HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-05-10The 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, May 10, 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.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated April 26, 2016 and Town Board Study Session April 28,
2016.
2. Bills.
3. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated April 5, 2016 (acknowledgement
only).
4. Resolution #11-16 Setting Public Hearing for a new Hotel & Restaurant Liquor
License filed by Notchtop Café, LLC dba Notchtop Bakery and Café, 459 E.
Wonderview Avenue #4, Estes Park, CO 80517.
5. Revised Board Governance Policy 1.4.
6. Estes Park Representation on the Go NoCO Board.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (OUTSIDE ENTITIES):
1. ESTES VALLEY PARTNERS FOR COMMERCE QUARTERLY UPDATE.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
Prepared 5/1/16
* Revised: 5/9/16
*
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
1. COLORADO DIVISION OF HOUSING GRANT FOR LONE TREE APARTMENTS
RENOVATION PROJECT. Loveland Housing Authority Director of Development Jeff
Feneis.
2. REQUEST FOR FOSH FUNDS BY EPIC FOR THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN
PERFORMING ART CENTER. Tom Dority.
3. 2016 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: OVERLAY CONTRACT AWARD.
Engineer Stallworth.
4. 2016 FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION. Director
Muhonen.
5. BUILDING PERMIT FEE WAIVER – 1147 FISH CREEK ROAD. Director Cumbo.
6. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INTERVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS. Town
Clerk Williamson.
4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
For the purpose of discussing specialized details of security arrangements under C.R.S.
24-6-402(4)(d).
5. ADJOURN.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 26, 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 26th day of April 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. to consider entering into
Executive Session.
PROCLAMATIONS.
Mayor Pinkham proclaimed the month of May as Emergency Preparedness month.
Mayor Pinkham also proclaimed April 29th as Arbor Day in Estes Park and May as the
month of the tree.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Sandy Burns/County citizen thanked Mayor Pinkham for his years of service and for
providing assistance to the County citizen in Little Valley during the 2013 flood.
Paul Fishman/Town citizen thanked outgoing Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Ericson and
Trustee Phipps for their service to the community.
Michelle Hiland/Town citizen read a prepared statement by Arthur Messal/Vista Ridge
HOA president regarding the closure of the emergency access road used by the public
due to the Dry Gulch Road project. The request was to reopen the access for the
residents of the area and to remove congestion from the densely populated Grey Hawk
Court neighborhood.
Elizabeth Fogarty/President and CEO Visit Estes Park thanked the outgoing members
of the Board, stating VEP appreciated their time and dedication to the community.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris informed the public of the upcoming Bear Aware concert and the Duck
Race the following weekend. He reminded the citizens of the upcoming Corp of
Engineer meeting on May 9th.
Trustee Holcomb invited the citizens to the Mountain Festival on April 29th celebrating
Arbor Day and Earth Day.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig thanked the Hayeks for visiting Monteverde, Costa Rica and
visiting with the officials. She also thanked the Mayor Pinkham and Trustees Ericson
and Phipps for their service.
Board of Trustees – April 26, 2016 – Page 2
Trustee Phipps thanked the Planning Commissioners for their service to the community.
As the liaison to the Commission the past two years, he has grown to respect the
members of the Commission and learned a lot over the past years.
Trustee Nelson reminded the community the Larimer County Open Lands Advisory
Board would meet May 5th.
Trustee Ericson expressed his appreciation to the Transportation Advisory Board for
their significant input to the Town Board on transportation issues.
Mayor Pinkham thanked the members of the Board he had the pleasure to serve with
over the past twelve years including Eric Blackhurst, Mark Elrod, Jerry Miller, Dorla
Eisenlauer, Sue Doylen and Chuck Levine.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
The Silver Jacket program is a group of national experts on flood proofing. They would
be in Estes Park the week of May 9-13th, and by invitation from the property owner
would provide an assessment to downtown property owners on how to prevent or
mitigate future flood damage. Letters were sent to all businesses and staff has visited
each business to provide information on the program which provides the assessments
at no cost to the property owner.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated April 12, 2016 and Town Board Study Session
April 12, 2016. Special Town Board Minutes dated March 30, 2016 and April
12, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. None.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated March 16, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated March 18, 2016 (acknowledgement
only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated March 15, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
7. Lease Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley Fire
Protection District for the use of the Dannels Fire Station and the Estes Park
Fire Training Area.
8. Tolling Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Stonegate Homes,
LLC and Steve Caldwell.
9. Intent to Annex Resolution #10-16 – Mountain Meadow Addition, Public
Hearing scheduled June 14, 2016.
10. Appointment of Kristin Nordeck Brown as independent hearing officer –
personnel matter.
11. Easement between the Town of Estes Park and Upper Thompson Sanitation
District for a 20’ wide sanitary sewer easement, Lot 1, Stone Bridge Estate
Subdivision.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees – April 26, 2016 – Page 3
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. NEW TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE - LAZY B RANCH AND WRANGLERS,
LLC DBA LAZY B RANCH AND WRANGLERS, 1665 CO HIGHWAY 66.
Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the application that was continued by the
Board on April 12th as the applicant was not present to discuss T.I.P.S. training.
Michelle Oliver/owner’s representative stated she had completed the training
online. She would send the remaining staff to the scheduled training in May. It
was moved and seconded (Koenig/Ericson) to approve the new Tavern
liquor license for Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers, LLC dba Lazy B Ranch
and Wranglers, 1665 CO Highway 66, and it passed unanimously.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEM:
A. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT & PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME
SUBDIVISION PLAT, Black Canyon Inn Townhomes, 800 MacGregor
Avenue; Sloan Investments LLC, Owner. Consulting Planner McCool
reviewed the request to approval a Minor Subdivision to separate the
upper vacant land from the developed condominium areas and a
Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat applicable to the newly formed
vacant lot to accommodate the construction of townhome units with
associated parking and entry walk-ways. The Planning Commission at
their March 15, 2016 meeting approved an Amended Development Plan
to reduce the density from 19 – 17 units and to construct an overflow
employee lot on the lower portion of the site. The applications were
recommended to the Town Board unanimously by the Commission with
recommended conditions of approval. Jim Sloan/Owner stated the
development would be a continuation of the current Black Canyon with
duplexes and single-family dwellings designed for vacation rentals;
however, the new units would not have to be a part of the rental pool.
It was moved and seconded (Phipps/Holcomb) to approve the Minor
Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat
applications with the following conditions of approval: 1) Rock
retaining walls are proposed extensively across the site. Walls
taller than 4’ will require a structural engineering design; 2)
Driveway slopes are to be 12% maximum; 3) All drainage evaluation
shall be in compliance with current Town drainage criteria; and 4)
Continued compliance with original reports, including but not
limited to Wildlife Impact Assessment dated March 24, 2008
(updated on April 20, 2009), Drainage Report dated March 25, 2009,
and Traffic Impact Study dated March 25, 2009, and it passed
unanimously.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MAYOR PINKHAM & TRUSTEES ERICSON & PHIPPS.
Ben Bobowski/Interim Rocky Mountain National Park Superintendent and Kyle
Patterson/ Public Information Officer Rocky Mountain National Park thanked Trustees
Ericson and Phipps for their service to the community and presented them with a gift.
Mayor Pinkham was honored with a Park Service Arrowhead for his services to the
community and partnership with the Park during his 12 years on the Board.
Mayor Pinkham presented Trustees Ericson and Trustee Phipps with a plaque and a
“Resolution of Respect”. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig presented Mayor Pinkham with a
plaque and “Resolution of Respect”. All were honored for their active participation on
the goals and achievements of the Board of Trustees during their terms of office and
their service and dedication to the community. Town Administrator Lancaster presented
each with a gift in recognition of their service.
Board of Trustees – April 26, 2016 – Page 4
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. SWEARING-IN CEREMONY FOR NEWLY-ELECTED MAYOR AND
TRUSTEES. Municipal Judge Brown conducted a Swearing-In Ceremony for
newly elected Mayor Todd Jirsa and Trustees Patrick Martchink, Ron Norris
and Cody Rex Walker.
2. MAYOR PRO TEM.
Mayor Jirsa recommended Trustee Koenig serve as Mayor Pro Tem and
requested a motion from the Board. It was moved and seconded
(Walker/Norris) to approve the appointment of Trustee Koenig as Mayor
Pro Tem, and the motion passed unanimously.
3. TOWN BOARD POLICY 101 – BOARD ASSIGNMENTS.
Policy Governance 101 Board Appointments outlines the appointments to a
number of Boards, Commissions and Task forces. The following were
considered by the Board for formal approval and appointment:
Board, Commission or Task
Force
Liaison Staff Liaison Type of Committee
Estes Valley Planning Commission Trustee Norris Comm. Dev. Dir. Advisory/ Decision
Making
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Comm. Dev. Dir. Decision making
Western Heritage Inc. Trustee Walker Outside
Estes Park Museum Friends and
Foundation Inc.
Derek Fortini Outside
Ambassadors Trustee Holcomb Teri Salerno Outside
Police Auxiliary Wes Kufeld Working Group
Parks Board Trustee Martchink Kevin McEachern Advisory
Transportation Advisory Committee Trustee Holcomb Kevin Ash Advisory
Senior Center Inc. Lori Mitchell Outside
Estes Valley Restorative Justice Melissa Westover Working Group
Local Marketing District (Visit Estes
Park)
Trustee Walker Outside
Estes Park Board of Appeals Comm. Dev. Dir. Advisory/Decision
Making
Sister Cities Mayor Pro Tem
Koenig
Working Group
Audit Committee Mayor Jirsa
Mayor Pro Tem
Koenig
Trustee Holcomb
Frank Lancaster
Deb McDougall
Advisory
Colorado Association of Ski Teams
(CAST)
Primary Voting –
Mayor Jirsa
Alt Voting -
Administrator
Lancaster
n/a Outside
Platte River Power Authority Board
of Directors
Mayor Jirsa Reuben Bergsten Outside
Public Works/Public Safety
Committee
Trustees Koenig
(Chair), Martchink
and Nelson
n/a Board Committee
Community Development/
Community Services Committee
Trustees Walker
(Chair), Holcomb
and Norris
n/a Board Committee
Larimer County Open Lands Board Trustee Nelson n/a Outside
Community Grant Review
Committee
Trustee Holcomb,
Trustee Nelson
n/a Board Committee
Estes Park Economic Development
Corporation Board of Directors
Mayor Jirsa n/a Outside
Estes Arts District Mayor Pro Tem
Koenig
Travis Machalek Outside
Larimer County Wasteshed Policy
Group
Mayor Pro Tem
Koenig
Outside
Board of Trustees – April 26, 2016 – Page 5
Trustee Norris stated his disappointment with not being reappointed to the
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee as the only engineer on the
Board. Trustee Walker commented the Board should consider alternating
members on the Committees and liaison positions more often than every two
years. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to approve the
revisions to Policy 101 Board of Trustees Division of Responsibilities,
and it passed unanimously.
4. STAFF APPOINTMENTS.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to appoint Jackie Williamson
as Town Clerk, and it passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to appoint Travis Machalek
as the Interim Town Treasurer/Town Clerk Pro Tem, and it passed
unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to appoint Greg White as
the Town Attorney, and it passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to appoint Roger Clark and
Randy Williams as the Assistant Town Attorneys, and it passed
unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to appoint Gary Brown as
the Municipal Judge, and it passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to appoint John Easley as
the Assistant Municipal Judge, and it passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Martchink) to appoint Frank Lancaster
as the Town Administrator, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado April 28, 2016
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in
Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 28th day of April, 2016.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Town Attorney White, and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
POLICY GOVERNANCE.
Administrator Lancaster provided the Board with a review on Policy Governance. The
Town approved Policy Governance in February 2013 to identify the governance
process, board and staff linkage, staff limitations and ends.
ORGANIZATION CHART
Administrator Lancaster reviewed the Town’s organizational chart. The Town
Administrator, Municipal Judge and Town Attorney are the only employees of the Board.
All other Town employees report to the Town Administrator through the individual
Department Directors. Cultural Services was split from Community Services in the fall
of 2015 and placed under the supervision of the Assistant Town Administrator as the
span of control was too large for one department.
ICMA CODE OF ETHICS
The Town Administrator and the Assistant Town Administrator are bound by the
International City/County Management Association code of ethics.
STATUTORY/LEGAL ISSUES
Town Attorney reviewed a number of issues including open meetings requirements,
open records, deliberative work product from staff, email and correspondence,
Amendment 41 limitations, quasi-judicial role and ex-parte communications, and conflict
of interest/recusal.
MEETING PROCEDURE
Administrator Lancaster reviewed Policy 105 Agendas which outlines how items are
placed on the Town Board and Committee agendas. The Board is discouraged from
adding items to the agenda through public comment that have not been noticed to the
general public.
Study Session items are set by the Town Board. A list of approved discussion items
would be reviewed at each meeting and new items would be presented to the Board for
approval. The Board sets the dates for each item to be addressed.
Standing Committee agendas are set by the staff with consultation with the Committee
Chair. The Committees do not take any formal action rather they refer items to the full
Board for consideration.
Town Board Study Session – April 28, 2016 – Page 2
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
April 5, 2016 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Don Darling, Members Pete Smith, Wayne Newsom, John Lynch,
and Jeff Moreau
Attending: Chair Darling, Members Smith, Newsom, Lynch, and Moreau
Also Attending: Planner Carrie McCool, Planner Audem Gonzales, Interim Community
Development Director Karen Cumbo, Recording Secretaries Thompson
and Webb
Absent: None
Chair Darling called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were approximately 5
people in attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes from the March 16, 2016 meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented the motion passed unanimously.
3. LOT 47, LITTLE VALLEY 2nd FILING; 1545 HUMMINGBIRD DRIVE
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The request is for a variance to Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3 Table 4-2 which requires a 50-foot setbacks in
the RE-Rural Estate zone district. The applicants, Don and Kathy Townsend, initially
requested a 33-foot front yard setback. After closer inspection, it was determined the
setback distance was calculated from the middle of Hummingbird Drive instead of the
property line, so the actual request should be for a 20-foot setback. Moving forward,
Planner Gonzales will provide his staff report based on a 20-foot setback request. The
applicant desires to construct a proposed detached garage, approximately 700 square
feet in size.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
April 5, 2016
Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to affected agencies, a legal notice
was published in the local newspaper, and adjacent property owners were notified by
mail. Staff received two written public comments in opposition to the variance request.
The general tone of the comments was the request did not comply with the Little Valley
covenants.
