Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Town Board 2015-03-24
The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, March 24, 2015 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PROCLAMATION: “MONTH OF THE YOUNG CHILD”. GRADUATION CEREMONY: 2015 CITIZENS INFORMATION ACADEMY (CIA). Mayor Pinkham, Town Administrator Lancaster and Public Information Officer Rusch - Present Participation Certificates to class members. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. STATE OF THE TOWN REPORT. Mayor Pinkham. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Policy Governance Report. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated March 10, 2015 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated March 10, 2015. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee, March 12, 2015. 1. Contract with Kinley Built to remodel water laboratory on Elm Road, $79,250 – Budgeted. 2. Sherman Reilly four-drum wire puller - $140,895 – Budgeted. 4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated February 18, 2015 (acknowledgement only). 5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated February 19, 2015 (acknowledgement only). Prepared 3/16/15 *Revised 3/20/15 * NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated February 17, 2015 (acknowledgement only). 7. Amendment to Administrator Lancaster’s contract of April 4, 2015 to extend the contract to June 30, 2015. 2. LIQUOR ITEMS: 1. NEW LIQUOR LICENSE - THE BARREL, LLC, 112-120 E. ELKHORN AVENUE, TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. CONSENT ITEM: A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP, Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map Phase XXVII, Lot 2, Park River West Subdivision; Condominiumize Units 600 & 602 Park River Place; Rich Willie Trust/Applicant. Planner Kleisler. B. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - Marys Lake Subdivision Replat, TBD Kiowa Court; Marys Meadow Development/Applicant. Applicant requested continuance to the April 28, 2015. 2. ACTION ITEMS: A. SPECIAL REVIEW - ASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEY - AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #2014-01B, Stanley Historic District Subdivision, TBD Steamer Drive; Greg Rosener/Applicant. Planner Kleisler. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ORDINANCE #02-15 VACATING UTILITY EASEMENT ON LOT 1, THOMPSON’S PINEWOOD ACRES RESUBDIVISION. Planner Kleisler. 2. ESTES PARK TRANSIT HUB PARKING STRUCTURE DESIGN REVISION ALTERNATIVE SELECTION. Director Muhonen. 3. RESOLUTION #09-15 SUPPORT FOR THE FISH CREEK PLAN FOR RESILIENCY (MASTER) PLAN. Planner Kurtz. 4. SUPPORT FOR THE ESTES VALLEY WATERSHED COALITION WATERSHED RESILIENCY PILOT PROGRAM FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION GRANT APPLICATION. Planner Kurtz. 5. TOWN BOARD POLICY 106 – PUBLIC FORUMS AND MEETINGS. Administrator Lancaster. 4. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. WATER RATE PRESENTATION Director Bergsten. 5. ADJOURN. * TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Frank Lancaster Town Administrator 970.577.3705 flancaster@estes.org MEMORANDUM DATE: March 24th, 2014 TO: Board of Trustees FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS (QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORT POLICY 3.3) Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide information to the Board. Each March I report on the following staff limitations: Policy 3.1 Customer Service Policy 3.2 Treatment of Staff Policy 3.4 Financial Condition and Activities Policy 3.5 Asset Protection Policy 3.6 Emergency Town Administrator Backup and Replacement Policy 3.9 Communication and Support to the Board Policy 3.10 Capital Equipment and Improvements Programming Policy 3.11 General Town Administrator Constraint – Quality of Life This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this date. ________________________ Frank Lancaster Town Administrator 3.1 The quality of life in The Town of Estes Park depends upon the partnership between citizens, elected officials and Town employees. Therefore, within the scope of his/her authority, the Town Administrator shall not fail to ensure high standards regarding the treatment of our citizens. 3.1.1 The Town Administrator shall not fail to encourage the following basic attitudes in employees: 3.1.1.1 The Citizens of The Town of Estes Park deserve the best possible services and facilities given available resources. 3.1.1.2 Prompt action is provided to resolve problems or issues. 3.1.1.3 Attention is paid to detail and quality service is provided that demonstrates a high level of professionalism. 3.1.1.4 Each employee represents excellence in public service. 3.1.1.5 Each employee is “the Town” in the eyes of the public. REPORT: I continue to stress the importance of high standards regarding treatment of our citizens to all staff and leadership. Any citizen’s concerns I become aware of are addressed asap. I am therefore reporting compliance. 3.1.2 The success of Estes Park Town Government depends upon the partnership between citizens, elected officials and Town employees. Accordingly, regarding the treatment of citizens and customers, the Town Administrator shall not: 3.1.2.1 Fail to inform citizens of their rights, including their right to due process. 3.1.2.2 Ignore community opinion on relevant issues or make material decisions affecting the community in the absence of relevant community input. 3.1.2.3 Allow the community to be uninformed (or informed in an untimely basis) about relevant decision making processes and decisions. 3.1.2.4 Be disorganized or unclear with respect to interactions with the community. 3.1.2.5 Ignore problems or issues raised by the community or fail to address them in a timely manner. 3.1.2.6 Allow incompetent, disrespectful or ineffective treatment from Town employees. 3.1.2.7 Unduly breach or disclose confidential information. REPORT: With regard to treatment of citizens and customers, I am unaware of any major failures to comply with any of the requirements of this section. I am therefore reporting compliance. 3.2 With respect to the treatment of paid and volunteer staff, the Town Administrator may not cause or allow conditions which are unsafe, unfair or undignified. Accordingly, pertaining to paid staff within the scope of his/her authority, the administrator shall not: 3.2.1 Operate without written personnel policies that clarify personnel rules for employees. REPORT: The Town has written personnel policies that clarify personnel rules for employees. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.2.2 Fail to acquaint staff with their rights under this policy upon employment. REPORT: New employees are informed of their rights under this policy upon employment. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.2.3 Fail to commit and adhere to the policies of Equal Employment Opportunity and Fair Labor Standards Act. REPORT: The Town adheres to the policies of Equal Employment Opportunity and Fair Labor Standards Act. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.2.4 Fail to make reasonable efforts to provide a safe working environment for employees, volunteers and citizens utilizing Town services REPORT: The Town adheres to the policies of Equal Employment Opportunity and Fair Labor Standards Act. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.2.5 Operate without written volunteer policies that clarify the responsibilities of volunteers and of the Town for all volunteers. REPORT: The Town has adopted volunteer policies. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.4 With respect to the actual, ongoing condition of the Town government’s financial health, the Town Administrator may not cause or allow the development of fiscal jeopardy or loss of budgeting integrity in accordance with Board Objectives. Accordingly, the Town Administrator may not: 3.4.1. Expend more funds than are available. REPORT: We have not expended more funds than are available. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.4.2. Allow the general fund and other ins to decline below twenty-five percent of annual expenditures as of the end of the fiscal year, unless otherwise authorized by the Board. REPORT: The general fund balance at the end of 2014 declined below the 25% level due to impacts from the September 2013 flood. However this decline was discussed with and authorized by the board. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.4.3. Allow cash to drop below the amount needed to settle payroll and debts in a timely manner. REPORT: Available cash has not dropped below the amount needed to settle payroll and debts in a timely manner. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.4.4. Allow payments or filings to be overdue or inaccurately filed. REPORT: All payments and fillings have been made in a timely manner. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.4.5. Engage in any purchases wherein normally prudent protection has not been given against conflict of interest and may not engage in purchasing practices in violation of state law or Town purchasing procedures. REPORT: The Town has not engaged in any purchases wherein normally prudent protection has not been given against conflict of interest nor in purchasing practices in violation of state law or Town purchasing procedures. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.4.6. Use any fund for a purpose other than for which the fund was established. REPORT: I have not used any fund for a purpose other than for which the fund was established. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.5 Within the scope of his/her authority and given available resources, the Town Administrator shall not allow the Town’s assets to be unprotected, inadequately maintained or unnecessarily risked. Accordingly, he or she may not: 3.5.1. Fail to have in place a Risk Management program which insures against property losses and against liability losses to Board members, staff and the Town of Estes Park to the amount legally obligated to pay, or allow the organization to be uninsured: 3.5.1.1 Against theft and casualty losses, 3.5.1.2 Against liability losses to Board members, staff and the town itself in an amount equal to or greater than the average for comparable organizations,. 3.5.1.3 Against employee theft and dishonesty. REPORT: The Town has in place adequate insurance and risk management procedures. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.5.2. Subject plant, facilities and equipment to improper wear and tear or insufficient maintenance (except normal deterioration and financial conditions beyond Town Administrator control). REPORT: The Town owned facilities and equipment have not been subject to improper wear and tear, within the control of the Town Administrator. Current preventive maintenance procedures for facilities are in need of review and revision and is planned to be updated by the new Facilities Director. I am therefore reporting only partial compliance 3.5.3. Receive, process or disburse funds under controls insufficient to meet the Board-appointed auditor’s standards. REPORT: The Town has not received, processed or disbursed funds under controls insufficient to meet the Board-appointed auditor’s standards. . I am therefore reporting compliance 3.5.4. Unnecessarily expose Town government, its Board of Town Trustees or staff to claims of liability. REPORT: The Town Administrator has not unnecessarily exposed Town government, its Board of Town Trustees or staff to claims of liability. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.5.5 Fail to protect intellectual property, information and files from loss or significant damage. REPORT: The Town Administrator has not failed to protect intellectual property, information and files from loss or significant damage. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.5.6 Acquire, encumber, dispose or contract for real property except as expressly permitted in Town policy. REPORT: The Town Administrator has not acquired, encumbered, disposed or contracted for real property except as expressly permitted in Town policy. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.5.7 Allow internal control standards to be less than that necessary to satisfy generally accepted accounting/auditing standards recognizing that the cost of internal control should not exceed the benefits expected to be derived. REPORT: The Town Administrator has not allowed internal control standards to be less than that necessary to satisfy generally accepted accounting/auditing standards I am therefore reporting compliance 3.6 In order to protect the Board from sudden loss of Town Administrator services, the Town Administrator may have no fewer than two (2) other members of the Town management team familiar with Board of Town Trustees and Town Administrator issues and processes. 3.6.1. The Assistant Town Administrator shall act in the capacity of Town Administrator in his/her absence. In the absence of the Town Administrator and Assistant Town Administrator a Town Department Head previously designated by the Town Administrator will act in the capacity of Town Administrator. 3.6.2. The Town Administrator shall provide the necessary training needed to enable successful emergency replacement. REPORT: I have designated two department heads to act in my capacity as Town Administrator should I be unavailable to fulfill my duties. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.9 The Town Administrator shall not permit the Board of Town Trustees to be uninformed or unsupported in its work. Accordingly, he or she may not: 3.9.1 Let the Board of Town Trustees be unaware of relevant trends, anticipated adverse media coverage, material external and internal changes, and particularly changes in the assumptions upon which any Board policy has been previously established. REPORT: Through my weekly updates and individual e-mails, as well as updates at committee and board meetings, I believe I have informed the Board of relevant trends, anticipated adverse media coverage, material external and internal changes, and particularly changes in the assumptions upon which any Board policy has been previously established. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.9.2 Fail to submit monitoring data required by the Board (see policy on Monitoring Town Administrator Performance in Board/Staff Linkage) in a timely, accurate and understandable fashion, directly addressing provisions of Board policies being monitored. REPORT I have submitted my monitoring data reports as required. . I am therefore reporting compliance 3.9.3 Fail to establish a process that brings to the Board of Town Trustees as many staff and external points of view, issues and options as needed for informed Board choices on major policy issues. REPORT Current processes brings to the Board of Town Trustees as many staff and external points of view, issues and options as needed for informed Board choices on major policy issues. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.9.4 Present information in unnecessarily complex or lengthy form. REPORT Information submitted to the Board by staff has not been unnecessarily complex or lengthy. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.9.5 Fail to provide support for official Board of Town Trustees activities or communications. REPORT I believe staff has provided adequate support for official Board of Trustees’ activities and communications. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.9.6 Fail to deal with the Board of Town Trustees as a whole except when fulfilling individual requests for information. REPORT I have not failed to deal with the board as a whole except when fulfilling individual requests for information. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.9.7 Fail to report in a timely manner any actual or anticipated noncompliance with any policy of the Board of Town Trustees. REPORT I have not failed to report in a timely manner any actual or anticipated noncompliance with any policy of the Board of Trustees. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.10 With respect to planning for and reporting on capital equipment and improvements programs, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either operational or fiscal integrity of the organization. Accordingly, he or she may not allow the development of a capital program which: 3.10.1 Deviates materially from the Board of Town Trustees’ stated priorities. REPORT No capital plans nor expenditures have deviated materially from the Board of Trustees’ state priorities. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.10.2 Plans the expenditure in any fiscal period of more funds than are conservatively projected to be available during that period. REPORT There have been no plans nor actual expenditures for more funds than are conservatively projected to be available during the fiscal period. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.10.3 Contains too little detail to enable accurate separation of capital and operational start-up items, cash flow requirements and subsequent audit trail. REPORT Current processes provide adequate detail to enable accurate separation of capital and operational start-up items, cash flow requirements and subsequent audit trail.. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.10.4 Fails to project on-going operating, maintenance, and replacement/perpetuation expenses. REPORT Prior to the flood we had been working on the CAMP and Capital Investment policies, under the direction of the Deputy Town Administrator. This project is not completed and very little work has been done to follow up since the departure of the Deputy Town Administrator. I have reassigned this task to the Finance Director and we will be re-examining the proposed process and plans. We believe these can be clarified and simplified and will be working to bring these before the board at some time in the future, hopefully by the end of the year. Our current major capital planning is not sufficient or adequate. I therefore cannot report compliance. 3.10.5 Fails to provide regular reporting on the status of the budget and on the progress of each active project, including data such as changes and the financial status of each project, including expenditures to date. REPORT Staff has provided regular reporting on the status of the budget and on the progress of each active project, including data such as changes and the financial status of each project, including expenditures to date. I am therefore reporting compliance 3.11 With respect to Town government's quality of life for the community, the Town Administrator shall not fail to plan for implementing policies of the Board regarding economic health, environmental responsibility, and community interests. REPORT With respect to Town government's quality of life for the community, I have continued to plan for implementing policies of the Board regarding economic health, environmental responsibility, and community interests, as directed by the Board of Trustees. I am therefore reporting compliance Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 10, 2015 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 March 2015. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees John Ericson Bob Holcomb Ward Nelson Ron Norris John Phipps Also Present: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Greg White, Town Attorney Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PROCLAMATION: Mayor Pinkham presented the Newcomers Club with a Proclamation honoring their 50th anniversary. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Tony Schetzsle/Town citizen stated a group of citizens conducted a survey of the Scott pond to determine an estimated volume of water. The information was provided to Public Works. Two dozen letters of support would be submitted for the grant application being prepared by Community Development for flood recovery efforts that include the Scott pond area. TRUSTEE COMMENTS. Trustee Norris stated the Visit Estes Park Board would discuss Destination Product Marketing at their next meeting. Trustee Holcomb commented the next Parks Advisory Board would meet on March 20, 2015 to review the Arts in Public Places policy. He thanked the snowplow drivers who make sure the citizens of the Town are able to drive safely. Trustee Nelson stated the Open Lands Advisory Board adopted the Open Lands Master Plan, final review of the Meiniger Trail easement acquisition, and final review of the grant access easement acquisition for Lions Park Open Space. The Board continues to work on purchase additional properties and develop a program to increase the management of the lands owned by Larimer County Open Lands. Trustee Ericson encouraged the Board to review the Community Services annual report presented at the last Community Development/Community Services Committee. The Transportation Advisory Board would meet March 18, 2015 at noon in Room 202/203. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. January sales tax was up 13.2% over 2014 without the new 1% sales tax. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated February 24, 2015 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated February 24, 2015. Board of Trustees – March 10, 2015 – Page 2 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: a. Community Development/Community Services Committee. February 26, 2015. 1. Wine Festival, Relay for Life Walk, and Duck Festival in Bond Park. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated February 3, 2015 (acknowledgement only). 5. Resolution #08-15 - Setting the public hearing date of March 24, 2015, for a new Tavern Liquor License for The Barrel, LLC, 112-120 E. Elkhorn Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517. 6. Estes Valley Board of Appeals Bylaws. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Nelson) to approve the Consent Agenda, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Outside Entities) 1. LARIMER COUNTY LONG TERM RECOVERY GROUP. Chris Moody and Laura Levy provided an update on the recovery efforts in the county and the Estes valley. They expressed a lot has been accomplished; however, there are many individuals still in need of assistance. The offices in Estes Park and Loveland provide assistance through case management, volunteer labor and unmet financial needs. Over 70 projects would be completed in 2015. The group has raised over $1 million in funds between partnering agencies and grant funds. CDBG-DR funds are available for individual assistance programs through the Loveland Housing Authority. Volunteer assistance has amounted to 3100 volunteers since the flood to complete projects. The group held a recovery expo in 2014 to help individuals understand the resources available and to provide answers to flood recovery questions. A Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster group continues to be formed to be prepared in the event of another disaster. This fall several grants would be expended, leaving a number of individuals without a job; therefore, the group has been discussing how to keep key roles in place once the grants end. The recovery effort stands at approximately 50% to date with over 348 substantially damaged structures and 43 homes lost. A number of the structures are owned by second homeowners that are not covered by most programs. They estimate 80% recovery would be reached in five years. Mayor Pinkham thanked everyone involved with the recovery efforts. 3. LIQUOR ITEMS: 1. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP – FROM EVEREST KITCHEN, LLC DBA FAMOUS EASTSIDE GROCERIES, TO SHAMBALA, INC., DBA FAMOUS EASTSIDE GROCERIES, 381 S. ST. VRAIN AVENUE, 3.2% OFF PREMISES LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson presented the application to transfer the current 3.2% Beer Off Premise liquor license. All required paperwork and fees were submitted and a temporary was issued on January 20, 2015. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Ericson) to approve the transfer from Everest Kitchen, LLC dba Famous Eastside Groceries, to Shambala, Inc. dba Famous Eastside Groceries, 381 S. St. Vrain Avenue, 3.2% Beer Off Premise Liquor License, and it passed unanimously. 2. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP – FROM TWO DOLPHINS, INC., DBA GRUBSTEAK RESTAURANT, TO VISTA AZUL, INC., DBA GRUBSTEAK RESTAURANT, 134 W. ELKHORN AVENUE, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT Board of Trustees – March 10, 2015 – Page 3 LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson presented the application to transfer the current Hotel & Restaurant license. All required paperwork and fees were submitted and a temporary was issued on February 3, 2015. The new owner Matt Garcia stated he and three key employees have completed TIPS training. It was moved and second (Holcomb/Ericson) to approve the transfer from Two Dolphins, Inc., dba Grubsteak Restaurant, to Vista Azul, Inc., dba Grubsteak Restaurant, 134 W. Elkhorn Avenue, Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License, and it passed unanimously. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENTS. Board members Kimberly Campbell, Cory LaBianca and Gregg Rounds terms expire on March 31, 2015. Administrative Services advertised for the positions on the Board and received three applications from the incumbents. Staff reviewed the status of the applications with the Board at the Town Board Study Session on February 24, 2015 and the Board recommended foregoing interviews for the positions. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Phipps) to approve the reappointment of Kimberly Campbell, Cory LaBianca and Gregg Rounds to the Transportation Advisory Board each for a three year term expiring on March 31, 2018, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk ` Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado March 10, 2015 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 March, 2015. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson, Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps Attending: All Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Finance Officer McFarland and Town Clerk Williamson Absent: Town Administrator Lancaster Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. Trustee Norris congratulated the Police department on their annual awards recognition banquet. Friends of the Estes Valley Community Center held a meeting where Executive Director Rorabaugh provided the same presentation given to the Town Board on February 24, 2015. Dr. Marie Richardson/School Board President stated concern on the scaled down center and limited size of facilities for the youth. The School Board would request EVRPD be aggressive with the fundraising and add an additional gym. Mayor Pinkham suggested the Board forward questions related to packet material to Town Administrator Lancaster to discuss with the staff and bring forward additional information to the full Board at the study session. This would ensure all Board members would receive the same information. Mayor Pinkham reminded the Board to utilize the Town email when conducting Town business. Use of a personal email account does not protect a Board member from turning over emails in an open records request. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. The Executive Session discussion scheduled on March 24th would be moved to the April 14th study session. REVIEW DRAFT POLICY ON PUBLIC FORUMS. The draft policy would provide staff with direction for holding public outreach through public meetings and/or forums on public issues. It would ensure staff and the Board are in agreement on the need for a forum; avoid staff holding policy discussions with the public without Board awareness; and would clarify what constitutes a public forum necessitating Board approval. Trustee Norris requested the policy allow the Town Administrator to poll the Board and receive approval to hold a public forum. Trustee Nelson supports the policy as long as it does not limit staff on getting public input on a topic. The policy would be amended and considered at the next Town Board meeting on March 24, 2015. PROPOSED WATER RATES. Utilities Director Bergsten and Cil Pierce/HDR Senior Project Manager & Financial Analyst provided a review of the water rate study. An increase in rates is due to a .5% growth in sales, an increase in O&M expenditures of 3%, and a need to add staffing to complete pipe replacement projects, maintenance and regulatory compliance. The rate study focused on water line replacement program and did not address the deferred cost Town Board Study Session – March 10, 2015 – Page 2 for treatment projects of approximately $11 million. The rate adjustments would build capacity to fund projects, finance larger projects in the next four to five years, and ensure the fund grows at an efficient rate to address maintenance and provide high quality and reliable services. With current water rates the department would not have adequate funds to fully fund operating and capital expenses as projected, and could not meet debit service ratios for a future loan. The Water financial plan estimates the rate adjustments needed to meet the funding outlined in the study would be 9.9% for each year 2015-2017 and 8% for 2018. Three rate options were reviewed including: Option 1 – Implementing AWWA meter equivalencies over a three year period; Option 2 – Maintain existing rate structure and apply the necessary rate adjustments; and Option 3 – Option 1 but levelized across the years. Option 3 would provide a transition toward cost of service results over the three year rate setting period through meter equivalency levelizing revenue adjustments each year; increases meter (fixed) charge revenue from large commercial meter customers; adding rate schedule for future meters 6” and larger; and increase revenue stability. A customer’s individual bill would increase based on their customer class, size of the service meter and the amount of water used. The fixed charges would be covered by the fixed cost and those that do not use water would see a higher percentage cost as they do not have a volumetric cost to dilute the fixed cost increases. Those with larger meters/larger service lines would see a larger increase such as the Park R-3 School District with an approximate increase of 34% in 2015, 28% in 2016 and 22% in 2017. The schools do not operate year around which means there fixed costs are not diluted by the volumetric usage during the summer months. The average residential customer bill would increase $3.75/month each year, commercial bill would increase by $6.40/month per year, pump flow customer class would increase $4.05, bulk water increase by $83.90 per year, and low-income residential monthly increase of $3.10 per year. Staff would present the water rate study as a report at the March 24, 2015 Town Board meeting, possible adoption of the rates at the April 28, 2015 Town Board meeting, and implementation of the new rates on June 1, 2015. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 12, 2015 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY/UTILITIES/PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Board Room of Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of March, 2015. Committee: Chair Norris, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Nelson Attending: All Also Attending: Finance Officer McFarland, Police Chief Kufeld, Director Bergsten, Superintendent Boles and Lockhart, Senior Planner Shirk, Public Information Officer Rusch, Operations Manager McEachern and Recording Secretary Limmiatis Absent: Town Administrator Lancaster Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 8:09 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. PUBLIC SAFETY. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Chief Kufeld thanked the Committee for attending the Awards Banquet and introduced the new Restorative Justice Coordinator Denise Lord. UTILITIES. WATER LABORATORY. Superintendent Boles presented the proposed Water Shop remodeling to provide a certified laboratory. In 2014, Thorp & Associates was hired to design the laboratory and oversee the bid and construction processes for the project. One bid was received from Kinley Built. He discussed the bid with Thorp & Associates, who stated 35% of the total cost was for equipment and the remainder was consistent with current remodel costs. The project is a budgeted item from 503-7000-580.32-22. The Committee recommended awarding the contract to Kinley Built for a certified laboratory be included as a Consent Item at the March 24, 2015 Town Board meeting. LIGHT & POWER WIRE PULLER. Superintendent Lockhart showed a video of the equipment which would be replaced with the purchase of a wire puller. The current equipment was made in-house using a small utility trailer, rope and an oversized wire reel, which can make work time consuming and dangerous. The Sherman Reilly four-drum overhead wire puller would eliminate customer power interruptions, increase efficiency and safety for staff. The equipment is budgeted from 502-6501-560.25-06, but would need to transfer $10,895 from 502-7001-580.35-55 to cover the full cost of $140,895. The Committee recommended accepting the bid from Sherman Reilly for the purchase of the four-drum wire puller be included as a Consent Item at the March 24, 2015 Town Board meeting. VACATION OF RUSCH UTILITIES EASEMENT- LOT 1, THOMPSON’S PINEWOOD ACRES RESUBDIVION. Planner Shirk described the situation in which the owners of 610 Pinewood Lane would like to install a small shed on the property, but need to have the utility easement vacated to place the shed in the optimal location. All utility providers have determined that utilities exist and there would be no future need for the easement. Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – March 12, 2015 – Page 2 The Committee recommended the approval of the proposed ordinance vacating a 10-foot wide utility easement on Lot 1, Thompson’s Pinewood Acres Resubdivision be included as an Action Item at the March 24, 2015 Town Board meeting. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Director Bergsten updated the Committee on the Smart Meter pilot project, the delay of back up generation at the Light & Power and Water Shops, and introduced the new Flood Recovery Project Manager Linda Swoboda. Public Information Officer Rusch presented the Rate Study website, which provides background information, HDR’s presentation to the Town Board, Director Bergsten’s column, a news release regarding the process and timeline of the study, and the dates the public can participate. PUBLIC WORKS. REALLOCATION OF FUNDS BUDGETED FOR LIFT (CAPITAL ITEM) IN FLEET FUND. Manager McEachern presented the reallocation of funds budgeted for a lift in the Fleet Division be used to purchase two storage containers. Fleet Supervisor Nelson negotiated a trade of existing independent lifts not in use at the Fleet Shop for a new modern lift, providing a safer work environment. Staff discussed the needs of the Fleet Division and decided storage for specialized parts and equipment would greatly improve the functionality of the Fleet shop. The Committee recommended the reallocation of funds budgeted for a vehicle lift (Capital Item, $20,000) in the Fleet Fund as a Consent Item at the March 24, 2015 Town Board Meeting. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Director Muhonen provided an update on the Transportation Hub, the Downtown Estes Loop, the Dry Gulch road improvement project, flood repair work on Spruce Drive, the Fish Creek Design, Scott Ponds design and grant application, the status of the Facilities Manager hiring process, and removal of the ice rink. There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 8:50 a.m. Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary CONSENT AGENDA: 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee, March 12, 2015. 2. Sherman Reilly four-drum wire puller - $140,895 – Budgeted. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 25th, 2015 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Committee 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 25th day of February, 2015. Present: Kimberly Campbell Ann Finley Stan Black Cory LaBianca Gregg Rounds Thom Widawski Belle Morris Amy Hamrick Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works Kevin Ash, Public Works Civil Engineer Jen Imber, Public Works Administrative Assistant Sandy Osterman, Shuttle Committee Representative John Ericson, Town Board Liaison Absent: Bryon Holmes Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:02 p.m. GENERAL DISCUSSION The public in attendance declined to comment. Chair Campbell updated on a new meeting process she and Director Muhonen discussed. Moving forward, the board will tackle one major topic per meeting. An hour to an hour and a half will be devoted to the main topic, with the intention of other agenda items being informative and not lingering on these smaller items. The main focus for the March TAB meeting will be on parking. Chair Campbell asked members to prepare by reading the Estes Park Transit & Parking Study from December 2013 and also to research how other communities have creatively dealt with parking issues. Approval of January minutes was postponed to allow for additional review time. Cory LaBianca, Gregg Rounds and Kimberly Campbell have expiring terms on March 31st, 2015. All three members reapplied for their positions. Trustee Ericson reported Transportation Advisory Committee – February 25th, 2015 – Page 2 since these were the only three applications received, no intervie ws will be held and reappointment of the incumbents would occur at the March 10th Town Board meeting. Sandy Osterman gave a brief update on Shuttle Committee items. Full shuttle service for 2015 commences on June 27th and ends September 13th. Additional shuttles will run on weekends outside of the regular schedule when special events occur in town. STAFF UPDATES ON TOWN PROJECTS Director Muhonen reported the Downtown Estes Loop TAC will present results of the screening process and evaluation of options to the Trustees at the March 18th Study Session. A public meeting will be held on March 25th on same topic and Town Board will vote to proceed on one option at the April 14th Town Board meeting. TAB members were encouraged to attend both the Study Session and participate in the public meeting. A special TAB meeting will also be held on March 31st to formulate a Downtown Estes Loop route selection recommendation to the Trustees, to be presented at the April 14th Town Board meeting. Utility repair on Fish Creek is under construction and scheduled to be done by June 2015, at which time temporary culverts will be installed at Brody and Fish Creek to open intersections for school buses. Permanent construction won’t begin until 2016. Kevin Ash updated on the Dry Gulch project. The consultant has done survey work and drilled existing pavement to understand recent failures. The project is currently facing challenges with right of way acquisition for the detached trail through Sombrero Ranch property, so the everything must be constructed within the Town’s current right of way. Design alternatives will be presented to TAB for evaluation and comment, bid docs will go out the beginning of May. NEW MEMBER ORIENTATION Cory LaBianca and Amy Hamrick researched effective ways of introducing new members to TAB and catching them up on processes and information. Upon approval of a new board member, they suggested the following orientation process: 1. Assign a current member Mentor to the new board member. The Mentor would be the new board member’s go-to person for questions, concerns, and a greater understanding of how the board works. The Mentor would also participate in the new member Orientation. Transportation Advisory Committee – February 25th, 2015 – Page 3 2. New Member Orientation- A 1 hour meeting with the new member, the Mentor, and the President to give the new member a general layout and understanding of the current and future goals and projects of the board. a. Provide hard copy of the following documents: Current By-Laws; List of Members; Meeting Schedule; and Working Document of our Goals and Projects. b. Share an outline of the Transportation Visioning Report (while a little outdated, it provides a good background of the board’s development and initial purpose) and provide access to the digital link or file. c. Address and questions or concerns of the new member. 3. First Meeting- a quick introduction from each board member and from the new board member (name, business or resident in town, and what brought you to the TAB.) Members will review this process and vote for adoption at the March meeting. RMNP/CDOT SIGNAGE UPDATES Director Muhonen is working with CDOT to update a number of highway signs around town. Current signs and CDOT suggestions for change were presented to TAB for comment. TAB was in agreement that CDOT is currently using signs for dual purposes, to identify highways as well as giving directions to RMNP and that the signs are trying to communicate too much. It was expressed that consistency with signs and messages is very important. White on green should be used to identify highways and the downtown area, while white on brown be used for all signage identifying the national park. TAB advocated identifying the downtown area on the signage, but changing the language from “business district” to “downtown Estes Park”. Improved signage for the Visitor Center/ RMNP info center was identified as a future agenda item. RECOMMENDATION TO TRUSTEES REGARDING TRANSIT HUB PARKING STRUCTURE Director Muhonen provided a matrix three north-side options and one south-side option for the parking structure. The matrix highlighted the pros and cons of each option. The board immediately ruled out two the first two north -side options due to budgetary and design concerns. The third north-side option was favorable, with Options 3B and 3C in Transportation Advisory Committee – February 25th, 2015 – Page 4 the matrix preferable, but the overall favorite of the board was the smaller So uth Site option. Members asked how Town would accomplish a “second phase” of the project if a smaller structure was built with additional levels to be added in the future. Director Muhonen stated that additional funds would be needed and another grant request would be submitted to add one or two more levels onto the structure built in Phase 1. Trustees expressed a desire for an option that can be built now using existing grant money. Consensus was to walk away from the money if the project can’t be done in the most effective way possible, with the structure built on the South Site. Director Muhonen reminded the board that 500 spots are needed and even a less-favorable version of this project would provide a portion of those needed spaces. A vote was taken by the board, with five (5) members voting in favor of returning the grant money if the South Site option was not selected and three (3) members voting in favor of continuing the project and spending the grant money on a smaller structure on either the north or the south side of the river. With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 2:10 p.m. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 20th, 2015 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall Room 100, Engineering Conference Room, in said Town of Estes Park on the 20th day of February, 2015. Present: Dewain Lockwood Merle Moore Ronna Boles Celine Lebeau Terry Rustin (by phone) Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works Jen Imber, Public Works Administrative Assistant Bob Holcomb, Town Board Trustee Patricia Greenberg, Cultural Arts Council Absent: Chris Reed Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. GENERAL BUSINESS It was moved and seconded (Lockwood/Boles) to approve the January 15th meeting minutes and the motion passed unanimously. Floyd Wright and Connie Dedon from the Estes Valley Community Garden gave a presentation on the community garden concept for the Estes Valley. A brief history of community gardens in the United States, as well as the benefits such a project could have for the community, were outlined. A map of the proposed location and blueprint sketch was provided to the board. Mr. Wright also spoke of the financial needs of the project, fundraising efforts and grants received. Education and outreach is a key component of the project. More info can be found at EVCG.org. Past Tree Board budget money was funded by the $2 per capita required by Tree City USA standards. That money is allocated in the budget for tree maintenance, care and new plantings. It must be spent on trees or education about trees and is not budget money for the PAB. Currently, PAB does not have a budget but that may be modified in the future to provide for public art and maintenance. PROPOSAL TO RECONSTRUCT LIBRARY’S STORY TIME AREA The library is interested in reconstructing the story time area to make it a more usable space for story time instead of the public space it is currently classified as now. The project would require the blessing of the Rotary Club, who constructed the space as it currently stands. Parks Advisory Board – February 20th, 2015 – Page 2 ARBOR DAY 2015 Chair Lebeau is currently struggling with finding a suitable date for all parties involved with the elementary celebration. May 15th is the proposed date, but Celine is waiting to hear from a couple of key people to be sure they can attend. PUBLIC ART POLICY AND ORDINANCE Merle Moore and Terry Rustin distributed updated drafts for review prior to the meeting. They opened the floor for questions and comments for the group. Brian Berg had a couple of comments on items for consistency. He also questioned the monetary impact of the Cultural Arts Council’s expenses and compensation with record keeping, maintenance of art and new purchases. Naming the company or non-profit in the policy can create issues with the Town’s purchase policy; a generic term should be used in place of specific entities within the policy. PAB will award the contract for those services on a determined frequency. A document in the appendix could outline guidelines and qualifications for curatorial. Trustee Holcomb recommended presenting the draft policy to the Town Board by June so supplemental budget money can be requested in August or September. Due to Merle’s absence in June, the board is shooting to appear at a Town Board Study Session on May 12th and to the Town Board meeting as an action item on May 26th. PAB will continue review of the Art Policy in March. With no other business to discuss, a motion was made (Lockwood/Boles) to adjourn the meeting at 12:04 pm, with all voting in favor. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes, Russ Schneider and one vacant position Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Hills, Klink, Murphree, and Schneider Also Attending: Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner Dave Shirk, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Commissioner Sykes, County Liaison Michael Whitley Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were nine people in attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. A quorum was in attendance. 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 None 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes, January 6, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Klink) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 5-0 with one absent and one vacancy. 3. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014-04, AT&T MONOPOLE, 1435 Prospect Mountain Drive Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant proposes to install a 100-foot telecommunications monopole to allow antenna additions, new technology and greater cell phone coverage in the Estes Valley. New antennas would provide additional data capacity. The tower would allow two future carriers to co-locate on the tower, helping minimize the overall number of structures on Prospect Mountain. The site is where approximately twelve existing antennas are already located. In summer of 2014, Staff approved a 70-foot tall monopine in approximately the same location as the proposed 100-foot tower. In the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), towers are not allowed. A monopine simulates a pine tree and does a good job of concealing the antenna. It was determined by staff that a 100-foot monopine would be more visible than a monopole of the same height. Officials at Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) agreed with staff. The applicant submitted a photo simulation, which was included in the meeting materials and posted on the Town website. Planner Shirk explained there would be very few changes around the perimeter due to the mountains, but coverage would improve near the base of Prospect Mountain. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Shirk stated a special review requires the application mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. The application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. No comments were received from adjacent property owners. Planner Shirk stated one of the potential adverse impacts could be a view disruption, and he has been discussing the issue with the officials at RMNP to determine their preferences. A historic resources survey completed, which found no historical or archaeological resources would be affected. Comments provided by the Fire Marshall can be addressed in the building permit process. The Larimer County Commercial Radio Mobile Service regulations are adopted by reference in the EVDC, and states the most preferred alternatives must be used. He briefly reviewed all the criteria used for preferred alternatives. He stated the proposed tower would hold three carriers, eliminating the need for additional towers, and would be camouflaged in a manner appropriate to the site’s context and surrounding environment. He stated the tower must be painted or coated in a color that blends with surrounding buildings and the natural environment. Staff recommends the tower be painted a dark green color to help minimize visual impact. The applicant proposes to leave it unpainted. This issue will need to be discussed by the Planning Commissioners. Planner Shirk stated the applicant will need to comply with all required FCC regulations concerning cell towers. Staff Findings 1. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to the County Commission for the proposed Special Review application. 2. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. 3. The proposed tower will allow for future antennas to co-locate and help minimize the total number of towers on Prospect Mountain. 4. The proposed monopole satisfies the purpose and intent of a concealed antenna. Staff recommended approval of the Special Review application, with conditions of approval listed below. Staff and Commission Discussion There was brief discussion concerning the spacing requirement in the Larimer County Land Use Code. Staff determined putting the tower close to others would reduce the visual impact. The applicant will need to comply with FCC regulations concerning interference. Public Comment Rick Holpp/applicant and consultant for AT&T Wireless, stated he preferred a dull galvanized color and thinks it would be less visible than dark green. Galvanized metal is dull and non- reflective. Commissioner Schneider suggested the applicant revise the document that states the tower would not be seen from the Stanley Hotel. It was his opinion that it would be seen from that location. Mr. Holpp stated the FAA would not require this tower to be lit. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Alan Fraundorf/Town IT Manager suggested receiving a positive response from the FCC to ensure this proposed tower would not have any effect on the existing towers that are already there (emergency services, etc.). He recommended receiving written approval from the FCC that there would be no impacts to existing antennas. Mr. Holpp stated the FCC regulates the existing frequencies to ensure to interference, and the proposed tower must comply with those regulations. Frank Theis/town resident was concerned the FAA would require a light on top after the project was approved. Planner Shirk stated the application could be continued to allow time to receive confirmation concerning lighting and interference. Commissioner Klink made a motion to continue the application until a written response is received by the FCC and the FAA concerning compliance with their regulations, including but not limited to affirmation that no lighting is required, and there will be no interference with other frequencies. The motion failed to receive a second and died. Town Attorney White stated the FCC and FAA are Federal agencies, and they may not provide letters, or any other communication, especially within 30 days. He suggested requesting information from the applicant concerning those issues. Rick Holpp stated the height limit for requiring lighting of an antenna is 200 feet, and the proposed tower is 100 feet. He stated AT&T is operating a tower now on top of Prospect Mountain with no interference. He assured the Commission of compliance with all rules and regulations. He stated interference is measureable and it is the job of the radio frequency engineers to make it all work. He requested to not continue the application, as the development window is short and time is of the essence. Planner Shirk suggested adding a condition of approval to have the information prior to the County Commission meeting, which is the decision- making body. There was further discussion concerning the final color of the structure, and Mr. Holpp stated the galvanized color is very dull, and would not be very reflective. He encouraged the Commission to allow the galvanized color rather than dark green. Following that discussion, Commissioner Klink withdrew his motion to continue. Conditions of Approval 1. Prior to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioner’s hearing, applicant shall provide letter from a radio frequency engineer verifying that the proposed tower would not interfere with existing structures/antennas, and a written explanation from the applicant referencing the specific FAA regulation concerning the lighting of towers. 2. Tower, antennas, and appurtenant structures and equipment shall be galvanized to minimize reflected light; final color shall be subject to review and approval by Community Development staff. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3. Shall comply with Larimer County Land Use Code Section 16 “Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CRMS) Facilities”, including requirement to allow additional carriers to co-locate and requirement to remove abandoned towers. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to recommend approval of Special Review 2014-04, as described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. 4. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014-05, BACKBONE ADVENTURES, 1851 North Lake Avenue Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The application requests approval to operate a scooter, motorcycle, and jeep rental business at 1851 North Lake Avenue. The applicant is Kenneth Hitch, and the owner of the proposed location is Vansteenburgh Engineering Laboratory, Inc. The applicant desires to expand into the southern building on North Lake Avenue. The business, Backbone Adventure Rentals, is currently operating out of a building adjacent to Coyote Mountain Lodge atr 1360 Big Thompson Avenue. Planner Kleisler stated adjacent lots at the proposed location are zoned for Accommodations, Commercial and Residential uses. Sombrero Horse Stables are across Dry Gulch Road to the east, and they use the area immediately to the east of the subject building for overflow parking. The Lot in question is zoned CO–Commercial Outlying. Planner Kleisler stated the business is classified as Vehicle/Equipment Sales and Rentals, and is permitted by Special Review in the CO–Commercial Outlying zone district. Special Review requires applicants mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. The Planning Commission is the recommending body, with the Town Board making the final decision. This project is on the Town Board agenda for the February 24, 2015 meeting. Affected agencies and adjacent property owners were notified, and a legal notice was published in the local newspaper. Staff received one comment from a neighbor adjacent to the existing location, stating the issues he had with scooters going down his street, running stop signs, using horns. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant requested minor modifications to three sections in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC): Section 5.1.R.2, which state the “Front yard setback areas shall be landscaped to provide a buffer between the right-of-way.” Given the existing building location to the property line and right-of-way, there is no space for this landscaping. Staff supports the request given the site constraints would force any landscaping on to the public right-of-way. The second minor modification request is to Section 7.5.G.3.C.1, which requires that one tree be included in each landscaped island. Staff supports the plan to not include a tree in the proposed island because it would interfere with the existing tree and would create site visibility issues near the intersection. Planner Kleisler stated irrigating the proposed island would be difficult, and there is also an existing overhead power line nearby. Planner Kleisler stated staff had some concerns about parking and vehicle circulation. A shared parking agreement with Sombrero Stables for the area to the east of the project would help with parking and circulation. The area directly in front of the garage doors would be used for parking, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall with wheel stops installed for safety. The existing awning is in public right-of-way, and the applicant is aware it needs to be removed. The building is very close to the southern property line, meaning parking and landscaping will not be feasible there. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant has requested a minor modification to the minimum parking requirement. A total of nine spaces are required for the proposed use. The initial request was for eight spaces; however, one of those (the ADA space) would have been located in the right-of-way. Therefore, staff supports allowing the applicant to have seven spaces in order to be keep the accessible space out of the right-of-way. Planner Kleisler stated staff requested the applicant to address issues such as noise, hours of operation, and routing details. The applicant submitted documents outlining peak months (March – October) and hours (8 a.m. – 6 p.m., seven days a week). During off peak months, hours would be 9 a.m. – 5 p.m., seven days a week. The applicant has indicated he would install noise reducers on both the scooters and motorcycles, when possible. Planner Kleisler stated all vehicle storage would be inside the building, or screened to comply with the EVDC. At staff’s request, the applicant provided a very specific (and EVDC compliant) area where rental vehicles would be parked. Staff Findings 1. The Special Review application complies with EVDC Section 3.5 Standards for Review, provided that the application is revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval by staff and affected agencies. 2. Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit or commence operation with regard to the special review use approval within three (3) years of the approval shall automatically render the decision null and void. Additionally, if the legally established special review use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive years or more, then the decision originally approved such special review shall automatically lapse and render the decision null and void. 3. The requested Minor Modification to Section 4.4.C.4 Density and Dimensional Standards, regarding the existing structure’s awning that protrudes into the public right-of-way, does not advance the goals and purposes of thie Code nor relieves practical difficulties in developing the site; 4. The requested Minor Modification to landscaping and buffering requirements, as described in the staff report, relieves practical difficulties in developing the site; 5. The requested Minor Modification to minimum parking requirements, as described in the staff report, relieves practical difficulties in developing the site; and 6. This is a recommendation to the Estes Park Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees is the Decision-making Body for the proposed Special Review application. Staff recommended approval with conditions, listed below. Staff and Commission Discussion RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Town Attorney White commented the existing business near Coyote Mountain Lodge is legally nonconforming. If the number of vehicles increased, it would constitute an increase in the nonconforming use, which would be a code violation and could require the use to be abandoned. He stated the Planning Commissioners could decide if there should be a maximum number of vehicles at the proposed site. Commissioner comments included: the number of rental vehicles should be relative to the number of parking spaces, care should be taken to ensure no one parked in the right-of-way, concern that customers/employees of Sombrero Stables would encroach onto their property; if the applicant wanted to add more paved parking, they would need to meet the impervious coverage standards. Planner Kleisler stated an additional condition of approval could be added if the Commission decided additional signage for no parking areas would be beneficial. Public Comment Jes Reetz/Applicant representative stated applicant’s desire was to mitigate impacts as best as possible with the limitations on the property. Because there is no parking in the front of the building, they tried to maximize the parking in other areas on the lot. North Lake Avenue can be used by customers to get a feel of the vehicles, and the landscaping at the back will buffer the business from the residential properties. A landscaped area on the east corner will help delineate the entryway, and the applicant hopes to use that area as a display for rental vehicles. Large portable planters are planned for the south side to discourage customers from parking there, and would be moveable for Town work in the right-of-way. The south side would not be used as a display area. Kenneth Hitch/business owner stated they now have 6 Jeeps, 4 motorcycles, and are proposing to bring over some scooters from the other location. He stated there would be approximately 15 total vehicles, most to be stored indoors. Due to the tight parking issue, there may be times when a customer will be asked to park their personal vehicle off-site. A Shared Maintenance Agreement with Sombrero Stables will allow communication between the two business owners concerning the area east of the proposed site. Mr. Hitch stated the existing trailer on the site belongs to the property owner. If it was moved, it would not open up any additional parking spaces. Public Comment Todd Jirsa/Town resident was concerned about the scooters at the current location. His concerns included: concern about mitigating to the maximum extent feasible; disagreement with the “Routing Past Issues” letter from the applicant; believes there are two separate businesses being run off of one business license; concerned with scooter drivers not following traffic laws. He showed video of scooters on Lakefront Street to support his concerns. Mr. Jirsa and Steve Lamar (scooter business owner) attempted a mediation without success. He understood the public has the right to use the road, but asked the Commissioners to decide if the issues have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Staff and Commissioner comments included, but were not limited to: If number of vehicles being rented is a concern, the Commission can discuss limiting it; is the problem being transferred to another location; does the Police Department have the ability to enforce the laws; law enforcement is not a land use issue; you cannot regulate tourists having fun, and tourism is our main industry; putting limits on the number of rentals is like telling Sombrero Ranch they can only have a certain number of horses; the proposed location is more commercial; model traffic code violations are administered by the Police Department; noise baffling devices on all vehicles could be a condition of approval (if they are made for scooters). Planner Kleisler stated this was the first Special Review application of this type for the EVDC area. Town Attorney White stated the traffic may be an issue, but it is an issue with every business. All businesses have an impact on vehicle traffic, and limiting the use on public roads would be a problem. Conditions of Approval 1. Revise the site plan to note that the Jeep display area to the west of the building as “Possible future Jeep display location. This Jeep display requires a setback variance from the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment”; 2. Amend the site plan to reflect the following: a. Any additional proposed outdoor display area(s); b. Add a note stating that vehicle display shall only take place on the subject’s property in designated areas; 3. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated January 13, 2015; and b. Town of Estes Park Community Development memo dated January 23, 2015; and c. Town of Estes Park Public Works memo dated January 30, 2015 4. The following shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; a. All site improvements shall be installed or guaranteed; b. Review and approval of the existing septic system by the Larimer County Health Department; and c. Written letter shall be submitted to the Community Development Department stating; (i). The exact number of rentals that will remain at current business location of 1360 Big Thompson Avenue. The number of vehicles shall not exceed current land use approval for the property. (ii). Acknowledgement that any increase in the number of vehicles at 1360 Big Thompson Avenue after that point will constitute an increase in the non-conforming use and consequently, the use shall be abandoned 5. Recordation of the proposed Share Maintenance Agreement prior to issuance of building permit or change of use permit; and 6. Should the Shared Maintenance Agreement be revoked, the Applicant shall provide adequate parking and access to the site. It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to recommend approval of Special Review 2014- 05, Backbone Adventure Rentals to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, MARYS LAKE SUBDIVISION REPLAT, TBD Kiowa Court Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant for this amended development agreement is Marys Lake Development, Inc., and consultant is CMS Planning and Development (Frank Theis). The applicant proposes to amend a 2005 Development Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Marys Meadow Development Inc. to allow a single-family dwelling on Lot 7. This lot is located up the hill to the south of Marys Lake Lodge, is very steep, and several acres in size. James Tawney was the property owner in 2005, and intended to place a conservation easement on Lot 7. However, the Estes Valley Land Trust refused to accept the lot into a conservation easement. The current agreement states that “Lot 7 cannot be developed as a single-family lot unless the plat and development agreements are amended.” The applicant is proposing to not amend the plat, but instead amend the development agreement requirement to amend the plat. There would be several exhibits attached to the amended development agreement that would outline the lot, show a building envelope, and also include a site specific survey that details the slope. Planner Shirk stated the Development Agreement Amendment, if approved, would be recorded and show up during a title search. This is a way to alert potential buyers of specific requirements for that lot. Planner Shirk stated staff reviewed the application according to the EVDC zoning standards. Affected agencies and adjacent property owners (500 foot radius) were notified, and a legal notice was published in the local newspaper. No providers expressed concern about the proposed amendment to allow a single-family residence. As of February 10th, no comments were received from adjacent property owners. Town Attorney White provided a list of recommended revisions to the agreement, which are included as suggested conditions of approval. Planner Shirk stated Lot 7 was originally not intended for development due to the steepness of the lot. The original intent was open space. Because Lot 7 was not contemplated for development, it was not reviewed for compliance with the following development standards: Sanitary Sewer Systems, Development Restrictions on Steep Slopes, Grading and Site Disturbance, Limits of Disturbance, Geologic and Wildlife Hazard Areas, Sewage Disposal, Fire Protection, Drainage, Water, Electricity, and General Site Access. However, it is Attorney White’s legal opinion that the Town must allow at least one unit on the lot to avoid this being considered a taking of property rights. Planner Shirk stated, if approved, the lot could be developed with a single-family dwelling, subject to compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. While the preferred access is from the south, there are no easements in place to allow for that access. The applicant is requesting allowance of a septic system instead of connecting to the public sewer. According to the Larimer County Health Department, the criteria for a septic system have been met. Planner Shirk stated the least steep slope on this lot is 35%; any lots with a slope greater than 30% require staff review and approval of a development plan. Staff would review any proposed dwelling for design, placement, and driveway placement. Wildfire mitigation would be required, as well as an engineered driveway to ensure proper drainage and erosion control. As the intent of the applicant is to sell the lot, recording all documents would make potential purchasers aware of the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall requirement of a development plan application and review process, which is not typical for a single-family dwelling on a residential-zoned lot. 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, including §3.9.E Subdivision Standards for Review, §7.1 Slope Protection Standards, §7.2 Grading and Site Disturbance, §7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection, §7.7 Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas, and §7.12 Adequate Public Facilities. 2. The site complies with criteria to allow on-site sewage treatment. 3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 4. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the amended development agreement. The Town Board is the Decision-making Body. Staff recommended approval with conditions, listed below. Staff and Commission Discussion Town Attorney White stated one of the notes on the existing plat of record deals with access, which is not adequate as it now stands. He suggested adding a statement in the amendment to change the plat note to read “Access to Lot 7 is currently restricted to an unimproved access and maintenance agreement.” He would also add “Any other future access requires approved by the Community Development Department.” Planner Shirk stated the only legal right of access is through Marys Lake Subdivision. There was discussion as to whether or not an amended plat would be required in addition to the amendment to the development agreement. Public Comment Frank Theis/applicant stated Jim Tawney passed away, and the development is currently owned by the estate. Mr. Tawney’s daughter will be receiving title to the property within the year. She intends to sell the property. Jim Sneary /Town resident was concerned about the decline of property values at the adjacent Promontory Condominiums, as the open space was one of the selling aspects for the neighborhood. He was concerned about future development on the lot, in addition to the one single-family dwelling. Soil erosion was also a concern – three existing homes have added retaining walls because of concerns and issues with erosion and runoff. He stated the area could be difficult to engineer due to the type of soil and rock on the lot. Public comment closed. Staff and commission Discussion Commissioner Schneider expressed concern about ensuring the potential buyers were made aware of all the conditions. Attorney White clarified the documents would be recorded, and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall would be included in the title policy. Commissioner Klink added potential buyers have a certain responsibility to do their due diligence prior to making a purchase. Conditions of Approval 1. The development agreement shall be revised as follows: a. Paragraph 5 there is a typographical error in the Lot 7 description, and an addition. It shall be corrected as follows: “…improvements on Lot 7 is shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto. All development on Lot 7 shall be reviewed and comply with all applicable conditions of the Estes Valley Development Code including, but not limited to: 1) §7.1 slope Protection Standards, including Development Plan Review; 2) §7.2 Grading and Site Disturbance Standards; 3) §7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection; 4) §7.7 Geologic and Wildfire Hazards; 6) Appendix D.III General Site Access. 7) Access to Lot 7 is restricted to an unimproved access and maintenance easement.” b. Paragraph 7 shall be deleted in its entirety. 2. The development agreement shall include an attachment that delineates site contours; the contours provided for the original preliminary plat may be used to satisfy this requirement. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to recommend approval of the amended development agreement for Lot 7 of the Marys Lake Replat of Lots 2, 4, 5 and Outlot A, Marys Lake Subdivision, to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, with a modification to Condition 1.a.(7), to read: “Access to Lot 7 is currently restricted to an unimproved access and maintenance easement. Any other future access requires approval of the Community Development Department.” The motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. 6. REPORTS A. Planner Kleisler reported on the Comprehensive Plan modernization. Over the last two months, priorities have shifted to flood recovery as well as heavy research on short-term vacation rentals. Staff will likely bring some raw data on economics and transportation to the Commission next month. The economic piece will require a full rewrite. Planner Kleisler will be meeting with DOLA and getting feedback on the economic piece as to where we are thus far, including a population projection. These two sections have been very time consuming. B. Planning Commission Reviews, March, 2015 1. Amendment to an approved Special Review for the Stanley/EPMC Wellness Center. 2. Rezoning and Amended Plat at the Silver Moon Inn. 3. Development Plan at Riverview Pines. 4. Rezoning request for 1650 Avalon Drive C. Town Board 5. A Sign Code consultant will be attending the Town Board Study Session to provide an overview of upcoming sign code revisions. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 11 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall D. Board of Appeals 6. Chief Building Official Birchfield is working on the process to adopt the 2015 International Building Codes with Local Amendments. The Board of Appeals is actively involved, as well as other agencies and districts. E. County Commission 7. The County Commissioners are hearing the Hornbein Lot Consolidation application today. Michael Whitley is presenting the staff report. F. Board of Adjustment Reviews 1. Variance request at 1418 Narcissus was continued from February to March. 2. Variance request concerning the containment provision will be heard in March for an applicant who desires to open a beer garden on the slab at the former Park Theatre Mall location. G. Staff Level Reviews 1. Coyote Mountain Lodge Staff Level Development Plan to convert an existing event center building into motel units. H. Flood Recovery - Director Chilcott reported the Town Board unanimously supported the Fall River Master Plan, as did the Fall River Coalition. The Fish Creek Master Plan is still being revised to address the Scott Ponds. Grant applications continue to be submitted to mitigate future flooding in the downtown area. One of the goals is to upsize the bridges to allow the river to hold the potential water volumes. More applications are due in the next couple of months. I. Chair Hull reported she will be participating on the interview team for the Planning Commission vacancy, along with Trustees Phipps and Nelson. A new Commissioner should be on board in March. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:06 p.m. ___________________________________ Betty Hull, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary Amendment to Administrator Lancaster’s contract of April 4, 2015 to extend the contract to June 30, 2015 Town Clerk Memo 1 To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: March 20, 2015 RE: Amendment to Administrator Lancaster’s contract of April 4, 2015 to extend the contract to June 30, 2015 Objective: To extend Administrator Lancaster’s contract to allow for the completion of his annual review and possible contract negotiation. Present Situation: The Town of Estes Park entered into a contract with Frank Lancaster as the Town Administrator on April 4, 2012 with a start date of May 21, 2012. The contract was for three years. The term of the contract is for three years from the date the contract was signed; therefore, Administrator Lancaster’s contract will expire on April 4, 2015. Proposal: The Town began the annual review process for Administrator Lancaster on March 9, 2015 utilizing a review tool from Mountain States Employers Council (MSEC). The review data will be compiled and analyzed by MSEC and a full report distributed and reviewed at the April 14, 2015 Town Board meeting during an executive session. The extension of the current contract through the end of June 2015 provides the Board with ample time to review the evaluation and discuss the possibility of a new contract with Administrator Lancaster, while maintaining his salary and benefits. Advantages: The Town maintains Administrator Lancaster as the Town Administrator past April 4, 2015. Administrator Lancaster maintains his current salary and benefits during the annual review process and contract negotiations. Disadvantages: The Town would not have an active Town Administrator during the next couple of months. Amendment to Administrator Lancaster’s contract of April 4, 2015 to extend the contract to June 30, 2015 2 Action Recommended: Approve the first amendment to the employment contract for Frank Lancaster extending his contract to June 30, 2015. Budget: None. Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the first amendment to the employment contract with Frank Lancaster. FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ______day of March, 2015 by and between the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, a municipal corporation (hereinafter called “TOWN”) and Frank T. Lancaster (hereinafter called “Employee”), both parties agreeing as follows: WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Employment Agreement dated April 4th, 2012; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. Section 2 of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to read as follows: “The term of this Agreement shall be through June 30, 2015, and subject to Sections 8, 9, and 10.” 2. All of the other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment to Agreement is executed on this ____ day of ____________, 2015. TOWN OF ESTES PARK ___________________________ William C. Pinkham, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk EMPLOYEE _________________________ Frank T. Lancaster TOWN CLERK Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: March 24, 2015 RE: Liquor Licensing: New Tavern Liquor License Application for The Barrel, LLC, dba The Barrel, 112-120 E. Elkhorn Avenue Objective: Approval of a new Tavern liquor license located at 112-120 E. Elkhorn Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado. Application filed by The Barrel, LLC, dba The Barrel. Present Situation: An application for a new Tavern liquor license was received by the Town Clerk’s office on February 2, 2015. Additionally, the applicant filed a request with the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment (EVBOA) for a Containment of Outdoor Activities Variance for this location. The variance was heard and approved by the EVBOA on March 3, 2015. All necessary application paperwork and fees were submitted to the Clerk’s office; please see the attached Procedure for Hearing on Application – New Liquor License for additional information. The applicant is aware of the Town Board’s Training for Intervention Procedures (TIPS) requirement and has training scheduled for April 6, 2015. 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 Tavern 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 operate a beer garden that will serve locals and visitors to downtown Estes Park. Action Recommended: Approval of the application for a new Tavern liquor license. Budget: The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a new Tavern 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 Tavern liquor license is $869. Level of Public Interest Medium 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 Tavern liquor license filed by The Barrel, LLC dba The Barrel 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 The Barrel, LLC dba THE BARREL for a new Tavern Liquor License located at 112-120 E. Elkhorn Avenue, 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 February 2, 2015. At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on March 10, 2015, the public hearing was set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 24, 2015. The neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing were established to be 3.15 miles. The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. The applicant is filing as a Limited Liability Company. The property is zoned CD which allows this type of business as a permitted use. The notice of hearing was published on March 13, 2015 . The premises was posted on March 11, 2015 . 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 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. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: David Shirk, Senior Planner Date: March 24, 2015 RE: The Barrel Beer Garden – 116 E. Elkhorn (former Park Theater Mall) Objective: Provide the Town Board an informational summary regarding Board of Adjustment review and approval of a variance. Staff prepared this memo to provide a summary because minutes from the Board of Adjustment hearing have not yet been approved. Present Situation: On March 3, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment unanimously voted (5-0) to approve a variance request for an outdoor beer garden, with seating for approximately 250 people. The applicant proposes to install two pre-fabricated structures. One would house the tavern, the other would provide restrooms. Structures would be permanently attached to the ground with appropriate foundations and would be served by Town water and connected to the Estes Park Sanitation District. The variance is to the “containment” requirement of the Estes Valley Development Code. This section states “all retail sales, displays and activities and all other uses, storage and activity shall be wholly contained within the interior of a building or permanent structure.” This section provides exceptions for outdoor seating/eating areas. A variance was required because the majority of the use would be located outside of the building. Community Development staff discussed this issue with affected agencies, including the Larimer County Health Department and the Town of Estes Park Police Department. No agencies expressed significant concerns. If the liquor license is approved, the applicant will move forward with application for building permit. Attachments: Copy of proposed site plan Draft Board of Adjustment minutes G(E) G(E)G(E)G(E)G(E)G(E)G(E)G(E)E(E) E(E) E(E) E(E) PP(E)7530.57527. 07530.07530.57530. 5 7531.0 7526. 