HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2014-01-14
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, January 14, 2014
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PROCLAMATION: – 100th Anniversary of Namaqua Chapter National Society Daughters of
the American Revolution.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance Report
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Special Town Board Minutes dated December 5, 2013 and Town Board Minutes
dated December 10, 2013, and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated
December 10, 2013.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee, December 12, 2013 –
Cancelled.
B. Community Development/Community Services Committee. December 19,
2013 – Cancelled.
4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated November 19, 2013.
(acknowledgement only).
5. Resolution #01-14 - Public Posting Area Designation.
6. Resolution #02-14, Schedule public hearing of January 28, 2014, for a Hotel and
Restaurant Liquor License Application filed by Mountain Strong LLC, LLC. dba
Mountain Strong Restaurant, 361 S. St. Vrain Avenue.
Prepared 12/27/13
*Revised
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
1. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR PERMANENT REPAIRS TO FISH
CREEK CORRIDOR. Attorney White.
2. APPEAL THE APPROVAL OF THE STANLEY PAVILION BY THE TECHNICAL
REVIEW COMMITTEE. Senior Planner Shirk.
Mayor Pinkham: Open the Public Hearing. The formal public hearing will
be conducted as follows:
Mayor – Open Public Hearing
Staff Report
Appellant Presentation
Public Testimony
Mayor – Close Public Hearing
Board Discussion & Motion to Approve/Deny.
Appeal of the Technical Review Committee’s determination that the proposed use
complies with the Master Plan for the Stanley Historic District as an ancillary use to
the Stanley Historic District, Mountain Townhome Homeowner Association/Applicant.
3. ORDINANCE #02-14 ESTABLISHING THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL COURT AS
A COURT OF RECORD. Attorney White.
3. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. MULTI-PURPOSE EVENT CENTER & STALL BARN CONSTRUCTION UPDATE.
Director Zurn.
4. ADJOURN.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
970.577.3705
flancaster@estes.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 14th, 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. Policy 3.3, Financial Planning and Budgeting requires
quarterly reporting of compliance in April, July, October and January.
Policy 3.3 states: “With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities
with a fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or
fiscal integrity of Town government.”
This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions
have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this
date.
________________________
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
3.3.1. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Deviates from
statutory requirements.
REPORT: The current budget and any proposed budget revisions have all been
prepared in compliance with applicable statutory requirements. I am
therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.2. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Deviates
materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among competing
budgetary needs.
REPORT: The current budget and any proposed budget revisions have all been
prepared in following the Board stated priorities expressed during the
budget adoption process. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.3. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which contains
inadequate information to enable credible projection of revenues and
expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow and
subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning assumptions.
REPORT: The current budget was prepared with adequate information as
requested by the Board of Trustees. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.4. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which plans the
expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively
projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available.
REPORT: The current budget for all town funds do not contain any plans for
expenditures in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively projected to
be received in that period, or which are otherwise available. I therefore report
compliance.
3.3.5. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which reduces fund
balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that established by the
Board of Trustees.
REPORT All Town funds which are subject to this provision are within the Board
determined limits. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.6. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Fails to
maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to significant
shortfalls within the Town’s budget.
REPORT: The current budget includes appropriate contingency funding. I am
therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.7. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
provide for an annual audit.
REPORT: The 2013 audit is planned to begin in the next quarter. I am therefore
reporting compliance.
3.3.8. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the current or
future bond ratings of the Town.
REPORT: Nothing in the current budget as adopted fails to protect the integrity of
the current or future bond ratings of the Town. I am therefore reporting
compliance.
3.3.9. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which results in new
positions to staffing levels without specific approval of the Board of Town
Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve positions funded by
grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in addition
to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing
budgeted funds are allocated.
REPORT: No new positions or additions to the staffing document have been
added without specific approval of the Board of Trustees other than temporary
positions or those grant positions that are 100% grant funded, as allowed by
adopted policy. I am therefore reporting compliance.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 5, 2013
Minutes of a Special 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 5th day of December, 2013.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Eric Blackhurst, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Mark Elrod
John Ericson
Wendy Koenig
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
1. ACTIONS ITEMS:
1. CONSIDERATION OF THE SALE OF LOT 4, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT
FOR THE ANSCHUTZ WELLNESS CENTER. John Cullen/Stanley Hotel
owner stated he was approached by the medical center to discuss an alternate
model for the Wellness Center. The Medical Center’s 501 3(c) would own and
run the Wellness Center as a public facility rather than a private center as
presented previously. The Stanley would maintain the facility and market the
facility and enter into a long term land lease with the Park Hospital District. The
purchase price of the property would remain a $1.65 million with Grand
Heritage Hotel Group, LLC providing $100,000 in earnest money to the Town,
$1 million at closing, and the Town waiving the additional $650,000 if the
Hospital District commences construction within 2 years after closing. If the
District does not commence construction, Grand Heritage Hotel Group, LLC
would pay the Town the additional $650,000 and build the Wellness Center or
leave it as open space if a center is not feasible for any reason. It is
understood that the Hospital District would have 2 years to raise the necessary
funds through grants or fundraising to begin construction of the facility, leaving
no construction debt for the District once the facility is constructed; however,
applying for grants and being awarded funds would take more time than private
financing, i.e. loans. Mr. Cullen would request the Town move a contract
forward to the voters in April for their consideration, and if approved, would
request the hotel portion of the development on Lot 4 be built immediately in
advance of the center. The development would continue to consist of 1/3 hotel,
1/3 Wellness Center and 1/3 open space as originally designed.
Brian Herwig/Chief Executive Director for the Hospital stated the hospital wants
the opportunity to develop an umbrella for community wellness in conjunction
with the Stanley Hotel and the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District
through the development of the Wellness Center and the Community Wellness
Center. The hospital has been working with Anschutz to develop a scope of
services at the Wellness Center that would differ from those available at the
Community Center. By opening the Wellness Center up to the community as
well as the guests of the Stanley the hospital may be able to secure operational
funding for the center. Additional programs with Anschutz may also be
available for our students and seniors through their programs that could help
our community to move to preventive care. The new services provided at the
Wellness Center would bring new people to the community and the new
Board of Trustees – December 5, 2013 – Page 2
funding source would stabilize the finances at the hospital but could also help
fund the services at the new Community Wellness Center.
Dr. Frank Dumont/Chief of Staff stated the medical staff voted in support of the
new proposal for the Anschutz center. The new model for services at the
center would be broken into two separate offerings: Model 1 providing
executive wellness reviews with one-on-one medical evaluations providing
information to the client on lifestyle changes they could make such as exercise
and nutrition; and Model 2 providing the community with a modified approach
with less testing and more community based workshops and presentations on
items such as healthy cooking.
Lucia Liley/Stanley Hotel representative reviewed the project, lease and
purchase price discussed previously. In addition she reviewed the
contingencies for the purchase and the project including the need for the due
diligence between all parties involved, approval of the sale by the voters, the
Town Board approval of all land use related actions for the project, and the
expiration of all time periods for legal challenges by a third party.
Trustee questions were heard and summarized: questioned if the lot would be
split into three lots; what services would be located at the Wellness Center and
the Community Wellness Center; would the medical center own the land the
Wellness Center would be built on; questioned if the services provided by the
medical center would be taxable; and would the Wellness Center be open to
the public.
The property once purchased would remain as one lot with the Wellness Center
occupying a portion to the west. The Center would be independent of the other
hotel amenities with guest purchasing services. The hospital has envisioned
the Community Wellness Center would contain sports medicine, rehab,
trainers, treatments, fitness testing, weight loss counseling, etc. These
services would be less intense than those provided at the Wellness Center.
Services at the Center would be non-taxable and would not provide additional
sales tax to the Town.
Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated the Town needs to move forward and provide
the citizens with a firm contract to consider at an election. Trustee Koenig
stated the concept could benefit all segments of the community with the facility
open to both the public and the tourist. Trustee Norris stated the new concept
is improved with no debt for the hospital, an April election providing more time
for the voters to become informed, and further clarity on the project has been
presented. Trustee Elrod stated the same proposal has been presented with
an additional partner and less money for the property. He questioned if the
Town could give land to a non-profit for a for-profit venture. He also questioned
the property tax that would be paid on the property because the special taxing
district would be occupying a portion of the lot.
2. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Phipps) to enter into Executive
Session for the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may
be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or
instructing negotiators, under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e); and for the
purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions under C.R.S.
Section 24-6-402(4)(b), and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 5:48
p.m.
Mayor Pinkham reconvened the meeting to open session at 7:15 p.m.
Board of Trustees – December 5, 2013 – Page 3
Mayor Pinkham stated the Board consensus was to continue contract negotiations
for the purchase of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District. The Board would hold a special
meeting on Monday, January 6, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 7:18 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 10, 2013
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 December, 2013.
Present: Eric Blackhurst, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Mark Elrod
John Ericson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Trustee
Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to
do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENTATION.
Peter Vanderveen/Lions Club President presented the Town with the annual rent for the
concession stand at the fairgrounds.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Steve Barlow/Town citizen commented the downtown bypass would have a negative
effect on the businesses as well as the proposed parking structure at the Visitor Center.
