HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2018-09-25The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services
for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards
of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services,
programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities.
Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. POLICY GOVERNANCE MONITORING REPORT - Policy 3.8.
Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for providing information
to the Board. Policy 3.8 Compensation and Benefits each September.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Bills.
2.Town Board Minutes dated September 11, 2018.
3.Audit Committee Meeting Minutes dated August 23, 2018.
4.Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated August 21, 2018 (acknowledgment only).
5.Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated August 15, 2018 (acknowledgment only).
6.Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated August 16, 2018 (acknowledgement only).
7.Acceptance of Town Administrator Policy Governance Monitoring Reports.
8.Family Advisory Board Appointment of Carrie Brown and Michael Moon for terms
expiring April 30, 2021.
9.Upper Thompson Sanitation District Easement Agreements.
10. 2018 Estes Park Museum Remodel Contract Award to Saunders/Heath Construction,
$179,865 - Budgeted.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. 2017 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR). Tyra Litzau, CPA
Audit Senior Manager with Anton Collins Mitchell LLP (ACM). Director Hudson.
Present results of the 2017 Audit and review the Beyond the Numbers report.
2.RESOLUTION #20-18 SUPPORTING THE LARIMER COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH
INITIATIVE. Mayor Jirsa and Laurie Stolen, Larimer County.
Impose a 0.25% county-wide sales and use tax to provide mental health care services
for residents.
Prepared 09-14-2018
*Revised
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
3.APPOINTMENTS TO THE LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT BOARD AND
DISCUSSION OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH LARIMER
COUNTY. Attorney White and Mayor Jirsa.
To appoint two Trustees to the vacancies.
4.RESOLUTION #21-18 OPPOSING AMENDMENT #74. Town Administrator
Lancaster.
An attempt to amend the Colorado Constitution to drastically limit state and local
government services at a high cost to taxpayers.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. APPEAL WIND RIVER APARTMENT HOMES DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2018-03,
1041 S ST. VRAIN AVENUE, WIND RIVER HOLDINGS, LLC/OWNER. Planner
Woeber. (Public comment will be limited to 2 minutes per person)
Consideration of an appeal of the Estes Valley Planning Commission denial of the
Wind River Apartment Homes Development Plan on August 21, 2018.
B. SPECIAL REVIEW, WIND RIVER APARTMENTS DAY CARE FACILITY, 1041
S. ST. VRAIN AVENUE, WIND RIVER PROPERTIES, LLC/OWNER. Planner
Woeber.
Approval of the S2 Special Review is requested for a "Day Care Center" use in
RM, Multi-Family Residential Zoning District.
REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. – For discussion of a personnel matter; not involving any specific
employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the
Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or
body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular
employees.
ADJOURN.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
970.577.3705
flancaster@estes.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 25, 2018
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS
(QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORT POLICY 3.8)
Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide
information to the Board.
Reporting on Policy 3.8 Compensation and Benefits is required in September of each
year.
Policy 3.8 states: “With respect to employment, compensation, and benefits to
employees, consultants, contract workers and volunteers, the Town Administrator shall
not cause or allow jeopardy to fiscal integrity.”
This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions
have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this
date.
________________________
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
3
3.8.1. With respect to employment, compensation, and benefits to employees,
consultants, contract workers and volunteers, the Town Administrator shall
not cause or allow jeopardy to fiscal integrity of the Town. Accordingly,
pertaining to paid workers, he or she may not change his or her own
compensation and benefits.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot take any action that will result in
a financial benefit to me personally, including modifying my benefits, leave provisions or
compensation in any way that is not defined in my employment agreement or specifically
approved by the Board.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
All my compensation and benefits remain as approved by the Board either in my
employment agreement or by specific action of the Board.
Evidence:
1.The adopted budget and the CAFR document that I have not taken any action to
change my compensation or benefits.
Report: I report compliance
3.8.2. With respect to employment, compensation, and benefits to employees,
consultants, contract workers and volunteers, the Town Administrator shall
not cause or allow jeopardy to fiscal integrity of the Town. Accordingly,
pertaining to paid workers, he or she may not promise or imply permanent or
guaranteed employment.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot make any statements to current
or potential employees that they can be assured of guaranteed employment with the
Town of Estes Park.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
I did not make any comments, verbally or in writing to any employee that can be
construed as implying permanent or guaranteed employment.
Evidence:
1.Since this is a requirement NOT to do something, the evidence would be for non-
compliance, or when an employee alleges such a promise was made, or during the
disciplinary process, an employee alleges that such a promise has been made. No
such allegations have been raised with myself, HR or with the Board.
Report: I report compliance
3.8.3. With respect to employment, compensation, and benefits to employees,
consultants, contract workers and volunteers, the Town Administrator shall
not cause or allow jeopardy to fiscal integrity of the Town. Accordingly, 4
pertaining to paid workers, he or she may not establish current compensation
and benefits which deviate materially for the regional or professional market
for the skills employed:
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean we regularly compare our compensation and
benefits to the regional market. That market has been defined in Policy 301 as adopted by
the Board. The specifics of the market comparison process is defined in Policy 301.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
I insure we fully comply the procedures and steps outlined in the Board adopted Policy
301 regarding Classification and Compensation
Evidence:
1.The compensation study, as prepared by the Town Compensation Consultant
under the supervision of the HR staff.
2.Published Compensation schedules and Classification plan which is congruent with
the results of the annual Compensation Study.
3.Specifics of the compensation model and most recent study are available for
inspection upon request.
Report: The only exception is our lack of provision of spousal health insurance, which
is a significant deviation from benefits provided in the regional market. I am therefore
reporting partial compliance.
3.8.4. With respect to employment, compensation, and benefits to employees,
consultants, contract workers and volunteers, the Town Administrator shall
not cause or allow jeopardy to fiscal integrity of the Town. Accordingly,
pertaining to paid workers, he or she may not establish deferred or long-term
compensation and benefits.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean I cannot take any actions that would change
any deferred or other long-term compensation for any employees without Board
approval.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
There have been no changes to anyone’s differed or long-term compensation or benefits
without Board approval.
Evidence:
1.The adopted budget and the CAFR document that I have not taken any action to
change any long term compensation or benefits without the prior approval of the
board.
Report: I report compliance
5
6
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 11, 2018
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town
of Estes Park on the 11th day September, 2018.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Cody Walker, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Carlie Bangs
Marie Cenac
Patrick Martchink
Ron Norris
Ken Zornes
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary
Absent: Greg White, Town Attorney
Mayor Jirsa called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Cenac/Bangs) to approve the Agenda, and it passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Graham Russell/Town Citizen, Biff Baird/County Citizen and Rebecca Urquhart/Town
Citizen spoke against the Mountain Coaster. Their statements included other interests
the Town should be concentrated on such as housing, families, the community and care
for citizens. They questioned the process of the coaster’s approval, the intent of the
Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and how the project would be beneficial to the
Town.
Heidi Scanlan/Town Citizen spoke on behalf of Estes Area Lodging Association
regarding the potential changes to the structure of the Visit Estes Park (VEP) Board to
consist of 3 Trustees and 2 County Commissioners. She spoke in favor of the current
Intergovernmental Agreement and the VEP Board, and stated additional political
influence would not be beneficial to stakeholders.
Marcia Groome/Town Citizen spoke regarding the noise ordinance previously passed in
2017 and questioned if the noise ordinance could be adjusted or other alternatives
examined, particularly as it pertains to outside music venues. She also requested a
policy be created for police staff to enforce the Colorado Noise Abatement Statute and
noise complaints in the area of The Barrel be compiled and studied.
Mayor Jirsa requested a review of the noise ordinance be scheduled for a future study
session. It was determined to review the ordinance on October 9, 2018.
Commissioner Donnelly spoke regarding the Mountain Coaster appeal process with
Larimer County. A tentative appeal hearing of the Board of County Commissioners has
been scheduled for October 2, 2018 in the Town Hall Board Room. The initial hearing
would establish if the planning staff’s determination was correct, which could result in
additional hearings.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS
Trustee Cenac stated the inaugural Trustee talk occurred on Thursday, September 6,
2018, where herself and Trustee Zornes met with citizens for an informal discussion. DRAFT7
Board of Trustees – September 11, 2018 – Page 2
Mayor Jirsa requested a discussion and potential vote on Trustee appointments to the
VEP board be scheduled for the meeting on September 25, 2018.
Trustee Norris stated the Planning Commission would meet on September 18, 2018
and the Family Advisory Board met September 6, 2018. The Comprehensive Plan
Advisory Committee has identified potential contents of the plan, methods and a
preliminary list for outreach, and a description of a request for proposals has been
drafted. In regards to the Mountain Coaster, after extensive review of public comments,
the EVDC and the filed appeal, Trustee Norris stated the EVDC has been
misinterpreted and supports the appeal.
Trustee Zornes recognized 9/11 and spoke in remembrance of the loss of life and the
effect on the country and local citizens. He stated VEP would meet September 12,
2018. He attended the Scottish Irish Parade and Tattoo over the weekend and
acknowledged the auxillary police for their work at these events. Trustee Zornes spoke
in support of Trustee Norris’ statements regarding the Mountain Coaster.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Town Administrator Lancaster requested a discussion of the Strategic Plan final draft be
added to a future study session. He thanked Town staff and volunteers as part of
Colorado Cities and Towns week.
1.CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Bills.
2.Town Board Minutes dated August 28, 2018 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated August 28, 2018.
3.Board of Adjustment Minutes dated August 7, 2018 (acknowledgement only).
4.Special Meeting of the Family Advisory Board Minutes dated July 26, 2018 and
Family Advisory Board Minutes dated August 2, 2018 (acknowledgement only).
5.Resolution #19-18 Supporting Colorado Parks & Wildlife Grant Applications for
Fall River Trail Extension.
It was moved and seconded (Walker/Norris) to approve the Consent Agenda,
and it passed unanimously.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities).
1.LARIMER COUNTY COMMUNITY REPORT.
Commissioner Donnelly presented the 2018 Larimer County Community Report,
he emphasized the primary goals of the County include public health, public
safety and social services programs. The report provides a budget summary and
details various additional services. He mentioned the groundbreaking of the
North I-25 Expansion project held September 10, 2018 and the ribbon cutting of
the Loveland County facility was held today.
Trustee discussion and comments have been summarized: the process of the
Mountain Coaster appeal, ways of strengthening the relationship of the Town
Board and the County Commissioners, continuing regular meetings of the Town,
County and Planning Commission, County concerns with the VEP Board, and the
Larimer County Mental Health Initiative on the upcoming ballot.
2. QUARTERLY UPDATE ON DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP PROJECT.
The Project Technical Advisory Committee presented an update on the
Downtown Estes Loop Project since June, 2018. They highlighted the
continuance of right of way acquisition with offers made on all seven properties,
landscape design, wayfinding signage, hydraulic analysis, continued outreachDRAFT 8
Board of Trustees – September 11, 2018 – Page 3
with citizen advisory boards and a new Downtown Estes Loop Project
Newsletter. The project schedule remained unchanged with design completion in
2018, right of way acquisition in 2019, and construction commencing in summer
2021. Acceleration of the project would not be able to occur until right of way
acquisition, final design, and confirmation of hydraulic analysis with FEMA has
been completed. An accelerated construction timeline in 2019 would not be likely
however, 2020 could still be possible.
Trustee discussion of the update has been summarized: methodologies of the
hydraulic analysis, the National Park Service’s possible solutions to overcrowding
and how those solutions might affect the loop project, and outreach to Rocky
Mountain National Park officials.
Trustee Martchink had an additional comment regarding perceived loopholes that allow
commercial development in residential zones in the EVDC. He requested a correction to
the EVDC be done as soon as possible. Town Administrator Lancaster stated a
clarification would be done to refine the intent of commercial uses in residential zones.
Mayor Jirsa cautioned against making corrections to the code prior to the
Comprehensive Plan being updated.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 8:29 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary DRAFT9
10
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 23, 2018
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the AUDIT COMMITTEE of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal
Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 23rd day of August 2018.
Committee: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Walker, Trustee Cenac, Town
Administrator Lancaster, Finance Director Hudson, and
Accounting Manager Garcia
Attending: Mayor Jirsa, Trustee Cenac, Trustee Zornes, Town
Administrator Lancaster, Finance Director Hudson,
Accounting Manager Garcia, Accountant Johnson, Town
Clerk Williamson, and representatives of Anton Collins
Mitchell LLP Tyra Litzau and Steven Bolz
Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Walker
Chair Jirsa called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
2017 CAFR AND SINGLE AUDIT REVIEW.
Ms. Litzau reviewed the audit and stated the auditors provided an unmodified opinion, a
clean opinion, of the financial statements and an unmodified opinion of the Town’s
internal control over financial reporting and compliance with laws, regulations, contracts
and grant agreements in accordance with Governmental Auditing Standards for the year
ending December 31, 2017. The auditors indicated no material weaknesses and no
instances of noncompliance or other matters requiring reporting. The single audit was
completed and no noted material weakness were identified and the testing disclosed no
instances of noncompliance. The Town’s financial statement documents demonstrated
an overall increase from 2016 to a net position of $111.6 million, capital assets of
$106.6 million and long-term liabilities of $17.1 million. PERA increased the Town’s
cost sharing for pension liability over the prior year from $11.3 million to $15 million for
2017. The auditors did not encounter any difficulties in completing the audit and
suggested adjustments to the staff during the process. Nothing of substance was
exposed during the audit; however, some internal controls were noted.
The auditors provided suggestions for improving the existing internal controls which did
not affect the fair presentation of the financial statements, including: 1) meeting the
Davis Bacon Grant requirements to obtain certified payroll reports from contractors and
subcontractor for all weeks of a project even when no work is being performed; and 2)
thirteen months of open space revenue was recorded in 2017 which included a month
from 2016, therefore, overstating the revenues by $40,000.
The auditors indicated the GASB Statement 75 would require the Town to report on
post-employment benefits other than pensions. The Town currently offers all
employees employed prior to July 1, 2016 post-employment health insurance benefits
for employees who have worked for 15 years and retire at age 60. The Town would
also be required to report a portion of the PERA health plan liability. PERA would
provide the Town with the information for the 2018 audit. GASB Statement 86 would
require reporting of debt extinguishment issues. GASB Statement 87 would require the
Town to report operating leases as of December 2020.
A report entitled “Beyond the Numbers” was reviewed with the committee. The report
compiled data from three municipalities, Steamboat Springs, Glenwood Springs and
Telluride and compared the Town’s position on net position as a percentage of net
position, revenue coverage ratio, unrestricted net position as a percent of current year
revenue, accumulated depreciation as a percent of depreciable capital assets, liquidity
11
Audit Committee – August 23, 2018 – Page 2
ratio, debt to assets leverage ratio, total debt per capita, tax revenue per capita, total
grants, contributions and other intergovernmental revenue as a percent of total revenue,
total expense per capita, total general government expense per capita, total public
safety expense per capita, total interest expense per capita, total debit service
expenditures as a percent of total revenues, capital outlay expenditures as a percent of
total expenditures, unassigned fund balance as a percent of total revenues,
intergovernmental revenues as a percent of total revenue, and transfers-in as a percent
of total revenues and transfers-in.
The auditors reviewed the comparison and addressed significant differences in the
Town’s position relative to the peer communities. Comments have been summarized:
change in net position was due to large capital projects completed in the past couple of
years; unrestricted net position went down significantly with the continued costs of flood
recovery projects which require a delay of grant or FEMA reimbursements; CGOFA
recommends a standard reserve of two months operating funds, however, other peer
communities have up to 7.5 months in reserve; assets are aging and older than peer
communities; debt to asset ratio demonstrates the other communities are borrowing
money to pay for new assets; the Town has a debt per capita lower than other
communities; taxes per citizen is 15% lower; and general government and police
services costs are higher, however, the peer communities may not provide the same
services; and transfers-in are significantly high.
The Board requested the auditor provide additional clarity on the numbers and how
each impacts the Town’s overall financial situation, including the impact of retirement
liability from the peer communities on the net position and expenses per capita;
additional clarity on property tax rates and sales tax rates; and added footnotes would
provide clarity for the Board and the citizens.
The audit firm has been working with Visit Estes Park to complete their audit. The audit
would not be completed until September and the MD&A has been completed. The
auditors stated no material weakness were addressed; however, there were procedural
issues to address.
The committee thanked Director Hudson and his staff for addressing previous year
concerns and for completing this year’s audit.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
12
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 21, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
1
Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Betty Hull,
Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Frank Theis, Steve Murphree
Attending: Chair Leavitt, Commissioners Schneider, White, Foster, Murphree and
Theis
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff
Woeber, Planner Robin Becker, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County
Staff Liaison Michael Whitley, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: Commissioner Hull
Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 70 people in
attendance.
1.OPEN MEETING
Planning Commission/Staff Introductions
2.AP PROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (White/Schneider) to approve the agenda as presented
and the motion passed 6-0.
3.CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of July 17, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Foster) to approve the consent agenda as
presented and the motion passed 6-0.
4.BLACK CANYON WEDDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Planner Becker reported that this item was continued to the next Planning Commission
meeting to be held October 16, 2018 and that a public meeting with neighborhood and
community members was to be held August 23 at the Black Canyon Office.
Public Comment:
Anna Claassen, town citizen, questioned when the public meeting was planned and noted
that neighbors have not been notified
Jay Blackwood, town citizen, stated that a glitch in GPS brings people to the Black
Canyon neighborhood rather than the Black Canyon Inn, and this project would cause
more issues with people coming to the wrong address. He would like GPS to be fixed.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Theis) to continue the Development Plan to the
October 16, 2018 meeting and the motion passed 6-0.
13
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 21, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2
5.RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOCATED AT
1041 SOUTH SAINT VRAIN AVE, KNOW AS WIND RIVER APARTMENTS.
Planner Woeber stated that this application was reviewed by the EVPC at their June 19,
2018 meeting. Due to questions that were raised by the EVPC, and with concurrence of
the applicant, the application was continued to the July 17, 2018 EVPC meeting. With
revisions not being available in time for that meeting, it was continued to the August 21,
2018 EVPC meeting. The applicant, in their revised submittal materials, has detailed all
requested revisions, and has outlined specifically what has been revised.
The subject property is 5.77 acres in size and is undeveloped. Currently the site is two
separate lots. A lot consolidation application has been submitted to combine Lots 1 and 2
of Wapiti Minor Subdivision into one lot. The development consists of four multi-family
structures, three 24-unit buildings and one 22-unit building resulting in 78 units with two
bedrooms and 16 units with one bedroom. Legal notices were published in the Estes
Park Trail Gazette and adjacent property owners were notified. There is significant
opposition to this project. Staff recommended approval of the Wind River Apartments
Development Plan and approval of the associated waiver request to reduce the radius of
a section of an internal drive.
