Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2014-02-25 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, February 25, 2014 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PROCLAMATION. Middle School Interact Club. PROCLAMATION. Future Farmers of America (FFA) Week. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. STATE OF THE TOWN REPORT. Mayor Pinkham. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.  Election Update 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 28, 2014 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated January 28, 2014. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes – None. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated January 21, 2014. (acknowledgement only). 5. Transportation Advisory Committee Minutes dated January 15, 2014 (acknowledgement only). 6. Tree Board Minutes dated January 16, 2014 (acknowledgement only). Prepared 2/16/14 * Revised 2/21/14 NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, The Sanctuary on Fall River Townhomes, Tract 59A, Amended Plat of Tracts 59, 61, 62, & 63, Fall River Addition; TBD Fall River Road (behind 1260 Fall River Road); The Sanctuary, LLC/Applicant. Planner Shirk. B. FINAL PLAT, Stonebridge Estates Townhomes, Lot 3, Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision; Stone Bridge Estates, LLC/Applicant. Planner Kleisler. C. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP, Stonebridge Estates Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #5, L Lot 3, Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision; Stone Bridge Estates, Condominiumize Unit 1135; Hanson Holdings, LLC/Applicant. Planner Kleisler. 2. ACTION ITEMS: A. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PACKAGE – EPMC/ANSCHUTZ WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER, Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, TBD Steamer Parkway; Grand Heritage Hotel Group, LLC/Applicant. Planner Shirk. 1. ORDINANCE #05-14 – Amending Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.44 Regarding Architectural Standards in the Stanley Historic District. 2. ORDINANCE #06-14 – Rezone from CO-Commercial Outlying to A- Accommodations. 3. AMENDED PLAT - Remove no-build line and dedicate easements. 4. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014-01 - Construct Accommodation Facility and Wellness Center. 5. VESTING EXTENSION. Withdrawn by Applicant. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ORDINANCE #07-14 – AMENDING ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 3.5.C SPECIAL REVIEW LAPSE, 3.3.E REZONING LAPSE, AND 3.6.D VARIANCE LAPSE. Attorney White. 2. ORDINANCE #08-14 – AMENDING ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 3.1.E CONCURRENT REVIEW AND SECTION 3.1.F APPLICATION PROCESSING SCHEDULE. Item continued to the Town Board meeting on March 11, 2014. 3. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND TOWN OF ESTES PARK FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE FLAP GRANT. Director Zurn. 4. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. MULTI-PURPOSE EVENT CENTER & STALL BARN CONSTRUCTION UPDATE. Director Zurn. 2. 2013 YEAR END FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland. 5. ADJOURN. * 2014 Summer 2013 Festivals and Fun And then on September 12, 2013, it all changed…. DAY 1 –STRANDED-SITUATION UNCLEAR•Pouring rain… Widespread flooding•Flood geography & damage unknown•Road access limited•Trail Ridge only option!!!•Communications limited•Local phones only•No Denver TV•Limited internet•2,428 homes warned through LETA911 DAY 1 ACTION•Incident command center established•Staff realigned•Status update & damage assessment•Priorities established•Public information process implemented•Daily meetings•Internet•TV•Door to door •Town Staff•Estes Valley Fire Protection District•Estes Park Medical Center•Sanitation Districts•Platte River Power Authority•School District•Housing Authority•Red Cross•Salvation Army•Sherriff’s Department•Larimer County Search and Rescue•Volunteers•Governor’s Office•CDOT•Congressional delegation and staff•FEMA•Small Business Administration•Fort Collins•Loveland•Longmont•Lafayette•AT&T•Verizon•Century LinkAMAZING COLLABORATION DAILY PUBLIC MEETINGS, STREAMED ON CABLE AND THE INTERNET DAY 2………•Flooding expands•2,000 visitors stranded•YMCA, Camps, Lodging•Drake, Glen Haven, and Retreat battered & isolated ESTES PARK IN FLOOD ROUTE 34 NARROWS WASHED OUT 350 people isolated. Utilities impacted.FISH CREEK DESTROYED DESTRUCTION - CONTAMINATIONFish Creek flood fills Lake Estes with debris EXTENSIVE DESTRUCTION50% of homes & businesses in Estes Valley damaged or destroyed. Loss of access or utilities outages •Over 2,500 homes had no sewer and were in a no-flush zone for several months But we had fun! INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS… 5,000’ OF CABLE STRUNG ACROSS THE TREE TOPS TO RETREAT Recovery Begins Clean Up begins Clean up Issues Town gets back to normal A week later… NATIONAL PARK CLOSED!SHOPS ARE EMPTY Hickenlooper to the rescue Colorado kicks in $362,700 to reopen Rocky Mountain National Park U.S. Highway 36 reopens between Lyons and Estes Park – November 4 Hwy. 34 reopens to Estes Park November 21 Economy growth stalled by flood, but coming back..$7,234$7,184$6,853$7,007$7,423$7,889$6,840$7,765$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000$9,000Sales Tax Revenue (000$) 20072008200920102011201220132014 budget Sales Tax is our Primary Revenue SourceProperty Tax3%Sales Tax74%Open Space2%Community Reinvestment11%Transfers10%REVENUE Annual Sales Tax Revenue Flow$0$200,000$400,000$600,000$800,000$1,000,000$1,200,000$1,400,000$1,600,000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecSurvival Issues2012 Sales Tax Revenue2013 Sales Tax Revenue2012 avg Sustainability and year‐round employment is an issue$0$200,000$400,000$600,000$800,000$1,000,000$1,200,000$1,400,000$1,600,000Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecEstes Park 2012 & 2013 monthly sales tax revenue2012 Sales Tax Revenue2013 Sales Tax Revenue22012 avgSurvival IssuesSurvival Issues Public Safety, $3,981,325Administrative, $1,555,574Transfers, $2,935,000Subsidies, $916,800Community Devlopment, $1,025,712Public Works, $2,817,386Transfers: Community reinvestment : $1,235,000Community Services: $1,700,000Community Services includes:Visitor CenterMultipurpose Events CenterSenior CenterEventsMuseum Embracing Our Future Streets•Need to build for the future, not based on the past Streets Conditions Overview Streets•Relieving CongestionEstes Park received $17.2 million in highway grants$4.2 million from the Colorado Department of Transportation's Responsible Acceleration of Maintenance Partnerships program (RAMP). Coupled with the $13 million grant from the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), will realign traffic with a new one-way couplet. Bennet Announces $3 Million Grant for Estes Park Transportation Hub to Reduce Traffic, Expand Parking, Improve Air Quality 1960 -2040Source: Dr. David Theobald, CSU1.1 to 1.4 Million People Projected In Northern Colorado by 2050 We’re looking toward the future Embracing The FutureWe love this special place; but as with a child, we need to encourage healthy growth that will ensure its survival and longevity.Thus, we need to unite and work together to ensure a sustainable economy and lifestyle. In the end, it’s about the people and the community pulling together to move forward stronger than ever….. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 11, 2014 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 11th day of February, 2014. 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 Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENTATION OF FINANCIAL REPORTING AWARD. Finance Officer McFarland presented the Board with the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ending on December 31, 2012. PUBLIC COMMENTS. None. TRUSTEE COMMENTS. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst thanked Finance Officer McFarland and the finance staff for their efforts. He stated the Estes Park Housing Authority would hold its monthly meeting on Wednesday, February 12, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 203. The Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee would not meet this month. Trustee Koenig stated the Sister Cities and Western Heritage would meet this month at their regularly scheduled date and time. Nick Molle was appointed the new president for the Sister Cities and has some new ideas for the organization including a new connection with Ireland. She announced she would be running for re-election for Trustee in 2014. Board of Trustees – February 11, 2014 – Page 2 Trustee Norris stated Visit Estes Park (LMD) has hired a consultant to facilitate the CEO search and has begun a needs assessment for the position. Funding for the district continues to be a serious concern especially as it relates to marketing the community. The district will resubmit for EDA funding for $500,000 and continue to work with the Colorado Economic Development Council for additional grant funding. He encouraged the citizens to register, complete absentee ballot applications to receive a mail ballot and to vote in the upcoming April 1, 2014 election. Trustee Elrod stated he would not be running for re-election. Mayor Pinkham commented he sat in on a roundtable with communities that were affected by the flood at a recent climate change conference. Discussions revolved around the need to address infrastructure to meet future needs as it relates to roads, bridges, culverts, etc. He stated it would be important to engage the community in the changes needed. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. A citizen committee has come together in support of the sales tax initiative with a slogan of “Stand Together for a Stronger Tomorrow”. An ad-hoc group has formed to review and discuss special events within the community. The group would take a strategic and proactive approach in their review and identify why special events exist, what is the purpose of having an event, when to have events, compatibility of events with businesses and non-profits, and does the event add value to the community and the local economy. The Town has received an auditor’s engagement letter notifying the Board that they have begun work on the 2013 audit. December sales tax was up 5.3% over December 2012 and overall sales tax was down 4.1% for the year. The Town had estimated the tax revenues would be down by as much as 25% due to the flood in September 2013. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 28, 2014, and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated January 28, 2014. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: a. Community Development/Community Services Committee. January 23, 2014: 1. 2014/2015 Road Closures outlined in minutes. 2. Revise Senior Services Fit-Plus Pass Fee. Board of Trustees – February 11, 2014 – Page 3 3. Museum Program Fee Structure. 4. Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and Larimer County Elections Office for Assistance during the 2014 Election. 5. Revised Intergovernmental Agreement for Permanent Repairs to Fish Creek corridor. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Koenig) to approve the Consent Agenda, and it passed unanimously. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. ACTION ITEMS: A. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, The Sanctuary on Fall River Townhomes, Tract 59A, Amended Plat of Tracts 59, 61, 62, & 63, Fall River Addition; TBD Fall River Road (behind 1260 Fall River Road); The Sanctuary, LLC/Applicant. Item continued by staff to the February 25, 2014 Town Board meeting. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. APPEAL THE APPROVAL OF THE STANLEY PAVILION BY THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. Attorney White stated the item was continued by the Board at their January 11, 2014 and no public comment would be taken during the meeting. Trustee Phipps stated there is a legal issue related to third party beneficiary and he stated the appellant lacks standing and cannot rely on the development agreement. He stated he is unable to make a ruling on the appeal based on these issues. Board discussion followed and has been summarized: the Stanley Master Plan detailed the density and not the type of buildings, and it speaks to the flexibility and options that would enhance the Stanley Hotel; the appellant’s interpretation of Exhibit F cannot be supported and is only a summary of uses not a complete list of uses; and the development agreement is between the Town and the Stanley Hotel, and therefore a third party does not have standing to appeal. It was moved and seconded (Elrod/Ericson) to uphold the TRC findings 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, and it passed with Trustee Phipps abstaining. Board of Trustees – February 11, 2014 – Page 4 2. RESOLUTION #04 -14 – SUPPORTING THE FORMATION OF A CREATIVE ARTS DISTRICT. Town Administrator Lancaster presented a resolution to support the formation of a Creative Arts District in the Estes Valley per the Colorado Legislature HB-11-1031. The new district would not be a government district with a board or a separate taxing district. The district would be reflected in the zoning code/development code for the Town. The formation of the district could enhance the lives of the Town residents and positively impact the economy of the town by focusing on co-locating arts and culture-related businesses and organizations within a defined area of the town, generating additional jobs and revenue. Creative Art District designation is a competitive process and the next round of applications to the State of Colorado is due on March 3, 2104. The resolution of support by the Town Board would be included with the application. Trustee Koenig stated support for the formation of the district and commented the district would have to reapply for the designation every five years; therefore it is not similar to the formation of a historic district. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst comment the impact to the community has not been identified, the boundaries of the district have not been identified nor has the Board had a chance to review the legislation in order to make an informed decision. Jon Nicholas/Estes Valley Partners for Commerce (EVPC) stated the discussions of forming the district began in 2012. A survey was conducted this past summer and winter and the formation of the district has received overwhelming support from over 55 artists and organizations. A letter of intent has been submitted and the State of Colorado would select 15 and then narrow it down to 7. EVPC has agreed to help organize the district that could be run in the future by a different organization, including one specializing in the arts. Diane Muno/EVPC Board member stated the Board agreed to support the formation by providing administrative support. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Phipps) to table Resolution #04-14 until the March 11, 2014 Town Board meeting and to include the item on the Study Session agenda for February 25, 2014, and the motion did not carry as a substitute motion was offered. It was moved and seconded (Elrod/Norris) to approve Resolution #04-14 supporting the formation of a Colorado Creative Arts District within the Estes Valley in order to enhance economic development and creative industry employment, and it passed with Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst voting “No”. Board of Trustees – February 11, 2014 – Page 5 3. ORDINANCE #03-14 SUBMITTING BALLOT ISSUE 1A TO THE REGISTERED VOTERS OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK ON THE APRIL 1, 2014 BALLOT TO INCREASE THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK SALES TAX BY 1% FOR TEN YEARS FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, PUBLIC TRAILS, SENIOR CENTER/COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROJECTS. Administrator Lancaster presented the Ordinance that would place a ballot issue on the upcoming regular Municipal Election on April 1, 2014 to increase the Town’s sales tax from 4% to 5% for 10 years for roadway maintenance and improvements, Senior Center improvements as part of the Community Recreation Center or directly to Senior Center/Museum improvements should the Community Recreation center not be built, for public trails in the Estes Valley and for emergency response projects. The Board stated support for the ballot issue; however discussion ensued on the timeframe outlined in the Ordinance for the construction of the Community Recreation Center and questioned whether or not it should be extended. Skylar Rorabaugh/Executive Director of the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District stated he would hesitate in moving the construction date for the project too far out as the district would like to break ground as soon as possible. Lindsay Lamson/Town citizen stated support for the extension of the project and defining the use of the word construction to be clear to the voters on the intent. The district needs to be given the time to raise the funds through other methods than sales tax or property tax in order to remain a competitive community. Attorney White read Ordinance #03-14. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to approve Ordinance #03-14 submitting Ballot Issue 1A to the registered voters of the Town of Estes Park on the April 1, 2014 ballot to increase the Town of Estes Park sales tax by 1% for ten years for roadway improvements, public trails, Senior Center/ Community Recreation Center, and emergency response projects with an amendment to Ballot Issue Section 3 to read: if a development application for a Senior Center / Community Recreation Center is not filed by January 1, 2016 and a building permit for said facility has not been issued by January 1, 2017, the funds shall be used for expansion and construction of the Estes Park Senior Center and Estes Park Museum facilities, and it passed unanimously. 4. RESOLUTION #05-14 SUBMITTING QUESTION 1B TO THE REGISTERED VOTERS OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK ON THE APRIL 1, 2014 BALLOT THE SALE LOT 4 STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT TO GRAND HERITAGE PER THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT DATED JANUARY 10, 2014.. Attorney White presented the Resolution setting the ballot language for the sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District per the real estate contract on the upcoming regular Municipal Election on April 1, 2014. Board of Trustees – February 11, 2014 – Page 6 Public comment in favor of the contract and project were heard from Jon Nicholas/Economic Development Council, Lynette Lott & Ken Arnold/Estes Valley Lodging Association, Christopher Dailey/EMPC physician, Belle Morris/Town citizen and Cynthia Springer/Town citizen. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Koenig) to approve Resolution #05- 14, and it passed unanimously. 5. ORDINANCE #04-14 - INITIATED ORDINANCE PETITION REQUIRING A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON LOT 4, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT. Town Clerk Williamson presented the Board with an Initiated Ordinance submitted to the Town Clerk on November 22, 2013 by petitioners Donald Sellers and Edward Hayek. The petition requests the Board of Trustees to place a conservation easement on Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, to limit the use of the property as an open, natural area, or for public recreation use. On December 23, 2013, the Town Clerk received 49 signed petition packets with 730 signatures. A Statement of Sufficiency was issued on January 22, 2014 certifying the petition had been signed by 5% or 226 registered voters within the Town of Estes Park. Pursuant to Section 31-11-110 C.R.S. no protest of the Initiated Ordinance petition was filed within the required timeframe. Per state statute the Board of Trustees must either (1) adopt, without alteration, the Initiated Ordinance as proposed or (2) refer the measure to the registered electors of the municipality at a regular or special election. Trustee Elrod questioed if the Board had to send it to the voters. Attorney White stated the Board would have to find the initiative is not legislative and is rather administrative and not subject to the initiative process. Mayor Pinkham questioned what would happen if the Estes Valley Land Trust would not agree to place a conservation easement on the property. Attorney White stated the ordinance does not specify the Land Trust as the intended organization to place the conservation easement and that there are a number of other organizations that could place the easement on the property. Lindsay Lamson/Town citizen, Martin Koschnitzke/Town citizen and Charley Dickey/Town citizen spoke against the Initiated Ordinance stating it was in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and in appropriate as it is administrative and not legislative. In 2008 the voters requested the option to review a contract for the sale of the lot and did not request the property be open space. Trustee Elrod stated the distinction between legislative and administrative issues are difficult to distinguish; however, review of the state law demonstrates that the management of public property is administrative in nature and not legislative. Placing Lot 4, Stanley Historic District in a conservation easement Board of Trustees – February 11, 2014 – Page 7 would be a $1.65 million gift and the Board cannot be compelled legislatively to gift the property, therefore, the action requested in the ordinance is administrative. He stated he could not support the ordinance or the issue as a ballot question. Attorney White stated his opinion is the Initiated Ordinance to place a conservation easement on the Lot 4, Stanley Historic District is legislative in nature. Attorney White read Ordinance #04-14. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Phipps) to adopt Ordinance #04-14 requiring placement of a conservation easement on Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, and the motion did not pass unanimously. Greg Rosener/Town citizen stated finding the Initiated Ordinance legislative takes the power away from the Board and give it to the people in decisions related to development. It move and seconded (Blackhurst/Phipps) to approve Resolution #06-14 referring Initiated Ordinance #04-14 to the regular Municipal Election on Tuesday, April 1, 2014, and it passed with Trustee Elrod voting “No”. 6. RESOLUTION #07-14 RE-APPROPRIATION OF 2013 ENCUMBERED FUNDS “ROLLOVERS” TO 2014 BUDGET. Finance Officer McFarland requested approval of Resolution #07-14 to roll over funds related to 2013 contracts and purchase orders for goods and services that were not fulfilled by December 31, 2013. The budgeted amounts in the 2013 budget will be moved into 2014; the roll over does not affect fund balance. The roll over totals $4,728,685.42 and is primarily comprised of budgeted funds related to capital projects. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to approve Resolution #07-14 which re-appropriates the 2013 encumbered funds into the 2014 budget, and it passed unanimously. 6. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. MULTI-PURPOSE EVENT CENTER & STALL BARN CONSTRUCTION UPDATE. Ginny McFarland/Owners Representative for the project stated the project continues to progress with the completion of the masonry work on the east side of the MPEC and the beginning of structural steel within two weeks. The postponed topping-off ceremony may take place in the next three to four weeks. The stall barn electrical is nearing completion, painting has begun in the vestibule and lobby, and floor slab to begin next week. The current schedule has the stall barn complete at the end of March and the MPEC mid to late May. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Board of Trustees – February 11, 2014 – Page 8 William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado February 11, 2014 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 11th day of January, 2014. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, Norris and Phipps Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Town Attorney White and Town Clerk Williamson Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. Trustee Norris commented the ballot language for Ballot Question 2 should be reviewed as it relates to the start date for the Community Center. The Board would continue the discussion at the Board meeting during the action item. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. No comments. PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY STRATEGIC PLAN. Jackie Sargent/General Manager & CEO of Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) provided an overview the organization that provides the generation and transmission of electricity to the four member cities, Estes Park, Fort Collins, Longmont and Loveland. PRPA’s mission is to provide safe, reliable, environmentally responsible, and competitively priced energy and services in partnership with its customers. The current make up of energy resources includes Rawhide coal unit 1, Craig coal units 1 & 2, Rawhide combustion turbines, federal hydro power, and wind energy. PRPA’s strategic plan requires the organization to manage the business risk of the resource portfolio through integrated resource management and to decrease CO2 emissions while maintaining low cost energy (lowest cost wholesaler in the region), look at adding intermediate gas fired resources to diversify resource portfolio, add other renewable energy sources, utilize new technology and innovation to strengthen organization when it is economically feasible, begin a system-wide demand response program for distributed load control, and evaluate other services for distributing solar and electric energy. The Board recently added additional wind energy resources on a fixed 25 year contract to add stability to the portfolio. Additional staff would be hired to help develop resource risk analysis, including planning manager and system planner/analyst. 2014 CITIZEN SURVEY. The last citizen survey was conducted in 2011 using a National Citizen Survey (NCS) model, and the 2014 Strategic Plan calls for an updated survey to be completed in 2014 using the same survey. The NCS provides for a statistically valid survey of the residents opinions about the community and services provided by the local government. The survey results are useful for the Town, staff and stakeholders in planning and allocating resources, program improvement, policy-making and tracking changes in residents’ opinions about government performance. Town Board Study Session – February 11, 2014 – Page 2 Kate Rusch/Public Information Officer stated the 2011 template which used a uniform survey tool to allow benchmarking with over 300 communities in 45 states. The 2014 template has been updated to improve the value of the data and meet the needs of communities. The survey would be finalized in May, randomly sample 1,200 households in late June, the survey would be provided in Spanish, following the scientific survey an online survey would be conducted in August, and staff would present final results in October. Trustee comments are summarized: the survey should be the same as 2011 in order to analyze the progress/improvements made; careful on the conclusions that are drawn by the comparisons; questioned if the Town could compare its results with like communities; the Town should take care to not evaluate items it is not involved in such as recycling Staff stated for an extra fee the Town could compare itself with like communities. The draft survey was reviewed, including an optional question requested by the League of Women Voters Community Recycling committee. The new question would cost an additional $1,700. The Board agreed to not add questions from other entities to the survey. Town Administrator Lancaster suggested the Town could add a monthly survey on the Town’s website as an opinion poll. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:39 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 January 21, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Charley Dickey, Kathy Bowers, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Dickey, Bowers, and Murphree Also Attending: Director Chilcott, Planner Kleisler, Town Board Liaison Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Commissioners Sykes and Hills 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 six people in attendance. Chair Hull explained the purpose of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and stated public comment is invaluable. Each Commissioner was introduced. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes, December 18, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Bowers) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. AMENDED PLAT OF PORTIONS OF LOT 1, NORTH END RANCHES, 3325 Devils Gulch Road Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. This was a request to adjust the common lot line between two parcels in the unincorporated Estes Valley, zoned RE–Rural Estate, where minimum lot size is ten (10) acres. The site is located in the far northeast portion of the Estes Valley. Planner Kleisler reviewed the history of the lots, stating a legal lot determination in May, 2013 revealed two of the three lots (1A and 1B) were created in violation of the County’s Comprehensive Zoning Resolution enacted in 1963. The existing residence on Lot 1B was determined to be legally nonconforming. The proposed boundary adjustment would increase the size of Lot 1B from seven (7) acres to 9.88 acres, while decreasing Lot 1A from 13 acres to 10 acres. This adjustment would bring Lot 1B more into compliance with the minimum lot size. Planner Kleisler stated this item has been continued for several months, mainly to resolve issues dealing with water rights. With the State Division of Water Resources giving its approval, the application can now move forward. There is also a conservation easement on the property, and Town Attorney White recommended a note be placed on the final plat RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 January 21, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall indicating such easement. Planner Kleisler stated the application also included a request for a minor modification to allow Lot 1B to be less than the minimum lot size of ten (10) acres. The Planning Commission has the authority to grant this minor modification. The application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. Larimer County Engineering Department requested a 40‐foot access easement (a 20‐foot easement currently exists), a copy of a shared access maintenance agreement, and several survey corrections made to the plat prior to recordation. Planning Commission is the recommending body for the amended plat, with the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners making the final decision. Planning Commission is the decision‐making body for the minor modification. Findings 1. This proposal complies with the applicable section of the Estes Valley Development Code, including Section 3.9.E “Standards for Review” and 10.3 “Review Standards”. 2. This proposal would advance the purpose of subdivision standards by providing lots ‘of reasonable utility and livability’ by allowing Lot 1A to be a buildable lot. 3. Approval will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this Code. 4. This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No concerns were expressed at this time. 5. Within sixty (60) days of the Board’s approval of the amended plat, the developer shall submit the plat for recording. If the plat is not submitted for recording within this sixty‐day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void. 6. The Planning Commission is the decision‐making body for the minor modification. The plat review is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Per Section 3.2.D.2.b, ‘a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Board’s agenda’. Staff recommends approval with conditions listed below. Staff and Commission Discussion Planner Kleisler stated the enforcement action for the illegal subdivision is the disallowance of building permits on either property. The proposed amended plat brings the lots into compliance for a legal subdivision. He stated the conservation easement was brought to the attention of the Community Development Department after meeting materials were distributed to the Commissioners. Public Comment Amy Plummer/applicant representative stated the applicant agreed to comply with all conditions of approval. Public comment closed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 January 21, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Conditions 1. Compliance with letter from the Larimer County Engineering Department dated September 20, 2013. 2. Compliance with email from the Larimer County Engineering Department dated August 28, 2013. 3. Add reference on the preliminary and final plats to Conservation Easement Deed and Agreement, Larimer County Reception # 94081981. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Bowers) to approve the minor modification regarding minimum lot size, and recommend approval of the amended plat to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. REPORTS A. Planner Kleisler reported on the upcoming proposed amended plat of Lot 6, Prospect Mountain Subdivision. This application is to amend the building envelope to include an existing corner of a dwelling and an existing deck. B. Planner Kleisler reported a pre‐application meeting was held for a lot consolidation on Devils Gulch Road to remove the middle lot line, preserving the area along Devils Gulch Road. Applicant has yet to submit an application. C. Planner Kleisler reported Town Board approved Mountain River Townhomes Preliminary Subdivision Plat on December 10, 2013; the Board of Adjustment approved a variance for the same applicant on January 7, 2014. D. Planner Kleisler reported the developer of The Neighborhood Subdivision attainable housing project has had ongoing discussions with staff. A meeting was held for property owners of that subdivision, which was sparsely attended. Staff plans to survey the property owners prior to moving forward with plans to adjust the current attainable housing regulations. E. Appeal of the Technical Review Committee for the Stanley Hotel Event Pavilion was heard by Town Board on January 14, 2014. Additional information was received by the appellant’s attorneys, and the Board requested the item be continued to the February 11, 2014 meeting. F. Planner Kleisler reported staff is working with NRCS Watershed Program to provide assistance to property owners in immediate need for repairs prior to spring runoff (exigent properties). There has been continual communication with property owners of Fall River and Fish Creek drainages to create long‐term plans. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Fall River Master Plan has been posted. Staff is assisting property owners in creating neighborhood coalitions for river restoration. The coalitions will need to be led by the property owners, and emphasized that the Town is only one voice amount all the property owners in these coalitions. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 January 21, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall G. Planner Kleisler reported he presented a code compliance update to the Community Development/Community Services Committee, Town Board, and the Association for Responsible Development (ARD). He continues to determine priorities, draft policies and procedures, and create sustainable long‐term systems to be more productive. The current focus is on vacation home rentals, and he is also researching ways to address the inevitable weed issue that will arise in the flood damaged areas. Information will be made available to assist property owners in minimizing noxious weeds. H. Planner Kleisler reported a pre‐application meeting was scheduled for an attainable housing project in the Good Samaritan Subdivision. I. Director Chilcott reported staff received a number of development applications concerning Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District. Planning Commission would be the recommending body to the Town Board. The submitted applications can be viewed at www.stanleyanschutzproject.org. She encouraged the Commissioners to review the documents online to familiarize themselves with the project. They should also review the Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.44, which is applicable to this project. She stated the Stanley Historic District Master Plan will not be applicable to this project. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:04 p.m. ___________________________________ Betty Hull, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 15th, 2014 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Committee of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall Room 202 in said Town of Estes Park on the 15th day of January, 2014. Present: Kimberly Campbell Ann Finley Gregg Rounds Stan Black Belle Morris Cory LaBianca Also Present: John Ericson, Town Board Liaison Scott Zurn, Director of Public Works Kevin Ash, Public Works Civil Engineer Jen Imber, Public Works Secretary Sandy Osterman, Shuttle Committee Representative Brian Wells, Town Shuttle Coordinator Absent: Thom Widawski Bryon Holmes Kimberly Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:04 p.m. GENERAL DISCUSSION Minutes from the December 18, 2013, TAC meeting were reviewed by members. It was moved and seconded (Morris/Finley) to approve the minutes, with the motion passing unanimously. The committee discussed the vacancy created with Amy Schwarzbach’s resignation in May of 2013. The committee position was posted in August and September but received no response. Belle Morris and Ann Finley volunteered to form a subcommittee to review applications the Town received during the initial formation of the committee in early 2013. The subcommittee will arrive at the February meeting with a recommendation of candidates to approach to fill the vacancy. Sandy Osterman attended the January meeting as a representative of the Shuttle Committee. Ms. Osterman will present an overview of the Shuttle Committee at the February TAC meeting. PRIVATE TROLLEY HISTORIC TOUR BUSINESS Wayne Groome gave an informational presentation on Fun Tyme Trolleys, a private trolley tour business owned and operated by Jim Pickering, Wayne Groome and his wife Sharon Groome and daughter Marcia Groome. Mr. Groome was not seeking approvals or recommendations from the TAC. His appearance was a courtesy to give an overview of a private venture that could impact traffic and the local transit system. The historic tour would utilize main thoroughfares in the Estes Valley, with no stopping or passengers exiting the trolley along the tour route. Mr. Groome has offered to return to the TAC in March to present finalized tour routes. The issue of a private business, such as Fun Time Trolleys, that could impact traffic and transit raised a few concerns for the committee, including proper marketing to differentiate between public transit and private tour businesses, start and stop locations, avoiding impact to private property and potential impacts to traffic. The committee will continue this discussion in February, to include identifying any potential needs for regulations and governance of private enterprises. SIGNAGE REVIEW Director Zurn advised that with the impending highway reroute through downtown and major geometry changes rendered by the project, it may not be the best time for major signage changes in Town. He suggested instead the committee work on updating roadside traffic signage standards for the commercial district, which could then be implemented during construction of the FLAP project if the updates were adopted. Kimberly Campbell suggested a subcommittee be formed to prepare ideas for signage changes/improvements and bring forward to the TAC at regular meetings, where the committee could vote and move forward as desired. Cory LaBianca and Gregg Rounds volunteered to form a two person signage project team for this task, with updates to be included as agenda items at subsequent TAC meetings. PEAK SEASON CLOSURE OF BIG HORN DRIVE AT ELKHORN AVE The committee questioned Director Zurn on steps needed for a trial closure of Big Horn Drive at the Elkhorn Avenue intersection during peak season. Director Zurn explained that this idea had already been explored by Town officials and was not well received by residents of Big Horn Drive. CDOT modeling of the closure showed the impact was not great enough to proceed with the idea. TAC members therefore decided to remove the idea of this closure from topics of discussion. Kimberly Campbell adjourned the meeting at 2:04 p.m. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 16th, 2014 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Tree Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Engineering Conference Room of Town Hall Room 100 in said Town of Estes Park on the 16th day of January, 2014. Present: Celine Lebeau Barbara Williams Chris Reed Also Present: Scott Zurn, Director of Public Works Jen Imber, Public Works Secretary Russ Franklin, Parks Division Brian Berg, Parks Division Keri Kelly, Parks Division Megan Lindeman, Parks Division Tonya Ziegler, Parks Division Absent: Apryle Craig Dewain Lockwood Scott Zurn called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. GENERAL BUSINESS Due to the absence of a quorum, approvals of the budget and meeting minutes from October 2013 were postponed until the February meeting. TREE BOARD CHANGES The Tree Board is broadening its scope of responsibilities as well as changing the board title to Parks Advisory Board. The Town Board is supportive of these changes and is awaiting new by‐laws for review and approval. The board discussed possibilities for the new and broader scope of responsibilities to be included in the by‐laws. Possible areas of focus for the new board include: art in public places – memorials, donations, permanent installations and locations, publicly funded art; parks – public and private standards; trails; planting standards – invasive plants, noxious weeds, measures of control; pests such as beetles; education – arbor day, plant walks, symposiums; and river work – clean‐ups, education and support, wetlands, revegetation, willow cuttings; wildlife; downtown waste management; and new planting areas. The Parks division will work on rewriting the by‐laws and will present a draft for the February meeting. ARBOR DAY CELEBRATION UPDATES Celine Lebeau is working on setting up appointments with Estes Park Elementary and Eagle Rock to schedule the 2014 Arbor Day celebration. Celine is also working on integrating a t‐shirt design contest as a new feature for this year’s celebration. BOARD BUDGET The board is reconsidering budget allocation with the board revisions and the new scope. A vote will be taken after the by‐laws are approved and when the Parks Advisory Board is fully seated with new members. Scott Zurn adjourned the meeting at 5:03 pm. Community Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Dave Shirk, Senior Planner Date: February 25, 2014 RE: PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, The Sanctuary on Fall River Townhomes, TBD Fall River Road, The Sanctuary, LLC/Applicant Objective: Review of a preliminary townhouse plat to allow the development of four freestanding accommodation lodges. Present Situation: Property is currently undeveloped, with exception of abandoned tennis courts that were formerly part of Nicky’s Resort; the land was separated from the resort with an amended plat in 2003. That amended plat established river setback and slope protection ‘no build’ areas. The property is zoned A Accommodations, which allows the proposed accommodations use. Proposal: The proposal includes a subdivision plat that describes the layout and use of the property. The site would be developed with four freestanding accommodation units. These units are designed as resort lodges, and will accommodate large parties such as family reunions. This is a use that Vacation Homes cannot provide, and helps fill an important accommodations market. The site design accounts for the platted river setback and slope protection standards, and will provide for greater fire protection in the nearby built environment. The Planning Commission report is attached. This report provides a more detailed description of the project. On Tuesday December 18, 2013, the Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public meeting to discuss The Sanctuary on Fall River Preliminary Subdivision Plat. At that time, the Planning Commission found: 1. With the exception of approved Minor Modifications outlined in the staff report, if revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the development plan and preliminary subdivision plat will comply with the EVDC. 2. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The patio encroachment into the existing platted river setback is consistent with Section 1.9.D of the EVDC, which allows such setbacks. 4. The owner of Deer Crest Lot 1 has requested the applicant discuss relocating the storm sewer crossing his property. 5. This is a Planning Commission recommendation is to the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park. 6. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Board agenda. Placement on the January 28th Town Board agenda requires a January 8 submittal of a revised application that fully satisfies all conditions of approval. Advantages:  Compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code and Comprehensive Plan.  Provide ‘family reunion-style’ units in the accommodations market.  Infill development of four freestanding units.  Expanded tax base and increased permit fee revenue. Disadvantages:  None Action Recommended: The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of the proposed The Sanctuary on Fall River Preliminary Subdivision Plat CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Streamside Cabin Lane units shall apply for address change concurrent with right-of- way permit application to reconfigure the street. 2. Buildings on Lots 1 and 2 shall comply with 50-foot river setback; patios shall comply with 1.9.D.a. 3. Compliance with: a. Wildfire Mitigation Plan dated August 28, 2013. b. Wildlife Habitat Evaluation and Impact Analysis dated July 24, 2013. 4. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Community Development dated December 11, 2013. This includes requirements for construction plans, exterior lighting, and outdoor storage, as well as general revisions to the development plan/plat. b. Public Works dated December 2, 2013, modified per meeting with applicant on December 6. The road shall be redesigned with curb/gutter to carry storm flow, widened to 24-feet from Fall River Road to the south side of the bridge, and the sidewalk shall be redesigned to meet ADA standards to the extent possible. c. Estes Park Sanitation District dated November 27, 2013. d. Estes Valley Fire Protection District dated November 27, 2013. e. Water Department dated November 20, 2013. Budget: N/A; re-built/widened road will remain private. Level of Public Interest: Low Sample Motion: I move to Approve (Deny) the Preliminary Subdivision Plat application with the conditions recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Attachments: Site plan, zoning and aerial maps, Planning Commission report, agency comments Community Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Phil Kleisler, Planner I/Code Compliance Officer Date: February 25, 2014 RE: FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT, Lot 3, Stonebridge Estates Subdivision, 1125-1195 Fish Creek Road, Seth Hanson/Applicant Objective: Review the Final Subdivision Plat, submitted by applicant Seth Hanson, for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to convert an existing condominium development to townhouse subdivision. No new lots are being created and there is no increase in project density. Present Situation: This is a request to convert an existing condominium development into a townhouse subdivision. In condominium subdivisions individual unit owners own airspace and the condominium association owns all the land in the development, including the land below individual units. This townhouse plat would replace airspace subdivision with land subdivision, where unit owners own the land on which the unit is located. An ‘outlot’ would be created around the individual units and would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association; this land would comprise of the driveways, post cluster box, etc. No additional development rights are requested with this application. At buildout the subdivision will have 14 dwellings. The Town Board voted to approve the Stone Bridge Estates Preliminary Plat at the regularly scheduled May 28, 2013 meeting and the Final Plat during the July 23, 3013 meeting. The applicant was required to submit a signed final plat for recording within 60 days of the Board’s approval. The applicant was unable to meet this deadline due to difficulties in obtaining lienholder signatures (as described in the statement of intent). This application is a resubmittal of the final plat, with a request to extend the deadline for submitting the signed plat for recording to 180 days. Justification for this request is described in the statement of intent. Staff are supportive of this extension. Proposal: Approval of the Final Subdivision Plat to convert an existing condominium development into a townhouse subdivision. Advantages: • This proposal complies with the applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. • Allows greater financing options for current and future residents. Disadvantages: None Action Recommended: On Tuesday April 16, 2013 the Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public meeting to discuss the preliminary plat of the Stone Bridge Estates Townhome Subdivision. At that time the Planning Commission found: 1. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, including Section 3.9.E “Standards for Review”. 2. Per Section 10.5.K.1, the street buffer landscaping shall either be installed or guaranteed prior to recordation of plat. 3. This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 4. Applicant proposes to address refuse disposal with the HOA declarations. If garbage is stored inside garages until the morning of trash pick-up, containers are returned to garages that same day, and garages kept closed and locked, this will satisfy the requirements of Section 7.8.G. 5. Per Section 3.2.D.2a, ‘when the EVPC is a reviewing body only, conditions of EVPC- recommended approval that require revisions to the submitted application, plans or drawings shall be completed by the Applicant within thirty (30) days of the EVPC’s action. A revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Board’s agenda.’ [Note: Conditions have been met] 6. This is a Planning Commission recommendation the Town Board. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0, one absent) to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed preliminary plat of the Stone Bridge Estates Townhome Subdivision CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with memos from: a) Estes Valley Fire Protection District (March 14 and 26 2013). b) Community Development Department dated February 28 2013. c) Water Department dated March 21, 2013 Staff recommends that approval of the final subdivision plat application be conditioned on the following: • Compliance with the preliminary plat conditions of approval; • Approved Development Agreement, with cost estimate (landscaping, as-builts, pin setting, paving), and financial guarantee shall be submitted prior to plat recordation (EVDC 10.5). • The applicant shall submit a plat for recording within 180 days of Board approval of the Final Plat. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest: Low: As of February 18, 2014, no public comment has been received. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the proposed final plat of the Stone Bridge Estates Townhome Subdivision subject to the findings and conditions recommended by staff. RE CO RM E-1 O 1480 1805 1110 1661 1810 1641 1691 1740 1635 1115 1650 1770 1891 1740 1710 1405 1403 1350 1721 1043 1751171014041561Fish CreekFISH CREEK RDJOHNSEN LN POWELLY LN GOLF COURSE RD B R A E SI D E L N 0 150 300Feet 1 in = 300 ft ±Town o f Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentExhibit A Map Printed: 2/19/2014Created By: phil kleisler Project Site Town Boundary Parcels-Larimer Zoning Project Name:Project Description: Petitioner(s):Parcel ID Number(s):Location/Address: Stone Bridge Final Townhome PlatConvert an existing Condominiumto a land subdivision.Van Horn EngineeringMultipleFish Creek Road E HIGHWAY 36 S S A I N T V R A I N A V E P E A K V I E W D R LAKE ESTES Site Vicinity Ma p RE CO RM E-1 O 1480 1805 1110 1661 1810 1641 1691 1740 1635 1115 1650 1770 1891 1740 1710 1405 1403 1350 1721 1043 1751171014041561Fish CreekFISH CREEK RDJOHN S E N L N POWELLY LN GOLF C O U R S E R D BRAESIDE LN 0 150 300Feet 1 in = 300 ft ±Town of Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentExhibit B Map Printed: 2/19/2014Created By: phil kleisler Project Site Town Boundary Parcels-Larimer Zoning Project Name: Project Description: Petitioner(s): Parcel ID Number(s): Location/Address: Stone Bridge Final Townhome Plat Convert an existing Condominium to a land subdivision. Van Horn Engineering Multiple Fish Creek Road E H I G H W A Y 3 6S SA INT VRA IN AVE PEAK VIEW DR LAKE ESTES Site Vicinity Map Community Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Phil Kleisler, Planner I/Code Compliance Officer Date: February 25, 2014 RE: SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #5, Stone Bridge Estates Condominiums, 1135 Fish Creek Road, Hanson Holdings, LLC/Applicant Objective: Review of Stonebridge Estates Condominium Map application, submitted by applicant Mike Kingswood, for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to allow sale of the unit. Present Situation: The applicant has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for Stone Bridge Estates Condominiums. The property is zoned RM Multifamily Residential and is located at 1135 Fish Creek Road. Development approval provided for a total of fourteen units. To date, seven of the units have been built and condominiumized; this unit represents the eighth unit to be condominiumized, leaving an additional seven units. Pursuant to state law, condominium units may not be finalized until the units are substantially complete. Because of this, final supplemental maps will be submitted as the project builds out. According to the procedure set forth in the EVDC, the Final Condominium map proceeds directly to the Board and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicant has also submitted a final townhome plat application that is being considered on the same agenda as this application. The applicant must continue recording supplemental condominium maps to allow for the sale of units until the final townhome plat is recorded. Proposal: Approval of the supplemental condominium map #5, condominiumizing one residential unit. The unit is addressed 1135 Fish Creek Road. Advantages: • This proposal complies the applicable standards of the EVDC, specifically: Section 3.9.E “Standards of Review” for subdivisions, and Section 10.5.H “Condominiums, Townhouses and Other Forms of Airspace Ownership.” • Approving the subject Supplemental Condominium Map will allow sale of the unit. Disadvantages: None. Action Recommended: Approval conditional to compliance with Development Plan 07-09 “Stone Bridge Estates”. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motion: I move to Approve (or Deny) the application for the Supplemental Condominium map #5, Stone Bridge Estates Condominiums, 1135 Fish Creek Road, with the condition recommended by staff. RECO RM E-1 O 1480 1805 1110 1661 1810 1641 18911740 1691 1635 1115 1650 17701740 1710 1403 1350 1721 1405 1710 17511561140414011399 1043 1505 15811484Fish CreekFISH CREEK RDJOHNSEN LN POWELLY LN B R A E SI D E L N GOLF COURSE RD 0 150 300Feet 1 in = 300 ft ±Town o f Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentExhibit A Map Printed: 2/19/2014Created By: phil kleisler Project Site Town Boundary Parcels-Larimer Zoning Project Name:Project Description: Petitioner(s):Parcel ID Number(s):Location/Address: Stone Bridge Sup. Condo Map #5Condominiumizing one residental unit.Van Horn EngineeringNot yet assigned1135 Fish Creek Rd E HIGHWAY 36 S S A I N T V R A I N A V E P E A K V I E W D R LAKE ESTES Site Vicinity Ma p RECO RM E-1 O 1480 1805 1110 1661 1810 1641 18911740 1691 1635 1115 1650 17701740 1710 1403 1350 1721 1405 1710 17511561140414011399 1043 1505 15811484Fish CreekFISH CREEK RDJOHNSEN LN POWELLY LN B R A E SI D E L N GOLF COURSE RD 0 150 300Feet 1 in = 300 ft ±Town o f Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentExhibit B Map Printed: 2/19/2014Created By: phil kleisler Project Site Town Boundary Parcels-Larimer Zoning Project Name:Project Description: Petitioner(s):Parcel ID Number(s):Location/Address: Stone Bridge Sup. Condo Map #5Condominiumizing one residental unit.Van Horn EngineeringNot yet assigned1135 Fish Creek Rd E HIGHWAY 36 S S A I N T V R A I N A V E P E A K V I E W D R LAKE ESTES Site Vicinity Ma p -p9zOCOMMUNITYDEVELOpM.jSTATEMENTOFINTENT-STONEBRIDGEESTATESFIFTHSUPPLEMENTALCONDOMINIUMMAP,PHASEVIThisPhaseVIsubmittalofStoneBridgeEstatesCondominiumsconsistsof1residentialunit(1135)onLot3,StoneBridgeEstatesSubdivision.ImpendingclosingdatesforthetransferofownershipoftheseunitsrequirethatthiscondominiummapberecordedbeforetheproposedtownhomeconversionofStoneBridgeEstateswillberecorded.AllutilitymainlineshavebeeninstalledtoserveLot3perrequirementsofthesubdivisionanddevelopmentplanreviewprocess.Thecondominiummapisconsistentwiththeapproveddevelopmentplan. SubmittalDate:ESTESVALLEYDEVELOPMENTREVIEWAPPLICATIOI1/29/2014_-DevelopmentPlanFSpecialReviewFRezoningPetitionFPreliminarySubdivisionPlatFFinalSubdivisionPlatFMinorSubdivisionPlatFAmendedPlatFBoundaryLineAdjustmentFROWorEasementVacationFStreetNameChangeFTimeExtensionFOther:PleasespecifyCondominiumMapFPreliminaryMapFFinalMapSupplementalMapProjectNameProjectDescriptionprojectAddress.egalDescriptionParcelID#FifthSupplementalCondominiumMapofStoneBridgeEstatesCondominiumsCondominiumizeUnit1135-PhaseVI1135FishCreekRoad,EstesPark,CO80517Lot3,StoneBridgeEstatesSubdivision25311-68003WellWellFFFFFNoneFOther(specify)FNoneFOther(specify)EPSDlUTSDEPSDi;UTSDYes1NoOtherFNoneProposedZoningRMFNoNameofPrimaryContactPersonCompleteMailingAddressAmyPlummer/VanHornEnQineerincl1043fishCreekRoad,EstesPark,CO80517FC1ApplicationfeeIStatementofintentI3copies(folded)ofplatorplanI11”X17”reducedcopyofplatorplanPleasereviewtheEstesValleyDevelopmentCodeAppendixBforadditionalsubmittalrequirements,whichyincludeISOcalculations,drainagereport,trafficimpactanalysis,geologichazardmitigationreport,wildfirehazardmitigationreport,wetlandsreport,and/orotheradditionalinformation.partiallydevelopedMulti-familyAreaofDisturbanceinAcresresidential/multi-familyN/AFFLotSize2.71acresExistingLandUseProposedLandUseExistingWaterService1TownProposedWaterServiceFTownExistingSanitarySewerServiceProposedSanitarySewerServiceIsasewerliftstationrequired?ExistingGasServiceXcelExistingZoningRMSiteAccess(ifnotonpublicstreet)Aretherewetlandsonthesite?Sitestakingmust-FSepticFSepticFNonelYesFYesFNo,r,+IIZrTownofEstesParkP.O.Box1200170MacGregorAvenueEstesPark,CO80517LommunilyUevelopmentDepartmentt-f1one:19/U)3//-J/21vax:9/U)5t6-U249..Www.esles.org/LomDevRevised2011.11.16KT RecordOwner(s)MailingAddress2803E.HarmonyRd,Ft.Collins.80528Phone__________________________________CellPhone970-310-7498FaxEmailseth.w.hanson©gmail.comHansonHoldings,LLC/SethW.Hanson,managerApplicantseeownerMailingAddressPhoneCellPhoneFaxEmailConsultantlEngineerVanHornEngineering&SurveyingIAmyPlummerMailingAddress1043FishCreekRoad,EstesPark,CO80517Phone970-586-9388x12CellPhoneFax970-586-8101Emailamyvhe@airbits.comAPPLICATIONFEESFordevelopmentwithintheEstesValleyPlanningArea,bothinsideandoutsideTownlimitsSeethefeescheduleincludedinyourapplicationpacketorviewthefeescheduleonlineat:www.estes.org/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningArlicationFeeSchedule.pdfAllrequestsforrefundsmustbemadeinwriting.Allfeesaredueatthetimeofsubmittal.MINERALRIGHTCERTIFICATIONArticle65.5ofTitle24oftheColoradoRevisedStatutesrequiresapplicantsforDevelopmentPlans,SpecialReviews,Rezoning,PreliminaryandFinalSubdivisionPlats,MinorSubdivisionPlatsifcreatinganewlot,andPreliminaryandFinalCondominiumMapstoprovidenoticeoftheapplicationandinitialpublichearingtoallmineralestateownerswherethesurfaceestateandthemineralestatehavebeensevered.Thisnoticemustbegiven30dayspriortothefirsthearingonanapplicationfordevelopmentandmeetthestatutoryrequirements.IherebycertifythattheprovisionsofSection24-65.5-103CRShavebeenmet.Names:RecordOwnerHansonHoldings/SethW.Hanson,ManagerApplicantSethW.HansonSignatures:RecordOwnere17lA.v.-._DateV-i“(Applicant__________________________________________Date\.—-‘i—t-(Revised2011.11.16KTContactInformation APPLICANTCERTIFICATIONIherebycertifythattheinformationandexhibitsherewithsubmittedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeandthatinfilingtheapplicationIamactingwiththeknowledgeandconsentoftheownersoftheproperty.Insubmittingtheapplicationmaterialsandsigningthisapplicationagreement,IacknowledgeandagreethattheapplicationissubjecttotheapplicableprocessingandpublichearingrequirementssetforthintheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode(EVDC).IacknowledgethatIhaveobtainedorhaveaccesstotheEVDC,andthat,priortofilingthisapplication,Ihavehadtheopportunitytoconsulttherelevantprovisionsgoverningtheprocessingofanddecisionontheapplication.TheEstesValleyDevelopmentCodeisavailableonlineat:http://www.estes.org/ComDev/DevCodeIunderstandthatacceptanceofthisapplicationbytheTownofEstesParkforfilingandreceiptoftheapplicationfeebytheTowndoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheapplicationiscompleteundertheapplicablerequirementsoftheEVDC.Iunderstandthatthisproposalmaybedelayedinprocessingbyamonthormoreiftheinformationprovidedisincomplete,inaccurate,orsubmittedafterthedeadlinedate.Iunderstandthataresubmittalfeewillbechargedifmyapplicationisincomplete.TheCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentwillnotifytheapplicantinwritingofthedateonwhichtheapplicationisdeterminedtobecomplete.IgrantpermissionforTownofEstesParkEmployeesandPlanningCommissionerswithproperidentificationaccesstomypropertyduringthereviewofthisapplication.IacknowledgethatIhavereceivedtheEstesValleyDevelopmentReviewApplicationScheduleandthatfailuretomeetthedeadlinesshownonsaidschedulemayresultinmyapplicationortheapprovalofmyapplicationbecomingnullandvoid.Iunderstandthatfullfeeswillbechargedfortheresubmittalofanapplicationthathasbecomenullandvoid.Names:RecordOwnerHansonHoldingsISethW.Hanson,ManagerApplicantSethW.HansonSignatures:RecordOwner:-(.A4Datef-g((Applicant_________________________________________________DatetLfRevised2011.11.16KT To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator From: Alison Chilcott, Community Development Director Phil Kleisler, Planner I/Code Compliance Officer Date: February 18, 2014 RE: Problem statement for Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Development Objective Revise the Estes Park Municipal Code (EPMC) to remove obsolete language and allow greater design flexibility. Present Situation Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Development of the Estes Park Municipal Code establishes the development review processes and design guidelines for the Stanley Historic District. Chapter 17.44 contains outdated references to Municipal Code sections that have been repealed. Such obsolete language results in unclear requirements for applicants wishing to submit development applications within the Stanley Historic District. The Estes Park Town Board of Trustees has entered into a contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate (“Purchase Agreement”) for Town-owned property within the Stanley Historic District. Provision 2(h) of the Purchase Agreement states in part that final approval include the adoption of a Town ordinance amending “Chapter 17.44 of the Town’s Municipal Code to permit the design of the buildings within the Project (“Wellness Center”) to be compatible with the color and architecture of the Stanley Hotel Complex, including but not limited to, the use of red roofs and white walls...”. Proposal 1. Remove obsolete references written prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code; 2. Allow for design on Town-owned property within the Stanley Historic District (“Lot 4”) that complies with the intent of the District, yet provides flexibility relating to colors and architectural design standards. Advantages • Clearer and accurate requirements within the Stanley Historic District; Community Development Memo Page 1 • Compliance with provision 2(h) of the Purchase Agreement. Disadvantages • None. Action Recommended On February 18, 2014, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0; one commissioner absent) to recommend approval of the proposed EPMC text amendment, as described in the problem statement. Budget Legal notice, publication and codification fees are minimal ($300). Level of Public Interest High Sample Motion I move to approve (or deny) Ordinance 05-14. Page 2 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center - Overview• Request by Grand Heritage Hotels to develop Lot 4, Stanley Historic District with the proposed EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center• Includes: • Request to amend the Municipal Code to allow red roof and white walls.• Request to rezone from CO-Commercial Outlyingto A-Accommodations• Request to amend the plat of record to dedicate easements and remove a no-build area• Special Review of the Development Plan• Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend conditional approval. EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Neighborhood - Zoning Districts EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Neighborhood – Aerial Photo (2010) EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Site Plan EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Building Elevations EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Amended Plat: Dedicate easements; remove ‘no-build’ line• 1991: Preliminary Plat• 1994: Stanley Historic District• 1994: Final plat• Open Space• View Corridors7560’7630’ EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Planning Commission Findings:1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan and the Downtown area plan. The application advances several Community-Wide policies, as delineated in the Staff report.2. The application for the proposed Special Review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment.3. The amended plat complies with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10 “Subdivision Standards.”4. The amended plat and associated development satisfy the purpose and intent of the open space and view protection guidelines described in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. 5. The proposed code amendments are necessary to address changes in areas affected. There are significant changes in the area since the adoption of the land use plan and development code.6. The proposed code amendments are compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.7. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Planning Commission Findings:8. The application complies with Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Standards for Development regarding: view corridors; open space; site design; pedestrian circulation; and signs.9. The request to exceed the Stanley Historic District maximum allowed building of 30-feet is allowed through special review approval, and complies with Section 1.9.E.2 Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes.10. The application does not comply with Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Standards for Development regarding building design (red roof, white walls). The proposed code amendments would provide compliance to these standards.11. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the EVDC, as described in the Review Discussion in the staff report.12. Planning Commission recommendation is to the Town Board.13. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Board agenda. EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Planning Commission Recommendation: 6-0 Approval, with the following conditions1. April 1stvoter approval to allow sale of Lot 4.2. All parking shall be constructed with Phase I.3. Architecture: Buildings shall be stepped, as demonstrated on Sheet A5.0; Sign: The stone base shall match the stone used in other structures on the property and other free-standing monument signs.4. The plan must demonstrate compliance with Section 5.1.J Hotelsregarding amount of gross floor area for non-living quarters.5. The emergency access lane shall be reduced to 20-foot in width, include a roll-over curb, and a concrete sidewalk. 6. The traffic circle shall be widened to the maximum extent feasible.7. Traffic study shall be revised to comply with CDOT requests. 8. MUTCD wildlife crossing signs are required on WonderviewAvenue, near the crossing between Lot 5 and the Knoll-Willows. Design and location shall be determined by staff during Construction Plan approval. EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 20149. Landscaping Plan: (a) Landscaping plan shall accommodate elk migration, with trees focused close to buildings and parking areas, with outlying areas kept natural grasslands (with irrigation). (b) Landscaping of mechanical areas, trash enclosures, loading areas, and parking lot perimeter shall be installed with construction of the initial hotel. (c)Comply with Section 7.8.G.1.b Non-Native Vegetationapplies. 10. Building plans shall be revised to comply with EPMC 17.44.060.(d)(8) “Facades.” Compliance shall be demonstrated prior to March 18 2014.11. Compliance with the following affected agency comments:•Community Development dated February 4, 2014. •Public Works dated January 31, 2014•Light and Power dated January 29, 2014.•Water Department (Jeff Boles, Cliff Tedder, Steve Rusch) dated February 3, 2014.•Estes Valley Fire Protection District dated January 31, 2014.•Estes Park Sanitation District dated (James Duell) January 30, 2014.•CDOT (Timothy Bilobran) dated January 28, 2014.•CPW dated January 29, 2014.Planning Commission Recommendation: 6-0 Approval, with the following conditions EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Building Elevations ORDINANCE NO. 05-14 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 17.44.020, 17.44.050, AND 17.44.060(d) OF CHAPTER 17.44 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING NEW BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS FOR LOT 4, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT SUBDIVISION AND ADDRESSING OUTDATED MUNICIPAL CODE REFERENCES WHEREAS, Lot 4, Plat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Stanley Historic District Subdivision of a portion of Tracts 4 and 5, Stanley Addition to Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado (“Lot 4”) is owned by the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (“Town”) and located in the Stanley Historic District as such term is defined in Section 17.44.020 of Chapter 17.44 of the Municipal Code (“Stanley Historic District”); and WHEREAS, the Town has entered into a Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate dated January 10, 2014 (“Purchase Agreement”) in which the Town, subject to a favorable vote of the electors on such sale at its regular municipal election to be held on April 1, 2014, has agreed to sell Lot 4 to the Grand Heritage Hotel Group, LLC (a subsidiary of which is JWC Stanley Holding, LLC) for the purpose of its development of a project with two principal uses (the “Project”): (i) a medical wellness center (as such center is defined in the Purchase Agreement) intended to be operated by the Park Hospital District DBA Estes Park Medical Center (“Wellness Center”); and (ii) an accommodations use providing hotel rooms and guest services primarily to serve the clients and staff of the Wellness Center to be owned and operated by the Grand Heritage Hotel Group, LLC or one of its subsidiaries; and WHEREAS, in the event that the sale is approved at the April 1, 2014 municipal election and the closing on the purchase and sale of Lot 4 occurs (the “Closing”) in accordance with the provisions of the Purchase Agreement, Lot 4 will in essence function visually and operationally as part of the Stanley Hotel Complex, as such term is defined in Section 17.44.020(3) of Chapter 17.44 of the Municipal Code (the ‘Stanley Hotel Complex”); and WHEREAS, Chapter 17.44 contains building design provisions for new buildings located within the Stanley Hotel Complex require a design that is distinguishable from the historic Stanley buildings, but is also visually compatible with such buildings; and WHEREAS, the building design standards for the areas of the Stanley Hotel District outside of the Stanley Hotel Complex (which presently includes Lot 4) prevent the buildings therein from imitating the historic style of the Stanley Hotel Complex and specifically prevent the use of red roofs and white walls; and WHEREAS, the stated purposes and intent of the provisions of the Chapter 17.44 of the Municipal Code include the following: (1) Administer the historic resources of the Stanley Historic District in a manner that will preserve the integrity of their location, setting design, materials, workmanship and visual character; (2) Ensure that development in the foreground of the Stanley Hotel Complex does not destroy its essential historic character, or lessen its ability to conduct an economically viable operation; and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds that amending Chapter 17.44 effective upon the Closing on Lot 4 furthers the stated purposes and intent of Chapter 17.44 in that the building design standards for Lot 4 will then be consistent with the Stanley Historic Complex design standards and will be visually compatible with the historic Stanley buildings; and WHEREAS, Section 17.44.050 contains outdated references to municipal code provisions that have been repealed, and it is necessary to amend said Section to delete the outdated references. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 17.44.020 of Chapter 17.44 of the Municipal Code shall be amended by the addition of a new subsection thereto to read as follows: Section 17.44.020 (4) Lot 4 shall mean Lot 4, Plat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Stanley Historic District Subdivision of a portion of Tracts 4 and 5, Stanley Addition to Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Section 2. Section 17.44.050 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 17.44.050 (a) Development plan review in accord with the provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code shall be required for all development, regardless of size, within the Stanley Historic District. Special review pursuant to the Estes Valley Development Code shall be required for all developments five thousand (5,000) square feet or larger. Applications for a development plan or special review shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in Estes Valley Development Code. (b) The development plan and special review shall conform to the applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. (c) Development plan and special review submittals shall include the following: (1) Four (4) photographic panoramic views showing the site from the perimeter of the property on ninety-degree compass intervals, or as otherwise specified by the Director (one (1) set); (2) Identical panoramic views to those specified above, with the addition of the building structure superimposed to scale on the photographs (one (1) set); (3) Four (4) elevations of the structure with the elevation referenced to USGS datum, of the following features: existing ground surfaces, finished grade, top of the foundation, floor elevation, roof line and the highest point on the structure; (4) Floor plans; (5) Color and texture samples of all exterior materials with combinations of materials and colors shown as they will appear in the finished building (one (1) set); (6) A colored architectural rendering for Town records, or a color photograph of a rendering (eight and one-half by eleven inches (8 ½ “ x 11”)); (7) A lighting plan indicating all exterior lights, their style, intensity and location; and (8) A landscaping plan at a scale of one inch equals twenty fee (1” = 20’) or larger, containing property lines, dimensions, structures, existing natural features, final grading plan with existing and proposed topography, a plant specification list identifying botanical and common names, keyed to the plan, transplanting method, sizes at planting and maturity and quantities. (d) The development plan or the special review application shall be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer of the Historical Society of Colorado for review and comment. Comments of the Historical Society shall be made public. Section 3. Section 17.44.060(d) of Chapter 17.44 of the Municipal Code shall be amended by the addition of a new subsection (12) thereto to read as follows: Section 17.44.060(d) (12) Lot 4. a. Design of buildings located on Lot 4 shall comply with the requirements of Sections 17.44.060 (f)(4)(a) and (b) of Chapter 17.44 of the Municipal Code. b. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of Sections 17.44.060(f)(4)(a) and (b) and any other provisions of Chapter 17.44, the provisions of Sections 17.44.060(f)(4)(a) and (b) shall apply to buildings located on Lot 4. c. Design of buildings located on Lot 4 shall not be required to comply with the following provisions of Chapter 17.44: 17.44.060(d)(2), 17.44.060(d)(5), and 17.44.060(d)(10). Section 4. Sections 1 and 3 above shall not go into effect until Closing on the purchase and sale of Lot 4 pursuant to the Purchase Agreement. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this _______ day of ____________, 2014. TOWN OF ESTES PARK ________________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _____________________ Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at the meeting of the Board of Trustees on the ______ day of _______________, 2014, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the _____ day of _______________, 2014. ________________________________ Town Clerk Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Development 17.44.010 Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of the provisions contained in this Chapter are to: (1) Administer the historic resources of the Stanley Historic District in a manner that will preserve the integrity of their location, setting design, materials, workmanship and visual character; (2) Ensure that development in the foreground of the Stanley Hotel Complex does not destroy its essential historic character, or lessen its ability to conduct an economically viable operation; and (3) Establish certain requirements that must be met before development within the Stanley Historic District is to be permitted. (Ord. 14-91 §1 Exhibit A (part), 1991) 17.44.020 Definitions. In addition to the definitions set forth in Section 17.08.030, the following definitions shall apply: (1) Designated open space means an area within development land reserved for common use and enjoyment as open space by the owners of the remainder of the development land, designated as such on the development plat. It shall not include streets, driveways or parking areas, but it shall include walkways and unpaved natural or landscaped recreation areas. (2) Stanley Historic District means an area of approximately seventy-five (75) acres depicted in the boundary map described as Exhibit A, available at the Town Clerk's office, containing within it the historic resources of the Stanley Hotel District as listed on the National Register of Historic Places. (3) Stanley Hotel Complex means the group of original Stanley buildings, including the main hotel, the Manor House and Stanley Hall. (Ord. 14-91 §1 Exht. A (part), 1991; Ord. 15-97, 1997) (4) Lot 4 shall mean Lot 4, Plat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Stanley Historic District Subdivision of a portion of Tracts 4 and 5, Stanley Addition to Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. 17-1 17.44.030 Creation; properties included. The Stanley Historic District (the "District") is hereby created. The District shall include the following described properties: A tract of land located in Section 19, T5N, R72W of the 6th P.M., and Section 24, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more particularly described as: Tract 4 and Tract 5 of the Stanley Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, except those portions of said Tract 4 and said Tract 5 contained within Stanley Hills Subdivision (a plat on file in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder in Book 1758 at Page 566). (Ord. 14-91 §1 Exht. A (part), 1991) 17.44.40 Applicability of chapter provisions. (a) The procedures and standards set forth in this Chapter shall apply to any use, development, redevelopment or exterior alteration or expansion of property within the Stanley Historic District. Special review is not required for normal maintenance and rehabilitation of the Stanley Hotel Complex buildings and other buildings after construction. (b) Only uses permitted by right or by special review in the zoning districts underlying the historic district shall be permitted in their respective portions of the Stanley Historic District; except that mobile home parks, recreational vehicle parks, commercial storage (including self-storage) operations, light manufacturing and product assembly, motor vehicle service stations, motor vehicle dealerships or repair operations, commercial amusements including but not limited to Go-kart tracks, water slides, miniature golf courses and maze, commercial kennels and adult uses shall not be permitted. (c) Provisions of the zoning districts underlying the Stanley Historic District shall apply within their respective areas, unless superseded by the provisions of this Chapter. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Chapter and any other provision of this Code, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply. (Ord. 14-91 §1 Exht. A (part), 1991; Ord. 15-97, 1997) 17.44.50 Review procedures for development plans. (a) Development plan review in accord with the provisions of Section 17.36.010 of this Titlethe Estes Valley Development Code shall be required for all development, regardless of size, within the Stanley Historic District. Special review pursuant to the Estes Valley Development Code shall be required for all developments five thousand (5,000) square feet or larger, in accordance with Section 17.36.030. Where special review is required, submission of a concept plan shall be required in all cases, and approval of the concept plan shall precede submission of the development plan. Prior to submitting a concept plan, the applicant shall have a preapplication conference with the Community Development Director. Applications for a development plan or special review shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in Estes Valley Development Code. (b) Both the concept plan and development plan shall conform to the specifications of Section 17.36.040. The development plan and special review shall conform to the applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. (c) Concept plan submittals shall also Development plan and special review submittals shall include the following: 17-2 (1) Four (4) photographic panoramic views showing the site from the perimeter of the property on ninety-degree compass intervals, or as otherwise specified by the Director (one [1] set); (2) Identical panoramic views to those specified above, with the addition of the building structure superimposed to scale on the photographs (one [1] set); and (3) Overall landscape concept. Four (4) elevations of the structure with the elevation referenced to USGS datum, of the following features: existing ground surfaces, finished grade, top of the foundation, floor elevation, roof line and the highest point on the structure; (4) Floor plans; (5) Color and texture samples of all exterior materials with combinations of materials and colors shown as they will appear in the finished building (one (1) set); (6) A colored architectural rendering for Town records, or a color photograph of a rendering (eight and one-half by eleven inches [8½" x 11"]); (7) A lighting plan indicating all exterior lights, their style, intensity and location; and (3)(8) A landscaping plan at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20') or larger, containing property lines, dimensions, structures, existing natural features, final grading plan with existing and proposed topography, a plant specification list identifying botanical and common names, keyed to the plan, transplanting method, sizes at planting and maturity and quantities. (d) Development plan or special review application shall be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer of the Historical Society of Colorado for review and comment. Comments of the Historical Society shall be made public.submittals shall also include the following: (1) Four (4) photographic panoramic views showing the site from the perimeter of the property on ninety-degree compass intervals, or as otherwise specified by the Director (one [1] set); (2) Identical panoramic views to those specified above, with the addition of the building structure superimposed to scale on the photographs (one [1] set); (3) Four (4) elevations of the structure with the elevation referenced to USGS datum, of the following features: existing ground surfaces, finished grade, top of foundation, floor elevation, roof line and the highest point on the structure; (4) Floor plans; (5) Color and texture samples of all exterior materials with combinations of materials and colors shown as they will appear in the finished building (one [1] set); (6) A colored architectural rendering for Town records, or a color photograph of a rendering (eight and one-half by eleven inches [8½" x 11"]); (7) A lighting plan indicating all exterior lights, their style, intensity and location; and (8) A landscaping plan at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20') or larger, 17-3 containing property lines, dimensions, structures, existing natural features, final grading plan with existing and proposed topography, a plant specification list identifying botanical and common names, keyed to the plan, transplanting method, sizes at planting and maturity and quantities. (9) (10) Both the concept plan and development plan shall be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer of the Historical Society of Colorado for review and comment. Comments of the Historical Society shall be made public. (Ord. 14-91 §1 Exht. A (part), 1991; Ord. 15-97, 1997) 17.44.60 Design and performance standards. (a) Designated building envelopes and view corridors. (1) Development shall maintain the existing views of the main Stanley Hotel building and of the Manor House building from Highway 36 from its intersection with Highway 7 to its intersection with Highway 34. (2) Development shall maintain the view of the main Stanley Hotel building from the Visitors' Center entrance deck, taking into account all authorized development in Stanley Village. (3) Design and performance standards are contained in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan, development agreements and final plat on file at the Community Development Department. (4) Incorporated by reference and available at the Town Clerk's office are the following exhibits: a. Exhibit B (pages 1, 2, 3): Map of View Corridors; and b. Exhibit C: Photographs of the View Corridor to the Stanley Hotel. (b) Open space. The minimum designated open space for all development parcels in the Stanley Historic District shall be thirty percent (30%) of the total parcel area. (c) Site design. (1) Buildings shall be designed to follow natural contours. (2) Retaining walls over six (6) feet tall shall be stepped to form benches, with a minimum width of four (4) feet, which shall be landscaped. (3) Service functions shall not be visible on the primary facades of buildings or in front yard areas. Trash and service areas shall be screened with landscaping, berming, fencing or combinations. (4) Parking shall be located to the rear of buildings or screened. Double parking bays shall be separated by a landscaped area, a minimum of five (5) feet in width. Parking areas shall be depressed into the ground, stepped on sloping terrain with berming and landscaping provided to screen the parking from off-site view from the Highway 36 corridor and from the Stanley Hotel complex. (5) A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the interior of a parking area that exceeds ten (10) spaces shall be landscaped with trees and shrubs. (6) Underground parking. The Planning Commission may approve an increase in the floor 17-4 area ratio from twenty-five percent (25%) to thirty percent (30%) with the provision of below- grade parking, provided that a building is placed over it, or the grade surface is reclaimed as landscaped open space. (7) Cut and fill slopes shall be revegetated. Rock cuts shall be treated to create a natural appearance simulating the original patina. (8) Pedestrian circulation. An integrated pedestrian pathway system shall be provided for each development. It shall be attractively landscaped and adequately illuminated with connection at property lines to existing or appropriate future public pathways, clearly separated from vehicular roadways where possible, with access provided where feasible to usable open space. (d) Building design. (1) Height. Building height shall not exceed thirty (30) feet, unless a greater height is authorized on special review in accordance with Section 17.20.050. (2) New buildings shall not imitate the historic style of the Stanley Hotel Complex. (3) The following architectural styles and motifs are prohibited: a. A-frame structures; b. Geodesic dome structures; c. Tudor; d. Swiss chalet; e. Rustic frontier, western town; f. Franchise, fast-food or chain architecture; g. Mediterranean; and h. American Southwest adobe. (4) Roof lines shall be designed to be compatible with the Stanley Hotel Complex and shall have a minimum pitch of four to twelve (4:12). The following roof forms are prohibited: a. Mansard or fake mansard; b. Gambrel roofs; c. Curvilinear roofs; d. Domed roofs; e. Geodesic domes; f. Conical roofs; g. A-frames or modified A-frame roofs; and h. Flat roofs. 17-5 (5) Roof materials and colors shall blend with the natural background. Roof color is limited to a maximum chroma of 4 on the Munsell color notation system. Preferred materials are shingles, slate or standing seam metal roofs. The following roofing materials are prohibited: a. Untreated metal or aluminum, except for copper allowed to weather; b. Reflective materials; and c. Red roofs and other brightly colored roofing materials such as bright blue, yellow or other highly visible colors. (6) Mechanical equipment on roofs shall be hidden so that it is not visible from off-site. (7) Skylights and solar panels must be designed to fit within a maximum of two (2) feet above the roof's surface and incorporated as an integral part of the building's design. Skylights and panels shall be tinted to blend with the roof. (8) Facades. a. Facade lengths shall be varied by providing changes in the planes of walls, changing direction and providing variety in roof form. Structures greater than sixty (60) feet but less than one hundred twenty (120) feet in length on any facade must provide a prominent shift in the facade of the structure so that no greater than seventy-five percent (75%) of the length of the building facade appears unbroken. Each shift shall be in the form of either a ten-foot change in building facade alignment or a ten-foot change in roof line height, or a combined change in facade and roof line totaling ten (10) feet. b. Structures which exceed one hundred twenty (120) feet in length on any facade shall provide a prominent shift in the mass of the structure at each one-hundred-twenty-foot interval (or less), reflecting a change in function or scale. The shift shall be in the form of either a fifteen-foot change in the building facade alignment, or a combination of a change in both the roof line and facade at the same building plane a total of fifteen (15) feet (see Attachment D to Ordinance 14-91, on file in the office of the Town Clerk). (9) Building materials. a. Buildings shall be constructed of natural materials such as finished wood, brick, stone and architectural block. Hardboard may be permitted, provided that it is replicated to resemble finished wood. Buildings shall be designed so that all sides and service areas are coordinated in design, finish and appearance with their principal facades. b. The following wall materials are prohibited: 1. Heavy shakes; 2. Ceramic tiles; 3. Slump block and weeping mortar; 4. Plastic or vinyl siding, smooth plywood siding and aluminum siding; 5. Synthetic stone products; 6. Pre-cast stone or concrete imbedded with stone fragments; 17-6 7. Asphalt siding; 8. Flat concrete block; and 9. Highly reflective glass surfaces. (10) Wall colors. a. Exterior wall colors should recede into the landscape. White walls are not permitted. Harshly contrasting color combinations are not permitted. Brilliant, luminescent and/or day- glow colors are not permitted. b. Color choices for all buildings within the District shall be made from those allowed within the range delineated according to the Munsell Color Notation System from the Munsell Book of Color on display in the Community Development Department. c. The Munsell system of color notation is broken into three (3) categories: hue, chroma and value. Chroma is the only characteristic with a set limit, which is as follows: body color is limited to a maximum chroma of 4. Trim color is limited to a maximum chroma of 6. Accent color is limited to a maximum chroma of 8. d. The number of colors used on one (1) structure is limited to three (3). This does not include specifically appropriate additional colors for such elements as window sashes, porch floors, ceiling half-timbers or roof coverings. e. If three (3) colors are used, the color that covers the most building area is the body; the color covering the second most building area is the trim and the color covering the least building area is the accent color. f. If two (2) colors are used, the color covering the lesser area is the trim color for purposes of regulating maximum chroma. g. If a different value or chroma of the same hue is used, this is considered a separate color. h. All exterior elements of a building that are metal, such as flue, flashings, etc., shall be painted a flat, dark color, or one that is a compatible color with the building. (11) Lighting. a. Exterior lighting shall be arranged and directed so as to create no glare off-site. Lighting with low-intensity sources close to the area requiring illumination is required. Lighting levels shall be reduced after 10:00 p.m. b. A standard lighting fixture shall be used within the District. For all exterior, freestanding lights, this fixture will be specified by the Planning Commission. (12) Lot 4 a. Design of buildings located on Lot 4 shall comply with the requirements of Sections 17.44.060 (f)(4)(a) and (b) of Chapter 17.44 of the Municipal Code. b. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the Sections 17.44.060 (f)(4)(a) and (b) and any other provision of Chapter 17.44, the provisions of Sections 17.44.060 (f)(4)(a) and (b) shall apply to buildings on Lot 4. 17-7 c. Design of buildings located on Lot 4 shall not be required to comply with the following provisions of Chapter 17.44: 17.44.060 (d)(2), 17.44.060(d)(5), and 17.44.060.(d)(10). 17-8 ORDINANCE NO. 6-14 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REZONE LOT 4 OF THE STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, Lot 4, Plat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Stanley Historic District Subdivision of a portion of Tracts 4 and 5, Stanley Addition to Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado (“Lot 4”) is owned by the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (“Town”); and WHEREAS, the Town has entered into a Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate dated January 10, 2014 (“Purchase Agreement”) in which the Town, subject to a favorable vote of the electors on such sale at its regular municipal election to be held on April 1, 2014, has agreed to sell Lot 4 to the Grand Heritage Hotel Group, LLC (“Buyer”) for the purpose of its development of a project with two principal uses (the “Project”): (i) a medical wellness center (as such center is defined in the Purchase Agreement) intended to be operated by the Park Hospital District DBA Estes Park Medical Center (“Wellness Center”); and (ii) an accommodations use providing hotel rooms and guest services primarily to serve the clients and staff of the Wellness Center to be owned and operated by the Grand Heritage Hotel Group, LLC or one of its subsidiaries; and WHEREAS, as a part of the development plan application for the Project, the Buyer has requested a change in zoning of Lot 4 from its current zoning of CO – Commercial Outlying to A – Accommodations pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code in order to receive development plan approval for the Project; and WHEREAS, on February 18, 2014, the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended to the Town Board that the zoning of Lot 4 be changed from CO – Commercial Outlying to A – Accommodations as part of its review of the Project; and WHEREAS, the sale of Lot 4 pursuant to the Purchase Agreement is contingent upon approval of the sale at the April 1, 2014, Municipal Election and closing of the Purchase and Sale of Lot 4 (the “Closing”) in accordance with the provisions of the Purchase Agreement; and WHEREAS, the recommended change of zoning classification of CO – Commercial Outlying to A – Accommodations shall be contingent upon the Closing of the Sale of Lot 4 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the recommended zoning change be granted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The zoning Lot 4, Plat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Stanley Historic District Subdivision of a portion of Tracts 4 and 5, Stanley Addition to Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado (“Lot 4”) shall be changed from CO - Commercial Outlying to A - Accommodations. Section 2: Section 1 shall not go into effect until Closing on the purchase and sale of Lot 4 pursuant to the Purchase Agreement. Section 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 regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the ___ day of __________, 2014 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the _day of _______ , 2014, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Dave Shirk, Senior Planner Date: February 25, 2014 RE: Development Application Package – EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center, Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, TBD Steamer Parkway, Grand Heritage Hotel Group, LLC/Applicant. Objective: Review of an amended plat, code amendments, and special review of development plan regarding the proposed EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center. Present Situation: Lot 4 was created with the Stanley Historic District subdivision plat in 1994. The property is undeveloped, except for an old road, a horse trail, and social paths through the site connecting to Stanley Village. The site consists of open grassland areas, with several existing trees, most of which would be kept through the site design. Stormwater from the Stanley Hotel complex sheet-flows across the site. Proposal: This is a request for approval to develop the 6.88-acre Stanley Historic District Lot 4 with the proposed EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center. The wellness center will be a facility with integrated programs and operations focused on promoting wellness through lifestyle changes, physical fitness and training, nutrition and medical/personal care treatment, together with an accommodations use. There are two principal uses proposed: Hotel and Treatment Facility. These uses require the property be rezoned from commercial to accommodations use. Three buildings are proposed, one of which is described as ‘future phase’ accommodations with no definite timeframe (no plans for this building have been submitted). The other two buildings would include a fitness center, and an accommodations structure with integrated lecture hall, treatment facilities, and nutrition center. The submitted plans are not specific as to what treatment facilities, nutrition center are. The site is designed such that buildings would front Steamer Parkway, with parking between the buildings and upper Stanley Village. The accommodations building would shield the Stanley Hotel from the back of Stanley Village. The design would maximize distance between the commercial accommodations use and nearby single-family residential development to the north and east. The applicant proposes to use a platted no-built area for the accommodations building, and dedicate the eastern portion of the lot as open space. This requires an amended plat. The design includes an integrated pedestrian system, as required by both the development code and the Stanley Historic District guidelines. The proposal includes several components: (1) An ordinance to amend the Estes Park Municipal Code, regarding architectural standards in the Stanley Historic District; (2) an ordinance to rezone Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District from CO-Commercial Outlying to A-Accommodations; (3) an amended plat to dedicate easements and vacate a ‘no- build’ line; and, (4) Special Review of a development plan describing the proposed development. The applicant requests modifications to the architectural guidelines to allow the buildings to resemble the Stanley Hotel; this is typically not allowed in the Stanley Historic District. The Planning Commission report is attached. This report provides a more detailed description of the project. On Tuesday February 18, 2014, the Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public meeting to discuss the EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center project. At that time, the Planning Commission found: 1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan and the Downtown area plan. The application advances several Community-Wide policies, as delineated in the Staff report. 2. The application for the proposed Special Review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment. 3. The amended plat complies with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10 “Subdivision Standards.” 4. The amended plat and associated development satisfy the purpose and intent of the open space and view protection guidelines described in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan 5. The proposed code amendments are necessary to address changes in areas affected. There are significant changes in the area since the adoption of the land use plan and development code. 6. The proposed code amendments are compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the comprehensive plan. 7. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. 8. The application complies with Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Standards for Development regarding: view corridors; open space; site design; pedestrian circulation; and signs. 9. The request to exceed the Stanley Historic District maximum allowed building of 30- feet is allowed through special review approval, and complies with Section 1.9.E.2 Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes. 10. The application does not comply with Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Standards for Development regarding building design: red roof, white walls, building facades, and conical roof. The proposed code amendments would provide compliance to these standards. 11. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the Review Discussion in the staff report 12. This is a Planning Commission recommendation is to the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park. 13. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Board agenda. Placement on the February 25th Town Board agenda requires a February 19 submittal of a revised application that fully satisfies all conditions of approval. Advantages:  Compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code and Comprehensive Plan.  Infill development of up to 82-accommodations units and wellness center.  Would expand base industry.  Would provide approximately 40 new jobs.  Expanded tax base and increased permit fee revenue. Disadvantages:  Would fragment elk winter habitat.  Would decrease potential open space by 6.88 acres. Action Recommended: The Planning Commission recommends unanimous APPROVAL CONDITIONAL TO: 1. April 1st voter approval to allow sale of Lot 4. 2. All parking shall be constructed with Phase I. 3. Architecture: a. Buildings shall be stepped, as demonstrated on Sheet A5.0. b. Sign: The stone base shall match the stone used in other structures on the property and other free-standing monument signs. 4. The plan must demonstrate compliance with Section 5.1.J Hotels regarding amount of gross floor area for non-living quarters (staff note: condition satisfied). 5. The emergency access lane shall be reduced to 20-foot in width, include a roll-over curb, and a concrete sidewalk. (staff note: condition satisfied). 6. The traffic circle shall be widened to the maximum extent feasible. (staff note: condition satisfied). 7. Traffic study shall be revised to comply with CDOT requests. (staff note: condition satisfied). 8. MUTCD wildlife crossing signs are required on Wonderview Avenue, near the crossing between Lot 5 and the Knoll-Willows. Design and location shall be determined by staff during Construction Plan approval. 9. Landscaping Plan: a. Landscaping plan shall accommodate elk migration, with trees focused close to buildings and parking areas, with outlying areas kept natural grasslands (with irrigation). b. Landscaping of mechanical areas, trash enclosures, loading areas, and parking lot perimeter shall be installed with construction of the initial hotel. c. Comply with Section 7.8.G.1.b Non-Native Vegetation applies. 10. Building facades shall be revised to comply with EPMC 17.44.060(d)(8) “Facades.” Compliance shall be demonstrated prior to March 18, 2014. 11. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Community Development dated February 4, 2014. b. Public Works dated January 31, 2014 c. Light and Power dated January 29, 2014. d. Water Department (Jeff Boles, Cliff Tedder, Steve Rusch) dated February 3, 2014. e. Estes Valley Fire Protection District dated January 31, 2014. f. Estes Park Sanitation District dated (James Duell) January 30, 2014. g. CDOT (Timothy Bilobran) dated January 28, 2014. h. CPW dated January 29, 2014. The Development Review Team met to discuss submitted revisions on Thursday February 20, 2014, and found the plans comply with agency comments. Budget:  Sale of Lot 4 would provide $1.65 million revenue to Town.  Generate approximately $200,000 in fees for construction  Generate approximately $200,000 annually in sales tax revenue Level of Public Interest: High Approximately 70-75 people attended the Planning Commission meeting. Twelve people spoke at the Planning Commission. Sample Motions: I move for the approval/denial of Ordinance #05-14, amending the Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.44 regarding architectural standards in the Stanley Historic District. I move for the approval/denial of Ordinance #06-14, rezoning from CO-Commercial Outlying to A-Accommodations with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. I move for the approval/denial of the amended plat, to remove the no-build line and dedicate easements, subject to the findings and conditions recommended by staff. I move for the approval/denial of Special Review 2014-01, to construct an accommodation facility and wellness center, subject to the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Attachments: Site and architectural plans; Draft Planning Commission minutes; Planning Commission staff report; , Certificate of Compliance with conditions, Agency Comments; aerial photo; zoning map; visual analysis RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 February 18, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Charley Dickey, Kathy Bowers, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Dickey, Bowers, Hills and Murphree Also Attending: Director Chilcott, Senior Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Elrod, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Commissioner Sykes 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 approximately 75 people in attendance. Chair Hull explained the purpose of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and stated public comment is invaluable. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public comment at today’s meeting. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, January 21, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. B. Amended Plat & Minor Modification of Lot 6, Prospect Mountain Subdivision, 570 Devon Drive; Franz & Carol Peterson, Owners/Applicants It was moved and seconded (Klink/Dickey) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. EPMC/ANSCHUTZ WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER, Lot 4, Stanley Historic District; TBD Steamer Parkway NOTE: Due to the length of the staff report for this project, and the need to transcribe the minutes as soon as possible, the staff report has been included as an official part of the minutes. The Town Board is scheduled to make final decisions on this project next Tuesday, February 25, 2014. Planner Shirk stated the proposal was the development of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, to include accommodations units, and a proposed wellness center/treatment facility. The applicant is Grand Heritage Hotel Group, LLC, owner of the Stanley Hotel. The applicant proposes to construct a structure containing fifty (50) accommodations units, reception area, lecture hall, and the treatment/nutrition center. A second building would house the wellness center. Phase II of the project would include an additional thirty-two (32) accommodations units. The site will include 30% open space, with lot coverage being 37%, both complying with the proposed underlying zone district standards. The property is zoned CO–Commercial Outlying, with the Stanley Hotel property zoned A–Accommodations. Stanley Village Shopping Center, directly east of Lot 4, is zoned CO–Commercial Outlying. The applicant proposes to amend the zoning map so Lot 4 will be zoned A–Accommodations aligning with the Stanley Hotel complex. The surrounding areas contain single-family residential areas to the north and east, multi-family residential areas to the south and west, and the Knoll-Willows open space across Wonderview Avenue to the south. Planner Shirk stated there is an approximate 60-foot elevation drop from the main hotel to the southwest corner of the lot. Lot 5, adjacent to Lot 4 on the southwest side, is owned by the Town of Estes Park and has been placed in a conservation easement. Planner Shirk stated the design includes an emergency access lane on Steamer Drive, which would be closed to traffic except in an emergency. All traffic would be routed via Steamer Parkway. The proposed parking areas would lie behind the structures, complying with guidelines of the Stanley Historic District. Proposed loading docks would be somewhat screened by the structures, complying with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Several bicycle racks would be installed on the property. There have been some minor design changes to the structures, which will be included in the revised plans to be submitted RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 February 18, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall prior to the Town Board meeting. These include changes to the semi-conical roof, variations to the exterior walls to create offsets, etc. Planner Shirk stated the project was reviewed to determine how it interacts with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Please refer to page six (6) of the staff report for detailed information. He stated accommodations use is a sub-category of commercial development. Planner Shirk reviewed the code amendments that would be applicable to this project. Please refer to page eight (8) of the staff report for detailed information. This section also includes information pertaining to the proposed uses as they relate to the use classifications in the EVDC. Planner Shirk reviewed the proposed amended plat, which would remove a platted “non- development area” located on the western portion of the lot. Please refer to page 11 of the staff report for additional information, including some history behind the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. The applicant proposes to use the platted non-development area for the hotel/lecture hall/treatment facility, and has designated the eastern triangular area (near True Value and Dad’s Laundry in Upper Stanley Village) as open space. Planner Shirk stated the proposed project complies with the view corridors as required in Section 17.44.060(a) of the Estes Park Municipal Code (EPMC). The applicant and staff conducted separate analyses surrounding the view corridors; both came to the same conclusion that the proposed view corridors comply with the code. Planner Shirk explained the Special Review process, stating special reviews are development plans that include uses that, by their nature, have potential impact on surrounding properties. Because of this potential, these uses require Town Board approval. Special Review uses require “the application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment.” Additional information concerning the special review process can be found on page 16 of the staff report. Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. Notices to adjacent property owners extended far beyond the 500-foot requirement, to include those property owners with a view of the Stanley Hotel. Details concerning affected agency comments are on page 17 of the staff report. Significant comments included: (1) Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) requested and received a revised traffic study to examine traffic volume, and determined no off-site improvements would be necessary for this proposed development; (2) Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) expressed concern regarding the fragmentation of habitat, human/bear conflicts, and possible increase in accidents between wildlife and vehicles. Vehicle conflicts could be addressed with signage near the existing open space areas (Lot 5 and Knoll-Willows) that will likely receive additional grazing; and (3) The State Historic Preservation Officer provided several comments (page 18 of the staff report) and stated “the variation of construction techniques and detailing meets the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines for new work in historic contexts.” Planner Shirk reviewed the application for compliance with other areas of the EVDC, including but not limited to building height, pedestrian amenities and linkage requirements, grading and site disturbance, landscaping, stormwater drainage, exterior lighting, outdoor storage areas, etc. He stated staff recommended all parking areas be completed with Phase I. Findings 1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan and the Downtown area plan. The application advances several Community-Wide policies, as delineated in the staff report. 2. The application for the proposed Special Review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 February 18, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3. The amended plat complies with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10 “Subdivision Standards.” 4. The amended plat and associated development satisfy the purpose and intent of the open space and view protection guidelines described in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. 5. The proposed code amendments are necessary to address changes in areas affected. There are significant changes in the area since the adoption of the land use plan and development code. 6. The proposed code amendments are compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the comprehensive plan. 7. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. 8. The application complies with the Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Standards for Development regarding: view corridors; open space; site design; pedestrian circulation; and signs. 9. The request to exceed the Stanley Historic District maximum allowed building height of thirty (30) feet is allowed through special review approval, and complies with Section 1.9.E.2 Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes. 10. The application does not comply with Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Standards for Development regarding building design: red roof, white walls, building facades, and conical roof. The proposed code amendments would provide compliance to these standards. NOTE: After the completion of the staff report, the applicant revised the plans of the conical roof to be compliant with the EPMC. 11. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the Review Discussion in the staff report. 12. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park. 13. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Town Board agenda. Placement on the February 25, 2014 Town Board agenda requires a February 19, 2014 submittal of a revised application that fully satisfies all conditions of approval. Staff and Commission Discussion None Applicant Presentation John Cullen/applicant congratulated Senior Planner Shirk and Town staff for the extraordinary effort put forth by Town staff and others involved in the review. If the sale of Lot 4 is approved by voters on April 1st, he anticipates construction of the first building to commence in early September, 2014. Estes Park Medical Center will have a two-year window to begin construction on the wellness center. He assured the Commission that if the hospital did not construct the wellness center, he would. He made a promise to the community that this project would be completed. The wellness center would be a benefit to the economic viability of the medical center, and he was honored to be working with them and the Anschutz organization on this project. Brian Herwig/Estes Park Medical Center CEO applauded staff, the engineers, and architects on the project. He stated it was very important to the hospital to stabilize their finances at a time when reimbursements are declining. He was committed to provide great healthcare to the community, which would be difficult without a new stream of revenue. Mr. Herwig mentioned a recent study completed by the Economic Development Committee, and stated this would be a great boost for the hospital and the community. He appreciated the cooperation and collaboration with the Stanley Hotel. Lucia Liley/applicant representative was pleased to present the project to the Commission. She acknowledged the hard work of Town staff, attorney, and referral agencies. The process has been successful due to in-depth discussion and dialogue that ultimately improved the project. She stated the goal of their proposal was to meet all the Town’s applicable requirements, and was obligated to be very clear about what the project is and is not. She RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 February 18, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall stated the rezoning request would make the proposed development a continuation of the Stanley Hotel use. She stated the project fit in very well with the Comprehensive Plan guidelines, particularly the economic vision statements. Concerning the amended plat to remove the no-build line, she stated three main reasons: 1) Lot 4 is very irregularly shaped, creating a challenge for building construction; 2) It is important to have a large buffer between the proposed buildings and nearest residential neighborhoods; and 3) The highest concentration of existing trees and shrubs are on the northeastern portion of the lot; removing the no-build line would allow those to remain. Additionally, the historic Odie’s Trail would be dedicated on the plat as a permanent public trail. She clarified the proposed buildings would not impact the view corridors, the development would comply with the 30% open space requirement, which could not include parking lots, sidewalks, emergency access lanes, etc. The proposed open space will be compact and contiguous. She stated there would be another 10% qualified open space on the western portion of the lot (adjacent to Lot 5). Ms. Liley stated the applicant wanted to ensure the buildings would complement and be compatible with the Stanley Hotel. This was the reason for the amendment to the EPMC. The project would be functionally and visually integrated into the Stanley Hotel complex. She stated there were some technical portions of the development plan that were not complete, but would be addressed with staff and agencies as soon as possible. She stated the applicant was willing to comply with the conditions of approval. David Bangs/project engineer stated there were multiple meetings with the Public Works Department regarding the stormwater drainage plan. Discussions revolved around conceptual design standards to detain the stormwater on site and release it into the existing drainage systems located at the downstream end of Stanley Village Shopping Center. Calculations are being finalized and a full report will be submitted on Wednesday, February 19, 2014. He provided an additional document (posted on the website as Additional Open Space Exhibit A) outlining the additional open space adjacent to Lot 5 previously mentioned by Ms. Liley. Any technical questions should be directed to Mr. Bangs. Barry Smith/corporate architect for applicant stated the proposed development was an opportunity for Lot 4 to be part of the downtown area. Ideally, dense projects are placed in areas where they already exist, so this location would be an integral part of downtown and would create a symbiotic relationship with the downtown area. Mr. Smith was supportive of the amended plat in order to be able to move the open space to the eastern portion of the lot, where it was better suited. He reiterated the new buildings would not impact the view corridors to the Stanley Hotel and Manor House. Concerning the conditions of approval, he stated revisions would be made to comply with the conditions. Additional research would be conducted on wildlife habitat and migration to ensure the open areas are wildlife-friendly. Mr. Smith stated the architectural design of the new buildings would be compatible without being imposing on the original historic development, and the development would be a year-round facility. Public Comment Kent Smith/Town resident stated he reviewed the Secretary of the Interior’s rule on historic preservation, and determined there was enough architectural change to comply with the rule. Arthur Blume/Town resident objected to removing the no-build line. He stated building in that area would not allow wildlife to roam freely in the area and their habitat would be fragmented. Johanna Darden/Town resident stated the Town Board did not have the legal right to approve development applications on property not owned by the applicant. She stated the rezoning request should not be allowed if the applicant does not own the land in question, and discouraged the Planning Commission from recommending approval to the Town Board. Her written comments were placed on the Town web site. Phil Moenning/County resident supported the staff report, findings, recommendations, and conditions of approval. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 February 18, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Chris Reveley/Town resident acknowledged Mr. Cullen for making the Stanley Hotel economically successful. However, he was opposed to the development of Lot 4. Ed Hayek/Town resident encouraged the Planning Commission to not require the entire parking area be completed with Phase I, stating the parking areas could be built as needed with future development of the property. He recommended having an access agreement to allow public use of the social trail on the property, stating this existing trail is heavily used by residents of the nearby neighborhood. He encouraged the Commissioners to pay close attention to the building heights to limit view corridor impacts, and was opposed to any height in excess of thirty feet. Sherry Ruth/Town resident stated the Estes Valley is surrounded by open space and wildlife. The loss of the no-build area would not have a negative impact, and she supported the project. Steve Thorn/County resident supported the rezoning from CO to A, stating the approval of the rezoning would allow the development to align more with the Stanley Hotel than the Stanley Village Shopping Center. Bill Ruth/Town resident was supportive of the amended plat, stating open space would still be maintained on the lot, just in a different location. View corridors would be preserved. Susan Wolf/County resident encouraged the Commissioners to consider the view impacts from Lake Estes. Greg Millikan/Town resident supported the development and looked forward to a view better than the back of Safeway. He stated the view shed is 360 degrees, not just uphill towards the hotel. He was concerned as to whether the allowance of white exterior walls and red roofs would extend to other areas of the Stanley Historic District. Anne Morris/County supported the project. She appreciated the designs being complimentary to the historic architecture of the hotel, and thought the view from the Stanley Hotel to the southeast would be greatly improved with the approval of this development. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Town Attorney White stated the applications presented today are all contingent on the closing of the sale of Lot 4. The decisions made by Planning Commission and Town Board would not go into effect until the transaction closes. He stressed the importance of voting on April 1st to determine whether or not Lot 4 is sold to the applicant. Planner Shirk stated staff recommended all parking areas be completed at the same time. They could be phased in, but staff would need to be ensured that Phase I would have adequate parking. Mr. Cullen added he would prefer to begin construction of Phase II immediately following Phase I, and was not concerned about phasing the parking areas. Planner Shirk stated staff recommended approval of all aspects of the proposed EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center, including: 1. The rezoning of Lot 4 from CO–Commercial Outlying to A–Accommodations 2. The amended plat of Lot 4 3. Special Review of the Development Plan (SR 2014-01) 4. Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to provide a three-year approval period 5. Amendment to the Estes Park Municipal Code to permit the buildings to be compatible with the colors and architecture of the Stanley Hotel; and, subject to the following: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 February 18, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Conditions of Approval 1. April 1, 2014 voter approval to allow sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District 2. All parking shall be constructed with Phase I 3. Architecture a. Buildings shall be stepped, as demonstrated on Sheet A5.0 b. Sign: The stone base shall match the stone used in other structures on the property and other free-standing monument signs 4. The plan must demonstrate compliance with Section 5.1.J Hotels regarding amount of gross floor area for non-living quarters. 5. The emergency access lane shall be reduced to 20-feet in width, include a roll-over curb and a concrete sidewalk. 6. The traffic circle shall be widened to the maximum extent feasible. NOTE: After completion of the staff report, the traffic circle was widened approximately five feet and will now accommodate a large van or small bus. 7. Traffic study shall be revised to comply with CDOT requests. NOTE: After completion of the staff report, the applicant made the necessary revisions and the study now complies with the CDOT standards. 8. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) wildlife crossing signs are required on Wonderview Avenue, near the crossing between Lot 5 and the Knoll-Willows open space. Design and location shall be determined by staff during Construction Plan approval process. 9. Landscaping Plan: a. Landscaping plan shall accommodate elk migration, with trees focused close to buildings and parking areas, with outlying areas kept natural grasslands (with irrigation) b. Landscaping of mechanical areas, trash enclosures, loading areas, and parking lot perimeter shall be installed with construction of the initial hotel. c. Comply with Section 7.78.G.1.b Non-Native Vegetation applies. 10. Building plans shall be revised to comply with EPMC 17.44.060(d)(8) “Facades.” Compliance shall be demonstrated prior to March 18, 2014. 11. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Community Development dated February 4, 2014. b. Public Works dated January 31, 2014. c. Light and Power dated January 29, 2014. d. Water Department (Jeff Boles, Cliff Tedder, Steve Rusch) dated February 3, 2014. e. Estes Valley Fire Protection District dated January 31, 2014. f. Estes Park Sanitation District (James Duell) dated January 30, 2014. g. CDOT (Timothy Bilobran) dated January 28, 2014. h. CPW dated January 29, 2014. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to recommend approval of rezoning Lot 4 from CO– Commercial Outlying to A–Accommodations to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. It was moved and seconded (Bowers/Murphree) to recommend approval of the amendments to the Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapter 17.44, to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. It was moved and seconded (Hills/Bowers) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 4, removing the no-build line and dedicating easements, to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to recommended approval of Special Review 2014- 01, EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center, to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 February 18, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Chair Hull called a five minute recess. The meeting reconvened at 3:35. 4. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE – Sections 3.3E, 3.5C, & 3.6D Commissioner Klink recused himself from this item and left the dais. Town Attorney White stated the proposed amendment to the development code was not being proposed specifically because of EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center. However, if approved, it may be applicable to that project. He explained the EVDC currently provides that approved development and variance applications must start construction within one year of approval, or the approval will be null and void. The proposed amendment would change the one year timeframe to three years. He supported the code amendment, stating it is often difficult for everything to come into place within one year after approval, especially on complex projects. Prior to the expiration, the applicant may request a two-year extension, which would require approval by the Town Board or County Commissioners. Additionally, there is a three year vesting period in the Colorado state statutes. The development code is not in alignment with the state statutes, and the Town would have problems if it needed to enforce the one-year approval timeframe. In regards to the Board of Adjustment, the approval period will remain at one year unless the variance approval is associated with a special review or development plan project. In that case, the approval would have three-year timeframe. The variance would ride with the project, so if the development plan approval would lapse, the variance approval would also lapse. In summary, Attorney White stated larger projects need more time, and the proposed amendment would provide for the needed time extension. Staff and Commission Discussion None It was moved and seconded (Bowers/Murphree) to recommend approval of the amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Sections 3.3.E, 3.5C, and 3.6.D regarding timeframe for lapses of approval to the Town Board of Trustees and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners and the motion passed 5-0, with one absent and Commissioner Klink not voting. Commissioner Klink returned to the dais. 5. REPORTS A. Senior Planner Shirk reported the Planning Commission will be reviewing the Estes Park Transit Center & Parking Structure on March 18, 2014. B. Senior Planner Shirk reported the Town Board agenda for February 25, 2014 will include The Sanctuary Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Stone Bridge Estates Supplemental Condominium Map #5, the Final Plat for Stone Bridge Estates Townhome Subdivision, and the EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center. C. Senior Planner Shirk reported the Estes Park Medical Center requested their proposal to expand the north parking lot be tabled until further notice. D. Director Chilcott reported six proposals were received for the Fall River Master Plan. A team reviewed the proposals and interviewed three finalists. Walsh Environmental Scientists & Engineers, LLC was chosen to implement their Fall River Master Plan. She also reported on a grant received by the Colorado Water Conservation Board for approximately $80,000 to apply towards a Fish Creek Master Plan. Staff will be working on obtaining matching funds before sending out a Request for Proposal (RFP). E. Commissioner Hills commented for the record how much she appreciated staff’s preparation for today’s meeting. Attorney White also acknowledge staff’s and the applicant’s good working relationship which eased a very complex application. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 February 18, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m. ___________________________________ Betty Hull, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE & LOCATION: February 18, 2014, 1:30 PM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue REQUEST: Review and approval for Code Amendments (rezoning, architectural standards), Amended Plat, and Special Review of Development Plan for the proposed EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center. LOCATION: Lot 4 Stanley Historic District; Address TBD Steamer Parkway (behind Safeway). OWNER: Town of Estes Park APPLICANT: Grand Heritage Hotel Group, LLC EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org Report Summary: This report describes the EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center proposed to be developed on Lot 4 in the Stanley Historic District. The proposed development includes lodging, treatment facilities, and a wellness/fitness center. The report includes several sections, each designed to stand-alone. The application package for Planning Commission review includes several components: (1) Request to rezone the property from CO-Commercial Outlying to A-Accommodations. (2) An amended plat to dedicate easements, and remove a platted ‘no-build area’ line. (3) Because the development is bigger than 5,000 square feet, Special Review of the Development Plan by the Town Board is required. (4) Request to amend the development code to provide a three-year timeframe to begin construction before expiration instead of the typical one-year timeframe required for Special Reviews. (5) Request to amend the Stanley Historic District architectural standards to permit the buildings to be compatible with the colors and architecture of the Stanley Hotel. The application has been reviewed for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code and the Stanley Historic District requirements outlined in the Estes Park Municipal Code (Section 17.44). Staff finds the application complies with the applicable regulations, with the exception of the requested amendments. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the application, subject to conditions described in the staff report. REPORT OVERVIEW: Staff has prepared one comprehensive report to address all components of the application. The report has been organized to allow readers to focus on specific issues of interest. 1. Site Data Table: This section includes parcel information such as lot size and zoning designations. 2. Project Description: This section provides a short description of the overall project, and does not describe details such as stormwater management, pedestrian circulation, or architectural requirements. These details are outlined in the Review Discussion. 3. Standards for Review: This section outlines standards for review applicable to the project. For example, development plans are required to comply with all applicable standards of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). 4. Comprehensive Plan: This section describes how the project relates to the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 5. Code Amendments: This section describes requested code amendments to Stanley District architectural standards, approval timeframes outlined in the EVDC, and the change of zoning district from CO-Commercial Outlying to A- Accommodations. 6. Amended Plat: This section focuses on the removal of the no-build line, an analysis of the purpose of the no-build area and the impact of removing the no-build line. 7. Special Review of the Development Plan: This section describes the required Special Review of the development plan. Special Review requires Town Board review and approval. 8. Reviewing Agency Comments: This section summarizes reviewing agency comments. 9. Review Discussion: This section includes an analysis of of specific regulations that apply to development of Lot 4. 10. Stanley Historic District Standards (17.44): This section provides a description of Stanley Historic District Design Guidelines, including site design, pedestrian circulation, building design, and signs. 11. Findings: This section summarizes the report into a series of findings. 12. Recommendation: This section includes the staff recommendation of approval and sample motion. 13. Attachments: Reviewing agency comments, aerial photo, use classification, view corridor analysis. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 2 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center SITE DATA TABLE: Primary Contact: Liley, Rogers and Martell (Lucia Liley, Fort Collins based land use attorney) Engineer: Van Horn Engineering (Lonnie Sheldon, David Bangs) Architect: Barry Smith (Portland Oregon, licensed to practice in Colorado) Parcel Number: 3524436904 Lot Area: 6.88 acres Existing Land Use: Undeveloped The parcel contains the remnants of the original entry drive to the Stanley Hotel, a portion of “Otie’s Trail,” and social trails connecting to Stanley Village. Proposed Land Uses: • Hotel/Motel • Treatment Facility (aka Wellness Center) Zoning Designation: Current: CO-Commercial Outlying Proposed: A-Accommodation Adjacent Zoning: East: R-Residential (1/4 acre single-family) North: • R-Residential • A-Accommodations West: CO-Commercial Outlying South: CO-Commercial Outlying Adjacent Land Uses: East: Single-family residential North: • Single-family residential • Hotel West: Undeveloped; (Lot 5; 1.5-acre Town-owned open space lot) South: Commercial Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Estes Park Sanitation District Open Space: Required: 30% Proposed: 30% Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowed: 50% Proposed: 37% Building: Square Footage: Hotel: 50-unit Accommodations 42,000 s.f. Lodge Room/Reception Area/Lecture Hall 4,200 s.f. Treatment/Nutrition Center 15,000 s.f. Sub-total: 61,200 s.f. Wellness Center: 13,000 s.f. Accommodations 2: 32-units Total Square Footage: 100,200 s.f Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 3 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Objective: Review of an amended plat, code amendments, and special review of development plan regarding the proposed EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center. Present Situation: Lot 4 was created with the Stanley Historic District subdivision plat in 1994. The property is undeveloped, except for an old road, a horse trail, and social paths through the site connecting to Stanley Village. The site consists of open grassland areas, with several existing trees, most of which would be kept through the site design. Stormwater from the Stanley Hotel complex sheet-flows across the site. Page 3 of the development plan graphically delineates existing conditions. Proposal: This is a request for approval to develop the 6.88-acre Stanley Historic District Lot 4 with the proposed EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center. The wellness center will be a facility with integrated programs and operations focused on promoting wellness through lifestyle changes, physical fitness and training, nutrition and medical/personal care treatment, together with an accommodations use. There are two principal uses proposed: Hotel and Treatment Facility. These uses require the property be rezoned from commercial to accommodations use. Three buildings are proposed, one of which is described as ‘future phase’ accommodations with no definite timeframe (no plans for this building have been submitted). The other two buildings would include a fitness center, and an accommodations structure with integrated lecture hall, treatment facilities, and nutrition center. The submitted plans are not specific as to what treatment facilities, nutrition center are. The site is designed such that buildings would front Steamer Parkway, with parking between the buildings and upper Stanley Village. The accommodations building would shield the Stanley Hotel from the back of Stanley Village. The design would maximize distance between the commercial accommodations use and nearby single-family residential development to the north and east. The applicant proposes to use a platted no-built area for the accommodations building, and dedicate the eastern portion of the lot as open space. This requires an amended plat. The design includes an integrated pedestrian system, as required by both the development code and the Stanley Historic District guidelines. The proposal includes five review components, as delineated in the Report Summary. All of these components are inter-connected; one cannot be approved without the others. The applicant requests modifications to the architectural guidelines to allow the buildings to resemble the Stanley Hotel; this is typically not allowed in the Stanley Historic District. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 4 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: Applicable standards for review are: 1. Comprehensive Plan: The submitted applications are reviewed for compatibility and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Code Amendments (§3.3.D): (1) The amendment is necessary to address changes in the areas affected; (2) The amendment is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the comprehensive plan; and, (3) That relevant service providers have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities. 3. Amended Plat (§3.9.E): Subdivisions must demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10 “Subdivision Standards.” 4. Development Plan (§3.8.D): Development plans shall comply with all applicable standards set forth in the EVDC and demonstrate consistency with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Special Review (§3.5.B): The application for the proposed Special Review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 5 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Chapter Six of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan includes Community-Wide Policies that address issues such as land use, community design, scenic and environmental quality and economics. Staff finds the proposed development advances several adopted Community-Wide Policies, including: Land Use: The Future Land Use Plan component of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan designated this parcel for commercial development.  Provide a pedestrian-friendly downtown environment which provides for pedestrian movement, areas for relaxing, gathering and window shopping.  Urban land uses should occur within the Town limits of Estes Park. Community Design:  Locate and design buildings to fit the land. Avoid excessive cuts and fills by stepping buildings down sloping sites.  Avoid the use of roofing materials which are light colored or reflect light.  Facades should be broken up with windows, doors or other architectural features to provide visual relief.  Monument signs, constructed of stone or wood and incorporated into the landscaping, are preferred over freestanding pole mounted signs.  Lighting should be shielded and directed downward, so that the light source is not visible from beyond the property line, and does not illuminate surrounding properties or the sky. Growth Management:  Ensure that new development minimizes the impacts to visual and environmental quality within the Valley.  Encourage sensitive trail connections and linkages. Economics:  Maintain a unique blend of businesses, residents and visitors, without negatively affecting the natural beauty of the Estes Valley.  Develop eco-tourism, which relies on a high quality of physical setting and minimal impact on the environment, as a component of the existing tourism industry.  Sustain and support the existing tourism industry and marketing programs.  Recruit businesses and companies that benefit from the environment and fit with community values.  Establish the basis for a sound tourism market and sustainable economic climate. Chapter Six also includes several area plans, including one specific to Downtown, which includes the Stanley Historic District. Downtown Land Use Summary. “The Stanley Hotel is on the National Register of Historic Places. The hotel, completed in 1909 by F.O. Stanley, is a striking Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 6 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center building. Across the county, the façade of the hotel is recognizable, and is linked with the Town of Estes Park. View corridors, façade easements, and other legally binding steps have been taken to preserve the views of the hotel from major roads in town, and to protect the integrity of the hotel. Public ownership of the Knoll property will have a positive impact on the Stanley Hotel and image of the community” Downtown Special Considerations: “The quality of development within the Stanley Historic District is regulated by its Master Plan. The Stanley Hotel is on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as having the designation of a property with national significance. The hotel is a landmark within [the] Estes Valley. Redevelopment of the hotel property should be encouraged. The Stanley Hotel is located within the proposed Downtown District. However, the various parcels within the Stanley Historic District have been designated to reflect the provisions and requirements of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan.” Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 7 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center CODE AMENDMENTS: The applicant requests text and map amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code and Estes Park Municipal Code. Text Amendments. The text amendments are, in part, to amend the Stanley Historic District architectural standards. This amendment is to allow the buildings to be compatible with the colors and architecture of the Stanley Hotel, as outlined in the code amendment. The other component of the code amendments is provide a three-year timeframe to begin construction before expiration instead of the typical one-year timeframe required for Special Reviews. These code amendments were drafted by Town Attorney White, in consultation with the applicant’s legal counsel. Draft ordinances will be available prior to the February 18th Planning Commission meeting. Map Amendment (Rezoning Request). The applicant requests a zoning map amendment map (rezoning) from to CO-Commercial Outlying zoning district to A- Accommodations. The Treatment Facility use is a permitted use-by-right in both zone districts. The Hotel use is not permitted in the CO-Commercial Outlying zoning district, but is permitted in the A-Accommodations zoning district. Treatment Facilities. Treatment Facilities are classified as a specific use under the broader Group Living Facilities use classification. Treatment Facilities are facilities that provide on-site medical or psychological treatment, therapy or counseling. Adult day treatment facilities are a specifically listed type of treatment facility in the EVDC; these, by definition, are not living facilities. Community Development staff has conducted as use classification request, and found the proposed “wellness center” fits this definition. Staff also found the use of the facility should not be limited to adults; Use Classification report is attached for background. Treatment Facilities must comply with Section 5.1.I Group Living Facilities, Large, which the proposed application does (see Review Discussion below). Hotels. Hotels are classified as a specific use under the broader Accommodations, High-Intensity use classification. Hotels are facilities that provide temporary lodging to the general public in guest rooms and typically providing additional services, such as restaurants, meeting rooms, entertainment and recreational facilities. Hotels must demonstrate compliance with Section 5.1.J Hotels. To date, the applicant has not demonstrated such compliance, but has stated the final design will ensure compliance: This should be done prior to Planning Commission meeting on February 18. District Comparison. Besides the allowed uses, the different zoning districts have different density/dimensional standards, including: Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 8 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center Floor-Area Ratio. The CO-Commercial Outlying district has a maximum floor-area to lot-area ratio of .25. This means that for every 1,000 square feet of land area, 250 square feet of building can be built. As currently zoned, the maximum size building allowed on the 6.88 Lot 4 is approximately 75,000 square feet. The A-Accommodations district does not have a maximum floor-area to lot-area ratio. The applicant proposes to build approximately 100,000 square feet. Of this, 26,000 would be in the future phase Accommodations 2 building (eastern-most building). Lot Coverage. The CO-Commercial Outlying district has a maximum lot coverage of 65%. This means that for every 1,000 square feet of land area, 650 square feet of it can be covered with hard surfaces such buildings and parking lots. As currently zoned, the maximum lot coverage allowed on the 6.88 Lot 4 is approximately 195,000 square feet. The A-Accommodations district has a maximum lot coverage of 50%. This means that for every 1,000 square feet of land area, 500 square feet of it can be covered with hard surfaces such buildings and parking lots. As currently zoned, the maximum lot coverage allowed on the 6.88 Lot 4 is approximately 150,000 square feet; the applicant proposes 110,647 square feet. Zoning District Descriptions. CO-Commercial Outlying: This zoning district was established to encourage the development of a wide variety of commercial and retail uses along the major corridor entryways into the Valley and the Town of Estes Park. This zoning district was established to implement the “Commercial” and “Commercial-Recreation” future land use categories recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. This district should accommodate the majority of the larger, freestanding commercial and retail buildings to meet future demand in the community. A-Accommodations: This district implements the “A-Accommodations” land use category set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. It applies primarily in highway- oriented commercial areas of the Estes Valley, and allows a wide variety of accommodation uses, including relatively higher-intensity accommodations such as multi-story hotels and motels. A variety of related tourist-serving retail and commercial uses, such as restaurants, bars and gift shops, will be permitted, but only as accessory uses to a principal accommodations use and only if such supporting uses are located inside the same structure as the principal use. Stand- alone commercial or retail uses will not be permitted in this accommodations district; instead, such uses may be developed in the other commercial zones. Standards for Review . As noted in the Report Overview, there are three specific standards of review for code amendments: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in the areas affected. Staff Finding: The amendments are necessary to address changes in areas affected. Changes since adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code include: Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 9 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center (a) The 1994 Development Agreement, which regulated development of Lot 4 expired in 2009, at the end of the fifteen year term. Once this agreement expired, the development standards and design guidelines in the Stanley Historic Master Plan no longer applied to Lot 4. (b) The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and Estes Valley Development Code did not address development of the Historic District in detail, because development was governed by the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. The Comprehensive Plan references the Master Plan and the Development Code established a Stanley Historic District Overlay District, which adopted the Master Plan by reference. (c) Now that the Master Plan does not apply to Lot 4, the underlying Stanley Historic District regulations in the Estes Park Municipal Code apply, which have not been used for development of any other parcel in the Historic District. (d) All lots within the Historic District that were planned for development have developed with the exception of Lot 4. (e) All lots planned for open space within the Historic District have been dedicated as open space, with conservation easements being placed on Lots 5, 6, and 8. 2. The amendment is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the comprehensive plan, as described in the analysis above. 3. Relevant service providers have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities. Staff Finding: Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 10 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center AMENDED PLAT: Lot 4 was created with the subdivision plat of “Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of The Stanley Historic District Subdivision”. The applicant has submitted an amended plat application to amend this plat of record. The amended plat dedicates easements necessary for the proposed development and removes a platted “non-development area and unimproved area.” The non- development area is located in the western portion of the lot. Lot 4 is the only lot within the District that has a platted no-build area. Staff has extensively researched the purpose and intent of the no-build area to determine if the amended plat complies with such. This research finds the purpose and intent of the platted non-development area was two-fold: (1) Provide the required 30% open space and (2) address view corridor protection. Staff finds the amended plat and associated development will satisfy the both purposes. The 30% open space will be provided and a view corridor analysis has been complete demonstrating that views of the Stanley Hotel complex buildings are not impeded. Preliminary Plat. The preliminary plat was approved by the Estes Park Planning Commission in August 1992; the final plat was not approved until 1994 (see below). Stanley Historic District Master Plan. A description of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan is included here because it was created between approval of the preliminary plat and the final plat. The Master Plan helps frame the purpose and intent of the platted non-development area. The Stanley Historic District Master Plan was created and adopted by the Town Board in February 1994, following a series of public hearings. The Master Plan was intended to implement development agreements between the Town and the landowners within the District. The Master Plan served as the development regulations for other parcels in the District. The Master Plan has expired for Lot 4 due to the length of time that has passed. Because the Master Plan has expired, the requirements of Estes Park Municipal Code section 17.44 apply. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 11 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center From the minutes:  January 25, 1994 Estes Park Planning Commission: • “30% open space was preserved on all development parcels” • “Parcels 5, 6 and 8 will be preserved as open space in perpetuity by means of deed restriction and covenants”  February 1, 1994 Estes Park Planning Commission: • “There are two types of open space included in the Master Plan: dedicated which includes Parcels 5, 6 and 8 and will be owned by the Town in perpetuity; and designated which requires that when parcels are developed, 30% must be designated as open space – this open space may occur in one large mass, or provided in any number of geometric ways; however, the open space requirement cannot be waived.” • “The existing Stanley Historic District Ordinance provides for view corridors and allows density transfers to adjacent parcels. The Master Plan provides for the Town to purchase the density transfers for Parcels 5, 6 and 8 and those density transfers to adjacent property have been eliminated.”  February 2, 1994 Estes Park Planning Commission: • The Master Plan “guarantees open space, Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9 will have 30% open space.” • “ . . . the overall Master Plan is excellent and that open space was not included in previous proposals.” • “Parcel 4 – contains a minimum of commercial with added open space; Parcels 5 & 6 – guarantees the view of The Stanley”  February 8, 1994 Board of Trustees: • “The Town has agreed to purchase Parcels 5, 6 and 8 for open space. This open space will be held in perpetuity.” • “The Stanley Historic Ordinance . . . established view corridors to the Stanley Hotel.” • “A no-build area will be established for Parcel 4 on the final plat. At the time of development of each parcel, a minimum of 30% open space will be established.” • “A no-build area on Parcel 4 has been designated. Open space will be designated on development plans for all parcels” • “The agreements may only be amended by mutual consent of the parties. The Town as a party is represented by the Town Board of Trustees. All changes must be approved by the Town Board.” • “when development occurs, the open space must be designated, and it can be so designated any number of ways” • Motion approved unanimously Final Plat. The Town Board approved the plat in April 1994. Lot 3 has since been re-subdivided into twenty single-family lots accessed via Findley Court. Almost all these lots have been developed. Lot 7 has been developed with the 18-unit Mountain Creek Townhome condominiums. Lot 9 has Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 12 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center been developed with the 12-unit Canyon Creek Townhomes condominiums. Lots 5, 6 and 8 are designated as open space lots with conservation easements. This leaves Lot 4 as the remaining undeveloped parcel in the subdivision and the overall Stanley Historic District. The subdivision plat designates the western portion of Lot 4 as “Non-development area and unimproved area.” From the minutes:  April 19, 1994 Estes Park Planning Commission: Subdivision is ‘in conformance with the Master Plan towards implementation of open space objectives and future development on Lots 3, 4, 7 and 9.”  April 26, 1994 Town Board: Subdivision implements ‘open space objectives and future development on Lots 3, 4, 7, and 9. The note regarding open space designation has been added to the plat.” Review of Planning Commission and Town Board minutes describing the Master Plan and subdivision plat demonstrates the no-build area on Lot 4 was a significant issue. The minutes also demonstrate the intent of the platted non-development area was two-fold: (1) Provide the required 30% open space and (2) Address view corridor protection. Open Space. The applicant proposes to use the platted non-development area for the hotel/lecture hall/treatment rooms building, and designate the eastern triangular area near True Value and Dad’s Laundry in Upper Stanley Village as open space, as shown on the Open Space Key (Note: staff added the dashed line to denote current no-build area). Section 14.44.060(b) requires a minimum designated open space for all development parcels in the District of at least 30%. The platted non-development area equates to approximately 36% open space of Lot 4. The applicant proposes to reduce the designate open space to 30%. The overall Lot Coverage is proposed at 37%, leaving 63% of the site as pervious coverage (grass and landscaping). View Corridor. Section 17.44.060(a) designates building envelopes and view corridors in the District; this is the first section of the “Design and performance Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 13 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center standards” section of the District regulations, which demonstrates the importance of this issue. • “Development shall maintain the existing views of the Stanley Hotel building and of the Manor House building from Highway 36 from its intersection with Highway 7 to its intersection with Highway 34 [17.44.060(a)(1)].” • “Development shall maintain the view of the main Stanley Hotel building from the Visitor’s Center entrance deck, taking into account all authorized development in Stanley Village [17.44.060(a)(2)].” The applicant has submitted an illustration that demonstrates the proposed structures would not block these view corridors. In addition to the illustrations, the applicant has submitted a ‘fly-through’ video that is available for viewing at http://stanleyanschutzproject.org/. Staff has prepared a view corridor analysis using SketchUp, a 3D modeling program that enables placement of digital models in Google Earth. This analysis aligns with the illustrations provided by the architect Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 14 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center Easements. Easement locations are subject to final review and approval of utility providers. For example, there is a dedicated sanitary sewer easement that overlaps with a general utility easements. The utility providers are aware of the issue and have not expressed concern. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 15 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center SPECIAL REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Staff finds the Special Review of the Development Plan complies with §3.5.B Special Review Uses Standards for Review and §3.8.D Development Plan Standards for Review. Development plans must demonstrate compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable standards of the EVDC. These points are outlined elsewhere in the report. Special Reviews are development plans that include uses that by their nature have potential impact on surrounding properties. Because of this potential, these uses require Town Board approval. The Stanley Historic District requires Special Review for all developments bigger than 5,000 square feet. Because of this requirement, the development plan must be reviewed and approved by the Town Board, with recommendation from the Planning Commission. Special Review uses require “the application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment.” Potential impacts are described below, and include such issues as outdoor operations and delivery vehicles. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 16 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment, including the State Historic Preservation Officer, as specifically required by 17.44. Comments are included as part of this staff report. Architectural Review. Due to the requested amendment to the Stanley Historic District architectural standards, Community Development staff consulted with a Fort Collins based architect in addition to typical public reviewing agencies. As noted in the letter from RBB Architects, the building design does not comply with all provisions of the Stanley Historic District, namely building design. The applicant has requested these provisions of the Municipal Code be amended. These revisions are outlined below, in the Stanley Historic District Guidelines section. Primary issues relate to building and roof color and façade treatments. Community Development Planning Division. Community Development staff has performed a Code Analysis, which is included as an attachment to this report. This Code Analysis includes several required revisions to the plan set. Staff finds the application, with revisions, will comply with applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. Public Works. The Public Works Department has provided comments on transportation and drainage. Plan revisions are required to demonstrate compliance with drainage and transportation requirements. Transportation. The road design must be finalized with construction plans. Drainage. The stormwater report has not been approved. Off -site improvements are necessary. These issues must be addressed prior to Planning Commission review. Light and Power. Provided standard comments that will need to be addressed with Construction Plans. Water Department. Provided standard comments that will need to be addressed with Construction Plans. Estes Valley Fire Protection District. Provided comments noting construction plans are required, hydrants must be installed, fire access must be provided during all phases of construction, and access roads must be signed “No Parking Fire Lane.” Estes Park Sanitation District. Provided comments indicating the existing sewer main is adequate to handle expected flow from this development. The Sanitation District noted the sewer main through the Stanley Hotel property is at capacity, and future expansion of the hotel will require the existing main to be replaced. The District suggested this be accounted for prior to development of Lot 4. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). CDOT requires a revised traffic study to examine volumes at the Highway 34 intersection to determine if off- Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 17 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center site improvements are required. This issue must be resolved prior to the Planning Commission review. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). CPW provided comments regarding the fragmentation of habitat, human/bear conflicts, and possible increase in accidents between wildlife and vehicles. Habitat fragmentation is described in the Landscaping section below. Human/bear conflicts are described in the Wildlife section below. Vehicle conflicts could be addressed with signage, as mentioned in the CPW letter. Staff recommends signage be required on Wonderview Avenue, near the crossing between Lot 5 and the Knoll-Willows; both of these are open space properties that will likely receive additional grazing. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). As required by the Municipal Code, this request has been routed to the SHPO for review and comment. The SHPO has provided comments regarding the development, and notes several areas of non-compliance with the architectural standards outlined in the Stanley Historic District. The applicant has requested the District standards be amended to allow the proposed design. The SHPO references the Department of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation that ‘encourage new additions and associated new buildings to be designed in a way that mimics (but does not replicate) the historic buildings. A common way of meeting these Standards is to use a similar color scheme, but use different materials (for example, to use red asphalt shingles instead of red clay roofing tiles). Another successful approach is to match the materials and colors, but to make these materials plain and unornamented to clearly distinguish historic buildings/materials from new ones.” The project architect addresses this issue on page 17 of the Statement of Intent: • “The new buildings are designed to support and protect the historic significance of the Stanley Historic Complex, but are visually subordinate because of their location at a lower elevation and in the foreground of the Stanley Historic Complex buildings.” • “Elements like dormers, columns and wrapped windows make the new buildings consistent with the historic character of the complex. But things like moldings, cornices, surrounds, etc. are not the same as the historic complex and the overall detailing is removed enough from the historic complex to make the new development recognizable as a product of its time.” • “The variation of construction techniques and detailing meets the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines for new work in historic contexts.” Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 18 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center REVIEW DISCUSSION: This section differs from Standards for Review, which are general in nature. This section includes a description of applicable Development Code and Municipal Code regulations, including those applicable to the Stanley Historic District. Staff finds the application complies with applicable sections of the development code, as described below: Nonresidential Zoning Districts (§4.4): The proposed uses are allowed in the A-Accommodations zone district. Section 4.4.D.5 Number of Principal Uses Permitted per Lot or Development Parcel, allows multiple principal uses on nonresidential lots. This section also encourages mixed-use development where allowable. Finally, the principal uses may be developed or established together on a single lot or site, or within a single structure. The site plan demonstrates compliance with density and dimensional standards, building height, lot coverage standards, number of allowed principal uses per lot, vehicular access/circulation requirements, and pedestrian amenities/linkage requirements. Building Height. The Stanley Historic District regulations in the Municipal Code specify “building height shall not exceed thirty feet, unless a greater height is authorized on special review.” This means the Town Board may approve greater building height with Special Review approval. The buildings are proposed to be between 30 and 31 feet tall. The proposed building heights comply with the height requirements in the Estes Valley Development Code, which allows for additional height on the downhill side of buildings. Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements (§4.4.D.4) • Sidewalk is proposed to provide pedestrian linkages as required. • “Otie’s Trail” will have an easement dedicated for its use, in compliance with code. • The proposed open space border “Otie’s Trail.” • Open space areas should be compact and contiguous, which the proposed design complies with. Stanley Historic Overlay District (§4.5.D): This section adopts the Stanley Historic District. Specific review standards are outlined below. Group Living Facilities (Treatment Facility; §5.1.I): All structures shall be compatible in terms of building mass, scale and design with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The plan demonstrates compliance with this requirement. Hotels (§5.1.J): Up to 15% of the hotel gross floor area may be dedicated to non- living quarters, and an additional 25% of the gross floor area may be devoted to eating/drinking establishments. The applicant has not demonstrated such Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 19 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center Source: bluegreenbldg.org compliance, but stated this can be accomplished. This requirement has been included as a condition of approval in the Code Analysis. Grading and Site Disturbance Standards (§7.2): The grading plan demonstrates compliance with general grading standards such as limits on raising/lower natural grade and design of stormwater basins. The applicant proposes a series of rain gardens to filter stormwater runoff. Several significant trees have been incorporated into the site design. The buildings have been sited to help avoid visual impacts. Tree and Vegetation Protection (§7.3): Significant trees to remain will be protected with construction barrier fencing prior to site disturbance. Fencing and tree well details required with Construction Plans. Landscaping and Buffers (§7.5): The Statement of Intent indicates the landscaping plan will comply with required landscaping. These requirements must be delineated on the landscaping plan. Due to the unknown and unsure timeframe for the construction of Accommodations Phase 2, landscaping of mechanical areas, trash enclosures, loading areas, and parking lot perimeter should be installed with construction of the initial hotel. The landscaping plan should accommodate elk migration, with trees located close to buildings and parking areas, with outlying areas kept natural grasslands. These grasslands should be irrigated to mitigate loss of winter habitat for deer/elk. Wildlife Habitat Protection (§7.8): The purpose of wildlife habitat protection standards is “to maintain the diversity of wildlife species and habitat that occur in the Estes Valley, and to plan and design land uses to be harmonious with wildlife habitat and the species that depend on this habitat for the economic, recreational and environmental benefit of the residents of and visitors to the Estes Valley.” Because this site is not in Big Horn Sheep habitat, adjacent to riparian areas, and no known endangered or threatened species are present, a Wildlife Conservation Plan is not required. The application has been routed to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife for review and comment, and has been reviewed for compliance with standards set forth in 7.8.G. No fencing is proposed. Exterior lighting will be shielded and directed downward, and will be reduced nightly after 10 PM. Refuse will be enclosed in buildings, and hardware will be ‘animal-resistant’ (no lever-type handles). Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 20 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center The CPW memo notes the “removal of natural vegetation resulting from development will likely reduce forage for elk and deer. Fragmenting the property by restricting the open space of Lot 4 to the eastern1/3 (along Steamer Drive) will reduce its value as wildlife habitat. This is especially true for large elk herds during winter. Consequently elk and deer may be forced to increase grazing with subsequent damage to plants on adjacent lands or on the remaining open space land on site.” Because of the added importance of vegetation, Section 7.8.G.1.b Non-Native Vegetation applies. This prohibits the introduction of plant species that are not on the approved landscaping list in Appendix C of the EVDC. The landscaping plan must be revised accordingly. Exterior Lighting (§7.9): The light fixtures chosen for the site are equipped with automatic controls so that any lighting determined to be not necessary for security purposes can be turned off approximately one-half hour before and after operating hours. The light fixtures comply with development requirements. The level of exterior lighting that remains on for security purposes will be reduced after 10:00 PM. No light fixture will be higher than 15-feet above ground. The submitted photo-metric plan indicates a minimum of light overlap, which means the design includes the minimum amount necessary to provide coverage. The Public Works Department requests streetlights, in a manner be consistent with Town standards and the existing layout along Steamer Drive, be installed along public right-of-way. Operational Performance Standards (§7.10): Section 7.10.B provides for additional conditions to be imposed upon the approval of any development to ensure that it is compatible with existing uses. • All activities will occur inside the buildings. • Due to the unknown timeframe for construction of the Accommodations 2 structure, the landscaping plan should account for screening of the 19-space parking lot, loading areas, and trash enclosures. • Landscaping plan should keep outlying areas as natural grasslands to help mitigate possible additional grazing on nearby properties. Off-Street Parking and Loading (§7.11): The site plan accounts for all required parking. Hotels require one parking space per guest unit for units smaller than 750 square feet (guest units are proposed at approximately 710 square feet). This equates to 50-spaces for the initial hotel, with an additional 32 spaces for the phase 2 Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 21 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center accommodations. Employees will be employees of the Stanley Hotel, and will utilize the existing employee parking at the hotel (Note: no analysis of Stanley Hotel parking has been done). Treatment Facility parking requirements are based on the number of beds. The wellness center, which is an adult day facility, building does not include beds. Therefore, no parking has been specified for this building. The plan should specify that all parking will be built with Phase I. If possible, the traffic circle should be widened; 15-feet will not allow a moving vehicle to pass a stopped vehicle. This could create vehicular back-ups into the main drive aisle. Adequate Public Facilities (§7.12): The purpose of adequate public facility regulations is to ensure that all utilities and other facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrently with the impacts of such development. Utilities. Sanitary sewer, electric, water, and fire protection are available or will be extended to provide service. Such utilities must be in place prior to issuance of building permits. Drainage/Water Quality Management. The Public Works Department has not provided preliminary approval on the stormwater report. Upstream drainage and flow needs to be identified and preliminarily approved to prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Stormwater will be treated with a series of rain gardens, which are planted depressions that allow rainwater runoff from impervious surfaces (such as parking lots) the opportunity to be absorbed. The purpose of a rain garden is to improve water quality. Transportation. CDOT has requested additional information from the applicant in order to complete its review determining if off-site improvements will be required. This must be resolved before the Planning Commission meeting. Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment (§7.13): Truck loading areas will be screened with evergreen landscaping to minimize visibility from adjacent streets and property lines. Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) equipment and other utilities will be incorporated into the landscape plan. Conduits, meters, vents and other equipment attached to the building or protruding from the roof will be screened, covered or painted to minimize visual impacts. Street Design and Construction Standards (Appendix D): Final construction plans have yet to be prepared. The Public Works Department has provided a memo outlining approval contingent upon final design. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 22 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center The existing plat satisfies right-of-way width requirements, and the road will comply with 12-foot travel lanes, and curb/gutter will be provided. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 23 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT: Section 17.44 of the Estes Park Municipal Code establishes specific design criteria for developments in the Stanley Historic District. These criteria include: view corridor, open space, site design, underground parking, cut/fill slopes, pedestrian circulation, building design, and signs. View corridors and open space are discussed above. There is no underground parking. Cut/fill slopes will be treated to create natural appearance; rock retaining walls will be used. Site Design. Site design criteria include: a. Buildings shall follow natural contours. b. Service functions shall not be visible on the primary facades or in front yard areas. Trash and service areas shall be screened with landscaping. c. Parking shall be located to the rear of buildings. d. A minimum of 10% of the interior of parking areas shall be landscaped. The proposed development complies with these standards. Pedestrian Circulation. An integrated pedestrian pathway system shall be provided for each development. It shall be attractively landscaped and adequately illuminated with connection at property lines to existing or appropriate future public pathways, clearly separated from vehicular roadways where possible, with access provided where feasible to usable open space. The sidewalk fronting Steamer Parkway should be separated from the road. The sidewalk on Steamer Drive should connect to the Stanley Village entry. Building Design. The application does not comply with Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Design and Performance Standards Which prohibit red roofs, white walls, and conical roofs, and requires façade variation at 120-foot intervals. The intent of prohibiting such design was to ensure no ‘copy cat’ Stanley Hotels would be developed within the Historic District. The applicant has requested amendments to the design standards to permit the buildings to be compatible with the colors and architecture of the Stanley Hotel, as described in the proposed code amendment. Signs. All signs in the Historic District shall obtain approval from the Planning Commission prior to any signs being erected or maintained within any structure. The submitted sign package includes only one sign: the free-standing sign to be located west of the entrance. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 24 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center Additional signage, including directory signs and building identification signs, must be approved by the Planning Commission. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 25 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center FINDINGS: 1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan and the Downtown area plan. The application advances several Community-Wide policies, as delineated in the Staff report. 2. The application for the proposed Special Review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment. 3. The amended plat complies with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10 “Subdivision Standards.” 4. The amended plat and associated development satisfy the purpose and intent of the open space and view protection guidelines described in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan 5. The proposed code amendments are necessary to address changes in areas affected. There are significant changes in the area since the adoption of the land use plan and development code. 6. The proposed code amendments are compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the comprehensive plan. 7. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. 8. The application complies with Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Standards for Development regarding: view corridors; open space; site design; pedestrian circulation; and signs. 9. The request to exceed the Stanley Historic District maximum allowed building of 30-feet is allowed through special review approval, and complies with Section 1.9.E.2 Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes. 10. The application does not comply with Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Standards for Development regarding building design: red roof, white walls, building facades, and conical roof. The proposed code amendments would provide compliance to these standards. 11. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the Review Discussion in the staff report 12. This is a Planning Commission recommendation is to the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park. 13. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Board agenda. Placement on the February 25th Town Board agenda requires a February 19 submittal of a revised application that fully satisfies all conditions of approval. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 26 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of: (1) The rezoning of Lot 4 from CO-Commercial Outlying to A-Accommodations; (2) The amended plat of Lot 4; (3) Special Review of the Development Plan (SR 2014-01); (4) Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to provide three-year approval period; (5) Amendment to the Estes Park Municipal Code to permit the buildings to be compatible with the colors and architecture of the Stanley Hotel; and, All subject to the following conditions: 1. April 1st voter approval to allow sale of Lot 4. 2. All parking shall be constructed with Phase I. 3. Architecture: a. Buildings shall be stepped, as demonstrated on Sheet A5.0. b. Sign: The stone base shall match the stone used in other structures on the property and other free-standing monument signs. 