to ensure that the proposed building is appropriate to downtown, refer to: a. Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.4, to the maximum extent feasible, each principal structure on a site shall avoid long blank walls that face a public street, and b. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, including, but not limited to Chapter 6. 1.0. Land Use, 2.0 Community Design, 6.0 Scenic and Environmental Quality. In viewing historic photographs of downtown Estes Park, it is evident that from the inception of the Transportation Building at 116 East Elkhorn, right up until the October 2009 Park Theater Mall fire, the building had maintained a dominant influence on the character of the Estes Park community. 4 Taking a cue from the historic character of early Colorado mountain towns, the building façades of the project have been broken up with a “timeless” detailing of native stone, heavy timbers, and brick, reminiscent of early 20th century construction, as well as rustic stone detailing. Utilizing brick, wood timbers, stone and heavy timber elements, the scale of the building is minimized to a more personal level. Even the Winter Garden has been structured to mimic the architectural character of an open industrial building, similar to the original Transportation Building’s construction on this site. Based on the present opportunity to infill this abandoned core property with a new cultural iconic structure that will not only complement the existing nature of the tourist-oriented business, but broaden the tourist market with new and innovative activities, this project will also promote a renewed interest and affinity for the natural environment of the river flowing through it, and provide a focus to sustain and support the existing tourism industry and marketing programs within the community. With the performing arts center being a year round pursuit, including restaurant and hotel amenities, the project will have the ability to strengthen the already sound tourism market to be a broader, more sustainable economic engine. 5. What measures have been employed to ensure that the proposed building responds to or enhances the Park Theatre historic resource? Although it would be inappropriate to match the architectural character and detailing of the Park Theatre and tower, as copying would dilute the iconic presence of that facility, a “tip of the hat” to its roots as an early 20th century American structure is not only appropriate, but essential to “comfortable” interaction and interrelationship of the two complexes. Extreme care has been exerted during the design of the Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center to be certain that this new complex, though considerable in scale, would not overpower or disrupt the iconic view of the tower as people approach the Town, for instance, from Highway 34. Soil investigations were accomplished along the river to determine the lowest possible elevation the auditorium and fly gallery could be founded, in order to minimize its height and ensure the continued dominance of the 67 foot high Park Theatre tower as an iconic beacon for our community. The inclusion of a continuously open Riverwalk connection through the Winter Garden further strengthens the Park Theatre and its tower’s tie to the downtown commercial area. 6. Anticipated Development Timing At this time, the general development timing is as follows: River Work and Utility Infrastructure September 2016 – February 2017 First Phase Foundations March 2017 – May 2017 First Phase Superstructure April 2017 – January 2018 Second Phase Foundations and Superstructure March 2018 –May 2019 Auditorium Opening May 2019 7. Pre-Application and Community Outreach Meetings At the May 11, 2015 Pre-Application Meeting with Town Staff and other authorities, Jeff Boles, Town Water Superintendent, indicated the importance, during the construction documents phase of the 5 design, of only allowing a maximum sprinkler system velocity of 10-feet per second, based on an assumed 6 inch fire line size. During the construction documents phase of work, Jeff agreed to help size the domestic service line size to adequately serve the 20-room hotel and the other restroom and kitchen requirements. Jeff also brought up the fact that, as long as the Project is including the construction of a new 8 inch water main “loop” in Rockwell Street, the Town would work with EPIC to investigate the potential of having two separate water services to the site, one from each street frontage. At the meeting, Reuben Bergsten, Director of Utilities, asked and the Applicant confirmed, that a vehicle lift is still planned to get cars from street level to the basement garage. Reuben also asked that an empty conduit for future fiber optic cable expansion be roughed-out from the building. The Applicant discussed and showed a potential plan for relocating electrical transformers in the area. Although the plan displayed had been developed with the assistance of Joe Lockhart, Light and Power Line Superintendent and his crew, the Applicant will meet with Reuben to review the issues again before developing construction documents. Marc Robinson, Fire Marshal for Estes Valley Fire Protection District, indicated that the Development Plan will be reviewed under the 2009 Fire Code. Marc further requested that the Applicant calculate the “Fire Area” (building footprint plus any overhangs), which is called out under “Statistical Information” on the Development Review Site Plan. Two additional hydrant locations have been shown on the Utility Site Plan per the Fire Marshal’s request, one near the East Elkhorn Avenue side of the Project, and the other, along Rockwell Street. The Development Review Site Plan also shows the fire truck access and turnaround lane along the east side of the Auditorium. General questions about phasing of the Project have been delineated above under “Anticipated Development Timing.” Once the Project is financed, and before completion of construction drawings, a more specific and detailed schedule will be completed. In order to minimize the effects of some existing parking being absorbed by the Project, a “Phasing Diagram” has been developed, indicating that the existing Dark Horse Parking Lot will be maintained throughout the Phase I construction process. By the 2018 start of Phase II construction, alternative parking solutions can be considered and accomplished. Although three neighborhood meetings were held to hear comments and concerns about parking and other issues, little public discontent with the Project was expressed. It was acknowledged by the Applicant at the May 11, 2015 Pre-Application Meeting that upon approval of the Development Review and Variance proceedings, there will need to be a Development Agreement that will delineate how traffic congestion will be minimized during construction, mitigating tourism impacts and maintaining safe pedestrian circulation. A layout of planned pedestrian circulation paths around and within the facility is indicated on the Development Review Site Plan. However, a staff suggestion to maintain the Riverwalk easement through the Project on the north side of the river was not well received by EPIC and would require major redesign of the Winter Garden space. Further requests of staff that EPIC consider the re-design in order to re-develop the river frontages west of the Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center has not and cannot be a part of the Project design without the cooperation of other property owners, over which EPIC has not control. Thorp Associates, P.C. Architects and Planners 131 Stanley Ave. #100 PO Box 129 Estes Park, CO 80517 970.586.9528 303-534-1378 Fax:970.586.4145 www.thorpassoc.com ROCKY MOUNTAIN PERFORMING ARTS CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL May 27, 2015 STATEMENT OF INTENT The Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center, as conceived by the Board of Trustees of the Estes Performance InCorporated (EPiC), is a self-sustaining, state-of-the-art 760 seat performing arts theater, underwritten with private funding and made possible by the gift of the Seeley Property (formerly the Park Theater Mall) by the Seeley family, extending from Rockwell Street to East Elkhorn Avenue. The Center will be further supported by income from hotel and commercial leases fronting onto East Elkhorn Avenue. The entire project is tourist-oriented and incorporates a third level public lounge and outdoor deck overlooking the street and a unique “Winter Garden” and restaurant connecting the hotel/commercial component of the project with the Riverwalk and performing arts theater. To make the project possible, the Board of Trustees of EPiC will be requesting a variance of Section 4.4 C4 (Height Variance) as well as a variance of Section 7.6,E1a(3) (River Setback) to allow no setback from the river along the 75 foot width of the property. RECEIVED MAY 27, 2015 COMM. DEV. DEPT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 17, 18 AND 19, BLOCK 5, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, ACCORDING TO THE SECOND AMENDED PLAT THEREOF, AND LOT 34 EXCEPT BOOK 1685 PAGE 740, AND INCLUDING A PORTION OF SAID BOOK AND PAGE DESCRIBED AS: A PORTION OF THE ROCKWELL STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 35, RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION; THENCE S16°40’12”E 10.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE NORTH, WITH A RADIAL BEARING OF S05°51’28”E, AND A RADIUS OF 266.28’; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE EAST 79.87’ WITH A DELTA ANGLE OF 17°11’10” AND A CHORD BEARING OF S87°15’53” E 79.57’; THENCE DEPARTING SAID CURVE N16°52’W 26.12’; THENCE S81°49’50”W 75.67 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AND A PORTION OF LOT 33 OF THE SECOND RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, AND A PORTION OF LAND WITHIN THE BANKS OF FALL RIVER FROM THE DISTRICT COURT ACTION (CASE NUMBER 13CV30448 - RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 20130072405), AND THE TOWN OWNED PROPERTY TRANSFERRED TO EPIC, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE (APPROXIMATE) NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 34, SECOND RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION (THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SLAB AT THE SOUTHERLY EDGE OF FALL RIVER); THENCE S 17˚30'00" E 16.24' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 34, S 15˚50'29" E 119.88'; THENCE S 16°49'56" E 9.28' THENCE S 78˚40'18" E 25.00'; THENCE N 11˚19'42" E 140.84'; THENCE N 78˚40'18" W 36.85'; THENCE S 72˚30'00" W 53.95'; TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING (THIS AREA: 7,838 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS), ALL CONTAINING 29,617 SQUARE FEET - OR 0.68 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND ALL BEING LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, T5N, R73W OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. RECEIVED JUNE 16, 2015 COMM DEV DEPT 36 Site E Elkh o r n A v eMacgregor Ave. W Wonderview Ave 34 34 34 Courtney L n Weist Dr Rockwell St Big Hor n D r Cleave St Boyd Ln APPLICANT Estes Performance Incorporated 1200 Graves Avenue P.O. Box 3077 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970) 231-2458 OWNER Park Theatre Mall, LLC 130 Moraine Avenue P.O. Box 3052 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970) 586-8904 ARCHITECT Thorp Associates, PC 131 Stanley Avenue P.O. Box 129 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970) 586-9528 ENGINEER Van Horn Engineering 1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970) 586-9388 CONSULTANT BHA Design, Inc. 1603 Oakridge Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 223-7577 CONSULTANT BCER Engineering, Inc. 5420 Ward Road, Suite 200 Arvada, Colorado 80002 (303) 422-7400 SHEET INDEX Architectural 1)Title Sheet 2)Overall Site Plan 2.1) Traffic Control Plan 3)Main & Lower Level Plans 4)Mid & Upper Level Plans 5)Landscape Plan 6)Exterior Lighting Elevations 7)Exterior Lighting Elevations 8)Photometric Plan 9)Utility Plan 10)Building Elevations - Height Variance 11)Building Elevations - Height Variance 12)Auditorium Cross Section Height Requirements Civil Engineering 1)Preliminary Grading & Drainage 2)Site Plan - Project Site 3)Site Plan - Overall Amended Plat 1)Preliminary Amended Plat 1)Amended Plat NOTES 1) All required improvements, including all off-site improvements depicted in this Development Plan, shall be completed or guaranteed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 2) Handicap accessible parking stalls, in accordance with the A.D.A. and the I.B.C. are shown on the Development Plan. 3) Approval of this Development Plan creates a vested right pursuant to Article 68 of Title 34, C.R.S., as amended. OWNER'SCERTIFICATION The Undersigned, being the Owners of the properties involved, do hereby agree that the real property as described in the Application for Development Review filed herewith, and as shown on the following plans (17 sheets) shall be subject to the Provisions of Title 17 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, and any other ordinances of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado pertaining thereto. ________________________________ Sharon L. Seeley, Managing Member Park Theatre Mall, LLC ________________________________ Honorable William C. Pinkham, Mayor Town of Estes Park BOARD OF TRUSTEESCERTIFICATION Approved and Accepted by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado by a resolution on this ________ day of ______________________, 2015. ________________________________ Honorable William C. Pinkham, Mayor Town of Estes Park ________________________________ Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park SUBMITTALCOORDINATOR Roger M. Thorp, AIA, LEED AP, Architect 131 Stanley Avenue P.O. Box 129 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970) 586-9528 roger@thorpassoc.com LEGAL DESCRITPTION LOTS 17, 18 AND 19, BLOCK 5, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, ACCORDING TO THE SECOND AMENDED PLAT THEREOF, AND LOT 34 EXCEPT BOOK 1685 PAGE 740, AND INCLUDING A PORTION OF SAID BOOK AND PAGE DESCRIBED AS: A PORTION OF THE ROCKWELL STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 35, RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION; THENCE S16°40’12”E 10.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE NORTH, WITH A RADIAL BEARING OF S05°51’28”E, AND A RADIUS OF 266.28’; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE EAST 79.87’ WITH A DELTA ANGLE OF 17°11’10” AND A CHORD BEARING OF S87°15’53” E 79.57’; THENCE DEPARTING SAID CURVE N16°52’W 26.12’; THENCE S81°49’50”W 75.67 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AND A PORTION OF LOT 33 OF THE SECOND RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, AND A PORTION OF LAND WITHIN THE BANKS OF FALL RIVER FROM THE DISTRICT COURT ACTION (CASE NUMBER 13CV30448 - RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 20130072405), AND THE TOWN OWNED PROPERTY TRANSFERRED TO EPIC, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE (APPROXIMATE) NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 34, SECOND RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION (THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SLAB AT THE SOUTHERLY EDGE OF FALL RIVER); THENCE S 17˚30'00" E 16.24' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 34, S 15˚50'29" E 119.88'; THENCE S 16°49'56" E 9.28' THENCE S 78˚40'18" E 25.00'; THENCE N 11˚19'42" E 140.84'; THENCE N 78˚40'18" W 36.85'; THENCE S 72˚30'00" W 53.95'; TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING (THIS AREA: 7,838 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS), ALL CONTAINING 29,617 SQUARE FEET - OR 0.68 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND ALL BEING LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, T5N, R73W OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. Elkhorn Avenue Facade Study Vicinity Map Not to Scale North EPIC New Site Plan.pln 10/12/15 4:18 PM© 2015 THORP ASSOCIATES, P.C. 131 Stanley Avenue, Suite 100, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center Estes Performance Incorporated 120 East Elkhorn Avenue and 110 Rockwell Street, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Development Plan Submittal Qualified Designers: Roger M. Thorp, Registered Architect #8-998 AIA, LEED AP, NCARB; President Thorp Associates P.C., Architects & Planners David A. Bangs, P.E. #48782 Van Horn Engineering & Surveying Inc. 1 of 13 Revision #3: October 12, 2015 Revision #2: September 4, 2015 Revision #1: June 15, 2015 Original Issue: May 27, 2015 Up Up Up Up CD Zoning CD Zoning CD Zoning CD Zoning CD Zoning VA N Trash Enclosure27'-0" WideRiver ChannelPerformance Auditorium Ri v e r w a l k Existing Riverwalk Fall River Fall River Existing Riverwalk CD Zoning 61+3 Parking Spaces Bi k e R a c k PlanterElevator T Pl a n t e r Pla n t e r Pl a n t e r FH Major Arterial Sidewalk 94'-23/8" 7529.1 100'-0" 7534.9 Finished Floor Finished Floor Riverwalk 99'-6" 7534.4 Sidewalk 100'-0" 7534.9 Proposed River Channel Alignment Riverwalk Connection Easement - See Amended Plat Sheet 1 of 1 Trash Enclosure to be 8" masonry wall construction, 8'-0" tall, with brick veneer exterior to match building. A 3'-0" x 7'-0" steel pedestrian door and an 8'-0" x 8'-0" double steel gate for dumpster removal, both of which will be painted the predominate rust color of the building brick. Interior masonry block walls to be protected by double rows of 4" x 4" horizontal steel angles, all painted the predominate rust color of the building brick. 18' - 0 " Ty p i c a l 8'- 0 " 8'- 0 " 24 ' - 0 "9'-0"Typical24'-10"Right of Way27'-3"Right of WayExisting light poles to be removed and returned to Estes Park Light & Power Existing light pole to be removed and reinstalled in new location as shown R o c k w e l l S t r e e t D i s t u r b a n c e i n t h i s A r e a fo r W a t e r L i n e E x t e n s i o n O n l y Elkhorn Avenue Major ArterialMoraine AvenueNo Classifica t i o n Rockwell Str e e t Rockwell Street D i s t u r b a n c e i n t h i s A r e a for Water Line E x t e n s i o n O n l y 99'-6" 7534.4 Finished Floor 99'-6" 7534.4 Sidewalk 97'-6" 7532.4 T Stage Finished Floor 99'-6" 7534.4 Existing Buildings GRAPHIC LEGEND Neighboring Property Lines New Building New Property Lines Extent of Disturbance Fire Truck Access Pedestrian Access Existing Curb / Parking to be removed / relocated Existing Curb to remain New Curb Riverwalk Easement Existing Trees to be removed / relocated Existing Trees to remain Existing Light Poles to be removed / relocated Relocated Light Poles Edge of Fall River Existing Light Poles to remain 1) Gross Project Area: Square Feet: 29,621 sf Acres: 0.68 2) Net Project Area: (-80% of land in the flood plain 1,695 sf) Square Feet: 27,926 sf Acres: 0.64 3) Project Fire Area: 28,723 sf 4) Total Number of Guest Units: 20 5) Net Developable Land Area per Guest Unit: no minimum 6) Floor Area Ratio: 1.982 (see attached Floor Area Ratio Calculation) 7) Number of Parking Spaces Required: 0 (zero) 8) Number of Parking Spaces Provided: 16 For Information Only: Parking required in other than CD Zone per proposed uses: Entertainment Establishments / Theaters one per three fixed seats (760 seats) 254 stalls Hotel, small one per guest room (20 stalls) and one per three employees (2 stalls) 22 stalls Spa: one per 400 sf (4250sf) 11 stalls Restaurant / Bar one per 100 sf of service area (6240 sf) 63 stalls Total 350 stalls 9) Lot Coverage: 91.92% (no maximum per EVDC Table 4.5) 10) Public Access Easement: 1,022 sf (Riverwalk Connection) 11) Storm Drainage Land Dedication: none 12) Maximum Building Height: 66'-101/2" Stories: Three (3) (see attached Height Variance Documentation) 13) Types of Uses: a. Main Level - Bar / Restaurant / Winter Garder 5,202 sf b. Performance Auditorium & Stage 11,772 sf c. Lower Level Auditorium Accessory Spaces, Storage, and Mechanical 5,677 sf d. Lower Level Spa 4,250 sf e. Basement Garage and Lift 7,245 sf f. Second and Third Level Hotel 8,820 sf g. Third Level Bar and Banquet Room 1,512 sf Third Level Bar and Banquet Room at 1,512 sf = 17% of Hotel Living Space, which is less than the 25% as perscribed in Section 5.1.J of the Development Code STATISTICAL INFORMATION NOTES 1) For Complete Boundary Survey Including Distances and Bearings, See “Amended Plat” Drawing by Van Horn Engineering, Sheet 1 of 1 2) Number of Existing Riverside Parking Lot Stalls: 96 Number of Riverside Parking Lot Stalls Remaining After Phase II Construction: 64 3) Address Scheme for Project: North Frontage: 120 East Elkhorn Avenue South Frontage: 110 Rockwell Street 4) Refer to Civil Engineer's "Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan, Sheet 1 of 3" for River Corridor Details, Base Flood Elevation, and Flood Way. VAN Fall River New 8" Water Service Loop from Moraine Ave to East Riverside Dr w/ Empty Power & Light Conduit - See Utility Plan Completed Phase I Construction (Hotel, Restaurant, Bar, Winter Garden, and Riverwalk Connection) Upgraded Bridge & Riverwalk Connection Line of Previous Parking Lot Redeveloped Riverside Parking Lot Performance Auditorium Construction Redeveloped Rockwell Street w/ New Truck Dock Access, Bus Stop, & Valet Parking Island March 2018 through May 2019 Rockwell St Elkhorn AveNOTE: During Construction, Rockwell Street & Redeveloped Portion of Parking Lot to be used for Construction Staging Moraine AveFall River Fall River Landscape Improvements to Elkhorn Frontage - See Landscape Plan Construction of Hotel, Restaurant, Bar, Winter Garden Maintain Existing Bridge & Riverwalk Connection Property Lines Riverside Parking Lot to remain as-is March 2017 through January 2018 Elkhorn Ave Moraine AveRockwell St Staging Area NOTE: No Public access to Riverwalk Connection during construction. At completion of Phase IB construction, the connecting Riverwalk construction will be complete and open to the Public. 6" Sanitary Sewer 4" Sanitary Sewer w/ Grease Trap New Electric Service & Transformer - See Utility Plan Property Lines Riverside Parking Lot to remain as-is New Riverwall & Channel Construction - no Public access Existing Water Line Elkhorn Ave Moraine AveRockwell St Fall River September 2016 through February 2017 Staging Area Site Plan Scale: 1'' = 20'-0''0 10'20'30'40'North Site Plan - Phase II Scale: 1'' = 100'-0'' Site Plan - Phase IB Scale: 1'' = 100'-0'' Site Plan - Phase IA Scale: 1'' = 100'-0''EPIC New Site Plan.pln 10/12/15 4:18 PM© 2015 THORP ASSOCIATES, P.C. 131 Stanley Avenue, Suite 100, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center Estes Performance Incorporated 120 East Elkhorn Avenue and 110 Rockwell Street, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 2 of 13 Revision #3: October 12, 2015 Revision #2: September 4, 2015 Revision #1: June 15, 2015 Original Issue: May 27, 2015 Up CD Zoning CD Zoning CD Zoning Performance Auditorium Bi k e R a c k PlanterT Pl a n t e r Pla n t e r Pl a n t e r FH C E A B E D New Performance Auditorium Asphalt Standard Gray Concrete Exposed Aggregate Concrete Stamped Buff Colored Concrete Stamped/Colored Concrete to Match Existing Riverwalk Lyon's Red Sandstone Traffic Signs - Refer to Corresponding Sign Elevations on this Sheet GRAPHIC LEGEND Existing Surrounding Buildings Sign ‘C’Sign ‘D’Sign ‘E’Sign ‘A’Sign ‘B’6'-0"typ6'-0"typ6'-0"typVariation of CDOT R7-107a metal signs Custom metal sign - 22" x 15" Standard U-Channel sign post Detachable base plate CDOT W5.1 metal sign CDOT W16-7p metal sign Standard U-Channel sign post Detachable base plate Standard 2-way metal sign CDOT R1-6 metal sign CDOT R5-1 metal sign Standard U-Channel sign post Detachable base plate Traffic Control Plan Scale: 1'' = 10'-0''0 5'10'15'20'North Taffic Sign Elevations 1/2" = 1'-0"EPIC New Site Plan.pln 10/12/15 2:21 PM© 2015 THORP ASSOCIATES, P.C. 131 Stanley Avenue, Suite 100, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center Estes Performance Incorporated 120 East Elkhorn Avenue and 110 Rockwell Street, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Traffic Control Plan 2.1 of 13 Revision #3: October 12, 2015 Revision #2: September 4, 2015 Revision #1: June 15, 2015 Original Issue: May 27, 2015 Up Up Ramp1:5 slopeDnUp Up Up Up Up Up Up Up Up Up Ref.RampFall River Unex. Mech. Mech. Stair Costume Stor. Women's Elev. Equip/ Elect. Rm. Costume Shop Stg/Mech Orchestra Pit Stairs Parking Garage Men'sGreen Room E E Elect. Dist Lift Eqip/StgStair Lift Elev. Equip. E Eq UnexcavatedUnexcavated Unexcavated UnexcavatedRecpt. StgStg W Sauna M Sauna Massage (Dbl)StgMsgMsgMsgMsgMsg Fac'l/ Inj. Fac'l/ Inj. Fac'l/ Inj. Restaurant Storage Stair Up Dn DnUp Up Up Up Up Up Dn Dn Up Up Up Up Up Up 24 27 2928272827 8877 37 5 5 1718 8877 28 19 5 5 18 Up Dn. Dn SlopeUpPit Riverwalk Trash Enclosure VA N Trash Enclosure Proposed River Channel Alignment Railing Drop-Off Up 28 5 11 5 Cntrl 456 Seats 6 H.C. Fall River Fall River Fall River CD Zoning 61+3 Parking SpacesFam.E Stairs Box Office Public WomenJan.RR Make-up Make-up Dress'g Dress'gMgr. E Lounge Exit CorridorArt Walk Rear Stage Receiving Stage Art Walk Lift Men Women Kitchen Winter Garden Bar E E GalleryOutside Dining Serv. Hall Lobby Auditorium FH Major Arterial Elkhorn Avenue No Classifica t i o n Rockwell Str e e t T Public Men Lower Level Floor Plan Scale: 1'' = 20'-0''0 10'20'30'40'North Main Level Floor Plan Scale: 1'' = 20'-0''0 10'20'30'40'North 1217 EPIC PA - Prelim Building Plans.pln 10/12/15 2:31 PM© 2015 THORP ASSOCIATES, P.C. Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center Estes Performance Incorporated 120 East Elkhorn Avenue and 110 Rockwell Street, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 131 Stanley Avenue, Suite 100, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Floor Plans 3 of 13 Revision #3: October 12, 2015 Revision #2: September 4, 2015 Revision #1: June 15, 2015 Original Issue: May 27, 2015 Up Dn DnUp Up Dn Up Up Up Dn.Up Dn. Auditorium Below Stage Below Up Dn Open to Below Open to Below Open to Below Open to Below Art Walk Below StairsW PrepKitchenBar Founder's Room E M Jan.Equipment Storage E Stair Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Deck Deck Deck Deck Deck Deck Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Dk Dk Dk Dk Dk Dk Wellness Lounge Housekp'g Man.Admin.Lk'd Stor. Jan.Sub. Lobby E E Up Dn Up Dn Dn Up Dn. UpDn 4 1 3 3 4 4 232425 1112121212 1112121212 1 4 3 3 4 4 Open to Below Open to Below Men Women Men E Office Conf.Recept.StairJan.Banquet Rm. Open Deck Gallery E E Men Women Unit Unit Unit UnitUnit Unit Unit Unit Deck Deck Deck DeckDeck Deck Deck Deck T&C Stor.Bar Stor. Lobby Bridge Middle Level Floor Plan Scale: 1'' = 20'-0''0 10'20'30'40'North Upper Level Floor Plan Scale: 1'' = 20'-0''0 10'20'30'40'North 4 1 3 3 4 4 232425 1112121212 1112121212 1 4 3 3 4 4 10911 109 Open to Below 277 Seats 2 H.C.ControlBooth1217 EPIC PA - Prelim Building Plans.pln 10/12/15 2:31 PM© 2015 THORP ASSOCIATES, P.C. Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center Estes Performance Incorporated 120 East Elkhorn Avenue and 110 Rockwell Street, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 131 Stanley Avenue, Suite 100, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Floor Plans 4 of 13 Revision #3: October 12, 2015 Revision #2: September 4, 2015 Revision #1: June 15, 2015 Original Issue: May 27, 2015 EXISTING TREE AND TREE GRATE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AND PLANTING BED TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED. ANNUAL PLANTINGS BY MUNICIPALITY. 3 PO TR 3 HE SE 7 CA OV 3 PE ST 3 RI AL 2 MA AQ 4 EC PU 2 AQ CO 5 HE SE 5 AC MO 2 PY CA IN TREE WELLS (REUSE EXISTING TREE GRATES) 11 EC PU 9 CA KF 6 CA CL 24 CA KF (3) 12" DBH COTTONWOOD TREES AND SHRUB BED TO BE REMOVED 3 ASH TREES IN TREE WELLS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING SHRUB BED TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED. RELOCATED STREET LIGHT (2) TWO NEW BOLLARDS TO MATCH EXISTING (4) FOUR NEW BENCHES TO MATCH EXISTING EXISTING TRASH CAN TO BE RELOCATED OFF SITE BEAR PROOF TRASH ENCLOSURE 6-8 BIKE PARKING (3 OR 4 RACKS) ON CRUSHER FINES PAD SEATING PLAZA (9) 12 TO 1 TON BOULDERS COLORED CONCRETE (6) 11-12" DBH COTTONWOOD TREES TO BE REMOVED (1) 12" DBH COTTONWOOD TREE TO BE REMOVED 5 SY MK 2 PO TR 3 CE MO 5 RO NW 1 RI AL 2 AQ CO 2 CE MO 3 RO NW 3 PO TR 2 RI AL 2 PI PU 1 PI PU 8' WIDE CONCRETE RAMP/WALKWAY W/ 12" STAMPED COLORED CONCRETE EDGE, BANDING TO MATCH CHARACTER OF EXISTING RIVERWALK. REGULATORY SIGNAGE FIRE HYDRANT, SEE UTILITY PLAN REGULATORY SIGNAGE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 1 PI PU 3 RO NW 9 CA KF 1 PI PU 1 PI PU ANNUALS BY OWNER EXPOSED AGGREGATE CONCRETE UNDER BIKE RACKS DECIDUOUS TREES LANDSCAPE BOULDERS SHRUBS, PERENNIALS AND GRASSES (3) THREE NEW BENCHES ON COLORED CONCRETE PAD REUSED SANDSTONE PAVERS15'-7"15'-7"(3) SEATING BOULDERS SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLANTING (3) SEATING BOULDERS RELOCATED CITY STREET LIGHT (4) NEW BENCHES, MATCH EXISTING, TYP BRICK INLAY AT THRESHOLD SANDSTONE INLAY AT THRESHOLD MATCH COLOR AND TEXTURE OF ADJACENT CONCRETE MATCH EXITING HERRINGBONE PATTERN, SOLDIER COURSE AROUND PERIMETERS, TYP. REUSE EXISTING BRICKS TO EXTENT POSSIBLE, MATCH COLOR AND TEXTURE OF EXISTING BRICK FOR NEW BRICKS AS NEEDED. (2) REUSED EXISTING TREE GRATES LEGEND PLANT LIST GENERAL NOTES: BHA Design Incorporated 1603 Oakridge Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 voice: 970.223.7577 www.bhadesign.com 1. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE PLANTED AND MAINTAINED IN A LIVING CONDITION BY THE DEVELOPER. SHOULD ANY PLANT MATERIALS DIE, THE OWNER, HIS ASSIGNS, OR HEIRS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PLANT REPLACEMENT WITHIN ONE PLANTING SEASON AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE MATERIALS REQUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH BY THIS PLAN OR OTHERWISE ACCEPTABLE TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. 2. LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK DESIGN STANDARDS AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS MANUAL. IF A STANDARD FOR THE IMPROVEMENT IS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE MANUAL, THEN THE ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARD SHALL APPLY. 3. THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, AS APPLICABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN ON-SITE AND COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING, AND LANDSCAPING ON ADJACENT RIGHTS-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON AN APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN, OR AS EXISTING IF NO APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN EXISTS, EXCEPT THAT WHICH IS MAINTAINED BY THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. 4. SOIL PREPARATIONS UNDER AREAS TO BE PLANTED SHALL INCLUDE 3 CUBIC YARDS OF ORGANIC MATERIAL PER ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING SOIL TILLED TO A DEPTH OF SIX INCHES. 5. THE DEVELOPER IS TO INSTALL LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION ACCORDING TO THE MOST CURRENT TOWN OF ESTES PARK LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS AND PARKS STANDARDS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. 6. FINAL LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL MAY BE ADJUSTED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE CLEARANCE FROM THE FINAL LOCATION OF THE ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. 7. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PRUNE ANY EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS, IF THEY ARE TO REMAIN, ACCORDING TO TOWN OF ESTES PARK FORESTRY STANDARDS AND UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY FORESTER. 8. ALL SHRUBS TO RECEIVE WEED BARRIER UNDER SPECIFIED MULCH AND 3 16" X 4" X 16' STEEL EDGING. 9. ALL PERENNIALS TO RECEIVE SPECIFIED MULCH. 10. ALL TREES SHALL BE PLANTED A MINIMUM OF 5' FROM ANY SANITARY SEWER OR WATER LINE. 11. MULCHED AREAS WILL CONSIST OF 4" WOOD MULCH (OR APPROVED EQUAL) OVER PERMEABLE WEED BARRIER. 12. EXISTING VEGETATION SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS NOTED ON THE PLAN. 13. EXISTING TREE GRATES SHALL BE REUSED ON SITE. 14. TOWN STANDARD SITE FURNISHINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY DEVELOPER PER PLAN. 15. MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE MATERIAL SHALL BE PROVIDED BY OWNER ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS. NO MOWING IS ANTICIPATED. 16. SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH DOUBLE SHREDDED REDWOOD MULCH. 17. AN AUTOMATED DRIP / LOW WATER USE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL BE PROVIDED TO IRRIGATE PLANT MATERIAL. SYMBOLSYMBOLSYMBOLSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMEBOTANICAL NAMEBOTANICAL NAMEBOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAMECOMMON NAMECOMMON NAMECOMMON NAME SIZESIZESIZESIZE ROOTROOTROOTROOT QT.QT.QT.QT. DECIDUOUS TREESDECIDUOUS TREESDECIDUOUS TREESDECIDUOUS TREES PO TR Populus tremuloides Aspen 4" Cal.BB 8 ORNAMENTAL TREESORNAMENTAL TREESORNAMENTAL TREESORNAMENTAL TREES PY CA Pyrus calleryana 'Redspire' Redspire Pear 2" Cal.BB 2 DECIDUOUS SHRUBSDECIDUOUS SHRUBSDECIDUOUS SHRUBSDECIDUOUS SHRUBS CA CL Caryopteris x clandonensis 'Blue Mist' Blue Mist Spirea 5 Gal.Cont. 6 CE MO Cercocarpus montanus Mountain Mahogany 5 Gal.Cont. 5 MA AQ Mahonia aquifolium Oregon grape 6 Gal.Cont. 2 RI AL Ribes alpinum Alpine Currant 5 Gal.Cont. 6 RO NW Rosa 'Nearly wild' Nearly Wild Rose 5 Gal.Cont. 11 SY MK Syringa patula 'Miss Kim'Miss Kim Lilac 5 Gal.Cont. 5 EVERGREEN SHRUBSEVERGREEN SHRUBSEVERGREEN SHRUBSEVERGREEN SHRUBS PI PU Picea pungens 'Globe'Globe Spruce 5 Gal.Cont. 6 ORNAMENTAL GRASSESORNAMENTAL GRASSESORNAMENTAL GRASSESORNAMENTAL GRASSES CA OV Calamagrostis acutiflora 'Overdam' Variegated Feather Reed Grass 1 Gal.Cont. 7 CA KF Calamagrostis x acutiflora 'Karl Foerster'Foerster's Feather Reed Grass 1 Gal. Cont. 42 HE SE Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue Avena 1 Gal. Cont. 8 PERENNIALSPERENNIALSPERENNIALSPERENNIALS AC MO Achillea 'Moonshine' Moonshine Yarrow 1 Gal.Cont. 5 AQ CO Aquilegia coerulea Rocky Mountain Columbine 1 Gal.Cont. 4 EC PU Echinacea purpurea Purple Coneflower 1 Gal.Cont. 15 PE ST Penstemon strictus Rocky Mountain Penstemon 1 Gal.Cont. 3 SCALE: SEATING PLAZA DETAIL21"=10' SCALE: ELKHORN STREETSCAPE DETAIL11"=10'TREE REPLACEMENT SPECIES SIZE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT 1 ASH 3" 0 2 ASH 3" 0 3ASH 3" 0 4 COTTONWOOD 12"3 5 COTTONWOOD 11"3 6 COTTONWOOD 12"3 7 COTTONWOOD 12"3 8 COTTONWOOD 11"3 9 COTTONWOOD 12"3 10 COTTONWOOD 12"3 11 COTTONWOOD 12"3 12 COTTONWOOD 11"3 13 COTTONWOOD 12"3 14 AUSTRIAN PINE 9"2 15 AUSTRIAN PINE 9"2 16 ASPEN 8" 3 17 AUSTRIAN PINE 10"2 TOTAL 39 SCALE: SOUTH ENTRY DETAIL31"=10' FURNISHINGS SCHEDULE 1. BENCH: VICTOR STANLEY, MODEL CR-138, 6' LENGTH, IRON, POWDER COATED BLACK, SURFACE MOUNT. 2. BIKE RACK: VICTOR STANLEY, MODEL BRWS-101, TUBULAR STEEL, POWDER COATED BLACK, IN-GROUND MOUNT. 1. 10 REPLACEMENT TREES ARE INCLUDED ON THIS PLAN. 2. 29 TREES WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE WINTER GARDEN EPIC New Site Plan.pln 10/12/15 2:21 PM© 2015 THORP ASSOCIATES, P.C. 131 Stanley Avenue, Suite 100, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center Estes Performance Incorporated 120 East Elkhorn Avenue and 110 Rockwell Street, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Landscape Plan 5 of 13Revision #3: October 12, 2015 Revision #2: September 4, 2015 Revision #1: June 15, 2015 Original Issue: May 27, 2015 1 Supplemental Proposals from EPIC, dba Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center, To be Included in the Development Agreement with the Town of Estes park October 26, 2015 Important Legislative Background: The Town Board has granted to EPIC an exclusive option to purchase real estate from the Town within the Riverside Parking Lot adjacent to the property under consideration for the Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center (RMPAC). In consideration for that option, Ordinance 04-‐ 13, adopted February 26, 2013, provides in Exhibit A and Exhibit C that EPIC will grant to the Town a public access easement and construct the extension of the Riverwalk entirely through the RMPAC project adjacent to the southern bank of the Fall River (and only the southern bank). Additionally, upon adoption of Ordinance, 04-‐13, the Town Board acted to omit an earlier provision which would have addressed how EPIC would supplement the existing off-‐street parking. Legislative history of Ordinance 04-‐13 includes Board testimony recognizing that the Estes Valley Development Code does not require development projects in this Downtown zoning district to provide off-‐street parking. The Town Attorney also explained that, prior to EPIC executing the final Option Agreement, “the Town will have relocated the 30 parking spaces from the property between June 15 and October 1 of each calendar year within the Town’s CD -‐ Commercial Downtown zoning district. Until such time the Option is executed the Town owned property would remain a parking lot.” And further Board testimony recognized that “The revised Option addresses how the Town can work with the private entity to address parking issues downtown” in any terms and conditions of special review approval. Supplemental Proposals from EPIC I. Expanded easement for continuity of Riverwalk During development application review in October, 2015, the Town introduced a request an additional public access easement adjacent to the northern bank of the Fall River for the future potential of extending the northern leg of the Riverwalk through the project and west toward a new bridge and crossing of Moraine Avenue. EPIC proposes that the Town’s interest will be addressed by EPIC granting an extension of the required southern bank easement throughout the river channel within the full width of the project building and extending to the northern bank of the river. (now reflected in the amended plat). This would allow an extension of the northern leg of the Riverwalk within the river channel to be designed and built by the Town, thereby allowing pedestrian passage during all but the flood-‐level flow of the river. 2 This northern leg of the Riverwalk must be designed and constructed by the Town concurrently with the construction by EPIC of the first phase of RMPAC, during which the river channel will be improved and the southern Riverwalk extension will be constructed. EPIC estimates now that Phase I construction (the Performance Plaza which fronts on Elkhorn Avenue) would begin in August, 2017, and be completed by October, 2018. II.Methods to augment available parking Parking Needed and Available RMPAC has estimated that a typical performance at the theater may require 243 parking spaces. During development application review, EPIC provided an original parking survey which counted 146 unoccupied public parking spaces available within a ¼ mile radius of RMPAC for those attending evening performances. The Town examined that survey and concluded that there was a deficit of some 151 parking spaces during performances. However, neither calculation includes available spaces at the visitor’s center lot (not to mention a future structure at the visitors center) which are within a 1/3 mile radius. This requires typically an eight-‐minute walk to the RMPAC. Those spaces will actually offset the 151 net parking spaces required. Also, for RMPAC patrons that stay overnight, parking is accommodated in private lots provided at their lodgings. Important Economic Impact It is important to recognize that theater patrons will arrive in Estes Park at random times and seek parking within and beyond the downtown region during an afternoon before a performance. Typical behavior of audiences will be to find lodging or parking, to shop, have dinner in a restaurant, and to walk or shuttle to the RMPAC in time for the “curtain”. This is a fundamental reason for the RMPAC to be in the center of downtown: to allow patrons to partake of Estes Park’s retail, lodging and restaurants in ways that multiply the economic impact. Additional Parking Arrangements In order to alleviate parking demand during particularly busy seasons or days, EPIC proposes that additional private and public parking spaces can be secured through private agreements. These may include agreements between EPIC and banks, other downtown private parking lots and the School District lots. Those lots would be restricted on certain days and times to ticketed audience members. EPIC can hire private contract shuttles from these lots if necessary. Epic has also looked into coordinating the Town shuttle at performance times, to serve parking areas as distance as the Fair Grounds. Lease of Town Parking Spaces When the hotel is built and operating at the RMPAC, EPIC is prepared to negotiate a long-‐term lease with the Town for a minimum of 25 individual parking spaces, reserved daily 24-‐hours, in a Town parking lot conveniently near the RMPAC site. The minimum need is for the guests of the hotel. Such a lease could be transferred to parking spaces within an adjacent parking structure if one is built in the future. 3 Partner with Town for Parking Structure EPIC and the Town in general would benefit from a parking structure built downtown that would accommodate guests of Estes Park. To this end EPIC is prepared to contribute limited capital toward the construction of a parking structure with several hundred spaces available. To this end, EPIC would seek enough reserved spaces to accommodate RMPAC hotel guests and RMPAC staff members. Audience would be served by such a structure, as would shoppers and those going to Estes Park’s restaurants and bars. It is important to consider that the capital which EPIC has raised is from philanthropic donors, not borrowed or earned. The use of this capital must be clearly prudent and for the benefit of EPIC’s donors. It must be demonstrated that investment in a nearby parking structure will augment the business plan and success of the non-‐profit RMPAC. It is imperative that, for EPIC to contribute toward a parking structure, such a structure downtown must be designed, approved and shovel-‐ready by the Town before EPIC breaks ground on Phase II construction of the theater building and basement. If such a structure is not ready to build by then (estimated now to be October, 2018) EPIC must proceed alone to build and invest in its basement parking of 16 spaces for hotel guests. Respectfully submitted, R. Stanton Black On behalf of the Board of Trustees Estes Performance InCorporated RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 December 15, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Russ Schneider, and Sharry White Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, Schneider, and White Also Attending: Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Audem Gonzales, Planner Phil Kleisler, Planner Mallory Baker, Planner Carrie McCool, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Town Attorney Greg White, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent Commissioners Hills and Klink Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 30 people in attendance. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public comment at today’s meeting. Each Commissioner was introduced. A quorum was in attendance. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public comment at today’s meeting. ROCKY MOUNTAIN PERFORMING ARTS CENTER SPECIAL REVIEW 2015-01, AND AMENDED PLAT, 116 E. Elkhorn Avenue Planner Baker reviewed the staff report. She stated the application was a Special Review and Amended Plat to accommodate a 760-seat performing arts center, 20-unit hotel and spa, publicly accessible Winter Garden, bar/restaurant, and related accessory uses on a 0.68 acre site located at 116 E. Elkhorn Avenue. Total square footage would be in excess of 44,000 square feet. The project would also include a basement parking garage with sixteen spaces intended for hotel guest use. There are unique characteristics to the site including a riverwalk, with a portion of Fall River running through the building. Planner Baker stated the Special Review review criteria ensures compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the EVDC and mitigates, to the maximum amount feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. The review criteria for the Amended Plat includes compliance with the EVDC review standards, and the Planning Commission shall also find for this minor subdivision that approval will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes or objectives of the EVDC. Planner Baker reviewed the specifics of the proposed development, stating this is a mixed-use structure, which contains both use-by-right and special review features. The performing arts theater, considered an “Entertainment Event, Major Indoor Uses,” is the portion of the application requiring special review. The site fronts two streets, Elkhorn Avenue and Rockwell Street which will affect access and site visibility. The applicant has set forth a number of strategies to address potential traffic congestion and parking issues in the downtown core. The site is also in very close proximity to Fall River, with the design having the river running through the Winter Garden area. The dedication of an easement for a riverwalk trail is also proposed, which will provide essential pedestrian connectivity RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 December 15, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall through the downtown corridor. This proximity to Fall River, along with a proposed height over the 30-foot limit and exterior lighting exceeding the limits imposed in the EVDC, necessitates a variance application, which will be heard by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. Planner Baker stated the river acts as a natural separation between the restaurant/hotel/spa and the performing arts theatre on the south side of the river. The river is integrated into the building design. The proposed riverwalk easement is an important element. The previous easement was included in the option to purchase real estate agreement. The applicant would like to expand this easement dedication to address Planning and Public Works issues, including but not limited to ADA accessibility. Planner Baker stated construction of Phase 1B is scheduled to be completed in January, 2018. The area to be dedicated and the timeline for construction will be spelled out in the Development Agreement, which is a recommended condition of approval. Another key issue is the potential parking congestion that could result from the completed development. While no off-street parking is required in the CD–Commercial Downtown zone district, Section 7.11 of the EVDC requires a parking study to identify and mitigate potential adverse impacts. The original study projected a parking demand of 243 vehicles. The applicant has proposed a number of parking strategies; use of existing parking lots in the area, including the visitor center; potential shared parking agreements with banks and/or the school district; a formal lease of a number of town-owned parking spaces dedicated for this use; financial contribution for a nearby parking structure in exchange for a certain number of spaced dedicated for use by this development. Planner Baker stated these issues and any others should be further analyzed and executed in the Development Agreement between the Town and the applicant. Planner Baker stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners within 1000 feet of the site. This was twice the radius distance of 500 feet required by the EVDC. Appropriate legal notices have been published in the local newspaper and on the Town website. Staff Findings 1.If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the staff report. 2.The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3.Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development, if revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval. 4.The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body, and the Town Board of Trustees is the Decision-making Body for both the Special Review and the Amended Plat applications. Planner Baker reviewed the Conditions of Approval, listed below. More specifically, she stated the proposed plans show 39 trees would be removed in or near the Riverside Parking Lot. Typically, these trees would need to be replaced; however, there is some flexibility in the EVDC to have another mechanism for replacing trees. The applicant proposed replacing 11 trees, and placing additional RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 December 15, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall trees in the winter garden area, which can be evaluated by staff to ensure the trees planted there are of equal or greater value than the trees removed. Planner Baker stated Condition #6 was added due to a sewer line shown on the original plans as being removed. This condition ensures that sewer line will be properly replaced, as it serves several locations in the immediate area. Finally, she stated development agreements will need to be written, requiring a significant amount of coordination between the applicant, the Town, and referral agencies. Planner Baker stated the Planning Commission has the authority to add other conditions of approval as they see fit based on any testimony and evidence provided by the applicant and/or the public at this hearing. Applicant Presentation Stan Black/applicant stated he would be presenting information directly pertinent to the Special Review. He stated this project is about creating a vibrant society, inspiring creativity, building community pride, bridging diverse cultures, and entertaining us. He showed a video about the potential entertainers at the Performing Arts Center, and added this project is about a lot more than providing a home for local performers. Mr. Black stated is the Board Chair, and other team members include Tom Dority, Roger Thorp, and David Bangs. For decades the local community has sought a performing arts theater, and opportunity arose when the Park Theatre Mall burned to the ground. The property is unique with a highly commercial front end to generate money to support the theater. The theater will have its frontage on Rockwell. Mr. Black stated this project complements the Comprehensive Plan, the Town’s strategic plan, and the Economic Development Corporation’s strategic plan. This project will bring people to town for longer periods of time, to the heart of downtown, and to do something they haven’t done before. He stated the impact of the tall building would be somewhat mitigated because the building would be at or below river level, located where the previous building was over forty feet tall. Also, it would be located adjacent to the tallest building in the Estes Valley. Mr. Black stated the driving factor for the building height is the fly space, which allows the crew to set up for more than one show at a time, and “fly” into the area above the stage the set pieces, lighting, sound, etc. This feature allows heavy back-to-back bookings. The team considered putting the building below grade, but hit bedrock and ground water at eight feet. Regarding flood mitigation, the base floor must be above the curb. Mr. Black stated effort has been put into the architecture to mitigate a boxy appearance. The design includes 16 spaces reserved for hotel guests in an underground parking area, weekend summer days have parking spaces that open up in the early evenings, and there are enough spaces within a 1/4 mile radius around town to accommodate guests at the theater. The anticipation is that guests would be in town before and after the show. The Visitor Center is an eight-minute walk and considered overflow parking. He stated the team may negotiate arrangements with private lots, shuttles to remote lots, and they are offering to participate in a nearby parking structure if construction coincides with this project. He stated they would prefer to participate in a public parking lot rather than have parking in the basement area. Mr. Black stated there were four neighborhood meetings that were well attended and constructive, for the most part. These meetings led them to work harder to find parking solutions. Also from the meetings came a dramatically changed exterior appearance. Changes were made to build a hotel in order to control the style and usage of the whole complex and mitigate negative impacts on RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 December 15, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall neighbors. A land survey found neighbors encroached on their property. A “Do No Harm” agreement was drafted to address this. The next door neighbors have an exhaust fan that will need to be moved, and the applicant has offered to pay for a new fan to be relocated to their roof. Tom Dority/EPIC Board member stated the underlying reason for the project is the intrinsic value of the arts and culture to Estes Park. The effort to improve the cultural aspect of the community is very important. Also important is the economic impact on the community. They are hoping to have this be a venue for a wide variety of professional performance groups as well as the home of the various local performing groups. A very conservative estimate would have 36% of the potential seats filled for the first few years. It is possible the proposed project could conservatively result in $1.9 million to the town. Other audience spending could result in an additional $6.8 million. Sales tax received is projected to be about $400,000 annually. Total economic impact could be as much as $9 million annually. Other economic factors include value of construction materials, approximately 150 workers on site for the 18-month construction period, a large vacant lot that is currently a liability to the community will be redeveloped with a new building that will attract the public year round. Mr. Dority explained his sources came from various studies. Roger Thorp/project architect stated he has been working on this project for several years. Adjustments have been made to better blend in with the community, as the previous design was too “urban” for this mountain community. The second level will be set back so it is in character with the other two-story buildings. The mountain rustic architecture uses rock and timbers. They maintained the character in the winter garden and the auditorium by utilizing brick work more on the theater portion of the building. A shorter exterior wall will be along the perimeter, with the fly area being in the middle of the theater, so as to not be as intrusive to people walking beside the building. Mr. Thorp stated a lot of work has gone into engineering the river going through the building. The proposed design allows for approximately 2.5 times the water flow prior to the 2013 flood. Having the river going through the building was the original impetus behind the design of the auditorium. The winter garden would be accessible year-round, and would allow connectivity of the riverwalk to the Weist parking lot. A public easement would be dedicated through the building. The winter garden area has been designed for pedestrian use and includes public restrooms. The number of restrooms in the building exceeds the code requirements. Mr. Thorp stated the building entrance on Rockwell is set back enough to allow a drop off zone, and the performer’s vehicles will have off-street parking to unload/load. A traffic engineer assisted with location of signs. The proposed plan includes four major pedestrian access/exit points. Additionally, sixteen valet parking spaces, storage, mechanical rooms and green rooms would be located on the lower level. He reiterated the applicant would be willing to negotiate an agreement with the Town regarding a parking structure before phase two is built. He stated the basement would require waterproofing. Mr. Thorp shows photo simulations, and stated the proposed height is approximately 55 feet high, which is not in the purview of the Planning Commission. A variance request concerning height will be heard by the Board of Adjustment. The existing Park Theater is almost 14 feet higher than this proposed building. The reason for the elaborate stage is to make sure they can take care of local performers and out-of-town performers and still be able to change out the backdrops quickly for multiple performances in a timely manner. They have worked hard to make this an exciting experience that will attract people. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 December 15, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Staff, Applicant, and Commission Discussion Mr. Thorp stated the Special Review and Amended Plat will be heard by the Town Board prior to going to the Board of Adjustment for the variance requests. They don’t intend to make major changes. As construction is detailed, some adjustments may be necessary. He stated actual construction dates will depend on how funding comes along; however, construction would begin in the river when the water is low (fall/winter). In response to a question, Mr. Thorp stated the building will be designed to the new water flows and reviewed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. He did not see any effect on this project from the proposed “Loop” project, but is hoping a parking structure at the existing Post Office parking lot will come to fruition. Commissioner Schneider wondered about parking on the lower level on the north side of the river, with access on Elkhorn Avenue, and Mr. Thorp stated there is a hotelier that desires to put a spa on the lower level, so they did not design parking. Mr. Thorp stated the parking study takes into account all the uses in the building. They hope to be a part of the parking solution in the downtown area. Commissioners Schneider and Murphree were pleased with the new design. Public Comment Paul Fishman/town resident and former business owner at the proposed location was supportive of the downtown location. He hopes it will change the character of downtown for the better, and thinks the project will bring an enhanced nighttime atmosphere. He stated the positive aspects outweigh the negative. He suggested the Planning Commissioners recommend to Town Board to seek funding for a downtown parking structure at the current Post Office lot. Marc Richards/county resident stated several local performing arts groups need an adequate venue and performance space. The current venues are greatly appreciated, though inadequate. The Estes Valley has an unusually large number of highly educated performers. Estes Park could compete for entertainment if they had a venue like this proposed project. Any town has to move forward to improve itself, or it will become stagnant. Ron Willcox/county resident and downtown business owner stated he was very supportive of this project, and it is very important for this project to move forward. The issues of parking, traffic, etc. have been mitigated and have plans for further mitigation. The project is consistent with town goals and the downtown strategic plan. It will provide jobs, lodging downtown, will connect the riverwalk. Craig Soderberg/town resident was supportive of the project. His children are performers and would love the opportunity this theater would offer. He frequently goes to Grand Lake to their theater, and wants the same for Estes Park. He was representing Estes Performs, and this group is very excited about having this type of venue in Estes Park. As a board member of the Estes Arts District, he shared this group also supports this project. The Governor of Colorado supports creative arts districts, and Mr. Soderberg encouraged the Commissioners to approve this project. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 December 15, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Diane Muno/town resident and downtown business owner was highly supportive of this project. She stated it will bring a new type of visitor to the community and will give visitors and locals something to do in the evenings. Damien Boynton/town resident and a member of the EPIC board has been an award-winning hotelier for 20 years. He stated the need for hotels in Estes Park has increased in the last several years. This project will enhance the availability of accommodations in the area. He is supportive of the project. Adam Shake/town resident and Visit Estes Park board representative stated the VEP board supports this project, and it will provide new product development for the Estes Valley. This project will add a year-round product to market. Personally, he loves the Estes Park community and appreciates the opportunity to be involved in this important project. He was supportive from an economic development and arts district standpoint. Jim Pickering/chair of the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) stated if Estes Park is going to succeed long-term as a community, we must invest in projects that provide year-round employment. The EDC is supportive of this project. Kathy Bowers/town resident representing several performing arts groups stated this project would be a big economic boost to Estes Park. The town has many performing groups that deserve a better place to perform. They would like to see professional staff that could move equipment. A stage that could support both a stage and orchestra area would be beneficial. She stated people that say Estes Park cannot solve the parking project are very short-sighted. She fully supports the project. There are definite positive economic impacts that performing art centers can have on communities. Public comment closed. Conditions of Approval Staff recommends approval of the Special Review and Amended Plat applications subject to the following conditions: 1.Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated November 19, 2015. 2.Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated November 18, 2015. 3.Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated November 9, 2015. 4.The applicant shall submit a planting schedule of a similar or identical value to the 28 replacement trees required by Section 7.3 of the EVDC, to be evaluated by Staff in accordance with the Valuation of Trees, Shrubs and Other Plants prepared by the International Society of Arboriculture. This document shall be submitted with construction drawings. 5.All exterior lighting installed by the applicant shall comply with Section 7.9(D)(1) of the EVDC. 6.The applicant shall submit an amended Utility Site Plan pursuant to the Estes Park Sanitation District Rules and Regulations within 30 days of Town Board approval. 7.The applicant shall execute a Development Agreement with the Town of Estes Park following Town Board approval, which shall address the following: a.Development phasing RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 December 15, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall b.Site improvements c.Hours and manner of project construction d.Riverwalk easement dedication e.Riverwalk connection; including timing and manner of construction and public accessibility f.Parking g.Any additional items or conditions as determined by the Planning Commission and/or the Town Board. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Moon) to recommend approval to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Mallory Baker, Planning Consultant Date: January 21, 2016 RE: Special Review – Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley, Amended Special Review #2014-01C; Stanley Historic District Subdivision, TBD Steamer Drive; Greg Rosener/Applicant. Objective: Review of Special Review Application #2014-01C, Aspire W ellness Complex at the Stanley, as revised on January 20, 2016, for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code and Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Development. Present Situation: Lot 4 was created with the Stanley Historic District subdivision plat in 1994. The property is presently the site of the Accommodations-2 building currently under construction. In addition, the site includes a number of open grassland areas, with several existing trees, most of which would be retained through the site design. In early 2014, the Town Board approved a development application package for Lot 4 that proposed the construction of a wellness center and several accommodation facilities. Through this process, the Board also amended some of the architectural standards in the Stanley Historic District, and rezoned the lot from CO Commercial Outlying to A Accommodations. Additionally, this process resulted in an amendment to the plat which removed a former no-build zone on Lot 4. In March 2015, the Town Board approved a revised application package (SR #2014- 01B) for the site, which included a number of design changes to the Acommodations-2 building and reversed the original phasing plan by constructing the Accommodations-2 building first. Proposal: In November 2015, wellness center programming was further refined and the applicant submitted another revised application package (SR #2014-01C), which proposed locating wellness center uses within the Accommodations-2 building currently under construction. This application also included a request to exceed the 30’ maximum height limit by 11’1” in order to accommodate a finished fourth floor and supplementary outdoor deck area to be used for wellness center programming. The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended denial of SR #2014-01C at a special hearing on December 9, 2015. As such, on January 18, 2015, the applicant has revised the application package to reflect comments made at the December 9, 2015 hearing. The revised SR #2014-01C application proposes the following changes to the approved SR#2014-01B: 1.Conversion of a portion of the ground floor of the Accommodations-2 building currently under construction to wellness center uses; 2.Addition of two (2) ground floor exterior patios adjacent to the ground floor, to be used for wellness center programming, with changes to associated perimeter landscaping to accommodate said patios; 3.Addition of a 3,560-square-foot outdoor deck area on the third-floor roof and 246- square-foot walkway to said deck, to be used for wellness center programming; 4.Authorization for a height greater than 30’ for the Accommodations-2 building (pursuant to the Municipal Code §17.44.060.d.1) to accommodate two (2) stair bumpouts enclosing existing stairways with access to the third-floor roof and proposed deck. The applicant requests a maximum height of 6’ 6” above the 30’ height limit, to be located on the downhill side of the building; 5.Changes to the architectural elevations to include the ground floor patios, windows and doors, and the proposed stair bumpouts; 6.Authorization to remove a previous Condition of Approval that prohibited outdoor activities. The applicant has included two options for design of the proposed stair bumpouts. Option A is a rectangular design, while Option B is a sloped design which more closely follows the shape of the stairwell. The applicant states that “while Option A results in a uniform and arguably more historical look, use of the Option B design lowers the height of two corners of each stairway bumpout to a height that complies with or is less than one foot over the maximum height allowed on a slope.” The applicant has provided photo simulations for both options as part of the application package. Furthermore, the application package has been routed to the Stanley Historic District Architectural Reviewer, RBB Architects, for formal review; comments will be included as an addendum to this memorandum. Advantages: •Includes application revisions that reflect Planning Commissioner comments and to- date public comments; •Complies with a number of key goals included in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, including Community-Wide Policies that address issues such as land use, community design, and economics; •Forwards, to a certain extent, the publicly-supported goal of having a wellness center in the Town of Estes Park; Disadvantages: •Does not comply with maximum height requirements set forth in the Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Development; •Expands proposed activity on the lot to include outdoor activities, potentially increasing noise and other impacts on neighbors adjacent to the subject property. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest: The level of public interest is high. The Planning Commission received over 70 letters opposing the project and considered public testimony from 18 residents during the public hearing. The majority of letters and public testimony were provided by nearby residents of the Findley Court area. Of the letters received, roughly 90% concerned the height of the Accommodations-2 building, which was originally proposed to exceed the 30’ maximum height limit by 11’ 1”. Comments emphasized that the height of the building would have adverse impacts on the views of neighboring properties and property values. As noted earlier, the applicant, in consideration of these comments, revised the application after the December 9, 2015 Planning Commission hearing. The revisions request an authorization to exceed the maximum height by 6’ 6”, a difference of roughly 4’ 6”. Further, the revisions result in either a 93.47% or a 95.34% reduction in the volume or mass of the building that would extend above the maximum height limit, depending on which stair bumpout design option is chosen. A number of public comments addressed the project financing, the developer’s relationship with the Town, and other factors outside the purview of the Community Development Department Staff. Written public comments concerning this project are available at www.estes.org/wellnesstrainingcenter. Comments will be added to this webpage as they are received. Sample Motions: The Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing for this application on December 9, 2015. At that hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the application (5-0, with two Commissioners absent). The Planning Commission’s denial of the application focused on their finding that the application did not substantially comply with the Special Review criteria, which requires that the application “mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment.” “Maximum extent feasible” is defined in the EVDC as a situation in which “no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. Economic considerations may be taken into account but shall not be the overriding factor in determining “maximum extent feasible.”” Each of the Commissioners present stated that other alternatives existed which do not include a request to exceed the height limitation. Furthermore, each of the Commissioners present stated that the proposal presented by the applicant was based primarily on economic factors, such as the fundraising capabilities of the applicant’s partner. As such, the Commissioners found that the proposal presented by the applicant at the December 9, 2015 hearing did not comply with the definition of “maximum extent feasible” as defined by the EVDC. The applicant has since revised the application to reflect comments made during the hearing, which focused primarily on the applicant’s request to exceed the maximum 30’ height limit by 11’ 1” in order to accommodate a partial fourth floor. In consideration of these comments, the applicant has removed the proposed partial fourth floor and limited the request to exceed the maximum height limit to 6’ 6”; the maximum height would only be exceeded in order to accommodate two (2) proposed stair bumpouts protruding from the building’s third floor. Below are the Town Board’s options related to Special Review Application #2014-01C: 1.I find that the application substantially meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVE Special Review Application #2014-01C with no conditions. 2.I find that the application substantially meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVE Special Review Application #2014-01C, with the following Conditions of Approval: a.Compliance with the following affected agency Conditions of Approval and comments: 1)Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated November 19, 2015; 2)Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated November 6, 2015; 3)Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated November 6, 2015; 4)Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated November 19th, 2015; b.Compliance with Section 7.9(D), Exterior Lighting Design Standards, of the Estes Valley Development Code; c.In the event that the Aspire Wellness use is open to the general public, submittal of a Parking and Shuttling Plan shall be required to be reviewed pursuant to applicable Municipal Code and EVDC requirements. In the event that guests of the Aspire Wellness Complex are not housed on-site but are housed in a Stanley Hotel managed facility, the Applicant shall provide shuttling of such guests to and from the Accommodations-2 building; d.Any proposed changes to a use other than the Hotel Use or the Aspire Wellness use as defined in the Statement of Intent shall require a Special Review pursuant to the criteria set forth in the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and of the EVDC; e.The third-floor outdoor roof deck and the ground-floor pool patio area shall be limited to the Aspire Wellness use, as defined in the Statement of Intent, including activities such as research, consultation, massage and recovery, lab services, audio testing, biomechanical and clinical functions, gym and weight training, small group exercise, and meditation and relaxation; f.Outdoor activities shall be limited to the ground-floor pool patio area and third- floor outdoor roof deck and shall be limited to the Aspire Wellness use as defined in the Statement of Intent; g.Amplified sound shall be prohibited on the ground-floor pool patio area and on the third-floor outdoor roof deck; h.In addition, the Board may include any condition(s) that it determines will render the application compliant with all requirements, based on all the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing. 3.I find that the application does not substantially meet the criteria above and move to DENY Special Review Application 2014-01C. 4.I find that the Applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the application per the criteria above and move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to provide adequate time to review additional materials. Attachments: 1. Clean Statement of Intent, Revised January 20, 2016 2.Redlined Statement of Intent, Revised January 20, 2016 3.Architectural Elevations, Revised January 20, 2016 4.Guard Rail Height Calculations, Revised January 20, 2016 5.Stair Bumpout Height Calculations, Revised January 20, 2016 6.Photo Simulations, Revised January 20, 2016 7.Draft Planning Commission Minutes 1 Application for Amendments to Special Review Approval for Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley Phase 1 Development Plan January 20, 2016 Updated Statement of Intent Facts: The Town Board approved the EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center Development Plan (“Development Plan”) by Special Review on February 25, 2014, including the Accommodations-1 and Wellness Training Center buildings as the first phase, followed by construction of the Accommodations-2 building as the second phase. The Wellness Training Center was defined in the Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate between the Town and the Applicant and approved by the voters, as “one or more facilities with integrated programs and operations focused on promoting wellness through lifestyle changes, physical fitness and training, nutrition and medical/personal care treatment.” This definition shall govern the Aspire Wellness Use described in this Statement of Intent. On March 24, 2015, the Town Board approved the following amendments to the Development Plan: (i) phasing was reversed (i.e. construction of the Accommodations- 2 building, formerly the second phase, became Phase 1, with the Accommodations-1 and Wellness Training Center becoming Phase 2); (ii) a 5-foot shift of the location of the Phase 1 building; (iii) inclusion of accessible parking spaces in the Phase 1 parking lot; (iv) updates and revisions to the storm drainage plan to accommodate the amendments; and (v) final architectural elevations for the Phase 1 building. All utilities and infrastructure shown on the amended Development Plan for Phase 1, referred to as Phase 1 of the “Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley” have been installed (“Phase 1 Development Plan”), a building permit has been issued for the Phase 1 building and construction of the building and its associated improvements is underway. As the Applicant continued to work through the program and design for the Hotel and Wellness Training Center buildings in anticipation of finalizing Phase 2, it became apparent that the Estes Park Medical Center (“EPMC”) ability to fund an EPMC Wellness Training Center was limited, jeopardizing the delivery of the Wellness Training Center. To address this issue, the Applicant had devised a dynamic new way to accelerate the project by locating the EPMC Wellness Training Center uses in the lower level of the Hotel and in a new partial fourth floor to complete the program. Utilizing this strategy, together with the Applicant’s ability to bring in additional financial partners, the financial risk to EMPC would have been dramatically reduced and the delivery date of the EPMC Wellness Training Center uses would have been expedited to the third quarter of 2016. To accommodate this new direction, on November 6, 2015, the Applicant proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan, to move the EPMC 2 Wellness Training Center use from Phase 2 to the Phase 1 building and to amend the Phase 1 Development Plan to accommodate the inclusion of the use in the building currently under construction. After further discussions, the EPMC has decided to ask the Town Board for an extension of time in order for it to fund and build the Wellness Training Center on its original site in Phase 2, rather than within the Phase 1 Development Plan. The Applicant has decided to amend its pending application to eliminate the proposed enclosed fourth story addition to the Phase 1 building, which addition was necessary to complete the full EPMC Wellness Training Center program. However, not wanting to lose the momentum that has been escalating for the wellness center concept in Estes Park, the Applicant continues to propose the remainder of the amendments outlined in the pending application, including use of the outdoor deck on top of the third floor, in order that wellness uses will be provided by the Applicant within the Phase 1 Development Plan on a more limited basis (“Aspire Wellness Use”). Specifically, the changes now proposed include the following. The lower level of the approved Phase 1 Development Plan building included the hotel entrance, lobby, concierge, a work out room, mechanical areas and restrooms (4,515 SF), plus a large storage area and access corridor (11,242 SF). Plans for the 4,515 SF area remain unchanged, except that the work out room will be shared with the Aspire Wellness Use and is now envisioned as space for cycle training. The Applicant proposes to convert the 11,242 SF lower level storage area and access corridor to the Aspire Wellness Use which includes uses such as research, consultation, massage and recovery, lab services, audio testing, biomechanical and clinical functions, gym and weight training, small group exercise, a pool and locker rooms, plus the necessary corridors, stairways, utility, mechanical, electrical and fire control areas. The storage previously planned for 11,242 SF ground level area of the building will be done off-site in other Stanley buildings. As mentioned earlier, the enclosed fourth floor addition has been eliminated, but the Applicant continues to propose the use of the 3560 SF outdoor deck (eliminating a small 136 SF deck and adding a 246 SF walkway) and the two ground floor patios. Applicant believes that the Aspire Wellness Use will be a great way to introduce the long-awaited wellness use concept in Estes Park that will not only complement the full Wellness Training Center to be completed by the EPMC but hopefully will also pave the way for more productive EPMC fundraising by being an example, on a smaller scale, of an exciting wellness facility in operation in Estes Park. The outdoor deck use will provide a unique and stunning visual and outdoor experience (approximately 80 to 100 days per year) for exercise, relaxation and meditation. As such, the outdoor deck is a key component of the Aspire Wellness Use in this building, which is not viable using only ground floor (basement) space. Requests: In summary, the Applicant requests the following amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan to allow for the inclusion of the Aspire Wellness Use within the Phase 1 building: (i) conversion of a portion of the ground floor accessory use space to the Aspire Wellness Use; (ii) the addition of two ground floor exterior patios adjacent to 3 ground floor for the Aspire Wellness Use, together with associated perimeter landscaping; (iii) the addition of an outdoor deck area and small walkway to the deck on the third floor roof for the Aspire Wellness Use; (iv) changes to the architectural elevations to include the ground floor patios, windows and doors and the two stairway bumpouts that enclose the existing stairways to the third floor roof; and (v) authorization, pursuant to Municipal Code §17.44.060(d)(1), for a height greater than 30 feet as height is measured pursuant to the applicable provisions of the EVDC for the stairway bumpouts and the guard rail around the outdoor deck. 4 Statement of Compliance with Applicable Development Plan Review Criteria EVDC Chapters 4 and 7 Nonresidential Zoning Districts (§ 4.4) Uses (§ 4.4.B): Table 4-4 in this section lists permitted uses in the A-Accommodations zone district. Applicant Statement: All of the uses included in Development Plan were approved by the Town Board on February 25, 2014, with the expectation that the Accommodations-1 building and Wellness Training Center would be built in what is now known as Phase 2, and the Accommodations-2 building to be constructed in what is now known as Phase 1. With this application, the Applicant proposes to include the Aspire Wellness Use in Phase 1. The Applicant does not propose any new or different uses. Density and Dimensional Standards (§ 4.4.C): This section lists all of the density and dimensional requirements for the A-Accommodations district. Applicant Statement: The Development Plan and Phase 1 Development Plan complied with all applicable density and dimensional standards. The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan continue to comply with the density and dimensional standards, provided that the Town Board approves the Applicant’s request for a building height in excess of 30 feet pursuant to Municipal Code § 17.44.060(d)(1). Building Height (§ 4.4.C): Building height in the Stanley Historic District is governed by Municipal Code §17.44.060(d)(1). Applicant Statement: Please see discussion of the Stanley Historic District standards below. Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements (§ 4.4.D.4). The Development Plan and the Phase 1 Development Plan complied with the requirements of this section by providing sidewalks, pedestrian linkages and a dedicated easement for Otie’s Trail. Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan do not eliminate any of the pedestrian amenities or linkages, therefore, it will continue to comply with the requirements of this section. Special Purpose and Overlay Zoning Districts (§ 4.5) Stanley Historic Overlay District (§ 4.5.D): This section requires compliance with the Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Development set forth in Chapter 17.44 of the Municipal Code. 5 Applicant Statement: Please see discussion of applicable Stanley Historic District standards below. Grading and Site Disturbance Standards (§ 7.2) This section governs changes to the natural grade, visual impacts of drainage/storm water facilities and the limits of disturbance. Applicant Statement: The approved grading plan for the Phase 1 Development Plan has been revised slightly to allow for the installation of two ground floor patios, one each on the north and west sides, to allow for sunlight to enter the interior spaces. Storm water runoff that results from the addition of these two ground floor patios will be routed to the storm drainage pond which has been installed, and such pond has been designed with sufficient capacity to accommodate this additional runoff. The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan continue to meet the requirements of this section regarding drainage/storm water facilities and the limits of disturbance. Please see the attached Addendum to the Phase 1 Final Drainage Report submitted with this application. Tree and Vegetation Protection (§ 7.3) This section governs the preservation of trees and vegetation within and outside the limits of disturbance. Applicant Statement: There are no proposed changes in the quantity of trees and vegetation, but there are minor changes to the location of trees to accommodate the ground level patios. Landscaping and Buffers (§ 7.5) This section establishes standards for aesthetic enhancement; plant materials, sizes and quantities; buffering to mitigate visual and environmental impacts; and parking lot landscaping. Applicant Statement: The only proposed changes to the approved Landscape Plan for the Phase 1 Development Plan are to provide trees and landscaping around the perimeter of the two new ground floor patios. The proposed amendments to the Landscape Plan demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this section. Please see the approved Landscape Plan for the Phase 1 Development Plan and the proposed amendments thereto submitted with this application. Wildlife Habitat Protection (§ 7.8) This section includes standards for development that are designed to protect wildlife species and habitat. 6 Applicant Statement: There are no amendments proposed that will change the Phase 1 Development Plan’s approved method for preservation of wildlife habitat and migration. Exterior Lighting (§ 7.9) This section outlines design and height standards for exterior lighting. Applicant Statement: The Applicant proposes no changes to the approved exterior lighting for the Phase 1 Development Plan, but will install additional exterior lighting on the fourth floor to ensure safe use of the roof top deck area. All such lighting shall be down directional and shielded to prevent spillage. Please see architectural building plans submitted with this application. Operational Performance Standards (§ 7.10) This section addresses the imposition of conditions to ensure compatibility with existing uses. Applicant Statement: The Hotel uses within the Phase 1 Development Plan will continue to be subject to the conditions which were imposed with the approval of the Phase 1 Development Plan on March 24, 2015. The Wellness Training Center uses were approved without any conditions, however, the Applicant has agreed to a condition that prohibits amplified sound in the ground floor pool patio area and the outdoor deck on the roof of the third floor. Off-Street Parking and Loading (§ 7.11) This section outlines the required parking including the number accessible parking spaces and a minimum number of off-street loading spaces and bicycle racks. Applicant Statement: Guests: Pursuant to §7.11.D, the Hotel must provide 1 parking space for each guest room 750 SF or less, and 2 parking spaces for each guest room greater than 750 SF. The Hotel includes 40 guest rooms, 32 of which are 750 SF for less and 8 of which are greater than 750 SF, resulting in a total of 48 required off-street spaces. The Applicant does not propose any change to the number or size mix of guest rooms in the Hotel, therefore, the off-street parking plan for the Phase 1 Development Plan will continue to meet the EVDC parking requirements for the Hotel by providing 40 on-site off-street parking spaces, including the accessible spaces required by §7.11.J (1 van accessible and 1 car accessible) and off-street loading spaces required by §7.11.N (2 Type B spaces), plus 8 off-site guest parking spaces pursuant to EVDC §7.11.G.1. Finally, as approved with the original Development Plan on February 25, 2014, the Wellness Training Center use, which is specifically categorized as an Adult Day Treatment Facility for day time use only, 7 has no overnight accommodations (guests will lodge in the Hotel) that trigger the provision of additional parking. In the infrequent circumstance, for example during a festival hosted by the Stanley Hotel, guests of another Stanley-managed hotel may be allowed to utilize the Aspire Wellness Use, the Stanley Hotel would be responsible for transportation of these guests to/from the Phase 1 building. In the event that the Applicant decides at some future time, perhaps in conjunction with the development of Phase 2, to open the Aspire Wellness Use to the general public, that proposal together with appropriate mitigation strategies if warranted, would be submitted to the Town for approval. Employees: Also, as approved for the Phase 1 Development Plan on March 24, 2015 pursuant to EVDC §7.11.G.1.a., employee parking for the Hotel will be located off-site at the Stanley Hotel with transportation provided to and from the Phase 1 building. All employees who will be providing housekeeping, janitorial and maintenance services for the Hotel and Aspire Wellness Use will be employees of the Stanley Hotel who will begin and end their day at the Stanley. In addition, the Applicant has already purchased a vehicle for the purpose of transporting the employees from the off-site parking to the Phase 1 Development Plan. Bicycles: There has been no change to the amount of bicycle parking required for the Hotel use and the required amount of bicycle parking will continue to be provided. Adequate Public Facilities (§ 7.12) This section includes regulations is to ensure that all utilities and other facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrently with the impacts of such development. Applicant Statement: Approximately 85-90% of the utilities and infrastructure needed to support the Phase 1 Development Plan have already been installed by the Applicant. Please see the complete set of plans submitted with this application which show all the utility and site infrastructure which has already been approved and is installed or currently under construction. The proposed amendments will not trigger the need for additional sanitation, water, and power services, therefore, adequate public services are currently available. Please also see the fixture count table submitted with this application for verification of the ability to adequately service all such fixtures. Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment (§ 7.13) This section governs outdoor storage, activities and mechanical equipment. Applicant Statement: None of the proposed amendments to the Phase 1Development Plan necessitate any changes to the outside storage areas, activities 8 and equipment, therefore, the amended Phase 1 Development Plan will continue to comply with the requirements of this section. Statement of Compliance with Applicable Stanley Historic District Review Criteria Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (§17.44.060) Designated building envelopes and view corridors [§ 17.44.060(a)]: This section requires that development maintain the existing views as depicted on the Map of View Corridors on file with the Town Clerk. Applicant Statement: The Phase 1 building is outside of the three view corridors designated for protection in this section. Please see the diagram submitted with this application that illustrates the location of the Phase 1 building outside of the view corridors. Open space [§ 17.44.060(b)]: This standard requires Lot 4 to have a minimum of 30% minimum designated open space. Applicant Statement: The Phase 1 Development Plan, in combination with the then current configuration of the Phase 2 Hotel and Wellness Training Center, provided 124,095 SF of designated open space, or 41% of the total site. The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan (together with the Phase 2 building configuration which has not yet been amended), result in 4930 SF or 1% reduction, resulting in 119,165 SF or 40% of the total site area being designated open space, which amount is 10% in excess of the requirement. Site design [§ 17.44.060(c)]: This section includes various requirements that govern design of the site. Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan do not change the layout of the site, the location of service areas, parking lot buffering or landscaping, or the internal pedestrian network, therefore, the amended Phase 1 Development Plan will continue to comply. Please see the amended Phase 1 Development Plan submitted with this application. Building Design [§ 17.44.060(d)]: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 05-14, the amendments to the Development Plan must comply with the following building design standards: Height [§ 17.44.060(d)(1): Building height is limited to 30 feet unless a greater height is authorized on special review. Applicant Statement: Although §17.44.060(d) prescribes a height limitation of 30 feet, unless authorized by special review, it is not specific as to how the 30 9 feet is measured. Therefore, pursuant to §17.44.050(b) which requires special review approvals of projects within the Stanley Historic District to comply with the EVDC and, pursuant to EVDC §1.9.2.E, which sets forth the methodology for calculating building heights on a slope from the existing grade, the Applicant utilized this methodology to calculate the height of the building in the approved Phase 1 Development Plan and the two proposed stairway bumpouts which enclose existing stairways that provide access to the roof of the third floor. When the Town Board approved the Phase 1 Development Plan on March 24, 2015, the height approved for the Phase 1 building ranged from 26.48 feet above existing grade at the lowest point on the uphill side of the building to 35.45 feet above existing grade at the highest point on the downhill side of the building. You will note that the highest point of the building was in excess of 30 feet, but complied with the maximum height allowed as calculated in accordance with the methodology of EVDC §1.9.2.E. This proposed amendment to the Phase 1 Development Plan includes two stairway bumpouts. The height of the ridgeline of the Phase 1 building on its uphill side will be the same height approved with the Phase 1 Development Plan (26.48 feet from natural grade). Stairway Bumpout No.1 is on the downhill side of the buildingand its height is 40.14 feet above natural grade at its highest corner. While that height is 10.14 feet above the 30-foot limitation, it is only 5.99 feet higher than the height allowed (34.6 feet above natural grade) when calculated in accordance with EVDC methodology for calculating building height on slopes. The height of Stairway Bumpout No.2 is 37.44 feet above natural grade at its highest corner. While that height is 7.44 feet above the 30-foot limitation, it is only 4.64 feet higher than the height allowed (32.8 feet above natural grade) when calculated in accordance with EVDC methodology for calculating building height on slopes. Guard rails around the outdoor deck on the third floor roof exceed the maximum height allowed above natural grade in only two measured places and by only 0.805 feet and 0.13 feet respectively. The Applicant has proposed two design options for the stairway bumpouts: Option A is a rectangular design and Option B is an angled design. While the Option A design results in a more uniform and arguably more historical look, the Option B design lowers the height of two corners of each stairway bumpout to a height that complies with, or is less than 1 foot over, the maximum height allowed on a slope. The Applicant’s height calculations are based on surveyed elevations and engineered drawings and, therefore, are as accurate as possible. In the event, however, that actual field construction results in the stairway bumpouts measuring taller than the heights shown on the submitted plans (due to vagrancies in stud lengths, sheathing thickness, shingles layering, flashing, etc. and human measurement interpretations), the Applicant requests that the Town 10 Board authorize an increase in the height up to a maximum of six inches over the projected height of the stairway bumpouts. Therefore, Applicant requests authorization from the Town Board to exceed the maximum height limits for the Phase 1 building, up to a maximum of 6 feet, 6 inches over the maximum allowed as calculated in accordance EVDC §1.9.2.E., and offers the following in support of its request: The building design remains (i) complementary to the architectural design of the Stanley Historic Complex, (ii) compatible in size and scale to the Stanley Historic Complex buildings, as required by the applicable building design standards [See Applicant Response to § 17.44.060(f)(4)(a) below], (iii) outside of the protected view corridors, and (iv) due to its location against the backdrop of the mountainous ridgeline and the numerous buildings of the Stanley Historic Complex, it would not significantly impact other views. Note also that the additional height requested is significantly reduced from the height originally proposed for a partial fourth floor addition to the building. Such reduction minimizes, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses. In addition, the stairway bumpouts do not cause either an increase in the amount of impervious surface or a decrease in the amount of open space on the property. Please see the calculations of maximum allowable heights and proposed roof heights and the photo simulations submitted with this application as evidence of the limited impact of the proposed increase in building height. Although the Applicant is no longer proposing the addition of a partial fourth floor, it is interesting to note that eliminating that component from the application results in either a 93.47% or 95.34% reduction (depending on which design option is used) in the volume or mass of the building that would extend above the third floor roof. As proposed, the volume of the two stairway bumpouts represents only 4.66% or 6.53% (depending on which design option is used) of volume or mass of the additions originally proposed with this application on November 6, 2015. Finally, even though the Applicant’s request for a building height in excess of 30 feet is not a variance request (meaning that the request is not subject to either the variance process or the variance standards for review found at EVDC §3.6), the Applicant’s proposal would meet the requirements for a variance. Not allowing the additional height would result in “practical difficulty” as described in §3.6 and allowing the additional height would not nullify or impair the intent and purposes of the height regulations, the EVDC or the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding the practical difficulty that would result from not allowing the additional height, the Applicant asserts that the outdoor deck use will provide a unique and stunning visual and outdoor experience (approximately 80 to 100 days per year) for exercise, relaxation and meditation. As such, the outdoor deck is a key component of the Aspire Wellness Use in this building, without which such use is not believed to be a viable concept (that is, being limited to the ground 11 floor/basement space). The additional height requested (a maximum of six feet, six inches) for the stairway bumpouts is not a substantial increase in light of the magnitude of the surrounding mountainous terrain and it would have an insignificant impact on adjoining properties (see the Applicant’s simulations). Furthermore, there is no detriment to the essential character of the neighborhood, since the use is not a new or different use and the architecture of the stairway bumpouts will be consistent with the already-approved architecture of the remainder of the building. Regarding the variance requirement to not nullify or impair the intent and purposes of the height standard, the EVDC or the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant believes that allowing the additional height to accommodate the stairway bumpouts would promote the intent and purposes of both the EVDC and the Comprehensive Plan in that it would allow development that promotes the health, prosperity and general welfare of the community by strengthening its economic future. Finally, the purpose of the height standard of the Stanley Historic District regulations (i.e. to ensure that development in the foreground of the Stanley Hotel Complex does not destroy its essential historic character or lessen its ability to conduct an economically viable operation) is not impaired, but is instead promoted and enhanced with the realization of the Aspire Wellness Use outside of the protected view corridors. In summary, although the Applicant’s request is not subject to either the process or standards of a variance, the request for additional height would – in addition to complying with the applicable review standards – comply with the requirements for granting of a variance under EVDC § 3.6. Prohibited architectural styles [§ 17.44.060(d)(3]): Applicant Statement: The Applicant does not propose any of the prohibited architectural styles in its amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan. Roof lines [§ 17.44.060(d)(4)]: Applicant Statement: The Applicant is submitting two design options for the stairway bumpouts on the third floor roof of the Phase 1 building. Option A is a rectangular design, and Option B is angled. Either design option is acceptable to the Applicant and will be consistent with the roof of the Hotel approved by the Town Board for the Phase 1 Development Plan on March 24, 2015. Please see both options submitted with this application. Mechanical equipment [§ 17.44.060(d)(6)]: Applicant Statement: There are no proposed changes to the approved location or screening of the mechanical equipment. 12 Skylights [§ 17.44.060(d)(7)]: Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Phase 1Development Plan do not include skylights. Facades [§ 17.44.060(d)(8)]: Applicant Statement: Please see the architectural elevations submitted with this application which visually demonstrate the building’s continued compliance with this standard. Building materials [§ 17.44.060(d)(9)]: Applicant Statement: The Applicant is proposing that the exterior finish of the stairway bumpouts be red shingles with white fascia consistent with the approved building materials for the approved Hotel. Please see the architectural elevations submitted with this application which visually demonstrate the building’s continued compliance with this standard. Based on informal comments from Staff, it is acceptable to Applicant to have the stairway bumpouts finished with red shingles and red fascia that does not cause reflection and is consistent with that used on the Stanley Hotel. Lighting [§ 17.44.060(d)(11)]: Applicant Statement: The Applicant will provide the lighting already approved for the Phase 1 Development Plan, plus down directional lighting for any new outside areas associated with Aspire Wellness Use (i.e. the two ground floor patios and the roof top deck). Building design [§ 17.44.060(d)(12)]: § 17.44.060(f)(4)(a): New buildings shall be located to protect the views of the mai n hotel and Manor House from the designated view corridors. New buildings shall be designed so that they will not destroy the historic significance of the complex. New buildings should be compatible in scale and size with the existing buildings and be visually subordinate. Applicant Statement: The proposed design of the Phase 1 building with stairway bumpouts on the third floor roof will continue to complement the appearance of the Stanley Historic Complex and function as an extension and diversification of the already successful tourist-oriented attractions and businesses of the Stanley Historic Complex, without detracting from the historical significance and prominence of the Stanley Historic Complex or lessening its ability to continue its economically viable operation. The stairway bumpouts on the third floor roof will not interfere or disrupt views of the Stanley Hotel and the Manor House [see Applicant Statement in response to 13 §17.44.060(a) above] as the Phase 1 building is outside of all three protected view corridors. The design of the Phase 1 building with the stairway bumpouts continues to support and protect the historic significance of the Stanley Historic Complex by being sited at a lower elevation that is isolated physically by enough open space to visually separate it from the Stanley Historic Complex buildings, allowing the Stanley Historic Complex to maintain its prominence on the site. Finally, the Phase 1 building will continue to shield views from the Stanley Historic Complex to the back of the Stanley Village commercial development to the south. Please see the architectural elevations submitted with this application for a visual illustration of the building design. § 17.44.060(f)(4)(b): New buildings should be recognized as a product of their own time and be distinguishable from the historic buildings, while remaining visually compatible. New design that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the Stanley Hotel Complex is not permitted. Applicant Statement: The design of the proposed Phase 1 building that includes the stairway bumpouts will be consistent with that of the approved Phase 1 building. The proposed building will continue to be visually compatible and incorporate elements that are consistent with the historic character of the complex (i.e. an existing shingle clad enclosure on the ridge of the Stanley Hotel adjacent to the cupola), without being the same as the Stanley Historic Complex buildings. The building will continue to be recognizable as a product of its time and contextually compatible with the surrounding site. The variation of construction techniques and detailing continues to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines for new work in historic contexts. Please see the architectural elevations submitted with this application for a visual illustration of the building design. Signs § 17.44.060(e): Applicant Statement: Signage proposed for the amended Phase 1 Development Plan will be consistent with those already approved and will match those of the Stanley Hotel and meet the size and locational requirements of this section. Statement of Compliance with Applicable Special Review Criteria EVDC § 3.5 STANDARDS FOR REVIEW (§ 3.5.B) Group Living Facilities, Treatment Facility (§ 5.1.I): The Wellness Training Center use was found to be in compliance with this criterion when approved by the Town Board. Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan do not involve any amendments to the Wellness Training Center use as defined 14 in the Facts section on page 1 of this Statement of Intent, therefore, this review criteria will continue to be met for the amended Phase 1 Development Plan. Hotels (§ 5.1.J.1): This criterion limits the area of a hotel dedicated to certain non-living quarter accessory uses to 15% of the gross floor area. Applicant Statement: The gross floor area of the Hotel areas of the Phase 1 building is approximately 33,943 SF broken down as follows: Ground Floor: 4,515 SF (entrance, lobby, concierge, mechanical, restrooms and cycle training) Second Floor : 14,714 SF Third Floor: 14,714 SF Total: 33,943 SF All of the Ground Floor uses are integral to the Hotel use and necessary to Hotel operations, so they are not considered accessory uses. Only the cycle training room could be considered a non-living quarter accessory use to the Hotel, and its square footage (644 SF) is only 1.8% of the gross floor area of the Hotel. Such percentage is less than the 15% maximum allowed in § 5.1.J.1, therefore, this criterion continues to be met. Hotels (§ 5.1.J.2): This criterion limits the area of a hotel devoted to eating/drinking establishments to 25% of the gross floor area. Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan do not include an eating/drinking establishment, therefore, this criterion continues to be met. Mitigation of Potential Adverse Impacts (§ 3.5.B): This standard requires that “The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment.” Applicant Statement: The Development Plan and the Phase 1 Development Plan were both found by the Town Board to mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment, based on the following features of the plan: compliance with the applicable density and dimensional standards; continued integration of Otie’s Trail and other interconnected pedestrian linkages; minimal grading; tree protection to the maximum extent possible and landscaping and native plantings that protect and enhance wildlife habitat and migration routes and screen views of parking, service areas and mechanical equipment; lighting that minimizes off-site spillage; limits on noise and times for construction activities, deliveries and trash service; maintenance of historic storm water rates and the use of best management practices to treat run 15 off; provision of adequate public utilities; preservation of open space in excess of the minimum requirements; and appropriate building placement, design and materials that comply with the applicable Stanley Historic District regulations. Adding the Aspire Wellness Use to Phase 1 does not create adverse impacts or impair the mitigation provided by the above factors. The increased height attributable to the stairway bumpouts is mitigated, to the maximum extent feasible, by the design and materials of the stairway bumpouts which is consistent with the design and materials used on the remainder of the building and are in compliance with the applicable Stanley Historic District regulations. In addition, adding the stairway bumpouts to roof of the third floor of the building does not cause either an increase in the amount of impervious surface or a decrease in the amount of open space on the property. 