Staff and Commission Questions:
Director Hunt recused himself from discussion due to owning property and living across
the street from the Development Project. Woeber stated that the housing cost limits has
been revised in the restricted covenant agreements.
Applicant Discussion:
Paul Pewterbaugh stated that the reason for the delay was to be sure to address all the
concerns, feedback and input from both the Planning Commission and the public. All
members of the team were present at the meeting to answer all questions that may arise.
He then summarized the components of the application.
Eric Blackhurst, President of Estes Park Housing Authority, presented an abbreviated
presentation on the housing needs situation. The first housing study was done in 1989-
1990, community wide, and three studies have been done since, 1999, 2008 and 2016, all
with similar results.
Joe Coop, Van Horn Engineering, displayed the sidewalk proposal along Lexington Lane,
and the west side of highway 7. A Pedestrian Study showed that a lighted pedestrian
crossing beacon didn’t warrant a CDOT permit. He also discussed the drainage issues
and plans that would vastly improve the current system. The traffic study determined that
there were 45 trips per hour, thus not triggering a left turn lane onto Highway 7. Mail
cluster boxes will not be on Lexington Lane.
Steve Lane, Basis Architecture, reviewed the lot density which was calculated on being
one lot at 5.77 acres without a dedicated private street. Lot size does not affect the
density of the day care or number of units. The height and density bonus was approved
14
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 21, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
3
to allow RM zoned properties to solve the housing needs. The 15% open
space/recreational space is met. The height code will be met, with the 3 story buildings
being dug into the west side of the lot. Parking has 182 spaces for units and 16 guest
spaces which is more than most neighboring communities. The EVDC specifies that this
development should have 204 parking spaces. Taking out 4 units would allow us to meet
the requirement, but nothing would change with regard to the site plan and traffic. Our
proposal includes a request to allow 182 spaces rather than the 204 per the EVDC.
Public Comment: Comments are summarized, full comments can be found on the Town
of Estes website at www.estes.gov/meetingvideos for 12 months from the date of meeting
The following town citizens spoke in opposition with concerns related to: pedestrian and
traffic safety, drainage, flooding, work force housing density, parking, garbage generated,
and Vacation Home impacts:
Marcia Weaver, Kristen Hill, Liz Lord, Karen Nicholson, Adam Bensma, Brookie
Gallagher, Nancy Fuller, Martha Rouch, Katie Sykes
Town citizens speaking in favor stating the following reasons: the need for work force
housing, property rights, many business owners and workers in favor, take advantage of
developers willing to invest their money, and 352 people on the affordable housing
waitlist:
James Poppitz, Kent Smith, Jon Nicholas, Greg Rosener, Charley Dickey, Naomi Hawf
Commissioner/Applicant Discussion:
Paul Pewterbaugh emphasized that he understands the concerns of the neighbors, but
this property has been zoned RM for years. Businesses using apartments for employees
would be held to the same requirements as private renters. Covenants have an
occupancy limit of two people per bedroom, plus one. Housing Authority will oversee the
leases, as hired by the Town of Estes Park. One year leases are desired, six month
leases are the minimum. The hope is to attract families that work and help run the town.
Deed restrictions are 50 years, and run with the land. Joe Coop addressed the drainage
questions clarifying how the drainage plan will help the neighborhoods to the east.
Commissioner Comments: Comments are summarized, full comments can be found on
the Town of Estes website at www.estes.gov/meetingvideos for 12 months from the date
of meeting.
•Workforce housing is needed but so is the need to be careful with unintended
consequences
•Abuse of the intended use of the density bonus. Two lots were combined but all the
housing was placed on one lot, producing a density much greater than 16 units per
acre, which was envisioned when the code amendment was adopted.
•Maximum density does not have to be granted. The EVDC says up to a maximum
of 200% depending on site-specific conditions. This is supported by the EVDC
section 11.2.B "site-specific conditions may prevent maximum bonus density levels
from being achieved due to the character of the land or surrounding uses."
15
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 21, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4
•Inadequate facilities for parking within the development. Proposed parking is less
than the EVDC requirement.
•Traffic and parking on Lexington Lane. This road is narrow and it will be difficult to
handle the traffic load. The Town does not even want to install "No Parking" signs,
according to the developer.
•Serious concerns for pedestrian and bicycle safety on Lexington Lane and at the
Highway 7 crossing.
•There are no conditions put on the project to mitigate parking and safety issues.
•Lack of compromise on either side in the two months that have passed since the
last public hearing.
•Workforce housing needs to be addressed in sensible and reasonable way,
respecting the rights and interests of all parties involved.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Schneider) to deny the Development Plan
application without findings and the motion passed 4-2 with Theis and Murphree
voting against.
A ten minute recess was called at 4:20
6.APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL REVIEW TO ALLOW A “DAY CARE CENTER” IN A
MULTI FAMILY-RM RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
Summary: in addition to the Development Plan, the applicant has included a proposal for
a day care facility on the apartment site, to serve the residents but which is also intended
to have the capacity or openings for children from outside the development. The daycare
is proposed within an existing structure on the property, which would be remodeled and
expanded, with a portion also used as a leasing office. Legal notices were published in
the Estes Park Trail Gazette and adjacent property owners were notified. Staff
recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the
Special Review Use for the Wind River Day Care Center to the Town Board of Trustees
with the following condition: The approved use shall be consistent with the plans and
information as submitted by the applicant for the Special Review Use.
Applicant Pewterbaugh elected to continue with the Special Review of the Day Care
Center stating that the Development Plan would attract a lot of young families, with a
projected 60% use from the apartments.
Steve Lane reviewed the plans for the day care facility and leasing office.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/White) to approve the application for a
Special Review Use the item and the motion passed 6-0.
7.EVDC TEXT AMENDMENT
16
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 21, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
5
To add “Sightseeing/Tour Vehicle Facility” as an S2 Special Review use in the A,
Accommodations, the CD, Downtown Commercial and the CO, Outlying Commercial
Zoning Districts, and also add a definition of the same. Staff recommended a review of
the amendment for compliance with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for
Review and forward a recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the
Larimer County Commissioners for a final decision to approve.
Staff/Commission Questions:
It was explained that most users of Sightseeing/bus tours are staying in A zoning, thus the
reason for putting buses in Accommodation Zoning, in addition to Commercial Zoning.
The Special Review would allow rulings based on the specifics of individual applications.
Public Comment:
Bob Berman, 1442 Raven Circle, expressed concerns about putting a bus barn on one of
the major entrances to the town while the other companies have found less obtrusive
areas. This company is not new and had a different place to park at one time. Once
approval is given to one company, it will open up the door for all other Special Reviews in
A zoning, which are all over town.
Commissioner Discussion: comments are summarized
S2 review would be on a case by case basis with conditions allowed to be added. Don’t
see the need to add the A zoning or change the code. This particular property has had
problems with all businesses that have operated out of the location. The code has
prohibitions for fueling and repairs in regard to the word “facility”.
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Leavitt) to recommend that the Estes Park
Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners approve the
text amendment to the EVDC as presented by staff, with findings recommended by
staff. The motion was approved 4-2 with Foster and Schneider voting against.
8.ESTES PARK TROLLEYS S-2 SPECIAL REVIEW
The applicant requested approval of an S2 Special Review for the use,
“Sightseeing/Tour Vehicle Facility” in the A, Accommodations Zoning District.
Summary: this special review was contingent upon approval of the related Code
Amendment. Staff found that this use has been established at this location for
approximately one year, and impacts have been minimal. Staff recommends that
Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the Special Review Use
for a Sightseeing/Tour Vehicle Facility in an A, Accommodations Zoning District with the
following conditions:
1.The approved use shall generally be consistent with the materials submitted by the
applicant, and shall specifically include the applicants proposed use of the facility
only as a sales office and point of dispatch for tours, and the limitation on the
number of vehicles in the fleet.
17
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 21, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
6
2.Within 30 days of Special Review approval, applicant shall submit a Landscaping
Plan to the Community Development Department, providing an effective screening
with trees and shrubs from adjacent roads. The Landscaping Plan shall be
reviewed and approve by staff, and the landscaping shall be established by the
applicant within 60 days after staffs approval of the Landscaping Plan.
Landscaping shall be inspected and approved by staff.
Staff/Commission Questions:
Director Hunt proposed, since the applicant was not present, two alternatives: continue
the item to the next meeting or deny the application without prejudice.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/White) to continue the Special Review Use for a
Sightseeing/Tour Vehicle Facility to September 18, 2018. The motion passed 6-0.
9.UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISCTRICT LOCATION AND EXTENT REVIEW
Planner W oeber detailed the review of a location and extent for a partial rebuild of the
sanitation districts existing office/shop facility in a CO, Outlying Commercial Zoning
District. The proposal involves rebuilding an approximately 3000 square foot building,
including the office and one of the seven garage bays, all proposed within the existing
footprint. Legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail Gazette and adjacent
property owners were notified. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the
Location and Extent Review Application as submitted by the applicant.
Applicant Discussion:
Jess Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering, stated that the project is much needed as the
facility is old and outdated.
It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to approve the Upper Thompson Sanitation
District’s application for a Location and Extent Review, with staff findings. The motion
passed 6-0.
10. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE:
EVDC §3.2 STANDARD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE B. NEIGHBORHOOD
AND COMMUNITY MEETING, §3.2 F SUMMARY TABLE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW PROCESS BY APPLICATION TYPE, CHAPTER 13 DEFINITIONS, AND
APPENDIX B SUBMITTAL REQUREMENTS.
Planner Becker discussed the proposed Text Amendment that would allow property
owners to become informed and involved in the Estes Valley Development Review
Process in regard to projects in their neighborhood.
Staff/Commission Discussion:
An application will be deemed incomplete if meeting is not held. If a meeting was
attempted, but did not happen, a letter would need to be submitted stating why. This
would apply to anything that requires a public meeting, including Annexation and
18
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 21, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
7
Rezoning. Use classification would only be a recommendation and not required, since
use classifications may not be applicable to a specific location.
Public Comment:
Naomi Hawf, Estes Park Housing Authority, questioned how and what type of notice
would be sent. Hunt and Becker answered that a 10 day notice prior to meeting, an ad in
the newspaper and a mailing using the same address list as the Community Development
office would be required.
It was moved and seconded (White/Foster) to recommend that the Estes Park Town
Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners approve the
text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, according to findings of
fact and as recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-0. (Commissioner
Murphree left meeting early)
11. REPORTS
Due to the length of the meeting, there were no reports given.
There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m.
_________________________________
Bob Leavitt, Chair
__________________________________
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
19
20
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 15, 2018
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 203 of Town Hall on the 15th
day of August, 2018.
Present: Tom Street
Belle Morris
Janice Crow
Ron Wilcocks
Gordon Slack
Ann Finley
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
David Hook, Engineering Manager
Dave Deluca, YMCA of the Rockies Center Director
Absent: Stan Black
Amy Hamrick
Linda Hanick
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
No public in attendance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A motion was made and seconded (Wilcocks/Finley) to approve the July meeting minutes
with updates and all were in favor.
SHUTTLE UPDATE
The Town’s Transit Program Manager, Brian Wells provided shuttle updates to the TAB:
Thank you from the Shuttle Committee for TAB member attendance at last week’s
meeting
July passenger count was down 4% from 2017. The Gold Route was up 2,930
passengers and operated for all of the 31 days.
The Gold Route is already at 21,945 in 2018 and the total 2017 ridership was
23,559. The change is attributed to an increased number of day-trip visitors.
Feedback indicates that guests are staying at lodging in the valley and traveling to
21
Transportation Advisory Board – August 15, 2018 – Page 2
Estes Park for the day. Lodging occupancy rates are down at some locations in
town this summer
Through August 13, ridership is up by 462 passengers over 2017
The passenger total for the Estes Park Free Shuttles surpassed 750,000 riders on
July 26th
The Town will retain the stops (in 2019) at the Estes Park Marina (Blue #6) which
is on Federal land and at the Fall River Visitor Center (Red #4) because it is within
Town limits.
Moving forward Brown route will be a 30-minute route. Wells is working on
alternate routes for this and the Silver route for 2019.
Chair Morris asked about the possibility of adding bike racks to the shuttles/buses. Wells
indicated that in order to do so the vehicles must be owned by the Town (majority are
leased). When the new electric trolley comes in a bike rack may be installed.
There are no updates regarding the submitted LONO grant. More information is to be
received mid to late September. Determination on the second grant application should
occur by the end of the year. The bus garage is not part of the grant applications due to
budget constraints.
A concern was expressed regarding the changing of the existing shuttle stops reasoning
that many guests use the service to access downtown. If they’re not shuttled downtown
then the Town is not collecting tax revenue. It was also stated that the summer staff at
the outlying facilities use shuttle service. There is already a difficult time getting, and
retaining, staff during peak times and this creates an unnecessary danger for those forced
to try riding their bikes in the dark.
Another concern mentioned is that many visitors currently understand they can use
shuttles throughout their visit – from the airport and beyond. Those visitors staying at the
outlying lodging locations expect shuttle stops and this will impact where they decide to
stay. Wells reported that he has received several comments to this affect.
The Center Director for the YMCA of the Rockies, Dave Deluca was a member of the
public and stated he understands budget restrictions but would like to further discuss the
situation with the Town. Deluca can provide transportation for the YMCA staff utilizing
their own fleet but needs to budget accordingly. Trustee Liaison Bangs stated the Town
Board Meetings offer a public comment period at each meeting and welcomed any public
22
Transportation Advisory Board – August 15, 2018 – Page 3
feedback on the matter. Bangs went on to state that if stopping service to outlying areas
in an attempt to elevate in-town service won’t work, the Town Board needs to be made
aware and a discussion needs to take place.
Executive Director of the Good Samaritan Estes Park Village, Julie Lee, expressed
concern that the change in shuttle service will exacerbate traffic congestion situation by
requiring more driving downtown.
Co-Chair Street asked if there’d been any negotiations with YMCA. Wells confirmed that
no negotiations have occurred to date.
WAYFINDING – DOWNTOWN PLAN:
Town of Estes Park Planner, Brittany Hathaway presented wayfinding samples from
communities similar to Estes Park to the TAB. Manager Hook expressed the desire to
have uniform design throughout town. The design of the wayfinding signage will occur in
2018 with signage installation budgeted to occur in 2019. A public meeting will tentatively
occur in September. Director Muhonen asked the TAB their thoughts on how exhaustive
the public outreach should be for this item. Member Finley stated that she felt it would be
sufficient to have one very thorough and well-communicated public outreach meeting for
this effort.
To complete the process, the design determination needs to be finalized in November
and will subsequently be presented in a Town Board Study Session in December 2018.
Director Muhonen suggested the design follow the Downtown Estes Loop design team’s
concept for what will be placed within the limits of that project. Trustee Liaison Bangs
recommended that the Parks Advisory Board’s recommendation be weighted similarly in
this discussion.
Based on the TAB’s review of the design concepts presented, following were the
suggestions/preferences communicated:
Metal is the preferred framework for the signage
Prefer powder-coated over rust finish
Incorporate stone/rock for aesthetics
Potential metal cutout/silhouette (animals, landscape, etc.)
Use Town Logo within all wayfinding
Potential to use scaled-down version of the light poles on US 36 next to the parking
structure as the frame design consistently
23
Transportation Advisory Board – August 15, 2018 – Page 4
Potential design of metal to match ‘log look’ as installed at the Moraine Avenue
Bridge
Potential for fun design similar to creation by Parks Division employee, Tonya
Ziegler
Items to be sure are considered when determining design are:
Is it vandal-proof?
Is it easy to update/modify signage?
Is it inexpensive to maintain?
An update was provided regarding the college’s potential effort in designing the Town’s
wayfinding program. Their schedule will not allow the design process to be complete in
2018 as the college would not be able to begin their efforts until October, 2018. One other
item noted is that any work performed by them is not without cost. There is generally a
DOLA grant with a required local match.
PROJECTS & DOWNTOWN PARKING MGMT UPDATES:
Member Slack presented presentation slides to the TAB reflecting data captured from the
2005 Republic Parking Study as well as data captured for the month of July, 2018. Slack
stated that the Republic Study had far more thorough data captured. He asked the TAB
what type of parking data they’d like to see presented for analysis of the current parking
situation. The TAB determined that the most valuable data, presented in summary form,
would be the number of days a given lot is at capacity, and the peak times given lots are
at capacity.
COMPLETE STREETS DRAFT POLICY:
The updated draft Complete Streets Policy created by Co-Chair Street was e-mailed to
the TAB requesting that all comments be brought to the August meeting for discussion.
Director Muhonen had wordsmithing suggestions to take out hard line details. This policy
will ultimately require Town Board approval. Street and Chair Morris suggested a
presentation be created highlighting the key points of the policy. Today’s suggested
changes will be incorporated and the policy will be brought back to the TAB for final review
at the regularly scheduled September meeting.
E-BIKE POLICY REVIEW UPDATE:
24
Transportation Advisory Board – August 15, 2018 – Page 5
An e-mail sent to Director Muhonen from Police Captain Eric Rose showing that Larimer
County is leaning toward allowing Class I e-bikes on dirt trails and both Class I and II on
paved trails.
Member Wilcocks expressed that he still feels Class I is better for Estes Park. Member
Slack remains uncomfortable with Class II’s being permitted along the Lake Estes Trail.
The July vote on e-bikes stands.
OTHER BUSINESS
With no other business to discuss, Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 2:01 p.m.
25
26
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 16, 2018
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Conference Room of the Estes Park
Museum on the 16th day of August, 2018.
Present Merle Moore
Vicki Papineau
Wade Johnston
Dewain Lockwood
Geoffrey Elliot
Also
Present: Patrick Martchink, Town Board Liaison
Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Absent: Brian Berg, Parks Supervisor
Chair Merle Moore called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Shandria Davis, a community member and potential PAB applicant came to see the
PAB operate. She and spouse own music business and a solar home near Long’s
Peak. Davis has volunteered for the schools in years past and is a tree enthusiast. She
asked questions related to PAB’s involvement with other organizations in the community
to better understand the PAB’s role.
GENERAL BUSINESS
A motion was made and seconded (Papineau/Lockwood) to approve the May meeting
minutes and all were in favor.
A motion was made and seconded (Johnston/Lockwood) to approve the July meeting
minutes and all were in favor.