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff findings, as follows:
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
The property is zoned RE-Rural Estate, which has a minimum setback on all sides
of 50-feet. The lot is approximately 2.13 acres in size, which does not meet the 2.5-
acre minimum lot size for the zone district. The subdivision was platted in 1968,
before adoption of the EVDC. The plat was created before steep slope provisions,
therefore lots were not required to be adjusted in size. This reduces the buildable
area for the lot due to the steep slopes present. The applicant is proposing building
the garage between the home and the road, to be able to utilize the existing drive,
which they feel would be the most practical.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
The property currently holds a single-family dwelling, which can continue to be
used. However, steep slopes and the required setbacks hinder additions and
new construction at the site. While there is an area on the site where the
garage could be built without requesting a variance, it is farther down the
mountain and impractical for use by the existing dwelling.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
The variance is substantial. The proposed garage would be entirely within the
EVDC 50-foot setback. Local covenants require a 75-foot setback. The Little
Valley HOA granted the applicant approval to place the garage at this location
in December 2015.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance:
This proposal would not alter the single-family character of the neighborhood,
and adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment. Two neighbors provided
written comment in opposition to this variance, citing the HOA standard of a 75-
foot front setback. Staff conducted several site visits to the neighborhood and
found several buildings built within the 75-foot HOA front setback and within the
50-foot EVDC setback. This request is in line with what has already been built
within the neighborhood.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
April 5, 2016
Staff found the variance requested would have no adverse effect on public
services such as utility lines, drainage or roads.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
The EVDC was adopted in 2000 and was readily available to the public. The
applicant purchased the property in 2014. RE-Rural Estate zone district setback
requirements and the HOA covenants were in effect at the time.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance;
A detached garage could be built at a different location on the site that complies
with the EVDC 50-foot setback and the 75-foot covenant setback. It would
require professional engineering for the steep slopes and would not be a
practical location in relation to the dwelling.
3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations
that will afford relief:
Staff found building at this location has little effect on the neighbors and aims to
make a practical decision in the placement of the garage.
4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its
independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified.
The applicant provided to staff an email thread from the HOA president that
documents variance approval for the garage. Staff would like to see the actual
letter of approval sent to the applicant. Staff recommends the BOA require the
letter within one month of this variance approval.
Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance with no conditions
of approval.
Staff and Member Discussion
Planner Gonzales stated that it is not the purview of the staff or Board to ensure
neighborhood covenants are enforced. However, staff feels that if they are aware of a
covenant, decisions are made to be in line with that.
Planner Gonzales stated that the house was built in 1974 before the EVDC was adopted.
There were covenants at the time when the house was being built.
Member Newsom stated this request is similar to other requests in the Estes Valley with
steep terrain, particularly the Windcliffe subdivision. There are lots in the Estes Valley that
would be considered unbuildable if the code was followed without exceptions.
Planner Gonzales stated the EVDC says a driveway cannot exceed a 12% grade. For this
property, if the garage were to be placed in a different location, it would require a
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4
April 5, 2016
meandering driveway that would take up half the lot to reach a location further from the
dwelling.
Public Comment
Kathy Townsend/applicant stated an alternate location for the proposed garage was
determined to be unfeasible due to the grade and added expense. She stated she and
her husband purchased the home a year ago, and have since made improvements to
bring the home up to the high standards of the neighborhood. The proposed garage
would be built to the same higher standard as the improved home. Because a portion of
the home was built lower than grade, the proposed garage will sit higher than the main
floor of the home when built at grade. Ms. Townsend stated the plans were recently
changed, with the garage being turned to allow more room for stairs going down to the
house from the garage. She stated additional room was needed in order to meet the
requirements for stair geometry. Chair Darling stated that it is difficult to approve an
application if the plans are going to change.
Staff and Member Discussion
Planner Gonzales stated that the board is approving or denying the setback variance, not
where the building is to be located within that setback. Chair Darling stated he was
concerned about problems down the road in regards to lack of information regarding
building placement within the setback. As a contractor, he has had to produce plans with
the lot surveyed to show the exact setbacks and where the proposed changes would be in
regards to those setbacks. Member Moreau stated he would like to see the architectural
drawings for the proposed structure. The goal is to protect the applicant and the
neighbors. Member Lynch stated he was concerned about the two letters in opposition
and that by granting a blanket acceptance it leaves it open to rebuttal. Planner Gonzales
showed an image of the concept of what the exterior of the proposed garage would look
like.
Ms. Townsend stated she would be willing to stay with the original proposed location if it
would mean the variance would be approved.
Interim Director Cumbo stated that the applicant is in a difficult position as her builder will
want to design to what has been approved. The Board may request additional information
to make an informed decision. However, she reminded the Board that this is a setback
variance request, not a building permit approval.
There was a discussion among the Board about the determining factors for a variance
request. Member Newsom wondered whether or not the additional information requested
(i.e. architectural drawings and elevations) was relevant to the variance request. Member
Lynch stated there are other homes in the area that are close to the road. He agreed that
they are generally given floor elevations and other dimensions to help see the scope of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5
April 5, 2016
the project. He felt the Board would be leaving themselves open to rebuttal since the
plans have changed, especially since there have been objections to the project. Chair
Darling stated the Board should be provided with enough information to make an informed
decision. The Board of Adjustment works to grant relief so a project can be successful.
Usually, the project is fully designed prior to coming to the Board of Adjustment.
Ms. Townsend stated she was relying on her builder to provide guidance regarding the
variance, and did not realize additional information was needed.
Member Moreau stated the additional information he would want to see on the plans
would include the precise location, floor elevation of the garage compared to the existing
dwelling, and the highest point of the garage roof. Member Smith stated e would add the
correct setback distances to the list. Chair Darling recommended continuing the item to
the next regularly scheduled meeting, which would be May 3, 2016.
The applicant agreed to continue the application to the next meeting.
Public comment closed.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to continue the variance request at 1545
Hummingbird Drive to the next regularly scheduled meeting on May 3, 2016, and
the motion passed 4-1 with Member Newsom voting against the motion.
4. 1st RESUBDIVISION, BUENO VISTA TERRACE; PORTION OF TOWN-OWNED
MORAINE/WEIST PARKING LOT, NO OFFICIAL ADDRESS
Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. The request is for a variance to allow a 30-ft
microcell antenna tower to be located in a “no parking” section of the Moraine/Weist
Parking Lot for Verizon Wireless. The standard in the EVDC to be varied is Section 5.1.
(T)(2) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Standards to allow for building the microcell
on a site that is not one of the accepted areas (school, hospital, police station, public
utility substation or high-tension power line easement).
Planner McCool orientated the Board to the site and where the proposed tower would be
within the existing lot. The parking lot is highly used. The “no parking” area is steep with a
unique configuration. The applicant would like to paint the tower dark green that is in line
with the equipment in the area. There would be an equipment enclosure constructed of
cinder block to match the nearby trash enclosure. An existing wooden utility/light pole sits
within five feet of the proposed site.
Planner McCool stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent
property owners. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6
April 5, 2016
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
This is a unique situation, with steep slopes, limited space for utility stations within
our community, etc. The proposed site is in close proximity to downtown, is in a
public parking lot, and is a fair distance from residential uses. This makes it a more
appropriate location for such a use than other sites in town. The installation of the
tower will benefit not only residents, but guests and emergency personnel. Staff
finds it is consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
The proposed tower would be located on an unused portion of the parking lot
that is not delineated for parking. It is marked with the words “No Parking” since
its unusual configuration cannot accommodate parking spaces. No other use is
proposed for the site and its unusual configuration limits proposed uses for the
site.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
The public parking lot shares the public/quasi-public use of sites where
installations of such towers are allowed. Staff finds this variance request is not
substantial.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance:
The site is buffered by Town-owned land. It is in the downtown area with
significant distance from residential areas to the west. The materials proposed
are compatible with materials already in use at the site. It is consistent with
existing types of uses in the immediate area.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such
as water and sewer;
As an unmanned facility there is no need for water and sewer. There is no
impact to delivery of public services. The applicant will build their tower and
enclosure on the existing asphalt so there is no change in grading or drainage.
The proposed tower will improve cellular service for Verizon customers. The
project was routed to all of the Town agencies. The only comment was from
Public Works, who was concerned about the impact to vehicle sight distances,
vehicle turning radius and overall traffic circulation in the parking lot if the
structure was built. The applicant provided revised plans March 28th, and
provided more information to Public Works. They are still concerned about
longer vehicles and tight situations. Staff recommends adding a condition of
approval that the applicant work with the Public Works Department to address
their concerns in regards to traffic circulation.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7
April 5, 2016
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
The Town owns the property and the applicant will lease the land. Therefore,
this review criterion is not applicable to this variance request.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance;
There are limited sites in town for the applicant to build a facility as proposed.
The applicant worked for several years to find a location that would work. This
variance is the only method to move forward.
3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting
the applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make
reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions
or situations;
Staff finds the applicant’s request for a variance is due to a one-time need for a
tower that can provide coverage in the downtown area. It is unlikely another
situation would arise requiring a similar variance in downtown, due to the unique
characteristics of cellular network signal dispersion. Staff finds that this situation is
unique.
4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or
proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots…
The variance request will not result in a reduction in the size of lots contained in an
existing or proposed subdivision.
5. Is the variance the least deviation that will afford the applicant relief?
The applicant has demonstrated that all other locations were not available and,
therefore, this is the least deviation necessary to afford relief.
6. Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to allow a
use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited…
The variance requested will not permit a use prohibited or not expressly permitted
in the Commercial Downtown zone district. One corner of the leased area and
enclosure will be located within the Residential zone district, where this use is not
expressly prohibited.
7. In granting such a variance, the Board of Adjustment may require such conditions
as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the
standard so varied or modified;
Staff has included two possible conditions of approval for the Board’s consideration
relating to the site circulation requirements received from Public Works and access
and utility easement dedication. The applicant would dedicate and record all utility
and access easements prior to building permit submittal. This would ensure the
easements are accurate and remain in place.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 8
April 5, 2016
Planner McCool stated that the board has four options for this variance. They could
approve with no conditions, approve with conditions, deny the variance or continue the
hearing.
Staff and Member Discussion
Member Moreau inquired about any intention to extend or alter other utilities to this area.
Planner McCool stated staff received no comments from the various utilities concerning
such an intent.
Public Comment
Barbara Grant, Kevin Brown/Verizon/applicants stated Verizon currently has two facilities
in our area, one on Prospect Mountain and one northeast of Estes Park. The tower has to
be 30 feet tall to provide the best coverage without requiring a height variance. The desire
is to cover the downtown area in order to get the maximum coverage on the west end of
downtown. To accommodate concerns about the turning radius requested from Public
Works, they shaved 3 feet off the lease area and expanded the vehicle driving lanes to
approximately 22.5 feet. Public Works may want a little more room, and the applicant is
happy to provide that, stating it needs to be a safe and viable parking lot first and
foremost. Bollards will be installed to protect the structure. The Town and Verizon
Wireless will enter into a 15-year lease agreement, and all easements will be recorded as
part of the lease. If a new lease is not negotiated at the end of the 15-year period, the
applicant has a certain time limit to remove their equipment.
Ginger Harris/property owner of nearest residential lot stated she was concerned about
the circumference of the tower. It was noted by the applicant that it will be four feet in
diameter and approximately five feet taller than the top of the existing utility pole. It will be
very similar to the temporary tower behind the Century Link building except painted green.
The lease space (enclosure) will be five feet from the current utility pole, while the
proposed tower would be a little farther to the north. Ms. Harris was concerned about the
tower location being moved to a different specific location within the proposed area, in
order to satisfy the Public Works Department. Planner McCool stated it is possible the
Public Works Department could require some adjustment of the location.
Interim Director Cumbo stated what has been presented is the site plan that works from
an engineering standpoint, and encompasses other agency’s concerns. There may be an
adjustment of 1 to 2 feet for the traffic lanes but the location will remain the same.
The applicant, Ms. Grant, stated the tower will be owned by Verizon Wireless, and will
improve reception for Verizon customers. However, 9-1-1 calls may also be directed
through this tower. There is room on the tower for other venders to lease space for their
equipment. There will be no other utilities involved. Power will be pulled from the nearby
utility pole. There is the possibility to add future technology (dark fiber, centralized
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 9
April 5, 2016
equipment) at this location, but that is several years away. The tower will be connected to
fiber optics like other cell towers.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Member Discussion
None
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated
March 25, 2016
2. Dedicate all proposed access and utility easements as depicted on the topographic
survey (Sheet LS1) and Site Plan document (Sheet Z1) of the development review
plan set prior to building permit submittal
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the requested variance
with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the Board, and the
motion passed unanimously.
5. REPORTS
a. Interim Director Comb reported Planner Phil Kleisler resigned, effective March
31, 2016 to accept a position with the City of Loveland. Community
Development will post his position next week. In the meantime, Planner McCool
and her staff from McCool Development Solutions are helping with the work
load.
b. Interim Director Comb reported on the 2015 International Building Code
adoption process. CBO Birchfield presented the significant changes and local
amendments to the Town Board on March 22nd. There was overall support for
the codes. The Town Board request language be clarified in regards to
sprinkling buildings. The revisions will be made and brought back to the Town
Board next week for adoption. The effective date will be June 1, 2016.
c. Interim Director Comb reported on the vacation home rental code amendment
process. County Commissioners and Board of Trustees approved two different
motions at their joint meeting last week. Under a shared development code, this
is not the ideal resolution. Another joint meeting will be scheduled to try to work
out their differences. The key issue is whether or not to place a cap on the
number of vacation home rentals in the Estes Valley. Staff will be providing
additional information to the Boards prior to the next joint meeting. In regards to
HOAs seeking to control vacation home rentals in their neighborhoods, which
regulation is more strict is the one that applies. Removing vacation home
rentals in the A and A-1 Accommodation zone districts from the cap would allow
the cap to just address vacation home rentals located in residential zone
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 10
April 5, 2016
districts, which is the main concern. There is a use-by-right for vacation home
rentals in residential zone districts, but we could also have a use-by-right with
regulations.
There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 a.m.
___________________________________
Don Darling, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RESOLUTION #11-16
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
That the filing date of the application for a New HOTEL & RESTAURANT Liquor
License, filed by NOTCHTOP CAFÉ, LLC, 459 E. Wonderview Avenue #4, Estes Park,
Colorado, is April 11, 2016.
It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board
Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, May 24, 2016, at 7:00
P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and hearing
shall be the area included within a radius of 3.5 miles, as measured from the center of the
applicant's property.
DATED this 10th day of May, 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: May 10th, 2016
RE: Revision to Governing Policy 1.4
Objective:
Update Governing Policy 1.4 to incorporate changes made by the Board in February
with the adoption of Ordinance 4-16
Present Situation:
In February the Board adopted Ordinance 4-16 which gave the Mayor the authority to
vote on issues coming before the board and removed the ability of the Mayor to
disapprove such ordinance or resolution in writing, subject to Board of Trustee override.
Proposal:
Approve the changes to Governing Policy 1.4 to be in agreement with municipal code
Advantages:
Provide continuity between adopted policy and the municipal code
Disadvantages:
none
Action Recommended:
Approve the revisions to Governing Policy 1.4 – Mayor’s Responsibility
Level of Public Interest
Very low – issue already addressed when the ordinance change was made in February.
