HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2014-06-24NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
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, June 24, 2014
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PROCLAMATION – Proclaiming July 8 – 13, 2014 “Rooftop Rodeo Week”.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of):
1. Town Board Minutes dated June 10, 2014 and Town Board Study Session Minutes
dated June 10, 2014.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works, June 12, 2014.
4. Tree Board Minutes dated May 15, 2014 (acknowledgement only).
5. Transportation Advisory Committee dated May 21, 2014 (acknowledgement only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission dated May 20, 2014 (acknowledgement only).
7. Resolution #14-14 – Setting the public hearing date of July 8, 2014 for a new
Tavern Liquor License for Centennial Tap House, LLC dba Centennial Tap House,
120 Riverside Drive, Estes Park, CO.
2. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Outside Entities):
1. LONG TERM RECOVERY GROUP UPDATE. Chris Moody.
2. EVENT CENTER & PAVILION CONSTRUCTION UPDATE. Project Manager Zurn.
Prepared 6/16/14
* Revised 6/18/14
** Revised 6/19/14
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
1. AMENDED PLAT, Lots 30A & 18A, 2nd Amended Plat of Lot 18, 22, 30,
Grand Estates Subdivision, 1450 Big Thompson Avenue; Caribou Chalet,
Inc./Owner. Planner Kleisler.
2. SUPPLEMENTAL MAP #6, Stone Bridge Estates Condominiums, 1127 Fish
Creek Road; Kingswood Homes/Owner. Planner Kleisler.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. AMENDMENT TO GOOD SAMARITAN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. Attorney
White and Planner Kleisler.
2. 2013 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR). Finance
Officer McFarland.
3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH LAFAYETTE AND LOUISVILLE
FOR LUCITY SERVICES. Director Bergsten.
4. REVISED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH ESTES VALLEY FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT. Attorney White.
5. ADJOURN.
*
**
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 10, 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 10th day of June, 2014.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
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.
SWEARING-IN.
Police Chief Kufeld and Town Clerk Williamson performed the swearing-in of Code
Enforcement Officer Wesley Reichardt.
PROCLAMATIONS.
Mayor Pinkham presented a proclamation for the Bike to Work, Bike to Play week June
21-28, 2014.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Frank Thesis/Town citizen responded to a neighbor complaint heard at the last Town
Board meeting related to the work completed along the river on the Elkhorn property.
He stated the stable and carriage business has suffered from the flooding on the
property and they continue to do everything possible to mitigate the issue.
Elizabeth Fogarty/President & CEO Visit Estes Park (VEP) stated she continues her
training with the outgoing President and CEO Peggy Campbell. She commented
enhancing the guest stay and experience and being good stewards to the community
are important to VEP. She informed the Board of her intention to complete an additional
one year term as Vice President of the Estes Area Lodging Association (EALA) Board to
complete current projects and bring the new board member up to speed. She would
recue herself from any votes impacting EALA or VEP.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen commented the Town has an opportunity to make
improvements with the FLAP grant and hopes the Town discusses the issue at the
upcoming Retreat on June 26, 2014.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
Trustee Norris stated the next Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee
would be held on Thursday, June 12, 2014 at 8:00 a.m. in the Board Room. The VEP
Board would complete a review and update of their strategic plan and received an EDC
grant.
Trustee Holcomb thanked Brian Wells for his efforts in extending shuttle services along
Dry Gulch with a grant.
Trustee Koenig stated the Sister Cities meeting has been cancelled for June. The
Rooftop Rodeo preparations continue.
Board of Trustees – June 10, 2014 – Page 2
Trustee Phipps commented the next Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting on
June 17, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. in the Board Room would include the affordable housing
development Falcon Ridge and amendments to the Development Code for micro-craft
liquors.
Trustee Ericson stated the Wool Market was a success in the new Event Center and
vendors were excited to use the new facilities. A number of the Board members and
staff would be attending the annual CML conference next week.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
None.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Study Session Minutes dated May 27, 2014 and Town Board
Minutes dated May 27, 2014.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
a. Community Development / Community Services, May 22, 2014.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated April 1, 2014 (acknowledgement
only).
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to approve the Consent Agenda, and it
passed unanimously.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. COMMUNITY REPORT. Commissioner Donnelly presented the Larimer
County 2013 Community Report. The report provides the citizens with a
summary of how the county is doing and the services provided.
2. EVENT CENTER & PAVILION CONSTRUCTION UPDATE.
Project Manager Zurn provided an update stating the main floor of the MPEC is
nearing completion and was used by the Wool Market. The main bathrooms
are receiving final finishes. The silo structure would be raised 4 feet resulting in
a more durable roofing system and improved aesthetics. The increase height
would require a height variance. The Pavilion exterior flatwork and landscaping
are nearing completion. Additional delays could occur as trades to complete
the project are working on more profitable projects.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. AMENDMENT TO GOOD SAMARITAN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT.
Trustee Holcomb recused himself from the discussion due to an economic
conflict of interest. Planner Kleisler stated the Town Board unanimously
approved the Good Samaritan Annexation Agreement, annexation, rezoning,
and preliminary plat on October 23, 2001. The subdivision has been built out
with the exception of Lot 4. The original agreement limited the combined
density on Lots 3 and 4 to 92 units, 10 units per acre. The requested
amendment would allow for a combined density of 110 units, the maximum
allowed by the Development Code Attainable Housing Density bonus, 12 units
per acre. The Housing Authority has applied for a review of a development
plan, subdivision, fee waiver and amendment to the annexation agreement. Lot
3 was developed with 44 units, the maximum allowed density. Lot 4 was not
developed due to a downturn in the economy; however, the 2001 approved
development plan approved the proposed 44 units. The Housing Authority has
Board of Trustees – June 10, 2014 – Page 3
requested an increase to 66 units, the maximum allowed by code. The
agreement also stated the development shall be completed within 10 years of
the effective date and the Town may rezone any undeveloped properties to RE-
1 after the 10 years. The Town has not exercised the right to rezone, leaving
the current zoning at RM. The request would extend the vesting period for
fifteen years from the date of the amendment. The proposed development plan
has remained true to the original 2001 sketch plan.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig questioned why the Town was addressing the
annexation agreement if the vesting period has been terminated. Attorney
White stated the restrictions on the property are in affect regardless of the
vesting period.
Trustee Norris stated concern with taking action on the annexation agreement
prior to the Planning Commission addressing the other land applications.
Trustee Phipps concurred. Attorney White commented the amendments to the
agreement should be addressed prior to the Planning Commission’s
consideration of the development plan and subdivision as it provides direction
on the allowed density.
Rita Kurelja/EPHA Director reviewed the history of Lots 3 and 4 stating the lots
were purchased in 2001; Lot 3 developed as Talons Point with 44 units; the
development of Vista Ridge, and a preliminary development plan for Lot 4 was
developed in 2002. With the completion of Vista Ridge in 2008 and a downturn
in the economy, Lot 4 was placed on hold. In October 2012, the Housing
Authority participated in a design charrette which indicated the property could
be developed with 66 units utilizing the density bonus in the development code
for affordable housing developments, and a two phase concept was developed.
The development process began after the flood to build 45 units and an
additional 21 units to be reserved for future development. The development
would be funded through tax credits allocated by CHAFA and CDBG-DR
funding. To date the Housing Authority has spent $145,338 in predevelopment
costs. She stated an increased need for housing since the 2013 flood, increase
in vacation homes that have reduced the long-term rental pool, and no new
rental developments by private developers. CHAFA requires a market study be
completed in order to qualify for tax credits and the study was very clear as to
the increased need in the valley for affordable housing. The study also
demonstrated a vacancy rate of 1.9% with the average rental market vacancy
rate of 6-7%. This development would build to the highest density allowed by
the development code, preserve future units, serve the population at 60% and
below the median household income and develop the rental market in Estes
Park.
Those speaking out against the amendment to the annexation agreement
included Steve Krueger/Town citizen, Pam Seaver/Town citizen, Kaylyn
Krueger/Town citizen, Mike Balduzzi/Town citizen, Russ Schneider/Town
citizen and Alex Kostadinov/Town citizen. Those speaking stated the proposed
development would decrease home values in the Neighborhood subdivision
due to a loss of views, loss of privacy, and development within 15 feet of the
property line. The residents are not against the development; however, they
would request a buffer be added between the current subdivision. They
advocated for maintaining the current density and building single story
development along the property line. The Neighborhood residents stated
concern the Housing Authority did not reach out to them to discuss the
development of Lot 4. It was also questioned if the proposed development has
addressed environmental issues, elk migration, and NEPA regulations.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to
continue the Good Samaritan Annexation Agreement to the June 24, 2014
Town Board meeting after the Estes Valley Planning Commission
considers the Development Plan and Subdivision on June 17, 2014, and
Board of Trustees – June 10, 2014 – Page 4
the motion passed with Trustee Ericson voting “No” and Trustee Holcomb
recusing himself.
2. TITLE VI PLAN. Director Williamson presented an updated Title VI Plan. The
first plan was adopted in March of 2011 in conjunction with the grant received
to complete the transportation hub at the fairgrounds. The plan ensured
compliance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations addressing
civil rights, discrimination, and establishing a formal complaint process. The
FTA requires that all recipients of federal funds document compliance by
submitting a Title VI plan every three years. The Town has received additional
grant funds to complete a parking structure at the Visitor Center to address
congestion and improve air quality. In accepting federal funds the Town must
meet FTA requirements and establish policies, plans and practices that meet
federal guidelines. Ostrander Consulting was hired to complete the updated
plan. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Koenig) to approve the Title VI
plan, and the motion passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado June 10, 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 10th day of June, 2014.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Town Attorney White,
Director Winslow, Coordinator Jacobson and Town Clerk
Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Norris questioned the schedule for the annual Grand Lake Town Board
meeting. Mayor Pinkham stated the meeting was in the process of being scheduled
and the Town would be hosting this year’s event.
Administrator Lancaster reviewed the proposed Strategic Planning Retreat agenda for
June 26, 2014. Trustee Phipps requested the agenda include a discussion on special
events related to profit and loss. The Board consensus was to remove the discussion
related to wildlife and garbage and have the Police department bring a proposed trash
ordinance forward for the Board’s consideration.
Trustee Ericson stated concern with the lack of plans to dredge the south arm of Lake
Estes near the schools and remove debris from the flood. He suggested the Town
prepare a Resolution to encourage the Bureau of Reclamation to clean the area and for
the Town to contact congressional and representative members. Trustee Koenig
agreed and stated concern with safety of the public and items hidden in the sand that
may be potential risks. Staff would prepare a letter for the Board’s review and address
the issues of safety, health and impact on tourist and the economy.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Trustee Norris requested the capital asset/capital management plan be completed prior
to the budget discussions this fall.
Trustee Phipps requested the next study session include a discussion on contract
contingency. The scheduled item for June 24, 2014, Museum/Senior Center Master
Plan, would be rescheduled and a discussion on contract contingency would be added.
ETHICS, LIABILITY & BEST PRACTICES REVIEW.
Tami Tanoue/CIRSA General Counsel provided a presentation on ethics, liability, and
best practices for elected officials.
TOWN’S ROLE IN EVENTS & EVENT COMMITTEE UPDATE.
Director Winslow stated the Events Focus Committee was formed to provide direction
on special events through the evaluation of current events, community feedback,
creation of criteria for future events, and to identify and produce events that support and
encourage the Estes Park brand. The Committee has established the following criteria
for events: Enhance, EP Brand, additional sales tax funds, overall experience, year
Town Board Study Session – June 10, 2014 – Page 2
round, multigenerational, fun factor, value and quality, compliment events, access to
events, competition for money and parking/transportation. Other factors that may be
considered include local vs. out of town and profit versus non-profit. The Committee
has reviewed the uses of Bond Park and found events offer guest activities, draw
people downtown and create a vibrant atmosphere. The negatives of events in the park
include the competition of sales, minimal overnight stays and too repetitive. Possible
new events in the park may include bike in movies, Oktoberfest event, or group exercise
events. Events at the fairgrounds and event center complex increase stays, engage
both local residents and guests, and increase money spent downtown; however, the
events do not compliment other events in town, a lack of knowledge of the events and
the overall value of the events tend to be low. New events already scheduled for the
new complex include a Home and Garden show and an Irish festival. The committee
recommended new events be spread out throughout the facilities in the community and
incorporate complimenting events. Other new events might include brew festival,
carnival, harvest festival, indoor sports, etc. Staff also reviewed the online application
process for events with the committee. Updates to the system would be made based
on the feedback received. In summary the committee to date has determined the
following: What we like – street performers, multiple events throughout the town, and
interactive and educational events; What we don’t like – arts and craft shows,
competition for dollars, and big events that are community limiting; and What we need –
event managers and community support.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 12, 2014
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY/UTILITIES/PUBLIC
WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County,
Colorado. Meeting held in the Board Room of Town Hall in said Town of
Estes Park on the 12th day of June, 2014.
Committee: Chair Norris, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Nelson
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Police Chief Kufeld, Director
Bergsten, Superintendent Lockhart, Manager Fraundorf,
Interim Director Ash, and Recording Secretary Limmiatis
Absent: None
Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 8:03 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
PUBLIC SAFETY.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions - Chief Kufeld updated the Committee
on the encryption of the 800 megahertz radios, the department’s attendance at
the FBI’s Rocky Mountain Law Enforcement Executive Command College, bear
statistics, the mediation program, the regional year end School Resource Officers
meeting, the hiring of Police Officer Plassmeyer, the arrival of the new command
vehicle and the 2007 Humvee.
UTILITIES.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Water Department Master Plan Update – Director Bergsten informed the
Committee of the progress on the Master Plan process. The three preselected
firms were recently contacted via phone conference to clarify ambiguities of the
Water Department’s needs and expectations and to ensure appropriate
proposals are received on June 23, 2014. The Public Works Department and
Water Department would review the proposals and bring forward a
recommended firm to complete the Master Plan as an action item at the July 8,
2014 Town Board meeting.
2. Information Technology Update – Manager Fraundorf introduced the summer IT
intern Ryan Thamert, provided an update on the inspection of the Adams Tunnel
as an alternative for fiber redundancy, and informed the Committee of an
additional alternative for fiber redundancy being developed. A wireless company,
Crown Castle, would be installing fiber and conduit along Highway 36 from Lyons
to Estes Park in conjunction with CDOT for the purposes of cell phone service
and cameras. Crown Castle has stated a willingness to lease dark fiber to the
Town. The next step would be to inform CDOT of the Town’s and Platte River
Power Authority’s interest in the project.
3. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Director Bergsten updated the
Committee on work being performed in the Fish Creek Corridor and the fully
staffed Water Department. Trustee Koenig questioned the disposal of slash from
trimming near the power lines. Superintendent Lockhart stated in rural areas
without access to a chipper policy states the brush is to be scattered per Forest
Service recommendation. Director Bergsten requested an IGA with Lafayette and
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – June 12, 2014 – Page 2
Louisville regarding the purchase of work order software be brought forward as
an action item at the next Town Board meeting. The Committee recommended
the IGA with Lafayette and Louisville for Lucity Services as an action item
at the June 24, 2014 Town Board meeting.
PUBLIC WORKS.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Interim Director Ash informed the
Committee peak runoff has passed and the river banks have held with only a few
minor breeches, staff would return to normal work schedules, construction would
be finished at the Event Center and Pavilion soon, and railings have been
installed at Children’s Park. Chair Norris requested an update on the Elkhorn
Lodge. Administrator Lancaster stated Director Chilcott, Julie Ash / Walsh
Engineering and he met with the property owners, Jerry and Carol Zahourek, on
June 9, 2014 to discuss the river migration issues occurring on the property.
Investigation is underway for immediate threat funding for small mitigation. The
Zahourek’s would be asked to pay the matching funds and staff would continue
to work on options to save the historic structures and graves within the floodplain.
There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 9:06 a.m.
Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 15th, 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 15th day of May, 2014.
Present: Chris Reed
Dewain Lockwood
Apryle Craig
Absent: Celine Lebeau
Also Present: Kevin Ash, Interim Public Works Director
Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Jen Imber, Public Works Administrative Assistant
John Ericson, Town Board Liaison
Tonya Ziegler, Parks Division
Brian Berg, Parks Division
Barbara Williams, Tree Board Member – expired term
Manager McEachern called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m.
ARBOR DAY CELEBRATION UPDATES
Kevin Ash introduced himself to the board, explaining that he would be sitting in on their meetings as
the Interim Public Works Director.
Barbara Williams’ term with the board expired on April 27, 2014, so she will be prohibited from
participating in the meeting as an acting member.
ARBOR DAY CELEBRATION UPDATES
Brian Berg updated the board on the Arbor Day celebrations. The Estes Park Elementary School event
on April 24th and the Eagle Rock School celebration, taking place May 15th and 16th, went very well,
with great educational talks presented to each group. As part of their Arbor Day celebration, the Eagle
Rock students will be planting 128 trees at the Scott Avenue retaining pond area on May 16th.