MRS WALSH’S GARDEN (MWG) UPDATE
27
Parks Advisory Board – August 16, 2018 – Page 2
Chair Moore reported that several new plantings have been completed in MWG. Moore
expressed concern about the lack of a crosswalk to access MWG from the opposite
side of the road. He stressed that safety considerations need to be taken into account
rather than basing everything on traffic studies. With more promotion of MWG, there will
likely be increased pedestrian traffic. Discussed the possibility of a pedestrian yield sign
or an exception granted in this situation for installation of a crosswalk.
MWGAC is planning an Open House on August 23 from 5p-8p. The Colorado Native
Plants Society, Estes Land Stewardship Association (ELSA), Master Gardners and
others will have tables at the event for education about the contents of the garden.
MWGAC member is creating a digital map with multiple layers as a guide for the
garden. Plant labels have also been placed for easy reference in the garden.
The Secretary for the MWGAC resigned her position. The committee is looking to fill the
position with an actively interested party.
Chair Moore stated he’s not yet received the financial records reflecting expenses paid
to date for MWG.
OTHER BUSINESS
Great Outdoor Colorado (GOCO) and Colorado Green Foundation grants are possible
for funding of the needed greenhouse expansion, with grants being made available for
amounts up to $75K. Chair Moore would like to meet with Director Muhonen to go over
the information. A Letter of Intent to apply for the grant is due August 30 with the full
proposal due at the end of October. Determinations on grant recipients will occur in
early December and funding will be awarded in early February 2019.
Manager McEachern informed the PAB that the greenhouse expansion is on the table
via a 2019 funding request submitted. This is a good time to receive the grant
information being discussed since it would reduce the funding required by the Town’s
General Fund.
Utilizing Town staff to complete the grant application could be considered a utility in-kind
which would be applied to the local grant match.
Manager McEachern asked the PAB if any members would be interested in
championing the pursuit of an ordinance requiring 1% of all capital projects to be
28
Parks Advisory Board – August 16, 2018 – Page 3
applied to public art through the AIPP program. Chair Moore has looked at other
community art programs and reviewed the associated ordinances. The art should
associate to the project location from which it was charged. Moore prefers another PAB
member to work with him on this effort. Co-chair Johnston volunteered his time for this
effort. Moore will get current copies of ordinances from other communities. Moore stated
there’s an organization in Denver that is in charge of all Public Art for the State that can
be used as a resource.
Trustee Liaison Martchink stated he’s very supportive of this funding mechanism. He
went on to mention that the Town’s Utilities Department has many capital projects every
year.
Member Elliot stated that, throughout town, the invasive plants have been especially
bad this year. Elliot asked what role PAB can play, or has played, in addressing the
invasive species. He feels more could potentially be done to handle this situation.
Member Papineau stated enforcement is key. She also stated that 1,500 noxious weed
booklets were printed this year and most all have been distributed. ELSA has also been
publishing weekly weed articles in the newspaper. It would be helpful to have a
reputable person handle the spraying of the weeds.
With no further business to discuss, a motion was made and seconded
(Elliot/Lockwood) to adjourn the meeting at 10:22 a.m. and all were in favor.
29
30
Town Clerk Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: May 8, 2018
RE: Family Advisory Board Appointment
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
To appoint members to the Family Advisory Board.
Present Situation:
The Town Board approved the formation of the Family Advisory Board at their February 14,
2017 Town Board meeting and appointed 12 members to the Board. The FAB bylaws provide
for the FAB to consist of no fewer than 10 and no more the 15 members. The Town Board
reappointed three members Nancy Almond, Rachel Balduzzi and Jodi Roman at the April 24,
2018 meeting, and appointed Tyler Schmitt at May 8, 2018 meeting. The Board currently has
nine active members. The Town has been advertising the vacancy since April and has recently
received two applications.
Proposal:
Staff confirmed with Trustee Norris/FAB liaison to forego the interview process and recommend
to the full Board the appointment of Carrie Brown and Michael Moon with terms expiring April
30, 2021.
Carrie Brown
As an applicant for the Family Advisory Board I feel that I could bring the following contributions:
I am a mother of two grown children; I have first-hand experience raising a family; working for
the Estes Park Housing Authority, I encounter unique family situations every day; by working in
the community for 2+ years I have learned quite a bit about the challenges that families living in
a mountain community face; the ability to listen objectively to all perspectives with the best
interest of the community in mind; the ability to effectively communicate with people of various
cultures and backgrounds; and I view this opportunity and the responsibility of being a board
member seriously. It is my intention to be an active member and participant.
Michael Moon
My focus on childcare/early childhood education (ECE) needs within the Estes Valley including
spearheading efforts to identify the needs for and potential solutions to childcare/ECE issues
within the Estes Valley since 2017, chaired the EDC Childcare Services Committee which
produced the Childcare Needs Assessment, and Board President of Estes ECE, Inc. a 501(c)(3)
focused on developing ECE capacity solutions. Along with our partner organization, EVICS 31
which has active board and executive director participation on the FAB, the presence of Estes
ECE, Inc on the FAB provides a more complete coverage of childcare/ECE current and future
programing. As a result of my childcare/ECE activities, I have become a strong advocate for an
effective solution to our workforce housing needs. I see this as a critical element if businesses
within the Estes Valley are to be effective in recruiting and retaining high quality staff. Key to this
high-quality staff are young professionals, semi-professionals and hourly workers who have
families. Workforce housing is a critical success criterion for Estes ECE with respect to
recruitment and retention of high quality ECE directors, teachers and staff necessary to achieve
our program goals. As a retired valley citizen who is also an actively involved grandparent I
believe I bring a unique perspective of “family” to the FAB that does not currently exist on the
board. Finally, I am an active Estes Valley volunteer bringing multiple “family” perspectives to
the board including Elder, Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies, Auxiliary Officer,
EPPD and former Estes Valley Planning Commissioner.
Advantages:
To fill open positions on the Family Advisory Board and bring additional experience from the
Housing Authority and Estes ESC Inc.
Disadvantages:
If the appointments are not made, the position would remain vacant until the position can be re-
advertised and interviews conducted.
Action Recommended:
To appoint Carrie Brown and Michael Moon as listed above.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest.
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Carrie Brown and Michael Moon to the Family
Advisory Board for terms expiring on April 30, 2021.
32
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
David Hook, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager
Kelly Stallworth, EI, Public Works Floodplain Manager
Date: September 25, 2018
RE: UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT EASEMENT
AGREEMENTS
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER EASEMENT
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Public Works seeks approval granting permanent and temporary construction
easements to Upper Thompson Sanitation District for the re-building of multiple sewer
stream crossings on Town property.
Present Situation:
Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) is proposing work to demolish and rebuild
several sewer stream crossings within the Town of Estes Park. Several of these
crossings are located on Town property, but do not have associated permanent utility
easements. The Town Floodplain Development Permit for this work requires any and all
easements across private or publicly owned properties to be in place prior to issuance.
UTSD has requested that the Town of Estes Park grant these two easements, located
near the Carriage Hills Dams and near the Estes Park Visitors Center. Public Works
and Town legal counsel have reviewed the easements and recommends granting of
said easements.
Proposal:
UTSD requires the proposed easements to complete their new stream crossings. Public
Works and Town legal counsel have reviewed the easements and recommends
granting of said easements.
Advantages:
33
• Establishes permanent easements on locations already occupied by Upper
Thompson Sanitation District.
• Improves existing sewer stream crossings to better protect both sewer
infrastructure and the stream bed.
Disadvantages:
• Town granting this easement would obligate a portion of Town property to a
specific use.
• Town granting this easement would limit possible future other uses in the
easement areas on this land.
Action Recommended:
Public Works staff is requesting approval to grant permanent and temporary
construction easements to Upper Thompson Sanitation District.
Finance/Resource Impact:
This proposal has no financial impact.
Level of Public Interest
Public interest is expected to be low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the attached utility easement agreements on two
Town owned parcels to UTSD.
Attachments:
Easement Agreements.
34
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AGREEMENT
This TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered
into this ______ day of ______________________, 2018 (the “Effective Date”), by and between
TOWN OF ESTES PARK (“Grantor”) and THE UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION
DISTRICT, ESTES PARK, COLORADO, a Colorado municipal utility district, (“Grantee”).
1. Grantor’s Property. Grantor is the owner of that certain parcel of real property
located in Larimer County, Colorado, which is legally described as Town of Estes Park, Parcel
Number 3525171901, 500 Big Thompson Avenue, Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State
of Colorado and made a part of this Agreement (the “Property”).
2. Grant of Easement – Consideration. For and in consideration of the covenants and
agreements herein set forth, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
Grantor grants, sells and conveys to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a temporary
construction easement (the “TCE”) on, over, under and across the Property as described more fully
in Exhibit A, (the “TCE Area”), subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth below.
3. Purpose and Uses of Easement. Grantee may use the TCE Area for the
purposes of carrying out activities related to the construction of the
(the “Project”) including but not limited to; vehicular and non-vehicular access; the storage and
staging of materials and equipment; construction of infrastructure and other construction purposes.
4. Term. The TCE will terminate thirty (30) days after final completion of the Project.
5. Additional Rights of Grantee: Grantor further grants to the Grantee:
a. the right of ingress to and egress from the TCE Area over and across the
Property by means of any roads and lanes thereon;
b. the right to install, maintain, and use all gates in all fences which now cross or
shall hereafter cross the TCE Area;
c. the right to mark the location of the TCE Area by suitable markers set in the
ground.
6. Grantor’s Rights. Grantor reserves the right to use the TCE Area for any
purposes that will not interfere with Grantee’s full enjoyment of the rights hereby granted. Grantor
will not erect or construct any structure or improvement, or drill or operate any well, construct any
reservoir or impoundment or other obstruction, install or plant any trees or woody shrubs, or
otherwise improve the TCE Area or change the ground level in the TCE Area during the term of
this TCE.
35
7. Maintenance of the TCE Area.
a. Grantee will make repairs or take such other action as may be necessary to
restore the TCE Area to a condition comparable to its condition prior to the
Project, including but not limited to the reseeding and replanting of any
disturbed areas in a manner reasonably satisfactory to Grantor, correction of
any subsidence, and restoration of any other improvements or conditions
impacted by Grantee’s activities.
b. Grantee will maintain the surface of the TCE Area in a sanitary condition in
compliance with any applicable weed, nuisance and all local legal requirements.
c. Grantor will not deposit, or permit or allow to be deposited, earth, rubbish,
debris, or any other substance or material, whether combustible or
noncombustible, on the TCE Area.
8. Representations of Grantor. Grantor states that it is the lawful owner in fee simple
of the Property; that it has good and lawful right and authority to grant, sell and convey said
property or any part thereof; and that it will warrant the title of said property.
9. Successors and Assigns. All the covenants herein contained are binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their heirs, personal representatives, successors
and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto caused this Temporary
Construction Easement Agreement to be executed.
GRANTOR: GRANTOR:
___________________________________ ___________________________________
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of
_________________, 2018, by ______________________ AND ______________________,
Grantors.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires: _________________________
______________________________________________
Notary Public
36
GRANTEE:
Upper Thompson Sanitation District
_____________________________________
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of
________________, 2018, by _________________________, as _______________________ of
the Upper Thompson Sanitation District.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires: _________________________
______________________________________________
Notary Public
37
38
EASEMENT
THIS EASEMENT is made this ____ day of __________ , 2018, by and between TOWN
OF ESTES PARK (hereinafter referred to as “Grantor”), Its successors and assigns, and UPPER
THOMSON SANITATION DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation of the State of Colorado
within the County of Larimer (hereinafter referred to as “District”).
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollars ($1.00) and other good and
valuable consideration paid by District to Grantor, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
the Grantor does hereby grant and convey unto the District, its successors and assigns, a
perpetual easement and right to construct, install, remove, replace, add to, maintain, repair,
operate, change or alter underground sewer lines and appurtenances, together with any and all
sewer lines and manholes situate therein, all necessary rights-of-way for convenient ingress and
egress thereto and therefrom, and the right to occupy and use, from time to time, as much of the
adjoining land of the Grantor as may be reasonably necessary for any of the aforesaid purposes,
over, under and across the following described premises, situate in the County of Larimer, State
of Colorado, to wit:
A PERMANENT SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EASEMENT
A 20-FOOT WIDE PERMANENT SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EASEMENT LOCATED
ON OUTLOT D, CARRIAGE HILLS 7th FILIING, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF
LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK
1764 AT PAGE 426 DATED 04/22/1977 AT THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF LARIMER
COUNTY, CENTERLINE OF WHICH BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 66, CARRIAGE HILLS 7th
FILING WHENCE THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 66 BEARS NORTH
65°57'32" EAST WITH ALL BEARINGS RELATIVE THERETO;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERY PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 66, NORTH
65°57'32" EAST A DISTANCE OF 55.22 FEET, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE, SOUTH 11°14'06" EAST A
DISTANCE OF 415.33 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
LAKESHORE DRIVE, WITH ALL LINES LENGTHENED AND FORESHORTENED TO
MEET EXISTING PROPERTY LINES.
SAID EASEMENT CONTAINING 8303 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS.
(SEE EXHIBIT A)
Also, to wit:
AN EXCLUSIVE PERMANENT ACCESS EASEMENT
39
2
A 12-FOOT WIDE EXCLUSIVE PERMANENT ACCESSS EASEMENT FOR USE
BY UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT LOCATED ON OUTLOT D,
CARRIAGE HILLS 7th FILIING, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER,
STATE OF COLORADO AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 1764
AT PAGE 426 DATED 04/22/1977 AT THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF LARIMER
COUNTY, CENTERLINE OF WHICH BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 66, CARRIAGE HILLS
7th FILING WHENCE THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 66 BEARS
NORTH 65°57'32" EAST WITH ALL BEARINGS RELATIVE THERETO;
THENCE SOUTH 06°19'58" WEST A DISTANCE OF 296.72 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT (RADIUS OF SAID
ARC BEING 150.00 FEET, CHORD OF SAID ARC BEARS NORTH 83°38'00" EAST
A DISTANCE OF 45.20 FEET) A DISTANCE OF 45.37 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 87°42'03" EAST A DISTANCE OF 56.88 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT (RADIUS OF SAID ARC
BEING 150.00 FEET, CHORD OF SAID ARC BEARS NORTH 86°00'35" EAST A
DISTANCE OF 32.86 FEET) A DISTANCE OF 32.93 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 79°43'14" EAST A DISTANCE OF 179.90 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT (RADIUS OF SAID ARC
BEING 500.00 FEET, CHORD OF SAID ARC BEARS NORTH 75°54'47" EAST A
DISTANCE OF 66.40 FEET) A DISTANCE OF 66.45 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 72°06'21" EAST A DISTANCE OF 147.26 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT (RADIUS OF SAID ARC
BEING 100.00 FEET, CHORD OF SAID ARC BEARS NORTH 53°59'58" EAST A
DISTANCE OF 62.16 FEET) A DISTANCE OF 63.20 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 35°53'36" EAST A DISTANCE OF 28.36 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT (RADIUS OF SAID
ARC BEING 100.00 FEET, CHORD OF SAID ARC BEARS NORTH 54°44'15" EAST
A DISTANCE OF 64.60 FEET) A DISTANCE OF 65.78 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT (RADIUS OF SAID
ARC BEING 50.00 FEET, CHORD OF SAID ARC BEARS NORTH 83°43'34" EAST
A DISTANCE OF 17.61 FEET) A DISTANCE OF 17.71 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 86°07'46" EAST A DISTANCE OF 23.03 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT (RADIUS OF SAID ARC
BEING 50.00 FEET, CHORD OF SAID ARC BEARS NORTH 84°44'42" EAST A
DISTANCE OF 15.86 FEET) A DISTANCE OF 15.93 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 75°37'10" EAST A DISTANCE OF 35.36 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT (RADIUS OF SAID ARC
BEING 125.00 FEET, CHORD OF SAID ARC BEARS NORTH 67°22'06" EAST A
DISTANCE OF 35.88 FEET) A DISTANCE OF 36.00 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A
40
3
POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF LAKESHORE DRIVE, SAID
POINT BEING THE POINT OF TERMINATION WHENCE THE POINT OF
COMMENCEMENT BEARS NORTH 84°05'38" WEST A DISTANCE OF 730.54
FEET, WITH ALL LINES LENGTHENED AND FORESHORTENED TO MEET
EXISTING PROPERTY LINES.
SAID EASEMENT CONTAINING 9779 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS.
(SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS B & C)
Grantor warrants that the Grantor has the lawful right to grant such easement, rights-of-
way, and sewer lines and that the Grantor, and any successors and assigns, will, at no time,
permit any building, landscaping, or other permanent improvement to be hereafter constructed
within such easement.
Following the completion of the purpose of any entry by the District upon such easement
for any of the aforesaid objects, the District shall restore the premises to substantially the same
condition existing at the time of the entry thereon, except for trees, shrubs, plants, sidewalks,
driveways or parking areas thereon located or damaged thereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and
year first above written.
41
4
GRANTOR:
By
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of __________, 2018 by
______________ as ________________ of _________________.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
ACCEPTED by the Upper Thompson Sanitation District this _____ day of _________,
2018.
UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT
By:
Jack Reed, Chairman
Attest:
Ronald Duell, Secretary
42
5
CONSENT
__________________ consents to the foregoing Indenture and binds itself, its successors
and assigns, the same as through its Deeds of Trust, recorded on ____________, 20__, at
Reception Number _______________ of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of
____________ County, Colorado, was made specifically subject to said Indenture.
By:
Title:
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF ____________________ )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of __________, 20_____ by
_________________ as ________________ of ___________________.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
43
LOT 71
CARRIAGE rt HILLS 7th •"''J,
ILING -.t\ � f$
o"-'?,� �"'
OUTLOTD
CARRIAGE HILLS 7TH
FILING
72 .62'
-11 I 20' SANITARY -SEWER
/ EASEMENT
TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING
OUTLOTD
CARRIAGE HILLS 7TH
FILING
60' PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY
BOOK 1764, PAGE426
04/22/19 77
S 87°55'15" E 385.39' �\VE_
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PERMANENT SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EASEMENT
A 20-FOOT WIDE PERMANENT SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EASEMENT LOCATED ON OUTLOT D,
CARRIAGE HILLS 7th FILING, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO AS
SHOWN ON THE PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 1764 AT PAGE 426 DATED 04/22/1977 AT THE CLERK AND
RECORDER OF LARIMER COUNTY, CENTERLINE OF WHICH BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 66, CARRIAGE HILLS 7th FILING WHENCE THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 66 BEARS NORTH 65°57'32" EAST WITH ALL BEARINGS RELATIVE
THERETO;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERY PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 66, NORTH 65°57'32" EAST A DISTANCE OF
55.22 FEET, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE, SOUTH 11°14'06" EAST A DISTANCE OF 415.33 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF LAKESHORE DRIVE, WITH ALL LINES LENGTHENED
AND FORESHORTENED TO MEET EXISTING PROPERTY LINES.