Sample Motion:
(only required if item pulled from consent agenda) I move to approve/not approve the
revisions to Governing Policy 1.4 – Mayor’s Responsibility
1
POLICY TYPE: GOVERNANCE PROCESS
POLICY 1.4 POLICY TITLE: MAYOR’S RESPONSIBILITY
REV 5/10/2016
The responsibility of the Mayor is, primarily, to establish procedural integrity and
representation of the Board of Trustees and the Town to outside parties (as delegated by
the Board). Accordingly:
1.4.1. The responsibility of the Mayor is to consistently guide the behavior of the
Board with its own rules and those legitimately imposed upon it from outside
the organization.
1.4.1.1. Meeting agendas and discussion content will be only those issues
which, according to Board policy, clearly belong to the Board to
decide, not the Town Administrator.
1.4.1.2. Deliberation will be fair, open, orderly and thorough, but also efficient,
limited to time, and kept to the point.
a. 1.4.2. The authority of the Mayor is to preside over meetings and to sign documents
as authorized by the Board of Trustees and to preside over the evaluation of the
Town Administrator by the Town Board.
1.4.3. The Mayor shall not act on behalf of the Town in any unilateral manner, except
as approved by the Board of Trustees. This shall include any appointment of
committee or board positions, making any financial or other binding obligations
on behalf of the town, or expressing the official position of the Town on any
matter.
1.4.4 Representation:
1.4.4.1 Provide leadership for the Town of Estes Park.
1.4.4.2 Serve as the primary representative of the Town of Estes Park in official
and ceremonial functions.
1.4.4.3 Represent the Town in interaction with other government agencies.
1.4.4.4 Be the spokesperson for the Town unless the Town Board has decided
otherwise.
1.4.4.5 Represent the Town Board as a liaison with the Town Administrator to
promote the timely flow of information between the Town Board, Town Staff
and other governmental organizations.
1.4.4.6 Represent the Town on the Platte River Power Authority Board.
1.4.5 Enactment:
1.4.5.1 Mayor in conjunction with the Town Board and Town Administrator
enforces the ordinances and laws of the Town.
1.4.5.2 Signs all warrants (see section 2.12.020 of the Municipal Code).
2
1.4.5.3 Executes all ordinances and resolutions authorizing expenditure of money
or the entering into a contract before they become valid. The Mayor has the
authority to disapprove such ordinances or resolutions in writing, subject to
Board of Trustees override.
1.4.5.4 Mayor with, Town Board approval, appoints members of committees, and
other entities that may be necessary from time to time for the effective
governance of the Town.
1.4.5.5 Facilitating policies and procedures for the effective management of the
Board, establishing Town goals in conjunction with the Town Board,
promoting consensus and enhancing Board performance.
1.4.6 Mayor Pro Tem – Mayor Pro Tem shall assume all duties of the Mayor in the Mayor’s
absence in accordance with Section 2.16.010 of the Municipal Code.
1.4.7 – Mayoral Appointments
1.4.7.1 – Board Standing Committees – “At the first regular meeting following the
certification of the results of each biennial election, the Mayor shall appoint three
(3) Trustees to the following standing committees: Community
Development/Community Service and Public Safety/ Utilities/Public Works; and
the Mayor shall appoint two (2) Trustees to the Audit committee with the Mayor
serving as the third member.
(Ord. 26-88 §1(part), 1988; Ord. 7-03 §1, 2003; Ord. 10-10 §1, 2010; Ord. 10-14
§1, 2014; Ord. 13-15, § 1, 9-22-2015)
“At the first regular meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial
election, the Mayor shall appoint three (3) Trustees to the following
standing committees: community development, public safety, public works
and utilities.” (EP Municipal Code 2.08.010)
1.4.7.2 Special Assignments –
The Mayor may nominate trustees to serve on committees, community
groups, or in some other capacities as a representative of the Town. The
Mayor shall present the nomination of any such appointments to the Board
for approval at a regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make every
effort to distribute special assignments equitably among the members of the
Board.
1.4.7.3 Special committees.- Special committees may be established by the Board
of Trustees. The Mayor shall appoint all members of any special committee
subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees. (EP Municipal Code
2.08.020)
1.4.8 Voting Privileges – The Mayor has full voting privileges for items coming before the
Board of Trustees. (Ord 04-16 § 1, 2-23-2015)
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: 5/10/2016
RE: Estes Park representation on the Go NoCo Board
Objective:
To establish Town of Estes Park representation on the Go NoCo Board, the group
representing the Regional Tourism Act Funding projects with the State.
Present Situation:
Currently Bill Pinkham and Charlie Dickey are serving on the Go NoCo Board. With the
changes in the Town Board, the Go NoCo board has asked the Town reaffirm their
participation as representing the Town of Estes Park. (Under the RTA legislation, the
Town is required to have two representatives on the RTA governance board) Mayor
Jirsa has expressed his support for former Mayor Pinkham to continue to represent the
Town on the Go NoCo board. Both individuals are willing to continue.
Proposal:
Reappoint Bill Pinkham and Charley Dickey to the Go NoCo Board.
Advantages:
Fulfills statutory requirement
Provides continuity of representation
Disadvantages:
none
Action Recommended:
Reappoint Bill Pinkham and Charley Dickey to the Go NoCo Board.
Budget:
none
Level of Public Interest
low
Sample Motion:
I move to appoint Bill Pinkham and Charley Dickey to represent the Town of Estes Park
on the Go NoCo RTA board.
The following documents are being included to provide some background and history on:
Agenda Item #2 – Request for FOSH Funds by EPIC for the Rocky Mountain Performing
Art Center.
Memo from Attorney White dated April 22, 2011
Memo from Attorney White dated April 18, 2013
Minutes from the April 23, 2013, Town Board meeting
Town Attorney Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Halburnt
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: April 22, 2011
RE: Friends of Stanley Hall Agreement – Town Board Options
I have been requested by the Town Board to provide a legal opinion with regard to the
Town Board’s options with regard to provisions of the Amendment to the Agreement
between the Friends of Stanley Hall, Inc. (FOSH) and the Town of Estes Park (the
“Town”) dated May 9, 2006, relating to the decision required to be made by the Town
Board on or before May 9, 2011.
BACKGROUND
In January of 1994, the Town of Estes Park entered into three development agreements
with the owners of property known as the Stanley Historic District. One of the
development agreements was between Stanley Hotels Limited (the “Stanley Hotel”) and
the Town. Section 6.01 of that Development Agreement provided that the Stanley Hotel
would lease Stanley Hall to the Town for ten years subject to certain conditions, one of
which was “the Town will use Stanley Hall as a performing arts center…” Shortly
thereafter, the ownership of the Stanley Hotel filed bankruptcy. In 1995, New Stanley
Associates acquired the Stanley Hotel property as part of the liquidation of the
bankruptcy estate. Also, in 1995, the Town, EPURA and New Stanley Associates
determined that it was necessary to make emergency repairs to Stanley Hall in order to
allow Stanley Hall to be used as a performing arts facility.
The Town received a grant from the Colorado Historical Society for the renovation of
Stanley Hall as a performing arts facility. As part of that process, an Advisory
Committee was formed to advise the three entities with regard to the renovation of
Stanley Hall. It became apparent to the entities and the Advisory Committee that more
funding was necessary for the renovation of Stanley Hall than was available through the
three entities including the Colorado Historical Society grant monies. A non -profit
corporation was formed for the purpose of raising funds for the renovation of Stanley
Hall known as Friends of Stanley Hall (FOSH).
Page 2
New Stanley Associates subsequently determined that it was no longer interested in
partnering with the Town, EPURA, and FOSH in the renovation of Stanley Hall and
unilaterally took over the renovation. In 2002, FOSH had at its disposal the sum of
approximately $475,000 that had been raised for the renovation of Stanley Hall for a
performing arts facility. The Town and FOSH entered into an Agreement dated May 14,
2002, which provided that FOSH transfer to the Town the sum of $475,434.34. The
Town agreed to accept those funds from FOSH and maintain those funds in a
segregated account.
Paragraph 3 of the Agreement provided that the Town use the funds “as partial funding
for the design and construction of a facility for the preservation of the performing arts”.
The Town had four years from the date of the Agreement to determine whether or not
the facility was feasible with the decision being within the sole discretion o f the Town. If
the facility was feasible, the Town would then have a total of seven years from the date
of the Agreement to design and substantially complete construction of said facility and
use the FOSH funds for the facility.
In the event the Town determined, within the original four year period, that the facility
was not feasible, the Town then had two separate options as provided for in the
Agreement. A copy of the FOSH Agreement is attached as Exhibit A.
In 2006, FOSH and the Town entered into the Amendment to the Agreement (the
Amended FOSH Agreement). The Amended FOSH Agreement amended paragraphs 3
and 4 of the FOSH Agreement by extending the decision dates in the original
Agreement for an additional five years. The Amended FOSH Agreement is attached as
Exhibit B.
In June, 2006, a Goal Team of the Town Board reported back to the Town Board
regarding the feasibility of building and operating a Performing Arts Theater at Stanley
Park. Memo of June 10, 2006 attached hereto as Exhibit C. Subs equent to June of
2006, a non-profit corporation was formed specifically to raise funds for and operate a
performing arts facility at Stanley Park known as the “Supporters of Performing Arts,
Inc.” (SOPA). Following discussion between SOPA and the Town Board, the parties
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated January 28, 2008 outlining the
responsibilities and understandings between the parties regarding the location,
construction, operation of the proposed Performing Arts Facility to be located on a
portion of the Stanley Park Fairgrounds. As part of that Memorandum of
Understanding, in Paragraph C.3, the Town agreed to use the then current balance of
the funds in the Theater Fund (FOSH Monies) for construction of the Theater subject to
the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding. A copy of the
Memorandum of Understanding is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
On April 28, 2009, SOPA and the Town amended the Memorandum of Understanding.
Paragraph C.3 of the Amended Memorandum of Understanding remained the same. A
copy of this Amended Memorandum of Understanding is attached as Exhibit E.
Page 3
Some time after the execution of the Amended FOSH Agreement of May 9, 2006,
FOSH dissolved as a non-profit corporation in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Colorado Statutes.
TOWN BOARD OPTIONS
According to the terms and conditions of the FOSH Agreement and Amended FOSH
Agreement, the Town Board has until May 9, 2011 to determine whether or not a facility
for the preservation of the performing arts is feasible and, if the Town Board determines
such feasibility, the Town shall have until May 9, 2014 to design and substantially
complete construction of said facility and use the FOSH funds for said facility. The
Amended FOSH Agreement also provides that “all the funds shall be disposed of by the
Town pursuant to this Agreement within eight (8) years of the date of this Agreement
(May 9, 2014).
In the event the Town determines on or before May 9, 2011 that a facility is not feasible,
the Town shall then have the following options:
Donate the funds to any non-profit organization whose primary focus is within the
Estes Valley and whose non-profit purpose involves the performing arts, or if the
Town determines in its sole discretion that there is no appropriate organization
within the Estes Valley which provides support for the performing arts, the Town
may donate the funds to such an organization located within the Northern
Colorado area.
Due to the fact that FOSH has been dissolved, there is no party with which the Town
can negotiate a further amendment to the FOSH Agreement and Amended FOSH
Agreement.
It is my opinion that the Town Board has the following options:
1. Make a determination that the Stanley Park Performing Arts Facility as designed
by SOPA is feasible; and based upon that determination, the Town shall have an
additional three years to participate with SOPA in the design and substantial
completion of said facility and use the FOSH funds for said facility. As part of thi s
determination, the Town Board may want to further modify or amend the current
Memorandum of Understanding with SOPA to reflect appropriate terms and
conditions with regard to this determination.
2. It is my opinion the Town Board has the option of extending the time periods in
the Amended FOSH Agreement to allow for additional time in which to make the
determination of feasibility.
Due to the fact that FOSH is no longer a legal entity and there is no legal successor in
interest to FOSH, it is my opinion that the Town does not incur any substantial legal
liability in extending the deadline in Section C of the Amended FOSH Agreement. The
Page 4
only possible affected parties would be those entities within the Estes Valley whose
purpose involves the performing arts or like organizations within the Northern Colorado
area. Since it is within the sole discretion of the Town Board as to which entity or
entities would be entitled to distribution of the Amended FOSH funds under Paragraph
3.c, it is my opinion that individual entities would not have legal recourse against the
Town for the extension of the deadline in the Amended FOSH Agreement. In rendering
this opinion, I have consulted with numerous attorneys in the Northern Colorado area
who have experience with regard to foundations and non-profit corporations. None of
these attorneys have been able to provide any legal reason why this option is not legally
available to the Town. Also, I have consulted with the Colorado Attorney General’s
Office who has informed me that the Colorado Attorney General’s Office does not have
jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Colorado
Statutes.
Section 7-134-105(2) C.R.S. provides that a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation (FOSH)
may distribute, as part of its dissolution, its assets to a local government for a public
purpose. It is my opinion that FOSH met the terms and conditions of this provision of
the State Statute by distributing its assets to the Town pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the FOSH Agreements. There was no provision in the FOSH Agreements
for return of the FOSH funds to FOSH nor any successor entity. It is my opinion that
extension of the deadline in the Amended FOSH Agreement by the Town Board to allow
sufficient time to determine the feasibility of the Performing Arts Theater at Stanley Park
is consistent with the public purpose of the transfer of the FOSH funds to the Town.
The Town Board may make its decision with regard to the above options by motion.
Town Attorney Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: April 18, 2013
RE: FOSH Agreement – Determination of Feasibility
Background:
Pursuant to an Agreement dated May 14, 2002 between Friends of Stanley Hall (FOSH)
and the Town of Estes Park (the “Town”), FOSH transferred to the Town $475,435.34.
The Agreement was amended on May 9, 2006 (the “FOSH Agreements”). The current
amount of the FOSH funds held by the Town is approximately $458,215.
Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Town and the Supporters of
the Performing Arts, Inc. (SOPA), the Town agreed to use the FOSH funds for
construction of the Performing Arts Facility (the “Theater”) located on the Stanley Park
Fairgrounds property owned by the Town. On April 26, 2011, the Town Board extended
the FOSH Agreements to determine feasibility of the SOPA Theater project to May 9,
2012, and extend all other dates in the FOSH Agreements by one year. In March,
2012, SOPA terminated the MOU with the Town effective April 12, 2012.
Town Staff has developed an application process for Estes Valley Non-Profit
Organizations whose non-profit purpose involves the performing arts to apply for
donation of the FOSH funds. However, the Town Board has never made a
determination pursuant to Section 3.c of the FOSH Agreement and Paragraph 3.c of the
Amendment to Agreement “that a facility is not feasible”. The FOSH Agreement refers
for use of the FOSH funds as follows:
“As partial funding for the design and construction of a facility for the presentation
of performing arts. Said facility may be a part of or combined with other uses in a
multi-task purpose facility. Said facility may be either an indoor or partially
enclosed facility. The Town may be the sole owner or lessee of the facility and/or
the Town may partner with another entity for the design, construction and
operation of the facility.”
