HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-05-24The 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 24, 2016
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PRESENTATION: Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police Executive Certification to
Chief Kufeld. Chief Brandt.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated May 10, 2016 and Town Board Study Session May 10,
2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee, May 12, 2016.
1. InVision GIS Contract, $330,000, Budgeted.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated April 20, 2016 (acknowledgement
only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated April 15, 2016 (acknowledgement only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated April 19, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
7. Policy #103 – Process for Board to Call a Question.
Prepared 5/13/16
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
2. LIQUOR LICENSE ITEMS:
1. NEW HOTEL & RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR
NOTCHTOP CAFÉ, LLC, DBA NOTCHTOP BAKERY AND CAFÉ, 459 E.
WONDERVIEW AVENUE #4, ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Town Clerk Williamson.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff
for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. SPECIAL REVIEW 2016-01 - LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS, Staff request to
continue to the June 28, 2016 Town Board meeting.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
A. AMENDED PLAT, Lot 5, Sunny Acres Addition & A Metes & Bounds Parcel;
Combine two parcels into one lot of record; Fall River Village, LLC/Applicant.
Planner Gonzales.
B. ORDINANCE #12-16, Rezone two separately zoned adjacent lots (R-2 & E-1) to
RM-Multi-Family Residential, 260-265 Sunny Acres Court; Fall River Village,
LLC/Applicant. Planner Gonzales.
C. ORDINANCE #13-16, Rezone CO-Commercial Outlying to R-2-Two-Family
Residential; 475 Fall River Lane; Dennis and Donna "Katie" Lovell/Applicants.
Senior Planner Chilcott.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ADDITION OF A PART-TIME UTILITIES PROJECT MANAGER. Director Bergsten.
2. ORDINANCE #14-16 VERIZON WIRELESS LAND LEASE AGREEMENT.
Manager Landkamer.
3. ORDINANCE #15-16 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.06 NOISE.
Attorney White.
4. AUTHORIZE PASS-THROUGH FUNDS FOR DESIGN OF COLLECTIONS
FACILITY. Director Fortini.
5. CARRIAGE HILLS (SCOTT PONDS) DAM REHABILITATION CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT AWARD. Manager Ash.
6. 2016 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - CHIP SEAL CONTRACT AWARD.
Engineer Stallworth.
5. ADJOURN.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 10, 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 10th day of May 2016.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Rex Walker
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Arthur Messal/Town citizen requested the Town Board address the issues related to the
current design of the voter approved community center which lacks elements presented
to the voters and includes a number of duplicated items. The project has the ability to
make an impact in the community if built correctly. He also requested the Dry Gulch
construction access road be reopened for the residents of the area to utilize during the
rest of the construction.
Sue Strom/Town citizen questioned why the access road built in the area of Dry Gulch
Road to assist residents during the construction was closed. She stated there are
safety concerns with the current emergency only access.
Michelle Hiland/Town citizen stated the community center design does not reflect what
the community requested in a multipurpose and multigenerational facility. She
requested the Town Board make the necessary changes to the community center to
reduce costs and provide a collaborative design.
Julie Klett/Town citizen thanked the Town for the improvements to the Dry Gulch Road
area. She requested the access road be reopened.
Alex Kostadinov/Town citizen requested the Dry Gulch project access road be reopened
stating the safety argument is not a reasonable reason for closing the roadway. He
stated asking approximately 1,000 residents to drive 20 minutes one-way multiple times
a day is not reasonable.
Julia McClain/Town citizen also requested the access road be reopened as a number of
the individuals in the neighborhood do not have the economic means pay for the
additional gas required to drive the detour multiple times a day.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Nelson stated the Estes Valley Land Trust has hired Jeffery Boring as the
organization’s Executive Director. Mr. Boring comes to the Trust from the Larimer
County Natural Resources Department bringing an extensive knowledge of
conservation. He recognized the Town, the Estes Valley Land Trust, and Larimer
County Open Lands Board for their financial assistance in purchasing the Cascade
Board of Trustees – May 10, 2016 – Page 2
Cottages inholding. The local agency support aided the Rocky Mountain National Park
in raising private donations to purchase the property two years earlier than expected.
Trustee Walker stated he attended his first Visit Estes Park (Local Marketing District)
meeting and thanked them for the orientation.
Trustee Norris commented the Estes Valley Planning Commission would meet May 17th
to continue discussions of the Lazy B Ranch Special Review. He stated the Police
department has begun their enforcement of the Wildlife Ordinance which went into
effect on April 1st. Chief Kufeld stated the Police Auxiliary has actively identifying
property’s that are not complying with the new regulations. To date six violations have
been identified, three cases unfounded, and a number of cases are being followed up.
It appears the community has complied voluntarily with the new regulations.
Trustee Martchink thanked those involved in successfully organizing recent events in
town, including the Winter festival, Duck Race and the first 5k Duck Waddle.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
None.
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.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (OUTSIDE ENTITIES):
1. ESTES VALLEY PARTNERS FOR COMMERCE QUARTERLY UPDATE.
Kirby Hazelton/President congratulated the newly elected Mayor and Trustees.
In the past quarter the organization has held a meet and greet with the Town
candidates for the mayor and trustee open positions; participated in ongoing
business incubator discussions with the EDC; provided a support letter for the
Estes Arts District to support their efforts in forming a State recognized district;
would participate in the upcoming Housing Summit; held a discussion on
capacity building as recognized by the Avalanche report; discussions have
taken place on the formation of a craft beverage interest group; working on
providing better value to their membership; continuing the “Explore Your Store”
program; Business After Hours on the third Thursday of the month; and invited
those interested to their monthly meeting on the third Tuesday of the month at
Poppy’s
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. COLORADO DIVISION OF HOUSING GRANT FOR LONE TREE
APARTMENTS RENOVATION PROJECT. Jeff Feneis/Loveland Housing
Board of Trustees – May 10, 2016 – Page 3
Authority Director of Development stated the Lone Tree Apartments are owned
by the Loveland Housing Authority and run be the Estes Park Housing
Authority. The Loveland Housing Authority is pursuing funding to complete a
renovation of the apartments which provide 57 affordable housing units. The
Authority has applied for an $800,000 grant from the Colorado Division of
Housing that must be awarded to the Town of Estes Park. The Loveland
Authority would monitor the grant and prepare all reports for the Town to
minimize the impact on staff. It was moved and seconded (Walker/Holcomb)
the Town of Estes Park be the fiscal agent for the Colorado Division of
Housing Grant for the Lone Tree Apartment Renovation project, and it
passed unanimously.
2. REQUEST FOR FOSH FUNDS BY EPIC FOR THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN
PERFORMING ART CENTER. Tom Dority/Estes Performing Inc. (EPIC)
introduced Mark Newhouse, the newest Board member to the committee, who
has a long history in the non-profit space as a former Board Member of the
Watson Homestead, and Vice President of the Clemens Performing Arts Center
Board of Trustees. Mr. Newhouse provided a review of the progress EPIC has
made in the past four years, but more significantly the last year. After the flood
of 2013 the capital campaign was suspended through January 2015. The
Board decided to move forward with development plan review approval in an
effort to restart its capital campaign with approval of the plan by the Planning
Commission, Board of Adjustment and the Town Board. The approvals were
received by the Commission and Boards in late 2015 and early 2016. The
EPIC Board requested the release of the FOSH funds to hire an Executive
Director to aid in the revamped capital campaign. In 2013, the Town Board
found the project to be a feasible plan that would be viable. The EPIC Board
has a plan, a capable Board and the next step would be to raise funds to build
the project. EPIC stated the release of the funds now would be more valuable
than if the funds are released after EPIC has raised the millions required for
ground-breaking.
Those speaking in favor of the release of the FOSH funds to EPIC included Pat
Nelson/Fine Arts Guild and Estes Arts District, Charley Dickey/Town citizen and
downtown business owner, and Jon Nicholas/Economic Development
Corporation Executive Director. The funds should be released to allow EPIC
the necessary funds to hire expert fundraising assistance; however, EPIC
should be held accountable for how the funds are used. The Avalanche study
identified the project as a significant economic driver for the Town.
Art Messal/Town citizen spoke against the release of the funds and stated
concern with the feasibility of the project.
Board discussion followed and has been summarized. At the April 18, 2013
meeting, the Board found the construction of the theater feasible; agreed to
continue to hold the funds until January 31, 2017; and would distribute the
FOSH funds if no significant construction was underway. Trustee Nelson
stated the community use of the facility would be vital and with the inclusion of
the use the FOSH funds should be released to move the project forward.
Trustee Martchink stated optimism in the success of the project and would
support providing the FOSH funds to move the project forward. He encouraged
the EPIC Board to move the project forward with an increased vigor. Trustee
Norris stated this is the community’s money and he would support putting it to
use for this project. Trustee Walker stated concern with releasing the FOSH
funds for fundraising rather than significant construction as approved by the
pervious Board motion. Mayor Jirsa commented he would not support the
release of the funds as significant construction has not occurred.
Diana Muno/EPIC Board member stated the Board has made progress with the
approval of the development plan, the addition of new Board members, and the
Town Board finding the project feasible. The project now requires professional
Board of Trustees – May 10, 2016 – Page 4
fundraising to aid the volunteers in raising the funds needed to build the
theater.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to
approve the release of the FOSH funds to EPIC for the Rocky Mountain
Performing Art Center, and it passed with Mayor Jirsa voting “No”.
3. 2016 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: OVERLAY CONTRACT
AWARD. Engineer Stallworth presented a request to contract with Coulson
Excavating Co. for the 2016 Street Overlay program to overlay Axminister
Lane, Devon Drive, Golf Course Road and Manford Avenue. In addition the
contract would complete large patch work on Brodie Avenue, Community Drive,
Curry Drive, Grand Estates Drive and Spruce Drive. As the bid of $418,970
came in well below the budgeted $526,000, staff requested the Board authorize
staff to work with the contractor to complete additional work up to the budgeted
funds. The contractor would begin work between May 31 – August 15, 2016.
The increased funding and completed work would advance the 2024 STIP plan.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Walker) to approve a construction
contract for the 2016 Street Overlay Program, to Coulson Excavation, Inc.
in the amount of $418,970.50 with a 10% contingency and the remaining
budgeted funds to be used for further road improvements up to $526,000,
and it passed unanimously.
4. 2016 FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION.
Director Muhonen stated at the April 12, 2016 meeting the Town Board
authorized Public Works to hire the engineering consultant firm of Felsburg,
Holt & Ullevig to prepare a Federal Lands Access Program grant application for
the Moraine Avenue Improvements for submittal on May 21, 2016. Through
the application development the river trail along the Big Thompson River was
deleted due to the high cost (over $7 million) and the need for an additional
nine easements. After further discussions with Rocky Mountain National Park
and further budget evaluation, the Mary’s Lake Road intersection improvements
were removed from the application. The final application would fund a
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 along Moraine Avenue from
Crags Drive to Mary’s Lake Road. Letters of support for the application have
been received from the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District, Estes Park
Cycling Coalition, and the Estes Park Economic Development Council.
Additional letters from the Colorado Department of Transportation, Rocky
Mountain National Park and the Transportation Advisory Board are expected
and would be submitted with the grant application.
Those speaking in favor of the application included Tom Street/Transportation
Advisory Board member reading comments from Kimberly Campbell/
Transportation Advisory Board Chair, Kent LaSalle/Estes Valley Trails
Committee member, Jon Nicholas/Economic Development Corporation
Executive Chair, Charley Dickey/Town citizen and downtown business owner,
and Art Messal/Town citizen. The FLAP grant application would deliver on the
promises of the 1A sales tax through improving the roadways in Estes Park and
providing a safer area for pedestrians and bicyclists. The multimodal trail would
provide increase safety in the area that has seen significant increase in traffic in
the past 65 years, and would enhance the guest experience.
Paul Fishman/Town citizen stated concern that CDOT has not taken
responsibility to improve its roadway. He would encourage the Town continue
discussions with CDOT regarding the safety issues related to the roadway. He
also stated concern with the short time frame provided for this grant and the
lack of public participation in the process.
Board of Trustees – May 10, 2016 – Page 5
Mayor Jirsa questioned if the plan had been vetted by the public. He
questioned if the project was the highest priority for safety and stated concern
with the funds being spent on the project. There may be a need for future trails
to connect workforce housing projects and the funds would not be available.
Trustee Walker stated the project does not fit his priorities to improve housing
and downtown parking.
Trustee Koenig complimented staff for the proposed plan and appreciated the
project being paired down. Trustee Norris agreed and stated the improvements
to the roadway are a high safety priority for the community.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to
approve the submittal of a 2016 Federal Lands Access Program grant
application for the proposed multimodal improvements to Moraine
Avenue, and it passed with Mayor Jirsa and Trustee Walker voting “No”.
5. BUILDING PERMIT FEE WAIVER – 1147 FISH CREEK ROAD. Director
Cumbo presented a request by the homeowners of the property located at 1147
Fish Creek Road to waive building permit fees for the reconstruction of their
home destroyed during the 2013 flood. The house was the only structure lost
in the flood. It was moved and seconded (Walker/Norris) to approve the
waiver of building permit fees for 1147 Fish Creek Road in an amount not
to exceed $4,500, and it passed with Mayor Pro Tem Koenig voting “No”.
6. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INTERVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS.
Town Clerk Williamson stated per Policy 101 all applicants to Town Board
Committees or Boards must be interviewed by the Town Board or their
designee. The Town has advertised the position for approximately a month
and received one application from the current Board member Pete Smith.
Board discussion ensued on the past reappointment of other Committee/Board
members without an interview. After discussion, it was moved and seconded
(Koenig/Holcomb) to reappointment Pete Smith to the Board of
Adjustments for an additional 3-year term expiring May 31, 2019, and it
passed unanimously.
4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Martchink) to enter Executive Session for
the purpose of discussing specialized details of security arrangements
under C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(d), and the motion passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 9:37 p.m.
Mayor Jirsa reconvened the meeting to open session at 9:46 p.m.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 10:36 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado May 10, 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 10th day of May, 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 5:00 p.m.
CIRSA LIABILITY TRAINING.
Tami Tanuoe/CIRSA General Counsel & Deputy Executive Director provided a
presentation on ethics, liability, and best practices for elected officials. The presentation
focused on governance versus administration, meeting practices – transparency,
orderly and effective public participation, and personal conduct towards one another,
staff and the community. She stressed the need to have good governance policies in
place to ensure proper allocation of responsibility in the organization. She reviewed the
Open Meetings law and Open Records law, the need for transparency, electronic
communication could be covered by both laws, and personal email can be discoverable
if used for public business.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Administrator Lancaster updated the Board on the status of the Broadband grant. Once
the grant contract has been signed by the State, the Town would release an RFP for
engineering design. The staff anticipates the design to take a number of months to
complete.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
The Broadband take rate study would be scheduled for an upcoming meeting to outline
the findings, discuss next steps, and legal issues. The Economic Development
Corporation Broadband committee would continue their efforts to educate the public on
the need for improved broadband service to grow the economy and improve the quality
of life of the citizens. A timeline for the project would be developed once the RFP and
contract are complete.
The Estes Park Housing Authority would hold a Housing Summit on May 28th to discuss
the 11 recommendations from the recent housing needs assessment study.
Administrator Lancaster would bring forward to the Board items that are the Town’s
responsibility. He recommended the Town submit a Request for Proposals from the
private sector for the development of the Town owned Fish Hatchery property for a
workforce housing development. The Board consensus was to move forward.
The NEPA study for the Loop project would be presented to the Town Board at the June
14th Town Board Study Session meeting. A public meeting would be held a couple of
days later. The public would be able to comment on the study for 30 days after the draft
study is released. The Board would take action on the item in July.
Town Board Study Session – May 10, 2016 – Page 2
Terry Gilbert/Larimer County Planning Director would present an update on the vacation
home task force at the May 24th Town Board Study Session.
The Board requested the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District provide an
executive summary on the status of the Community Center. The summary would
include a statement on the district’s interpretation of how the Town’s money would be
utilized.
The Board requested staff develop a procedure on how to call a question. Staff would
draft language to be added to Policy 103 for the Board’s review.
A study session would be scheduled to bring the new Board members up to date on the
ongoing vacation home regulations. Interim Director Cumbo would provide a review of
the main policy questions that need to be discussed.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:43 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 12, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY, UTILITIES &
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes
Park on the 12th day of May 2016.
Committee: Chair Koenig, Trustees Martchink and Nelson
Attending: Trustees Martchink and Nelson
Also Attending: Chief Kufeld, Directors Bergsten and Muhonen, Supervisor
Berg, Manager Ash, Engineer Stallworth, and Clerk
Williamson
Absent: Chair Koenig, Town Administrator Lancaster
Trustee Nelson called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Reports
1. Municipal Court Annual Report: Judge Brown requested the report be delayed
to the June meeting.
2. Introduce Howell Wright, Reserve Officer: Chief Kufeld introduced Howell
Wright the newest member of the Police department. He would serve the
department as a Reserve Officer. He has been trained in the Police Academy
and has been a Deputy with the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office. He would work
with Special Events and riding with officers to assist department.
3. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions: Chief Kufeld stated the
department may complete their hiring process = and fill the last vacancy in the
Patrol division. The candidate would complete the Police Academy in May and
the final stages of the background check.
UTILITIES
InVision GIS Contract.
The 2016 Utilities budget includes $255,000 for GIS services and $220,000 for
engineering services. Utilities forecasts 2016 spending with InVision GIS to be
$330,000. No change in budget is required. Project specific purchase orders are
created on the first of the month to cover the estimated work performed during the
month. Monthly invoices do not exceed the department’s spending authority of
$100,000 per the purchasing policy, however, purchases exceeding $100,000 require
Town Board approval. Staff request the Committee recommend approval of the
expenditure of $330,000 with InVision GIS. After further discussions, the Committee
recommended approval of the expenditure not to exceed $330,000 with InVision
GIS on the Consent Agenda at the May 24, 2016 Town Board meeting.
Request .5 FTE for Project Management Support.
The grant funded Utilities Flood Recovery Project Manager is under contract until the
end of December 2016. The terms of the grant restrict the employee’s activities to flood
recovery work only. As the department’s grant work nears completion and the project
Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee – May 12, 2016 – Page 2
work for the utilities continues to increase, the department would request decreasing the
grant funding to 50%. This would allow the position to work on project management
support for other department projects. DOLA has agreed to reduce the grant funding by
50%. The position would be funded 50% by the Utilities department for the remainder
of 2016 to provide professional project management support. The Committee
recommended the addition of a .5 FTE position as a Utilities Project Manager on
the Consent Agenda at the May 24, 2016 Town Board meeting.
Reports
1. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions:
The proposed electric rate increase would be presented at the upcoming
Town Board Study Session meeting on May 24, 2016.
The Smart meter pilot project would be completed soon. The department
would complete the rollout of the project along Hwy 34 prior to the upcoming
road closure later this year.
Water Projects: Replace a line on the north end of Fish Creek to create a
loop in the area. Dry Gulch project includes the replacement of a section of
abandoned galvanized line. Complete the replacement of a line along
Axminister Lane prior to the completion of an overlay. Water department staff
continues to work closely with Public Works to complete projects prior to road
improvements.
Manager Fraundorf provided an update on the Broadband project, stating
once the DOLA grant has been signed by the state an RFP would be issued
for the engineering design for the fiber/broadband system.
PUBLIC WORKS
Reports
1. Parks Division Brochures: Supervisor Berg presented educational brochures
produced by the Parks Advisory Board to provide the public with information on
the types of plants and trees used by the Town. The America In Bloom
organization recommended the brochures during their last visit.
2. Dry Gulch Road: Manager Ash provided an overview of the current construction
conditions and stated the placement of the retaining walls has started. Favorable
weather has kept the project on schedule for a July 31, 2016 completion date.
Public Works continues to evaluate temporary access options, including the
rental of temporary traffic lights. Trustee Martchink suggested an increase in
Police presence if the temporary access road was to be reopened. Chief Kufeld
commented on the difficultly in providing increased patrols in the area due to
limited staffing.
3. 2016 STIP Updates: The chipseal contract would be released for bid. The chip
seal contract bid would be released today and come forward for the Board’s
consideration at the May 24, 2016 meeting. The overlay contract approved by
the Board at their May 10th meeting would allow for additional roadways to be
improved throughout town. The overlays would be coordinated with the Water
department to ensure projects are completed prior to improving the roadways.
Crack sealing has been ongoing for the past couple of weeks and should be
complete in the next week.
4. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions
Director Muhonen requested the Committee consider items under $100,000
be submitted to the Town Board and not the Committee first. The Committee
was in agreement with the suggestion; however, the full Board would need to
provide direction on what items should be reviewed at the Committee level.
The Committee recommended the issue be addressed at an upcoming Town
Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee – May 12, 2016 – Page 3
Board Study Session.
The Public Works department has produced a monthly newsletter to provide
the Board and the community updates on current and upcoming projects.
The department received four bids, with two falling within budget, for the Scott
Pond dam rehabilitation project. The contract would come forward to the
Board at the May 24th meeting. The contractor identified would utilize local
businesses to complete the project.
The spray patcher continues to be utilized to repair the roadways. A GIS
system plots the work and makes the repairs available for review on the
Town’s website.
There being no further business, Trustee Nelson adjourned the meeting at 9:00 a.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 20th, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Rooms 202 & 203 of Town Hall, in
said Town of Estes Park on the 20th day of April, 2016.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Belle Morris
Gregg Rounds
Gordon Slack
Ken Zornes
Tom Street
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
John Ericson, Town Board Liaison
Samantha Phillips, Recording Secretary
Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager
Absent: Ann Finley
Stan Black
Amy Hamrick
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:04 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
It was moved and seconded (Slack/Morris) to approve the March meeting minutes & the
special April meeting minutes as amended and the motion passed unanimously.
Public comment was made by Alicia Rochambeau of the Estes Park Cycling Coalition.
Rochambeau expressed the importance of the Hwy 7 Re-Striping plan for improving
accessibility on bicycles. She argued that it is a major corridor for residential areas and it
improves the spirit of wellness. Director Muhonen suggested that the Estes Park Cycling
Coalition write a letter of support for the FLAP grant application involving Moraine
Avenue road improvements.
Chair Campbell formally introduced and welcomed the two new TAB members: Ken
Zornes and Tom Street. Both members gave brief bios on their reasons for joining the
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and what their goals and hopes are for their terms.
Larry Gamble, Rocky Mountain National Park, offered his support for the TAB.
Sandy Osterman presented a brief Shuttle Committee update. In the process of putting
info together to submit for the grant. The grant is due in May and the Committee was
looking at a 50-week program. Timing has not been decided. 409 responses on the
shuttle questionnaire. Responses received on the shuttle questionnaire were mostly in
favor of promoting a year round shuttle service. A sponsorship program would be
offered for businesses and groups at a $250 cost.
Transportation Advisory Board – April 20th, 2016 – Page 2
HIGHWAY 7 RE-STRIPING
Guest speaker Rich Christy, CDOT Resident Engineer, stated that CDOT is at 30% level of
design on Hwy 7 and would be awarding a contract for culvert work. CDOT was
anticipating that the work will be a two-season workload with quite a bit of ROW
acquisitions. Christy made it clear that landscaping and curbs would be the Town’s
responsibility. Co-chair Morris voiced the importance of safe routes to school through
protected medians. This project was early enough in design that re-striping would be
feasible. The TAB hoped that heading southbound, the shoulders would be widened
sufficiently to improve safety for bicyclists.
The Board discussed the possibility of putting signage at Graves Avenue with a sidewalk,
signal timing, lighting, and other possible avenues along Highway 7. The Board held
discussion on whether a dedicated turn lane would be needed. Director Muhonen
reminded the Board that a speed study would be required to change the speed and it
would not guarantee a lower the speed limit.
PROJECT UPDATES
The Environmental Assessment, as it pertains to the Loop, would be released on June
6th, 2016. Central Federal Lands (CFL) was expected to lead a public hearing at Events
Center on June 29th followed by a series of meetings with business owners to present
conceptual changes involving the project.
Public Works had received an official response from CDOT regarding the
implementation of the Barnes Dance. CDOT approved to change the timing as long as
the Town agrees to accept full responsibility and absolve CDOT from any accidents or
complaints that would happen. The Town would also be required to take responsibility
to maintain signal timing.
The Town had hired a consultant, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, to prepare the FLAP2 grant
application for the Moraine Avenue Road Improvements project which is due May 21st,
2016. The Board discussed the possibility of a special meeting to be held on the May
19th to finalize the application before it would be submitted. This project would include
the widening of Moraine Avenue and a detached trail following the river. The Public
Works Department would look into a CDOT cost share for financial support due to the
fact that it is owned by CDOT.
Public Works received news involving the Transit Hub Parking Structure. The Federal
Transit Administration’s (FTA) attorney indicated that the special use permit will be 50
Transportation Advisory Board – April 20th, 2016 – Page 3
years. Public Works awaits to hear approval for moving the structure from the north to
the south side.
At the time of the TAB meeting, Dry Gulch construction was on schedule and
progressing well. The Public Works Department had received numerous complaints
involving the detour traffic.
OTHER BUSINESS
With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 2:00 pm.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 15th, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall Rooms 202 & 203, in said
Town of Estes Park on the 15th day of April, 2016.
Present: Merle Moore
Celine Lebeau
Dewain Lockwood
Terry Rustin (conference call)
Carlie Bangs
Vicki Papineau
Also Present: Bob Holcomb, Trustee Liaison
Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor
Sam Phillips, Administrative Assistant
Absent: Ronna Boles
Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 11:03 a.m.
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded (Papineau/Lockwood) to approve the March meeting
minutes and the motion passed unanimously.
Lars Sage, Estes Valley Arts District (EVAD), communicated that the EVAD would
provide a judge for the student artwork selection for the Mountain Heritage Festival. The
judging will take place the night before the festival and the artwork would be displayed
during the festival. The EVAD was becoming involved in western arts show and jazz
fests and would also be coordinating various activities that will go on during the
weekend of the April 29th. For the Art in Estes weekend, the EVAD would like to provide
a sculpture walk throughout downtown.
ARBOR DAY DISCUSSION
Chair Lebeau informed the PAB that the water bottles and the bookmarks had been
selected for the Mountain Heritage Festival. The bottles would be white with a teal top
and would include artwork on the side. T-shirt designs and pricing were discussed.
Possibilities included art on the back and the Mountain Heritage Festival logo on the
front. There could be a possibility that t-shirts would be sold for the 2017 Mountain
Heritage Festival. The Board reviewed the submitted student artwork for the festival.
The winning piece was of the sunset over Long’s Peak in Rocky Mountain National
Park. The Mountain Heritage Festival would be held on Friday, April 29th, from 9 am – 3
pm. Animals such as alpacas, chickens, rabbits, turkeys, owls, and llamas would be
Parks Advisory Board – April 15th, 2016 – Page 2
included in the festival at the Events Center. Presentations would begin in the morning
leading up to the 2 o’clock proclamation from the Mayor.
The Board decided to have a booth at the event that would include brochures,
pamphlets, Art in Public Places (AIPP) ordinance, AIPP policy, art inventory, by-laws,
and Tree City info. There would be three foam board displays: Tree City, AIPP, and
Estes Land Stewardship Association (ELSA). The Board would like to see hard copies
on the table for guests to look at.
PARKS DIVISION UPDATE
The Parks Division would begin planting flowers by the library including grasses and
shrubs. Musical instruments would be installed in the near future. The Parks Division
was waiting for finalization from the library involving the sculpture that would be placed
at the reading garden. A decision would be made whether to advance with a chainsaw
sculpture or search for other funding for a larger sculpture.
OTHER BUSINESS
With no other business to discuss, a motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 11:52
pm, with all voting in favor.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry
White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, Klink, White, Schneider, and Hills
Also Attending: Interim Director Karen Cumbo, Planner Audem Gonzales, Town Attorney Greg
White, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Environmental Planner Tina Kurtz,
Senior Planner Alison Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: None
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 60 people in
attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public
comment at today’s meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not
necessarily the chronological sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
Charley Dickey commented on today’s study session. He asked the Commission to consider having
the same discussion in the regular meeting. The discussion was relevant, and the public in
attendance at the regular meeting today deserve to hear the same discussion. He also asked the
Commission to be more involved in planning. There are items coming up in the community that
could be assisted by the Commission’s involvement.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes, March 16, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as presented and
the motion passed unanimously.
3. REZONING & BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND RE‐ZONING , TBD Little Prospect Road
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Stephanie Rauk, desires to adjust the
common property line between two parcels as well as rezone both properties to E‐Estate. The
owner of both parcels is the George H Voeks Trust, and Ms. Rauk is the Trustee. In 2010, a
separate legal lot determination was requested of Community Development staff, and it was
determined the north parcel was not considered a legal not for the purposes of development. In
August, 2015, another legal lot determination was requested, and again the lot was determined
not legal for purposes of development. The applicant has since filed an appeal of the staff
decision to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, which was initially heard at the
December 21, 2015 County Commission meeting. The result of that hearing was a request by the
County Commissioners to the applicant to come forward with the appropriate applications to
accomplish the goal of creating two equally‐sized lots. It was implied if the applicant completed
these steps, then the County Commissioners would be inclined to overturn staff’s decision, which
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
would make the north parcel a legal lot and eligible for a boundary line adjustment (BLA).
Therefore, the applicant has applied for a BLA and Rezoning, of which the Planning Commission is
the recommending body to the County Commissioners. A hearing on the appeal, BLA, and
rezoning is scheduled for May 16, 2016.
Planner Gonzales stated the proposed BLA would reconfigure the lots, although neither would be
conforming to minimum lot size for the proposed rezoning to E‐Estate (0.5 acre minimum). Both
lots would be 0.437 acres in size. Adjusting the boundary line would result in the smaller parcel
coming closer into conformance with the zone district standards. A minor modification would be
required to reduce the minimum lot size to the proposed 0.437 acres. The proposal also includes
granting direct access to the two new lots via Little Prospect Drive, accessed from Peak View
Drive. The applicant requested a waiver from establishing limits of disturbance and vegetation
protection standards, and staff approved the request. He stated the application was routed to all
affected agencies and adjacent property owners. Water supply to the proposed two parcels could
be by connecting to the Town system or drilling a well. New utility easements will be dedicated
with the Final Plat.
Planner Gonzales stated the rezoning request is essentially a corrective rezoning. The south parcel
was zoned E‐1–Estate when the Estes Valley Development Code was adopted in 2000, and the
north lot was zone E‐Estate. The E‐1 zoning is not consistent with the remainder of the
subdivision. In order to avoid split zoning if the BLA is approved, staff supports the rezoning
request. The site is located within the Beaver Point planning area of the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan. Staff evaluated the proposed development for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and found no issues or conflicts with this proposal.
Staff Findings
1. The Boundary Line Adjustment application and Rezoning request do not fall within the
parameters of staff‐level review, and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body, and the Larimer
County Board of County Commissioners is the Decision‐Making Body.
2. The Minor Modification request does not fall within the parameters of staff‐level review,
and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is the
Decision‐Making Body.
3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration
and comment. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing staff, referred to in the staff
report, are incorporated as staff findings.
4. Adjusting the boundary line and changing the configuration of the parcels would not
compromise the intent of the original subdivision. It would bring the two parcels into
further conformance in regards to lot area dimensions.
5. The rezoning would reflect the new lot configuration.
6. Utility easements on the newly created lots will be recorded with the final plat.
7. Existing easements will remain to be dedicated on the final plat.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Staff listed several motion samples for the Commissioners to consider, which can be viewed in the
staff report. Each has various conditions of approval. The conditions of approval chosen by the
Planning Commission are listed below.
Public comment
Joe Coop/applicant representative stated the property owners are in agreement with all staff
findings and conditions of approval. When asked about the option for drilling a well on the
property, Mr. Coop stated he understands lots created prior to 1972 are eligible to apply for a
water well with the State of Colorado Water Division. There is documentation the lot was created
before 1972.
Conditions of Approval
1. Board of County Commissioners granting the Separate Lot Determination Appeal,
therefore designating the north parcel a legal lot making it eligible for a Boundary Line
Adjustment.
2. Approval of the Rezoning request from E‐1–Estate to E‐Estate.
3. Label setbacks on Preliminary Plat.
4. Add note to plat map that owner of Lot 1 or Lot 2 shall abide by any local road association
or homeowners association maintenance regulations for Little Prospect Drive.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Klink) to recommend approval of the application to the
Larimer County Board of County Commissioners with the findings and conditions recommended
by staff and the motion passed unanimously.
4. REZONING OF 475 FALL RIVER LANE FROM CO–COMMERCIAL OUTYLING TO R‐2–TWO‐FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. The applicants, Dennis and Katie Lovell, desire to
rezone the subject property in order to allow an existing two‐family dwelling to be used as such.
A rezoning request was submitted in 2004 by the previous property owners, but the request was
withdrawn before the public hearing. The application was routed to all affected agencies and
adjacent property owners, and a legal notice was published in the local newspaper. No neighbor
comments were received. The Planning Commission is the recommending body for this
application, with the Town Board being the decision‐making body. Planner McCool reviewed the
following:
Staff Findings
1. Staff found the previous rezoning request from 2004 was generated due to updates to the
Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) completed in 2000 which removed language
permitting single‐family and duplex uses within the “CO” zone district as uses by right.
Therefore, the 2000 EVDC updates created a nonconforming use of this property. This
proposed amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
since the quilting business previously located within the structure was relocated many
years ago, hence, the long‐standing uses on the parcel have been primarily residential. The
Division of Building Safety reviewed a building permit to bring the property into
compliance with current building codes since the conversion of the commercial space to
residential use was never reviewed by the building officials at the time. A condition
required by the Division of Building Safety is that a rezoning is approved prior to issuance
of a Letter of Completion. Approval of the rezoning will bring the property into compliance
with the existing uses on the property and improve the safety of the building through
required upgrades to the structure.