CHANGE TO PARKS ADVISORY BOARD
Operations Manager McEachern reviewed ongoing changes with the board members. The resolution to
create a new Parks Advisory Board will go to the Town Board for approval at the May 22nd meeting.
After the resolution passes officially establishing the Parks Advisory Board, a vote will be taken on the
new bylaws. Also, a new format will be established for the meetings. Meetings will take place in Rooms
202 and 203 in Town Hall, with the board members sitting together at a designated table, and staff
members and public in attendance invited to watch from an established seating area separate from the
board. A clear agenda will be set for each meeting, with discussion focused on agenda items. Several
projects will be prioritized for the new board, including a Public Art Policy, a Tree Ordinance and a
memorial program.
NEW MEMBERS/COMMITTEE POSTINGS
Currently the seven-member board only has four active members, with one former member’s term
recently expired, and another member set to leave in late-summer. The Town will post for four
vacancies. After the posting has closed, the Mayor will appoint two trustees to conduct interviews and
appoint new members.
ARBORETUM
The board discussed moving forward on the ecology walk/arboretum. Operations Manager McEachern
will follow up on the parking structure schedule and budget for the project and report to the board at
the June meeting.
With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 4:34 pm.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 21st, 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 21st day of May, 2014.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Gregg Rounds
Stan Black
Belle Morris
Thom Widawski
Cory LaBianca
Also Present: John Ericson, Town Board Liaison
Kevin Ash, Public Works Interim Director/Civil Engineer
Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Jen Imber, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Brian Wells, Shuttle Coordinator
Absent: Bryon Holmes
Ann Finley
Kimberly Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:08 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Minutes from the February 19th and March 19th meetings were reviewed by members. It
was moved and seconded (Labianca/Black) to approve the February minutes, with the
motion passing unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Black/Morris) to approve the
March minutes, with the motion passing unanimously.
The committee discussed allocating a small amount of time at the beginning of each
meeting for public comment. General consensus among members was favorable to
allowing a limited time for members of the public to bring forward ideas or comment on
current agenda items. The committee will not engage in discussion about comments
made during this timeframe, but topics could be set as agenda items for future
meetings.
Chair Campbell briefly discussed the committee’s role as an advocate to the Town
Board, clarifying that individual opinions/positions of members are not necessarily
representative of official opinions/positions of the committee.
MEMBER APPOINTMENT
Interviews were held on May 9th for the four open committee positions. Stan Black, Belle
Morris and Ann Finley were each re-appointed to the committee for a term of three
years. The remaining candidates that were interviewed declined the offer, so the fourth
vacancy remains unfilled. The committee discussed strategies for filling the vacancy
and decided to make the topic an agenda item for the June meeting.
BIKE-FRIENDLY OPPORTUNITES
Plans were discussed for community outreach on facilitating bikes through the
downtown corridor. Three concepts for public consideration will be presented at an early
summer public meeting on the topic. Concepts include a two-way bike path on the south
side of the river, a traditional bike lane on the highway and a separated bike lane that
would be protected from traffic by a barrier of some kind.
An action plan for the meeting was formulated, with Chair Campbell researching the
feasibility of concepts, of producing sketches of the concepts and scheduling a special
meeting in two weeks for the committee to discuss the concepts in further detail. Once
Transportation Advisory Committee – May 21st, 2014 – Page 2
the committee has approved the concepts, the date of the public forum will be set and
PR will be sent out about the event.
DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEE PARKING PROJECT
Discussion regarding employee parking in the downtown corridor continued, with the
suggestion of reframing the topic to be centered less on businesses and their
employees and more about how to increase ridership on the shuttles/trolley.
The committee revived the concept of parking meters in the downtown corridor, feeling
that not only would they present a revenue stream, but would incentivize guests to use
the shuttle system and alleviate traffic/parking congestion. A comprehensive study or
parking plan was proposed, with Chair Campbell volunteering to sketch proposal and
concept for the June meeting.
Kimberly Campbell adjourned the meeting at 1:48 p.m.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
May 20, 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 Bowers, Dickey, Murphree, Hills and Sykes
Also Attending: Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Phil Kleisler, and Recording Secretary Karen
Thompson
Absent: Commissioner Klink
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 16 people in
attendance. 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, May 1, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.
B. Staff request to continue the application for Sixth Green Estates Amended Plat to the June 17,
2014 meeting.
C. Staff request to continue proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code
concerning micro-breweries, assemblies, and attainable housing to the July 15, 2014 meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Bowers/Sykes) to approve the consent agenda as presented and
the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
3. COMFORT INN DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2014-03 and AMENDED PLAT, Lots 18A & 30A, 2nd
Amended Plat of Lots 18, 22, & 30, Grand Estates Subdivision, 1450 Big Thompson Avenue
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The development package includes two
components: combination of two lots, and the redevelopment of a portion of the site. The
existing use is hotel/motel on the south side of Highway 34. Multi-family residential
condominiums are to the north, a mix of multi-family and single-family residential units are to
the south, with hotel/motel units on both the east and west. The parcel is z oned A-
Accommodations, and hotel/motel development is a use by right in this zone district. The
request is to redevelop the proposed Lot 30B (4.19 acres) by demolishing the northwest and
west hotel buildings and most of the southwest building, and constructing a 36-room hotel
building. The proposed hotel building would include a swimming pool, lap pool, hot tub,
meeting room, and catering room all located within the building for use by guests. Six rooms
within the southwest building would be converted to e mployee housing.
Planner Kleisler stated the amended plat would remove the interior lot line and dedicate and
vacate easements as needed for the proposed development. Some of the easements will
change slightly to accommodate any changes to utilities as a result of the reviewing agency
requests. The proposed Amended Plat exceeds the minimum lot size for 40,000 square feet
and minimum width of 100 feet.
Planner Kleisler stated the application was reviewed for compatibility and consistency with
the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and for compliance with the Estes Valley Development
Code (EVDC). The applicant requested several minor modifications, and stated the Planning
Commission is authorized to grant or deny these requests.
Minor Modification Requests
1. Planner Kleisler stated the impervious coverage at the site is currently 69%, and the
applicant is proposing 62.5% lot coverage. With the EVDC requirement at 50%,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
May 20, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
approval of this minor modification request would bring the development more into
compliance.
2. In non-residential zone districts, sidewalks are required to be eight feet wide. The
applicant is proposing a six-foot wide sidewalk at the north end of the property to
prevent removing several large trees.
3. Appendix D of the EVDC states driveway slope can be up to 4% grade within twenty
feet of any intersection. The proposed slope at the Lake Front Drive intersection is
8.9%. Planner Kleisler stated the Town Engineer has denied this minor modification,
and staff is requiring the site plan be revised to comply with the 4% grade.
4. The applicant has requested a 69-foot wide driveway in lieu of the maximum 30-feet
allowed in the EVDC in order to accommodate emergency vehicles. The Town Engineer
has denied this modification and the applicant has agreed to revise the plans to
decrease the opening as much as possible without compromising emergency access.
Planner Kleisler stated the proposed redevelopment was in alignment with the
Comprehensive Plan concerning location and design and visual and environmental impacts.
He stated the Conditions of Approval (listed below) would need to be addressed within 30
days of approval of the development plan. The application was routed to all affected agencies
and adjacent property owners. Comments included but were not limited to: Public Works has
requested revisions to the proposed stormwater drainage plan; the Water Department and
Sanitation District worked to ensure compliance with the appropriate development standards,
and their comments include several conditions of approval; Estes Valley Fire District requires a
turning template to ensure emergency access and had several comments concerning fire
safety during and after the redevelopment: Community Development found three points of
non-compliance with the EVDC, including root zones, size of loading area, and grading; height
and landscaping calculations will need to be clarified.
Planner Kleisler stated the proposed density is 81 units, with 101 units being the maximum
allowed on this site. Service water would be collected via curb and gutter along the interior
perimeter before entering the detention pond and water quality pond on the western portion
of the lot. After leaving the pond, it would enter alongside Lake Front Drive. Additional
landscaping is required when a commercial use abuts a residential use, and the landscaping
plan complies with this requirement.
Planner Kleisler stated some neighbors have concerns about the drainage plan and trespassing
onto their property in order to reach Lake Estes. After consu lting with Town Attorney White, it
was determined fencing cannot be required; however, the concerned property owner can
take steps to protect his property. Another concern was weeds, and he stated this area of
town was already on a list for proactive measures. Staff will rely on typical enforcement
methods concerning noxious weeds.
Staff Findings
1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, including the North End area plan. The application advances
several Community-Wide policies, as delineated in the staff report.
2. The amended Plat complies with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10
“Subdivision Standards.”
3. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development.
4. 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.
5. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making body for the Development Plan, The
Town Board of Trustees is the Decision-Making Body for the Amended Plat.
Planning commission can grant modifications up to a 25% threshold of the requirement.
There will be some site redesigning which staff is anticipating will reduce the amount of lot
coverage.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
May 20, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was brief discussion concerning the impervious lot coverage.
Public Comment
Celine LeBeau/applicant representative stated her client desired to improve a motel built
before the Development Code went into effect. Challenges in redeveloping this legally non-
conforming development have included impervious coverage, utilities, etc. Combining 18A
and 30A will help with water retention, open space landscape buffers with neighbors, and
impervious lot coverage. If lots were not combined, there wo uld be 66% impervious lot
coverage; with the amended plat, coverage drops to 62.5%. She stated the proposed density
is 20% below the maximum allowed. The applicant has worked closely with Town Engineer
Kevin Ash to resolve drainage issues. Lot 18A will allow space for a retention pond and an
open space buffer between the accommodations units and the nearby residences. The pond
and open space will provide an aesthetic quality to the surrounding neighbors and allow for
wildlife migration. Landscaping will provide added moisture and habitat for wildlife. Ms.
LeBeau stated the applicant has also worked with the sewer district and water department,
dedicating an easement to loop a water main through the property. With the redevelopment,
the property will come into compliance with the Fire District regulations, providing adequate
access to all buildings. She stated lowering the intersection grade to 4% will be a challenge,
and the applicant has agreed to narrow the driveway opening as much as possible. The
proposed retention pond was designed to contain historical rates of stormwater. Weeds are
currently being managed, and Ms. LeBeau was confident they would not be an issue. The
height of the proposed building complies with the EVDC height limit of 30 feet (adjusted for
grade).
David Bangs/Van Horn Engineering stated he prepared stormwater report. Parking areas in
the southern portion of the property (Basin F) currently drain down the hill into the residential
area, is not retained, and with no water quality treatment. The proposal is to capture the
runoff in curb and gutter along the southern boundary of the site and convey it through storm
sewer around the building into the retention pond, which will provide water quality treatment
and controlled release from the site. The western portion of the site (Basin I) is currently a
natural drainage that passes through a culvert. He indicated this culvert would have enough
space for predicted flow. He stated there was adequate conveyance in the ditch for the flow
from this property, using the curb and gutter then flowing through the drainage ditch along
Lake Front. He did not anticipate any adverse drainage impacts on the neighbors.
Kevin Ash/Town Engineer stated the historic drainage rates leaving the site are 4.9 cubic feet
per second (cfs). Stormwater could flow into the retention pond at nine cfs, would fill up, then
release the water at 4.9 cfs.
Jim Cozzie/Town resident was supportive of the project, but was concerned that stormwater
would flow onto their property. He was also con cerned about guests trespassing through their
property, which is a current issue. Additionally, he recommended weed control be done by
digging rather than spraying, as he and his wife were very sensitive to herbicides. He did not
think the retention pond was large enough to handle the stormwater.
Millicent Cozzie/Town resident stated there is an outside door proposed on the south side of
the new building, and was concerned guests would cut across their property to access Lake
Front Drive instead of following the sidewalk around the retention pond. She did not support
the height of the project, stating it would possibly change the essential character of the
neighborhood. She was also concerned the retention pond would not handle heavy rains and
could possibly wash out their driveway.
Commissioner Bowers suggested the possibility of requiring a sidewalk around the entire
perimeter to deter trespassing. Commissioner Murphree asked about adequate parking, and
Planner Kleisler assured the Commission the parking calculations complied with the EVDC and
actually had more parking spaces than required.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
May 20, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Jim Watson/Town resident was concerned about the retention pond. He stated the condition
of Lake Front Drive is deteriorating due to runoff from Highway 34, and thought the additional
drainage would hasten deterioration.
Wally Burke/Town resident was opposed to the wider driveway width. He is a nearby motel
owner and thought the applicant should have to comply with the EVDC like he did. He had
concerns about the drainage and the amount of time it would take the pond to drain, which
may allow mosquitos to breed.
David Bangs offered to speak with the concerned neighbors foll owing the meeting to further
address their concerns.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Planner Kleisler stated a sidewalk along the south side would increase the percentage of
impervious coverage, and would ensure people would be walking closer to the lot line. Ms.
LeBeau stated the landscaping plan included five -gallon shrubs, six to eight foot tall conifers,
and four foot aspens. She expected the landscaping to provide a deterrent to trespassers.
Planner Kleisler stated the weed problem along Lake Front has been an issue for quite some
time, and he did not relate it to this redevelopment.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with the following affected agency comments:
a. Estes Valley Fire District memo dated April 21, 2014
b. Community Development Department memo dated April 25, 2014;
c. Public Works Department memos dated April 7th and April 25, 2014;
d. Water Division memo dated April 25, 2014; and
e. Estes Park Sanitation District email dated April 14, 2014.
2. Amend Sheet Two (2) of the proposed Development Plan to note the adjusted project
area to 181, 733 square feet.
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Sykes) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat
of Lots 18A and 30A, 2nd Amended Plat of Lots 18, 22, & 30, Grand Estates Subdivision 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 (Dickey/Hills) to approve the Comfort Inn Development Plan
2014-03 with the findings and conditions recommended by staff with the findings and
conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
Chair Hull recommended the neighbors discuss the trespassing and drainage issues with the
applicant and the Public Works Department.
4. REPORTS.
A. Director Chilcott reported the Development Plan for Falcon Ridge multi-family residential
housing project will be on the agenda in June.
B. Director Chilcott reported the Mountain River Townhomes Final Subdivision Plat will be
heard by the Town Board on May 27, 2014.
C. Director Chilcott reported there are no reviews scheduled before the County Commission
nor the Board of Adjustment in June.
D. Director Chilcott reported a brewery tour in Fort Collins was held on May 16, 2014, to
provide insight for the upcoming proposed amendments t o the EVDC. Several Planning
Commissioners, Town Trustees, business owners, and others attended. All thought the
tour was time well-spent.
E. Director Chilcott reported work on the modernization of the Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan will be postponed to allow staff time to focus on spring runoff/flood recovery and
increased development activity responsibilities.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
May 20, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
F. Director Chilcott reported several mitigation projects have recently taken place in or
beside rivers and streams to reduce risk of additional damage in areas where the
conveyance capacity has been reduced. Various agencies are looking at designs for Fall
River and Fish Creek, using risk-based methods. Funding sources (some competitive) are
being investigated. She reported she was not aware of reimbursement to the Town for
projects completed thus far; however, the Finance Department was working through the
issues and tracking the various projects.
There being no further business, Vice-Chair Bowers adjourned the meeting at 3:03 p.m.
___________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RESOLUTION #14-14
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
That the filing date of the application for a New TAVERN Liquor License, filed by
Centennial Tap House, LLC, dba CENTENNIAL TAP HOUSE, 120 Riverside Drive, Estes
Park, Colorado, is June 4, 2014.
It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board
Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, July 8, 2014, at 7:00
P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and hearing
shall be the area included within a radius of 3.15 miles, as measured from the center of the
applicant's property.