Page 2
Prior to moving forward with the application process for donation of the FOSH funds, the
Town Board needs to make a determination that “a facility is not feasible”. There are no
other references within the FOSH Agreements as to how a determination of non-
feasibility is to be made by the Town Board.
Section 4 of the Amendment to Agreement provides that all the funds shall be disposed
of by the Town within eight years of May 9, 2006. This date was extended by the
Board’s action on April 26, 2011, for an additional year. Accordingly, the last potential
date of distribution of all the FOSH funds will be May 9, 2015.
Accompanying this Memo is a Memo dated April 22, 2011 which provides further
background information to the Town Board.
Budget:
There are no implications to the Town Budget as the Town is holding the FOSH funds in
a fiduciary capacity pursuant to the terms of the FOSH Agreements.
Staff Recommendation:
The Town Staff has no recommendation for this action as this is a policy decision of the
Town Board.
Sample Motion:
I move that that pursuant to the applicable provisions of the FOSH Agreements a facility
is not feasible and direct Staff to begin the application process.
or
I move that pursuant to the applicable provisions of the FOSH Agreements a facility is
feasible as (identify facility and feasibility).
Board of Trustees – April 23, 2013 – Page 7
acquisition and resale of low-income housing. Extensions of the agreement
have been approved by the Town Board in 2008, 2010 and 2011. The current
extension expires on June 1, 2013; however, a balance of the loan remains
with approximately $313,000 still outstanding. The Authority has requested an
additional two-year extension through June 1, 2015 with a commitment to
continue to make principal payments on the loan with each unit sold as well as
monthly payments of $2,000 regardless of unit sales.
Director Kurelja was present and thanked the Town Board for the continued
support of the Authority. She stated the Authority through the partnership with
the Town has provided low income housing to seniors, provided housing to
teachers, seasonal housing and filled a tremendous community need.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Ericson) to extending the Estes Park
Housing Authority Loan for two years, expiring on June 1, 2015, and it
passed unanimously.
7. FOSH AGREEMENT - DETERMINATION OF FEASIBLITY. Pursuant to an
Agreement dated May 14, 2002 between Friends of Stanley Hall (FOSH) and
the Town of Estes Park, FOSH transferred to the Town $475,435.34 raised to
build a performing art theater in Estes Park. A Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the Town and the Supporters of the Performing Arts, Inc.
(SOPA), stated the FOSH funds would be used to construct a theater at
Stanley Park Fairgrounds property owned by the Town. On April 26, 2011, the
Town Board extended the FOSH Agreements to determine feasibility of the
SOPA Theater project to May 9, 2012, and extend all other dates in the FOSH
Agreements by one year. In March, 2012, SOPA terminated the MOU with the
Town effective April 12, 2012. The original FOSH agreement stated if a
performing arts theater was determined to not be feasible the funds should be
distributed; however, the Town Board has not determined the feasibility of a
theater. Prior to moving forward with the application process for donation of the
FOSH funds, the Town Board needs to make a determination that “a facility is
not feasible”. There are no other references within the FOSH Agreements as to
how a determination of nonfeasibility is to be made by the Town Board.
Trustee comments have been summarized: Trustee Blackhurst stated the
Town should follow through with the original intent of the donors and terminate
the agreement and distribute the funds per the agreement; Trustee Elrod
commented the theater has been determined to be feasible based on the
recent approval by the Board to agree to a land purchase by EPIC for a theater
downtown; and Trustee Norris would support the feasibility of the theater to
allow EPIC the opportunity to move forward with the current plan.
Stan Black/EPIC Board President read a prepared statement from the EPIC
Board stating the approval of the purchase option agreement between EPIC
and the Town was predicated on the fact the proposed performing arts theater
downtown was in fact feasible. The EPIC Board continues to move forward
investing time and money into the project including funds dedicated to the
development plan, consultants and a capital campaign. He requested the
Town honor the intent of the 270 FOSH donors to build a performing art theater
in Estes Park.
Teresa Marie Widawski/County resident and EPIC supporter reaffirmed the
Board’s approval of the land option suggested the project was feasible and
requested the Board provide EPIC the time to raise the capital before
determining the project is not feasible.
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/) that pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the FOSH Agreements a facility at the Stanley Park
fairground is not feasible and directed staff to begin the application
process to distribute the existing FOSH funds, motion died for a lack of a
second.
Board of Trustees – April 23, 2013 – Page 8
It was moved and seconded (Phipps/Koenig) the construction of a
Performing Art Theater appears to be feasible as of this date. The Town
will continue to hold FOSH funds as it has been until January 31, 2017. If
no significant construction of a new Performing Art Theater in Estes Park
is underway by said date, applications for funds shall then be taken and
acted upon by the Town Board. What will constitute significant
construction shall be determined by the Board of Trustees at that time.
The motioned passed with Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst voting “No”.
Mayor Pinkham whereupon he adjourned the meeting at 11:51 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
May 5, 2016
Mayor and Board of Trustees
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, CO 80517
Dear Mayor Jirsa and Trustees:
Estes Performance Inc. wishes to appear on your agenda at the regular meeting of May 10,
2016 to request the Board to award to EPIC the FOSH funds now held in trust by the Town.
Fourteen years ago, on May 14, 2002, those funds in the form of private donations
amounting to $475,435 were transferred in trust to the Town from FOSH in anticipation of
a future theater project.
The Board of the Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center believes that we have arrived at a
point where the dispersal FOSH funds to us is crucial if we are to complete our task of
raising the funds required to make a professional theater a reality in downtown Estes Park.
We are attaching an explanation of our rationale for this request. A list is also attached of
milestones EPIC has met and accomplished during the four years since our inception.
In making our request, we believe that there are ample precedents for such an action. They
include:
The funds in question are dedicated in use exclusively for the performing arts in
Estes Park.
The Town funded our predecessor, SOPA, for a business design and feasibility
study, using FOSH funds.
The Town has concluded through a series of recent actions that the EPIC project
does in fact meet the pivotal attribute of “viability”.
The Estes Valley Planning Commission, the Estes Park Board of Trustees, and the
Estes Park Board of Adjustment have all approved unanimously the EPIC
development plans.
The Town supported and accepted, together with the Estes Park EDC, EDA grant
funds to develop a long‐term economic sustainability strategy for the Estes
Valley. That plan, contained in the October 2015 Report from Avalanche
Consulting of Austin, Texas, specifically recommended that the Town of Estes
Park “promote the completion of the Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center...”
The Town has funded the position of Assistant Town Administrator whose
responsibilities include monitoring and supporting Arts programs in Estes Park.
The Town has allocated funds in response to a request from the Community
Center planners for assistance in hiring a fundraising professional for a
community‐based capital campaign – a request that mirrors our own.
The EPIC business plan for the Performing Arts Center is based entirely upon
private donations, loans and/or equity. It neither requests nor expects public
funding from the Town.
We will appreciate this opportunity to present the attached requests for your consideration
and approval.
Thank you.
Stan Black
Stan Black, Chair
Estes Performance Inc.
1
Request for Action by the Town Board
To Help Make the Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center a Reality
May 4, 2016
REQUEST:
A determination under your resolution of April 23, 2013 to award the FOSH trust
funds to EPIC now.
RATIONALE:
The Strategic Economic Plan for the Estes Valley, recommended to the EDC last December
in the Report by Avalanche Consulting, refers specifically to the RMPAC under Goal 1:
“Businesses seek communities that invest in themselves. For the Estes Valley to be
successful, it must begin by investing in itself...” and enriching its guests’ experience. The
Plan lists priorities for the physical infrastructure of the Estes Valley, beginning with
“Promoting the completion of the Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center...”
Until now, we have asked our enthusiasts, backers, partners, the public and our elected
officials to review and approve the Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center. They have
done so.
Hereafter, the EPIC Board, and its partners, must accept the responsibility for assuring that
this is completed. We must make this the reality that many people are now counting on.
Advocacy and Required Approvals
Because of skepticism in some quarters that we could succeed in building a professional
theatre in Estes Park, EPIC’s strategy was to proceed with development review in order to
know if we could rely on local approval as we seek more prospective donors to make major
contributions. We now have that evidence of strong local support and are putting it into
play immediately.
In December 2015, after a thorough review of EPIC’s development review application, the
Estes Valley Planning Commission was unanimous in recommending approval to the Town
Board for the Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center downtown. In January 2016, we
took the required second step and were gratified by the unanimous approval of the Town
Board. The final public hearing before the Board of Adjustment resulted in a unanimous
vote in favor of the three variances crucial to our project.
Capital Campaign
In May, 2013, we first introduced to the community our capital campaign for $25 million to
build the Performing Arts Center. Our building plans were essentially complete and by
2
September we had engaged campaign counsel. The Town Board granted EPIC an option for
the additional land to complete the RMPAC footprint, to be exercised by January 31, 2017.
The Board also recognized the RMPAC as a feasible plan and resolved to hold the FOSH
trust funds to construct a professional theatre in Estes Park, until January 31, 2017, as “...
shall be determined by the Board of Trustees at that time”. Together, EPIC and the Town
were making progress.
The floods of September, 2013, besides causing devastating damage throughout the Valley,
brought to a halt the progress of many building projects, EPIC included. On the basis of
discussions with a number of key supporters, EPIC concluded that a major capital
campaign would be pointless and contrary to the flood recovery efforts then underway.
With ongoing expenses to meet, we tightened our belts, released our campaign counsel, and
continued what low‐cost planning we were able to fund internally. During this hiatus, we
expended over $150,000 to honor our obligations, including our land option downtown.
We knew that the site downtown, and its condition, was a concern to adjacent businesses,
the Town, and our visiting guests. Accordingly, during the early months of 2014, EPIC
evaluated potential uses of the “slab” in order to earn revenue, eliminate the vacancy and
improve its appearance. With the opening of The Barrel beer garden in spring of 2015,
EPIC achieved these goals. Despite its delayed opening, The Barrel proved an unqualified
success. We also gained a secure revenue stream to cover the land option.
Flood Recovery and Renewed Optimism
With renewed optimism about Estes Park in 2015, including the taxpayers’ decision to fund
a Community Center and the major new construction at the Stanley Hotel, we shifted our
effort toward development review in order to gain the approvals we were convinced were
absolutely essential to restarting our capital campaign. We made initial application to the
Town in May. In order to review the EPIC plans along with many other local
improvements, the Town decided to add planning staff on contract. For the next eight
months, we incurred the cost of our architect, his experts and our engineer to present,
defend and resubmit our application repeatedly to the contract planners.
The process, it turned out, was more time and resource‐consuming then we anticipated. In
part this was occasioned by the need to provide more explanations and education than
usual during our discussions and negotiations with the contract planners. Prior
agreements about easements and parking between EPIC and the Town were not
understood, the already combined downtown parcels plus the river itself became
stumbling blocks, and unpredictable technical details about stream flow standards were
introduced, all of which resulted in over $150,000 expense on our part.
This has not been easy for the EPIC Board. As of this date, the combined cost of the
downtown site option during flood recovery, plus the development review process, has
totaled approximately $300,000. This expense was met entirely by cash donations, leaving
only the pledges we have for funds due upon construction. Unlike the EPMC, EPIC has no
separate foundation to fund its operations.
3
In March of this year, with the approval process successfully behind us, we resumed the
capital campaign. One of our first efforts was to engage with Colorado “Impact Days”,
sponsored by the University of Denver and providing unique exposure. Our self‐sustaining
project was one of only 60 out of 280 applications that were vetted by a team of investors
who evaluated the applications. EPIC Board members presented the RMPAC project
details, all its approvals and partners, to over 200 investors from foundations, venture
capitalists and individuals. This experience, with its wide public disclosure, has opened
important new contacts and channels to us with respect to potential new options and
sources.
Responsibility Now to Perform
In doing business and making investments, we all recognize the aphorism that “it takes
money to make money”. The same applies to fund‐raising. With the needed preliminaries
successfully behind us, the road ahead is clear. We must employ a well‐credentialed
professional fund raiser with an established track record to pursue the leads, channels and
networks we have developed. This is what it will require for us to raise a minimum of $15
million in philanthropic donations, plus another $15 million from equity investment or
low‐cost loans.
We also know that, prior to opening our doors, we must have under contract the first
season’s performance schedule. We have learned from the experience of professional
performance venues whose advise we have sought, as well as from the experience of Estes
Park’s own MPEC, that scheduling a full season of performances cannot wait until after
completion. To achieve this goal we must hire an experienced Artistic Director at the
earliest possible date.
Proposed Action:
Accordingly, EPIC requests the Town Board to determine, under your resolution of April
23, 2013, to award the FOSH trust funds to EPIC now. There is ample precedent for doing
so (listed in our transmittal letter). Such a distribution is absolutely necessary, in our
judgment and based on three years of experience, to make the Performing Arts Center a
reality.
This request is very much in keeping with the underlying goal of the FOSH resolution.
Moreover, the award of the FOSH trust funds to EPIC now will be immensely more valuable
than if they were awarded after we raised the millions required for ground‐breaking. Our
success in raising the capital and breaking ground in a timely manner will pivot upon
having experienced, professional staff. The time is upon us to release the FOSH trust funds
to EPIC for that purpose.
4
Conclusion
Each step we take toward the realization of the RMPAC highlights its transformational
potential for Downtown Estes Park, the strengthening of our community’s cultural life and
the future economic health and vibrancy of the entire Estes Valley. Each and every step
forward that EPIC takes demonstrates viability of our project and the reassurance and
commitment of our community that our donors and business partners tell us they need. It
becomes even more appealing as we take these major steps that demonstrate that the
RMPAC is not only viable, but an essential component of the Estes Valley ‐‐ a Performing
Arts Center that spans a wild river with a boutique hotel and restaurant that assure the
sustainability of the whole project for years to come.
An ongoing list of EPIC’s accomplishments toward the realization of the Rocky Mountain
Performing Arts Center is attached. If we do not complete this approved project, what
project is likely ever to be built? If not now, when?
Milestones Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center
March 2012 – September 2013 Land commitments
Jun 2011 Discussions with Seeley’s to secure development property.
Mar 2012 Signed Seeley Option Agreement
Terminated SOPA MOU
Facilitated SOPA/EPIC Merger
EPIC Board expanded from 3 to 5 members
Began negotiations with Town for Option on adjacent 22 parking spaces
Aug 2012 Submitted Variance Application
Augustine Home Event
Received first $1,000,000 pledge
Oct 2012 Received unanimous approval of height variance and river setback variance.
Nov 2012 Request to acquire adjacent 22 parking spaces tabled until January 2013.