5 7529.0 7529.5 7530.57531.0 7531.0 Bench Bench Bench Bench DWBridge Gravel Walk-In Cooler 13'-6" x 28'-10" Restroom Trailer 8'-0" x 37'-0" Bar Trailer 8'-0" x 40'-0" Storage Shed 8'-0" x 8'-0" Sandwiches Up Employee Remove this portion of existing fence Electrical Panel Location Water Service Meter (RP-BFP PRV) Benches Power Pole with emergency down lighting Plumbing Chase between structures Recessed Garden Patch and repair concrete CD Commercial Downtown CD Commercial Downtown Fall River Elkhorn Avenue Existing Wood Deck Decorative Barrels with Lighting Decorative Planter Barrels - typ Tabels with Umbrellas CD Commercial Downtown Wood Partition Panels Mulch Existing concrete slab to remain Dashed lines indicate string lines of ornamental lighting Lots 17, 18, and 19, Block 5, Town of Estes Park, according to the Second Amended Plat thereof, County of Larimer, State of Colorado Legal Description 4'-0" x 8'-0" lattice full width of screen Pocket for growing hops or vines 2x4 framing Bike Rack Decorative Barrels Restroom Trailer Picnic Tabels Wood Partition Panels PROPERTY OWNER Park Theater Mall, LLC Ms. Sharon Seeley PO Box 3052 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: (970) 586-8904 and (303) 986-6790 seeleysharon@comcast.net APPLICANT The Barrel, LLC Ms Ingrid and Lou Bush 762 West Eisenhower Blvd Loveland CO 80537 Phone: (970) 667-1070 ext. 230 ingrid@thebarrel.beer ESTES PARK PERFORMANCE, INC. Mr. Stan Black, President PO Box 3077 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: (970) 231-2458 stan@rmpac.org ARCHITECT Roger M. Thorp, AIA, LEED AP, President Thorp Associates P.C., Architects and Planners 131 Stanley Ave #100 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: (970) 586-9528 roger@thorpassoc.com Contact Information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 Perspective Sketch Sandwich Cart Picnic Tables and Shade Umbrellas Restroom Facilities Walk-In Cooler Sign on Cooler Container Bar Recessed Garden New Pedestrian Bridge Ornamental Lighting Wrought Iron and Barrels Fence Light Poles Main EntranceElkhorn Avenue 36 Site E Elkh o r n A v eMacgregor Ave. W Wonderview Ave 34 34 34 Courtney L n Weist Dr Rockwell St Big Hor n D r Cleave St Boyd Ln Vicinity Map Development Plan Scale: 1'' = 10'-0''0 5'10'15'20'North Estes Park, Colorado Not to Scale North 1447 Barrel Beer Garden.pln 2/23/15 3:45 PM© 2015 THORP ASSOCIATES, P.C. The Barrel Beer Garden The Barrel, LLC Property Owner: Park Theater Mall, LLC 116 East Elkhorn Avenue Outdoor Use Variance February 24, 2015 1 of 1 131 Stanley Avenue, Suite 100, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment February 3, 2015 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair John Lynch, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Members Wayne Newsom, Pete Smith, and Don Darling Attending: Chair Lynch, Members Moreau, Smith, Newsom and Darling Also Attending: Senior Planner Shirk, Planner Kleisler, Town Attorney White, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: None Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were about 30 people in attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff. EXCERPTS OF THE MINUTES COMPLETED FOR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MARCH 24, 2015 1. LOTS 17, 18, 19, BLOCK 5, ESTES PARK; THE BARREL BEER GARDEN, 116 E. Elkhorn Avenue Chair Smith stated the request was for a variance from EVDC Section 4.4.D.1.a, which requires all retail sales, displays and activities and all other uses, storage and activity shall be wholly contained within the interior of a building or permanent structure. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant is The Barrel, LLC, and the owner of the property is Park Theatre Mall, LLC. The section of the code referred to in this request is known as the “containment provision”, and it has been in place since the 1985 zoning code. The purpose of the code is to keep streets uncluttered and ensure pedestrian movements within the downtown area. The variance has been requested to allow a proposed outdoor beer garden at the location of the former Park Theatre Mall. Planner Shirk explained that taverns are an allowed use in the CD-Commercial Downtown zone district, and the variance was to allow that use in an open area, not wholly contained in a building. Planner Shirk stated the variance request is one step in a larger process. The applicant will be going before the Town Board on March 24, 2015 to request a liquor license. If approved, they would proceed to the building permit process, including floodplain mitigation. If approved, the beer garden would have access from both the Elkhorn Avenue side and the Big Thompson River side. The proposed bar is a converted shipping container. Restrooms would be on a trailer connected to Town water and Estes Park RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 December 2, 2014 Sanitation District’s main sewer line. The site would also contain a walk-in cooler and a small building used for the sale of food items. The buildings would be required to comply with the Town building codes, which states they need to be permanently affixed on foundations. Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and property owners within 500 feet of the site. Typically, variance requests are subject to adjacent property owner notification a minimum of two properties from the site in all directions (usually about 200 feet); however, in this case, staff chose to notify neighbors 500 feet from the site because of anticipated public interest. Several written comments were provided to staff, all in support of the request. No comments in opposition were received. Comments from affected agencies included, but were not limited to: (1) it was determined the proposed fencing of beer barrels and wrought iron around the perimeter would not be considered a sign; (2) the Police Department would not impose any special conditions, and let the noise ordinance address any noise issues; (3) the Estes Park Sanitation District took the proposal to the Board of Directors, who had no significant concerns, but would require the facility to connect to the main sewer line. Planner Shirk stated the applicant has subleased the property from EPIC, with approval of the property owners. The goal is to operate the beer garden for the next couple of years, allowing time for the EPIC Board to continue to raise funds for a performing arts center at the site. The proposed hours would be 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. While the beer garden would operate mainly from late spring to early fall, some year round use is anticipated, especially for special events like Catch the Glow parade, Highland Festival, etc. He added there are no downtown residential units that face the proposed site. Planner Shirk stated in reviewing the application, not every criterion is required to have a “yes” answer. The project is reviewed as a whole. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Special circumstances have resulted in practical difficulties in developing the site. The previous building burned to the ground in October, 2009, and the property has remained vacant since. This vacant property in the heart of downtown disrupts the so- called ‘urban fabric’ of downtown and down not contribute to the vibrant downtown area the Comprehensive Plan encourages. The buildings will be permanently attached with foundations that comply with the building code, but will be easily removed. This means the beer garden would put the property to a positive cultural and economic use until a more permanent use is found for the site. If approved, the variance would not nullify or impair the intent and purposes of the specific standards, the development code, or the comprehensive plan (for information on specific standards, please refer to the staff report). 2. Practical difficulty: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 December 2, 2014 a. In October 2009, the former Park Theater Mall burned to the ground. Since then, a performing arts center has been proposed, but has not been approved for development. No other uses have been proposed, and the parcel has remained vacant, affecting the overall fabric of downtown. Staff finds the proposed use would put the property to a productive use that will enhance the downtown area and will extend the amount of time guests spend downtown. b. The variance is not substantial. This finding is based on: i. The buildings will be permanently attached and connected to water and sanitary sewer facilities. ii. Taverns are an allowed use in the CD–Commercial Downtown district. iii. Outdoor seating/eating areas are allowed in the CD–Commercial Downtown district. iv. Other eating/drinking establishments in the downtown area have outdoor seating areas. v. Other eating/drinking establishments in the downtown area have garage doors that open during operating hours. c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment. The proposed use would enhance the downtown area by providing a lively entertainment area on a site that is currently blighted. The use would likely result in more guests visiting the downtown area, especially in the evenings, with guests spending more time downtown. The applicant proposes to paint the restrooms “champagne beighe”. This or a complimentary color scheme should be carried throughout all buildings. Staff has discussed the issue of noise with Commander Eric Rose of the Estes Park Police Department. Commander Rose’s opinion is that no special conditions should be placed on this land use, and that the Town’s Noise Ordinance will allow the Police Department to address any noise issues, should they arise. d. The applicant proposes to connect to the Town water system and the Estes Park Sanitation District sewer system, and would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. e. The applicant is a sub-lessee of the property, and is aware of the EVDC requirement. f. The only alternative the applicant has to a variance for an outdoor ‘beer garden’ in the downtown area is to apply for an amendment to the development code. g. Should the Board approve the variance, staff recommends conditions to mitigate potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses. These conditions summarize issues described above, and area outlined below. Planner Shirk referred to Section 1 of the EVDC, which states “Preserve and protect the architecture, history and small-town character of Estes Park’s historic downtown” and “Strengthen and improve downtown Estes Park as the primary government, cultural, office, financial, tourist, and specialty shopping and pedestrian district of the Estes Valley. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 December 2, 2014 He also reviewed the land use policies in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, which support and encourage an operation such as this. Planner Shirk stated the Board has the authority to recommend hours of operation or limitations on dates of operation, as they see fit. Staff does not recommend imposing any of these conditions. Staff recommends approval of the variance request, with conditions of approval, listed below. Staff and Board Discussion Member Darling thanked Planner Shirk for a very thorough staff report. Member Moreau inquired about the proposed string lighting complying with the EVDC. Planner Shirk assured the Board all aspects of the project would comply with the EVDC and the local building codes. Public Comment Roger Thorp/applicant representative wanted to clarify that EPIC is continuing to work toward the construction of the performing arts center. They are hoping to begin the development review process in the next few months, but it will take a couple of years to get it off the ground. He stated the current situation at the site does not shed good light on downtown Estes Park. He distributed photos of similar operations so the Board good get a better visual perspective. Mr. Thorp stated once the performing arts center begins construction, the beer garden will be removed. The restroom trailer is made by a company that specializes in providing this type of facility, and includes an ADA accessible stall. The restrooms will be connected to the Estes Park Sanitation District’s sewer line. The restrooms will be locked with the beer garden is closed – they will not be public restrooms. The container bar is a unique idea to repurpose these structures. The doors to the bar will close after hours. A storage unit will be placed behind the container, painted to match, and will have minimal visual impact. Discussion occurred between Mr. Thorp and the Board. Comments included, but were not limited to: (1) signage about not taking alcohol off site; (2) access to water will be in the storage shed; (3) uneven areas of elevation on the slabs have been taken into consideration and will be covered and/or protected; (4) concern about the toilets not being “public;” (5) no fire suppression system is required. Paul Whyard/local business owner stated the adjacent property owner notices should have been sent to the tenants as well as the property owners. He did not think trailers should be allowed, and suggested building a structure. He stated this project would create an unfair advantage to other similar businesses, just to accommodate a timeline for the performing arts center. He disagreed that the area was blighted, and thought the property owners could improve the fencing on both exposed sides of the property. He was RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 December 2, 2014 opposed to the variance request, stating the proposed plan was not the only remedy for this site. Trudy Ester/local business owner stated her main concern is alcohol being served in the close proximity to where children and families gather to eat ice cream and candy. She was concerned about the people that smoke, and where they would be allowed to smoke. She did not think the sanitation issue had been addressed to her satisfaction. Ingrid and Lou Bush/applicants stated the buildings would be locked at night, with security cameras and motion-sensor lights. She stated all food will be provided by the Park Theater Café, prepackaged, and no grease trap was required. A tavern license does not require food preparation on site. The beer garden will be a no-smoking facility. They will not have happy-hour prices, and will not be encouraging binge drinking. They want to encourage families to visit the facility, but understand public concerns. Everyone wanting to drink will be required to provide proper identification and a stamp will be placed on their hand. During peak times, there will be staff at the entrances to ensure compliance with the state liquor laws. All servers will have stamps, and customers will not have to go to a specific area to obtain a stamp. There will be proper signage for “No Alcohol Beyond This Point”. The state does not require entrances and exits to be staffed. During very busy times, they will consider hiring private security, as they do not want to area to be out of control. There will be 60 beers on tap, focusing on Colorado craft beers, with additional craft beers from others part of the US and world. Their initial investment is approximately $300,000. They are excited about the opportunity, and plan on doing everything the right way. Discussion occurred between staff and the Board. Comments included, but were not limited to: (1) variance requests are all decided upon individually. No precedents are set by the approval or disapproval of a variance. Each application is treated individually; (2) the beer garden will be subject to all the liquor license regulations, just like any other establishment in town; (3) the building and health department issues are totally separate from the variance hearing; (4) the Larimer County Health Department had no concerns, but did say it was an unusual set up; (5) Jim Duell with Estes Park Sanitation took the application to the Sanitation Board, who approved the concept; (6) the applicant met with the building department to address all issues concerning building codes. The proposed buildings are considered structures and will be permanently attached; (7) the Fire Marshall had no comments at this stage of the project, but would provide comments during the building permit phase, as needed. Ty Nagl/local business owner disagreed with the structures being considered permanent. He referred to a letter to the editor by Burt Berglund, an EPIC board member. He stated the lower portion of the Wheel Bar (of which he is the owner) has been called the Barrel, and he thought it was interesting the applicant chose that name. He stated the downtown RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 December 2, 2014 business owners were not aware of the variance request because the notices went to property owners. He recommended continuing the hearing to allow additional public comment. Jenna McGregor/property owner of the proposed site stated she wants to the performing arts center come to fruition. The beer garden will not be a permanent business at that location, but will provide some income to the EPIC group as they continue to work on their project. There will not be a food truck or vending cart. The proposed beer garden would bring additional revenue to the downtown area. She hopes there would be acoustic entertainment. She was supportive of the project. Elizabeth Fogarty/Director of Visit Estes stated a recent survey of Visit Estes stakeholders indicated an overwhelming need for the downtown area to offer fresh new options for guests and residents. Similar comments were received in a visitor survey. Comments included a lack of food and craft beverage options. There is room for growth in this community. This brings a service and product that we do not currently have downtown. On a different note, she was supportive of food trucks, stating they are an expected amenity in destination communities and they continually get requests for them. Entire community has had to look at the slab for many years and no other entrepreneur has come up with a creative solution like this. Throughout the application process, she has met with Mr. and Mrs. Bush, and stated they have done their due diligence and have always been very professional. Visit Estes is supportive of granting the variance request. Stan Black/Chair, EPIC Board of Trustees stated food trucks are not allowed, and are not a part of this project. The Seeley family (property owners of the site) owns an adjacent licensed restaurant, and requested all food be provided by them. Food will be prepared at the restaurant and delivered to the beer garden. The lease from the property owners to EPIC is for $1 per year. The sublease to The Barrel will earn EPIC over $150,000 over the course of their occupancy. This amount is significant to the EPIC campaign, and he was appreciative of the Seeley family for allowing EPIC to be involved with the project. He stated The Barrel will be paying market rate rent as though there was a building there, and providing $300,000 in leasehold improvements. Mr. Black stated comments claiming unfair competition are unfounded. One of the written comments in the meeting materials is a letter of support from the Estes Valley Partners for Commerce, which represents a large portion of downtown businesses. Making claims that downtown is not represented is not accurate. Member Darling stated his concern about having a bar in close proximity to children. As a member of Sunrise Rotary, they have had a successful annual event (Autumn Gold) in Bond Park for over 20 years where alcohol is served in a family atmosphere, so he knows it can be done. The local Police Department will assist when needed to ensure success. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7 December 2, 2014 Planner Shirk reiterated the liquor license hearing is scheduled for the March 24th Town Board meeting. Public comment will be accepted at that meeting. Public comment closed. Conditions of Approval 1. All buildings shall be painted to match or compliment the “Champagne Beige” color proposed for the restroom building. Final color scheme shall be subject to review and approval of Community Development staff. 2. Lighting shall comply with Section 7.9 of the EVDC “Exterior Lighting” 3. Compliance with memos from: a. Police Department dated February 26, 2015 b. Code Compliance Officer/Sign Code Technician dated February 19, 2015 c. Town Attorney dated February 9, 2015 d. Town Utilities Department dated February 16, 2015 e. Estes Park Sanitation District dated February 20, 2015 f. Public Works Department dated February 18, 2015 It was moved and seconded (Newsom/ Moreau) to approve the variance request with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. Member Newsom stated he expected the new business to be an asset to the downtown area. The developers have covered all the bases to the best of their ability. There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:38 a.m. ___________________________________ Pete Smith, Chair __________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Philip J. Kleisler, Planner II Date: March 24, 2015 RE: CONDOMINIUM MAP, Supplemental Condominium Map, Phase XXVII, Park River West Condominiums, 600, 602 Park River Place; Crystal Wille/Applicant. Planner Kleisler. Objective: Review of the supplemental condominium application for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), approved development plan and condominium map. Present Situation: The site is located along Moraine Avenue adjacent to River Rock Condominiums to the west. Lots 1 and 2 of the Park River West Subdivision are zoned RM–Multi-Family Residential. The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan. The Park River West development plan was approved by the Estes Valley Planning Commission in August 2001, with the associated condominium map approved in April 2002. The Development Plan allows for the construction of 68 condominium units through 4 triplexes and 28 duplexes. This application represents the final two units for the project. Pursuant to state law, condominium units may not be finalized until the units are substantially complete. Because of this, final supplemental maps will be submitted as the project builds out. According to the procedure set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code, the Final Condominium map proceeds directly to the Board and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. This proposal complies the applicable standards of the EVDC, specifically: Section 3.9.E “Standards of Review” for subdivisions, and Section 10.5.H “Condominiums, Townhouses and Other Forms of Airspace Ownership.” Proposal: The applicant proposes to condominiumize a duplex containing two units numbered 600 and 602. Approval of this map will allow for the sale of these units. This supplemental map is consistent with development plan and initial condominium map. Advantages: Complies with Estes Valley Development Code. Complies with original condominium map. Complies with development plan. Allow sale of individual units. Disadvantages: None Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the proposed supplemental condominium map. Budget: Not applicable Level of Public Interest Low Sample Motion: I move to approve (or disapprove) the Park River West Supplemental Condominium Map, Phase XXVII. Attachments: 1. Proposed map 2. Application COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II Date: March 24, 2015 RE: Special Review – Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley - Amended Special Review #2014-01B, Stanley Historic District Subdivision, TBD Steamer Drive; Greg Rosener/Applicant. Objective: Review of Special Review Use application 2014-01B, Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley, for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code and Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Development. Present Situation: Lot 4 was created with the Stanley Historic District subdivision plat in 1994. The property is undeveloped, except for an old road, a horse trail, and social paths through the site connecting to Stanley Village. The site consists of open grassland areas, with several existing trees, most of which would be kept through the site design. Stormwater from the Stanley Hotel complex sheet-flows across the site. In early 2014 the Town Board approved a development application package for this lot that proposed the construction of a wellness center and accommodation facilities. Through this process the Board also amended some of the architectural standards in the Stanley Historic District, rezoned the lot from CO Commerical Outlying to A Accommodations, and removed a no-build line on the lot. Proposal: The development plan approved in early 2014 proposed the construction of the Wellness Center and Accommodations-1 buildings first, with the Accommodations-2 building only labeled as a “future phase”. While developing the wellness center programming over the past year the applicant determined that the original design of the Wellness Center and Accommodations-1 buildings were not optimal. Due to various operational concerns, the applicant is now redesigning these buildings by combining them into one structure. The applicant also proposes to reverse the original phasing plan by constructing the Accommodations-2 building first. The applicant proposes several amendments to the approved development plan: 1. Moving the Accommodations-2 building footprint approximately five (5) feet to the northwest and fine tuning of the exact shape, dimensions and orientation of the building; 2. Reconfigure the driveway and parking lot along the south side of the Accommodations-2 building to include accessible parking spaces; 3. Revise the storm drainage plan to accommodate the results of a more thorough analysis of upstream basins. This includes a change in pipe locations and pond sizes, and to enhance the ponds by augmenting the historic drainage flows; 4. Review the architectural elevations of the Accommodations-2 building for consistency with the applicable standards and general architectural theme within the approved development plan; 5. Authorization for a height greater than 30 feet for the Accommodations-2 building (pursuant to the Municipal Code §17.44.060.d.1); 6. Revisions to note/conditions of the development plan to reflect the reversed phasing and to provide parking, sidewalk, utilities, landscaping and storm drainage improvements for Phase 1 in accordance with the EVDC; and 7. Town Board authorization for Community Development staff to administratively approve final details of the development plan components, and minor revisions thereto, which are consistent with applicable code requirements and with the intent and purposes of the approved development plan. The applicant presented an alternative design (“Option 2”) during the March 17, 2015 Planning Commission hearing. The roof of Option 2 is redesigned and shortened to comply with the EVDC height limitations (see figures 1a and 1b on the following page). As noted in the recommended conditions of approval, the Planning Commission preferred Option 2. Advantages: Compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. Infill development of up to 90-accommodations units and wellness center. Would expand base industry. Expanded tax base and increased permit fee revenue. Disadvantages: May fragment elk winter habitat. However, wildlife crossing signs will be erected along Wonderview Avenue, near the crossing between Lot 5 and the Knoll- Willows. Additionally, the landscaping plan will accommodate elk migration and non-native vegetation will not be introduced on the site. Would decrease potential open space by 6.89 acres. Action Recommended: The Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing for this application on March 17, 2015. During that hearing the Commission made the following findings: 1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan and the Downtown area plan. The application advances several Community-Wide policies, as delineated in the Staff report. 2. The application for the proposed Special Review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment. 3. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. 4. The application complies with Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Standards for Development regarding: view corridors; open space; site design; pedestrian circulation; and signs. 5. The request to exceed the Stanley Historic District maximum allowed building of 30- feet is allowed through special review approval. 6. 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 Review Discussion in the staff report. Figure 1a (above): Original Submittal. Figure 1b (below): “Option 2”, which includes a lowered roof 7. This is a Planning Commission recommendation is to the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park. 8. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Board agenda. Placement on the March 24 Town Board agenda requires a March 18 submittal of a revised application that fully satisfies all conditions of approval. The Planning Commissions voted unanimously 5-0 (two commissioners absent) to recommend CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of Special Review 2014-01B, using Option 2 as the design for the Accommodations-2 building. The recommended conditions of approval are: 1. All improvements and public facilities necessary for Phase I uses shall be installed with Phase I. 2. MUTCD wildlife crossing signs are required on Wonderview Avenue, near the crossing between Lot 5 and the Knoll-Willows. Design and location shall be determined by staff during Construction Plan approval. 3. Landscaping Plan: a. Landscaping plan shall accommodate elk migration, with trees focused close to buildings and parking areas, with outlying areas kept natural grasslands (with irrigation). b. Compliance with Section 7.8.G.1.b Non-Native Vegetation. 4. Staff review and approval shall be required for any future parking lot lighting. Unless more information is requested by staff, the Applicant shall submit a photometric plan, illustrations of fixture models, height and location of proposed lighting. Compliance with 17.44.060(d)(11) and EVDC 7.11 is required. 5. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated January 29, 2015; b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated February 11, 2015; c. Town of Estes Park Water Division memo dated February 19, 2015; d. Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division memo dated February 19, 2015; e. Town of Estes Park Community Development memo dated February 20, 2015; f. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated February 20, 2015; g. Colorado Historical Society memo dated February 20, 2015; and h. RBB Architects, Inc. memo dated February 25, 2015. 6. Should necessary easements not be granted for the proposed sidewalk along Steamer Drive, the applicant shall construct such sidewalk along their property during phase II construction. 7. The Applicant shall delete note number 24 relating to outdoor wedding receptions. 8. Use of the eastern drainage facilities for outdoor activities, including outdoor recreation, shall be reviewed with Phase II. 9. Option 2, as presented in the Estes Valley Planning Commission public hearing on March 17, 2015, reducing the height of the building to comply with 1.9.E.2 of the EVDC, shall be reviewed by affected agencies, including: a. Architectural review through a Licensed, third party architect; b. Estes Park Community Development Department Approval of Option 2 is conditional to compliance with agency comments. Budget: Generate approximately $200,000 in fees for construction Generate approximately $200,000 annually in sales tax revenue Level of Public Interest: The level of public interest is high. The Planning Commission received several letters opposing the project and considered public testimony from nine property owners during the public hearing. Most letters and public testimony were provided by nearby residents of the Finley Court area. Primary concerns generally consisted of the following points: 1. Building Height: A central concern throughout most comments is the height of the Accommodations-2 building, which exceeds the EVDC limit by roughly five (5) feet. Comments emphasized that the height of the building would have adverse impacts to the views of neighboring properties and property values. As noted above, the applicant proposed an alternative option during the public hearing, which is reflected in the Planning Commission’s recommendation. 2. Site Design: Some comments suggested that the site design would be improved by moving the Accommodations-2 building to the south and the southern parking lot to the north. Moving the Accommodations-2 building further away and downhill would then likely lessen the impact to neighboring residential properties. The following Municipal Code section was cited as a mechanism by which to accomplish this: 17.060(c)(4) Parking shall be located to the rear of buildings or screened…Parking areas shall be depressed into the ground, stepped on sloping terrain with berming and landscaping provided to screen the parking from off-site view from the Highway 36 corridor and from the Stanley Hotel Complex. During the initial review staff found that the parking would likely be better screened if located behind the buildings as proposed. 3. Intent of the Town Vote: A relatively fewer number of comments were made about if the proposal is consistent with the general intent of the Town’s vote to sell Lot 4 for this project. Written public comments concerning this project is available at www.estes.org/currentapplications. Comments will be added to this webpage as received. Sample Motion: I move to Approve (Deny) the Special Review application 2014-01B, with the findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Attachments: 1. Statement of Intent 2. Site Plan 3. Architectural Elevations 4. Applicant Presentation (includes Option 2) 5. Planning Commission Memo 6. Planning Commission Minutes 1 Application for Amendments to Special Review Approval for EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center Development Plan January 21, 2015 Statement of Intent Facts: The Town Board of Estes Park approved the EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center Development Plan (“Development Plan”) by Special Review on February 25, 2014. It was the Applicant’s intent, which intent is reflected in the record of the proceedings and in the approved Development Plan, to proceed first with the construction of the Accommodations-1 and Wellness Training Center buildings as the first phase, followed closely with construction of the Accommodations-2 building as the second phase. Due to the complexity of the design issues for the Accommodations-1 and Wellness Training Center buildings that need to be worked through among the Applicant, the EPMC and their respective planners and architects, and the Applicant’s desire to get the project under construction as soon as possible, the Applicant and its team of consultants are moving forward with final planning for the Accommodations-2 building as Phase 1 of the overall project construction. Phase 1 will be independent of the Accommodations-1 and Wellness Training Center building process, which will follow as Phase 2. Although the Accommodations-2 building was not finally designed for the Development Plan review and approval on February 25, 2014, all of Lot 4 including the building footprint for the Accommodations-2 building was part of the submittal and reviewed by Staff for purposes of evaluating its location, approximate size, landscaping, impact on open space and wildlife habitat, access, circulation, traffic, parking, utilities, storm water, etc. In addition, lighting, operational standards, building height calculation methodology, architectural theme and signage for the entire project were determined with the Development Plan approval and the Municipal Code was amended concurrently to clearly define the architectural standards applicable to all future development on Lot 4. The final iterations of the Accommodations-2 building plans require amendments to the approved Development Plan, as outlined below, and approval of the architectural elevations for the Accommodations-2 building. Requests: The Applicant requests the following amendments to the Development Plan: (i) shifting of the location of the Accommodations-2 building footprint approximately 5 feet to the northwest and fine tuning of the exact shape, dimensions and orientation of the building; (ii) reconfiguration of the entry drive and parking lot along the south side of the Accommodations-2 building to include accessible parking spaces; (iii) revisions to the storm drainage plan to accommodate the results of a more thorough analysis of 2 upstream basins, to change pipe locations and pond sizes, and to enhance the ponds by augmenting the historic drainage flows; (iv) review of the architectural elevations for consistency with the applicable standards and the general architectural theme within the approved Development Plan; (v) authorization, pursuant to Municipal Code §17.44.060(d)(1), for a height greater than 30 feet for the Accommodations-2 building; and (vi) revisions to notes/conditions of the Development Plan to reflect the reversed phasing and to provide parking, sidewalk, utilities, landscaping and storm drainage improvements for Phase 1 in accordance with the EVDC. Supplemental Request In addition to the specific Amendments to the Development Plan requested in this application, the Applicant requests that the Town Board authorize the Staff of the Town’s Community Development Department to administratively approve final details of the Development Plan components, and minor revisions thereto, which are consistent with applicable code requirements and with the intent and purposes of the approved Development Plan. Statement of Compliance with Applicable Development Plan Review Criteria EVDC Chapters 4 and 7 Nonresidential Zoning Districts (§ 4.4) Uses (§ 4.4.B): The Development Plan uses are approved as allowed uses in the A- Accommodations zone district. Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Development Plan do not include any change in the allowed uses, therefore, the amended Development Plan will continue to comply with this criterion. Density and Dimensional Standards (§ 4.4.C): The approved Development Plan complied with the following density and dimensional standards: minimum land area per accommodations unit; minimum lot size and lot width; minimum setbacks; and maximum lot coverage. Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Development Plan do not include changes that impact the land area per unit, the lot size or lot width, or the setbacks, therefore, the amended Development Plan will continue to comply with these criteria. The proposed amendments will result in total lot coverage of 135,190 SF or 45% of the lot area, which is below the 50% maximum allowable lot coverage for the A-Accommodations zone district. Building Height (§ 4.4.C): Building height in the Stanley Historic District is governed by Municipal Code §17.44.060(d)(1). 3 Applicant Statement: Please see discussion of the Stanley Historic District standards below. Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements (§ 4.4.D.4). The approved Development Plan complied with the requirements by providing sidewalks, pedestrian linkages and a dedicated easement for Otie’s Trail which borders the compact and contiguous open space. Applicant Statement: The proposed amended Development Plan continues to provide a dedicated easement for Otie’s Trail adjacent to the open space. Although the pedestrian sidewalk adjacent to the entrance road and parking lot has shifted slightly in its location to follow the revised alignment of the entrance road and parking lot, none of the pedestrian linkages were eliminated from the Development Plan. The sidewalks continue to provide interconnections with pedestrian and trail systems through the Development Plan and to adjoining properties. The portion of the pedestrian connection through Phase 2 of the development is proposed to be an all-weather surface until construction of Phase 2 is completed. Special Purpose and Overlay Zoning Districts (§ 4.5) Stanley Historic Overlay District (§ 4.5.D): This section requires compliance with the Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Development set forth in Chapter 17.44 of the Municipal Code. Applicant Statement: Please see discussion of applicable Stanley Historic District standards below. Grading and Site Disturbance Standards (§ 7.2) This section governs changes to the natural grade, visual impacts of drainage/storm water facilities and the limits of disturbance. Applicant Statement: The grading plan for Phase 1 demonstrates compliance with the applicable limitations on grade changes, visual impacts of the drainage/storm water facilities and limits of disturbance. The storm water management facilities for this development are proposed to convey storm water through parking lot inlets and underground storm sewer systems until discharged into the storm water ponds located on the eastern portion of the site within the open space. Tree and Vegetation Protection (§ 7.3) This section governs the preservation of trees and vegetation within and outside the limits of disturbance. 