DATED this 24th day of June, 2014.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
Estes Valley Long-term Recovery GroupVolunteer Relief Update
Match Resources to needsCase ManagementThe ProcessGuidelines developed and presented to all case managersCases assigned to Supervisor/sCase Assigned to Case Manger by Case Management SupervisorRecovery Plan developedGet estimates for all unmet needs, including repair and contents etcIdentify Unmet NeedsSupervisor Reviews Presentation Prepare Case forPresentation to Unmet Needs Table – submit tosupervisorBack to Case Manager for completion, or submission to Case Management Committee ChairCMC Chair reviews case, if approved schedules for presentationTheUnmet NeedsTableFebruary 2
Volunteer Activity 1500 volunteers have served in the Estes Valley since JanuaryVolunteer groups have come from CO, CA, IA, IL, MI, MN, MO, NY, OH, PA, TN, TX, UT, WI (14 states)Volunteer groups represent 12+ organizationsReachGlobalMetroVolunteersAmeriCorps – NCCC (X2)Sharing Hope MinistriesCCIStudent LifeYouth of UnityMile High RotaryYMCA of the RockiesSBDRLutheran DRKohl’s “Associates in Action”OtterBox (OtterCares)
Volunteer Activity Continued…119 requests have been completed since Sept. 2013There is still a lot left to do!Big Thompson Canyon (Drake) – 30 jobs in progressGlen Haven – 49 jobs in progressEstes Park – 40 jobs in progressBig Elk Meadows – 12 jobs in progress Pinewood Springs – 16 jobs in progress
Jaywalkers from Carbondale, CO
AmeriCorps NCCC
ReachGlobal Crisis Response
ReachGlobal Crisis Response
Mile High Rotary
Sharing Hope Ministries
Kohl’s “Associates in Action”
Jobs at a GlanceAddressPhoneTasksPriority/Status17468 CR43 (GH)Tom Sellers970 663 -0333needs flooring put down, insulation, etc. Also outside cleanup (retaining wall and other things) M-F10 volunteers (TN) *Mike Turner 2GH Fire StationLinda Lambert Needs siding and roofing put on GH wellhouse. Frame is up. M-F10 volunteers (TN) *Mike Turner3800 Waltonia Rd. (Drake)Doug and Sharon Shirack 970-567-8665Natural debris removal from the dam down to barn. Shovels and wheelbarrows needed. (Monday…maybe Tuesday)10 volunteers (TN) *Mike Turner/Nolan41601 Fish CreekJeff and Sue Durnford 970-672-7374bathroom, crawlspace, yard work, bobcat. (M-20 volunteers (TN) *Mike Turner52507 Fish CreekBen and Amy Vigil(720) 936-4211Garage ground up build, bobcat work, etc. (M-F)20 volunteers (TN) *Mike Turner6198 Storm Mtn. (Drake-off CR43)Cody Muchow 303 668-6345debris cleanup, bobcat work, chainsaw work (T-Thurs.)10 volunteers (TN) *Mike TurnerDeployment List for Week of June 23, 2014
Jobs at a GlanceAddressPhoneTasksPriority/StatusDeployment List for Week of June 23, 20147736 North Fork (GH)Jim Engalland 970-586-3718seeding, planting, embankment resoration (T-W)20 volunteers (TN) *Mike Turner8Park River West Condo (EP)Stewart Squires 720.935.8792chainsaw work and stacked debris to be removed (just Monday)50 volunteers (TN) *Tobias92435 Fish Creek Belinda Kitchens slash pickup, bobcat work, etc. (T-F)10 volunteers (TN) *Mike Turner102425 Fish Creek Mark Pack 970-586-2469debris cleanup, bobcat work, deck repair (T-F)10 volunteers (TN) *Mike Turner11EP FairgroundsMatt Lemke 970.214.1481 overall maintenance and cleanup (T-Thurs.)20 volunteers (TN) *Mike Turner
Jobs at a GlanceAddressPhoneTasksPriority/StatusDeployment List for Week of June 23, 201412420 CR47 (BEM)Alida Hammonds 303 775-8773Electrical work, debris removal, etc. (just Monday and Tuesday) 17 volunteers (UT) *Kerry131292 Miller Fork Rd. (Glen Haven)Nancy Dunavan 970.586.4190retaining wall-BIG JOB (W-F)17 volunteers (UT) *Kerry14226 Cree Ct. (PWS)Jeff Sherman 303-823-6237Flooring, texturing, digging outside, debris removal, etc. (M-F)16 volunteers (TX) *Nelson (entire group on Monday)1511804 Hwy. 36 (PWS)John Lucero 303-651-7147debris cleanup, bobcat work, chainsaw work (T-W)10 volunteers (TX) *Nelson16109 Hopi Ct.Mike Murphy 303-823-6873debris removal, chainsaw work (Thurs.-F)10 volunteers (TX) *Nelson
Jobs at a GlanceAddressPhoneTasksPriority/StatusDeployment List for Week of June 23, 201417Wind River RanchRob Luttrell debris cleanup from massive mudslide (M-F)8 volunteers (WI) *Nolan1810518 CR43Patricia Karspeck 970 532-3064ongoing work with AmeriCorps (Tues. ONLY)10 volunteers *Hannah19BEM VFDGreg Overton 303.823.5717debris removal, mold treatment, etc. (W-S)10 volunteers *Hannah20200 Canyon River Rd. (GH)Mary Karns 970.586.5292 yard cleanup/debris removal PENDING…212447 W HWY 34 (Drake)JoAnn Bjorkman970-577-1345mold treatment, dry wall, etc. PENDING…
Thursday Night Potluck
PUBLIC WORKS Report
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Scott Zurn, PE Special Projects Manager
Date: June 24, 2014
RE: Event Center & Pavilion Construction Update
Objective:
To update the Town Board and public on the progress of the MPEC and Pavilion project
at the Stanley Fairgrounds.
Present Situation:
The MPEC main floor area is receiving its final coat of paint and its touch up while the
restrooms are also receiving final touch up and finishes. The front main architectural
timber work will begin as the concrete flatwork is now complete. Staff has worked
through the design modifications of raising the roof of the silo elements and has
scheduled height adjustments with the board of adjustments for their consideration.
Again as mentioned last time this modification will result in a better solution to the
multiple roof systems intersecting together and an improved weather tight system.
Ongoing items such as painting, drywall, overhead doors, man doors and glass are
work items underway and being completed.
Exterior flatwork is now complete and the MPEC landscaping has begun.Again as
mentioned before the Public Works Parks Division is designing and installing the
landscaping in-house.
The delivery date for occupancy of the MPEC main event space has occurred and the
additional height and addition of the second floor in the Silo is expected to add 14
weeks to the completion of the office areas.
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.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II
Date: June 24, 2014
RE: AMENDED PLAT, Lots 30A & 18A, 2nd Amended Plat of Lot 18, 22, 30,
Grand Estates Subdivision, 1450 Big Thompson Avenue; Caribou Chalet,
Inc./Owner.
Objective:
Review of an amended plat application for compliance with the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
Lots 30A and 18A were created with the
subdivision plat “Amended Plat of Lots 18,
22, and 30 of Grand Estates Subdivision”.
The applicant has submitted an Amended
Plat application to amend this plat of
record. The site currently consists of two
parcels zoned A Accommodations and is
the site of the Comfort Inn hotel.
Lot 30A (eastern lot) is 3.33 acres and
solely contains all hotel buildings. Lot
18A (western lot) is 0.92 acres and is
currently undeveloped. The Amended
Plat application proposes to combine
these two lots and retain the A
Accommodations zoning designation.
Caribou Chalet Inc. owns both lots considered with this application.
The Amended Plat dedicates and vacates easements as needed for the proposed development:
the demolition of three small hotel buildings to construct one 36-room hotel building (leaving two
hotel buildings on site). The proposed hotel building will include a swimming pool, lap-pool, hot
tub, meeting room and catering room all located within the building for use by guests. Half of
one of the existing small hotel buildings will remain and be converted to employee housing. The
Planning Commission approved the development plan for this project on May 20, 2014.
Proposal:
This is a request to combine two lots by removing an interior lot line. This amended plat
will allow for the redevelopment of the site.
Proposed interior
lot line to vacate
Combined Lot
Advantages:
Complies with EVDC.
Would advance the purpose of subdivision standards by providing lots of reasonable
utility and livability.
Allows for redevelopment of the site, which will provide for adequate fire protection
to the existing main hotel building.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
On May 20, 2014, the Estes Valley Planning Commission unanimously (6-0) voted to
recommend approval with the findings and conditions as recommended by staff:
1. Compliance with the following affected agency comments:
a. Estes Valley Fire District memo dated April 21, 2014;
b. Community Development memos dated April 25, 2014;
c. Public Works Department memos dated April 7 and April 25, 2014;
d. Water Division memo dated April 25, 2014; and
e. Estes Park Sanitation District email dated April 14, 2014;
2. Amend Sheet Two (2) of the proposed Development Plan to note the adjusted
project area to 181,733 square feet.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
Low.
Adjacent neighbors provided comments during the Planning Commission hearing on the
drainage plan associated with the Comfort Inn Development Plan and minor
modifications approved by the Commission. Public Works staff worked with the
applicant and adjacent neighbors to address the drainage issues. No further comments
have been received.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the proposed Amended Plat Lots 30A & 18A,
2nd Amended Plat of Lot 18, 22, 30, Grand Estates Subdivision, subject to the findings
and conditions of the Planning Commission.
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Site Plan
3. Planning Commission Report
2p4JSeL)STATEMENTOFINTENT—COMFORTINNApril9,2014PreliminaryAmendedPlat-FinalAmendedPlat-DevelopmentPlanTheComfortInnisanexistinghotellocatedat1450BigThompsonAvenue.Currentlythereare75hotelroomsamongfourseparatebuildingsoriginallyconstructedin1958andremodeledin1994.Themainhotelbuilding(northeastbuilding)contains39rooms,thenorthwestbuildingcontains12rooms,thewestbuildingcontains8rooms,andthesouthwestbuildingcontains16rooms.TheDevelopmentPlanandAmendedPlatarebeingsubmittedforaproposedre-developmentproject.Thisproposedredevelopmentincludesthedemolitionofthenorthwestandwesthotelbuildingsandamajorityofthesouthwesthotelbuilding.Sixoftheunitsinthesouthwestbuildingwillbeconvertedtoemployeehousing.Theproposedhotelbuildingwillbelocatedinthegenerallocationoftheexistingwesthotelbuilding.Thenewhotelbuildingwillinclude36hotelrooms,swimmingpool,lap-pool,hottub,meetingroom,andcateringkitchen.Allamenitiesintheproposedbuildingwillonlybeutilizedbyhotelguests.Atotalof30guestroomswillberemovedandatotalof36guestroomsareproposedinthenewbuilding.Sixoftheexistingguestroomswillbeconvertedtoemployeehousing.SiteHistoryThissitehasbeendevelopedforhotelaccommodationssince1958.ThesiteisboundedbyBigThompsonAvenue(USHWY34)tothenortheast,theColumbineInn(1540BigThompsonAvenue)andLakeMeadowCondominiumstotheeast,asingle-familyhomeinA-Accommodationszoning)tothesouth(540GrandEstatesDrive),single-familyhometothesouthwest(450LakefrontDrive),andLakefrontDrivealongthenorthwestpropertyline.TheaccesstothesitehistoricallyhasbeentwodrivewayaccessesoffBigThompsonAvenueandoneaccessoffLakefrontDrive.Zoning/SetbacksTheapplicantwishestokeeptheexistingA-AccommodationZoning,andtocomplywiththosezoningsetbackrequirementsaroundtheperimeteroftheproperty.AnAmendedPlatisbeingsubmittedtocombineLot30AonwhichtheComfortInnislocatedandLot18AwhichisvacantandadjacenttothesouthwestpropertylineofLot30A(bothinGrandEstatesSubdivisionandbothAccommodationszoning).TheAmendedPlatwilldissolvethecommonpropertylineofLots30Aand18A.Additionally,aneasementalongthiscommonlineforasewermainthatwillbeabandonedwiththisre-developmentprojectwillbevacated.NeweasementsfornewsewerandwatermainswillbededicatedwiththeAmendedPlat.Anadditional7.5’ofright-of-waywillalsobededicatedasrequestedbyPublicWorkstocontributetoa45’right-of-wayalongLakefrontDrive.Roadimprovementsonhalftheroad,curbandgutter,andsidewalkareproposedwithinthisnewlydedicateright-of-way.
DensityThisproposalincludes75hotelroomsandsixemployeehousingunitson4.19acres(182,341SF)ofland.TheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode(EVDC)requires1,800SFoflandperunit.Thetotalrequiredsquarefootagefortheproposeddensityis145,800SF.Approximately3,296SFofrightofwayalongthenorthpropertylineadjacenttoLakefrontDrivewillbededicatedwiththeAmendedPlat.Thetotalamountoflandonthepropertywillbe181,733SFupondedicationoftherightofway.Therefore,thereisapproximately35,933sfofdensityallowedonthissite(whichequatesto20additionalunits—whicharenotproposedwiththisapplication).Traffic/Transportation/AccessAtrafficengineerwascontactedbythearchitectregardingtrafficstudyrequirementsfortheproposedre-developmentproject.AnemailmemofromMattDellichstatesthatnotrafficstudywillberequiredbecausethere-developmentisnotincreasingdensity20%ormoreabovethecurrentuse.TimBilobranofCDOTwascontactedbyVanHornEngineering(VHE)regardingCDOTreviewofthetwoBigThompsonAvenuedrivewayaccesses.Mr.Bilobranstatedthatreviewwouldonlybetriggeredbyanincreaseof20%ormoreindensity.Minormodificationofthedrivewayradiionthesoutheastaccessisproposedaspartofthisre-developmentprojectforemergencyvehicleaccess.Mr.BilobranalsostatedthattheminormodificationofthesoutheastaccesswillnottriggerCDOTreviewbutwillrequireaCDOTaccesspermit,whichwillbeissuedtothispropertyregardlessofaccessmodificationinordertoestablishbaselinetrafficdata.UtilitiesSanitarySewer-Thisproposalincludesabandoningandextendingasewermain.Anexisting8”claysewermainrunsnorthalongthecommonlineofLots30Aand18A.ThispropertylinewillbeabandonedwiththeAmendedPlat(creatingLot30B).Thesewermainwillbeabandoneduptoapointinthelinewheretheproposedhotelbuildingwilltie-in.Anewmanholeisproposed(nearthenorthdrivewayentranceoffLakefrontDrive)whereanew8”line(fromthemainhotelbuildinginthenortheastportionoftheproperty)andnew4”servicelinefromproposedemployeehousingwilltiein.Theexistingsewermainandonsiteservicelinesarelocatedintheproposedbuildingfootprint,thereforewillbeproperlyabandoned.Nootherpropertiesoroffsiteservicelinestie-intothissectionofsewermain.DomesticWater—Twowatermainextensionsareproposedwiththisre-development.Theexistingservicelineconnectiontothe12”watermainalongthewestpropertyline(Lot30B-formerLot18A)willbeabandoned.Anew8”waterlinewillconnectto12”watermainnearthesouthwestpropertycornerofLot303(formerLot18Asoutheastcorner).Thenew8”linewillrunalongthepropertylinetoafirehydrantsouthwestoftheproposedemployeehousing.AprivateeasementacrossLot22AwillbededicatedfortheportionofthiswaterlinethatcrossesLot22Abyaseparatedocument.A20’waterlineeasementwillalsobededicatedalongthisline(includingthefirehydrant)withtheAmendedPlat.Servicelinestotheproposed36-roombuildingandemployeehousingwilltieintothisline.Asecond8”waterlineisproposedtoconnecttothesame12”watermainalongthewestpropertyline.Thislineis