2. Staff found that given the nature of the current land use and existing developed parcel,
Staff has waived the requirement for a development plan, since no new development is
proposed in conjunction with this rezoning request. The configuration of the existing
development has been evaluated by Staff and will conform to the proposed zoning
designation of R‐2–Two‐Family Residential.
3. Staff found the property is fully developed and already served by the public utilities and the
fire district. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District reviewed the submitted materials and
had no comments or concerns regarding those plans. The EVFPD provided their standard
condition of approval that all construction and processes shall be in accordance with the
provisions of the International Fire Code (2009), the International Building Code (2009)
and the Town of Estes Park Codes and Standards.
Public Comment
Katie Lovell/applicant stated she and her husband were working with the Division of Building
Safety to bring the structure into compliance as a residential duplex.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
Conditions of Approval
1. All construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
International Fire Code (2009), the International Building Code (2009), and the Town of
Estes Park Codes and Standards.
2. Property owner will comply with all requirements of the Division of Building Safety to
ensure the converted commercial space is safe for habitation as a second dwelling unit.
It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to recommend approval of the rezoning request
to the Town Board of Trustees with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the
motion passed unanimously.
5. AMENDED PLAT AND REZONING REQUEST FOR LOT 5, SUNNY ACRES ADDITION
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicant, Paul Pewterbaugh, was
requesting to remove the common property line between two illegally subdivided lots, and
rezone the proposed Lot 5A to RM–Multi‐Family Residential. He stated a previous property owner
illegally subdivided Lot 5, Sunny Acres Subdivision in the 1980s, and they were subsequently
zoned R‐2–Two‐Family Residential and E‐1–Estate with the established of the new zone districts
in 2000 when the EVDC was adopted. The zoning of the two lots was determined by the uses of
the properties at the time. In 2006, and Amended Plat and Rezoning applications were approved
for the subject property. However, the applicant failed to record the final plat, therefore nullifying
the approved Amended Plat and Rezoning. The current application is essentially a duplicate of the
2006 requests. Planner Gonzales stated the existing lots are sized 0.11 acres (zoned R‐2) and 1.06
acres (zoned E‐1), making the proposed Lot 5A 1.17 acres, meeting the requirements for
minimum lot size in the RM–Multi‐Family Residential zone district. The smaller parcel currently
contains a duplex which does not meet setback or dimensional requirements, and the larger lot
also contains a duplex that does not meet setback requirements on the west side. Planner
Gonzales stated the plat was reviewed for grading and site disturbance standards. There are
existing gravel drives, and these standards are not applicable at this time. The requirements for
adequate public facilities were not triggered with this application. There is a proposed 10‐foot
utility easement along all property lines, and a new private 10‐foot utility and access easement
through the center of the property is proposed to be dedicated to allow for utilities and access to
properties to the east.
Planner Gonzales stated this application is for a corrective rezone. This property would have
remained zoned for multi‐family residential development with the adoption of the EVDC if the
Larimer County Tax Assessor’s map had shown this property as one lot containing four units.
However, the Larimer county map reflected the 1982 illegal subdivision with one duplex on each
of the two parcels. Staff was not aware of the illegal subdivision at the time of the rezoning when
the EVDC was adopted in 2000. Planner Gonzales stated the site is located within the Fall River
planning area of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, which includes a mix of single‐family and
multi‐family development. Although the rezoning request does not align with the Comprehensive
Plan, it reflects what is currently built.
Staff Findings
1. This Amended Plat application and Rezoning request do not fall within the parameters of
staff‐level review, and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission is the recommending body, with the Town Board of Trustees being
the decision‐making body.
2. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration
and comment. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing staff, referred to in the staff
report, are incorporated as staff findings.
3. Adjusting the common property line and creating one legal lot does not affect the original
intent of the subdivision. It would bring the existing property into conformance in regards
to lot area dimensions and permitted uses.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4. The rezoning would reflect how the subject area is developed.
5. New utility easements and private access easements on the newly created lot will be
recorded with the final plat.
Staff recommended approval of the Amended Plat and Rezoning request with conditions of
approval listed below.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Planner Gonzales clarified the setback on the west side of the larger lot does not currently meet
all setback requirements. However, the amended plat would bring both lots into compliance with
setback requirements in the RM‐Multi‐Family Residential zone district.
Public Comment
Joe Coop/applicant representative stated a proposed covered entry would extend into the
current setback. However, this will be corrected with the amended plat. The applicant was in
agreement with the findings and conditions reflected in the staff report.
Public comment closed.
Condition of Approval
1. Approved Amended Plat shall be submitted for recording within 60 days of Town Board
approval of the application.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Klink) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat and
Rezoning to the Town Board of Trustees with the findings and conditions recommended by staff
and the motion passed unanimously.
6. SPECIAL REVIEW 2016‐01, LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS, 1665 HIGHWAY 66
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The request is to develop a 750‐person capacity
Chuckwagon Dinner and Live Entertainment facility on a five‐acre site located at 1665 Spur 66,
within the Estes Park town limits. The site is adjacent to the existing Elk Meadow RV Resort. The
proposal includes a 17,910 square foot building, 192 space parking lot, widening of Mills Drive on
the south of the site, and installation of a right turn lane on Spur 66. The development would
occur in three phases over three years, unless funding allows the phasing to be completed
sooner. The parcel is zoned A‐Accommodations, allowing for higher intensity/higher density
projects. The proposed site currently serves as a storage area for the RV Park. Surrounding the
site are various land uses including Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) facilities and offices,
single‐family dwellings, a restaurant/tavern, and an RV park. Mills Drive is currently a 20‐foot
wide asphalt private drive.
Planner Gonzales stated the application was determined to be reviewed as an indoor
Entertainment Event, Major. Major entertainment event uses are characterized by activities and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
structures that attract people to specific (often large‐scale) events or shows. Activities are
generally of spectator nature. Accessory uses may include restaurants, bars, concessions, parking
and maintenance facilities. A Special Review is required for this type of development in the A–
Accommodations, CO–Commercial Outlying, and CD–Commercial Downtown zone districts, and
requires the applicant to mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on
nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. Planner Gonzales stated the
Planning Commission is the recommending body for this application, with the Town Board being
the decision‐making body. The application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent
property owners. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper. Staff received many public
comments regarding this application. These comments can be viewed at
www.estes.org/currentapplications.
Planner Gonzales stated the application complies with the density standards, minimum lot size
requirement, building height and setback requirements. Impervious lot coverage allowed is 50%,
and this project proposes 15% coverage. The proposed plan complies with the general grading
and site disturbance standards. There is currently very little landscaping on the site, and
additional landscaping has been proposed to meet or exceed the requirements of the code for a
development of this size. Concerning wetlands and stream corridor protection, there are no
delineated rivers or streams on or near the subject area. Two potential wetland habitat areas
have been identified and conservatively mapped for this application. A formal delineation study
will be conducted once the site thaws. The proposal includes an encroachment by 2.6 feet into
one of the potential wetland setbacks (50‐foot required setback), for which a minor modification
would be required, with staff having authority to grant or deny the modification (10% or less).
Staff will recommend a condition of approval be the submittal of the Jurisdictional Wetland
Delineation results to the Community Development Department for review. A wildlife habitat
evaluation and impact analysis was provided and found no critical habitat or
threatened/endangered species habitat on the site. The proposed development does not propose
any obstructions to critical wildlife movement corridors. Exterior lighting as proposed will comply
with the EVDC. The proposal calls for reducing exterior lighting after 10 p.m. Approval of exterior
building lighting will be address during the building permit process. Planner Gonzales stated a
photometric study will be required during the design of the paved parking lot. Regarding
Operational Performance Standards, Planner Gonzales stated the maximum noise level shall not
exceed 55 decibels during the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., with the level being reduced to 50
decibels between the hours of 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. Staff will recommend a condition of approval
requiring the applicant to perform a noise level study at the property line prior to the first show in
the temporary tent to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Off‐Street parking and loading
requirements were reviewed. A Traffic Impact Study was conducted, and it was determined 200
vehicles would be maximum number of passenger vehicles with an attendance of 750 guests. The
applicant has requested additional parking studies during phases one and two to determine a
final parking space number. In the meantime, staff reviewed the project considering the full build‐
out of 192 parking spaces. The proposed parking area includes handicap‐accessible spaces,
parking for large buses, and a bicycle rack. Planner Gonzales stated the EVDC has requirements
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 8
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
for distances from property lines in regards to loading areas. The applicant will be applying for a
variance from this requirement to allow encroachment into the setback for the street‐side loading
area.
Planner Gonzales stated adequate services and facilities are available to serve the proposed
development, as follows:
Connection to the existing Upper Thompson Sanitation District sewer system;
Extension of a 12‐inch water main and a 20‐foot utility easement on the north side of Mills
Drive;
Existing overhead electric lines will be buried within the 20‐foot utility easement;
On‐site stormwater will be handled through streets/curb and gutter, overland flow, catch
basins, and in storm sewer pipes;
Estes Valley Fire Protection District provided comments that are referred to in the
conditions of approval;
A southbound right‐turn lane will be required at the intersection of Spur 66 and Mills Drive
as determined by the traffic study, of which there is sufficient Larimer County right‐of‐way
to accommodate such turn lane;
Recommendation of a limited all‐way stop sign at the intersection of Larimer County Road
69B and Spur 66 (also known as Hwy 36 and Spur 66 intersection), which would require
approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation
Requirement by Public Works for Mills Drive (private drive) be widened to meet local
street standards with 45 feet of dedicated right‐of‐way, 24 feet of asphalt and curb and
gutter on both sides up to the entrance of the proposed development. The proposal would
dedicate an additional 15 feet on the north side of Mills Drive to be added to the existing
30 feet of right‐of‐way on the south side of Mills Drive.
The proposal triggers construction of a sidewalk along Mills Drive. The applicant and staff
do not feel construction of a sidewalk at this time is reasonable as it would only extend to
the property line to the east of this proposed development. Public Works has requested a
cost estimate to allow the applicant to provide cash in lieu of the sidewalk construction.
The proposed expansion of Mills drive occurs within the property boundaries of the parcel
in question.
Planner Gonzales stated the project was reviewed against the guidelines in the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan. Prior to the establishment of the Estes Valley Development Code and
valley‐wide rezoning in 2000, this property was zoned for multi‐family use. In 2000, the property
was rezoned to A–Accommodations, which allows chuckwagon dinner use with Special Review.
Staff found this proposal is in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan, as follows:
The proposed commercial project is in an area that currently allows commercial uses;
The proposed location of the building is setback 240 feet from the east property line along
Spur 66;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 9
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
The proposal greatly reduces the land availability for campground utilization and
expansion, and the applicant is interested in possibly subdividing the parcel from the
existing campground.
Planner Gonzales stated the proposal does not support the Comprehensive Plan guideline that
the commercial campground should evolve into housing, as follows:
The campground property is roughly 31 acres, and this project would use less than five
acres of that total. There is adequate land to re‐develop the entire site with various land
uses.
Planner Gonzales stated staff found the proposed development advances several adopted
Community‐Wide Policies, including:
Community Design
o Construction plans would include light‐colored roofing materials
o Natural colors for building exteriors
o Windows, doors, or other architectural features to provide visual relief
o Lighting that is shielded and directed downward
Growth Management
o Encourages infill of older core areas to reduce infrastructure costs. The undeveloped
portion of this property is considered an infill site.
Mobility & Circulation
o Implements access control improvements as development occurs. This proposal would
widen Mills Drive and add a right‐turn lane.
o Encourages movement toward alternative modes of transportation. This proposal
would utilize tour buses and the free shuttle system.
Economics
o Maintain a unique blend of businesses, resident and visitor, without negatively
affecting the natural beauty of the Estes Valley. The proposal is a business that has
history in the Estes Valley. The area would benefit by having power lines placed
underground, adding additional landscaping along Mills Drive to buffer between the
commercial and residential uses to the south.
o Sustain and support the existing tourism industry and marketing programs. Staff found
this project fills a niche in Estes Park for a very popular tourist attraction all across the
western United States.
o Establish the basis for a sound tourism market and sustainable economic climate.
Intergovernmental Coordination
o The Town and County will encourage redevelopment and infill as a primary tool to
create a compact community and to prevent sprawl. The proposal is within the Town
limits, and aligns with the community‐wide policy.
Planner Gonzales reviewed the criteria for Special Review, stating a traffic study was provided,
resulting in the determination that Mills Drive should be widened, with the entrance coming off
of Mills Drive. This entrance would be required should the property be subdivided. The property
owner also requested the separate entrance from the RV Park. The applicant has proposed the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 10
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
hiring of a traffic control officer during peak periods, and contracting with bus tour companies as
an alternative mode of transportation. The Town shuttle service has a proposed stop at the site
for guest and employee use. Limited employee housing may be provided on site. Environmental
impacts, noise impacts, and hours of operation were discussed earlier in the meeting. Other
potential impacts include light pollution from headlights, which should be mitigated by the
extensive landscape buffer along Mill Drive. The view shed to the north from residents south of
Mills Drive will be improved because the area will be cleaned up, power lines will be buried, and
Mills Drive will have improved landscaping. Dust from the dirt parking lot will be mitigated prior
to events or during high wind events. Planner Gonzales stated officials at RMNP expressed
concern about potential air quality issues presented by grilling beef and chicken, and that
pollutants from food preparation would enter the Park when the wind blows from east to west.
This concern was routed to the Larimer County Health Department, whose opinion was there
would be no negative impact requiring an air emissions permit unless the char‐broiler or wood‐
fired cooker exceeded the threshold amount of 17 tons of wood per year.
Planner Gonzales stated the minor modification, discussed earlier in the meeting, to allow an
encroachment of 2.6 feet into the 50‐foot wetland and stream corridor protection buffer/setback
is within the authority of staff to grant, and staff approved this minor modification. Another
variance for the off‐street loading requirement mentioned earlier in the meeting would be heard
by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment following the final decision by the Town Board, as
required by the EVDC.
Planner Gonzales explained the phasing process. For the 2016 season, a temporary use permit has
been approved by staff, allowing operation of the dinner and entertainment event in an 8700
square foot tent with 63 tables, a 200 square foot indoor stage, dirt parking lot, installed
landscape buffer on Mills Drive, where the entrance would be located. This is the third temporary
use permit to be issued in as many years at this location. The biggest change for this year is the
entrance coming off of Mills Drive instead of using the Elk Meadow RV Park entrance on Spur 66.
Phase 1, planned for 2017 and in addition to the current facilities, would include permanent
kitchen and restroom facilities, ADA compliant sidewalks, paved ADA compliant parking spaces,
the water main extension and sanitary sewer service line, and a soft‐surface trail from the
temporary tent to the shuttle stop location on Spur 66. Phase 2 , planned for 2018, would include
construction of the dining/performance hall (12,200 square feet) being added to the permanent
kitchen and restrooms, additional landscape buffer along Mills Drive, and installation of the right‐
turn lane. Phase 3, planned for 2019, would finish the development with construction of the
parking lot (including curb and gutter), storm sewer installation, and parking lot landscaping.
Planner Gonzales stated the Planning Commission should consider the entire development in
their recommendation to the Town Board.
Planner Gonzales stated there has been an extensive amount of public interest in this project,
mainly from adjacent property owners. There are concerns about how this project will affect
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 11
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
parking at the nearby Rock Inn. He stated the County Engineering Department has determined
the parking area in front of the Rock Inn is actually in the County right‐of‐way, and has not been
approved for use as a parking area. Additionally, it was determined that residents living on Mills
Drive and parking across the street from their homes are actually parking on the Elk Meadow RV
Park’s property. Mills Drive is a private road located on the Elk Meadow RV Park property.
Staff Findings
1. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will
comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the
staff report.
2. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan.
3. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development.
4. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body, and the Town Board of Trustees is
the Decision‐Making Body for the Special Review application.
Staff recommended approval of the Special Review application with the conditions of approval
listed below.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Comments included but were not limited to:
The new noise ordinance increases the daytime decibel level from 55 to 80, with quiet
time from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. These changes will impact this proposal.
The water main extension was requested by a private citizen. RMNP will also have the
option to tie into this extension. This proposal only requires a small segment to be
connected to the Town water system.
A limited stop sign means not permanent, and either way it would have to be approved by
CDOT. It would be in effect for certain hours.
Is there a possibility that Mills Drive could become a town street? (Public Works would
need to discuss this with the property owner).
There was brief discussion regarding a second ingress/egress to the proposed parking lot.
The temporary use permit allows for the entrance to be on Mills Drive. Previous
temporary use permits had the entrance from the Elk Meadow RV Park.
There was brief discussion regarding the stormwater discharge. The applicant’s
representative will discuss this in more detail.
The approved temporary use permit allows 200 people and a maximum of 60 cars in a
temporary tent from May 15 through September 30, 2016.
Lessons can be learned from temporary uses regarding traffic, dust, noise, etc.