4 Applicant Statement: Significant trees in Phase 1 are being preserved to the maximum extent possible. One tree near the Accommodations-2 building will need to be removed, and the removal of two additional trees near the southern boundary of the lot is possible. The Applicant will mitigate any trees removed with the installation of landscaping as required by the EVDC. Landscaping and Buffers (§ 7.5) This section establishes standards for aesthetic enhancement; plant materials, sizes and quantities; buffering to mitigate visual and environmental impacts; and parking lot landscaping. Applicant Statement: A schematic Landscape Plan was approved for the entire site with the original Development Plan approval. The Landscape Plan being submitted with this application for Phase 1 continues to detail compliance with the intent and standards of § 7.5. Elk migration routes are being accommodated, with trees located close to the building and parking area, and the outlying areas kept in natural grasslands, with the exception of those areas where there will be tree and shrub plantings as required by the EVDC. The required landscaping totals for the entire site development have been included and shown on the amended Development Plan. Required plantings for Phase 1 have been listed on the Landscape Plan. Wildlife Habitat Protection (§ 7.8) This section includes standards for development that are designed to protect wildlife species and habitat. Applicant Statement: The approved Development Plan preserves the eastern portion of the site for wildlife habitat and migration, and the amendments to the Development Plan allow for the continued preservation of this area. Areas of natural grasses will be maintained and native plantings will be featured within the landscaping plan to mitigate the disturbance of wildlife habitat and migration corridors to the maximum extent feasible. Exterior Lighting (§ 7.9) This section outlines design and height standards for exterior lighting. Applicant Statement: The approved Development Plan includes exterior lighting that ensures the functional and security needs of the patrons, clients, service personnel and staff, while minimizing off-site light spillage, and complies with the specific design and height standards of this section. The approved light fixtures feature controls to automatically reduce light levels after 10:00 pm. The type of fixtures approved in the original Development Plan will be utilized in Phase 1. If deemed necessary by the Town, the Applicant will install additional streetlights consistent with the Town standards along the public rights-of-way. 5 Operational Performance Standards (§ 7.10) This section addresses the imposition of conditions to ensure compatibility with existing uses. Applicant Statement: Phase 1 will be subject to the following conditions which were imposed upon the approved Development Plan. Construction activities will be conducted only between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm; all construction contractors will be notified of their obligation to comply with the maximum noise levels for construction activities found in Section 7 of Larimer County Ordinance 97-03 [i.e. 80 dB (a)]. All activities associated with the Accommodations-2 building after construction will be conducted within the buildings; there are no outdoor activities, including the passive recreational activities within the open space, which would cause noise disturbances or unreasonable noise levels in violation of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Larimer County Ordinance 97-03. Deliveries to the site and trash pick-up shall only be permitted between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. All deliveries and trash pick-up services shall occur in the areas on-site that are specifically designated for such activities as provided in Section 6 of Larimer County Ordinance 97-03. Delivery and trash hauling trucks shall be required to use Wonderview Avenue as their route of travel to the site entrances. The approved Development Plan was found to be compatible with existing uses through the appropriate placement of trash receptacles and loading and delivery areas; the location, intensity and hours of illumination; and landscaping and buffering. The amendment to the Development Plan will continue to achieve compatibility by incorporating the same features into Phase 1. Off-Street Parking and Loading (§ 7.11) This section requires one parking space for each of the 32 guest rooms in the Accommodations-2 building, including 2 accessible parking spaces for disabled persons (1 van accessible space; 1 car accessible spaces), and a minimum number of off-street loading spaces and bicycle racks. Applicant Statement: Phase 1 will provide a total of 35 parking spaces (3 more spaces than required), including 2 accessible parking spaces for disabled persons (1 van accessible space; 1 car accessible spaces). There will also be two Type B off- street loading spaces provided with Phase 1. The number of parking spaces exceeds the requirements of this section. Although the employees working in the Accommodations-2 building will be Stanley Hotel employees, they will start and end their day at the Stanley Hotel cafeteria where parking is provided, so the excess 6 spaces will not be used by such employees. Transportation to and from the building will be available for these employees. There will be no associated or accessory uses in the Accommodations-2 building for which additional parking is required. The total number of required parking spaces (32) triggers the need for bicycle racks to accommodate bicycle parking for 2 bicycles. Phase 1 will provide a bicycle rack with space for 8 bicycles. Adequate Public Facilities (§ 7.12) This section includes regulations is to ensure that all utilities and other facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrently with the impacts of such development. Applicant Statement: Meetings prior to this submittal with representatives of the reporting agencies for sanitation, water, and power indicate that adequate services are available for Phase 1. Storm water: The storm water management plan for the development prepared by Van Horn Engineering (Revised 1-21-2015) outlines the proposed infrastructure to be constructed as part of Phase 1. This proposal calls for construction of detention facilities to maintain historic runoff rates, water quality best management practices (BMP’s) to treat water from impervious surfaces and storm sewer networks to direct flow across the site. In addition to the onsite storm drainage features proposed, conveyance measures for offsite flow will be installed through the site with flow dissipation provided to return concentrated flow from storm sewer to sheet flow prior to discharging into the Stanley Village property maintaining the flow rate, character and water quality of the existing storm water discharge onto Stanley Village. All flow from the development area will be captured and detained to the east reducing the total storm water discharge flow rate currently onto Stanley Village. Drainage easements are being proposed for all infrastructure to carry water from public rights- of-way. Transportation: In connection with the original Development Plan approval, it was determined that the uses would not generate a sufficient number of peak hour trips to require preparation of a TIA for purposes of determining the adequacy of the transportation facilities. Phase 1 will generate less peak hour trips than the entire Development Plan, therefore, a traffic impact analysis report is not required for Phase 1. Water: Two water lines are proposed to be installed for this development in two phases. Phase 1 will include the 8” main which will connect into an existing main located within the Stanley Village property, loop through the parking area of the proposed development and tie into the existing main located within Steamer Parkway near the entrance into the Stanley Views Subdivision. Two fire hydrants will be installed for Phase 1 for fire protection and the building will be equipped with a sprinkler system in accordance with applicable building/fire codes. 7 Sewer: To accommodate the anticipated future combining of the Wellness Training Center building and the Accommodations-1 building, a new sewer main will be installed with Phase 1 of this development. Its location will be redirected to the main entry drive into the site and tie into the existing sewer main along the southern border of the property. Electric/Communications: Electric and communications’ main lines will be installed along the southern boundary of the site looping from the existing electric vault within the Safeway parking area to the electric cabinet located along the northern side of the Stanley Village shopping center (behind True Value). Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment (§ 7.13) This section governs outdoor storage, activities and mechanical equipment. Applicant Statement: In accordance with the approved Development Plan, the development will incorporate the following: to minimize visibility, truck loading areas will be screened from the residential areas by the Accommodations-2 building during Phase 1 and by both the Wellness Training Center building and the Accommodations-2 building during Phase 2; incorporation of HVAC equipment and other utilities into the landscape plan; and screening, covering or painting of equipment attached to the building or roof to minimize visual impact. Statement of Compliance with Applicable Stanley Historic District Review Criteria Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (§17.44.060) Designated building envelopes and view corridors [§ 17.44.060(a)]: This section requires that development maintain the existing views of the main Stanley Hotel building and of the Manor House building from Highway 36 from its intersection with Highway 7 to its intersection with Highway 34, and the view of the main Stanley Hotel building from the Visitors' Center entrance deck, taking into account all authorized development in Stanley Village. Applicant Statement: The three view corridors designated for protection in this section are depicted on the Map of View Corridors on file with the Town Clerk. The Accommodations-2 building has no impact on the views protected by this section, as it is outside of all of the view corridors. Please see the attached diagram that illustrates the location of the Accommodations-2 building outside of the view corridors. 8 Open space [§ 17.44.060(b)]: This standard requires Lot 4 to have a minimum of 30% minimum designated open space. Applicant Statement: This standard was met with the original Development Plan which provided a total of 40% open space that complied with the definition of designated open space in §17.44.020(1). The proposed amendments to the Development Plan for Phase 1, in combination with the current configuration of the Wellness Training Center and the Accommodations-1 building being reviewed informally by the Town, results in a total of approximately 124,095 SF of designated open space, which is approximately 41% of the total site area. The designated open space continues to comply with the Municipal Code definition and the percentage of designated open space continues to exceed the minimum requirement of this section. Site design [§ 17.44.060(c)]: This section includes various requirements that govern design of the site. Applicant Statement: The Accommodations-2 building is sited as another component of the campus-like layout of the Stanley Historic Complex and fits in to the native topography in a manner consistent with the historic hotel layout. Service areas are relegated to the south side of the Accommodations-2 Building and, for the Wellness Training Center and the Accommodations-1 building, service areas are located near the back of the adjacent shopping center. Parking is similarly buffered from view from the public rights-of-way by being located behind buildings. For the entire Development Plan, a total of 5,617 SF of parking lot landscaping is provided for the 47,906 SF parking area. Within Phase 1, 2,261 SF of parking lot landscaping is provided for the 18,429 SF parking area, resulting in 12% parking lot landscaping for both the site as a whole and for Phase 1, which percentages exceeds the minimum requirement of 10%. There is no underground parking proposed. An internal pedestrian network is designed to connect Phase 1 to the future Phase 2 and the Town at large. Building Design [§ 17.44.060(d)]: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 05-14, the amendments to the Development Plan must comply with the following building design standards: Height [§ 17.44.060(d)(1): Building height is limited to 30 feet unless a greater height is authorized on special review. Applicant Statement: The Town Board’s Special Review approval of the Development Plan, which included the Accommodations-1 and Wellness Training Center buildings, approved the Applicant’s request to exceed the 30-foot maximum building height. No elevations for the Accommodations-2 building had been submitted at that time. This proposed amendment to the Development Plan includes elevations for the Accommodations-2 building. The ridgeline of the Accommodations-2 building on its uphill side will not exceed the 30-foot maximum as measured from natural 9 grade. The ridgeline of the building on its downhill side will be 39’ 3 1/8”. This height is 4’ 11 1/2 ” feet higher than the allowed height of 34’ 3 5/8” as calculated in accordance with the EVDC provisions for building height on slopes. Applicant requests authorization from the Town Board to exceed the 30-foot maximum height for the Accommocations-2 building, as described herein, and offers the following in support of its request: The Accommodations-2 building is designed to be complementary to the architectural design of, and compatible in size and scale to, the Stanley Historic Complex buildings, as required by the applicable building design standards [See Applicant Response to § 17.44.060(f)(4)(a) below]. The requested height increase of approximately 2.9 feet is a diminimus amount against the backdrop of the mountainous ridgeline and the numerous buildings of the Stanley Historic Complex. In fact, the Applicant believes that an increase in height of this limited amount in this setting will not even be perceptible to the human eye. Please see the architect’s rendering submitted with this application that shows the perspective view of the Accommodations-2 building from Findley Court. Prohibited architectural styles [§ 17.44.060(d)(3]): Applicant Statement: The Applicant does not propose any of the prohibited architectural styles for the Accommodations-2 building. Roof lines [§ 17.44.060(d)(4)]: Applicant Statement: The Accommodations-2 building will comply with the minimum roof pitch, and the roof form is not one prohibited by this standard. Please note that although there is a flat roof portion, it is not visible from the ground level. The flat roof portion is enclosed, thus hidden behind a 4:12 pitch roof around the entire perimeter of the building. Mechanical equipment [§ 17.44.060(d)(6)]: Applicant Statement: There will no mechanical equipment on the roof of the Accommodations-2 building. All mechanical equipment will at ground level screened from view and for sound. The screening will be visually sensitive to the site and will include landscaping materials and walls using natural materials. Skylights [§ 17.44.060(d)(7)]: Applicant Statement: The design of the Accommodations-2 building does not include skylights. Facades [§ 17.44.060(d)(8)]: 10 Applicant Statement: See the architectural elevations for the Accommodations- 2 building which visually demonstrate the building’s compliance with this standard. The building is approximately 160 feet long and the width is approximately 110 feet. The building facades are configured to meet the requirements of this section. Building materials [§ 17.44.060(d)(9)]: Applicant Statement: See the architectural elevations for the Accommodations- 2 building which visually demonstrate the building’s compliance with this standard. None of the materials prohibited by this standard are proposed for the Accommodations-2 building. The building is designed so that all sides and service areas are coordinated in design, finish and appearance with the principal façade. Lighting [§ 17.44.060(d)(11)]: Applicant Statement: As approved for the entire Development Plan, Phase 1 will utilize LED Area Luminaires and LED Wall Luminaires to provide sufficient and reliable illumination. This specific type of lighting results in minimal light spillage. The Applicant will also comply with the original Development Plan approval proposal to reduce lighting levels after 10:00 pm. Building design [§ 17.44.060(d)(12)]: § 17.44.060(f)(4)(a): New buildings shall be located to protect the views of the main hotel and Manor House from the designated view corridors. New buildings shall be designed so that they will not destroy the historic significance of the complex. New buildings should be compatible in scale and size with the existing buildings and be visually subordinate. Applicant Statement: The design of the Accommodatons-2 building complements the appearance of the Stanley Historic Complex and functions as an extension and diversification of the already successful tourist-oriented attractions and businesses of the Stanley Historic Complex. The building design does not detract from the historical significance and prominence of the Stanley Historic Complex buildings and does not lessen its ability to continue its economically viable operation. See the architectural elevations for a visual illustration of the building design. The Accommodations-2 building will not interfere or disrupt views of the Stanley Hotel and the Manor House [see Applicant Statement in response to §17.44.060(a) above] as the building is outside of all three protected view corridors. The design of the Accommodations-2 building supports and protects the historic significance of the Stanley Historic Complex. This is accomplished by placing this building on a site that is at a lower elevation and is isolated physically by enough open space to visually separate this building from the 11 Stanley Historic Complex buildings. This allows the Stanley Historic Complex to maintain its prominence on the site. The Accommodations-2 building will shield views from the Stanley Historic Complex to the back of the Stanley Village commercial development to the south. § 17.44.060(f)(4)(b): New buildings should be recognized as a product of their own time and be distinguishable from the historic buildings, while remaining visually compatible. New design that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the Stanley Hotel Complex is not permitted. Applicant Statement: The Accommodations-2 building will use the historic white siding and red roofs of the original Stanley Historic Complex buildings. This makes the building visually compatible. Elements like dormers, columns and wrapped windows make the Accommodations-2 building consistent with the historic character of the complex, however, features like moldings, cornices, surrounds, etc. are not the same as the Stanley Historic Complex buildings. The overall detailing of this building is simplified and removed enough from the Stanley Historic Complex to make the Accommodations-2 building recognizable as a product of its time and still be contextually compatible with the surrounding site. The variation of construction techniques and detailing meets the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines for new work in historic contexts. Signs § 17.44.060(e): Applicant Statement: Signs in Phase 1 will match those of the Stanley Hotel and meet the size and locational requirements of this section. Statement of Compliance with Applicable Special Review Criteria EVDC § 3.5 STANDARDS FOR REVIEW (§ 3.5.B) Group Living Facilities, Treatment Facility (§ 5.1.I): The Wellness Training Center was found to be in compliance with this criterion when approved by the Town Board. Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Development Plan do not involve any amendments to the Wellness Training Center, therefore, this review criteria will continue to be met for the amended Development Plan. Hotels (§ 5.1.J.1): This criterion limits the area of a hotel dedicated to certain non-living quarter accessory uses to 15% of the gross floor area. Applicant Statement: The gross floor area of the Accommodations-2 building is approximately 44,286 SF. Approximately 1,400 SF or 3.16% of the gross floor area is a work out room and game room on the lower level; such uses are accessory to 12 the hotel use, are provided primarily as a service to the hotel guests, and are only accessible from inside the building. The percentage of the gross floor area dedicated to these uses is less than 15%, therefore, this criterion has been met. Hotels (§ 5.1.J.2): This criterion limits the area of a hotel devoted to eating/drinking establishments to 25% of the gross floor area. Applicant Statement: None of the gross floor area of the Accommmodtions-2 building is to be used for an eating/drinking establishment, therefore, this criterion has been met. Mitigation of Potential Adverse Impacts (§ 3.5.B): This standard requires that “The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment.” Applicant Statement: The approved Development Plan was found by the Town Board to mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment. The following features of the amended Development Plan demonstrate continued compliance with the requirements of this section: compliance with the applicable density and dimensional standards; integration of Otie’s Trail and other interconnected pedestrian linkages; minimal grading; tree protection to the maximum extent possible and new landscaping and native plantings to protect and enhance wildlife habitat and migration routes and to screen views of parking, service areas and mechanical equipment; lighting that minimizes off-site spillage; limits on noise and times for construction activities, deliveries and trash service; maintenance of historic storm water rates and the use of best management practices to treat run off; provision of adequate public utilities; preservation of open space in excess of the minimum requirements; and appropriate building placement, design and materials that comply with the applicable Stanley Historic District regulations. A-2011A-201A-202A-2022121122334455FFEEDDCCBBAAJANITORSTOR.GAME ROOMWORK OUTCONCIERGEVESTIBULE3-SIDEDGASFIREPLACEDIRECT-VENTMECHANICALJANFIRE CONTROLBASEMENTBASEMENT10' - 4"5' - 0"ITELECGYP. WRAPPEDBEAMS/SOFFITS ABOVEWOMENS TOILETMENS TOILETGARAGE DOORAREAWELLS,CONC. WALLSRE: MECH. & STRU.FLOOR DRAINSRE: PLUMBING.FLOOR DRAIN.CONNECT TOPERIMETERFOUND. DRAIN.RE: PLUMBING.FLOOR DRAIN.CONNECT TOPERIMETERFOUND. DRAIN.RE: PLUMBING.AREAWELLS,CONC. WALLSRE: MECH. & STRU.5' - 0"10' - 4"REVISIONSSHEET CONTENTSDRAWNCHECKEDDATESHEET NO.REUSE OF DOCUMENTS: THE IDEAS AND DESIGN INCORPORATED HEREON, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF ARCHITECTUREPLUS AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins 805241531 West 29th Street + Loveland 80538970.493.1220 + 888.698.7897 + www.aplusarch.comA-101ACCOMMODATIONS II HOTEL03/18/2015TIM LAGOTL/JCBASEMENT LEVEL FLOORPLANPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADONO.BYDESCRIPTIONDATEN 1/8" = 1'-0"1BASEMENT50% DD SET03/02/201501PLANNING SUBMITTAL03/18/201502 W/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWA-2011A-201A-202A-2022121122334455FFEEDDCCBBAAACCESSIBLELOCK-OFF SUITEACCESS. LOCK-OFFVESTIBULEACC. T/SACCESSIBLE KINGQUEENKING STUDIODOUBLE KINGT/ST/SDOUBLE KINGKING STUDIOKING STUDIODOUBLE KINGT/ST/ST/ST/SHOUSKEEPINGELEC./ITKINGT/SLOCK-OFFVESTIBULESUITEQUEENSTANDARD SUITESTANDARD KINGSTANDARD KINGT/ST/SSTANDARD SUITELOCK-OFF SUITEQUEENLOCK-OFFVESTIBULEKINGSTAIR-2CORRIDORDOUBLE KINGKING STUDIOKING STUDIODOUBLE KINGDOUBLE KINGKING STUDIOT/ST/ST/ST/ST/ST/ST/ST/ST/SMECH./ELEC.ELEV.STAIR-1STANDARD SUITESTANDARD KINGT/SACC. T/SACCESSIBLE KINGACCESSIBLE SUITELOCK-OFF SUITELOCK-OFF KINGLOCK-OFF QUEENLOCK-OFFVESTIBULET/SDECK, TYP.DECK, TYP.DECK, TYP.36' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"36' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"11' - 6 1/8"24' - 5 7/8"CLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALL22' - 0"27' - 0"27' - 0"22' - 0"24' - 5 7/8"11' - 6 1/8"13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"11' - 6 1/8"24' - 5 7/8"14' - 6 5/8"12' - 5 3/8"12' - 5 3/8"14' - 6 5/8"CLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALLCLWALL--REVISIONSSHEET CONTENTSDRAWNCHECKEDDATESHEET NO.REUSE OF DOCUMENTS: THE IDEAS AND DESIGN INCORPORATED HEREON, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF ARCHITECTUREPLUS AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins 805241531 West 29th Street + Loveland 80538970.493.1220 + 888.698.7897 + www.aplusarch.comA-102ACCOMMODATIONS II HOTEL03/18/2015SC/TLTKMAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLANPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADOESTES PARK, COLORADO 1/8" = 1'-0"1MAIN FLOOR PLANNO.BYDESCRIPTIONDATEN50% DD SET03/02/201501PLANNING SUBMITTAL03/18/201502 W/DW/DW/DDWDWDWDWW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DW/DDWDWDWDWDWDWW/DW/DDWW/DDWW/DDWW/DDWA-2011A-201A-202A-2022121122334455FFEEDDCCBBAAACCESSIBLELOCK-OFFACCESSIBLEVESTIBULEQUEENACCESSIBLE KINGTOILETMECH./ELEC.ELEV.KING STUDIODOUBLE KINGDOUBLE KINGKING STUDIOKING STUDIODOUBLE KINGT/ST/ST/ST/ST/ST/SHSKP.ELEC./ITLOCK-OFF KINGT/SLOKC-OFFVESTIBULELOCK-OFF QUEENLOCK-OFF SUITERoomSTANDARD KINGT/ST/SSTANDARD KINGSUITELOCK-OFF SUITELOCK-OFF QUEENLOCK-OFFVESTIBULET/SLOCK-OFF KINGT/SDOUBLE KINGKING STUDIOKING STUDIODOUBLE KINGDOUBLE KINGKING STUDIOLOCK-OFF KINGLOCK-OFFVESTIBULET/SLOCK-OFF SUITESTANDARD SUITESTANDARD KINGACCESSIBLE KINGACCESSIBLE SUITEACC. T/ST/SLOCK-OFF QUEENT/ST/ST/ST/ST/ST/SSTAIR-2STAIR-1CORRIDORT/S--REVISIONSSHEET CONTENTSDRAWNCHECKEDDATESHEET NO.REUSE OF DOCUMENTS: THE IDEAS AND DESIGN INCORPORATED HEREON, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF ARCHITECTUREPLUS AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins 805241531 West 29th Street + Loveland 80538970.493.1220 + 888.698.7897 + www.aplusarch.comA-103ACCOMMODATIONS II HOTEL03/18/2015SC/TLTKUPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADONO.BYDESCRIPTIONDATE 1/8" = 1'-0"1UPPER FLOORN50% DD SET03/02/201501PLANNING SUBMITTAL03/18/201502 A-2011A-201A-202A-2022121122334455FFEEDDCCBBAACELLAR DOOR TYPEROOF HATCHELEVATOR OVERRUNFRAME OPENINGAT STAIR FORPOTENTIAL FUTURECELLAR DOOR TYPEROOF HATCHALUMINUM GUTTERAND DOWNSPOUT, TYP.2-LOOPS OF SELF-REGULATING HEATCABLE.(DAYLIGHT AT GRADE)DSALUMINUM GUTTERAND DOWNSPOUT, TYP.2-LOOPS OF SELF-REGULATING HEATCABLE.(DAYLIGHT AT GRADE)DSDSDSALUMINUM GUTTER ANDDOWNSPOUT, TYP.2-LOOPS OF SELF-REGULATING HEATCABLE.(DAYLIGHT AT GRADE)ALUMINUM GUTTERAND DOWNSPOUT, TYP.2-LOOPS OF SELF-REGULATING HEATCABLE.(DAYLIGHT AT GRADE)ALUMINUM GUTTER ANDDOWNSPOUT, TYP.2-LOOPS OF SELF-REGULATING HEAT CABLE.(DAYLIGHT AT GRADE)ALUMINUM GUTTER ANDDOWNSPOUT, TYP.2-LOOPS OF SELF-REGULATING HEAT CABLE.(DAYLIGHT AT GRADE)DSDSDSDSDSDSROOFSLOPE1/4" / FOOTMIN.ROOFSLOPE1/4" / FOOTMIN.RDROOFSLOPE1/4" /FOOTMIN.ROOFSLOPE1/4" /FOOTMIN.ALUMINUM GUTTERAND DOWNSPOUT,TYP.2-LOOPS OF SELF-REGULATING HEATCABLE. (CONNECT TOSTORMRE: CIVIL ANDPLUMBING)ALUMINUM GUTTER ANDDOWNSPOUT, TYP.2-LOOPS OF SELF-REGULATING HEAT CABLE.(CONNECT TO STORMRE: CIVIL AND PLUMBING)ALUMINUM GUTTERAND DOWNSPOUT, TYP.2-LOOPS OF SELF-REGULATING HEATCABLE.(CONNECT TO STORMRE: CIVIL ANDPLUMBING)ROOFSLOPE1/4" / FOOTMIN.ROOFSLOPE1/4" / FOOTMIN.OFDCOMP. ASPHALT SHINGLED ROOFTYP. ROOF PITCH4:12COMP. ASPHALT SHINGLED ROOFTYP. ROOF PITCH4:12COMP. ASPHALTSHINGLED ROOFTYP. ROOF PITCH4:12COMP. ASPHALTSHINGLED ROOFTYP. ROOF PITCH4:122' - 0"FULLY ADHERED EPDMMEMBRANE ROOFOVER GLASS MAT GYP DECKINGOVER POLYISOTYP. ROOF PITCH1/4" / FOOT4' X 4'ROOF DRAINSUMP AREA1/4” / FOOTSLOPE TO DRAINS.ROOF DRAINCENTERED AT2’-0” OFF GRID.-21' - 2"--REVISIONSSHEET CONTENTSDRAWNCHECKEDDATESHEET NO.REUSE OF DOCUMENTS: THE IDEAS AND DESIGN INCORPORATED HEREON, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF ARCHITECTUREPLUS AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins 805241531 West 29th Street + Loveland 80538970.493.1220 + 888.698.7897 + www.aplusarch.comA-104ACCOMMODATIONS II HOTEL03/18/2015SC/TLTKROOF PLANPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADONO.BYDESCRIPTIONDATE 1/8" = 1'-0"1ROOF PLANN 50% DD SET03/02/201501ROOF NOTES:1. PROVIDE KICK-OUT FLASHING AT ALL LOCATIONS WHERE GUTTER MEETS VERTICAL SURFACES2. PROVIDE ICE AND WATER SHIELD AT LOCATIONS WHERE EAVES AND ROOFS MEET VERTICAL WALLS. 4'-0" ON ALL SIDES, TYP., AND UNDER ENTIRE COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF.3. PROVIDE SNOW GUARDS AT ALL GUTTER EAVES AT SOUTH AND EAST SIDES.PLANNING SUBMITTAL03/18/201502 MAIN FLOOR7584.5UPPER FLOOR7594.5BASEMENT7574.5FEDCBATO PLATE7603.5TYPICAL WALL MATERIAL:4" HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING WITHMITRE CORNERSPAINTED CEMENT BOARD SIDINGCOLOR-PLUS TECH. OR EQ., TYP.(WHITE TO MATCH STANLEY HOTEL)TYPICAL ROOF MATERIAL:COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING(RED TO MATCH STANLEY HOTEL)EXISTING GRADE7573.3'MAX. ALLOWABLE ROOF HEIGHT7607.6'34' - 3 5/8"SINGLE-HUNG WINDOW & HALFROUND PANE WITH TRIM,TYPICAL.PAINTED COLUMNS,RAILING, ANDBALUSTRADE, TYPICAL.STONE VENEER BASESINGLE-HUNG WINDOW WITHTRIM, TYPICAL.STONE VENEER COLUMN BASESTONE VENEER BASE BEYONDAT WALLPAINTED TRIM AT COLUMNS ANDARCHED OPENINGS, TYP.GARAGE DOOR - SALVAGEDFROM OWNER’S STOCKMAIN FLOOR7584.5UPPER FLOOR7594.5BASEMENT7574.512345TO PLATE7603.5TYPICAL WALL MATERIAL:4" HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING WITHMITRE CORNERS(WHITE TO MATCH STANLEY HOTEL)TYPICAL ROOF MATERIAL:COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING(RED TO MATCH STANLEYHOTEL)EXISTING GRADE7573.3'MAX. ALLOWABLE ROOF HEIGHT7607.6'34' - 3 5/8"SINGLE-HUNG WINDOW WITH TRIM,TYPICAL.PAINTED COLUMNS,RAILING, ANDBALUSTRADE, TYPICAL.STONE VENEER BASESTONE VENEER COLUMN BASESTONE VENEER BASE BEYONDAT WALL4' - 0"PAINTED TRIM AT COLUMNS ANDARCHED OPENINGS, TYP.PAINTED CEMENT BOARD SIDINGCOLOR-PLUS TECH. OR EQ., TYP.REVISIONSSHEET CONTENTSDRAWNCHECKEDDATESHEET NO.REUSE OF DOCUMENTS: THE IDEAS AND DESIGN INCORPORATED HEREON, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF ARCHITECTUREPLUS AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins 805241531 West 29th Street + Loveland 80538970.493.1220 + 888.698.7897 + www.aplusarch.comA-201ACCOMMODATIONS II HOTEL03/18/2015SC/TLTKSOUTHWEST AND SOUTHEASTEXTERIOR ELEVATIONSPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADO 1/8" = 1'-0"1SOUTHEAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"2SOUTHWEST ELEVATIONESTES PARK, COLORADONO.BYDESCRIPTIONDATE50% DD SET03/02/201501PLANNING SUBMITTAL03/18/201502GENERAL NOTE:ELEVATIONS NOTED ARE PER SITE SURVEY DATA. ELEVATIONS TO BE FIELD VERIFIED.GENERAL NOTE:ELEVATIONS NOTED ARE PER SITE SURVEY DATA. ELEVATIONS TO BE FIELD VERIFIED. MAIN FLOOR7584.5UPPER FLOOR7594.5BASEMENT7574.512345TO PLATE7603.5TYPICAL WALL MATERIAL:4" HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING WITHMITRE CORNERS(WHITE TO MATCH STANLEY HOTEL)TYPICAL ROOF MATERIAL:COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING(RED TO MATCH STANLEYHOTEL)EXISTING GRADE7581.9'DORMER ROOF HEIGHT7608.28'26' - 4 5/8"SINGLE-HUNG WINDOW WITH TRIM,TYPICAL.PAINTED COLUMNS,RAILING, ANDBALUSTRADE, TYPICAL.STONE VENEER BASESINGLE-HUNG WINDOW & HALFROUND TOP PANE WITH TRIM,TYPICAL.2' - 4 1/2"2' - 3"4' - 10 1/2"MAX. ALLOWABLE ROOF HEIGHT7611.8'4' - 2 3/8"ROOF HEIGHTS ARE MAXIMUM AS SHOWN.FINAL ROOF DESIGN TO BE DETERMINEDMAIN FLOOR7584.5UPPER FLOOR7594.5BASEMENT7574.5FEDCBATO PLATE7603.5TYPICAL WALL MATERIAL:4" HORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGWITH MITRE CORNERS(WHITE TO MATCHSTANLEY HOTEL)TYPICAL ROOF MATERIAL:COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING(RED TO MATCH STANLEYHOTEL)SINGLE-HUNG WINDOW WITH TRIM,TYPICAL.PAINTED COLUMNS,RAILING, ANDBALUSTRADE, TYPICAL.STONE VENEER BASEEXISTING GRADE7581.9'MAX. ALLOWABLE ROOF HEIGHT7611.8'26' - 4 5/8"4' - 2 3/8"DORMER ROOF HEIGHT7608.28'REVISIONSSHEET CONTENTSDRAWNCHECKEDDATESHEET NO.REUSE OF DOCUMENTS: THE IDEAS AND DESIGN INCORPORATED HEREON, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF ARCHITECTUREPLUS AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins 805241531 West 29th Street + Loveland 80538970.493.1220 + 888.698.7897 + www.aplusarch.comA-202ACCOMMODATIONS II HOTEL03/18/2015SC/TLTKNORTHWEST ANDNORTHEAST EXTERIORELEVATIONSPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEYESTES PARK, COLORADO 1/8" = 1'-0"2NORTHEAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"1NORTHWEST ELEVATIONESTES PARK, COLORADONO.BYDESCRIPTIONDATE50% DD SET03/02/201501GENERAL NOTE:ELEVATIONS NOTED ARE PER SITE SURVEY DATA. ELEVATIONS TO BE FIELD VERIFIED.GENERAL NOTE:ELEVATIONS NOTED ARE PER SITE SURVEY DATA. ELEVATIONS TO BE FIELD VERIFIED.PLANNING SUBMITTAL03/18/201502 BUILDING HEIGHT PHOTOGRAPHIC SIMULATION EVIDENCE CAMERA POSITION #1 CAMERA POSITION #1 CAMERA POSITION #1 Stake at NE Corner CAMERA POSITION #1 Stake at NE Corner CAMERA POSITION #1 Stake at NE Corner Stake at SW Corner CAMERA POSITION #1 Stake at SW CornerStake at NE Corner CAMERA POSITION #1 Stake at SW Corner Stake at NW Corner & Surveyor Rod Stake at NE Corner CAMERA POSITION #1 CAMERA POSITION #1 Surveyor Rod Prism Height = 7609.48’ (27’-10” [27.81’] above existing grade elevation of 7581.67’) CAMERA POSITION #1 Surveyor Rod Prism Height = 7609.48’ (27’-10” [27.81’] above existing grade elevation of 7581.67’) CAMERA POSITION #1 Surveyor Rod Prism Height = 7609.48’ = 5:12 Roof Height at NW Corner (January 2015 Development Submittal). BUILDING OPTION 1 5:12 ROOF PITCH JANUARY 2015 –DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL BUILDING OPTION 1 5:12 ROOF PITCH JANUARY 2015 –DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL Surveyor Rod Prism Height = 7609.48’ 4:12 Roof Height = 7608.28’ BUILDING OPTION 2 4:12 ROOF PITCH Surveyor Rod Prism Height = 7609.48’ 4:12 Roof Height = 7608.28’ BUILDING OPTION 2 4:12 ROOF PITCH BUILDING OPTION 2 4:12 ROOF PITCH CAMERA POSITION #2 Stake at NE Corner CAMERA POSITION #2 Surveyor Rod Prism Height = 7609.48’ CAMERA POSITION #2 Stake at NE Corner Surveyor Rod Prism Height = 7609.48’ CAMERA POSITION #2 Stake at NE Corner CAMERA POSITION #2 Surveyor Rod Prism Height = 7609.48’ Stake at NE Corner CAMERA POSITION #2 CAMERA POSITION #3 Stake at NE Corner CAMERA POSITION #3 Stake at NW Corner CAMERA POSITION #3 Stake at NE Corner Surveyor Rod Prism Height = 7609.48’ Stake at NW Corner CAMERA POSITION #3 Stake at NE Corner CAMERA POSITION #3 Surveyor Rod Prism Height = 7609.48’ Stake at NW Corner Stake at NE Corner CAMERA POSITION #3 ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE & LOCATION: March 17, 2015, 1:30 PM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: Special Review application review and approval. STAFF OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); 2. Review for compliance with Chapter 17.44 of Estes Park Municipal Code: Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Review; and 3. Provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); 2. Review for compliance with Chapter 17.44 of Estes Park Municipal Code: Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Review; 3. Conduct a public hearing to consider applicants testimony, public comment, and Town staff’s findings and recommendations; and 4. Provide a recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees of approval or denial of the Special Review application. LOCATION: Lot 4 Stanley Historic District; Address TBD Steamer Parkway (behind Safeway). OWNER/APPLICANT: Stanley Wellness Center LLC, C/O The Stanley Hotel CONSULTANT/ENGINEER: Primary Contact: David Bangs, Van Horn Engineering STAFF CONTACT: Philip Kleisler, Planner II REPORT SUMMARY: This report describes a request to amend Special Review application 2014- 01, approved by the Town Board in February, 2014. Now known as the Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley, this project includes lodging, treatment facilities, and a wellness/fitness center. While developing the wellness center programming over the past year the applicant determined that the original design of the Wellness Center and Accommodations-1 buildings were not optimal. Due to various operational concerns, the applicant is now redesigning these buildings by combining them into one structure. The applicant also proposes to reverse the original phasing plan by constructing the Accommodations-2 building first. The applicant proposes several amendments to the approved development plan: 1. Moving the Accommodations-2 building footprint approximately five (5) feet to the northwest and fine tuning of the exact shape, dimensions and orientation of the building; 2. Reconfigure the driveway and parking lot along the south side of the Accommodations-2 building to include accessible parking spaces; 3. Revise the storm drainage plan to accommodate the results of a more thorough analysis of upstream basins. This includes a change in pipe locations and pond sizes, and to enhance the ponds by augmenting the historic drainage flows; 4. Review the architectural elevations of the Accommodations-2 building for consistency with the applicable standards and general architectural theme within the approved development plan; 5. Authorization for a height greater than 30 feet for the Accommodations-2 building (pursuant to the Municipal Code §17.44.060.d.1); 6. Revisions to note/conditions of the development plan to reflect the reversed phasing and to provide parking, sidewalk, utilities, landscaping and storm drainage improvements for Phase 1 in accordance with the EVDC; and 7. Town Board authorization for Community Development staff to administratively approve final details of the development plan components, and minor revisions thereto, which are consistent with applicable code requirements and with the intent and purposes of the approved development plan. Staff has identified the following key issues to help guide the commission’s discussion: 1. Does the application meet the Special Review criteria (§3.5) for the proposed Accommodations-2 building, including the request for a height variance? 2. Are proposed outdoor activities compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? Staff has asked the applicant to elaborate on this Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 17, 2015 Page 2 of 19 Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley issue, specifically concerning the Accommodations-2 deck at the southwest corner and the new sidewalk patio on the far westerly side of the site. Staff reviewed this application for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code and the Stanley Historic District requirements outlined in the Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.44. Staff finds that if revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable regulations. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the application, subject to conditions described in the staff report. CONTENTS SITE DATA MAP AND TABLE: .................................................................... 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION & REVIEW PROCESS: .................................... 7 REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: ......................................................... 8 PUBLIC COMMENTS: ................................................................................. 9 STAFF REVIEW : ....................................................................................... 10 STAFF FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 16 RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................ 18 Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 17, 2015 Page 3 of 19 Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley SITE DATA MAP AND TABLE: The building site is located directly across Steamer Parkway from the Lot 1 of the Stanley Historic District, which includes the Stanley Hotel and other iconic and historic structures. Figures 1a and 1b shown below provides views from Steamer Parkway showing the relationship of the building site to the Stanley Hotel complex. Located less than one half block south is the Stanley Village shopping center, including Safeway grocery store and various other businesses. The north side of SW Steamer Parkway is predominantly single family homes within the Stanley Hills subdivision. Figure 3a thru 3l illustrate the overall residential and commercial context. Figures 2a (above) and 2b (below): Proximity of Site to Nearest Buildings STEAMER STEAMER Stanley Views Subdivision Project Site Stanley Hotel Entrance Stanley Village Safeway Stanley Hotel Findley Ct. Figures 3a thru 3l: Character of Surroundings A A B B C C D D E E F F G G H H I I J J K K L L Parcel Number: 35244-36-004 Lot Area: 6.88 acres Existing Land Use: Undeveloped The parcel contains the remnants of the original entry drive to the Stanley Hotel, a portion of “Otie’s Trail,” and social trails connecting to Stanley Village. Proposed Land Uses: • Hotel/Motel • Treatment Facility (aka Wellness Center) Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Estes Park Sanitation District Open Space: Required: 30% Proposed: 41% Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowed: 50% Proposed: 45% Building: Square Footage: Accommodations-1: 50 units 25,971 s.f. EPMC Wellness Center 19,144 s.f. Accommodations 2: 40-units 14,909 s.f. Total Square Footage: 60,024 s.f. Hazards/Physical Features Mapped in the project vicinity? Wildfire Hazard No Geologic Hazard No Wetlands No Streams/Rivers No Ridgeline Protection No Wildlife Habitat No PROJECT DESCRIPTION & REVIEW PROCESS: Lot 4 was created with the Stanley Historic District subdivision plat in 1994. The property is undeveloped, except for an old road, a horse trail, and social paths through the site connecting to Stanley Village. The old road served as the original entry to the Stanley Hotel before Stanley Village was built to the south. The site consists of open grassland areas, with several existing trees, many of which would be kept through the site design. Stormwater from the Stanley Hotel complex generally sheet- flows across the site. The wellness center will be a facility with integrated programs and operations focused on promoting wellness through lifestyle changes, physical fitness and training, nutrition and medical/personal care treatment, together with an accommodations use. The original development plan was approved in early 2014 to construct the Wellness Center and Accommodations-1 buildings first, with the Accommodations-2 building only labeled as a “Future Phase”. While developing the wellness center programming over the past year the applicant determined that the original design of the Wellness Center and Accommodations-1 buildings were not optimal. Due to various operational concerns, the applicant is now redesigning these buildings by combining them into one structure. The conceptual footprint of this new building is shown on the plan. Figure 4: Land Use of Subject Property Figure 5: Zoning of Subject Property Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 17, 2015 Page 7 of 19 Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley The applicant proposes to reverse the original phasing plan by constructing the Accommodations-2 building first. Once fully designed, the applicant will then present the Wellness Center/Accommodations-1 building to the Planning Commission and Town Board through a Special Review. The two proposed principal uses remain the same: (i) Hotel and (ii) Treatment Facility. The site is designed so buildings will front Steamer Parkway, with parking and service areas are between the buildings and upper Stanley Village. The accommodations building would shield the Stanley Hotel from the back of Stanley Village. The design would maximize distance between the commercial accommodations use and nearby single-family residential development to the north and east. The design includes an integrated pedestrian system, as required by both the development code and the Stanley Historic District guidelines This application includes: Special Review of Development Plan (§3.5): A Special Review is required for this development plan. Two components of this application prompted the Special Review requirement: the construction of the Accommodations-2 building (§17.44.050.a) and a height variance request for the same building (§17.44.060.d.1). Development Plans shall comply with all applicable standards set forth in the EVDC and demonstrate consistency with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Special Review requires applications mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. Recommending Body: Estes Valley Planning Commission Decision-Making Body: Estes Park Board of Trustees, tentatively scheduled for March 24, 2015. REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Memos are included as part of this staff report. • Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated January 29, 2015; • Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated February 11, 2015; • Town of Estes Park Water Division memo dated February 19, 2015; Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 17, 2015 Page 8 of 19 Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley • Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division memo dated February 19, 2015; • Town of Estes Park Community Development memo dated February 20, 2015; • Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated February 20, 2015; • Colorado Historical Society memo dated February 20, 2015; and • RBB Architects, Inc. memo dated February 25, 2015. PUBLIC COMMENTS: In accordance with the notice requirements in the Estes Valley Development Code, legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail- Gazette. Town staff mailed notices to property owners within 1,500 feet of the property directly notifying these owners of the public hearings; typical mailings include a 500-foot radius. A press release was also published on March 3, 2015 describing this project. As of March 4, 2015, one (1) formal written comment has been received for this application package; this comment opposed the height variance request. Written comments will be posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications if received after March 4, 2105. Primary concerns from nearby property owners appear to include: 1. Photo Simulations. As required, the applicant submitted photo simulations of the Accommodations-2 building. Nearby residents have expressed concern over the method by which the simulations were processed, specifically that the wide angle distorts the scale of the building. Staff shared this concern with the 3rd party architect reviewing the proposal to gain her insight. Generally speaking, no photo simulation should be taken as an accurate depiction of exactly what the building will look like when built. The models are imported into a graphic using Adobe Photoshop and are scaled to fit the land and topography. The simulations are not a precise representation of building height, but are intended to give a general idea of the views from various vantage points. The applicant will be prepared to discuss this at the Planning Commission meeting. Additionally, in response to the above concern the applicant is working with their architect to generate additional photo simulations with more a narrow frame. Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 17, 2015 Page 9 of 19 Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley Town staff recently hosted a meeting with nearby residents of Findley Court. During this meeting residents expressed several concerns about the project, mainly that the height of the Accommodations-2 building will obstruct property views; the photo simulations are not accurate; and that the general layout of the site should be redesigned. Concerning site design, residents prefer that the parking lot be moved closer to the street and the Accommodations-2 building moved toward the southern portion of the lot. Staff recommended that parking be located behind the building because of this Municipal Code standard: 17.060(c)(4) Parking shall be located to the rear of buildings or screened…Parking areas shall be depressed into the ground, stepped on sloping terrain with berming and landscaping provided to screen the parking from off-site view from the Highway 36 corridor and from the Stanley Hotel Complex. During the initial review staff found that the parking would likely be better screened from these views if located behind the buildings as proposed. STAFF REVIEW: Stanly Historic District Purpose and Intent Architectural Review As with previous reviews, staff consulted with RBB Architects Inc. to comment on the various architectural standards of the Stanley Historic District. RBB suggested that the following revisions be made: 1. Relocation of a bicycle rack; 2. Additional information for HVAC equipment; 3. Roofing materials should be of high quality; 4. Consideration should be given to wider window trim and roof fascia; and Figure 6: Photo simulation of Accommodations-2 building from northwest Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 17, 2015 Page 10 of 19 Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley 5. Real stone should be used. Height Variance Building height cannot exceed 30 feet in the Stanley Historic District unless a greater height is authorized through a Special Review (17.44.060.d.1). The roof ridge of the Accommodations-2 building will exceed the height limit by 4’ 11.5” on the southern, down-sloping side. According to verbal comments from the applicant, significant time was spent adjusting the roof and building design in an effort to minimize the height variance request. Accommodations-2 Building The Stanley Historic District requires Special Review for all developments bigger than 5,000 square feet. Because of this requirement, the development plan must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the Town Board. View Corridors View corridors were established to protect the views to the Stanley Hotel and Manor House from various off-site locations. As shown below in Figures 7a thru 7d as a blue star, the Accommodations-2 building is close to but not included in the protected view corridors. As noted in the memo from the Colorado Historical Society, while the proposal will have a visual effect on the historic Stanley Hotel, the project site is situated away and downhill from the hotel, and close to a non-historic shopping center. The memo further states that “it is likely the best location on the Stanley site to place new building, and we believe that construction of the building will have no adverse effect on the Stanley Hotel, provided that the work meets the town’s design standards for the Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Development.” Use, Density and Dimensional Standards The site plan demonstrates compliance with density and dimensional standards, vehicular access/circulation requirements, and pedestrian amenities/linkage requirements. Use (EVDC §4.4) Two uses are proposed: Hotel/Motel and Large Group Living Facility. Both uses are Permitted by Right in the A Accommodations district. No change in use is proposed. Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 17, 2015 Page 11 of 19 Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley Lot Coverage (EVDC §4.3) Lot coverage represents those parts of the site that are covered by development that prevents or impedes the passage or absorption of stormwater (e.g. buildings, sidewalk streets). The proposed plan increases the lot coverage from 37% to 45%, a difference of 24,543 square feet. The proposed modification does comply with the 50% maximum standard. Grading and Site Disturbance Standards (EVDC §7.2) The grading plan demonstrates compliance with general grading standards such as limits on raising/lower natural grade and design of stormwater basins. The proposed Limits of Disturbance will disturb most of the lot. Several significant trees have been incorporated into the site design. The buildings have been sited to help avoid visual impacts. Figures 7a thru 7d: Proximity of Accommodations-2 to View Corridors Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 17, 2015 Page 12 of 19 Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley Landscaping and Buffers (§7.5) As with the original submittal, the proposed landscaping plan complies with the EVDC. The applicant has indicated that a neighboring homeowners association will have input on the final arrangement of landscaping. Elk habitat will be further examined with the final review of construction plans. Exterior Lighting (EVDC §7.9) Staff requested that pedestrian lighting be installed to adequately illuminate the internal pedestrian walkways; these will likely be short bollard lights. No other changes to exterior lighting are proposed (including the original, approved fixtures). The applicant will provide a new photometric survey with Phase II, as the building footprint will be changed from the original approval. Off-Street Parking and Loading (EVDC §7.11) The parking proposed is similar in scope to the original submittal. Additional parking must be added to accommodate a handful of larger rooms within the Accommodations-2 building (larger rooms require more parking). The applicant also proposes that employee parking be located at the Stanley Hotel. The EVDC requires that all satellite parking be within 300 feet of the proposed use; parking at the Hotel is further than 300 feet. The applicant has indicated that employees will therefore be shuttled to Lot 4, which is permitted by the EVDC. Final shuttle details will need to be presented at the Planning Commission hearing, such as the type of vehicle, frequency of shuttles and anticipated hours of operation. Adequate Public Facilities (EVDC §7.12) Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. The design for public facilities will be finalized with construction plans. Sewer A new sewer main will be installed with Phase 1 of the development. The line will be redirected towards the east along the new main entryway and tie to into the existing sewer main along the southern border. The Estes Park Sanitation District did not have concerns with the proposal. Water and Electric Service Adequate water and electric service are available to serve the site and have changed little from the original submittal. There were no concerns expressed by the Estes Park Utilities Department. Drainage. The applicant has presented a new drainage concept to the Public Works Department as an addendum to the preliminary drainage report. Comments from the Public Works Department will be included in the Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 17, 2015 Page 13 of 19 Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley Planning Commission’s packet. The property owner of Stanley Village has expressed concerns about stormwater being directed along the southern border of Lot 4. The new concept is to enlarge an existing basin on Lot 1 (Stanley Hotel) to capture more stormwater from the north. Once on the project site, this stormwater will be directed along with the stormwater generated by the development, to the easterly portion of the lot for treatment and release. Fire Protection. Two fire hydrants will be installed with Phase 1 for fire protection and the buildings will be equipped with a sprinkler system. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District did not express concerns with this concept. Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment (§7.13) As with the original submittal, loading areas will be screened from public view through landscaping and building placement. Street Design and Construction Standards (Appendix D) As with many other development plans, the driveway opening will need to be shortened to less than 30 feet. Most of the other standards found in Appendix D are addressed with construction plans, such as the detailed driveway design and erosion control methods. Supplemental Request: Staff Authority to Approve Revisions. As noted above, the applicant has requested for the Town Board to authorize staff to approve future final details of the development plan. Staff informed the applicant that the Accommodations-1/Wellness Center building must be reviewed by the Town Board through a Special Review. Beyond that staff is authorized to approve minor modifications to approved plans through EVDC Section 3.7. Common examples of minor modifications are shifting a dumpster location and minor alterations to parking. Staff has requested more specific details about this request, which can be presented at the public hearing. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Chapter Six of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan includes Community- Wide Policies that address issues such as land use, community design, scenic and environmental quality and economics. Staff finds the proposed development advances several adopted Community-Wide Policies, including: Land Use: The Future Land Use Plan component of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan designated this parcel for commercial development. Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 17, 2015 Page 14 of 19 Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley • Provide a pedestrian-friendly downtown environment which provides for pedestrian movement, areas for relaxing, gathering and window shopping. • Urban land uses should occur within the Town limits of Estes Park. Community Design: • Locate and design buildings to fit the land. Avoid excessive cuts and fills by stepping buildings down sloping sites. • Avoid the use of roofing materials which are light colored or reflect light. • Facades should be broken up with windows, doors or other architectural features to provide visual relief. • Monument signs, constructed of stone or wood and incorporated into the landscaping, are preferred over freestanding pole mounted signs. • Lighting should be shielded and directed downward, so that the light source is not visible from beyond the property line, and does not illuminate surrounding properties or the sky. Growth Management: • Ensure that new development minimizes the impacts to visual and environmental quality within the Valley. • Encourage sensitive trail connections and linkages. Economics: • Maintain a unique blend of businesses, residents and visitors, without negatively affecting the natural beauty of the Estes Valley. • Develop eco-tourism, which relies on a high quality of physical setting and minimal impact on the environment, as a component of the existing tourism industry. • Sustain and support the existing tourism industry and marketing programs. • Recruit businesses and companies that benefit from the environment and fit with community values. • Establish the basis for a sound tourism market and sustainable economic climate. Chapter Six also includes several area plans, including one specific to Downtown, which includes the Stanley Historic District. Downtown Land Use Summary. “The Stanley Hotel is on the National Register of Historic Places. The hotel, completed in 1909 by F.O. Stanley, is a striking building. Across the county, the façade of the hotel is recognizable, and is linked with the Town of Estes Park. View corridors, Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 17, 2015 Page 15 of 19 Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley façade easements, and other legally binding steps have been taken to preserve the views of the hotel from major roads in town, and to protect the integrity of the hotel. Public ownership of the Knoll property will have a positive impact on the Stanley Hotel and image of the community” Special Review Intent Special Reviews are development plans that include uses that by their nature have potential impact on surrounding properties. Specifically, these reviews require applications to mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. Town staff offers the following comments for the Commission to consider during the public hearing: Construction of the Accommodations-2 Building In 2014, the Planning Commission and Town Board found that the general location and concept of the Accommodations-2 building met the criteria of the Special Review. The applicant has listed various attempts to continue meeting this standard, such as: • Limited grading; • Pedestrian connectivity: Otie’s Trail and another connection through the middle of the site; • Tree Protection; • Providing neighbors an opportunity to comment on the final landscaping plan; • Exterior lighting; • Preserving more open space than required; and • Building placement. The proposed development will replace an existing unpaved street shoulder with a sidewalk. This shoulder currently serves as occasional on-street parking. Loss of the shoulder would result in loss of approximately 30-40 ad-hoc spaces during busy weekends. At 24-feet wide, the newly constructed street would likely not be adequate for on-street parking. This could reduce the amount of vehicular traffic in the neighborhood, though it may contribute to additional on-street parking on Steamer Parkway. Building Height The Stanley Historic District allows the Town Board to consider requests for height variances through the Special Review process. The ridgeline on the north side of the building will meet the 30-foot height limitation. However, the building will measure 39’ 3 1/8” on the downhill side, which is 4’ 11.5” higher than allowed. Staff offers the following comments for the Planning Commission’s consideration: Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 17, 2015 Page 16 of 19 Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley • Throughout the review process the applicant made several attempts to redesign the roof and floor plans to minimize this request; • The area that exceeds the height limit faces south and borders a heavily built-out commercial lot; • Photo simulations are provided; • The location is not in the platted view corridor; • Adjacent neighbors have expressed concerns about this proposal. Specifically, that this is beyond the scope of what was originally contemplated; and • The Colorado Historical Society spoke positively about the project. STAFF FINDINGS: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan and the Downtown area plan. The application advances several Community- Wide policies, as delineated in the Staff report. 2. The application for the proposed Special Review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment. 3. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. 4. The application complies with Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Standards for Development regarding: view corridors; open space; site design; pedestrian circulation; and signs. 5. The request to exceed the Stanley Historic District maximum allowed building of 30-feet is allowed through special review approval, and complies with Section 1.9.E.2 Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes. 6. 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 Review Discussion in the staff report. 7. This is a Planning Commission recommendation is to the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park. 8. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Board agenda. Placement on the March 24 Town Board agenda requires a March 18 submittal of a revised application that fully satisfies all conditions of approval. Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 17, 2015 Page 17 of 19 Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of Special Review of the Development Plan (SR 2014-01B) All subject to the following conditions: 1. Continued compliance with January 10 2014 real estate contract between Grand Heritage Hotel Group LLC and the Town of Estes Park. 2. All improvements and public facilities necessary for Phase I uses shall be installed with Phase I. 3. MUTCD wildlife crossing signs are required on Wonderview Avenue, near the crossing between Lot 5 and the Knoll-Willows. Design and location shall be determined by staff during Construction Plan approval. 4. Landscaping Plan: a. Landscaping plan shall accommodate elk migration, with trees focused close to buildings and parking areas, with outlying areas kept natural grasslands (with irrigation). b. Compliance with Section 7.8.G.1.b Non-Native Vegetation. 5. Staff review and approval shall be required for any future parking lot lighting. Unless more information is requested by staff, the Applicant shall submit a photometric plan, illustrations of fixture models, height and location of proposed lighting. Compliance with 17.44.060(d)(11) and EVDC 7.11 is required. 6. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated January 29, 2015; b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated February 11, 2015; c. Town of Estes Park Water Division memo dated February 19, 2015; d. Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division memo dated February 19, 2015; e. Town of Estes Park Community Development memo dated February 20, 2015; f. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated February 20, 2015; g. Colorado Historical Society memo dated February 20, 2015; and h. RBB Architects, Inc. memo dated February 25, 2015. SAMPLE MOTIONS: I move to recommend APPROVAL (or denial) of Special Review Application 2014-01B, as described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 17, 2015 Page 18 of 19 Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley To: David Bangs, Primary Contact From: Philip Kleisler, Planner II Date: February 20, 2015 RE: Anschutz Wellness Center at The Stanley – Findings of Compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) This written analysis includes only those EVDC provisions that apply to this development proposal. Community Development Staff has performed a code analysis, and finds the January 21, 2015 submittal: Complies with: 1. EPMC 17.44:. - .060(a) regarding View Corridors; - .060(b). 30% open space is required. 41% proposed. - .060(c). o (1) PENDING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW o (3) Service functions are not visible from the primary façade or front yard area. PENDING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW o (4) Parking not located to the rear of buildings are screened with landscaping. Double parking bays are separated by a landscaped island area at least five (5) feet in width. o (5) Regarding parking lot landscaping - .060(d) o (3) PENDING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW o (4) PENDING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW o (6) Photo simulations and associated elevation sheets do not propose roof-mounted mechanical equipment. o (8) PENDING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW o (9) PENDING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW o (11) The Planning Commission must “specify” the exterior fixtures. Staff will include the proposed fixtures in the staff report. - .060(e) regarding proposed signage PENDING BUILDING SAFETY REVIEW - .060(f)(4)(a) and (b) PENDING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - §7.9 Exterior Lighting. Note #22 states that lights be reduced after 10 PM. Per our phone conversation on 2/4/15, parking lot lighting is not proposed. A condition of approval will be added that addresses any future parking lot lighting. 2. §1.9.C Density Calculation. Community Development Memo Page 1 3. §4.4.B Permitted Uses: Accommodations, High-Intensity. Specifically a Hotel/Motel. An establishment that provides temporary lodging to the general public in guest rooms and typically providing additional services, such as restaurants, meeting rooms, entertainment and recreational facilities [§13.1.C.1.b(2)]. §4.4.B Permitted Uses: Group Living Facility, Large. Specifically, a Treatment Facility. Group living for nine of more unrelated individuals, some or all of whom are receiving on- site medical or psychological treatment, therapy or counseling. Examples include an adult day treatment facility. Accepted through the Use Classification determination dated January 31, 2014. 4. §4.4.C.4 Density and Dimensional Standards: Setbacks and Lot Coverage. Floor-Area- Ratio does not apply in the A-Accommodations zoning district. 5. §4.4.C.5 Number of Principal Uses Permitted Per Lot of Development Parcel. One or more principal uses shall be permitted per lot or development parcel, except that in the A zoning district, only one principal residential use shall be permitted per lot or development parcel (no residential uses are proposed). 6. §4.4.D.3 Vehicular Access and Circulation Requirements. 7. §4.4.D.4 Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements. 8. §4.5.D Stanley Historic District Overlay District: Refers to Section 17.44 of the Municipal Code. PENDING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 9. §5.1.I Group Living Facilities, Large. This will be reviewed during Phase II. 10. §5.1.J. Hotels. About 3% of the gross floor area consists of accessory uses, well below the 15% limit. 11. §7.2.B.2 Limits on Changing Natural Grade 12. §7.2.B.3 Cutting to Create Benches 13. §7.2.B.8 Detention/Stormwater Facilities required to minimize visual impacts on natural landscape (porous landscape detention pond proposed). Subject to final review and approval from Public Works. 14. §7.2.C.1 Follow Natural Contours. All disturbed areas shall be restored as natural- appearing land forms, with curves that blend in with adjacent undisturbed slopes. 15. §7.2.D Limitations on Site Disturbance 16. §7.5.D General Landscaping Design Standards 17. §7.5.E Landscaping Requirements for Multi-family and Non-Residential Projects 18. §7.5.F Buffering and Screening The proposed landscaping plan exceeds the minimum requirements. Please find the attached landscaping calculations performed by staff Page 2 (distances are scaled estimates). It appears that your calculations may have overestimated the requirements. The requirements are not cumulative for each area. Also, please ensure that landscaping site plan exactly matches the calculations. 19. §7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection. The development is not required to submit a wildlife conservation plan. a. Thought on your final landscaping plan: consider moving the landscaping inward to allow for a greater elk grazing area. 20. §7.9 Exterior Lighting. a. Per our recent conversation, no parking lot lighting is proposed at this time. However, the Planning Commission will still review the original lighting fixture sample, in the event that you would like to install lighting in the future. b. Parking lots containing less than 100 spaces shall have a maximum height of 15 feet. c. A photometric plan will be required for phase II to ensure compliance with the foot-candle requirement of §7.9.D.1. Page 3 21. §7.10 Operational Performance Standards. 22. §7.11.H Use of Off-street Parking Area 23. §7.11.L Off Street Parking Area Landscaping and Buffering 24. §7.11.M Bicycle Racks 25. §7.12 Adequate Public Facilities regarding water, electricity, sanitary sewer, and fire protection (pending agencies comments). 26. §7.13.B.4 regarding painting of conduits, meters, vents and other equipment attached to the building. 27. Appendix D.III General Site Access: 28. Appendix D.IV Intersection and Driveway Visibility Does not comply with (or needs clarification): 1. 17.44.060(c)(4) Parking areas shall be depressed into the ground, stepped on sloping terrain with berming and landscaping provided to screen the parking from off-site view from the Highway 36 corridor and from the Stanley Hotel complex. 2. 17.44.060(c)(8) Pedestrian pathways shall be adequately illuminated. 3. 17.44.060(d)(1) Town Board will consider the Special Review request for a building height variance. 4. §4.4.C.4 Density and Dimensional Standards: Provide exact height calculations on the site plan prior to the March 17, 2015 hearing (include the roof ridge). 5. §7.5.G Parking Lot Landscaping See attached landscaping spreadsheet. It appears that 2,874 sf of landscaped islands are required. 6. §7.5.G.3.C One (1) tree and two (2) shrubs are required in each landscaped island 7. §7.11.D Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements. A minimum of 108 spaces are required. The plan proposes 94. This calculation assumes that all rooms in the Accommodations-1 building are below 750 square feet and all other activities (e.g. dining and gathering spaces) are associated with the Wellness Center. 8. §7.11.F.1 Requires parking shall be on the same lot. §7.11.G.1.b limits off-site parking to within 300 feet. The proposed employee parking appears to be greater than 300 feet from the Lot 4 use. A shuttle can be used in lieu of this 300’ rule. If no shuttle is use this would require a minor modification from the Planning Commission. If you wish to proceed with that, please submit a brief written explanation. Page 4 One other concept to explore is shared parking with the Wellness Center building. For example, different operating hour between the two uses may allow a shared parking concept to function well. 9. §7.11.J Accessible Parking for Disabled Persons. Five (5) accessible spaces are required for parking lots greater than 100 spaces. Four (4) are proposed. 10. §7.11.N Off-Street Loading Spaces The plan does not propose loading spaces for either building. Are you requesting a minor modification to this standard? 11. §7.11.O.4 Wheel Stops and Continuous Curbs. Where parking spaces are directly adjacent to sidewalks an overhang dimension of at least 18” is expected. This means that the 5 ft. wide walkways as proposed would have a sub-standard on-obstructed width of only 3 ft. to 3.5 ft. The unobstructed width of these sidewalks should be at least four feet. The layout should be revised accordingly (e.g. installation of wheel stops, widen sidewalk, separation between spaces and sidewalk). 12. §7.11 Are the two parallel spaces to the east of the Wellness Center parking spaces? They don’t appear as a part of your parking calculation. 13. Floor plan shows 40 proposed accommodation units. The site plan proposes 32 units in the statistical information and in the building footprint. Please edit for consistency. 14. Add phasing schedule for public sidewalks 15. The grading plan appears to place several feet of fill on top of trees. 16. Appendix D.III.B.7 Driveway opening exceeds 30 feet at the street line. 17. The Drainage Criteria describes the physical site suitability for grass swales as “practical only for sites with general ground slopes of less than 4 percent and are definitively not practical for sites steeper than 6 percent.” Parts of the swale west of the Wellness Center building appears to exceed 6%. 18. Note #24 on the approved site plan was not carried forward to the current submittal. This note states that “ALL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACCOMMODATIONS AND WELLNESS CENTER USES WILL BE CONDUCTED WITHIN THE BUILDINGS.” a. Describe why this note is not carried forward; b. Describe the purpose of the sidewalk added to the west of the Wellness Center. c. Describe activities that will take place in the outdoor deck space on the southwest corner of the Accommodations-2 building. 19. Minor drafting comments: a. Invert elevation on the top left side of Sheet 5 is cutoff b. Sheet 5 and 6 appear to not align as proposed on Sheet 2 (some land appears to be missing) c. Sheet 5: overlapping invert label with ETC label makes it difficult to read d. Sheet 7: overlapping label on far right e. §7.2.C.2. Add a note to the plan stating that “Areas disturbed by grading shall be revegitated within one (1) growing season after construction. f. §7.2.C.3 Add this note g. §7.2.C.4 Add this note h. East boundary distance appears longer than the label indicates Page 5 i. Sheet 7: proposed contour off the property over the existing rock wall on Stanley Village. j. Amend title to include “Phase 1” k. Add a note to the Wellness Center building that it is conceptual only. 20. §8.1 Compliance with Town and County Sign Codes. Pending review. Construction plans must address the following Sections: 1. 17.44.060(c)(7) Cut and fill slope shall be revalidated. Rock cuts shall be treated to create a natural appearance simulating the original patina. 2. Entry sign specifications, including site location and lighting (if any) 3. Label exact distance between building corners and the property line. 4. §4.4.D.4 Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements. All internal pedestrian walkways shall be designed to be visually attractive and distinguishable from driving surfaces through use of durable, low-maintenance surface materials such as pavers, brick or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort. Include the specific materials for pedestrian walkways. 5. §7.2.B Grading Standards. 6. §7.2.B.2 Limits on Changing Natural Grade. Provide statement that the original natural grade of the lot will not be raised or lowered more than 10-feet. 7. §7.2.C Restoration of Disturbed Areas 8. §7.5.D.2.b.3 Root Zones. Trees need to be surrounded by pervious area around 1.5 times the area of the drip line. 9. §7.5.D.2.d Include plant sizes 10. §7.5.D.5 Standards for Protection During Construction. 11. §7.5.D.3.e No tree can be planted with seven (7) feet of a building 12. §7.5.D.3.i No trees shall be planted within 25 feet of intersections 13. §7.5.D.5 Include plan for irrigation 14. §7.5.F.2.2 District buffer plantings (east boundary) shall be within 20 feet of the property line. 15. §7.5.G.2.e.3 Rear parking lot landscaped buffer shall be grouped, not evenly spaced 16. Show clear phasing lines for landscaping. 17. §7.9 Exterior lighting. Must address Stanley Historic District standards regarding reduced lighting after 10 PM. 18. §7.11.O Parking and Loading Area Design Standards (markings) 19. §7.11.J Accessible Parking for Disabled Persons regarding ADA signs and markings, and slope of parking space and access aisle. Ensure ADA signage will not be damaged by vehicles or interfere with pedestrian access. 20. §7.11.K.2 regarding any signage and markings for one-way area in Phase II. 21. §7.11.O.1.b regarding all one-way and two-way directional arrows 22. §7.12.F Because one (1) building will be constructed in Phase I, drainage facilities for this building must be installed at that time too. 23. §7.13 Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment. Trash enclosure materials, colors and design of screening walls or fences shall conform to those used as predominant materials and colors of the buildings. If such areas are to be covered, then the covering shall conform to those used as predominant materials and colors on the building. 24. Easement is required for the portion of the eastern sidewalk along Steamer Drive that extends out of the Town right-of-way. 25. South-facing parking spaces in Phase I may puddle at the southern points during rain. 26. Appendix D.II Streets Page 6 27. Appendix D.III.B.9 Driveway Design Requirements 28. Appendix D.III.B.10 Driveway Construction Standards. 29. Appendix D.IV.1 Add sight visibility triangles to landscaping plan 30. Appendix D.V Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections and Trails 31. Appendix D.VI Erosion Control 32. Appendix D.VII Tree and Vegetation Protection During Construction and Grading Activities 33. Appendix D.VIII Other Requirements, regarding construction plan approval, quality control, etc. 34. “No Parking Fire Lane” signs and method of fire lane access control. 35. Tree well details 36. Demonstrate positive drainage from buildings. 37. 7.2 – retaining wall section (if proposed) Page 7 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Dave Shirk From: Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Civil Engineer Greg Muhonen, PE, Director of Public Works Date: February 20, 2015 RE: Anschutz/EPMC Wellness Center – Development Plan/Prelim Plat Public Works offers the following comments on the Anschutz/EPMC Wellness Center – Development Plan/Prelim Plat application as submitted. Comments are applicable for plans received on February 6, 2015. General: 1. Several off-site easements to the south are identified in the plans as “Pending Owner Approval”. Public Works approval of the Development Plan/Plat is contingent on these owner approvals being complete. 2. Separate Phasing Plan Sheet would help overall understanding of what improvements are being installed when. 3. Amended Plat not included in review packet. Transportation: 1. This project only improves the south half of the Steamer Drive right-of-way. 2. Driveway access location is acceptable to Public Works. 3. Applicant is required to submit and get approval of Final Construction Plans before construction of any transportation related infrastructure. Drainage: 1. OFF-SITE SOUTH. Proposed drainage easements are pending approval by owner. Final approval will need to be in place before approval of final infrastructure design. 2. Detention Pond facilities contain on-site private developed runoff and will need to be privately owned and maintained. Plans should designate this ownership and maintenance. 3. Phase I drainage includes the installation of a retention pond that requires permanent storage of water and augmentation rights. This process will need to be complete prior to Public Works approving the drainage design. 4. Applicant is required to submit and get approval of Final Construction Plans before construction of any storm drainage related infrastructure. Estes Park Sanitation District PO Box 722, Estes Park, CO 80517 January 29, 2015 Dave Shirk, Senior Planner As per review of the latest Development Plans for the EPMC/ Anschutz Wellness Training Center, Lot 4 Stanley Historic District (submitted to the District on 12/01/14) the District has included the comments from our previous review(s) dated 1/17/14 and 12/10/14. These comments are still valid and include recommen- dations for future development on Lot 1, The Stanley Hotel. Comments I - II relate specifically to these lat- est plans. I. Reviewing the proposed sewer main extension on page 4 of 12, the four manholes that are shown do not have adequate drop. The plans shall include five tenths of drop form the invert in and invert out in each manhole. II. Plan and Profile plans need to be submitted. In the area where the storm drain line crosses the sewer main adequate separation must be maintained (one foot). If a conflict occurs staff will review the proposal with VHE. III. If food preparation will be included in the development, the District will require an interceptor for fats, oil and grease (FOG). Sizing will be determined after plan review. EPSD Wellness Center comments from 12/10/14. A. The District has no problem with the relocation of the sewer main through Lot 4 as shown on these plans. There should be no grade issues associated with the new location however a plan and pro- file of the line should be submitted to the District prior to final approval of the line. Questions con- cerning manhole construction and proper drops should be addressed to Ron Duell at: rduell@estesparksanitation.org (970) 481-1458. When designing the line please pay attention to Comment #3 below. B. Build out projections for Lot 1 were provided earlier by VHE and their projections showed the exist- ing 8” main line would be adequate for any future Lot 1 development. Since the existing line will be abandoned and a new line installed the development may consider installing 10” PVC. The cost dif- ference between the two sizes is small. Should future demand from Lot 1 create capacity issues through Lot 4, the upsize of the line will be the responsibility of the development and not the District. C. The new line must be installed prior to development in Lot 4 since the proposed structures would be over the existing line. Disconnecting the older line from service shall be per District standards to prevent infiltration. D. The vacating of the old easement takes a board of director’s action. All costs associated with vacat- ing this easement shall be the responsibility of the development. EPSD Wellness Center comments from 1/17/14. 1. As per review of the Lot 4 Stanley Historic District Wellness Center Development Plans, the existing sewer main through Lot 4 will accommodate the proposed development. The proposed extensions east and west of the existing main are also sufficient for the development. The District will accept ownership of only those eight inch lines shown that end in a manhole. Extensions of line that do not meet that requirement will be service lines owned by the development regardless of the size and composition. 2. As per a build out projection sheet for Lot 1 provided by Van Horn Engineering (11/6/13) the existing main line should also be sufficient to accommodate the future development on the Stanley Hotel property. The letter from VHE has been attached. 3. As discussed above, the development proposes to keep the existing sewer main in place. However the six inch service line that extends west across the Stanley Hotel property is no longer adequate for future development. The line will need to be replaced with eight inch PVC and manholes added before future demand is allowed. If the existing eight inch line through Lot 4 needs to be lowered to accommodate the eventual replacement of the six inch line, then it should be done prior to im- provements taking place on Lot 4. 4. There is some concern about the sewer mains downstream of Lot 4. The demand impact from Lot 4 and the Stanley Hotel property will be observed. We believe the ten inch line as it crosses US 34 is likely adequate for future development. We are less certain about the 15 inch line through the Visitors Center. The District will investigate capacity concerns and if necessary a capital expansion fee will be required of the Stanley properties. 5. System investment fees will be required as per our schedule for this development. 6. We recommend independent metering of irrigation water so it will not be assessed sewer user fees. 7. There does not appear to be food preparation involved in this development. Should food prepara- tion be considered in the future a Fats, Oil and Grease (FOG) interceptor will be required as per our schedule. 8. As-Built plans will be required for the sewer mains. 9. Separation of water, sewer and storm sewer shall be a minimum of ten feet. 10. The planting of trees within the sewer easements shall not be allowed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these plans If you have questions or would like additional information, please contact James Duell (970) 586-2866. Thank you. James Duell, District Manager Estes Park Sanitation District Inter-Office Memorandum To: Community Development From: Jeff Boles and Steve Rusch Date: 2/19/2015 Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: FINAL - Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, TBD Steamer Parkway - Stanley/EPMC Amended Development Plan (Special Review) and Amended Plat The Water Division has the following Plan Review comments for the above application: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following criteria must be met: All water main lines will require minimum 20ft. easements (10 ft. either side of the line). Water main lines must be a minimum 10ft. away from all sanitary and storm sewer lines. 