He recommended the Town focus on increasing parking downtown and focus on the
businesses downtown.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS
Trustee Norris provided the Board a review of the recent Visit Estes Park (LMD) Board
meeting, including the adoption of their 2014 budget, awarded a Northern Colorado
Community Grant of $72,000, awaiting notice for the EDC grant, update from RMNP on
the 100th Anniversary of the Park, and developed a committee to begin the search for a
new Executive Director.
Trustee Ericson stated the Community Development/Community Services Committee
meeting for December has been cancelled. The Transportation Advisory Committee
would meet on Wednesday, December 18, 2013.
Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst commented the Estes Park Housing Authority would hold its
regular meeting on Wednesday, December 11, 2013 in the Visitor Center meeting room.
The Public Safety, Utilities, and Public Works Committee for December has been
cancelled.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
Sales tax for October was down 18% compared to the projected decrease of 50%
because the roads were still closed to Estes Park. The numbers are encouraging
and suggest the economy may come back sooner than expected.
The Intergovernmental Agreement to repair Fish Creek Road has been pulled from
the agenda as minor concerns continue to be addressed by some of the partners.
Community Foundation of Colorado has awarded the Town with a $50,000 grant and
a $94,000 grant from the Colorado Water Conservation Board to complete a Master
Plan for Fall River corridor repairs. Applications have been submitted for Fish Creek
corridor. The development of the Master Plan would address the design and
Board of Trustees – December 10, 2013 – Page 2
hydrology of the repairs. A number of repairs are on private property; therefore,
repairs need to be coordinated with the individual owners.
A Long Term Recovery group has been formed to help with individual assistance for
gap needs that other assistance was not able to provide. The Co-Chairs for the
group are Stephanie Wittfield and Chris Moody.
The Community Development department held a public meeting to discuss river
restoration and stabilization with a number of federal and state agencies present.
The discussion focused around the development of coalitions and available funding
for the work to be completed. A considerable percentage of the work to be
completed would be the responsibility of the private property owners; however, the
Town would be a partner and a catalyst for moving the repairs forward. The Town
does not have the authority to complete work on private property.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated November 26, 2013, and Town Board Study
Session Minutes dated November 26, 2013.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
a. Community Development/Community Services Committee – November
21, 2013.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated November 5, 2013.
(acknowledgement only).
5. Intergovernmental Agreement with Estes Valley Public Library District for
Town Services.
6. Intergovernmental Agreement with Estes Park Local Marketing District.
7. Resolution #39-13 Terminating the Town Administrator’s Authority to Enter
into certain Intergovernmental and/or Mutual Aid Agreements for Recovery
from the Flood.
Trustee Ericson requested Consent Agenda Item 6 be removed and discussed as an
Action Item. It was moved and seconded (Elrod/Phipps) to approve the Consent
Agenda Items 1-5 and 7, and it passed unanimously.
Action Item – Consent Item #6 Intergovernmental Agreement with Estes Park Local
Marketing District. Trustee Ericson questioned the inclusion of the Destination
Leadership in the agreement as it was his understanding the group had disbanded. He
also questioned why the use of the Museum’s collection has been limited to those items
prior to January 1, 2010. He would like to see any useful material owned by the Town
made available to the LMD for use in marketing and advertising of the Town. It was
moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to approve the Consent Agenda Item 6, and it
passed unanimously.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEM:
A. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, Mountain River Townhomes,
Metes & Bounds parcel, 650 Moraine Avenue; Dallman
Construction/Applicant. Senior Planner Shirk stated the application was
for a preliminary subdivision plat to allow the development of 26
freestanding residential/accommodation units. The 1930s cabins onsite
are unoccupied and the utilities have been abandoned. The property is
Board of Trustees – December 10, 2013 – Page 3
zoned “A” Accommodations and the proposed use is allowed in the
zoning district. The development would provide for the extension of the
Park River Place on the east side of the property. The Estes Valley
Planning Commission recommended approval of the plat at their
November 19, 2013 meeting with conditions of approval. Jeff
Moreau/Applicant was present and thanked the Town and the staff for
their professionalism during the process. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst
questioned the viability of extending the trail system through the
property. Planner Shirk confirmed the extension of the trail system has
been acquired through the subdivision plat. It was moved and
seconded (Norris/Elrod) to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plat,
Mountain River Townhomes, Metes & Bounds parcel, 650 Moraine
Avenue with the conditions of approval recommended by the Estes
Valley Planning Commission, and it passed unanimously.
3. ACTIONS ITEMS:
1. RESOLUTION #35-13 – 2013 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
APPROPRIATIONS. Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the supplemental
appropriation resolution allowing a municipality to authorize additional money
for a specific fund than was originally adopted for the current fiscal year. The
requested supplemental appropriations address both revenue and expenditure
differences from the approved 2013 budget from unanticipated events,
including the recent flood. Examples include decrease revenue to the General
Fund due to an decrease in sales tax revenues forecasted for September and
fourth quarter of the year due to the flood and lack of access to Estes Park;
Community Reinvestment Fund revenues increase in excess of $6 million with
the Certificates of Participation for the Stall Barn and Multi-Purpose Event
Center (MPEC) construction; Community Services Fund revenues adjusted due
to a transfer from the General Fund for the start-up funds for the MPEC;
revenues up for the L&P; Water revenues have been revised down; Fleet
revenues are down from 2013 budget; $1 million in flood related expenditures
have been added to the General Fund; additional expenditures in the L&P and
Water funds due to flood recovery; and an additional $400,000 spent on
approved vehicle purchases from the Vehicle Replacement Fund. It was
moved and seconded (Ericson/Norris) to approve Resolution #35-13, and it
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING – 2014 BUDGET – ADOPTION. Mayor Pro Tem
Blackhurst opened the public meeting and Finance Officer McFarland
reviewed the budget adoption process and recapped the changes to the
budget that were requested by the Board at the November 26, 2013 Town
Board meeting including $100,000 in funding for the Local Marketing District to
help fund marketing efforts due to the flood.
Finance Officer McFarland discussed the Highway User’s Trust Fund. He said
the Fund consists of shared revenue, primarily derived from fuel tax and
vehicle registrations, and estimated that in 2014 the Town will receive
approximately $258,004. Funds will be utilized as part of the STIP overlay on
projects such as street improvements, snow removal and plow blade work,
vehicle and equipment usage, and traffic control items.
Finance Officer McFarland continued by presenting Resolution #36-13 to set
the mill levy which is required in order to allow the Town to levy and collect
property taxes. For 2014 the mill levy will be set at 1.822 mills, which will yield
approximately $326,658 in property taxes. He said approval of Resolution
#37-13 will adopt the 2014 budget, and Resolution #38-13 appropriates sums
of money to execute the budget and states that revenues within each fund are
sufficient to support expenditures.
Board of Trustees – December 10, 2013 – Page 4
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Ericson) to approve Resolution #36-13,
and it passed unanimously.
Rainer Schelp/Estes Valley Partners for Commerce member requested the
Town funding for Visit Estes Park be conditional on the District placing
emphasis on all businesses in Town and not just focusing on lodging
establishments. This would include promoting the new e-commerce site for
the local businesses established after the flood to promote businesses in town
and to ensure business retention during the flood recovery.
It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Phipps) to approve Resolution #37-13,
and it passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Ericson) to approve Resolution #38-13,
and it passed unanimously.
4. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. MULTI-PURPOSE EVENT CENTER & STALL BARN CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE. Director Zurn informed the Board the progress of the projects has
slowed down due to the weather. The stall barn perimeter exterior main doors
are being installed and the undergrounding of both the mechanical and
electrical systems has begun. MPEC structural steel framing is 80% complete
and underground exterior civil site continues as weather permits. Concrete
costs have spiked since the flood, therefore, staff has placed all concrete work
on hold for a few months until costs come down.
Director Winslow stated work continues with Johnson Consulting to market the
MPEC. The Town has also hired a Marketing and Sales Manager to market all
Town owned facilities.
2. DOWNTOWN WIRELESS SERVICES. Manager Fraundorf presented the
Board with additional information on how free public wireless downtown could
be achieved. Senate Bill 05-152 does not allow the Town to provide internet
service without a public vote; therefore, staff has identified a number of local
providers that could provide the service, some at a minimal upstart cost. The
Town could support the venture by allowing local internet providers access to
Town facilities and conduit, e.g. Town buildings, roofs, power poles or light
poles. Staff would request a consensus from the Board on whether or not
providing free wireless downtown is a good idea, and if so, staff would reach
out to the local businesses and present further information to the PUP
Committee.
Discussion followed amongst the Board with the general consensus that the
Town should move forward to establish what opportunities may exist and how
the Town can support the effort with the understanding that it is a private
venture. Attorney White stated the Board could lease facilities to a company to
provide the service just as the Town does with other companies such as cable
and gas providers. Manager Fraundorf confirmed the use of the fiber network
would provide revenue to the Town. Town Administrator Lancaster
recommended staff engage the downtown businesses to determine their level
of support for the service before moving forward. Results would be brought
back to the PUP Committee.