Jan 2013 Request denied by 4 – 2 vote of Town Trustees
Grass roots support organized as Friends of The Rocky
Feb 2013 Proposal modified and approved by 4‐2 vote of Town Trustees
Mar 2013 30 day waiting period for ordinance to take effect
Seeley Option Agreement extended to March 12, 2017
Apr 2013 Ordinance in place authorizing sale of 22 parking spaces appraised at over $500K to EPIC for $1 plus
other considerations. Option expires January 31, 2017
Expanded EPIC Board from 5 to 7 Trustees
Town Board votes to declare the EPIC project as “feasible” and allocates the Theater Fund of $460K to
this project if EPIC can continue to show substantial and convincing progress before Jan. 31, 2017
Filed quiet title lawsuit in District Court to obtain undisputed title to river
Milestones Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center
Jul 2013 Thorp hosted consultant review with Town
Aug 2013 Dick Zellner resignation
Sep 2013 Hired PR Counsel, Campaign Counsel, and Project Assistant
Quiet title action completed to resolve right to build over the river
FLOOD
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sep 2013‐ Jan 2015 Suspended Capital Campaign, post flood recovery, redesign, and planning
Reorganized Capital Campaign Plan and developed new collateral for greater emphasis on Economic Development
Expanded Board from 7‐11 Trustees and implemented Trustee development program
Jan 2015 Restarted project after post flood redesign
Jan 2015 Decision to proceed with development review
May 2015‐Feb 2016 Development review and negotiations with Town
May 27, 2015 Development Application submitted
Dec 2015 Planning Commission Unanimous recommendation for approval
Jan 2016 Town Board unanimous approval of development and special review
Entered CO Impact days competition
Feb 2016 Board of adjustments unanimous approval of height, setback, and lighting variances
Selected as finalist in CO Impact Days
Developed extensive presentation materials for CO Impact Showcase
Feb 22, 2016 Development review complete
Mar 04, 2016 Launch revamped capital campaign at CO Impact Showcase in Denver
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
THE PERFORMING ARTS–Theater, Music,
Dance, and Film –are critical to a vibrant
society. They inspire creativity and innovation,
build community pride, bridge diverse cultures,
remind us of our shared humanity and inspire
our children.
And they entertain us.
Rocky Mountain Performing Arts
Center
•A Performing Arts Center is a critical but difficult to obtain asset
•Estes Park has worked for more than two decades to find a way
to build such an asset
•Over the last year, for the first time, the
Estes Performance InCorporated (EPIC) Board has created a
feasible plan
•Let’s briefly review what anchors that feasibility
Right Theater Economics
•Summer programs tuned to
tourists will drive revenue
•Off-Season program fed by
strong Denver/Boulder
performance scene
•Very accessible location
for generating extra
revenue days in Colorado
•Bring additional dollars
into community
•All Season venue for
community performances
Landmark Building
•Accommodation of river
re-engineered to higher
standards following 2013
flood
•Integration of river
makes this a landmark
project , motivates
construction partners
Right Building Economics
Boutique Hotel & Restaurant
•Unique location and type of
accommodation for Estes Park
•Drives high occupancy
•Supportive of performance mission
•Artists favor venue with local
accommodations
Capable Board
•Estes Park Non-Profit Board Experience
•Performing Arts Center Board Experience
•Capital Campaign Board Experience
•City Government Experience
•Hospitality Management Experience
•Performing Arts Experience
History
•March 2015 Development Application submitted
•December 2015 Planning Commission unanimous
recommendation for approval of our Development Plan
•January 2015 Town Board unanimous approval of Development
Plan
•We have expended ~$300,000 to develop this plan
•Since approval we have been studying fund raising
methodologies for a multi-ten million dollar raise
Next Step
•We need to fund a professional fund raising campaign
•Hire an Executive Director to drive campaign
•National search
•To be successful must be backed by multiple years of funding
•Support other fund raising costs
•Advisory costs associated with specific tax and legal structures to
support investment
•Solicitation and promotion of hotel investment
More History
•“In 2002, FOSH had at its disposal the sum of approximately
$475,000 that had been raised for the renovation of Stanley Hall
for a performing arts facility. “
•When the partner for that facility withdrew, the FOSH board gave
the Town these funds in anticipation of their use for a future
performing arts facility
•April 2013: In response to our preliminary plan, the Estes Park
Town Board resolved that a Performance Arts Center was
feasible and therefore the FOSH funds should continue to be
reserved for that purpose
After 14 years… The Future Is
Now
Great Plan Town Board Approval of
Plan Capable Board to Administer Funds for This Purpose
Next Step Requires the Investment of Significant
Funds
Requesting the Release of FOSH funds to the EPIC
Board
To Help Bring This Plan to Fruition
ENGINEERING
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kelly Stallworth, EI, Public Works Pavement Manager
Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: May 10, 2016
RE: 2016 Street Improvement Program Overlay Contract Award
Objective:
Rehabilitate and patch multiple roads in the Town of Estes Park as a part of the 2024
STIP program. Public Works would like to achieve this objective by receiving approval
to award the 2016 Street Overlay Program Contract to Coulson Excavating Co., Inc.
Present Situation:
On February 23, 2016 Public Works presented a plan for the Town of Estes Parks
streets to reach an overall system-wide PCI of 70 by the year 2024. To effectively
implement this plan we need to hire a contractor to begin the overlay portion of this
program.
Proposal:
On April 10, 2016, Public Works advertised a Request for Bid that would overlay four
streets in Estes Park as well as provide for multiple large patches throughout Town. The
table below shows the roads we are proposing to work on:
Street Name Activity
Axminster Lane Mill & Overlay
Devon Drive Mill & Overlay
Golf Course Road Mill & Overlay
Manford Avenue Mill & Overlay
Brodie Avenue Patch
Community Drive Patch
Curry Drive Patch
Grand Estates Drive Patch
Spruce Drive Patch
Five companies attended the mandatory pre-bid on April 14th. All five of the companies
present at the mandatory pre-bid meeting submitted a bid for construction. After three
weeks of advertising, the bids were opened on April 28th. The following table contains
the bids for each company:
COMPANY CITY TOTAL FEE
Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. Loveland, CO $418,970.50
EZ Excavating Longmont, CO $485,199.50
Perfect Patch Asphalt Commerce City, CO $513,050.25
Martin Marietta Materials Fort Collins, CO $507,205.00
Straightline Sawcutting, Inc. Denver, CO $478,410.36
The low bidder, Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. was 14% lower than the next lowest
bidder. The Town has satisfactorily worked with this contractor on multiple, recent
projects, and we have confidence in the quality of their work.
Schedule:
The contractor has the flexibility to begin construction between the dates of May 31,
2016 and August 15, 2016. Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. has verbally indicated that
they would like to begin construction in June.
Advantages:
Rehabilitation of 9 different roads in Estes Park, including high traffic areas such
as the 18 hole golf course and schools
Utilization of 1A sales tax funds to improve Estes Park streets
Disadvantages:
Temporary disruption of traffic in the proposed work areas
Action Recommended:
To advance 2024 STIP Plan, Staff recommends awarding a construction contract to
Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. in the amount of $418,970.50. As the low bid came in
below the budget of $526,000, Public Works would like to request authority to spend up
to the budgeted amount of $526,000.00 as a contingency.
Budget:
This project will be funded from the Street Improvement Fund and the Streets Fund.
Currently there is $500,000 allocated to this project from the Street Improvement Fund
and $26,000 allocated from the Streets Fund.
Level of Public Interest
Public Interest on this project is expected to be high.
Sample Motion:
I move for approval/denial authorizing a construction contract for the 2016 Street
Overlay Program, to Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. in the amount of $418,970.50 with
authorization for Public Works to spend up to $526,000.00.
Attachments:
Map of streets in the 2016 Street Overlay Contract.
Contract Document
C O N C O RD L NRIVERSIDEDRB
I
GHORNDRRAVEN AVE
M A RYS LAKERD
BOYD LN
VIRGINIA
DRWWONDERVIEW AVE
O TIS LNFIRAVEGRAVES AVE
E E L K H O R N A V EMORG AN ST
FISH CREEK RDS C O T T AVE
BIGTHOMPSONAVE
4THSTEHIGHWA Y 3 6
WINDH A
MDRPROSPECTMOUN
T
A
I
NRD
N SAINT VRAIN AVE
S P R I N G S T COMMUN IT Y DRLAK E S H O REDRWPEAKVIEWDRBIRCH AVECOUNTRY
CLU BDRHIGH ST SUMMI
TDRMANFORDAVE
CLEAVE ST
JOHNSEN LN
PEA K V I E W DR
BRODIE AVE
B R O OKDR
PINEWOODLNHILLRD B
AILEYLNHONDI
USLN3RDSTCHER OKEEDRELM AVEK
O
R
A
L
C
T
P A WNEE
DR
J UNIPERLNWAPITI CIR1STSTVISTALN5TH STACA C IAD RSUNNYLNLOTT STFAR VIEW LN
MALL R D2NDSTCOMANCHEST
ME E K E R D R
PI N E L N
VALL E Y RD
I N D I AN TRLSOLOMONDR
NORTHLAKEAVE
OURA YDRWILLOW LN DANDIEWAYPANORAMA CIRSSAINTVRAINAVEMA
C
G
R
E
G
ORAVEERIVERSIDEDRAVALON DRCOUR TNEY LN
CRAGSD RROCKRIDGERD
J
U
NI
PE
R
DRUPLANDS CIR
C U R RYLNMEADOWLNSWS T E A MERP K W Y
STANLEY AVE DRYGULCHRDLEXIN G TO NLNB ELL EVUEDR
RAVENCIR
ASPENAVERO CKCANYONRDLAKEFRONTS TJOELESTESDR
FLOWERLNWIND H AM CTJAMESSTHONDIUSCIRCHAPINLNLLOYDLNSU
NNYMEADLNRA N C
HCI R DEKKE RCIRCEDAR L
N
H
ER
MITPARKRDST
A
NLE Y C IR C LEDRBlack C
anyon CreekFall River
Big Thompson RiverFish CreekBig Thompson RiverLAKEESTES
MARYSLAKE
UV7
£¤36
£¤34
£¤36
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Tow n makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.±Tow n o f Estes ParkPublic Works
2016 Street Overlay Program
Printed: 5/5/2016Created By: Kelly Stallworth
Pa tches
Overlays
Legend
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: May 10, 2016
RE: 2016 Federal Lands Access Program Grant
Objective:
Public Works (PW) staff seeks approval from the Town Board regarding the submittal of
a Federal Lands Access Program grant application to fund multimodal roadway and trail
improvements on Moraine Avenue from Crags drive westward to Marys Lake Road.
Present Situation:
Traffic congestion in downtown Estes Park during the summer tourist season has been
a longstanding source of frustration for residents and visitors. The Town and Rocky
Mountain National Park (RMNP) have taken significant steps to minimize congestion by
developing a downtown visitor center, adding parking facilities, and implementing a
shuttle bus system that serves both downtown and the Park. The problem is complex,
and despite these efforts, more improvements are needed to improve the flow of visitors
from downtown Estes Park to the Beaver Meadows entrance to RMNP.
The Colorado Federal Lands Access Program Programming Decisions Committee
(PDC) announced grant applications will be accepted through May 21, 2016 for projects
that improve transportation facilities that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are
located within Federal lands. Over $17m is available annually for projects to be built in
2019 thru 2022. Details are provided in the attached program brochure. This funding
could provide another piece of the multi-part solution to the summer traffic congestion
problem.
On March 10, 2016 three candidate projects were presented to the Public Safety,
Utilities, & Public Works (PUP) Committee. They recommended this request be
referred to the full Town Board for consideration.
On March 16 and April 4, 2016, five project ideas were discussed at the citizen
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) meetings. The TAB voted unanimously to
recommend the Town Board submit an application for the Moraine Avenue
improvements (Option 5). See the attached memo from the TAB Chair, Kimberly
Campbell.
On April 12, 2016 this item was presented to the Town Board for direction. The Board
authorized PW staff to hire the engineering consultant firm of Felsburg, Holt, & Ullevig
(FHU) to prepare a grant application for the Moraine Avenue Improvements (Option 5 of
the 6 presented to the Town Board) and bring it back to the Board for approval prior to
submittal.
On April 21, 2016 the application kick-off meeting was held with FHU. FHU presented
the work schedule, scope of work, and cost estimate information for the proposed trail
along the Big Thompson River. The river trail was deleted from this application due to
high cost (over $7m) and the need for 9 additional easements. After additional
conversation with Rocky Mountain National Park representatives and further budget
evaluation, the decision was made to remove the Marys Lake Road intersection
improvements from the application due the likely encroachment onto RMNP property
(southwest quadrant) and the associated lengthy process for easement acquisition.
These much-needed intersection improvements remain a topic for ongoing discussion
and consideration for future grant funding.
Letters of support for this application have been received from the Estes Valley
Recreation & Parks District, Estes Park Cycling Coalition, and Estes Park Economic
Development Council. Additional letters are expected from the Colorado Department of
Transportation, Rocky Mountain National Park, and the Transportation Advisory Board.
Proposal:
PW proposes FHU complete the draft application and submit it to Central Federal Lands
Highway Division by the May 21, 2016 deadline for funding the following improvements
to Moraine Avenue from Crags Drive to Marys Lake Road: a 10’ wide multimodal trail,
roadway widening to include bike lanes and a center left turn lane, curb and gutter
drainage improvements, and intersection improvements at Elm Road and other local
street intersections.
Advantages:
The advantages of submitting an application to fund improvements to Moraine Avenue
include:
• The Town has the ability to stimulate action in solving the Moraine Avenue traffic
problems by using the established cash flow of trail funds (Larimer County Open
Space funds and 1A Sales Tax Trails Expansion funds) for the required 17.21%
local funding match.
• This grant funding opportunity exists now and the proposed improvements are
fully eligible for funding under this program, as they provide access to, and are
adjacent to, the federal lands of Rocky Mountain National Park.
• The street and intersection improvement components are particularly attractive to
the Colorado PDC when evaluating projects eligible for this funding.
• The funding could improve safety at the existing intersection of Moraine Avenue
and Elm Road. Twenty one (21) crashes were documented at this intersection
from 2011 to 2015. Locations and counts of all recorded motor vehicle accidents
on Moraine Avenue are shown on the attached map.
• The street improvements would bring order and safety to the existing
uncontrolled accesses to adjacent businesses. Currently one left-turning car
stops the entire directional traffic flow which compounds the heavy vehicular
congestion entering or exiting Rocky Mountain National Park.
• This project could provide drainage improvements (curb and gutter) and water
quality improvements to stormwater discharged from the street into the Big
Thompson River.
• Reducing traffic congestion improves air quality and reduces noise pollution.
• The proposed scope of work is eligible for a Categorical Exclusion from the
rigorous National Environmental Protection Act impact study requirements.
• Highly needed pedestrian sidewalk and on-street bike lanes can be added to this
dangerous section of roadway which would allow residents to walk or bike to
work and downtown.
• Completion of this project advances the 2016 Town Board Objectives to 1)
provide safe user access to trails, 2) develop trail connectivity, 3) continue to
address downtown traffic issues, and 4) include bike lanes and pedestrian walks
with new street improvements.
Disadvantages:
The disadvantages of submitting an application to fund improvements to Moraine
Avenue include:
• At least one access easement would be needed for the lane widening and trail
construction.
• Widening of Moraine Avenue will require cuts into rocky hillsides or expanded
embankment fills adjacent to short sections of the Big Thompson River.
• Committing future trails revenue is likely to limit spending options on other trail
project opportunities for several years in the future.