4ft. separation is required from all other utilities. Water Main Extensions are required for service, including Fire Protection. This infrastructure must be installed; testing preformed/passed and accepted by the Division prior to issuance of any building permits Any project phasing of the infrastructure must be submitted with the construction drawings for approval prior to construction. Phased infrastructure must be completed and accepted prior to issuance of any building permits within the phase. Construction Drawings are required and must be submitted for review, approval and signatures by the Utilities Director or his designated representative. No installation of any project infrastructure is allowed until the Construction Drawings have been signed. All water main lines, hydrants and easements must be deeded to the Town of Estes Park. Along with the submission of the construction drawings provide the contact information of the firm or person acting as Utility Construction Manager for the project. Inter-Office Memorandum Construction drawings must include: • Plan and profile to show potential conflicts between water and other utilities including culverts, show Utility Easement locations when utility is not in Road Right of Way. • Metering/Tap location plan (drawing) indicating tap locations and sizes, water meter locations and sizes, and buildings served by each. • All water line design and construction shall be done according to the Water Utility Policies and Standards Additional air relief may be required at a high point where the proposed 12” water main is tied on to the existing water main across Wonderview Ave. The Water Division must also determine the specific location for this tie on before construction drawings are complete. All water service lines and fire protection lines (excluding hydrants) are private. For commercial applications, tap fees will be calculated based on the number of water fixtures to be installed. For accommodations, fees will be based on number of rooms. Backflow prevention devices are required on all water services, irrigation and fire protection lines, contact Steve Rusch at 577-3625 or srusch@estes.org to discuss what is required for plumbing installation or with any questions regarding the backflow devices or requirements. For any structure that is required to have a Fire Suppression System a detailed drawing must be turned in to the Water Department noting: • Location, sizing and type of backflow prevention device(s) • Engineered flow requirements for the fire sprinkler system, pipe size will be determined based on NFPA table 10.10.2.1.3, Fire Flow produced at a velocity of 10ft/sec. Pipe Size Flow Rate 2” 100 gpm 4” 390 gpm 6” 880 gpm 8” 1560 gpm 10” 2440 gpm 12” 3520 gpm Inter-Office Memorandum • Spill control method for proper disposal of discharge from the relief valve, indicating location and sizing of drainage capable of accommodating the discharge that could occur Due to fire line size, both a chlorination and pressure test will be required, conducted by a representative of the Water Division prior to acceptance. Any Fire suppression line servicing a building from the water main is a private service line. Future repair or maintenance required on this service is the sole responsibility of the building owner. Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the Town of Estes Park Utilities Department. . PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Date: February 11, 2015 Project Identification: EPMC Wellness Center Location: Lot 4 Stanley Historic District Referral: EPMC Wellness Center at Stanley Hotel Final DP The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed the submitted material describing the proposed project referenced above, and approves those plans contingent on compliance with the following requirements (conditions of approval): Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following requirements shall be met: 1. Construction plans (access / roads, water line system design) shall be reviewed and must meet approval of the Fire District. 2. The new required fire hydrants shall be installed. The hydrants shall be maintained operational at all times thereafter, unless alternate provisions for water supply are approved by the fire District. The Town of Estes Park must approve the installation and oversee the testing of water mains and hydrants. 3. In accordance with IFC Chapters 5 and 14, approved fire department access shall be provided during all phases of construction, as well as to completed buildings. The criteria for fire department access roads shall be as follows: A. Permanent asphalt or concrete roads shall be installed unless a temporary road surface, such as recycled asphalt or concrete, is approved. B. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus. C. The unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road shall be not less than 20 feet. D. Turning radii of a fire department access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. E. All dead-end roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall provide adequate space for fire apparatus to turn around. F. Emergency access gates shall be located a minimum of 40 feet back from the adjacent street flow line. Swinging gates must open in the direction of ingress to the site. Gates must have a minimum opening width of 20 feet Emergency only access gates shall have approved signage marked: EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY NO PARKING FIRE LANE 4. Fire apparatus access roads shall be permanently signed and / or marked “NO PARKING FIRE LANE” in accordance with municipal sign/traffic standards. A. Access roads less than 26 feet wide shall be marked as fire lanes on both sides of the road. B. Access roads at least 26 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide shall have at least one side of the road marked as a fire lane. C. Access roads at least 32 feet wide need not have fire lane markings. All construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the International Fire Code (2009 Edition) and the International Building Code (2009 Edition). Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Marc W. Robinson Fire Marshal 970-577-3689 mrobinson@estesvalleyfire.org Inter-Office Memorandum To: Community Development From: Joe Lockhart, Steve Rusch Date: 2/19/2014 Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: FINAL - Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, TBD Steamer Parkway - Stanley/EPMC Amended Development Plan (Special Review) and Amended Plat Light and Power has the following Completeness Review comments for the above application: This application is complete for review. The following criteria are required for Construction Drawings. • Please schedule a required meet at site with Joe Lockhart, Line Superintendent at (970)577-3613. • All infrastructures must be paid in advance to the Town of Estes Park. No Building permits will be approved by Light & Power until such time. • All new construction must be underground. Trenching & conduit to be provided and installed by developer to Town specifications. • All other material will be purchased from & installed by the Town of Estes Park. • All Town of Estes Park Light and Power lines, (Primary/Secondary) must have a 20 ft. utility easement. This easement can be shared by water, phone and cable. • Water must be at least 4ft from electric. • All services must be on the owner’s property. • The size of the service must be shown on the electrical drawings. • All existing lines must be shown on the electrical drawings. • Transformers/pen cells must be in an easement, or if possible on the property line. • All primary lines must be 4ft deep with red warning tape at 2ft. • All subdivision must be designed by an electrical engineer. Inter-Office Memorandum • All pipes must be schedule 40 gray PVC pipe, if there are more than 4 pipes in a trench then all conduit must be put into a pipe rack. • Town must have ownership of all road crossings. • On underground electric services, it will be the electrician’s responsibility to dig them into the transformers or pedestals. • The electrician will need to schedule with L&P to unlock and open transformers or pedestals. • All temporary and permanent electric services will be connected by Light & Power within 5 business days after the state electrical inspection & fees are paid. • Permanent meter sockets must be permanently marked with address or unit number. • All spare conduits will be provided by Light and Power and to be installed by the developer at their cost. Light and Power will not reimburse contractor or developer for conduit obtained elsewhere. Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division. Phil Kleisler Planner II Town of Estes Park, CO February 25, 2015 Re: Architecture Review of EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center Accommodations‐2 Dear Mr. Kleisler, Thank you for the opportunity to do an architectural review of this project. My understanding from speaking with you on the phone and from reading the various documents provided to me by your office is that currently the property is within the Stanley Historic District as described in Chapter 17.44 of the Estes Park Municipal Code and language has been added in Section 12 Lot 4 to indicate that design should comply with the Stanley Hotel Complex as described in Section 17.44.060 Design and Performance Standards Item (f) (4) New Buildings. Important to note: 1. Site Design – buildings shall be designed to follow natural contours. Although the Accommodations 2 building is designed to appear to sit on a plinth (not step down with the contours). It is successful in using a stone base which is more exposed on the south elevation as the grade slopes away. 2. Circulation, Parking, Service Access and Slopes. The site circulation and access appears to be fairly successful with the majority of the parking screened by the buildings. Bike parking near the entrance is appreciated although it looks like it will conflict with the limited sidewalk there. Perhaps a better location would be under the overhang of the deck above. The layout of the building does not appear to have a grand entrance. The north porch goes directly into guest rooms. There is a sidewalk connection to Steamer Parkway shown on the rendering but not on the site plan. The narrative mentions HVAC equipment and service enclosures being on the ground and screened. I don’t see this in the site plans, building plans or renderings. This will be important on where they are located and how they are screened. 3. Building Design. a. Height. A variance has been requested for height over the 30 foot limit in Section 17.44.060 D (1). The building is less than 30’ at the North street elevation and is only above as the grade slopes away to the south. The size and scale seem appropriate for this location and use in keeping with 17.44.060 F (4) a. b. The architectural style of this building is consistent with the historic style of the Stanley Hotel complex which is in keeping with 17.44.060 F (4) b. c. Prohibited architectural styles, motifs and roof lines have been respected with exception of the argument of mimicking the style of the Stanley Hotel. d. Roof Materials – notes on the elevations call for composite shingle roofing red to match Stanley Hotel. This is appropriate and it should be noted that all materials should be high quality. e. Facades – The design of Accomodations‐2 building has the facades nicely articulated with bump‐outs, creating hips and gables at the roofs and porches with well detailed railings and panels. The window trim and the roof fascia are both rather minimal and could be more effective if they were wider. No gutters or downspouts are shown. f. Building Materials – the materials appear to be appropriate. The large scale of the stone on the renderings is really nice. I would recommend that real stone be used. If it is fake stone it is critical that attention be paid to the scale. g. Wall colors – the color renderings show a color palette to match the Hotel Stanley which is appropriate. h. Lighting – The narrative says they will be using pre‐approved light fixutres. 4. Signs – The narrative says they were approved in Phase 1. Sincerely, Rebecca E Spears, AIA, LEED AP, Principal RB+B Architects, Inc. 970‐488‐3854 rspears@rbbarchitects.com To: David Bangs, Primary Contact From: Wes Reichardt, Code Compliance Officer Date: February 27, 2015 RE: Anschutz Wellness Center at The Stanley – Sign Code Review The following memo outlines the requirements of the Town of Estes Park’s sign code and the Stanley Historic District sign regulations for the Stanley Wellness Center. All signs that are not specifically exempt from the sign code will require a Town of Estes Park sign permit. Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, Signs. The proposed monumental type sign meets view triangles and minimum setback requirements set forth in the Town of Estes Park sign code. Prior to installation of the monumental sign, further details on size and height will be required. The Stanley Historic District has more stringent regulations and requires an approved sign plan by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any sign permits. The Stanley Historic District regulations are below: Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapter 17.44, Stanley Historic District (1) Sign plans. All development shall obtain approval of a sign plan from the Planning Commission prior to any signs being erected upon or within any structure. All signs erected or maintained within the structure that are visible from outside shall conform at all times to the approved sign plan. (2) Application. An application for a sign plan shall include at least the following information: The total amount of proposed signage for each structure; b. The location, materials and maximum area of each sign that an individual business will be allowed to display; and c. Directory signs, building identification signs, information signs and freestanding signs shall be included in the plan. (3) Maximum sign area. a. The total square footage of allowable sign area for any building shall be equal to sixty-six percent (66%) of the building's frontage. All signs displayed shall be used in determining the total sign area for a building. Example: (linear feet of building frontage) x 0.66 = total square footage of allowable sign area. b. The area of any one (1) sign shall not exceed twenty (20) square feet. Freestanding signs. a. There shall be no more than one (1) freestanding sign on each lot. b. A landscaped area equal to two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of each side of a freestanding sign shall be maintained by the permit holder. Community Development Memo Page 1 c. No freestanding sign shall exceed six (6) feet in height, or twenty (20) square feet in area. d. A freestanding sign used to identify a master planned project of three (3) or more buildings may exceed the twenty-square-foot limit up to a maximum sign size of forty (40) square feet. The maximum allowable size of any such sign shall be determined by the Planning Commission based upon the number of buildings, the distance of the sign from any roadway, and the necessity of facilitating traffic circulation by adequately identifying the project. e. When a project has multiple vehicular accesses, all of which accesses are not visible from a single location, the Planning Commission may permit one (1) freestanding sign at each point of vehicular access to the project. f. Backlit signs are not permitted. Sign color shall be compatible with building colors and shall not be brilliant, luminescent or day-glow. Page 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes, Russ Schneider, Sharry White Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Hills, Murphree, Schneider, White Also Attending: Director Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner Dave Shirk, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, Town Attorney Greg White, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Commissioners Sykes and Klink Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 55 people in attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Sharry White was welcomed as the recent appointee by the Town Board to fill the vacancy on the Commission. 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. EXCERPTS FROM MINUTES TRANSCRIBED FOR TOWN BOARD MEETING ON MARCH 24, 2015 1. ASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEY; AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW 2014‐01; TBD Steamer Drive Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicant received approval by Town Board of Special Review 2014‐01 in February, 2014. The site is Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District, and is zoned A–Accommodations. Stanley Village Shopping Center is located to the south, and public open space is on the west, Stanley Hotel complex to the northwest, and a mix of single‐family residential and outlots to the northeast. The original approval included an Accommodations‐1 building, a Wellness Center, and the Accommodations‐2 building. The original development plan proposed building the Wellness Center and the Accommodations‐1 buildings as separate buildings, along with the infrastructure that included the parking lots. The Accommodations‐2 building was only a conceptual footprint, with an undetermined construction date (part of a future phase). The applicant is now requesting approval to construct the Accommodations‐2 building first, with the Wellness Center and Accommodations‐1 building to follow once the Estes Park Medical Center (EPMC) obtains necessary funding. When EPMC realized the original separate buildings were not the ideal layout for day‐to‐day operations, they approached the applicant about “fusing” the Wellness Center and the Accommodations‐1 building together, allowing clients easier accessibility to both buildings. Planner Kleisler displayed a diagram of the approved plan, and overlayed the proposed changes to allow a better visual for the Commissioners and public in attendance. He stated because the Accommodations‐2 building was only a concept with the first approval, the application being reviewed today includes an architectural review and analysis. The changes include a slightly larger footprint for the fused buildings, and a shift of the Accommodations‐2 building approximately five (5) feet to the northwest. The original construction phases would be reversed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Kleisler stated the process and review criteria included the following: consistency with the goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (this parcel is part of the Downtown Neighborhood); compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); and compliance with the Stanley Historic District guidelines, which are located in the Estes Park Municipal Code. The Stanley Historic District Master Plan does not apply to this specific lot. The Planning Commission is the recommending body, with the Town Board hearing the item on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 for a final decision. Planner Kleisler stated the Special Review criteria requires applications mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. The application should accomplish these in order to receive a positive recommendation by the Planning Commission. Planner Kleisler stated the Stanley Historic District guidelines include view corridors from the Stanley Hotel. The Accommodations‐2 building is proposed to lie just outside a view corridor, and the Accommodations‐1 and Wellness Center (Phase II) would lie within a view corridor. Additional analysis would need to occur for the approval of Phase II, which would include a hearing before the Planning Commission and Town Board. Planner Kleisler stated the Statement of Intent portion of the application lists a number of efforts made on their behalf to comply with the Special Review criteria, such as limited grading and pedestrian connectivity. The applicant has recorded an easement for public access throughout the site. The social trail from the Stanley Hotel to Stanley Village Shopping Center has been solidified legally through a public access easement. The applicant has also committed to working with the adjacent property owners on final landscaping designs, including placement of trees and shrubs. Exterior lighting will be limited; no parking lot lighting was proposed, but staff requested bollard lighting be provided along the pedestrian ways to ensure safe access throughout the site at night. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant provided photo simulations of the proposed Accommodations‐2 building. The northwest side complies with the 30‐foot height limit. As the site slopes down, the building exceeds the allowable height by just under five (5) feet on the south edge, after slope adjustment provided in the EVDC. The applicant provided additional photo simulations today, including “Option 2”, which changes the design of the roof to comply with the 30‐foot height limit. The applicant desires to receive a height variance to construct the Accommodations‐2 building as planned (over the height limit); however, Option 2 could be an alternative. Planner Kleisler stated the portion of the building that would be over the height limit faces south towards Stanley Village Shopping Center. There has been considerable public comment and neighbor concern opposed to the height variance. Some comments also addressed the location of the building and the parking lot as a way to reduce the height of the Accommodations‐2 building. During the original review process, staff recommended the parking lot be located behind the building in order to screen the parking from the public street. Planner Kleisler stated the site design does not show the proposed sidewalk along Steamer Drive. The applicant has had difficulty obtaining the necessary easements through the Stanley Hills Subdivision. If the Commission recommends approval, one of the conditions for Phase II would RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall require the applicant to gain all necessary easements to construct the sidewalk in this area. If the easements are not obtained, the sidewalk should be constructed fully on the applicant’s property, which will be fairly disconnected from the road. Planner Kleisler stated staff also requested the issue of any proposed outdoor activity on the site be addressed with Phase II, as the note from the original plan was not carried forward to the amended plan. Staff had three concerns pertaining to the amended site plan: Proposed outdoor activity on the eastern side of the site: Through internal discussions, the applicant proposed small‐scale wedding receptions take place on the eastern side of the site plan. Given this proposal was not initiated earlier in the application process, staff requested and the owner agreed to remove the allowance of that activity from the plan. A condition of approval will be added to ensure removal of that statement prior to Town Board review on March 24th. Potential for outdoor use on deck located at the southwest corner of the Accommodations‐2 building: Staff requested additional information as to whether any outdoor uses would be conducted in this area. The applicant stated the deck is directly connected to one of the accommodations units, and no organized outdoor uses would be conducted on the deck. A pedestrian connection and patio on the western edge of the site is not on the amended plans: The applicant explained that feature was deleted from the current proposal. Staff Findings 1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan and the Downtown area plan. The application advances several Community–Wide policies, as delineated in the Staff report. 2. The application for the proposed amendment to the Special Review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment. 3. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. 4. The application complies with the Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Standards for Development regarding: view corridors, open space, site design, pedestrian circulation, and signs. 5. The request to exceed the Stanley Historic District maximum allowed building height of 30‐feet is allowed through special review approval, and complies with Section 1.9.E.2 Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes. 6. 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 Review Discussion in the staff report. 7. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park. 8. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the board agenda. Placement on the March 24 Town Board RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall agenda requires a March 18 submittal or a revised application that fully satisfies all conditions of approval. Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval of the amendment to the approved Special Review 2014‐01, with conditions of approval listed below. Director Chilcott stated there may be additional conditions to Condition of Approval #8, which will require additional discussion between Planner Kleisler and herself. Chair Hull called a ten‐minute recess at 2:35. The meeting reconvened at 2:45 p.m. Public Comment Lucia Liley/applicant representative briefly explained the issue concerning the name of the complex. She stated there has been no change in relationships since the beginning of the concept. In March, 2015, EPMC entered into a formal contract with the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center (Anschutz Medical Center) for licensing and use of their proprietary wellness programs. These programs will be implemented as part of the Wellness Center project in Estes Park. A lease between Grand Heritage Hotels and EPMC is intact. She stated because of the complexity of the redesign of Phase I, the process will take additional time and another special review process will be forthcoming. Grand Heritage Hotels has funding in place and is prepared to begin construction as soon as possible, so it made sense to reverse the phasing and build the Accommodations‐2 building first. Because that building had not been designed prior to the original review process, the height and architecture required review by Staff, Planning Commission, and Town Board. She stated it was important to note that the major categories of the project remain in place: the uses have not changed; the amount of open space exceeds the requirement; the building to lot coverage ratio is under what is allowed; native landscaping and wildlife mitigation techniques are in place. She stated a large amount of work was done on the stormwater drainage plan, which was revised following concerns and questions from some of the downstream property owners, and some of which was related to drainage of Lot 1. Engineers spent more time analyzing the drainage plan, and the current design would put some of the water into a pond system on Lot 4 and have the water recede from there. She stated the building envelope was approved during the original approval process, as was the parking lot placement. The building has been shifted five feet to accommodate some pedestrian connections. She stated it is generally considered a superior planning technique to screen parking by putting is at the rear of the building. In the Stanley Historic District standards, parking should be placed behind the building. Once room sizes were determined, parking requirements increased. A few more spaces were added on site, and eight more were added off‐site, which Town code allows. Those off‐site spaces will be located at the Stanley Hotel, but because the distance is more than 300 feet from the proposed development, transportation must be provided. The Stanley Hotel purchased a London taxi to run on demand between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. to provide access to the overflow parking spaces. The use of those eight spaces would assume 100% occupancy of the accommodations buildings, and all rooms larger than 750 square feet would have two cars. That situation is not likely to occur. The Town Board, during the approval of the original plan, made some clarifications and changes to the architectural standards of the Stanley Historic District. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Ms. Liley stated a letter from the Colorado Historical Society recognized the site for the building is likely the best placement, and is not anticipated to have an adverse affect on the Stanley Hotel. The third‐party architect hired by the hotel suggested a few minor changes, all of which the applicant has agreed to do. The height issue has been studied extensively. Another potential way to design the Accommodations‐2 building to comply with the height requirement has been submitted. The architecture of the roof would be altered. The pros and cons of each option would need to be weighed as to what you would gain or lose. Tim Lego/applicant’s architect stated the proposed Accommodations‐2 building would maintain the Stanley cohesiveness while creating its own set of modifications. Window trims are complementary but slightly different; trims, deck railings, and columns are similar; there will be a stone base to the building, and colors will comply with the Stanley Historic District requirements. Don Burnholtz/applicant’s architect stated throughout the process, the photo simulations have been challenged for accuracy. The most recent photo simulations are available on the Town website for this project, titled View Corridor Presentation. He used GPS to ensure accuracy. After reviewing the slides, he stated there are grave sacrifices to the architectural integrity of the building when using Option 2. The roof pitch would be altered, and the dormers would be flattened on top. The applicant’s team did not think Option 2 would complement the architectural standards of the Stanley Hotel complex. There was brief discussion between Chair Hull and Ms. Liley concerning the letter from the State Historical Society. It was ultimately concluded by the society there would be no adverse affect from this project. It was understood the project would be required to meet the Town design standards. David Bangs/applicant’s engineer stated the building floor could not be lowered due to the complex pipe system flowing underneath the building. Making it lower would require waivers to other standards of the EVDC. He stated the main reason for the shift of the Accommodations‐2 building is to accommodate the required pedestrian walkways alongside the building. There was brief discussion between Commissioner Schneider and Mr. Burnholtz concerning the room sizes. It was noted the proposed building will have 40 units and 48 beds. Due to the larger size of a few of the units, additional parking spaces were required. John Cullen/applicant stated the eight corner units will be larger, to accommodate families with children and be ADA compliant. ADA rules have changed and additional restrictions now apply. He stated he is celebrating his 20th anniversary of owning the Stanley Hotel, and does not consider himself a “foreigner”. He stated the original plan for the Accommodations‐2 building called for larger rooms; however, the market is for individual rooms, so although the footprint has not changed, the number of rooms has. The Town requested only short‐term rentals (less than 30 days) in the Accommodations‐2 building, and they will comply with that request. The Wellness Center will have doctors, nurses, therapists, etc. staying in this building, and rotations will RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall typically be two to three weeks each. The rooms will have kitchenettes. The clients at the Wellness Center may stay as long as six weeks, and they will stay in the Accommodations‐1 building, which will not have cooking facilities in the rooms. There was brief discussion between Mr. Cullen and Commissioner Schneider concerning the completion of the entire project. Mr. Cullen welcomes the partnership with EPMC. If EPMC does not raise the funds, Mr. Cullen will build it himself. It is in his best interest to encourage EPMC to raise the funds and build the Wellness Center. Mr. Cullen stated he also has wellness center projects planned for Japan, China, and England. The Estes Park facility would be the flagship wellness center. Planner Kleisler stated after consulting with the Town Attorney, staff would like to amend Staff Finding #5, removing “and complies with Section 1.9.E.2 Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes.” This was a finding during the original development plan approval process. The current application does not comply with the height limit; therefore, this portion of the finding must be removed. Condition of Approval #1 will be deleted, as reference to the contract does not apply to this application. During the recess, Community Development staff had a brief conversation with the applicant and staff is recommending the use of the eastern drainage facilities for outdoor activities (including outdoor recreation) be reviewed with Phase II. Staff has some concerns with that area of the site. While the wedding reception note will be removed from the plans, staff wants to ensure any outdoor uses associated with the project are provided the public review process, which can happen during review of Phase II. David Bangs stated the shape of the pond on the landscape plan has morphed from the original plan. The proposed pond will be a retention pond, in that it will store water permanently. It will have aesthetic value and minimize visual impacts of stormwater facilities on neighboring properties and surrounding areas. Typically, retention ponds are heavily landscaped, and also require a substantial amount of maintenance. As for use for outdoor activities, the applicant agrees with staff that this area would not be used in that manner with this application. Public Comment Ann Finley/Town resident stated was imperative that the project be done correctly. The new proposal was not what the voters approved, and she wondered if the vote would have passed if the proposal presented today were the original plans (accommodations being built prior to the Wellness Center). She urged Commissioners to hold the project to the same standards as everyone else in the Estes Valley; not to show favoritism or waive fees. She did not support the amended plan. Christie Smith/representative for Doug Warner/Town resident stated he was opposed to the project if it did not comply with the height limit. Christie Smith/Town resident stated she lived nearby, and was concerned her property value and quality of life would be negatively impacted by the project. There are people in her neighborhood that voted for the project. Others are not being vindictive because “they lost the election,” They are just concerned about their property values and quality of life issues. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Marlene Hayek/Town resident stated prior to purchasing her home, she learned the Stanley Historic District Master Plan limited commercial development to 35,000 square feet (the proposed project is over 100,000 square feet). She was upset when Lot 4 was excluded from the Master Plan due to the expiration of such plan. She believed the Town made changes and ignored comments in order to accommodate the sale of Lot 4 and pave the way for development. She was opposed to the request to build the Accommodations‐2 building prior to the Wellness Center, to the request for a height variance, and encouraged the Commissioners to disapprove the application. Ed Hayek/Town resident and President of Stanley View Homeowners Association supported denial of the application. The HOA has serious concerns about declining property values. The neighbors had to comply with regulations when their homes were built, and the Stanley Hotel should have to comply as well. He stated the proposed building could be stepped down to lower the height. He was opposed to the project being rushed through the process, stating that was when errors were made and opportunities missed. He disagreed with the accuracy of the photo simulations. He did not agree the applicant had mitigated to the maximum amount feasible. Judy Schrieber/Town resident stated while she voted in favor of the sale of Lot 4, she was opposed to flipping the phases and building the Accommodations‐2 building first. She encouraged the Town to move the parking lot so the building can be moved further down the hill. A view of Longs Peak is very important to those in the Estes Park Community, and it has emotional significance. Dana Small/Town resident lives in Estes Park because the views are outstanding. The codes were adopted for a reason, and should be complied with. He was opposed to the height variance request. Johanna Darden/Town resident stated the approval of the sale of Lot 4 also approved the proposed use. She stated the application presented violates the approval that was passed with the vote. She stated the Accommodations‐1 building and the Wellness Center should be constructed first. She stated the photo simulations from Barb Davis’ property were misleading. Susan Wolf/County resident agreed with Marlene and Ed Hayek’s comments. She was opposed to the height variance. She read additional comments from Barb Davis, who was unable to attend the meeting. These comments will be posted to the web once received by staff. She was concerned about the negative impacts of the Accommodations‐2 building on the Stanley Hills neighborhood. She recommended parking be behind the building or screened. If parking was allowed north of the building, the viewscape for the neighbors would improve. She had concerns about the proposed drainage plan and the “grand ditch” that runs through her property without easements. Her written comments went into detail concerning the photo settings used for the photo simulations. She did not believe all concerns had been fully addressed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Comments included, but were not limited to: the building could be spread out and would still comply with lot coverage requirements and would lower the height; the voters took the ballot question seriously; part of the ballot question was read, concerning the allowance of lodging for staff physicians; the Wellness Center is still a concept, and it was questioned who the building would be accommodating; the will of the voters may not be for more motel rooms; has a problem with the height variance request; if the building were redesigned and parking lot moved, it may solve the height problem; architecturally, it could be done differently. Ms. Liley stated with the original plan, there was a special finding by the Town Board to increase the height limit of 30 feet with the Phase I building. The architects were able to meet the EVDC slope requirements, but unable to meeting the 30‐foot height limit. On the table today, the proposed height variance still requires a finding by the Town Board. Option 1 would not comply with the height limit, while Option 2 would comply. Mr. Cullen stated Option 2 is in full compliance with the height limits. It doesn’t drop height of the northwest corner, but will drop the rest of the building. He stated he was willing and prepared to withdraw Option 1 and continue with Option 2 to please the Commission and the Town. He added the proposed project includes major landscaping and retention ponds that will solve drainage issues for the entire neighborhood, including an area that has been in litigation for several years. If EPMC does not raise the funds to construct the Wellness Center, he stated he would face a $650,000 penalty and also be required to build the center without assistance from EPMC. Ms. Liley stated specifics about buildings were not specified in the contract to sell Lot 4, as was implied by some of the public comments. She reviewed and clarified portions of the contract for the Commission. She stated the purpose of the building is to accommodate guests and employees of the EPMC program, and nothing was being proposed that is different from the contract. Mr. Cullen explained he had every intention to construct first the Accommodations‐1 building adjacent to the Wellness Center, with the Accommodations‐2 building to follow at a later date. When EPMC requested to attach the Accommodations‐1 building to the Wellness Center, it changed the entire design and building process. Once the design changes were made, it was determined both buildings would need to be built at the same time. Because EPMC is funding the Wellness Center and the Stanley Hotel is funding the Accommodations‐1 building, it only made sense to delay that portion of the project until EPMC acquires the necessary funding. Because funds were already in place for an accommodations building, he would like to get started on the Accommodations‐2 building while EPMC continues to raise funds for the Wellness Center. Commissioner Hills moved to recommend approval of the amendment to Special Review 2014‐01 application as described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended and amended by staff with Option 2 used as the design for the Accommodations‐2 building. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Town Attorney White requested a five minute recess at 4:22 p.m. to allow staff time to reflect the accurate conditions of using Option 2 prior to seconding the motion and the vote. The meeting reconvened at 4:29 p.m. . Planner Kleisler clarified an additional condition of approval would be added to relate directly to using the Option 2 design. See condition #10. The reason behind the added condition is to have a third‐party architect review the plans for compliance with the architectural standards. The Community Development Department would complete the final height verification to ensure compliance. Approval of Option 2 at the Town Board level would be conditional to compliance with agency comments. He stated staff feels comfortable with the application moving forward as scheduled. Additional conditions could be imposed at the Town Board level. Mr. Cullen concurred with the additional condition of approval. Conditions of Approval 1. Continued compliance with January 10, 2014 real estate contract between Grand Heritage Hotel Group, LLC and the Town of Estes Park. 2. All improvements and public facilities necessary for Phase I uses shall be installed with Phase I. 3. MUTCD wildlife crossing signs are required on Wonderview Avenue, near the crossing between Lot 5 and the Knoll‐Willows. Design and location shall be determined by staff during Construction Plan approval. 4. Landscaping Plan: a. Landscaping plan shall accommodate elk migration, with trees focused close to buildings and parking areas, with outlying areas kept natural grasslands (with irrigation). b. Compliance with Section 7.8.G.1.b Non‐Native Vegetation. 5. Staff review and approval shall be required for any future parking lot lighting. Unless more information is requested by staff, the Applicant shall submit a photometric plan, illustrations of fixture models, height and location of proposed lighting. Compliance with 17.44.060(d)(11) and EVDC 7.11 is required. 6. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated January 29, 2015; b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated February 11, 2015; c. Town of Estes Park Water Division memo dated February 19, 2015; d. Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division memo dated February 19, 2015; e. Town of Estes Park Community Development Department memo dated February 20, 2015; f. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated February 20, 2015; g. Colorado Historical Society memo dated February 20, 2015; h. RBB Architects, Inc. memo dated February 25, 2015. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 7. Should necessary easements not be granted for the proposed sidewalk along Steamer Drive, the applicant shall construct such sidewalk along their property during Phase II construction. 8. The Applicant shall delete Note #24 from the site plan, relating to outdoor wedding receptions. 