SAID EASEMENT CONTAINING 8303 SQUARE
FEET MORE OR LESS.
NOTE:
THIS EXHIBIT DOES NOT REPRESENT A
MONUMENTED SURVEY IT IS INTENDED
ONLY TO DEPICT THE ATTACHED
DESCRIPTION.
EXHIBIT A
SANITARY SEWER
SERVICE EASEMENT
BY: JLR DATE: 06/22/2018
FILE:
/ / ---
----
0 I
---
----------
! N l
50 100
I I
SCALE 1" = 100'
JOB No: 589.015
44
45
46
Public Works Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Jon Landkamer, Facilities Manager
Derek Fortini, Museum Director
Date:September 20, 2018
RE:
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Remodel of the Museum to enhance the visitor experience and make the operational
space more efficient. Approval of selection of construction contractor for the 2018 Estes
Park Museum Remodel.
Present Situation:
Design for the Estes Park Museum Remodel 2018 was completed in January, 2018 ,
and the budget for the construction phase of the project was set at $180,000. This
project was advertised on Rocky Mountain Bidnet with an original bid closing date of
May 17, 2018. There were many questions generated from the construction documents,
so the bid opening date was delayed until June 14, 2018. Several contractors attended
the mandatory pre-bid meeting in April, but only one contractor, Saunders/Heath
Construction submitted a bid for this project. Saunders/Heath bid came in at $215,496.
In an effort to keep the project on track, it was decided to negotiat e with
Saunders/Heath and “value engineer” (VE) their proposal. Through these negotiations
the budget was reduced to the submitted proposal of $179,865.
Proposal:
The project is on track to start as soon as possible, but most likely the beginning of
November and ending January 31, 2019. To prepare the space for the remodel, staff is
suggesting that the Museum be closed to the public starting October 2 until March 2019.
This closure will allow Museum staff to focus on moving roughly 22,000 historic artifacts
from the Museum to the Museum Annex. Closing to the public also saves time on the
remodel, allowing the contractor to be more efficient in the delivery of their services, and
was part of the VE discussion.
47
Advantages:
• Improved Museum visitor experience by enhancing foyer/entry into the Museum and
gallery space.
• Improved staff and meeting room area for more efficient operations.
• Consolidation of all collections to the Museum Annex (once move of off-site collections is
complete).
• Efficient use of Museum staff to focus on the Museum collections relocation.
Disadvantages:
• The closure of the Museum for five months.
Action Recommended:
Board support for this proposed Construction Agreement will get this long anticipated
(two years) project underway.
Finance/Resource Impact:
This project already has an approved total budget of $210,000 , with $18,000 already
spent on design.
• Project code MUSREM 204-5400-544.32-22.
Level of Public Interest
Moderate public interest.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial Construction Agreement with Saunders/Heath in the
not-to-exceed amount of $179,865.
Attachments:
Construction Agreement with Saunders/Heath.
Original bid document from Saunders/Heath.
2018 09 10 Revised Floor Plan with VE
2018 09 10 Trend Log EP Museum Working Copy
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
REF.REF.RECEPTION COUNTER W/OPEN SHELVES UNDER1A2512A2512A2521A2521A3021A3016' - 0"10' - 11 1/4"4' - 0"1' - 10 1/8"5' - 0"11' - 6"1' - 8 1/2"4' - 11 1/2"3' - 7"434' - 2"4' - 8"4' - 4"+/- 12' - 4 3/4"4' - 5 21/32"5 1/2"6' - 10 3/8"STOREFRONT GLAZING- RE: INT. ELEVATIONNEW SUSPENDED"CLOUD" DROPPEDCEILING (+/-10'-0" A.F.F.)NEW 8'-0" PROJECTORSCREENEEEEERECEPTIONRECEPTIONGIFTSHOPSTG.LOBBY(2) NEW 12'-0" PROJECTOR SCREENSPATCH WALL TO MATCH EXISTINGAFTER SOFFIT DEMOLITIONPROJECTORS BY OWNER - COORD.INSTALLATION IN THE FIELDNEW EXTERIOR DOORNEW WALL - RE:GENERAL NOTESNEW WALL (RE: GENERALNOTES) & SALVAGED DOORNEW WALLS (RE: GENERALNOTES) & SALVAGED DOORNEW CASEDOPENINGWORKSTATIONEXHIBITAREAEXHIBITAREAITCLOSETCONF.AREACOLLECTION'S ROOM6' - 4"3' - 6"NEW 32"X40" CASEMENTWINDOWS - MATCH WITHADJACENT WINDOWRE-USE SALVAGED 32"X40"CASEMENT WINDOWS - INSTALLCL OF PREVIOUS WINDOWRE-USE SALVAGED 32"X40"CASEMENT WINDOWS - INSTALLCL OF PREVIOUS WINDOWEEE875EXISTING SIDEWALK -FIELD VERIFYEXISTING SIDEWALK -FIELD VERIFYNEW 48" WIDE SIDEWALK -COORD. IN THE FIELDNEW WALL - RE:GENERAL NOTESNEW WALL - RE:GENERAL NOTESNEW WALL - RE:GENERAL NOTESNEW CUSTOM WALL- RE: GENERALNOTESEXISTING WALL -FIELD VERIFYNEW COLUMN - RE:STRUCT.NEW COLUMN - RE:STRUCT.EXISTING COLUMN -FIELD VERIFYEXISTING WALL -FIELD VERIFYNEW WALL - RE:GENERAL NOTESEXISTING WALL (INFILLOPENINGS AS REQ'D PERPLAN) - FIELD VERIFY103 A252EXISTING WALL -FIELD VERIFYNO WORK INHATCHED AREANO WORK INHATCHED AREALINE OF WORK ZONE -PATCH & FINISH AS REQ'DLINE OF WORK ZONE -PATCH & FINISH AS REQ'D9SALVAGED EXTERIOR DOOR -COORD. WITH FORMER WINDOWOPENING8' - 4 3/8"6' - 6"6DIR.OFFICEWORKSTATION6' - 6 1/2"2GLASS WALLSYSTEM - RE:GENERAL NOTES &DOOR SCHEDULENOTESPENDENT SUSPENSION FOR PROJECTORS11GENERAL NOTES - REMODELED PLAN:1.TYPICAL INTERIOR WALL: 2X4 WOOD STUDS W/ 5/8" GYP. BD. ON EACH SIDE UNLESSOTHERWISE INDICATED (UOI).2.TYPICAL CUSTOM INTERIOR WALL: FRAME WIDTH AS REQ'D. FOR A FLUSH FINISH WITHTHE SECTIONAL PANEL GLAZED DOOR ASSEMBLIES - COORD. WITH STRUCTURAL BEAMABOVE.3.NEW WALL CONTINUED OFF EXISTING WALL: COORD. NEW WALL ASSEMBLY IN THEFIELD FOR A FLUSH & CLEAN CONNECTION BETWEEN THE NEW & EXISTING WALL.4.EXISTING WALL OPENING INFILL: COORD. INFILL WALL ASSEMBLY TO MATCHADJACENT EXISTING WALL.5.ELECTRICAL PLAN TO SERVE AS BASIS FOR DESIGN. PLEASE SUBMIT PLANS FORDEFERRED SUBMITTAL & FIXTURE PROPOSALS. CONFER WITH ARCHITECT& OWNERFOR FINAL FIXTURE SELECTION. FOR BIDDING PURPOSES, PROVIDE ALLOWANCEAMOUNT FOR LIGHTING FIXTURES.FRONT ENTRY / GIFT SHOP:1.SUB-FLOOR / CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE UNDER REMOVED TILE FLOORING TO BELEVELED AND PREPARED AS REQUIRED BY NEW FLOORING MFR. SPECIFICATIONS ANDWARRANTY. 12" - 18" WOOD BOARDER WITH CARPET INSET INCLUDING IN THE LOBBY,GIFTSHOP & SCREENING ROOM.2.SECTIONAL GLASS PANELED DOORS TO BE INSTALLED IN STRICT CONFORMANCE WITHMFR. SPECIFICATIONS AND WARRANTY. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL BECOORDINATED IN THE FIELD WITH THE MFR., ARCHITECT, STRUCTURAL ENGINEER &OTHER RELATED / ADJACENT TRADES.3.GLASS PANELED WALL SYSTEM BETWEEN LOBBY & SCREENING ROOM BASIS OFDESIGN: MODERNFOLD 362SR-DRS GLASS WALL SYSTEM.4.INSTALLATION OF NEW LIGHTING (MID-RANGE) WITHIN THE RECEPTION & SCREENINGROOM PER ELECTRICAL PLAN.5.STOREFRONT ASSEMBLY TO BE INSTALLED IN STRICT CONFORMANCE WITH MFR.SPECIFICATIONS AND WARRANTY. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL BECOORDINATED IN THE FIELD WITH THE MFR., ARCHITECT, STRUCTURAL ENGINEER &OTHER RELATED / ADJACENT TRADES.6.LIGHTING & INSTALLATION OF FIXTURES SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALLAPPLICABLE GOVERNING ELECTRICAL CODES.7.ELECTRIC FLAT WALL RADIANT PANEL HEAT SOURCE AT THE RECEPTION AREA (UNDERTHE COUNTER).8.PROVIDE VENTILATION ACCESS FOR HVAC SUPPLY / RETURN.9.-10.PROVIDE ALLOWANCE FOR BUILT IN CABINETS WITH DOORS, UP TO THE WINDOW SILLHEIGHT (NO SHELVES ABOVE) ENTIRE LENGTH OF SOUTH WALL OF GIFT SHOP (SHELFON WEST WALL TO REMAIN, COUNTER / CABINET TO RUN BEHIND).11.SIZE AND CONFIGURATION OF RECEPTION DESK TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD ANDSHALL COORDINATE WITH GLASS CASE TO BE PROVIDED BY OWNER. PROVIDE ANALLOWANCE IN TH BUDGET FOR DESK.MEETING ROOM:1.PROVIDE PENDANT OR STRIP SUSPENSION APPARATUS FOR PROJECTORS, LIGHTING &SPEAKERS.2.PROVIDE ALLOWANCE FOR PURCHASE & INSTALLATION OF TWO 12'-0" PROJECTORSCREENS.OFFICE AREA & MUSEUM EXHIBITION AREA:1.INSTALL NEW 48" DOOR (EXTERIOR WOOD CLAD WITH WINDOW LITE) AT BACK OFEXHIBIT AREA2.INSTALL NEW IT CLOSET AND SALVAGED DOOR.3.REINSTALL SALVAGED EXTERIOR DOOR AT NEW STAFF AREA ENTRY.4.INSTALL WALL AND SALVAGED DOOR AR STAFF BATHROOM.5.PROVIDE ELECTRIC AND LIGHTING PER ELECTRICAL PLANScaleDateDrawn ByChecked ByProject NumberSpaceIntoPlace Architecture + DesignGinny Gerhart McFarland, AIAEstes Park, ColoradoPhone: 303.731.3751Email: Ginny@SpaceIntoPlace.comDATE: 2018-01-10 - PRELIMINARY BUILDING PERMIT SETAs indicated1/10/2018 9:28:51 PMA111FIRST LEVEL REMODEL PLAN200 4th St, Estes Park, CO 80517Estes Park Museum RemodelVGMEM05.06.201716007-----0'2'4'8'16'NORTH 3/16" = 1'-0"A1111FIRST LEVEL REMODEL PLANNo. DescriptionDateReuse existingoverheadcoiling doorNew exhibitspaceHallway remainsopen. No newwalls.Existing wall anddoor remainDemo existing walland doorDemo existingwalls and doorDemo opening fornew full lite HMdoor and frame.Existing soffit remains.(2) new project screens move toopposite wallNew wall. Reusedouble door fromlobby as new entryinto Gift ShopExisting wallremains. Cutopening for coilingdoorDelete new reception deskNew paint on walls and ceilingNew carpet67
Options List
1 of 23
Project Name: Estes Park Museum Remodel $ 215,724 Base SD Budget Amount
Project #: 18031036 $ (35,859)Accepted Costs
9/6/2018 $ 179,865 Revised SD Budget Amount
$ (29,065)Pending Costs Total
$-Allowances Total (included in Base Budget Amount)
Item#Date Description of Item Team Member
Responsibility
Decision
needed by Pending Costs Accepted
Costs
Declined
Costs Allowance Decision Date Notes
01-0000 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
01-0010 8/1/18 Delete bond KR ($1,596)If not required by Town of Estes Park
01-0020 8/1/18 Delete construction fence KR ($1,994)($1,994)If exterior sitework is deleted from scope
01-0030 8/1/18 Delete general cleanup KR ($2,160)($2,160)Cleanup to be completed by contractor's onsite supervisor
01-0040 8/1/18 Delete final clean KR ($1,030)($1,030)Final clean to be paid for by owner
02-0000 EXISTING CONDITIONS
02-0010 8/1/18 Change concrete sidewalk to breeze KR $0
02-0020 8/1/18 Delete concrete sidewalk KR ($3,320)($3,320)This option can only be accepted if 09-0030 is also accepted
02-0030
03-0000 CONCRETE
03-0010
03-0020
04-0000 MASONRY
04-0010
04-0020
05-0000 METALS
05-0010
05-0020
06-0000 WOOD/PLASTICS/COMPOSITES
06-0010 8/1/18 Provide allowance for reception desk KR $2,587 Includes plam counter top and 3 sides
06-0020
07-0000 THERMAL/MOISTURE PROTECTION
07-0010
07-0020
08-0000 DOOR/WINDOWS
08-0010 8/1/18 Replace glazed operable partition with existing coiling
door KR ($13,814)($13,814)
08-0020
09-0000 DRYWALL/FINISHES
09-0010 8/1/18 Delete wood flooring KR ($6,446)($6,446)Delete wood floor border and replace with carpet
09-0020 8/1/18 New offices in Collections Room with new entry KR $23,032 $23,032 Create new office space in existing collections room
09-0030 8/1/18 Delete base bid work in existing office space KR ($8,025)($8,025)
09-0040 8/1/18 Delete acoustical cloud in lobby KR ($1,800)($1,800)
09-0050 8/1/18 Meeting Room - keep soffit, locate projecter screens
over windows KR $5,803 This item cannot be taken along with item 09-0060
09-0060 8/1/18 Meeting room - no base bid work completed KR ($583)($583)This item cannot be taken along with item 09-0050
09-0070 8/1/18 Gift Shop redesign KR ($9,782)($9,782)Extend lobby and provide new entrance to gift shop
09-0080 8/1/18 Adjust to new framing and drywall contractor KR $6,295 $6,295
09-0090 8/1/18 Adjust to new paint contractor KR ($2,360)($2,360)
10-0000 SPECIALTIES
10-0010
10-0020
11-0000 EQUIPMENT
11-0010 8/1/18 Reuse 8' projector screen KR ($1,757)($1,757)
11-0020
12-0000 FURNISHINGS
12-0010
68
Options List
2 of 23
12-0020
14-0000 CONVEYING EQUIPMENT
14-0010
14-0020
21-0000 FIRE SUPPRESSION
21-0010
21-0020
22-0000 PLUMBING
22-0010
22-0020
23-0000 HVAC
23-0010
23-0020
26-0000 ELECTRICAL
26-0010 8/1/18 Revised electrical allowance to fixed cost KR ($6,095)($6,095)Based on meeting with owner and electrical contractor dated
7/25/18
26-0020 8/1/18 Revised lighting allowance to fixed cost KR ($6,020)($6,020)Based on meeting with owner and electrical contractor dated
7/25/18
27-0000 COMMUNICATIONS
27-0010
27-0020
31-0000 EARTHWORK
31-0010
31-0020
32-0000 EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS
32-0010
32-0020
33-0000 UTILITIES
33-0010
33-0020
90-0000 CLOSED ITEMS
Item#Date Description of Item Team Member
Responsibility
Decision
needed by Pending Costs Accepted
Costs
Declined
Costs Allowance Decision Date Notes
69
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 00-0010 Date: 7/12/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal $0
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $0
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $0
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $0
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $0
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $0
TOTAL $0
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
70
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 01-0010 Bond Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
$0
Delete bond 1 ls ($1,596.00)($1,596)
Jon will confirm $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal ($1,596)
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,596)
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,596)
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,596)
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,596)
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,596)
TOTAL ($1,596)
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
71
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 01-0020 Construction Fence Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
$0
Delete construction fence 1 ls ($1,994.00)($1,994)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal ($1,994)
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,994)
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,994)
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,994)
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,994)
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,994)
TOTAL ($1,994)
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
72
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 01-0030 General Cleanup Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
$0
Delete general cleanup 1 ls ($2,160.00)($2,160)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal ($2,160)
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($2,160)
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($2,160)
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($2,160)
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($2,160)
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($2,160)
TOTAL ($2,160)
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
73
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 01-0040 Final Clean Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
$0
Delete final clean 1 ls ($1,030.00)($1,030)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal ($1,030)
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,030)
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,030)
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,030)
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,030)
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,030)
TOTAL ($1,030)
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
74
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 02-0020 Concrete to Breeze Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
$0
Delete concrete 1 ls ($3,320.00)($3,320)
Add breeze 1 ls $3,320.00 $3,320
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal $0
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $0
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $0
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $0
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $0
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $0
TOTAL $0
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
75
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 02-0030 Delete concrete walk Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
$0
Delete concrete 1 ls ($3,320.00)($3,320)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal ($3,320)
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($3,320)
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($3,320)
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($3,320)
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($3,320)
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($3,320)
TOTAL ($3,320)
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
76
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 06-0010 Reception Desk Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
$0
Delete reception desk - Alternate 1 ls $0.00 $0
Add countertop with supports 1 ls $2,587.00 $2,587
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal $2,587
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $2,587
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $2,587
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $2,587
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $2,587
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $2,587
TOTAL $2,587
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
77
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 08-0010 Coiling door Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
Delete structural steel support 1 ls ($2,250.00)($2,250)
Delete demo cost to remove coiling door 1 ls ($194.00)($194)
Delete glazed operable partition 1 ls ($14,060.00)($14,060)
Remove and relocate coiling door 1 ls $2,100.00 $2,100
Add wood material for framed opening 1 ls $230.00 $230
Add labor to install jamb support 8 mh $45.00 $360
Add drywall patch - in base bid 1 ls $0.00 $0
Add paint - in base bid 1 ls $0.00 $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal ($13,814)
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($13,814)
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($13,814)
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($13,814)
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($13,814)
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($13,814)
TOTAL ($13,814)
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
78
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 09-0010 Flooring Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
$0
Delete wood flooring at border 1 ls ($7,583.00)($7,583)
Add carpet at border 1 ls $1,137.00 $1,137
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal ($6,446)
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($6,446)
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($6,446)
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($6,446)
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($6,446)
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($6,446)
TOTAL ($6,446)
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
79
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 09-0020 Collections room Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
Delete base bid asbestos abatement 1 ls ($5,075.00)($5,075)
Asbestos Abatement 1 ls $7,456.00 $7,456
Demo wall for new entry and window 16 mh $45.00 $720
Sawcutting 1 ls $500.00 $500
Demo carpet - with asbestos removal 1 ls $0.00 $0
Patch masonry 16 lf $25.00 $400
Trim out window inside 1 ea $440.00 $440
Patch siding and install window 1 ls $480.00 $480
Add new full lite hollow metal door and
frame 1 ls $1,101.00 $1,101
(1) new window 1 ea $550.00 $550
Floor prep and new carpet 1 ls $2,090.00 $2,090
Framing, drywall, paint 1 ls $0.00 $0
Design/Build Electrical to include (4) data
drops, (12) outlets, new lighting 1 ls $12,115.00 $12,115
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal $20,777
Bond @ 0.074%$15
Subtotal $20,792
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.700%$146
Subtotal $20,938
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $20,938
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $20,938
Overhead Profit @ 10.000%$2,094
Subtotal $23,032
TOTAL $23,032
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
80
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 09-0030 Delete existing office Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
Delete demo of (3) existing doors 6 mh ($45.00)($270)
Delete demo of (5) windows 15 mh ($45.00)($675)
Delete demo of drywall 5 mh ($45.00)($225)
Delete siding patch at new door/window
openings 1 ls ($1,513.00)($1,513)
Delete installation of (3) windows 1 ls ($970.00)($970)
Delete Doors 5, 6 and 9 1 ls ($1,567.00)($1,567)
Delete door installation 1 ls ($360.00)($360)
Delete new framing and drywall 1 ls $0.00 $0
Delete new paint 1 ls $0.00 $0
Delete soffit to hide conduits 1 ls ($1,590.00)($1,590)
Delete new carpet 1 ls ($855.00)($855)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal ($8,025)
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($8,025)
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($8,025)
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($8,025)
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($8,025)
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($8,025)
TOTAL ($8,025)
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
81
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 09-0040 Acoustical Cloud Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
$0
Delete acoustical cloud 1 ls ($1,800.00)($1,800)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal ($1,800)
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,800)
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,800)
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,800)
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,800)
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,800)
TOTAL ($1,800)
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
82
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 09-0050 Meeting room Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
$0
Demo soffit 1 ls ($583.00)($583)
Delete drywall patch 1 ls $0.00 $0
Delete paint 1 ls $0.00 $0
Delete stain beams 1 ls $0.00 $0
Add projector extension arm 2 ea $95.00 $190
Add projector screens 1 ea $5,632.00 $5,632
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal $5,239
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $5,239
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.700%$37
Subtotal $5,276
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $5,276
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $5,276
Overhead Profit @ 10.000%$528
Subtotal $5,803
TOTAL $5,803
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
83
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 09-0060 Meeting room deduct Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
$0
Demo soffit 1 ls ($583)
Delete drywall patch 1 ls $0
Delete paint 1 ls $0
Delete stain beams 1 ls $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal ($583)
Bond @ 0.740%$0
Subtotal ($583)
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.700%$0
Subtotal ($583)
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($583)
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($583)
Overhead Profit @ 10.000%$0
Subtotal ($583)
TOTAL ($583)
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
84
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 09-0070 Gift shop Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
Revise framing, drywall and paint to new
wall configuration 1 ls $0.00 $0
Delete Door 2 and framed glass is exhibit
wall 1 ls ($9,782.00)($9,782)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal ($9,782)
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($9,782)
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($9,782)
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($9,782)
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($9,782)
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($9,782)
TOTAL ($9,782)