3. SUNGARD UPDATE. Manager Fraundorf provided an in depth overview of the
replacement of the financial system HTE to OneSolution beginning in 2011.
The planned upgrade would have allow increased productivity and work
efficiency in many areas, including much improved business process
automation, payroll handling, budget preparation, and permit processing.
SunGard’s offer was to reduce the annual maintenance costs from
$53,000/year to $26,000/year during the transition to OneSolution. The total
Board of Trustees – December 10, 2013 – Page 5
cost of ownership over five years was projected to be less than continuing the
same path with the existing systems. The Town has expended considerable
energy in moving to the new product; however, the modules needed to run
Town business are still not available. Departments such as Community
Development and Administrative Services have found other software such as
EnerGov for permitting and Paylocity for payroll. This left the core financial
systems to be upgraded, and Finance has little motivation to change; therefore,
the Town has moved away from the upgraded system to a maintenance only
contract with HTE. The company has agreed that all invoices for contingencies
have been voided. After analysis the Town has expended $198,533 and has
received an estimated $70,000 in net value.
4. THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDIVISION DEED RESTRICTION UPDATE.
Director Chilcott stated staff has met with developer Paul Kochevar to discuss
changes to the deed restriction for the Neighorhood Subdivision. Staff has
recommended the following changes: 1) Revise the deed restrictions with
property owner agreement to increase the income limit from 100% of Larimer
County median income to 150% as recommended by the Housing Authority
and require buyer counseling; and revise the Professional Services Agreement
between the Town and Housing Authority to include buyer counseling and/or
verification that buyer counseling has been obtained, e.g. from a HUD certified
counseling program. Originally staff and the Housing Authority also
recommended including resale provisions similar to the Vista Ridge resale
provisions. However, Vista Ridge is subsidized and the developer Paul
Kochevar is concerned that adding these provisions to a non-subsidized
program would negatively impact resale and further limit the pool of buyers.
The developer, private property owners, and Town need to mutually agree on
program changes. Staff would continue to meet with the developer to reach an
agreement.
5. CODE COMPLIANCE REPORT. Code Enforcement Officer/Planner I Kleisler
provided an update on code compliance activities previously reported at the
Community Development/Community Services Committee meeting. Since
March 2003, staff activities have included a number of outreach sessions, draft
policies and procedures for the code compliance program, proactively
addressing the highest community priorities, and establish a database for
tracking code cases. If possible, staff strives to resolve code compliance
matters prior to taking any enforcement actions. There are generally three
enforcement steps taken when a resolution is not reached in a timely matter: 1)
Notice of Request: a letter allowing property owners and/or tenants 15 days to
come into compliance; 2) Notice of Violation: notice sent via certified mail
stating the alleged violation, along with applicable evidence. Such notices may
be appealed through a Colorado court of competent jurisdiction; and 3)
Summons to Municipal Court: states the alleged violation and court date. From
July through October, the Community Development Department issued 40
letters of request and 23 notices of violation. Two (2) summonses to Municipal
Court were issued: one for screening of a trash receptacle along Big Thompson
Avenue, and another for screening of equipment and vehicles along Moraine
Avenue.
Staff has taken proactive steps to ensure that vacation home rentals are
licensed with the Town and operated in a manner consistent with applicable
codes. Staff has reviewed online listings of vacation home rentals and has
begun making contact with those not licensed with the Town or not in
compliance with Town codes. Approximately 50 non-complaint vacation home
rentals have been identified.
6. DELAY TO MASTER PLAN FOR THE WATER DEPARTMENT. Director
Bergsten informed the Board of a delay in awarding the Water Master Plan in
2013. Staff recommends rolling over the funds to fund balance and amend the
2014 budget to include the expenditure. The delay would allow additional time
Board of Trustees – December 10, 2013 – Page 6
to discuss the Master Plan approach with each of the three pre-qualified
engineering firms.
Whereupon Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst adjourned the meeting at 8:43 p.m.
Eric Blackhurst, Mayor Pro Tem
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 10, 2013
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION 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 December, 2013.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod,
Ericson, Koenig, Norris, and Phipps
Attending: Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod, Ericson, Norris,
and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Town Attorney White, and
Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent: Mayor Pinkham and Trustee Koenig
Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Ericson asked that Assistant Town Attorney John Frey be invited to come to
Estes Park at some point in the future to meet the Board.
Public comment was not taken at a special Town Board meeting held on December 5th,
and both Trustees Norris and Phipps stated that they had been contacted by members
of the citizenry about the failure of the Board to take input. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst
stated that there is an expectation that public comment will be taken when the Board
meets, however it is not a requirement. Town Administrator Lancaster said that in the
future if public comment will not be allowed, it will be clearly communicated to the public
prior to the meeting.
Trustee Norris expressed the need to ensure that the community has accurate
information related to the proposed sales tax increase and recommended a discussion
be held regarding any changes to the proposal that may be needed due to the flood.
Town Administrator Lancaster noted that the next edition of The Bugle will provide
information about how the Town’s tax rate compares with other communities.
Trustee Ericson made a presentation on the Board’s 2014 goals and objectives at a
recent noon Rotary Club meeting.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Discussions at future study sessions will include a review of the inventory of Town-
owned property; an inventory of available commercially-zoned property; a review of all
events conducted each year including both Town sponsored and non-Town sponsored
events; and strategic planning. Town Administrator Lancaster noted that the strategic
planning discussion will take place after the new Board is seated in April. Trustee
Ericson requested that short descriptions be added to the future study session agenda
items in the future to provide the Trustees with the focus of the discussion; and
requested that the agenda items be listed in Board priority order.
DISCUSS POLICY ON ACCEPTING ART, GIFTS, NAMING OF PARKS.
Suzanne Janssen, Public Art/Business Services Manager for the City of Loveland, said
that in 1985 the City of Loveland made a commitment to public art and instituted a
program called “1% for the Arts” which designates 1% of each city capital project of
$50,000 or more for the acquisition, conservation, maintenance, and installation of
public artwork; and said that there are currently 419 pieces in the City of Loveland’s
collection. The City of Loveland appointed a nine-member Visual Arts Committee
Town Board Study Session – December 10, 2013 – Page 2
.
(VAC) to manage the funds generated by the “1% for the Arts” program, which provides
public/community input, removes decision-making about public art from the governing
body and puts it into the hands of the residents serving on the VAC. She noted that the
VAC uses guidelines contained in the “Art in Public Places Handbook of Guidelines” to
make decisions related to donated and purchased artwork. The guidelines provide the
VAC with concrete, consistent guidelines, and a process to support its decisions.
Guidelines for deaccessioning of artwork is also included in the handbook. Since
people’s perception of art is very subjective, it is important to have criteria to follow that
will help to determine the appropriateness, location, and safety of the piece of art. Ms.
Janssen suggested an inventory of artwork currently owned by the Town of Estes Park
be compiled and offered to provide a template for this project. She said the inventory
information should include the location of the work, the donating party if applicable, the
title of the work, the artist’s name, the medium, and the appraised value. The Board
thanked Ms. Janssen and said the information she provided will be helpful as staff
moves forward with recommendations.
Trustee Elrod expressed concern that the Town is not taking proper care of the assets it
currently owns. He suggested that the care and maintenance of the current collection
be addressed and noted that it may be beneficial to involve Museum Director Fortini in
discussions as public art guidelines are created and proposed. Town Administrator
Lancaster said a creative arts district as well as an artwork loan program may also be
appropriate topics for future discussion and consideration.
MUNICIPAL COURT FINES & COURT OF RECORD.
Municipal Court Judge Brown said becoming a Court of Record would require that an
audio recording of court proceedings be made and maintained for the statutory retention
period. He said the types of court cases heard in Municipal Court would remain the
same, however, becoming a Court of Record would be beneficial if a decision of the
municipal court is appealed, and would also allow for higher fines to be imposed. The
current maximum fine that can be imposed in the Town of Estes Park Municipal Court is
$300 which limits the ability of the Judge to impose a suspended sentence or to allow
for restitution to be paid. The maximum fine that can be imposed in a Court of Record
is $2,650. Judge Brown noted that becoming a Court of Record would allow him to
issue search warrants, and would also provide a level of protection for the Police
Department officers and the Court. With the proceedings being recorded, any
allegations or threats made in Court would be on the record. He noted that the Town
Board room, which is where Municipal Court is held on the first and third Wednesdays
of each month, is already equipped with an audio recording device that could be utilized
by the Municipal Court Clerk to record the proceedings, so no additional cost would be
incurred. The Trustees directed staff to move forward with an ordinance that would
make Municipal Court a Court of Record with a maximum fine of $2,650 to provide the
Judge with greatest amount of sentencing flexibility. The ordinance will be brought to
the Board in January 2014.
FLAP GRANT – NEXT STEPS.