AproposedtoconnectnearthenorthwestpropertycornerofLot30B(formernorthwestcornerofLot18A)andrunnortheastalongthenorthpropertylinetoaproposedfirehydrantattheintersectionofthenorthsiteaccessandLakefrontDrive.A6”waterlinetothefireriserroomwilltieintothisline.BuriedElectric—Thisproposalisforathreephasepowerextensionfromtheexistingtransformeratthesoutheastcornerofthemainhotelbuildinginthenortheastportionoftheproperty.AnelectricalloadevaluationletterfromMr.WaltSteige,PEisincludedwiththissubmittal.Thisletterstatesthattheexisting150KVAtransformerwillbeadequatefortheproposedusesofthisproject.Newthree-phaseprimaryandsecondaryservicelinesareincludedwiththisdevelopmentplan.PhasingNophasingplanisincludedwiththisdevelopmentproject.Acash-in-lieuoptionwasofferedbyPublicWorksforLakefrontDrive(halfoftheroad)improvements,includinganattachedsidewalk.Theclientiscurrentlyconsideringtheiroptionsonthismatter.Thesidewalk(8’widesouthofthewestentrance,and5’widenorthofthewestentrance—bymeetingandacknowledgementbythePublicWorksDepartment)androadimprovementsareshownonthisdevelopmentplan.FloodplainRegulationsThissiteisnotadjacentornearariver.LakeEstesisapproximately1620feetsouthofthispropertyandthispropertyissituatedup-gradientofthelake.Floodplainregulationsshouldnotapplytothisproperty.OnandOffSiteDrainageThispropertydrainstothenorth,southeastandsouthwest.ThenorthportionofthepropertydrainsnorthacrosstheasphaltparkinglotsintoalargevegetatedroadsideswalealongBigThompsonAvenue.Thesoutheastportionofthesitedrainssoutheastintothesoutheastcornerofthesitethatisvegetatedanddoesnotcontainasphalt.Thissoutheastdrainageincludespartofthenorthwestportionofthepropertythatpoolsintheupperparkinglot,southofthemainbuildingandflowsthroughanorificeinatimberretainingwall.Theflowsthendrainontotheasphaltdriveeastoftheemployeehousingandintothevegetatedareainsoutheastcornerofthesite.Therearenosignsofsignificantdrainagepathsinthisarea.Curbandgutterisproposedlongthesouthperimeteroftheparkinglottocatchthesurfaceflowspriortoenteringthesoutheastcornerofthesiteandpotentiallyontotheadjacentproperties.TheremainderofthepropertyandsurfaceflowswillbedirectedviaTypeRinletsandcurbandguttertothedetentionandwaterqualitypondlocatedinthenorthwestcorneroftheproperty.Detailsofallthesefeaturesareshownontheplansandinthereportrequiredwiththissubmittal.FireSafetyThisproposalhasbeencreatedwiththeassistanceoftheFireAuthorityintheEstesValley.Thetwoproposedfirehydrantsmeetdistancespacingdesires,andtheplacementofallstructuresmeetthe
desiredlimitsfor,“hosewrappingandfireaccess”.UnitsarearchitecturallydesignedtomeetFireCodesforingressandegress.Theroadgeometryhasbeenchecked(withwheeltrackingsoftware)toprovideassurancethatthelargestapplicablefireresponsevehiclewillhaveaccesstoeachbuildingintheeventofafire.Gradingonsiteissuchthatthelongitudinalgradeonanycommondrivewayorthemainroaddoesnotexceed10%.Crossslopesonthesameroadsandcommondrivewayshavebeenkeptatlessthan5%.NeighborhoodcompatibilityIncomparingthisproposaltotheneighboringhotels(ColumbineInn-southeastandCoyoteMountainLodge-northwest)andhotelsalongBigThompsonAvenuetothenorthandsouth,theproposedredevelopmentfitswellwiththedevelopmentsalongBigThompsonAvenue.HazardsAccordingtotheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode,therearenomappedgeologichazardsonsite.TheWildfireHazardMappingshowsasmall,narrowfingerofhighwildfirehazardintheextremesoutheastpropertycorner(limitedtoformerLot18A).Trails/SidewalksWiththisproposal,therewillbeasouthwesttonortheasthardsurfacepedestriantrailalongthesouthLakefrontDriveright-of-wayuptotheasphaltmulti-usetrailalongBigThompsonAvenue.InteriorsidewalksincludeanADAaccessibleconcretetrailconnectingthetwomainhotelbuildings,afive-footsidewalkalongthefaçadeofthenewhotelbuilding,andanADAaccessible5’widesidewalkfromthefirstfloorofthenewhotelbuildingtoLakefrontDrive.Waiversrequested•Lotcoverage(4.4.C.4,Table4-5,DensityandDimensionalStandards,Non-residentialzoningdistricts)LotcoveragefortheAccommodations(A)zoningis50%.Thispropertycurrentlycontains69%lotcoverage.Theproposedlotcoverageis62.7%,withtheadditionofLot18A.Additionalasphaltwasrequiredtofacilitatefiretruckaccessandturnaroundontheproperty.Thetotalproposedlotcoverageismorecompliantthanexistinglotcoverage.Wearerequestingawaivertothe50%lotcoveragelimitforAAccommodationszoningduetoexistingconditionsandthattheproposedlotcoverageislessthantheexistingpercentage.•Sidewalkwidth(4.4D.4,Table4-8,PedestrianAmenitiesandLinkageRequirements,Nonresidentialzoningdistricts)
Thisre-developmentproposalincludesmultipleconcretesidewalks.Three5’wideinternalconcretesidewalksandan8’concretesidewalkareproposedwiththisdevelopmentplan.The8’sidewalkrunsalongthenorthwestpropertyboundary(alongLakefrontDrivewithinthenewlydedicatedrightofway.ThenortheasternportionofthepropertyalongLakefrontDriveisfairlysteepandcontainsanexistingasphaltdrivewayandlandscaping.The8’sidewalkalongthissectionwouldrequirethealreadynarrow(13’betweenedgeofasphaltandhotelbuilding/eavecorner)tobemorenarrowandunsafeforonewayvehiculartraffic.WearerequestingthattheproposedsidewalkalongLakefrontDriveandthenorthwestpropertylinemaybe5’(approximately100’inlength)inwidthtoaccommodatearetainingwallandfootingssothatsafetyontheexistingdrivewayisnotfurthercompromised.Drivewaygraderequirements(AppendixD.lll.B.4.a(3))ThedrivewayslopeattheintersectionwithLakefrontDriveisgreaterthanthedrivewaygradingrequirementslistedinAppendixDoftheEVDC.Therequirementsstatethatthefirst20’ofadrivewaythatintersectswithapublicstreet(LakefrontDriveinthiscase)shallbenomorethan4%.Theexistingandproposeddrivewayentryis8.89%.TheexistingdrivewaygradehasnotbeenaproblemfortheComfortInninthepast.Theexistinggradecannotbyreducedwithoutcreatingmoregradingproblemsontheproperty.TheadjacentparkingspaceswouldbetoosteepandADAgradeswouldnotbeattainableforentryintotheproposedhotelbuilding.Wearerequestingthatthedrivewayentrygradecanremainattheexisting8.89%duetoexistingconditionsanddesignrestrictionsontheremainderofthedrivewayontheproperty.Drivewayopeningrequirements(AppendixD.lll.B.7.a)ThedrivewayopeningattheintersectionwithLakefrontDriveisproposedtobe69.2’widewhileAppendixDstatesthatnon-residentialdrivewayopeningsshallnotexceed30’atthestreetline.Theexistingwidthofthedrivewayopeningis44’.Thedrivewayopeningwidthwasincreasedaspartofthisdevelopmentplantofacilitatetheentranceoffiretruckstothewestportionofthispropertywheretheproposedhotelbuildingwillbelocated.ThiswillprovideasecondaccessforemergencyvehiclesinadditiontotheaccessoffHighway34throughtheeasternportionoftheproperty(wheretheothermainhotelbuildingislocated).AccesstotheproposedbuildingfromLakefrontDriveismoredirectandfasterforfiretrucks(duetogeometryanddistance).WearerequestingthatthedrivewayopeningattheintersectionofLakefrontDrivebeallowedtobe69.2’asproposedonthisdevelopmentplanduetoexistingconditionsrestrictionsandtoprovideadequatefiretruck/emergencyvehicleaccess.
sTATEMENT0:IN:::T-c0MF0RTINNR11VEUPreliminaryAmendedPlat-FinalAmendedPIat-DevelopmentPlanTheComfortInnisanexistinghotellocatedat1450BigThompsonAvenue.Currentlythereare75hotelroomsamongfourseparatebuildingsoriginallyconstructedin1958andremodeledin1994.TheDevelopmentPlanandAmendedPlatarebeingsubmittedforaproposedpartialre-developmentproject.Thisproposedre-developmentincludesthedemolitionoftwoexistinghotelbuildingsandamajorityofathirdhotelbuilding.Anewhotelbuildingandsixunitemployeehousing(partofanexistingbuilding)areproposedaspartofthere-developmentproject.Thenewhotelwillinclude36hotelrooms,swimmingpool,lap-pool,hottub,meetingroom,andcateringkitchen.Allamenitieswillonlybeutilizedbyhotelguests.SiteHistoryThissitehasbeendevelopedforhotelaccommodationssince1958.ThesiteisboundedbyBigThompsonAvenue(USHWY36)tothenortheast,theColumbineInn(1540BigThompsonAvenue)andLakeMeadowCondominiumstotheeast,asingle-familyhomeinA-Accommodationszoning)tothesouth(540GrandEstatesDrive),single-familyhometothesouthwest(450LakefrontDrive),andLakefrontDrivealongthenorthwestpropertyline.TheaccesstothesitehistoricallyhasbeentwodrivewayaccessesoffBigThompsonAvenueandoneaccessoffLakefrontDrive.Zoning/SetbacksTheapplicantwishestokeeptheexistingA-AccommodationZoning,andtocomplywiththosezoningsetbackrequirementsaroundtheperimeteroftheproperty.AnAmendedPlatisbeingsubmittedtocombineLot30AonwhichtheComfortInnislocatedandLot18AwhichisvacantandadjacenttothesouthwestpropertylineofLot30A(bothinGrandEstatesSubdivisionandbothAccommodationszoning).TheAmendedPlatwilldissolvethecommonpropertylineofLots30AandiSA,Additionally,aneasementalongthiscommonlineforasewermainthatwillbeabandonedwiththisre-developmentprojectwillbevacated.NeweasementsfornewsewerandwatermainswillbededicatedwiththeAmendedPlat.Anadditional7.5’ofright-of-waywillalsobededicatedasrequestedbyPublicWorkstocontributetoa45’right-of-wayalongLakefrontDrive.Roadimprovementsonhalftheroad,curbandgutter,andsidewalkareproposedwithinthisnewlydedicateright-of-way.DensityThisproposalincludes75hotelroomsandsixemployeehousingunitson419acres(182,341SF)ofland.TheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode(EVDC)requires1,800SFoflandperunit.Thetotalrequiredsquarefootagefortheproposeddensityis145,800SF.Approximately3,296SFofrightofwayalongthenorthpropertylineadjacenttoLakefrontDrivewillbededicatedwiththeAmendedPIat.Thetotal
amountoflandonthepropertywillbe181,733SFupondedicationoftherightofway.Therefore,thereisapproximately35,933sfofdensityallowedonthissite(whichequatesto20additionalunits—whicharenotproposedwiththisapplication).Traffic/Transportation/AccessAtrafficengineerwascontactedbythearchitectregardingtrafficstudyrequirementsfortheproposedre-developmentproject.AnemailmemofromMattDellichstatesthatnotrafficstudywillberequiredbecausethere-developmentisnotincreasingdensity20%ormoreabovethecurrentuse.TimBilobranofCDOTwascontactedbyVanHornEngineering(VHE)regardingCOOTreviewofthetwoBigThompsonAvenuedrivewayaccesses.Mr.Bilobranstatedthatreviewwouldonlybetriggeredbyanincreaseof20%ormoreindensity.Minormodificationofthedrivewayradiionthesoutheastaccessisproposedaspartofthisre-developmentprojectforemergencyvehicleaccess.Mr.BilobrarialsostatedthattheminormodificationofthesoutheastaccesswillnottriggerCOOTreviewbutwillrequireaCDOTaccesspermit,whichwillbeissuedtothispropertyregardlessofaccessmodificationinordertoestablishbaselinetrafficdata.UtilitiesSanitarySewer-Thisproposalincludesabandoningandextendingasewermain.Anexisting8”claysewermainrunsnorthalongthecommonlineofLots30Aand18A.ThispropertylinewillbeabandonedwiththeAmendedPlat(creatingLot30B).Thesewermainwillbeabandoneduptoapointinthelinewheretheproposedhotelbuildingwilltie-in.Anewmanholeisproposed(nearthenorthdrivewayentranceoffLakefrontDrive)whereanew8”line(fromthemainhotelbuildinginthenortheastportionoftheproperty)andnew4”servicelinefromproposedemployeehousingwilltiein.Theexistingsewermainandonsiteservicelinesarelocatedintheproposedbuildingfootprint,thereforewillbeproperlyabandoned.Nootherpropertiesoroffsiteservicelinestie-intothissectionofsewermain.DomesticWater—Twowatermainextensionsareproposedwiththisre-development.Theexistingservicelineconnectiontothe12”watermainalongthewestpropertyline(Lot30B-formerLot18A)willbeabandoned.Anew8”waterlinewillconnectto12”watermainnearthesouthwestpropertycornerofLot30B(formerLot18Asoutheastcorner).Thenew8”linewillrunalongthepropertylinetoafirehydrantsouthwestoftheproposedemployeehousing.AprivateeasementacrossLot22AwillbededicatedfortheportionofthiswaterlinethatcrossesLot22Abyaseparatedocument.A20’waterlineeasementwillalsobededicatedalongthisline(includingthefirehydrant)withtheAmendedPlat.ServiceTinestotheproposed36-roombuildingandemployeehousingwilltieintothisline.Asecond8”waterlineisproposedtoconnecttothesame12”watermainalongthewestpropertyline.ThislineisproposedtoconnectnearthenorthwestpropertycornerofLot30B(formernorthwestcornerofLot18A)aridrunnortheastalongthenorthpropertylinetoaproposedfirehydrantattheintersectionofthenorthsiteaccessandLakefrontDrive.A6”waterlinetothefireriserroomwilltieintothisline.
0BuriedElectric—Thisproposalisforathreephasepowerextensionfromtheexistingtransformeratthesoutheastcornerofthemainhotelbuildinginthenortheastportionoftheproperty.AnelectricalloadevaluationletterfromMr.WaltSteige,PEisincludedwiththissubmittal.Thisletterstatesthattheexisting150KVAtransformerwillbeadequatefortheproposedusesofthisproject.Newthree-phaseprimaryandsecondaryservicelinesareincludedwiththisdevelopmentplan.PhasingNophasingplanisincludedwiththisdevelopmentproject.Acash-in-lieuoptionwasofferedbyPublicWorksforLakefrontDrive(halfoftheroad)improvements,includinganattachedsidewalk.Theclientiscurrentlyconsideringtheiroptionsonthismatter.Thesidewalk(8’widesouthofthewestentrance,and5’widenorthofthewestentrance—bymeetingandacknowledgementbythePublicWorksDepartment)androadimprovementsareshownonthisdevelopmentplan.FloodplainRegulationsThissiteisnotadjacentornearariver.LakeEstesisapproximately1620feetsouthofthispropertyandthispropertyissituatedup-gradientofthelake.Floodplainregulationsshouldnotapplytothisproperty.OnandOffSiteDrainageThispropertydrainstothenorth,southeastandsouthwest.ThenorthportionofthepropertydrainsnorthacrosstheasphaltparkinglotsintoalargevegetatedroadsideswalealongBigThompsonAvenue.Thesoutheastportionofthesitedrainssoutheastintothesoutheastcornerofthesitethatisvegetatedanddoesnotcontainasphalt.Thissoutheastdrainageincludespartofthenorthwestportionofthepropertythatpoolsintheupperparkinglot,southofthemainbuildingandflowsthroughanorificeinatimberretainingwall.Theflowsthendrainontotheasphaltdriveeastoftheemployeehousingandintothevegetatedareainsoutheastcornerofthesite.Therearenosignsofsignificantdrainagepathsinthisarea.Curbandgutterisproposedlongthesouthperimeteroftheparkinglottocatchthesurfaceflowspriortoenteringthesoutheastcornerofthesiteandpotentiallyontotheadjacentproperties.TheremainderofthepropertyandsurfaceflowswillbedirectedviaTypeRinletsandburbandguttertothedetentionandwaterqualitypondlocatedinthenorthwestcorneroftheproperty.Detailsofallthesefeaturesareshownontheplansandinthereportrequiredwiththissubmittal.FireSafetyThisproposalhasbeencreatedwiththeassistanceoftheFireAuthorityintheEstesValley.Thetwoproposedfirehydrantsmeetdistancespacingdesires,aridtheplacementofallstructuresmeetthedesiredlimitsfor,“hosewrappingandfireaccess”.UnitsarearchitecturallydesignedtomeetFireCodesforingressandegress.Theroadgeometryhasbeenchecked(withwheeltrackingsoftware)toprovideassurancethatthelargestapplicablefireresponsevehiclewillhaveaccesstoeachbuildingintheeventofafire.Grading
..onsiteissuchthatthelongitudinalgradeonanycommondrivewayorthemainroaddoesnotexceed10%.Crossslopesonthesameroadsandcommondrivewayshavebeenkeptatlessthan5%.NeighborhoodcompatibilityIncomparingthisproposaltotheneighboringhotels(ColumbineInn-southeastandCoyoteMountainLodge-northwest)andhotelsalongBigThompsonAvenuetothenorthandsouth,theproposedredevelopmentfitswellwiththedevelopmentsalongBigThompsonAvenue.HazardsAccordingtotheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode,therearenomappedgeologichazardsonsite.TheWildfireHazardMappingshowsasmall,narrowfingerofhighwildfirehazardintheextremesoutheastpropertycorner(limitedtoformerLot18A),Trails/SidewalksWiththisproposal,therewillbeasouthwesttonortheasthardsurfacepedestriantrailalongthesouthLakefrontDriveright-of-wayuptotheasphaltmulti-usetrailalongBigThompsonAvenue.InteriorsidewalksincludeanADAaccessibleconcretetrailconnectingthetwomainhotelbuildings,afive-footsidewalkalongthefaçadeofthenewhotelbuilding,andanADAaccessible5’widesidewalkfromthefirstfloorofthenewhotelbuildingtoLakefrontDrive.Waiversrequested.Nowaiversarerequested.