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
85
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 09-0080 Revised framing and drywall quote Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
$0
Delete base bid framing and drywall 1 ls ($9,086.00)($9,086)
Add framing and drywall for new design 1 ls $14,765.00 $14,765
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal $5,679
Bond @ 0.074%$4
Subtotal $5,683
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.700%$40
Subtotal $5,723
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $5,723
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal $5,723
Overhead Profit @ 10.000%$572
Subtotal $6,295
TOTAL $6,295
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
86
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 09-0090 Revised painting quote Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
$0
Delete base bid paint 1 ls ($6,816.00)($6,816)
Add paint for new design 1 ls $4,456.00 $4,456
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal ($2,360)
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($2,360)
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($2,360)
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($2,360)
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($2,360)
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($2,360)
TOTAL ($2,360)
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
87
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 11-0010 Projector screen Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
$0
Reuse existing projector screen 1 ls ($1,757.00)($1,757)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal ($1,757)
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,757)
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,757)
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,757)
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,757)
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($1,757)
TOTAL ($1,757)
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
88
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 26-0010 Revised electrical bid Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
Delete original base bid allowance 1 ls ($32,000.00)($32,000)
Add revised electrical base bid 1 ls $25,905.00 $25,905
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal ($6,095)
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($6,095)
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($6,095)
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($6,095)
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($6,095)
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($6,095)
TOTAL ($6,095)
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
89
Saunders Heath Job #18031036
Option # 26-0020 Revised lighting allowance Date: 8/1/2018
OPTION COST DETAIL
Description Cost Code Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Extension
Delete original lighting fixture allowance 1 ls ($15,000.00)($15,000)
Add revised lighting fixture bid 1 ls $8,980.00 $8,980
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal ($6,020)
Bond @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($6,020)
GL/Builders Risk/PL Insurance @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($6,020)
Construction Contingency @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($6,020)
Preconstruction @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($6,020)
Overhead Profit @ 0.000%$0
Subtotal ($6,020)
TOTAL ($6,020)
REQUESTED SCHEDULE EXTENSION:working days
APPROVED________REJECTED________
Signature - Owner Representative Date
90
FINANCE DEPARTMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director
Date: September 25, 2018
RE: 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER -Motion
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Obtain formal acceptance of the audit of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR), including the Single Audit Reports, for the year ended December 31, 2017.
Present Situation:
The Town of Estes Park has received the annual audit of its financial statements as
required by State Statute CRS 29-1-603 and, when applicable, the Federal Single Audit
Act. The CAFR has been posted online on the Finance webpage at:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark/comprehensive-annual-financial-
report
This audit covers both the Town’s operations and Visit Estes Park (VEP) as a required
component unit. Note 1 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies on page 12 of the CAFR
explains the inclusion of VEP.
Tyra Litzau, Audit Senior Manager with Anton Collins Mitchell, LLP (ACM) met with the audit
committee on August 23, 2018 at 8:00 am to review the CAFR and results of the audit. The
independent auditor’s 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).
Management comments are included in two locations, depending on the importance or nature of
the comment. During the audit, one material weakness was identified and it is found on page
92 of the CAFR. This comment was related to a duplicate accrual of an accounts payable
invoice, one accrual entry made as part of the accounts payable process and the other as a
manual journal entry. These entries were made by separate staff so the duplication was not
91
caught until the auditors arrived. A special task has been added to the year-end processes to
watch for this type of issue.
General management comments and suggestions not requiring inclusion in the CAFR
are reported in a separate management letter dated August 23, 2018. There were two
comments in the separate management letter, one relating to certified payrolls from
subcontractors on the Parking Garage and another relating to an accrual entry missed
in in the prior year. These were discussed in more detail during the audit committee
meeting.
This was the first year the audit was performed by Anton Collins Mitchell, LLP. In
addition to helping prepare the CAFR, this CPA firm also prepares a benchmarking
report called the “Beyond the Numbers” report which compares the Town’s operations
against selected other entities. This report generated quite a bit of discussion within the
audit committee. A few wording tweaks were requested on this report, resulting in
delaying this presentation from Sept 11th to Sept 25th. This report has been included in
the attachment of this agenda item for your reference.
To comply with State Statute filing deadlines and also the Single Audit filing deadlines,
the CAFR has already been filed with the appropriate agencies. This action item is to
formally acknowledge the receipt of the audit by the Town Board, as recommended by
the audit committee.
Proposal:
Approve the audit committee’s recommendation to accept the audit report and CAFR as
presented.
Advantages:
Compliance with State Statutes, bond covenants, and grantor requirements.
Disadvantages:
None identified.
Action Recommended:
The audit committee referred the acceptance of the audit report and CAFR for the year
ended Dec 31, 2017 to the Town Board for consideration.
Finance/Resource Impact:
The audit is an ongoing annual obligation budgeted in the following accounts:
101-1500-415-22-01
502-6501-560-22-01
503-6500-560-22-01
The total audit fee for the 2017 audit was $42,500 and was within the budgeted amount.
92
Level of Public Interest
Limited public interest has been expressed to date.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of acceptance of the audit report and Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 2017.
Attachments:
Attachment A: 2017 Management Comment Letter
Attachment B: 2017 Beyond the Numbers
Attachment C: 2017 Audit Wrap Up Communication
2017 CAFR – Hard copy distributed separately & available online at:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark/comprehensive-annual-financial-
report
93
August 23, 2018
Finance Department of the
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
During the course of our audit of the financial statements of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado
(the “Town”) for the year ended December 31, 2017, we observed the Town’s significant
accounting policies and procedures and certain business, financial, and administrative practices.
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the Town as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2017, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the
United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, we considered the Town’s internal
control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing our auditing procedures
for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of
expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Town’s internal control. Accordingly, we do
not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Town’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to
prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a
deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material
weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with. A material weakness
is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a
reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the Town’s financial statements will not
be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the second
paragraph of this letter and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control that
might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses.
As a result of our observations, we have the following suggestions for improving the existing
internal control. These matters did not affect the fair presentation of the financial statements.
Davis Bacon Grant Requirements
For certain construction projects that are reimbursed by federal funding, the Town is required
to obtain certified payrolls from the contractors and subcontractors that perform construction
work for the project. During our Single Audit procedures, we found that the Town had not
received all of the certified payrolls from the contractor and subcontractors for the Estes Park
Transit Facility Parking Structure. The Town did confirm with the contractor that during the
periods not received, no work was conducted for the project. However, the contractor and
subcontractors should provide a certified payroll in these instances that states that no work was
performed. In addition, we noted that the Town completed its review of the submitted certified
payrolls in September and October 2017. We recommend that the Town ensure that it receives
certified payrolls for all weeks under the project, even when there is no work performed. IN
addition, we recommend that the Town review certified payrolls when submitted to allow the
Town to resolve identified issues in a timely manner.
Attachment A
94
Open Space Tax Revenue
During our testing of open space revenue, we noted that the Town had not accrued revenues
received in February 2017 relating to 2016 as accounts receivable in 2016 totaling approximately
$40,000. As a result, the Town had thirteen months of revenue recorded for open space tax
revenue received from Larimer County in 2017. We recommend that the Town implement a
review of revenue recorded to ensure that revenues that are received monthly are recorded in
the proper fiscal year.
* * * * *
We will be happy discuss with you the above recommendations and their implementation at your
convenience.
This communication is intended solely for the information and use of management and others
within the organization and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than
these specified parties.
We appreciate the outstanding cooperation from your staff that our personnel received during
the audit of the Town’s financial statements.
Very truly yours,
Anton Collins Mitchell LLP
Attachment A
95
“Beyond the Numbers”
A Closer Look into the Financial and Non-
financial Data for the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado
Prepared by: Anton Collins Mitchell LLP
Date: September 25, 2018
This presentation was prepared as part
of our audit, has consequential
limitations, is restricted to those
charged with governance and, if
appropriate, management and should
not be used by anyone other than those
specified parties
Attachment B
96
September 25, 2018
Mr. Duane Hudson
Finance Director
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Dear Mr. Hudson, Honorable Mayor and Members of Town Board of Trustees:
In the pages that follow this cover letter, we have summarized information extracted from the Town of
Estes Park, Colorado’s (the “Town”) annual report, in a manner that will present how the Town’s
financial ratios and statistics have changed over the past three years, and also how these same ratios
and statistics compare to other municipal organizations similar to yours.
We have compiled data from three (3) municipal organizations in the State of Colorado, primarily from
the ski towns and other mountain communities, with populations between approximately 2,500 and
12,700, with an average of approximately 8,400. These 3 municipal organizations are the City of
Steamboat Springs, City of Glenwood Springs, and Town of Telluride.
We have also included in this presentation, discussion that should help you understand what these ratios
mean, and interpret the trends observed, as well as the Town’s information in relation to comparative
market data.
If at any point, you’d desire to discuss this information further, we are always available.
Sincerely,
Anton Collins Mitchell LLP
Attachment B
97
Contents
Organization ............................................................................................................. 4
Profile .................................................................................................................. 4
Government-Wide Information ........................................................................................ 5
Change in Net Position as a Percentage of Net Position ....................................................... 5
Revenue Coverage Ratio ............................................................................................ 6
Unrestricted Net Position as a Percentage of Current Year Revenues ....................................... 7
Accumulated Depreciation as a Percent of Depreciable Capital Assets ..................................... 8
Liquidity Ratio ........................................................................................................ 9
Debt to Assets Leverage Ratio ..................................................................................... 10
Total Debt Per Capita ............................................................................................... 11
Tax Revenue Per Capita ............................................................................................ 12
Total Grants, Contributions and Other Intergovernmental Revenue as a Percent of Total Revenues . 13
Total Expense Per Capita .......................................................................................... 14
Total General Government (Administration) Expense Per Capita ........................................... 15
Total Public Safety Expense Per Capita .......................................................................... 16
Total Interest Expense Per Capita ................................................................................ 17
Governmental Fund Information ..................................................................................... 18
Total Debt Service Expenditures as a Percent of Total Revenue ............................................ 18
Capital Outlay Expenditures as a Percent of Total Expenditures ............................................ 19
General Fund Information ............................................................................................ 20
Unassigned Fund Balance as a Percent of Total Revenues .................................................... 20
Intergovernmental Revenue as a Percent of Total Revenue .................................................. 21
Transfers In as a Percent of Total Revenues and Transfers In ............................................... 22
Capital Asset Analysis ................................................................................................. 23
Governmental Activities ............................................................................................ 23
Business-type Activities ............................................................................................ 24
Debt Service Analysis .................................................................................................. 25
Debt Profile .......................................................................................................... 25
Future Maturities .................................................................................................... 26
Attachment B
98
4 Organization The ratios, percentages, and per capita data presented herein are organized into three different sections, starting at the most macro level; the government-wide statements, drilling down next to the governmental funds financial statement level, followed by a more micro level, the General fund financial statements. There is a fourth section which presents future debt service obligations for the business-type and governmental activities, and analyzes the current aging of capital assets for the business-type and governmental activities. The formula used to calculate the ratio, percentage or per capita data is first described, then the data is presented, and finally additional interpretation is discussed. The interpretation of the data is largely derived from our understanding of the organization, heavily supplemented by discussions with senior-level management with the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the “Town”). Profile 1 The 2017 census data was extracted from the Town’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (“CAFR”). Municipality: Town of Estes Park, Colorado Population: 6,3391 Peer Group Size: 2,500 – 12,700 # of Municipalities included in peer group: Three Average Population of Peer Group: 8,386 Largest Population in Peer Group: 12,698 Smallest Population in Peer Group: 2,552 Attachment B99
5 Government-Wide Information Change in Governmental Activities Net Position as a Percentage of Net Position Current Year Change in Net Position --------------------------------------------------- Net Position at the Beginning of the year The change in net position as a percentage of beginning net position provides an indication of whether the financial condition of the municipal organization is improving or deteriorating. This analysis focuses on the change in net position for the governmental activities of the Town. During 2017, the Town’s change in net position was more than the peer group. A significant portion of the Town’s increase in 2017 is due to the construction of large capital assets during 2017, including the parking garage and Fish Creek Road. Attachment B100
6 Revenue Coverage Ratio Governmental Activities Current Year Revenue ----------------------------------------------------------------- Governmental Activities Current Year Expenses This ratio indicates whether the Town’s current revenues are sufficient to provide for annual expenditures. When the ratio exceeds 1.00 : 1, revenues generated from citizens are sufficient to provide for the costs of services received. When the ratio falls below 1.00 : 1, the Town is using net position to fund operations. In 2015 and 2017, the Town’s revenue coverage was greater than the peer group and in 2016 it was less than the peer group. However, the ratio has exceeded 1.00 :1, which indicates that revenues have been sufficient to cover costs. Attachment B101
7 Unrestricted Net Position as a Percentage of Current Year Revenues Governmental Activities Unrestricted Net Position -------------------------------------------------------------- Governmental Activities Current Year Revenues This measures the municipal organization’s ability to sustain an interruption in revenues. For example, a percentage of 25% would indicate that the municipal organization would be able to continue to function at full capacity for a period of approximately three months. The GFOA recommends at least two months in unrestricted net position. The average for the peer group was almost 7.5 months 2017. The Town exceeded the GFOA recommendations in 2015 and 2016. The Town’s governmental activities have used a significant amount of its net position to pay for Fish Creek Road flood damage repair costs which were eventually reimbursed by a FHWA grant later in 2018. In 2017, the Town had restrictions of net position totaling almost $5.3 million for capital projects, parks and recreation and emergencies, or over 8 percent of total net position. The peer group’s restricted net position ranged from less than 1 percent to almost 13 percent of total net position. Attachment B102
8 Accumulated Depreciation as a Percent of Depreciable Capital Assets Governmental Activities Accumulated Depreciation --------------------------------------------------------------- Governmental Activities Depreciable Capital Assets This measures the approximate age of depreciable capital assets. A lower percentage indicates a longer remaining average life of capital assets, and presumably a reduced level of repairs and maintenance. A higher percentage indicates that capital asset replacements or repairs are more likely in the near term. The Town of Estes Park has a relatively higher percentage than the peer group indicating that capital assets are aging at a faster rate than replacement is occurring. The capital assets have less than half of the original estimated useful life remaining. This highlights the importance of continued investment in roads, streets and other governmental asset repairs and replacements. Attachment B103
9 Liquidity Ratio Governmental Activities Liquid Assets ------------------------------------------------------ Governmental Activities Current Liabilities This ratio measures your ability to meet the demands of current obligations from existing cash and liquid investments. A higher ratio indicates that the municipal organization is better positioned to meet current obligations, and anything above 1.00 : 1 is considered acceptable, as it means the Town is not illiquid. Maintaining a 1.00 : 1 position should be considered a baseline threshold in cash management considerations. The Town has experienced a significant amount of construction activity relating to flood recovery repairs and the construction of the new parking garage. Due to the timing of the construction activity and related payments, the Town had recorded liabilities for activity that had been incurred prior to the end of the year but was paid after year-end. These large one-time accounts payable negatively impacts this ratio but are unavoidable when capital projects overlap years. Attachment B104
10 Debt to Assets Leverage Ratio Governmental Activities Total Debt ----------------------------------------------- Governmental Activities Total Assets This ratio measures how much of your assets have been financed using debt versus accumulated earnings (Net Position). It is generally considered favorable to have a lower ratio, and anything less than 0.25 : 1 would be considered acceptable. This ratio was considerably less than the peer group in 2015 and 2016. In 2017, the Town entered into a Lease Purchase Agreement to finance the Estes Park Visitor Center Parking Garage. Capital asset balances comprise the majority of the balance in total assets, which are reduced by depreciation expense. Major capital improvements commonly require debt financing, so monitoring the remaining useful lives and the relative age of infrastructure and major capital assets serves to predict future borrowing requirements. See additional discussions above under “Accumulated Depreciation as a Percentage of Depreciable Capital Assets,” and in later sections of this report. Attachment B105