4. The plan must demonstrate compliance with Section 5.1.J Hotels regarding amount of gross floor area for non-living quarters. 5. The emergency access lane shall be reduced to 20-foot in width, include a roll- over curb, and a concrete sidewalk. 6. The traffic circle shall be widened to the maximum extent feasible. 7. Traffic study shall be revised to comply with CDOT requests. 8. MUTCD wildlife crossing signs are required on Wonderview Avenue, near the crossing between Lot 5 and the Knoll-Willows. Design and location shall be determined by staff during Construction Plan approval. 9. Landscaping Plan: a. Landscaping plan shall accommodate elk migration, with trees focused close to buildings and parking areas, with outlying areas kept natural grasslands (with irrigation). b. Landscaping of mechanical areas, trash enclosures, loading areas, and parking lot perimeter shall be installed with construction of the initial hotel. c. Comply with Section 7.8.G.1.b Non-Native Vegetation applies. 10. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Community Development dated February 4, 2014. b. Public Works dated January 31, 2014 c. Light and Power dated January 29, 2014. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 27 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center d. Water Department (Jeff Boles, Cliff Tedder, Steve Rusch) dated February 3, 2014. e. Estes Valley Fire Protection District dated January 31, 2014. f. Estes Park Sanitation District dated (James Duell) January 30, 2014. g. CDOT (Timothy Bilobran) dated January 28, 2014. h. CPW dated January 29, 2014. SAMPLE MOTION: I move to APPROVE (or disapprove) the EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center applications, as described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 18 2014 Page 28 of 28 EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center ESTESPARKCOLORADO•EstesValleyDevelopmentReviewTeamCertificateofApplicationFindingsRevisionDate:February2013DATE:January31,2014APPLICATION:EPMC/AnschutzWeilnessCenterTheEstesValleyDevelopmentReviewteamhasreviewedtheabove-referencedapplicationandfindstheapplicationdoes/doesnotcomplywithapplicablestandardsoftheEstesValleyDevelopmentCodeandadjunctregulations.StandardDevelopmentReviewProcessStep1Pre-ApplicationMeetingStep2SubmitApplicationApplicationintakereview•CertificateofCompletenessStep3StaffReviewandFindingsCertificateofFindings•Cstc-€‘TleetingvithstaffStep4PlanningCommissionReview.ActionorrecommendationCertificateofComolianceStepSBoardReview•Pevinandaction.CertificateofComoliancePostApprovalteqimements•ConstructionPlans•Devefcorn.entAgreement.Pre-CcnstrjcticnMeet:ng.its•As-BuiltplansTOWNOFESTESPARKPLANNINGDIVISIONRecommendationWrittenCommentsDepartmentInitialsDisapprovalApprovalConditionsYesNoEstesPar<Jg9tandPov:erEstesValleyFireProtectionDistrictEstesar<CcrnrninitDevelopmentPublicWorks(EstesPark/LarirnerCcntyWaterEstesar\VaterOther:•StaffreportwillbefinalizedFebruary4.•PlanningCommissiondate:February18,2014.•Section3.2.D.2.BrequiresarevisedapplicationdemonstratingcompliancewithPlanningCommissionconditionsbeforeplacementonTownBoardagenda.ThismeansrevisedplanswillbedueFebruary19toallowforagencyreview.Suggestedconditionsofapprovalwillbeoutlinedinfullinthestaffreport;allattachedagenciescommentswillbeincludedasrecommendedconditions.•Town/CountyBoarddate:February25,2014.170MACGREGORAVE.P.OBOX1200ESTESPARK,CO80517P1-I.970-577-3721FAX070-586-0249WWW.ESTES.ORG •91TO\XINOFESTESPARKMemoTo:LuciaLiley,PrimaryContactFrom:DaveShirk,SeniorPlannerDate:February4,2014RE:CommunityDevelopmentAnschutzWelinessCenteratTheStanley—FindingsofCompliancewithEstesValleyDevelopmentCode(EVDC)ThiswrittenanalysisincludesonlythoseEVDCprovisionsthatapplytothisdevelopmentproposal.CommunityDevelopmentStaffhasperformedacodeanalysis,andfindstheJanuary27,2014submittal:Complieswith(orwillifrevisedperrecommendedconditions):1.§1.9.CDensityCalculation.Includecalculationsondevelopmentplan,asrequiredwithsubmittalrequirements.2.§4.4.A1.aAAccommodations/HighwayCorridorZoningDistrict3.§4.4.BPermittedUses:•Accommodations,High-Intensity.SpecificallyaHotel/Motel.Anestablishmentthatprovidestemporarylodgingtothegeneralpublicinguestroomsandtypicallyprovidingadditionalservices,suchasrestaurants,meetingrooms,entertainmentandrecreationalfacilities[13.1.C.1.b(2)].DescribehowtheHotelwillcomplywithSection5.1.J.•§4.4.BPermittedUses:GroupLivingFacility,Large.Specifically,aTreatmentFacility.Grouplivingfornineofmoreunrelatedindividuals,someorallofwhomarereceivingon-sitemedicalorpsychologicaltreatment,therapyorcounseling.Examplesincludeanadultdaytreatmentfacility.PendingreviewofUseClassification.4.§4.4.C.4DensityandDimensionalStandards:SetbacksandLotCoverage.Floor-Area-RatiodoesnotapplyintheA-Accommodationszoningdistrict.5.§4.4.C.5NumberofPrincipalUsesPermittedPerLotofDevelopmentParcel.Oneormoreprincipalusesshallbepermittedperlotordevelopmentparcel,exceptthatintheAzoningdistrict,onlyoneprincipalresidentialuseshallbepermittedperlotordevelopmentparcel(noresidentialusesareproposed).6.§4.4.D.3VehicularAccessandCirculationRequirements.Page1 ..7.§4.4.D.4PedestrianAmenitiesandLinkageRequirements.8.§4.5.DStanleyHistoricDistrictOverlayDistrict:PendingTownBoardapprovalofamendments.9.§5.1.lGroupLivingFacilities1O.5.1.JHotels11.§7.2.B.2LimitsonChangingNaturalGrade.12.7.2.B.3CuttingtoCreateBenches.13.7.2.B.6RetainingWalls14.§7.2.B.8Detention/StormwaterFacilitiesrequiredtominimizevisualimpactsonnaturallandscape(porouslandscapedetentionpondproposed).SubjecttofinalreviewandapprovalfromPublicWorks.15.§7.2.CRestorationofDisturbedAreas.16.§7.2.D.2CriteriaforEstablishingLOD.17.§7.5LandscapingandBuffers.18.§7.8WildlifeHabitatProtection.Thedevelopmentisnotrequiredtosubmitawildlifeconservationplan.Willcomplywithnativevegetation,fencing(noneproposed),exteriorlighting,andrefusedisposal.19.§7.9ExteriorLighting.20.§7.10OperationalPerformanceStandards.21.§7.11Off-StreetParkingandLoading.22.7.12AdequatePublicFacilitiesregardingwater,electricity,sanitarysewer,andfireprotection.23.7.13.B.4regardingpaintingofconduits,meters,ventsandotherequipmentattachedtothebuilding.24.AppendixD.llStreets.25.AppendixD.IllGeneralSiteAccess26.AppendixD.IVIntersectionandDrivewayVisibilityPage2 ..27.AppendixD.VSidewalks,PedestrianConnectionsandTrails.28.EPMC17.44:viewcorridors,openspace,sitedesign,cut/fillslopes,pedestriancirculation,signs.Doesnotcomplywith:1.§7.12AdequatePublicFacilitiesregardingstormwatermanagementandtransportation.Pendingreview;additionalinformationrequired.2.GeneralRevisions:a.ThecrosswalkcrossingthemedianinthemiddleoftheSteamerParkwayshouldberelocatedsoitisatanintersection.b.ProvideabuildingsquarefootagetablethatdemonstratescompliancewithSection5.1.Jc.EasementforOtie’sTrailshallbe25-feetwide,wherepossible(AppendixD.V)d.AlignpedestrianconnectiontoSafewaywithcrosswalktonorth;unlesssewermainholeelevationinterferes.Ifso,alignasclosetocrosswalkaspossible.e.Addthefollowingnotes:-Nofencingallowed,exceptasrequiredtoprotectlandscaping.-Lightingnotnecessaryforsecuritypurposescanbeturnedoffapproximatelyone-halfhourbeforeandafteroperatinghours.-Lightingshallbereducedafter10:00PM-AllactivitiesassociatedwiththeaccommodationsandWellnessCenteruseswillbeconductedwithinthebuildings.-Deliveriestothesiteandtrashpick-upshallonlybepermittedbetweenthehoursof7:00AMand7:00PM.Alldeliveriesandtrashpick-upservicesshalloccurintheareason-sitethatarespecificallydesignatedforsuchactivities.DeliveryandtrashhaulingtrucksshallberequiredtouseWonderviewAvenueastheirrouteoftraveltothesiteentrances.ConstructionplansmustaddressthefollowingSections:1.§7.2.BGradingStandards.2.§7.2.CRestorationofDisturbedAreas3.§7.2.D.5StandardsforProtectionDuringConstruction.4.§7.8MIdlifeHabitatProtection.Addresshardware/designfortrashenclosure;ensurenonon-nativevegetationintroduce.5.§7.9Exteriorlighting.MustaddressStanleyHistoricDistrictstandardsregardingreducedlightingafter10PM.6.§7.11.0ParkingandLoadingAreaDesignStandards(markings)7.7.11.JAccessibleParkingforDisabledPersonsregardingADAsignsandmarkings,andslopeofparkingspaceandaccessaisle.EnsureADAsignagewillnotbedamagedbyvehiclesorinterferewithpedestrianaccess.8.§7.13OutdoorStorageAreas,ActivitiesandMechanicalEquipment.Trashenclosurematerials,colorsanddesignofscreeningwallsorfencesshallconformPage3 0tothoseusedaspredominantmaterialsandcolorsofthebuildings.Ifsuchareasaretobecovered,thenthecoveringshallconformtothoseusedaspredominantmaterialsandcolorsonthebuilding.9.AppendixD.llI.B.1ODrivewayConstructionStandards.IO.AppendixD.VSidewalks,PedestrianConnectionsandTrails11.AppendixD.VIErosionControl12.AppendixD.VIlTreeandVegetationProtectionDuringConstructionandGradingActivities13.AppendixD.VIlIOtherRequirements,regardingconstructionplanapproval,qualitycontrol,etc.14.”NoParkingFireLane”signsandmethodoffirelaneaccesscontrol.15.TreewelldetailsPage4 Memoi’OWN(NESIESPARIçPUBLICWORKSTo:From:Date:RE:Transportation:DaveShirkKevinAsh,PE,PublicWorksCivilEngineerScottZurn,PE,DirectorofPublicWorksAnschutz/EPMCWeilnessCenter—DevelopmentPlan/PrelimFlatDave—PublicWorksapprovesasCompleteandoffersthefollowingcommentsontheAnschutz/EPMCWellnessCenter—DevelopmentPlan/PrelimPlatapplicationassubmitted.PublicWorksapprovaliscontingentontheoff-sitedrainageanalysisandagreementscomingtogether.CommentsareapplicableforplansreceivedonJanuary27,2014.1.RepeatComment:PublicWorkswillrequirearight-of-waydesignalongSteamerParkwayfromtheWonderviewIntersectiontotheSteamerDriveintersection.Theapplicantisresponsibleforhalfther.o.w.improvementsfromcenterlineofthepublicroadwaytothepropertylinealongLot4.Oncewegettoconstructionplans,detailedplansandconstructiondetailswillneedtobeprovidedonhowasphaltroadwayandconcretecurbandwalkwillbetiedintoexistingtomaintainaroadwaysectionwithadequatecross-slopesandconsistentflowlineslopes.2.RepeatComment:ModificationtothecentermedianinSteamerDrivemayberequired.Thedesignplansshoulddemonstratethemodificationtothis.rrentsubmittedplansindicatethismedianisremovedcompletely.3.RepeatComment:CDOTwillprovidecommentsonimpactstotheStateHighwaygeneratedfromtheWellnessCentertraffic.Coordinationandapprovalfromthemisrequired.4.RepeatComment:Streetlightsshouldbeinstalledalongthepublicr.o.w.inamannerconsistentwithTownStandardsandtheexistinglayoutalongSteamerDrive.5.Tie-inlocationsfromexistingasphalt,curbandsidewalktoproposedneedstobeclarifiedontheplans.January31,2014 ..6.Streetsectionshouldcontain12’travellanesedgeofasphalt—edgeofasphalt.Thecurbpanshouldbeadditionaltothetravellanes.7.EmergencyEntrancegatelocationseemstobetoofarintothesiteandcarsnotrealizingthislocationcouldgetcaughtandneedtoturnaroundawkwardly.8.Clarifyifcurbandgutterandsidewalkimprovementsnorthofther.o.w.arebeinginstalled.Easementsarerequiredforimprovementsonpropertyoutsideofther.o.w.9.SidewalkatthesoutheastcornerofthesitealongSteamerDriveshouldwraparoundthepropertycornerandconnecttotheStanleyVillageentrancealongSteamerDrive.1O.ApplicantisrequiredtosubmitandgetapprovalofFinalConstructionPlansbeforeconstructionofanytransportationrelatedinfrastructure.Drainage:1.RepeatComment:OFF-SITENORTH.Thesubmitteddrainagereportdoesnotadequatelyassessoff-sitebasinsandhowrunoffisconveyedacrossther.o.w.andthroughLot4.Thereportshouldreferencethedrainagereportforthedevelopmenttothenorthandprovidebasindelineationsandcalculationsforthestormwatercomingthrough.Allhistoricalreleaseratesfromthenorthpropertyshouldbeidentified.Theupstreamdetention/drainagefacilitiesareimpactedbywhatisapprovedonthissite.Ifadditionaldetention(overdetention)isrequiredonthepropertytothenorthbecausethisdownstreamdevelopmentdoesnotadequatelysizeitsstormwaterconveyance—itneedstobeidentifiedandagreedtonow.Thecurrentdrainagereportdoesnotadequatelyaddressthat.PublicWorksapprovaliscontingentonthisanalysis.2.RepeatComment:OFF-SITESOUTH.ThereportshouldassesstheexistingstormwaterconveyancesystemtothesouththroughtheStanleyVillageShoppingCenter.ThereportshouldreferencetheexistingdrainagereportandprovidecalculationsthatshowthatthereissufficientcapacityintheexistingsystemtoconveytherunoffthroughStanleyVillagetotheriver.ItcurrentlylookslikethedetentionpondforBasinDwilldischargedirectlyontotheasphaltandthenfinditswaytothestormsewersystem.Itlookslikea24”stormpipeisnowproposedfortheconveyancethroughtheparkinglottothesouth.Thisisanacceptableoption—butPublicWorksapprovalwillbecontingentonadequatesizingandaneasementbeingdedicatedbythedownstreampropertyowner.Thecurrentdrainagereportdoesnotadequatelyaddressthat.3.RepeatComment:20’DrainageEasementsneedtobegeneratedfortheconveyanceofpublicr.o.w.drainageacrosstheproperty.Thesedrainageeasementsshouldbeclearofbuildingsandotherutilitiesandfullyaccessibleformaintenanceandrepair.Anydrainagethatcomesoffofthepublicr.o.w.needs 0tohaveaneasementthatconveysthisdrainagethroughtheproperty—andbacktothepublicr.o.w.4.RepeatComment:DrainageEasementsarerequiredfordetention/retentionpondsthatreceiverunofffromthepublicr.o.w.PublicDetentionareasshouldhaveadefined,obstructionfree,all-weathersurfaceaccessformaintenanceandrepair.5.DetentionPondsandraingardensalongthesouthsideofthedevelopmentneedtoindicatethehighwaterlimitandfreeboard.Thisshouldbedefinedwithspotelevationsforhighpointsandflowarrows.Thedrainagereportshouldindicatewhatlevelofstorm(100-year?)iscontainedandthespotelevationsshouldconfirmthis.6.Theparallelstormsewersystemsatthemainentrancetothesitearenoteffective.Cantheinletsandpipescarryingpublicr.o.w.drainagebeupsizedandcombinedinSteamerParkwaybeforeheadingdownthesiteentrance?7.DrainageBasinGonthewestsideofthedevelopmentisproposedinthedrainagereporttobeundetained.BasinGhasasignificantamountofimperviousareafromdevelopmentandrunoffshouldbedetained.Thedevelopmentplanshowsapondandthisshouldbeused.8.Thereare5existing15”adsculvertscrossingSteamerParkway.Theplansneedtoclarifyifthesearebeingused,removedorabandonedinplace.Itappearstheyaredischargingintothesite.9.Publicr.o.w.stormwaterneedtobeconveyedseparatelyfromsitedevelopedrunofffromtheoff-sitenorthproperty.Reconfigureinletsandstormpipeasneeded.10.Thestormpipeinthecul-de-sacseemstohavesomeunnecessarypiperuns.Isthereanywaythegradingcouldbemodifiedtocarryrunofftothesouthendofthecul-de-sac,upsizetheinletorpipeifneeded,thenmakeone50’piperuntothedetentionpond?11.RepeatComment:ApplicantisrequiredtosubmitandgetapprovalofFinalConstructionPlansbeforeconstructionofanystormdrainagerelatedinfrastructure. 1/29/14•0TOWNoiESTESPARIçDivisionofBuildingSafetyLight&PowerDepartmentJoeLockhart,Light&PowerSuperintendentStandardCommentsILot4EPMCIAnschutzWellnessPlanReview:AnschutzEPMCWelinessCenteratStanleyHotel.Lot4.StanleyHistoricDistrict•SchedulerequiredmeetatsitewithLineSuperintendent.LineSuperintendent#970-577-3613•AllinfrastructuresmustbepaidinadvancetotheTown.NoBuildingpermitswillbeapprovedbyLight&Poweruntilallinfrastructureshasbeenpaidfor.•Allnewconstructionmustbeunderground.Trenching&conduittobeprovidedandinstalledbydevelopertoTownspecifications.•Allothermaterialwillbepurchasedfrom&installedbytheTownofEstesPark,•AllTownofEstesParkLightandPowerlines,(Primary/Secondary)musthavea2Oftutilityeasementandshownonplans.Thiseasementcanbesharedbywater,phone,andcable.•Watermustbeatleast4ftfromelectric.•Allservicesmustbeonthehomeowner’sproperty.•Thesizeoftheservicemustbeshownontheelectricaldrawings.•Allexistinglinesmustbeshownontheelectricaldrawings.•Transformers/pencellsmustbeinaneasementorifpossiblyonthepropertyline.•Allprimarylinesmustbe4ftdeepwithredwarningtapeat2ft.•Allsubdivisionmustbedesignedbyanelectricalengineer.•Allpipesmustbeschedule40graypvcpipe,iftherearemorethan4pipesinatrenchthenallconduitmustbeputintoapiperack.•Townmusthaveownershipofallroadcrossings.•Onundergroundelectricservicesitwillbetheelectrician’sdutytodigthemintothetransformersorpedestals.•TheelectricianwillneedtoschedulewithL&Ptounlockandopentransformersorpedestals.•AlltemporaryandpermanentelectricserviceswillbeconnectedbyLight&Powerwithin5businessdaysafterthestateelectricalinspection&feesarepaid.Permanentmetersocketsmustbepermanentlymarkedwithaddressorunitnumber.MemoTo:From:Date:RE: ..-—TOWNOFESTESPARIçInter-OfficeMemorandumTo:CommunityDevelopmentFrom:JeffBoles,CliffTedderandSteveRuschDate:21312014Re:PlatReview:AnschutzEPMCWellnessCenteratStanleyHotel.Lot4,StanleyHistoricDistrictTheWaterDepartmenthasthefollowingPlatReviewcommentsfortheaboveapplication:TheamendedplatwhichwasresubmittedFriday,1/31/2014isacceptedbytheWaterDivision. •0ILTOWNoiESTESPARKInter-OfficeMemorandumTo:CommunityDevelopmentFrom:JeffBoles,CliffTedderandSteveRuschDate:213/2014Re:PlanReview:AnschutzEPMCWellnessCenteratStanleyHotel.Lot4,StanleyHistoricDistrictTheWaterDivisionhasthefollowingPlanReviewcommentsfortheaboveapplication:Thesedrawingsareapproved.Priortotheissuanceofabuildingpermit,thefollowingcriteriamustbemet:WaterMainExtensionsarerequiredforservice,includingFireProtection.Thisinfrastructuremustbeinstalled;testingpreformed/passedandacceptedbytheDivisionpriortoissuanceofanybuildingpermitsConstructionDrawingsarerequiredandmustbesubmittedforreview,approvalandsignaturesbytheUtilitiesDirectororhisdesignatedrepresentative.NoinstallationofanyprojectinfrastructureisalloweduntiltheConstructionDrawingshavebeensigned.Allwatermainlines,hydrantsandeasementsmustbedeededtotheTownofEstesPark.AlongwiththesubmissionoftheconstructiondrawingsprovidethecontactinformationofthefirmorpersonactingasUtilityConstructionInspectorfortheproject.Constructiondrawingsmustinclude:•Planandprofiletoshowpotentialconflictsbetweenwaterandotherutilitiesincludingculverts,showUtilityEasementlocationswhenutilityisnotinRoadRightofWay.•Metering/Taplocationplan(drawing)indicatingtaplocationsandsizes,watermeterlocationsandsizes,andbuildingsservedbyeach.•AllwaterlinedesignandconstructionshallbedoneaccordingtotheWaterUtilityPoliciesandStandardsAdditionalairreliefmayberequiredatahighpointwheretheproposed12”watermainistiedontotheexistingwatermaintothesouthwestofWonderviewAve.TheWaterDivisionmustalsodeterminethespecificlocationforthistieonbefore .TOWNOFESTES_______—jPARIçInter-OfficeMemorandumconstructiondrawingsarecomplete.Watermainsarerequiredtomaintain10ft.separationfrombothsanitarysewerandstormsewer.Watermainscanbesleevedonlyforshortcrossings,notwhenrunningparallelandinlieuof10ft.separation.Thesectionofnew8inchmainthatistobenearthecurbandguttercannotbeunderneaththecurbandgutter.Thismustbedetailedontheconstructiondrawings.Tapfeeswillbecalculatedbasedonthenumberofwaterfixturestobeinstalled.Backflowpreventiondevicesarerequiredonallwaterservices,irrigationandfireprotectionlines,contactSteveRuschat577-3625orsrusch@estes.orgtodiscusswhatisrequiredforplumbinginstallationorwithanyquestionsregardingthebackflowdevicesorrequirements.ForanystructurethatisrequiredtohaveaFireSuppressionSystemadetaileddrawingmustbeturnedintotheWaterDepartmentnoting:•Location,sizingandtypeofbackflowpreventiondevice(s)•Engineeredflowrequirementsforthefiresprinklersystem,pipesizewillbedeterminedbasedonNFPAtable10.10.2.1.3,FireFlowproducedatavelocityof1Oft/sec.PipeSizeFlowRate2”100gpm4”390gpm6”880gpm8”1560gpm10”2440gpm12”3520gpm•Spillcontrolmethodforproperdisposalofdischargefromthereliefvalve,indicatinglocationandsizingofdrainagecapableofaccommodatingthedischargethatcouldoccurDuetofirelinesize,bothachlorinationandpressuretestwillberequired,conductedbyarepresentativeoftheWaterDivisionpriortoacceptance.AnyFiresuppressionlineservicingabuildingfromthewatermainisaprivateserviceline.Futurerepairormaintenancerequiredonthisserviceisthesoleresponsibilityofthebuildingowner.Nothinginthisreviewisintendedtoauthorizeorapproveanyaspectofthisprojectthatdoesnotstrictlycomplywithallapplicablecodesandstandards.Anychangemadetotheplanswillrequireadditionalreviewandcommentsbythe ..TOWNoESTESPAR1Inter-OfficeMemorandumTownofEstesParkUtilitiesDepartment. IPLANREVIEWCOMMENTSDate:January31,2014ProjectIdentification:AnschutzWelinessCenterLocation:Lot4StanleyHistoricDistrictReferral:AnschutzEPMCWellnessCenteratStanleyHotelFinalDPTheEstesValleyFireProtectionDistricthasreviewedthesubmittedmaterialdescribingtheproposedprojectreferencedabove,andapprovesthoseplanscontingentoncompliancewiththefollowingrequirements(conditionsofapproval):Priortotheissuanceofabuildingpermitthefollowingrequirementsshallbemet:1.Constructionplans(accessIroads,waterlinesystemdesign)shallbereviewedandmustmeetapprovaloftheFireDistrict.2.Thenewrequiredfirehydrantsshallbeinstalled.Thehydrantsshallbemaintainedoperationalatalltimesthereafter,unlessalternateprovisionsforwatersupplyareapprovedbythefireDistrict.TheTownofEstesParkmustapprovetheinstallationandoverseethetestingofwatermainsandhydrants.3.InaccordancewithIFCChapters5and14,approvedfiredepartmentaccessshallbeprovidedduringallphasesofconstruction,aswellastocompletedbuildings.Thecriteriaforfiredepartmentaccessroadsshallbeasfollows:A.Permanentasphaltorconcreteroadsshallbeinstalledunlessatemporaryroadsurface,suchasrecycledasphaltorconcrete,isapproved.B.Fireapparatusaccessroadsshallbedesignedandmaintainedtosupporttheimposedloadsoffireapparatus.C.Theunobstructedwidthofafireapparatusaccessroadshallbenotlessthan20feet.D.Turningradiiofafiredepartmentaccessroadshallbeaminimumof25feetinsideand50feetoutside.E.Alldead-endroadsinexcessof150feetinlengthshallprovideadequatespaceforfireapparatustoturnaround.F.Emergencyaccessgatesshallbelocatedaminimumof40feetbackfromtheadjacentstreetflowline.Swinginggatesmustopeninthedirectionofingresstothesite.Gatesmusthaveaminimumopeningwidthof20feetEmergencyonlyaccessgatesshallhaveapprovedsignagemarked:EMERGENCYACCESSONLYNOPARKINGFIRELANE901N.SaintVramAvenue•EstesPark,CO80517•P-970-577-0900•F-970-577-0923 C4.Fireapparatusaccessroadsshallbepermanentlysignedand/ormarked“NOPARKINGFIRELANE”inaccordancewithmunicipalsign/trafficstandards.A.Accessroadslessthan26feetwideshallbemarkedasfirelanesonbothsidesoftheroad.B.Accessroadsatleast26feetwidebutlessthan32feetwideshallhaveatleastonesideoftheroadmarkedasafirelane.C.Accessroadsatleast32feetwideneednothavefirelanemarkings.AllconstructionandprocessesshallbeinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheInternationalFireCode(2009Edition)andtheInternationalBuildingCode(2009Edition).Nothinginthisreviewisintendedtoauthorizeorapproveanyaspectofthisprojectthatdoesnotstrictlycomplywithallapplicablecodesandstandards.AnychangemadetotheplanswillrequireadditionalreviewandcommentsbytheEstesValleyFireProtectionDistrict.Ifyouhaveanyquestionspleasefeelfreetocontactme.Sincerely,MarcW.RobinsonFireMarshal970-577-3689mrobinson(estesvalleyfire.orq901N.SaintVramAvenue•EstesPark,CO80517•P-970-577-0900•F-970-577-0923 1/30/14TownofEstesParkMail—Lot4comments5TESJ!.pAKLot4commentsJamesDuell<jldepsd@qwestoffice.net>Thu,Jan30,2014at5:05PMTo:‘Shirk,Dae’<dshirkestes.org>Cc:“Duell,Ron”<ridepsd@qwestoffice.net>,ThomasChris<cthomas@estesparksanitation.org>HelloDaveShirkThereisonlyonechangetotheDistrictcommentsafterthereviewofthelatestdevelopmentplansreviewedfromthedropboxthatKarenprovidedforus(pleasethankherforthat).Thedevelopmentplandoesstatethattheywillsleevethewatermainswhere10’separationwiththesewerlineisnotpossible.Thatwillbeacceptableaslongasadequatedistanceforsafereplacementofsewermainsispossiblewithoutdamagingthewatermain.Itisdifficulttodeterminealltheplaceswherethisoccursandtheproposeddistancebetweenthelinesonmy11”X17”printouts(largestprintsizeonmyprinter).Theyalsocontinuetoshowtreesbeingplantedwithinthesewereasementonthesouthsideoftheprojectandthisisnotwithinoureasementallowances.Smalltreesbecomebigtrees.TheseitemswillbediscussedatthemeetingFriday1/31/14.ConcerningtheproposedWelinessCenter,theEstesParkSanitationDistricthasthefollowingcomments(from1/17/14):1.AsperreviewoftheLot4StanleyHistoricDistrictWellnessCenterDevelopmentPlans,theexistingsewermainthroughLot4willaccommodatetheproposeddevelopment.Theproposedextensionseastandwestoftheexistingmainarealsosufficientforthedevelopment.TheDistrictwillacceptownershipofonlythoseeightinchlinesshownthatendinamanhole.Extensionsoflinethatdonotmeetthatrequirementwillbeservicelinesownedbythedevelopmentregardlessofthesizeandcomposition.2.AsperabuildoutprojectionsheetforLot1providedbyVanHornEngineering(11/6/13)theexistingmainlineshouldalsobesufficienttoaccommodatethefuturedevelopmentontheStanleyHotelproperty.TheletterfromVHEhasbeenattached.3.Asdiscussedabove,thedevelopmentproposestokeeptheexistingsewermaininplace.HoweverthesixinchservicelinethatextendswestacrosstheStanleyHotelpropertyisnolongeradequateforfuturedevelopment.ThelinewillneedtobereplacedwitheightinchPVCandmanholesaddedbeforefuturedemandisallowed.IftheexistingeightinchlinethroughLot4needstobeloweredtoaccommodatetheeventualreplacementofthesixinchline,thenitshouldbedonepriortoimprovementstakingplaceonLot4.4.ThereissomeconcernaboutthesewermainsdownstreamofLot4.ThedemandimpactfromLot4andtheStanleyHotelpropertywillbeobserved.WebelievetheteninchlineasitcrossesUS34islikelyadequateforfuturedevelopment.Wearelesscertainaboutthe15inchlinethroughtheVisitorsCenter.TheDistrictwillinvestigatecapacityconcernsandifnecessaryacapitalexpansionfeewillberequiredoftheStanleyproperties.5.Systeminvestmentfeeswillberequiredasperourscheduleforthisdevelopment.6.Werecommendindependentmeteringofirrigationwatersoitwillnotbeassessedseweruserfees.7.Theredoesnotappeartobefoodpreparationinvolvedinthisdevelopment.ShouldfoodpreparationbeconsideredinthefutureaFats,OilandGrease(FOG)interceptorwillberequiredasperourschedule.8.As-Builtplanswillberequiredforthesewermains.9.Separationofwater,sewerandstormsewershallbeaminimumoftenfeet.https://mail.goo9le.corn’mail/ca/u/0/?ui=2&iIc6ed2499adc&iewpt&search=inbox&msg143e59d0164012811/2 1/30/14/TowiofEstesParkMail-Lot4commentsa10.Theplantingoftrees)i.,nthesewereasementsshallnotbeallowLThankyoufortheopportunitytocommentontheseplans.JamesDuell,DistrictManager45DJamDuet,DtrictManager2s1e3ParkSanitationDbtrict(970)58a-2866https://mail.gcogIe.coiWmail/cWilW?ui=2&iIc6ed2499adc&iew=pt&search=inbox&msg=143e59d0164012812/2 1/29114Ton’stesParkMail-EPMC/AnschutzStatementofIntent&cationUpdate‘.‘;.E5TESEPMC/AnschutzStatementofIntent&ApplicationUpdateBilobran-CDOT,Timothy<timothy.bilobran@state.co.us>Tue,Jan28,2014at1:49PMTo:KarenThompson<kthompsonestes.org>Cc:DaShirk<dshirk©estes.org>KarenandDae,First,thankyourymuchfortheCDinthemail.Thatwasmosthelpful.IsEstesParkplanningoncontinuingtouseDropboxinthefuture?IhaeyettohearbackfromtheCDOTHeadquartersITongettingDropboxpermanentlyinstalledonmycomputer.RegardingthisStanleyWellnessCenterreferral,CDOTscommentsareasfollows:1.Regardingthezoning,CDOThasnoofficialcommentonzoning/landusearetheyaretheexclushpurviewoflocalmunicipalities.2.Regardingthe50bedexpansion,CDOTrequiresslightlydifferentinformationinthetrafficimpactmemorandumthanwhatEstesParkwouldrequire.Thestudyalreadydiscussesthedailypeaktrafficgeneratedbythisexpansion.Inadditiontothisinformation,CDOTrequires:a.HowmuchtrafficcurrentlyusestheHwy34accesspointonadailybasis?Iftheexpansionwillincreasetrafficusingtheaccesspointbygreaterthan20%onadailybasis,anewCDOTpermitwillberequired.i.Ifanewaccesspermitisrequiredbasedonthis20%threshold,thememorandummustalsodiscusswhetheranyauxiliarylanesseethisaccesspoint(andtheirdimensions)andwhatauxiliarylanesarerequiredundertheaccesscode.ii.Ifthe20%thresholdisnotcrossed,thananaccesspermitisnotrequired.Hower,thisCDOTregionattemptstoissue“Baseline”accesspermitsinthisscenario.Thisisafreepermitforthedeveloperandserstoonlymemorializethetotaldailytrafficbothbeforetheexpansionandafterwards.CDOTwouldappreciateEstesParkplacingarequirementonthedeeIopertoobtainanaccesspermitfromusineitherscenario.b.Regardingthedrainagesheets,Iamnotahydraulicsengineer.PleasebeadisedthatCDOTwillnotacceptanydrainageaboehistoricalleels(ifthesheetsshowthat).Ifyouhaeanyquestions,Icanbereachedat970-350-2163.Thankyou,TimBilobran[Quotedtexthidden]https://mail.gcogle.comfmaiI/ca/ufO/?ui=2&i6ed2499adc&ewpt&seachrbox&n$gl43da9cctf9fdaa671/1 4COLORADOPARKS&WILDLIFEAreaTwo•4207WestCountyRoad16E•Loveland,Colorado80537Phone970-472-4460.FAX970-472-4468cpw.state.co.usJan.29,2014DaveShirkSeniorPlannerCommunityDevelopmentTownofEstesParkP.O.Box1200EstesPark,CO80517DearDave:ThankyouforprovidingColoradoParks&Wildlife(CPW)theopportunitytocommentontheproposedEPMC/AnschutzWeitnessTrainingCenterDevelopment.Thissiteiscriticalelkandmuledeerwinterrange.Largenumbersofelk(100+)arefrequentlyseengrazingonthisparcel.Removalofnaturalvegetationresultingfromdevelopmentwilllikelyreduceforageforelkanddeer.Fragmentingthepropertybyrestrictingtheopenspaceoflot4totheeastern1/3(alongSteamerDr.)willreduceitsvalueaswildlifehabitat.Thisisespeciallytrueforlargeelkherdsduringwinter.Consequentlyelkanddeermaybeforcedtoincreasegrazingwithsubsequentdamagetoplantsonadjacentlandsorontheremainingopenspacelandonsite.Unlesswellprotected,newlandscapingwillbedamagedbyelkanddeer.Forreference.CPWisnotfinanciallyresponsiblefordamagetolandscaping.OnrequestDistrictWildlifeManagerRickSpowartmaybeabletoprovideinformationonappropriatebarriersthatmaybeinstalledtoprotectplantings.TheStanleyHotelandnearbybusinesseshavehadconflictswithblackbearsgettingintogarbageandenteringbuildingsduringthepastfewyears.TheStanleyHotelhasexpressedconcernforthesafetyoftheiremployeesatnightbecauseofbearsbeingattractedtotheirkitchenarea.Providingbearresistantgarbagecontainmentwillreduceavailabilityforbearstoaccesstrash,andCPWwouldencouragetheuseofwildliferesistantcontainersorsecurebuilding/satthislocation.Outsidedoorhandlesforthebuildingshouldnotbethelevertypeandfirststorywindowsshouldbeclosedandmadesecureatnight.STATEOFCOLORADOJohnWHkenIooper,Governor•MikeKing,ExecutiveDirector,DepartmentofNaturalResourcesBob0.Broscheid.Director,ColoradoParksandWildhfeParksandWikfliCommission:RobertW.Bray•ChrisCastilian,Secretary•JeanneHomeiflKane.Chair•GasparPerricone•JamesPribyl•JohnSingletaryMarkSmith,Vice-Chair•JamesVigil.DeanWngtleki•MichelleZimmerman ..Anincreaseinvehiculartrafficresultingfromdevelopmentandoperationofbusinesseswilllikelyincreasethenumberofaccidentsbetweenwildlifeandvehicles.Currently.thereisasevereproblemwithwildlife/vehiclecollisionsinthisvicinity.Loweredspeedlimits,trafficbumps,lightedwarningsignsorothertechniquesmaybedeployedtoincreasetheattentionofdriverstousecautioninthisarea.PerhapstheStreetDepartmentorthePoliceDepartmentmayhaveotherideasonhowtolowerriskbetweenvehiclesandpassingwildlife.Onceagainweappreciatetheopportunitytoreviewandcommentonthisproposal.PleasefeelfreetocontactRickSpowartat970-667-2984ifwemaybeoffurtherservice.Sincerely.LarryRogstadAreaWildlifeManagerCC:S.Yamashita,T.Kroening,M.Taylor,L.Rogstad,R.Spowart ..ElHISTORY30January2014KarenThompsonAdministrativeAssistantCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentTownofEstesPark170MacGregorAve.EstesPark,CO80517RE:ProposedAnschutzWellnessCenter.StanleyHotel,333WestWonderviewAvenue,EstesPark,LarimerCountyDearMs.Thompson:Thankyouforyourrecentcorrespondencereceivedon12814,concerningtheproposedconstructionofanewWeilnessCenteronlandlocatedwithintheStanleyHistoricDistrictinEstesPark.Ourofficehasreviewedthesubmittedmaterials.TheStanleyHotel(5LR.478)waslistedontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesin1977.Aswenotedinourletterdated122.14,ourcommentsareprovidedpursuanttoEstesParkTownOrdinances14-91andI597,whichrequestSHPOcommentonprojectsthattakeplacewithinthetown’sStanleyHistoricDistrict.TheprojectathandisaproposaltoconstructaWelinessCenteronLot4oftheStanleyHistoricDistrict.TheCenterwillconsistofa“WellnessTrainingCenter”andtwo“Accommodations”buildings,togetherwithassociatedlandscapingandparking.Thesewillbelarge,multi-storybuildings,buttheywillalsobeconstructedonahillidethatwillhelptohidetheirbulkfromtheStanleyHotelitself.Inaddition,thehillyterrainwillallowtheStanleyHotelitselftoremainvisiblefromvantagepointsidentifiedbytheTownasimportantandworthyofpreservation.Aswenotedinour12214letter,therearesomedesignissuesassociatedwiththeproposedWeilnessCenterthatmayormaynotmeetthedesignstandardscreatedbytheTownfortheStanleyHistoricDistrict(Chapter17.44.060(d).StanleyHistoricDistrictProceduresandStandardsforDevelopment).ItappearsthattheseissuescanberesolvedbytheTownandtheApplicantbymakingminordesignchangesand/orgrantinganexemptiontothedesignstandardsforthisproject.Theitemsweidentifiedfromourreviewoftheplansarelistedbelow:Wallsandroofs:The11/1213memoandthe117:13conceptualdrawingsshowwhitewallsandredroofs,whicharenotpennittedbythedesignstandards.Theapplicanthasappliedforpermissiontousethesecolorsforthisproject.TheSecretaryoftheInterior’sforOFFICEOFARCHAEOLOGYANDHISTORICPRESERVATION303-866-3392*Fax303-866-2711*E-mail:oahpastate.co.usInternet:vww.historycoIoradoorgHistoryColorado.1200Broadway,Denver,CO80203•:I.. ..Rehabilitationencouragenewadditionsandassociatednewbuildingstobedesignedinawaythatmimics(butdoesnotreplicate)thehistoricbuilding(s).AcommonwayofmeetingtheseStandardsistouseasimilarcolorscheme,butusedifferentmaterials(forexample,touseredasphaltshinglesinsteadofredclayroofingtiles).Anothersuccessfulapproachistomatchthematerialsandcolors,buttomakethesematerialsplainandunornamentedtoclearlydistinguishhistoricbuildings/materialsfromnewones.Buildingheight:BarryR.Smith’sarchitecturaldrawings(SheetA5.0,I17’iJ)indicatethatportionsofthebuildingwillexceedthemaximum30feetheightlimit(althoughthemajorityofthebuildingwillbelessthan30feethighfromgroundtorooflineinanygivenspot).Unbrokenelevation(length):Smith’sarchitecturaldrawings(SheetA5.0,11713)andVanHornEngineering’sDevelopmentPlan(Sheet7,lI/I/13)showthataportionofthelargerbuilding’swestelevationwillfeatureanunbrokenelevationmeasuring149.5feetinlength,withnobreakorchangeatthe125-footmarkasprescribedinthedesignstandards.Conicalroofs:Thedesignstandardsprohibit“conicalroofs,”butthistypeofroofisnotspecificallydefined.TheLectureHallportionofthelargerbuildingfeaturesatapering,eight-sidedroofthatmayormaynotbeconsidered“conical’inshape.Exteriorfinishmaterials:Thedesignstandardscontainexamplesofallowableandprohibitedexteriorfinishmaterials.Nomaterialswerespecifiedintheprojectmaterialssubmittedtoouroffice,sotheprojectmayormaynotmeettheserequirements.Asnotedabove,theSecretaryoftheInterior’sSJI4JQtgciN1itaIi2encouragecompatibilitywithhistoricmaterials,butalsocautionagainstthecreationofa“historical”appearanceinanew,non-historicbuilding.WebelievethattheproposedprojectcanbesuccessfullybuiltandintegratedintothelargerStanleyHistoricDistrictiftheseissuesareaddressedtothesatisfactionoftheTown.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactJosephSaldibar,ArchitecturalServicesManager.at(303)866-3741.S4cerely,FwardCNicholsStateHistoricPreservationOfficer,andPresident,ColoradoHistoricalSocietyOFFICEOFARCHAEOLOGYANDHISTORICPRESERVATION303-866-3392Fax303-866-2711*1--mail:oahpachs.siate.co.usInternet:http::www.coloradohistory-oahp.org-2- .OArchitL.cts.Inc.www.rbborchitects.com315EastMoLniainAvenue,Suite100FortCoUns,Cooodo80524-2913Ph970484.0117Fox970.484.0264DaveShirkSeniorPlannerTownofEstesPark,CORe:ArchitectureReviewofEPMC/AnschutzWellnessTrainingCenterDearMr.Shirk,Thankyoufortheopportunitytodoanarchitecturalreviewofthisproject.MyunderstandingfromspeakingwithyouonthephoneandfromreadingthevariousdocumentsprovidedtomebyyourofficeisthatcurrentlythepropertyiswithintheStanleyHistoricDistrictasdescribedinChapter17.44oftheEstesParkMunicipalCodebutitisnotpartoftheStanleyHotelComplexasdescribedinSection17.44.060DesignandPerformanceStandardsItem(f).Ihaveseveralconcernswiththisproposalineithercase,whetheritisultimatelyconsideredapartoftheStanleyComplexandabletomimicthestyleoftheStanleyorwhetheritisnot.Reviewcommentsareprovidedforbothscenarios:Importanttonote:1.SiteDesign—buildingsshallbedesignedtofollownaturalcontours.PerSheetA1.1thesiteslopes20feetfromSteamerParkwaytothebackofthelot.Theapplicantshouldconsidersteppingthebuildingsdownwiththeslope.ParticularlythelengthofAccommodations-iasseeninthecomputerrendering“NortheasternViewfromEWonderviewAye”illustratestheamountofexposedbasementwallastheFFEremainsconstantandthegradeslopesaway.Theabruptone-storychangeatthe90degreecornerisproblematic.ThisisalsoevidentintheSiteSection—ViewCorridorSectiononSheetA6.0.MuchmoresuccessfulisthesteppingschemeillustratedintheSouthwestElevationonSheetA5.0.2.Circulation,Parking,ServiceAccessandSlopes.Thesitecirculationandaccessappearstobefairlysuccessfulwiththemajorityoftheparkingscreenedbythebuildings.Parkingappearstobesomewhatremovedfromthemainentrancestothebuildings.Becauseofthisthedrop-off,circledriveandsidewalkswillbehighlyused.Verifythatthetrafficcirclecanaccommodateamovingvehiclepassingastoppedvehicle.Bikeparkingneartheentrancesisappreciated.IntegrationwiththemasterplanshownonSheetA0.0shouldbewellthought-out.Drivewayandsidewalkdesignshouldtakefuturetie-insintoconsideration.3.BuildingDesign.Heightisoverthe30footlimitinSection17.44.060D(1)althoughthesteppingdownofthebuildingandtreatmentofthenewgradehelpsaddressthisissue,manyoftheroofsarestillover30’.4.ThearchitecturalstyleofthesebuildingsdoesimitatethehistoricstyleoftheStanleyHotelcomplexwhichisprohibitedinSection17.44.060D(2).5.Prohibitedarchitecturalstyles,motifsandrooflineshavebeenrespectedwithexceptionoftheargumentofmimickingthestyleoftheStanleyHotel.6.RoofMaterials—Idon’tfindanindicationofanyofthebuildingmaterialsinthedocumentsIwasprovided.FromtherenderingsitappearsthatcolorsareintendedtomatchtheStanleyHotelwhichisprohibitedbythissection.Allmaterialsshouldbehighquality. •IArchitects.Inc.www.rbbarchitects.com315EastMountainAvenue,Suite100FortCoJlins,Goorado80524-2913Ph9?0.484.0117Fax970.484.02647.Facades—ThedesignofAccomodations-1buildingdoesnotmeettherequirementofbreakingupthemassingwithbuildingfaçadeandroofshiftsof10or15feetdependingonlength.WiththeelevationchangesreflectedonSheetA5.Oitappearstheapplicantmaybeworkingonasolutiontothisissue,howeverthefloorplansdonotshowhowtheelevationshiftisaccomplished(nostepsorrampsinthehall)sotheremayalsobeaplanshifttobreakupthefaçadewhichisnotyetshown.8.BuildingMaterials—noindicationofbuildingmaterialsisincludedinthesubmittalpackage.AnindicationofmasonryatthebaseofthebuildingonSheetA5.0and5.1isappreciated.Thecolorrenderingsdidnotshowabasetreatmentwhichisnecessary.9.Wallcolors—thecolorrenderingsshowacolorpalettetomatchtheHotelStanleywhichisprohibited.10.Lighting—AcutsheetforLEDlightfixtureswasprovided.Thisisanicefixturewithgoodevencoverageandcut-off.Noindicationoflocationswasfoundonthesubmittedplans.LightfixturesaretomatchastandardspecifiedbythePlanningCommission.11.Signs—ThedesignincludedinthedrawingsisinkeepingwiththecharacteroftheoveralldevelopmentandappearstomatchtheexistingsignatTheStanleyHotel.Thestonebaseshouldmatchthestoneusedinotherstructuresonthepropertyandotherfreestandingmonumentsigns.IftheprojectissuccessfulinbecomingapartoftheStanleyHotelComplexthefollowingshouldbenoted:1.NewBuildings—ScaleandsizeisveryimportantinordertonotcompetewiththeStanley.Commentsaboveinregardtomassingarestillappropriate.2.Newbuildingsaretobedistinguishablefromhistoric,yetvisuallycompatibleandconsistentwiththehistoriccharacter.Thecurrentdesigniscertainlyattemptingtomeetthisdifficultmixofoldbutnew.Forthemostpartitissuccessfulhowever,thereisanimbalanceintheamountofdetailingonsomefacadesvsothers.ThebalconiesontheAccomodations-1buildingarehighlydetailedwhilethelongstretchoftheSoutheastElevationappearsveryplain.SimilarlytheEntryontheNortheastelevationisimpressivebutthebuildingtothesouthappearsirregularandunorganized.Morestudyoftherules,proportionsanddetailingofthehistoricstylewouldbeappropriate.TherearenoHVACthrough-wallunitsshownontheelevationsasareprevalentinmodernhoteldesign.Itishopedthatthesearenotplannedtobeadded.Sincerely,RebeccaESpears,AlA,LEEDAP,PrincipalRB+BArchitects,Inc.970-488-3854rspearsrbbarchitects.com 333 451 621 800 500 631 561 601 635 611 685 500 625 620 641 665 655 695 610 610 690 675 645 500 680 600 533533 640 650 620 650 670 600500 636640 625 625 651 252254 Bl ack Canyon CreekSTEAMER DRE W O N D E R V I E W A V E S W S T E A M E R P K W Y BIG THOMPSON AVEFINDLEY CTF R E E L A N D C T STEAMER CTThis draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon. Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you. 0 130 260Feet 1 in = 242 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Developmen t Stanley Historic DistrictLot 42010 Aerial PhotoPrinted: 2/10/2014Created By: dave shirk Legend Lots Edge of Pavement Buildings Private Public A CO R RM CD 333 451 621 800 500 631 561 601 635 611 685 500 625 620 641 665 655 695 610 610 690 675 645 500 680 600 533533 640 650 620 650 670 600500 636640 625 625 651 252254 Bl ack Canyon CreekSTEAMER DRE W O N D E R V I E W A V E S W S T E A M E R P K W Y BIG THOMPSON AVEFINDLEY CTF R E E L A N D C T STEAMER CTThis draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon. Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you. 0 130 260Feet 1 in = 242 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Developmen t Stanley Historic DistrictLot 4Zoning DistrictsPrinted: 2/10/2014Created By: dave shirk Legend Lots Edge of Pavement Buildings Private Public Zoning Zoning Class Accomodations (A) Accomodations (A-1) Commercial Outlying (CO) Commercial Downtown (CD) Commercial Heavy (CH) Office (O) Restricted Industrial (I-1) Rural Estate: 10 acre min. (RE-1) Rural Estate: 2 1/2 acre min. (RE) Estate: 1 acre min. (E-1) Estate: 1/2 acre min. (E) Residential: 1/4 acre min. (R) Residential: 5000 sqft min. (R-1) Two Family: 27,000 sqft min. (R-2) Multi-Family: 3-8 du/acre (RM) To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Town Board of Trustees Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator From: Alison Chilcott, Community Development Director Phil Kleisler, Planner I/Code Compliance Officer Date: February 25, 2014 RE: Problem Statement for Estes Valley Development Code Lapse of Approvals Objective Revise the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to allow longer time periods in which approvals for code amendments, special reviews and variances are valid. Present Situation Special Review and Variance approval expires after one (1) year from the final approval date. In each instance applicants must apply for a building permit or commence construction or operation within that one-year window. Failure to take such action within that time period automatically renders approval null and void. If approved concurrently with a development plan, code amendments also become null and void within one year. Applicants often wish to process numerous, concurrent applications. One application package in such instances frequently includes a Code Amendment, Special Review or Variance. Problems may arise following approval of concurrent applications with the different time limitations (three years for the development plan, but only one year for other approvals). Applications that require concurrent review are often complex enough to warrant a three (3) year lapse time for all approvals. Case Studies: Mountain River Townhomes The Mountain River Townhome project recently processed Development Plan and Variance concurrently. In this example, the timeframe to commence building activity is shortened from three years to one. Therefore, if the applicant is unable to apply for a building permit or commence construction within a year, a new variance must be obtained. If that second variance were denied, the entire project (development plan) would become null and void. This could become problematic if required infrastructure has been installed. Community Development Memo Page 1 Estes Park Medical Center/Anschutz Wellness Center Other projects, such as the proposed Wellness Center, wish to receive some or all development approvals during or prior to fundraising. In this case the Hospital District’s fundraising time would be shortened from three (3) years to one (1), given the Special Review and Code Amendment approvals. Proposal Staff recommends that code revisions for public review to provide standards that allow longer time periods in which approvals for Code Amendments, Special Reviews and Variances are valid (one year to three years). Advantages • Greater flexibility for complex projects. • Alignment with Section 3.10 Vested Rights of the EVDC, which establishes vesting rights for site-specific development plans. Such plans are “vested” for a period of three (3) years following the final approval by the decision-making body. Disadvantages • None. Action Recommended On February 18, 2014, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0; one commissioner absent and one recused) to recommend approval of the proposed EVDC text amendment, as described in the problem statement. Budget Legal notice, publication and codification fees are minimal ($300). Level of Public Interest Low Sample Motion I move to approve (or deny) Ordinance 07-14. Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 07-14 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 3.3, 3.5 AND 3.6 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO LAPSE OF APPROVALS WHEREAS, Sections 3.3 Code Amendments, 3.5 Special Review Uses, and 3.6 Variances of the Estes Valley Development Code provide for lapses of approvals within one (1) year; and WHEREAS, for phased and/or large projects, the one (1) year period is insufficient to allow for design, financing and construction of these projects. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 3.3 (E) Effect of Approvals and Lapse shall be amended to read as follows: Section 3.3 (E) When a development plan is required by this Section, if an Applicant fails to either apply for a building permit or commence operation with regard to the rezoning approval consistent with such development plan within three (3) years from the effective date of the amendment, such development plan shall automatically lapse and become null and void. In the event a development plan has lapsed, the Board, at its discretion, may institute rezoning proceedings pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this Section to rezone the affected land areas. Section 2. Section 3.5 (C) Lapse of the Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended to read as follows: Section 3.5 (C) Lapse 1. Failure of an Applicant to either apply for a building permit or commence operation with regard to the special review use approval within three (3) years of the approval of special review shall automatically render the decision null and void. 2. If a legally established special review use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive years or more, then the decision originally approving such special review use shall automatically lapse and be null and void. 3. Prior to the end of the three year period set forth in Sections 3.5 (C) 1 and 2 above, the owner of the property receiving special review use approval may seek an extension of the three (3) year lapse period for an additional two (2) years by petitioning either the Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners for an extension of two (2) years. Said petition shall be filed prior to the expiration of the three year lapse period and shall set forth reasons that the project has not been commenced and stating the reasons why the project will be commenced within the requested two (2) year period. The decision on any extension shall be at the sole discretion of the Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners. Section 3. Section 3.6 (D) Lapse shall be amended to read as follows: Section 3.6 (D) Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. However, variances associated with an approved development plan or special review application shall become null and void upon the lapse or expiration of the approval of the development plan or special review. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this _______ day of ____________, 2014. TOWN OF ESTES PARK ________________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _____________________ Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at the meeting of the Board of Trustees on the ______ day of _______________, 2014, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the _____ day of _______________, 2014. ________________________________ Town Clerk (Ord. 18-01 #5, 10/23/01; Ord. 18-02 #2, 12/10/02; Ord. 8-05 #1, 6/14/05) § 3.3 CODE AMENDMENTS A. Initiation. Applications for text or Official Zoning Map amendments may be initiated by the following: Step 1: Pre-Application Conference Step 2: Application Submittal Notice of Deficiencies Staff Reviews for Completeness and Certifies or Rejects Step 3: Staff Review of Complete Application Referral to Local, State and Federal Agencies Staff Reports/Set Public Hearing if Required Step 4: Review and Recommendation or Action by Estes Valley Planning Commission Applicant has 30 days from EVPC action date to comply with conditions of approval EVPC action deemed final Step 5: Review and Action by Town Board/ Board of County Commissioners Applicant has 30 days from Board action to comply with conditions of approval Board action deemed final 1. By motion of the Estes Valley Planning Commission; 2. By request of either Board; or 3. By application for a rezoning by the owner(s) of the property for which the amendment is requested. B. Private-Party-Initiated Applications for Code Amendments (Rezonings). All applications for text or Official Zoning Map amendments initiated pursuant to §3.3.A.3 above shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Development Plan Required. All applications seeking to amend this Code to allow a change from one (1) zone district to a different zone district or seeking to amend this Code by changing the permitted uses in any zone district shall be accompanied by a development plan. This requirement may be waived by Staff if it finds that the projected size, complexity, anticipated impacts or other factors associated with the proposed development or subdivision clearly justify such waiver. 2. Contents of Development Plan. See Appendix B to this Code for submittal requirements. 3. Within one (1) year from the effective date of this Code, any property owner may apply for rezoning on the basis that an error in the original zoning was made. Staff may waive the development plan requirements based upon the nature of the proposed request. Applicant must submit a statement of request setting forth information, data and reasons why the error exists. C. Procedures for Approval. All applications for text or Official Zoning Map amendments shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in §3.2 of this Chapter. D. Standards for Review. All applications for text or Official Zoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this Code. 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. E. Effect of Approvals and Lapse. When a development plan is required by this Section, if an Applicant fails to apply for a building permit andor commence construction or operation with regard to the rezoning approval consistent with such development plan within one (1)three (3) years from the effective date of the amendment, such development plan shall automatically lapse and become null and void. At its discretion, the Board may institute rezoning proceedings pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this Section to rezone the affected land areas. F. Applications for Building Permits During Consideration of Application for Amendment to this Code. 1. Whenever an ordinance or resolution has been introduced before the Boards that involves a change in zoning from a less restricted district to a more restricted district, or to set forth prohibited uses in any existing zone district, no building permit shall be issued for a period not to exceed one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the introduction of such zoning amendment when such building permit would authorize the construction of a building or the establishment of a use that would become nonconforming under the contemplated zoning amendment. 2. If such ordinance or resolution is not adopted within one hundred twenty (120) days, the appropriate public entity is authorized to accept applications and issue building permits regardless of the pendency of such amendment. § 3.4 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS A. Applicability. Planned Unit Developments may be approved in any zoning district in which this Code expressly permits such projects (See Chapter 9), subject to the standards set forth in this Code and the approval procedures set forth in this Section. B. Consolidation with Subdivision Approval. Where applicable, the Applicant shall consolidate an application for Preliminary PUD Plan approval with an application for preliminary subdivision plan approval, and shall consolidate an application for Final PUD Plan approval with an application for final subdivision plat approval. Such consolidated application shall be submitted in a form that satisfies both the planned unit development requirements of this Code and the provisions, including submittal requirements, governing subdivisions. C. Procedures for Approval of a PUD Plan. The PUD is first approved in preliminary form and then approved in final form. Approval of preliminary and final Planned Unit Development plans shall follow the same procedures as approval of preliminary and final subdivision plats. See §3.9 below for the subdivision approval process. D. Standards for Review. All applications for Planned Unit Developments shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements and review standards set forth below and in Chapter 9, “Planned Unit Developments,” and with all other applicable provisions of this Code. 1. Preliminary PUDs. An application for approval of a Preliminary PUD Plan, together with submitted plans and reports, shall be reviewed for conformance with the following standards: a. The PUD shall be consistent with and implement the planning goals, policies and objectives as contained in this Code and in the Comprehensive Plan; b. Adverse impacts on adjacent properties, including but not limited to traffic, noise and visual impacts, shall be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible; c. The PUD shall be integrated with adjacent development through street connections, sidewalks, trails and similar features; d. Except as provided in Chapter 9 below, all district, development and subdivision standards set forth in Chapters 4 (Zoning Districts), 7 (General Development Standards) and 10 (Subdivision Standards) shall be met; and e. As allowed in Chapter 9 below, certain standards may be modified or varied upon a finding that the proposed PUD incorporates creative site design such that it represents an improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through strict application of the otherwise applicable district or development standards, including but not limited to improvements in open space provision and access; environmental protection; tree/vegetation preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads and other utilities and services; or choice of living and housing environments. 2. Standards for Review for a Final PUD Plan. A Final PUD Plan application, together with all submitted plans and reports, shall be reviewed to determine their compliance with the approved preliminary PUD plan, including all recommended conditions. E. Effect of Approvals. 1. Effect of Approval of a Preliminary PUD Plan. The provisions set forth in §3.9.F below applicable to a preliminary subdivision plan shall apply to a preliminary PUD plan. 2. Effect of Approval of a Final PUD Plan. The provisions set forth in §3.9.F below applicable to a final subdivision plat shall apply to a final PUD plan. A final PUD plan shall be recorded as the final subdivision plat, as per §3.9.F below. § 3.5 SPECIAL REVIEW USES A. Procedures for Approval of Special Review Uses. Applications for approval of a special review use shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in §3.2 of this Chapter. B. Standards for Review. All applications for a special review use shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 5, "Use Regulations," of this Code and the following requirement: The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. C. Lapse. 1. Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit andor commence construction or operation with regard to the special review use approval within one (1) three (3) years of receivingthe approval of the special review use shall automatically render the decision null and void. 2. If a legally established special review use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of one (1) three (3) consecutive years or more, then the decision originally approving such special review use shall automatically lapse and be null and void. 3. Prior to the end of the three year period set forth in Sections 3.5 (C) 1 and 2 above, the owner of the property receiving special review use approval may seek an extension of the three (3) year lapse period for an additional two (2) years by petitioning either the Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners for an extension of two (2) years. Said petition shall be filed prior to the expiration of the three year lapse period and shall set forth reasons that the project has not been commenced and stating the reasons why the project will be commenced within the requested two (2) year period. The decision on any extension shall be at the sole discretion of the Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners. § 3.6 VARIANCES A. Applicability. The BOA shall hear requests for variances where it is alleged that the provisions of this Code inflict unnecessary hardship and practical difficulties upon the Applicant. B. Procedure for Approval of Variances. Applications for approval of variances shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in §3.2 of this Chapter, except for the following modifications: 1. Step 2: Application Timing. Applications for variances shall be submitted to Staff a minimum of forty-two (42) days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting of the BOA. Staff shall have the discretion to shorten submittal timeframes. (Ord. 8-05 #1) 2. Step 4: Review and Action by the BOA. The staff report on an application for a variance shall be forwarded to the BOA. The BOA shall review the application, staff report and public meeting testimony and take final action by either approving, approving with conditions or denying such application. The BOA's decision on the application shall be final. C. Standards for Review. All applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth below: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; b. Whether the variance is substantial; c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; and f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. 7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. D. Lapse. Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. However, variances associated with an approved development plan or special review application shall become null and void upon the lapse or expiration of the approval of the development plan or special review. (Ord. 18-02 #4, 12/10/02; Ord. 8-05 #1, 6/14/05) § 3.7 MINOR MODIFICATIONS A. Applicability. 1. Staff Minor Modifications to Approved Final Plans. Staff may grant minor modifications to approved development plans (including approved development plans for rezonings), final PUD plans and final subdivision plats, provided that the Staff finds that such modification advances the goals and purposes of this Code and results in more effective environmental or open space preservation or relieves practical difficulties in developing a site. In no circumstance, however, shall the Staff approve a modification that results in: a. An increase in overall project density; b. A decrease in lot size; c. A change in permitted uses or mix of uses; d. An increase in building height; e. An expansion of established limits of disturbance greater than ten percent (10%); or f. An increase in the ratio of floor area to lot area (FAR). 2. Minor Modifications from General Development and Zone District Standards. a. Staff Authority to Grant Minor Modifications. Staff may grant minor modifications up to a maximum of ten percent (10%) from the following general development and zone district standards, provided that the Staff finds that such modification advances the goals and purposes of this Code and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieves practical difficulties in developing a site: (1) Minimum lot area and dimensional requirements; (Ord. 8-05 #1) (2) Yard and building setback requirements; (3) General development standards set forth in Chapter 7; or (4) Subdivision design standards set forth in Chapter 10. b. EVPC Authority to Grant Minor Modifications. The EVPC may grant minor modifications up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%) from the following general development and zone district standards, provided that the EVPC finds that such modification advances the goals and purposes of this Code and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieves practical difficulties in developing a site: (1) Minimum lot area and dimensional requirements; (Ord. 8-05 #1) PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Scott Zurn, PE, Public Works Director Date: February 25, 2014 RE: Memorandum Of Agreement Between Central Federal Lands, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado Department of Transportation and Town of Estes Park for Administration of the FLAP Grant. Objective: This is a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Central Federal Lands (Federal Highways), the Town of Estes Park and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) regarding the design and construction of the relocation and creation of a new highway configuration in Estes Park. The objective of this action is to consider the MOA and to agree on the roles of the entities to execute the project. Present Situation: The Town of Estes Park successfully received grant funding through the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP). Subsequently, the Town of Estes Park and CDOT secured the required matching funds through the state of Colorado’s RAMP grant program. These two major grant awards were secured for the purpose of constructing a major reconfiguration of the state and federal highways through downtown Estes Park. The current two-way roadway would be modified to a one-way roadway network. This concept would be created by construction of additional roadway in the area of Riverside Drive near the post office and then traversing to the area of the Children’s Park parking lot. (See Attachment) This project would relieve downtown traffic congestion for the foreseeable future. Proposal: Staff proposes the Town Board consider the MOA which defines the roles of the three entities in the delivery of the project through design and acquisition of Rights Of Way to actual construction. The intent of roles is defined in the MOA and the members of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) are established. The TAC will direct the project through completion. In addition, an appeal procedure for differences in the TAC members is established in the MOA. Advantages: The approval of the MOA would define the roles for the three government entities so the project delivery can begin. This project relieves major traffic congestion in Estes Park during its busy tourism months thus reducing pollution and addressing a significant visitor experience complaint documented by numerous surveys over the years. This project also creates a new roadway network that creates economic benefits by establishing potential redevelopment areas and new commercial development potential. Disadvantages: Disadvantages are that the Town assumes approximately one mile of state-owned roadway on West Elkhorn Avenue for maintenance. In addition, some existing properties will be impacted by acquisition of their properties for needed rights of way. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the MOA to begin the delivery of the project for the benefit of the federal, state, and Town citizens. Budget: Funded through the FLAP and RAMP grants. Level of Public Interest This Project and MOA are of high interest in the community. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the Memorandum of Agreement between Central Federal Lands, the Town of Estes Park and the Colorado Department of Transportation in order to proceed with the execution of the One Way Couplet State Highways reconfiguration in downtown Estes Park as outlined in the statement of work (see attached). Attachments: MOA, statement of work and reimbursement agreement. 1 FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM PROJECT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Project / Facility Name: Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive Project Route: CO FLAP 34(1) & 36(1) State: Colorado County: Larimer County Owner of Federal Lands to which the Project Provides Access: National Park Service Entity with Title or Maintenance Responsibility for Facility: Town of Estes Park Type of Work: The project is to include preliminary engineering, construction and construction engineering for the reconstruction on Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive in the Town of Estes Park. The routes are currently two lane routes at varying widths. The proposed project would reconfigure the circulation system through Estes Park by realigning and reconstructing West and East Riverside Drives into a continuous one-way (eastbound) roadway and reconfiguring Elkhorn Avenue/Moraine Avenue to a one-way configuration (westbound) creating one- way couplets through Estes Park that would be US Highway 36. The reconfiguration would also include upgrades to Rockwell Street to accommodate additional traffic from the change of Elkhorn Avenue to one-way in the westbound direction. This Agreement does not obligate (commit to) the expenditure of Federal funds nor does it commit the parties to complete the project. Rather, this Agreement sets forth the respective responsibilities as the project proceeds through the project development process. 2 Parties to this Agreement: Town of Estes Park (TOEP), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), NPS, and Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD). The Program Decision Committee approved this project on August 26, 2013. AGREED: Town of Estes Park Date Colorado Department of Transportation Date National Park Service Date Director of Program Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division Date 3 A. PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT This Agreement documents the intent of the parties and sets forth the anticipated responsibilities of each party in the development, construction, and future maintenance of the subject project. The purpose of the Agreement is to identify and assign responsibilities for the environmental analysis, design, right-of-way, utilities, acquisition and construction as appropriate for this programmed project, and to ensure maintenance of the facility for public use if improvements are made. The parties understand that any final decision as to design or construction will not be made until after the environmental analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is completed (this does not prevent the parties from assigning proposed design criteria to be studied in the NEPA process.) Any decision to proceed with the design and construction of the project will depend on the availability of appropriations at the time of obligation and other factors such as issues raised during the NEPA process, a natural disaster that changes the need for the project, a change in Congressional direction, or other relevant factors. If Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) funds are used for the development or construction of this project, Town of Estes Park, Colorado agrees to provide a matching share equal to 17.21% or more of the total cost of the project, as detailed more fully in Section J below. B. AUTHORITY This Agreement is entered into between the signatory parties pursuant to the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 204. C. JURISDICTION AND MAINTENANCE COMMITMENT Town of Estes Park, Colorado has jurisdictional authority to operate and maintain the existing facility and will operate and maintain the completed project at its expense. D. FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY COORDINATION Town of Estes Park, Colorado has coordinated project development with the National Park Service. The National Park Service support of the project is documented in the original project application. Each party to this agreement who has a primary role in NEPA, design, or construction shall coordinate their activities with the National Park Service. E. PROJECT BACKGROUND/SCOPE The project traverses thru the Town of Estes Park Park via Elkhorn Avenue (US34/36), Moraine Avenue (US 36) and West and East Riverside Drive. The proposed project would reconfigure the circulation system through Estes Park by realigning and reconstructing West and East Riverside Drives into a continuous one-way (eastbound) roadway and reconfiguring Elkhorn Avenue/Moraine Avenue to a one- way configuration (westbound) creating one-way couplets through Estes Park that would be US Highway 36. The reconfiguration would also include upgrades to Rockwell Street to accommodate additional traffic from the change of Elkhorn Avenue to one-way in the westbound direction. 4 Figure 1 – Project Area Map Roadway. The West and East Riverside Drive and Ivy Street segments will be reconstructed/realigned using a 25-mph design speed with two 12 foot travel lanes. The application did not include any shoulders but the Town discussed the desire for some sort of on-street bicycle lane, and CDOT standards generally require a minimum 4 foot shoulder. The application shows parallel on street parking on the southern section of the roadway, but no on-street parking on the northern end of Riverside Drive where there are existing driveways, which would lead to backing out onto the US highway. Route Segments: The project application stated current average daily traffic (ADT) as 10,000 with current seasonal ADT of 17,900 and projected ADT of 14,000 with a projected seasonal ADT of 25,060. These numbers represent the general total ADT through the project area using the existing and proposed roadway segments to travel through Estes Park towards Rocky Mountain National Park. ADT information shown for each roadway segment is an estimation of the current configuration verse proposed project configuration for each segment (Current/Proposed). Segment 1: Elkhorn Avenue (US 36/US 34 Business) from E. Riverside Dr. to Moraine Ave. Currently two lanes westbound and one lane eastbound with curb and gutter and attached sidewalk/streetscape. The Project will reconfigure this segment by restriping to two lanes in a one-way configuration in the westbound direction expanding to two left turn lanes and one through lane at Moraine Avenue intersection. 5 Figures 2 and 3 – Existing Elkhorn Avenue Segment 2: Moraine Avenue (US 36) from Elkhorn Avenue to Crags Dr./W. Riverside Dr. Currently two lanes southbound and one lane northbound expanded to include an additional northbound lane from Rockwell Street to Elkhorn Avenue. The existing roadway has curb and gutter and attached sidewalk/streetscape. The Project will reconfigure this segment by restriping to two lanes in a one-way configuration in the southbound direction expanded to include a left turn lane in addition to the two through lanes from Elkhorn Avenue to Rockwell Street. Figures 4 and 5 – Existing Moraine Avenue Segment 3: W Riverside Dr./Ivy St./E Riverside Dr. (Moraine Ave. to Elkhorn Ave.) Currently these three roadway segments make up the parallel alternative route to Moraine Avenue/Elkhorn Ave. These segments currently include a northbound and southbound lane with varied on-street and adjacent parking (parallel, diagonal, straight in, driveways), and sections of curb and gutter and attached sidewalk. The Project will reconstruct and realign these segments into a continuous roadway segment with two northbound lanes with curb and gutter and attached sidewalk, and sections of parallel parking. The proposed project includes creating a new intersection of Riverside Drive/Crags Drive/Moraine Avenue to provide eastbound Moraine Avenue traffic a through movement to this segment which will become the northbound section of US 36 through Estes Park. 6 Figures 6 and 7 – Existing Riverside Drive Segment 4: Rockwell Street from Moraine Ave to E. Riverside Dr. Currently one lane from Moraine Avenue for approximately 250 feet to the existing adjacent public parking lots, then one lane eastbound and westbound to East Riverside Drive. The Project will keep this configuration; however, the amount of traffic will greatly increase as this will be the eastbound route for traffic traveling eastbound on Elkhorn Avenue west of Moraine Avenue. Figures 8 and 9 – Existing Rockwell Street Bridge. The project includes the reconstruction of what was the Ivy Street bridge across the Big Thompson River. This new structure will be on a skew and likely need to be raised to provide the same or better clearance above the river. There is uncertainty in the application if any improvements are needed at the Rockwell Street or East Riverside Road bridges, they appear to be wide enough to accommodate the project. 7 Figure 10 – Existing Ivy Street Bridge Figure 11 – Ivy Street Bridge Joint Roadway segments 1 and 2 are classified as urban minor arterial in rolling terrain with a design and posted speed of 25 mph. Roadway Segments 3 and 4 are classified as urban collector in rolling terrain with a design speed of 25 mph. Specific areas of concern or areas of required work by functional discipline are as follows: Right of Way Right of Way mapping of existing parcels/property boundaries is required. There are potentially 5-7 full relocations and 10-20 other partial right-of-way acquisitions, and numerous TCE's. The CDOT will lead the right-of-way acquisition process. Utilities Numerous utilities will need to be relocated including City wet utilities (water, sanitary sewer) and private dry utilities (electrical, gas, communications). New Street lighting will be required for the project. Potholes and/or ground penetrating radar will be required to locate utilities. Environment and Permits Due to the potential for Section 4(f)/6(f), 106 issues and the overall level of change/chance for public concern, an Environmental Assessment is assumed. Survey Full survey of all roadway segments for this project is required. Use of LIDAR may be used to develop topographical mapping. Bridge The Ivy Street bridge will be reconstructed on a new alignment, the bridge will be skewed across the Big Thompson River. It is assumed that Ivy Street can be completely closed during construction. 