• Roadway construction is disruptive to visitors traveling to Estes Park and Rocky
Mountain National Park.
• Some business owners may object to centralizing their site access.
• This road is owned by CDOT and they have not yet committed any state funds to
this project.
Action Recommended:
The PW staff and TAB members propose the Town Board approve submittal of a
Federal Lands Access Program grant application for the proposed roadway,
intersection, pedestrian, bike, and multi-use trail improvements to Moraine Avenue from
Crags Drive to Marys Lake Road.
Budget:
The local matching funds for this project would obligate anticipated revenue from the
Larimer County Open Space funds (approximately $300k per year) and from the 1A
Sales Tax Trails Expansion funds (approximately $300k per year) for 2017, 2018, and
2019 to provide $1.8m for the local funding match. This is $17.21% of a $10.5m
project. The estimated project cost is $9.9 million.
Level of Public Interest
Public interest on this proposal is expected to be high.
Recommended Motion:
I move to approve/deny submittal of a 2016 Federal Lands Access Program grant
application for the proposed multimodal improvements to Moraine Avenue.
Attachments:
Colorado Federal Lands Access Program Fact Sheet
TAB Recommendation Memo dated April 7, 2016
Project Overview Map
Project grant application draft narrative
Project Cost Estimate
Motor Vehicle Accident Diagram
Letter of Support from EVRPD
Letter of Support from EPEDC
Letter of Support from EPCC
FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM
Colorado
FEDERAL LANDS 2016 CALL FOR PROJECTS SCHEDULE
The Federal Lands Access Program is a
competitive, discretionary program for
states, counties, tribes and local
governments.
The program provides funds for
transportation facilities that provide
access to, or are located on or adjacent
to Federal lands, with emphasis placed
on facilities that improve access to high
use recreation sites or Federal economic
generators. The Federal lands access
transportation facility must be owned or
maintained by the state, tribe or local
government.
Eligible projects include engineering,
rehabilitation, restoration, construction,
reconstruction, transportation
planning, and research of Federal
lands access transportation facilities.
CO FLAP projects that have been
selected and programmed for
funding thus far include but are not
limited to:
Roadway reconstruction
Pavement rehabilitation
Bridge repair and reconstruction
Transit facilities
Annual Allocation 1 $17.78 Million
Advertised Program / Fiscal Years 2 $53 - $66 Million / FY19 – FY22
Local Minimum Match Required3 17.21%
Upcoming Call for Projects February 15, 2016 – May 21, 2016
CO FLAP Website www.flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/co
MONTH February March April May June July August September
PROGRAM
DECISION
COMMITTEE
Call for Project Applications
PDC scores
and ranks
applications
PDC selects short-list of
applicants for development of
project agreements, scoping,
project delivery plan.
PDC final
project
selection
meeting
Funded
program
announced
APPLICANT Applications prepared and submitted Short list of applications
engaged in scoping
PROGRAM FACTS
1. Assumes a 5-7 year Program of Projects.
2. Determined by Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) based on program needs and qualifying project applications submitted
in Call for Projects.
3. Local match may include federal agency funds excluding Title 23 or Title 49 funds, with exception of the Federal Lands
Transportation Program (FLTP) and Tribal that are Transportation Program (TTP) both eligible matching federal programs.
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kimberly Campbell, Chair, Transportation Advisory Board
Date: April 7, 2016
RE: FLAP Grant Application Options
Introduction
On Monday, April 4, the Transportation Advisory Board held a special meeting to
discuss the current FLAP call for applications. The Board discussed six options which
had been recommended for consideration. These options were:
1. Fall River Trail Construction (Estimated cost: $6m, local match: $1m)
2. Flood mitigation projects related to the Downtown Estes Loop (Estimated cost: $18m,
local match: $3.1m)
3. Transit center and parking garage at Post Office lot (Estimated cost: $12m, local match:
$2m)
4. Expand Visitor Center parking structure to 4 levels and improve transit hub configuration
(Estimated cost: TBD, local match: TBD)
5. Roadway and intersection improvements on Moraine Ave, including bike lanes, a
sidewalk, turn lanes and a detached multi-use trail along the Big Thompson, between
the intersection of Moraine and Crags continuing through the intersection of Moraine and
Mary’s Lake Rd (Estimated cost: TBD, local match: TBD)
6. Do not apply for funding at this time
Narrowing the Options:
The flood mitigation projects (Option 2) were quickly ruled out as not fitting the grant
requirements, as these bridges are not being replaced to increase vehicle capacity
to/from RMNP, but rather to prepare for a (hopefully) infrequent flood event.
A downtown parking structure (Option 3) was also ruled out for a number of reasons.
First, when our current FLAP project hit some budgeting hurdles in 2016, the Town
wrote a letter requesting to reverse the order of our proposed FLAP project to build the
parking structure first. This was declined. In reviewing other FLAP projects that have
been funded elsewhere, it was found that few parking lots have been funded and even
fewer parking structures. And at this time, we do not have a significant expansion to our
transit operations to announce in conjunction with this project in order to fit the grant
objectives well. While we recognize the strong public sentiment toward a downtown
parking structure, with a downtown master plan in development this did not feel like the
right time to propose such a dramatic change to the downtown core.
As with the Post Office parking structure option, an expansion of the Visitor Center
parking structure (Option 4) was ruled out as not a strong fit for the grant objectives.
Construction of the Fall River Trail (Option 1) was a contender, but it was ultimately
deemed likely to be funded by other grant opportunities and not the best fit for this
grant.
Moraine Avenue improvements and multi-use trail (Option 5):
TAB members unanimously selected Option 5 as the preferred project to be included in
a FLAP grant application. We summarized the proposed project as:
Roadway and intersection improvements to Moraine Avenue, including bike
lanes, center turn lane and sidewalk as well as a detached multi-use trail along
the Big Thompson River from the intersection of Moraine Avenue and Crags
Drive continuing through the intersection of Moraine Avenue and Mary’s Lake
road.
Of the available options, TAB feels it is:
• the best fit for the grant objectives,
• is expected to be widely acceptable to the community, and
• provides options for the Town to use Open Space/1A Trails Expansion funds for
the local match (with an opportunity to request match funds from CDOT as well)
Moraine Avenue is the main thoroughfare between downtown Estes Park and Rocky
Mountain National Park. The road features lodging facilities, restaurants and retail
establishments. It also links large areas of Estes Park, including the YMCA and
neighborhoods off Highway 66 as well as the neighborhoods surrounding Mary’s Lake
Road west of Mary’s lake, to downtown Estes. It is a very heavily trafficked road. Yet
the roadway has no bike facilities, only sporadic sidewalks, and no turn lanes despite
heavy side traffic. The intersection with Mary’s Lake Road is a 5-way intersection with
confusing lane geometry. In 2015, over 637,000 vehicles entered Rocky Mountain
National Park at the Beavers Meadow entrance on Moraine Avenue (Appendix A), not
to mention the daily traffic through Town.
Furthermore, we have the opportunity to create a very special multi-use trail along the
Big Thompson river where some easements have already been granted to further
connect downtown Estes Park with the RMNP and the Moraine Avenue residences and
businesses.
These combined connectivity improvements will benefit local resident and visitor
experiences by creating improved opportunities for multi-modal movement throughout
the community, which in turn may reduce traffic congestion and its associated pollution.
Action requested:
TAB asks that the Trustees instruct Public Works to retain a consultant to prepare a
FLAP grant application requesting funding for roadway and intersection improvements
to Moraine Avenue, including bike lanes and sidewalk as well as a detached multi-use
trail along the Big Thompson River from the intersection of Moraine Avenue and Crags
Drive continuing through the intersection of Moraine Avenue and Mary’s Lake road.
APPENDIX A:
VEHICLE COUNT AT RMNP
Rocky Mountain NP
Report Date: Dec 2015
Bookmark this report: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/ROMO%20YTD%20Vehicle%20Summary
This Month Same Month Last Year % Change This Year YTD Last Year YTD % Change YTD
VEHICLES AT BEAVER MEADOWS 15,435 13,125 17.6 637,029 539,236 18.1
VEHICLES AT FALL RIVER 7,501 5,803 29.3 353,636 273,139 29.5
VEHICLES AT GRAND LAKE 2,700 1,319 104.7 245,286 184,906 32.7
VEHICLES AT LUMPY 1,706 1,589 7.4 51,274 47,570 7.8
VEHICLES AT LILY LAKE 1,128 1,244 -9.3 33,193 33,170 0.1
Big Thompson RiverEstes Park FLAP Application 16-132 05/06/16Description of Proposed WorkEstes Park: Moraine Avenue Multimodal Improvements Project2016 Colorado Federal Lands Access Program ApplicationNORTHHigh DriveElm Road
CragsDriveDavisStreet Davis StreetIntersectionImprovementsMulti-Use Trail3Constrained Roadway21Park River PlaceIntersectionImprovements4Moraine AvenueWidening5Elm RoadIntersectionImprovementsMarys Lake Roadand High DriveIntersectionImprovements(East Leg Only)67Moraine AvenueMa r y s L a k e
Ro a dPark RiverPlaceRiverside Drive36ToRMNPTo DowntownEstes Park
Colorado Federal Lands Access Program: Proposed Project Application
GENERAL INFORMATION
Project Points of Contact (POC):
Applying Agency Federal Land Management Agency(s)
Agency Name:Town of Estes Park
POC Name:Greg Muhonen
POC Title:Public Works Director
Address Line 1:170 MacGregor Avenue
Address Line 2:Estes Park, Colorado 80517
E-mail:gmuhonen@estes.org
Phone #:970-577-3581
Additional Key Project Stakeholders:Rocky Mountain National Park; Colorado Department of Transportation
Project Identification:
Project Title:Estes Park Moraine Avenue Multimodal Improvements
Facility Name:Moraine Avenue
Local/FLMA Route, Name, or Designation:US 36
Other Facility Name / Designation (if any):
Federal Land Management Agency (FLMA) Accessed:
Name(s) of FLMA Site(s) or Major
Destination(s) Accessed
Distance from Project
(miles)
Current Annual
Visitation (Estimate)
Rocky Mountain National Park Beaver Meadows Visitor Center, Entrance 1 4,155,916
Termini Start Termini End
Landmark, Milepost, Cross Roads:Moraine Ave. and Crags Dr.Moraine Ave. and Marys Lake Rd./High Dr.
Latitude Coordinates:
(In Degrees Minutes Seconds format)40°22'21.8"N 40°21'51.7"N
Longitude Coordinates:
(In Degrees Minutes Seconds format)105°31'25.3"W 105°32'39.2"W
Page 1 of 10
Colorado Federal Lands Access Program: Project Background
BACKGROUND DATA
1. Agency with Title to Facility:Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
2a) Agency with Maintenance Responsibility Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
2b) Describe how the maintenance
responsibility is provisioned:
(e.g. ownership highway easement
deed and/or maintenance
agreement):
3. Project Length:
Provide length in miles 1.3 4. Existing Width:
Provide average width in feet
5. Existing Posted Speed Limit:35
6. Existing Bridge Information:
Provide known data for all bridge
structures within the project limits.
Refer to the link below for guidance:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.cfm
National Bridge
Inventory Structure #
Bridge
Length (ft.)
Bridge
Width (ft.)
Bridge
Area (Sq. Ft)
Bridge Sufficiency
Rating
7. Functional Classification:
Check those that apply.
National Highway System✔Arterial✔Local Road
Major Collector Minor Collector
Refer to the link for guidance: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/highway_functional_classifications/
8. Traffic Volumes:
Provide any available traffic data from
recent counts or other documented
sources.
Note: If no data (i.e., counts) are available,
please estimate range ( < 200, 200 - 500,
500, 500 - 1000, > 1000 vehicles per day)
Current 20-Year
Projection Data Source
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Seasonal Average Daily Traffic
% ADT as FLMA visitors / users
9. Safety History:
Describe site(s), number, and type of
crashes that have occurred within the
project limits and the source of this
information (reports or anecdotal). If
available provide site specific crash data
for last three years.
10. Projects in Proximity:
Describe other projects adjacent to or in
proximity to this project that are being
constructed to or within federal lands.
Page 2 of 10
Colorado Federal Lands Access Program: Proposed Project
PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Purpose and Need:
Describe the need for the project
including but not limited to who the
project will serve, conditions requiring
relief, and anticipated changes in use due
to the proposed project.
2. Proposed Design Standards:
Project will be designed to the following
standards. Check those that apply.
AASHTO State DOT✔Local Government FLMA
3. Proposed Width (feet):
Proposed width should be in accordance
with the proposed design standards.
4. Proposed Speed Limit:35
5. Description of Proposed Work:
Provide a detailed description of the
proposed work. As appropriate include
options to phase proposed work.
6. Key Items of Work: Check all that apply. Refer to link for guidance: http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/reading/types-of-highway/
New Construction /
Reconstruction (4R)
Earthwork/Grading
Road base
Major Drainage ( >48" )
Minor Drainage ( <48" )
Retaining Walls
ROW Acquisition
Utility Relocations
Recycling (3R)
Existing Asphalt / Base Recycling
(Ex: Pulverization)
Overlay
Milling
Minor Widening ( < 5 ft. )
Major Widening ( > 5 ft.)
Bridge
New
Replacement
Rehabilitation or Repair
Surfacing
Asphalt
Concrete
Gravel
Safety
Guardrail
Sight Distance Improvements
Roadside Hazards
Other
* Alternative Modes
Bicycle / Pedestrian facility✔
Transit
Other
Other
Planning Study
Environmental Linkage (PEL)
Study
Research
*Note: Applications that include alternative transportation elements (transit, bicycle, pedestrian, etc.), please fill out the supplemental
worksheet for alternative transportation that can be found at: http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/CO
Page 3 of 10
Colorado Federal Lands Access Program: Proposed Project
7. Right of Way Acquisition: All Right-of-way (ROW) property (acquisition costs) to be part of the project costs should be detailed in the
project estimate page. All acquisition support costs are non-participating and will be borne by the applicant.
7a) Is ROW acquisition required? (yes /no)
7b) Describe the anticipated ROW
acquisition needed to construct
project. Include the formalization of
all ROW on FLMA lands.
8. Utility Impacts: All utility relocation costs must be accounted for by the applicant whether borne by the applicant or included
as project cost. Utility relocation costs should be detailed in the project cost estimate.
8a) Will relocation of utilities be required? (yes /no)
8b) Describe any anticipated utility
impacts and proposed relocations.
9. Environmental Impacts / Resource Protection: Briefly describe known or anticipated impacts, positive or negative, to
biological, cultural, wetlands or water resources, or any other environmental areas.
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
10. Lead Agency: CFLHD will be the lead agency. The applicant may request another agency take the lead for the project delivery.
If recommending a different lead agency, identify alternative agency and rationale for this recommendation. The rationale should
include why another agency should take the lead, previous experience in delivering Federal-Aid (Title 23) funded projects,
certifications to deliver Federally funded projects, and ability to satisfy FHWA project delivery requirements. The final decision for
project delivery resides with the PDC. If delivered by another Agency, CFLHD will have Stewardship and Oversight Responsibility.