11 Total Debt Per Capita Governmental Activities Total Debt --------------------------------------------- Population This measures the level of debt burden for which your citizens are responsible. A lower amount improves your ability to borrow future funds at a lower overall cost. The Town of Estes Park debt burden increased in 2017 with the additional of the Lease Purchase Agreement; however, it remains lower than the peer group. See additional discussion above under, “Debt to Assets Leverage Ratio.” Attachment B106
12 Tax Revenue Per Capita Governmental Activities Tax Revenue ----------------------------------------------- Population This measures how much tax each of your citizens is responsible for paying annually. A lower rate is considered favorable, as it indicates that the municipality is better positioned to raise taxes to meet future financial needs. The Town of Estes Park has seen increased taxes paid from 2015 to 2017. For the Town, tax revenues include sales, property, franchise fees, use, lodging and other taxes. The peer group tax revenues include the same sources of taxes. The Town received minimal property taxes during 2017. Both sales tax and franchise fees disproportionally benefit the citizens of the Town, as they can be significantly sourced from outside of the Town’s boundaries (i.e. citizens of other communities’ spending money within the Town of Estes Park). Compared to the Town’s peer group, taxes per citizen are lower by 15.2%. Attachment B107
13 Total Grants, Contributions and Other Intergovernmental Revenue as a Percent of Total Revenues Governmental Activities Operating and Capital Grants/Contributions + Other Intergovernmental Revenue -------------------------------------------------------------------- Governmental Activities Current Year Revenues This measures your reliance on grants, contributions and other outside sources of financing. Generally, a lower ratio is considered encouraging, as it indicates that the municipality is less dependent on sources that are considered unreliable and unpredictable. This ratio can vary depending on the availability of grants and contributions and the Town’s needs. Over the past three years, the Town of Estes Park has received significantly more of these sources of revenues than the peer group, largely related to the numerous flood repair grants. Attachment B108
14 Total Expense Per Capita Governmental Activities Total Expense ------------------------------------------------ Population This measures the average level of cost necessary to provide services to each citizen. Generally, a lower cost per citizen is considered favorable. However, great care should be taken when considering this measure compared to other municipalities or even on a year over year basis. Major factors contributing to this amount include the quality of services provided, and the types of services available to the municipalities’ citizens (i.e. fire protection, parks and recreation, and other services). The Town of Estes Park has increased the level of costs per citizen over the last three years. The Town of Estes Park is a full service government that provides police, public works, culture and recreation to its citizens. The costs are approximately 6 percent greater than the peer group, but not all municipalities in this peer group provide the same level of services. Attachment B109
15 Total General Government (Administration) Expense Per Capita Governmental Activities Total General Government (Administration) Expense -------------------------------------------------------------- Population This measures the average cost per citizen for the delivery of general administrative services. As noted above, a lower amount is generally considered positive; however, the level and quality of services provided significantly affects this number. The trend for these costs is similar to total expenses. General administrative services for the Town include legislative, judicial, executive, administrative, financial administration, community development, facilities, community services and other. Compared to the peer group, the Town of Estes Park’s costs are higher; however, not all municipalities in this peer group provide the same level of services and some of the municipalities recorded expenses for community development and community services in other categories other than general administrative services. Attachment B110
16 Total Public Safety Expense Per Capita Governmental Activities Total Public Safety Expense ------------------------------------------------------------- Population This measures the average cost per citizen for the delivery of public safety services. As noted above, a lower amount is generally considered positive; however, the level and quality of services provided significantly affects this number. These costs have increased from 2015 to 2017. Compared to the peer group, the Town of Estes Park’s costs are higher in 2016 and 2017 (approximately 13% in 2017). The Town includes protective inspection costs under public safety, in addition to police services, while the peer group only reports police services in 2017. Attachment B111
17 Total Interest Expense Per Capita Governmental Activities Total Interest Expense ------------------------------------------------------------ Population Like the debt ratio, this measures the average debt service burden per citizen. A lower amount is considered favorable and generally indicates lower debt service costs (i.e. lower effective interest rate, or less debt). The Town’s interest cost per citizen is considerably lower than the peer group, primarily due to the significantly higher debt load per citizen in the peer group (see analysis on pg. 11). Attachment B112
18 Governmental Fund Information Total Debt Service Expenditures as a Percent of Total Revenue Governmental Funds Total Debt Service Expenditures --------------------------------------------------------------- Governmental Funds Total Revenue This measures the level of current year revenues that are dedicated to meeting the debt service requirements, thereby reducing the amount of revenues available for other services/needs. The Town of Estes Park’s debt service is lower than the peer group. Attachment B113
19 Capital Outlay Expenditures as a Percent of Total Expenditures Governmental Funds Total Capital Outlay Expenditures --------------------------------------------------------------- Governmental Funds Total Expenditures This measures the amount of capital asset expenditures, relative to overall expenditures. Generally, this number fluctuates based on the capital improvement needs of the municipality. The relative age of capital assets may serve as a leading indicator for predicting fluctuations in this number. The Town of Estes Park has seen fluctuations over the past three years, and has remained above the average of the peer group in 2016 and 2017. The Town has incurred significant capital acquisitions relating to the Fish Creek Road flood repairs and the Parking garage design and construction. Attachment B114
20 General Fund Information Unassigned Fund Balance as a Percent of Total Revenues General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance ------------------------------------------------- General Fund Total Revenues This serves as an indicator of the how much of the annual expenditures of the municipality would be covered if the collection of revenues ceased for an indeterminable period of time. Higher percentages are generally viewed positively. However, excessive fund balances may be viewed by citizens as an unnecessary accumulation of resources, barring any planned major improvements. In 2015 and 2016, the Town of Estes Park has maintained a consistent percentage of unassigned fund balance. This decreased in 2017 due to the expenditures incurred for the Fish Creek Road flood repairs where expenditures were incurred in 2017 that were reimbursed in 2018. Expressed in terms of days, the Town had approximately 74 days, 98 days, and 11 days of annual expenditures in unassigned fund balance as of December 31, 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively. This is compared to 148 days for the Peer Group Average as of December 31, 2017. The GFOA generally recommends an unassigned fund balance of two months, or approximately 60 days. Attachment B115
21 Intergovernmental Revenue as a Percent of Total Revenue General Fund Intergovernmental Revenue -------------------------------------------------- General Fund Total Revenue This ratio reveals the portion of the general fund’s finances that are covered by external sources. A lower percentage is considered favorable as it indicates a reduced reliance on external sources. Over the three year period ending December 31, 2017, the Town of Estes Park’s dependence on intergovernmental revenues has been consistent ranging from 10 percent to a little over 15 percent. The Town has continually been higher than the average of the peer group due to grant related revenues for flood projects and the construction of the parking garage. The intergovernmental revenue is generally capital grants and not operating grants. Attachment B116
22 Transfers In as a Percent of Total Revenues and Transfers In General Fund Transfers In ------------------------------------------------------- General Fund Total Revenues and Transfers In This ratio measures the General Funds reliance on other funds to finance current operations. Higher numbers generally indicate an unfavorable reliance on funding from other funds. The Town of Estes Park has maintained a relatively consistent level of General Fund finances coming from other funds. The Town’s percentage is higher than the peer group, as the Light and Power and Water Funds have subsidized the General Fund out of surplus revenues. Attachment B117
23 Capital Asset Analysis The following analysis presents capital asset balances; cost and accumulated depreciation, and estimates the remaining useful lives by dividing depreciation expense into total net book value by category. This information can be compared to the range of estimated useful lives by category to get a general perspective for how soon assets may require replacement. This is a leading indicator of imminent major capital expenditures. Governmental Activities Depreciable Lives CostAccumulated Depreciation Net Book Value2017 Depreciation ExpenseAverage Remaining LifeGovernmental ActivitiesCapital Assets Being DepreciatedBuildings30 - 40 years 23,525,777$ (10,143,336)$ 13,382,441$ 655,628$ 20.41 YearsInfrastructure25 - 50 years 121,983,862 (86,396,448) 35,587,414 1,721,104 20.68 YearsMachinery and equipment5 - 25 years 8,660,096 (5,130,333) 3,529,763 686,911 5.14 YearsTotals154,169,735$ (101,670,117)$ 52,499,618$ 3,063,643$ Attachment B118
24 Business-type Activities Depreciable Lives CostAccumulated Depreciation Net Book Value2017 Depreciation ExpenseAverage Remaining LifeBusiness-type ActivitiesCapital Assets Being DepreciatedBuildings30 - 40 years 10,266,186$ (3,685,925)$ 6,580,261$ 284,844$ 23.1 YearsInfrastructure25 - 50 years 34,938,064 (14,575,326) 20,362,738 762,312 26.71 YearsMachinery and equipment5 - 25 years 15,155,586 (8,577,506) 6,578,080 406,789 16.17 YearsTotals60,359,836$ (26,838,757)$ 33,521,079$ 1,453,945$ Attachment B119
25 Debt Service Analysis Debt Profile Description Balance Interest Rate Maturity S&P Credit Rating2 Governmental Activities: Certificates of Participation $ 4,540,000 2.430% 2028 Unrated Capital Lease 121,149 3.240% 2019 Unrated Lease Purchase Agreement (including premium) 4,427,381 4.500% 2032 Unrated Business-type Activities: 2007 Light and Power Bonds 3,655,000 3.875% 2027 AA- 2008A Water Loan 3,502,117 3.260% 2028 Unrated $ 16,245,647 2 Based on a rating per the Standard & Poor’s rating website www.standardandpoors.com. The definition for “AA” is, “Very strong capacity to meet financial commitments.” The Definition for “Stable” is, “rating is not likely to change." Attachment B120
26 Future Maturities The following charts are a graphical depiction of future debt maturities, principal and interest, and serve to demonstrate the future funding requirements resulting from debt obligations. Governmental Activities Attachment B121
27 Business-type Activities Attachment B122
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
Audit Wrap Up
September 25, 2018
This presentation was prepared as part of our audit, has consequential
limitations, is restricted to those charged with governance and, if
appropriate, management, and is not intended and should not
be used by anyone other than those specified parties.
DATE
Attachment C
123
September 25, 2018
Board of Trustees
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Professional standards require us to communicate with you regarding matters related to the audit,
that are, in our professional judgment, significant and relevant to your responsibilities in
overseeing the financial reporting process. We presented an overview of our plan for the audit of
the financial statements of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the “Town”) as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2017, including a summary of our overall objectives for the audit, and the
nature, scope, and timing of the planned audit work.
This communication is intended to elaborate on the significant findings from our audit, including
our views on the qualitative aspects of the Town’s accounting practices and policies,
management’s judgments and estimates, financial statement disclosures, and other required
matters.
We are pleased to be of service to the Town and look forward to meeting with you on September
25, 2018 to discuss our audit findings, as well as other matters that may be of interest to you,
and to answer any questions you might have.
Respectfully,
Anton Collins Mitchell LLP
Attachment C
124
Discussion Outline
Page
Status of Our Audit .................................................................................................... 3
Results of Our Audit ................................................................................................... 4
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting ........................................................................ 6
Other Required Communications ................................................................................... 7
Independence Communication ...................................................................................... 8
GASB Standards Effective in 2017 .................................................................................. 9
GASB Standards Effective in 2018 -2020 ......................................................................... 10
Attachment C
125
3
AUDIT WRAP-UP – DECEMBER 31, 2017
Status of Our Audit
We have completed our audit of the financial statements and federal awards as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2017. Our audit was conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in
the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards. This audit of the financial statements
does not relieve management or those charged with governance of their responsibilities.
The objective of our audit was to obtain reasonable - not absolute - assurance about whether the
financial statements are free from material misstatements.
The scope of the work performed was substantially the same as that described to you in our earlier
Audit Planning communications.
We issued an unmodified opinion on the financial statements and released our report on July 31,
2018.
We issued a report on our consideration of the Town’s internal control over financial reporting and
compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements in
accordance with Government Auditing Standards and a report on the compliance with requirements
that could have a direct and material effect on each major program and on internal control in
accordance the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance). We did not identify any deficiencies that we consider to be material weaknesses that could
have a direct and material effect on major federal programs for the year ended December 31, 2017.
Our responsibility for other information in documents containing the Town’s audited financial
statements does not extend beyond the financial information identified in the audit report, and we
are not required to perform procedures to corroborate such other information. However, in
accordance with professional standards, we have read the information included by the Town and
considered whether such information, or the manner of its presentation, was materially inconsistent
with its presentation in the financial statements. Our responsibility also includes calling to
management’s attention any information that we believe is a material misstatement of fact. We have
not identified any material inconsistencies or concluded there are any material misstatements of
facts in the other information that management has chosen not to correct.
All records and information requested by Anton Collins Mitchell LLP (“ACM”) were freely available for
our inspection.
Management’s cooperation was excellent. We received full access to all information that we
requested while performing our audit, and we acknowledge the full cooperation extended to us by
all levels of Town personnel throughout the course of our work.
Attachment C
126
4
AUDIT WRAP-UP – DECEMBER 31, 2017
Results of Our Audit
ACCOUNTING PRACTICES, POLICIES, AND ESTIMATES
The following summarizes the more significant required communications related to our audit concerning
the Town’s accounting practices, policies, and estimates:
The Town’s significant accounting practices and policies are those included in Note 1 to the financial
statements. These accounting practices and policies are appropriate, comply with generally accepted
accounting principles and industry practice, were consistently applied, and are adequately described within
Note 1 to the financial statements.
There were no changes in significant accounting policies and practices during 2017.
Significant estimates are those that require management’s most difficult, subjective, or complex
judgments, often as a result of the need to make estimates about the effects of matters that are inherently
uncertain. The Town’s significant accounting estimates, including a description of management’s processes
and significant assumptions used in development of the estimates, are disclosed in Note 1 of the financial
statements.
Management did not make any significant changes to the processes or significant assumptions used
to develop the significant accounting estimates in 2017.
Primary Areas of Focus and Considerations and Findings
Revenue Recognition: The Town’s major source of revenues consists of property taxes, sales and
use taxes, intergovernmental grants and contributions, and charges for services. The Town records
revenues when earned. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied.
Grants and similar items are recognized as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider
have been met.
Accounts Receivable and Allowances: Accounts receivable represents amounts due from citizens
and businesses for property and sales taxes, customers for utilities and other governmental entities.
Capital Assets and Depreciation: Capital assets of the Town continue to be a significant area of
the financial statements. Accordingly, as part of the audit, we paid particular attention to the costs of
newly acquired assets, repairs and maintenance expenditures on existing capital assets, and the
depreciation expense of these assets.
Long-term Obligations: The Town currently has outstanding obligations consisting of a certificate
of participation, capital lease and lease purchase agreement in its governmental activities totaling
almost $9.1 million. In addition, the Town has light and water bonds and a water loan totaling almost
$7.2 million in its business-type activities. Accordingly, we have applied certain procedures over
balances, future maturities, and accrued interest associated with the applicable leases, along with
compliance with the lease agreements. It appears that the Town is properly accounting for these
obligations.
Pension Reporting: The Town has a defined benefit plan administered by the Public Employees’
Retirement Association of Colorado (“PERA”). The PERA plan is a multiple-employer defined benefit
plans. The Town has reported their proportionate share of the collective amounts for the plan as a
whole. In addition, changes in the net pension asset and net pension liability were recognized as
pension expense or reported as deferred outflows/inflows of resources depending on the nature of
change.
Attachment C
127
5
AUDIT WRAP-UP – DECEMBER 31, 2017
Results of Our Audit
Evaluation of Going Concern: No going concern issues were noted during our audit.
Evaluation of Estimates: Estimates were determined to be reasonable and free of bias.
Single Audit Procedures: Because the Town expended more than $750,000 of federal grant funds,
the Town was subject to a single audit pursuant to the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of
Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards (“Uniform Guidance”). Accordingly, ACM performed procedures on
internal controls, and certain compliance requirements associated with the Town’s major federal
awards.
CORRECTED AND UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS
Please refer to the schedule of corrected misstatements or Adjusting Journal Entries (“AJEs”).
Please refer to the schedule of uncorrected misstatements. We concur with management’s assessment that
the effects of not recording such adjustments are, both individually and in aggregate, immaterial to the
consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, considering both qualitative and quantitative factors.
QUALITY OF THE TOWN’S FINANCIAL REPORTING
A discussion was held regarding the quality of the Town’s financial reporting, which included the following:
Qualitative aspects of significant accounting policies and practices
Our assessment of critical accounting policies and practices
Our conclusions regarding significant accounting estimates
Significant unusual transactions
Financial statement presentation
New accounting pronouncements
Alternative accounting treatments
Attachment C
128
6
AUDIT WRAP-UP – DECEMBER 31, 2017
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the Town’s internal control
over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose
of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on
the effectiveness of the Town’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the
effectiveness of the Town’s internal control.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described above and was not designed to
identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses.
We are required to communicate, in writing, to those charged with governance all material weaknesses and
significant deficiencies that have been identified in the Town’s internal controls over financial reporting.
The definitions of control deficiency, significant deficiency and material weakness follow:
Category Definition
Deficiency in Internal
Control
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a
control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of
performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct
misstatements on a timely basis.