8 Hydraulics A full hydrologic/hydraulic model of the Ivy Street bridge crossing is required. The Town mentioned that the current Flood Insurance Study hydrology likely needs updated and output needs to be verified against current Flood Models. Highway Design This 4R project is short in length but full of challenges from the typical section for a US highway, curvilinear alignment, on-street parking and access, pedestrian movements, and construction phasing. Pavements E. Elkhorn Ave and Moraine Ave are candidates for mill and overlay. Existing paving should be reused when possible. Pulverized asphalt can be used as high-quality fill or base course in new pavement sections. CDOT design procedures and review will be required for any State Highway pavements. Geotechnical Field investigations are anticipated for reconfiguration of the Ivy Street bridge and retaining walls at the Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive intersection. Right-of-entry agreements may be required for the retaining wall boring access. All borings will also require permitting from the Town of Estes Park Park and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). F. PROJECT BUDGET Figures are estimated from assumption in the original Application, Scoping Report, and Project Delivery Documents. Cost(s) are subject to escalation increases, depending on formal programming year. Item Estimate ($) Comments ROW $2,400,000 Utilities $850,000 Preliminary Eng. $1,400,000 Construction $9,000,000 Assumed 2016 construction Construction Eng. $900,000 Contingency $2,755,000 Total $17,305,000 9 G. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: for Red Dirt and Catamount Bridges Responsible Party Product/Service/Role Comments CFLHD  Develop and sign the Project Agreement  Develop and sign the Reimbursable Agreement  Manage project development schedule and preliminary engineering costs  Perform pavement and geotechnical investigations  Obtain necessary permits  Prepare environmental documents and make project decisions based on the NEPA documents  Prepare the PS&E  Advertise and award the contract. Bids will not be solicited by CFLHD until the EC and BLM have concurred with the plans and specifications. 10 Responsible Party Product/Service/Role Comments Town of Estes Park  Review and sign the Project Agreement  Review and sign Reimbursable Agreement  Review and provide approval for Highway Design Standards  Attend reviews and meetings  Provide available data on traffic, accidents, material sources, construction costs, and any other relevant information  Review the plans and specifications at each phase of the design and provide project development support  Provide 95% Plans, Specifications, and Estimate Approval for procurement process  Provide support to CFLHD, as requested, for the development of environmental documents.  Provide ROW and utility information and coordination  Provide water source(s) for design and construction use  Coordinate utility relocations  Obtain permits other than those required for Federal constructed projects PS&E activities will not commence until agreement(s) are executed Colorado Department of Transportation  Review and sign the Project Agreement  Attend reviews and meetings  Provide available data on traffic, accidents, material sources, construction costs, and any other relevant information  Review the plans and specifications at each phase of the design and provide project development support  Provide 95% Plans, Specifications, and Estimate Approval  Provide support to CFLHD, as requested, for the development of environmental documents. 11 Responsible Party Product/Service/Role Comments  Provide ROW and utility information and coordination  Procure ROW  Obtain permits other than those required for Federal constructed projects National Park Service  Review and sign the Project Agreement  Attend reviews and meetings  Review the plans and specifications at each phase of the design and provide project development support  In coordination with the CFLHD, ensure that completed plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) are consistent with the intended outcome.  Provide a Fire Plan for incorporation with the Special Contract Requirements.  Provide support to CFLHD, as requested, for the development of environmental documents.  Provide potential staging areas and material sources as necessary to aid construction.  Designate a representative who will be the primary contact for assistance during construction.  Attend the final inspection with CFLHD and EC upon completion of construction. H. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES – SCHEDULE (This section may be abbreviated with only a tentative project schedule based on the application pending a more in-depth scoping of the proposed project. If so, a more detailed schedule thereafter should be developed and approved by the parties or the Programming Decisions Committee, as appropriate.) Responsible Lead Product/Service/ Role Schedule Start-Finish Comments 12 Responsible Lead Product/Service/ Role Schedule Start-Finish Comments CFLHD Project Development Planning See attached schedule Project Development Plan CFLHD NEPA Possible EA CFLHD Engineering Design Preliminary through Final PS&E CFLHD Geotechnical/ Pavement Investigation and Recommendations Perform site investigations and provide recommendations TOEP, CDOT, & NPS 100% PS&E Approval CFLHD Acquisitions Design and Construction Contracting CFLHD Construction Administration Construction Management and Engineering TOEP, CDOT, & NPS Construction Acceptance PROPOSED DESIGN STANDARDS Final design standards will be determined through the NEPA process. Criteria Comments Standard CDOT Possible width exception on Riverside Drive Functional Classification Urban Minor Arterial Surface Type Hot-Asphalt Concrete Pavement Design Volume 14,000 I. FUNDING Fund Source Amount Comments Colorado Federal Lands Access Program Funds $13,005,000 Local Matching Share – Town of Estes Park via CDOT RAMP $4,300,000 Contingent on RAMP award TOTAL $17,305,000 13 J. MATCHING SHARE REQUIREMENTS Matching or cost sharing requirements may be satisfied following the obligation of funds to the project by: allowable costs incurred by the State or local government, cash donations, the fair and reasonable value of third party in-kind contributions (but only to the extent that the value of the costs would be allowable if paid for by the party responsible for meeting the matching share), including materials or services; however no costs or value of third party contributions may count towards satisfying the matching share requirements under this agreement if they have or will be counted towards meeting the matching share requirements under another federal award. Costs and third party contributions counting toward satisfying a cost sharing or matching requirement must be verifiable from the records of the party responsible for meeting the matching requirements. The records must demonstrate how the value of third party in kind contributions was derived. Voluntary services sought to be applied to the matching share will be supported by the same methods that the party to this agreement uses to support allocability of personnel costs. Any donated services provided by a third party will be valued at rates consistent with those ordinarily paid by employers for similar work in the same labor market. Supplies furnished will be valued at their market value at the time of donation. Donated equipment or space will be valued at fair rental rate of the equipment or space. All records associated with valuations or costs under section K shall be accessible and be maintained for three years following project close-out. A Reimbursable Agreement (RA) will be executed to commit the match contribution and initiate project delivery for CO FLAP 34(1) & 36(1). The CFLHD will bill Town of Estes Park upon completion of the work in the RA, as tentatively outlined in the RA. The CFLHD is limited to recovery of the matching share of actual costs incurred, as reflected in the invoice provided by the CFLHD. The CFLHD shall not incur costs which result in matching funds exceeding the maximum cost stated in the Reimbursable Agreement without authorization by Town of Estes Park in the form of written modification. K. PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS - POINTS OF CONTACT The following table provides the points of contact for this project. They are to be the first persons to deal with any issues or questions that arise over the implementation of each party’s role and responsibility for this agreement. Name/Title Organization Address/Phone Number/Email Scott Zurn Director of Public Works Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 577-3582 szum@estes.org Scott Ellis Resident Engineer CDOT Region 4 1420 2nd Street Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 350-2104 corey.stewart@state.co.us 14 Larry Gamble Chief of Planning NPS- ROMO Rocky Mountain National Park Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 586-1320 larry_gramble@nps.gov Micah Leadford CFLHD Project Manager CFLHD 12300 W. Dakota Ave. Suite 380 Lakewood, CO 80228 (720) 963-3498 micah.leadford@dot.gov L. CHANGES/AMENDMENTS/ADDENDUMS The agreement may be modified, amended, or have addendums added by mutual agreement of all parties. The change, amendment, or addendum must be in writing and executed by all of the parties. The types of changes envisioned include, but are not limited to, changes that significantly impact scope, schedule, or budget; changes to the local match, either in type or responsibility; changes that alter the level of effort or responsibilities of a party. The parties commit to consider suggested changes in good faith. Failure to reach agreement on changes may be cause for termination of this agreement. A change in the composition of the project team members does not require the agreement to be amended. It is the responsibility of the project team members to recognize when changes are needed and to make timely notification to their management in order to avoid project delivery delays. M. ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES MATRIX Issues should be resolved at the lowest level possible. The issue should be clearly defined in writing and understood by all parties. Escalating to the next level can be requested by any party. When an issue is resolved, the decision will be communicated to all levels below. FHWA Town of Estes Park CDOT R4 NPS Time Project Manager: Micah Leadford Public Works Director Scott Zurn Resident Engineer Scott Ellis Chief of Planning Larry Gamble 14 Days Project Management Branch Chief: Ed Hammontree Town Administrator Frank Lancaster Program Engineer Corey Stewart Park Superintendent Vaughn Baker 30 days Director, Project Delivery: Michael Davies 60 days Division Engineer: Ricardo Suarez 90 Days N. TERMINATION 15 This agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of all parties. This agreement may also be terminated if either the NEPA process or funding availability requires a change and the parties are not able to agree to the change. Any termination of this agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the parties prior to termination. If Federal Access funds have been expended prior to termination, the party responsible for the match agrees to reimburse CFLHD as outlined in the Reimbursable Agreement. Federal Highway Administration Federal Lands Highway AGREEMENT DTFH68-14-E-00004 PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT Reimbursing Organization Town of Estes Park, Colorado Organization to be Reimbursed Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Ave Lakewood, CO 80228 DUNS Number: 078355450 TIN: DUNS Number 126129936 POINTS OF CONTACT FOR THE AGREEMENT Reimbursing Organization Finance Point of Contact Name: Steve McFarland Address: PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3560 E-mail: sMcFarland@estes.org Organization to be Reimbursed Finance Point of Contact Name: Suzanne Schmidt Address: 12300 West Dakota Ave Lakewood, CO 80228 Phone: 720-963-3356 E-mail: suzanne.schmidt@dot.gov Reimbursing Organization Program Point of Contact Name: Scott Zurn Address: PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3560 E-mail: szurn@estes.org Organization to be Reimbursed Program Point of Contact Name: Micah J. Leadford Address: 12300 West Dakota Ave Lakewood, CO 80228 Phone: 720-963-3498 E-mail: micah.leadford@dot.gov PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE LEGAL AUTHORITY From: see date of signature below To: June 30, 2017 23 U.S.C. 201 and 204 TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT: $4,300,000.00 PAYMENT TERMS AND SCHEDULE EFT DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND DELIVERABLES See attached SOW AUTHORIZED APPROVALS For Reimbursing Organization For Organization to be Reimbursed Signature Date Signature Date Title Title Revised 3/2010 Statement of Work Reimbursable Agreement No. DTFH68-14-E-00004 January 7, 2014 1 | Page I. Introduction: The Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) will provide design and construction delivery services for the CO FLAP 34(1) & 36(1) Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive project. The Town of Estes Park, Colorado will provide funding for the local match, per the federal requirements listed below. The Town of Estes Park shall be referred to as the Requesting Agency and the CFLHD shall be referred to as the Servicing Agency. II. Location: Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive, Estes Park, CO III. Work Required: For the CO FLAP 34(1) & 36(1) Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive project, as selected by the Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) in the state of Colorado, perform project environmental compliance, design, right-of way, permitting, contracting and construction in accordance with CO FLAP 34(1) & 36(1) Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive Colorado Federal Lands Access Program Memorandum of Agreement. The proposed project would reconfigure the circulation system through Estes Park by realigning and reconstructing West and East Riverside Drives into a continuous one-way (eastbound) roadway and reconfiguring Elkhorn Avenue/Moraine Avenue to a one-way configuration (westbound) creating one-way couplets through Estes Park that would be US Highway 36. The reconfiguration would also include upgrades to Rockwell Street to accommodate additional traffic from the change of Elkhorn Avenue to one-way in the westbound direction. IV. Non-Federal Share of Costs: It is estimated that Federal Lands Access Program funding will be used to fund the scoping effort as follows: Design, construction and construction engineering cost(s) are summarized as follows: Item Estimate ($) Comments ROW $2,400,000 Utilities $850,000 Preliminary Eng. $1,400,000 Construction $9,000,000 Assumed 2016 construction Construction Eng. $900,000 FHWA and Town of Estes Park, Colorado Reimbursable Agreement No. DTFH68-14-E-00004 January 7, 2014 2 | Page Item Estimate ($) Comments Contingency $2,755,000 Total $17,305,000 As outlined in Section VIII.C, Town of Estes Park will provide funds in the amount of 24.9 % of the total Federal Lands Access Program funding required to complete the work in this Agreement. The amount of matching funds provided by the Town of Estes Park shall not exceed $4,300,000.00, but shall meet the minimum of 17.21% of total project funding. The Requesting Agency is not required to reimburse the Servicing Agency for any costs incurred by the Servicing Agency prior to the date of this Agreement. V. Period of Performance: All work associated with this agreement will be completed no later than June 30, 2017. VI. Technical Representative: CFLHD Program Point of Contact for this Agreement is Mr. Micah Leadford, Project Manager. Mr. Leadford can be contacted at 720-963-3498 or micah.leadford@dot.gov. The Town of Estes Park Program Point of Contact for this Agreement is Mr. Scott Zurn and can be contacted at (970) 577-3582. VII. Scope of Work: Refer to Section III of this agreement and CO FLAP 34(1) & 36(1) Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive Colorado Federal Lands Access Program Memorandum of Agreement. VIII. Financial Administration: A. Total Agreement Amount: Not to exceed $4,300,000.00 B. Funding Citations: 23 U.S.C. 201 and 204. C. Reimbursable Payment: The Servicing Agency will invoice the Requesting Agency on a monthly basis in the amount of 24.9 % of the total Federal Lands Access Program funding expended for the project for preliminary engineering (project development), construction engineering (administration and oversight of the construction contract) and progress payments made to the construction contractor. FHWA and Town of Estes Park, Colorado Reimbursable Agreement No. DTFH68-14-E-00004 January 7, 2014 3 | Page The Servicing Agency is limited to recovery of the matching share of actual costs incurred, as reflected in the invoice provided by the Servicing Agency. The Servicing Agency shall not incur costs which result in matching funds exceeding the maximum cost stated in this Agreement without authorization by the Requesting Agency in the form of written modification to this agreement. Upon receipt of the invoice of costs incurred and authorized, the Requesting Agency will issue payment via one of the methods listed below. The Servicing Agency will furnish a final Project Status Report detailing the funding usage on the project and calculations used to determine match funding requirements. The Servicing Agency requests that these payments be made through the US Treasury's website https://pay.gov. Pay.gov can be, used to make secure electronic payments to any Federal Government Agencies via credit card or direct debit. Payment shall be submitted referencing the FHWA/CFLHD-ID Agreement Number: DTFH68-14-E-00004 Option 1 (Preferred Method) Plastic Card or Automatic Clearing House Payment (ACH Direct Debit) Go to Treasury's website, https://pay.gov. Search for Agency Name Select the appropriate Transportation Agency Follow the form instructions to make your payment. Note: If making an ACH payment from your bank account, please select ACH Direct Debit as the payment type. FHWA and Town of Estes Park, Colorado Reimbursable Agreement No. DTFH68-14-E-00004 January 7, 2014 4 | Page Option2 Mail Check payment to the following address for Paper Check Conversion (PCC) processing: Regular Mail MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: DOT FHWA MAILING ADDRESS: Enterprise Service Center Federal Aviation Administration ATTN: AMZ-340, Mark Richardson 6500 S. MacArthur Blvd., HDQ Rm 285 Oklahoma City, OK 73169 https://www.pay.gov/paygov/ Notice to Customers Making Payment by Check: Please notify Regina Monroe at 720-963-3460 or regina.monroe@dot.gov if mailing a check. When you provide a check as payment, you authorize us either to use information from your Check to make a one-time electronic fund transfer from your account or to process the payment as a check transaction. When we use information from your check to make an electronic fund transfer, funds may be withdrawn from your account as soon as the same day we receive your payment, and you will not receive your check back from your financial institution. ' Privacy Act - A Privacy Act Statement required by 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3) stating our authority for soliciting and collecting the information from your check, and explaining the purposes and routine uses which will be made of your check information, is available 1Torn our internet site at (PCCOTC.GOV), or call toll free;: at (1-800-624-137 to obtain a copy by mail. Furnishing the check information is voluntary, but a decision not to do so may require you to make payment by some other method , FHWA and Town of Estes Park, Colorado Reimbursable Agreement No. DTFH68-14-E-00004 January 7, 2014 5 | Page IX. Modifications: Any modifications to the Agreement must be made in writing and agreed to by both parties. Such modifications are not binding unless they are in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the agencies. X. Agreement Completion: When the Requesting Agency has accepted all deliverables, the Servicing Agency will provide a written project evaluation and final accounting of project costs to the Requesting Agency contact. XI. Termination: This agreement will terminate upon the date specified in Section V or upon 30 calendar day prior written notification to the other party. If this agreement is terminated by the Requesting Agency its liability shall extend to 100 percent of actual and reasonable costs of the items/services rendered and the costs of any non-cancelable obligations incurred prior to the effective date of termination. If this agreement is terminated by the Servicing Agency its liability shall extend only to the release of its work products and related materials to the Requesting Agency by the effective date of termination. PUBLIC WORKS Report To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Scott Zurn, PE, Public Works Director Date: February 25, 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 continue to hamper the progress of the MPEC in particular. High winds present dangerous conditions for the work crews, which is preventing roofing panels from being placed. Therefore, exterior metal building progress on the project continues to be a major hurdle for the schedule. Winter protection for the masonry has been successful and the masonry is largely completed so the steel structure in the front of the event center can begin. Interior metal panels and insulation is being completed as windy conditions prevent outside work. The truck dock flatwork is now complete and the underground utilities such as storm sewer and water mains are nearing completion. The MPEC topping out ceremony continues to be delayed; however, it is expected to be scheduled by our next report. The delivery date for occupancy of the Stall Barn is scheduled for mid-April and the MPEC is scheduled for mid-May. The Stall Barn mechanical, electrical and fire protection systems continue to progress and are nearing rough–in completion. The lobby areas are painted and the bathrooms are painted and tile installations completed. 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. Page 1 FINANCE Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Steve McFarland – Finance Officer Date: February 20, 2014 RE: Financial Report for 2013 Background: Attached is the Financial Report for 2013. With all of the Town’s financially-affected areas from the Flood, Staff decided to modify the Dashboard Report from 4 areas to 8. In order to keep the presentation to 1 page, Staff has elevated the “flyover” from the customary “30,000 ft” to more like “60,000 ft”…  General Fund: When the 2013 Budget was revised during the aftermath of the Flood, virtually nothing was known about what the short and long term effects would be on the financial statements. As such, revenues (sales tax) were pitched low, and expenditures were forecasted high. While significant challenges lie ahead in 2014, both revenues and expenditures for 2013 were better than expectations, which will allow the Town to carry better-than-anticipated reserves (fund balance) into 2014.  Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF): The CRF finished in significantly better financial position than was budgeted. There are two major 2013 projects in progress in CRF. The MPEC/Stall barns are in the midst of construction. The Parking Structure has completed schematic design and is in the development review process. The budget had called for all of the related revenues and expenditures to be realized in 2013. This did not happen, and the projects are being carried forward to 2014.  Community Services Fund (CSF): The CSF, which includes the Visitors Center, Senior Center, Museum, Transportation and Events Budgets, added the beginnings of the MPEC/Stall Barn operation in the Revised 2013 Budget. Placeholders were entered for expenditures, most of which were not used. This helped hold expenditures under budget.  Larimer County Open Space: The Open Space Fund brings in ~ $300,000/year from a 0.6% sales tax levy. Expenditures are restricted to acquisition and Page 2 FINANCE Memo maintenance of open spaces. As this includes parks and trails, some of which were flood-affected, Staff believes that this fund will become important in the recovery efforts in 2014. Most of the expenditures in 2014 are expected to be used for reconstruction of said open spaces and trails.  Light & Power, Water Funds: Staff has separated the Utility Funds (L&P, Water) because, while the funds are similar from an accounting standpoint (Enterprise Funds), Light & Power and Water often perform very differently. Electric and Water revenues do not necessarily move in the same direction, and the two funds have common but also different economic challenges. The Utility Funds were dramatically affected by the Flood. In response, Staff made every effort to reduce expenditures in anticipation of the expected revenue loss. At the same time, Staff tried to address capital projects with in-house staff and available inventory. Several projects were delayed until such time as the effects of the flood, both on revenues and infrastructure, were better understood.  Sales Tax: Several slides are included later in this presentation that provide more detail to this portion of the Dashboard Report.  Investments: A municipality’s investment universe is limited to interest-rate sensitive instruments, including money markets, CDs, US Treasuries and US Instrumentalities. The drop in interest rates from 2008 (~4.75%) to today (~ 0.25%) has caused over $750,000 in returns to evaporate, subsequently affecting every Town fund. Recent legislation (HB 12-1005) has allowed municipalities to again invest in government-backed securities that were prohibited when the ratings agencies downgraded the US Government in 2010. The Town took advantage of this, and is now positioned in accordance with recommendations from our investment advisors. Our investment strategy is to keep duration (length of investment) on a very short leash – the Town does not want to be caught disproportionately in long positions should interest rates increase significantly. The Town’s portfolio has actually suffered minor losses this year due to some bonds having been “called”. Equity markets have been red hot since January – however, our investment universe is anchored by rates of return of 0.10%-0.12%. The Town has several laddered callable securities in its portfolio. One such security ($1,000,000) was called this week (February 19, 2014). Staff is inclined to leave these called securities in cash pending identification of the timing of the repair work on Fish Creek and Fall River. Pertinent information included in the sales tax slides include:  The flood has made a mess out of the Town’s sales tax trend lines. Of the 25 reporting CAST (Colorado Association of Ski Towns) communities, Estes Park was the only community reporting a regression in sales tax vs. 2012. While the down year was a reality, Estes Park was actually on pace for a very good year Page 3 FINANCE Memo until September. 2012 was a record year, and every month except the flood months (Aug-Oct) were better in 2013 than 2012. Having the roads opened again allowed sales tax to quickly rebound. Staff had estimated $6.8m for sales tax revenues for 2013 because at the time the 2013 Revised Budget and 2014 Budget was submitted, the prevailing thought was that roads would be closed until Spring 2014. The roads opened in November, and sales tax for 2013 totaled $7.6m. Concluding/Other thoughts Despite the devastation caused by the Flood, Staff is convinced that the Town and citizens will emerge from the recovery in position to take advantage of future opportunities presented to our community. Staff will continue to closely monitor and report the economics of the Flood recovery. As things materialize, Staff will no doubt have to recommend a 2014 Budget amendment. In the meantime, Staff will diligently monitor the financial challenges before us, and will report regularly to the Board and citizens. Budget: N/A Staff Recommendation: N/A Sample Motion: N/A UPDATE: Financial and Sales Tax Report(through December 2013)Steve McFarland –Finance Officer FINANCIAL INDICATORSTOWN OF ESTES PARK – THROUGH DEC 31st, 2013GENERAL FUNDLIGHT & POWER FUND2013 2013 % of 2013 2013 % ofYear‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget Year‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget% of year elapsed> 100%% of year elapsed> 100%REVENUES* $12,101,618 $11,506,144 $595,474 105.2% REVENUES $13,682,396 $13,920,645 ($238,249) 98.3%EXPENSES 13,736,875 13,892,886 156,011 98.9% EXPENSES 13,202,620 15,008,502 1,805,882 88.0%Net increase/decrease ($1,635,257) ($2,386,742)$751,485 Net increase/decrease $479,776 ($1,087,857) $1,567,633 *sales tax included through November 2013COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUNDWATER FUND2013 2013 % of 2013 2013 % ofYear‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget Year‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget% of year elapsed> 100%% of year elapsed> 100%REVENUES $7,072,624 $11,159,500 ($4,086,876) 63.4% REVENUES $4,009,187 $3,971,195 $37,992 101.0%EXPENSES 4,410,233 14,253,953 9,843,720 30.9% EXPENSES 3,497,643 4,602,222 1,104,579 76.0%Net increase/decrease $2,662,391 ($3,094,453) $5,756,844 Net increase/decrease $511,544 ($631,027) $1,142,571 COMMUNITY SERVICES FUNDSALES TAX2013 2013 % of Jan‐Oct 13 Nov‐13 Dec‐13 TotalYear‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget% of year elapsed> 100% 2013 6,657,949 443,621 463,326 7,564,896 2012 7,020,987 428,241 440,001 7,889,229 REVENUES $2,873,337 $2,894,576 ($21,239) 99.3% 2011 6,648,517 351,939 422,081 7,422,537 EXPENSES 2,434,773 2,670,728 235,955 91.2%Net increase/decrease $438,564 $223,848 $214,716 2013 vs 2012‐5.2% 3.6% 5.3%‐4.1%2013 vs 2011 0.1% 26.1% 9.8% 1.9%LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND INVESTMENTS (Fair value)Oct‐13 Nov‐13 Dec‐132013 2013 % of Town FundsYear‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget Money markets/CDs 15,063,199 14,186,312 14,064,870 % of year elapsed> 100% U.S. Treasuries 2,340,082 2,341,453 2,331,938 COPs 4,269,921 3,727,629 3,250,796 REVENUES* $257,521 $290,324 ($32,803) 88.7% U.S. Instrumentalities 6,211,375 6,217,122 6,186,982 EXPENSES 338,092 397,201 59,109 85.1% Total 27,884,577 26,472,516 25,834,586 Net increase/decrease ($80,571) ($106,877) $26,306 FOSH/Theater Fund 458,579 458,626 458,672 *revenues included through October 2013annual pooled govt mm rate: 12/31/13 = 0.12%; 0.10% locally. SALES TAX FACTS•2013 complete.•100% of calendar year; 100% of fiscal year.•4.1% behind of 2012.•1.9% ahead of 2011 budget.•~$725,000 ahead of revised 2013 Budget.•24 CAST communities currently reporting:•2013 a strong year. CAST COMMUNITIES CAST COMMUNITIES SALES TAX RATE OF CHANGE SALES TAX COMPARISONS: 2013‐11TOWN OF ESTES PARK2013 SALES TAX CLASSIFICATION BREAKDOWN Prior Prd Prior Prd2013 2013 2013 2012 2011BRIEF TOTAL % of vs. vs. Jan‐Dec Jan‐DecDESCRIPTION YEAR Total 2012 2011 YEAR YEARAMUSEMENTS/RECREATION 65,552.92 1% 18% 19% 55,460.48 54,965.69 AUTOMOTIVE 155,616.67 2% 6% 10% 147,339.03 140,997.30 FOOD 2,784,727.53 37%‐5%‐1% 2,945,020.72 2,812,412.07 RETAIL 1,347,110.34 18%‐10%‐7% 1,490,140.99 1,454,555.09 LODGING 2,020,545.98 27%‐7% 5% 2,162,856.48 1,931,214.90 CONSTRUCTION 452,673.69 6% 11% 27% 409,640.88 356,825.81 PERSONAL/PROFESSIONAL 134,371.40 2%‐1% 21% 135,494.35 111,204.98 UTILITIES 604,297.91 8% 11% 8% 543,276.08 560,360.93 GRAND TOTAL 7,564,897.44 100%‐4% 2% 7,889,229.01 7,422,536.77 MISC UPDATESOriginal Revised Forecasted ActualBudget Budget Loss Actual LossSep‐Dec 13 2,408,030 1,446,882(961,148)2,075,401(332,629)Jan ‐May 14 1,862,108 1,238,856(623,252)?4,270,138 2,685,738(1,584,400)2,075,401(332,629)SALES TAX MISC UPDATESSpendable Fund Balance – General Fund2012 actuals - $4,176,4112013 actuals - $3,262,314 (est, 11-mo stax)2013 rev bgt - $3,175,5742014 budget - $2,608,967 MISC UPDATESWhat’s up with FEMA?14 Project worksheets (apps for funds)11 have been approved – funds allocated to State (OEM)All worksheets ~ $5.9m.Town has received ~$76,800 (small projects).Town has submitted reimbursement request (Jan 31) for 1 large project. On Feb 20, OEM sent request asking for more info. EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center - Overview• Request by Grand Heritage Hotels to develop Lot 4, Stanley Historic District with the proposed EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center• Includes: • Request to amend the Municipal Code to allow red roof and white walls.• Request to rezone from CO-Commercial Outlyingto A-Accommodations• Request to amend the plat of record to dedicate easements and remove a no-build area• Special Review of the Development Plan• Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend conditional approval. EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Neighborhood - Zoning Districts EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Neighborhood – Aerial Photo (2010) EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Site Plan EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Building Elevations EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Amended Plat: Dedicate easements; remove ‘no-build’ line• 1991: Preliminary Plat• 1994: Stanley Historic District• 1994: Final plat• Open Space• View Corridors7560’7630’ EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Planning Commission Findings:1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan and the Downtown area plan. The application advances several Community-Wide policies, as delineated in the Staff report.2. The application for the proposed Special Review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment.3. The amended plat complies with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10 “Subdivision Standards.”4. The amended plat and associated development satisfy the purpose and intent of the open space and view protection guidelines described in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. 5. The proposed code amendments are necessary to address changes in areas affected. There are significant changes in the area since the adoption of the land use plan and development code.6. The proposed code amendments are compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.7. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Planning Commission Findings:8. The application complies with Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Standards for Development regarding: view corridors; open space; site design; pedestrian circulation; and signs.9. The request to exceed the Stanley Historic District maximum allowed building of 30-feet is allowed through special review approval, and complies with Section 1.9.E.2 Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes.10. The application does not comply with Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Standards for Development regarding building design (red roof, white walls). The proposed code amendments would provide compliance to these standards.11. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the EVDC, as described in the Review Discussion in the staff report.12. Planning Commission recommendation is to the Town Board.13. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Board agenda. EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Planning Commission Recommendation: 6-0 Approval, with the following conditions1. April 1stvoter approval to allow sale of Lot 4.2. All parking shall be constructed with Phase I.3. Architecture: Buildings shall be stepped, as demonstrated on Sheet A5.0; Sign: The stone base shall match the stone used in other structures on the property and other free-standing monument signs.4. The plan must demonstrate compliance with Section 5.1.J Hotelsregarding amount of gross floor area for non-living quarters.5. The emergency access lane shall be reduced to 20-foot in width, include a roll-over curb, and a concrete sidewalk. 6. The traffic circle shall be widened to the maximum extent feasible.7. Traffic study shall be revised to comply with CDOT requests. 8. MUTCD wildlife crossing signs are required on WonderviewAvenue, near the crossing between Lot 5 and the Knoll-Willows. Design and location shall be determined by staff during Construction Plan approval. EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 20149. Landscaping Plan: (a) Landscaping plan shall accommodate elk migration, with trees focused close to buildings and parking areas, with outlying areas kept natural grasslands (with irrigation). (b) Landscaping of mechanical areas, trash enclosures, loading areas, and parking lot perimeter shall be installed with construction of the initial hotel. (c)Comply with Section 7.8.G.1.b Non-Native Vegetationapplies. 10. Building plans shall be revised to comply with EPMC 17.44.060.(d)(8) “Facades.” Compliance shall be demonstrated prior to March 18 2014.11. Compliance with the following affected agency comments:•Community Development dated February 4, 2014. •Public Works dated January 31, 2014•Light and Power dated January 29, 2014.•Water Department (Jeff Boles, Cliff Tedder, Steve Rusch) dated February 3, 2014.•Estes Valley Fire Protection District dated January 31, 2014.•Estes Park Sanitation District dated (James Duell) January 30, 2014.•CDOT (Timothy Bilobran) dated January 28, 2014.•CPW dated January 29, 2014.Planning Commission Recommendation: 6-0 Approval, with the following conditions EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center; Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, February 25 2014Building Elevations