ExistingLandUseHotelProposedLandUseSameFROWorEasementVacationFStreetNameChangeTimeExtensionFOther:Pleasespecify4,DevelopmentPlanFBoundaryLineAdjustmentFSpecialReviewFRezoningPetitionFPreliminarySubdivisionPlatFFinalSubdivisionPlatFMinorSubdivisionPlatFAmendedPlatCondominiumMapFPreliminaryMapFFinalMapFSupplementalMaprojectNameIDevelopmentPlanoftheComfortInn(CaribouChalet,INC.)rojectAddressL.egalDescriptionParcelID#rojectDescriptioneey’vcviv:130cctk)o1VeT,,i,-ic:’GeneralInformationSiteInformationI.25194-27-003LotSize1450BigT1i’ompsonAye,EsPark,CO80517‘e.kiILots18A&30A,2ndAmendedPlatofLots18,22&30,GrandEstSub,EstesPark,LarimerCounty,CO419AcresAreaofDisturbanceinAcres3.046AcresExistingWaterServiceProposedWaterService‘ITownExistingSanitarySewerServiceProposedSanitarySewerServiceV’TownrWellNoneFOther(specify)FWellNone1EPSDEPSDYesExistingGasServiceIsasewerliftstationrequired?1FOther(specify)FUTSDFUTSDNoExistingZoningA-AccommodationsSepticrNoneFSepticAretherewetlandsonthesite?SiteAccess(ifnotonpublicstreet)BigThompsonAve.andLakefrontDr.FOtherFNone—ProposedZoningA-AccommodationsFYescompletedatthetimeNoNameofPrimaryContactPersonLonnieSheldoncationissubmitted.CCompleteMailingAddressV’YesNo1043FishCreekRoad,EstesPark,CO80517‘ApplicationfeeVdStatementofintent‘1copies(folded)ofplatorplan‘111”X17’reducedcopyofplatorplanr__A”-intC-‘‘rDigitalCopiesofplats/plansinTIFForPDFformatemailedtoplanningestes.orgIPleasereviewtheEstesValleyDevelopmentCodeAppendixBforadditionalsubmittalrequirements,whichmayincludeISOcalculations,drainagereport,trafficimpactanalysis,geologichazardmitigationreport,wildfirehazardmitigationreport,wetlandsreport,andlorotheradditionalinformation.TownofEslesPark..P.O.Box1200.170MacGregorAvenue.EstesPark,CO80517CommunityDevelopmentDepartmentPhone:(970)577-3721.Fax:(970)586-0249-www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopmerrtRevised201308.27KT
RecordOwner(s)MailingAddressPhoneCellPhone______FaxEmailApplicant-MailingAddressPhoneCellPhon€onsultantIEngineerMailingAddress,PhoneCellPhoneArticle65.5ofTitle24oftheColoradoRevisedStatutesrequiresapplicantsforDevelopmentPlans,SpecialReviews,Rezoning,PreliminaryandFinalSubdivisionPlats,MinorSubdivisionPlatsifcreatinganewlot,andPreliminaryandFinalCondominiumMapstoprovidenoticeoftheapplicationandinitialpublichearingtoallmineralestateownerswherethesurfaceestateandthemineralestatehavebeensevered.Thisnoticemustbegiven30dayspriortothefirsthearingonanapplicationfordevelopmentandmeetthestatutoryrequirements.IherebycertifythattheprovisionsofSection24-65.5-103CR5havebeenmet.Names:RecordOwnerPLEASEPRINT:—f‘r.ApplicantPLEASEPRINT:Kr)b%1FSb\_l((.6.Signatures:RecordOwner(2?Applicant__________________________________DateDateIICaribouChalet,INC.970-586-23581450BigThompsonAvenue,EstesPark,CO80517TheMorgantiGroup,INC.Attn:RonRuegge970-685-40102903AspenDrive,SuiteB,Loveland,CO80535FaxN/AEmailrueggerggmaiI.comLonriieSheldonF!k:FaxN/A1043FishCreekRoad,EstesPark,CO80517970-586-9388Emaillonvhe@airbits.comAPPLICATIONFEESFordevelopmentwithintheEstesValleyPlanningArea,bothinsideandoutsideTownlimitsSeethefeescheduleincludedinyourapplicationpacketorviewthefeescheduleonlineat:www.estes.org/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanninciApplicationFeeSchedule.pdfAllrequestsforrefundsmustbemadeinwriting.AUfeesaredueatthetimeofsubmittal.MINERALRIGHTCERTIFICATIONReved2013.08.27KT
RAPPLICANTCERTIFICATIONIherebycertifythattheinformationandexhibitsherewithsubmittedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeandthatinfilingtheapplicationIamactingwiththeknowledgeandconsentoftheownersoftheproperty.Insubmittingtheapplicationmaterialsandsigningthisapplicationagreement,IacknowledgeandagreethattheapplicationissubjecttotheapplicableprocessingandpublichearingrequirementssetforthintheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode(EVDC).IacknowledgethatIhaveobtainedorhaveaccesstotheEVDC,andthat,priortofilingthisapplication,Ihavehadtheopportunitytoconsulttherelevantprovisionsgoverningtheprocessingofanddecisionontheapplication.TheEstesValleyDevelopmentCodeisavailableonlineat:http://www.estes.orq/ComDev/DevCodeIunderstandthatacceptanceofthisapplicationbytheTownofEstesParkforfilingandreceiptoftheapplicationfeebytheTowndoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheapplicationiscompleteundertheapplicablerequirementsoftheEVDC.Iunderstandthatthisproposalmaybedelayedinprocessingbyamonthormoreiftheinformationprovidedisincomplete,inaccurate,orsubmittedafterthedeadlinedate.Iunderstandthataresubmittalfeewillbechargedifmyapplicationisincomplete.TheCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentwillnotifytheapplicantinwritingofthedateonwhichtheapplicationisdeterminedtobecomplete.IgrantpermissionforTownofEstesParkEmployeesandPlanningCommissionerswithproperidentificationaccesstomypropertyduringthereviewofthisapplication.IacknowledgethatIhavereceivedtheEstesValleyDevelopmentReviewApplicationScheduleandthatfailuretomeetthedeadlinesshownonsaidschedulemayresultinmyapplicationortheapprovalofmyapplicationbecomingnullandvoid.Iunderstandthatfullfeeswillbechargedfortheresubmittalofanapplicationthathasbecomenullandvoid.Names:RecordOwnerPLEASEPRINT:ApplicantPLEASEPRINT:Signatures:RecordOwner_______________________________________Date—Z/Applican9j....?Y(Li4_L_Date3’-*/Revised2013.08.27KT
May12,2014EstesValleyPlanningCommissionBettyHull,ChairP0Box1200EstesPark,Co80517DearCommissioners:IamwritingtoexpressmyconcernsabouttheproposeddevelopmentattheComfortInn,1450BigThompsonAvenue.Myfirstconcernisthewaiverrequestforasixty-ninefootdrivewaycut(vs.thirtyfootpercode)alongLakeFrontstreet.Thisrequestisoverdoubleofwhatisallowedinthecode.ThissizeofdrivewaycutcouldresultinextrawaterflowontoLakeFrontStreet.InthiscasethebuildingshouldbemovedbacktoaccommodatesufficientaccessforFirevehiclesWhenweweregoingthroughthedevelopmentplanprocessforourpropertyat1260BigThompsonAvenuein2012,weweretoldwehadtoconformwiththecodes.Thisresultedinmovingbackourbuildingseveralfeetforproperaccess.Theotheroptionweweregivenatthattimewastobuilda200footlongallweatherroadwhichwouldaccommodatefireequipment.Wechosetheoptionofmovingthebuilding.Mypointisthatweweretoldtoanddidconformwiththecode.Thisproposeddevelopmentshoulddothesame.MysecondconcernisthewaiverbeingrequestedforthegradeofthedrivewaycomingoffofLakeFrontStreet.Agradeof8.89%isprobablymorethanfireequipmentcansafelynegotiateinwinterconditions.Mythirdconcernistheproposedholdingpondinthedrainageplan.Thissoundslikeabaddealforthoseofusthatlivenearthepond.Whereisthewatergoingwhenitleavesthepond?Thebugs,mosquitosandsmellthatwillresultfromthisarrangementwillnotonlybeanuisanceBUTalsohasthepotentialofloweringneighboringpropertyvalues.Thisisabadideathatshouldnotbeallowed.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsregardingmyconcerns,Imaybereachedatbusinesstelephonenumber,586-4476.Sincere,;//JJJ//allaceiBurke1258BigThompsonAvenueEstesPark,CO80517
Community Development Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II
Date: June 24, 2014
RE: SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #6, Stone Bridge Estates
Condominiums, 1127 Fish Creek Road, Kingswood Homes/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 1127 Fish
Creek Road.
Development approval provided for a
total of fourteen units. To date, eight of
the units have been built and
condominiumized; this unit represents
the ninth unit to be condominiumized,
leaving an additional five 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 received Town Board approval of a final townhome plat application;
the plat has not been submitted for recording yet. 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 #6, condominiumizing one residential
unit. The unit is addressed 1127 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
#6, Stone Bridge Estates Condominiums, 1127 Fish Creek Road, with the condition
recommended by staff.
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A Map
2. Exhibit B Map
3. Application
4. Site Plan
RECO
RM
E-1
O
1480
1805
1110
1661
1810
1641
1147
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: 6/19/2014Created By: phil kleisler
Parcels-Larimer selection
Town Boundary
Parcels-Larimer
Zoning
Project Name:Project Description:
Petitioner(s):Parcel ID Number(s):Location/Address:
Stone Bridge Sup. Condo Map #6Condominiumizing one residental unit.Kingswood Homes25311-68-0031127 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
1147
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: 6/19/2014Created By: phil kleisler
Parcels-Larimer selection
Town Boundary
Parcels-Larimer
Zoning
Project Name:Project Description:
Petitioner(s):Parcel ID Number(s):Location/Address:
Stone Bridge Sup. Condo Map #6Condominiumizing one residental unit.Kingswood Homes25311-68-0031127 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
STATEMENTOFINTENT-STONEBRIDGEESTATESSIXTHSUPPLEMENTALCONDOMINIUMMAP,PHASEVIIThisPhaseVIIsubmittalofStoneBridgeEstatesCondominiumsconsistsof1residentialunit(1127)onLot3,StoneBridgeEstatesSubdivision.AllutilitymainlineshavebeeninstalledtoserveLot3perrequirementsofthesubdivisionanddevelopmentplanreviewprocess.Thecondominiummapisconsistentwiththeapproveddevelopmentplan.
ISubmittalDate:ESTESVALLEYDEVELOPMENTREVIEWAPPLICATION9/11/2013FDevelopmentPlanFSpecialReviewFRezoningPetitionFPreliminarySubdivisionPlat[FinalSubdivisionPlatFMinorSubdivisionPlatFAmendedPlatrBoundaryLineAdjustmentFROWorEasementVacationFStreetNameChangeFTimeExtensionFOther:PleasespecifyCondominiumMaprPreliminaiyMap_______MAY282014ProjectNameProjectDescriptionProjectAddressLegalDescriptionSixthSupplementalCondominiumMapofStoneBridgeEstatesCoridnumsCondominiumizeUnit1127-PhaseVII1127FishCreekRoad,EstesPark,CO80517Lot3,StoneBridcieEstatesSubdivisionNameofPrimaryContactPersonCompleteMailingAddressPrimaryContactPersonisFWellFWellFrI-FNoneFNoneEPSDEPSDYesNoOtherFNone•ProposedZoningRMFSepticFSepticApplicationfeeStatementofintent3copies(folded)ofplatorplan11”X17”reducedcopyofplatorplanPleasereviewtheEstesValleyDevelopmentCodeAppendixBforadditionalsubmittalrequirements,whichmayincludeISOcalculations,drainagereport,trafficimpactanalysis,geologichazardmitigationreport,wildfirehazardmitigationreport,wetlandsreport,andlorotheradditionalinformation.AreaofDisturbanceinAcresresidential/multi-familyN/ALotSize2.71acresExistingLandUsemostlydevelopedProposedLandUseMulti-familyExistingWaterServiceTownProposedWaterServiceTownExistingSanitarySewerServiceProposedSanitarySewerServiceIsasewerliftstationrequired?ExistingGasService1’XcelExistingZoningRMSiteAccess(ifnotonpublicstreet)-Aretherewetlandsonthesite?FOther(specify)FOther(specify)iUTSDlUTSDFNoneYesSitestakingmustbecompletedatthetimeapplicationissubmitted.Complete?N/AENoAmyPlummer/VanHornEnaineerinaFYesFNo1043fishCreekRoad,EstesPark,CO80517FOwnerFAoolicantiConsuItantIEniineerTownofEstesPorkP.O.Box1200170MacGregorAvenueEslesPark,CO80517LommunflyDevelopmentDepartment-‘none:(9/U)5//-J/21vax:(9/U)36-Ui49www.estes.org/LomDevRevised2011*11.16KT
RecordOwner(s)KinigswoodHomes,IncIMikeKingswoodMailingAddress152StanleyCircleDr.,EstesPark,CO80517Phone970-586-6551MINERALRIGHTCERTIFICATIONArticle65.5ofTitle24oftheColoradoRevisedStatutesrequiresapplicantsforDevelopmentPlans,SpecialReviews,Rezoning,PreliminaryandFinalSubdivisionPlats,MinorSubdivisionPlatsifcreatinganewlot,andPreliminaryandFinalCondominiumMapstoprovidenoticeoftheapplicationandinitialpublichearingtoallmineralestateownerswherethesurfaceestateandthemineralestatehavebeensevered.Thisnoticemustbegiven30dayspriortothefirsthearingonanapplicationfordevelopmentandmeetthestatutoryrequirements.IherebycertifythattheprovisionsofSection24-65.5-103CRShavebeenmet.Names:RecordOwnerKingswoodHomes,Inc/Mike_KingswoodApplicantMikeKingswoodRecordOwnerJ’4a21-Date/az-/jI—I,,,II’CellPhone—FaxEmailmike@homesbykingswood.com—ApplicantseeownerMailingAddressPhoneCellPhoneFaxEmailConsultantlEngineerVanHornEngineering&Surveying/AmyPlummerMailingAddress1043FishCreekRoad,EstesPark,CO80517Phone970-586-9388x12CellPhoneFax970-586-8101Emailamyvheairbits.comAPPLICATIONFEESFordevelopmentwithintheEstesValleyPlanningArea,bothinsideandoutsideTownlimitsSeethefeescheduleincludedinyourapplicationpacketorviewthefeescheduleonlineat:www.estes.org/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningAplicationFeeSchedule.pdfAllrequestsforrefundsmustbemadeinwriting.Allfeesaredueatthetimeofsubmittal.Signatures:Applicant44Date22hTRevised2011.11.16KT
APPLICANTCERTIFICATIONIherebycertifythattheinformationandexhibitsherewithsubmittedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeandthatinfilingtheapplicationIamactingwiththeknowledgeandconsentoftheownersoftheproperty.Insubmittingtheapplicationmaterialsandsigningthisapplicationagreement,IacknowledgeandagreethattheapplicationissubjecttotheapplicableprocessingandpublichearingrequirementssetforthintheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode(EVDC).IacknowledgethatIhaveobtainedorhaveaccesstotheEVDC,andthat,priortofilingthisapplication,Ihavehadtheopportunitytoconsulttherelevantprovisionsgoverningtheprocessingofanddecisionontheapplication.TheEstesValleyDevelopmentCodeisavailableonlineat:http://www.estes.org/ComDev/DevCodeIunderstandthatacceptanceofthisapplicationbytheTownofEstesParkforfilingandreceiptoftheapplicationfeebytheTowndoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheapplicationiscompleteundertheapplicablerequirementsoftheEVDC.Iunderstandthatthisproposalmaybedelayedinprocessingbyamonthormoreiftheinformationprovidedisincomplete,inaccurate,orsubmittedafterthedeadlinedate.Iunderstandthataresubmittalfeewillbechargedifmyapplicationisincomplete.TheCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentwillnotifytheapplicantinwritingofthedateonwhichtheapplicationisdeterminedtobecomplete.IgrantpermissionforTownofEstesParkEmployeesandPlanningCommissionerswithproperidentificationaccesstomypropertyduringthereviewofthisapplication.IacknowledgethatIhavereceivedtheEstesValleyDevelopmentReviewApplicationScheduleandthatfailuretomeetthedeadlinesshownonsaidschedulemayresultinmyapplicationortheapprovalofmyapplicationbecomingnullandvoid.Iunderstandthatfullfeeswillbechargedfortheresubmittalofanapplicationthathasbecomenullandvoid.Names:RecordOwnerKingswoodHomes,Inc/MikeKingswoodApplicantMikeKingswoodSignatures:RecordOwner_____________________________________Date5/21-1Applicant____________________________________________Date____________Revised2011.11.16KT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II
Date: June 22, 2014
RE: Amendment to Good Samaritan Annexation Agreement
Objective:
Consideration of a request by the Housing Authority to amend an Annexation
Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and The Evangelical Lutheran Good
Samaritan Society.