The Town of Estes Park was successful in acquiring grant monies from a program
designed to improve access to public lands, in this case, Rocky Mountain National Park
(RMNP). Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) funds in the amount of $13,005,000,
will be utilized to construct a one-way couplet in downtown Estes Park. Additionally,
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Responsible Acceleration of
Maintenance and Partnerships (RAMP) matching funds in the amount of $4,200,000,
will bring the project budget to $17,205,000. Director Zurn noted that the support of and
coordination with RMNP is required throughout the project. Agencies involved in the
implementation of the one-way couplet project are RMNP, the Town of Estes Park,
CDOT and the Central Federal Lands Highways Division (CFLHD). He said staff is
beginning to work on determining the roles of each agency in order to create a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will define these roles. He noted that the
CFLHD has an in-house design and construction oversight team that has expressed
Town Board Study Session – December 10, 2013 – Page 3
.
interest in providing design and construction management, as well as property
acquisition services for the project. He said CDOT is only interested in providing
construction management services for the project; and for the Town to do the project in-
house, additional staff would be required. Director Zurn noted that CFLHD is the
agency most familiar with the rules and regulations required for compliance with FLAP
and with a track record and experience-base in this type of project.
Discussion is summarized: CFLHD has the resources and experience to do the project;
CFLHD is the natural leader for the project; precisely define authorities, roles, and
communication channels in the contract; need to be clear with the public that the project
channels traffic out of town; how will this affect other roadways and businesses;
significant issues to deal with from community point of view; federal agency may not
understand importance of community issues and suitable construction schedule; the
Town does not need to manage the project, but needs to be involved as a project
owner; and Town acts as owner’s representative to protect the best interest of the
community. Larry Gamble, Chief of Planning at RMNP, said the Park supported the
Town’s application for the FLAP funds but will play a minor role in the project due to the
distance between the Park and downtown Estes Park where the one-way couplet will be
built. The Board noted that the project design process requires a considerable amount
of public comment and input and questioned the federal agency’s willingness to work
with the Town on local issues. Director Zurn stated he believes CFLHD will be
receptive to the Town’s concerns and sensitivities to the project. He said he is confident
in CFLHD and asked if the Board had concerns about the Town’s decision-making
process for design, streetscape, and the future of trails and developable properties
within this structure. The Board stated that a decision-making process must be defined
as part of the MOU.
Belle Morris, speaking on behalf of the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) stated
that the TAC membership voted in support of the Town hiring a private firm for the
project, rather than using CFLHD for design and construction management. The TAC’s
concerns included losing the ability to provide public comment on the design and the
inability to maintain the subtleties of Estes Park through the design process. She stated
the TAC favored a private contractor in order to keep more control in the hands of the
Town. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated that the NEPA study process requires public
input and will establish the values of the design and said he is not overly concerned that
public input will not be heard. He said the TAC should be involved in the NEPA process
to provide input and express concerns as well as being engaged in the entire project.
He said that the Board does not have enough information at this time to give clear
direction, and proposed that staff begin negotiating roles and return to the board with
role definitions for review. Director Zurn said an MOU would be brought forward to the
Board in early spring 2014 for consideration and adjustments or revisions. The Board
requested that additional discussion of the MOU be held at the January 14, 2014, study
session since early planning is important to the success of the project.
There being no further business, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst adjourned the meeting at
6:33 p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
November 19, 2013
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Vice Chair Kathy Bowers, Commissioners Charley Dickey, Nancy
Hills, Doug Klink, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes
Attending: Chair Hull, Vice Chair Bowers, Commissioners Dickey, Hills, Klink, Murphree, and
Sykes
Also Attending: Senior Planner Shirk, Planner Kleisler, Town Board Liaison Elrod, Town Engineer
Kevin Ash, Larimer County Manager Terry Gilbert and Recording Secretary
Thompson
Absent: Director Alison Chilcott, Town Attorney Greg White
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were eight people in attendance. Chair Hull
explained the purpose of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and stated public comment is
invaluable. Each Commissioner introduced him/herself.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, October 1, 2013 Planning Commission meeting as corrected.
B. Portions of Lot 1, North End Ranches, Amended Plat; 3325 Devils Gulch Road; Loren &
Susan Bley/Applicants. The applicant has requested the application be continued to the
December 17, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.
C. The Sanctuary Development Plan 2013‐05 and Preliminary Subdivision Plat. Staff has
requested continuance of the application. The application has been revised and routed to
affected agencies, and is on schedule to be heard at the December 17, 2013 Planning
Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Sykes) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the
motion passed unanimously.
3. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, Mountain River Townhomes Development Plan 2013‐03 and
Preliminary Subdivision Plat, 650 Moraine Avenue
Senior Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to redevelop the former
Telemark property, located at 650 Moraine Avenue within the Town limits. The development
proposal includes a development plan that describes the layout and use of the property, and a
preliminary subdivision plat that describes lots for commonly owned areas such as roads,
stormwater ponds, and lots for individually‐owned townhouses. Planner Shirk stated the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
November 19, 2013
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Planning Commission is the decision‐making body for the development plan, while the
Planning Commission is the recommending body for the preliminary and subsequent final
subdivision plat, with the final decision coming from the Town Board. Planner Shirk stated the
surrounding properties are zoned A–Accommodations and RM‐Residential Multi‐Family, with
single‐family E‐1–Estate zoning across Fall River and Riverside Drive.
Planner Shirk stated the property owner is B & L Development, and the applicant is Dallman
Construction. The agent for this project is Van Horn Engineering and Surveying. The overall
site is approximately 7.5 acres. The existing dwellings on the property are not being used.
Planner Shirk stated the existing development lies along the river and the west property line,
with the balance of the property remaining undeveloped. The proposed townhomes would be
sold as individual units. No portion of the proposed development lies within the floodplain.
FEMA has approved a map amendment (correction to existing conditions), stating the
property is outside of the regulated floodplain.
Planner Shirk explained the development proposes 26 single‐family dwellings, averaging 4.4
units per acre. This is less dense than what is currently allowed in the A–Accommodations
zone district (8 units per acre for this type of development). The overall concept has been
approved by the Public Works Department, with a few details to be worked out prior to
construction. Two stormwater treatment ponds will be built on the site. The site layout would
provide for connection to Park River Place Condominiums on the east side of the property,
and align with Cedar Ridge Circle on Moraine Avenue. An access permit from the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) will be required.
Concerning wildlife in the area, Planner Shirk stated there is a conservation easement on the
north side of Moraine Avenue, and wildlife frequently migrate through the area towards the
river. The submitted wildlife habitat report included a few criteria to incorporate into the HOA
declarations, such as no dog runs, bird feeders, etc. Design considerations would include no
fences between units with a wildlife corridor recommended close to the east property line,
taking advantage of the open space between this project and Park River West, as well as the
access to the river from the conservation easement to the north. Planner Shirk sent a survey
to the Northern Colorado Elk Management Group, made up of land use and wildlife officials
throughout Colorado, including Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, CSU, Boulder and
Larimer Counties, etc. The results showed 80% of respondents recommending the creation of
a single corridor. Based on those comments, there is an adequate amount of space on the
projected plans to allow for wildlife migration. There are no retaining walls planned, so
wildlife could also migrate freely throughout the site between the units.
Planner Shirk stated the Estes Valley Fire Protection District requires a turnaround lane for fire
trucks. They requested a hammerhead turnaround area at the northeast corner of the
property. This will require a variance approval from the Board of Adjustment. The proposed
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
November 19, 2013
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
turnaround did not affect the traffic impact analysis. CDOT has the approved the design
without a center turn lane on Moraine Avenue.
Planner Shirk stated the development would include landscaping along the highway and
internal roads with specific landscaping at each unit. Street landscaping would need to be
installed within two years. Individual landscaping will be installed as units are completed. The
applicant has requested a modification to allow smaller trees be planted, stating smaller trees
have a higher success rate. The applicant would be planting approximately 200 trees instead
of the required 138. Although there are no architectural design standards in the Estes Valley
Development Code, the proposal is to construct one and one‐half story homes (one story with
a walkout lower level).
Planner Shirk stated the development plan complies with the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC) with a few exceptions. The minor modifications requested include a six‐foot wide
interior sidewalk in lieu of the eight‐foot wide sidewalk required in the EVDC. The A–
Accommodations zone district requires eight‐foot sidewalks. This modification request is
within the 25% allowance the Planning Commission is authorized to grant. The tree size,
mentioned above, is the other requested modification. Planner Shirk stated Public Works and
the applicant are working to reach an agreement on stormwater, streets, and sidewalk design.
Upper Thompson Sanitation District supports the design. The HOA declaration revisions will
need to be completed prior to being heard by the Town Board. Revisions should include
wildlife management and descriptions of rental units (short‐ and long‐term) for clarification to
potential purchasers. Construction plans will be required once the project is approved, and
many of the staff findings will be addressed at that stage.
Staff Findings
1. The development plan, if revised per recommended conditions, will comply with
applicable standards set forth in the EVDC, as outlined in the staff report and Findings of
Compliance dated November 13, 2013. This finding excludes requested modifications and
waivers.
2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The Planning Commission is the Decision‐making Body for the development plan, and the
Recommending Body for the subdivision; the recommendation is to the Town Board of the
Town of Estes Park.
4. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to
placing the application on the Board agenda. This means a revised application
demonstrating compliance with conditions must be submitted before the application can
move forward to the Town Board, but no later than 30 days after Planning Commission
meeting date.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
November 19, 2013
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Staff recommended approval of the development plan and preliminary subdivision plat with
conditions listed below.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
Public Comment
Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering stated the fence on the east side of the property would
be removed. He provided a brief history of the site, stating the new development would
contain fewer buildings than what currently exists. The new Base Flood Elevation (BFE) would
be shown on the preliminary and final plats. Details would be worked out with staff.
Concerning the traffic impact analysis, he stated peak traffic is nearly 600 cars per hour (2012
statistics). Per CDOT, that amount of traffic did not trigger requirement of a turn lane. He
stated there would be 12 feet between each unit, eave to eave. Some fireproofing may be
required, which would be addressed with the construction plans.
Celine LeBeau/Wildlife Consultant stated she studied the Comprehensive Plan’s wildlife maps.
There was not a high‐use area for elk mapped on this property, but there was one for deer.
The proposed site does not have much bedding habitat for elk, and the riverbank is generally
too steep for elk to use for river access. Van Horn Engineering set up a motion camera along
the river and in the meadow. The photos showed no elk along the river at this site, with
minimal numbers in the meadow. Having discussed the project with Colorado Division of
Parks and Wildlife Officer Rick Spowart, he was more concerned about the human/wildlife
conflict (bears/trash, cow/calf incidents, etc.) than wildlife migration issues. He stated the
area is already fragmented by existing development, and did not see where additional
development would greatly affect wildlife. Ms. LeBeau stated the cameras revealed visits by
coyotes and a mountain lion, but generally was not high quality habitat compared to other
areas fronting the river. She found the development of the site would not have a significant
effect on wildlife migration.
Kevin Ash/Town Engineer stated there was an approximate 10% slope on the west side where
the road and sidewalk are proposed, making it difficult to meeting the 5% maximum slope
requirement for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The applicant
provided the Town with language that would allow the slope to be greater than 5% due to the
grade of the road. ADA provides an exception that allows the noncompliance as the street
slope warrants, but the Town is obligated to encourage applicants to meet the standard.
Public Works supports the project and will work with the applicant to resolve any issues. All
public infrastructure should comply with ADA regulations.
Mr. Ash stated they requested a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), which was changed to a
Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA). The floodplain line was in the southwest corner. Van Horn
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
November 19, 2013
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
completed a process with FEMA to get the line adjusted. It was noted that this LOMA was
completed prior to the September flood.
Maryellen Banfield/Town resident represented the Cedar Ridge Condominiums Homeowners
Association. Her comments are posted in written form on the Town website. Concerns raised
by the HOA were directed towards long‐term impacts; specifically, wildlife and traffic. They
supported a turn lane into the development. She felt the Traffic Impact Analysis did not
reflect the true stress on the area.
Arthur Blume/Town resident stated many species of wildlife currently migrate across Moraine
from the conservation easement to the north. He was concerned about the long‐term traffic
impacts, as well as protection for the wildlife.
Jeff Moreau/applicant stated he and Van Horn Engineering have worked hard with all public
entities to meet every criteria of the development code, with the exception of the minor
modifications and the variance request for the hammerhead turnaround. This all began by
trying to appease the Community Development Department and the neighbors with the
wildlife migration concern. The design was revised to remove a driveway along the east side
of the property; however, that revision caused the requirement for the turnaround. He has
made many concessions and asked the Commission to keep that in mind. He stated build‐out
expectations would ideally be five years. The reason for requesting smaller trees is not a cost‐
saving issue, but a higher survivability rate.
Conditions
1. Weed mitigation shall be initiated prior to site disturbance to the extent necessary to
prevent weed migration to nearby properties. Mitigation plan shall be finalized with
construction plans.
2. Variance approval for fire turnaround lane.
3. Landscaping on east side shall be designed to maximize elk migration and shall be
coordinated with the existing fence system.
4. HOA declarations shall be modified to address wildlife considerations, as outlined in the
staff report.
5. The subdivision shall be modified to include Base Flood Elevation information.
6. Compliance with the following affected agency comments:
a. Water Division dated November 14, 2013.
b. Fire District dated November 14, 2013.
c. Community Development Department dated November 13, 2013
d. Upper Thompson Sanitation District dated November 14, 2013.
e. Public Works Department dated November 19, 2013.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
November 19, 2013
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
It was moved and seconded (Dickey/Murphree) to approve Development Plan 2013‐03 and
recommend approval to the Town Board for the Preliminary Subdivision Plat with the findings
and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Sykes supported the project. She acknowledged and appreciated public comments
from the Cedar Ridge residents. She stated the applicant addressed all the issues required by the
Community Development Department. Commissioner Murphree agreed with Commissioner
Sykes. Commissioner Dickey stated he supported the development. He considered the current
conditions of the property as blighted, and was comfortable with the application for
redevelopment. Commissioners Hills and Klink agreed with the others. Commissioner Bowers
sympathized with the Cedar Ridge residents. Development is inevitable on large parcels with close
proximity to town. She commended the developer for reducing the density and increasing the
landscaping. People make a conscious choice to live in that area, and all have to deal with the
traffic issues certain months of the year. Commissioner Murphree commended the staff at Van
Horn Engineering for their hard work on the project.
4. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO CONCURRENT
REVIEW AND PROMULGATING PROCESSING SCHEDULES.
At the study session, it was discussed having conversation with the Town Attorney prior to
making any decisions concerning this proposed amendment. Chair Hull opened the agenda
item for public comment. There was none.
It was moved and seconded (Bowers/Murphree) to continue the proposed amendment to
the Estes Valley Development Code until such time when Attorney White can be present at
the Planning Commission study session and meeting.
5. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Planner Shirk reported the Anschutz Wellness Center at the Stanley Hotel had been officially
withdrawn by the applicant.
2. Planner Shirk reported next month’s agenda would include an application for an expansion of
the north parking lot at the Estes Park Medical Center. This is a very complex land use
application.
3. Planner Shirk reported next month’s agenda would include an application for The Sanctuary
on Fall River Townhomes.
4. Planner Shirk reported the initial plans for the proposed Estes Park Transit Facility and Parking
Structure has been determined complete for review. However, there are some major items to
resolve. This should come before the Planning Commission in February, 2014.
5. Planner Kleisler reported the Board of Adjustment approved a variance request to construct
an above‐grade deck in the Stanley Heights Subdivision.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
November 19, 2013
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
6. Planner Kleisler reported staff is still spending a significant amount of time on flood recovery
efforts. The Town Board approved two municipal code ordinances relating to floodplain
measures: 1) Amendment to come into compliance with state floodplain regulations. This was
on track prior to the flood; and 2) Ordinance for temporary building requirements for
properties adjacent to drainages. This ordinance replaced the ordinance for emergency
provisions adopted shortly after the flood, and will be in effect for one year. Planner Kleisler
reported staff has been issuing temporary floodplain permits and enforcing regulations.
Building will be allowed, but must meet criteria to avoid being in jeopardy when the next
flood occurs. Proper permitting also comes into play if the homeowner desires to obtain flood
insurance. He reported the Community Development Department has applied for a grant to
complete a Master Plan for the Fall River Drainage. The process will include extensive
community input. Planner Kleisler attended a conference dealing with grants for flood‐
impacted communities.
7. Commissioner Dickey requested updates on the FLAP grant. Planner Shirk stated he would
ask the Public Works Department to provide a brief update next month.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:01 p.m.
___________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RESOLUTION NO. 01-14
WHEREAS, Section 26-6-402(2)(c) of the “Colorado Sunshine Act of 1972” as
amended, requires a municipality to designate a public place to post notices of its
meetings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
1. That the lobby area immediately adjacent to the Administrative Offices in
the Estes Park Town Hall, located at 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park,
Colorado, is hereby designated as the Public Place for Posting Notices of
Town Meetings.
DATED this day of , 2014.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
RESOLUTION #02-14
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
That the filing date of the application for a New HOTEL AND RETAURANT Liquor
License, filed by Mountain Strong, LLC, dba MOUNTAIN STRONG RESTAURANT, 361 S.
St. Vrain Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado, is December 13, 2013.
It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board
Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, at
7:00 P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and
hearing shall be the area included within a radius of 3.72 miles, as measured from the center
of the applicant's property.
DATED this 14th day of January, 2014.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
Intergovernmental Agreement for Repair of the Fish Creek Corridor
Town Attorney Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg White, Town Attorney
Date: January 9, 2014
RE: Intergovernmental Agreement for Repair of the Fish Creek Corridor
Objective:
Enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) with Larimer County, Upper
Thompson Sanitation District (“UTSD”), and the Estes Valley Recreation and Park
District (“EVRPD”) for the reconstruction of the Fish Creek Corridor damaged in the
2013 Flood.
Present Situation:
The 2013 Flood severely damaged the Fish Creek Corridor in the Estes Valley including
extreme erosion, channel migration and complete destruction of a portion of Fish Creek
Road, related connector roads, recreation path, and utilities near and under the road.