1 Application for Amendments to Special Review Approval for Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley Phase 1 Development Plan November 20, 2015January 20, 2016 Updated Statement of Intent Facts: The Town Board approved the EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center Development Plan (“Development Plan”) by Special Review on February 25, 2014, including the Accommodations-1 and Wellness Training Center buildings as the first phase, followed by construction of the Accommodations-2 building as the second phase. The Wellness Training Center was defined in the Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate between the Town and the Applicant and approved by the voters, as “one or more facilities with integrated programs and operations focused on promoting wellness through lifestyle changes, physical fitness and training, nutrition and medical/personal care treatment.” This definition shall govern the Aspire Wellness Use described in this Statement of Intent. On March 24, 2015, the Town Board approved the following amendments to the Development Plan: (i) phasing was reversed (i.e. construction of the Accommodations- 2 building, formerly the second phase, became Phase 1, with the Accommodations-1 and Wellness Training Center becoming Phase 2); (ii) a 5-foot shift of the location of the Phase 1 building; (iii) inclusion of accessible parking spaces in the Phase 1 parking lot; (iv) updates and revisions to the storm drainage plan to accommodate the amendments; and (v) final architectural elevations for the Phase 1 building. All utilities and infrastructure shown on the amended Development Plan for Phase 1, now referred to as Phase 1 of the “Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley” have been installed (“Phase 1 Development Plan”), a building permit has been issued for the Phase 1 building and construction of the building and its associated improvements is underway. As the Applicant continued to work through the program and design for the Hotel and Wellness Training Center buildings in anticipation of finalizing Phase 2, it became apparent that the Estes Park Medical Center (“EPMC”) ability to fund the an EPMC Wellness Training Center was limited, jeopardizing the delivery of the Wellness Training Center. To address this issue, the Applicant hads devised a dynamic new way to accelerate the project by locating the EPMC Wellness Training Center uses in the lower level of the Hotel and in a new partial fourth floor to complete the program. Utilizing this strategy, together with the Applicant’s ability to bring in additional financial partners, the financial risk to EMPC has would have been dramatically reduced and the delivery date of the EPMC Wellness Training Center uses will be would have been expedited to the third quarter of 2016. The programming for the Wellness Training Center use is consistent with that definition approved by the voters and can be easily accommodated 2 within the Phase 1 building with minor amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan, as long as the amendments can be processed expeditiously to ensure no delays in the construction schedule. To accommodate this new direction, Therefore, on November 6, 2015, the Applicant proposeds amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan, to move the EPMC Wellness Training Center use from Phase 2 to the Phase 1 building and to amend the Phase 1 Development Plan to accommodate the inclusion of the use in the building currently under construction. After further discussions, the EPMC has decided to ask the Town Board for an extension of time in order for it to fund and build the Wellness Training Center on its original site in Phase 2, rather than within the Phase 1 Development Plan. The Applicant has decided to amend its pending application to eliminate the proposed enclosed fourth story addition to the Phase 1 building, which addition was necessary to complete the full EPMC Wellness Training Center program. However, not wanting to lose the momentum that has been escalating for the wellness center concept in Estes Park, the Applicant continues to propose the remainder of the amendments outlined in the pending application, including use of the outdoor deck on top of the third floor, in order that wellness uses will be provided by the Applicant within the Phase 1 Development Plan on a more limited basis (“Aspire Wellness Use”). More sSpecifically, the changes now proposed include the following. The lower level of the approved Phase 1 Development Plan building was previously planned to included the hotel entrance, lobby, concierge, a work out room, mechanical areas and restrooms (4,515 SF), plus a large storage area and access corridor (11,242 SF). Plans for the 4,515 SF area remain unchanged, except that the work out room will be shared with the Wellness Training Center Aspire Wellness Use and is now envisioned as space for cycle training. The Applicant proposes to convert the 11,242 SF lower level storage area and access corridor to Wellness Training Center uses the Aspire Wellness Use which includes uses such as research, consultation, massage and recovery, lab services, audio testing, biomechanical and clinical functions, gym and weight training, small group exercise, a pool and locker rooms, plus the necessary corridors, stairways, utility, mechanical, electrical and fire control areas. After the conversion, however, the EMPC would still need an additional approximately 3,455 SF to complete the Wellness Center Training program with larger exercise rooms, so the Applicant is proposing to add a fourth level to the approved Phase 1 building to accommodate such exercise rooms. The storage previously planned for 11,242 SF ground level area of the building will be done off-site in other Stanley buildings. As mentioned earlier, the enclosed fourth floor addition has been eliminated, but the Applicant continues to propose the use of the 3560 SF outdoor deck (eliminating a small 136 SF deck and adding a 246 SF walkway) and the two ground floor patios. Applicant believes that the Aspire Wellness Use will be a great way to introduce the long-awaited wellness use concept in Estes Park that will not only complement the full Wellness Training Center to be completed by the EPMC but hopefully will also pave the way for more productive EPMC fundraising by being an example, on a smaller scale, of an exciting wellness facility in operation in Estes Park. The outdoor deck use will provide a unique and stunning visual and outdoor experience (approximately 80 to 100 days per year) for exercise, relaxation and 3 meditation. As such, the outdoor deck is a key component of the Aspire Wellness Use in this building, which is not viable using only ground floor (basement) space. The Applicant intends to donate the Wellness Training Center spaces to the EMPC for 99 years in recognition of the need to get the Wellness Training Center built as soon as possible with the lowest possible risk to the EPMC. Both the EPMC Board of Directors and the EPMC Foundation have expressed support for this solution. The Applicant continues to work on the Phase 2 plans and will submit a separate application for its approval in the future. Requests: In summary, Tthe Applicant requests the following amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan to allow for the inclusion of the already-approved Wellness Training Center Aspire Wellness Useuses within the Phase 1 building: (i) conversion of a portion of the ground floor accessory use space to Wellness Training Center usesthe Aspire Wellness Use; (ii) the addition of two ground floor exterior patios adjacent to ground floor for Wellness Training Center usesthe Aspire Wellness Use, together with associated perimeter landscaping; (iii) the addition of an 3,455 square foot fourth floor of large exercise rooms that cannot be accommodated within the approved Phase 1 building, with supplemental outdoor deck area and small walkway to the deck s, to complete the Wellness Training Center program on the third floor roof for the Aspire Wellness Use; (iv) changes to the architectural elevations to include the ground floor patios, windows and doors and the fourth floortwo stairway bumpouts that enclose the existing stairways to the third floor roof; and (v) authorization, pursuant to Municipal Code §17.44.060(d)(1), for a height greater than 30 feet as height is measured pursuant to the applicable provisions of the EVDC for the stairway bumpouts and the guard rail around the outdoor deck. 4 Statement of Compliance with Applicable Development Plan Review Criteria EVDC Chapters 4 and 7 Nonresidential Zoning Districts (§ 4.4) Uses (§ 4.4.B): Table 4-4 in this section lists permitted uses in the A-Accommodations zone district. Applicant Statement: All of the uses included in Development Plan were approved by the Town Board on February 25, 2014, with the expectation that the Accommodations-1 building and Wellness Training Center would be built in what is now known as Phase 2, and the Accommodations-2 building to be constructed in what is now known as Phase 1. With this application, the Applicant proposes to relocate the Wellness Training Center to include the Aspire Wellness Use use from Phase 2 to in Phase 1. The Applicant does not propose any new or different uses. Density and Dimensional Standards (§ 4.4.C): This section lists all of the density and dimensional requirements for the A-Accommodations district. Applicant Statement: The Development Plan and Phase 1 Development Plan complied with all applicable density and dimensional standards. The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan continue to comply with the density and dimensional standards, provided that the Town Board approves the Applicant’s request for a building height in excess of 30 feet pursuant to Municipal Code § 17.44.060(d)(1). Building Height (§ 4.4.C): Building height in the Stanley Historic District is governed by Municipal Code §17.44.060(d)(1). Applicant Statement: Please see discussion of the Stanley Historic District standards below. Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements (§ 4.4.D.4). The Development Plan and the Phase 1 Development Plan complied with the requirements of this section by providing sidewalks, pedestrian linkages and a dedicated easement for Otie’s Trail. Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan do not eliminate any of the pedestrian amenities or linkages, therefore, it will continue to comply with the requirements of this section. Special Purpose and Overlay Zoning Districts (§ 4.5) Stanley Historic Overlay District (§ 4.5.D): This section requires compliance with the Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Development set forth in Chapter 17.44 of the Municipal Code. 5 Applicant Statement: Please see discussion of applicable Stanley Historic District standards below. Grading and Site Disturbance Standards (§ 7.2) This section governs changes to the natural grade, visual impacts of drainage/storm water facilities and the limits of disturbance. Applicant Statement: The approved grading plan for the Phase 1 Development Plan has been revised slightly to allow for the installation of two ground floor patios, one each on the north and west sides, to allow for sunlight to enter the interior spaces. Storm water runoff that results from the addition of these two ground floor patios will be routed to the storm drainage pond which has been installed, and such pond has been designed with sufficient capacity to accommodate this additional runoff. The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan continue to meet the requirements of this section regarding drainage/storm water facilities and the limits of disturbance. Please see the attached Addendum to the Phase 1 Final Drainage Report submitted with this application. Tree and Vegetation Protection (§ 7.3) This section governs the preservation of trees and vegetation within and outside the limits of disturbance. Applicant Statement: There are no proposed changes in the quantity of trees and vegetation, but there are minor changes to the location of trees to accommodate the ground level patios. Landscaping and Buffers (§ 7.5) This section establishes standards for aesthetic enhancement; plant materials, sizes and quantities; buffering to mitigate visual and environmental impacts; and parking lot landscaping. Applicant Statement: The only proposed changes to the approved Landscape Plan for the Phase 1 Development Plan are to provide trees and landscaping around the perimeter of the two new ground floor patios. The proposed amendments to the Landscape Plan demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this section. Please see the approved Landscape Plan for the Phase 1 Development Plan and the proposed amendments thereto submitted with this application. Wildlife Habitat Protection (§ 7.8) This section includes standards for development that are designed to protect wildlife species and habitat. 6 Applicant Statement: There are no amendments proposed that will change the Phase 1 Development Plan’s approved method for preservation of wildlife habitat and migration. Exterior Lighting (§ 7.9) This section outlines design and height standards for exterior lighting. Applicant Statement: The Applicant proposes no changes to the approved exterior lighting for the Phase 1 Development Plan, but will install additional exterior lighting on the fourth floor to ensure safe use of the roof top deck areas. All such lighting shall be down directional and shielded to prevent spillage. Please see architectural building plans submitted with this application. Operational Performance Standards (§ 7.10) This section addresses the imposition of conditions to ensure compatibility with existing uses. Applicant Statement: The Hotel uses within the Phase 1 Development Plan will continue to be subject to the conditions which were imposed with the approval of the Phase 1 Development Plan on March 24, 2015. The Wellness Training Center uses being moved from Phase 2 to the Phase 1 building were approved without any conditions , however, the Applicant has agreed to a condition that prohibits amplified sound in the ground floor pool patio area and the outdoor deck on the roof of the third floor. Off-Street Parking and Loading (§ 7.11) This section outlines the required parking including the number accessible parking spaces and a minimum number of off-street loading spaces and bicycle racks. Applicant Statement: Guests: Pursuant to §7.11.D, the Hotel must provide 1 parking space for each guest room 750 SF or less, and 2 parking spaces for each guest room greater than 750 SF. The Hotel includes 40 guest rooms, 32 of which are 750 SF for less and 8 of which are greater than 750 SF, resulting in a total of 48 required off-street spaces. The Applicant does not propose any change to the number or size mix of guest rooms in the Hotel, therefore, the off-street parking plan for the Phase 1 Development Plan will continue to meet the EVDC parking requirements for the Hotel by providing 40 on-site off-street parking spaces, including the accessible spaces required by §7.11.J (1 van accessible and 1 car accessible) and off-street loading spaces required by §7.11.N (2 Type B spaces), plus 8 off-site guest parking spaces pursuant to EVDC §7.11.G.1. Finally, as approved with the original Development Plan on February 25, 2014, the Wellness Training Center use, which is 7 specifically categorized as an Adult Day Treatment Facility for day time use only, has no overnight accommodations (guests will lodge in the Hotel) that trigger the provision of additional parking. In the infrequent circumstance, for example during a festival hosted by the Stanley Hotel, guests of another Stanley-managed hotel may be allowed to utilize the Wellness Training Center facilitiesAspire Wellness Use, the Stanley Hotel would be responsible for transportation of these guests to/from the Wellness Training CenterPhase 1 building. In the event that the Applicant decides at some future time, perhaps in conjunction with the development of Phase 2, to open the Wellness Training Center facilitiesAspire Wellness Use to the general public, that proposal together with appropriate mitigation strategies if warranted, would be submitted to the Town for approval. Employees: Also, as approved for the Phase 1 Development Plan on March 24, 2015 pursuant to EVDC §7.11.G.1.a., employee parking for the Hotel will be located off-site at the Stanley Hotel with transportation provided to and from the Phase 1 buildingHotel and Wellness Training Center. All employees who will be providing housekeeping, janitorial and maintenance services for the Hotel and Wellness Training Center uses Aspire Wellness Use will be employees of the Stanley Hotel who will begin and end their day at the Stanley. In addition, the Applicant has already purchased a vehicle for the purpose of transporting the employees from the off-site parking to the Phase 1 Development Plan. Bicycles: There has been no change to the amount of bicycle parking required for the Hotel use and the required amount of bicycle parking will continue to be provided. Adequate Public Facilities (§ 7.12) This section includes regulations is to ensure that all utilities and other facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrently with the impacts of such development. Applicant Statement: Approximately 85-90% of the utilities and infrastructure needed to support the Phase 1 Development Plan have already been installed by the Applicant. Please see the complete set of plans submitted with this application which show all the utility and site infrastructure which has already been approved and is installed or currently under construction. The proposed amendments will not trigger the need for additional sanitation, water, and power services, therefore, adequate public services are currently available. Please also see the fixture count table submitted with this application for verification of the ability to adequately service all such fixtures. Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment (§ 7.13) This section governs outdoor storage, activities and mechanical equipment. 8 Applicant Statement: None of the proposed amendments to the Phase 1Development Plan necessitate any changes to the outside storage areas, activities and equipment, therefore, the amended Phase 1 Development Plan will continue to comply with the requirements of this section. Statement of Compliance with Applicable Stanley Historic District Review Criteria Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (§17.44.060) Designated building envelopes and view corridors [§ 17.44.060(a)]: This section requires that development maintain the existing views as depicted on the Map of View Corridors on file with the Town Clerk. Applicant Statement: The Phase 1 building is outside of the three view corridors designated for protection in this section. Please see the diagram submitted with this application that illustrates the location of the Phase 1 building outside of the view corridors. Open space [§ 17.44.060(b)]: This standard requires Lot 4 to have a minimum of 30% minimum designated open space. Applicant Statement: The Phase 1 Development Plan, in combination with the then current configuration of the Phase 2 Hotel and Wellness Training Center, provided 124,095 SF of designated open space, or 41% of the total site. The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan (together with the Phase 2 building configuration which has not yet been amended), result in 4930 SF or 1% reduction, resulting in 119,165 SF or 40% of the total site area being designated open space, which amount is 10% in excess of the requirement. Site design [§ 17.44.060(c)]: This section includes various requirements that govern design of the site. Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan do not change the layout of the site, the location of service areas, parking lot buffering or landscaping, or the internal pedestrian network, therefore, the amended Phase 1 Development Plan will continue to comply. Please see the amended Phase 1 Development Plan submitted with this application. Building Design [§ 17.44.060(d)]: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 05-14, the amendments to the Development Plan must comply with the following building design standards: Height [§ 17.44.060(d)(1): Building height is limited to 30 feet unless a greater height is authorized on special review. 9 Applicant Statement: Although §17.44.060(d) prescribes a height limitation of 30 feet, unless authorized by special review, it is not specific as to how the 30 feet is measured. Therefore, pursuant to §17.44.050(b) which requires special review approvals of projects within the Stanley Historic District to comply with the EVDC, and, pursuant to EVDC §1.9.2.E, which sets forth the methodology for calculating building heights on a slope from the existing grade, the Applicant utilized this methodology to calculate the height of the building in the approved Phase 1 Development Plan and the two proposed stairway bumpouts which enclose existing stairways that provide access to the roof of the third fourth floor. addition to the Phase 1 building. When the Town Board approved the Phase 1 Development Plan on March 24, 2015, the height approved for the Phase 1 building ranged from 26.48 feet above existing grade at the lowest point on the uphill side of the building to 35.45 feet above existing grade at the highest point on the downhill side of the building. You will note that the highest point of the building was in excess of 30 feet, but complied with the maximum height allowed as calculated in accordance with the methodology of EVDC §1.9.2.E. This proposed amendment to the Phase 1 Development Plan includes the addition of a partial fourth floortwo stairway bumpouts. The height of the ridgeline of the Phase 1 building on its uphill side, where there is no fourth floor addition, will be the same height approved with the Phase 1 Development Plan (26.48 feet from natural grade). The ridgeline of the partial fourth floor addition Stairway Bumpout No.1 is on the downhill side of the building. This and its height of 44.86 is 40.14 feet above natural grade at its highest corner., w W hile 14.86 that height is 10.14 feet above the 30-foot limitation, it is10.26 only 5.99 feet higher than the height allowed (34.6 feet above natural grade) when calculated in accordance with EVDC methodology for calculating building height on slopes. The height of Stairway Bumpout No.2 is 37.44 feet above natural grade at its highest corner. While that height is 7.44 feet above the 30-foot limitation, it is only 4.64 feet higher than the height allowed (32.8 feet above natural grade) when calculated in accordance with EVDC methodology for calculating building height on slopes. Guard rails around the outdoor deck on the third floor roof exceed the maximum height allowed above natural grade in only two measured places and by only 0.805 feet and 0.13 feet respectively. The Applicant has proposed two design options for the stairway bumpouts: Option A is a rectangular design and Option B is an angled design. While the Option A design results in a more uniform and arguably more historical look, the Option B design lowers the height of two corners of each stairway bumpout to a height that complies with, or is less than 1 foot over, the maximum height allowed on a slope. 10 The Applicant’s height calculations are based on surveyed elevations and engineered drawings and, therefore, are as accurate as possible. In the event, however, that actual field construction results in the stairway bumpouts measuring taller than the heights shown on the submitted plans (due to vagrancies in stud lengths, sheathing thickness, shingles layering, flashing, etc. and human measurement interpretations), the Applicant requests that the Town Board authorize an increase in the height up to a maximum of six inches over the projected height of the stairway bumpouts. Therefore, Applicant requests authorization from the Town Board to exceed the maximum height limits for the Phase 1 building, up to a maximum of 6 feet, 6 inches over the maximum allowed as calculated in accordance EVDC §1.9.2.E.as described herein, and offers the following in support of its request: The building is designed to be remains (i) complementary to the architectural design of the Stanley Historic Complex, (ii) compatible in size and scale to the Stanley Historic Complex buildings, as required by the applicable building design standards [See Applicant Response to § 17.44.060(f)(4)(a) below], (iii) outside of the protected view corridors, and (iv) due to its location against the backdrop of the mountainous ridgeline and the numerous buildings of the Stanley Historic Complex, it would not significantly impact other views. Note also that the additional height requested has been placed on the downhill side of the building for the purpose of minimizingis significantly reduced from the height originally proposed for a partial fourth floor addition to the building. Such reduction minimizes, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses. In addition, adding the additional square footage to a fourth level of the building the stairway bumpouts does not cause either an increase in the amount of impervious surface or a decrease in the amount of open space on the property. Please see the calculations of maximum allowable heights and proposed roof heights and the photo simulations submitted with this application as evidence of the limited impact of the proposed increase in building height. Although the Applicant is no longer proposing the addition of a partial fourth floor, it is interesting to note that eliminating that component from the application results in either a 93.47% or 95.34% reduction (depending on which design option is used) in the volume or mass of the building that would extend above the third floor roof. As proposed, the volume of the two stairway bumpouts represents only 4.66% or 6.53% (depending on which design option is used) of volume or mass of the additions originally proposed with this application on November 6, 2015. In addition, the mission of the Estes Park Medical Center to provide wellness services can only feasibly be accomplished with the conversion of a portion of the ground level and the addition of the partial fourth floor. Note that originally the Estes Park Medical Center wellness facilities were in a 13,000 SF footprint and that the square footage dedicated to wellness center uses within the Phase 1 building is very close – approximately 11,242 SF on the ground level with an 11 additional 3,455 SF in the new fourth level (which square footage includes all necessary corridors, stairwells, utility, mechanical, electrical and fire control areas) – satisfying both the mission of the Estes Park Medical Center and the intent of the voters. Finally, even though the Applicant’s request for a building height in excess of 30 feet is not a variance request (meaning that the request is not subject to either the variance process or the variance standards for review found at EVDC §3.6), the Applicant’s proposal would meet the requirements for a variance. Not allowing the additional height would result in “practical difficulty” as described in §3.6 and allowing the additional height would not nullify or impair the intent and purposes of the height regulations, the EVDC or the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding the practical difficulty that would result from not allowing the additional height, the Applicant asserts that the outdoor deck use will provide a unique and stunning visual and outdoor experience (approximately 80 to 100 days per year) for exercise, relaxation and meditation. As such, the outdoor deck is a key component of the Aspire Wellness Use in this building, without which such use is not believed to be a viable concept (that is, being limited to the ground floor/basement space).although the Phase 1 building could continue to be used as a hotel without the additional height, the entire Wellness Training Center program would be jeopardized if it cannot be accommodated in the existing building with the fourth floor addition. The additional height requested (10.26a maximum of six feet, six inches) for the partial fourth floor addition on the downhill side of the building stairway bumpouts is not a substantial increase in view light of the magnitude of the surrounding mountainous terrain and it would be have an insignificant impact on adjoining properties (see the Applicant’s simulations). Furthermore, there is no detriment to the essential character of the neighborhood, since the use is not a new or different use and the architecture of the fourth floor stairway bumpouts will be consistent with the already-approved architecture of the remainder of the building. Regarding the variance requirement to not nullify or impair the intent and purposes of the height standard, the EVDC or the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant believes that allowing the additional height to accommodate the entire Wellness Training Center facility the stairway bumpouts would promote the intent and purposes of both the EVDC and the Comprehensive Plan in that it would allow development that promotes the health, prosperity and general welfare of the community by strengthening its economic future. Finally, the purpose of the height standard of the Stanley Historic District regulations (i.e. to ensure that development in the foreground of the Stanley Hotel Complex does not destroy its essential historic character or lessen its ability to conduct an economically viable operation) is not impaired, but is instead promoted and enhanced with the realization of the Wellness Training Center program Aspire Wellness Use outside of the protected view corridors. 12 In summary, although the Applicant’s request is not subject to either the process or standards of a variance, the request for additional height would – in addition to complying with the applicable review standards – comply with the requirements for granting of a variance under EVDC § 3.6. Finally, the Applicant’s height calculations are based on surveyed elevations and engineered drawings and, therefore, are as accurate as possible. In the event, however, that actual field construction results in the building measuring taller than the heights shown on the submitted plans (due to vagrancies in stud lengths, sheathing thickness, shingles layering, flashing, etc. and human measurement interpretations), the Applicant requests that the Town Board authorize an increase in the height up to a maximum of nine inches over the height requested with this amendment Prohibited architectural styles [§ 17.44.060(d)(3]): Applicant Statement: The Applicant does not propose any of the prohibited architectural styles in its amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan. Roof lines [§ 17.44.060(d)(4)]: Applicant Statement: The Applicant is submitting two design options for the new fourth level of stairway bumpouts on the third floor roof of the Phase 1 building. Option A is a rectangular design, and Option B is angled. Either design option is acceptable to the Applicant and will match be consistent with the roof of the Hotel approved by the Town Board for the Phase 1 Development Plan on March 24, 2015. Please see the approved and proposed building elevations both options submitted with this application. Mechanical equipment [§ 17.44.060(d)(6)]: Applicant Statement: There are no proposed changes to the approved location or screening of the mechanical equipment. Skylights [§ 17.44.060(d)(7)]: Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Phase 1Development Plan do not include skylights. Facades [§ 17.44.060(d)(8)]: Applicant Statement: Please see the architectural elevations submitted with this application which visually demonstrate the building’s continued compliance with this standard. Building materials [§ 17.44.060(d)(9)]: 13 Applicant Statement: The Applicant is proposing that the exterior finish of the stairway bumpouts be red shingles with white fascia consistent with the approved building materials for the approved Hotel. Please see the architectural elevations submitted with this application which visually demonstrate the building’s continued compliance with this standard. Based on informal comments from Staff, it is acceptable to Applicant to have the stairway bumpouts finished with red shingles and red fascia that does not cause reflection and is consistent with that used on the Stanley Hotel. Lighting [§ 17.44.060(d)(11)]: Applicant Statement: The Applicant will provide the lighting already approved for the Phase 1 Development Plan, plus down directional lighting for any new outside areas associated with the Wellness Training Center Aspire Wellness Useuses (i.e. the two ground floor patios and the fourth floor roof top decks). Building design [§ 17.44.060(d)(12)]: § 17.44.060(f)(4)(a): New buildings shall be located to protect the views of the mai n hotel and Manor House from the designated view corridors. New buildings shall be designed so that they will not destroy the historic significance of the complex. New buildings should be compatible in scale and size with the existing buildings and be visually subordinate. Applicant Statement: The proposed design of the Phase 1 building with stairway bumpouts on the third floor roof will continue to complement the appearance of the Stanley Historic Complex and function as an extension and diversification of the already successful tourist-oriented attractions and businesses of the Stanley Historic Complex, without detracting from the historical significance and prominence of the Stanley Historic Complex or lessening its ability to continue its economically viable operation. The proposed design of the Phase 1 building stairway bumpouts on the third floor roof will not interfere or disrupt views of the Stanley Hotel and the Manor House [see Applicant Statement in response to §17.44.060(a) above] as it the Phase 1 building is outside of all three protected view corridors. The design of the Phase 1 building with the stairway bumpouts continues to support and protect the historic significance of the Stanley Historic Complex by being sited at a lower elevation that is isolated physically by enough open space to visually separate it from the Stanley Historic Complex buildings, allowing the Stanley Historic Complex to maintain its prominence on the site. Finally, the Phase 1 building will continue to shield views from the Stanley Historic Complex to the back of the Stanley Village commercial development to the south. Please see the architectural elevations submitted with this application for a visual illustration of the building design. 14 § 17.44.060(f)(4)(b): New buildings should be recognized as a product of their own time and be distinguishable from the historic buildings, while remaining visually compatible. New design that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the Stanley Hotel Complex is not permitted. Applicant Statement: The design of the proposed Phase 1 building that includes the stairway bumpouts will be consistent with that of the approved Phase 1 building. The proposed building will continue to be visually compatible and incorporate elements that are consistent with the historic character of the complex (i.e. an existing shingle clad enclosure on the ridge of the Stanley Hotel adjacent to the cupola), without being the same as the Stanley Historic Complex buildings. The building will continue to be recognizable as a product of its time and contextually compatible with the surrounding site. The variation of construction techniques and detailing continues to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines for new work in historic contexts. Please see the architectural elevations submitted with this application for a visual illustration of the building design. Signs § 17.44.060(e): Applicant Statement: Signage proposed for the amended Phase 1 Development Plan will be consistent with those already approved and will match those of the Stanley Hotel and meet the size and locational requirements of this section. Statement of Compliance with Applicable Special Review Criteria EVDC § 3.5 STANDARDS FOR REVIEW (§ 3.5.B) Group Living Facilities, Treatment Facility (§ 5.1.I): The Wellness Training Center use was found to be in compliance with this criterion when approved by the Town Board. Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan do not involve any amendments to the Wellness Training Center use as defined in the Facts section on page 1 of this Statement of Intent, therefore, this review criteria will continue to be met for the amended Phase 1 Development Plan. Hotels (§ 5.1.J.1): This criterion limits the area of a hotel dedicated to certain non-living quarter accessory uses to 15% of the gross floor area. Applicant Statement: The gross floor area of the Hotel areas of the Phase 1 building is approximately 33,943 SF broken down as follows: Ground Floor: 4,515 SF (entrance, lobby, concierge, mechanical, 15 restrooms and cycle training) Second Floor : 14,714 SF Third Floor: 14,714 SF Total: 33,943 SF All of the Ground Floor uses are integral to the Hotel use and necessary to Hotel operations, so they are not considered accessory uses. Only the cycle training room could be considered a non-living quarter accessory use to the Hotel, and its square footage (644 SF) is only 1.8% of the gross floor area of the Hotel. Such percentage is less than the 15% maximum allowed in § 5.1.J.1, therefore, this criterion continues to be met. Hotels (§ 5.1.J.2): This criterion limits the area of a hotel devoted to eating/drinking establishments to 25% of the gross floor area. Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan do not include an eating/drinking establishment, therefore, this criterion continues to be met. Mitigation of Potential Adverse Impacts (§ 3.5.B): This standard requires that “The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment.” Applicant Statement: The Development Plan and the Phase 1 Development Plan were both found by the Town Board to mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment, based on the following features of the plan: compliance with the applicable density and dimensional standards; continued integration of Otie’s Trail and other interconnected pedestrian linkages; minimal grading; tree protection to the maximum extent possible and landscaping and native plantings that protect and enhance wildlife habitat and migration routes and screen views of parking, service areas and mechanical equipment; lighting that minimizes off-site spillage; limits on noise and times for construction activities, deliveries and trash service; maintenance of historic storm water rates and the use of best management practices to treat run off; provision of adequate public utilities; preservation of open space in excess of the minimum requirements; and appropriate building placement, design and materials that comply with the applicable Stanley Historic District regulations. Moving the Wellness Training Center Adding the Aspire Wellness Useuses to Phase 1 does not create adverse impacts or impair the mitigation provided by the above factors. The increased height attributable to the partial fourth floor addition stairway bumpouts is mitigated, to the maximum extent feasible, by the placement of the fourth floor addition on the downhill side of the building to minimize its visibility from the only neighboring residences across Steamer Parkway and the building’s design and materials of the stairway bumpouts which are is consistent with the design and materials used on the remainder of the building and are in compliance with the 16 applicable Stanley Historic District regulations. In addition, adding the additional square footage stairway bumpouts to a fourth level roof of the third floor of the building does not cause either an increase in the amount of impervious surface or a decrease in the amount of open space on the property. GROUPODESTONELDESIGNLODESTONE DESIGN GROUP1855 SUMNER ST.LONGMONT, CO 80501PHONE: 303-800-8633FAX: 303-261-8368mail@lodestonedesign.comwww.LodestoneDesign.comThe Information shown on thisdocument represents copyrightedintellectual property. Reproductionand/or distribution is not permittedwithout the prior consent ofLodestone Design Group.ISSUE RECORDDATEDRAWING TITLE:DATE:DRAWN: CHECKED:These plans are developed fromdesigns and construction documentsdeveloped by others for this project.Copyright rights and protectionsextend to those parties as well.Planning Submittal11 - 6 - 15Planning Rev. 11 - 20 - 15TENANT FINISH AND BUILDING ADDITIONEPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTERASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADOA0.0COVER PAGE1 - 20 - 16RALJVS1 - 20 - 16Planning Rev.EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTERTENANT FINISH AND BUILDING ADDITIONASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEY HOTELESTES PARK, COLORADOPLUMBING FIXTURE DATAApproved Plumbing Fixtures:Lobby Area (First Floor):Hotel Rooms:Janitorial:Proposed Additional Fixtures:Locker Rooms:Toilet Rooms (Fourth Floor):Janitorial:Swimming Pool Data:Size:Volume:Drain Discharge:Hot Tub Data:Size:Volume:Drain Discharge:82'x14' with depth sloping from 3'-6" to 5'-0"4,879 cubic feet = 36,497 gallonsSanitary Sewer8'-0" x 8'-0" x 2'-6" deep160 cubic feet = 1197 gallonsYard Drain to Detention PondToilets:348-30-Urinals:1--1--Lavatories:448-30-Sinks:-283--1Showers:-54-4--Hose Bibs:1---02BUILDING DATAApproved Building Area:First (Ground) Floor:Hotel Areas:Storage Areas:Second (Hotel) Floor:Hotel Areas:Third (Hotel) Floor:Hotel Areas:Proposed Building Area:First (Ground) Floor:Hotel and Wellness Areas:Wellness Center Areas:Second (Hotel) Floor:Hotel Areas:Third (Hotel) Floor:Hotel Areas:Fourth Floor:Wellness Areas:Exterior Building Areas:Second Level Decks:Third Level Decks:Roof Deck:Approved Building Height:Proposed Building Height:Approved Occupancy:Proposed Occupancy:Construction Type:Fire Sprinkler System:45,185 sq.ft.15,757sq.ft.4,515 sq.ft.11,242 sq.ft.14,714 sq.ft.14,714 sq.ft.14,714 sq.ft.14,714 sq.ft.45,185 sq.ft.15,757sq.ft.4,515 sq.ft.11,242 sq.ft.14,714 sq.ft.14,714 sq.ft.14,714 sq.ft.14,714 sq.ft.0 sq.ft.0 sq.ft.7,7984 sq.ft.2,089 sq.ft.2,089 sq.ft.3,806 sq.ft.3 StoryUnder 30'-0"3 Story (with Roof Deck)Under 39'-0"R-1R-1 and BV-AFully Sprinkled NFPA 13A0.0A1.1A1.2A1.3A1.4A1.5A1.6A2.0A2.1A2.2A2.3AE.1Cover page and building dataFirst floor tenant finish PlanApproved second floor planApproved third floor planNew fourth floor planNew upper roof planNew upper roof planBuilding elevationsBuilding elevationsBuilding elevationsBuilding elevationsNew exterior lighting planDRAWING INDEXREVISION SCHEDULE 1122334455FFEEDDCCBBAA478 SQ.FT.637 SQ.FT.OFFICE: 588 SQ.FT.CLINICAL: 2020 SQ.FT.1342 SQ.FT.1922 SQ.FT.2638 SQ.FT.618 SQ.FT.5'-2"14'-0"4'-2"2'-10"16'-8"EXCAVATION3'-10"6'-0"82'-01/4"7'-2"9'-53/4"5'-10"84'-81/4"4'-8"1'-21/8"21'-21/2"59'-05/8"4'-0"7'-05/8"26'-0"26'-0"4'-0"22'-21/2"EXCAVATION61'-05/8" EXCAVATION8"11'-4"5'-75/8"4'-0"51/2"74'-01/2"4'-0"DOWN 24"DOWN 24"EXISTING FOOTER TO BEMODIFIEDEXISTING FOOTER TO BEMODIFIEDEXISTING FOOTER TO BEMODIFIEDFRENCH DRAIN @ BASE OFSLOPE PLUMBED TO STORMSEWER SYSTEM1:3 SLOPEFIN. GRADE10% SLOPEFIN. GRADEBOULDER RETAINING WALL ASREQUIRED PER CIVIL ENG.FINAL GRADING PLANAREA DRAIN SET INTOPATIO SLAB PER CIVILSLOPEPATIOSLOPEPATIOCONCRETEBLOCK WALL W/SIDING TOMATCH BUILDINGPOWDERCOATED STEEL FENCEPOWDERCOATED STEELFENCE AND GATE2% SLOPEPATIO2% SLOPEPATIODOWN 24"AREA DRAIN SET INTOPATIO SLAB PER CIVILDRY STACK BOULDERRETAINING WALL PERCIVIL.AREA DRAIN SET INTOPATIO SLAB PER CIVIL36" WIDE HEATEDCONCRETE APRONBELOW WINDOWSILLS.HEATED CONCRETELANDING @ EXITDOORPROVIDE SNOW MELT(HEATED SLAB) INCONCRETE PATIO WITHIN10'-0" OF BUILDINGFOUNDATIONLANDSCAPE PATH TO WALKELEV.25 METER2-LANELAP POOLPOOL PATIOENTRY LOBBYGROUP EXERCISEGYM EQUIPMENTTRAINING ROOMOPEN PATIOCOVEREDPATIOPUBLIC BIKE RACKRECOVERYHOT TUBPRIVATEOFFICEBIOMECHANICAL ANDCLINICAL AREAMECH.ROOMFREEWEIGHTSHEARINGBLOOD DRAWAND CONSULTATIONDEXACONSULTATIONMESSAGE/RECOVERYMESSAGE/RECOVERYH.P.L.RESEARCH LABPRIVATEOFFICESHAREDOFFICEFILESTOR.WOMEN'SLOCKER ROOMMEN'SLOCKER ROOMELEV.MACHINEROOMPOOL MECHANICALCYCLE TRAININGI.T.326110VA127108133ELEV-1ST1-1107106FIRECONTROL127ELEC133MECHANICAL108CORRIDOR125STAIR 1ST1-1STAIR 2ST2-1WOMENS TOILET107MENS TOILET106CONCIERGE101CORRIDOR1052UPGROUPODESTONELDESIGNLODESTONE DESIGN GROUP1855 SUMNER ST.LONGMONT, CO 80501PHONE: 303-800-8633FAX: 303-261-8368mail@lodestonedesign.comwww.LodestoneDesign.comThe Information shown on thisdocument represents copyrightedintellectual property. Reproductionand/or distribution is not permittedwithout the prior consent ofLodestone Design Group.ISSUE RECORDDATEDRAWING TITLE:DATE:DRAWN: CHECKED:These plans are developed fromdesigns and construction documentsdeveloped by others for this project.Copyright rights and protectionsextend to those parties as well.Planning Submittal11 - 6 - 15Planning Rev. 11 - 20 - 15TENANT FINISH AND BUILDING ADDITIONEPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTERASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADOA1.1TENANT FINISH PLAN1 - 20 - 16RALJVS1 - 20 - 16Planning Rev. 1/8" = 1'-0"2TENANT FINISH PLANREVISION SCHEDULE CLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLDECK, TYP.DECK, TYP.DECK, TYP.WALL WALL WALL WALL WALL WALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALL WALL WALL WALL WALL WALLWALLWALLWALLWALLTRTRTRTRCPT2LVTCPT 1CPT 2CPT2TRCPT 1CPT 1CPT 1CPT2CPT2LVTLVT1122334455FFEEDDCCBBAA36' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"36' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"11' - 6 1/8"24' - 5 7/8"22' - 0"27' - 0"27' - 0"22' - 0"24' - 5 7/8"11' - 6 1/8"13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"11' - 6 1/8"24' - 5 7/8"14' - 6 5/8"12' - 5 3/8"12' - 5 3/8"14' - 6 5/8"20' - 5 7/8" 5' - 6 7/8" 9' - 3 1/8"78' - 5 5/8"9' - 5 7/8" 5' - 3 3/4" 20' - 5 7/8"5' - 11 3/8"8' - 8 5/8" 6' - 1 1/4"41' - 5 7/8"6' - 1 1/4"41' - 5 7/8"5' - 10 1/4"42' - 0 3/4"5' - 7"2' - 4 7/8"12' - 5 3/4"11' - 3 1/4"3' - 11 3/8"150' - 0"106' - 0"25' - 9 1/2"14' - 11 3/4"24' - 5 1/2"15' - 0"25' - 9 1/4"106' - 0"4' - 0"7"7"7"7"8 1/2"8 1/2"7"7"8 1/2"8 1/2"8 1/2"8 1/2"8 1/2"8 1/2"5' - 0 1/2"5'-8" CLR., TYP.8' - 6 1/2"4' - 8 7/8"7' - 0 5/8"14' - 10 7/8"13' - 9 7/8"ACCESSIBLELOCK-OFF SUITE207AACCESS. LOCK-OFFVESTIBULE207ACC. T/S208TACCESSIBLE KING208QUEEN209KING STUDIO211DOUBLE KING213T/S213TT/S211TDOUBLE KING215KING STUDIO217KING STUDIO219DOUBLE KING221T/S221TT/S219TT/S217TT/S215THOUSEKEEPING225JELEC./IT225EKING232T/S232TLOCK-OFFVESTIBULE231SUITE233AQUEEN233STANDARD SUITE230ASTANDARD KING230STANDARD KING229T/S230TT/S229TSTANDARD SUITE229ALOCK-OFF SUITE226AQUEEN228LOCK-OFFVESTIBULE226KING227STAIR-2ST2-2CORRIDOR210DOUBLE KING222KING STUDIO220KING STUDIO218DOUBLE KING216DOUBLE KING214KING STUDIO212T/S212TT/S214TT/S216TT/S218TT/S227TT/S228TT/S233TMECH./ELEC.200MSTAIR-1ST1-2STANDARD SUITE205ASTANDARD KING205T/S205TACC. T/S206TACCESSIBLE KING206ACCESSIBLE SUITE206ALOCK-OFF SUITE201ALOCK-OFF KING202LOCK-OFF QUEEN203LOCK-OFFVESTIBULE201T/S202TT/S222TT/S220TT/S203TCORRIDOR225CORRIDOR200W/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWGROUPODESTONELDESIGNLODESTONE DESIGN GROUP1855 SUMNER ST.LONGMONT, CO 80501PHONE: 303-800-8633FAX: 303-261-8368mail@lodestonedesign.comwww.LodestoneDesign.comThe Information shown on thisdocument represents copyrightedintellectual property. Reproductionand/or distribution is not permittedwithout the prior consent ofLodestone Design Group.ISSUE RECORDDATEDRAWING TITLE:DATE:DRAWN: CHECKED:These plans are developed fromdesigns and construction documentsdeveloped by others for this project.Copyright rights and protectionsextend to those parties as well.Planning Submittal11 - 6 - 15Planning Rev. 11 - 20 - 15TENANT FINISH AND BUILDING ADDITIONEPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTERASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADOA1.2APPROVED HOTELLEVEL PLAN1 - 20 - 16RALJVS1 - 20 - 16Planning Rev. 1/8" = 1'-0"1APPROVED SECOND FLOOR HOTEL LEVEL PLANREVISION SCHEDULE 1122334455FFEEDDCCBBAA776' - 6"311B 313B317B315B321B319B331AB330B329B326AB306B307AB305B316B 318B301AB303B331AA331331AC331B333T332332TB330A330TB329A329TB327327TA327TB326AA326AC326B328T326330TA329TA321A322319A317A318A 320A315A313A316A314311A312A321T322T320T319T317T318T316T315T313T314T312T311T311C312C318D317D 319D320C301305A 305TB305TA303T301AA301AC301B302302TA302TB332TAST1-3ST2-3307AA307AC306T307306A300M325J325E330AC330AA330AB329AC329AA305AC305AA305AB306AC306AA306AB303A312B318C320B328333313C317C319C309309T308308T329ABACCESSIBLELOCK-OFF307AACCESSIBLEVESTIBULE307QUEEN309ACCESSIBLE KING308TOILET308TMECH./ELEC.300MELEV.92KING STUDIO311DOUBLE KING313DOUBLE KING315KING STUDIO317KING STUDIO319DOUBLE KING321T/S321TT/S319TT/S317TT/S315TT/S313TT/S311THSKP.325JELEC./IT325ELOCK-OFF KING332T/S332TLOKC-OFFVESTIBULE331LOCK-OFF QUEEN333LOCK-OFF SUITE331ASTANDARD SUITE330ASTANDARD KING330T/S330TT/S329TSTANDARD KING329STANDARD SUITE329ALOCK-OFF SUITE326ALOCK-OFF QUEEN328LOCK-OFFVESTIBULE326T/S328TLOCK-OFF KING327T/S327TDOUBLE KING322KING STUDIO320KING STUDIO318DOUBLE KING316DOUBLE KING314KING STUDIO312LOCK-OFF KING302LOCK-OFFVESTIBULE301T/S302TLOCK-OFF SUITE301ASTANDARD SUITE305ASTANDARD KING305ACCESSIBLE KING306ACCESSIBLE SUITE306AACC. T/S306TT/S305TLOCK-OFF QUEEN303T/S312TT/S314TT/S316TT/S318TT/S320TT/S322TSTAIR-2ST2-3STAIR-1ST1-3CORRIDOR310T/S333TCORRIDOR300CORRIDOR325T/S303TT/S309TW/DW/DW/DDWDWW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DDWW/DDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWGROUPODESTONELDESIGNLODESTONE DESIGN GROUP1855 SUMNER ST.LONGMONT, CO 80501PHONE: 303-800-8633FAX: 303-261-8368mail@lodestonedesign.comwww.LodestoneDesign.comThe Information shown on thisdocument represents copyrightedintellectual property. Reproductionand/or distribution is not permittedwithout the prior consent ofLodestone Design Group.ISSUE RECORDDATEDRAWING TITLE:DATE:DRAWN: CHECKED:These plans are developed fromdesigns and construction documentsdeveloped by others for this project.Copyright rights and protectionsextend to those parties as well.Planning Submittal11 - 6 - 15Planning Rev. 11 - 20 - 15TENANT FINISH AND BUILDING ADDITIONEPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTERASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADOA1.3APPROVED HOTELLEVEL PLAN1 - 20 - 16RALJVS1 - 20 - 16Planning Rev. 1/8" = 1'-0"1APPROVED THIRD FLOOR HOTEL LEVEL PLANREVISION SCHEDULE 1122334455FFEEDDCCBBAAGG1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPE1/4:12SLOPEPROPOSED ROOF DECK3806 SQ. FT.PLANTER BOX AREAFLAT ROOF AREAROOF DECKWITHDRAWN136 SQ. FT.EXTEND EXISTINGSTAIR SHAFTEXTEND EXISTINGSTAIR SHAFTEXISTING ELEVATORSHAFT AS PERMITTED(NO CHANGE REQUESTED)ROOF DECK HEIGHT: 7605.15'PRIMARY AND OVERFLOWROOF DRAIN, TYP.WHERE SHOWNSTAIR 1ST1-1STAIR 2ST2-1SLOPED ROOF AREA13' - 10 1/4"46' - 9 7/8"6' - 8 1/2"14' - 10 3/8"7' - 11"7' - 11"27' - 10 3/8"52' - 3 5/8"54' - 8"7' - 5"POWDERCOATED GUARD RAIL@ EDGE OF DECK @ SLOPEDROOF AREAS42" TALL LOW SIDING CLADWALL BETWEEN ROOF DECKAND PLANTER AREA42" TALL LOW SIDING CLADWALL BETWEEN ROOF DECKAND PLANTER AREAPOWDERCOATED GUARD RAIL@ EDGE OF DECK @ SLOPEDROOF AREAS1/4:12SLOPECOLORED METAL FLASHING6" OVER TOP OF SLOPEDROOF 8" DOWN FACE OFPARAPETCOLORED METAL FLASHING6" OVER TOP OF SLOPEDROOF 8" DOWN FACE OFPARAPETPOWDERCOATEDGUARD RAIL(INCLUDES WALKWAY TO STAIRWELL)GROUPODESTONELDESIGNLODESTONE DESIGN GROUP1855 SUMNER ST.LONGMONT, CO 80501PHONE: 303-800-8633FAX: 303-261-8368mail@lodestonedesign.comwww.LodestoneDesign.comThe Information shown on thisdocument represents copyrightedintellectual property. Reproductionand/or distribution is not permittedwithout the prior consent ofLodestone Design Group.ISSUE RECORDDATEDRAWING TITLE:DATE:DRAWN: CHECKED:These plans are developed fromdesigns and construction documentsdeveloped by others for this project.Copyright rights and protectionsextend to those parties as well.Planning Submittal11 - 6 - 15Planning Rev. 11 - 20 - 15TENANT FINISH AND BUILDING ADDITIONEPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTERASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADOA1.4ROOF DECK PLAN1 - 20 - 16RALJVS1 - 20 - 16Planning Rev. 1/8" = 1'-0"1NEW ROOF DECK PLANNREVISION SCHEDULE 1122334455FFEEDDCCBBAAGGBD: 7613.74BB: 7613.74CD: 7613.74CB: 7613.74ROOF DECK BELOWBC: 7613.74BA: 7613.74CC: 7613.74CA: 7613.74DC: 7608.78DD: 7608.78DA: 7608.78DB: 7608.78STAIRTOWERROOF13' - 10 3/4"10' - 6 1/2"EXISTING ELEVATORSHAFT AS PERMITTED(NO CHANGE REQUESTED)STAIRTOWERROOF16' - 9 5/8"15' - 2 3/8"12' - 11 3/8"37' - 4 5/8"17' - 0 3/4"14' - 11 1/4"DE: 7608.78GROUPODESTONELDESIGNLODESTONE DESIGN GROUP1855 SUMNER ST.LONGMONT, CO 80501PHONE: 303-800-8633FAX: 303-261-8368mail@lodestonedesign.comwww.LodestoneDesign.comThe Information shown on thisdocument represents copyrightedintellectual property. Reproductionand/or distribution is not permittedwithout the prior consent ofLodestone Design Group.ISSUE RECORDDATEDRAWING TITLE:DATE:DRAWN: CHECKED:These plans are developed fromdesigns and construction documentsdeveloped by others for this project.Copyright rights and protectionsextend to those parties as well.Planning Submittal11 - 6 - 15Planning Rev. 11 - 20 - 15TENANT FINISH AND BUILDING ADDITIONEPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTERASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADOA1.5UPPER ROOF1 - 20 - 16RALJVS1 - 20 - 16Planning Rev. 1/8" = 1'-0"1UPPER ROOF OPTION 1REVISION SCHEDULE 1122334455FFEEDDCCBBAAGG7" / 12"1/2" / 12"1/2" / 12"7" / 12"1/2" / 12"1/2" / 12"BD: 7608.81BB: 7613.74CD: 7608.81CB: 7613.74ROOF DECK BELOWBC: 7608.81BA: 7613.74CC: 7608.81CA: 7613.74DC: 7608.78DD: 7608.78DA: 7608.78DB: 7608.78STAIR TOWERROOFSTAIR TOWERROOF13' - 10 3/4"10' - 6 1/2"12' - 11 3/8"4' - 3 5/8"8' - 3"4' - 3"15' - 2 3/8"37' - 4 5/8"4' - 3 5/8"8' - 3"4' - 6 1/8"14' - 11 1/4"EXISTING ELEVATORSHAFT AS PERMITTED(NO CHANGE REQUESTED)DE: 7608.78GROUPODESTONELDESIGNLODESTONE DESIGN GROUP1855 SUMNER ST.LONGMONT, CO 80501PHONE: 303-800-8633FAX: 303-261-8368mail@lodestonedesign.comwww.LodestoneDesign.comThe Information shown on thisdocument represents copyrightedintellectual property. Reproductionand/or distribution is not permittedwithout the prior consent ofLodestone Design Group.ISSUE RECORDDATEDRAWING TITLE:DATE:DRAWN: CHECKED:These plans are developed fromdesigns and construction documentsdeveloped by others for this project.Copyright rights and protectionsextend to those parties as well.Planning Submittal11 - 6 - 15Planning Rev. 11 - 20 - 15TENANT FINISH AND BUILDING ADDITIONEPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTERASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADOA1.6UPPER ROOF1 - 20 - 16RALJVS1 - 20 - 16Planning Rev. 1/8" = 1'-0"1UPPER ROOF OPTION 2REVISION SCHEDULE 2ND LEVEL7584.53RD LEVEL7594.51ST LEVEL7574.5TO PLATE7603.5ROOF DECK7605.1T.O. PLATE - STAIR7612.62ND LEVEL7584.53RD LEVEL7594.51ST LEVEL7574.5TO PLATE7603.5ROOF DECK7605.1T.O. PLATE - STAIR7612.6 1/8" = 1'-0"1EAST ELEVATION - OPTION 1 1/8" = 1'-0"2SOUTH ELEVATION - OPTION 1GROUPODESTONELDESIGNLODESTONE DESIGN GROUP1855 SUMNER ST.LONGMONT, CO 80501PHONE: 303-800-8633FAX: 303-261-8368mail@lodestonedesign.comwww.LodestoneDesign.comThe Information shown on thisdocument represents copyrightedintellectual property. Reproductionand/or distribution is not permittedwithout the prior consent ofLodestone Design Group.ISSUE RECORDDATEDRAWING TITLE:DATE:DRAWN: CHECKED:These plans are developed fromdesigns and construction documentsdeveloped by others for this project.Copyright rights and protectionsextend to those parties as well.Planning Submittal11 - 6 - 15Planning Rev. 11 - 20 - 15TENANT FINISH AND BUILDING ADDITIONEPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTERASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADOA2.1BUILDING ELEVATIONS1 - 20 - 16RALJVS1 - 20 - 16Planning Rev.REVISION SCHEDULE 2ND LEVEL7584.53RD LEVEL7594.51ST LEVEL7574.5TO PLATE7603.5ROOF DECK7605.1T.O. PLATE - STAIR7612.62ND LEVEL7584.53RD LEVEL7594.51ST LEVEL7574.5TO PLATE7603.5ROOF DECK7605.1T.O. PLATE - STAIR7612.6 1/8" = 1'-0"1NORTH ELEVATION - OPTION 1 1/8" = 1'-0"2WEST ELEVATION - OPTION 1GROUPODESTONELDESIGNLODESTONE DESIGN GROUP1855 SUMNER ST.LONGMONT, CO 80501PHONE: 303-800-8633FAX: 303-261-8368mail@lodestonedesign.comwww.LodestoneDesign.comThe Information shown on thisdocument represents copyrightedintellectual property. Reproductionand/or distribution is not permittedwithout the prior consent ofLodestone Design Group.ISSUE RECORDDATEDRAWING TITLE:DATE:DRAWN: CHECKED:These plans are developed fromdesigns and construction documentsdeveloped by others for this project.Copyright rights and protectionsextend to those parties as well.Planning Submittal11 - 6 - 15Planning Rev. 11 - 20 - 15TENANT FINISH AND BUILDING ADDITIONEPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTERASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADOA2.2BUILDING ELEVATIONS1 - 20 - 16RALJVS1 - 20 - 16Planning Rev.REVISION SCHEDULE 2ND LEVEL7584.53RD LEVEL7594.51ST LEVEL7574.5TO PLATE7603.5ROOF DECK7605.1T.O. PLATE - STAIR7612.62ND LEVEL7584.53RD LEVEL7594.51ST LEVEL7574.5TO PLATE7603.5ROOF DECK7605.1T.O. PLATE - STAIR7612.64' - 0"GROUPODESTONELDESIGNLODESTONE DESIGN GROUP1855 SUMNER ST.LONGMONT, CO 80501PHONE: 303-800-8633FAX: 303-261-8368mail@lodestonedesign.comwww.LodestoneDesign.comThe Information shown on thisdocument represents copyrightedintellectual property. Reproductionand/or distribution is not permittedwithout the prior consent ofLodestone Design Group.ISSUE RECORDDATEDRAWING TITLE:DATE:DRAWN: CHECKED:These plans are developed fromdesigns and construction documentsdeveloped by others for this project.Copyright rights and protectionsextend to those parties as well.Planning Submittal11 - 6 - 15Planning Rev. 11 - 20 - 15TENANT FINISH AND BUILDING ADDITIONEPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTERASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADOA2.3BUILDING ELEVATIONS1 - 20 - 16RALJVS1 - 20 - 16Planning Rev. 1/8" = 1'-0"1EAST ELEVATION - OPTION 2 1/8" = 1'-0"2SOUTH ELEVATION - OPTION 2REVISION SCHEDULE 2ND LEVEL7584.53RD LEVEL7594.51ST LEVEL7574.5TO PLATE7603.5ROOF DECK7605.1T.O. PLATE - STAIR7612.62ND LEVEL7584.53RD LEVEL7594.51ST LEVEL7574.5TO PLATE7603.5ROOF DECK7605.1T.O. PLATE - STAIR7612.6GROUPODESTONELDESIGNLODESTONE DESIGN GROUP1855 SUMNER ST.LONGMONT, CO 80501PHONE: 303-800-8633FAX: 303-261-8368mail@lodestonedesign.comwww.LodestoneDesign.comThe Information shown on thisdocument represents copyrightedintellectual property. Reproductionand/or distribution is not permittedwithout the prior consent ofLodestone Design Group.ISSUE RECORDDATEDRAWING TITLE:DATE:DRAWN: CHECKED:These plans are developed fromdesigns and construction documentsdeveloped by others for this project.Copyright rights and protectionsextend to those parties as well.Planning Submittal11 - 6 - 15Planning Rev. 11 - 20 - 15TENANT FINISH AND BUILDING ADDITIONEPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTERASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADOA2.4BUILDING ELEVATIONS1 - 20 - 16RALJVS1 - 20 - 16Planning Rev. 1/8" = 1'-0"1NORTH ELEVATION - OPTION 2 1/8" = 1'-0"2WEST ELEVATION - OPTION 2REVISION SCHEDULE 12345FFEEDDCCBBAAGPROPOSED ROOF DECK3806 SQ. FT.PLANTER BOX AREAFLAT ROOF AREAEXISTING ELEVATORSHAFT AS PERMITTED(NO CHANGE REQUESTED)STAIR 1ST1-1STAIR 2ST2-1SLOPED ROOF AREASTEP LIGHT IN HALFWALL @ 24" ABV.DECK, TYP.STEP LIGHT IN HALFWALL @ 24" ABV.DECK, TYP.FULL CUT-OFF WALLSCONCE @ 66" ABV. DECKFULL CUT-OFF WALLSCONCE @ 66" ABV. DECKFULL CUT-OFF WALLSCONCE @ 66" ABV. DECKFULL CUT-OFF WALLSCONCE @ 66" ABV. DECK(INCLUDES WALKWAY TO STAIRWELL)GROUPODESTONELDESIGNLODESTONE DESIGN GROUP1855 SUMNER ST.LONGMONT, CO 80501PHONE: 303-800-8633FAX: 303-261-8368mail@lodestonedesign.comwww.LodestoneDesign.comThe Information shown on thisdocument represents copyrightedintellectual property. Reproductionand/or distribution is not permittedwithout the prior consent ofLodestone Design Group.ISSUE RECORDDATEDRAWING TITLE:DATE:DRAWN: CHECKED:These plans are developed fromdesigns and construction documentsdeveloped by others for this project.Copyright rights and protectionsextend to those parties as well.Planning Submittal11 - 6 - 15Planning Rev. 11 - 20 - 15TENANT FINISH AND BUILDING ADDITIONEPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTERASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADOAE.1EXTERIOR LIGHTINGPLAN1 - 20 - 16RALJVS1 - 20 - 16Planning Rev. 1/4" = 1'-0"Wall Sconce Specification 1/8" = 1'-0"1EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLANREVISION SCHEDULE Point Existing Grade Maximum Height Option A Height above Max Option B Height above Max Guard Rail Height DA 7574.05 7607.975 7608.78 0.805 7608.78 0.805 DB 7575.80 7608.85 7608.78 -0.07 7608.78 -0.07 DC 7579.80 7610.85 7608.78 -2.07 7608.78 -2.07 DD 7579.10 7610.5 7608.78 -1.72 7608.78 -1.72 DE 7575.40 7608.65 7608.78 0.13 7608.78 0.13 Proposed Height Point Existing Grade Maximum Height Option A Height Height above Maximum Option B Height Height above Maximum Stairway Bumpout No. 1 Height BA 7573.60 7607.75 7613.74 5.99 7613.74 5.99 BB 7573.90 7607.9 7613.74 5.84 7613.74 5.84 BC 7574.30 7608.1 7613.74 5.64 7608.81 0.71 BD 7574.60 7608.25 7613.74 5.49 7608.81 0.56 Stairway Bumpout No. 2 Height CA 7576.30 7609.1 7613.74 4.64 7613.74 4.64 CB 7576.50 7609.2 7613.74 4.54 7613.74 4.54 CC 7577.10 7609.5 7613.74 4.24 7608.81 -0.69 CD 7577.20 7609.55 7613.74 4.19 7608.81 -0.74 Roof Structure Volume of Pending Application: Enclosed 4th Floor including Stair No. 1 Stairway Bumpout No. 2 Total cf Pending 45718 cf 1636.2 cf 45354.2 cf Proposed Reduction of Roof Structure Volume: Eliminate Enclosed 4th Floor/Keep two stairways Stairway Bumpout No. 1 Stairway Bumpout No. 2 Total cf Percent Reduced Percent Retained Option A 1546.2 cf 1546.2 cf 3092.4 cf 93.47%6.53% Option B 1103.1 cf 1103.1 cf 2206.2 cf 95.34%4.66% Proposed Height RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 December 9, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon, and Sharry White Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Murphree, Moon, and White Also Attending: Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Mallory Baker, Planner Carrie McCool, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, Town Attorney Greg White, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Recused & Absent Commissioners Schneider & Hills Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were approximately 95 people in attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. A quorum was in attendance. Commissioners Schneider and Hills have recused themselves at the direction of Town Attorney White. Director Chilcott introduced staff, stating Planner Baker was a consultant with McCool Development Solutions, hired by the Town to be the lead planner on this project. Chair Hull explained the role of the Planning Commission and the process for accepting public comment at today’s meeting. A sign-up sheet was provided for those desiring to provide public comment. Public comment was limited to three minutes, dependent upon how many people planned to speak. Chair Hull explained the Planning Commission will be reviewing an amendment to Special Review 2014-01, which was approved by the Town Board on March 24, 2015. Tonight’s review will only be for a proposed fourth floor that combines the Wellness Center and the Accommodations-2 Building. The concept of the Wellness Center or the entire project will not be discussed, and public comment for those items should be addressed to the Town Board. Chair Hull explained the timeline for the meeting, stating the meeting would need to adjourn no later than nine o’clock, due to a prior commitment for one of the Commissioners. She further stated that if the time limit was not sufficient, the meeting may be continued to a future date, and that the meeting format would be somewhat different than regular Planning Commission meetings. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1.SPECIAL REVIEW 2014-01C, EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER, 520 Steamer Parkway; Stanley Land Holding, LLC/Applicant Chair Hull stated the applicants would be making their presentation first, followed by the staff report, public comment, and Commission discussion. Applicant Presentation David Bangs, project engineer, introduced team members Jeff Van Sambeek, Lodestone Design Group project architect; Greg Rosener, Grand Heritage Hotel Group/applicant representative; John Cullen, Grand Heritage Hotel Group owner, and Mark Gregson, interim CEO of the Estes Park Medical Center. Attorney Lucia Liley was ill and unable to attend. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 December 9, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Mr. Bangs gave a brief overview of the process to date. The Wellness Training Center (WTC) concept was approved by the Town Board prior to the sale of Stanley Historic District Lot 4 by the Town of Estes Park to Grand Heritage Hotel Group. In March 2015, approval was granted to construct the Accommodations-2 building as the first phase, and construction commenced. Funding issues from the Estes Park Medical Center (EPMC) jeopardized the construction of the WTC, and alternatives were considered. Mr. Bangs stated the only feasible option was to integrate the WTC into the Accommodations-2 Building currently under construction. This solution would provide the minimal essential amount of WTC space for the EPMC to have a successful wellness program. The applicant then restructured financial proposals to reduce the financial risk to the EPMC, and the changes to the Accommodations-2 Building were pursued. The Town Board granted an expedited process to avoid delays in construction. Mr. Bangs stated changes proposed with this application include: conversion of part of the ground floor from storage to WTC uses; addition of a ground floor lap/training pool patio and excavation on the west side to allow light into the new ground floor spaces; a new partial fourth floor and exterior yoga/meditation deck above the third floor. These changes would necessitate a height increase and a revised note on the plan to allow outdoor activities on the ground floor patio (east side) and the fourth floor yoga/meditation deck. The plans that are not changing include: access; parking plans for the first phase; utilities for servicing the building; drainage plan; open space use on the site; trails and pedestrian linkages; overall architectural style of the building; level and style of exterior lighting; economic benefit to the Town. Mr. Bangs stated the WTC would be a use-by- right in the Accommodations zone district as approved in the original development plan. The team is requesting to move the use from one accommodations building to the other. He stated part of the previous approval included a building height over 30 feet. WTC uses on the ground floor would include: research, consultation, massage and recovery, lab services, audio testing, biomechanical and clinical functions, gym and weight training, small group exercise, lap/training pool and lockers, totaling approximately 10,312 square feet. The exterior space on the ground floor would be a patio (2,200 square feet) to service the pool. The fourth floor would contain a 3,455 square foot large group exercise room, and the exterior (deck above third floor) would be a 3,560 square foot area used for meditation, yoga, and relaxation. Total square footage for the WTC would be 13,676 for interior space and 5,760 for exterior space. Mr. Bangs addressed the building height increase, proposed at 11’ 1” on the southeast (downhill) side of the building. The height on the uphill side remains as approved, with the lowest point at 26.48 feet above natural grade. The Estes Park Municipal Code authorizes an increase in building height above 30 feet in the Stanley Historic District through a special review process, with the Town Board as the decision-making body. He stated the standard for that review is to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. The Accommodations-2 Building is located outside of three view corridors protected by the Stanley Historic District regulations. Mr. Bangs stated the proposed fourth floor has been limited to a partial story to minimize impact to the neighboring residences. Adding the proposed fourth floor does not increase impervious coverage nor does it decrease the amount of open space previously approved. The impact is limited to the additional height. Mr. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 December 9, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Bangs stated the outdoor activities would be limited to the pool patio area and the fourth floor deck, which are intended to be passive, e.g. recovery, relaxation, meditation, and yoga. The applicant has agreed to have no amplified sound in these spaces, and the entire development will be subject to the existing Town noise ordinances. Jeff Van Sambeek, project architect, stated he was given the task of trying to put the proposed EPMC Wellness Training Center program into a space already under construction. The original approved WTC included over 20,000 square feet of interior space, and the concept of putting that much space into a building already under construction required communication with the EPMC to determine what was absolutely necessary for a successful program. When it was determined not all would fit on the ground floor, the team decided to propose a fourth floor. He briefly reviewed the site plan, stating they did their best to minimize impacts, including improved landscaping on the north side to minimize neighborhood impact. A retaining wall approximately four feet high will enclose the pool patio, and a smaller retaining wall would be installed after excavation of the west side, allowing additional natural light. Mr. Van Sambeek stated the shared spaces would include lobby areas. He stated the team worked hard to take away as much of the hotel use as possible from the ground floor in order to add the WTC required features, so shared spaces exist in the revised plan, including the lobby (now labeled as a cycling/training room) and the restrooms. Two significant changes were excavations for a gym/equipment training room and the lap/training pool. These functions were not originally anticipated, and the building ceiling height was challenging, so the floor was lowered to obtain more ceiling height. These excavations have already taken place. Mr. Van Sambeek stated all inward functions of the program were placed on the interior of ground floor because they do not require extra lighting. The programmatic areas have been place around the perimeter of the building to have access to views and natural light. At Mr. Cullen’s request the proposed fourth floor was limited to only a portion of the space available. Activities such as yoga classes and other group assemblies would be held on this fourth floor. The fourth floor deck would allow WTC participants to take classes outside while enjoying the Estes Park environment. The proposed deck stops at the fourth floor stair tower, and remaining roof portion will contain planter boxes to soften the northern edge of the building. He stated the only other change is the removal of a garage door in the pool area, which is no longer needed to access the pool equipment room. The south side of the building hasn’t changed except for the addition of the fourth floor. Care was taken to make sure the architecture was in close design to the other buildings on the campus. Mr. Van Sambeek provided revised photo simulations to analyze the impact on neighboring properties. He explained the camera settings for the photos that were taken, and also explained the process for overlaying the proposed building into the photos. Photos were taken from the Davis and Hayek properties. Building height was determined based on existing grade. The most extreme height difference is at the southwest corner. The majority of the proposed fourth floor is unseen from the neighboring properties, and roof is about all that is seen from the north. There were a number of alternatives explored, including reducing the hotel uses of the second and third floors to accommodate WTC uses. It was determine this was not feasible due to the building already being under construction. The time and expense to make the changes would prevent timely delivery of hotel rooms and cause default on the applicant’s mortgage. The financing of the project is contingent on the number of rooms delivered. Additionally, WTC uses need to be separated from RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 December 9, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall hotel uses for security and confidentiality reasons. Only shared spaces could be utilized. Another alternative explored was expanding the building footprint and eliminating the fourth floor. This was determined unfeasible due to the existing property line and street to the west, existing utilities, infrastructure, access points and public easements, and required parking areas. A third alternative to eliminate the fourth floor deck, thus minimizing outdoor activity, was not feasible because the outdoor space is considered integral to the WTC program. At this time, Chair Hull stated the applicant’s allotted time to present has expired, and offered to provide time at a later time in the meeting for him to discuss the remaining portion of his presentation. Chair Hull read portions of minutes from the March 17, 2015 Planning Commission meeting (page 14) for Special Review 2014-01, stating Option 1 would not comply with the 30 foot height limit, and Option 2 would comply. The minutes showed Mr. Cullen stated he was willing and prepared to withdraw Option 1 and continue with Option 2 to please the Commission and the town. Chair Hull stated the approved plan was for Option 2, which was under the 30 foot height limit. Staff Presentation Mallory Baker stated the applicant did a great job explaining most of the revisions. She would be comparing the previous approvals of this site to the currently proposed project. First, relocating the WTC to the Accommodations 2 Building, currently under construction, necessitates a change in the originally-approved lower level plan. This is a change to the tenant finish plan for the ground floor as well as the addition of the partial fourth story. Half of the area on the proposed fourth floor would be finished floor area, with the other half being supplemental outdoor space. Secondly, the addition of two ground floor patios, (pool patio on the east, and a partially covered patio on the southeast corner). Third, the request to exceed the maximum height limit of 30 feet by 11’ 1”. The last change is to remove a previous condition of approval from the last reiteration of this project, which specifically limited all activities in the Accommodations-2 Building to the interior of the building. In the proposed plan, some activities would be held outdoors on the patios and the fourth floor deck. Ms. Baker explained the review process and timeline particular to this application. The timeline was tighter than what typically occurs with development review applications. Staff completed this review of this challenging application within 21 days. This timeline required extensive cooperation with staff, the applicant, and other internal/external reviewing agencies. A pre-application meeting was held in early November, a completeness review was conducted to ensure all documents needed were ready for full code compliance review, the application was sent to referral agencies for comment, a full code review was completed, and a staff report prepared at the end of November. Additionally, a legal notice was published and adjacent property owners were notified by mail. Supplemental coordination was required; weekly meetings with the applicant’s design team were held to discuss reviewing agency comments. The design team frequently attend the Development Review Team meetings, held weekly, which allowed them to discuss issues with Town staff, Estes Park Sanitation District, and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District staff. Specific office hours for public review of the plans and questions related to the review process were held by Ms. Baker every Friday afternoon. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 December 9, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Mr. Baker explained the Planning Commission’s role is to advise the Town Board on land use matters. The responsibility is to ensure compliance with relevant codes, conformance with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and most importantly the Special Review criteria “…ensures the application mitigates to the maximum amount feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment.” What is typically not included in the Planning Commission’s purview is development budget and financing programs. Also, private partnerships, for example, the partnership with the Estes Park Medical Center is not typically part of the Planning Commission’s purview. The applicant’s responsibility is to demonstrate compliance with the relevant codes, conformance with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and to demonstrate compliance with the special review criteria. Ms. Baker’s responsibility, along with staff, is to manage the review process, provide technical review, and act as an informational resource for the Planning Commissioners. Staff is not in any way advisory to the Town Board, but only acts as an information and technical resource for those elected officials. Ms. Baker stated there are not a lot of design changes to this application. She focused on key issues: Height. Height limitations are very important in the town of Estes Park, as they protect key natural resources of the town, e.g. views. 77 out of 80 public comments received to date on this application specifically opposed the height variance request. There are advantages to vertical height. Vertical height limits impervious coverage and maximizes the potential for open space. The applicant is well into compliance with those requirements. The applicant has also demonstrated they have attempted to limit to the maximum extent feasible the areas in which they are adding height to the building. Ms. Baker read the definition of maximum extent feasible: “No feasible or prudent alternative exists…economic considerations may be taken into account but shall not be the overriding factor in determining ‘maximum extent feasible’”. She suggested the Commissioners keep that in mind as the discussion continued. She stated other alternatives were mentioned in the staff report; limiting square footage for hotel programming, expanding the building horizontal footprint, and limiting the fourth story to finished floor area rather than adding additional activity above the 30 foot height limit. Ms. Baker reviewed the photo simulations provided by the applicant. These views are not part of the protected view corridors for the Stanley Hotel. They are mountain views that are potentially obstructed by the building. The view obstructions are not significant, but are essential in staff’s review of adverse impacts. A second key issue discussed by the applicant was outdoor activities. This issue concerns the removal of a previous condition of approval (March, 2015) which limited activities associated with this building to be inside. A number of outdoor spaces are currently proposed (fourth floor roof deck and ground floor patios), and a small number of public comments specifically opposed the allowance of this proposed outdoor activity. In order to mitigate the adverse impacts from the outdoor activity, staff set forth a recommendation condition of approval that the applicant submit a revised development plan that limits the potential activities on those outdoor spaces to WTC programming uses as defined by the applicant in the Statement of Intent submitted for this application. There are two patios on the ground floor and the previously discussed roof deck area where outdoor activities could be occurring. Ms. Baker stated parking and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 December 9, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall shuttling was another key issue with this application. At this time, the applicant has stated the only guests allowed to use the WTC will be those staying on site; therefore, there are no current issues with parking demand and trip generation. However, the Statement of Intent discusses potential future changes to WTC programming which could include opening up the program to people not staying on site or to the general public, meaning there could be future increases on parking demand and trip generation. Because of this, staff recommended a condition of approval stating any proposed changes to the Wellness Training Center operation standards that will result in additional parking and transportation needs, including but not limited to the opening of the programs to patrons not staying at the hotel on-site, shall require the submittal of a Parking and Shuttling Plan to be reviewed pursuant to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) requirements. This would provide staff with a mechanism to review future trip generation and parking demand impact to ensure the proper transportation infrastructure and mitigation plans in place for any adverse impacts. Ms. Baker stated the Planning Commission has several options for voting on this special review: (1) Approval without conditions; (2) Approval with conditions; (3) Denial; (4) Continuation of the hearing I order to provide adequate time to review additional materials. Conditions of Approval 1.Compliance with the affected agency conditions of approval and comments, including the Town of Estes Park Utilities Department, the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department, the Estes Park Sanitation District, the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, and RBB Architects, serving as the Stanley Historic District Architectural Review Committee. 2.Compliance with Section 7.9(D), Exterior Lighting Design Standards, of the EVDC 3.Any proposed changes to the Wellness Training Center operation standards that will result in additional parking and transportation needs, including but not limited to the opening of the programs to patrons not staying at the hotel on-site, shall require the submittal of a Parking and Shuttling Plan to be reviewed pursuant to EVDC requirements. 4.The applicants shall submit a revised development plan with a note stating the “The fourth floor deck and ground floor patios shall be limited to Wellness Training Center programming uses, including research, consultation, massage and recovery, lab services, audio testing, biomechanical and clinical functions, gym and weight training, and small group exercise.” 5.Any proposed changes to the uses included in the Accommodations-2 Building shall require a Special Review pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 3.5 of the EVDC. 6.The applicant shall remove the note on Sheet A1.4 referring to “Steel framing in roof above for future cupola” prior to the submittal of final development plan mylars. Ms. Baker stated the Commission may include any conditions it determines will render the application compliant with all requirements based on all the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing. She stated that the applicant was given time to speak at the hearing, and valuable information was provided during that presentation. She further stated that the public would also have time to speak, so the Commission has room to include that testimony in any conditions of approval that it so desires. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 December 9, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Public Comment Commissioner Klink stated public comment is best provided in written form, submitted early enough to be included in the meeting material packets. More thought can be given to the comments by the Commissioners if they are able to read them rather than hearing them for the first time as verbal public comment. Ann Finley, town resident, stated the proposed project will define the aesthetics and values of our community, and it is imperative that we get it right. The voters based their decisions on the plans presented before the election. The new design is clearly not what the voters approved. Minor changes could be expected, but these plans are significantly different. She urged the Planning Commission to respect the deliberations of the voters. Approving these modifications would undermine the credibility of this already questionable and potentially divisive proposal. The height variance was not a part of the plan that residents voted on. She questioned whether or not the vote would have passed if these were the plans originally submitted. There should be no favoritism or granting or waiver of fees associated with any variances. She encouraged the Commissioners to deny the request for the redesign and for the height variance. Marlene Hayek, town resident, quoted lyrics from John Denver’s “Rocky Mountain High”, the Colorado state song, stating those lyrics fit well with how some local residents felt about blocking their view. Barb Davis, town resident, stated she has seen many changes in the many years she has been coming to Estes Park. The majority of people think many of these changes were mistakes, and encouraged the Commissioners not to make another mistake. She hoped the Planning Commission considers what the height variance would do to the community. She thought it would set a precedent for future projects. She was opposed to the height variance. Rebecca Urquhart, town resident, stated she would focus on the height variance. She stated this would not meet the standards of review for a traditional variance request (through the Board of Adjustment). She stated economic considerations are not an overriding factor in approving a variance. She thinks there are feasible alternatives. She stated the statement of intent for this application was an emotional narrative. Removal of hotel rooms is not feasible only for economic reasons, which is not a justifiable reason for the variance. She suggested the wellness center be a separate building, and it can be expanded at a later date. There is a reason for a height limit in the EVDC, and approving this one would set a precedent. Diane Muno, town resident and local business owner, stated she is truly invested in Estes Park and wants to know that we are moving in a progressive manner. She stated Estes Park is being marketed away by other mountain communities for business and tourism. She campaigned for the sale of Lot 4 because she supported the EPMC and the desire to general additional services and revenue. She believes in the wellness center concept. She stated that the community needs to look rationally at this project and how it affects the greater good. Ms. Muno stated she is a member of the EPMC RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 December 9, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Foundation Board, and they are actively continuing to raise funds for the WTC. There are community residents that believe that some of the changes that need to happen may require a height variance. Wally Burke, town resident and accommodations owner, stated he was supportive of the wellness center, but opposed to the height variance. He stated 36.7% of the building would be over 30 feet, which is a lot. Height is a concern for anyone that builds in the Estes Valley, and what’s allowed for one should be allowed for all. He was concerned about what would happen if the wellness center was built and failed, and what the future plan would then be for the fourth and ground floors. He was opposed to allowing the height variance. Jan Vershuur, town resident, stated the Stanley Hotel is the crown jewel of Estes Park. He did not think the project had been presented well, as it seems to be mostly an extension of the Stanley Hotel. He was opposed to granting a variance for the fourth floor. Doug Warner, town resident, stated he voted in favor of the sale of Lot 4. He was not opposed to the WTC concept, but strongly opposed to the height variance. He was also opposed to the height variance in the previous application. The 30 foot height limit was determined by men and women with an understanding of the cultural, historical, and aesthetic significance of the Stanley Hotel and other structures in Estes Park. He stated the variance requested is justified only if there are (1) special conditions that exist on the lot that create a hardship; (2) financial or personal situations of the applicant can be considered, but must not be used as a determining factor; (3) the approval of the variance must not grant special privilege to the property owner. The “human condition” indicates the nature of mankind is such that power, position, wealth, etc. will, from time to time, tempt one to use that power and position and wealth to exert pressure on those in government to get special treatment. This is not a new condition, and has been around since the beginning of time. The applicant was intimately familiar with the property prior to the purchase. There are no hardships present. Financial factors cannot be taken into consideration. The applicants’ power, position, and wealth must not give him preferential treatment over the common man. Mr. Warner stated if the Commissioners granted the requested height variance, it would set a precedent for others seeking height variances. He urged the Commissioners to examine carefully the criteria governing the granting of variances. Judy Nystrom, town resident, represented Mr. Findley in several real estate transactions in the area of what is now the Stanley Historic District. Mr. Findley provided a rendition, based upon the regulations at the time, of what was going to be on Lot 4. Nothing encroached in that area like the current building does. She worked with several people who own homes on Findley Court who are leaving the area, and feels she has misrepresented something. She feels this is the tip of the iceberg, and a change here will be a change coming on everything. If it is to be allowed here, it should be allowed everywhere. Mrs. Nystrom stated the development has changed considerably since the election, and that concerns her. She stated Mr. Cullen is going a great job of improving the Stanley Hotel and working with the hospital on the WTC. She is opposed to granting the height variance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 December 9, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Ed Hayek, town resident, stated this was about the 30 foot height limit for the Stanley Historic District, not about the WTC or about two or three neighbors on Findley Court. This is about changing the visitor and resident experience forever. It is possible to have a WTC without a fourth floor. Many alternatives exist. He stated the pool was excavated in September, Level 1 was reconfigured and design changes were made to carry the load of a fourth floor. He wondered about what would have happened if that much effort would have been put into designing an alternative. No alternatives were ever presented. He thinks this is the cheapest and quick way, an excuse to circumvent the decades-old 30-foot height limit established in the Stanley Historic District. The view to the neighbors on Findley Court has already been compromised. The common thread throughout the written public comment is that it will impact everyone. It will set a precedent for future development within the Stanley Historic District. Tall buildings on high ground block vistas of surrounding mountains. Mr. Hayek was opposed to the height variance because no evidence of detailed analysis or evidence of studying other alternatives has been presented. Personal financial and contractual difficulties of the applicant are not the purview or obligation of the citizens. He stated the applicant’s response to written comments not necessarily being true was insulting. Views are extremely important to community members and visitors alike. View corridors are a minimum protection for the Stanley; they are not the criteria for impact on the community. Mr. Hayek stated when the applicant was before the Planning Commission nine months ago, he stated he would build the WTC if the Estes Park Medical Center did not raise the funds. It was implied he would build a separate building on the designated site. Mr. Hayek stated the proposed plan is not what the voters approved. He suggested the Estes Park Medical Center may be better served searching for a strong partner hospital rather than grabbing at straws, squandering resources, and delaying the inevitable. Jim Cozzie, town resident, was opposed to the variance request. Eric Waples, town resident, stated he believed the wrong standard of review (Section 3.5.B) was used to review the variance request, when it should have been Section 3.6 of the EVDC. When the EVDC was adopted in 2000, one of the key sections of the Estes Park Municipal Codes had been deleted (Special Review Height Section). Therefore, part of the Municipal Code referenced the section that had been deleted. When the Town Board Ordinance 05-14 was passed, that section was overlooked again. It was understandable at that time because height was not an issue. One year later, when the applicant request a height increase, Mr. Waples stated Town Attorney White realized the error but chose to argue it was embedded in EVDC Section 3.5B, which deals with Special Review Use. Mr. Waples stated this section says nothing about height. He discussed the issue with Ms. Baker and other Town staff, and did not receive a satisfactory explanation. Mr. Waples received a written opinion from Attorney White on December 8, 2015, and still believes the wrong standard is being used for the review. Section 3.6 is a much stricter standard and it would be very difficult for the applicant to meet that standard. However, even under the letter Section 3.5.B standard, the applicant still fails to make their case to allow the requested height. Barb Gebhardt, town resident, stated 99% of all written comments are opposed to the height variance. Only one positive comment was provided, by the Estes Park Medical Center Hospital Board President. She stated granting the height variance would be setting a precedent for building RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 December 9, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall four story structures. She thinks the WTC should be built where it was originally intended. She suggested the Estes Park Medical Center partner with another health care organization to ensure future viability. Christine Smith, town resident, stated she is concerned about her property values dropping because of this project. She is opposed to the outdoor yoga deck and pool patio near her home. She is a former member of the neighborhood Homeowners Association, and feels Mr. Cullen mislead them on numerous occasions, not only with the current project. Johanna Darden, town resident, was opposed to any height above the 30-foot limit. She stated there are alternatives for the yoga area on the ground floor of Lot 4. Asking WTC participants to walk to another location on Lot 4 will not be an imposition, particularly when the applicant thinks it will not be an imposition to shuttle participants from off-site locations. Even though the intent for outdoor activities are passive, there is nothing built into the plan to ensure this will remain so. The noise ordinance is not enforceable. Allowing more light on the ground level does not mean the lighting will be of high quality. Negative impacts include blocking views of the surrounding area, and the unattractive structure diminishes the character of the Historic District. The hospital foundation should have tried to raise the funds to build the WTC. She was opposed to the height variance request. Bill Darden, town resident, stated he was pleased when the applicant stated the change in the plans was precipitated by a financial emergency. Mr. Darden stated the Estes Park Medical Center raised little or no money for the WTC. That invites the supposition that they have not tried, and possibly never intended to try. He was opposed to allowing the change of plans. Karin Edwards, town resident, stated her goal was to point out how the Estes Park citizens have been deceived since the beginning of the Lot 4 sale. There is no good reason for any Estes Park citizen to give up more than we have, and she does not support the added building height. Ballot Question 1B on April 1, 2014 was to sell Lot 4 for the Anschutz Wellness Center. The ballot issue wording was biased, misleading, and inaccurate. From the estes.org website, she read the sale of Lot 4 was for hotel expansion with or without the Anschutz Wellness Center. Anschutz pulled out, and the credibility of that program was lost. The CEO and the Executive Director of the hospital foundation resigned; they were integral to getting this Wellness Training Center going. The Planning Commission approved changing the open space designation from the west side of Lot 4 to the east side. Settling ponds are planned for the open space, and those are not congruent with the definition of open space. Ms. Edwards believes this denies Estes Park citizens the open space that was required with the sale of Lot 4. Photo ads in the local newspapers show projected views of the future buildings. The ads come across as an insult to the residents who live in the neighborhood and those of us who live in town. The Grand Heritage Hotel Group can build the WTC in the location defined by the Lot 4 contract, or leave that space without a building. If the applicant chooses to house the WTC in another building, then airspace and view shed should not be compromised with additional building height. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 11 December 9, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Mark Gregson, Interim Director of Estes Park Medical Center, stated the Estes Park Medical Center remains very committed to wellness for the community and the entire region. This is an important component of the wellness program, and he is very grateful for the opportunity to consider this site when it was determined the original plan for the WTC was not viable. He was pleased the applicant was willing to work with them and give them the ability to use the ground floor. However, that amount of square footage is not sufficient space to have a complete wellness program. Therefore, the additional 3,500 square foot fourth floor was added to the plan. He was grateful that it still may be possible to have the WTC available for use as early as this next summer. Greg Rosener, town resident, stated he would like to submit an alternative condition of approval for condition #3, to read “In the event the Wellness Training Center is opened to the general public, submittal of a Parking and shuttling Plan shall be required to be reviewed pursuant to applicable Municipal Code Chapter 17 and EVDC requirements. In the event that Wellness Training Center guests are not housed on-site but are housed in a Stanley Hotel managed hotel facility, the Stanley Hotel must provide shuttling of such guests to and from the Wellness Training Center.” Mr. Rosener also suggested an alternative condition #4, to read “Any proposed change to a use other than hotel or Wellness Training Center use shall require a Special Review pursuant to the criteria set forth in applicable provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 17 and the EVDC. The Wellness Training Center use shall be as defined and approved in the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Applicant and the Town. In addition, he proposed two conditions would be “Outdoor activities of the Wellness Training Center shall be limited to the lap/training pool patio area and fourth floor yoga/meditation deck area.” Mr. Rosener stated there was an error in the staff report, stating the patio on the southeast corner was approved in March. The other proposed condition was “Amplified sound in the lap/training pool patio area and on the fourth floor yoga/meditation deck shall be prohibited.” Public comment closed. Applicant Closing Remarks John Cullen, applicant, stated he appreciated the time and effort on this project. He did not want to go through this process. It was not about making money or setting precedent. It is about doing the best we can with what we have available. He stated the eight to ten million dollars that the EPMC Foundation needed to start the construction of the Wellness Center turned out to be substantially less, if not zero. He is trying to make good on his best efforts to provide a wellness center, which was the town vote. Mr. Cullen stated he has been a member of this community for 21 years, and he would like to deliver on getting the wellness center built, and stated this was the best way to do it. He stated he is basically making a four million dollar donation to make this happen. That is the hard construction value of giving up the hotel space on the ground floor for the wellness center. If given more time, he could go through all the alternatives with the Commission. He could not think of any other way to come up with a viable alternative, given the money and opportunity his team has in front of them. He believed EPMC was going to raise the eight million dollars for the wellness center. He would not have followed through with the project if he did not believe they would not be able to raise the funds. Since that money is not there, with the resources they have at hand, this is the best solution. He stated he was OK if the project was approved, or RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 12 December 9, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall approved with the six conditions as written and modified. He was also OK with a continuance, so he could show the Commission that they looked at every single viable alternative, physically and financially. He also understands denial, because that means he has gone three times to this “dance” to try and build a wellness center, and either been told “no”, or “don’t have the resources”. This relieves him of his best effort to make a wellness center that he really wanted to build. He still wants to, and believes he can, but he has to deal with the card he has been given, and right now, this is the best, if not the only viable alternative to deliver an EPMC Wellness Training Center. His original desire was to build an entirely enclosed fourth floor, but he chose to cut it back to the benefit of Findley Court. He tried to push everything possible away from residential. He would be accepting to enclosing the entire fourth floor, which is doable, at an extra cost of $750,000. He is trying to be sensitive and mitigate to the maximum extent possible by pushing it away from residential areas. It is the only solution he has. He asked the Commission for help and support to accept the staff report with conditions, continuance, or denial. Staff and Commission Discussion Chair Hull stated she distributed information to the Commissioners at the study session, which included the following: (1) an amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County, dated March 12, 2010. It states “…the purpose of establishing the Estes Valley Planning Commission, providing for the administration of the Estes Valley Development Code…” That is why the Commission is here. (2) EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, and EVDC Section 4.4, Table 405, listing a 30-foot maximum building height for every zone district in the Estes Valley. (3) EVDC Section 3.5.B Special Review Uses, Standards for Review,”…The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment.” Also attached was EVDC Section 13.3, #151, which is the definition of Maximum Extent Feasible “shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. Economic considerations may be taken into account but shall not be the overriding factor in determining “maximum extent feasible.”” (4) Minutes of the March 17, 2015 Planning Commission meeting in regards to the Amended Special Review 2014-01, page 7, with highlighted portions “The applicant is now requesting approval to construct the Acommodations-2 Building first, with the Wellness Center and Accommodations-1 Building to follow once the Estes Park Medical Center (EPMC) obtains necessary funding.” “…Accommodations-2 Building approximately five (5) feet to the northwest. The original construction phase would be reversed.” “The Stanley Historic District Master Plan does not apply to this specific lot.” Page 8, “The applicant provided additional photo simulations today, including “Option 2”, which changes the design of the roof to comply with the 30-foot height limit. Page 10, Attorney Lucia Liley, “She stated the building envelope was approved during the original approval process, as was the parking lot placement. The building has been shifted five feet to accommodate some pedestrian connections. “Another potential way to design the Accommodations-2 Building to comply with the height requirement has been submitted.” Page 11 refers to the Accommodations- 2 Building and the Accommodations-1 Building. This portion of the minutes tells Chair Hull the applicant was advocating for two separate buildings. Page 14, “Option 1 would not comply with the height limit, while Option 2 would comply. Mr. Cullen stated Option 2 is in full compliance with RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 13 December 9, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall the height limits. …He stated he was willing and prepared to withdraw Option 1 and continue with Option 2 to please the Commission and the Town.” “Mr. Cullen explained he had every intention to construct first the Accommodations-1 Building adjacent to the Wellness Center, with the Accommodations-2 Building to follow at a later date. Page 16, “It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to recommend approval of the Amendment to Special Review 2014-01 to the Town Board as described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended and amended by staff, using Option 2 as the design for the Accommodations-2 building, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.” Chair Hull pointed out that Mr. Cullen knew there was an alternative to the height limit with this previous amendment, which was approved by the Town Board on March 24, 2015. She considered this previous amendment to the Special Review as the alternative. She stated that it is not in the purview of the Planning Commission to discuss economics. Commissioner Klink stated there were no other alternatives presented today, and the only reason for the proposed revisions presented were purely economic, which the Commission is not allowed to use as an overriding factor. There is no physical barrier, only economic and logistic issues to developing the site as previously approved. Commissioner White agreed with Commissioner Klink in that there could be other alternatives. If the project proposed today were the original plan, she would have concerns about the height and outdoor use. The bottom line today is economic, which cannot be considered. The job of the Planning Commission is to ensure compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code, and with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Murphree stated he agreed with the other Commissioners. He has been a builder in the Estes Valley for 30 years, and cannot totally understand why this project is where it is now. When you start a project of this size, it seems you would have everything laid out the way it needs to be from the beginning. He understands there are construction issues that have to be solved as you move forward. He does not understand why the fourth story is so important, and wonders why it was not addresses earlier. He also did not understand why it has become a huge issue with a tight timeline requiring an expedited review and special meeting. Commissioner Moon directed a question to Attorney White regarding whether or not this application would set a precedent to any other structure in the Stanley Historic District, the Town of Estes Park, or the Estes Valley. Attorney White stated Lot 4 is governed by a set of codes in the Estes Park Municipal Code that are unique to Lot 4 due to circumstances of the development of the Stanley Historic District and the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. Because of this a portion of the Municipal Code applies to the height limitation and not to the Estes Valley Development Code. Lot 4 was removed from the Stanley Historic District Master Plan process in 2009 with the termination of the development agreement that governed it. All the rest of the Stanley Historic District is governed by the Stanley Historic Master Plan, and the Technical Review Committee is the process for that. Attorney White believes the 30 foot height limit encompasses the entire Stanley Historic District; however, the review process for a project higher than 30 feet would go to the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 14 December 9, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Technical Review Committee and not the Planning Commission and the Town Board. The 30 foot height limitation is town-wide, but it is specifically with regard to this piece of property in the Stanley Historic District Ordinance. He stated that it does not establish legal precedence. There was discussion among the Commission concerning legal precedent. Attorney White stated everything that comes before the Board is unique and individual and you make your decision based on the application in front of you. It does not establish any legal precedent. It is up to the reviewing Board or Commission to apply the applicable standards. Commissioner Moon wondered whether it was the applicant’s economic issue, or if it became an issue because of EPMC’s inability to deliver. Attorney White stated there was a provision in the contract for the sale of Lot 4 that had a deadline for a wellness center building permit of April, 2016. Currently, $650,000 is owed on Lot 4. If a building permit is issued by April, 2016, that amount drops to $325,000. Commissioner Moon stated the applicant’s issue is economic because the EPMC failed to raise the needed funds. He questioned whether adequate alternatives had been explored that the Commission was not aware of. Comments included but were not limited to: the applicant has an approved plan he can move forward with; if there were alternatives for a ground floor expansion, is that alternative as viable as a fourth floor? Commissioners were reminded of the definition of “maximum extent feasible; there could be ground floor alternatives the Commission has not seen, which could mean a motion to continue rather than a recommendation being issued tonight; it was the applicant’s responsibility to provide alternatives, knowing the fourth floor would be very controversial; it may be better from the Commission’s perspective to look at a ground floor alternative to the fourth floor for a lesser impact on the neighborhood; that may be grounds to ask for a continuance. Ms. Baker clarified the applicant mentioned the ground floor patio on the southeast corner was approved with the previous plans in March, 2015. She looked at those approved plans, where that area was shown as being paved, but not specifically called out as a patio, so that would technically be a change in the plan. Also, the applicant stated they were not changing the architecture. Ms. Baker stated the architecture did in fact change as part of this plan, and RBB Architects provided comments on the changes as part of the Architectural Review Committee. Changes included the placement and design of the windows and a few other things to make it contextual. Planner McCool stated she was concerned about requesting a continuance due to the time constraints for the Town Board hearing scheduled for December 15th. She did not think there would be enough time to conduct a thorough review and issue a new staff report, unless the Town Board meeting was continued as well. There would need to be discussion with the applicant before the meeting could be continued. It was moved and seconded (Klink/White) to recommend denial of Special Review 2014-01C on the grounds that the application does not substantially meet the criteria above and as described RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 15 December 9, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall in the staff report and the motion passed 4-1 with Commissioners Klink, White, Hull, and Murphree voting in favor of the denial and Commissioner Moon voting against the denial. Commissioner Klink stated economics could not be considered for Special Review as shown in the staff report. Commissioner White agreed with the criteria required for the review process was not met. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m. ___________________________________ Betty Hull, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Philip Kleisler, Planner II Date: January 26, 2016 RE: Ordinance #01-16 - Amending the Municipal Code Section 5.20.030 to Set Vacation Home Fee Schedule Objective: The consideration of an ordinance amending the Estes Park Municipal Code to revise the fee schedule for Vacation Home Business Licenses within the Town of Estes Park. Present Situation: The Town began this project in mid-2015 to reevaluate local ordinances and processes relating to vacation homes in the Estes Valley. Since this time the Town and County have hosted four public forums, numerous small group meetings and regular updates to the Planning Commission, Town Board and County Commissioners. During the January 12 study session the Town Board directed staff to draft the attached ordinance. Proposal: Town staff recommends increasing the licensing fees for Vacation Homes to fund all costs related to administrative overhead and proactive code enforcement. The Board of County Commissioners directed staff to delay bringing any changes to licensing fees until the final ordinance is presented. The attached ordinance will amend the fee structure for all vacation home business licenses within the Town of Estes Park for the current year. A central reason for increasing the license fee is to hire a temporary Code Compliance Officer to focus on rental enforcement within the town. Staff has concluded a fee structure analysis and is recommending a tiered fee structure. The analysis included a review of the CAST Report, benchmarking with Steamboat Springs and Breckenridge, and code enforcement modeling. The fee would be structured as follows: Table 1: Current and proposed annual Business License fee for vacation homes. Current Fee Proposed Fee Current Fee Collections (Town Only) Proposed Fee Collections (Town only) $150 $200 Base Fee $50 for each bedroom $27,300 (approx.) $61,400 (estimate) Town staff analyzed the proposed fee structure to ensure that adequate funding is projected to fund code enforcement costs. As with other new business processes, procedure steps were outlined for administrative overhead and code enforcement to limit redundancy and estimate operating costs. Staff anticipates that a seasonal, full time code enforcement officer will close approximately 200 cases. The enforcement cost for 200 cases is estimated to be at least $23,000 (including very limited Town Attorney fees). Combined with administrative overhead costs ($14,000), the above fee structure will adequately cover all proactive enforcement in the town, with additional funding reserved for outreach and education. Advantages: Funds additional code enforcement work, which has been a common request throughout this project. Creates a more level playing field among vacation home, business and hotel owners. Disadvantages: Increased costs of operating a vacation home within the Town of Estes Park. However, staff views this as an appropriate means to increase code enforcement work for vacation homes. Action Recommended: Staff recommends the adoption of Ordinance 01-16. Budget: Increase in General Fund revenue by approximately $34,000, which will cover administrative overhead and additional enforcement. Level of Public Interest: High. Public meetings have attracted many more people than anticipated. Enforcement has developed into a central theme throughout the public process, which this ordinance seeks to partially address. Sample Motion: I move to approve (or deny) Ordinance #01-16. Attachment: 1. Ordinance #01-16 ORDINANCE NO. 01-16 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE TO SET VACATION HOME FEE SCHEDULE. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has conducted an extensive public process to evaluate community values and best practices pertaining to vacation homes; and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Park Municipal Code are set forth on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Park Municipal Code, Section 5.20.030, set forth on Exhibit “A” be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Park Municipal 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 26th DAY OF JANUARY, 2016. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the 26th day of January, 2016 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the ________ day of , 2016, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 06‐15 Exhibit A 5.20.010 - Business license. (a) Each business, profession or occupation within the Town, which business, profession or occupation consists of the selling of goods, wares, merchandise or service; the performing or rendering of service for charge; the leasing, renting or furnishing of accommodation units or vacation home; and the carrying on or engaging in any nonresidential business shall obtain and maintain a business license. Each business, profession or occupation conducted at a separate physical location, regardless of ownership, shall obtain and maintain a separate business license. (b) Each individual accommodation unit which is separately owned or vacation home, including but not limited to a condominium unit, shall obtain and maintain a business license for the individual unit as provided in Section 5.20.030. An entity or company managing one (1) or more accommodation units or vacation homes, shall obtain and maintain a business license for the management business separate from the business license of the owner of the individual accommodation unit or vacation home. (Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 18-93 §2, 1993; Ord. 20-01 §1, 2001; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004; Ord. 19-07 §1, 2007; Ord. 28-07 §1, 2007; Ord. 02-09 §§1, 2, 2009) 5.20.020 - Definitions. Modified In this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: Accommodation means the rental, leasing or occupancy of an accommodation site and/or accommodations unit for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. Accommodation site means one (1) individual parcel of real property consisting of one (1) or more accommodations units that are under management control of a representative, entity or agency for rental purposes. Accommodation unit means any room, mobile home, recreational vehicle, camp site, or other area in a visitor-serving facility that provides temporary lodging, such as any hotel, motel, guest house, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park or campground, or any such similar place, to any person whom, for a consideration, uses, possesses, or has the right to use or possess such room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site or other area for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. Bed and breakfast inn means a detached single-family residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased or occupied for accommodations purposes and is operator-occupied on a full- time basis. Deleted: any single-family dwelling, duplex, multiple-family dwelling, condominium unit Ordinance No. 06‐15 Exhibit A Building contractor means a business, profession or occupation whose primary business is the physical construction of structures and their appurtenances, including but not limited to: Acoustical contractor; Air conditioning contractor; Asphalt contractor; Cabinets and cabinet makers; Carpenter; Caulking contractor; Ceiling contractor; Concrete contractor; Counter tops contractor; Demolition contractor; Drilling and boring contractor; Drywall contractor; Electrical contractor; Excavating contractor; Fire system installation contractor; Framing contractor; General contractor; Heating/mechanical contractor; Home building; Home improvement contractor; House mover contractor; Insulation contractor; Landscape contractor; Mason contractor; Painting contractor; Patio, deck, porch, building/enclosure contractor; Paving contractor; Ordinance No. 06‐15 Exhibit A Plumbing contractor; Remodeling and repairing contractor; Road building contractor; Roofing contractor; Septic tanks and systems contractor; Siding contractor; Sprinkler system contractor; Swimming pool contractor; Tile/ceramic contractor; and Waterproofing contractor. General business means the carrying on or engaging in any business, profession or occupation within the Town, which business, profession or occupation consists of the selling of goods, wares, merchandise or services or the performing or rendering of service for charge; except the carrying on or engaging in an accommodation, building contractor or home business. Home business means a business, profession or occupation conducted within or from a dwelling by a resident as an accessory use to the residential use of the dwelling, but it does not include a building contractor or accommodation. Nonresident business means a business, profession or occupation whose business premises is located outside the corporate limits of the Town but is otherwise subject to the terms of this Chapter. Owner means the person owning any business, profession, occupation or accommodation unit. In the event that the owner is a nonresident or cannot be located by the Town, the operator, manager or lessee of any such business, profession or occupation shall be deemed an owner for all purposes of this Chapter. Vacation home means a residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased or occupied for accommodations purposes for compensation for terms of less than thirty (30) days. (Ord. 1-91 §1 (part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 18-93 §1, 1993; Ord. 11-94 §1, 1994, Ord. 15-97, 1997; Ord. 20-98 §1, 1998; Ord. 20-01 §2, 2001; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004; Ord. 19-07 §1, 2007; Ord. 02-09 §§3, 4, 2009; Ord. 02-10 §1, 2010) 5.20.030 - Amount of license fee. Ordinance No. 06‐15 Exhibit A The business license fee is set forth as follows: (1) General business license: two hundred dollars ($200.00) per year. (2) Accommodations license: five (5) units or less, one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per year; six (6) to twenty (20) units, two hundred sixty dollars ($260.00) per year; twenty-one (21) units or more, three hundred seventy-five dollars ($375.00) per year. Each individual accommodation site shall pay a business license fee based upon the number of units on the individual accommodation site. (3) Building contractor's license: two hundred dollars ($200.00) per year. (4) Home business license: one hundred dollars ($100.00) per year. (5) Individual accommodation unit: Any individual accommodation unit, including but not limited to a condominium unit, which is not part of an accommodation site, shall pay a business license fee of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per year. (6) Vacation home: two hundred dollars ($200.00) base fee per year; fifty dollars ($50.00) for each bedroom. (Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 18-93 §3, 1993; Ord. 11-94 §2, 1994; Ord. 20- 98 §3, 1998; Ord. 21-98 §1, 1998; Ord. 20-01 §3, 2001; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004; Ord. 19-07 §1, 2007; Ord. 02-09 §5, 2009) 5.20.040 - Business license requirements. Every person who is the owner of any business, profession, occupation, accommodation unit or vacation home, including owners of multiple businesses at separate physical locations, shall obtain a business license from the Town as follows: (1) A business license shall be obtained prior to engaging in any business, profession, occupation, accommodation or vacation home within the Town. (2) The owner shall complete all forms and provide all information required by the Town Clerk for obtaining a business license. (3) Deleted: or Deleted: or Ordinance No. 06‐15 Exhibit A The owner, if required, shall complete an Affidavit of Lawful Presence and present valid identification required by Section 24-76.5-101, et seq., C.R.S., or any regulation of the State promulgated thereto. (4) The owner shall complete and/or provide all documentation and information required by the State and/or the United States for the issuance of a business license. (Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004; Ord. 19-07 §1, 2007; Ord. 28- 07 §2, 2007; Ord. 02-09 §6, 2009) 5.20.050 - Form of license; transfers. Each business license shall be numbered and shall show the name and place of the business of the licensee and shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the business premises for which it is issued. This license may be transferable to any new owner of the business so long as the business remains at the same premises. (Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 18-93 §4, 1993; Ord. 15-97, 1997; Ord. 20-01 §4, 2001; Ord. 19-07 §1, 2007; Ord. 02-09 §7, 2009) 5.20.060 - Payment of license fee. The owner of each business, profession, occupation, accommodation unit or vacation home subject to the provisions of this Chapter shall pay the business license fee for each calendar year in which the owner engages in any business, profession, occupation, accommodation or vacation home within the Town as follows: (1) Full payment is required on or before March 31 of each calendar year. (2) Any new business, profession, occupation, accommodation or vacation home which begins its business on or after January 1 and on or before June 30 shall pay the full amount of the business license fee. Any new business, profession, occupation or accommodation which begins its business on or after July 1 and on or before September 30 shall pay one-half (½) of the business license fee. Any new business, profession, occupation or accommodation which begins its business on or after October 1 and on or before December 31 shall pay one-fourth (¼) of the business license fee. All business license fees subject to this Subsection (2) shall be due and payable upon submittal of an application to the Town Clerk's office. (3) In the event any existing business license is not renewed in the subsequent calendar year on or before March 31, the business license shall be deemed to have lapsed. A new business Deleted: or Deleted: or Deleted: or Ordinance No. 06‐15 Exhibit A license fee in full must be paid by the owner. There shall be no proration of this business license fee. (4) In the event that a nonsufficient funds (NSF) check is received, a twenty-dollar fee will be added to the account. (Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 18-93 §5, 1993; Ord. 15-97, 1997; Ord. 20-01 §5, 2001; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004; Ord. 19-07 §1, 2007; Ord. 28-07 §3, 2007; Ord. 02-09 §8, 2009) 5.20.070 - Violation. It shall be a violation of this Chapter for an owner of a business, profession, occupation,accommodation or vacation home to fail to obtain and maintain the business license; refuse to make payment to the Town of the business license fee; or fail to complete the application process. (Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004; Ord. 19-07 §1, 2007; Ord. 28- 07 §4, 2007; Ord. 02-09 §9, 2009) 5.20.080 - Revocation of license. The Town shall give written notice to the owner of any business, profession, occupation , accommodation, or accommodation who has failed to pay the fee in accordance with Section 5.20.060. If the business license fee is not paid in full within twenty (20) days of the date of the notice, the Town shall revoke the business license. Upon revocation of the business license, the owner's right and privilege to conduct the business, profession, occupation accommodation or vacation home within the Town is terminated. (Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004; Ord. 19-07 §5, 2007; Ord. 28- 07 §5, 2007; Ord. 02-09 §10, 2009) 5.20.085 - Termination of right to conduct business. Upon revocation of a business license or failure to obtain and maintain a business license, the owner's right and privilege to conduct its business, profession, occupation, accommodation or vacation home within the Town is terminated. Following termination, the Town may seek injunctive relief in the District Court to enjoin the owner of any business, profession, occupation, accommodation or vacation home within the Town from conducting said business, profession, occupation or accommodation within the Town. (Ord. 28-07 §6, 2007; Ord. 02-09 §11, 2009) Deleted: or Deleted: or Deleted: or Deleted: or Deleted: or Ordinance No. 06‐15 Exhibit A 5.20.090 - Inspections. The Town shall be entitled at any time, upon reasonable notice to the owner of any business, profession, occupation or accommodation, to inspect the premises occupied by the business, profession, occupation or accommodation for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the terms and conditions of this Chapter. In the event that such inspection reveals that the business license fee charged to the business, profession, occupation or accommodation is in fact erroneous, an adjustment shall be made by the Town of the license fee. (Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004) 5.20.100 - Chapter exceptions. The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to the following: (1) Any business, profession or occupation licensed under any other Town ordinance and paying a license fee to engage in such business, profession or occupation, other than sales tax licenses, nor to any business, profession or occupation paying another business license fee or tax to the Town. (2) Any business, profession or occupation which consists solely of delivering goods at wholesale to other businesses, professions or occupations within the Town. (3) Any business, profession or occupation solely conducted on property owned by the Town. (Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 15-97, 1997; Ord. 02-09 §12, 2009) 5.20.110 - Vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns. This Section shall apply to vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns. (1) Restrictions on rentals. The rental, leasing or occupancy of all vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns subject to this Section shall be restricted as follows: a. Compliance with the applicable regulations found in the Estes Valley Development Code is required. b. The application for a business license for any vacation home or bed and breakfast inns shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be Ordinance No. 06‐15 Exhibit A contacted by the Town with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the representative of the owner for all purposes with regard to the issuance of the business license, the operation of the vacation home or bed and breakfast inn and revocation of the business license pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Section. (2) Violation. It is a violation of this Section for any owner, representative, guest and/or occupant of a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn to be convicted, including a plea of no contest, of a violation of Section 9.08.010(Disturbing the Peace) of this Code; to fail to collect and remit all required sales tax to the State due and owing for the leasing, rental or occupation of a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn; to violate any provisions of this Section; and/or to fail to acquire and pay for a business license. For the purpose of this Section, only violations ofSection 9.08.010 of this Code which occur on the premises of the vacation home or bed and breakfast inn and while a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn is being occupied as a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall be a violation of this Section. (3) Revocation of license. The Town may revoke the business license of any vacation home or bed and breakfast inn for violation of the provisions of this Section as follows: a. The Town Clerk, upon the receipt and verification of any violation of this Section, shall give written notice to the owner or representative that a violation has occurred. b. Upon the receipt and verification of any subsequent violation of the terms and conditions of this Section, within two (2) years of the date of the written warning set forth in Subsection a above, the Town Clerk may revoke the business license by giving written notice to the owner or representative of the revocation of the license. Said revocation shall be for one (1) year from the date of the notice. c. Upon the receipt and verification of any subsequent violation of the terms and conditions of this Section within two (2) years after reinstatement, the Town Clerk shall revoke the business license by giving written notice to the owner or representative of the revocation of the business license. Said revocation shall be for two (2) years from the date of the notice. Upon revocation of the business license, the owner's right to operate a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn on the property shall terminate. (4) Appeal. Any owner or representative who wishes to contest the written warning or the revocation of a business license shall be entitled to request a hearing before the Town Clerk by written notice delivered in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Town Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the date of the warning or revocation. The Town Clerk shall hold a hearing on the appeal and determine whether or not a violation of the Ordinance No. 06‐15 Exhibit A provisions of this Section has occurred. The owner shall be entitled to present any evidence of compliance with the terms and conditions of this Section at said hearing. The decision of the Town Clerk as to whether or not the violation occurred shall be final and not subject to further appeal. (Ord. 4-04 §3, 2004; Ord. 02-10 §1, 2010) Mayor’s Right to Vote (CRS 31-4-302 – Mayor - Powers). Town Clerk Memo 1 To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: January 22, 2016 RE: Mayor’s Right to Vote (CRS 31-4-302 – Mayor - Powers). Objective: To review the Mayor’s right to vote as outlined in the Colorado Revised Statute 31-4-302. Present Situation: The Town Board last reviewed the Mayor’s right to vote during the February 14, 2012 study session. At that meeting the consensus of the Board was to maintain the current mayor’s right to vote (tie breaking vote only) because it allows the mayor to hear all sides of an issue in the event a tie breaking vote becomes necessary. Per Municipal Code §2.12.030 the Mayor shall have no vote upon any question except in the case of a tie vote. Current state statue indicates that a mayor shall preside at all meetings of the board of trustees and shall have the same voting powers as any member of the board. However, a town may provide by ordinance that the mayor shall not be entitled to vote on any matter before the board, except in the case of a tie vote. The Clerk’s Office completed research in the past illustrating the Mayor’s right to vote has been in existence since at least 1961 as referenced in the 1961 Municipal Code attached for your review. A 2012 survey demonstrated municipalities are equally divided on allowing the mayor a vote on all issues. Proposal: At the January 12, 2016 study session, the Board agreed to review the Mayor’s right to vote at the January 26, 2016 meeting. The item is being reviewed as an action item to allow public comment on the topic and to provide staff direction. The state statute allows the Mayor’s right to vote to be reviewed by the Board within 60 days of the Municipal Election for mayor. Attorney White has provided a written review of the state statute. Questions regarding the state statute will be addressed during the Town Board meeting. Advantages: To allow public comment on the Mayor’s right to vote prior to the upcoming Municipal Election for mayor. Mayor’s Right to Vote (CRS 31-4-302 – Mayor - Powers). 2 Disadvantages: None. Action Recommended: To provide staff with direction on developing an Ordinance to allow the Mayor the right to vote on all issues. Budget: None. Level of Public Interest Moderate. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny staff prepare an Ordinance to allow the Mayor the right to vote on all issues coming before the Board of Trustees for consideration at an upcoming Town Board meeting prior to the April 5, 2016 election. Attachments: 1961 Estes Park Municipal Code §4.8 C.R.S. §31-4-302 Town Attorney Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From:Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Date:January 21, 2016 RE:Voting Rights of the Mayor This Memo provides a summary of the voting rights of the Mayor. Section 2.12.030 of the Municipal Code Vote Required states as follows: “The Mayor shall have no vote upon any question except in the case of a tie vote. All ordinances and resolutions adopted authorizing the expenditure of money or the entering into a contract require the approval and signature of the Mayor before they can become valid.” Section 31-4-302 C.R.S. Mayor – Powers provides in part as follows: “….However, a town may provide by ordinance that the mayor shall not be entitled to vote on any matter before the board, except in the case of a tie vote. If such an ordinance is adopted, it shall also provide that any ordinance adopted and all resolutions authorizing the expenditure of money or the entering into of a contract shall be subject to disapproval by the mayor as provided in section 31-16-104. Such an ordinance may provide or may be amended to provide that the mayor shall not be counted for purposes of determining a quorum or for the requisite majority on any matter to be voted on by the board of trustees. Any such ordinance may be adopted, amended, or repealed only within the sixty days preceding any election of a mayor, to take effect upon such mayor’s assumption of office.” The Town Board may change Section 2.12.030 by adopting an ordinance between February 5, 2016 through April 4, 2016, to provide that the Mayor shall be a voting member of the Board of Trustees. In the event of adoption of such an ordinance, the authorization for the mayor to disapprove any ordinance adopted and all resolutions authorizing the expenditure of money or the entering into of contract, would also be removed from the Mayor’s powers. Please note that in the event the Mayor fails to approve an adopted ordinance or a resolution for the expenditure of money or the entering into of a contract, Section 31-16- 104 C.R.S. provides that in said event the ordinance or resolution shall be returned to the Board of Trustees at the next regular meeting with the Mayor’s objections in writing. The Board of Trustees, at said meeting or subsequent meeting, shall consider the question “Shall the ordinance or resolution notwithstanding the Mayor’s objections be passed?” If two-thirds of the Trustees (five Trustees) vote in the affirmative, such resolution or ordinance shall become law. C.R.S. 31-4-302 COLORADO REVISED STATUTES *** This document reflects changes current through all laws passed at the First Regular Session of the Seventieth General Assembly of the State of Colorado (2015) *** TITLE 31. GOVERNMENT - MUNICIPAL CORPORATE CLASS - ORGANIZATION AND TERRITORY ARTICLE 4. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND OFFICERS PART 3. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND OFFICERS OF STATUTORY TOWNS C.R.S. 31-4-302 (2015) 31-4-302. Mayor - powers The mayor or, in his absence, one of the trustees, who may be elected mayor pro tem, shall preside at all meetings of the board of trustees and shall have the same voting powers as any member of said board. The mayor shall be considered a member of the governing body and the board of trustees. However, a town may provide by ordinance that the mayor shall not be entitled to vote on any matter before the board, except in the case of a tie vote. If such an ordinance is adopted, it shall also provide that any ordinance adopted and all resolutions authorizing the expenditure of money or the entering into of a contract shall be subject to disapproval by the mayor as provided in section 31-16-104. Such an ordinance may provide or may be amended to provide that the mayor shall not be counted for purposes of determining a quorum or for the requisite majority on any matter to be voted on by the board of trustees. Any such ordinance may be adopted, amended, or repealed only within the sixty days preceding any election of a mayor, to take effect upon such mayor's assumption of office. HISTORY: Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1034, § 1, effective July 1.L. 81: Entire section amended, p. 1494, § 6, effective June 8.L. 89: Entire section amended, p. 1291, § 10, effective April 6. Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 31-3-302 as it existed prior to 1975. ANNOTATION Applied in Hayden v. Town of Aurora, 57 Colo. 389, 142 P. 183 (1914). PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date: January 26, 2016 RE: Barnes Dance Reinstatement Request to CDOT Objective: The purpose of the proposed request is to decrease intersection accident risk by reducing conflicts between high volumes of cars and pedestrians at two downtown intersections. Present Situation: Prior to 2010 the traffic signals at the intersections of Elkhorn Ave at Riverside Dr and Moraine Ave were programmed by CDOT to include an all-walk phase approximately every 2 minutes. This operation (known as the Barnes Dance or pedestrian scramble) stops the vehicles on all legs of the intersection for a brief period of time and allows the pedestrians to cross the intersecting streets in any direction. It also prohibits pedestrians from crossing any of the intersecting streets during the remainder of each traffic signal cycle. In 2010, the Town and CDOT teamed to construct turn lane and access ramp improvements at the intersection of Elkhorn & Riverside and upgraded the traffic signal controls at Elkhorn and Moraine. The traffic signal timing was changed to the common/conventional pattern allowing pedestrians to cross the intersection side-streets by traveling parallel to the through-traffic during the green light phase of the traffic signal program. In 2015, the Town conducted numerous public meetings regarding the proposed one- couplet known as the Downtown Estes Loop. This public discourse on downtown traffic congestion prompted many citizen requests for reinstating the Barnes Dance signal timing. In response, the Town asked CDOT to perform a real-time comparative measurement evaluation of the traffic delay, traffic volume, and vehicular backup when the two downtown intersection operate with the conventional vs Barnes Dance traffic signal timing. The study showed the Barnes Dance signal timing nearly doubled the westbound corridor travel time (12 minutes vs 6.3 minutes), increased average vehicular delay by 22% (from 139 seconds to 169 seconds per vehicle (ave of all directions)), diminished the volume of cars that could pass through the intersections by 9% (1266 vs 1381 vph), and the traffic backups approaching downtown from the east were longer. The Barnes Dance also allowed 7% more pedestrians to cross all legs of the intersection during the peak hour (2825 vs 2637). The Estes Park Police Department has expressed its desire to see the Barnes Dance restored. At a meeting with CDOT traffic engineers on December 16, 2015, the citizen Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) members requested CDOT officials consider benefits beyond impacts to motorized vehicles and reinstate the Barnes Dance signal timing. The CDOT representatives declined, stating the engineering study/technical analysis confirmed the conventional traffic signal timing best serves the CDOT mission to efficiently move cars on the highway system. They indicated further discussion on the matter needs to be directed to the CDOT Region 4 Director from either the Town Administrator or Mayor. On January 14, 2016 this item was presented to the Public Safety, Utilities, & Public Works (PUP) Committee which recommended this request be referred to the full Town Board for consideration. Proposal: In response to citizen input, PW staff requests CDOT restore the Barnes Dance all-walk phase at the Elkhorn Ave intersections with Riverside Dr and Moraine Ave. Advantages: The advantages of reinstating the Barnes Dance signal timing include: •Pedestrian flow and safety is prioritized over vehicular traffic flow for a fraction of the traffic signal cycle. •Turning cars do not conflict with pedestrians in the crosswalks. The intersections are safer when moving (turning) cars and pedestrians are not both assigned right-of-way authority by the traffic light to be in the same place at the same time. •Intersection capacity for turning vehicles is increased, as traffic flow behind turning vehicles is not blocked while the turning vehicles wait for pedestrians to clear the crosswalk. •Separation between cars and pedestrians is improved. Pedestrians are invited into the street only when all the autos are stopped. •Pedestrian street crossing time, and the associated exposure to vehicular traffic, is reduced for one diagonal crossing of two streets instead of two separate street crossing movements. •Community Service Officers may be assigned full-time presence at the two intersections during periods of heavy traffic and pedestrian congestion. •Large volumes of pedestrians can cross one or two streets simultaneously. •The pedestrian scramble is viewed as improving the unique guest experience when visiting Estes Park. •The Barnes Dance signal timing will be included in the Downtown Estes Loop if it is approved and constructed. Reintroduction now improves visitor expectation for future return trips to Estes Park. •The Barnes Dance signal timing is believed to reduce observed motorist propensity to encroach into the intersections and block pedestrian and traffic flow during the yellow and red phases of the traffic signal cycle. Disadvantages: The disadvantages of reinstating the Barnes Dance signal timing include: •Larger crowds of pedestrians queue at the four intersection corners every signal cycle and can obstruct mobility and/or access into adjacent businesses. •Total intersection capacity for moving cars is diminished about 9% (July 2015). The Barnes Dance operation is less efficient for moving both cars and pedestrians when they have to “take turns” instead of both moving concurrently during the multiple traffic signal phases. Green time during the traffic signal cycle assigned to the all-walk phase could be dedicated to the moving more cars through the intersection with each signal phase. •Automobile delay is increased about 22% (30 seconds per vehicle in 2015). •Automobile queues (backups) are increased. •Automobile driver frustration escalates in proportion to increased delay. •Impatient pedestrians are more inclined to violate traffic laws and cross the street against the signal indications. Added law enforcement presence is typically needed. •New pedestrian signals or signage should be installed to clearly communicate the “all way walk” or “diagonal crossing” is permissible. •Barnes Dance signal timing is uncommon and will not be expected by visitors walking or driving. Unfamiliar pedestrians are inclined to instinctively begin crossing the side street when the parallel traffic flow begins with each signal phase. Action Recommended: The PW staff proposes the Town Administrator ask the CDOT Region 4 Director to authorize preparation of updated and optimized signal timing plans to restore the Barnes Dance all-walk phase at the Elkhorn Ave intersections with Riverside Dr and Moraine Ave no later than May 27, 2016, and direct CDOT Traffic Operations staff to perform periodic evaluations and adjustments to the signal timing plan to optimize service delivery to automobile and pedestrian users of these two intersections. Budget: There is no budget impact/cost to the Town for this request. The Police Department’s 2016 budget includes funding for two additional seasonal CSO positions needed to support Barnes Dance signal timing at the two intersections during the summer season. Level of Public Interest Public interest on this proposal is expected to be high. Recommended Motion: I move for the approval/denial for Resolution #02-16 and authorize the Town Administrator to submit the Barnes Dance reinstatement request to the CDOT Region 4 Director as described in the Resolution. Attachments: CDOT Region 4 Estes Park Signal Operations Study Preliminary Results Memorandum RESOLUTION ##02-16 WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) owns and maintains US Highway 34 known as Elkhorn Avenue in the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS, prior to 2010 the traffic signals at the intersections of Elkhorn Ave at Riverside Dr and Moraine Ave were programmed by CDOT to include an all-walk phase (known as the Barnes Dance) that stops the vehicles on all legs of the intersection for a brief period of time and allows the pedestrians to cross the intersecting streets in any direction; and WHEREAS, in 2010 the traffic signal timing was changed to the conventional pattern allowing pedestrians to cross the intersection side-streets by traveling parallel to the through-traffic during the green light phase of the traffic signal program; and WHEREAS, in 2015 CDOT’s consultant engineer performed a comparative evaluation of Barnes Dance and conventional signal timing which documented the Barnes Dance timing increases peak hour traffic delay by 22%, diminished intersection vehicular capacity by 9%, and increased intersection pedestrian capacity by 7%; and WHEREAS, the Estes Park Police Department and the citizen Transportation Advisory Board requested CDOT officials consider community benefits beyond impacts to motorized vehicles and reinstate the Barnes Dance signal timing as more fully described in the attached Public Works Memo dated January 26, 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE RECITALS SET FORTH ABOVE WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: The Town of Estes Park hereby requests the CDOT Region 4 Director authorize preparation of updated and optimized signal timing plans to restore the Barnes Dance all-walk phase at the Elkhorn Ave intersections with Riverside Dr and Moraine Ave no later than May 27, 2016, and direct CDOT Traffic Operations staff to perform periodic evaluations and adjustments to the signal timing plan to optimize service delivery to automobile and pedestrian users of these two intersections. Dated this___________________________, 2016. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________________ Town Clerk Memo To: Larry Haas, CDOT Region 4 Copy: Greg Muhonen, Town of Estes Park From: Matthew J. Brown, PE, PTOE Date: September 9, 2015 Re: CDOT Region 4 Estes Park Signal Operations Study Preliminary Results Memorandum Introduction The intersection of Elkhorn & Moraine in downtown Estes Park is the most congested intersection in Town, particularly during the summer recreational season. Very high pedestrian activity, combined with high vehicular traffic and inefficient intersection geometry are to blame for much of the problem. The Barnes Dance treatment, at one time in effect at the intersection, adds an additional, exclusive traffic signal phase that allows pedestrians to “scramble” without interference from vehicular traffic. The geometry at the intersection of Elkhorn and Moraine requires that the intersection be “split phased” meaning that each approach to the intersection operates in sequence rather than at the same time. The pedestrian crossing treatments further constrain intersection operations, either by requiring an exclusive signal phase (Barnes Dance) or by limiting the signal timings to accommodate pedestrian crossings on each leg of the intersection along with traffic. At a glance, benefits of the Barnes Dance are to completely separate vehicle and pedestrian traffic, thereby eliminating the “friction” that occurs when these movements are allowed to go simultaneously. However, the trade-off is that the Barnes Dance option lessens the amount of signal time available for the vehicular movements. Data Collection Traffic conditions on both data collection days were recorded using digital video cameras placed at the intersection of Elkhorn & Moraine. Video recordings were made for the purposes of obtaining vehicle turning movements, pedestrian volumes, queue lengths and average vehicle delays. Vehicle and Pedestrian Volumes Intersection traffic counts were collected on two consecutive Saturday’s (July 11th and July 18th, 2015) during the Town of Estes Park’s busiest season. Based on the field observations, there was much more traffic demand in the westbound direction than could be accommodated by the intersection. As result, the vehicular counts that were recorded do not accurately represent the demand for this movement; only the amount that could be processed. The difference between the amount of traffic processed by the intersection and the demand is reflected in the vehicle queues on the westbound approach to the intersection. These queues often extended back to the intersection with US-36 and beyond. Larry Haas, CDOT Region 4 September 9, 2015 Page 2 Queue Lengths Using the digital video, vehicle queue lengths were evaluated by approach in 5 minute intervals between 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. The back of queue could be observed in three of the four directions. The westbound queue extended back to US-36 for virtually the entire period of observation. Traffic on US-36 was observed back to the SH-7 intersection the weekend of the 18th. Delay Average Intersection stopped delays were calculated by approach in 15 minute intervals between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. These were determined by recording the duration of time between when the sampled vehicle joins the back of queue until it passes the stop bar at the intersection. Travel Times Stolfus also conducted a sample of travel time runs along Elkhorn Avenue during the peak period on July 11th and July 18th, 2015. The travel time runs were completed using a dash-mounted GoProTM digital recording device. The GoPro allowed the runs to be conducted by a single person and the time-stamped video to be downloaded at a later time in the office. Analysis The relative performance of each of the options was evaluated based upon measures of effectiveness including average vehicle delays, intersection level-of -service (LOS), and vehicle queue lengths. Vehicle and Pedestrian Volumes Vehicle and pedestrian volumes were nearly equal across the two weekends. Intersection vehicle counts were higher the weekend of July 11th by approximately 9% (1,381 veh/hour versus 1,266 veh/hour). Pedestrian counts for the weekend of July 18th were higher by 7%. In general, pedestrian counts are approximately double that of vehicle counts. Peak hour vehicle and pedestrian volumes are shown on Tables 1a & 1b. Table 1a: Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary Date Peak Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left 7/11/2015 No Barnes 1:45 - 2:45 6 86 25 10 187 430 332 28 90 53 123 11 1381 7/18/2015 Barnes 2:00 - 3:00 3 79 24 16 143 373 318 24 85 51 137 13 1266 Vehicle Total MORAINE AVE Southbound ELKHORN AVE Westbound MORAINE AVE Northbound ELKHORN AVE Eastbound Larry Haas, CDOT Region 4 September 9, 2015 Page 3 Table 1b: Pedestrian Count Summary Date Peak 7/11/2015 No Barnes 1:45 - 2:45 7/18/2015 Barnes 2:00 - 3:00 MORAINE AVE Southbound ELKHORN AVE Westbound MORAINE AVE Northbound ELKHORN AVE Eastbound Pedestrian Total 2637 2825 389 351 1014 1034 327 415 907 1025 Because the westbound movement at the intersection at Elkhorn Avenue & Moraine Avenue was clearly over-saturated, the turning movement counts for the westbound direction do not necessarily reflect actual traffic demand. In order to evaluate whether demands were substantially different from one weekend to the next it is necessary to look further upstream before flow becomes capacity- constrained. Stolfus located the closest permanent count stations along US-36 and US-34 east of the Town of Estes Park. For both highways, the nearest stations are located just east of Mall Road at the edge of Town. For the dates of July 11th and July 18th, westbound US-36 and US-34 volumes were combined to represent potential inbound traffic. Eastbound US-36 and US-34 volumes were combined to represent potential outbound traffic. Inbound and outbound traffic was then combined to represent potential total traffic for the day. The combined data are plotted on Figure 1. Figure 1 Traffic Demand by Hour of Day, Town of Estes Park The results indicate that the traffic demands for the two weekends, like the counts taken at the intersection, are very comparable. Between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., the demands on Larry Haas, CDOT Region 4 September 9, 2015 Page 4 the weekend of July 11th are marginally higher. This eliminates concerns that overall demand on one of the weekends far exceeded that of the other. Queue Lengths The observed queue length data was converted to (1) an average queue length, (2) a 95th percentile queue length, and (3) the maximum queue length that was observed. The 95th percentile queue length represents the length of queue that is rarely exceeded (only 5% of the time on average). Table 2: Summary of Observed Queue Lengths (Peak Hour) Avg Q 95 Q Max Q Avg Q 95 Q Max Q Southbound 1.4 3.0 3.0 4.2 7.9 9.0 Northbound 3.9 10.7 14.0 4.1 7.9 9.0 Westbound * * *** ** ** Eastbound 11.0 13.5 14.0 6.6 10.5 11.0 Avg Q 95 Q Max Q Avg Q 95 Q Max Q Southbound 35.4 75.0 75.0 104.2 197.5 225.0 Northbound 97.9 267.5 350.0 102.1 197.5 225.0 Westbound * * *** ** ** Eastbound 275.0 336.3 350.0 164.6 261.3 275.0 *Queue regularly extended back to US 36 **Queue regularly extended beyond US 36 Approach Approach 7/11/2015 - No Barnes 7/18/2015 - Barnes 7/11/2015 - No Barnes 7/18/2015 - Barnes Car Lengths Feet (25-ft/vehicle) The queue length findings indicate that the Barnes Dance lengthens the southbound and westbound queues, while shortening the northbound and eastbound queues. It appears that eliminating concurrent pedestrian movements benefits the eastbound direction by eliminating the conflict between right turning vehicles and pedestrians. When eastbound vehicles and pedestrians are permitted to occur at the same time, one right-turning vehicle waiting for pedestrians to clear has the potential to block the eastbound direction for virtually the entire signal phase. In the southbound direction, eliminating concurrent pedestrian movements enables the Barnes Dance scenario to shorten the southbound vehicle phase to minimally service southbound vehicles. As result, southbound vehicle queues increase. Westbound vehicle queues were incredibly long on both weekends. On July 11th, westbound queues extended to US-36 virtually the entire time from 11:00 to 3:00. On July 18th, the queue was even longer, extending down US 36 to State Highway 7. Larry Haas, CDOT Region 4 September 9, 2015 Page 5 Delay study The results of the intersection delay studies correlate well with the queue length studies. Overall intersection delays were approximately 30 seconds per vehicle longer the weekend of 7/18/15 (Barnes Dance). Thirty additional seconds of delay translates to approximately 22%. Most of this additional delay was due to increases in delay for westbound vehicles. Table 3: Summary of Observed Intersection Delays (Peak Hour) 7/11/2015 No Barnes 7/18/2015 Barnes Avg. Delay (sec/veh) Avg. Delay (sec/veh) Southbound 65 119 Northbound 84 105 Westbound 192 229 Eastbound 143 91 All 139 169 (+22%) Approach In terms of vehicle-hours of delay, the Barnes Dance resulted in approximately 10 additional hours of delay during the peak hour. The amount of person-delay is based upon the number of persons per vehicle. Although this data was not collected, it is anticipated that there were typically 2 persons per vehicle; resulting in additional person delay of 20 hours. Once this number is multiplied by the number of congested hours per weekend day and the number of seasonal peak weekends, the difference between the two operational strategies becomes even more significant. Travel Time Runs Based upon a limited number of samples, the time required to travel the Elkhorn Avenue corridor in the eastbound direction was similar between the two weekends. The westbound direction took nearly twice as long to traverse the weekend of July 18th. Note that these travel times are based on the segment from between US 36 and Moraine Avenue. The weekend of July 18th there was considerable delays in turning from US 36 onto Elkhorn Avenue. This delay is not represented in the table. End to end, the second westbound travel time run on July 18th took over 20 minutes to complete. For this reason, only two travel time runs were completed on the weekend of July 18th. Larry Haas, CDOT Region 4 September 9, 2015 Page 6 Table 4a: Summary of Travel Time Results (July 11th, 2015) (No Barnes Dance) Begin End Distance (ft) Time 1 (sec) Time 2 (sec) Time 3 (sec) Time 4 (sec) Average (sec) Speed (MPH) Moraine Ave Riverside Ave 612 74 133 76 93 94 4.4 Riverside Ave Ped Signal 756 50 30 32 25 34 15.0 Ped Signal US 36 619 83 17 16 45 40 10.5 169 8.0 Begin End Distance (ft) Time 1 (sec) Time 2 (sec) Time 3 (sec) Time 4 (sec) Average (sec) Speed (MPH) US 36 Ped Signal 619 112 48 87 121 92 4.6 Ped Signal Riverside Ave 756 138 78 106 250 143 3.6 Riverside Ave Moraine Ave 612 152 190 167 71 145 2.9 380 3.6 WESTBOUND SEGMENT TOTALS EASTBOUND SEGMENT TOTALS Table 4b: Summary of Travel Time Results (July 18th, 2015) (Barnes Dance) Begin End Distance (ft) Time 1 (sec) Time 2 (sec) Time 3 (sec) Time 4 (sec) Average (sec) Speed (MPH) Moraine Ave Riverside Ave 612 67 89 78 5.3 Riverside Ave Ped Signal 756 24 33 29 18.1 Ped Signal US 36 619 16 26 21 20.1 128 10.6 Begin End Distance (ft) Time 1 (sec) Time 2 (sec) Time 3 (sec) Time 4 (sec) Average (sec) Speed (MPH) US 36 Ped Signal 619 120 172 146 2.9 Ped Signal Riverside Ave 756 400 228 314 1.6 Riverside Ave Moraine Ave 612 274 251 263 1.6 723 1.9 WESTBOUND SEGMENT TOTALS EASTBOUND SEGMENT TOTALS Synchro In addition to collecting observed data, Stolfus conducted Synchro analyses using in place timings and existing traffic data. The initial analyses results overstated how well the intersection was performing when compared to field observations. For this reason, additional calibration of the model was performed to better reflect actual conditions. Using the digital video recording, a saturation flow rate study was completed of the intersection. Larry Haas, CDOT Region 4 September 9, 2015 Page 7 LOS Avg. Veh Delay (sec) Queue (95th %) (ft)LOS Avg. Veh Delay (sec) Queue (95th %) (ft) EB Left D 43.6 27 D 39.5 25 EB Thru/Right F 88.8 #284 E 62.6 #237 WB Left D 45.9 #407 C 32.4 #381 WB Left/Thru/Right E 63.2 #454 D 42 #431 NB Left/Thru F 96.4 #225 D 52.5 158 NB Right C 25.0 309 C 21.6 126 SB Left/Thru/Right E 56.5 158 D 45.5 153 All E 55.5 - D 38.7 - #95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer ELKHORN AVE & MORAINE AVE WITHOUT BARNES DANCEWITH BARNES DANCE INTERSECTION MOVEMENT Table 5: Synchro Measure of Effectiveness (MOE) Comparison Despite calibrating the saturation flow rate the synchro model continues to over-estimate the quality of traffic flow at the intersection. This is a result of the way the intersection turning movement counts were completed – recording vehicles as they pass through the intersection. Actual demand for the westbound movement was much higher than recorded as evidenced by the extensive queuing that occurred. Larry Haas, CDOT Region 4 September 9, 2015 Page 8 Findings The following summarizes the findings of the study: •Intersection turning movement volumes were 9% higher the weekend without the Barnes Dance. Pedestrian volumes were 7% higher the weekend with the Barnes Dance. The volumes appear close enough to get a reasonable comparison in operations. •Review of traffic data entering Estes Park on US 36 and US 34 suggests that demand was comparable between the two weekends. The higher volumes counted the weekend without the Barnes Dance may indicate a higher traffic capacity for that scenario. •The travel time runs conducted by Stolfus suggested that the westbound movement along Elkhorn Avenue does not perform as well when the Barnes Dance is in operation. •The westbound vehicle queue at the intersection was incredibly long both weekends. Virtually the entire analysis period westbound vehicles were queued from Moraine Avenue back to US 36. Westbound queues for the Barnes Dance scenario were generally longer than for the scenario without the Barnes Dance. •Based upon the delay study, the Barnes Dance scenario results in average vehicle delays that are approximately 30 seconds per vehicle longer than the scenario without the Barnes Dance. •Eastbound travel times and speeds were better for the Barnes Dance scenario. Westbound travel times and speeds were better for the no Barnes Dance scenario. •Due to over-saturated conditions, results from the synchro models do not closely match observed conditions. However, model results suggest that the scenario without the Barnes Dance performs better. •Based on a review of the video recordings, the presence of the Community Service Officers (CSOs) did not appear to influence pedestrian behavior in a meaningful way. It should be noted that the Barnes Dance timings were from several years ago. Should CDOT and the Town decide to further consider that scenario it is recommended that updated signal timing plans be prepared. Please let me know if you have any questions on the data or our recommendations. Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Tina Kurtz, Environmental Planner Date: January 26, 2016 RE: Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Contract Award Objective: To recommend approval of a professional services contract with Wright W ater Engineers, Inc. for the Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study (project). Present Situation: This project will refine the current, best available hydrology data from the post-flood CDOT study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch. Having updated, refined hydrologic data will allow the Town to make informed decisions to protect the community, infrastructure and environment. The purpose of this project is to provide information based on sound science for current and future planning efforts, land-use and zoning codes, flood mitigation, resilient project design and implementation, and reducing hydrologic uncertainty on these four drainages. The project outcome will identify factors and conditions having a direct impact on these complex drainages including safety, downtown redevelopment, floodplain management, bridge and culvert sizing and resizing, channel stabilization, roadway protection, water quality to protect aquatic and wildlife habitat, and stormwater management. This information will be used in current and future flood mitigation efforts by ensuring proper design, construction and zoning of structures within the river corridors for long-term resiliency and sustainability. The project results will conform to FEMA, Colorado W ater Conservation Board (CWCB), and National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) modeling and mapping standards and be provided to federal, state and local partnering agencies. The data from this project will be used by the state to remap the regulatory floodplain boundaries. This remapping is part of the Colorado Hazard Mapping Program headed by CWCB, which was funded in early 2015 by the Colorado Legislature. Phase one of this Program includes watersheds in Larimer, Boulder, Weld, Gilpin, and Jefferson counties. Proposal: On December 8, 2015, the Community Development Department advertised a Request for Proposal for conducting a hydrology study on Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch. Out of the five proposals received, the selection committee ranked Wright Water Engineers, Inc. first and their proposal was within the project budget of $105,800. The project is expected to begin in February and be completed by May 31, 2016. Staff recommends awarding a professional services contract to Wright Water Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $105,800. Advantages: •Approval of the professional services contract allows the hydrology study to be completed this spring. •Wright Water Engineers, Inc. submitted the most scientifically sound proposal and has teamed with Dr. Bob Jarrett, a renowned hydrologist. They are a very well-respected firm who has been in business for over 50 years. Disadvantages: •There are no disadvantages to contracting with Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Action Recommended: To advance the Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study to gather detailed, scientifically sound hydrologic data on Fall River, Big Thompson, Black Canyon and Dry Gulch within the Estes Valley as soon as possible which is necessary for projects such as the Moraine Avenue Bridge and Stormwater Master Plan to move forward. Staff recommends awarding a Professional Services Contract to Wright Water Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $105,800. Budget: •This project is 100% grant funded. •The funding is through a Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Round 2 Planning grant administered through the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) in the amount of $105,800. Level of Public Interest •Low for the choice of project consultant. •High for the project. This project will refine the post-flood CDOT hydrology study information, which is currently the best-available hydrology data for Fall River, Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch. The information gathered from this study will be used in all projects interrelated with these drainages. Sample Motion I move for approval/denial of a professional services contract for the Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study to Wright Water Engineers, Inc. with the project cost not to exceed $105,800. Attachments: 1. Professional Services Contract – Wright Water Engineers, Inc. 2. Town Issued Request for Proposal for a Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study 3.Submitted Proposal: Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 1 of 15 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study THIS AGREEMENT is made this ____ day of ______________, 2016 by and between the Town of Estes Park ( the “[GRANTEE]”) and Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (the “Consultants”). RECITALS WHEREAS, The Grantee desires to obtain consulting services during the period from January 27, 2016 through June 17, 2016, in connection with the procurement of the Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study (the “Project”). WHEREAS, The Consultants provide professional consulting services to the public and are fully qualified to perform the consulting services needed by Grantee in connection with the Project. WHEREAS, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, the State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) is authorized by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide State of Colorado Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program funds (hereinafter referred to as CDBG-DR funds) to units of local government selected to undertake and carry out certain programs and projects under the State of Colorado Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, regulations and policies. WHEREAS, the Grantee as part of its CDBG-DR grant agreement with the Consultants under contract number SCDB-DR P15-068, has been awarded CDBG-DR funds for the purposes set forth herein. WHEREAS, the Scope of Work included in this contract is authorized as part of the Grantee’s approved CDBG-DR project. WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to Grantee to utilize the Consultants as an independent entity to accomplish the Scope of Work as set forth herein and such endeavor would tend to best accomplish the objectives of the local CDBG-DR project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and provisions contained herein, and the mutual benefits to be derived therefrom, the parties hereto agree as follows: COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and obligations set forth below, the Grantee and the Consultants agree as follows: I. SCOPE OF SERVICES A. General. The Consultants shall serve as the Grantee’s professional advisors and representatives in connection with the Project and shall consult with and advise the Grantee as it reasonably requires during the term of this Agreement. As a general matter, they shall communicate with the Grantee about the Project only through Tina Kurtz, who has been assigned by the Grantee to the Project as Project Manager. Page 2 of 15 B. Specific Duties and Responsibilities In connection with the Project, the Consultants shall undertake the duties and responsibilities and provide the services described in Attachment A, the “Request for Proposal,” and is attached hereto and made a part hereof. C. Extra Services. Upon the express, written request of the Grantee, the Consultants shall perform services beyond the scope of the duties and responsibilities described in Attachment A. The Consultants shall charge the Grantee for such extra services, if any, in accordance with the provisions of Subsection IV.B. D. Documents. All work notes, reports, documents, computer programs (non-proprietary), computer input and output, analyses, tests, maps, surveys, or any other materials developed specifically for the Project are and shall remain the sole and exclusive property of the Grantee. The Consultants, upon request by the Grantee, agree to provide documents or any other materials developed specifically for the Project in an electronically editable format (e.g., Word). The Consultants shall not provide copies of any material prepared under this Agreement to any other party without the prior written consent of the Grantee. II.COOPERATION BY THE GRANTEE The Grantee will thoroughly and as expeditiously as reasonably possible consider all reports, sketches, drawings, specifications, proposals, and other documents prepared by the Consultants, and it shall inform the Consultants of all decisions that it has made which would affect the Consultants’ work under this Agreement as soon as reasonably feasible. The Grantee will inform the Consultants of any pending change or revision to the Project as soon as reasonably feasible. The Grantee will provide the Consultants with current, updated plans, if any, for the Project as soon as reasonably feasible after they are produced. III.TIME OF PERFORMANCE The Consultants’ services are anticipated to be provided over the course of five (6) months, occurring between January 27, 2016 and June 16, 2016. A detailed project schedule is presented in Attachment A. However, it is understood by the parties that the actual schedule may differ from what is anticipated. The Grantee shall advise the Consultants in writing of each change in the schedule as soon as feasible after it becomes aware thereof, and the Consultants shall thereafter adjust the timing of their services so as to comply with the revised schedule. The Consultants shall provide their services at such times as are necessary in order to promote the smooth progress of the Project. IV.AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS TO CONSULTANTS A. Aggregate Limits. Unless services in addition to those specified in Section I are subsequently agreed upon in writing, the total amount paid by the Grantee to the Consultants pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed the sum of One Hundred and Five Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($105,800). B. Specific Charges. The Consultants’ primary employees who will work on the Project and their billing rates are set forth in Appendix B, the “Proposal,”and is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Grantee will pay the Consultants on the basis of their time and direct expenses incurred in order to provide the services required by this Agreement. Page 3 of 15 l.The charge for time shall consist of the hourly rates for the Consultants’ employees multiplied by the number of hours and parts of hours each such employee works directly on the Project. The time each such employee must spend traveling in order to provide the services required by this Agreement will be charged in the same way as his or her other time spent working on the Project. It is understood by the parties that the rates include a surcharge intended to cover profit and overhead, including, but not limited to, taxes, employee benefits, administrative support staff and supplies, office rent and utilities, and insurance. The Consultants’ primary employees who will work on the Project and their billing rates, which include the surcharge, are set forth in Attachment B. 2.Direct expenses incurred by the Consultants in connection with the Project shall be charged to the Grantee on the basis of the expenses actually incurred by the Consultants, without any additional surcharge added by the Consultants. Such direct expenses shall include printing costs and long-distance telephone charges. Any direct or indirect expenses incurred by the Consultants while working on the Project that are in common with work on other projects for other clients shall be prorated among all those clients according to the benefit derived by each client. The Grantee shall not pay for the expense of the Consultants’ owned or hired automobiles used in the connection with the Project, which shall be considered a part of the Consultants’ hourly rates. V. RECORDS The Consultants agree to maintain such records and follow such procedures as may be required under the state’s CDBG-DR Program and any such procedures as the Grantee may prescribe. In general, such records will include information pertaining to the contract, obligations and unobligated balances, assets and liabilities, outlays, equal opportunity, labor standards (as appropriate), and performance. All such records and all other records pertinent to this contract and work undertaken under this contract shall be retained by the Consultants for a period of five years after final audit of the Grantee of Grantee’s CDBG-DR project, unless a longer period is required to resolve audit findings or litigation. In such cases, the Grantee shall request a longer period of record retention. The Grantee and other authorized representatives of the state and federal government shall have access to any books, documents, papers and records of the consultants which are directly pertinent to the contract for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions. The Grantee and duly authorized officials of the state and federal government shall have full access and the right to examine any pertinent documents, papers, records and books of the Consultants involving transactions related to this local program and contract. VI.TIME OF PAYMENTS TO CONSULTANTS The Consultants shall bill their charges to the Grantee periodically, but no more frequently than once a month. Each bill shall contain a statement of the time that the primary employees spent on the Project since the previous bill, a brief description of the services provided by each such employee and an itemization of direct expenses for each task. VII.QUALIFICATIONS ON OBLIGATIONS TO PAY Notwithstanding any other terms of this Agreement, the Grantee may withhold any payment (whether a progress payment or final payment) to the Consultants if any one or more of the following conditions exists: Page 4 of 15 A. The Consultants are in default of any of their obligations under this Agreement. B. Any part of such payment is attributable to services which are not performed according to this Agreement. (The Grantee will pay for any part thereof attributable to services performed according to this Agreement). C. The Consultants have failed to make payments promptly to any third parties used in the services for which the Grantee has made payment to the Consultants. D. The Grantee, in its good faith judgment, determines that the portion of the compensation then remaining unpaid will not be sufficient to complete the Project or any task according to this Agreement. In such case, no additional payments will be due to the Consultants until the Consultants, at their sole cost, perform a sufficient portion of the Project or task so that the Grantee determines that the compensation then remaining unpaid is sufficient to complete the Project or task. E. No partial payment shall be final acceptance or approval of that part of the Project or task paid for, or shall relieve the Consultants of any of their obligations under this Agreement. VIII.CONSULTANTS’ DUTIES A. Abilities, Qualifications, Experience, and Best Efforts. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, the Grantee and the Consultants agree and acknowledge that the Grantee enters into this Agreement relying on the special and unique abilities of the Consultants to accomplish the Project. The Consultants accept the relationship of trust and confidence established between them and the Grantee by this Agreement. The Consultants covenant with the Grantee to use their best efforts. The Consultants shall further the interests of the Grantee according to the Grantee’s requirements and procedures, according to the highest professional standards and in compliance with all applicable national, federal, state, municipal laws, regulations, codes, ordinances, orders and with those of any other body having jurisdiction. B. No Conflicts. The Consultants represent, covenant, and agree that they have and will undertake no obligations, commitments, or impediments of any kind that will limit or prevent them from the timely completion of the Project, loyally and strictly according to the best interests of the Grantee. In case of any conflict between interests of the Grantee and any other entity, the Consultants shall fully and immediately disclose the issue to the Grantee and shall take no action contrary to the Grantee’s interests. C. Limitation on Public Statements and Lobbying Activity. Consultants are retained to provide information and advice to the Grantee that includes confidential data, work product, and other privileged or confidential information that is protected under pertinent laws and Grantee policies. In order to maintain the fact and appearance of absolute objectivity, loyalty, and professionalism, Consultants shall not, without the prior written consent of the Grantee, do any of the following: 1.Disclose at any time information obtained as a result of this contractual relationship to any third party; 2.Lobby any Grantee agency on any pending matter while they are under contract to the Grantee; Page 5 of 15 3.Make any public statements or appear at any time to give testimony at any public meeting on the subject matters with regard to which Consultant is or was retained by the Grantee. To the extent that the Grantee provides written consent for the disclosure of information or authorizes the making of public statements, the Grantee may impose such conditions upon such disclosure or communications as it thinks appropriate, and Consultants agree to comply with those conditions. This provision shall not preclude Consultants from providing information to law enforcement officials in connection with any criminal justice investigation. D. Quality of Services. The Consultants represent, covenant, and agree that all of the services that they will furnish under this Agreement shall be of at least the standard and quality prevailing among highly competent professionals who perform work of a similar nature to the work described in this Agreement. E. Accuracy of Work. The Consultants represent, covenant, and agree that its work will be accurate and free from any material errors. The Consultants additionally represent, covenant, and agree that the planning for the Project will conform to all foreseeable uses thereof. Grantee approval shall not diminish or release the Consultants’ duties, since the Grantee is ultimately relying upon the Consultants’ skill and knowledge. F. Duty to Warn. The Consultants agree to call to the Grantee’s attention errors in any drawings, plans, sketches, instructions, information, requirements, procedures, and other data supplied to the Consultants (by the Grantee or any other party) that it becomes aware of and believes may be unsuitable, improper, or inaccurate in a material way. However, Consultants shall not independently verify the validity, completeness, or accuracy of such information unless otherwise expressly engaged to do so by the Grantee. Nothing shall detract from this obligation unless the Consultants advise the Grantee in writing that such data may be unsuitable, improper, or inaccurate and the Grantee nevertheless confirms in writing that it wishes the Consultants to proceed according to the data as originally given. G. Attendance at Meetings. The Consultants shall attend such meetings on the work required by this Agreement as the Grantee requires. The Grantee will give reasonable notice of any such requirement so that the Consultants may schedule and attend. H. Efficiency. The Consultants represent, covenant, and agree to furnish efficient business administration and superintendence and perform the services required by this Agreement in the best, most expeditious and most economical manner consistent with the interests of the Grantee. I. Books and Records. The Consultants shall keep their books and records for the Project and reimbursable expenses according to recognized accounting principles and practices, consistently applied. The Consultants shall make them available for the Grantee’s inspection at all reasonable times. The Consultants shall retain such books and records for at least three years after completion of the Project. J. Payment of Bills. The Consultants shall promptly pay all bills for labor and material performed and furnished by others in performance of the Project. Page 6 of 15 IX.SUSPENSION If the Consultants fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this contract, or whenever the Consultants are unable to substantiate full compliance with provisions of this contract, the Grantee may suspend the contract pending corrective actions or investigation, effective not less than seven (7) days following written notification to the Consultants or its authorized representative. The suspension will remain in full force and effect until the Consultants have taken corrective action to the satisfaction of the Grantee and are able to substantiate their full compliance with the terms and conditions of this contract. No obligations incurred by the Consultants or its authorized representative during the period of suspension will be allowable under the contract except: A. Reasonable, proper and otherwise allowable costs which the Consultants could not avoid during the period of suspension; B. If upon investigation, the Consultants are able to substantiate complete compliance with the terms and conditions of this contract, otherwise allowable costs incurred during the period of suspension will be allowed; and C. In the event all or any portion of the work prepared or partially prepared by the Consultant is suspended, abandoned or otherwise terminated, the Grantee shall pay the Consultants for work performed to the satisfaction of the Grantee, in accordance with the percentage of the work completed. X. TERMINATION A. Termination for Breach. This Agreement may be terminated by either party for a material breach of this Agreement by the other party not caused by any action or omission of the terminating party by giving the other party written notice at least three days in advance of the termination date. The termination notice shall specify in reasonable detail each such material breach. In the event of such termination by either party, the Consultants shall promptly deliver to the Grantee all drawings, computer programs, computer input and output, analysis, plans, photographic images, tests, maps, surveys, and written materials of any kind generated in the performance of services under this Agreement up to and including the date of termination. If this Agreement is so terminated by the Consultants, they will be paid for all services rendered up to the date of termination, except as set forth in Section VI above. If this Agreement is so terminated by the Grantee, the Consultants will be paid for all services rendered to the date of termination, except those services which, in the Grantee’s judgment, constituted the grounds, in whole or in part, of the notice of termination, and except as set forth in Section VI, above. Upon such payment, all obligations of the Grantee to the Consultants under this Agreement shall cease. B. Termination for Convenience. In addition to the foregoing, this Agreement may be terminated by the Grantee for its convenience and without cause of any nature by giving the Consultants written notice at least seven days in advance of the termination date. In the event of such termination, the Consultants will be paid for all services rendered to the date of termination, except as set forth in Section VI, above, and upon such payment, all obligations of the Grantee to the Consultants under this Agreement shall cease. Furthermore, in the event of such termination, the Consultants shall promptly deliver to the Grantee all drawings, computer programs, computer input and output, plans, photographic images, analyses, test, maps, surveys, and written materials of any kind generated in the performance of their services under this Agreement up to and including the date of termination. Page 7 of 15 XI.LAWS TO BE OBSERVED A. Compliance with Laws: This contract is funded in whole or in part with CDBG-DR funds through the Grantee’s Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery contract [CDBG-DR P15-XXX] as administered by the Division of Local Government, Department of Local Affairs. Contractors are responsible for complying with those regulations and restrictions normally associated with federally- funded programs and any other requirements that the state may prescribe. The Consultants shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances and codes of the state and local government and the Consultants shall save the Grantee harmless with respect to any damages arising from any tort done in performing any of the work embraced by this contract. B. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, sex 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. C. Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974: No person in the United States shall on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, sex or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this title. D. Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as Amended: No person shall be excluded from participation, denied program benefits, or subjected to discrimination on the basis of age under any program or activity receiving federal funding assistance. (42 U.S.C. 610 et. seq.) E. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as Amended: No otherwise qualified individual shall, solely by reason or his or her disability, be excluded from participation (including employment), denied program benefits, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal funds. (29 U.S.C. 794) F. Public Law 101-336, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Subject to the provisions of this title, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. G. Section 3 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1968 Compliance in the Provision of Training, Employment, and Business Opportunities: 1.The work to be performed under this contract is on a project assisted under a program providing direct federal financial assistance from HUD and is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701u. Section 3 requires that to the greatest extent feasible opportunities for training and employment be given lower-income residents of the project area; and contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part, by persons residing in the area of the project. 2.The parties to this contract will comply with the provisions of said Section 3 and the regulations issued pursuant thereto by the Secretary of HUD set forth in 24 CFR 135, and all applicable rules and orders of HUD and CTED issued thereunder prior to the execution of this contract. The parties to this Page 8 of 15 contract certify and agree that they are under no contractual or other disability that would prevent them from complying with these provisions. 3.The Consultants will send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which they have a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, if any, a notice advising the said labor organization or workers’ representative of their commitments under this Section 3 clause and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment or training. 4.The Consultant will include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract for work in connection with the project and will, at the direction of the applicant, or recipient of federal financial assistance, take appropriate action pursuant to the subcontract upon a finding that the subcontractor is in violation of regulations issued by the Secretary of HUD, 24 CFR Part 135. The Consultant will not subcontract with any subcontractor where it has notice or knowledge that the latter has been found in violation of regulations under 24 CFR Part 135 and will not let any subcontract, unless the subcontractor has first provided it with a preliminary statement of ability to comply with the requirements of these regulations. 5.Compliance with the provisions of Section 3, the regulations set forth in 24 CFR Part 135, and all applicable rules and orders of HUD and CTED issued hereunder prior to the execution of the contract, shall be a condition of the federal financial assistance provided to the project, binding upon the applicant or recipient for such assistance, its successors, and assigns. Failure to fulfill these requirements shall subject the applicant, or recipient, its consultants and subcontractors, its successors and assigned to those sanctions specified by the grant or loan agreement or contract through which federal assistance is provided, and to such sanctions as are specified by 24 CFR Part 135. XII.PERMITS AND LICENSES The Consultants shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges, fees, and taxes and give all notices necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of their services under this Agreement. XIII.PATENTED DEVICES, MATERIALS AND PROCESSES The Consultants shall hold and save harmless the Grantee from any and all claims for infringement, by reason of the use of any patented design, device, material, process, or trademark or copyright and shall indemnify the Grantee for any costs, expenses, and damages, including court costs and attorney fees, which it might be obligated to pay by reason of infringement at any time during the prosecution or after completion of their services under this Agreement. XIV.NO MULTIPLE FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATION Nothing herein shall constitute a multiple fiscal year obligation pursuant to Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 20. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Grantee’s obligations under this Agreement are subject to annual appropriation by the Board of Directors of the Grantee. Any failure of the Grantee Board of Directors annually to appropriate adequate monies to finance the Grantee’s obligations under this Agreement shall terminate this Agreement at such time as such then- existing appropriations are to be depleted. Notice shall be given promptly to the Consultants of any failure to appropriate such adequate monies. XV.INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The relationship between the Consultants and the Grantee is that of an independent contractor. The Consultants shall supply all personnel, equipment, materials and supplies at their own expense, except as specifically set forth herein. The Consultants shall not be deemed to be, nor shall they represent themselves as, employees, partners, or joint venturers of the Grantee. No employee or officer of the Page 9 of 15 Grantee shall supervise the Consultants. The Consultants are not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits and are obligated to directly pay federal and state income tax on money earned under this Agreement. XVI.PERSONNEL The Consultants represent that they have, or will secure at their own expense, all personnel required in order to perform under this contract. Such personnel shall not be employees of, or have any contractual relationship to, the Grantee. All services required hereunder will be performed by the Consultants or under their supervision and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized or permitted under federal, state and local law to perform such services. None of the work or services covered by this contract shall be subcontracted without prior written approval of the Grantee. Any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be specified in written contract or agreement and shall be subject to each provision of this contract. XVII.INTEREST of Consultant and Employees The Consultants covenant that they presently have no interest and shall not acquire interest, direct or indirect, in the study area or any parcels therein or any other interest which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of their services hereunder. The Consultants further covenant that in the performance of this contract, no person having such interest shall be employed. XVIII.AUDITS and inspections The Grantee, the State Auditor, and HUD or their delegates shall have the right to review and monitor the financial and other components of the work and services provided and undertaken as part of the CDBG-DR project and this contract, by whatever legal and reasonable means are deemed expedient by the Grantee, the State Auditor and HUD. XIX.INDEMNIFICATION The Consultant shall comply with the requirements of all applicable laws, rules, and regulations in connection with the services of Consultant, and shall exonerate, indemnify, and hold harmless the Grantee, its officers, agents, and all employees from and against them, and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under the Social Security, Workers' Compensation, and Income Tax Laws. Further, Consultant shall exonerate, indemnify, and hold harmless the Grantee with respect to any damages, expenses, or claims arising from or in connection with any of the work performed or to be performed under this Contract by Consultant. This shall not be construed as a limitation of the Consultant’s liability under this agreement or as otherwise provided by law. XX.INSURANCE A. The Consultants agree to procure and maintain in force during the terms of this Agreement, at its own cost, the following minimum coverages: 1.Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability State of Colorado: Statutory Applicable Federal: Statutory Employer’s Liability: $100,000 Each Accident $500,000 Disease-Policy Limit $100,000 Disease-Each Employee Page 10 of 15 Waiver of Subrogation 2.Commercial General Liability Bodily Injury & Property Damage General Aggregate Limit $1,000,000 Personal & Advertising Injury Limit $1,000,000 Each Occurrence Limit $1,000,000 The policy shall be on an Occurrence Form and include the following coverages: Premises Operations; Personal and Advertising Injury; Medical Payments; Liability assumed under an Insured Contract; Independent Contractors; and Broad Form Property Damage. Coverage provided should be at least as broad as found in Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CG0001. 3.Professional Liability (errors and omissions) Each Claim/Loss: $1,000,000 Aggregate: $1,000,000 Grantee may require that this coverage remain in place for one year after the project is complete. 4.Commercial Automobile Liability Limits Bodily Injury & Property Damage Combined Single Limit $1,000,000 Medical Payments per person $ 5,000 Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist $ 100,000 Coverage is to be provided on Business Auto, Garage, or Truckers form. Coverage provided should be at least as broad as found in ISO form CA0001 (BAP), CA0005 (Garage) or CA0012 (Trucker) including coverage for owned, non-owned, & hired autos. B. Coverage. Insurance required by this Agreement shall be primary coverage, unless otherwise specified, and shall specify that in the event of payment for any loss under the coverage provided, the insurance company shall have no right of recovery against the Grantee or its insurers. All policies of insurance under this Agreement shall be provided by a reputable insurance company or companies qualified to conduct business in Colorado. The Grantee reserves the right, but shall not have the duty, to reject any insurer which it finds to be unsatisfactory and insist that the Consultants substitute another insurer that is reasonably satisfactory to the Grantee. Property and Liability Insurance Companies shall be licensed to do business in Colorado and shall have an AM Best rating of not less than A- VI. This insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement and for the additional periods set forth herein and shall protect the Consultants, its agents, employees and representatives, from claims for damages for personal injury and wrongful death and for damages to property arising in any manner from negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of the Consultants, their agents, employees, and representatives in the performance of the services covered herein. C. Additional Insureds. All Insurance policies (except Workers Compensation and Professional Liability) shall include Grantee and its elected officials and employees as additional insureds as their interests may appear. The additional insured endorsement should be at least as broad as ISO form CG2010 for General Liability coverage and similar forms for Commercial Auto and Umbrella Liability. Page 11 of 15 D. Automobile Coverage. Automobile insurance shall, without limitation, cover all automobiles used in performing any services under this Agreement. E. Claims-Made Policies. If coverage is to be provided on Claims Made forms, Consultants must refer policy to the Grantee Attorney’s Office for approval and additional requirements. In the case of any claims-made insurance policies, the Consultants shall procure necessary retroactive dates, coverage and extended reporting periods to cover a period at least two years beyond the expiration date of this Agreement. This obligation shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. F. The Consultants shall not cancel, materially change, or fail to renew required insurance coverages. The Consultants shall notify the Project Manager of any material reduction or exhaustion of aggregate limits. Should the Consultants fail to immediately procure other insurance, as specified, to substitute for any policy canceled before final payment to the Consultants, the Grantee may procure such insurance and deduct its cost from any sum due to the Consultants under this Agreement. G. Certificates. Certificates showing that the Consultants are carrying the above-described insurance, and the status of the additional insureds, shall be furnished to the Grantee prior to the execution of this Agreement by the Grantee. Certificates of insurance on all policies shall give the Grantee written notice of not less than fifteen (15) days prior to cancellation or change in coverage. The Consultants shall forthwith obtain and submit proof of substitute insurance in the event of expiration or cancellation of coverage. H. Non-Waiver. The parties understand and agree that the parties are relying on, and do not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Agreement, the monetary limitations (now $150,000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, §24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to the parties, their officers, or their employees. XXI.PROHIBITIONS ON PUBLIC CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES The Consultants certify that it shall comply with the provisions of section 8-17.5-101 et seq., C.R.S. The Consultants shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this contract or enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to the Consultants that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this contract. The Consultants represent, warrant, and agree (i) 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 or the Department Program; (ii) that the Consultants are prohibited from using either the E-Verify Program or the Department Program procedures to undertake pre- employment screening of job applicants while the public contract for services is being performed; and (iii) if the Consultants obtain actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the public contract for services knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, the Consultants shall be required to: Page 12 of 15 1.Notify the subcontractor and the contracting state agency or political subdivision within three days that the Consultants has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and 2.Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to 8-17.5-102(2)(b)(III)(A) the subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that the Consultants shall not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. The Consultants further agree that it shall comply with all reasonable requests made in the course of an investigation under section 8-17.5-102(5), C.R.S. by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If the Consultants fail to comply with any requirement of this provision or section 8-17.5-101 et seq., C.R.S. the Grantee may terminate this contract for breach and the Consultants shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the Grantee. XXII.INTEGRATION This document constitutes the entire agreement between the Grantee and the Consultants and incorporates all prior verbal and written communications between the parties concerning the subject matter included herein. XXIII.CAPTIONS Each paragraph of this Contract has been supplied with a caption to serve only as a guide to the contents. The caption does not control the meaning of any paragraph or in any way determine its interpretation or application. XXIV.NO ASSIGNMENT Neither party shall assign, sublet, or transfer any interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. XXV.AMENDMENT IN WRITING No amendment or modification shall be made to this Agreement unless it is in writing and signed by both parties. XXVI.GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. Any suit between the parties arising under this Agreement shall be brought only in a court of competent jurisdiction for the Twentieth Judicial Grantee of the State of Colorado. XXVII.NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES The parties intend no third party beneficiaries under this Agreement. Any person other than the Grantee or the Consultants receiving services or benefits under this Agreement is an incidental beneficiary only. XXVIII.FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE Grantee All financial obligations of the Grantee under this Agreement are contingent upon appropriation, budgeting, and availability of specific funds to discharge such obligations. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed a pledge of the Grantee’s credit, or a payment guarantee by the Grantee to the Consultants. Page 13 of 15 XXIX.NO WAIVER No waiver of any breach or default under this Agreement shall be a waiver of any other or later breach of default. XXX.ADDRESSES FOR NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS For the Grantee: Tina Kurtz, Environmental Planner Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: (970) 577-3732 E-mail: tkurtz@estes.org For Consultants: Andrew Earles Wright Water Engineers, Inc. 2490 West 26th Ave., Suite 100A Denver, CO 80211 Phone: (303) 480-1700 E-mail: aearles@wrightwater.com XXXI.AUTHORITY Consultants warrant that the individual executing this Agreement is properly authorized to bind the Consultants to this Agreement. XXXII.INTEREST OF MEMBERS OF THE GRANTEE No member of the governing body of the Grantee and no other officer, employee, or agent of the Grantee who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and carrying out of the project, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Contract; and the Consultants shall take appropriate steps to assure compliance. XXXIII.INTEREST OF OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS No member of the governing body of the locality and no other public official of such locality, who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and carrying out of the project, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect in this Contract; and the Consultants shall take appropriate steps to assure compliance. XXXIV.AUTHORIZATION This Agreement is authorized by Grantee Resolution , adopted , copies of which are attached hereto as Attachment C and made a part hereof. Page 14 of 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this Agreement effective as of the day and year first above written. CONSULTANTS By: Title: STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF [INSERT COUNTY] ) Acknowledged before me, a notary public, this ______ day of ______________ 2015, by __________________________________, as _________________________________. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public (SEAL) Grantee Grantee Chair ATTEST: __________________________________ Grantee Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ Grantee Attorney’s Office Page 15 of 15 Attachment A: Request for Proposal for a Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study Attachment B: Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Hydrology Study Proposal Attachment C: Grantee Authorizing Resolution To be completed by Grantee – formal authorization to enter into contracts (e.g., approved motion). Request for Proposals (RFP) Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study Date: December 8, 2015 Prepared by: Town of Estes Park, Community Development Department Proposals must be received and stamped on or before the below due date and time at this location: January 7, 2016 at 3:00 pm, MST Tina Kurtz Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 577-3732 tkurtz@estes.org Page 1.Solicitation Overview 3 2.Purpose and Background 3 3.Scope of Work 5 4.Preparation of Proposals 8 5.Proposal Evaluation Criteria 13 6.Contract, Terms and Conditions 14 List of Exhibits Exhibit A – Hydrologic Evaluation of the Big Thompson Watershed Post September 2013 Flood Event” (CDOT 2014 Hydrologic Study) Exhibit B – December 2013, Natural Resources Conservation Service report titled, “Colorado Front Range Flood of 2013: Peak Flow Estimates at Selected Mountain Stream Locations” (NRCS 2013 Study) Exhibit C – May 2015, Farnsworth Group report titled, “Final Drainage Report Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation” (Farnsworth Study) Exhibit D – Project Area Maps 1-4 Exhibit E – August 2014, Matrix Design Group report titled, “Fish Creek Watershed Hydrology Evaluation Public Infrastructure Project” Exhibit F – Effective hydraulic analyses were revised in April 1985 for FEMA by Simons, Li & Associates under Contract No. EMW-83-C-1l67 (Estes Park portions of Larimer County Flood Insurance Study) Exhibit G – Draft standard form contract Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 Table of Contents Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 3 1.0 SOLICITATION OVERVIEW The Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the “Town”) is soliciting Proposals for Consulting Services for a Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study (the “Hydrology Study” or “Project”). This Project will be financed with $105,800 grant awarded to the Town through the Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR), Resilience Planning Grant Program funds managed through the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). This Project will need to be coordinated with DOLA to ensure compliance with the grant terms. The Town of Estes Park is an Equal Opportunity Employer and no otherwise qualified individual shall be subject to discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, sexual orientation (incl. transgender status), physical or mental disability, marriage to a co-worker and retaliation for engaging in protected activity (opposing a discriminatory practice or participating in an employment discrimination proceeding) in any phase of employment for this position. The work to be performed under any Contract issued as a result of this solicitation is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 70u (Section 3) which states that: 1) Employment, training, contracting and other economic opportunities generated by HUD assistance shall, to the greatest extent feasible, be directed to low and very low-income persons residing within the project area; and 2), Contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to businesses which are located in, or owned substantially by persons residing in the project area. All CDBG-DR funded projects must, to the greatest extent feasible, comply with Section 3 when contracting for professional services. Consultant selection will be made on the basis of a balance of adherence to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 70u (Section 3), qualifications and the cost of proposed services that provide best value to the project. Partners for the project include: the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), US Forest Service (USFS), Estes Valley Watershed Coalition, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Please note the immediate commencement of work following the Notice to Proceed and the Project completion date of May 31, 2016. 2.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND 2.1 Purpose Three major drainage ways entering the Town – Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, and Black Canyon Creek – experienced significant flooding in September 2013. A fourth drainage way, Dry Gulch, enters the Big Thompson River immediately downstream of Olympus Dam. The Town needs to plan for a higher standard of flood resilience since the effective floodplain hydrology and flood delineation mapping is approximately 30 years old and did not match the 2013 flood realities. The purpose of this Project is to provide information based on sound science for current and future planning efforts, land-use and zoning codes, flood mitigation, resilient project design and Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 4 implementation, and reducing hydrologic uncertainty in these streams. The Project outcome will identify factors and conditions having a direct impact on the complex drainages in Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch including safety, downtown redevelopment, floodplain management, bridge and culvert sizing and resizing, channel stabilization, roadway protection, water quality to protect aquatic and wildlife habitat, and stormwater management. This information will be used in current and future flood mitigation efforts by ensuring proper design, construction and zoning of structures within the river corridors for long-term resiliency and sustainability. This Project will consider current hydrology data for the four watersheds within the Project Area, including, but not limited to, the effective hydrology, the August 2014 study conducted by Jacobs for the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) following the September 2013 flood “Hydrologic Evaluation of the Big Thompson Watershed Post September 2013 Flood Event” (CDOT 2014 Hydrologic Study) [Exhibit A]; the December 2013, Natural Resources Conservation Service report titled, “Colorado Front Range Flood of 2013: Peak Flow Estimates at Selected Mountain Stream Locations” (NRCS 2013 Study) [Exhibit B]; and the May 2015, Farnsworth Group report titled, “Final Drainage Report Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation” (Farnsworth Study) [Exhibit C]. This Project will then refine current hydrology data for the four drainages in the Project Area allowing the Town to make informed decisions to protect the community, infrastructure and environment. The Project results will conform to FEMA, CWCB, and NFIP modeling and mapping standards and be provided to state and federal partnering agencies. Results will also be used by the Town for planning and project implementation purposes. 2.2 Project Location and Description The Project Area consists of the watersheds for the three major drainage ways entering the Town, specifically Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, and Black Canyon Creek; as well as the Dry Gulch watershed [Exhibit D]. Fall River Fall River, with an approximately 40 square mile watershed, has a USGS gauge with 26 years of record from 1945 to 1994. The effective Flood Insurance Study defined the 100-year discharge near the confluence with the Big Thompson River as 680 cfs, whereas the CDOT 2014 Hydrologic Study estimated 100-year discharge as 1,669 cfs. Upper Big Thompson River The Upper Big Thompson River, terminating at the upstream end of Lake Estes, has an approximately 140 square mile watershed. The effective Flood Insurance Study defined the 100-year discharge at the confluence with Black Canyon Creek as 2,180 cfs, whereas the CDOT 2014 Hydrologic Study estimated 100-year discharge as 5,074 cfs. Black Canyon Creek Black Canyon Creek has a watershed of approximately 10 square miles. The effective Flood Insurance Study defined the 100-year discharge near the confluence with the Big Thompson River as 230 cfs, whereas the CDOT 2014 Hydrologic Study estimated 100-year discharge as 232 cfs. Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 5 Dry Gulch Dry Gulch has a watershed of approximately 6.5 square miles. The effective Flood Insurance Study defined the 100-year discharge near the confluence with the Big Thompson River as 2,600 cfs, whereas the CDOT 2014 Hydrologic Study estimated the 100-year discharge as 598 cfs. 2.3 Background The September 2013 flood was of sufficient scale to affect statistical analysis, such that recent hydrologic analyses on many streams in the flooded area have shown the need for substantial changes to current frequency-discharge values. For example, on Fish Creek a recently completed hydrologic study [Exhibit E] recommends an increase to the 100-year discharge that is more than double the current regulatory values in the Flood Insurance Study, from 400 cfs to 990 cfs, for the 15.9 square mile watershed. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the FEMA regulatory floodplain were initially completed in July 1977 for the Town under Contract No. 8-4017 by Gingery Associates. Effective hydraulic analyses were revised in April 1985 for FEMA by Simons, Li & Associates under Contract No. EMW-83-C-1l67 [Exhibit F]. These studies were completed using HEC-2 models which were a predecessor to the current more detailed and robust HEC-RAS models. As described above, in August 2014, Jacobs conducted a hydrologic study of the Big Thompson Watershed for CDOT. The study used HEC-HMS as initial coarse modeling to evaluate the Big Thompson watershed and was calibrated with gauge data for the 2013 event. The study included locations on Fall River, the Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch providing estimates of 100-year discharge and peak discharge for the 2013 event. While this study produced results that are more current than in past studies, they were not done to the level of detail needed for watersheds of the size studied here. A Best Available Data memorandum for the reaches downstream of Lake Estes was distributed by FEMA on November 6, 2014, endorsing the use of this data (i.e., the CDOT 2014 Hydrologic Study) for infrastructure recovery and floodplain management. This data will be the basis for new floodplain mapping downstream of Lake Estes. In December 2013, the NRCS 2013 Study developed peak flow estimates in 15 Front Range mountain streams, including Fall River, for the September 2013 flood event using the critical depth method. This method estimates peak flow using a single cross section, implementing high water marks at each location. The report concludes that the accuracy of the peak flow predictions is considered to be fair in quality. It also states that the measurements are provided as a service to “aid in the development of revised flow-frequency relationships.” Post-2013 flood studies and additional stream gauge records since the effective hydrology was established indicate a high likelihood that current hydrologic data require updates. 3.0 SCOPE OF WORK This Scope of Work is intended to be a general outline of the Project work and not an all-inclusive description of the professional and technical services that may be required to undertake and complete the Project. 3.1 Tasks Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 6 Task 1. Project Coordination* 1.Regular meetings with Town representatives and other interested parties to convey scope, obtain information and solicit needs. 2.Coordination with various federal, state and other agencies/groups with pertinent knowledge and interest in the Project Area. The selected Consultant will meet regularly, but not less than twice a month, with Town representatives during the Project to review the Project scope and progress, ensure compliance with Contract requirements, and any other pertinent items related to the Project. *All Project coordination tasks, including communications with other parties, agencies, and Town representatives, will be coordinated through the Town’s point of contact (POC), as identified in this RFP. Task 2. Data Gathering and Additional Data Processing 1.Conduct field surveys of the watershed within the Project Area, as necessary. 