Present Situation:
The Estes Park Town Board of Trustees unanimously approved the Good Samaritan
Annexation Agreement (“Agreement”), annexation, rezoning and preliminary plat on
October 23, 2001. The subdivision has been built out with the exception of Lot 4. The
original Annexation Agreement limited the combined density on Lots 3 and 4 to 92 units
(10 units per acre). “Talon’s Point” (Lot 3) and what was then named “Dry Gulch
Village” (Lot 4 – the current Falcon Ridge site) were approved by the Planning
Commission on January 15, 2002. Minutes and a site plan from that meeting are
attached.
This request is to amend the Agreement to allow:
1. A combined density on Lots 3 & 4 of 110 units, the maximum allowed when
utilizing the Estes Valley Development Code Attainable Housing Density Bonus
(or 12 units per acre). This would bring the permitted density on Lot 4 from 48 to
66 units; and
2. A 15-year vesting period for Lot 4.
During their June 10, 2014 meeting, the Town Board moved to table this item to allow
for Planning Commission review and comment. The Planning Commission commented
on this item at their June 17, 2014 meeting (draft minutes attached). During that
meeting the Commission also approved the proposed Development Plan for 66
attainable housing units on Lot 4 contingent on Town Board approval of the proposed
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement. Should the Board not approve the
Amendment, the Development Plan will be redesigned to meeting the 48-unit limit set
forth in the 2001 Annexation Agreement.
The draft minutes of the June 17, 2014 Planning Commission meeting are attached for
the Board’s review. Seventeen members of the public commented on the development
package. Of the seventeen speakers, eleven were supportive of the project and
proposed density; two of the speakers addressed design concerns (wildfire mitigation
and parking lot design) but remained generally neutral to the project; and four speakers
were opposed to the project.
Following the public comment session, six of the seven planning commissioners
commented on the proposed Agreement (one commissions was absent). Five of the six
commissioners opposed amending the 2001 Annexation Agreement.
Proposal:
The Town Attorney has provided an amendment to the Annexation Agreement for Town
Board consideration. The amendment will allow:
A maximum of 66 attainable housing units on Lot 4, which is the density
proposed by the Falcon Ridge Development Plan;
Set a fifteen year vesting period for Lot 4; and
Advantages:
Allows for development on Lot 4 to utilize the Attainable Housing Density Bonus.
The intent of the Estes Valley Development Code Attainable Housing Density
Bonus is to create an incentive to provide a variety of attainable housing for
persons living and/or working in the Estes Valley.
Disadvantages:
Increases the density beyond what was originally contemplated.
Action Recommended:
Consideration of the proposed First Amendment to Annexation Agreement.
Budget:
Legal and publication fees are minimal.
Level of Public Interest:
High.
Extensive written comment was provided and available for download at
www.estes.org/currentapplications. Verbal comments from the Planning Commission
are provided in the attached draft minutes.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the proposed First Amendment to Annexation
Agreement.
Attachments:
1. First Amendment to Annexation Agreement
2. Annexation Agreement dated October 23, 2001
3. Draft Planning Commission minutes dated June 17, 2014
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated January 15, 2002
5. Dry Gulch Village Site Plan
6. Falcon Ridge Site Plan
FIRST AMENDMENT TO ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is effective the day of _______________ 2014,
by and between the Estes Park Housing Authority, a Colorado housing authority,
hereinafter referred to as the “Housing Authority” and the Town of Estes Park, a
municipal corporation of the State of Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the “Town”.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society and the Town
entered into an Annexation Agreement effective the 23rd day of October, 2001,
hereinafter referred to as the “Annexation Agreement”; and
WHEREAS, the Annexation Agreement addressed development of the property
subject to the Annexation Agreement including development of Lot 3 and Lot 4 of the
Good Samaritan Subdivision Plat, hereinafter referred to as “Lot 3 and/or Lot 4”; and
WHEREAS, following the effective date of the Annexation Agreement, the
Housing Authority purchased Lot 3 and Lot 4 from the Evangelical Lutheran Good
Samaritan Society; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority developed its Talons Pointe Project on Lot 3;
and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority is in the process of designing and, if
approved, financing and constructing a multi-family attainable housing project on Lot 4
known as Falcon Ridge; and
WHEREAS, Section 27 of the Annexation Agreement limits development on Lot
3 and Lot 4 to a total of 92 multi-family attainable housing units; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority’s Talons Pointe Project on Lot 3 has 44 multi-
family attainable housing units; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority has determined in order to develop and
finance a multi-family attainable housing project on Lot 4, it is necessary to have a
density of 66 multi-family attainable units; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority has filed land use applications for its Falcon
Ridge Project with the Town’s Community Development Department for a multi-family
attainable housing project totaling 66 multi-family attainable housing units on Lot 4; and
2
WHEREAS, in order for the Housing Authority to design, finance, construct, and
operate the proposed Falcon Ridge Project on Lot 4, it is necessary to amend Section
27(g)(3) of the Annexation Agreement; and
WHERAS, Section 27(h) and Section 28(c) of the Annexation Agreement
provide a timeline for development of Lot 4 and established a ten year vesting period for
development of Lot 4; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend Section 28(c) of the Annexation Agreement
to allow development of the Falcon Ridge Project on Lot 4 as proposed by the Housing
Authority; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Estes Valley
Development Code, sixty-six (66) multi-family attainable housing units plus associated
facilities may be constructed on Lot 4; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority has the legal authority to enter into this First
Amendment to the Annexation Agreement relating to Lot 3 and Lot 4 pursuant to the
applicable provisions of the Annexation Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE PREMISES, IT IS
AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS:
1. Section 27(g)(3) of the Annexation Agreement shall be amended to read
as follows:
(3) Lot 4. Sixty-six (66) multi-family attainable housing units including a
clubhouse and other appurtenant structures shall be allowed on Lot 4.
2. Section 28(c) of the Annexation Agreement shall be amended to read as
follows:
(c) Development on Lot 4 shall be completed within fifteen (15) years of
the effective date of this First Amendment to Annexation Agreement (the
vesting period).
3. All of the other terms and conditions of the Annexation Agreement not
amended herein shall remain in full force and effect.
3
ESTES PARKHOUSING AUTHORITY
By: ________________________________
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF _______________ )
The foregoing FIRST AMENDMENT TO ANNEXATION AGREEMENT was acknowledged
before me this ______ day of ______________, 2014, by ______________________,
Estes Park Housing Authority, a Colorado housing authority.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(S E A L)
_______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission expires: _____________________
4
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
By: _______________________________
Bill Pinkham, Mayor
ATTEST:
By: _____________________________
Town Clerk
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF _______________ )
The foregoing FIRST AMENDMENT TO ANNEXATION AGREEMENT was acknowledged
before me this _____ day of _________, 2014, by Bill Pinkham, as Mayor of the Town
of Estes Park, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(S E A L)
_________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission expires: _____________________
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014First Amendment to Annexation AgreementI. BackgroundII. Application Package III. First Amendment to Annexation AgreementIV. Planning Commission Comments
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014Background
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014BackgroundChurchSenior LivingOutlotSingle FamilyWetlandsAttainable HousingLot 4Lot 3
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014Background
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014Application PackageItem Decision-Making BodyDecision DateDevelopment PlanPlanning CommissionJune 17, 2014ApprovedAnnexation AgreementTown Board June 24, 2014SubdivisionFee WaiverDevelopment AgreementTown Board July 22, 2014
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014Background
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014First Amendment to Annexation Agreement: Density
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014Background1. Density7.5/acre 12 units/acre2. Residential Blds11 123. Style2 Story Townhome Townhomes & Stacked Flats4. AmenitiesPicnic Shelter, Play Area Community Building, Park, Basketball Court 5. Rooms118 1166. Lot Coverage41.7% 49.59%7. Setbacks (south)20’, 13’, 13’ 19’, 15’, 19’, 19’8. Parking Spaces110 1359. S. View Obstructed68% 84%2002 Plans 2014 Plans
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014Background, Six Plex (2002)
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014Background, Six Plex (2014)
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014Background, Townhomes (2002)
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014Background, Townhomes (2014)
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014First Amendment to Annexation Agreement: DensitySection 27(g)(3)“Lots 3 and4. 92 Sixty-six (66) multi-family attainable housing units including a clubhouse and other appurtenant structure shall be allowed on Lot 4. multi-family attainable housing units or, 4 single-family residential lots, or 40 duplex units as more fully set forth in subparagraph 27 (d) above.”
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014First Amendment to Annexation Agreement: DensityLot 4Lot 3Proposal• 110 units on Lots 3 & 4 (Difference: 18)• Lot 3 = 44 units; Lot 4 = 66 units• 12 units per acreCurrent Allowances• 92 units on Lots 3 & 4• Lot 3 (Talons Pointe) = 44 units• Lot 4: 48 units• 10 units per acre
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014First Amendment to Annexation Agreement: VestingSection 28(c) “Development shall be completed on each of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 within 10 years on Lot 4 shall be completed within fifteen (15) years of the effective date of this First Amendment to Annexation Agreement(the “Vesting Period”).”
First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014Planning Commission Comments Public Comment • Seventeen members of the public commented.• Eleven were supportive of the project and proposed density. • Two of the speakers appeared to remain neutral.• Four speakers were opposed to the project. Planning Commission Comment• Five of the six commissioners opposed amending the 2001 Annexation Agreement (one absent).
THE ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITYTOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES6-24-2014Falcon Ridge
FALCON RIDGE•Current Status
MISSION STATEMENTIn order to ensure a balanced and sustainable community the Estes Park Housing Authority creates and facilitates housing opportunities and services for persons of low and moderate income.
ANNEXATION AGREEMENTAMENDMENT•Original plan was for 48 Home Ownership units•Due to economic conditions the EPHA chose to abandon the original development plan and bank the land until the time was right •Our request is to amend this agreement so as to preserve a piece of land for future community housing needs. •The conditionally approved Development Plan is for 2 Phases; 45 units now and an additional 21 as future needs dictate
ANNEXATION AGREEMENTAMENDMENT•We are asking for through this amendment for the same density as allowed by the developmentcode: 12 units per acre utilizing the AttainableDensity Bonus.•We are requesting the same density as was allowed at Talons Pointe•The Original Development plan is similar to the one before you now
FALCON RIDGE VS ORIGINAL PLANOriginal Plan- 48 units Total Square feet79,627 Total Bedrooms118Falcon Ridge- 66 units Total Square feet70,183Total Bedrooms116
2008 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT•82 Rental units for incomes between 30% and 60% AMI would be needed by 2015. •Upwards of 229 additional rental units for all income levels will be needed by 2015. •‘..the availability of rental housing is limited, with vacancy rates near zero.’ •‘With low rental vacancy rates and an increase in rental demand….it is time to start planning for development of another rental property’.•All of the above is PRE FLOOD
MARKET STUDY•Found a clear need for 1, 2 and a few 3 Bedroomunits•Community wide vacancy rates are 1.9%- January •‘Vacancies are very limited with little choice other than units in poor condition.•‘Rents have been increasing during the post-recession recovery period but vacancies can command significant increases post flood’
NEED AND DEMAND FOR HOUSING •According to the Colorado Division of Housing: The Larimer County market vacancy rate is currently at 1.7% a 13 year low. •No new rental developments since Talons Pointe 12 years ago•The long term rental pool has been reduced by Vacation Rentals, flood damaged homes and units that are in poor condition. •Currently 366 Vacation Rentals on VRBO in Estes Park
NEED AND DEMAND FOR HOUSING •Falcon Ridge was needed before the floods of 2013•On the day of the floods every unit ownedand/or managed by the EPHA was full •FEMA estimated that 798 homes were impacted by the floods; Estes Park, Drake, Glen Haven•Of those, 110 were renter occupied households•Of the 110, 85 were renter occupied householdsearning less than 60% of the Area Median Income
NEED AND DEMAND FOR HOUSING•The Estes Park Housing Authority receives multiple requests every day for housing•There is an indisputable need for Rental Housing
EPHA WAIT LISTS•19 applicants for a 10 unit propertyAverage annual turnover: 3 units•37 applicants for a 24 unit property. Average annual turnover: 4 units•47 applicants for a 57 unit property: Average annual turnover: 12 units•52 applicants for a 44 units propertyAverage annual turnover: 10 units
EPHA RESIDENTSWHERE THEY WORKEP Medical CenterGrubsteakTaxi DriverEarthwood GalleryPark School DistrictStarbucksTown of Estes ParkHarmonyRange Property MgtEstes Park NewsTrail GazetteEstes Valley Rec DistMountain Home CaféCrossroads MinistryGood Samaritan VillageSaludAce HardwareSelf Employed landscapers, seamstress, carpenterMcDonalds Nat. Park Village South
EPHA RESIDENTSWHERE THEY WORK•YMCA•Rams Horn Village•Village Pizza•Claires Restaurant•Peppers Restaurant•RMNP•True Value Hardware•State Farm•Fairbanks Excavation •Estes Park Lumber•Pet Lodge•Ed’s Cantina•Nicky’s•Upper Thompson Sanitation •Grumpy Gringos•Big O Tires•Crags Lodge•St. Malo•Safeway
FUTURE NEEDS•This Amendment will allow the EPHA and the community to be proactive and not reactive•Having an additional parcel of land allows us the ability to continue to fill the housing ‘gaps•Preserve a piece of land for future housing needs
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
June 17, 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 Bowers, Dickey, Hills and Sykes
Also Attending: Director Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner Dave Shirk, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town
Board Liaison John Phipps, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: Commissioner Murphree
Due to the short turnaround time for transcribing the minutes, only the Falcon Ridge project is
included. The complete record of the meeting will be available at a later date.
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 50 people in
attendance. 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, May 20, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Dickey/Bowers) to approve the consent agenda as presented and
the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
3. FALCON RIDGE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PACKAGE, Lot 4, Good Samaritan Subdivision
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The Planning Commission will be reviewing and
voting on a proposed Minor Subdivision Plat and a Development Plan, and will be hearing
public comment and commenting on the proposed amendment to the Good Samaritan
Annexation Agreement in order to provide the Town Board with the Planning Commission’s
perspective on the project. It should be understood that the Planning Commission’s role in the
annexation agreement is only to provide comments; no vote will be taken concerning this
item.
Planner Kleisler stated the applicant has submitted an application to construct a two phases,
66‐unit multi‐family attainable housing project located off of Red Tail Hawk Drive. The project
will include a mixture of four‐ and six‐plexes, a community building, park with playground, and
a sports court. The applicant has requested a fee waiver for development review and building
permit fees. This request will be heard by the Community Development/Community Services
Committee on July 22, 2014.
Planner Kleisler stated Lot 4 of the Good Samaritan Subdivision borders platted wetlands to
the north, multi‐family housing to the east, single‐family housing (with a mix of attainable
units) to the south, and Town‐owned open space to the west.
Planner Kleisler stated the applicant has requested an amendment to the Good Samaritan
Annexation Agreement to allow a total of 66 units. This proposal would include an increase in
density as outlined in that agreement, which includes a 92‐unit maximum. According to the
Estes Valley Development Code’s density bonus for attainable housing, the 66‐unit project
would comply. The maximum density allowed with this bonus is 12 units per acre. Planner
Kleisler stated while the Annexation Agreement states if Lot 4 is not developed within 15
years (document was signed in 2001), the Town Board would have the right to convert the
zone district back to the original RE‐1 Rural Estate zoning (single‐family residential). The
conversion was a right, not a requirement.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
June 17, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Planner Kleisler stated the minor subdivision plat would consist of creating an internal lot line
to allow specific phases coordinated with the two proposed lots. The first phase would
include 45 proposed townhome‐style units, the community building, park, and sports court.
The second phase would include the build‐out of the remaining 21 townhomes. The proposed
lot split would create one 4.2 acre lot and one 1.4 acre lot, zoned RM‐Multi‐Family
Residential. He stated the final plat may be slightly revised to align access and utility
easements for infrastructure installation. Any changes would be minor.
Planner Kleisler stated several comments were received by neighboring property owners, who
were mainly concerned about density, height, and the distance of the proposed townhomes
on the south side of the property from the adjacent property lines. Planner Kleisler stated the
Floor Area Ratio is in compliance with the EVDC for both phases. All proposed buildings
comply with the 30‐foot height limit, although a few will be close enough to the limit to
require height certificates to ensure compliance.
Planner Kleisler stated the applicant requested several minor modifications. The first, lot
coverage, allows lots in the RM zone district to have 50% impervious coverage. The applicant
has requested 51.31% lot coverage on proposed Lot 1. Overall, the site will comply with the
lot coverage standards at 49.59%. The Planning Commission has the authority to grant this
minor modification. Staff supports this request. Planner Kleisler stated a minor modification
has been requested to allow 135 parking spaces in lieu of the 137 required. This modification
would allow the project to comply with the overall impervious lot coverage standard. Staff
supported this request. The applicant proposes a five foot wide sidewalk along Red Tail Hawk
Drive and throughout the site. Once built out, the internal sidewalks will be shortened by
vehicle overhangs by roughly 1‐2 feet. The applicant has agreed to adjust the site design to
reduce vehicle overhang and thus provide wider internal pedestrian sidewalks (six feet). The
other modifications are concerning the driveway openings in non‐residential zone districts.