9. Use of the eastern drainage facilities for outdoor activities, including outdoor recreation, shall be reviewed with Phase II. 10. Option 2, as presented in the Estes Valley Planning Commission hearing on March 17, 2015, reducing the height of the building to comply with EVDC 1.9.E.2, shall be reviewed by affected agencies, including: a. Architectural review through a licensed, third party architect; b. Estes Park Community Development Department It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to recommend approval of the Amendment to Special Review 2014‐01 (SR 2014‐01B) to the Town Board as described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended and amended by staff, using Option 2 as the design for the Accommodations‐2 building, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Philip Kleisler, Planner II Date: March 12, 2015 RE: Ordinance #02-15 Vacating Utility Easement on Lot 1, Thompson’s Pinewood Acres Resubdivision. Objective: Consideration an ordinance vacating a ten-foot-wide platted utility easement for the purpose of constructing a shed within a same location. Present Situation: The subject lot is within the Thompson’s Pinewood Acres Resubdivision. Approved by the Town Board in 1972, this plat established 10-foot-wide utility easements along several internal property lines within the subdivision. Since this time the subdivision has been built out with utilities generally installed along the streets. General utility easements allow all utilities, including public main lines and private service lines, to be installed and maintained where that right exists. Proposal: Due to various site constraints, the owner of the subject lot wishes to construct a small shed within the platted utility easement. Since easements are intended to remain clear of all structures, the Town Board must formally vacate the easement through an adopted ordinance prior to the construction of the shed. All relevant utility providers have agreed to the easement vacation through the attached signature sheet. Advantages: Allows the property owners a more functional use of their property. The location contemplated for the shed is the most hidden area on the site and consequently, will have the least amount of site disturbance. Disadvantages: Utility providers will no longer have the ability to utilize this area. However, there is a platted ten-foot-wide utility easement along the adjacent lot to the west, which would likely be adequate for any future needs. Action Recommended: On March 12, 2015, the Estes Park Public Safety, Utilities, and Public Works Committee reviewed this request. No concerns were expressed by the Committee during this time. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest: Very low. As of March 19, 2015, no public comments have been received. Recommended Motion: I move to approve (or deny) Ordinance #02-15. Attachment: 1. Draft ordinance 2. Exhibit A, site plan 3. Exhibit A Map 4. Exhibit B Map 5. Statement of Intent 6. Utility Signature Sheet 7. Original Plat ORDINANCE NO. 02-15 AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN UNUSED UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN THE THOMPSON’S PINEWOOD ACRES RESUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the owners of property within the Town of Estes Park have requested that the Town vacate an unused utility easement; and WHEREAS, the owners of property within the Town of Estes Park have received written authorization to vacate the easement by all relevant utility providers; and WHEREAS, the said easement granted by previous owners of the property is no longer necessary and should be vacated; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that in the best interest of the Town to permanently abandon and vacate the utility easement as more fully set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado hereby authorizes the vacation of an unused and unnecessary utility easement within the Thompson’s Pinewood Acres subdivision as set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated herein and by reference. Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2015. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2015 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the 6th day of March, 2015, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk SCOTT AVE S SAINT VRAIN AVETWIN DR PAWNEE DR PINEWOOD LN S MORRIS CTDEKKER CIR PIN E W O O D D R LONGS DR PINEWOOD LN E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 R R RE 0 100 200Feet 1 in = 200 ft ±Town o f Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentExhibit A Map Printed: 3/5/2015Created By: phil kleisler Project Site Town Boundary Lots Zoning Project Name:Project Description: Petitioner(s):Parcel ID Number(s):Location/Address: Rusch Easement VacationVacate Unused Easement Cornerstone Engineering34011-18-001610 Pinewood Lane MARYS LAKE RD S SAINT VRAIN AVEFISH CREEK RDPEAK VIEW DR MARYS LAKE Site Vicinity Map General Location of Ease ment SCOTT AVE S SAINT VRAIN AVETWIN DR PAWNEE DR PINEWOOD LN S MORRIS CTDEKKER CIR PIN E W O O D D R LONGS DR PINEWOOD LN E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 R R RE 0 100 200Feet 1 in = 200 ft ±Town o f Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentExhibit B M ap Printed: 3/5/2015Created By: phil kleisler Project Site Town Boundary Lots Zoning Project Name:Project Description: Petitioner(s):Parcel ID Number(s):Location/Address: Rusch Easement VacationVacate Unused Easement Cornerstone Engineering34011-18-001610 Pinewood Lane MARYS LAKE RD S SAINT VRAIN AVEFISH CREEK RDPEAK VIEW DR MARYS LAKE Site Vicinity Map General Location of Ease ment PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Acting Town Administrator McFarland From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date: March 24, 2015 RE: Estes Park Transit Facility Parking Structure Objective: Provide direction to Public Works Staff regarding the Town’s preference regarding construction of an intercept transit parking structure at the Estes Park Visitor Center site. Present Situation: Bid results for a parking structure at the north parking lot at the Estes Park Visitor Center were presented to the Board at the December 9, 2014 meeting. All bids were substantially over the remaining budgeted funds. The Board accepted the Staff recommendation to reject all bids and investigate moving the parking garage to the south parking lot where fewer utility conflicts and access complications exist. See the attached Staff memo to the Board dated December 9, 2014 for additional details and history of this project. As directed by the Board at the December 9, 2014 meeting, Staff launched the feasibility investigation of the south lot. We met with the primary project funder (Federal Transit Administration (FTA)) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) who owns most of the south parking lot. While BoR was supportive, FTA was reluctant to support the south lot proposal. FTA directed Staff to explore alternative design options for the north parking lot per the terms of the original grant application. Several new placement options for the north lot were discussed with the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) on January 21, 2015 and with the Board of Trustees on January 27, 2015. The Board requested Staff expand the evaluation of north site options to include smaller parking structures in an effort to reduce cost. Staff presented a screening matrix and conceptual sketches for 13 parking structure options (11 on the north site and 2 on the south site) to FTA and the TAB on February 25, 2015. A copy of this packet is attached. Note: all Option 2, 3, and south site alternatives must be submitted back to the Planning Commission and Town Board for approval prior to construction bidding. All evaluated options are estimated to exceed the existing budgeted funds. On March 6, 2015, FTA send an email offering conditional support of relocating the parking structure to the south lot. A copy is attached. Adding additional parking at the Visitor Center will compound an existing shortage of restrooms at this location. This issue should be addressed as part of this project. Proposal: It is important to begin addressing the existing parking shortage immediately with the available Federal and State grant funding. The Public Works Department proposes to redesign and build a two level parking structure (ground plus one) revised to fit available funds. The south parking lot remains the preferred site as the highway access is superior and the cost per new stall is lowest of the affordable options evaluated. The south site can also accommodate a larger parking garage without the impacts to existing utilities, private property, or buildings that would occur on the north site. On the south site, approximately 96 new spaces could be built in a new two level structure for an estimated increased cost of $750,000. Staff believes it is also important to address the existing shortage of restroom capacity at the Visitor Center concurrently with this project. An additional $200,000 should be budgeted and Staff authorized to include a restroom expansion (freestanding or building addition) on the north lot to service the increased demand resulting from the new parking garage users. Advantages: The advantages and disadvantages listed below pertain to the Staff recommendation to redesign a smaller structure that can be built with available funds. Additional comparative information is provided on the attached Project Options Screening Summary. Moving forward with a redesigned parking garage shows good-faith stewardship of the grant funding awarded for this project. 42 to 96 new parking spaces could be provided in a new two-story structure for intercept parking at the Visitor Center. This is an active step in the solution to reducing traffic congestion in downtown Estes Park and addressing the great need for additional parking as requested by residents and guests on many occasions in recent years. The parking garage constructed with this project could be expanded for 140 (north site) to 198 (south site) additional parking spaces in the future by adding two additional floors. All north site options allow the shuttle traffic to access US 34 from either the west or east access points at the Visitor Center. The forecasted delay to shuttle buses exiting left from the Visitor Center north site decreases from 10 minutes to 1.3 minutes. The need for a new traffic signal at the Visitor Center is postponed to the future. The 3-way (tee) access on US 36 is much safer for parking structure users than the 4-way (cross) access geometry at the US 34 site. The visual impact of the structure to motorists approaching Estes Park on the state highway is reduced to no level above US36 vs one story above Hwy 34 with this initial phase of construction. The new north side options increase the building setback from 10’ to 50’. Relocation to the south site eliminates the relocation of major utility systems (sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and electric) required to place the structure on the north site. The smaller structure footprint reduces the adverse impact to Visitor Center guests during the 10 month construction period as compared to the original design bid. Disadvantages: BoR approval is required to construct a parking structure at the south site. A new National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) assessment of the project impacts is required for the south site. This will delay construction by 6 to 12 months. The estimated cost is $100,000. The existing design must be modified. The estimated cost is $300,000. Delays in construction start typically equate to inflated construction costs. The walking distance to the shuttle for parking structure users is increased by about 330’ at the south site. The structure foundation for the south site must designed to span an existing electrical vault. A structure on the south site is closer to the golf course. The proposed structure location would cause a segment of the recreation path to be rebuilt closer to the golf course. Action Recommended: The Public Works Department recommends the Board of Trustees reserve an additional $950,000 of Community Reinvestment Funds ($750k for a parking garage plus $200k for restroom expansion). In addition, Staff requests authorization to pursue FTA and BoR approval of a parking structure at the Visitor Center that can be built for the revised remaining budget amount not to exceed $5,024,671. Staff will continue negotiations with FTA and the Bureau of Reclamation to obtain approval to build a two level parking garage on the south parking lot at the Visitor Center, and if unsuccessful in obtaining approval, Staff will redesign and bid a smaller parking garage on the north parking lot configured similarly to Option 3C shown in the attachment. The design effort would be performed by Walker Parking Consultants under the oversight of the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department. Budget: Projected future expenses for the parking structure item within account number 204- 5400-3544-36-53 of the Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF) would be increased by $950,000 from $4,074,671 to $5,024,671. Level of Public Interest The known level of public interest in this item is high. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the Staff recommendation to redesign and bid a new parking structure on either the north or south Visitor Center parking lot as approved by FTA and the BoR. I further move that the Finance Manager earmark an additional $950,000 of Community Reinvestment Funds for this project. Attachments: Town Trustee Memo (December 9, 2014) TAB presentation packet from meeting on February 25, 2015 Conditional support email from FTA (March 9, 2015) Memorandum from the Transportation Advisory Committee PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Kimberly Campbell, Transportation Advisory Committee Chair Date: December 9, 2014 RE: Estes Park Transit Facility Parking Structure Objective: Provide direction to Public Works staff regarding the Town’s preferred actions regarding construction of a parking structure at the Visitor Center site east of downtown Estes Park. Present Situation: Elkhorn and Moraine Avenues in downtown Estes Park currently experience traffic gridlock conditions on more than 30 days between June and September due to visitation by over 2.4 million guests who travel to Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) via Estes Park each year. This is predicted to increase to over 90 days by 2020 due to forecasted regional population growth. The existing shuttles currently transport approximately 26,000 passengers annually to downtown Estes Park from the Visitor Center and 270,000 passengers annually to RMNP. Engineering estimates indicate that daily parking demand in downtown Estes Park exceeds supply by more than 500 vehicles the busy summer season. This adds to the roadway congestion as visiting motorists repeatedly circulate through the congested streets in search of available parking. Proposal: The Public Works Department has received funding commitments from 5 partnering local, state, and federal agencies totaling $4.9m for the construction of a new transit intercept parking structure to be located at the Town’s Visitor Center campus. The structure was designed to be situated west of the Visitor Center building and accessed from US 34. It would provide a net increase of 101 new parking spaces. Four bids were received and opened on November 25, 2014. Three of the bids were disqualified due to technical irregularities. All bids exceed the available funds budgeted for the project. See the attached Bid Tabulation for bid results and budget details. Advantages: The advantages and disadvantages listed below pertain to the Staff and TAC recommendation to abandon the current proposal and relocate the proposed structure to the south parking lot at the Visitor Center campus. Additional comparative information is provided on the attached Project Options Screening Summary. • Parking space yield is increased by 94% (196 vs 101) while the estimated construction cost increases only 11% ($7,154,700 vs $6,432,369). • The cost per new parking space gained is 50% less at the south site. • Separating the shuttle traffic (on US 34) from the new parking structure traffic (on US 36) reduces vehicular conflicts and increases safety for users of both modes. • The forecasted delay to shuttle busses exiting left from the Visitor Center north site decreases from 10 minutes to 1.3 minutes. The need for a new traffic signal at the Visitor Center is postponed to the future. • The 3-way (tee) access on US 36 is much safer for parking structure users than the 4-way (cross) access geometry at the US 34 site. • The visual impact of the structure to motorists approaching on the state highway is reduced to one story above US36 vs two stories above Hwy 34. • A parking structure at the south site provides an elevated platform for safe elk viewing on the golf course. • Relocation to the south site eliminates the relocation of three major utility systems (sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and electric) required to place the structure on the north site. • The adverse impact to Visitor Center guests during the 10 month construction period is diminished at the south site. Disadvantages: • Bureau of Reclamation approval is required to construct a parking structure at the south site. • A new National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) assessment of the project impacts is required. This will delay construction by 6 to 12 months. The estimated cost is $100,000. • The existing design must be modified to fit the new site. The estimated cost is $300,000. • Delays in construction start typically equate to inflated construction costs. • The walking distance to the shuttle for parking structure users is increased by about 330’. • The structure foundation must designed to span an existing electrical vault. • A structure on the south site is closer to the golf course and has increased risk of golf ball damage to parked cars. • The proposed structure location would cause a segment of the recreation path would be rebuilt closer to the golf course. Action Recommended: The Public Works Department recommends the Board of Trustees reject all the bids and authorize Staff to evaluate the feasibility of relocating the proposed parking structure approximately 330’ south on the Visitor Center campus and utilize the existing access from US 36. The design effort would performed by Walker Parking Consultants under the oversight of the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department. Additionally, the Town’s Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) has reviewed the bid results and project options presented to the Board of Trustees at the December 2, 2014 Study Session. The TAC recommendations are included in the attached memo to the Board. Budget: Account Number 204-0000-334-30-00 in the Capital Reserve Fund (CRF), Capital Grants revenue line item. Level of Public Interest The known level of public interest in this item is high. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the Staff and TAC recommendation to reject all bids opened November 25, 2014 for the Estes Park Transit Facility Parking Structure and commence the feasibility analysis for relocation of the parking structure to the south parking lot at the Visitor Center campus. Attachments: Bid Tabulation Project Options Screening Summary Memorandum from the Transportation Advisory Committee Note – Any item requiring a change to the Municipal Code, Development Code or any other action requiring an Ordinance to be passed by the Town Board is required to have the Ordinance included. !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !( × × × G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. !(!A !(!(!(")V")V ")V ")V ")V ")V ")V ")V ")V "U"U"U "U "U "U "U"U "U #.ÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwÍwX88 âFâFâF !(D !(D !(D !(D !(D!%NNN!%NNN%,P 7 5 0 A L -A B C - M O R A I N E 750 AL-ABC - BIG THOMPSON750 AL-ABC - MORAINE2 A L -A B C - B IG T H O M P S O N 7 5 0 A L -A B C - M O R A I N E2 AL-ABC - FALL RIVER2 AL-ABC - FALL RIVER750 AL-ABC - MORAINE750 AL-ABC - FALL RIVER2 A L -A B C - M O R A I N E 750 AL-ABC - BIG THOMPSON 750 AL-ABC - FALL RIVER 2 ''D I6''DI6''DI 6''DI8''GST6' 'DI2''DI2''DI 8''GST8''GST2 A L-A - F A LL RIV E R 2086 2091 2092 20933 SV4 SV1 SV3 3278300ABC 2628300ABC 1325150ABC 199915A 323115A 336215A BIGTHOMPSONAVEN SAINTVRAINAVE B i g T h o m p s o n R i v e r 8'' PVC15''PVC6'' P V C 18'' PVC10'' P V C 8'' PVC10'' P V C 8'' P V C 10'' PVC10' ' PVC2 0 '' D IP10'' PVC8'' PVC10'' PVC18'' DIP1 5 '' P V C 1 5 '' PVC15'' PVC 15'' PVC 1 8 '' P V C 1920 21 22 23 24 34 1 5'' C L A Y 2 4 ''D U C T IL E IR O N 24''DUCTILEIRON 1 5'' C L A Y 30'' DUCTILE IRON24'' D U C TILE IR O N 2 4 '' D U C T I L E I R O N Town of Estes Park Transit Facility Parking Structure Project Options Screening Summary (revised 19 Mar 2015) ITEM NO EVALUATION CRITERIA ORIGINAL DESIGN Add Traffic Signal Length = 240' OPTION 1 Original Design Second Floor Notched OPTION 1B Original Design Shorten 40' to 200' OPTION 1C Option 1B with Third Level Removed OPTION 2 Rotate Parallel w/VC Lengthen 15' to 255' OPTION 2A Rotate Parallel w/VC Shorten 40' to 200' OPTION 2B Option 2 with Third Level Removed OPTION 3 Rotate Parallel w/river Lengthen 15' to 255' OPTION 3A Rotate Parallel w/river Shorten 40' to 200' OPTION 3B Option 3 with Third Level Removed OPTION 3C Option 3A with Third Level Removed SOUTH SITE Length = 255' SOUTH SITE Length = 255' Third Level Removed REMARKS 1 Surface Lot Parking Spaces Provided (not in struct)39 77 84 84 110 110 110 112 112 112 112 41 41 Existing north lot contains 153 spaces 2 Ground level Parking Structure Spaces Provided 62 73 65 65 88 65 88 64 57 64 57 83 83 3 Second level Parking Structure Spaces Provided 89 70 70 0 98 70 0 99 70 0 0 99 0 4 Third level Parking Structure Spaces Provided 64 64 46 46 68 46 68 69 46 69 46 74 74 5 Total Spaces Provided at this Site (Ph 1)254 284 265 195 364 291 266 344 285 245 215 297 198 South site increases 94% with 2 story, 191% with 3 story 6 Number of New Parking Spaces Provided Ph 1 101 131 112 42 211 138 113 191 132 92 62 195 96 7 Project Cost per New Parking Space Created Ph 1 $59,318.42 $43,694.48 $48,203.24 $104,440.52 $29,630.61 $40,896.83 $44,354.43 $34,146.90 $42,755.78 $58,615.65 $74,298.42 $30,882.35 $49,813.03 Assumes rebid = previous low bid full amenities 8 Phase 2 Expansion Potential Add 4th level Add 4th level Add 4th level Add 3rd & 4th level Add 4th level 4th level Add 3rd & 4th level 4th level 4th level Add 3rd & 4th level Add 3rd & 4th level 4th level Add 3rd & 4th level Future variance required to add 4th level. 9 Phase 2 Additional Spaces 89 70 70 140 98 70 196 99 70 198 140 99 198 10 Total Potential New Spaces (Ph 1 + Ph 2)(4 levels)190 201 182 182 309 208 309 290 202 290 202 294 294 11 Total Spaces Provided at this Site (Ph1 + Ph2)343 354 335 335 462 361 462 443 355 443 355 396 396 12 Impact to Bureau of Reclamation Land Special Use Permit Required for Utility Redesign Special Use Permit Required for Utility Redesign Special Use Permit Required for Utility Redesign Special Use Permit Required for Utility Redesign Special Use Permit Required for Utility Redesign Special Use Permit Required for Utility Redesign Special Use Permit Required for Utility Redesign Special Use Permit Required for St Wat Redesign Special Use Permit Required for St Wat Redesign Special Use Permit Required for Utility Redesign Special Use Permit Required for St Wat Redesign Special Use Permit Required New NEPA Special Use Permit Required New NEPA SUP processed in 3 weeks. Allow 6-12 months for new NEPA. BoR will oversee NEPA. Budget $75k to $100k. 13 Safety/Access Delay to Shuttle Bus Peak Period Left Turn Exit W Access 16 sec = LOS B 96 sec = 1.5 minutes 96 sec = 1.5 minutes 96 sec = 1.5 minutes 96 sec = 1.5 minutes 96 sec = 1.5 minutes 96 sec = 1.5 minutes 80 sec = 1.3 minutes 80 sec = 1.3 minutes Delay per TIS. Remedies: install traffic signal at West Access (VC site), move shuttles to south lot, move parking structure to south lot, build future access east at Steamer Dr. No funding exists for $300k traffic signal or roundabout. 14 Safety/Access Delay to Guests Peak Period Left Turn Exit E Access 55 sec = LOS F 96 sec = 1.5 minutes 96 sec = 1.5 minutes 96 sec = 1.5 minutes 96 sec = 1.5 minutes 96 sec = 1.5 minutes 96 sec = 1.5 minutes Not measured. Assume 1.3 min Not measured. Assume 1.3 min New Traffic Impact Study would be required for NEPA evaluation of south site. 15 Visual Impact from Adjacent Highway (Ph 1)10' setback to 3 Level Structure 10' setback to 3 Level Structure 50' setback to 3 Level Structure 50' setback to 2 Level Structure 90' setback to 3 Level Structure 90' setback to 3 Level Structure 90' setback to 2 Level Structure 105' setback to 3 Level Structure 105' setback to 3 Level Structure 105' setback to 2 Level Structure 105' setback to 3 Level Structure 20' setback to 3 levels, 1 visible 20' setback to 3 levels, 1 visible South site is approximate 10' below Hwy 36 road surface. 16 Bid Ref Cost (Full Amenities 240' x 125' bldg)$5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 $5,308,282.00 South Site total cost not bid. Estimate only based on information received from lowest bidder for VC site. 17 Structure Cost per square foot $58.98 $58.98 $58.98 $58.98 $58.98 $58.98 $58.98 $58.98 $58.98 $58.98 $58.98 $58.98 $58.98 18 Traffic Signal Cost $325,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 19 Change in Structure Length 0 -25 -40 -40 15 -40 15 15 -40 15 -40 15 15 20 Ph 1 Cost Change due to revised structure length 0 -$92,157.67 -$442,356.83 -$442,356.83 $165,883.81 -$442,356.83 $165,883.81 $165,883.81 -$442,356.83 $276,473.02 -$442,356.83 $165,883.81 $165,883.81 Use $30/sf per comments from low bidder 21 Cost Change due to delay of third level $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 -$1,037,261.39 $0.00 $0.00 -$1,240,008.27 $0.00 $0.00 -$1,240,008.27 -$1,037,261.39 -$1,240,008.27 Use $30/sf per comments from low bidder. Deduct $300k for delaying decorative stairs to future phase. 22 Cost to Relocate Additional Existing Utilities/Shop $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $170,000.00 $170,000.00 $170,000.00 $390,000.00 $170,000.00 $390,000.00 $170,000.00 -$160,000.00 -$160,000.00 Three utilities conflict with structure at VC site (sewer, storm drainage, electric). Elect conflicts at south site. 23 Redesign Cost $50,000.00 $200,000.00 $225,000.00 $250,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $350,000.00 $300,000.00 $350,000.00 $300,000.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 24 Consultant Construction Administration and Mgmt $307,819.00 $307,819.00 $307,819.00 $307,819.00 $307,819.00 $307,819.00 $307,819.00 $307,819.00 $307,819.00 $307,819.00 $307,819.00 $307,819.00 $307,819.00 Const Admin by design consultant. Const Inspect & Mgmt consultant TBD. 25 Revised Project Cost (Ph 1 only Full Amenities)$5,991,159.98 $5,723,977.31 $5,398,763.15 $4,386,501.76 $6,252,058.79 $5,643,763.15 $5,012,050.52 $6,522,058.79 $5,643,763.15 $5,392,639.73 $4,606,501.76 $6,022,058.79 $4,782,050.52 Add $50k for landscaping and irrigation by Town crews 26 Redesign Delay None--concurrent w/construc 2 months 2.25 months 2.5 months 9 months (new P/Z & rev Cat Ex & CDOT ROW Plans)5 months (new P&Z)9 months (new P/Z & rev Cat Ex & CDOT ROW Plans)5 months (new P&Z)5 months (new P&Z)5 months (new P&Z)5 months (new P&Z)7 months (new P/Z & NEPA)7 months (new P/Z & NEPA) 27 Land Required from Others?None None None None Yes (EP San)Yes (EP San temp const esmt)Yes (EP San)Yes (EP San temp const esmt)Yes (EP San temp const esmt)Yes (EP San temp const esmt)Yes (EP San temp const esmt)Bureau of Rec Special Use Permit Bureau of Rec Special Use Permit 28 Ph 1 Project Budget Deficit (to be paid by Town)$1,931,677.98 $1,664,495.31 $1,339,281.15 $327,019.76 $2,192,576.79 $1,584,281.15 $952,568.52 $2,462,576.79 $1,584,281.15 $1,333,157.73 $547,019.76 $1,962,576.79 $722,568.52 South Site total cost not bid. Estimate only based on 2014 cost information received from lowest bidder for VC site. 29 Estimated Bid Advertisement Date March 2015 May 2015 May 2015 June 2015 December 2015 August 2015 December 2015 August 2015 August 2015 August 2015 August 2015 October 2015 October 2015 30 Estimated Start Construction Date July 2015 September 2015 September 2015 October 2015 April 2016 December 2015 April 2016 December 2015 December 2015 December 2015 December 2015 February 2016 February 2016 31 Estimated Completion Date May 2016 July 2016 July 2016 August 2016 February 2017 October 2016 February 2017 October 2016 October 2016 October 2016 October 2016 October 2016 October 2016 10 mo const required on north site due to extensive utility relocates. 8 mo const required on south site 32 Citizen Transp Advisory Board Ranking (5-3 vote)Reject due to cost, poor yield & congested traffic circulation Reject due to cost, poor yield & congested traffic circulation Reject due to cost, poor yield & congested traffic circulation Reject due to cost, poor yield & congested traffic circulation Reject due to significant time delay & cost Reject due to high Phase 1 cost Reject due to significant time delay Reject due to high Phase 1 cost Reject due to high Phase 1 cost Reject due to high Phase 1 cost Reject due to high impact low yield Reject due to high Phase 1 cost 1 33 Staff Ranking (1 = preferred)Reject due to cost, poor yield & congested traffic circulation Reject due to cost, poor yield & congested traffic circulation Reject due to cost, poor yield & congested traffic circulation 3 Reject due to significant time delay & cost Reject due to high Phase 1 cost Reject due to significant time delay Reject due to high Phase 1 cost Reject due to high Phase 1 cost Reject due to high Phase 1 cost 2 Reject due to high Phase 1 cost 1 34 Trustee Ranking LEGEND:Significant Benefit Add Traffic Signal Marginal stacking room at exit Marginal stacking room at exit Signature stairs delayed to Ph2 Triggers relocate of primary elect Triggers relocate of primary elect Signature stairs delayed to Ph2 Triggers new Parks Shop Triggers new Parks Shop Superior circulation separates bus and garage traffic Superior separation of bus and garage traffic. Better Ph 1 cost. Good Buses use west entry only Congested garage entry conflicts with bus circulation Congested garage entry conflicts with bus circulation Triggers relocate of primary elect Triggers relocate of primary elect Triggers relocate of primary elect Signature stairs delayed to Ph2 Triggers relocate of primary elect Signature stairs delayed to Ph2 Tolerable Triggers reloc of greenhouse Triggers reloc of primary elect Poor Triggers reloc of greenhouse Major Concern 15 ground level spaces req'd for displaced seasonal parking 15 ground level spaces req'd for displaced seasonal parking ` NOTES: 1 Signal design consultant and construction contractor could be procurred during 10 month structure construction period. 2 Could omit traffic signal from original design and move shuttle operation to south lot. 3 Option 3 requires demolition of Parks shop and relocation into new parking structure 4 Parking space count estimates will change during final design revisions. 5 Options 1-4 accommodate potential for shuttles to reach future intersection upgrade at Steamer Drive via future driveway extension east thru EP San property. 6 Existing north lot contains 153 spaces. Existing south lot contains 94+8=102 spaces. East access and improved parking yield option could be explored with design consultant Proposed Parking Garage SHEET TITLE:DESCRIPTION ISSUE: MARK DATE COLORADOPROJECT NO:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:23-7422.005DECBA6784321PARKING STRUCTURE TRANSIT HUB ESTES PARK56784321Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission from Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers, Inc.\\FHUMAIN\FHUMAINK\113156-01\CADD\113156-01DESIGN-SIGNING AND STRIPING.DWG 9/24/2014 1:09:32 PM BARRY.NOVAK Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers, Inc. Firm Certificate of Authority Number: 19871396991 ESTES PARK ISSUED FOR BID9/23/14 1424423555C-600PAVEMENTMARKING &SIGNAGEPLANPROPOSEDPARKINGGARAGE11 ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTUREOPTION 1Figure 1.1GROUND LEVEL100'050'SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"NORTH SITEJanuary 16, 2015 ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTUREOPTION 2AFigure 2.1AGROUND LEVEL100'050'SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"NORTH SITEFebruary 17, 2015 ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTUREOPTION 8Figure 8.1GROUND LEVEL100'050'SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"SOUTH SITEDecember 11, 2014 ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING STRUCTURESOUTH SITEFigure 9.2PROPOSED100'050'SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"December 18, 2014SITE SURVEY 3/17/2015 Town of Estes Park Mail RE: Tr ansit Hub https://m ail.google.com /mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=159da0698a&view=pt&q=Larr y.Squir es%40dot.gov&qs=true&sear ch=quer y&th=14bf111497fe5a20&sim l=14bf11149…1/3 Greg Muhonen <gmuhonen@estes.org> RE: Transit Hub 1 mess age Larry.Squires@dot.gov <Larry.Squires @dot.gov>Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:59 A M To: gmuhonen@es tes.org Cc: Dav id.Beck hous e@dot.gov Hi, Greg With respect to the re‐locating to the site to the south of the Visitor Center, as noted in the email below, FTA will consider the relocation upon receipt of a formal request form the Town. If the Town decides to proceed with a relocation to the south site, please submit the request with a brief summary of the relevant information, along with a site map. As we have discussed, the Town will be solely responsible for any additional costs for environmental and design activity. Federal funds, and any local share that may be required, will not be applied to these project costs. The grant will also need to be amended to include the revised activity. In doing so, the FTA would like to further emphasize the Town’s commitment to ensuring that “additional spaces constructed as part of this project would be restricted to visitors who wish to travel into ROMO and Estes Park via transit” as noted in the original TRIP application. Thank you, Larry Squires Community Planner Federal Transit Administration ‐ Region VIII 12300 West Dakota Ave., Suite 310 Lakewood, CO 80228‐2583 (o) 720.963.3305 (f) 720.963.3333 From: Greg Muhonen [mailto:gmuhonen@ estes.org] 3/17/2015 Town of Estes Park Mail RE: Tr ansit Hub https://m ail.google.com /mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=159da0698a&view=pt&q=Larr y.Squir es%40dot.gov&qs=true&sear ch=quer y&th=14bf111497fe5a20&sim l=14bf11149…2/3 Sen t : Monday, February 23, 2015 6:05 PM To: Greg Muhonen; Amy Hamrick; Ann Finley; Belle Morris; Boulder Brook; Bryon Holmes; Cory LaBianca; Estes Shuttle; J en Imber; J ohn Ericson; Kevin Ash; Stan Black; Thomas Widawski Cc: Anirudh Chopde; Ginny Gerhart; Kate Rusch; McFarland Steve; Brian Wells; Beck house, Dav id (FTA); Squires, Larry (FTA) Su bject: Transit Hub TAB Members, I hav e att ached the updated trans it hub parking garage lay out options for the north s ite. If y ou print them I rec ommend 11x17. My as s ignment from the Trust ees af ter our last updat e was to ret urn with an option t hat could be built f or no more than $900k ov er the remaining budget of $3.7M. The idea was t o s ee what c ould be built if t hey opted to put the Lot 4 s ales proceeds into this projec t. This has been a tough request to fulfill. Redes ign c os ts are s ignif ic ant, as are t he additional utilit y reloc ates triggered by rotat ing the building on t he north lot. The firs t page of the attac hment is t he s creening matrix t hat will probably f eel ov erwhelming to read and digest. I found it helpful to foc us on the 4 k ey s creening criteria s hown on t he rows for items 6, 10, 25, and 27 (highlight ed). In our applic at ion to FTA, the Town proposed t o build a 300 space interc ept lot. Only Opt 2 and 3 hav e suffic ient geomet ry to phy sic ally ac c omplis h t his with a s inglephas e, three lev el s truct ure. This is not buildable with t he c urrent f unding. More than one phase will be required. Row 11 shows how all the options c ould meet the 300 space tes t if 4 lev els are built . We only hav e funding for two levels in the firs t phas e. Rows 6 and 27 rev eal t hat the budget ed funds c ould build 42 (Opt 1C), 62 (Opt 3C), or 96 (Opt s outh s ite) new park ing st alls in phas e 1. The s hortf all below the required 300 would hav e to c ome in a f uture phase/projec t. In the c alc ulat ions f or est imating the c os t of t he twolev el projec ts , I back ed out t he c os t of t he $300k fancy st airs . It did not mak e s ens e to me t o build a s hort v ers ion to reac h one level abov e t he ground. The spreads heet as sumes the Town would build them when t he third and pos sibly f ourth lev els are built. That would be part of a new future f unding reques t. I would s till lik e t o build the Ph 1 projec t on t he s outh sit e and achiev e 96 new park ing spaces with the av ailable funds . This is t he most cos teff ective option (c ost per s tallrow/item 7) av ailable with our Phase 1 budget. If the B oR c an c omplete the NEPA in 7 months , t he st art of construc tion at t he s outh sit e work would only be 2 months lat er than s tarting t he Option 3 work while s ett ing us up for 294 new s paces v s 202 (af fordable Opt 3C) upon the f uture c ompletion of t he third and forth floors . Giv en the s ubs tantial amount of utilit y reloc at ion work required on the north s ite, it is estimated t hat the act ual c ompletion date would be the same. See rows/items 25 and 30. I will s hare all t his informat ion with FTA and see if they would be willing to rec ons ider t he s outh s ite, underst anding the myriad of is sues that c hallenge all t he north s ite options. I am looking f orward to hearing y our c omments at our meeting Wed February 25th. We will need to prov ide a written recommendation to the Board of Trus tees by Marc h 4th for t heir Marc h 10 meeting. Gregory P Muhonen, PE Public Works Director Town of Estes Park, CO We value: RAPPORT--RESPECT--RELATIONSHIP PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Kimberly Campbell, Chair, Transportation Advisory Board Date: March 18, 2015 RE: Visitor Center Transit Hub On Wednesday, February 25, the Transportation Advisory Board held its regularly scheduled meeting for February. The primary topic of discussion at this meeting was to rank our top 3 choices from the 13 available options on the transit hub/parking structure grid prepared by Director Muhonen (revised 23 Feb 2015). On March 18, we held our March meeting and further refined our recommendation to the Trustees. This memo reflects the outcome from these meetings. Process of Elimination The Board quickly eliminated options by the following criteria: Excessively high in cost: Original Design, Option 1, Option 1B, Option 2, Option 2A, Option 3, and Option 3A Excessive Cost per New Stall: Option 1C Number of phase I spaces created Once narrowed, we were left with Options 3B, 3C, and the South Site with Third Level removed. Board’s Preference The majority of the committee (by a vote of 8 of the 9 members present) chose to support only one option (rather than ranking 3 options) – the South Lot with the Third Level Removed, contingent upon Federal approval. The members strongly prefer the South Lot over the North Lot. Reasons for supporting this lot include: aesthetics, improved vehicular ingress/egress, and fewer utility complications. Next Steps The committee is looking forward to working with the Trustees on a parking strategy for the Town that will help guide future opportunities. In our next few meetings, we plan to look at parking from a more strategic perspective. We hope to be able to create a set of guidelines for the Trustees from which a parking strategy may be developed. Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Tina Kurtz, Environmental Planner Date: March 24, 2015 RE: Resolution #09-15: Support for the Fish Creek Plan for Resiliency (Master Plan) Objective: The consideration of a resolution of support for the recently completed Fish Creek Plan for Resiliency, which no longer includes the Scott Ponds Natural Area project. Present Situation: Following the 2013 flood, the Town of Estes Park contracted with Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers to design master plans for the restoration of the Fall River and Fish Creek corridors. Master plans were developed with input from the Fall River and Fish Creek Coalitions, led by citizen River Advisory Committees. The completed draft plans are the culmination of coalition members, Town of Estes Park staff and Estes Valley citizens’ efforts. The Town Board received an overview of the draft Fish Creek Plan for Resiliency during the January 13, 2015, meeting. As a follow-up to comments received from the public regarding the Scott Ponds project portion of the Plan, the Town held a public meeting on January 26, 2015, to gather further public input on the project as presented in the Plan. The Town integrated comments from that meeting, along with additional written comments, into a list of objectives for the project, which are as follows: 1) The resiliency idea for the Scott Ponds Natural Area is a return to the beaver dominated riparian corridor that existed prior to dam installations. This is a multiple benefits project with goals to be a: • High quality, connected wildlife habitat corridor, including raptor habitat • High quality recreational corridor with opportunities including hiking, exploring, birding, and fishing (both fishable ponds and riverine fishing) • Natural aesthetic community open space corridor that improves property values • Reduced risk environment 2) The numbers and sizes of pond types (fishable, large beaver, small beaver) will be determined as part of detailed analysis and design phases. Fishable ponds will additionally consider hunting needs of raptor species. 3) All ponds are intended to have freshening flows for fishery health and to reduce areas of stagnant water to reduce the potential for concentrated mosquito populations. Options for freshening flows for in-channel pond or off-channel pond systems will be evaluated as part of detailed analysis and design phases, which will also include permitting considerations. Note that permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is expected to be more complex for in-channel pond systems. 