The four parties to the IGA all sustained damage to their infrastructure in the 2013
Flood. Damaged portions of Fish Creek Road are located within the Town, within the
County, and in places, within both jurisdictions. The UTSD wastewater main is located
within the Fish Creek Road right-of-way and in private easements in the Fish Creek
corridor. The EVRPD trail also is located within the Fish Creek Road right-of-way and
separate easements. The Town’s water and light and power distribution facilities are
also located within the road right-of-way. The parties determined that it was best for all
parties to enter into an IGA designating Larimer County as the lead entity for the
permanent restoration of the Fish Creek Corridor.
Coordination of design and reconstruction by all parties having infrastructure in the Fish
Creek Corridor is necessary in order to provide an interconnected design and repair
which will provide less delay and cost. Also, the coordination of design and construction
activities will facilitate each individual party’s ability to determine its individual cost of
repair and restoration of its infrastructure and facilitate reimbursement from appropriate
Federal and State agencies for the cost of design and construction.
Proposal:
The IGA is divided into two parts as follows:
1. Design. The IGA provides for the County, in cooperation and collaboration with
the other entities, to issue a Request for Proposal for a design consultant to
produce design documents, including construction plans and specifications,
coordinate permitting and coordinate easements for all the repair and restoration
Intergovernmental Agreement for Repair of the Fish Creek Corridor 2
work required within the Fish Creek Corridor. All entities will provide input on the
Request for Proposal through its representative(s) on the Technical Advisory
Committee.
The parties have agreed that they shall be responsible for a certain percentage
of the design consultant cost. This percentage is based upon each individual
party’s estimation of its damage in the Fish Creek Corridor.
2. Construction. Following receipt of the design from the selected design
consultant, the parties agree to review the design and move forward to Phase II
and the hiring of a General Contractor. Final cost of each entity’s share of the
Fish Creek Corridor project will be determined following final design and a
determination by each party as to which components of the design are each
party’s responsibility.
Advantages:
A collaborative effort among the four entities to repair and restore the Fish Creek
Corridor and the infrastructure of each individual party in the Fish Creek Corridor.
Provides that Larimer County shall be the contracting entity for both the design work
and construction work on the project which simplifies the contracting and
management of the design and construction.
Collaboration by the four entities decreases the individual cost of design and
construction of the project and allows the project to move forward in a
comprehensive effort rather than each individual party designing and constructing its
infrastructure in the Fish Creek Corridor.
Allows each individual entity to determine and be reimbursed by appropriate Federal
and State agencies for its portion of the costs of the project. The design will provide
individual cost components of reconstruction work for each individual entity’s
infrastructure in the Fish Creek Corridor.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement for repair of the Fish Creek Corridor.
Budget:
The Town’s estimated costs will be provided at the Town Board Meeting.
Level of Public Interest
The community interest is high.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Intergovernmental Agreement for Repair of the Fish Creek
Corridor.
DRAFT #6, 12/18/2013, wgr
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
FOR REPAIR OF THE FISH CREEK CORRIDOR
This Agreement is effective on this ______ day of _______________, 2014 between the Board
of County Commissioners of Larimer County (“County”), the Town of Estes Park (“Town”), the
Upper Thompson Sanitation District (“UTSD”), and Estes Valley Recreation and Park District
(“EVRPD”) (collectively the “Parties”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Parties each have certain resources and infrastructure that from time to
time are impacted by natural and human-caused events that threaten public property, health,
safety and welfare, and the environment; and
WHEREAS, it is essential that communities and entities work together to share and
provide resources to one another during critical periods in emergencies when resources become
scarce, as such resources are necessary to preserve life and property; and
WHEREAS, when one community provides such assistance to the other, it supports the
ideology of the "whole community" as emphasized by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency ("FEMA"), and also builds a partnership that may provide a reciprocal benefit in the
event of future emergencies; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable that an appropriate agreement be executed
for the exchange of such mutual aid; and
WHEREAS, Sections 29-1-203 and 24-33.5-713, Colorado Revised Statutes, authorize
the Parties to enter into agreements for mutual cooperation regarding public infrastructure re-
development and the furnishing of mutual aid; and
WHEREAS, as a result of recent severe and historically unprecedented flooding in
Northern Colorado (“2013 Flood”), Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper has declared a
disaster emergency in Larimer County, Colorado; and both the Town of Estes Park and Larimer
County have declared local disasters pursuant to the applicable provision of the Colorado
Revised Statutes; and
WHEREAS, President Obama has also issued a disaster declaration for Boulder,
Adams, Larimer and Weld counties, and ordered federal disaster relief be available to the fullest
extent possible under existing law; and
WHEREAS, UTSD has declared a local emergency pursuant to such declarations related
to the 2013 Flood; and
WHEREAS, the 2013 Flood severely damaged the Fish Creek Corridor in the Estes
Valley in the area shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, including extreme erosion, channel
migration, and complete destruction of portions of Fish Creek Road and the related connector
2
roads, recreational path, and utilities running near and under the roadway (collectively, the “Fish
Creek Corridor”); and
WHEREAS, Fish Creek Road is a Rural Major Collector road, various sections of
which traverse the Town and/or County, such that the Town and County have jurisdiction over
and are responsible for various portions of the connector road; and
WHEREAS, Fish Creek Road and some of the connector roads are “Federally
Designated Highways” and subject to the reimbursement requirements of the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA); and
WHEREAS, the Fish Creek Road Corridor connector roads traverse the Town and/or
County, such that the Town and County have mutual jurisdiction over and are responsible for
various portions of the road; and
WHEREAS, there are various utilities in and around the Fish Creek Corridor , including
water lines and electrical lines maintained by the Town and sanitation lines maintained by
UTSD; and
WHEREAS, there are various sanitation lines maintained by UTSD that are located in
private easements along the Fish Creek Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the Fish Creek Corridor water and sanitation lines are subject to the
reimbursement requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and
WHEREAS, UTSD has installed temporary piping and connections that will require
removal during completion of the permanent improvements along the Fish Creek Corridor; and
WHEREAS, EVRPD has constructed and maintains a public recreation path that travels
proximate to Fish Creek and Fish Creek Road; and
WHEREAS, the Town has constructed and maintains paved public recreation paths and
bridge(s) that travel proximate to Fish Creek and Fish Creek Road; and
WHEREAS, the 2013 flood caused major changes to Fish Creek including, but not
limited to, migration of the channel, erosion of the stream bank, and widening of the stream
corridor; and
WHEREAS, a restored Fish Creek will promote, preserve and enhance the important
hydrologic, biological, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and educational functions to residents
and visitors to Estes Park; and
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure maintained by the Parties is interconnected such
that design and repair efforts by each of the Parties individually would cause more delay, and
would be more complex and expensive than if the Parties collaborate and make repairs as a
single project; and
3
WHEREAS, the restoration of public infrastructure of Fish Creek will require review
and approval pursuant to applicable environmental regulations; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect and restore the public infrastructure in and around the
Fish Creek Corridor, and in furtherance of public safety and welfare, it is necessary for the
Parties to cooperate and contract together for the design and reconstruction of the Fish Creek
Corridor, including the public utilities and public recreation path that exist in and around the
Fish Creek Road right of way, connector road rights-of-way, private easements, and assist in the
master planning and restoration of Fish Creek (the “Fish Creek Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to cooperate and enter into this Agreement outlining their
respective duties and responsibilities for such design, reconstruction, and funding of the Fish
Creek Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, conditions and covenants set
forth herein the Parties mutually agree as follows:
I. PURPOSE
a. The purpose of this Agreement is to outline the duties and responsibilities of the
Parties and establish a mutually agreed upon course of action for the permanent
design, repair, and funding of public infrastructure, and the Fish Creek waterway
as necessary, the Fish Creek Project. The Parties acknowledge that temporary
measures required by the 2013 Flood may have already been undertaken by each
or any of the Parties, and this Agreement is not intended to create a process for
joint design or construction of such temporary measures already undertaken in
response to the declaration of emergency.
b. The Parties agree that the County will act as the primary manager of the Fish
Creek Project on behalf of all Parties. As such, the County shall act as primary
point of contact for any contractor(s) or consultant(s) hired by the Parties and
shall serve as the primary point of receipt of invoices and other materials related
to the Fish Creek Project. However, the Parties shall each and all make decisions
related to the Fish Creek Project, as defined in this Agreement.
II. COLLABORATION
a. The Parties acknowledge that communication and collaboration among them will
be required for the successful completion of the work undertaken pursuant to this
Agreement. To that end, the Parties will form a Technical Advisory Committee
(“TAC”) composed of at least one and not more than three representatives
selected and appointed by each Party. TAC shall consult with and assist the
County in managing the design, construction, and funding work to be completed
pursuant to this Agreement, and carry out other responsibilities assigned herein.
4
b. TAC shall have frequent, regular project coordination meetings and anticipates
that such meetings will occur on at least a monthly basis either in person or by
telephone conference means.
c. TAC representatives shall use best efforts to mutually resolve disagreements
about scope of design, construction, funding, or other matters. If resolution
cannot be achieved, TAC shall collectively request assistance from the County
Manager, Town Administrator, UTSD Manager and EVRPD Manager
(collectively “Administrators”). The Administrators shall each have one vote in
any matter requiring resolution, and shall resolve the disagreement by majority
vote of the Administrators or determine a method to be used to achieve final
resolution if one cannot be reached by simple majority vote of the Administrators.
d. TAC will periodically inform the public about the design and construction work
and promote the goals of such work.
e. The County agrees to include TAC on project related correspondence and make
all predesign, design, financial, cost accounting reports, and other project related
documentation available for inspection by any Party.