Significant Deficiency
A deficiency or combination of deficiencies in internal control that is less
severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention
by those charged with governance.
Material Weakness
A deficiency or combination of deficiencies in internal control, such that
there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the
District’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and
corrected on a timely basis.
In conjunction with our audit of the financial statements, we noted the following material weakness:
Material Weakness Comments
Adjusting Journal Entry
During our testing, we noted that the Town had recorded $724,945
as both a reconciling item on its cash account and as an accounts
payable. As a result, cash was understated and the related expense
was overstated in the Town’s accounting records. We recommend
the Town implement a process over the review of significant
reconciling items on the bank reconciliations and year-end accruals
to ensure that amounts are properly recorded.
We have communicated to management of the Town, in a separate letter, control deficiencies that were
identified as a result of our audit that we did not consider to be material weaknesses or significant
deficiencies.
Attachment C
129
7
AUDIT WRAP-UP – DECEMBER 31, 2017
Other Required Communications
Following is a summary of those required items, along with specific discussion points as they pertain to the
Town:
Requirement Discussion Points
Significant changes to planned
audit strategy or significant risks
initially identified
There were no significant changes to the planned audit strategy or
significant risks initially identified and previously communicated to
those charged with governance as part of our Audit Planning
communications.
Obtain information from those
charged with governance
relevant to the audit
There were no matters noted relevant to the audit, including, but not
limited to: violations or possible violations of laws or regulations; risk
of material misstatements, including fraud risks; or tips or complaints
regarding the Town’s financial reporting that we were made aware
of as a result of our inquiry of those charged with governance.
If applicable, nature and extent
of specialized skills or knowledge
needed related to significant
risks
There were no specialized skills or knowledge needed, outside of the
core engagement team, to perform the planned audit procedures or
evaluate audit results related to significant risks.
Consultations with other
accountants
We are not aware of any consultations about significant accounting
or auditing matters between management and other accountants
where we have identified a concern regarding such matters.
Our evaluation of the Town’s
relationships and transactions
with related parties and their
impact on the financial
statements
We have evaluated the Town’s process to identify, authorize and
approve, account for, and disclose its relationships and transactions
with related parties and noted no significant issues.
Disagreements with management There were no disagreements with management about matters,
whether or not satisfactorily resolved, that individually or in
aggregate could be significant to the Town’s financial statements or
to our auditor’s report.
Significant difficulties
encountered during the audit
There were no significant difficulties encountered during the audit.
If applicable, other matters
significant to the oversight of the
Town’s financial reporting
process, including complaints or
concerns regarding accounting or
auditing matters
There are no other matters that we consider significant to the
oversight of the Town’s financial reporting process that have not been
previously communicated.
Representations requested from
management
Please refer to the management representation letter.
Attachment C
130
8
AUDIT WRAP-UP – DECEMBER 31, 2017
Independence Communication
Our engagement letter to you dated January 4, 2018 describes our responsibilities in accordance with
professional standards and certain regulatory authorities and Government Auditing Standards with regard
to independence and the performance of our services. This letter also stipulates the responsibilities of the
Town with respect to independence as agreed to by the Town. Please refer to that letter for further
information.
Attachment C
131
9
AUDIT WRAP-UP – DECEMBER 31, 2017
GASB Standards Effective in 2017
GASB STATEMENT NO. 74, ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR
POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PLANS (OPEB) OTHER THAN PENSION PLANS
Provides reporting requirements for OPEB plans and applies to both defined benefit and defined
contribution plans administered through trusts that meet certain criteria:
1.Contributions are irrevocable,
2.Plan assets are dedicated to providing benefits according to the plan terms,
3.Plan assets are legally protected from creditors.
Guidance is also provided for plans not held in trust.
The requirements follow GASB 67, requiring the statement of net positon and statement of changes
in fiduciary net positon as well as the same RSI schedules.
The pronouncement will be effective starting with years ending June 30, 2017.
GASB STATEMENT NO. 80, BLENDING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN COMPONENT UNITS,
AN AMENDMENT OF GASB 14
Specifies that a component unit incorporated as a nonprofit when the primary government is the
sole member would be reported by the primary government as a blended component unit.
The pronouncement will be effective starting with years ending June 30, 2017.
GASB STATEMENT NO. 82, PENSION ISSUES
Addresses three issues that arose during implementation of GASB 67 and 68.
1.The first relates to the definition of covered payroll included in Required Supplementary
Information. Covered payroll is compensation paid to employees on which contributions are
based.
2.The pronouncement also clarifies that a deviation from actuarial standards is not considered
to be in conformity with the requirements of GASB 67 or 68 for selection of assumptions in
determining the total pension liability.
3.The last issue relates to employer-paid member contributions, commonly referred to as
employer “pick-up”. When an employer pays contributions on behalf of members they should
be classified as member contributions for GASB 67 plan statements and as employee
contributions for GASB 68 reporting and included in salary expense.
The pronouncement will be effective starting with years ending June 30, 2017.
GASB STATEMENT NO. 81, IRREVOCABLE SPLIT-INTEREST AGREEMENTS
Will require governments to recognize assets, liabilities and deferred inflows at fair value when the
government is a beneficiary of an irrevocable split-interest agreement.
Examples include charitable lead trusts, charitable remainder trusts and life-interest in real estate.
The pronouncement will be effective starting with years ending December 31, 2017.
Attachment C
132
10
AUDIT WRAP-UP – DECEMBER 31, 2017
GASB Standards Effective in 2018 -2020
GASB STATEMENT NO. 75, ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR
POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS OTHER THAN PENSIONS
Establishes measurement criteria for the Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB) liability of state
and local governments and mirrors the requirements of GASB 68.
For plans administered through trust governments must recognize the net OPEB liability.
For plans not administered through trust the government must recognize the total OPEB liability.
The pronouncement will be effective starting with years ending June 30, 2018.
GASB STATEMENT NO. 83, CERTAIN ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS
Establishes measurement criteria for recording a liability for the retirement or removal of certain
assets such as:
Nuclear power plants
Sewage treatment facilities
Coal-fired power plant
Wind turbines
X-ray machines
Governments with legal obligations to perform future asset retirement activities related to its
tangible capital assets would be required to recognize a liability.
A liability and corresponding deferred outflow is recorded when the liability is both incurred and
reasonable estimable.
The liability is based on best estimate of current value of outlays expected to be incurred.
Must be both an external obligating event, such as a court judgment or federal, state or local law;
and an internal obligating event, such as contamination or retirement.
The pronouncement will be effective starting with years ending June 30, 2019.
GASB STATEMENT NO. 84, FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES
Establishes criteria for reporting fiduciary activities that focuses on whether the government
controls the assets and the fiduciary relationship with the beneficiaries.
The statement describes four fiduciary funds:
1. Pension and OPEB funds
2. Investment trust funds
3. Private-purpose trust funds
4. Custodial funds
Custodial funds replace agency funds for activities that are not held in trust.
For activities for which a trust agreement exists, an investment trust fund or private purpose trust
fund will be used.
Pension funds not held in trust would be classified as custodial funds.
The pronouncement will be effective starting with years ending December 31, 2019.
Attachment C
133
11
AUDIT WRAP-UP – DECEMBER 31, 2017
GASB Standards Effective in 2018 -2020
GASB STATEMENT NO. 85, OMNIBUS 2017
Addresses several practice issues that have been identified during implementation of certain GASB
Statements:
1.Blending a component unit when the primary government is a business-type activity that reports
in a single column.
2.Reporting amounts previously reported as goodwill and negative goodwill.
3.Classifying real estate held by insurance entities.
4.Measuring certain money market instruments at amortized cost.
5.Timing of the measurement of pension or OPEB liabilities and expenditures in governmental fund
financial statements.
6.Recognizing on-behalf payments for pensions or OPEB in employer financial statements.
7.Presenting payroll-related measures in RSI for OPEB plans and employers that provide OPEB.
8.Classifying employer-paid member contributions for OPEB.
9.Simplifying certain aspects of the alternative measurement method for OPEB.
10.Accounting and reporting for OPEB provided through certain multiple-employer defined benefit
OPEB plans.
The pronouncement will be effective starting with years ending June 30, 2018.
GASB STATEMENT NO. 86, CERTAIN DEBT EXTINGUISHMENT ISSUES
Resolves issue of how to record in-substance defeasance of debt when solely existing resources are
used.
Current standards only address reporting requirements when debt is extinguished using bond
proceeds.
When cash or other existing resources are placed in an irrevocable trust to extinguish debt it is
considered to be in-substance defeasance, assuming all criteria are met.
The difference between the reacquisition price and the net carrying amount of the debt will be
recognized as a separately identified gain or loss in the period of defeasance. This differs from
current practice when debt is extinguished using bond proceeds, whereby the difference is deferred.
Payments to the escrow agent from existing resources should be reported as debt service
expenditures in governmental fund types.
The pronouncement will be effective starting with years ending June 30, 2018.
Attachment C
134
12
AUDIT WRAP-UP – DECEMBER 31, 2017
GASB Standards Effective in 2018 -2020
GASB STATEMENT NO. 87, LEASES
This standard will require recognition of certain lease assets and liabilities for leases that are
currently classified as operating leases.
Eliminates the distinction between operating and capital leases - all leases will be recorded on the
statement of net position/balance sheet.
• New definition of a lease - a contract that conveys the right to use another entity’s nonfinancial
asset for a period of time in an exchange or exchange-like transaction.
Excludes leases that transfer ownership under a bargain purchase option or service concession
arrangements that are covered by GASB Statement No. 60.
Lessees would recognize a lease liability and an intangible right-to-use lease asset which would be
amortized in a systematic and reasonable manner over the shorter of the lease term or the useful
life of the underlying asset. Short-term leases are excluded.
Lessor would recognize lease receivable and deferred inflow of resources which would be recognized
as revenue in a systematic and rational manner over the term of the lease.
The pronouncement will be effective starting with years ending December 31, 2020.
Attachment C
135
Estes AJE
Year End: December 31, 2017 Started by Prepared by Detail Review
Adjusting Journal Entries KRS 7/26/2018 TLL 7/30/2018
Date: 1/1/2017 To 12/31/2017 General Review Partner FC Review
Account No: AJE-01 To AJE-99 TLL 7/30/2018
Number Date Name Account No Reference Annotation Debit Credit Recurrence Misstatement
AJE-01 12/31/2017 CURRENT ASSETS / POOLED CASH 502-0000-101.00-00 502 A.02 724,945.00
AJE-01 12/31/2017 UTILITY EXPENDITURES / PURCHASED POW 502-6100-520.28-08 502 A.02 707,337.00
AJE-01 12/31/2017 UTILITY EXPENDITURES / WIND POWER 502-6100-520.28-18 502 A.02 17,608.00
AJE-01 12/31/2017 CURRENT ASSETS / INTERNAL CLEARING AC999-0000-100.00-00 999 A.02 724,945.00
AJE-01 12/31/2017 CHECKING ACCOUNT / BANK OF COLORADO 999-0000-101.10-05 999 A.02 724,945.00
To reclass January energy payment
booked in December.
AJE-02 12/31/2017 OTHER ASSETS / DO-CONTR AFTER MEASU 503-0000-170.00-00 503 3,379.00
AJE-02 12/31/2017 DEFERRED OUTFLOW / PERA CONT SUBS M 503-0000-190.00-00 503 41,542.00
AJE-02 12/31/2017 DEFERRED OUTFLOW / PERA CHG PROPOR 503-0000-191.00-00 503 104,632.00
AJE-02 12/31/2017 DEFERRED OUTFLOW / PERA CHG IN EXPER503-0000-192.00-00 503 31,609.00
AJE-02 12/31/2017 DEFERRED OUTFLOW / CHANGE IN ASSUMP 503-0000-193.00-00 503 180,270.00
AJE-02 12/31/2017 DEFERRED POSTEMPLOY BENEF / NET PEN 503-0000-238.10-00 503 726,422.00
AJE-02 12/31/2017 DEFERRED POSTEMPLOY BENEF / DEF INFL 503-0000-238.20-00 503 60.00
AJE-02 12/31/2017 DEFERRED POSTEMPLOY BENEF / DEF INFL 503-0000-238.30-00 503 2,856.00
AJE-02 12/31/2017 DEFERRED POSTEMPLOY BENEF / PERA CH 503-0000-238.40-00 503 25,895.00
AJE-02 12/31/2017 EMPLOYER BENEFITS / PENSION BENEFIT E 503-6200-530.14-90 503 99,566.00
AJE-02 12/31/2017 EMPLOYER BENEFITS / PENSION BENEFIT E 503-6300-540.14-90 503 243,380.00
AJE-02 12/31/2017 EMPLOYER BENEFITS / PENSION BENEFIT E 503-6400-550.14-90 503 30,203.00
AJE-02 12/31/2017 EMPLOYER BENEFITS / PENSION BENEFIT E 503-6500-560.14-90 503 52,872.00
To record the activitiy for GASB
68 in the Water Fund.
AJE-03 12/31/2017 OTHER ASSETS / DO-CONTR AFTER MEASU 502-0000-170.00-00 502 38,438.00
AJE-03 12/31/2017 DEFERRED OUTFLOW / PERA CONT SUBS M 502-0000-190.00-00 502 95,023.00
AJE-03 12/31/2017 DEFERRED OUTFLOW / PERA CHG PROPOR 502-0000-191.00-00 502 3,799.00
AJE-03 12/31/2017 DEFERRED OUTFLOW / PERA CHG IN EXPER502-0000-192.00-00 502 51,131.00
AJE-03 12/31/2017 DEFERRED OUTFLOW/CHANGE IN ASSUMPT 502-0000-193.00-00 502 298,795.00
AJE-03 12/31/2017 DEFERRED POSTEMPLOY BENEF / NET PEN 502-0000-238.10-00 502 1,036,112.00
AJE-03 12/31/2017 DEFERRED POSTEMPLOY BENEF / DEF INFL 502-0000-238.20-00 502 99.00
AJE-03 12/31/2017 DEFERRED POSTEMPLOY BENEF / DEF INFL 502-0000-238.30-00 502 10,538.00
AJE-03 12/31/2017 DEFERRED POSTEMPLOY BENEF / PERA CH 502-0000-238.40-00 502 45,997.00
AJE-03 12/31/2017 EMPLOYER BENEFITS / PENSION BENEFIT E 502-6301-540.14-90 502 472,019.00
AJE-03 12/31/2017 EMPLOYER BENEFITS / PENSION BENEFIT E 502-6401-550.14-90 502 61,936.00
AJE-03 12/31/2017 EMPLOYER BENEFITS / PENSION BENEFIT E 502-6501-560.14-90 502 148,383.00
To report the GASB 68 activity for
the Light and Power Fund.
3,352,368.00 3,352,368.00
Net Income (Loss) (3,517,546.00)
7/30/2018
10:19 AM Page 1
Attachment C
136
Estes PAJE
Year End: December 31, 2017 Started by Prepared by Detail Review
Passed Adjusting Journal Entries KRS 7/26/2018 TLL 7/30/2018
Date: 1/1/2017 To 12/31/2017 General Review Partner FC Review
TLL 7/30/2018
Number Date Name Account No Reference Annotation Debit Credit Recurrence Misstatement
PAJE-01 12/31/2017 FUND BALANCE / UNRESERVED FUND BALA 220-0000-253.00-00 220 10.05 40,046.00
PAJE-01 12/31/2017 COUNTY SHARED REVENUES / OPEN SPACE220-0000-338.20-00 220 10.05 40,046.00
To adjust 2017 revenue for amounts
received in February 2017 related to 2016 rvenue.
40,046.00 40,046.00
Net Income (Loss) (3,557,592.00)
7/30/2018
10:19 AM Page 1
Attachment C
137
138
RESOLUTION #20-18
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE LARIMER COUNTY NOVEMBER 6, 2018
BALLOT ISSUE FOR MENTAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS OF
LARIMER COUNTY
WHEREAS, the term “mental health” refers to cognitive, behavioral, and emotional
wellbeing that can affect daily life, relationships, psychological resilience and even
physical health; and
WHEREAS, mental illness and substance use disorders are serious health issues
for 1 in 5 people in Larimer County and are treatable chronic health conditions; and,
WHEREAS, mental illness and substance use disorders are serious health issues
for children, teens, adults and seniors in Larimer County and, although great strides have
been made, many of our citizens experience the negative effects of metal health issues
themselves or through family members, neighbors or friends; and
WHEREAS, comprehensive, community-based services that respond to those with
mental health needs are cost-effective and access to necessary medication and
appropriate treatment helps prevent individuals from ending up in emergency rooms and
the criminal justice system; and
WHEREAS, the provision of a continuum of mental health services in our
community is critical to individuals, families, schools, businesses, law enforcement and
healthcare providers and there is a strong and growing body of evidence that supports the
cost effectiveness and benefits to communities that have successfully implemented
continuums of mental health and related care; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest and welfare of Larimer County Citizens that
they have the option of voting on a sales tax to fund mental health care services for
residents of Larimer County; and
WHEREAS, this initiative will begin to address the growing behavioral health needs
in our community. Because this proposal aims to ensure people have access to the help
they need through a continuum of care in their community and that treatment is an
investment in the health and well-being of our communities.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK do hereby support the Larimer County November 6, 2018 Ballot
Issue for Mental Health Care services for Residents of Larimer County.
DATED this day of 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
HomeHome The NeedThe Need A Local SolutionA Local Solution News & MoreNews & More HistoryHistory
History
Our commitment to a mental health continuum of care and future facility
was envisioned and informed by YOU—the residents of Larimer County.
154
NEED ASSISTANCE?
Get the help you need here.
Print | Sitemap
155
156
TOWN ATTORNEY Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White
Date: September 19, 2018
RE: Appointment of Two Trustees to Visit Estes Park Board
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER:Motion to Appoint
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Present Situation and Proposal:
Currently there are two vacancies on the Visit Estes Park Board of Directors. The two
vacancies are Town appointments. The Intergovernmental Agreement for the Estes
Park Local Marketing District between the Town and the County dated September 19,
2017 (“IGA”) only requires that each Director of the Marketing District be a resident of
the Service Area of the District for at least one year prior to his/her appointment and
continue to be a resident of the Service Area during his/her entire term. The Town
Trustees meet these requirements.
There is no prohibition in the State statute prohibiting elected officials from serving as
Directors on the Visit Estes Park Board.
Accordingly, the Larimer County Commissioners have indicated that it would be
desirable for the Town to fill the two current vacancies on the Visit Estes Park Board by
appointing two Trustees to fill those vacancies.