When the turn lane is installed, only parallel parking in front of the Rock Inn would be
allowed. The Rock Inn’s parking issue would need to be addressed by the owners of the
Rock Inn to the County Engineers. It is not part of the application presented today.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 12
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Chair Hull called a five‐minute recess at 2:56. The meeting reconvened at 3:01.
Public Comment
Troy Krening/attorney representing applicant addressed the concerns regarding two entrances,
stating while only one was required, the applicant would be willing to look into establishing two
areas for ingress and egress. The temporary use permit allows for one access point from Mills
Drive. He explained there would be two separate business on the property, each having its own
specific entrance, and it was never intended to use the Elk Meadow RV Park entrance for the Lazy
B’s entrance. The peak traffic time for the Elk Meadow RV Park is 5‐7 p.m., and if the Spur 66
entrance was used for Lazy B traffic, the two would be competing, which is not considered a
workable solution. At some point, the property owner intends to subdivide the Lazy B portion of
the parcel (five acres) from the larger parcel. For the 2016 season, the Lazy B applicant and the
property owners have signed a lease agreement to allow the use and operation of this 5‐acre
proposed development area. Traffic officers will be hired by the applicant, with their location to
be determined by the police department. Lazy B will encumber the expense necessary to ensure
safe passage to and from Spur 66. According to Mr. Krening, Mills Drive is a private road
belonging to the property owners of the parcel proposed to be developed. It has been maintained
by RMNP, which has had this unwritten agreement for many years. Mills Drive is vital to RMNP,
as the headquarters and operational buildings are located off of Mills Drive (and can also be
accessed from Hwy 36.)
There was discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Krening regarding exterior lighting in
the parking area and whether or not it would be turned off when not in use. There was
discussion between the Commissioners and staff regarding hours of operation, and whether or
not a condition of approval could be placed limiting the hours and extent of the operation.
Michelle Oliver/applicant stated she is a full‐time resident of Estes Park, whose desire is to carry
on the western heritage tradition of a chuckwagon dinner theater in the Estes Valley. The
proposed development was modeled after the chuckwagon dinner theater by the same name
that operated in Estes Park for more than 40 years. The operation will be a family‐oriented early
evening event, held seven nights a week from May through October, once the permanent building
is in place. Addressing earlier comments, she stated the lights could be turned off when the
building is not in use. If financing allows, she would hope to complete the phasing earlier than
planned. She is seeking support from the Town of Estes Park to allow economic growth in the
community. Ms. Oliver stated she held two public meetings to address concerns with those that
attended. She initially offered an area for the Rock Inn customers to park, and has a few other
unexplored parking ideas, but nothing has been completely resolved. Ms. Oliver stated she
initially met with the met with two of the owners or managers of the Rock Inn in September,
2015, and also has a trail of several email exchanges between them. She met with Tim Roemer,
one of the business partners of the Rock Inn, but has been unsuccessful in attempts to meet with
Kerry Egan, the other business partner. Ms. Oliver and Mr. Roemer met with one of the land
owners, Randy Jackson, to discuss parking alternatives suggested by Van Horn Engineering that
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 13
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
could have provided additional parking for the Rock Inn. Ms. Egan was invited to this meeting, but
did not attend, so no decisions were made. Ms. Oliver stated it was made known at that meeting
that Ms. Egan would not be willing to look at any of the parking proposals. Regarding the concern
regarding air pollution from cooking, Ms. Oliver stated they are hoping to smoke their meat, but
grilling was also an option they would consider. She will comply with whatever the health
department requires.
Celine LeBeau/project leader from Van Horn Engineering explained the parking situation for the
Rock Inn, stating their customers are parking on the Rock Inn property, but are backing out of the
spaces into the right‐of‐way where the turn lane is proposed. There was brief discussion about
whether or not the parked cars at the Rock Inn would extend into the turn lane, and whether the
proposed situation would be any different than other nonconforming parking lots in Estes Park.
Ms. LeBeau stated the proposed plan does not include curb and gutter, which would allow
parallel parking in front of the Rock Inn. She stated curb and gutter is typically required. The
intersection of Mills Drive and Spur 66 would be slightly altered, with the road being moved to
the south to meet the grading standards. She stated an effort was made to mitigate adverse
impacts for the neighbor’s parking area on Mills Drive by adjusting the location of the improved
drive. She reminded the Commission that Mills Drive is actually on Elk Meadow RV Park’s
property.
Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering clarified drainage questions by stating the existing pond is
on private property. The depth has been measured and has the capacity for water quality
purposes and stormwater detention and runoff.
Matt Delich/traffic engineer was available to answer questions. He developed traffic forecasts for
the area, stating the heaviest traffic would be between 5‐6 p.m., due to traffic coming into town
from RMNP at that time of day. He anticipated traffic delays at Highway 36 and Spur 66 coming
from town heading to destinations on Spur 66. He explained the grading scale or level of service,
with “A” being best and “F” being worst. Grades are determined by the amount of vehicle delay.
An acceptable level of service is a ”C” or better. “D” grades are tolerated in cities larger than Estes
Park. Mr. Delich stated a level of service “E” would be present at that intersection from 5‐6 p.m.
during the high tourist season. One way to mitigate this “event condition” would be manual
traffic control, or a temporary stop sign on Hwy 36. The functionality would be similar to a four
way stop. Adding a temporary stop sign or using a manual traffic control system would improve
the level of service to “C”.
Chair Hull provided some parameters for public comment, which will be limited to three minutes.
She reminded those in attendance that audience reactions are not appropriate.
Tony Goss/County resident stated the traffic at the intersection of Highway 36 and Spur 66 is bad.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 14
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Ron Thomas/Town resident stated the plans posted on the Town website were not readable. He
questioned the location of the property corners and the validity of the schematic maps. He
disagreed with the survey completed by Van Horn, based on the legal description. He wanted to
know the exact legal boundaries of the rights‐of‐way. He questioned whether the right‐of‐way
was purchased by the County, and thought there should be documentation stating such. He
suggested the applicant have their plans redone and resubmitted correctly.
Jay Vetter/County resident stated his front porch will be approximately 100 feet from the front of
the building. He is opposed to the development. He stated the public comments were mostly
opposed to the project, relating concerns about parking and noise. He was concerned that he
received incorrect information from staff regarding the Spur 66 Management Plan. He did not
think the proposed project complied with the Spur 66 Management Plan or the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan. He asked the Commission to consider an alternate entrance other than Mills
Drive. He questioned the validity of the temporary use permit and the Spur 66 Management Plan,
and wondered if staff had reviewed everything requiring review. He thought there should be
conditions of approval for exterior lighting, dust mitigation, etc. Mr. Vetter was not confident a
shuttle stop at the proposed location was realistic.
Mike Egan/County resident stated he was a part‐owner of the Rock Inn and an adjacent
residential rental property. He was concerned about the proposed turn lane, stating it would
eliminate 16 parking spaces at the Rock Inn. He felt his concerns have been ignored, as have those
concerns of others. He disagreed with the classification of this project as an “accessory use” for
the RV Park. He suggested the Commission evaluate the impact the project will have on adjacent
properties, as required by both the EVDC and the State Highway Access Code. Mr. Egan stated if
this project is approved, it would be surrounded by people that are opposed to it.
Mark Donahue/County resident stated the Town Board, as the decision‐making body for this
project, would be making a decision affecting adjacent property owners that live outside the
Town limits. Those opposed are locals that would have to deal with this business on a daily basis.
As a long‐time local resident, he was opposed to additional development in Estes Park that would
bring in more tourists. This proposal would not be a fair and equitable outcome for everyone. He
thought the Rock Inn should be gifted some parking areas to make up for parking spaces being
lost.
Tim Roemer/business partner at the Rock Inn disputed whether alternative parking solutions
were suggested by Van Horn Engineering. He stated there was a brief discussion with Randy
Jackson about the small area between the Rock Inn and the proposed location of the Lazy B.
Colt Weber/County resident was concerned about the risks imposed to the public with the
proposed turn lane and additional traffic. He is visually impaired, and the improvements proposed
on Mills Drive and Spur 66 would make it more dangerous for him to get around without
assistance, as he does now. He stated that due to the removal of the parking spaces in front of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 15
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
the Rock Inn, people will be parking along Mills Drive, which will make the area more dangerous
for pedestrians, thereby bringing the traffic on Mills Drive to an unreasonable level.
John Vernon/County resident was on the board that created the Spur 66 Management Plan, and
to his knowledge it was not obsolete. Planner Gonzales stated the plan was recognized by the
Planning Commission and County Commissioners, but was not a formally adopted plan. Mr.
Vernon stated there were several reasons commercial businesses were discouraged near the
intersection of Highway 36 and Spur 66; the close proximity to RMNP, the congestion at Beaver
Point (Moraine Avenue & Marys Lake Road), etc. This proposed development would create a
bottleneck that could not be mitigated with traffic control. He was opposed to the project.
Ann Vernon/County resident stated she has worked with the YMCA of the Rockies and Federal
land developers to keep open space in their area, since it is close to RMNP. She was supportive of
the success of the Rock Inn and was concerned about a larger project going in nearby. She
recommended the Planning Commissioners not allow the entrance on Mills Drive, but instead use
the Elk Meadow RV Resort entrance. She was opposed to the project being so close to RMNP. She
stated the Mills Drive entrance is the reasoning behind a lot of the anger with this project. She
thought there would be too much noise for the campground, residents of the High Drive area, etc.
She was opposed to the project.
Sherrie Durris/County resident commented on the wildlife study, stating Mills Drive has a lot of
wildlife, including bear, deer, bobcat, weasel, and elk. She was concerned about the noise, light
pollution, traffic, impact on wildlife, etc. She wondered if the Commissioners would be in favor of
this if it were in their backyard.
Jill Schladweiler/County resident stated she lives on Mills Drive and is part of Estes Park’s working
class. She stated if Mills drive was going to be widened, a sidewalk should be required, and thinks
the food at the Lazy B will attract bears. She was concerned about what would happen to the
property if the business did not succeed. She is not opposed to growth and understands Estes
Park is a tourist town, but she needs to believe in where she lives in order to stay. She was
opposed to the project.
Jenna Melissa/County resident stated tourists that do not understand the environmental impacts
to wildlife will have a negative impact on the area. She caters to visitors to Estes Park that come
to enjoy the open space. She was concerned about the traffic delays at the intersection of
Highway 36 and Spur 66, and how it could impact her business as a fly fishing and hiking guide.
She stated the light pollution could attract bugs that would not normally be in the area, impacting
the aquatic wildlife. She was concerned about whether the business would be successful, when
there are several other events in Estes Park that are offered at no charge.
Deborah VanTaessel/ County resident understands the impact that tourists have on traffic in the
area of the proposed project. She was concerned about the possibility of the population living on
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 16
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Spur 66 needing to be evacuated due to an emergency. She stated she did not know about the
project until just a few days ago, and thought there should be more publicity about it. She was
opposed to the project.
Susan Wolfe/County resident was concerned about the air pollution from tour busses, meat
smokers, etc. She was concerned about attracting bears to the area. If the pond is a natural pond,
she would be concerned about it being used for stormwater runoff.
Public comment closed.
Commissioner and Staff Discussion
Addressing Mr. Thomas’ concern about inaccurate survey information, Commission Klink
requested Lonnie Sheldon to explain. Mr. Sheldon stated the surveys meet state statutes, and the
right‐of‐way information was found in the title search. Mr. Sheldon would like to meet with Mr.
Thomas to resolve any disputes.
Regarding the temporary use permit, Planner Gonzales stated staff has the authority to approve
temporary use permits, and can limit the use to what is appropriate. The temporary use permit
for the Lazy B allows operation from May 15, 2016 to September 30, 2016. The temporary use is
not part of Phase 1, and is not part of the application presented today.
There was discussion regarding Estes Park traffic in general, and who was accountable for making
it work properly. Comments included but were not limited to: why is there not already a light at
that intersection?; CDOT should not have allowed the creation of that intersection the way it is; a
condition of approval could be to have the temporary stop sign at that intersection; whether or
not a temporary stop sign would be required is determined by CDOT; traffic is a concern from the
majority of the people that commented today; there is no easy answer.
Kevin Ash/Town engineer stated the Town recently received authorization from the Town Board
to apply for a grant to make improvements around the intersection of Moraine and Marys Lake
Road. He stated there are steps being put into place to be proactive with making improvements
to the Moraine Avenue corridor, which would directly impact the area being discussed.
Commissioner Schneider expressed his concern about parking availability for the Rock Inn, and
the desire to see more discussion between the applicant, the owners of the Rock Inn, and others
heavily impacted by the proposed project to work out a solution. Commissioner Hills agreed.
Commissioner White stated the people that spoke today are the workers in Estes Park. The
impact on Mills Drive will have a big impact on that neighborhood. She was not a big fan of
allowing the tent on a temporary basis. She suggested trying to work with the property owners to
have the entrance for Lazy B and the Elk Meadow RV Resort use the same entrance.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 17
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commissioner Hull agreed. Planner Gonzales stated whether or not a tent is considered an
indoor or outdoor activity was a determination made by staff.
Commissioner Klink was concerned about the proposed project being expanded to include
additional performances, and the impact it would have on traffic.
Commissioner Murphree stated he did not think the Lazy B would add daytime shows, as people
that visit the area are typically outside during the day, and past history with the Former Lazy B
and the Barleen’s evening shows are preferred. He stated the traffic to the area would be from
people that are already in town, not additional visitors. He was concerned about bears getting
into the tents. He stated this recommendation to the Town Board would be a very difficult one.
Commissioner Moon stated he was disturbed by the lack of willingness between the parties
involved to communicate on the issues. There needs to be some consensus on the parking and
access issues. The owner and the lessee need to work together to arrive at a solution. The risk to
pedestrians as it relates to the increase in traffic and parking is another issue that needs to be
worked out. It seems like there is a lot of opportunity for compromise that has been squelched
due to the emotions of those involved.
Commission Murphree added he thought the parking issue was very fixable, if the parties would
communicate and be willing to compromise. He would like to see the application continued to
allow additional communication between the parties involved.
Town Attorney White stated the applicant has submitted a plan for review, and has a right for the
Planning Commission to recommend approval or denial of that plan. It is not in the Commission’s
purview to recommend ideas that would improve the plan. Placing a condition of approval on the
project regarding communication with other parties is not appropriate, as the applicant has no
control over a third party. Attorney White stated continuing the meeting is an option, to allow the
applicant time to address the concerns presented today.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with affected agency emails and memos:
a. Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated January 25, 2016
b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated January 27, 2016
c. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated February 1, 2016
d. Town of Este Park Public Works Department memo dated February 19, 2016
e. Larimer County Engineering emails dated March 2, 2016 & April 6, 2016
2. The applicant shall submit an amended road design plan set addressing the comments
from Larimer County Engineering in regards to the right turn lane being extended.
3. The applicant shall amended the development plan set as follows:
a. Change 125PPL/Bus to 50PPL/Bus
b. Remove installation of right turn from Phase 1 and include in Phase 2 plan
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 18
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
c. Under required parking, change 3.5 people/vehicle to 3.75 people/vehicle, per traffic
study analysis
d. Change required 215 spaced to 200 spaces, per traffic study analysis
e. Change water main extension distance from building from 525 feet to 250 feet.
4. Variance approval by the Board of Adjustment is required for off‐street loading area
location.
5. A noise reading shall be performed prior to the first show in the temporary tent to ensure
compliance with the noise ordinance. Noise study results shall be submitted to staff for
review and approval.
6. Dust mitigation efforts shall be performed by the applicant as proposed in the Statement of
Intent for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 dirt parking lot prior to every phone and during high
wind storm events.
7. A JWD (Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation) shall be conducted on the site to formally
delineate the potential wetland areas. Results shall be submitted to staff prior to the
Board of Trustee meeting.
8. Plans for the food service operations shall be approved by the Larimer County Department
of Health and Environment prior to issuance of a building permit.
9. A photometric study shall be submitted to staff before construction of the final parking lot
design.
10. A 15‐foot utility easement shall be recorded separately from the development plan.
11. Construction plans shall be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any building or
grading permit.
It was moved and seconded (Moon/Hills) to continue the review of the Special Review
application to the next meeting, and requesting staff to initiate a discussion with CDOT
regarding the signalization at the intersection of Highway 36 and Spur 66, and the motion
passed unanimously.
REPORTS
1. Interim Director Cumbo reported the first meeting of the County’s Vacation Home Task
Force for vacation rentals with occupancies of nine and over will be meeting April 27th
from 1‐5 p.m. During the joint meeting between the County Commissioners and the Town
Trustees, they agreed on most of the regulations except the cap, and because of that no
amendments to the current regulations have been finalized. We are currently functioning
under the current regulations that have been in effect, and will have additional
discussions/study sessions with the new Trustees.
2. Interim Director Cumbo reported the amendments to the EVDC regarding density
calculations and employee housing were approved by the Town Board and the County
Commission.
3. Interim Director Cumbo reported two candidates for the Community Development
Director were interviewed. One was offered the position but declined the offer. The
search continues.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 19
April 19, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4. Interim Director Cumbo reported the vacant Planner position has been posted.