The Town Engineer is working with the applicant on these requests. Planner Kleisler stated the
proposed drainage plan complies with the EVDC. Some areas of the grading plan show
potential for ponding, and the applicant has made revisions to correct the potential issue.
Planner Kleisler stated the applicant provided a Wildlife Habitat Protection report, which
indicated an on‐site osprey nest. Staff recommends construction activity not be initiated
between April 1st and July 15th during nesting and calving season. Proposed trash containers
would be animal resistant. The exterior lighting would comply with the EVDC lighting
standards. The proposed parking lot light poles are 17.5 feet tall, and the allowed height
would be 25 feet tall. Planner Kleisler stated the affected agencies have reviewed the project
and commented accordingly. Their comments can be seen in the staff report. The parking lot
includes pedestrian crossings, and the landscape plan exceeds the minimum requirements for
trees and shrubs. It was determined no additional modifications to Dry Gulch Road or Red Tail
Hawk Drive would be required for the increased traffic.
Staff Findings.
1. The Development Plan application complies with EVDC Section 3.8.D Development
Plan Standards for Review, provided that the application is revised to comply with
recommended conditions of approval by staff and affected agencies.
2. The Minor Subdivision application complies with EVDC 3.9.E Subdivision Standards for
Review.
3. The Planning Commission is the Decision‐making body for the proposed Development
Plan and the Recommending body to the Town Board for the proposed Minor
Subdivision.
Staff and commission Discussion
Discussion occurred concerning the wildlife assessment and the number of trees between the
buildings. Comments were made concerning the platted wetlands on the north, where the
setback is 100 feet, compared to the ten foot setback on the south. Planner Kleisler stated the
wildlife report is part of the application package and the Commission has the authority to
request changes.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
June 17, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
David Lingle/project designer stated this design came about during a design charrette as a
statewide housing conference. He explained the reason for the location of the parking lots,
stating they will align with the existing water main running through the property. One of the
directives in the charrette was to not make Falcon Ridge feel like an extension of Talons Point.
The curb cuts already exist, and the northern cut aligns with the cut across the street,
complying with the street standards for intersections. As a group, the designers are equally
concerned about safety. The design team went through a lot of different designs, and it was a
challenged to design to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for access and
adaptable units. Tight turns and on‐street parking is the safest parking lot layout to keep
traffic slow. He stated there would be an open community green space in the center of the
project, with a sports court over to the side. Adjustments have been made to allow an
approximate 15 foot setback and a varied roof line, in response to neighbor concerns. There
will be no second floor decks on the southernmost townhomes. The architectural character is
to look like a large single‐family home. Proposed Lot 1 has all the components to be a
complete project.
Rita Kurelja/Director, EPHA stated some of the funding was coming from a Colorado Housing
and Finance Authority grant, while other grants have been applied for but not awarded. She
clarified that low income housing is not subsidized, and the units will be rented long‐term. She
explained how the median income determination was made. The project was not started
earlier because the EPHA did not want to begin another project before Vista Ridge was
completed (2007). Vista Ridge was completed just as the economy began the downturn. The
plan is to build phase one and have it rented to capacity before beginning phase two. Ms.
Kurelja showed a PowerPoint presentation that is available upon request to the Community
Development Department. She shared information about the market study for rental units
and the number of units available in the Estes Valley, which has an extremely low vacancy
rate. The majority of people served by attainable housing are the local work force of the Estes
Valley. Falcon Ridge would be high density on small lots. The combination of the two is what
makes them affordable. She concluded by stating there was a clear community need for
affordable housing in the Estes Valley.
Janna Allerheiligan/Town Resident currently lives in attainable housing. She stated there is a
large population that works in the various service industries. There are many Help Wanted ads
that won’t be filled because people have no place to live and cannot afford to commute from
the Front Range. She was in support of the project.
Catherine Jensen/Town resident stated 1/3 of national households live in rental housing. She
has lived here, in substandard housing, several years and has had to work two jobs to make
ends meet. She was supportive of allowing 66 units to be built.
Jeff Letchworth/County resident was concerned about the threat of wildfire at the proposed
development, as radiant heat from burning homes is detrimental when homes are built in
close proximity to each other. He was opposed to the project
Russ Schneider/Town resident was aware the housing authority had the option to build 44
units. He wanted assurance all items in the agreement were being addressed and adhered to.
He suggested putting the taller buildings on the north side of the property and the lower ones
on the south side for less impact on The Neighborhood. He was concerned about the
devaluation of property in The Neighborhood. He stated that although it may be legally
correct, it may not be the right thing to approve.
Claudia Frazier/Town resident stated there is a dire need for rental housing, not only for the
young, but also the elderly. Now is the time to reach out and help fellow residents by
supporting this project.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
June 17, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Louise Olson /Town resident supported building 66 units. She stated there are working
people in the Estes Valley that make less than the established U.S. poverty level.
Eric Blackhurst/Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) board member stated the Planning
Commission’s task is to determine if the project meets the requirements of the Estes Valley
Development Code. According to a market study, the project meets the needs of the
community. Planning staff has clearly identified the basis for the decision on this review.
Sue Doylen/former Town Trustee stated she has watched new development out price what
the local workforce can afford. As a Trustee several years ago, the Board made the decision to
allow police officers to live outside the Estes Valley because of housing needs. She stated the
recession took out a lot of the work force, which included volunteer firefighters. She
supported the proposed development, stating the community needed the diversity to be
viable.
Judy Nystrom/local realtor stated the rental pool is scarce at all levels of income.
Randy Davis/Director, Good Samaritan Society stated a committee of citizens asked the Good
Samaritan Society to come consider building a facility in Estes Park. The parcel for sale was
larger than what was needed, so they sold off portions of it. He stated the facility is just as
much of a service provider for the elderly as it is a housing provider. By having housing locally
for work force, those people would also spend their money in Estes Park. He stated that
concerning the Falcon Ridge project, when the Good Samaritan Society sold the property to
the Estes Park Housing Authority, all obligations were transferred.
Cliff Noll/Town resident stated staff has done an excellent job to ensure compliance. He
stated that the project is pushing the codes to the limit where setbacks, height, and density
are concerned. He was supportive of building 44 units. He encouraged the commissioners to
use their best judgment and recommended the EPHA and designers come up with a better
design.
Matthew Heiser/EPHA Board Member stated density can create many positives, including but
not limited to more open space and less infrastructure. EPHA is asking the Commission to
support the project. Gray Hawk Circle Drive was rezoned from single‐family to multi‐family,
with increased density from 3 to 30 units. He encouraged the Commissioners to agree with
staff findings that indicate the project complies with the EVDC.
Steve Kruger/Town resident stated he purchased his home with the understanding any
development to the north would be limited to 44 units. He encouraged the Commission to
honor the annexation agreement for density and vote against the plan as presented.
Alex Kostadinov/Town resident received the annexation agreement at the time he purchased
his property and understood there may be 48 units built to the north. They would not have
purchased their property if they would have known there would be 66 units. The original
sketch plan showed three on the south side, where five are now proposed. He is concerned
this will block the entire view of Lumpy Ridge for him and his neighbors, which would devalue
their properties. He was supportive of the project in principle, just not the density. He stated
the Town accepted the annexation agreement in good faith, and should not go back on their
word by amending it. He also stated neither he nor his neighbors received information in the
mail about the design charrette. He suggested continuing the item to allow the neighbors
more time to study the project.
Paul Kochevar/Town resident was supportive of affordable housing. He stated he worked on a
code analysis for this project, and was confused about whether or not the paved area was
considered a street or a driveway. It was his opinion the roadway through the project was a
street, and therefore did not meet the development standards.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
June 17, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Diane Muno/President Estes Valley Partners for Commerce sent a survey to its members. Of
the 19% that returned the survey, the majority were in favor of the increased density of the
project.
Ken Brin/Town resident lives in an attainable housing unit. He stated after the flood, many
employers realized just how many employees do not live in the Estes Valley, because they
were unable to get to work. Estes Valley employees live elsewhere, most of their money is
also spent elsewhere. He supported the project
Chair Hull called a ten minute recess at 4:10 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 4:20 p.m.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Klink addressed Mr. Kochevar’s comments concerning the paved area of the
project. After several minutes of discussion, it was staff’s decision that although the physical
design of the parking area is not typical for Estes Park, the function of the area is more in line
with a parking lot than a driveway. Design features that make it a parking include but are not
limited to: no garages, so cars are stored in the parking lot; interior landscape islands and
curbing similar to those in a parking lot. Planner Shirk stated the standards applied to the
Talon’s Point parking area were the same standards applied to this project. This parking area
also complies with other national parking lot standards. Addressing a previous comment,
Planner Kleisler stated all proposed buildings would have automatic fire sprinkler systems,
which would alleviate some of the concerns about fire.
Planner Kleisler stated the Town Trustees requested comments from Planning Commissioners
concerning the annexation agreement. Attorney White stated the annexation agreement was
written to remove the Good Samaritan Society from any liability if the property was sold,
which it was. The Annexation Agreement took effect in 2001, and complied with the EVDC at
that time. He did not believe at any time Good Samaritan had any agreements with the EPHA
that would have determined what the plans were for that parcel. He explained that 48 units
were based only on Good Samaritan’s submittal for annexation. In the end, they developed
their portion and sold parts of the land to others. The EPHA was not a part of the original
annexation agreement; however, when they purchased the land, they accepted the
annexation agreement.
Chair Hull polled the Commission for comments on the annexation:
Commissioner Dickey commented arguments could be made either way. He understood there
was an agreement put in place, which is now expired, and the annexation is still in place. He
would recommend against the amendment and continue forward. There is a gray area as to
whether they can build 48 units per the annexation agreement, of 66 units per the EVDC.
Commissioner Hills did not see a need to amend the agreement. All parties involved entered
into the agreement in good faith and should follow the original contract. If an amendment
would occur, it would set a precedent for future agreements.
Commissioner Klink commented it was not proper to change an agreement just because it
meets other community needs. He was not supportive of amending the agreement.
Commissioner Bowers commented if the agreement has basically expired, then elements are
up for grabs for the Town Board to decide. She was surprised so many proposed units were
only one‐bedroom. If available space for attainable housing is so tight, it would make sense to
have larger units to house more people. She suggested some of the one bedroom units would
be rented by people who could not afford to live at Good Sam’s, but may be able to use the
services that facility provides. She was supportive of the amendment to the annexation
agreement.
Chair Hull read item #33 in the agreement, “The Town is entering into this Agreement in good
faith and with the present intention, on the part of the present Town board, that this
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
June 17, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Agreement will be complied with.” She commented good faith carries a lot of weight, and she
would not support the amendment.
Commissioner Sykes commented she has always been a strong advocate for the housing
authority. As a resort owner, she knows first‐hand how difficult it is for her employees to find
housing. However, she does not support the amendment. She would support an amendment
to the EVDC where affordable housing is concerned. She would have preferred to have the
amendment and project clarified early on, as the 48‐unit number is what people believed was
the limit.
Staff Comments on the Development Plan
Chair Hull stated while the application was consistent with the goals outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan, she was very concerned about the safety of children in the area because
of the road design. She suggested revising the design to have the parking area around the
outside of the complex. She considered making a motion to continue the application.
There was brief discussion about the outcome of the project depending on the decision to
amend the annexation agreement. If design changes are made, staff would determine
whether they were significant enough to warrant another Planning Commission review (which
would also require a new legal notice and neighbor notification). According to staff, this
application complies with the EVDC. Planner Shirk stated it was possible the applicant could
remove the minor subdivision application and build the proposed development on Lot 4.
Subdividing Lot 4 would not make the annexation agreement issue disappear.
Attorney White stated his opinion the Town Board should amend the annexation agreement
to allow more than 48 units on Lot 4, Good Samaritan Subdivision.
Commissioner Dickey stated lower roof lines would be more appropriate on the south end for
less adverse impact on the adjacent neighbors. He also commented on the grading diagrams.
He stated he was obligated to vote to approve the minor subdivision because it complied with
the EVDC.
Commissioner Klink supported property rights that align with the EVDC. The Planning
Commission’s job is to decide whether this application meets the code requirements. The
Commissioners accepted public comment and provided their own comments concerning the
annexation agreement. It is up to the Town Board to make the final decision.
Conditions of Approval
(1) Minor Subdivision application – Minor Subdivision of Lot 4, Good Samaritan Subdivision;
(2) Development Plan application DP 2014‐03;
All subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Development Plan application DP 2014‐03.
2. Compliance with the following affected agency memos:
a. Two Community Development memos dated May 23, 2014
b. Public Works Department memo dated May 23, 2014
c. Water Division memo dated May 20, 2014
d. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated May 23, 2014
e. Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated April 30, 2014
3. Provide the following with construction plans:
a. Building Addressing Scheme: Description of proposed addressing and identification
scheme.
b. Entry sign requires engineering (due to height) and an approved sign permit at
construction phase.
4. Add landscaping note: “All required improvements shall be completed or guaranteed in
accordance with EVDC Section 7.13 and Section 10.5.K.”
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
June 17, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Dickey) to recommend approval of the Falcon Ridge
Minor Subdivision to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by
staff and the motion passed 5‐1 with Hull voting against and Murphree absent.
Commission and Staff Discussion
Attorney White clarified if the Planning Commission votes to approve the Development Plan
and Town Board agrees to the amendment to the annexation agreement, the Development
Plan would remain approved. If the Town Board does not approve the amendment to the
annexation agreement, the Development Plan will also not be approved and the applicant will
have 30 days to resubmit a new application.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/ Bowers) to approve the Falcon Ridge Development Plan
with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 4‐2 with
Dickey, Klink, Bowers, and Sykes voting in favor; Hills and Hull voting against, and Murphree
absent.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m.
___________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
REVISED PLANSRECEIVED 6/11/14
REVISED PLANSRECEIVED 6/11/14
Page 1
FINANCE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Audit Committee (Mayor Pinkham, Trustee Ericson, Town Administrator
Lancaster, Finance Officer McFarland)
Date: June 24th, 2014
RE: 2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
Background:
The Town of Estes Park undergoes an annual independent audit of its financial statements.
The audit report for the year ended December 31, 2013 has been completed and has been
delivered to the Audit Committee by the independent auditing firm of CliftonLarsonAllen,
LLP. The independent auditors’ report expressed an unmodified (“clean”) opinion that the
financial statements presented fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the
funds and activities of the Town of Estes Park in conformity with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP). The comments made by the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA) in conjunction with the 2012 CAFR award have been addressed.
Historically, the Audit Committee meets with the auditors prior to the second Town Board
meeting in June. This year’s Audit Committee meeting was held June 16th, 2014. The
auditors from CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP, were represented by Justin Petrone and Paul
Niedermuller, CPAs.
Approval of the CAFR is sought at this time annually because the CAFR must be submitted
to the GFOA by June 30th, 2014, in order to qualify for the Achievement in Excellence in
Financial Reporting Award. The CAFR is also due to the State of Colorado (via submission
to the Office of the State Auditor) by July 31st, 2014.
The Audit Committee is in possession of the DRAFT version of the CAFR, along with its
component elements (introductory letter, Management’s Discussion & Analysis, and the
statistical tables). Assembling the 2013 CAFR presented a unique set of challenges due to
the September flood. While the CAFR is complete, the A-133 Single Audit is not, and is
therefore not being delivered to Town Board at this time. The A-133 Single Audit is
performed annually whenever the Town exceeds $500,000 in expenditures resulting from
Federal grants. The Single Audit is particularly complex this year due to the volume and
Page 2
FINANCE Memo
variety of FEMA-related costs associated with the Flood. Fortunately, the Single Audit is not
due until September 30th, 2014, and will be delivered to Town Board prior to that time.
The only drawback to the Single Audit not being complete is that the auditors cannot deliver
a finalized management letter at this time. They can and have assessed the CAFR, but as
there may be additional comments/findings arising from completing the Single Audit, the
Management Letter will not be delivered until the Single Audit is delivered. However,
CliftonLarsonAllen will be speaking as to their CAFR findings at the Tuesday Board meeting.
The Audit Committee previewed the findings, and is happy to report that comments from last
year’s Letter have been addressed, and that there are no material weaknesses present.
The sole significant deficiency this year was in relation to the grant accounting regarding
flood-related matters.
CliftonLarsonAllen’s findings and management comments emphasize the appropriateness
of periodically switching auditing firms. CliftonLarsonAllen has identified areas of
improvement that were not noted by the previous firm. Staff appreciates
CliftonLarsonAllen’s thoroughness and is addressing the cited areas of concern.