2.Gather and evaluate previous studies and available hydrologic models to use as a basis for new analyses. Perform additional data processing, as necessary. The selected Consultant will evaluate previous hydrologic data, models, and reports available for the Project Area. Additional gauge records are available on Big Thompson and Fall River since the effective hydrology was established, which was based on gauge data analysis. Rainfall-runoff models will be used to support updated hydrology. The Consultant will determine appropriate data to include and new data to add to best and most defensibly refine current data, including effective hydrologic data and/or the coarse modeling produced by the CDOT 2014 Hydrologic Study. Deliverables include a brief report on data, models, and reports reviewed and determination of applicability, as well as any relevant assumptions or limitations associated with recommended use; and submittal to the Town of collected data and additional data processed in electronic format. Task 3. Update Hydrology 1.Define watershed and sub-watershed boundaries and perform hydrologic studies, including calculation of peak flood discharges at appropriate locations along each study reach, to establish hydrographs for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100- and 500-year events. 2.Produce reports recommending updated design hydrology for the four watersheds within the Project Area. The watershed and sub-watershed boundaries will be defined and hydrologic studies performed to determine runoff hydrographs for each individual sub-watershed using the latest version of HEC-HMS software and runoff hydrographs at each hydrologic point by routing and combining individual hydrographs. The hydrologic information shall be compiled for 2-, 5- 10-, 25-, 50, 100 and 500-year events, using existing drainage infrastructure and existing land-use conditions as defined by planning and zoning maps and any other pertinent information. Design storms of various durations (i.e. 1-hour, 3-hour, 6-hour, etc.) shall be examined to determine the critical duration for each watershed. Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 7 For the sake of watershed consistency, developed models should mirror the process used in the Jacobs study for the reaches downstream of Town. However, the reaches modeled in this study must use additional detail appropriate to the sizes of the watersheds. Hydrologic calculations for land-use watershed conditions shall be compiled and organized. A summary of minor and major storm event discharges, along with low flows and average high flows, shall be presented at key locations within each of the four watercourses, as well as at key crossings. This information shall be incorporated into the Hydrology Report. The selected Consultant shall prepare a Hydrology Report documenting the hydrologic assessment and results of all methods utilized. The report will include complete documentation of the study process and include both paper and electronic files of hydrologic modeling, work maps, meeting minutes, critical correspondence, and any other information discovered, calculated or generated throughout the hydrologic assessment process. Alternative software may be suggested in responding proposals and will be considered if clear rationale for the deviation is provided. Regardless, the selected Consultant must provide input and output files in a manner compatible with HEC-HMS to the Town. Deliverables include Hydrology Report with supporting appendices, including maps, calculations, and modeling data; and electronic copies of maps, calculations, and HEC-HMS (or approved alternate) models. Report copies will include: one printed and bound copy, utilizing 11”x17” paper where appropriate, one electronic copy in Adobe Portable Document (PDF) format, and one electronic copy in Microsoft Word version 2013. Electronic files shall be submitted on electronic media of appropriate capacity. Flash drives and external hard disk drives shall be compatible with the USB 3.0 standard, backward-compatible to the USB 2.0 standard. All data inputs to the mapping protocols must be delivered in digital format. The format requirements are as follows: 1.All vector data must be delivered in an Esri File Geodatabase format. 2.The coordinate system for all data will be Colorado State Plane North, NAD 1983 HARN, US Feet, WKID 2876 3.Each data layer must have Description information recorded within the Geodatabase in the Description tab. At minimum each layer must: a.Provide a simple summary of data in each layer b.Describe the data, how it was created, and/or the source of each data layer c.Provide dates of when/how/where the data was created or retrieved from d.Provide a level of accuracy of use for each data layer e.Explain all acronyms. Each layer should be thought of as stand-alone and provide a description of acronyms for each layer. 4.All raster data must adhere to requirements 2 & 3 above. It may be delivered in other formats other than file geodatabases. Data outputs will be delivered in hard-copy format in the form of maps and tables. All data on hard copy formats must also be delivered in digital format adhering to the requirements above for data inputs. Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 8 Task 4. Public Outreach 1.Present the Project scope, process, and results to the Town Board of Trustees and the general public. 2.Develop information and provide updates for the Project webpage on the Town’s website including Project and Consultant information; Project progress and schedule; and other information as requested by the Town. The selected Consultant, in collaboration with the Town, will hold 2 public meetings and conduct 2-3 presentations for the Town Board of Trustees on the Project scope, process and results. The Consultant, in collaboration with the Town, will develop and regularly update a Project webpage on the Town’s website through completion of the Project. The webpage will include, but not be limited to, the following information: brief description of the Project; public meeting schedules, notices; and a Project progress schedule. Deliverables include attendance at public meetings and Town Board meetings, including summary of notes when requested, and webpage updates. 3.2 Schedule and Execution The Consultant must be prepared to start work immediately following the Project Contract execution. A timely start to the Project is essential. The Consultant must hold a Kick-off Meeting within two weeks of the Contract execution. The estimated Project Schedule is listed in Section 4.2. 4.0 PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS – INSTRUCTIONS TO CONSULTANTS 4.1 Communication While Preparing Proposals To facilitate questions that may arise in preparing the Proposals, the Town will be responding to questions in addendum format. All communication regarding this RFP required for RFP clarifications, including technical questions shall be submitted in writing to the Point of Contact (POC) person for this Project: Tina Kurtz, Environmental Planner Community Development Department PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517-1200 tkurtz@estes.org The Town has no obligation to accept further inquiries regarding the RFP after the deadline listed in Section 4.2. The Town will be bound only to the Town’s written answers to questions, as issued through the addendum process. Following the deadline for submittal of the questions, an addendum containing the questions and answers will be posted as a downloadable document on the Town’s website by the deadline listed in Section 4.2. To be considered, all applicants will be required to acknowledge receipt and concurrence of all RFP addenda in their Proposal letter of transmittal. All addenda will become part of the RFP and of any Contract awarded. The Town will not be responsible for the accuracy of any other oral explanations, interpretations and/or representations. Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 9 Access to addenda will be provided at the Town’s website at http://www.estes.org/RFP 4.2 Proposed Procurement Schedule The dates listed below represent the estimated Project Schedule. The Town reserves the right to change the Project Schedule. Action Date RFP Release Date December 8, 2015 RFP Questions Closed December 15, 2015 RFP Addenda Released December 18, 2015 Proposal Due January 7, 2016 Consultant Selection January 14, 2016 Town Board Contract Approval January 26, 2016 Consultant Contract Awarded January 27, 2016 Project Completion May 31, 2016 Final Presentation to Board June 14, 2016 4.3 Proposals 4.3.1 Submittal of Proposals 1.Proposals must be received prior to 3:00 p.m., MST, January 7, 2016, and may not be modified or withdrawn after this deadline. 2. It is the Consultant’s responsibility to deliver the Proposal to the proper address by the due date. Late Proposals will not be accepted and any Proposal so received shall be returned to the Consultant unopened. 3.Proposals shall be addressed to: USPS Mail Delivery Tina Kurtz, Environmental Planner Community Development Department PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517-1200 Hand or Shipping Delivery Tina Kurtz, Environmental Planner Community Development Department 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 4.Each Proposal package shall include an original and five (5) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy in Adobe pdf format on a computer readable disk. Five (5) hard copies of the Fee Schedule shall be in separate sealed envelopes (and not included in the electronic copy) with the Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 10 Consultant Name and Project Identification labeled. Proposal packages shall be submitted in a sealed package marked on the outside: a.Name of Consultant b.Subject: Proposal for Professional Services – Hydrology Study 5.Proposals shall not exceed 25 single-sided pages, including drawings and charts, with a font size no smaller than 11-point and margins no less than 0.75”. Tabs, front and back covers, and the cover letter are not counted toward the page limit. 11”x17” sheets count as one page. The Fee Schedule submitted in separate sealed envelopes does not count toward the page limit. Each response should be complete yet concise and contain only the elements as described in this RFP. 6.All prices quoted must be firm for a period of ninety (90) calendar days from the Proposal submittal date and until work is completed on the Project. 7.Proposals transmitted directly to the Town electronically or by fax will not be considered. The Town accepts no responsibility for lost or misdirected Proposals. 8.The Town reserves the right to request a client list from the Consultant, for the purpose of determining potential conflicts of interest or for obtaining references. Said list shall be considered proprietary. 9.To be considered, the Consultant must supply all of the information requested by the RFP. The Proposal must be signed by a duly authorized official of the Consultant who is authorized to commit the Consultant to a binding agreement. 10. Only one Proposal will be accepted from any person, firm or corporation. 11. Proprietary information in a Proposal must be clearly marked as such. The Town shall be held harmless from any claims arising from release of proprietary information not clearly designated as such by the Consultant. In general, it is not acceptable to the Town to mark information other than financial data proprietary without the written authorization of the Community Development Department Director. Failure to adhere to this restriction could result in rejection of the entire Proposal. 12.All materials submitted in response to this RFP become the property of the Town and will not be returned. 13. The Town will not reimburse Consultants for any costs incurred prior to or during the preparation of Proposals, including travel to and attendance at interviews, negotiation of agreements, or any other activities that a prospective Consultant may engage in. 14.No Proposal will be accepted from any person, firm or corporation that is in arrears for any obligation to the Town, or that otherwise may be deemed irresponsible or unresponsive by the Town Board of Trustees. Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 11 15.Consultants shall comply with all conditions, requirements, and specifications contained herein, with any departure constituting sufficient cause for rejection of the Proposal. 4.3.2 Proposal Contents Proposals shall include the following: 1.Letter of Transmittal 2. Project Team Qualifications 3.Understanding of RFP and Project Approach 4.Statement of Familiarity with Location 5. Proposed Project Schedule (if different from this RFP Proposed Schedule, provide brief explanation for adjustments) 6.Statement of Compliance with Terms and Conditions of this RFP and Signed Pre-Contract Documentation (see exhibits) 7.Consultant’s Fee Schedule (submitted in a separate sealed envelope) 4.3.2.1 Letter of Transmittal Provide a letter of transmittal that is limited to: 1.The name and signature of the individual who will serve as the Consultant’s representative, have contracting authority to bind the firm in a formal Contract with the Town, and authority to sign the Proposal. 2.The name of the individual who will serve as the Project’s primary contact person for the Consultant. 3.A description of the corporate ownership of the Consultant or the Prime Consultant in the case of a Project Team. 4.Acknowledgement of receipt and concurrence of all RFP addenda. 4.3.2.2 Project Team* Qualifications *The Project Team consists of all personnel, including any subconsultants, who will be working on the Project. 4.3.2.2.1 Required Expertise and Experience The Project Team must demonstrate expertise and experience in the field of hydrology and a solid understanding of watershed and river processes. Additionally, Project Team leaders must show successful examples of conveying technical, including controversial, information to community members in an easy to understand manner via a public process and online tools. 4.3.2.2.2 Demonstration of Project Team Qualifications Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 12 The Project Team’s qualifications are to be demonstrated by providing the following information: 1.An organizational chart identifying the Project Team’s key personnel and sub- consultants, including measures to assure the consistency and retention of Project Team key personnel. a.Statement of ability of Project Team’s capacity to perform the work within the proposed Project timeline. 2.A summary of the business operations and capabilities as they pertain to the Proposal for the Consultant and any sub-consultants. Inclusion of any other descriptions of the Consultant’s or sub-consultant’s overall business, or promotional material is not encouraged and will not receive review. 3.For the Project Team’s project manager, key team members, and key sub- consultant team members, include resume and the following information for each individual: a.Name and firm/company; b.Education and relevant professional registrations/certifications; c.Years of professional experience; and d.A list of at least three (3) relevant projects, including (1) a summary of the project, (2) the individual’s role, (3) project completion date, (4) project cost and (5) a reference that may be contacted (include reference name and contact information), with a statement from the reference explaining their experience with the Consultant. i.Only projects in which the individual’s company performed at least 50% of the work may be listed. 4.3.2.3 Understanding of RFP and Project Approach 1.A narrative summarizing the Consultant understanding of the requested services and proposed approach for successfully completing the Project, including the methods and means by which the Consultant will perform and complete the services outlined in the RFP. Clear rationale, with pros and cons, must be provided for any proposed deviations in methods and means from those stated in the RFP. 2.Statement regarding the Consultant’s demonstrated familiarity and understanding of the Project area and local/regional hydrologic system. 4.3.2.4 Project Schedule and Management Describe Consultant’s standards and procedures for the Project schedule, budget management, quality control and quality assurance, communications, and record keeping, with particular emphasis on local government administered, state grant funded projects, including: 1.A Project schedule outlining the dates and specific tasks necessary to complete the Project; including the specific Project Team members and staff (if applicable) involved. Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 13 Include an hour estimate, summarizing the approximate number of hours for each task and each individual assigned to the Project, including any sub-consultant personnel. To be considered eligible for this Project, the Consultant must perform at least 70% of the Project work themselves. 2.Consultant shall develop a record management system, maintain documents, and be able to provide records and access to the Town for public disclosure or Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or litigation. 5.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA The Town intends to select a Consultant who is fully qualified and has assembled a Project Team that can provide satisfactory service. The Town will be the sole judge of whether or not a Consultant is considered to be fully qualified for the purpose of this RFP, and will determine if the proposals are complete and meet the requirements as described in this RFP. The Consultant selected for the Project will be chosen on the basis of the greatest apparent benefit to the Town and the qualifications of the Project Team. In addition, the Town will comply with Colorado Revised Statute (CRS 24-30-1403), (24-30-1408) and Title 23 CRF Part 172. Proposals shall be evaluated by a selection committee assigned by the Town Board of Trustees or designee on the basis of the Evaluation Criteria noted herein. The Town Board of Trustees, shall make the final determination of the Consultant selected. 5.1 Proposal Evaluation Criteria Each submitted Proposal will be evaluated by the selection committee using the following general criteria with a maximum of 100 points possible. 1.Project Team Qualifications – 35 points •Relevant expertise and experience of personnel assigned and committed to the Project. 2.Relevant Project Examples/References – 30 points •Relevant project performance history, including competency, responsiveness, cost control, work quality and ability to meet schedules and deadlines. •Public involvement expertise where scientific and or technical study results were presented to the general public and elected officials in an easy-to-understand manner. •References from three past clients for similar projects. 3.Responsiveness to Project Schedule/Project Approach/Budget Adherence – 30 points •Demonstrated understanding, approach, and effectiveness of approach to the Project requirements, methodology, and deliverables. •Demonstrated understanding of the region and hydrologic characteristics. •Adherence to the Project completion date. •Ability to perform work and complete the Project within the Project budget. Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 14 4.Proposal Accuracy/Completeness/Presentation – 5 points •Clarity, conciseness, organization and editorial precision in the proposal. •Adherence to the RFP requirements. Incomplete proposals or failure to provide the information required by the RFP will result in the proposal not being considered. 5.2. Final Selection The selection committee will make a recommendation to the Town Board of Trustees for the final selection of a Consultant and Contract approval for the Project. It is anticipated that a recommendation from the selection committee will be forwarded to the Town Board of Trustees for consideration and approval on January 26, 2016. Final contract authorization is contingent upon the completion and approval of the final contract between the Town and the State of Colorado. 6.0. CONTRACT, TERMS AND CONDITIONS Submitting Consultants must attest that they are competent in conducting this Hydrology Study and assure that their proposal is complete and will result in successful execution of work to complete the Project. 6.1 Contract Formation A proposal submitted in response to this RFP is an offer to contract with the Town in substantially the same form as attached in Exhibit G. A proposal becomes a contract only when legally awarded and accepted in writing by the Town. 6.2 RFP Amendments Prior to the proposal due date and time, the Town reserves the right to change any portions of this RFP. Any changes or corrections will be through one or more written addendum(s), dated, attached to, or incorporated in, and made a part of this RFP. All changes must be authorized and issued in writing by the Town. If there is any conflict between addendum(s), or between an addendum(s) and the RFP, whichever document was issued last in time shall be controlling. It shall be the responsibility of the Consultant to verify that every addendum has been received prior to submitting a proposal and to acknowledge all addenda. 6.3 Incorporation of Documents This RFP, any subsequent addendum(s), and the Consultant’s proposal will be incorporated into the resulting contract. 6.4 Right to Cancel The Town reserves the right to cancel or reissue all or part of this RFP at any time as allowed by law without any obligation or liability. Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 15 The Town reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals or any part thereof. The right is reserved to waive any formalities or informalities contained in any Proposal, and to award the Contract to the most responsive and responsible Consultant as deemed in the best interest of the Town. 6.5 Variation from Request for Proposal The Town reserves the right to negotiate final terms with the selected Consultant that may vary from those contained in this RFP. 6.6 Licenses The Consultant and sub-consultant(s) shall be licensed to do business in the State of Colorado and the Town of Estes Park or provide a commitment that it/they will become licensed in Colorado and the Town within thirty (30) calendar days of the Consultant selection by the Town Board of Trustees. 6.7 Insurance The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance of the type and amount as required. Refer Exhibit G of this RFP for insurance requirements. Certificates must be approved by the Town Clerk’s Office prior to issuance of the contract. 6.8 References and Conflict of Interest Inquiry The Town reserves the right to request a client list from the Consultant, for the purpose of determining potential conflicts of interest or for obtaining references. Such lists shall be considered proprietary. 6.9 Project Interfacing Following award of the Contract, the Consultant will propose a Communication Protocol for Town review and approval. This document will establish roles and responsibilities and identify Project communications protocols with the Consultant and the Town. The Communication Protocol will include, but is not limited to, the following: 1.Procedures for scheduling and facilitating status updates and meetings. 2.Consultant will submit a monthly Project Status Report to the Town, in an agreed upon format. Reports shall commence within four weeks after the Contract is executed and continue through the end of the Contract period. 3.The Consultant shall not release Project-related documents to anyone other than the Town’s Point of Contact, unless agreed upon by the Town. 6.10 Fees and Payment This Proposal is for a not to exceed contract in the amount of $105,800. A Contract Change Order approved by the Community Development Department Director will be required for any change(s) to a Project task(s). Additional services proposed by the Project Team must be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the Community Development Department Director prior to performance and payment for such services. Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 16 Billing and payment cycles are as printed on the Annual Vendor Payment Schedule generated by the Town’s Finance Department. The Consultant will submit and the Community Development Department Director will review and approve invoices on a monthly basis. The amount of such payment shall be based on monthly Project Status Reports. Invoices must be sufficiently detailed to meet grant reimbursement requirements which include the following information on individual Project Team members: descriptions of activity/task by person, hours, dates, location, and rate. Once an invoice is approved by the Community Development Department Director, the Finance Department will process it according to the Vendor Payment Schedule. Invoices shall meet or exceed minimum Colorado Department of Local Affairs Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Resilience Planning Grant Program reimbursement requirements to ensure the Town is fully reimbursed for all work performed by the Consultant and sub- consultants. Payments to the Consultant will not exceed 95% of the total Project cost until the Project is completed and accepted by the Town. The contract will be effective until all deliverables are provided to the Town and deemed complete by the Town. Any edits or modifications necessary to finalize deliverables will be the responsibility of the Consultant. 6.11 Sub-consultants The Consultant shall indicate in the proposal any work intended to be performed by sub-consultants. The Consultant shall name the sub-consultants, if known, at the time of the proposal. To be considered eligible for this Project, the Consultant must perform at least 70% of the Project work themselves. With written permission of the Community Development Department Director, the Consultant may hire sub-consultants not identified in the proposal to complete portions of the Project if (1) the Consultant lacks sufficient in-house expertise or capacity and (2) such hiring does not result in the Consultant performing less than 70% of the Project work themselves. Sub-consultants shall meet the same quality standards and schedules, and provide the same level of documentation as the Consultant. The sub-consultant shall make an effort to use small, minority, and women-owned business enterprises whenever possible. 6.12 Financial Capabilities The Consultant must be financially capable and solvent in fulfilling the requirements of the Contract. 6.13 Conflicts of Interest The Project Team must be an independent third party during preparation of the Hydrology Study. Conflict of interest means that because of other activities or relationships, a person or entity is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Town, is or might be otherwise impaired in its objectivity in performing the contract work, or has an unfair competitive advantage. Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 17 The Project Team must disclose any current or expected future contractual relationships which may pose a conflict of interest with this Project. Disclosure shall include date and duration of said contract(s), the nature of the service provided, and a plan for managing potential conflicts of interest. 6.14 Handling of Information The Consultant shall not disclose any information concerning the Town or the Project, or information that may be classified as confidential, for any purpose not directly connected with the administration of this contract, except with prior written consent of the Community Development Department Director, or as may be required by law. 6.15 Equal Opportunity Employer The Project Team is/are an Equal Opportunity Employer(s) and no otherwise qualified individual shall be subject to discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion or religious affiliation, sex, familial status, age, genetics, disability, or national origin in any phase of employment for this Project. 6.16 Small Business, Minority and Women Enterprises The Consultant shall make an effort to use small, minority, and women-owned business enterprises whenever possible. The following steps are required for federally funded projects: 1.Place qualified small, minority, and women’s firms on solicitation lists 2.Assure that small, minority, and women’s firms are solicited whenever they are potential sources. 3.Divide total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation. 4.Establish delivery schedules, where the requirement permits, which encourage participation by these businesses. 5.Use the services of the Small Business Administration and the Minority Business Development Agency. 6.Require contractors to take affirmative steps when procuring subcontractors. Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study December 8, 2015 18 List of Exhibits Exhibit A Hydrologic Evaluation of the Big Thompson Watershed Post September 2013 Flood Event” (CDOT 2014 Hydrologic Study) Exhibit B December 2013, Natural Resources Conservation Service report titled, “Colorado Front Range Flood of 2013: Peak Flow Estimates at Selected Mountain Stream Locations” (NRCS 2013 Study) Exhibit C May 2015, Farnsworth Group report titled, “Final Drainage Report Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation” (Farnsworth Study) Exhibit D Project Area Maps 1-4 Exhibit E August 2014, Matrix Design Group report titled, “Fish Creek Watershed Hydrology Evaluation Public Infrastructure Project” (Fish Creek Hydrology Evaluation) Exhibit F Effective hydraulic analyses were revised in April 1985 for FEMA by Simons, Li & Associates under Contract No. EMW-83-C-1l67 (Estes Park portions of Larimer County Flood Insurance Study) Exhibit G Standard form contract Elbert County, Colorado (303) 480-1700 January 2016 Proposal Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch To wn of Estes Park WWE WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. & DR.ROBERT JARRETT GLENWOOD SPRINGS DURANGO (970) 945-7755 TEL (970) 945-9210 FAX (970) 259-7411 TEL (970) 259-8758 FAX Wright Water Engineers, Inc. 2490 West 26th Ave., Suite 100A www.wrightwater.com Denver, Colorado 80211 e-mail: aearles@wrightwater.com (303) 480-1700 TEL (303) 480-1020 FAX January 6, 2016 Via Fed Ex Tina Kurtz, Environmental Planner Community Development Department 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Request for Proposal (RFP)―Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study Dear Ms. Kurtz: Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) appreciates this opportunity to submit a proposal to develop a Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch. The proposal that is attached provides an overview of our project team and key members and provides examples of past and current projects that we have worked on that demonstrate our qualifications to conduct this work. WWE has extensive experience with hydrology studies and in the Estes Park region. I have conducted many similar hydrology studies for mountain watersheds in Colorado, including work on Clear Creek, Ralston Creek, Boulder County and in the City of Boulder following the Fourmile Wildfire and the 2013 flood, and will serve as Project Manager. I am a Vice President with WWE, have contracting authority to bind the firm in a formal Contract with the Town, and authority to sign the Proposal. I will also serve as your primary contact person for this project. WWE is the prime on this project. Our firm is a Colorado Corporation founded in 1961. WWE has brought Dr. Bob Jarrett onto our team to assist with data analysis and to provide peer review. Dr. Jarrett is a well-known expert in mountain flood hydrology through his long and distinguished career with the Unites States Geological Survey and many peer reviewed publications on the topic, and he is a great enhancement to our team. No addenda were issued for this RFP. Thank you very much for your consideration of our proposal. We would be very glad to discuss any of the projects or project team members included in the proposal with you should you have any questions. Sincerely, WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. By______________________________ ___ Andrew Earles, Ph.D., P.E., CPESC, D.WRE Project Manager Z:\Project Files\GO\991-999\991-999.056\Engineering\Estes Park Fall River Hydrology\Cover Letter for proposal.doc Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch i Wright Water Engineers, Inc. CONTENTS Project Team Qualifications .......................................................................................................................... 2 Required Expertise and Experience........................................................................................................... 2 Demonstration of Project Team Qualifications ......................................................................................... 4 Understanding of RFP and Project Approach ............................................................................................. 10 Task 1. Project Coordination ................................................................................................................... 11 Task 2. Data Gathering and Additional Data Processing ......................................................................... 11 Task 3. Update Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 12 Task 4. Public Outreach ........................................................................................................................... 13 Statement of Familiarity with Location ...................................................................................................... 14 Project Schedule and Management ............................................................................................................ 15 Statement of Compliance with Terms and Conditions of this RFP and Signed Pre-Contract Documentation .................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Resumes ...................................................................................................................................................... 18 Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch 2 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. PROJECT TEAM QUALIFI CATIONS Understanding the complexities of hydrology is one of the core specialties of Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE). We have worked on numerous major hydrology studies including recently, for example, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) revising hydrology for the South Platte River from Chatfield to Fort Lupton (under review by FEMA) and an in-process hydrology CLOMR study of Clear Creek from Golden to the South Platte River. The Denver Urban Drainage & Flood Control District (UDFCD) retained WWE following the 2013 flood to document flooding within their jurisdiction, including affected mountain streams in Boulder. We have studied the hydrology of mountain streams with drainage basins ranging from several hundred acres to hundreds of square miles, and we understand the importance of scaling effects of peak discharges as watershed size increases. We routinely apply hydrology models including HEC-HMS, SWMM, and others, and we place great importance in having models grounded in data collected from the subject watershed(s). WWE has expertise in evaluating/verifying gauge data and statistical analyses including FEMA methods. REQUIRED EXPERTISE A ND EXP ERIENCE As a firm, WWE has more than a 50-year history of studying and defining hydrology of streams throughout Colorado. Kenneth Wright, P.E., the founder of WWE, who conducted work in the area following the 1976 Big Thompson Flood and the Lawn Lake Dam Failure of 1982, will serve as a peer reviewer for this study, as will Jonathan Jones, P.E., WWE’s CEO who was WWE’s Project Manager for WWE’s work on river restoration in Estes Park. For this assignment, we have also asked Dr. Bob Jarrett, USGS ret., to join our team to draw on his experience with these streams and for assistance with data analysis and peer review of analysis. Because there have been many recent hydrology studies by well-qualified firms that in some cases will need to be reconciled with the smaller-watershed scale hydrology of the Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch, this hydrology study requires a Project Manager who can thoroughly understand past work yet independently assess the hydrology of these four streams in the context of flood risk and protection of public, health, safety and welfare. Dr. Andrew Earles, P.E., D.WRE will lead this assignment for WWE, drawing on more than 20 years of experience with hydrology and many assignments involving public presentations, community involvement and education. Dr. Earles was the Project Manager for WWE’s 2013 post-flood assessment for UDFCD and currently is the Project Manager for hydrology CLOMR projects for the South Platte River from Chatfield to Fort Lupton and Clear Creek from Golden to the South Platte River. Dr. Earles has provided instruction for graduate-level classes in applied hydrology and open channel hydraulics at the University of Colorado–Denver and taught the water portion of the P.E. Examination review course for more than 10 years. Dr. Earles has served as an expert witness on hydrology in a number of proceedings related to rainfall-runoff relationships, mud and debris flows, and floodplain mapping and will bring a high level of technical expertise and the ability to effectively communicate complex topics to this project. Shannon Tillack, P.E., and Julia Traylor, EIT, are project engineers who have worked with Dr. Earles on recent statistical hydrology and modeling projects and will assist on this assignment. Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch 3 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Example projects listed below (detailed descriptions for three provided in next section) demonstrate WWE’s expertise and experience with watershed hydrology and river processes as well as our effectiveness at conveying information to stakeholders and community members. These include: Golden Clear Creek Peak Flood Hydrology Analysis, City of Golden, 2012 – 2015 ― Over the past 3 years, WWE has been working with the City of Golden to assess the peak flood hydrology of Clear Creek at Golden, a location with more than 100-years of record, but complex hydrology due to the interaction of snowmelt and rainfall. The statistical analysis conducted for Golden led to a UDFCD project to restudy the hydrology of Clear Creek from Golden to the South Platte River. WWE expects to submit a CLOMR request in early 2016. Boulder Rainfall-Runoff Analysis, 2013 – 2014 ― WWE was hired by the City of Boulder following the 2013 flood to estimate rainfall and runoff return periods. WWE analyzed 1-km2, 5-minute rainfall data to develop estimates of return period for rainfall and to evaluate effects of antecedent precipitation/saturation on rainfall/runoff relationships. WWE presented results to Boulder City Council in a public meeting. Fourmile Post-Wildfire Hydrology and Debris Flow Risk Assessment, Boulder County, 2010 – 2011 ― This project evaluated watershed hydrology following the Fourmile Wildfire using HEC-HMS, gauge data and other hydrologic methods. WWE worked closely with the Boulder County Emergency Preparedness Team to explain risk associated with hydrologic changes to the public and to identify areas most susceptible to flooding and/or debris flow. Manitou Springs, City of Manitou Springs, 2013 – present ― The Williams Canyon drainage runs through the heart of Manitou Springs on its way to the confluence with Fountain Creek. Following the Waldo Canyon fire, the creek experienced severe flooding and debris flows, and WWE was retained to design drainage improvements. Following a series of public meetings and based upon an evaluation of previous hydrologic studies as well as measured discharges from recent floods, WWE designed a reconfigured and enlarged channel to capture debris, enhance flow capacity and reduce the risk to the community caused by floods and debris flows. Ralston Creek Hydrology, Cotter Corporation, 2011 – 2012 ― WWE was hired by the Cotter Corporation to assist with a stream diversion plan for Ralston Creek to allow for clean-up of uranium mine tailings in the river valley. The mine is located well up-canyon from the nearest gauge, and annual peak discharge data were not available in the watershed. WWE performed modeling, calculations, comparative gauge analysis and scaling to develop peak discharges for multiple return periods. More than a half dozen local, state and federal regulators reviewed plans, and the project involved many meeting with Denver Water, a primary party affected by the mine. Other recent relevant projects include the South Platte River CLOMR for UDFCD and fourteen affected communities, post-flood work for UDFCD that resulted in the publication of A September to Remember, multiple hydrology and debris flow studies in Summit and Pitkin counties, and post-fire hydrologic assessments at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Missionary Ridge (CO). Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch 4 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. DEMONSTRATION OF PRO JECT TEAM QUALIFICAT IONS Founded in 1961, WWE is an employee-owned and operated, full-service water resources, environmental and civil engineering firm based in Denver, Colorado, with outlying offices in Glenwood Springs and Durango, Colorado. Our staff of approximately 45 people includes engineers, hydrologists, scientists, biologists, chemists, geologists, hydrogeologists, GIS specialists and support staff. WWE’s staff includes Professional Engineers, Certified Professionals in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESCs), Certified Floodplain Managers (CFMs), advanced degrees, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professionals and a Professional Geologist. WWE also frequently has respected experts work with us as adjunct staff, including university professors and retired state and federal officials. WWE staff members regularly testify as experts, publish, teach continuing engineering education and are highly involved with professional activities. Figure 1 illustrates WWE’s project team organization. We plan to approach this effort as a small, focused team to optimize the amount of work that can be conducted under the allocated budget. WWE’s project team is available to begin this assignment immediately, and we have the necessary resources to complete the project by May 31, 2016. Figure 1. WWE Project Team Organizational Chart Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch 5 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. KEY TEAM MEMBERS The project team is comprised of the following individuals: Dr. Andrew Earles, P.E., D.WRE, is a Vice President with WWE and leads much of the hydrology work that WWE conducts. Dr. Earles has worked on hydrology, hydraulics and stormwater management throughout his 17-year career at WWE and effectively performed many hydrologic evaluations in mountainous watersheds in Colorado. Dr. Earles was the Project Manager for studies of rainfall-runoff in the City of Boulder following the 2013 flood and for numerous UDFCD projects including hydrology CLOMRs for the South Platte River and Clear Creek. Andrew is well versed in the fundamentals of hydrology and hydraulics and shares this knowledge through his role as a graduate-level instructor at the University of Colorado Denver on topics including open channel hydraulics, applied hydrology, and water resources review topics for the Professional Engineering examination. Dr. Robert Jarrett has 44 years of experience in flood hydrology and hydraulics, hydrometeorology, fluvial geomorphology, and paleoflood hydrology, specializing in mountain-river systems. From 1974 until 2012, he was a research hydrologist for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Lakewood, Colorado, and published over 80 scientific papers. He extensively worked with local, regional, and State emergency managers, USACE, USBR, FEMA, NWS, USFS, the USGS, consulting engineers and academicians. Much of his career focused on integrating paleoflood hydrology in floodplain management, flood-hazard mitigation, dam safety and related water-resources issues. Most recently, he used paleoflood methods to document 140 peak discharges for stream sites affected by the record September 2013 Flood in the Colorado Front Range for use by numerous State, regional, and federal agencies and consulting engineering companies. The data have been used to help calibrate and validate rainfall-runoff models, and improve flood-frequency analyses for post-flood recovery and engineering design studies. Shannon Tillack, P.E., has eight years of experience in hydrology. She has worked on hydrological analyses for such clients as Xcel Energy, Arapahoe County Water and Wastewater Authority. Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority, the City of Manitou Springs, Colorado, and the Colorado Department of Transportation. Shannon was a Project Engineer for the post-wildfire assessment of flooding and debris flow risk following the 2010 Fourmile Canyon fire in Boulder County, Colorado. Specific tasks included HEC–HMS modeling to project peak flows and debris flow potential for a range of storm events. Shannon was also key in researching and developing of the 2014 document, A September to Remember: The 2013 Colorado Flood within the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. She is a Member of the Colorado Association of Stormwater and Floodplain Managers (CASFM) and has presented numerous papers at CASFM and other conferences. Julia Traylor, EIT, would be a Project Engineer for this contract. Her hydrological experience includes serving as Project Engineer for the analysis of precipitation and flooding during the September 2013 flooding in Boulder, assisting with the research and writing of a technical paper addressing the potential effects of climate change on the UDFCD drainage system, performing hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of two sites in Buffalo, New York, including regular monitoring and water quality sampling and analysis, and Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch 6 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. assisting with the modeling and verification of stream gages using HEC-RAS. Julia has assisted Dr. Earles on major hydrology CLOMR projects for the South Platte River and Clear Creek. Jonathan Jones, P.E., & Kenneth Wright, P.E., will serve as senior peer reviewers for this assignment. Ken is the founder of WWE, and Jon is the Chief Executive Officer. Jonathan Jones will act as the Principal-in- Charge for the project and will work with Dr. Earles to develop realistic hydrology that is grounded in data and sound analysis. Ken and Jon are very familiar with the hydrology of Estes Park. Under their direction, WWE provided floodplain delineation, management, integration and regulation expertise to the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority on the Estes Park Riverwalk (as a subconsultant to Design Studios West). This project was awarded the 2007 Land Stewardship Award and the 2007 President's Award of Excellence in Design from the Colorado Chapter of The American Society of Landscape Architects. WWE’s familiarity with the Estes Park area goes back to 1976 when Ken Wright served as Special Consultant to Governor Richard Lamm for rehabilitation of the Big Thompson Canyon. His duties included technical analysis and coordination of all state agencies and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Resumes for key project team members are included at the end of this proposal. EXAMPLE PROJECTS Three example projects that these engineers and scientists have collaborated on in the recent past are provided below. Information on other projects mentioned in this proposal can be provided if desired by the review committee. Golden Clear Creek Peak Flood Hydrology Analysis, City of Golden Project Summary: This project was initiated in 2012 when WWE was asked by the City of Golden to perform statistical analysis of the stream gauge for Clear Creek at Golden. This gauge, combined with an earlier one shortly upstream, provide a combined record of annual peak flows of more than 100 years. The regulatory 100-year peak flow rate for Clear Creek at Golden was established as a part of a modeling study by the US Army Corps of Engineers in the 1970s, and with the benefit of additional gauge data, Golden wanted to assess the reasonableness of the hydrology. WWE performed initial analysis that indicated that regulatory flows fell outside of the upper confidence limit of the gauge data for the 100-year event, and subsequent analysis has refined 100-year peak flow projections at this location to a somewhat lower level. Based on the results of this project, UDFCD decided to pursue a hydrology CLOMR for Clear Creek from Golden to the South Platte River, requiring coordination and review by FEMA, CWCB and affected municipalities. The gauge evaluation project for Golden has grown into a project that will benefit all municipalities affected by the Clear Creek floodplain by providing more Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch 7 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. realistic, gauge-based hydrology. The work for the City of Golden was conducted over several years and was completed in December 2015. WWE is currently preparing a CLOMR request to submit in early 2016. Team Members/Roles: Dr. Andrew Earles, P.E., Project Manager – Technical lead, discussions with regulators, strategic planning, direct analysis. Shannon Tillack, P.E., Project Engineer – Peak FQ Analysis, evaluation of rainfall/snowmelt influences, presentations to client. Julia Traylor, EIT, Project Engineer – Gauge verification comparing hydraulic model results with published rating curves, data assembly for analysis to determine rain-influenced versus snowmelt peak flows in record. Jonathan Jones, P.E. – Principal-in-Charge, strategic and technical advisor, historic experience with similar analysis on Clear Creek in 1980s. Dr. Bob Jarrett – Peer reviewer and advisor on mountain hydrology. Project Completion Date: December 2015 Project Cost: $20,000 Reference: Dan Hartman, P.E., Director of Public Works, City of Golden, 1445 Tenth St., Golden, CO 80401, (303) 384-8150, dhartman@cityofgolden.net. Boulder September 2013 Flood Rainfall Runoff Analysis Project Summary: Under a stormwater and floodplain on- call services contract, WWE conducted work related to the September 2013 flood in Boulder. This included detailed analysis of rainfall data to determine recurrence intervals for specific watersheds within the City of Boulder and coordination with other engineers modeling runoff from the event. WWE presented results of this analysis to Boulder’s Water Resources Advisory Board and City Council, and this information has fed into discussions related to emergency preparedness, response and stormwater rates within the City. Technical analysis for this project involved using GIS to evaluate 1km2 gridded 5-minute rainfall data from UDFCD. WWE evaluated rainfall intensities from the event with comparisons to published intensity-duration frequency values. Because of the duration of rainfall and effects of saturated conditions, we found it very important to evaluate rainfall intensity and runoff potential with consideration of Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch 8 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. factors including antecedent precipitation, depth to bedrock and others affecting infiltration. Andrew Earles and Shannon Tillack were WWE’s lead engineers for this assignment and prepared a comprehensive report of the results. Team Members/Roles: Dr. Andrew Earles, P.E., Project Manager – Technical lead, directed large-scale analysis of over a half-dozen watersheds, meetings with public officials and presentations at public meetings with some attendees damaged in flood. Shannon Tillack, P.E., Project Engineer – Rainfall statistical analysis working with GIS specialist, data analysis, mapping, public presentation to City Council. Julia Traylor, EIT, Project Engineer – Data compilation and analysis, evaluation of antecedent effects and timing of rainfall, comparisons of hyetographs with design storms. Jonathan Jones, P.E. – Principal-in-Charge, peer reviewer, strategic and technical advisor. Dr. Bob Jarrett – Peer reviewer and advisor on flood hydrology and debris flows, collected data in watershed and provided insight on flood event. Project Completion Date: September 2014 Project Cost: $110,000 Reference: Bob Harberg, P.E., Director of Public Works for Utilities, City of Boulder PO Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306, (303) 441-3266, harbergb@bouldercolorado.gov. Fourmile Post-Wildfire Hydrology and Debris Flow Risk Assessment, Boulder County Project Summary: In September 2010, the Fourmile Canyon wildfire burned approximately 6,200 acres of forest and 168 structures in the foothills west of Boulder, Colorado. In the post-fire condition, the steep terrain, with average slopes exceeding 30 percent over more than half the burned area, posed a greatly increased risk of flooding and debris flows. WWE was contacted by Boulder County to evaluate the post-fire runoff from three major drainages for a range of storm events. Findings from the HEC-HMS modeling analysis were used for emergency preparedness planning. WWE was also tasked with evaluating the projected post-fire hydrologic recovery of the watershed, and planning measures to reduce the impact from debris flows. This aspect of WWE’s work involved cost - benefit analysis of multiple approaches, looking at trade-offs between the costs of implementing watershed-based controls versus the costs of cleaning up after debris flow events with and without the Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch 9 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. distributed control strategies. WWE’s analysis helped Boulder County to project anticipated debris flow clean-up costs and to identify the most cost-effective watershed-based BMPs. In addition to this assignment in Boulder, WWE has worked on post-fire flood hazard assessments at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Missionary Ridge wildfire near Durango, Mesa Verde National Park and others. Team Members/Roles: Dr. Andrew Earles, P.E., Project Manager – Technical lead, discussions with regulators, wildfire hydrology expert, meetings with public officials, and presentations at public meetings regarding flood safety and hazards following the wildfire. Shannon Tillack, P.E., Project Engineer – HEC-HMS modeling of varying burn intensities and hydrophobicity, developed relationships between risk and recovery. Jonathan Jones, P.E. – Principal-in-Charge, peer reviewer, strategic and technical advisor. Dr. Bob Jarrett – Peer reviewer and advisor on wildfire hydrology and debris flows, collected data in watershed and provided insight on flood events that occurred. Project Completion Date: February 2011 Project Cost: $100,000 Reference: Mike Thomas, P.E., County Engineer, Boulder County Transportation Department, P.O. Box 471, Boulder, CO 80306, (720) 564-2655, mthomas@bouldercounty.org. Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch 10 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. UNDERSTANDING OF RFP AND PROJECT APPROACH WWE has reviewed the RFP and the reports posted on the Town website. In advance of the RFP, we gained some familiarity with these reports through our post-flood discussions with the CDOT project team and review of some of the hydrologic analysis to assess the relevance to our post flood rainfall-runoff work in Boulder. Our understanding is that there has been considerable work done on the overall watershed hydrology of the Big Thompson River that included rainfall–runoff calculations for these watersheds but at a much coarser scale than is needed to define reliable frequency-discharge relationships for these watersheds. The Town of Estes Park is in need of reliable hydrology for these streams so the Town can appropriately manage the floodplain and plan for future improvements along major drainageways. WWE’s project approach is to capitalize on the recent extensive modeling work conducted by others but also to provide the Town with a “fresh set of eyes” for evaluating the hydrology of Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch. WWE concurs with and can effectively execute the scope of work outlined in the Request for Proposals; however, model set up and parameter selection will be critical to attaining reasonable results. Through our analysis of mountain stream hydrology and experiences from the 2013 flood, there are multiple complex considerations involved with selecting appropriate infiltration/runoff parameters, design storms, etc., such as: Antecedent moisture conditions – One of the lessons of the 2013 flood is that a storm of fairly modest intensity on already saturated ground can generate significant amounts of runoff and sediment. This can occur during prolonged rainfall or with rainfall on frozen ground and/or snow. When analyzing stream gauge data relative to peak discharges, it is important to investigate these effects, and models can easily evaluate scenarios with alternate antecedent moisture conditions. Careful evaluation of gauge data to group and analyze peak flow rates occurring under different hydrologic regimes (rain- influenced versus non-rain-influenced) can significantly affect results. Sub-basin discretization in model – The runoff response of a watershed is not related to area in a linear fashion. Typically, the unit rainfall-runoff response (cfs per acre) of a large watershed is considerably lower than that of a smaller watershed. This is due to a variety of factors in calculating times of concentration, partial area effects, etc. UDFCD typically recommends a maximum sub-basin size of 130 acres. As a part of the hydrologic analysis, WWE will discretize sub-basins based on topography, homogeneity of land use, desired design points, and other considerations. Model parameters – When using the NRCS Curve Number method in HEC-HMS, the runoff Curve Number is selected based on land use and Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG). In some cases, the HSG can be a dramatic oversimplification of the soil’s infiltration capacity /runoff potential. In some cases, surficial soils that have favorable infiltration characteristics are underlain by bedrock or other impermeable strata, and produce interflow that contributes to runoff, especially on steep slopes. WWE will explore different loss models in HEC-HMS; however, our initial proposed approach is to use Horton or Green-Ampt for the infiltration option. Potential for debris damming and breaking – This is a very real phenomena that is not well captured in traditional hydrologic models but which can have significant effects during actual flood flow Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch 11 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. conditions. Evaluation of debris damming and breaking is not included in the proposed scope of work and can be difficult to evaluate. If there are specific “pinch points” where debris is known to accumulate, WWE could evaluate dam failure/release at these locations for points of comparison with peak discharge from HEC-HMS design storms. We are very pleased to have Dr. Bob Jarrett as a part of our project team. Dr. Jarrett was involved in post- 2013 flood data collection in many watersheds around the Front Range, including some of these watersheds as a part of work for CDOT. WWE intends to have Dr. Jarrett assist with data analysis, focusing on his observations in these watershed and others nearby with similar characteristics. Dr. Jarrett will also serve as a peer reviewer for hydrologic modeling. TASK 1. PROJECT COOR DINATION WWE will work with the Town Point of Contact (POC) for all project coordination tasks including any coordination with other parties, agencies, etc. WWE proposes three in-person project coordination meetings in Estes Park. The first meeting will be a kickoff meeting, the second an interim progress meeting and the third an advance progress/presentation preparation meeting. These meetings are in addition to the Public Outreach meetings, although it will be advantageous if coordination and public outreach meetings can be coordinated to reduce travel. During the project, WWE will participate in weekly progress calls with the Town POC ranging from 15 minutes to an hour depending on the extent of items to discuss. Given the nature of the assignment, we anticipate coordination with the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and with stakeholders in the watershed, including property owners, utilities, CDOT, the National Park Service and others. TASK 2. DATA GATHERI NG AND ADDITIONAL DA TA PROCESSING WWE engineers will spend several days in the field evaluating streams, land cover, soils, geology and other factors relevant to modeling rainfall-runoff. With the recent studies that have been conducted, a considerable amount of data and information is already available, and WWE will work through the Town to obtain necessary models, spreadsheets and other information to minimize new information we have to gather. WWE will use GIS for evaluating soils and topographic mapping but also will conduct fieldwork to evaluate runoff potential. Data processing to set up refined models for each of the study watersheds will be required but will draw on past work for rainfall time series. Based on recent discussions with Dr. Jarrett, some of the data that he collected in the study area has not yet been published. Dr. Jarrett collected some of this data for CDOT, but because of the downstream focus of the CDOT effort, the data were not evaluated in great detail. As a part of WWE’s effort, Dr. Jarrett would complete his analysis of this data on high water marks and projected peak flows for these and nearby watersheds so that we can factor that additional data into the analysis. Another major component of this task will be carefully reviewing multiple past reports that have been completed in the past several years to gain an understanding of results and underlying assumptions. From Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch 12 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. preliminary review of these reports and discussions with some of our colleagues involved in the CDOT study, it appears that the past analysis and modeling was thorough; however, to develop detailed hydrology for these watersheds, further refined modeling and analysis of additional data (stream gauge and 2013 flood estimates) are needed. As a deliverable for this task, WWE will prepare a brief report summarizing the available data, models and reports reviewed. This report will provide recommendations on the basis for modeling (model, infiltration/runoff method, sources of design storms, etc.) and the process for comparing model results with data. All data, models and reports reviewed will be compiled and provided to the Town in an electronic format. TASK 3. UPDATE HYDRO LOGY WWE believes that HEC-HMS is a suitable model for developing hydrology for these watersheds, and we will apply this model using rainfall generated in previous studies. As noted above, sub-basin discretization will aim for a typical sub-basin size in the rage of 100-acres although actual sub-basin areas will vary depending on topography, homogeneity of land use, design points, and other factors. We expect the model setup to be very straightforward given the recent analysis by others, and it will likely be feasible to simply modify existing models to tailor them to these four watersheds. A starting point for each of the streams will be to evaluate peak discharge data. The USGS lists 26 years of annual peak streamflow data for the Fall River at Estes Park and 52 years for the Big Thompson River at Estes Park. Annual peak flow data do not appear to be available for Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch. The annual peak discharge of mountain streams is complex, dictated some years by peak snowmelt, some by heavy rainfall, and others due to a combination of rain and snow. Although periods of record in excess of 20 years would typically be fairly reliable for developing flood frequency statistics for rainfall-runoff, in a mixed record of snowmelt and rain-influenced peaks, there is likely to be high variability and wide confidence intervals for peak flow projections. WWE will analyze available data to understand peak flow statistics and ranges of statistically reasonable values. This analysis will also be useful for defining antecedent moisture conditions in models. WWE will use rainfall measurements and flow estimates (Jarrett) from the September 2013 flood to “calibrate” the HEC-HMS models. This is expected to be the most complicated task of the modeling and will involve adjustments to sub-basin parameters to produce flows that reasonably agree with estimated peak discharges using rainfall data collected during the event. WWE conducted a similar analysis for the Two-mile Creek watershed just west of the City of Boulder in 2013. After this “calibration” has been completed, WWE will run simulations for the 2-, 5- 10-, 25-, 50, 100 and 500-year events, using existing drainage infrastructure and existing land-use conditions as defined by planning and zoning maps and any other pertinent information. WWE will vary the duration from 1- to 24-hours to determine the critical duration for each watershed, and will prepare tables and figures illustrating results of critical duration analysis for each time period. Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch 13 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. In addition to modeling flood flows from rainfall events requested in the scope of work, another potentially useful hydrologic scenario to model is a post-wildfire condition. WWE has developed expertise in post-wildfire hydrology through our experiences at Los Alamos National Laboratory/Cerro Grande Wildfire, Mesa Verde/Bircher Wildfire, Boulder/Fourmile Wildfire, Durango/Missionary Ridge Wildfire, and others. Over the past two years, we have been working with the Town of Manitou Springs on a flood conveyance channel through town to better accommodate runoff from the severely-burned Williams Canyon watershed. In all of these cases, having advanced knowledge of potential hazards posed by runoff and debris flow from burned watersheds would have been of value to planners and emergency responders. Although not requested in the RFP, WWE believes that it would be relatively straightforward to develop sub-basin parameters for low-, medium, and high-burn intensity scenarios for these watersheds and develop peak flow projections using the HEC-HMS model. WWE would be able to accomplish this efficiently given our wildfire hydrology expertise, and we believe we can accomplish this within the proposed budget if selected by the Town. Based on this analysis, WWE will create a Hydrology Report with supporting appendices, including maps, calculations, and modeling data; and electronic copies of maps, calculations, and HEC-HMS models. All data inputs to the mapping protocols will be delivered in digital format. Data outputs will be delivered in hard-copy format in the form of maps and tables. TASK 4. PUBLIC OUTREACH WWE understands the importance of public outreach, especially given the fact that changes in regulatory flood hydrology have the potential to affect public and private property. WWE has planned for 2 public meetings and 2–3 presentations for the Town Board of Trustees on the project scope, process and results. We assume that these would be scheduled in conjunction with project status meetings identified above. For these meetings, WWE will prepare PowerPoint presentations and handouts (as needed) to graphically illustrate watersheds and data. WWE staff member Sally Kribs, who is responsible for WWE’s website, newsletter and marketing information, will assist with developing and periodically updating a project web page, working closely with the Town to develop content and post on the Town’s website. WWE will prepare summary meeting notes of key points from meetings and, after review by the Town, these meeting summaries can be posted to the project web page. Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch 14 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. STATEMENT OF FAMILIA RITY WITH LOCATION The WWE project team has familiarity and understanding of the project area and local/regional hydrologic system as illustrated by the project descriptions in the previous section. For example, WWE provided floodplain delineation, management, integration and regulation expertise to the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority on the Estes Park Riverwalk (as a subconsultant to Design Studios West). This project was awarded the 2007 Land Stewardship Award and the 2007 President's Award of Excellence in Design from the Colorado Chapter of The American Society of Landscape Architects. WWE’s familiarity with the Estes Park area goes back to 1976 when Ken Wright served as Special Consultant to Governor Richard Lamm for rehabilitation of the Big Thompson Canyon. His duties included technical analysis and coordination of all state agencies and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Governor Lamm brought in WWE again in 1982 to evaluate the failure of the Lawn Lake Dam. In the early 2000s, the Department of Justice retained WWE to evaluate the feasibility of restoring the Lawn Lake Dam. Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch 15 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND MANAGEMENT WWE is a full service water-engineering firm with administrative, graphic, IT and technical support for the project team. WWE has a full service accounting department, and employees track time spent on projects to the nearest quarter hour and provide descriptions of work performed. Dr. Earles will work closely with accounting on setting up the contract and budget tracking for the job, and he will receive weekly reports on budget status. WWE has worked on many projects funded by public agencies, including grant programs from the state and federal government, so we are well equipped for reporting requirements. Much of our recent hydrology and flood mitigation work in Manitou Springs was funded through grants from the Department of Local Affairs and the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and we also have experience with state and federal grants and contracting. The project team members proposed for this effort work together on many assignments, so we are frequently interacting with each other in our Denver office. This fosters efficient communication between Andrew, Shannon and Julia, who will be the primary staff members working on this effort. WWE manages files on a server system that is routinely backed up to the cloud, and has electronic data filing procedures for documents, spreadsheets, photographs, GIS/mapping, AutoCAD, etc. Having recently completed several projects of this type, we have developed an efficient organizational system for hydrologic analyses that may be submitted to CWCB and/or FEMA. WWE places a priority on peer review of all projects. For this assignment, Dr. Jarrett, a well-known expert on mountain stream hydrology and Jonathan Jones and Ken Wright, who have worked in the past in Estes Park, will provide a high level of peer review, in addition to review and comments that we receive from other entities. To provide planning for this hydrology study, WWE built upon tasks in the RFP to develop the following table of tasks, estimated hours and costs, and schedule for completion of key tasks. As this table illustrates, WWE will be able to accomplish this scope of work (with additional wildfire analysis) within the allocated budget of $105,800, and within the specified time frame. WWE is eager to work on this project, and we would begin to review background hydrology and initial tasks as soon as authorized to proceed. Staff Dr. Andrew Earles, P.E. Shannon Tillack, P.E.Julia Traylor, EIT Dr. Bob Jarrett Jones/Wright Kribs Role Project Manager Project Engineer Junior Project Engineer Adviser/Peer Review Principal/Senior Peer Review Web Rate $200 $147 $107 LS $200 $85 $134 $118 1.1 Communication Plan 1 4 2 8 1.2 Three in-person coordination meetings (travel coordinated with Public Outreach or Trustee presentations): Kickoff, Interim Progress, Near-final 6 4 5-Feb 25-Mar 6-May 1.3 Weekly project calls (14 weeks), emails, and brief written monthly updates 30 30 1.4 Calls/ meetings with CWCB & other regulatory agencies 4 8 Subtotals $8,200 $6,762 $0 $0 $0 $170 $0 $944 2.1 Jarrett data analysis 2 2 $3,000 2.2 PeakFQ analysis with most recent peaks/ grouping (available gauges)4 12 16 2.3 Field Observations 16 16 8 2 2.4 Review Past Studies/Data 16 16 8 2.5 Memo - Basis of Modeling & Analysis 6 8 2 4 4 2 Subtotals $8,800 $7,938 $3,424 $3,000 $400 $340 $536 $472 3.1 Define Sub-watersheds and design points 4 8 16 3.2 Model Setup 4 16 24 24 3.3 Calibration to Jarrett data (and other available data)8 24 $500 3.4 Define rainfall and develop distributions for return periods 1 2 8 3.5 Run models and tabulate results, multi durations 4 8 40 3.6 Table of peak discharges for critical durations 2 4 8 3.7 Graphics, figures for flows at design points (peak discharge profiles with hydrographs at design points)2 8 8 16 3.8 Wildfire scenario peak discharges 2 8 20 $500 3.9 Report 8 12 40 $1,500 4 8 3.10 Organization for electronic deliverable 1 4 4 4 4 Subtotals $7,200 $13,818 $16,264 $2,500 $800 $1,020 $8,040 $0 4.1 Two Public Meetings (1/2 travel time)6 3 4.2 Three Presentations to Trustees (1/2 travel time)8 4 4.3 Time to prepare for meetings 10 4 4.4 Website and Updates 4 8 36 Subtotals $3,600 $2,205 $0 $0 $0 $850 $536 $4,248 Labor Totals by Staff $27,800 $30,723 $19,688 $5,500 $1,200 $2,380 $9,112 $5,664 $102,100 $3,062 $105,200 Estimated Direct Costs (Estimated as 3% of labor) Labor Total Total Estimated Budget Tasks Admin GIS 1.0 Project Coordination 2.0 Gathering Data & Data Processing 3.0 Update Hydrology 19-Feb 12-Feb Ongoing Ongoing 4.0 Public Outreach 11-Mar 18-Mar Schedule based on weather, initial visit in winter and follow-up in spring to fine tune model. 12-Feb 25-Mar 27-May Timing to be determined in conjunction with project coordination meetings to suit Town needs. Operational website by 4-Mar and periodic updates, as new information is developed. 4-Mar 1-Apr 25-Mar 8-Apr 15-Apr 30-Apr Town of Estes Park Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch Hydrology Study List of Tasks, Estimated Budget and Projected Schedule Prior to major meetings. Projected Schedule - Expected Date of Task Completion, Assuming Feb. 1 Start Date 6-May Draft 14-May, Final 27-May Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch 17 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. STATEMENT OF COMPLIA NCE WITH TERMS AND C ONDITIONS OF THIS RF P AND SIGNED PRE -CONTR ACT DOCUMENTATION WWE has the required insurance for this potential contract and accepts the other terms and conditions. T. Andrew Earles, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, CPESC Project Manager January 2016 Page 1 of 2 Experience Overview Andrew serves as project engineer, project manager and principal-in- charge of multiple projects with focus on stormwater management, hydrology, hydraulics, flood risk management, emergency action plans, and mud and debris flows. Hydrology UDFCD Clear Creek CLOMR Request. Following extensive statistical hydrologic analysis of the Clear Creek gauges near the City of Golden, WWE was retained by UDFCD to assist with developing a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) request to revise the hydrology of Clear Creek from Golden to the South Platte River. This assignment involved evaluation of stream gauge data for Clear Creek and its tributaries, evaluation of snowmelt versus rainfall influenced events, consideration of timings of peaks, and other factors related to developing a peak discharge profile for this reach of the stream. Prior to initiating the CLOMR assignment for UDFCD, WWE completed extensive analysis for the City of Golden to evaluate published regulatory peak discharge flows relative to the 100-year + gauge record. This analysis established the fact that the current published regulatory flood hydrology is higher than it should be based on the long-term gauge record. This analysis laid the foundation for the hydrology CLOMR. UDFCD South Platte River Hydrology CLOMR. Project Manager and chief technical expert for hydrology CLOMR for South Platte River from Chatfield Dam to Fort Lupton, Colorado. Assignment involved extensive statistical analysis of stream gauge data, spreadsheet and modeling analysis to evaluate tributary inflows and attenuation along reaches, and preparation of a CLOMR request and report submitted to FEMA. City of Boulder Rainfall/Runoff Analysis. Project Manager for assignment to evaluate rainfall and runoff characteristics of September 2013 flood in Boulder, Colorado. Evaluated 5-minute, gauge-corrected radar data to characterize rainfall intensity and return periods for watersheds in Boulder. Evaluated stream gauge data and post-event floodplain mapping to assess runoff. Developed report to explain how measured rainfall resulted in observed flooding for major drainageways in and near City. Fourmile Wildfire Hydrologic and Debris Flow Risk Assessment. Prepared wildfire assessment of flooding and debris flow risk following 2010 Fourmile Canyon fire in Boulder County, Colorado. Led consultant’s team responsible for developing projections of debris flow potential for a range of storm events anticipated to occur in the summer of 2010. Provided decision makers with risk-based projections and participated in public meetings to emphasize damage potential from runoff events in the burned area. This project involved coordination with multiple agencies including USGS, USFS, UDFCD and others. Relevant Credentials/Specialties Registered Professional Engineer 16 Years Consulting Experience Hydrologic Data Analysis and Modeling Flood Hazard Assessments Hydrology & Hydraulics Water Resources Engineering Education Ph.D. Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, 1999 M.S., Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, 1996 B.S., Civil Engineering, Stanford, 1994 Registrations/Affiliations Registered Professional Engineer o Colorado #37237 o Louisiana #31306 o Arkansas #12329 o Hawaii #14235 o Iowa #21024 Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control Diplomate of Water Resources Engineering Past Chairman of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) /Environmental and Water Resources Institute (EWRI) Urban Water Resources Research Council Member of ASCE, EWRI, American Water Resources Association (AWRA) Miembro Honorario, Centro Andino De Estudios T. Andrew Earles, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE,CPESC Project Manager January 2016 Page 2 of 2 Ralston Creek Hydrology, Cotter Corporation. WWE was hired by the Cotter Corporation to assist with a stream diversion plan for Ralston Creek to allow for cleanup of uranium mine tailings in the river valley. The mine is located well up-canyon from the nearest gauge, and annual peak discharge data were not available in the watershed. WWE performed modeling, calculations, comparative gauge analysis and scaling to develop peak discharges for multiple return periods. More than a half dozen local, state and federal regulators reviewed plans, and the project involved many meetings with Denver Water, a primary party affected by the mine. Missionary Ridge Wildfire Assessment of Risk and Protection of Lemon Dam, Durango, Colorado. Worked with Florida Water Conservancy District to assess risk and identify protective measures following the Missionary Ridge Wildfire. Recommended structural and watershed-based measures to minimize potential for damage from debris flow events following the wildfire and assisted with preparation of grant applications for implementation funding. Los Alamos National Laboratory Post-Cerro Grande Wildfire Investigation. Field investigations and hydrologic and hydraulic modeling to assess risks of flooding damage to nuclear facilities and other infrastructure and sediment/actinide transport. Large-scale application of HEC-Geo-RAS with GIS Interface. Worked as a member of a research team including scientists from the laboratory and researchers from the USDA Agricultural Research Service. Probable Maximum Flood Modeling. Advisor on probable maximum flood modeling of the Long Hollow Reservoir in Colorado to support dam design. Modeling included assessment of watershed conditions, waterway parameters and development of the probable maximum precipitation in accordance with State of Colorado regulations. Also oversaw analysis of several dam spillway configurations and performed spillway design calculations to anticipate discharge depths and velocities. Instructor in Civil Engineering (University of Colorado–Denver). Taught graduate-level classes in Applied Hydrology and Open Channel Hydraulics, Fluid Mechanics Review classes for Fundamentals of Engineering Exam refresher course, Water Resources Review classes for Professional Engineering Exam refresher course, and Construction Stormwater Management class for continuing education. UDFCD Flood Book. Worked with UDFCD and municipalities affected by September 2013 flood to create “coffee table” book with overview of flooding and assessment of effectiveness of urban drainage improvements for flood risk reduction and hazard mitigation. Denver Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (USDCM) 2010 Volumes 1, 2 and 3 Update. Wrote and/or updated various sections of the Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) USDCM. The manual is available for free download at www.udfcd.org. Denver Linear SWMP. Worked with City and County of Denver, Denver Water and Xcel Energy to develop a streamlined SWMP for wet and dry linear construction activities. Recent Publications Tillack, S.; Andrew Earles, and Jane Clary. 2011. Using the UD-BMP Workbook to Facilitate BMP Selection and Sizing. 2011 Low Impact Development Symposium in Philadelphia, PA. September 25-28. Clary, Jane; Marcus Quigley; Aaron Poresky; Andrew Earles; Eric Strecker; Marc Leisenring; and Jonathan Jones. 2011. Integration of Low-Impact Development into the International Stormwater BMP Database. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, March. Guo, J.C.Y; Gerald E. Blackler; T. Andrew Earles; and Ken MacKenzie. 2010. Incentive Index Developed to Evaluate Storm-Water Low-Impact Designs. Journal of Environmental Engineering, December, Vol. 136, Issue 12. Earles, T.A. 2010. Quantification of Volume Reduction Benefits of Low- Impact Development. 21st Annual CASFM Conference, Snowmass, CO. September. Piza, Holly and T. Andrew Earles. 2010. Concurrent Technical Sessions Workshop (Snowmass Village, CO): The New Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 3. September. Keyes, J. and Earles, T.A. 2010. Developing a Stormwater Auditing Program for Construction Sites. Environmental Connection, July, Vol. 4, Issue 3. ROBERT D. JARRETT, PHD Research Hydrologist January 2016 EDUCATION Ph.D., Colorado State University, Civil Engineering, 1987 M.Sc., Colorado State University, Civil Engineering, 1979 B.Sc., University of New Hampshire, 1971 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Consulting Engineer, 2012-Present Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Geological Survey, 2012-2014 Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, 1974-2012 1st Lt. (Hydrologist), U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, 1971-1974 PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY Robert has 44 years of experience in flood hydrology and hydraulics, hydrometeorology, fluvial geomorphology, and paleoflood hydrology, specializing in mountain-river systems. From 1971 to 1974, Bob worked on flood hydrometeorology and hydraulics of the 1972 Agnes Flood with the U.S Army Corps of Engineers in Buffalo, New York. From 1974 until 2012, he was a research hydrologist for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Lakewood, Colorado, and published over 80 scientific papers. Dr. Jarrett was the Chief of the USGS’s National Research Program project “Paleohydrology and Climate Change.” Bob’s overarching research focus was to conduct interdisciplinary research that addressed critical water issues facing the Nation. He developed cost-effective, improved methods to quantify the magnitude and frequency of floods and help reduce loss of life and economic loss from hydrologic hazard from natural, dam-failure, wildland-fire, and urban- floods, and evaluate the effects of hydroclimatic variability on maximum flooding during the Holocene. He extensively worked with local, regional, and State emergency managers, USACE, USBR, FEMA, NWS, USFS, the USGS, consulting engineers, and academicians. Much of his career focused on integrating paleoflood hydrology in floodplain management, flood-hazard mitigation, dam safety, and related water- resources issues. Most recently, he used paleoflood methods to document 140 peak discharges for stream sites affected by the record September 2013 Flood in the Colorado Front Range for use by numerous State, regional, and federal agencies and consulting engineering companies. The data were used to help calibrate and validate rainfall-runoff models, and improve flood- frequency analyses for post-flood recovery and engineering design studies. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Improvements to the Nation’s Flood-Frequency Methodologies. A major career research focus has been to improve methodologies for estimating robust flood-frequency estimates, particularly in developing paleoflood techniques to provide data for large floods outside the systematic streamflow-gaging station records. Bob provided leadership, research, and paleoflood data that helped improved flood-frequency methodologies using new Expected Moments Algorithm (EMA), which is an innovative approach for incorporating paleohydrologic information into gaged and regional flood frequency analyses. Placing extreme floods in their proper perspective of flood frequency has had important implications for flood plain management and dam safety. This effort contributed to help the Hydrology Subcommittee, Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data (IACOWD) update the Bulletin 17B’s “Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency,” including incorporation of EMA methodology and paleoflood data (Bulletin 17C). Regional paleoflood analysis to compliment floodplain studies and site-specific PMP-PMF studies in the Rocky Mountains. In the past two decades, there has been growing interest to incorporate paleoflood data in flood-frequency analysis and risk-based analyses for design-flood hydrology for regional, State, and federal agencies. Paleoflood hydrology provides useful information to assist floodplain managers and dam-safety officials in their assessments of the probability of large floods. Paleoflood data obtained by field analyses of preserved botanical and sediment deposits of past floods both historic and recent floods at ungaged sites (no streamflow-gaging stations at or near a site). Paleoflood data (magnitudes and ages) help estimate extreme floods, with annual exceedence probabilities (AEPs) in the range of about 0.02 to 10 -4 chance of occurrence per year for floodplain management, particularly the smaller AEPs for the purposes of planning, design, and maintenance of dams. Regional paleoflood data (typically for 25-100 stream sites) are obtained for a specified floodplain study area or for a site-specific PMP/PMF study. Dozens of floodplain studies have been conducted by Dr. Jarrett throughout the Rocky Mountain Region, notably in Colorado. Applied regional paleoflood studies for dam safety include: Olympus Dam, Henderson Mill Site, Cherry Creek Dam, Ritschard Dam, Bear Creek Reservoir, Elkhead Reservoir, Gross Reservoir, as well as for other dams in the Rocky Mountains. Jonathan E. Jones, P.E., D. WRE Principal-in-Charge January 2015 Page 1 of 2 Experience Overview Jon has worked at WWE for more than 30 years and is a Senior Consultant and WWE’s Chief Executive Officer. His focus is on surface water and groundwater quantity and quality engineering with emphasis on watershed management and protection; water resources planning, policy and design; physical and legal water supply; safety; water rights evaluations; watershed models; multiple aspects of Federal Clean Water Act; and erosion/sediment control; channel stability and sediment transport. Hydrology Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) and Cities and Counties in the Denver Metropolitan Area. Consultant on wide-ranging stormwater quantity/quality issues. Examples include: principal engineer and/or project manager of such documents as Volumes 1, 2, and 3 of the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (criteria for 42 cities and counties in the Denver Metropolitan area); Lower Box Elder Creek Major Drainageway Master Plan; Big Dry Creek Tributaries Master Plan; Beebe Seep Canal/Barr Lake Master Plan; and a book that reviews the performance of drainage infrastructure in the Denver Metro area in the landmark September 2013 flooding. Prepared the water rights and water quality chapters of the South Platte River Master Plan (through Metropolitan Denver). Advisor to UDFCD on draft Phase 1 stormwater NPDES regulations. Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, Colorado. Subconsultant to Design Studios West for major river improvements in downtown Estes Park, Colorado. State of Colorado. Retained to evaluate the nature and causes of surface water damage at the campus of Colorado State University (CSU) in Fort Collins and state office buildings in Sterling during a July 1997 extreme rainfall event. City of Golden, Colorado. Prepared comprehensive review of nature and causes of flooding in Arapahoe Gulch and a tributary to Kenneys Run during large storms that occurred in June 2004, followed by master plan and preliminary design of improvements for Arapahoe Gulch. Worked on projects in close conjunction with Colorado Water Conservation Board, UDFCD, City staff and neighborhood residents. Findings presented to City Council. Town of Manitou Springs, Colorado. Provided peer review of WWE design drawings for channel stabilization, including associated planning, permitting and design tasks. Houston, Texas, Floodplain Mapping Evaluation. Reviewed proposed FIRM maps prepared by Harris County Flood Control District for major property owners and developers in Houston Metropolitan area. City of Beaumont, Texas. Consultant on master drainage planning and drainage criteria development. Relevant Credentials/Specialties Registered Professional Engineer in 15 states Frequently Coordinates with Multiple Stakeholders Proficient in hydrology and hydrological modeling Author of over 100 publications Chairman of the committee that prepared ASCE/WEF Manual of Practice on Urban Stormwater Education M.E., Civil Engineering, University of Virginia,1981 B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Virginia,1980 Registrations/Affiliations Registered Professional Engineer in Colorado and 12 other states. Past Member, Board of Directors and Diplomate, American Academy of Water Resources Engineers Past Member, Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority Current Member, Board of Directors, Urban Water Resources Institute Serve(d) on Expert Panels for California stormwater numeric limits; Chesapeake Bay water quality; Florida nutrient limits; and USEPA water quality indicators Jonathan E. Jones, P.E. Principal-in-Charge January 2015 Page 2 of 2 University of Colorado and City of Boulder, Colorado. Coauthored study of environmental impacts of proposed 95-acre University of Colorado Research Park in Boulder, Colorado. Prepared sitewide conceptual drainage plan. Also, in a separate assignment, analyzed flood hydraulics, regulatory constraints and specific flood-proofing measures for research buildings located in the Boulder Creek floodway in Boulder. Development of floodwater surface profiles. Stapleton Airport Site Redevelopment “Pattern Book.” Working on a multidisciplinary team led by the Matrix Design Group, served as coauthor of the Stapleton Airport Redevelopment Site “Pattern Book,” which provides a blueprint for stormwater management for this large site in the Denver Metro area. This book provides guidelines for stormwater quantity and quality management and was the foundation for the drainage system that has been constructed as the site has been redeveloped. Nebraska Storm Drainage Consulting. In conjunction with Olsson Associates Consulting Engineers, prepared major drainageway master plans and storm drainage criteria manual for the City of Lincoln, Nebraska, and the Lower Platte South Natural Resource District. Advisor regarding general aspects of local stormwater quantity and quality management program. Also, advised City of Lincoln staff on stormwater NPDES permitting issues and maintenance/upgrading prioritization as subconsultant to JEO. ExxonMobil. Assisted on multiple assignments in Colorado and Wyoming related to (for example) stormwater NPDES discharge permitting; planning and design of stormwater BMPs; floodplain evaluation and regulatory floodplain compliance; permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and ancillary regulatory concerns; debris flow evaluation and flood flow quantification; design of sedimentation basins, detention ponds, culverts and other facilities; pipeline crossings of stream channels; and water supply and wastewater treatment facilities. Kansas Department of Transportation. Evaluated flooding near confluence of Walnut River and Arkansas River. Separate assignment regarding evaluation of feasibility of relocating irrigation ditch near Garden City, Kansas (subconsultant to Burns & McDonnell). City of Rogers, Arkansas, and Crafton Tull. Consultant on storm drainage criteria, major drainageway master plans, ordinance enactment, erosion and sediment control, stormwater quality, financing and stormwater NPDES regulations. Denver International Airport (DIA). Assisted with preparation of initial storm drainage criteria for DIA, working as subcontractor to Bechtel, and with major drainageway master planning of Lower Box Elder Creek on east side of DIA for DIA, Adams County and UDFCD. Great Western Sugar Company, Johnstown, Colorado. Evaluated flood hazard potential of Great Western Sugar Company’s Johnstown, Colorado, facility with respect to floods ranging from the 10-year to 500-year return frequency. Recent Publications Developing a Consolidated Resource for BMP Performance Studies. World Water: Stormwater Management. Vol. 3, Issue 3, June/July 2015. Public Safety Guidance for Urban Stormwater Facilities. Editor and Chair, Task Committee for Public Safety for Urban Stormwater Management Facilities. 2014. (B.R. Urbonas, P.E., D.WRE, Vice-chair, and A.C. Rowney, Ph.D., P.Eng, D.WRE, Secretary.) Sponsored by ASCE/Environmental Water Resources Institute (led by the Urban Water Resources Research Council); Water Environment Federation; National Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies; American Public Works Association; American Water Resources Association; American Planning Association. ASCE Press: Reston, VA. Developing a Centralized Resource for Agricultural BMP Performance. World Environmental & Water Resources Congress. Portland, Oregon. June 2014. New Guidance from EWRI Protecting Public Safety at Urban Water Facilities. EWRI Currents. Vol. 16, No. 1. Winter 2014. Enhancements to the International BMP Database. APWA Reporter. Vol. 81, No. 2. February 2014. Denver Metropolitan Area Fares Well During Severe Precipitation Event in September 2013. Flood Hazard News. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District; Denver. Vol. 43, No 1. December 2013. Shannon Tillack, P.E. Project Engineer January 2016 Page 1 of 1 Experience Overview Shannon provides support on surface water, hydrology and hydraulics projects. Specialties include stormwater and drainage evaluation, master planning and SWMPs. She has also been very involved with permitting and public education efforts on nonpotable reuse, including planning and addressing public forums. Floodplains/Stormwater UDFCD Flood Book. Worked with UDFCD and municipalities affected by September 2013 flood to create “coffee table” book with overview of flooding and assessment of effectiveness of urban drainage improvements for flood risk reduction and hazard mitigation. City of Boulder Rainfall/Runoff Analysis. Project engineer for assignment to evaluate rainfall and runoff characteristics of September 2013 flood in Boulder, Colorado. Evaluated 5-minute, gauge-corrected radar data to characterize rainfall intensity and return periods for watersheds in Boulder. Evaluated stream gauge data and post-event floodplain mapping to assess runoff. Developed report to explain how measured rainfall resulted in observed flooding for major drainageways in and near City. Denver Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (USDCM), 2010 Volume 3 Update. Project engineer for the update of the UD–BMP (Urban Drainage–Best Management Practice) workbook for Volume 3, Best Management Practices, of the USDCM. Big Dry Creek Major Drainageway Plan. Project engineer for the development of the Big Dry Creek Conceptual Design Report. Performed hydraulic modeling to determine the extent of the 100- year floodplain and floodway along the southern reach of Big Dry Creek in Adams County and Weld County, Colorado. Fourmile Wildfire Hydrologic and Debris Flow Risk Assessment. Project engineer for wildfire assessment of flooding and debris flow risk following the 2010 Fourmile Canyon fire in Boulder County, Colorado. Specific tasks included HEC–HMS modeling to project peak flows and debris flow potential for a range of storm events. Stormwater Management Plans (SWMPs)/Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (GESCs) in Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Jurisdictions. Developed multiple SWMPs/GESCs in the following MS4 jurisdictions: City and County of Denver, City of Aurora, Commerce City, City of Thornton, Boulder County, Douglas County, Town of Parker, Adams County, Weld County and others. UDFCD Temporary Diversion Criteria. Assisted with developing revised temporary diversion criteria for small, short-duration projects. The revised criteria are based on stream data collected throughout the Denver metropolitan area. Aurora Stormwater Program Master Plan (SWPMP) update. Working with Calibre Engineering and StormGroup1 on Aurora Stormwater Program Master Plan (SWPMP) update. Relevant Project Experience: Flood Analyses Hydrology Hydraulic Modeling Drainage Forensics BMP Site Planning Temporary Diversion 8 Years Experience Education B.S., Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, 2007 Registrations/Affiliations Colorado Professional Engineer # 47222 Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control #7642 Member of the Colorado Association of Stormwater and Floodplain Managers (CASFM) Publications Earles, Andrew, Jonathan Jones, Shannon Tillack, Ken Wright, and Ken MacKenzie. 2013. Denver Metropolitan Area Fares Well During Severe Precipitation Event in September 2013. Flood Hazard News, December, Vol. 43, No 1. Tillack, Shannon, Andrew Earles, Ken Mackenzie, and David Bennetts. 2013. Temporary Diversion Sizing When Working in Waterways. Stormwater Magazine, September. Julia H. Traylor Project Engineer January 2016 Page 1 of 1 Experience Overview Water Resources Engineer with experience in general design work and engineering reports. Skills include performing field work for projects sponsored by Urban Drainage and Flood Control District and the creation of topographic models and channel profiles using AutoCAD. Hydrology Technical Paper on Climate Change in Colorado and the UDFCD Drainage System. Assisted with the research and writing of a technical paper addressing the potential effects of climate change on the UDFCD drainage system. City of Boulder. Project Engineer for the analysis of precipitation and flooding during the September 2013 flooding in Boulder. Stream Gage Verification. Assisted in the modeling and verification of stream gages using HECRAS. Utility Company Stormwater Management Plans (SWMPs) and Best Management Practices (BMP) Site Plans. Assisted large utility company with stormwater permitting including field visits and the preparation of SWMPs and BMP site plans. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis of Confidential Sites in Buffalo, NY. Project Engineer for hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of two sites in Buffalo, New York, including regular monitoring and water quality sampling and analysis. Stormwater Management Plan Reviews. Assisted local municipality with the review of stormwater management plans. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (USDCM), 2012/2013 Volumes 1 and 2 Update. Assisted with updating the Runoff USDCM. Copper Mountain SWMP. Prepared attachments to existing SWMP to include additional areas of disturbance. CDOT MS4 Database. Assisted the Colorado Department of Transportation with the completion of a Stormwater Inspection Tool database with over 4,000 outfall records near Colorado roadways. Cave Springs Recharge Area BMP Manual. Assisted in preparing a BMP manual and buffer ordinances for a sensitive recharge area in Arkansas. Square Tower Hydrology. Participating in a study of prehistoric water resources and water use at Hovenweep National Monument in Utah. Phnom Bakheng Drainage and Erosion Control, Angkor Archaeological Park, Cambodia. Assisted in research and design of drainage channels at Phnom Bakheng to help preserve and restore the ancient Angkor site. Relevant Credentials/Specialties Hydrology and Hydraulics Creation of Topographic Models and Channel Profiles using AutoCAD Permitting, Regulatory and Stormwater Management Plans Criteria and Guidance Manuals Databases Water Quality Education B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2013 Honors/Awards American Council of Engineering Companies Young Professional of the Year, 2014. EEWRI Undergraduate Technical Paper Competition. 1st Place Original Paper. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress Cincinnati OH, 2013. Other Secretary American Society of Civil Engineers – CU Boulder, Colorado. 2011. Engineering Excellence Fund Committee Member. 2013. Environmental Risk Assessment and Management System (eRAMS) development team W (303) 480-1700 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. & Dr. Robert Jarrett 2490 W. 26th Ave., Ste. 100A Denver, CO 80211 aearles@wrightwater.com January 2016 Proposal: Hydrology Study for Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch WWE 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK EXECUTIVE SESSION PROCEDURE January 26, 2016 Executive Sessions may only occur during a regular or special meeting of the Town Board. Limited Purposes. Adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, or formal action shall not occur at any executive session. Procedure. Prior to the time the Board convenes in executive session, the Mayor shall announce the topic of discussion in the executive session and identify the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized, including the specific statutory citation as enumerated below. Prior to entering into an executive session, the Mayor shall state whether or not any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by the Town Board following the executive session. 1. To discuss purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest - Section 24-6-402(4}(a}, C.RS. 2. For a conference with an attorney for the Board for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions - Section 24-6-402(4}(b}, C.RS. 3. For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by federal or state law, rule, or regulation - Section 24-6-402(4}(c}, C.RS. 4. For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements or investigations Section 24-6-402(4}(d}, C.RS. 5. For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators - Section 24-6-402(4}(e}, C.RS. 6. For discussion of a personnel matter - Section 24-6-402(4}(f}, C.RS. and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board; the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board; or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees. 7. For consideration of any documents protected by the mandatory non- disclosure provision of the Colorado Open Records Act - Section 24-6-402(4}(g}, C.RS. 2 Electronic Recording. A record of the actual contents of the discussion during an executive session shall be made by electronic recording. If electronic recording equipment is not available or malfunctions, written minutes of the executive session shall be taken and kept by the Town Clerk, if present, or if not present, by the Mayor. The electronic recording or minutes, if any, of the executive session must state the specific statutory provision authorizing the executive session. The electronic recording or minutes, if any, of the executive session shall be kept by the Town Clerk unless the Town Clerk was the subject of the executive session or did not participate in the executive session, in which event, the record of the executive session shall be maintained by the Mayor. If written minutes of the executive session are kept, the Mayor shall attest in writing that the written minutes substantially reflect the substance of the discussion during the executive session and such minutes shall be approved by the Board at a subsequent executive session. If, in the opinion of the attorney who is representing the Board, and who is present at the executive session, "all or a portion" of the discussion constitutes attorney-client privileged communications: 1. No record shall be kept of this part of the discussion. 2. If written minutes are taken, the minutes shall contain a signed statement from the attorney attesting that the unrecorded portion of the executive session constituted, in the attorney's opinion, privileged attorney-client communications. The minutes must also include a signed statement from the Mayor attesting that the discussion in the unrecorded portion of the session was confined to the topic or topics for which the executive session is authorized pursuant to the Open Meetings Law. Executive Session Motion Format. Section 24-6-402(4) of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires the specific citation of the statutory provision authorizing the executive session. THEREFORE, I MOVE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION: For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) – Litigation. For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(e) - Cornerstone Engineering. 3 To discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of real, personal, or other property interest under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(a). X For discussion of a personnel matter - Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.RS. and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees. For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by the following federal or state law, rule or regulation: under C.RS. Section 246-402(4)(c). For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements or investigations under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(d). For consideration of documents protected by the mandatory nondisclosure provisions of the Open Records Act under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(g). AND THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES (The Mayor may ask the Town Attorney to provide the details): . The Motion must be adopted by the affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the quorum present. Retention of Electronic Recording or Minutes. Pursuant to Section 24-6-402(2)(d.5)(II)(E) C.RS., the Town Clerk shall retain the electronic recording or minutes for ninety (90) days. Following the ninety (90) day period, the recording or the minutes shall be destroyed unless during the ninety (90) day period a request for inspection of the record has been made pursuant to Section 24- 72204(5.5) C.RS. If written minutes are taken for an executive session, the minutes shall be approved and/or amended at the next executive session of the Town Board. In the event that the next executive session occurs more than ninety (90) days after the executive session, the minutes shall be maintained until they are approved and/or amended at the next executive session and then immediately destroyed. 4 ANNOUNCEMENT ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE MADE BY THE MAYOR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. MAKE SURE THE ELECTRONIC RECORDER IS TURNED ON; DO NOT TURN IT OFF DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS SO ADVISED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY. It is Tuesday, January 26, 2016 , and the time is (state the time) p.m. For the Record, I am Bill Pinkham , the Mayor (or Mayor ProTern) of the Board of Trustees. As required by the Open Meetings Law, this executive session is being electronically recorded. Also present at this executive session are the following person(s): Mayor Pro Tern Koenig. Trustees Ward Nelson. John Ericson, Bob Holcomb. Ron Norris. and John Phipps; and Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Town Attorney White, Town Clerk Williamson. This is an executive session for the following purpose of: For discussion of a personnel matter - Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.RS. and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees I caution each participant to confine all discussion to the stated purpose of the executive session, and that no formal action may occur in the executive session. If at any point in the executive session any participant believes that the discussion is outside of the proper scope of the executive session, please interrupt the discussion and make an objection. The close of the executive session is in the Mayor's discretion and does not require a motion for adjournment of the executive session. The Mayor shall close the executive session by stating the time and return to the open meeting. After the return to the open session, the Mayor shall state that the Town Board is in open session and whether or not any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by the Town Board.