5. Environmental Planner Tina Kurtz reported a public meeting on the technical aspects of
how the hydrology study was being conducted was held this morning. The results will be
available in June, and another public meeting will be held to announce and discuss the
results.
6. Environmental Planner Tina Kurtz reported the US Army Corps of Engineers will be in
town the week of May 9th to gather data for a non‐structural floodproofing study of the
downtown area. There will be a public meeting on May 9th to discuss the process.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 5:32 p.m.
_________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January
Effective Date: May 15, 2013 June 14th,, 2016
References: Governance Policy Manual POLICY 1.9 ANNUAL PLANNING AND AGENDAS
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
TOWN BOARD PROCEDURES AND TOOL BOXES
103
1. Purpose: To establish a uniform procedures and process for how the Town Board will conduct
its meeting and other Town Board official business
2. SCOPE: This Policy and Procedure applies to the Board of Trustees and other parties
conducting business with the Board.
3. RESPONSIBILITY: The Mayor, Mayor Pro‐Tem and Town Trustees shall be responsible for
the implementation of this Policy and Procedure.
4. PROCEDURES: The Town Board will conduct its business in a manner consistent with the
following Tool Box guidelines, adopted by the Town Board in March 2011 as amended.
a. Tool Box for Meeting Procedure Options
b. Town Board Meeting Order of Business
c. Town Board Motions
___________________________________
William C. PinkhamTodd Jirsa
Mayor
2
a.
Tool box for: Meeting Procedure Options
(Adopted March 2011)
Motions: Purpose, Properties
Basic Motion:
Purpose: Places an action item on the floor for discussion
The motion is stated in the positive.
“Yes” vote supports motion.
“No” vote opposes the motion.
Divide complex issues into individual motions.
Second is required.
Amend a Motion:
Purpose: To change a portion of the Basic Motion.
The amendment uses the original basic motion wording with a change in
wording.
The motion is stated in the positive.
Second is required.
Substitute Motion:
Purpose: To completely remove/replace the Basic Motion.
The substitute motion is a new motion with new wording.
The motion is stated in the positive.
The Mayor determines if motion qualifies as Substitute Motion.
Second is required.
Table Motion:
or
Continue Motion:
Purpose: Stops an action item discussion for more information.
The Mayor generally states a new meeting date to discuss item.
The Mayor may send item back to committee/staff for revising.
The Mayor will recommend to Table or Continue as appropriate.
Occurs when information is lacking or no decision can be made on action
item.
Second is required.
Motion to
Reconsider:
Purpose: Re-open discussion on a finalized action item.
Only a Board Member voting in the majority for the motion that finalized
the action item may request a reconsideration motion and only at the same
meeting at which the original action was taken.
Second is required.
Point of Order:
Purpose: To correct meeting proceedings and help the Mayor.
State “point of order” and what procedure was missed by the Mayor.
No Second is required.
Second a Motion:
Purpose: To open discussion on an action item.
Notes: The person providing the second does not need to agree with the
motion.
The originator of the motion or changed motion will need to repeat the
motion for the benefit of the Town Clerk’s record and Town Board clarity of
motion.
Call the Question Purpose: To end discussion of an issue and bring the Board to a vote.
Any Board member may Call the Question at any time during Board
3
discussion of a motion that is on the floor. No second is required for a Call
of the Question. After a Board member makes the motion to Call the
Question, the board shall vote immediately to Call the Question and bring
the item to a vote. If the Call the Question vote fails, discussion may
continue. If the Call the Question vote passes, the Board shall vote on the
motion on the table without any further discussion.
4
B.
Town Board Meeting
Order of Business
(Adopted March 2011)
Call meeting to order
Pledge of Allegiance
Proclamations and Presentations
Public Comment
Town Board Comments
Liaison Reports
Town Administrator’s Report and Public Comment Follow-up
Consent Agenda
Action Items (repeat process for each action item)
State discussion item with topic to be discussed
Staff Report
Town Board clarification of Staff Report - questions/discussion
Public Comment
Formal Motion/Second (if Ordinance is present, Town Attorney/Town Clerk reads prior
to motion)
Motion modifications/amendments if desired
Debate/Discuss motion
Motion modifications/amendments if desired
Mayor calls for vote
Vote
Additional Staff Reports
Executive Session (if needed)
Adjournment
__________________________________________________________________________
__
Every Board meeting will end no later than 10:00 p.m., except that (1) any item of
business commenced before 10:00 p.m., may be concluded before the meeting is
adjourned and (2) the Town Board may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later
than 11:00 p.m. for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter
which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Board meeting,
and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been
considered by the Board, will be continued to the next regular Town Board meeting and
will be placed first on the agenda for such meeting.
The Town Board reserves the right, by majority vote, to further extend the meeting to
conclude any business the Board deems necessary.
5
C
Town Board Motions
(Adopted March 2011)
1 The basic motion. The basic motion is the one that puts forward a decision
for consideration. A basic motion might be: “I move that we create a five-member
committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser.”
2 The motion to amend. If a member wants to change a basic motion that is
under discussion, he or she would move to amend it. A motion to amend might be:
“I move that we amend the motion to have a 10-member committee.” A motion to
amend takes the basic motion that is before the body and seeks to change it in
some way.
3 The substitute motion: If a member wants to completely do away with the
basic motion under discussion and put a new motion before the governing body, he
or she would “move a substitute motion.” A substitute motion might be: “I move a
substitute motion that we cancel the annual fundraiser this year.”
Motions to amend and substitute motions are often confused. But they are quite
different, and so is their effect, if passed.
A motion to amend seeks to retain the basic motion on the floor, but to modify it in
some way.
A substitute motion seeks to throw out the basic motion on the floor and substitute a
new and different motion for it…
Voting on motions when there are several on the floor.
The first vote is on the last motion. In the example above, the substitute motion
would be voted on first. If passed, the other two (Basic and Amend) would not
require a vote because they become moot. If the substitute in the above example
passes, it replaces both the Basic and the amendment to the Basic motion.
If the substitute fails, then a vote is needed on the amendment. If the amendment
passes, the basic motion is moot because it was replaced by the amendment.
However, if the amendment fails, the basic motion needs to be voted on. If it
passes, it is final. If the basic fails, then the chair determines if a new motion is in
order, or does the action item need to be tabled for more information, returned to
committee, have staff gather more information, etc. A time for future review of the
action item should be established.
*Instructional scenario quoted verbatim from: Rosenberg’s Rules of Order: Simple
Parliamentary Procedures for the 21st Century, 2003, League of California Cities.
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: May 24, 2016
RE: Liquor Licensing: New Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License Application
for Notchtop Cafe, LLC dba Notchtop Bakery and Café, 459 E.
Wonderview Avenue #4, Estes Park, Colorado
Objective:
Approval of a new Hotel and Restaurant liquor license located at 459 E. Wonderview
Avenue #4, Estes Park, Colorado. Application filed by Notchtop Café, LLC dba
Notchtop Bakery and Café.
Present Situation:
An application for a new Hotel and Restaurant liquor license was received by the Town
Clerk’s office on April 11, 2016. All necessary paperwork and fees were submitted.
The applicant is aware of the Town Board’s Training for Intervention Procedures (TIPS)
requirement and has registered for a class to be held on May 24, 2016, which will fulfil
this requirement. Please see the attached Procedure for Hearing on Application – New
Liquor License for additional information.
The liquor license application has been sent to the Colorado Department of Revenue
Liquor Enforcement Division (LED) for a concurrent review as requested by the
applicant. This allows the LED to review the application simultaneously with the Town
and expedites the issuance of the new liquor license.
Proposal:
Town Board review and consideration of the application for a new Hotel and Restaurant
liquor license.
Advantages:
Approval of the license provides the business owner with the opportunity to operate a
liquor-licensed establishment in the Town of Estes Park.
Disadvantages:
The owner is denied a business opportunity to serve alcohol to patrons of the Notchtop
Bakery and Café.
Action Recommended:
Approval of the application for a new Hotel and Restaurant liquor license.
Budget:
The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a new Hotel and Restaurant Liquor license is
$1319. The fee covers the administrative costs related to processing the application,
background checks, and business licensing. In addition, the annual renewal fee
payable to the Town of Estes Park for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor license is $869.
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood
are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of
the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor license. Based upon
these findings, I move that the application for a new Hotel and Restaurant Liquor license
filed by Notchtop Café, LLC dba Notchtop Bakery and Café be approved/denied.
Attachments:
1. Procedure for Hearing
1
July 2002
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION
NEW LIQUOR LICENSE
1. MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on the application of Notchtop
Cafe, LLC dba NOTCHTOP BAKERY AND CAFE for a new Hotel and Restaurant
Liquor License located at 459 E. Wonderview Avenue #4, Estes Park, Colorado.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the facts and evidence
determined as a result of its investigation, as well as any other facts, the reasonable
requirements of the neighborhood for the type of license for which application has
been made, the desires of the adult inhabitants, the number, type and availability of
liquor outlets located in or near the neighborhood under consideration, and any other
pertinent matters affecting the qualifications of the applicant for the conduct of the type
of business proposed.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
2. TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following:
The application was filed April 11, 2016.
At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on May 10, 2016, the public hearing was
set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 24, 2016.
The neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing
were established to be 3.50 miles.
The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs.
The applicant is filing as a Limited Liability Company.
The property is zoned CO – Outlying Commercial which allows this
type of business as a permitted use.
The notice of hearing was published on May 13, 2016 .
The premises was posted on May 12, 2016 .
2
There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant.
Status of T.I.P.S. Training:
Unscheduled X Scheduled * Completed
*Registered for TIPS class to be held on Tuesday, May 24, 2016.
There is a map indicating all liquor outlets presently in the Town of Estes Park
available upon request.
3. APPLICANT.
The applicants will be allowed to state their case and present any evidence they
wish to support the application.
4. OPPONENTS.
The opponents will be given an opportunity to state their case and present any
evidence in opposition to the application.
The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal limited to the evidence presented by the
opponents. No new evidence may be submitted.
5. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the application and, if so, to read all communication.
Indicate that all evidence presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any questions of any person speaking at
any time during the course of this hearing.
Declare the public hearing closed.
6. SUGGESTED MOTION:
Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the
neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and
that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor
license.
Motion. Based upon the above findings, I move that this license be granted/denied.
Estes Valley Board of Trustees, May 24, 2016 Page 1 of 4
Sunny Acres, Amended Plat and Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Audem Gonzales, Planner I
Date: May 24, 2016
RE: AMENDED PLAT, Lot 5, Sunny Acres Addition & A Metes & Bounds Parcel;
Combine two parcels into one lot of record; Fall River Village,
LLC/Applicant.
ORDINANCE #12-16, Rezone two separately zoned adjacent lots (R-2 &
E-1) to RM-Multi-Family Residential, 260-265 Sunny Acres Court; Fall River
Village, LLC/Applicant.
______________________________________________________________________
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing to consider an Amended Plat and Rezoning application for
compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
Amended Plat
A prior owner illegally subdivided Lot
5, Sunny Acres Addition in the 1980’s.
The current owner has submitted an
application to recombine the two
illegally created parcels into proposed
Lot 5A, a 1.17-acre lot. The property is
located at 260 and 265 Sunny Acres
Court and is accessed via Sunny
Acres Ct.
In 2006, an Amended Plat and
Rezoning application were approved
for the property. The owner failed to
record the final plat, therefore nullifying the approved Amended Plat and Rezoning. This
application is essentially a duplicate of the 2006 request.
New utility easements and private access easements on the lot will be dedicated with the
plat.
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, May 24, 2016 Page 2 of 4
Sunny Acres, Amended Plat and Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning)
Rezoning
The applicant has submitted an application to rezone proposed Lot 5A to RM Multi-Family
Residential. Currently, the smaller of the two parcels is zoned R-2 Two-Family Residential
and the larger is zoned E-1 Estate. Prior to the 2000 valley-wide rezoning, the entire area
was zoned RM.
This property would have remained zoned for multi -family residential development with
the 2000 valley-wide rezoning if the Larimer County tax assessor map had shown this
property as one lot containing four units. However, the Larimer County map reflected the
1982 illegal subdivision with one duplex on each of the two parcels. Staff was not aware
of the illegal subdivision at the time of the 2000 rezoning.
Proposal:
This request is to amend the plat and combine two parcels into one legal lot described as
Lot 5A, Amended Plat of Lot 5, Sunny Acres Addition. This request also includes rezoning
the entire property to RM Multi-Family Residential. The requirement for a development
plan was waived due to the property being developed and adequately served by existing
services.
Advantages:
1. Complies with standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code;
2. Consistency with housing goals and policies of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
by promoting a balance of housing opportunities to assist residents and businesses
and providing a variety of housing types and price ranges within the community;
3. Eliminates the non-conforming use of the property stemming from the 2000
Development Code updates; and
4. The rezoning would reflect how the area has developed.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing for this application on April
19, 2016. During the hearing, the Commission made the following findings:
1. This Amended Plat application and Rezoning request do not fall within the
parameters of staff level review, and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body, the Board of
Trustees is the Decision-Making Body.
2. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing staff,
referred to in this staff report, are incorporated as staff findings.
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, May 24, 2016 Page 3 of 4
Sunny Acres, Amended Plat and Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning)
3. Adjusting the common property line and creating one legal lot does not affect the
original intent of the subdivision. It would bring the existing property into conformance
in regards to lot area dimensions and permitted uses.
4. The rezoning would reflect how the subject area is developed.
5. New utility easements and private access easements on the newly created lot will
be recorded with the final plat.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Amended Plat and
Zoning Map Amendment request with the following conditions recommended by staff.
a) Approved Amended Plat shall be submitted for recording within 60 days of Town
Board’s approval of the application.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest:
Low: For this amended plat and rezoning, no public comments were submitted to the
Community Development Department and no public comment was received at the
Planning Commission public hearing.
High: For redevelopment possibility and remodeling of current buildings
Sample Motions:
Below are the Town Board’s options related to the Amended Plat and Zoning Map
Amendment request:
1. I find that the application meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVE the
Amended Plat and Zoning Map Amendment request with the with the following
conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission:
2. I find that the application meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVE the
Amended Plat and Zoning Map Amendment request with no conditions;
3. I find that the application does not meet the review criteria, and move to DENY the
Amended Plat and Zoning Map Amendment request;
4. I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the application
and move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to provide adequate time to review additional
materials.
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, May 24, 2016 Page 4 of 4
Sunny Acres, Amended Plat and Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning)
Attachments:
Amended Plat – Lot 5A, Amended Plat of Lot 5, Sunny Acres Addition
Ordinance #12-16
Application and Planning Commission Staff Report www.estes.org/currentapplications
Planning Commission Minutes (included in Board Packet)
ORDINANCE NO. 12-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
TO REZONE LOT 5A, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 5, SUNNY ACRES ADDITION
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2016, the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended
approval of an Official Zoning Map amendment to rezone Lot 5A, Amended Plat of Lot 5, Sunny
Acres Addition, addressed 260-267 Sunny Acres Court, from R-2-Two Family Residential and
E-1-Estate to RM-Multi-Family Residential.
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds that this Official Zoning
Map amendment complies with the Standards for Review established in Section 3.3.D of the
Estes Valley Development Code and it is best interest of the Town that the recommended zoning
amendment be granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The zoning of Lot 5A, Amended Plat of Lot 5, Sunny Acres Addition, addressed
260-267 Sunny Acres Court, shall be changed from R-2-Two Family Residential and E-1-Estate
to RM-Multi-Family Residential.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO, THIS 24th DAY OF MAY, 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________________
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting
of the Board of Trustees on the 24th day of May, 2016 and published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of
, 2016, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
Estes Valley Board of Trustees, May 24, 2016 Page 1 of 3
475 Fall River Lane, Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner
Date: May 24, 2016
RE: ORDINANCE #13-16, Rezone CO-Commercial Outlying to R-2-Two-
Family Residential; 475 Fall River Lane; Dennis and Donna "Katie"
Lovell/Applicants.
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing to consider the Lovell Zoning Map Amendment (rezoning)
application for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
Prior to 2000, this property was
used as both a residence and a
business. According to a
previous staff report, “the house
was designed to house the
Mountain Lady Quilt Shop in the
lower level with a three-bedroom
home on the upper level.” After
two years of operation, the
business was relocated to a
downtown location, and the
former business space was
converted to living quarters
without a building permit.
In 2004, a prior owner submitted
a rezoning application for this property. The owner withdrew the application prior to
Town Board review due to personal reasons. This application is essentially a duplicate
of the 2004 request.
Areas to the north are developed with more intense multi-family and accommodations
commercial. Land to the south is steep and zoned for single-family residential
development.
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, May 24, 2016 Page 2 of 3
475 Fall River Lane, Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning)
The current owners intend to bring the property into compliance with the Building Code
and complete the rezoning process to bring the zoning into conformity with the long-
standing use of the property as two-family residential.