4) Examples of in-channel pond systems and off-channel pond systems are included in these resiliency ideas, as noted on the maps. 5) The Scott Ponds corridor is understood to have intermittent surface flow and a high groundwater table, factors which will be evaluated as part of detailed analysis and design phases. As a result of the public comments, several changes were made to the Scott Ponds project as identified in the Plan. Those changes include: identification of objectives for the project; addition of an oblique view map to provide a more tangible spatial reference; changed the name of the project from the Scott Ponds Removal project to the Scott Ponds Natural Area project; changed to the size and configuration of the identified ponds with specific references to fishable ponds; ponds were redesigned to be on-channel instead of off-channel; removed a proposed new recreation area; reconfigured the overflow and low flow channels; further explanations of the conceptual project design; and acknowledgment of the Town’s consideration to upgrade the upper dam. Since the January 26, 2015, meeting, the Town has received significant public input on the Scott Ponds project. Given the requirements and purpose of the plan, which is to identify the most resilient, lowest risk projects within the watershed, the Scott Ponds project did not include rebuilding the lower dam or repairing the upper dam. However, as is stated in the revised Plan, the Town is considering upgrading the upper dam, contingent on securing adequate funding. The project, as identified in the Plan, has caused significant concern with some members of the public, so it will be separated from the rest of the Plan. The Town will continue to solicit and consider public input as the Scott Ponds project moves forward. The remainder of the Plan, consisting of projects on the main stem of Fish Creek has not changed since it was last presented to the Board in January. Proposal: Staff is providing a resolution of support for the Board’s consideration. Advantages: Formal Board support for the Fish Creek Resiliency Plan will significantly strengthen the ability of the Town and the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition to obtain grant funds to implement river restoration and resiliency projects. Disadvantages: No disadvantages noted. Action Recommended: Town staff recommends that the Board approve a letter of support for the Fish Creek Plan for Resiliency. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest High Sample Motion I move to approve (or deny) Resolution 09-15. Attachments: 1. Resolution 09-15 RESOLUTION NO. 09-15 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE FISH CREEK PLAN FOR RESILIENCY WHEREAS, the 2013 flood event damaged properties and public infrastructure within the Fish Creek corridor, and caused significant changes to Fish Creek; and WHEREAS, the Fish Creek Coalition (“Coalition”), which included volunteer members of the public and local landowners, assembled to coordinate and advocate for the health and resiliency of the corridor; and WHEREAS, the Coalition prepared the Fish Creek Plan for Resiliency for the purpose of guiding harmonious recovery, restoration and resiliency along the Fish Creek corridor; and WHEREAS, public engagement played a central role in the development of the Plan for Resiliency through a River Advisory Committee, neighborhood captains and extensive public meetings with property owners along the corridor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK hereby recognizes and supports the extensive efforts of the Fish Creek Coalition and the vision established in the resulting Fish Creek Plan for Resiliency. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of _, 2015. Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I, Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of Resolution No. 09-15 of the Town of Estes Park on file in my office as part of the official records of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado which are in my custody. Jackie Williamson Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Tina Kurtz, Environmental Planner Date: March 24, 2015 RE: Town Letter of Support for Estes Valley Watershed Coalition Watershed Resiliency Pilot Program for Implementation Grant Application Objective: The consideration of a letter of support for the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition (EVWC) application for the Watershed Resiliency Pilot Program for Implementation grant program (grant). Present Situation: Significant damage occurred to the banks, channel and wetland areas of the upper- reaches of Fall River from the 2013 flood. Primarily, banks were destabilized and significant amounts of sediment were eroded and transported downstream, causing significant deposition within the floodplain including an adjacent wetland on the Morten property. The EVWC’s “Morten Reach, Fall River” project will stabilize and restore a 1,000 foot section of Fall River, which includes 350 feet of the Town-owned Fish Hatchery property. Elements of the project include: 1. Restoration of a wetland on the Morten property 2. Creation of floodplain benches 3. Installation of riprap, setback from the stream for protection of a structure 4. Installation of natural bank protection and channel reshaping This project has been identified in the Fall River Plan for Resiliency and will be coordinated with Town staff. If the Town is successful in obtaining funding for stabilization and restoration of Fall River from the Rocky Mountain National Park boundary downstream to adjoin the EVWC project, approximately 3,000 feet of the Fall River corridor will be restored. Aerial view of Morten house, deposition of sediment in the adjacent wetland, and river channel and bank damage. Proposal: Staff is providing a letter of support for the Board’s consideration. Advantages: A 1,000 foot stretch of the Fall River stream will be stabilized and restored the stream channel and banks providing additional protection to adjacent and downstream landowners, properties and infrastructure. A portion of the stream channel and bank on Town-owned property will be restored and stabilized that does not require funding from the Town. This project is directly downstream and adjacent to the stream channel and bank stabilization and restoration project the Town is proposing to implement. This would be the first project to be implemented from the Fall River Plan for Resiliency and strengthens the collaboration between the Town, EVWC, and stakeholders for flood resiliency project implementation. Wildlife and fishery habitats would be improved on this stretch of the river through riparian revegetation and channel improvements. Disadvantages: No disadvantages noted. Action Recommended: Town staff recommends that the Board approve a letter of support for the EVWC application for the Watershed Resiliency Pilot Program for Implementation grant program. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest Medium Sample Motion I move to approve (or deny) a letter of support for the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition’s application for the Watershed Resiliency Pilot Program for Implementation grant program. Attachments: 1. Letter of support for EVWC grant application March 24, 2015 Mr. Don Sandoval, Regional Manager Department of Local Affairs Division of Local Government, Field Services 150 E. 29th St., Ste. 215 Loveland, CO 80538 RE: Estes Valley Watershed Coalition Application for the CDBG‐DR Watershed Resiliency Pilot Program Implementation Grant Program Dear Mr. Sandoval: The Town of Estes Park fully supports the Morten Reach Implementation Project application from the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition (EVWC) for the CDBG‐DR Watershed Resiliency Pilot Project Implementation Grant Program. The flood of 2013 caused significant damage within the Fall River corridor, including the river itself. If restoration and stabilization measures are not taken, the damage potential due to future flood events will be even greater. The EVWC’s project is of great interest to the Town as it includes 350 feet of Town‐ owned property, the Fall River portion of which was damaged during the flood. This project represents a great opportunity to extend the collaborative partnership between the EVWC and the Town in the implementation of a resilient river corridor restoration project as identified in the Fall River Plan for Resiliency. The Town of Estes Park thanks DOLA for their ongoing support of our flood recovery and resiliency efforts. Sincerely, William C. Pinkham Mayor TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Date: March 24, 2015 RE: Policy on public forums Objective: To provide direction for holding public outreach through public meetings and/or forums on public policy issues. Present Situation: Currently there are no guidelines or policies regarding when staff may hold a public outreach forum to gather public opinion and input on public policy issues. At previous study sessions on 3/25/14 and 5/27/14, the board requested that staff not hold any forums to gather public opinion on a specific issue without prior approval of the Town Board. A draft policy was presented to the Board at a study session on March 10th. The attached proposed policy includes board recommendations from the March 10th meeting. Proposal (including budget if applicable): The draft policy is attached. Advantages: Insures that staff and the Board of Trustees are in agreement on the need for a forum before it is held Avoids staff having policy discussions with the public without Trustee awareness and consent Clarifies what constitutes a public forum necessitating Board approval. Allows the Town Administrator to poll individual Trustees to see if there are any individual objections to holding a public forum, thus expediting the process for non-controversial items. Disadvantages: May result in minor delays to gather public input on an issue Requested Action: Consideration of Policy 106 on Public Forums Level of Public Interest Low Sample Motion: I move for the adoption of policy 106 regarding public forums and meetings. Document Title Draft 1 3/20/15 Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Policies Page 1 of 2 Effective Period: until supersceeded Review Schedule: Annually - January Effective Date: March 25th, 2015 References: Policy Governance 1.1 ADMINISTRATION 106 PUBLIC FORUMS AND MEETINGS 1. PURPOSE – To provide direction for holding public outreach through public meetings and/or forums on public policy issues. This policy is only applicable to forums sponsored by the Town of Estes Park. 2. POLICY a. For the purposes of this policy, a public forum is any meeting, forum, charette or open house that is designed for the purpose of soliciting input and public opinion from citizens on proposed new or revised regulations, ordinance or program of the Town. It does not include regularly scheduled meetings or meetings with citizens associated with existing projects, such as land use applications or approved infrastructure projects, or any meeting designed to disseminate information to the public. b. Approval of the Board of Trustees is required prior to the scheduling or promotion of any public meeting or forum as defined above. 3. PROCEDURE a. Any staff desiring of hosting a public meeting or forum as defined in this policy must first contact the Town Administrator and request that he/she bring the proposal for the meeting before the full Town Board. b. The Town Administrator may either bring the proposal for the meeting before the full Town Board at a regular board meeting, or may poll individual board members via e-mail. If no Trustee objects to the public meeting, staff may proceed. If any Trustee individual objects to the public meeting, the Town Administrator shall schedule the issue for discussion at an upcoming regularly scheduled Town Board meeting. c. Only after receiving approval from the Town Board shall staff proceed with a public forum on any public policy issue as defined in 2a above. Document Title Draft 1 3/20/15 Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Policies Page 2 of 2 Approved: _____________________________ Bill Pinkham, Mayor _____________ Date Utilities Department Report To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director Cil Pierce, Senior Project Manager/Financial Analyst, HDR Date: 24 March 2015 RE: Water Rate Presentation Objective: To publicly share information on recommended water rate increases. Present Situation: The Town’s public water utility is a cost-based entity that relies solely on user fees. Costs and revenues must be balanced in order to maintain operations, plan for future upgrades and keep the utility in compliance with ever-increasing federal standards. A financial analysis is periodically performed to ensure the rates paid by customers are equitable between the rate classes and adequate to fund capital projects and operations. The last time a water rate study was conducted in 2010-2011, the Town opted to keep rates lower than recommended by the study in order to assist residents and businesses through the national economic downturn. Therefore, the Town has deferred capital projects which include the replacement of pipes that have been used many years past their design life. The older neighborhoods where these pipes exist see more frequent water leaks and do not benefit from the new standards which provide fire protection through larger-sized pipes. Pipe replacement costs run $500,000 to $1 million per mile depending on blasting, excavation and road replacement costs. Customer water bills are based upon the amount of water used, the customer class and the size of the water meter. The goal is to cover the fixed costs for drinking water with fixed revenue. The base monthly fee will be going up. Seasonal customers using less water will notice this more than a typical year-round customer. The attached report outlines the process used to determine the recommended water rates. Paper copies of this presentation and another more detailed report will be available to the public at the Library and Town Hall. The Utilities Department has also created a web page at www.estes.org/ratestudy to share this information. Notices have been added to utility bills; social media has been utilized; and a newspaper article was published to inform our customers of pending water rate increases. Water Rate Study:Results and RecommendationsPresented by:Cil PierceSenior Project Manager/ Financial AnalystMarch 24, 2015Estes Park Water Department 2About HDR•HDR’s Utility Management Services Group is nationally recognized as experts in financial planning and utility rate-setting–Tom Gould, National Director of Financeand Rates; Estes Rate Study TechnicalAdvisor; co-instructor of AWWAFinancial Management Seminar; Contributing author to theAWWA rate-setting manual•Extensive rate and fee experienceacross the U.S. and Canada–Industry utility trends and experience–HDR has completed the Town’s last two waterand electric rate studies–Numerous other small towns throughout U.S.•Dillon, Breckenridge, Canon City 3Overview of the Presentation•Summary of the rate setting process•Summary results of the financial plan and cost of service results•Summary of proposed rate option – Levelized Rates•Receive public comments3 4Overview of the Rate Setting ProcessRevenue RequirementCost of Service Rate DesignCompares the revenues of the utility to its expenses to determine the overall level of rate adjustmentEquitably allocates the revenue requirements between the various customer classes of serviceDesign rates for each class of service to meet the revenue needs of the utility, along with any other rate design goals and objectives4 5Study Process•Study started – October 2014•Board work session on Rates 101 – November•Review results with staff before all meetings•Paper report/presentation of preliminary results (financial plan and cost of service) to the Board – December •Paper report/presentation of preliminary rate designs to Board – mid-January 2015•Final results with new rate option of levelizedrates – March 10thwork session 6Highlights of the Financial Plan Results•Sales projected at a growth rate of 0.5% –Minimal development & increased conservation•O&M expenses escalated an average of 3%/year•Difference between growth in sales and growth in expenses creates a shortage in cash flow–Rates must be increased to eliminate the shortfall•Two new FTE positions in 2016 & one in 2017 –Required to support pipe replacement, maintenance and regulatory compliance•Current capital planning is fiscally constrained–Capital projects have been deferred annually until adequate funding is available –Funding capital projects at an average of $1 million per year 2015 through 2018 7Type of MainUseful Life (years)Average AgeInventory (installed)NotesGalvanized Steel 35‐40 70 ‐ 80 ~30 miles Largest LiabilityCast Iron (brittle) 125 50 ‐ 70 ~20 miles Frequent Breaks (snaps)Ductile Iron 125 40 ‐ 50 ~50 miles Best ROIOther Capital Needs of the Department•A 75-year useful life (fully depreciated) 1.3 miles per year should be replaced, at an average cost of $150/foot = $1.0 million/year (2014$) •A 100-year life for water mains = $800,000 / year•This rate proposal moves toward funding the 100-year life main replacement schedule•Treatment projects are deferred (the 10-year Master Plan identifies approximately $11 million in future projectsto be bonded)•Funding capital projects is necessary to maintain current levels of service 85‐Year Water Capital Improvement Plan•Projects have been prioritized through the Master Planning process•The backlog of historically deferred capital projects will require additional funding in the future 9Water Revenue Requirement Results ($000’s) 9•Rate revenue above shows revenues at existing rates–Without any rate adjustments applied; rates are inadequateto fully fund operating and capital expenses as projected$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,0002015 2016 2017 2018Water Revenue Requirement by CategoryChange in Working Capital(+/‐)CIP Funded Through RatesNet Debt ServiceTotal Taxes and TransfersTotal Operations &MaintenanceRate Revenue ‐ With NoIncrease$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,0002015 2016 2017 2018Water Revenue Requirement by CategoryChange in Working Capital(+/‐)CIP Funded Through RatesNet Debt ServiceTotal Taxes and TransfersTotal Operations &MaintenanceRate Revenue ‐ With NoIncrease 102015 2016 2017 2018Total Revenue $3,538 $3,554 $3,571 $3,588Total Expenses $3,862 $4,238 $4,654 $5,029Balance/(Deficiency) of Funds ($324) ($684) ($1,083) ($1,441) Addt'l Taxes/Franchise Fees ($20) ($42) ($66) ($88)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Total Balance/(Deficiency) ($344) ($725) ($1,149) ($1,529)Balance as % of Rev from Rates 9.9% 20.8% 32.7% 43.4%Proposed Rate Adjustment9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 8.0%Summary of Water Revenue Requirement ($000’s) 101•Historically, deficiencies have been met by reserves and by deferring capital projects •Prudent financial management dictates that current revenue should support current operational and capital needs, as in any business enterprise 11Summary of the Water Financial PlanRevenue adjustments are necessary to fully fund projected operating and capital costs through 2018Levelized results: Preferred OptionFunding of capital needs (renewal & replacement) should be increased whenever possibleTo catch up with historically deferred projectsProvides funding for improvements (redundancy, resiliency, and operational efficiency) from those customers benefiting from the systemImproves debt service coverage ratio Can begin to fund 50 miles of fully depreciated mains2015 2016 2017 20189.9% 9.9% 9.9% 8.0% 12Cost of Service ResultsEquitable allocation of costsAverage unit costsCost‐based and Equitable rates12•Residential•Commercial•Pumped Flow•Bulk WaterCustomer Classes: 13$0$500$1,000$1,500$2,000Residential Commercial Pumped Flow Bulk WaterProjected 2015 Revenue and Allocated ExpensesProjected Rate RevenuesAllocated Costs$0$500$1,000$1,500$2,000Residential Commercial Pumped Flow Bulk WaterProjected 2015 Revenue and Allocated ExpensesProjected Rate RevenuesAllocated CostsCost of Service Results (000’s)13•Illustrates that the commercial customer class is farthest from meeting the cost to serve it–The commercial class rate adjustment will behigher than the 9.9% overall adjustment 14Summary of Cost of Service Results•Cost differences exist between classes of service •Results are similar to the 2010 rate study’s cost of service results•Results show that adjustments are required to improve equity between classes–Pumped Flow and Bulk Water customer classes are in-line with costs and should have the overall rate adjustment applied (9.9%)–The commercial class needs to generate more revenue to be in-line with costs to provide service14 15Rate Design15•The amount of bill increase is different for each customer. The bill increase depends on:–Which customer class you are in–The size of the service meter–The amount of water used0 5 10 30 50Option 3 ‐ Levelized Rates$23.82 $46.79 $69.77 $161.67 $253.56Option 2$23.17 $47.56 $71.96 $169.54 $267.12$0.00$50.00$100.00$150.00$200.00$250.00$300.00Residential (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐3/4" meter 0 5 10 30 50Option 3 ‐ Levelized Rates$23.82 $46.79 $69.77 $161.67 $253.56Option 2$23.17 $47.56 $71.96 $169.54 $267.12$0.00$50.00$100.00$150.00$200.00$250.00$300.00Residential (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐3/4" meter 16Typical Rate Setting Goals and Objectives•Revenue sufficiency•Revenue stability•Easy to understand (customer)•Easy to administer (City)•Affordability •Economic development•Encourage efficient use of the resource•Equitable & non-discriminating (cost-based)•Legally defendableThere are always trade-offs between goals and objectives16 17Rate Design Goals and Options•Rate designs should strive to:–Increase revenue stability–Develop cost-based and equitable rates–Any change in rates should be gradual •Three rate options were developed –Option 1 – Implement AWWA meter equivalencies over a 3 year period–Option 2 – Maintain existing rate structure and apply the necessary rate adjustments–Option 3 – Option 1 with levelized across the yearsPreferred Option 18Development of Proposed Water Rates •Preferred Rate Option 3 reflects:–A transition toward cost of service results over 3-years; 2015 through 2017•Recommend rate Option 3 - Uses AWWA* meter equivalencies for the meter charges–Meter equivalency gradually increases over 3 years •Increases meter (fixed) charge revenue fromcommercial large meter customers•Paying the equitable share of their impact on the system•Increases revenue stability–Adding rate schedule for future large meters (6” & larger meters)•Bulk Water: Volumetric charge is increased by the overall needed rate adjustment•Maintains 60% rate differential for rural customer classes* American Water Works Association is a Nationally recognized group setting standards, best practices, performs R&D for the water industry18 19Benefits of Proposed Monthly Fixed Charges –Option 3•It is more equitable between customers–Larger meters require larger treatment plants and pipes. The monthly base charge reflects the costs of the larger infrastructure capacity required to serve them. •A six inch (6”) meter customer requires 33 times greater capacity than a residential customer, therefore it is more equitable for their base charge to be 33 times higher. •A customer’s meter size is determined by their design professionalMeter AWWA Size Ratios5/8" 1.003/4" 1.001" 1.671-1/2" 3.332" 5.333" 10.004" 16.676" 33.338" 53.3310" 76.6719Time it takes to fill an Olympic sized pool6-inch meter –11 hoursResidential3/4-inch meter –15 DAYS and 6 hours 20Benefits of Proposed Monthly Fixed Charges –Option 3•Reflects cost of service results–Provides a phased-in transition to cost of service results to facilitate customer budgeting•Improves revenue stability:–Total rate revenue shifts from 43% fixed charges in 2014 to 52% by 2018 –Residential class moves from 54% fixed revenue in 2014 to 62% fixed revenue by 2018–Improves ability to pay fixed costs with fixed revenue, whether or not customers are in Town using water20 21Option 3 Rate Schedule – Levelized RatesPresent 2015 2016 2017Proposed Revenue Adjustment 9.9% 9.9% 9.9%Meter ChargeAll Classes5/8" $21.08 $23.82 $26.92 $30.153/4" 21.08 23.82 26.92 30.151" 23.16 28.58 37.68 50.341-1/2" 28.14 41.68 67.29 100.382" 31.62 67.88 114.39 160.673" 72.53 119.09 201.87 301.454" 101.65 214.37 336.44 502.526" N/A 357.28 672.89 1,004.74Volumetric Charge $/1,000 galResidentialAll consumption $4.44 $4.59 $4.73 $4.87Commercial All consumption $4.32 $4.65 $4.85 $5.00Pumped FlowAll consumption $6.22 $6.43 $6.63 $6.82Bulk WaterAll consumption $4.97 $5.15 $5.30 $5.46Option 3 - Meter Equivalencies Levelized over 3 years* Rural rates have a 60% differential *Rate Schedule 22Residential – Monthly Bill Comparison, Option 32014 2015 2016 2017Meter Charge $21.08 $23.82 $26.92 $30.15Volumetric Charge $22.20 $22.97 $23.66 $24.37Total $43.28 $46.79 $50.58 $54.52Change N/A $3.51 $3.79 $3.94Cumulative Change N/A $3.51 $7.30 $11.24Average Residential 3/4” meter, 5,000 gallons of use/month, Option 3 0 5 10 30 50Option 3 ‐ Levelized Rates$23.82 $46.79 $69.77 $161.67 $253.56Option 2$23.17 $47.56 $71.96 $169.54 $267.12$0.00$50.00$100.00$150.00$200.00$250.00$300.00Residential (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐3/4" meter 0 5 10 30 50Option 3 ‐ Levelized Rates$23.82 $46.79 $69.77 $161.67 $253.56Option 2$23.17 $47.56 $71.96 $169.54 $267.12$0.00$50.00$100.00$150.00$200.00$250.00$300.00Residential (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐3/4" meter Average monthly bill change is $3.75 each year 23Commercial Monthly Bill Comparison, Option 32014 2015 2016 2017Meter Charge $21.08 $23.82 $26.92 $30.15Volumetric Charge $64.83 $69.75 $72.75 $75.00Total $85.90 $93.57 $99.67 $105.15Change N/A $7.67 $6.10 $5.48Cumulative Change N/A $7.67 $13.77 $19.25Average Commercial 3/4” meter, 15,000 gal of use/month, Option 30 5 15 50 75 150Option 3 ‐ Levelized Rates$23.82 $47.07 $93.57 $256.32 $372.57 $721.32Option 2$23.17 $46.91 $94.41 $260.65 $379.39 $735.61$0$100$200$300$400$500$600$700$800Commercial (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐3/4" meter0 5 15 50 75 150Option 3 ‐ Levelized Rates$23.82 $47.07 $93.57 $256.32 $372.57 $721.32Option 2$23.17 $46.91 $94.41 $260.65 $379.39 $735.61$0$100$200$300$400$500$600$700$800Commercial (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐3/4" meterAverage monthly bill change of $6.40 per year 24Pumped Flow Monthly Bill Comparison, Option 32014 2015 2016 2017Meter Charge $21.08 $23.82 $26.92 $30.15Volumetric Charge $31.09 $32.16 $33.13 $34.12Total $52.17 $55.98 $60.05 $64.27Change N/A $3.81 $4.07 $4.22Cumulative Change N/A $3.81 $7.88 $12.10Average Pumped Flow ¾” meter, 5,000 gal of use/month, Option 30 5 10 30 50 100Option 3 ‐ Levelized Rates$23.82 $55.98 $88.15 $216.80 $345.46 $667.10Option 2$23.17 $57.33 $91.50 $228.16 $364.83 $706.49$0.00$100.00$200.00$300.00$400.00$500.00$600.00$700.00$800.00Pumped Flow (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐3/4" meter 0 5 10 30 50 100Option 3 ‐ Levelized Rates$23.82 $55.98 $88.15 $216.80 $345.46 $667.10Option 2$23.17 $57.33 $91.50 $228.16 $364.83 $706.49$0.00$100.00$200.00$300.00$400.00$500.00$600.00$700.00$800.00Pumped Flow (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐3/4" meter Average monthly bill change is $4.05 per year 25Bulk Water Monthly Bill Comparison, Option 32014 2015 2016 2017Meter Charge $31.62 $67.88 $114.39 $160.67Volumetric Charge $1,987.76 $2,058.50 $2,120.26 $2,183.87Total $2,019.38 $2,126.38 $2,234.65 $2,344.54Change N/A $107.00 $108.27 $109.89Cumulative Change N/A $107.00 $215.27 $325.16Average Bulk Water 2” meter, 400,000 gal of use/month, Option 310 30 50 100 150Option 3 ‐ Levelized Rates$119.35 $222.27 $325.20 $582.51 $839.83Option 2$89.36 $198.59 $307.82 $580.89 $853.96$0.00$100.00$200.00$300.00$400.00$500.00$600.00$700.00$800.00$900.00Bulk Water (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐2" meter 10 30 50 100 150Option 3 ‐ Levelized Rates$119.35 $222.27 $325.20 $582.51 $839.83Option 2$89.36 $198.59 $307.82 $580.89 $853.96$0.00$100.00$200.00$300.00$400.00$500.00$600.00$700.00$800.00$900.00Bulk Water (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐2" meter •Average monthly bill change is $108.40 per year 26•Each utility has unique operating characteristics and regulatory requirements•Comparisons are like comparing apples to oranges•Similar small mountain communities, and larger nearby utilities * Pinewood Springs limits use to 6,000 gallons/month/EQR, due to their Augmentation Plan Rate Comparison –Average Residential RatesEstes Park DillonSteamboatSpringsBreckenridge Fort CollinsEagle RiverWater &SanitationDist.PinewoodSpringsWaterDistrict*@ 5,000 gallons$43.28 $50.80 $34.61 $46.81 $28.98 $42.88 $103.002015 Option 3 Rates$46.79$0.00$15.00$30.00$45.00$60.00$75.00$90.00$105.00Comparison of Local/Similar Utilities, 2014 Rates Estes Park DillonSteamboatSpringsBreckenridge Fort CollinsEagle RiverWater &SanitationDist.PinewoodSpringsWaterDistrict*@ 5,000 gallons$43.28 $50.80 $34.61 $46.81 $28.98 $42.88 $103.002015 Option 3 Rates$46.79$0.00$15.00$30.00$45.00$60.00$75.00$90.00$105.00Comparison of Local/Similar Utilities, 2014 Rates 27Study Recommendations•Option 3 rates are the preferred andrecommended rate option:–Option 3 promotes:•Revenue stability•Rate equity•System resiliency and reliability•Easier to understand and administer•Option 3 meter equivalencies are gradually implemented over a 3-year period•Option 3 rates result in lower overall residential bills–Increases some commercial bills higher than the overall annual rate adjustment•This reflects the cost of service•Recommended rates fund the operating and capital needs, as projected–A prudent step toward funding infrastructure replacement and renewal / maintenance of current level of service and system reliability 28Next Steps….28•Public comment•Possible adoption of rates atthe 4/28/15 Board meeting•Implementation of new ratesmay be June 1st 1Water Rate Study Presentation AppendixMarch 24, 2015The following pages contain:•Options 1, 2, and 3 rate schedules•Each urban customer class bill comparisons 2Option 3 Rate Schedule – Levelized RatesPresent 2015 2016 2017Proposed Rate Adj. 9.9% 9.9% 9.9%Meter ChargeAll Classes5/8" $21.08 $23.82 $26.92 $30.153/4" 21.08 23.82 26.92 30.151" 23.16 28.58 37.68 50.341-1/2" 28.14 41.68 67.29 100.382" 31.62 67.88 114.39 160.673" 72.53 119.09 201.87 301.454" 101.65 214.37 336.44 502.526" N/A 357.28 672.89 1,004.748" N/A 1,270.27 1,435.40 1,607.6510" N/A 1,826.20 2,063.61 2,311.24Volumetric Charge $/1,000 galResidentialAll consumption $4.44 $4.59 $4.73 $4.87Commercial All consumption $4.32 $4.65 $4.85 $5.00Pumped FlowAll consumption $6.22 $6.43 $6.63 $6.82Bulk WaterAll consumption $4.97 $5.15 $5.30 $5.46Option 3 - Meter Equivalencies Levelized over 3 years* Rural rates have a 60% differential *Rate Schedule 3Rate Schedule - Option 1 - Meter Equivalencies in 3 yearsPresent 2015 2016 2017Proposed Rate Adj. 11.0% 10.8% 8.0%Meter ChargeAll Classes5/8" $21.08 $23.40 $26.16 $28.643/4" 21.08 23.40 26.16 28.641" 23.16 28.08 36.62 47.831-1/2" 28.14 40.95 65.40 95.382" 31.62 66.68 111.17 152.673" 72.53 116.99 196.19 286.434" 101.65 210.58 326.98 477.486" N/A 350.96 653.96 954.688" N/A 1,247.78 1,395.02 1,527.5510" N/A 1,793.88 2,005.56 2,196.09Volumetric Charge $/1,000 galResidentialAll consumption $4.44 $4.79 $5.08 $5.21Commercial All consumption $4.32 $4.75 $5.13 $5.23Pumped FlowAll consumption $6.22 $6.71 $7.12 $7.29Bulk WaterAll consumption $4.97 $5.37 $5.69 $5.83* Rural rates have a 60% differential *Option 1 & 2 Rate SchedulesRate Schedule - Option 2 - Existing Rate Schedule AdjustedPresent 2015 2016 2017Proposed Rate Adj. 11.0% 10.8% 8.0%Meter ChargeAll Classes5/8" $21.08 $23.40 $25.92 $28.003/4" 21.08 23.40 25.92 28.001" 23.16 25.71 28.49 30.771-1/2" 28.14 31.24 34.61 37.382" 31.62 35.10 38.89 42.003" 72.53 80.51 89.20 96.344" 101.65 112.83 125.02 135.026" N/A 350.96 388.86 419.978" N/A 1,247.78 1,382.54 1,493.1510" N/A 1,793.88 1,987.62 2,146.63Volumetric Charge - $/1,000 galResidentialAll consumption $4.44 $4.93 $5.46 $5.90Commercial All consumption $4.32 $4.80 $5.32 $5.74Pumped FlowAll consumption $6.22 $6.90 $7.65 $8.26Bulk WaterAll consumption $4.97 $5.52 $6.11 $6.60* Rural rates have a 60% differential * 4Meter Volume Present ProposedSize (1,000 gal) Rates Rates $3/4"0 $23.82 $26.92 $3.101 28.41 31.65 3.233 37.60 41.11 3.515 46.79 50.58 3.797 55.98 60.04 4.0610 69.77 74.24 4.4730 161.67 168.90 7.2350 253.56 263.55 9.9960 299.51 310.88 11.3680 391.41 405.53 14.12Base ChargeMonthlyBase ChargeMonthly5/8" $23.82 5/8" $26.923/4" 23.82 3/4" 26.921" 28.58 1" 37.681-1/2" 41.68 1-1/2" 67.29Volumetric$/1,000Volumetric$/1,000All Consumption $4.59 All Consumption $4.73PROPOSED RATESPRESENT RATESDifferenceResidential (Urban) - Option 3 - Levelized RatesYear 2 (2016)Meter Volume Present ProposedSize (1,000 gal) Rates Rates $3/4"0 $21.08 $23.82 $2.741 25.52 28.41 2.903 34.40 37.60 3.215 43.28 46.79 3.527 52.16 55.98 3.8310 65.47 69.77 4.2930 154.26 161.67 7.4050 243.05 253.56 10.5160 287.45 299.51 12.0680 376.24 391.41 15.17Base ChargeMonthlyBase ChargeMonthly5/8" $21.08 5/8" $23.823/4" 21.08 3/4" 23.821" 23.16 1" 28.581-1/2" 28.14 1-1/2" 41.68Volumetric$/1,000Volumetric$/1,000All Consumption $4.44 All Consumption $4.59PROPOSED RATESPRESENT RATESYear 1 (2015)Residential (Urban) - Option 3 - Levelized RatesDifferenceResidential (Urban) 2015 & 2016 –Option 3* The overall rate adjustment in 2015 is 9.9%; overall rate change is 8% in 2017** Rural rates maintain existing 60% rate differential *Average residential usage = 5,000 gallons/month 5Meter Volume Present ProposedSize (1,000 gal) Rates Rates $3/4"0 $26.92 $30.15 $3.231 31.65 35.02 3.373 41.11 44.77 3.665 50.58 54.52 3.947 60.04 64.27 4.2210 74.24 78.89 4.6530 168.90 176.39 7.4950 263.55 273.88 10.3360 310.88 322.63 11.7580 405.53 420.12 14.59Base ChargeMonthlyBase ChargeMonthly5/8" $26.92 5/8" $30.153/4" 26.92 3/4" 30.151" 37.68 1" 50.341-1/2" 67.29 1-1/2" 100.38Volumetric$/1,000Volumetric$/1,000All Consumption $4.73 All Consumption $4.87PRESENT RATES PROPOSED RATESResidential (Urban) - Option 3 - Levelized RatesYear 3 (2017)DifferenceResidential (Urban) 2017 –Option 3* Rural rates maintain existing 60% rate differential * 60 5 10 30 50Option 3 ‐ Levelized Rates$23.82 $46.79 $69.77 $161.67 $253.56Option 2$23.17 $47.56 $71.96 $169.54 $267.12$0.00$50.00$100.00$150.00$200.00$250.00$300.00Residential (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐3/4" meter 0 5 10 30 50Option 3 ‐ Levelized Rates$23.82 $46.79 $69.77 $161.67 $253.56Option 2$23.17 $47.56 $71.96 $169.54 $267.12$0.00$50.00$100.00$150.00$200.00$250.00$300.00Residential (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐3/4" meter 2015 Bill Comparison – Residential (Urban) –Option 3 1,000 galAverage monthly usage 7Commercial (Urban) 2015 & 2016– Option 3•88% of commercial customers have a 3/4“ to 1” meters; 116 commercial customers have meters larger than 1-inch metersMeter Volume Present ProposedSize (1,000 gal) Rates Rates $3/4"0 $23.82 $26.92 $3.105 47.07 51.17 4.1010 70.32 75.42 5.1015 93.57 99.67 6.1020 116.82 123.92 7.1050 256.32 269.42 13.1075 372.57 390.67 18.10100 488.82 511.92 23.10125 605.07 633.17 28.10150 721.32 754.42 33.101"0 $28.58 $37.68 $9.105 51.83 61.93 10.1010 75.08 86.18 11.1015 98.33 110.43 12.1050 261.08 280.18 19.1075 377.33 401.43 24.10100 493.58 522.68 29.10150 726.08 765.18 39.10200 958.58 1,007.68 49.10250 1,191.08 1,250.18 59.10Base ChargeMonthlyBase ChargeMonthly5/8" $23.82 5/8" $26.923/4" 23.82 3/4" 26.921" 28.58 1" 37.681-1/2" 41.68 1-1/2" 67.292" 67.88 2" 114.393" 119.09 3" 201.87Volumetric$/1,000 galVolumetric$/1,000 galAll consumption $4.65 All consumption $4.85PROPOSED RATESPRESENT RATESCommercial (Urban) - Option 3 - Levelized RatesYear 2 (2016)DifferenceMeter Volume Present ProposedSize (1,000 gal) Rates Rates $3/4"0 $21.08 $23.82 $2.745 42.69 47.07 4.3810 64.30 70.32 6.0215 85.90 93.57 7.6620 107.51 116.82 9.3150 237.16 256.32 19.1675 345.21 372.57 27.36100 453.25 488.82 35.57125 561.29 605.07 43.78150 669.33 721.32 51.991"0 $23.16 $28.58 $5.425 44.77 51.83 7.0610 66.38 75.08 8.7015 87.99 98.33 10.3450 239.25 261.08 21.8375 347.29 377.33 30.04100 455.33 493.58 38.25150 671.42 726.08 54.66200 887.50 958.58 71.08250 1,103.59 1,191.08 87.49Base ChargeMonthlyBase ChargeMonthly5/8" $21.08 5/8" $23.823/4" 21.08 3/4" 23.821" 23.16 1" 28.581-1/2" 28.14 1-1/2" 41.682" 31.62 2" 67.883" 72.53 3" 119.09Volumetric$/1,000 galVolumetric$/1,000 galAll consumption $4.32 All consumption $4.65PRESENT RATES PROPOSED RATESCommercial (Urban) - Option 3 - Levelized RatesYear 1 (2015)Difference 8Commercial (Urban) 2017 –Option 3* Rural rates have a 60% differential *Meter Volume Present ProposedSize (1,000 gal) Rates Rates $3/4"0 $26.92 $30.15 $3.235 51.17 55.15 3.9810 75.42 80.15 4.7315 99.67 105.15 5.4820 123.92 130.15 6.2350 269.42 280.15 10.7375 390.67 405.15 14.48100 511.92 530.15 18.23125 633.17 655.15 21.98150 754.42 780.15 25.731"0 $37.68 $50.34 $12.665 61.93 75.34 13.4110 86.18 100.34 14.1615 110.43 125.34 14.9150 280.18 300.34 20.1675 401.43 425.34 23.91100 522.68 550.34 27.66150 765.18 800.34 35.16200 1,007.68 1,050.34 42.66250 1,250.18 1,300.34 50.16Base ChargeMonthlyBase ChargeMonthly5/8" $26.92 5/8" $30.153/4" 26.92 3/4" 30.151" 37.68 1" 50.341-1/2" 67.29 1-1/2" 100.382" 114.39 2" 160.673" 201.87 3" 301.45Volumetric$/1,000 galVolumetric$/1,000 galAll consumption $4.85 All consumption $5.00PROPOSED RATESPRESENT RATESCommercial (Urban) - Option 3 - Levelized RatesYear 3 (2017)Difference 90 5 15 50 75 150Option 3 ‐ Levelized Rates$23.82 $47.07 $93.57 $256.32 $372.57 $721.32Option 2$23.17 $46.91 $94.41 $260.65 $379.39 $735.61$0$100$200$300$400$500$600$700$800Commercial (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐3/4" meter0 5 15 50 75 150Option 3 ‐ Levelized Rates$23.82 $47.07 $93.57 $256.32 $372.57 $721.32Option 2$23.17 $46.91 $94.41 $260.65 $379.39 $735.61$0$100$200$300$400$500$600$700$800Commercial (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐3/4" meter2015 Bill Comparison ‐Commercial (Urban) –Option 31,000 gallons 10Pumped Flow (Urban) 2015 & 2016 –Option 3* Rural rates maintain existing 60% differential *Meter Volume Present ProposedSize (1,000 gal) Rates Rates $3/4"0 $21.08 $23.82 $2.741 27.30 30.25 2.963 39.73 43.12 3.395 52.17 55.98 3.827 64.60 68.85 4.2510 83.25 88.15 4.8920 145.43 152.47 7.0430 207.61 216.80 9.2050 331.96 345.46 13.5075 487.40 506.28 18.88100 642.84 667.10 24.26Base ChargeMonthlyBase ChargeMonthly3/4" $21.08 3/4" $23.821" 23.16 1" 28.581-1/2" 28.14 1-1/2" 41.68Volumetric$/1,000Volumetric$/1,000All Consumption $6.22 All Consumption $6.43PROPOSED RATESPRESENT RATESPumped Flow (Urban) - Option 3 - Levelized RatesYear 1 (2015)DifferenceMeter Volume Present ProposedSize (1,000 gal) Rates Rates $3/4"0 $23.82 $26.92 $3.101 30.25 33.54 3.293 43.12 46.79 3.685 55.98 60.04 4.067 68.85 73.30 4.4510 88.15 93.17 5.0320 152.47 159.43 6.9630 216.80 225.69 8.8950 345.46 358.21 12.7575 506.28 523.85 17.57100 667.10 689.50 22.40Base ChargeMonthlyBase ChargeMonthly3/4" $23.82 3/4" $26.921" 28.58 1" 37.681-1/2" 41.68 1-1/2" 67.29Volumetric$/1,000Volumetric$/1,000All Consumption $6.43 All Consumption $6.63PRESENT RATES PROPOSED RATESPumped Flow (Urban) - Option 3 - Levelized RatesYear 2 (2016)Difference 11Pumped Flow (Urban) 2017 –Option 3* Rural rates maintain existing 60% differential *Meter Volume Present ProposedSize (1,000 gal) Rates Rates $3/4"0 $26.92 $30.15 $3.231 33.54 36.97 3.433 46.79 50.62 3.835 60.04 64.27 4.227 73.30 77.92 4.6210 93.17 98.39 5.2220 159.43 166.64 7.2130 225.69 234.88 9.1950 358.21 371.38 13.1775 523.85 541.99 18.14100 689.50 712.61 23.11Base ChargeMonthlyBase ChargeMonthly3/4" $26.92 3/4" $30.151" 37.68 1" 50.341-1/2" 67.29 1-1/2" 100.38Volumetric$/1,000Volumetric$/1,000All Consumption $6.63 All Consumption $6.82Pumped Flow (Urban) - Option 3 - Levelized RatesYear 3 (2017)DifferencePRESENT RATES PROPOSED RATES 120 5 10 30 50 100Option 3 ‐ LevelizedRates$23.82 $55.98 $88.15 $216.80 $345.46 $667.10Option 2$23.17 $57.33 $91.50 $228.16 $364.83 $706.49$0.00$100.00$200.00$300.00$400.00$500.00$600.00$700.00$800.00Pumped Flow (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐3/4" meter 0 5 10 30 50 100Option 3 ‐ LevelizedRates$23.82 $55.98 $88.15 $216.80 $345.46 $667.10Option 2$23.17 $57.33 $91.50 $228.16 $364.83 $706.49$0.00$100.00$200.00$300.00$400.00$500.00$600.00$700.00$800.00Pumped Flow (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐3/4" meter 2015 Bill Comparison ‐Pumped Flow (Urban) –Option 3•Only 9 customers, or 3.5% have meters larger than 3/4- inch1,000 gallons 13Bulk Water (Urban) 2015 & 2016 –Option 3* Rural rates maintain existing 60% differential *MeterVolume Present ProposedSize (1,000 gal) Rates Rates $2"10 $81.31 $119.35 $38.0320 131.01 170.81 39.8030 180.70 222.27 41.5740 230.39 273.74 43.3450 280.09 325.20 45.1175 404.32 453.86 49.53100 528.56 582.51 53.96125 652.79 711.17 58.38150 777.03 839.83 62.80250 1,273.97 1,354.46 80.49Base ChargeMonthlyBase ChargeMonthly2" $31.62 2" $67.883" 72.53 3" 119.094" 101.65 4" 214.37Volumetric$/1,000Volumetric$/1,000All Consumption $4.97 All Consumption $5.15DifferencePRESENT RATES PROPOSED RATESBulk Water (Urban) - Option 3 - Levelized RatesYear 1 (2015)Meter Volume Present ProposedSize (1,000 gal) Rates Rates $2"10 $119.35 $167.40 48.0520 170.81 220.40 49.5930 222.27 273.41 51.1440 273.74 326.41 52.6850 325.20 379.42 54.2275 453.86 511.94 58.08100 582.51 644.45 61.94125 711.17 776.97 65.79150 839.83 909.48 69.65250 1,354.46 1,439.54 85.08Base ChargeMonthlyBase ChargeMonthly2" $67.88 2" $114.393" 119.09 3" 201.874" 214.37 4" 336.44Volumetric$/1,000Volumetric$/1,000All Consumption $5.15 All Consumption $5.30DifferencePRESENT RATES PROPOSED RATESBulk Water (Urban) - Option 3 - Levelized RatesYear 2 (2016) 14Bulk Water (Urban) 2017 –Option 3* Rural rates maintain the existing 60% rate differential *Meter Volume Present ProposedSize (1,000 gal) Rates Rates $2"10 $167.40 $215.27 $47.8720 220.40 269.87 49.4730 273.41 324.47 51.0640 326.41 379.06 52.6550 379.42 433.66 54.2475 511.94 570.15 58.22100 644.45 706.64 62.19125 776.97 843.14 66.17150 909.48 979.63 70.15250 1,439.54 1,525.60 86.06Base ChargeMonthlyBase ChargeMonthly2" $114.39 2" $160.673" 201.87 3" 301.454" 336.44 4" 502.52Volumetric$/1,000Volumetric$/1,000All Consumption $5.30 All Consumption $5.46PROPOSED RATESDifferencePRESENT RATESBulk Water (Urban) - Option 3 - Levelized RatesYear 3 (2017) 1510 30 50 100 150Option 3 ‐ LevelizedRates$119.35 $222.27 $325.20 $582.51 $839.83Option 2$89.36 $198.59 $307.82 $580.89 $853.96$0.00$100.00$200.00$300.00$400.00$500.00$600.00$700.00$800.00$900.00Bulk Water (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐2" meter 10 30 50 100 150Option 3 ‐ LevelizedRates$119.35 $222.27 $325.20 $582.51 $839.83Option 2$89.36 $198.59 $307.82 $580.89 $853.96$0.00$100.00$200.00$300.00$400.00$500.00$600.00$700.00$800.00$900.00Bulk Water (Urban) 2015 Bill Comparison ‐2" meter 2015 Bill Comparison –Bulk Water (Urban) –Option 31,000 gallons