III. PHASE I - DESIGN WORK
a. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS (RFQ)
i. The County shall prepare a Request For Qualifications (“RFQ”) for a
consultant to prepare design documents, including construction plans and
specifications, coordinate permitting, and coordinate easements for all of
the repair and restoration work required within the Fish Creek Corridor
(“Design Consultant”). The County shall complete the initial draft of the
RFQ within ten (10) days following execution of this Agreement by all
Parties. Each Party shall provide the County with information and details
regarding the scope of work under the jurisdiction of that Party as soon as
is practicable, given the need for the County to include all Parties’
materials in the RFQ. The Parties agree the County shall use its existing
RFQ process, which is intended to comply with government contracting
requirements.
ii. The County will distribute the draft RFQ to the members of TAC for
review and comment. TAC will review and provide comments to the
County about the RFQ within ten (10) days following receipt.
iii. The County will post the RFQ for a period of three weeks. Upon closure,
the County shall compile and forward all proposals to TAC for review and
consideration.
5
iv. TAC will collectively select the Design Consultant within twenty-one (21)
days following the closing day for submittal of RFQs. County will
formally award the job to the Design Consultant consistent with existing
County processes, and prepare a contract for the work. The County shall
forward a draft design contract to TAC for review and approval. Upon
approval by TAC, the County will present the design contract to the
Design Consultant for execution. The County will execute the design
contract on behalf of and for the benefit of all the Parties.
v. The 50% draft, 90% draft, and final design documents will be submitted to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), and/or the State of Colorado for review of anticipated
reimbursement to each Party. The County will make adjustments to the
design as requested by the Parties to address the reimbursement
requirements of the Federal and State agencies noted above.
b. AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
i. The Parties acknowledge that their jurisdictions in the Fish Creek Corridor
overlap such that it may be difficult or impossible to identify with absolute
certainty each Party’s area of responsibility. This uncertainty is even more
pronounced at this time given that the scope and design of repairs is not
complete.
ii. Nonetheless, the Parties have reviewed available damage assessments and
considered their respective areas of jurisdiction, and agree to the following
estimated percentages of responsibility for the design and repair work to
be completed in the Fish Creek Corridor pursuant to this Agreement
accurately reflect their percent of responsibility:
1. County 39%
2. Town 43%
3. UTSD 12%
4. EVRPD 6%
iii. Following completion of Phase I design, the Parties will review the actual
costs of the design work and make such adjustments, if any, as may be
necessary to accurately reflect the design work and costs attributable to
each entity.
iv. Following receipt of the completed Phase I design, the Parties agree to
define the scope of work completely in a document to be attached to this
Agreement as Exhibit B, which shall fix and describe the work to be
performed related to each Party’s jurisdiction, along with an estimated
cost breakdown for each Party. The Exhibit B shall serve as the basis for
6
formalizing a more complete estimate of the percentage of responsibility
each Party shall bear for the Fish Creek Project in Phase II.
c. PAYMENT TERMS
i. The contract with the Design Consultant shall provide that invoices will be
submitted to the County for payment within 60 days of receipt. Upon
receipt by the County, the County will distribute the invoice to the other
Parties through their respective TAC representatives.
ii. Within 30 days of receiving an invoice, each Party shall submit payment
to the County in an amount equal to its percentage of responsibility as
established in Section III(b)(ii) above. Following receipt of these
payments from the Parties, the County will pay the invoice in full. If any
Party fails to submit its percentage of expenses, the County shall
immediately notify all Parties and convene a meeting of the TAC to
resolve the non-payment.
iii. The Parties will be seeking reimbursement from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and/or the
State of Colorado as authorized pursuant to the above referenced disaster
declarations. Each Party is responsible for submitting and processing any
such claims it may have with these federal and state entities. Any disaster
relief funds collected by any Party shall be the sole responsibility and shall
be accounted for solely by the receiving entity.
iv. The County will provide a detailed cost breakdown for work completed by
the Design Consultant and other costs for use with each Party’s
reimbursement submittal within 10 days of each request by each Party.
d. FUNDING AFFIRMATION
i. The information necessary to determine each Party’s funding
responsibility for Phase II of the Fish Creek Project will only be available
following receipt of the Phase I design. Accordingly, each Party shall,
within thirty (30) days of the finalization of Exhibit B, affirm its
continuing agreement to continue its participation in Phase II of the Fish
Creek Project including, but not limited to, its responsibility for funding
its portion of the Fish Creek Project as set forth on Exhibit B. Said
affirmation of the individual Party’s continuing responsibility for Phase II
shall be forwarded to the Administrators.
7
IV. PHASE II - REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION WORK
a. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
i. Following completion of the design work set forth in Section III above,
the County shall prepare Bid documents including construction plans and
specifications for a general contractor (“General Contractor”) for all repair
and reconstruction required of the Fish Creek Project. The County shall
complete the initial draft of the bid documents within twenty (20) days
following receipt of the final design documents. Each Party shall provide
the County with information and details regarding the scope of work under
the jurisdiction of that Party. The Parties agree the County shall use its
existing RFP process.
ii. The County will distribute the draft bid documents to the members of
TAC for review and comment. TAC will review and provide comments to
the County about the bid documents within twenty (20) days following
receipt.
iii. The County will post the request for bids for a period of three weeks.
Upon closure, the County shall compile and forward all bids to TAC for
review and consideration.
iv. TAC will collectively determine whether or not to award the contract to
the lowest qualified bidder within ten (10) days following the closing day
for submittal of bid opening. The County will formally award the job to
such contractor (“Construction Contractor”) consistent with existing
County processes, and prepare a contract for the work.
v. The construction contract will be submitted to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and/or the
State of Colorado for review of anticipated reimbursement to each Party.
The County will make adjustments to the design as requested by the
Parties to address the reimbursement requirements of the Federal agencies
noted above.
vi. The County shall forward a draft construction contract, along with a draft
Exhibit B outlining the specific services to be provided and providing the
updated percentage of responsibility levels of each Party for the Fish
Creek Project, to TAC for review and approval. Upon approval by TAC,
the County will present the contact to the General Contractor for
execution. The County will execute the construction contract on behalf
and for the benefit of all the Parties.
8
b. AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
i. To the extent necessary, the Parties agree to adjust the cost of
responsibility established in Section III(b)(ii) to the actual costs agreed
upon by all Parties and formalized in Exhibit B.
c. PAYMENT TERMS
i. The contract with the General Contractor shall provide that invoices
submitted to the County will require payment within 60 days of receipt.
Upon receipt by the County, the County will distribute the detailed invoice
to the other Parties through their respective TAC representatives.
ii. Within 30 days of receiving an invoice, each party shall submit payment
to the County in an amount equal to its actual cost of responsibility as
established in Section III(b)(ii) above or pursuant to an addendum thereto.
Following receipt of these payments from the Parties, the County will pay
the invoice in full. The Parties agree to the dispute resolution procedures
in Section III.c.ii. of this Agreement if any Party fails to pay.
iii. The Parties will be seeking reimbursement from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and/or the
State of Colorado as authorized pursuant to the above referenced disaster
declarations. Each Party is responsible for submitting and processing any
such claims it may have with these federal and state entities. The Parties
agree that any disaster relief funds collected by any Party shall be the sole
responsibility and shall be solely accounted for by the receiving entity.
iv. The County will provide a detailed cost breakdown for work completed by
get General Contractor and other costs for use with each Party’s
reimbursement submittal within 10 days of each request by each Party.
V. LIABILITY OF PARTIES
a. Each Party, on behalf of itself, its officers, directors, members, employees, agents,
and representatives, agrees it will be responsible for any claims, damages or
liabilities caused by such Party’s wrongful or negligent acts.
b. The Parties mutually release and waive all claims against the other for
compensation for any loss, cost, damage, expense, personal injury, death, claim,
or other liability arising out of the performance of this Agreement except as
expressly stated in payment provisions set forth in Sections III(c) and IV(c)
herein.