Page 4 of 10
Colorado Federal Lands Access Program: Proposed Project Cost Estimate
PROPOSED PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Use this page to develop a cost estimate for the project. Attach a detailed estimate if available as backup to the below information.
Must include all project costs including Preliminary Engineering and Construction Engineering costs, ROW, utility relocation, etc.
Determine the cost per mile numbers based on understanding of local costs and the type of work proposed. Determine the % of
engineering required based on the anticipated engineering and environmental compliance needed to meet Federal requirements
and standards.
1. Major Work Items: costs below includes clearing and grubbing,
earthwork drainage improvements, retaining walls, revegetation, permanent
signing, and temporary traffic control.
$ Per Unit
(mile or sq. ft.)
Unit Length
(mile or sq. ft.)
Total Cost
($ per unit x unit length)
a) New construction or Reconstruction (4R) (Excluding Surfacing)
Range: $1,000,000 - $2,000,000 per mile (Basis: 24 ft. width, 6 in. aggregate base)
b) Pavement Recycling (3R) (Excluding Surfacing)
Range: $250,000 - $500,000 per mile (Basis: 24 ft. width, 6in of pulverization)
c) Pavement Recycling (3R) with Minor Widening (< 5 ft.) (Excluding Surfacing)
Range $400,000 - $700,000 per mile (Basis: 24 ft. width, 6 in. pulverization)
d) Pavement Recycling (3R) with Major Widening ( > 5ft.) (Excluding Surfacing)
Range $600,000- $1,000,000 per mile (Basis: 24 ft. width, 6 in. pulverization)
e) Other (please specify in box)
Include $ per mile in "$ per unit"
2. Surfacing (costs below are not included in costs above):
a) Asphalt Surfacing (includes pavement markings and associated items*
Range: $400,000 - $600,000 per mile (Basis: 24ft. width, 4 in. of asphalt)
b) Gravel Surfacing
Range: $200,000 - $300,000 per mile (Basis: 24ft. width, 4 in. of gravel resurfacing)
* Asphalt Surfacing items may include prime, tack, fog, etc
3. Additional Work Items:
a) Bridge (New or Replacement)
Range: $250,000 - $500,000 per sq. ft. (Basis: Concrete girders with spread footings)
b) Bridge Rehabilitation / Repair Cost (Lump Sum):
c) ROW Acquisition Cost (Lump Sum):
d) Utility Relocation Cost (Lump Sum):
4. Other Work Items (provide backup data for these lump sum costs):
a) Item 1 Name:Cost (Lump Sum):Description:
b) Item 2 Name:Cost (Lump Sum):Description:
c) Item 3 Name:Cost (Lump Sum):Description:
ESTIMATED COST SUBTOTAL OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
Page 5 of 10
Colorado Federal Lands Access Program: Proposed Funding
5. Contingency (for unaccounted items - this is a fixed 10% of estimated subtotal of proposed project):
6. Engineering (required for all projects):
a) Preliminary Engineering (% of Construction Cost, ROW & Utility Relocation)
Range: 7%-15% of Items 1-4 plus contingency (Enter as percentage without symbol - i.e. 5.5 for 5.5%) %=
b) Construction Engineering (% of Construction Cost, ROW & Utility Relocation)
Range: 10% - 12% of Items 1-4 plus contingency (Enter as percentage without symbol - i.e. 5.5 for 5.5%) %=
7. ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
8. Enter the total funds requested from Federal Lands Access Program: = % (cannot exceed 82.79%)
9. Project Funds Leveraged: Detail the non-FLAP match that will be furnished below.
Match
Breakdown Percent (%)Amount
($)Agency Funding Source(s)Timing of Availability
(as MM/YYYY)
Required *
Minimum Match 17.21% ($10,000.00)
Over Match
TOTAL FUNDS
LEVERAGED 17.21 * Maximum funding amount per reimbursable agreement to fund scoping efforts.
10. Describe all funding sources
and partnerships for cash and in-
kind contributions. (Overmatch
funding sources do not have any
restrictions).
11. Summarize cost for project
including assumptions made.
Describe costs that are outside of
the general summary in the
estimate.
Page 6 of 10
ESTIMATED COST SUBTOTAL OF PROPOSED PROJECT (from previous page):
Colorado Federal Lands Access Program: Proposed Project
Criteria 1 - Access Mobility and Connectivity
1. Describe the high use Federal
recreation site(s) and/or Federal
economic generator(s) accessed by
this project. How is the proposed
facility connected to the site(s)?
How will it improve access? Are
there other access points to the
site?
2. Describe how the project will
improve the visitor experience.
How many visitors access the site(s)
using the proposed roadway/trail/
facility?
3. Describe how the proposed
project and the facility are
connected to the existing
transportation network.
4. Will this project improve mode
choices or provide alternative
modes of transportation? If yes,
describe these improvements.
5. Will this improve congestion
and/or access management (e.g.
reduction in traffic congestion,
restrictions, bottlenecks, size/load
limits, and/or improve emergency
access)? If yes, describe these
improvements.
Page 7 of 10
Colorado Federal Lands Access Program: Proposed Project
Criteria 2 - Economic Development
1. Identify the community or
communities economically
dependent on the network, and
the elements that comprise the
economy (e.g. timber, tourism,
etc.). How is the economy tied to
the transportation network and
the proposed facility? How will the
proposed project influence the
community's economic goals/
needs or development?
2. If the proposed project is
located on a designated federal, or
state scenic byway or backway,
identify the scenic byway/backway
and explain the anticipated benefit
related to it. Would the project
meet the needs identified in the
Byway's management plan?
Criteria 3 - Preservation
1. Provide detail of the existing
surface or facility condition. How
will the project improve the
surface/facility condition?
2. How will the project impact
maintenance and operating costs?
3. Will this project improve a
deficient rating or extend the
service life of a structure?
Page 8 of 10
Colorado Federal Lands Access Program: Proposed Project
Criteria 4 - Safety
1. How would the proposed
project improve unsafe conditions
such as crash sites, inadequate
sight distance, roadside hazards,
poor vertical / horizontal
alignment, hazardous
intersections, inadequate lane and
shoulder widths, etc?
2. Describe how the project will
improve safety for a wide range of
users (destination motorists,
bicyclists, pedestrians, public
transportation, etc.).
Criteria 5 - Sustainability and Environmental Quality Benefits
1. Describe how the proposed
project contributes to the
environmental goals and
objectives of the Federal Land
Management Agency.
2. How would the project enhance
wildlife connectivity, wildlife
habitat, and / or aquatic organism
passage? How would the project
reduce pollution (noise, emissions,
water, dust, etc.)?
3. Would the project contribute to
the use of sustainable energy
sources for transportation?
4. Describe any known
environmental compliance or
permitting work completed or
anticipated on this project.
Page 9 of 10
Colorado Federal Lands Access Program: Proposed Project
Criteria 6 - Funding and Coordination
1. Describe coordination and
support from FLMA and other
project stakeholders. Provide
support letters.
2. Describe how this project is
in/consistent with applicable state,
regional, FLMA, or local plans.
Submittal Instructions:
1. Save your form as PDF to your computer, with file name similar to:
COLORADO FLAP APP 2016 <PROJECT NAME>
a. Check that all fields have been completed and that all your work has saved properly
prior to e-mailing your application.
2. Attach all additional files:
a. Review the checklist you completed on page 1 and attach all photos, maps project
estimates, and forms requiring signatures.
b. Maximum total for all files is 15MB. Using a zip application may help reduce file sizes
but it is the responsibility of the sending party to ensure their file has successfully
transmitted (not getting stuck in the e-mail "outbox").
c. ATTENTION: DO NOT USE YOUR PDF SOFTWARE TO ATTACH DOCUMENTS INTO THE PDF
DOCUMENT AS ALL YOUR FORM FIELDS WILL BE INVALID. ALL ATTACHED PHOTOS AND
FILES SHOULD BE SEPARATE FILES.
3. Save a copy for your records
4. E-mail your completed form to cfl.planning@dot.gov, using the subject: COLORADO FLAP
APP 2016 <PROJECT NAME>
5. Check your e-mail's "sent box" to ensure that your file was sent. Larger files may take longer to
send.
a. You should receive confirmation of receipt of your submission within 3 working days.
Page 10 of 10
Supporting Text for the 2016 FLAP Moraine Avenue Multi-modal Improvements Project
to be inserted into application upon approval.
1
This information supports the application and will be pasted in
prior to submittal. Please reference this text when seeing ‘see
attached’.
Background Data (page 2 of the application)
9. Safety History: Describe site(s), number, and type of crashes that have occurred within the
project limits and the source of this information (reports or anecdotal). If available provide
site specific crash data for last three years.
Within the corridor limits, there are five unsignalized intersections and approximately 28
business/property access. According to a detailed review of Estes Park Police Department
records of crash reports, there were a total of 24 crashes within the corridor between January 1,
2011 and December 31, 2015 (five years).
These crashes can be summarized as follows:
o 4 injury crashes and 20 property damage only
o 16 at intersections and 8 related to access points
o 5 crashes involved wildlife – elk and deer is approximately equal numbers
o No crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists
o 67 percent of the at-fault vehicles were westbound
o 3 of the intersections experienced non-wildlife crashes:
o Elm Street – 7 crashes [rear-end (4), broadside (1), debris falling from vehicles
(2)]
o Park River Place – 2 crashes [rear-end (1), broadside (1)]
o Davis Street – 5 crashes [sideswipe – same direction (2), broadside (1), debris
falling from vehicles (1), fixed object (1)]
o Access related crashes (non-wildlife):
o 5 rear-end crashes
The pattern of crashes is directly related to the two-lane cross section of the existing roadway.
Rear-end crashes (10) along the corridor are a result of drivers that make left or right turns at
intersection or driveways and must stop in traffic which can be unexpected by the following
vehicle. Sideswipe – same direction crashes (2) likely resulted from following vehicles trying to
use the right shoulder to get around left-turning vehicles.
Supporting Text for the 2016 FLAP Moraine Avenue Multi-modal Improvements Project
to be inserted into application upon approval.
2
10. Projects in Proximity: Describe other projects adjacent to or in proximity to this project
that are being constructed to or within federal lands.
In 2013, the Town of Estes Park was successful with a FLAP application for the one-way couplet,
or loop, through downtown Estes Park which is a conversion of Elkhorn Avenue, Moraine
Avenue and Riverside Drive from two-way to one-way travel lanes. This proposed project would
tie directly into the one-way couplet at the intersection of Crags Drive and Moraine Avenue. The
exact configuration of this intersection (roundabout vs. traditional) is under analysis but for
purposes of this application a roundabout was used.
Proposed Project (page 3 of the application)
1. Purpose and Need: Describe the need for the project including but not limited to who the
project will serve, conditions requiring relief, and anticipated changes in use due to the
proposed project.
The purpose of this project is to improve multimodal access to Rocky Mountain National Park
(RMNP) by reducing travel time and congestion, and by improving safety for all travelers along
Moraine Avenue from Crags Drive to Marys Lake Road/High Drive. The proposed project is
needed to enhance access to Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), the third most visited
national park in the county where visitors experience a multitude of recreation opportunities,
including hiking, biking, photography, camping, fishing, wildlife watching, and backpacking.
The proposed project is needed to improve system management, and reduce severe congestion
of the existing roadway network. During the peak summer visitor season, traffic congestion
along Moraine Avenue is operating at capacity. This visitor experience is reflected by a survey of
visitors that indicated their number one complaint in Estes Park was congestion (both
pedestrian and vehicle). During the peak tourist season (June to August) congestion in
downtown Estes Park resulted in a LOS F for 45 days in 2012 with 90 days of LOS F expected by
2025. The project is needed because congestion is negatively impacting the visitor experience
and economic generation capability of the Town because visitors are frustrated by the poor
traffic conditions.
The proposed project is also needed to provide an enhanced multimodal facility to
accommodate all users seeking to access RMNP. This facility will improve mode choice as it
provides a safe and inviting facility directly from downtown Estes Park to the Rocky Mountain
National Park boundary. Visitors staying in Estes Park or along Moraine Avenue could opt to
walk or bicycle into RMNP instead of taking a vehicle.
As mentioned above, the LOS in 2025 is anticipated to be LOS F for 90 days during the peak
season. Should project funding not be received the visitor frustration with traffic congestion will
Supporting Text for the 2016 FLAP Moraine Avenue Multi-modal Improvements Project
to be inserted into application upon approval.
3
continue to a point where visitors destined for RMNP may elect for an alternate destination,
negatively impacting RMNP and the Estes Park economy. Traffic delay will continue to increase
as well as the safety issues that exist between pedestrians and vehicles.
Criteria 1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity (page 7 of the
application)
1. Describe the high use Federal recreation site(s) and/or Federal economic generator(s)
accessed by this project. How is the proposed facility connected to the site(s)? How will it
improve access? Are there other access points to the site?
Moraine Avenue/US 36 is directly connected to Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) as it
becomes Park Entrance Road at the Beaver Meadows Visitor’s Center at RMNP. RMNP was the
3rd most visited national park in 2015 with 4,155,916 visitors and is considered a high use
recreation site. Based on data collected from the National Park Service, 48 percent (637,029
vehicles) of vehicles entering RMNP entered through the Beaver Meadows Entrance, the most
accessed entrance indicating that these vehicles accessed RMNP using Moraine Avenue.
Moraine Avenue is a two-lane facility with adjacent local businesses on both sides of the road.
Access is poorly defined to many of the driveways and business entrances as there are no
defined curbs. The project would provide a center turn lane for traffic seeking to access the local
businesses and separate the local traffic from the traffic destined for RMNP. The project would
better define access points to businesses, reducing delay as a result of driver confusion.
There are additional access points to Rocky Mountain National Park, however, Beaver Meadows
Entrance was the highest accessed location.
2. Describe how the project will improve the visitor experience. How many visitors access the
site(s) using the proposed roadway/trail/facility?
Estes Park is the gateway community to RMNP. As a gateway community, it provides food,
lodging, transportation, and other support services for visitors, as it serves as the portal to
RMNP. For those destined to RMNP via the Beaver Meadows entrance their visitor experience
begins as they enter Estes Park, specifically along Moraine Avenue. The number one complaint
of visitors during the 2012 peak season was traffic congestion because upon arrival into the
Estes Valley visitors are often greeted with traffic congestion, which diminishes the visitor
experience before they have even entered RMNP. Traffic congestion can cause visitors to feel
stressed and frustrated as it causes a delay in arriving to their destination of RMNP. The project
Supporting Text for the 2016 FLAP Moraine Avenue Multi-modal Improvements Project
to be inserted into application upon approval.
4
enhances the experience of visitors by providing a defined, inviting, and less congested travel
route between Estes Park and RMNP.
The project addresses visitor's complaints about traffic congestion by promoting efficient
system management and operation of the existing transportation infrastructure.