Proposal:
This request is to rezone the parcel known as “Lot 9, Amended Plat of Lots 10 through
17 and Portions of Lots 1, 6, 8, and 9, Elkhorn Estates Subdivision” from CO
(Commercial Outlying) to R-2 (Two-family Residential). Given the nature of the current
land use and the fact that the property is fully developed and adequately served by
existing services and facilities, the requirement for a development plan was waived.
Advantages:
1. Complies with standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code;
2. Consistency with housing goals and policies of the Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan by promoting a balance of housing opportunities to assist residents and
businesses and providing a variety of housing types and price ranges within the
community;
3. Eliminates the non-conforming use of the property stemming from the 2000
Development Code updates; and
4. Improves the safety of the building through upgrades to the building with approval of
the building permit.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing for this application on April
19, 2015. During the hearing, the Commission made the following findings:
1. The updates to the Estes Valley Development Code completed in 2000, created a
nonconforming use of the property.
2. The proposed zoning map amendment is necessary to address changes in
conditions in the area affected.
3. Given the current land use and existing developed parcel, the requirement for a
development plan was waived.
4. The property is fully developed and already served by public utilities and the Fire
District.
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, May 24, 2016 Page 3 of 3
475 Fall River Lane, Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning)
5. Once the recommended conditions of approval are addressed, the rezoning to R-2
(Two-Family Residential) would bring property into compliance with existing uses on
the property and improve the safety of the building through required upgrades to the
structure.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Zoning Map
Amendment request with the following conditions recommended by staff.
a) All construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
International Fire Code (2009 Edition), the International Building Code (2009)
and the Town of Estes Park Codes and Standards.
b) Property owner will comply with all requirements of the Building Department to
ensure the converted commercial space is safe for habitation as a second
dwelling unit.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest:
Low: No public comments were submitted to the Community Development Department
and no public comment was received at the Planning Commission public hearing.
Sample Motions:
Below are the Town Board’s options related to the Zoning Map Amendment request:
1. I find that the application meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVE the
Zoning Map Amendment request with the with the following conditions of approval
as recommended by the Planning Commission:
2. I find that the application meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVE of the
Zoning Map Amendment request with no conditions;
3. I find that the application does not meet the review criteria, and move to DENY the
Zoning Map Amendment request;
4. I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the
applications and move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to provide adequate time to
review additional materials.
Attachments:
Ordinance #13-16
Application and Planning Commission Staff Report www.estes.org/currentapplications
Planning Commission Minutes (Included in Board Packet)
ORDINANCE NO. 13-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
TO REZONE LOT 9, AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 10 THROUGH 17 AND PORTIONS OF
LOTS 1, 6, 8, AND 9 ELKHORN ESTATES SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2016, the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended
approval of an Official Zoning Map amendment to rezone Lot 9, Amended Plat of Lots 10
through 17 and Portions of Lots 1, 6, 8, and 9, Elkhorn Estates Subdivision, addressed 475
Fall River Lane, from CO-Outlying Commercial Outlying to R-2- Two-family Residential.
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds that this Official
Zoning Map amendment complies with the Standards for Review established in Section 3.3.D
of the Estes Valley Development Code and it is best interest of the Town that the
recommended zoning amendment be granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The zoning of Lot 9, Amended Plat of Lots 10 through 17 and Portions of
Lots 1, 6, 8, and 9, Elkhorn Estates Subdivision shall be changed from CO-Outlying
Commercial Outlying to R-2- Two-family Residential.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS 24th DAY OF MAY, 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________________
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting
of the Board of Trustees on the 24th day of May, 2016 and published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of
, 2016, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
Utilities Department Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Utilities Director Bergsten
Light & Power Line Superintendent Lockhart
Water Superintendent Boles
Date: May 24, 2016
RE: Request .5 FTE for Project Management Support
Objective:
• Provide project management to this year’s Allenspark capital improvement
project and provide documentation to meet our DOLA Broadband Grant matching
requirement
• Jump start the stalled Smart Meter/Smart Grid project
• Continue project management support of FEMA flood recovery construction and
FEMA closeout process into 2017
• Offset expenditures by extending the DOLA flood recovery full-time Project
Manager grant into 2017 under a 50/50 cost share
Present Situation:
The Department Of Local Affairs (DOLA) has generously provided grant EIAF # 7634 to
fund the Utilities Flood Recovery Project Manager, Linda Swoboda. This position is
under contract until the end of December 2016. The terms of the grant restricts her
activities to flood recovery work only.
Having professional project management support for flood recovery has proven to be
critical in managing the projects, communication, coordination and more specifically,
timely reporting, reimbursements and responding to auditors. At the present time flood
recovery construction and FEMA’s project close-out process will extend into 2017.
Utilities also has a need to fill a void of in-house project management. Historically Mike
Mangelsen provided seasoned Project Management skills for Utilities. Mangelsen
retired seven years ago and over those seven years we’ve struggled to maintain his
project management practices. We now have an opportunity to retain a highly qualified
project manager (see attached resume).
Utilities believes establishing a culture of project management is essential to our
business. The addition of a Project Manager to the Utilities Department will overall
reduce risk and gain efficiencies of project delivery on our current Utility funded projects
of $2.5 million to $3 million annually. Additionally, we are forecasting a growth in capital
projects to address our aging water infrastructure.
As the 2017 budget is internally developed we will discuss the merit of this position
becoming permanent. Depending on the outcome, the Board may see this request
during the 2017 Utilities budget presentation.
Proposal:
Utilities proposes requesting DOLA extend grant funding for the full-time Flood
Recovery Project Manager under a 50/50 funding split (DOLA/Light and Power) until
September 30, 2017. We’ve reached out to DOLA with this request and they have
responded positively. A formal request must be sent to DOLA from Mayor Jirsa
(attached).
If approved the existing Project Manager Labor Contract will be revised to reflect the
change in funding.
Advantages:
Maximize efficiency of projects by:
• ensuring good estimates and realistic timelines are set
• creating work plans to achieve project design goals and objectives, identify project
contingency plans, and monitor fiduciary responsibilities
• eliminating rework by analyzing projects prior to construction beginning with project
coordination with other entities, reviewing alternatives, and team review meetings.
• helping drive projects to completion
Disadvantages:
• Increased costs: this does increase our costs; however, Utilities believes we have a
fiduciary responsibility to efficiently manage the $2.5M to $3M and growing project
workload.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the addition of 0.5 FTE Project Manager for the
remainder of 2016.
Budget:
The Light and Power budget allocation table must be revised (attached).
This proposal will reduce 2016 Light and Power grant revenues by approximately
$24,500.
Reduced grant revenues were included in the 2016 budget in anticipation of this
request. Full-time salary and benefits are included in the budget. No change is required
on budget accounts.
Level of Public Interest
Low, our customers have an expectation we efficiently execute projects. This action will
maintain those expectations.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial to add half a full-time Utilities Project Manager
Attachment 1, Estes Park Town Board Action, May 24, 2016, Request .5 FTE for Project Management Support
Linda B. Swoboda
1964 Cherokee Drive
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Cell: 970-672-7140 Email: linda.swoboda@yahoo.com
GENERAL
Manager with extensive preconstruction, estimating and project management
experience primarily in commercial building construction. Seeking employment with an
organization that values experience, talent, personal initiative, team work and
education.
INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE
2015-present Flood Recovery Project Manager Town of Estes Park, Utilities Dept. Estes Park, CO
2008-2015 Estimating Consulting Evergreen Construction Services Eagle & Estes Park, CO
2004-2007 Preconstruction Manager The Weitz Company Phoenix, AZ
2003-2004 Estimator/Business Development The Weitz Company Lincoln, NE
2001-2003 Project Manager The Weitz Company Lincoln, NE
Preconstruction:
• Responsible for all project estimate types including Schematic, Design Development,
and final Guaranteed Maximum Price estimates. Projects ranged from $20 million to
$114 million.
• Coordinated team efforts for on-time presentation to owners on complex, detailed
estimates.
• Implemented a Value Analysis process throughout design phase for owners and design
team.
• Gave presentations to executives, owners, developers, and investors on project
estimates, value analyses, preconstruction schedules, constructability reviews and other
related preconstruction services.
• Established training plans and conducted on-going training sessions for estimators in a
large estimating department.
• Developed scope-of-work packages to analyze complete coverage of project and
eliminate lost revenue opportunities.
Project Management:
• Projects ranged from $2 million to $22 million.
• Executed the buyout of all packages for entire projects, from RFP (Request For
Proposals), through subcontracts and purchase order agreements.
• Resolved design coordination issues on site with subcontractors and project
superintendent.
• Proactively aligned material deliveries and subcontractor timing for successful project
logistics.
• Developed detailed construction schedules and tracked plan to actual.
• Prepared company’s internal cost projection schedules for projects and processed
monthly pay applications.
• Responsible for all correspondence for accurate documentation of the building process,
including change order management, shop drawing review, and project closeout.
• Instructed, prioritized, and trained recent college graduates in the Project Engineer role
to quickly understand the project management process.
Linda B. Swoboda, Page Two
ENTREPRENEURIAL EXPERIENCE
Consulting:
April 2008 to present – Evergreen Construction Services, Eagle and Estes Park, CO
Developed estimating system and performed all estimating duties for a firm that
specializes in
high end custom adobe homes in Santa Fe, NM. Presented many proposals to
clients for this
design build firm. 50% success rate for projects awarded.
Additionally, worked with architectural firms to develop preliminary cost estimates.
Recent
projects include Fort Robinson State Park, Auld Library, Thayer County Courthouse,
and
Saline County Courthouse for Berggren Architects, a firm specializing in complex
historical projects.
Summer 2000 – The Weitz Company, Inc.
Estimating services for a large retirement community, The Landings.
EDUCATION
Master of Business Administration University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Bachelor of Science – Construction Management University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Bachelor of Science – Architectural Studies University of Nebraska-Lincoln
AFFILIATIONS
Estes Valley Quilt Guild, 2010-present, 2012-2013 President, 2014-2015 Treasurer
Cather Circle, college women’s mentoring program, 2001-2014
AIA (American Institute of Architects) affiliate membership in Arizona, 2007
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Arizona, mentor 2005-2007
LEED AP, 2004 (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, Accredited
Professional)
SOFTWARE
Microsoft Office: Word, Excel, and Power Point. Estimating: WinEst, MC2, AGTEK,
On-screen Takeoff and Timberline. Project Management / Scheduling: Expedition,
Prolog, and SurTrak.
Design: AutoCAD. Accounting software: Quicken and Peachtree.
Attachment 2, Estes Park Town Board Action, May 24, 2016, Request .5 FTE for Project Management Support
May 25, 2016
Don Sandoval
Department of Local Affairs
150 E. 29th St., Ste. 215
Loveland, CO 80538
RE: EIAF # 7634, Staff Assistance Flood Recovery Position
Dear Mr. Don Sandoval:
The Town of Estes Park extends its sincere thanks to DOLA for supporting flood recovery
positions. Linda Swoboda was hired to manage six Utilities flood recovery projects. Construction
on three projects is complete. Construction on Highway 34 and Phase 2 of Fish Creek will
extend into 2017. The project closeout process for all flood recovery FEMA Project Worksheets
will extend well into 2017 with one possibly closing in 2018. At this time we would like Linda to
work on both non-flood and flood related projects.
We are requesting an amendment Linda Swoboda's scope as a full time Flood Recovery Project
Manager. Effective July 1, 2016, we would like to reduce the 100% percent funding from the
state to 50%, with the remaining 50% to be funded by the Town of Estes Park. Additionally we
request this grant funding term be extended to September 30, 2017. The existing term expires
this year on December 31, 2016.
Please let us know if these proposed amendments are acceptable.
Thank you for your consideration and support. Please contact Reuben with any questions
(970-577-3583, RBergsten@Estes.org).
Respectfully,
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Attachment 3, Estes Park Town Board Action, May 24, 2016, Request .5 FTE for Project Management Support
LIGHT & POWER
2016 Budget as approved by Town Board in the
March 22, 2016 Town Board Meeting
Proposed Revision
Director of Utilities 0.58 Director of Utilities 0.58
Line Superintendent 1.00 Line Superintendent 1.00
Crew Chief 1.00 Crew Chief 1.00
Lineworker - Lead 4.00 Lineworker - Lead 4.00
Lineworker 6.00 Lineworker 6.00
Groundworker 2.00 Groundworker 2.00
Material Mgmt Specialist 1.00 Material Mgmt Specialist 1.00
Line Equipment Specialist 3.00 Line Equipment Specialist 3.00
Utility Field Specialist 1.00 Utility Field Specialist 1.00
Meter Specialist 1.00 Meter Specialist 1.00
Administrative Assistant 0.70 Administrative Assistant 0.70
Admin Assistant - shop 0.90 Admin Assistant - shop 0.90
Utilities Coordinator 0.60 Utilities Coordinator 0.60
Project Manager (Grant Funded) 1.00 Project Manager (Grant Funded) 0.50
Project Manager 0.50
Facilities Manager 0.07 Facilities Manager 0.07
Town Clerk 0.48 Town Clerk 0.48
Deputy Town Clerk 0.48 Deputy Town Clerk 0.48
Administrative Assistant 0.48 Administrative Assistant 0.48
HR Generalist 0.48 HR Generalist 0.48
Finance Officer 0.26 Finance Officer 0.26
Assistant Finance Officer 0.26 Assistant Finance Officer 0.26
Accountant II 0.26 Accountant II 0.26
Accounts Payable 0.26 Accounts Payable 0.26
Utility Billing Specialist 0.68 Utility Billing Specialist 0.68
Payroll Technician 0.26 Payroll Technician 0.26
Administrative Clerk I/II (2) 1.22 Administrative Clerk I/II (2) 1.22
Town Administrator 0.48 Town Administrator 0.48
Deputy Town Administrator 0.48 Deputy Town Administrator 0.48
Executive Assistant 0.48 Executive Assistant 0.48
Public Information Officer 0.48 Public Information Officer 0.48
Total 30.89 Total 30.89
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jon Landkamer, Public Works Facilities Manager
Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Date: May 19, 2016
RE: Verizon Land Lease Agreement
Objective:
Finalize the lease agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Verizon, to grant
them the ability to install, and operate, cell phone communication equipment and
antenna in the Moraine/Weist parking lot.
Present Situation:
Verizon’s temporary lease on another building is expiring and they have been working
with the Town of Estes Park to find a site downtown that is on a Town owned property
or building. The current site was identified as a potential site when a solution for a cell
phone antenna site on the roof of Town Hall could not be accomplished.
Proposal:
This lease agreement will not generate expense, but will generate $18,000 per year in
revenue from Verizon. The location of the cell phone communications station will greatly
improve service for Town of Estes Park visitors and businesses particularly in the
downtown area.
Advantages:
Improved cell phone service in the downtown area for visitors and businesses.
Generate revenue that could be used for maintenance of Town owned facilities.
Disadvantages:
Visual impact of a cell phone tower in the downtown area, however, there are
currently cell phone antennas on top of privately owned buildings in the
downtown area.
Action Recommended:
Public Works recommends that the Town Board of Trustees authorize the Mayor to sign
the lease agreement, and allow Verizon to proceed with the installation and operation of
the communications equipment as described in the land lease agreement, Appendix A.
Construction documents have been submitted to Town of Estes Park Planning
Department for review and approval.
Budget:
No budget necessary for this request. Staff coordination time and review by Town
Attorney White have been the only costs associated with this request.
Level of Public Interest
Moderate: There was some public comment during the review of this plan through the
Community Development process.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the proposed Verizon Land Lease Agreement as
presented.
ORDINANCE NO. 14-16
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE VERIZON
WIRELESS SITE AT MORAINE/WIEST PARKING LOT
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has
determined that it is appropriate to enter into a land lease agreement with Verizon
Wireless for the construction and maintenance of a wireless communications antenna in
the Moraine/Wiest parking lot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, as follows:
1. The Land Lease Agreement for the wireless communications antenna
between the Town of Estes Park and Verizon Wireless, Exhibit A, a copy
of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is
hereby approved. The officials of the Town of Estes Park are hereby
authorized to execute the Lease.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,
2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2016, and
published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on
the day of , 2016.
Town Clerk
Town Attorney Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: May 19, 2016
RE: Ordinance No. 15-16 - Noises
Objective:
Adopt Ordinance 15-16 which amends Chapter 8.06 of the Municipal Code – Noises in
its entirety and replaces it with a new Chapter 8.06 as set forth on Exhibit A of the
Ordinance.
Present Situation:
In 2004, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park adopted Chapter 8.06 of the
Municipal Code regulating noises in the Town. Since 2004, there have been few, if any,
code enforcement actions taken by the Town for violations of the provisions of Chapter
8.06. The main reason for lack of enforcement of violations of the Noise Ordinance was
the complexity of the Ordinance itself. The Board of Trustees requested that Mayor
Pro-Tem Koenig, Town Attorney White, the Police Department through Chief Kufield,
and Town Administrator Lancaster review the Noise Ordinance and draft a new Noise
Ordinance which was easier to enforce, less complex, understandable by the general
public, and contained realistic regulation of noises within the Town. The proposed new
Noise Ordinance represents that effort. The Board of Trustees, at its Study Session on
April 12, 2016, reviewed the proposed draft of the Noise Ordinance and requested that
the new Noise Ordinance be brought back to the Board of Trustees for review and
possible adoption.