9
c. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, nothing herein shall
constitute a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits,
protection, or other provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act
(“CGIA”), CRS §24-10-101, et seq., or the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) 28
U.S.C. 2671 et seq., as applicable, as now or hereafter amended nor shall any
portion of this Agreement be deemed to have created a duty of care which did not
previously exist with respect to any person not a party to this Intergovernmental
Agreement.
d. Any contract documents shall require adequate insurance and bonds, if applicable,
to be maintained by the consultant(s) and contractor(s) performing the work
related to the Fish Creek Project. The Parties shall look to the contractor(s) and
consultant(s) to defend and indemnity each and all of the Parties against any
claim, loss, suit or damage caused by the work performed pursuant to their
respective contract.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
a. This Agreement shall remain in effect until all design and construction work is
completed and obligations of the Parties are complete. This Agreement shall be
effective on the date first written above. The Parties acknowledge that time is of
the essence in this and all related contracts to complete the Fish Creek Project for
the benefit of the Parties, the inhabitants and visitors to the areas impacted by the
2013 Flood. To the extent dispute resolution may be required by any provision in
this Agreement, the Parties agree to the most efficient means to resolve such
dispute, including injunctive and other temporary relief.
b. This Agreement is the complete integration of all understandings between the
Parties. Modifications may be proposed by any party and shall become effective
upon written approval by all Parties.
c. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed by the laws of
Colorado and such laws of the United States as may be applicable. In the event of
any litigation over the interpretation or application of any of the terms or
provisions of this Agreement, the Parties agree that litigation shall be conducted
in the State of Colorado and venue will be in Larimer County.
d. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the other provisions shall not
be affected thereby.
e. In performing any work or assistance under this Agreement, the Parties and their
respective agents, employees, and volunteers, are acting as separate entities.
f. All financial obligations of the Parties beyond the current fiscal year are subject to
funds being budgeted and appropriated.
10
g. No party may assign the responsibilities or benefits of this Agreement to any
other person or entity without prior written consent from all Parties.
VII. AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES
Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County
By: Dated:
Board Chair
ATTEST:
Town of Estes Park
By: Dated:
XX
ATTEST:
Upper Thompson Sanitation District
By: Dated:
XX
ATTEST:
Estes Valley Recreation and Park District
By: Dated:
XX
ATTEST:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg White, Town Attorney
David Shirk, Senior Planner
Date: January 14, 2014
RE: APPEAL THE APPROVAL OF THE STANLEY PAVILION BY THE
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Objective:
Determine if the Stanley Historic District Technical Review Committee erred in finding
the proposed use (wedding pavilion/outdoor amphitheater/corporate retreat) complies
with the Master Plan for the Stanley Historic District as an ancillary use to the Stanley
Hotel.
Present Situation:
In 1994, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park approved the Development
Agreement between the Town and Stanley Hotels Ltd. This agreement is codified in
Section 17.44.080 of the EPMC. This incorporated the Stanley Historic District Master
Plan as the regulatory document for Lot 1 of the Stanley Historic District.
On September 10 2013, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) issued findings and
conditions of approval for the Stanley Hotel Event Venue preliminary package. These
findings and conditions followed a September 3 public hearing in which the preliminary
package was discussed.
The applicant has not yet submitted application for final approval, which is required
before a building permit can be issued.
Finding two specifies “the Stanley Pavilion Project use on Parcel 1 of the Stanley
Historic District of an outdoor amphitheater, corporate retreat, and wedding pavilion
complies with the Master Plan for the Stanley Historic District as an ancillary use to the
Stanley Hotel.”
Appeal Process:
Section I.C.1.b of the Master Plan specifies “the decision of the Technical Review
Committee may be appealed to the Town Board of Trustees.” There are no other
references to appeal process in the Master Plan or Development Agreement.
Sample Motion:
I move to uphold/overturn the TRC finding that the proposed use (wedding
pavilion/outdoor amphitheater/corporate retreat) complies with the Master Plan for the
Stanley Historic District as an ancillary use to the Stanley Hotel.
Attachments:
September 26, 2013 letter from Fairfield and Woods
February 6, 2013 letter from Community Development Department
Setting Show Cause Hearing
Town Attorney Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg White, Town Attorney
Date: January 9, 2014
RE: Ordinance No. 02-14 Amending Sections 2.52.010 and 1.20.020 of the
Municipal Code relating to Establishing a Qualified Municipal Court of
Record and Increasing the Fines for the Municipal Court
Objective:
Review and consider Ordinance No. 02-14 which establishes the Town of Estes Park
Municipal Court as a Qualified Municipal Court of Record pursuant to State statutes and
increases the amount of allowable fines in the Municipal Court from $300.00 to
$2,650.00.
Present Situation:
The Municipal Court of the Town of Estes Park is not a Municipal Court of Record.
Pursuant to applicable provision of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the amount of any
fines for any violation of the Municipal Code is limited to $300.00 or less. Legislation
passed by the Colorado Legislature in 2013 increases the maximum amount of a fine in
a Municipal Court of Record to the sum of $2,650.00. Ordinance No. 02-14 establishes
the Estes Park Municipal Court as a Municipal Court of Record and requires that a
verbatim transcript of all proceedings, either by electronic or stenographic means, be
maintained by the Municipal Court, and that any Municipal Court Judge be admitted and
licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado. The second part of Ordinance 02-14
raises the maximum amount of any fine in the Municipal Court to $2,650.00, adjusted
for inflation on January 1 of each calendar year as required by State statute.
Advantages:
If Ordinance 02-14 is approved establishing the Town of Estes Park Municipal Court
as a Qualified Municipal Court of Record, any appeal of a decision by the Municipal
Judge to Larimer County Court will be based upon the record before the Municipal
Court and not a trial de novo in the Larimer County Court.
By establishing the Town of Estes Park Municipal Court as a Qualified Municipal
Court of Record and adopting Ordinance 02-14, the maximum amount of fine in the
Municipal Court for a violation of the Municipal Code will be raised from $300.00 to
$2,650.00 adjusted annually for inflation. This allows the Municipal Court Judge
greater flexibility in sentencing defendants including the ability to suspend fines,
order restitution and assessment of costs by the Municipal Court Judge to address
the seriousness of a violation of the Municipal Code
Disadvantages:
By being a Qualified Municipal Court of Record, there will be increased
administrative duties of the Municipal Court Judge and the Municipal Court Clerk to
keep and maintain a record of proceedings in the Municipal Court.
Action Recommended:
The Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 02-14.
Budget:
There are no budget implications resulting from the adoption of Ordinance No. 02-14.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Ordinance No. 02-14 Amending Sections 2.52.010 and
1.20.020 of the Municipal Code relating to Establishing a Qualified Municipal Court of
Record and Increasing the Fines for the Municipal Court.
1
ORDINANCE NO. 02-14
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL COURT
AS A QUALIFIED MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD AND
AMENDING SECTION 120.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING FINES
WHEREAS, Section 13-10-113 (1) (a) C.R.S. provides that fines for a violation in
a municipal court of record may not exceed $2,650.00; and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Municipal Court is not a Municipal Court of Record and
fines for violation of the Town’s Municipal Code may not exceed $300.00; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that it is in the best interest of
the Town to increase the current maximum amount of fines for violations of the
Municipal Code in the Municipal Court from its current level of $300.00 to $2,650.00;
and
WHEREAS, in order to increase the amount of the fine, it is necessary to
establish the Estes Park Municipal Court as a qualified municipal court of record.
.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. Section 2.52.010 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
There is created a Qualified Municipal Court of Record to hear and try all alleged
violations of the Town ordinance provisions, which Court, and the Municipal
Judge or Judges and other officers, shall have all of the powers, authority, duties
and shall follow the procedure as provided therefore by the laws of the State and
the rules of procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court of the State.
a. The Municipal Court Judge and the Municipal Court Clerk shall keep a
verbatim record of the proceedings and evidence at trials by either electronic
devices or stenographic means.
b. The Municipal Judge and any Assistant Municipal Judge shall be admitted to
and licensed in the practice of law in Colorado.
2. Section 1.20.020 of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows:
2
1.20.020 Fines and penalties.
a. Any person who shall be convicted of a violation of this Code shall be fined an
amount not to exceed two thousand six hundred fifty dollars ($2,650.00).
Where any violation is a continuing offense, each day that the violation
continues shall be considered and held to be a separate and distinct offense.
The amount of the fine of $2,650.00 shall be adjusted for inflation on January
1 of each calendar year in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section
13-10-113 (1) (b) C.R.S.
3. 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 _______________, 2014.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the ________day of _____________, 2014 and published in a
newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the
day of __________________, 2014.
Town Clerk
PUBLIC WORKS Report
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Scott Zurn, PE, Public Works Director
Date: January 14, 2014
RE: Multi-Purpose Event Center & Stall Barn Construction Update
Objective:
To update the Town Board and public on the progress of the MPEC and Stall Barn
project at the Stanley Fairgrounds.
Present Situation:
Tough weather conditions persisted through the holidays with very cold conditions and
high winds, therefore exterior metal building progress on the project has slowed.
The Stall Barn mechanical, electrical and fire protection systems have continued to
progress over the holiday period and are nearing rough–in completion. The
underground water and storm water sewer systems have progressed very well under
the civil site work contract.
MPEC structural steel framing and exterior roof and siding panels has slowed due to
weather conditions. Perimeter block walls continue as weather permits. Staff has had an
ongoing task to process numerous requests for information and approving finish
submittals as the project moves into detailed interior decisions.
The MPEC topping out ceremony was delayed due to weather and will be tentatively set
for the end of January, with details to be coordinated this week.
Due to tough weather conditions, staff and Dohn Construction are looking heavily at
opportunities to keep the project schedule on track.
Budget:
Community Reinvestment Fund $5,682,050. The project remains within budget.
Level of Public Interest
This project has a very high level of public interest.