The project also provides visitors a safe and accessible multi-use facility to access the park
instead of using their vehicle.
3. Describe how the proposed project and the facility are connected to the existing
transportation network.
Moraine Avenue/US 36 is directly connected to RMNP as it becomes Park Entrance Road at the
Beaver Meadows Visitor’s Center at RMNP. Moraine Avenue/US 36 is a state highway.
4. Will this project improve mode choices or provide alternative modes of transportation? If
yes, describe these improvements.
The project will improve mode choice as it provides a multi-use path directly from downtown
Estes Park to Rocky Mountain National Park boundary. Visitors staying in Estes Park or along
Moraine Avenue could choose to walk or bicycle into RMNP instead of taking a vehicle.
Portions of this mutli-use path are already completed on the south side of Moraine Avenue
between Park River Place and Park River Place. The proposed project seeks to complete the
mutli-use path for the entire length of the corridor.
The RMNP Hiker Shuttle also utilizes this route to access RMNP from downtown Estes Park. The
project would allow the shuttle to better maintain scheduled service, therefore, making it more
attractive to users.
Criteria 2 – Economic Development (page 9 of the application)
1. Identify the community or communities economically dependent on the network, and the
elements that comprise the economy (e.g. timber, tourism, etc.). How is the economy tied to
the transportation network and the proposed facility? How will the proposed project
influence the community's economic goals/needs or development?
The economic importance of national parks and federal lands to local communities is felt state-
wide and Colorado tourism benefits immensely from RMNP's popularity. Estes Park, as the
gateway community to RMNP, relies heavily on the sales tax dollars collected during the
Supporting Text for the 2016 FLAP Moraine Avenue Multi-modal Improvements Project
to be inserted into application upon approval.
5
summer season (65 days) and the rest of the year. Collection of sales tax dollars supports the
local retail, restaurant and grocery stores representing 67% of the tax revenues collected by
Estes Park. It is estimated that there were almost 1.9 million non-local visitor days (one visitor
for one day) to the Town of Estes Park in 2010 and just over 2.0 million in 2011.
Criteria 4 – Safety (page 9 of the application)
1. How would the proposed project improve unsafe conditions such as crash sites, inadequate
sight distance, roadside hazards, poor vertical / horizontal alignment, hazardous intersections,
inadequate lane and shoulder widths, etc?
The two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) is an essential element of the proposed roadway
improvement that will address both capacity and safety concerns. The volumes experienced on
Moraine Avenue (10,000 to 12,000 in 2014) represent 80 to 100 percent of the normal capacity
of a two-lane roadway.
Each intersection and access point represents a potential bottleneck and conflict point. Moving
left-turning vehicles out of the mainstream of traffic allows through vehicles to progress without
delay or hazard. The TWLTL also allows vehicles turning left to make two-stage maneuvers (find
a gap in traffic approaching from the left, proceed to the TWLTL, and find then a gap in traffic
coming from the right) to enter Moraine Avenue more easily. One of the goals in the design of
the curb and gutter for the project will be to work with adjacent property owners to improve
access management by consolidating access to adjacent properties, reducing the number of
access points, and tightening up extended access.
The existing Moraine Avenue corridor has several unsafe conditions: sudden stops in the
through traffic lane, no paved shoulders, and hazardous intersections). The proposed improved
roadway will directly address all of these unsafe conditions. Moraine Avenue represents a fairly
unique situation, but the crash modification factors found in the Highway Safety Manual,
Volume 3, 2010 can provide general guidance on the extent of safety improvement that might
be expected from the proposed project:
o Paved shoulders (adjacent bike lanes will be used in emergency situations if no bicyclists
are present) – 15 to 20 percent improvement
o TWLTL Median – 10 to 15 percent improvement
o Access Management – 5 to 10 percent improvement (the multiple property ownerships
will present challenges)
2. Describe how the project will improve safety for a wide range of users (destination
motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, public transportation, etc.).
Supporting Text for the 2016 FLAP Moraine Avenue Multi-modal Improvements Project
to be inserted into application upon approval.
6
Moraine Avenue is the main route to Rocky Mountain National Park from the east. The view of
mountains along the Continental Divide represents a distraction to both new and familiar
drivers. This is typified by the fact that 67 percent of the vehicle that were at-fault of the
collisions were westbound, and the majority of the businesses that are being accessed are on
the south side of Moraine Avenue. Currently, there is no continuous sidewalk nor paved
shoulders that could be used by bicyclists. Both of these deficiencies will be addressed by the
proposed improvement. Finally, there are several bus routes, including the RMNP Hiker Shuttle
service, that use Moraine Avenue. The reduction in congestion will allow them to more easily
maintain their scheduled service.
Criteria 5 - Sustainability and Environmental Quality Benefits
1. Describe how the proposed project contributes to the environmental goals and objectives
of the Federal Land Management Agency.
2016 marks the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service. A major theme of the second-
century NPS– as stated in their Call to Action (August 25, 2015) is to - Connect People to Parks
and help communities protect what is special to them, highlight their history, and retain or
rebuild their economic and environmental sustainability. This theme Improves urban residents’
awareness of and access to outdoor and cultural experiences close to home by promoting
national parks in urban areas and ensuring safe and enjoyable physical connections from parks
to a variety of sustainable transportation options aligned with urban populations’ needs. This
project directly addresses this theme by providing a reliable, safe multi-modal transportation
system connecting people from the Denver and surrounding areas to ROMO.
2. How would the project enhance wildlife connectivity, wildlife habitat, and / or aquatic
organism passage? How would the project reduce pollution (noise, emissions, water, dust,
etc.)?
Of the 25 accidents between 2011 and 2015 – eight of those were wildlife related. The project
will evaluate wildlife crossing alerts in high crossing areas.
Although small, improvements to the traffic congestion can lead to a decrease in nitrogen
deposition. Traffic congestion leading to resultant air pollution is the primary environmental
concern resulting from the insufficient transportation network available to provide access to
RMNP. The high-elevation ecosystems of ROMO are a magnet for thousands of visitors each
year who have opportunities to see plants and animals above treeline. However, these plants
and animals are susceptible to degradation from air pollution. Air quality is one of the required
evaluation criteria for the NEPA study and would be conducted as a part of the proposed
project. It is expected that reduction in congestion and the smooth flow of traffic will reduce tail
pipe emissions thereby improving air quality in Town.
Supporting Text for the 2016 FLAP Moraine Avenue Multi-modal Improvements Project
to be inserted into application upon approval.
7
Noise pollution similarly will be evaluated in the NEPA study but it can be expected that the
smooth flow of traffic will naturally reduce noise from idling engines at intersections where
pedestrians are waiting to cross.
Improved local stormwater management will address runoff from the project area and
increased impervious surfaces. Currently there are no stormwater systems in place to catch
roadway runoff. Permanent best management practices will be incorporated into the project
design to reduce water quality impacts to the Big Thompson River.
3. Would the project contribute to the use of sustainable energy sources for transportation?
The project will improve active transportation and transit…
4. Describe any known environmental compliance or permitting work completed or
anticipated on this project.
Given the presence of the project on a state highway, the project will have to comply with CDOT
NEPA requirements. Based on the current project scope, it is anticipated that the project could
be completed as a Non-Programmatic Categorical Exclusion 23 CFR Section 771.117(d) –
Category D3 – Modernization of a highway by…adding auxiliary lanes (including parking,
weaving, turning, and climbing). The level of NEPA clearance will be confirmed with CDOT. In
addition to NEPA, a robust public involvement outreach/involvement program will be conducted
to obtain input and feedback. A desk-top survey has been conducted to identify natural
resources present within the project area, an intensive field survey will be conducted as part of
the NEPA documentation that occur with project planning and design. The desk-top survey
included checking available federal, state, and local agency database websites to determine the
presence or absence of natural resources. The NEPA documentation process will fully inventory
and field confirm the presence/absence of natural resources. Impacts will be avoided,
minimized, and or mitigated to ensure no significant impacts occur.
Date Prepared: May 5, 2016
Unit Cost Quantity Extended Cost
1 Clearing and Grubbing LS $35,000 1 $35,000 comparable size/mountainous project
2 Removal of Asphalt Mat (Planing)SY $6.90 25,344 $174,874 36 ft wide * 1.2 miles long * 3 inch milling
3 Earthwork Material %$82,234 1 $82,234 10% of HMA cost
4 Pavement - Hot Mix Asphalt TON $104 7,945 $822,343 Assume 10" depth
5 Aggregate Base Course (Class 6)TON $29 2,317 $66,625 Assume 6" depth
6 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (II-B)LF $35 12,672 $437,184 1.2 miles long * both sides
7 Concrete Sidewalk (6 Inch)SY $58 655 $37,646 0.93 miles long * 10 ft wide * 20% for meandering
8 Retaining Walls SF $104 12,000 $1,242,000 numerous short walls on north, cantilever wall over river
9 Rock Excavation CY $46 22,500 $1,035,000 numerous short walls on north with existing exposed rock face
$3,932,906
% Used Cost
N / A $3,932,906 ( A )
10.0%$393,291 ( B )
7.0%$302,834 ( C )
9.0%$389,358 ( D )
2.0%$86,524 ( E )
17.0%$735,453 ( F )
4.0%$173,048 ( G )
2.0%$86,524 ( H )
7.0%$426,996 ( I )
$6,526,934 ( J )
21.0%$1,370,656 ( K )
Total Preliminary Engineering 10.0%$652,693 ( L )
Force Account Items 12.0%$783,232 ( M )
NEPA and Public process $120,000 ( N )
$540,000 ( O )
$9,993,520
Mobilization (4 - 7%) of (A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H)
Right-of-way needs Lump Sum
Total of Construction Bid Items (A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H+I+J+K+L+M+N+O)
Subtotal of Construction Cost
Total Construction Engineering
(A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H+I)
21% of (J)
10% of (J)
(10 - 15%) of (J)
Lump Sum
Construction Signing & Traffic Control (5 - 30%) of (A+B)
Lighting (1 - 5%) of (A+B)
Landscaping (1 - 5%) of (A+B)
Utilities (5 - 20%) of (A+B)
Drainage / Irrigation (4 - 10%) of (A+B)
Signing and Striping (1 - 5%) of (A+B)
Contingencies 10% of A
Town of Estes Park
DRAFT Conceptual Opinion of Probable Cost (for internal purposes only)
Moraine Avenue Multimodal Improvements
Item Shaded Fields are for INPUT
% Range
Project Construction Bid Items Project Dependent
DRAFT Estes FLAP-Conceptual Cost EstimateFLAP 1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Karen Cumbo, Interim Community Development Director
Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official
Date: May 10, 2016
RE: Request for Waiver of Building Permit Fees
Objective:
Consideration of request to waive building permit fees for 1147 Fish Creek Road
Present Situation:
The owners of the property at 1147 Fish Creek Road moved into their newly
constructed home in December 2012, and it was destroyed in the floods in September,
2013. It was not located in the mapped flood plain, and had no flood insurance. It is the
only home in the Town of Estes Park that was completely destroyed in the 2013 flood.
Although the Town has a policy on fee waivers (attached), this request by the property
owners does not fall into those categories. The policy does provide that, upon written
request, the decision-making body may choose to waive fees. The Board of Trustees is
the decision-making body for any request over $3,000. In the aftermath of the flood,
some other jurisdictions did waive building permit fees for homeowners trying to rebuild.
Larimer County reduced flood recovery permits by $1,000 per permit. Longmont waived
plan review and building permit fees for one year for flood damaged properties.
Proposal:
Waive building permit and plan review fees for 1147 Fish Creek Road, which are
estimated to be approximately $2,700 for the building permit fee, and between $650 and
$1,750 for plan review. The application would still be subject to County taxes.
Advantages:
Waiver of the building permit fees would provide relief to a local property owner who is
just now able to rebuild their home and who was not insured for flood damage.
Disadvantages:
This request does not conform to the guidelines for waiver of Town building permit fees.
Action Recommended:
Approval of the request.
Budget Impact:
Loss of potential revenue to the General Fund of approximately $5,000.
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the waiver of building permit fees for 1147 Fish Creek
Road in an amount not to exceed $4,500.
Attachments:
Town Policy on Fee Waivers
Request from Property Owners
From: Charlie Wilson <CWilson@berexco.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 3:15 PM
Subject: 1147 Fish Creek Road, Building Permit
To: Will Birchfield <wbirchfield@estes.org>
Cc: "Wilson, Nancy (nancycwilson16@gmail.com)" <nancycwilson16@gmail.com>
Dear Mr. Birchfield
As you know we purchased our newly constructed home in December 2012 and 9
months later it was completely destroyed in the Flood of 2013. It was built
above the mapped flood plain and therefore no flood insurance reimbursement
was available to us. In the interim, we have continued to pay full annual
Homeowner Association dues and property taxes while we have considered our
options. We are almost in a financial position to possibly rebuild our home
on the same lot and are currently working with a builder on cost estimates.
Other communities in the area have waived permit fees for owners to
rebuild flood damaged homes and structures, but it is our understanding
Estes did not adopt such a policy as ours was the only home in the Town of
Estes that was lost. In anticipation of our application for a new building
permit, Nancy and I respectfully request that any permitting fees be waived
or refunded if paid before a waiver determination is made. We appreciate
your and the Town Board’s kind consideration.
Most Sincerely,
Charles and Nancy Wilson
316-337-8344
On Apr 18, 2016, at 4:33 PM, Will Birchfield <wbirchfield@estes.org> wrote:
Karen,
I would like to take this to the new Board of Trustees ASAP. I
estimate the building permit fees to be approximately $2,700.00 and I
estimate the plan review fees will be between $650.00 and $1,750.00,
depending on the quality of the submittals and how many reviews have
to be performed. We have no jurisdiction over the County tax and all
other fees (taps, etc.) were paid with original construction. The
original home on this site was the only structure within town limits
which was substantially damaged and unfortunately it was a total loss.
The owners have decided to rebuild the same floor plan and are
requesting some relief from the town in the form of waived permit
fees.
Please let me know what additional information you need to process
their request.
Will Birchfield, CBO, CFM
Division of Building Safety
Town of Estes Park
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Interview Committee Appointment
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: May 3, 2016
RE: Interview Committee for Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
Objective:
To appoint Town Board members to the interview committee for the position open on the
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. The term of current member of the Board expire on May
31, 2016.
Present Situation:
The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment is currently made up of five volunteer community
members with three appointed by the Town and two appointed by the County. The
Commission currently has one vacancy. Administrative Services has posted the positions
and would accept applications through May 13, 2016.
Proposal:
Per Policy 101 Section 6 states all applicants for Town Committees/Boards are to be
interviewed by the Town Board, or its designee. Any designee will be appointed by the
Town Board. Therefore, two members of the Board would interview all interested applicants
for the Board position.
Advantages:
To move the process forward and allow interviews to be conducted of interested applicants.
Disadvantages: None.
Action Recommended:
To appoint two Trustees to the interview committee.
Budget: None.
Level of Public Interest. Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Trustees __________ and ___________ to the
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment interview panel.