Proposal:
Ordinance 15-16 adopts the new Noise Ordinance as more fully set forth on Exhibit A.
Advantages:
The new Noise Ordinance has the following advantages:
Is much shorter and less complex than the previous Ordinance
Increases the decibel levels to 80 dBA
Standardizes the quiet hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Simplifies the technical requirements of enforcement
Deletes the reference to motor vehicles using the public right-of-way
Changes the variance procedure to a temporary permit process
Aids in addressing issues the EPPD routinely deal with in the Town
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Adopt Ordinance No. 15-16.
Budget:
There are no budget implications for the adoption and enforcement of this Ordinance.
Level of Public Interest
Moderate. The ability to regulate unreasonable noises has been an issue during
discussions of regulation of vacation homes within the Town.
Sample Motion:
I move to adopt/not adopt Ordinance No. 15-16.
1
ORDINANCE NO. 15-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.06 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
IN ITS ENTIRETY CONCERNING NOISES.
WHEREAS, Chapter 8.06 of the Municipal Code provides for regulation of noises
within the Town of Estes Park; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees desires to amend the current Chapter 8.06
and replace it with a new Chapter 8.06 regulating noises within the Town of Estes Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. Chapter 8.06 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety as more
fully set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
2. The Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its adoption and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this day of , 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
2
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2016 and
published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado,
on the day of , 2016.
Town Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 8.06 Noises
8.06.010 Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Chapter, shall have the following
meanings ascribed to them:
Construction means any site preparation, assembly, erection, repair, alteration or similar action,
or demolition of buildings or structures.
dB(A) means the A-weighted unit of sound pressure level.
Decibel (dB) is sound pressure level at a specified location.
Motor vehicle shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section 42-1-102 (58), C.R.S.
Muffler means a sound-dissipative device or system for attenuating the sound of escaping gases
of an internal combustion engine.
Real property line means either:
a. The line, including its vertical extension, that separates one (1) parcel of real property
from another; or
b. The vertical and horizontal boundaries of a dwelling unit that is contained within a multi-
use building.
Sound level means the instantaneous sound pressure level measured in decibels with a sound
level meter set for A-weighting on slow or fast integration speed.
Sound level meter means an instrument used to measure sound pressure levels conforming to
standards as specified in ANSI Standard S1.4-1983 or the latest version thereof and operated
pursuant to the manufacturer’s specifications.
Unreasonable noise means any sound of such level and duration as to be or tend to be harmful to
human health or welfare, or which would unreasonably disturb the enjoyment of life or property
within the Town.
8.06.020 Unreasonable noise prohibited.
No person shall make, continue or cause to be made or continued any unreasonable noise; and no
person shall knowingly permit such noise upon any premises within the Town. For purposes of
this Section, members of the Police Department or the Code Enforcement Officer are empowered
to make a prima facie determination as to whether a noise is unreasonable.
8.06.030 Maximum permissible noise levels.
A noise measured or registered by a sound level meter from any source at a level which is in
excess of 80 dB(A) measured at a distance of twenty-five (25) feet from any property line is
hereby declared to be a unreasonable noise and is unlawful.
8.06.040
No person shall operate or cause to be operated any motor vehicle off a public right-of-way in
such a manner that the sound level emitted exceeds the limits set forth in Section 8.06.030. This
Section shall apply to all motor vehicles, whether or not duly licensed and registered, including
but not limited to commercial or noncommercial racing vehicles, motorcycles, go-carts,
snowmobiles, amphibious crafts, campers and dune buggies.
8.06.050 Exceptions.
The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to:
(1) Noise from emergency signaling devices;
(2) Noise from agricultural activities;
(3) The operation of aircraft or other activities which are subject to federal law with respect
to noise control, and the generation of sound in situations within the jurisdiction of the
Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration;
(4) Noise from domestic power tools and lawn and garden equipment operated between 7:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m., provided that such tools or equipment generate less than one
hundred (100) dBA measured at a distance of twenty-five (25) feet from any property
line;
(5) Sound from church bells and chimes when a part of a religious observance or service;
(6) Any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, earthmoving, excavating or
demolition, provided that all motorized equipment used in such activity is equipped with
functioning mufflers, and further provided that such work takes place between 7:00 a.m.
and 10:00 p.m.;
(7) Noise from snow blowers, snow throwers and snowplows when operated for snow
removal;
(8) The Town and its employees, when engaged in any activity for the maintenance,
installation or repair or any Town facility or utility or engaged in any other Town activity
or function;
(9) Any Town-sanctioned special event;
(10) Noise generated from golf course maintenance equipment when used on a golf course;
(11) Noise generated by tools or equipment during emergency operations or activities that are
reasonably necessary for the public health, safety or welfare; or
(12) Any event sanctioned by the Park School District.
8.06.060 Temporary Permits.
(a) Any person who owns, operates or produces any noise source which is unlawful or will
be unlawful pursuant to this Chapter may apply to the Code Enforcement Officer of the
Town for a temporary permit. The duration of the temporary permit shall not exceed
ninety (90) days. Applications for a temporary permit shall supply information including,
but not limited to:
(1) The nature and location of the noise source for which such application is made;
(2) The reason for which the temporary permit is requested.
(3) The level of noise that will occur during the period of the temporary permit;
(4) The section or sections of this Chapter for which the temporary permit shall apply;
(5) A description of interim noise control measures to be taken for the applicant to
minimize noise and the impacts occurring therefrom; and
(6) A specific schedule of the noise control measures that shall be taken to bring the
source into compliance with this Chapter within a reasonable time.
(7) Any other information requested by the Code Enforcement Officer.
(b) Failure to supply the information required by the Code Enforcement Officer shall be
cause for rejection of the application.
(c) The Code Enforcement Officer may charge the applicant a reasonable fee to cover
expenses resulting from the processing of the temporary permit application.
(d) The Code Enforcement Officer may, at his or her discretion, limit the duration of the
temporary permit. Any person granted a temporary permit and requesting an extension of
time shall apply for a new temporary permit under the provisions of this Section.
(e) No temporary permit shall be approved unless the applicant presents adequate proof that:
(1) Noise levels occurring during the period of the temporary permit will not constitute a
danger to public health and safety; and
(2) Compliance with this Chapter would impose an unreasonable hardship on the
applicant.
(f) A temporary permit may be revoked by the Code Enforcement Officer if there is:
(1) Violation of one (1) or more terms or conditions of the temporary permit;
(2) Material misrepresentation of fact in the temporary permit application; or
(3) Material change in any of the circumstances relied on by the Code Enforcement
Officer in granting the temporary permit.
(g) The applicant shall not operate or produce an unlawful noise during the application
process.
8.06.070 Violation and penalties
Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter, upon conviction, shall be subject to the
penalty in Section 1.20.020 of the Municipal Code.
Page 1 of 2
Cultural Services - Museum Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Derek Fortini, Museum Director
Date: May 24, 2016
RE: Authorize Pass-Through Funds for Design of Collections Facility
Objective:
To have the Town Board authorize the spending of up to $100,000 in pass-through
funding from the Estes Park Museum Friends & Foundation, Inc. (Friends) to go
towards the design of a Collections and Research Facility for the Museum.
Present Situation:
The Estes Park Museum is moving forward with Phase I of the Master Plan: the
Collections and Research Facility. The Friends have committed to fundraise the full
amount (with Museum Director Fortini’s support) for the facility projected to be $1.7
million.
While steps have been taken to secure funding in the current “quiet phase,” a public
kick-off fundraising event is scheduled for September 18. In order to help illustrate what
the facility will look like and be located, a conceptual design is essential. The Friends
Board has approved pass-through funding to the Town of up to $100,000 to cover the
projected cost of the design phase of the new facility.
Proposal:
If approved, the Town will be able to accept the funds. The project will be managed by
Facility Manager Jon Landkamer and Museum Director Fortini. If the Town Board
approves the acceptance of the pass-through funds, the Request For Quotation (RFQ)
will go public with a two-week response deadline. Conceptual design is expected to be
completed by the end of August. A new timeline will be established for design
completion based off of initial fundraising efforts.
Advantages:
The Museum will be able to move forward with /Phase I of the Master Plan
Page 2 of 2
There is no direct cost to the Town
Disadvantages:
Because of the Town’s expertise, Town staff will need to manage the project.
However, because of the scale and need for the project, staff has allotted
appropriate time to carry the project through.
Since the Friends are taking on the full expense of the project, future support for
the next phases of the Master Plan will have less support from the Friends.
However, the Collections and Research Facility is the most immediate need for
the Museum to move forward in its mission.
Action Recommended:
Town Board approval to authorize the acceptance of pass-through funds from the Estes
Park Museum Friends & Foundation, Inc.
Budget:
Once accepted, line item 204-0000-380.20-00 would be used to budget the funds and
line 204-5400-544.22-02 or 204-5400-544.22-98 would be used to expend the funds.
Level of Public Interest
Low to medium. While in the quiet phase of fundraising, Museum Director Fortini has
been meeting with local service clubs and individuals to inform them about the need of
the new facility and ask for support. Nearly 450 individuals have been identified by the
Friends Fundraising Committee to be invited to the public kick-off event in September.
There will also be fundraising events continued into 2017 to secure the necessary
funding which will rely on the conceptual design to illustrate what the building will look
like and where it will be located.
Sample Motion:
I move to authorize the acceptance of up to $100,000 in pass-through funds from the
Estes Park Museum Friends & Foundation, Inc. to be used by the Town towards the
design of the Museum’s Collection and Research Facility.
ENGINEERING
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager
Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: May 12, 2016
RE: Scott Ponds Natural Area Dams Modification Construction Contract
Award
Objective:
Public Works seeks a recommendation to the Town Board for award of a construction
contract to rehabilitate the Scott Ponds Natural Area Dams.
Present Situation:
As a result of the 2013 Flood, the east dam of the Scott Ponds drainage system was
breached and significant damage occurred to the west dam. As a result of the damage,
the State Dam Inspection Office visited the site multiple times and gave the Town a
written mandate to perform maintenance on the west dam and to have a state compliant
dam design in place by November 2015. To meet this mandate, The Town funded a
design consultant who submitted a hazard classification study and a jurisdictional dam
compliant set of plans and specifications to the State. While the design was underway,
the Town received CDBG-DR funds to complete construction and acquire the necessary
water rights that storage of water would require.
A bidding effort to bring a contractor in to repair the dam repairs in the fall/winter of 2015
was undertaken by staff, but the resulting bids came in well above the grant funding
amount and a significant risk existed of not finalizing construction of the project by the
March 2016 deadline and jeopardized the grant requirements. It was determined at a
November 10th, 2015 Town Board meeting to hold off on installation of dam
improvements. In order to meet the State Engineer’s Office mandate, Public Works
staff drained the water level and reduced the risk until permanent, compliant
improvements could be installed.
This project began in January 2015 and was in front of the Town Board and the public
multiple times last year. Property owner representatives have attended our design and
progress meetings between the Town and consultant. Public Works has communicated
with the affected owners the scope, the funding limitations and the process to get
repairs complete. Presently the Town has an approved, state compliant dam design,
adequate funding and a favorable construction schedule. Public Works looks to move
forward with construction services to implement the approved design.
Proposal:
On April 11, 2016, Public Works advertised a Request for Bid that would construct a
jurisdictional dam for the Upper Carriage Hills Pond and rehabilitate a non-jurisdictional
dam for the Lower Carriage Hills Pond. The Base Bid would install new outlet works,
new spillway and re-create a fishable pond for the upper dam. The lower dam would be
lowered 4’, with structural improvements to the dam conditions.
Also included in the bid package were 2 alternate bid options that the Town would
explore if bids came in at a lower level.
Bid Alternate 1 would install outlet works and a spillway on the lower dam.
Bid Alternate 2 would excavate more material out of the lower pond and increase the
volume of impounded water.
Six companies attended the mandatory pre-bid on April 21st. Of those six, four
companies submitted a bid for construction. After three weeks of advertising, the bids
were opened on May 5th. The following table contains the bids for each company:
COMPANY CITY BASE BID ALT #1 ALT #2 TOTAL FEE
American West Denver $698,414 $239,411 $34,475 $972,300
Dietzler Const Berthoud $732,555 $242,520 $36,750 $1,011,825
ESCO Evergreen $784,965 $283,812 $40,655 $1,109,432
Zak Dirt Longmont $853,285 $262,949 $58,075 $1,174,309
The bids were within 18% of each other – so there is confidence that the plans and
specifications were clear and that these bids reflect the construction industry cost for
this work. American West submitted the lowest Base Bid as well as the lowest bid for
each Alternate. Town Staff and its consultant have reviewed the bid evaluation,
checked references and recommend American West Construction, Inc. as the Scott
Ponds Natural Area Dam Modification construction company.
This project was previously bid in September 2015 with a winter construction schedule
that resulted in 2 bids with the low bid exceeding grant funding by $360,000. Re-
bidding in the spring with a more favorable construction season resulted in twice as
many bids and better value.
Advantages:
• Installation of the dams per the approved plans and specifications will comply
with the State Engineers Office mandate.
• Resilient and compliant flood control measures will be implemented.
• Rehabilitation of a public natural recreation area and fishable pond.
• Potential positive impact to claims of depreciated property value.
Disadvantages:
• Construction activity during this 60 day schedule will impact open space and
wildlife activities in this area.
• Closure of the pedestrian trail will occur in this area during construction.
Action Recommended by Staff:
To advance the Scott Ponds Natural Area Dam Modification Project, Staff recommends
award of a construction contract to American West Construction Inc., in the amount of
$698,414.00. Staff also recommends spending authority up to the $780,000 grant
funding limit for construction. This represents an 11.7% contingency. Should the
contingency not be needed for the Base Bid scope of work, Staff would look to Change
Order Bid Alternate 2, at $34,475, into the project and excavate more material out of the
lower pond and increase the volume of impounded water.
Budget:
This project will be funded from a DHSEM (Division of Homeland Security & Emergency
Management) grant. Currently there is $983,000 allocated to this project. The funding
encumbrances are broken down as follows:
• $780,000 – construction contract encumbrance with American West
Construction.
• $70,000 – currently contracted with Cornerstone Engineering for construction
management services.
• $25,000 – directed toward a Water Rights Augmentation Plan (RFP in process).
• $108,000 – to be utilized for water rights acquisition once the augmentation plan
is complete.
Schedule:
This project is a 60 working days contract. Construction will not begin until after June
13th. Final completion has a November 15th, 2016 deadline.
Level of Public Interest
The level of public interest is high for those property owners surrounding the Scott
Ponds Natural Area and immediately downstream of the ponds. There is impact to
infrastructure along Fish Creek and the community trail system that has a high level of
public interest.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial to authorize the Mayor to sign a construction contract for
the Scott Ponds Natural Area Dam Modification: Carriage Hills Dam #1 rehabilitation
and Carriage Hills Dam #2 rehabilitation with American West Construction, LLC in the
amount of $698,414. Public Works is authorized to send up to $780,000 for the
Alternate 2 work and/or potential unanticipated changes encountered during
construction.
Attachments:
Project Exhibits
Construction Contract – American West Construction LLC
Carriage Hills No. 1 Dam & Carriage Hills No. 2 Dam Reconstruction
Page 1 of 7
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
CONTRACT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is effective as of the day of , 2016 by and between the Town
of Estes Park (TOEP), a body corporate and political, P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado, 80517, (hereinafter called OWNER) and AMERICAN WEST
CONSTRUCTION, LLC (hereinafter called CONTRACTOR).
OWNER and CONTRACTOR, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth,
agree as follows:
Article 1. WORK
CONTRACTOR shall complete all Work as specified or indicated in the Contract Documents.
The Work is generally described as follows:
Carriage Hills No. 1 Dam
Breach of Existing Dam Embankment & Remove Existing Outlet Works
Install New Outlet Work
Reconstruct Embankment
Install Toe Drain
Reconstruction Emergency Spillway w/ Concrete Crest Wall, Grouted Rip-rap Channel & Stilling
Basin
Carriage Hills No. 2 Dam
Lower Existing Dam Crest 4 feet
Breach of Existing Dam Embankment
Bid Alternative #1 (To be approved by Change Order only)
Install New Outlet Works
Install New Emergency Spillway w/Concrete Crest Wall, Grouted Rip-rap Channel & Spillway
Bid Alternative #2 (To be approved by Change Order only)
Excavate Existing Pond Area to Increase Pond Volume
Article 2. PROJECT MANAGER
The Project Manager shall be determined by the TOEP Public Works Department, and who is
hereinafter called PROJECT MANAGER and who is to act as OWNER's representative, assume
all duties and responsibilities and have the rights and authority assigned to PROJECT
MANAGER in the Contract Documents in connection with completion of the Work in accordance
with the Contract Documents.