The 2013 CAFR not only satisfies government and legal accounting standards, but also
reflects the professionalism and determination of the Town administration and staff to
effectively manage the Town’s finances. It is clear that the Town Board and staff share a
strong sense of fiscal responsibility to ensure the continued economic well-being of the
Town.
The CAFR information that you have is complete, but has not yet been assembled and
bound (due to time constraints). It is expected that a bound CAFR will be delivered at the
Town Board meeting. Minor changes in syntax or information may occur between the
DRAFT CAFR copy in your Board packet, and the final version that you will receive at or
prior to the Board meeting. At the time of this memo, staff is attaching the DRAFT version.
Justin Petrone, CPA, of CliftonLarsonAllen LLC, will attend the June 24th, 2014 Board
meeting and will provide comments and answer questions in regards to the audit and CAFR
process. It is important to remember that the auditors work for the Town Board and not
Staff, and as such, are accountable to the Town Board.
Page 3
FINANCE Memo
Staff Recommendation:
The Audit Committee recommends acceptance of the audit report and Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 2013.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny acceptance of the audit report and Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 2013.
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham & Town Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Utilities Director Bergsten
Date: 6/24/2014
RE: Intergovernmental Agreement with Lafayette and Louisville for Lucity
Services
Objective:
To obtain approval to enter into the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with
the Cities of Lafayette and Louisville for the purpose of obtaining work management
software (copy of IGA attached hereto).
Present Situation:
Work management is currently achieved using an antiquated process. Group
supervisors/managers layout tasks to be completed based on historical experience or in
response to special requests or needs.
Asset management is achieved through institutional knowledge. No consistent process
of tracking the condition of assets and the costs associated with maintaining and
replacing them exists without those staff members holding the institutional knowledge.
Proposal:
Ms. Fischer with InVisionGIS performed extensive research on a variety of work
management software programs by contacting a number of cities. She also interviewed
several software companies which provided remote live demos of their software
packages. The overwhelming response from Lucity users was very positive for both the
product and Lucity’s customer service. Also, the end result of the price comparison of
the various software packages was that Lucity’s price was the most reasonable.
Ms. Fischer and Lucity negotiated a cost effective solution for the three relatively small
communities. The Lucity enterprise software costs will be divided between the three
entities based upon population totals. Estes Park will pay 12% of the cost. Modules to
the base package will be added as needed. If a lone municipality needs a module, they
will be responsible for 100% of the cost until another municipality starts to use it.
Advantages:
• In order to effect process improvement, we have to be able to quantify what
we’ve done in the past. This software will allow us to begin baseline
performance measurements.
• Favorable cost of work management software through cost sharing with other
entities. Without IGA: $16,500, with IGA: $4,400.
• Improve scheduling of staff and management of work assignments.
• Improve tracking of completed and pending preventative maintenance (fire
hydrant flushing and inspections, leak detection results, valve excising program,
all plant equipment).
• Improve tracking of reactive maintenance (water main leaks, hydrant vehicle
damage, plant equipment failures).
• Facilitate management decision-making by establishing benchmarking metrics.
• Improve working relationship with the Cities of Lafayette and Louisville.
• Lessons learned from Lafayette’s initial implementation.
• Improve asset management and budgeting. This will help quantify condition and
actual costs associated with maintaining each asset.
• Provides for future expansion of other work-related areas, e.g. pothole repairs,
ditch, culvert cleaning, sign maintenance and replacement, tree maintenance,
street sweeping, drainage issues, curb repair.
Disadvantages:
• Implementation of the first modules will be delayed four to six months as
Lafayette will go live first.
• Increased administrative workload for data entry and database quality control.
Action Recommended:
• Town Board approval of the subject IGA.
Budget:
Public Works supports the purchase and will pay for half the core bundle:
Public Works Department, Maintenance Contracts, 101-3100-431.25-01, $1,200 and
Water Department, Maintenance Contracts, 503-6500-560.25-01, $1,200
The water bundle will be part of the water fund:
Water Department, Maintenance Contracts, 503-6500-560.25-01, $2,000
Level of Public Interest
Low: The public expects us to get our work done; however, the process used to
accomplish the work is a level of detail that would interest very few.
Recommended Motion:
I move to approval the adoption of the Intergovernmental Agreement with Lafayette and
Louisville for purchase of Lucity’s work management software.
AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF LAFAYETTE AND
LOUISVILLE AND TOWN OF ESTES PARK REGARDING PUBLIC WORKS
COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
WHEREAS, in accordance with C.R.S. § 29-1-203, and for the cities of Lafayette and Louisville their
home rule charters, Lafayette, Louisville, and Town of Estes Park are authorized to cooperate or contract
with each other to provide for and share the cost of municipal services; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lafayette (“Lafayette”) shall enter into an Enterprise License Agreement
("ELA") with Lucity, Inc. (“Lucity”) for public works’ computerized maintenance management systems;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Louisville (“Louisville”) and the Town of Estes Park (“Estes Park”) desire to
obtain the services offered by Lucity to Lafayette; and
WHEREAS, Lucity offers a tiered pricing program for its ELA for small municipalities and county
governments whereby the prices decrease with the increase of the municipality’s population; and
WHEREAS, Lucity is willing to offer Louisville and Estes Park sublicense status under Lafayette’s ELA
subject to Louisville and Estes Park agreeing to be contractually bound to the applicable terms and
conditions of the ELA; and
WHEREAS, in operating under one ELA with two sublicense agreements, Lafayette, Louisville and Estes
Park are able to combine their populations to constitute one ELA, which, based upon the total population
of the three, qualifies the parties as a Tier 2 Agency making them eligible for discounted prices not
available if they had acted as three separate governmental entities: and
WHEREAS, based upon their populations the parties agree to apportion the expense of shared services
upon the following percentages: Lafayette 50%, Louisville 38% and Estes Park 12%; and
WHEREAS, Lafayette, Louisville and Estes Park desire to set forth their duties and obligations
concerning the ELA through adoption of an intergovernmental agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Parties/Term.
Effective June 17, 2014, Lafayette entered into an ELA with Lucity for public works’ computerized
maintenance management services.
Louisville and Estes Park shall upon the effective date of their approval of this Agreement become
sublicensee's under Lafayette's ELA with Lucity.
The ELA and sublicense agreements shall run for a period of one year which shall, absent 60 days prior
written notice of non-renewal by a party, automatically renew on an annual basis for a total of three one
year terms. Expiration or termination of the ELA by Lafayette or Lucity shall void the sublicenses and
terminate this Agreement. Should any party other than Lafayette terminate their participation the
remaining parties' proportionate share of expenses shall be adjusted on a pro-rata basis as agreed upon by
the parties.
1
2. Costs.
Lafayette shall be responsible for payment to Lucity for all costs of services and shall, upon receipt of
invoices from Lucity, bill the other governmental entities based upon the following shared percentage
costs: Lafayette (50%), Louisville (38%) and Estes Park (12%). The parties individually, or with one
other, may purchase a bundle of services on the condition that, prior to committing to such expense, the
parties, with the approval of Lafayette, first determine how the cost shall be apportioned among the
parties. Payment shall be due in full to Lafayette within thirty (30) days of the invoicing date.
3. Liability and Immunity.
Without waiving the privileges and immunities conferred by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act,
Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., each party shall be responsible for any claims, demands or suits arising
out of its own negligence. It is specifically understood and agreed that nothing contained in this
paragraph or elsewhere in this Agreement shall be construed as an expressed or implied waiver by any
party of the rights, immunities, protections and limitations afforded the parties by the Colorado
Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. §24-10-101 et seq., as same may be amended from time to time.
4. Non-Appropriation.
Because this Agreement may extend beyond the current fiscal year, the parties understand and intend that
the obligation of the parties to pay any costs hereunder constitutes a current expense of the parties payable
exclusively from the parties’ funds and shall not in any way be construed to be a general obligation of
indebtedness of the parties, within the meaning of any provision of Article XI of the Colorado
Constitution, or any other constitutional or statutory indebtedness. None of the parties has pledged the
full faith and credit of the state, or the parties, to the payment of the charges hereunder, and this
Agreement shall not directly or contingently obligate the parties to apply money from, or levy, or pledge
any form of taxation to the payment of any costs. The parties further agree that any financial obligation
beyond the current fiscal year shall be contingent upon their legislative bodies' annual appropriation of
funds.
5. Notices.
Any notices, bills, invoices, or other documents required by this Agreement shall be sufficiently delivered
if sent by the parties in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or by email to the parties at the following
addresses:
City of Lafayette City of Louisville Town of Estes Park
1290 South Public Road 749 Main Street PO Box 1200
Lafayette, CO 80026 Louisville, CO 80027 Estes Park, CO 80517
Attn: Doug Short
(douglass@cityoflafayette.com)
Attn: kurtk@louisvilleco.gov Attn: rbergsten@estes.org
6. Default.
In the event any party fails to make any payment required by Lafayette, or perform any other covenant of
this Agreement, such party shall be provided written notice that its participation in this Agreement will be
terminated unless cured within thirty (30) days of the notice of default. Unless termination is due to non-
appropriation of funds, termination shall not relieve the defaulting party of any financial obligations that
2
were due prior to the default and such obligation shall be subject to all costs of collection including
reasonable attorney fees.
7. Joinder of Additional Parties.
Additional parties may, subject to the unanimous approval of all current parties, and upon approval of
Lucity, and execution of a sublicense agreement, become parties to this Agreement, upon which the
parties shall adjust the financial responsibility of each based upon each entity’s population.
8. Miscellaneous.
a. Assignment. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, no party may assign the Agreement
and/or any of its rights and obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other parties.
b. Merger. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the
subject matter hereof and all prior agreements, understandings, or negotiations shall be deemed merged
herein. No representations, warranties, promises, or agreements, express or implied, shall exist between
the parties, except as stated herein.
c. Amendment. No amendment to this Agreement shall be made or deemed to have been made
unless in writing, as agreed upon and executed by all parties.
d. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced according to the laws of the
State of Colorado. Venue for any action hereunder shall be in Boulder District Court, Colorado.
e. Authority. The parties represent that each has taken all actions that are necessary or that are
required by its procedures, bylaws, or applicable law to legally authorize the undersigned signatories to
execute this Agreement on behalf of the parties and to bind the parties to its terms.
f. Severability. To the extent that this Agreement may be executed and performance of the
obligations of the parties may be accomplished within the intent of the Agreement, the terms of the
Agreement are severable, and should any term or provision hereof be declared invalid or become
inoperative for any reason, such invalidity, or failure, shall not affect the validity of any other terms or
provision hereof.
g. Waiver. The waiver of any breach of a term hereof shall not be construed as a waiver of any
other term, or the same term upon a subsequent breach.
h. No Third Party Beneficiaries. It is expressly understood and agreed that enforcement of the terms
and conditions of this Agreement and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly
reserved to the parties hereto and nothing contained in this Agreement shall give or allow any such claim
or right of action by any other or third person under this Agreement. It is the express intention of the
parties to this Agreement that any person or entity other than the parties receiving services or benefits
under this Agreement be deemed an incidental beneficiary only.
i. Changes in Law. This Agreement is subject to such modifications as may be required by changes
in state law. Any modification shall be discussed and agreed upon by the parties and be incorporated in
this Agreement by a written amendment signed by the parties.
3
j. Paragraph Headings. The captions and headings set forth in this Agreement are for convenience
of reference only and shall not be construed so as to define or limit its terms and provisions.
k. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. Signatures on separate originals
shall constitute and be of the same effect as signatures on the same original. Electronic and faxed
signatures shall constitute original signatures.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement.
CITY OF LAFAYETTE, COLORADO
_________________________________
ATTEST: Christine Berg, Mayor
_______________________
Susan Koster, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
David S. Williamson, City Attorney
CITY OF LOUISVILLE, COLORADO
_________________________________
ATTEST: Robert P. Muckle, Mayor
_______________________
Nancy Varra, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Samuel J. Light, City Attorney
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
_________________________________
ATTEST: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
_______________________
____________________
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Greg White, Town Attorney
4
Town Attorney Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: June 17, 2014
RE: Revised Intergovernmental Agreement With Estes Valley Fire Protection
District
Objective:
To review and approve, if appropriate, the Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement
for Continuing Operations Between the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley Fire
Protection District.
Present Situation:
The Town entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Estes Valley Fire
Protection District (the “District”) effective December 8, 2009 (the “IGA”). Section 4 of
the IGA provided the Town would make payments on a monthly basis of 7% of the
Town’s net sales tax receipts for the appropriate calendar month. Also, the IGA
contained numerous provisions for transition of the responsibility of fire service and
emergency operations from the Town to the District. On April 1, 2014, the voters
approved a one cent increase in the Town’s sales tax. This increase of the sales tax is
effective July 1, 2014. The Amendment to the IGA clarifies that the Town’s obligation to
remit net sales tax receipts to the District is 7% of 80% of the Town’s net sales tax and
not 7% of total net sales tax. Also, certain sections of the IGA are deleted as they have
been completed or are no longer relevant. The Amendment clarifies that the only
remaining obligation of the Town to the District is to remit net sales tax receipts received
by the Town. If the IGA is not amended, the Town would be obligated by the present
terms of the IGA to remit 7% of the Town’s net sales tax receipts.
Proposal:
The Amendment to the IGA provides that the Town will continue to provide 7% of 80%
of its net sales tax receipts to the District.
Advantages:
Continues the obligation of the Town to provide funding at the same level as agreed
to in 2008 for fire services and operations provided to the Town by the District.
Clarifies that the increase in the Town’s sale tax effective July 1, 2014, will not be
part of the formula for determining payments by the Town to the District.
Removes outdated and completed obligations of the District and the Town from the
original IGA.
Disadvantages: None.
Action Recommended:
Approve the Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement for Continuing Operations
Between the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District.
Budget:
The Town has budgeted in its 2014 Budget 7% of net sales tax receipts based upon the
Town’s sales tax prior to the July 1, 2014. The Town has not budgeted an increase in
the reimbursement of net sales tax receipts to the District in the event the IGA is not
amended.
Level of Public Interest:
Moderate.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/not approve the Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement for
Continuing Operations Between the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley Fire
Protection District.
{00395621.DOCX /}/ 2} IGA FOR CONTINUING OPERATIONS
AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR CONTINUING
OPERATIONS BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND THE ESTES VALLEY FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT
THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT (“Amendment”), effective this _____ day of
_____________ 2014, is by and between the ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, a
Colorado Special District, (the “District”) and the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Colorado Municipal
Corporation, (the “Town”), (each, a “party” and collectively, the “parties”).
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the parties entered into the Intergovernmental Agreement for Continuing
Operations between the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District effective the
8th day of December, 2009 (the “IGA”) for the purpose of providing fire protection, fire suppression
and rescue services to properties located within the District consistent with the financial resources of
the parties; and
WHEREAS, the IGA provides for payments by the Town to the District based upon sales tax
revenues received by the Town, at a level of seven percent (7%) of such sales tax revenues; and
WHEREAS, at the Regular Municipal Election of April 1, 2014, the Town’s electors approved
an increase in the Town’s municipal sales tax from four percent (4%) to five (5%) for ten (10) years
commencing on July 1, 2014 (the “Election”); and
WHEREAS, the Town’s collection of the additional one percent (1%) of sales tax revenue was
specifically limited to purposes identified by the Town and approved by the electors, not including
District purposes; and
WHEREAS, the parties have determined to amend the IGA to address the Town’s payment of
sales tax revenues to the District pursuant to the Election terms and the deletion of the sections of
the IGA that have been completed by the parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING, THE DISTRICT AND
THE TOWN AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
The Recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into the terms and conditions of this
Amendment.
1. Section 6 of the IGA shall be amended to add the following language:
Commencing July 1, 2014 and until such time as the additional collection of 1% sales tax
receipts is authorized by the Town’s electors, the Town’s sales tax payments to the District
shall be calculated based upon 4/5 of the total sales tax receipts, per month, multiplied by
{00395621.DOCX /}/ 2}
7%. Said payments shall be made within ten (10) business days of the receipt of sales tax
revenue from the State in each month. The parties specifically recognize that the additional
1% of sales tax receipts collected by the Town pursuant to the Election shall be and remain
the undivided revenue of the Town and shall not be subject to the allocation created by the
IGA or this Amendment.
2. Sections 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, and 16 of the IGA have been completed and shall no longer be of
effect.
3. Section 14 shall be amended to read as follows:
Section 14. On January 1, 2010, the District assumed all responsibility, including financial, for
the Fire Department, maintenance and replacement of equipment and apparatus, and all other
Fire Department obligations set forth in the Service Plan of the District. The only obligation of
the Town with regard to provision of fire services within the District shall be the payment
described in Section 1 of this Amendment and any other term of the IGA not altered,
amended or removed by the parties.
This Amendment shall be effective July 1, 2014.
ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
By:___________________________________
ATTEST:
______________________________
Secretary
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
By:___________________________________
ATTEST:
______________________________
Town Clerk