Article 3. CONTRACT TIMES
The Work must be completed within 60 Working Days from the date issued on the Notice to
Proceed. The CONTRACTOR may begin construction anytime between June 13th, 2016 and
August 1st, 2016. The Town will not issue a Notice to Proceed with the Work after August 1st,
2016. The project must have achieved Final Acceptance of the Work no later than November
15, 2016, and be ready for final payment in accordance with the General Conditions subject to
applicable laws regarding final payment.
The Contractor further agrees to pay, as liquidated damages, the sum of $1,400.00 for each
consecutive calendar day thereafter as hereinafter provided in Article 10.9 of the General
Conditions.
Article 4. CONTRACTOR PRICE
OWNER shall pay the CONTRACTOR for completion of the Work in accordance with the
Contract Documents an amount in current funds equal to the sum of the amounts determined
pursuant to the unit prices times the quantities of work actually completed. Unit prices are those
shown in the Proposal and quantities of work actually completed will be determined by the
PROJECT MANAGER.
Article 5. PAYMENT PROCEDURES
CONTRACTOR shall submit Applications for Payment in accordance with the General
Conditions. Applications for Payment will be processed by the PROJECT MANAGER as
provided in the General Conditions.
5.1 Progress Payments; Retainage. OWNER shall make progress payments once per
month per the Town's Annual Vendor Payment Schedule on account of the Contract
Price on the basis of CONTRACTOR's applications for Payment as recommended by
PROJECT MANAGER, as provided by the General Conditions during construction as
provided in paragraphs 5.1.1 and 5.2 below.
5.1.1 Prior to Substantial Completion, progress payments will be made in an amount equal to
the percentage indicated below, but, in each case, less the aggregate of payments
previously made and less such amounts as PROJECT MANAGER shall determine, or
OWNER may withhold, in accordance with the General Conditions.
a. Ninety-five percent (95%) of Work completed (with the balance being retainage).
b. Ninety-five percent (95%) with the balance being retainage of materials and
equipment not incorporated in the Work (but delivered, suitably stored and
accompanied by documentation satisfactory to OWNER as provided in the
General Conditions).
5.2 Final Payment. Upon final completion and acceptance of the Work in accordance with
the General Conditions, OWNER will publically advertise the Project Completion for two
weeks. Should no liens be officially posted the Owner shall pay the remainder of the
Contract Price as recommended by the PROJECT MANAGER as provided in the
General Conditions.
Article 6. INTEREST
Following settlement of any claims posted again this Contract; final payment will be made in
accordance with the Town's Annual Vendor Payment Schedule. All moneys not paid when due
as provided in paragraph 27 of the General Conditions shall bear interest at the rate of 10% per
annum compounded monthly.
Carriage Hills No. 1 Dam & Carriage Hills No. 2 Dam Reconstruction
Page 2 of 7
Article 7. CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIONS
In order to induce OWNER to enter into this Agreement, CONTRACTOR makes the following
representations:
7.1 CONTRACTOR has examined and carefully studied the Contract Documents (including
any Addenda(s)) and the other related data identified in the Bidding Documents including
"technical data".
7.2 CONTRACTOR has reviewed the site, and become familiar with, and is satisfied as to
the general, local, and site conditions that may affect cost, progress, performance or
furnishing the Work.
7.3 CONTRACTOR acknowledges he knows, understands, and accepts all plans,
specifications, and design intent of the Work.
7.4 CONTRACTOR acknowledges he has met with the Project Manager and has been in
correspondence with the Project Manager and has sought and received clarification of all
issues concerning construction and design.
7.5 CONTRACTOR assumes full responsibility and obligation for high quality workmanship
and timely completion of this project as illustrated by the plans, drawings, and
specifications.
7 .6 CONTRACTOR understands that he may make on-site layout and grading and
construction modifications to achieve the desired intent. Such modifications/grading
changes and layout cost are already included in the Contract Documents.
7.7 CONTRACTOR understands and acknowledges that this Agreement is a
performance based Agreement, either based on: 1) unit prices 2) maximum lump sum
amount: totaling$ 698,414 that shall not be exceeded or increased, except for contract
changes allowed, agreed, and approved in writing.
7.8 CONTRACTOR will work cooperatively with the PROJECT MANAGER to mutually
achieve a final product acceptable to OWNER.
7.9 CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the OWNER and PROJECT
MANAGER from all damages, claims, and judgments whatsoever (including costs, legal
fees, and expenses incurred by the OWNER and/or PROJECT MANAGER related to
such damages or claims) to the OWNER and/or PROJECT MANAGER or claimed by
third parties against the OWNER and/or PROJECT MANAGER, arising directly or
indirectly out of CONTRACTOR'S negligent performance of any of the requirements,
provisions, or services furnished under this Agreement.
7 .10 CONTRACTOR has obtained and carefully studied (or assumes responsibility for
obtaining and carefully studying) all examinations, investigations, explorations, tests,
reports and studies which pertain to the subsurface or physical conditions at or
contiguous to the site or otherwise may affect the cost, progress, performance or
furnishing of the Work as CONTRACTOR considers necessary for the performance of
furnishing the Work at the Contract Price, within the Contract Time and in accordance
with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, including specifically the
provisions of Article 10 of the General Conditions; and no additional examinations,
investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies or similar information or data are or
will be required by the CONTRACTOR for such purposes.
Carriage Hills No. 1 Dam & Carriage Hills No. 2 Dam Reconstruction
Page 3 of 7
7.11 CONTRACTOR has reviewed and checked all information and data shown or indicated
on the Contract Documents with respect to existing underground facilities at or
contiguous to the site and assumes responsibility for the accurate location of said
underground facilities. No additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests,
reports, studies or similar information or data in respect of said underground facilities are
or will be required by CONTRACTOR in order to perform and furnish the Work at the
Contract Price, within the Contract Time and in accordance with the other terms and
conditions of the Contract Documents, including specifically the provisions of the General
Conditions.
7 .12 CONTRACTOR has correlated the results of all such observations, examinations,
investigations, tests, reports, and data with the terms and conditions of the Contract
Documents.
7.13 CONTRACTOR has given PROJECT MANAGER written notice of all conflicts, errors, or
discrepancies that he has discovered in the Contract Documents and the written
resolution thereof by PROJECT MANAGER is acceptable to CONTRACTOR.
Article 8. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
The Contract Documents which comprise the entire agreement between OWNER and
CONTRACTOR concerning the Work, consisting of the following:
8.1 This Agreement
8.2 Exhibits to this Agreement.
8.3 Notice of Award
8.4 Notice to Proceed.
8.5 Information for Bidders.
8.6 Special Conditions.
8.7 General Conditions.
8.8 Town of Estes Park Public Works General Conditions
8.9 Town of Estes Park Public Works Special Conditions
8.1 O Labor Standards Provisions of the Contract
8.11 Drawings bearing the following general title: Carriage Hills No. 1 Dam and Carriage
Hills No. 2 Dam Reconstruction (not attached hereto)
8.12 Addenda(s).
8.13 Contractor's Bid. (Bid Proposal, Bid sheet & Appendix)
8.14 Bid Bond
8.15 Contractor Qualification Statement
8.16 Performance & Payment Bond
8.17 Technical Specifications and Details.
8.18 Documentation submitted by CONTRACTOR prior to Notice of Award.
8.19 Change Orders (post approval signatures)
8.20 Insurance Certificate, Business License, Tax Certification.
8.21 The following which may be delivered or issued after the Effective Date of the Agreement
and are not attached hereto:
All Written Amendments and other documents amending, modifying, or
supplementing the Contract Documents pursuant to the General Conditions.
The documents composing the Contract Documents are attached to this Agreement and made
part hereof (except as expressly noted otherwise above).
Carriage Hills No. 1 Dam & Carriage Hills No. 2 Dam Reconstruction
Page 4 of 7
Contractors are required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local safety and health
laws, regulations and ordinances.
There are no Contract Documents other than those listed above. The Contract Documents may
only be amended, modified, or supplemented as provided in the General Conditions.
In case of conflicting provisions, requirements or discrepancies the order of application of the
Contract Documents is as follows:
1. Change Orders for clarification of drawings
2. This Agreement
3. Addenda
4. Drawings
5. Special Conditions
9 General Conditions
Article 9. MISCELLANEOUS
9.1 Reference to the General Conditions shall include modification thereto by any
Supplementary Conditions issued.
9.2 No assignments by a party hereto of any rights under or interests in the Contract
Documents will be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the
party sought to be bound; and, specifically but without limitation, moneys that may
become due and moneys that are due may not be assigned without such consent
(except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by law), and unless
specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment no assignment
will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Contract
Documents.
9.3 Except for the intended beneficiaries of any "Labor and Material Payment Bond"
executed in conjunction with this Agreement, nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed to give any rights or benefits by virtue of this Agreement to anyone other than
OWNER and CONTRACTOR, and all duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to
this Agreement will be for the sale and exclusive benefit of OWNER and CONTRACTOR
and not for the benefit of any other party.
9.4 OWNER and CONTRACTOR each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and
legal representatives to the other party hereto, its partners, successors, assigns and
legal representatives in respect to all covenants, agreements and obligations contained
in the Contract Documents.
9.5 In the event of default of any of the provisions of this Agreement by either party which
shall require the party not in default to commence legal actions against the defaulting
party, the defaulting party shall be liable to the non-defaulting party for the non-defaulting
party's reasonable attorney fees and costs, including fees of experts, incurred because of
the default. Additionally, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify the OWNER for legal expenses
and costs incurred by the OWNER by reason of claims filed by suppliers, subcontractors
or other parties, against the Retainage held by the OWNER where the OWNER has paid
such sums to the CONTRACTOR.
9.6 The OWNER has allocated sufficient funds to pay the contract price.
PO#�������-
Carriage Hills No. 1 Dam & Carriage Hills No. 2 Dam Reconstruction
Page 5 of 7
9. 7 Any provisions or part of the Contract Documents held to be void or unenforceable under
any Law or Regulations shall be deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions shall
continue to be valid and binding upon OWNER and CONTRACTOR, who agree that the
Contract Documents shall be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereof
with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the
intention of the stricken provision.
9.8 The Contractor certifies that the Contractor shall comply with the provisions of CRS 8-
17 .5-101, et seq. The Contractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal
alien to perform work under this contract or enter into a contract with a subcontractor that
knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien to perform work under this contract.
The Contractor represents, warrants, and agrees that:
it (i) has verified that it does not employ any illegal aliens, through participation in the
Basic Pilot Employment Verification Program administered by the Social
Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security,
or (ii) otherwise will comply with the requirements of CRS 8-17.5-102(2)(b)(I). The
Contractor shall comply with all reasonable requests made in the course of an
investigation by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If the
Contractor fails to comply with any requirement of this provision or CRS 8-17.5-101,
et seq., the Town may terminate this contract for breach of contract, and the
Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the Town.
If the Contractor obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under
this contract knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, the Contractor shall:(a.)
Notify the subcontractor and the Town within three days that the Contractor has actual
knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and
(b.) terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the
notice required pursuant to sub-paragraph (a) above, the subcontractor does not stop
employing or contracting with the illegal alien, unless the subcontractor provides
information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted
with an illegal alien.
Carriage Hills No. 1 Dam & Carriage Hills No. 2 Dam Reconstruction
Page 6 of 7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, OWNER and CONTRACTOR have signed this Agreement in
triplicate. One counterpart each has been delivered to OWNER, CONTRACTOR, and
PROJECT MANAGER. All portions of the Contract Documents have been signed, initialed or
identified by OWNER and CONTRACTOR or identified by PROJECT MANAGER on their behalf.
This Agreement will be effective as provided on the first page hereof.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
Address for giving notices:
170 MacGregor Avenue
P. 0. Box 1200
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
(970) 577-3586
By ��
Tit1e:M�Y-
(lf C<5N< CTOR is a corporation
attach evidence of authority to sign.)
\fdt�'t;:(C-S �;/ti . ' fJ1Jrn
Address for giving notices:
2 75 G-loP'h A:ve
Carriage Hills No. 1 Dam & Carriage Hills No. 2 Dam Reconstruction
Page 7 of 7
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 24, 2016
RE: 2016 Chip Seal Program
Objective:
Public Works would seeks approval from the Town Board to award the 2016 Chip Seal
Program contract to Foothills Paving & Maintenance, Inc. for the application of chip seal
resurfacing to multiple roads in the Town of Estes Park to advance the goals of the
2024 Street Improvement Program.
Present Situation:
On February 23, 2016 Public Works presented a plan improve the condition of Town
streets to 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 chip seal portion of this program.
Proposal:
On April 22, 2016, Public Works advertised a Request for Bid that would chip seal
multiple streets in Estes. The list below shows the roads we are proposing to work on:
- Arapahoe Ln - Cherokee Dr - Cherokee Ct
- Pawnee Drive - Bristlecone Ct - Indian Trail
- Prospect Estates Dr - Solomon Dr - Steele Ct
- Ute Ln - Morgan St - Bailey Ln
- University Dr
Two companies attended the mandatory pre-bid on April 28th. Both 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 May 12th. The following table contains
the bids for each company:
COMPANY CITY TOTAL FEE
A-1 Chip Seal Co. Denver, CO $189,855.00
Foothills Paving & Maintenance, Inc. Wheat Ridge, CO $161,680.00
The low bidder was Foothills Paving & Maintenance, Inc. This contractor has a good
reputation and extensive experience in chip sealing roads.
Schedule:
The contractor has flexibility on starting the construction work. All work must be
complete by August 31, 2016.
Advantages:
Rehabilitation of 13 different roads in Estes Park.
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 the attached construction
contract to Foothills Paving & Maintenance, Inc. in the amount of $161,680.00. As the
low bid came in below the budget of $200,000, Public Works would like to request
authority to spend up to the budgeted amount of $200,000.00 for additional chip sealing
work.
Budget:
This project will be funded from the Street Improvement Fund. Currently there is
$200,000 allocated to this project from the Street Improvement Fund.
Level of Public Interest
Public interest on this project is expected to be moderate.
Sample Motion:
I move for approval/denial to authorize the Mayor to sign a construction contract with
Foothills Paving & Maintenance, Inc. for the 2016 Chip Seal Program in the amount of
$161,680.00. Public Works staff is authorized to spend up to $200,000.00 for additional
chip seal work on additional Town streets.
Attachments:
Map of streets in the 2016 Chip Seal Program.
Contract Document – Can be viewed online at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings
MARYS LAKE
RDL
A
RKSPU
R
RDR IV E R S ID E DREAGLECLIF
F
DRRAVEN
AVE
GREYFOXDRW
WONDERVIEW AVE
OT IS L N
FIR AVEGRAVES AVE
VIRGINIA DR
E E L K H OR N A V E
FISHCREEKRDCHIEFS HEADRD
BIG THO
MPS
O
N
AV
E
4THSTJUNIPERDRE
H
I
G
HW
A
Y
36
PROSPECTMOUNTAINRDN SAINT VRAIN AVE
W HIGHW A Y 34CH APINLND EV ON DR
S
TEAMERDR
AUDUBON S T
L AKE S H O RED RBIRCH AVELEXINGTON LN
RA N GEVIEW
R
D
UP P E R B R OADVIEW
JOHNSEN
LN
PEAK V I E W D R
BRODIE AVE
POWERP
L
A
N
T KORAL CTB R O O
K DR
SPRU CEAV EHILLRDGRIFFITHCT 3R DSTELM AVEAXMINSTERLNSPRING ST
OL D R A N G E R DR
ASPENDRWIN
D
C
LIF
FDRBRO AD V IE W RD
MILLS D R
ASPENLNLOTT STDUN RA VENLN2NDSTSHAD
CTPINE L N
VA LLEY RD
CL IFF RD
O
UR AYDRCOMMUNITY DRWILLOW L N DANDIEWAY
PINEMEADOWDRSSAINTVRAINAVECARRIAGEDRL O W E R B R OAD V IEW
HE
I
NZ
PKWYCRAGS D RELM RDF A L L R IV E R RD
ROCKRIDGERDUP LANDSCIRL A R K S P U R AVEC U R R Y L NSTRONGAVEMEADOWLNMORAINE
A
V E DRYGULCHRDW
E
L
KHO
RN AV E
MALL RD
ASPEN AVEKIOWA DR LONGVIEW DRRAV
ENC
IR
TAN
AGERRDW IN D H A M CTHONDIUSCIR
WIL
DWOODDRMEADO W
CIR
CEDARL
NSTANL E Y C IR C LED
R
Beaver Brook
B
l
a
c
k Ca
n
y
o
n
Cr
e
e
k
Big Thompson RiverFish CreekFall River
Bi g Th
o
mp so n R iverLAKE
ESTES
MARYS
LAKE
UV7
UV66
£¤36
£¤34
£¤36
£¤34
£¤36
This draft document was prepared for internal use by the
Town of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to
the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that you
do not post this document on the internet or otherwise
make it available to persons unknown to you.
0 1,300 2,600
Feet
1 in = 2,593 ft±Town of Estes Park
Public Works
2016 Chip Seal
Printed: 4/22/2016
Created By: Kelly Stallworth
���������������������������������������������������������������������������
���������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�����������������������������������������������������