Advantages:
•Appointment of two Trustees as Directors of the Visit Estes Park Board of
Directors will provide better oversight in the governance of Visit Estes Park as
has been discussed between the Town Board and the Larimer County
Commissioners.
•Appointment of two Trustees to the Visit Estes Park Board will allow the Town
and the County Commissioners to review and, if appropriate, approve the Visit
Estes Park Operating Plan for 2019 as required by the State statute. Failure to
approve the Visit Estes Park Operating Plan for 2019 will result in the
157
cancellation of the marketing and promotional tax to be levied by the District for
2019.
• The Town and the County Commissioners will have adequate time to review
possible amendments to the IGA with regard to governance of Visit Estes Park
including, but not limited to, the appropriate number of elected officials of the
Town and County to serve as Directors of the Visit Estes Park Board.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Approval of the appointment of two Trustees to the Visit Estes Park Board to fill the
current two vacancies on the Visit Estes Park Board.
Finance/Resource Impact:
There is no budgetary impact.
Level of Public Interest
Current governance by the Visit Estes Park Board of Directors has engendered
considerable public interest and comment.
Sample Motion:
I move to appoint Trustee _______________ and Trustee __________________ to the
Visit Estes Park Board of Directors. Trustee _______________ term shall run from the
date of this appointment until December 31, 2019 and Trustee __________________
term shall run from the date of this appointment until December 31, 2020.
Attachments:
Attached is a copy of the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Estes Park Local
Marketing District.
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
From: Town Administrator Lancaster
Date: September 25th, 2018
RE: A RESOLUTION OPPOSING “AMENDMENT 74”, AN ATTEMPT TO
AMEND THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION TO DRASTICALLY LIMIT STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AT A HIGH COST TO TAXPAYERS
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT x RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
For the Board to take an official position in opposition to Amendment 74, “Just
Compensation for Reduction in Fair Market Value by Government Law or Regulation”
which will be on the fall general election ballot
Present Situation:
Amendment 74 seeks to amend Section 15 of Article II of the Colorado Constitution to
require just compensation if private property has “reduced fair market value by
government law or regulation”. As this Amendment will have negative impacts on local
governments if passed. Specifically:
•Amendment 74 undermines the ability of state and local governments to
effectively represent their constituents and protect their interests in vital areas
such as clean water and air, zoning enforcement, and infrastructure
improvements.
•Under the current Colorado Constitution, a property owner already has the right
to seek compensation from state or local governments. Amendment 74 expands
this well-established concept by requiring the government – i.e., the taxpayers –
to pay private property owners for virtually any decrease in the “fair market value”
of their property due to a government law or regulation.
•No one truly knows how this proposed expansion of Section 15 could impact
Colorado or local governments... But adding this language to the Constitution will
add new layers of ambiguity to the Constitution and leave local governments and
taxpayers with unprecedented levels of legal exposure.
167
• This ambiguity will result in taxpayer dollars going towards lawsuits, which either
means a rise in taxes or a reduction in government services for neighborhoods,
including parks, police, and utilities.
• Any change in law or regulation, even those broadly desired by a community or
those in the interest of health, safety, and welfare, could be challenged by private
land owners. Governments will be reluctant to address important policy issues.
• Amendment 74 will undoubtedly lead to increased legal exposure and costly
litigation that will increase costs for government programs and services. These
will be paid for at the taxpayers’ expense.
• Municipalities will become collateral damage in private property disputes
between owners who feel their property rights have been diminished at the
behest of another. Any action by a local government could require that these
property owners be compensated.
• Amendment 74 has unintended consequences which will cost Colorado
communities too much money, while at the same time putting Colorado citizens
in danger. It is a very risky proposition for our communities, our families, and our
Colorado.
Proposal:
That the Town Board consider adopting the resolution opposing Amendment 74.
Advantages:
A resolution will help inform Estes Park Citizens of the impacts of Amendment 74.
By adopting a resolution in opposition, staff is free to speak on behalf of the Town, in
opposition of Amendment 74, to the press and the public.
Citizens will become award of how passage of Amendment 74 would have considerable
impact on local land use and other decisions, and could greatly impact the adoption of a
new Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley.
Disadvantages:
Some citizens may support Amendment 74 and will disagree with the Town Boards’
position.
Action Recommended:
That the Board approve the RESOLUTION OPPOSING “AMENDMENT 74”, AN
ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION TO DRASTICALLY LIMIT
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AT A HIGH COST TO TAXPAYERS
Finance/Resource Impact:
none
168
Level of Public Interest
high
Sample Motion:
I move that the Board (adopted/ not adopt) the RESOLUTION OPPOSING
“AMENDMENT 74”, AN ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION
TO DRASTICALLY LIMIT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AT A
HIGH COST TO TAXPAYERS
Attachments:
Resolution
169
RESOLUTION #21-18
A RESOLUTION OPPOSING “AMENDMENT 74”, AN ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE
COLORADO CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
SERVICES AT A HIGH COST TO TAXPAYERS
WHEREAS, local government services are essential to the citizens of the Town
of Estes Park; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 74 has been written by certain corporate interests to
change the text of the Colorado Constitution, Article II, Section 15; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 74 declares that any state or local government law or
regulation that “reduces” the “fair market value” of a private parcel is subject to “just
compensation;” and
WHEREAS, while Amendment 74 is stated in simple language, it has far
reaching and serious impacts; and
WHEREAS, under the current Colorado Constitution, a property owner already
has the right to seek compensation from state or local governments; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 74 would expand this well-established concept by
requiring the government – i.e., the taxpayers – to compensate private property owners
for virtually any decrease whatsoever in the fair market value of their property traceable
to any government law or regulation; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 74 would severely limit the ability of Colorado’s state
and local governments to do anything that might indirectly, unintentionally, or minimally
affect the fair market value of any private property; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 74 would drastically diminish the ability of our state
and local governments to adopt – let alone attempt to enforce – reasonable
regulations, limitations, and restrictions upon private property; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 74 would place laws, ordinances, and regulations
designed to protect public health and safety, the environment, our natural resources,
public infrastructure, and other public resources in jeopardy; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 74 would directly impact zoning, density limitations,
and planned development including restrictions on development in residential zoned
areas; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 74 would make inherently dangerous or
environmentally damaging activities prohibitively costly to attempt to limit or regulate,
even in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare; and
170
WHEREAS, any arguable impact upon fair market value – however reasonable
or justified or minimal or incidental or temporary – resulting from state or local
government action could trigger a claim for the taxpayers to pay; and
WHEREAS, governments would be vulnerable to lawsuits for almost every
decision to regulate or not to regulate, making regular government function prohibitively
expensive for the taxpayer; and
WHEREAS, similar efforts have been attempted and defeated in other states,
such as the states of Washington and Oregon; and
WHEREAS, the fiscal impact for similar language in Washington was estimated
at $2 billion dollars for state agencies and $1.5 billion for local governments over the
first six years; and
WHEREAS, individuals filed several thousand claims against state and local
governments with an estimated value in excess of several billions of dollars in claims in
Oregon before the residents repealed the takings initiative three years after its
passage.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO that the Board of Trustees hereby
expresses its opposition to Amendment 74 that will be placed on the November 6, 2018
Ballot, and strongly urges a vote of “NO”.
DATED this day of 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
171
EMPOWEREDCITIESANDTOWNS,UNITEDFORASTRONGCOLORADO1144ShermanStreet.Denver,CO80203•(p)303-831-64111866-57&-O93rtft-963-86U_81ThSEP192818WhatfollowsisabriefsummaryofasignificantstatewideballotmeasureontheNovemberballot,Amendment74,“JustCompensationforReductioninFairMarketValuebyGovernmentLaworRegulation.”Amendment74couldhavedramaticimpactsonstateandlocalgovernments.Yourcarefulanalysisofthismeasureisstronglyencouraged,aswellascommunicationwithcountycommissioners,neighboringmunicipalleaders,businessinterestslikeyourchamber,neighborhoodgroups,andthecommunityatlarge.Thispacketcontainsseveralimportantdocumentsandweurgecarefulreview.Pleasegoto.cml.orgformoreinformationorcontactmedirectlyatsmametccml.org.WeneedyourhelptodefeatAmendment74.PROPOSEDAMENDMENT74Amendment74,draftedbyout-of-statecorporateinterestsseekstoamendSection15ofArticleIIoftheColoradoConstitutiontorequirejustcompensationifprivatepropertyhas“reducedfairmarketvaluebygovernmentlaworregulation”.Shroudedinsimplelanguage,Amendment74willhavefarreachingandpotentiallydisastrousconsequences.KeyHighlights(NotComprehensive)•UnderthecurrentColoradoConstitution,apropertyowneralreadyhastherighttoseekcompensationfromstateorlocalgovernments.Amendment74expandsthiswell-establishedconceptbyrequiringthegovernment—i.e.,thetaxpayers—tocompensateprivatepropertyownersforvirtuallyanydecreasewhatsoeverinthefairmarketvalueoftheirpropertyduetoanygovernmentlaworregulation.•Justaboutanymunicipalactioncouldresultinalawsuit.Anyinactioncouldaswell,iftheeffectiseventheslightestdropinanindividualproperty’sfairmarketvalue.”•Theobligationtocompensateistriggeredwithoutregardtohowlongsomeonehasownedthepropertyorwhattheintentionsoractionsofthepropertyownerare.•Therearenoexceptionsforhealth,safety.andgeneralwelfareregulationsorthoseactionsmandatedbythefederalorstategovernments.•Oncepassed.thereisnoflexibilitygrantedtotheGeneralAssemblytoimplementthismeasure:onlytheColoradoSupremeCourtwillbelefttointerprettheAmendment,includingwhat“fairmarketvalue”and‘reduced”means.Thislitigationwillcomeatahighcosttostateandlocalgovernments,paidforbytaxpayers.Decisionsonkeymailerswillcometoahaltwhileawaitingfurtherclarificationfromthecourts.•Thebottomline:Amendment74willrequirelargepayoutsfromstateandlocalgovernments,whichmeanshighertaxesforcitizensandareductioninessentialgovernmentservicessuchasparks,police,utilities,etc.Wedon’tyetknowhowfarreachingthisAmendmentwillbe,onlythathaspotentialtobedisastrousforourstateandlocalgovernments.MunicipalImpacts•Thismeasurewillcripplelocalbudgetsthroughbothincreasedlegalcostsandpayoutstoindividualpropertyowners.Anydecisionbyagovernmentbodywouldbevulnerabletolawsuits,withthecostbornebytaxpayers.•Municipalservicesunderthreatofbeingreducedinclude:oParks,recreationcenters,andneighborhoodpools;oPoliceofficersandpoliceservices:oTrashcollection;oMaintenanceofgasandwatermainlines;oMaintenanceofstreetsandsidewalks;oLicensureofbusinesses;andCMLCOLORAL)oMUNICIPAL[EAcutTo:InterestedMunicipalOfficialsFrom:SamMamet,ExecutiveDirectorDate:September2018Subject:Amendment74IntroductoryMemo
oMaintenanceoflandusecodestoprotectthestructureandcharacterofneighborhoods.•TheStateofOregonbrieflyenactedasimilarstatute,andinafewshortyearsthemeasureledtothousandsofindividualclaims,totalinginexcessofseveralbilliondollars.Threeyearsafterthestatutepassed,Oregonvotersrealizedtheextentofthestatuteontheeconomicvitalityofthestateandeffectivelyrepealedthestatute.Ourcommunities—andourstate—simplycannotaffordtheimpactsofthismeasure.ExamplesofPotentialMunicipalImpacts•InfrastructureImprovements.Colorado’spopulationisexpectedtonearlydoubleby2050.Stateandlocalgovernmentswillhavetoexpandpublicroadstoaccommodatenewresidents.UnderAmendment74,governmentscouldbesuedbynearbypropertyownersaffectedbyanyinfrastructureimprovementsduetolossinthefairmarketvalueoftheirhomescausedbyconstruction,busierstreets,noise,andgeneralchangestothecharacterofneighborhoods.ThisAmendmentwillmakeitextremelydifficultforstateandlocalgovernmentstoimproveorreplaceallkindsofpublicimprovementssuchasstormwater,electricutilities,sewage,rightsofways,easements,andtransportationinfrastructurebecauseofpotentialliability.•RegulationofAirbnb.Airbnbisawayforhomeownerstomakeincomeontheirprivatepropertybyrentingtheirpropertiesforapernightfee.However,utilizingAirbnbhascausedneighboringhomeownerstoraiseconcernsaboutcrimeandsafety;noiselevels,especiallywhentheshorttermrentalsareusedforlargeparties;andagenerallossofcommunityintheirneighborhoods.UnderAmendment74,anyactionacitycouncilortownboarddecidestotakeunderthisscenariocouldleavethemvulnerabletolawsuitsfromindividualpropertyowners:eitherlawsuitsoverthelossinrentalincomeifamunicipalityforbidsshorttermrentalsinacertainareaorlawsuitsoverthelossinfairmarketvaluetoindividualpropertybecauseofadecreaseinthecharacter,safety,andsoundqualityofaneighborhood.•Broadband.Votersinover100countiesandmunicipalitiesacrossColoradohavetoldtheirlocalleaderstoexplorepublicprivatepartnershipsforbetterbroadbandaccess.Statelawhasallowedthisprocesssince2005.Anincumbentprovidercouldsuethelocalgovernmentforreducingthebusinessinvestmentpreviouslymade,eventhoughtheservicehasbeeninferior,causingsuchavotetooccurinthefirstplace.Theeffortstoimproveruralbroadbandaccessmaybethreatened.•AdultEntertainmentEstablishments.Municipalitiesusezoningtoformthecharacterofneighborhoodsandensureawell-balancedcommunity.Aspartofthis,manymunicipalitieslimitthelocationofadultentertainmentestablishments.Ifamunicipalityregulateswhereanadultentertainmentestablishmentcanbe,anownercouldsueforlossinfairmarketvalueasoneparticularlocationmayattractmorebusinessthananother.IfthemunicipalitymovestoallowadultentertainmentestablishmentstoconductbusinessanyWiere,thenpropertyownersadjacenttotheseestablishmentsmaysueforlossinfairmarketvalueoftheirpropertyif,forexample,thecrimeraterises.•EconomicDevelopment.Incentivestoattractnewindustryorretainexistingbusinessesaredoneasamatterofcourseinmanyjurisdictionsacrossthestate.ItisacontributingfactortoColorado’sstrongeconomy.IfAmendment74passes,thispracticemaybestifledbyanindividualwhosuesalocalgovernmentthatisprovidingincentives,claimingtheirproperty’sfairmarketvalueisreduced.Localgovernmentswillhavetoweighthebenefitofbringinginbusinesseswiththedetrimentofpayingforindividuallawsuits.Statewideeconomicdevelopmentgroupsarerightlyconcernedaboutthisaspectoftheproposal.UrbanrenewalandredevelopmentprojectsmaysimilarlybeimpactedbythenegativeeffectsofAmendment74.•AffordableHousing.Municipalleaderscontinuetostrugglewithhowtobestaddresstheaffordablehousingchallengesmanyofourcommunitiesface.Onewaycommunitiesaddresstheproblemisthrougharezoningtoallowforaffordablehousing.However,underAmendment74,anindividualmaysuebecausethepolicyreducesthefairmarketvalueoftheirneighboringproperty.Suddenly,aprojectthathaswidesupportinacommunityhasbeenthwarted,attheexpenseofallthetaxpayersinthatcityortown.•LandUse.Thedecisionmakingaroundlanduseandzoningiscomplicatedenough.Analreadycomplexprocesstoapproveanewdevelopmentwillnowtakeevenlongerandwillbemorecostlybecausemunicipaldecisionmakerswillhavetoensuretheirdecisionscausetheleastamountofliability.EveryactionmayhaveanewconsequenceandinactionmayresultinlegalexposureunderAmendment74.Governmentactionsaffecteveryareaofacitizen’sdailylifefromcollectingtrash,toemployingpoliceofficers,tokeepingcommunitiessafe.RequiringgovernmentstopayforanyreductioninfairmarketvaluewillcripplestateandlocalgovernmentsinColorado,withtheburdenpaidbytaxpayerswhomustalsocontendwithareductionofgovernmentservices.Vote“NO”onAmendment74.Protectourneighborhoods.Urgeyourfriendsandassociatestodothesame.2
RECEIVEDJAN2520132:t6P.1.ColoradoSecretaryofState2017-2018#108—FinalDraftJustCompensationforReductioninFairMarketValuebyGovernmentLaworRegulationBeitEnactedbythePeopleoftheStateofColorado:SECTION1.IntheconstitutionofthestateofColorado,amendsection15ofarticleHasfollows:Section15.Takingpropertyforpublicuse—compensation,howascertained.Privatepropertyshallnotbetaken,ofdamaged,ORREDUCEDINFAIRMARKETVALUEBYGOVERNMENTLAWORREGULATIONforpublicorprivateuse,withoutjustcompensation.Suchcompensationshallbeascertainedbyaboardofcommissioners,ofnotlessthanthreefreeholders,orbyajury,whenrequiredbytheowneroftheproperty,insuchmannerasmaybeprescribedbylaw,anduntilthesameshallbepaidtotheowner,orintocourtfortheowner,thepropertyshallnotbeneedlesslydisturbed,ortheproprietaryrightsoftheownerthereindivested;andwheneveranattemptismadetotakeprivatepropertyforauseallegedtobepublic,thequestionwhetherthecontemplatedusebereallypublicshallbeajudicialquestion,anddeterminedassuchwithoutregardtoanyegis1ativeassertionthattheuseispublic.3
ElectedOfficialOppositiontoAmendment74Purpose:Asamplelettertotheeditor,asocialmediapost,orspeechremarksIopposeAmendment74andrespectfullyrequestyoutovote“no”onthisballotmeasureinNovember.IfAmendment74passes!itwillobstructourabilitytomakelocaldecisions,reducegovernmentservices,andincreasetaxes.UnderthecurrentColoradoConstitution,apropertyownerhastherighttoseekcompensationfromstateorlocalgovernmentsforanypropertytaken.Amendment74expandsthiswell-establishedconceptbyrequiringthegovernment—i.e.,thetaxpayers—tocompensateprivatepropertyownersifastateorlocalgovernmentlaworregulation“reduces”The‘lairmarketvalue’oftheirproperty.Whilethislanguagemayappearharmless,Amendment74wouldseverelylimitlocalgovernmentsfrommakingregulatoryorlandusedecisionswithouttaxpayersbearingtheburdenofsignificantcostsfromindividualpropertyownerssuinginresponsetothosedecisions.Insuchanenvironment,governmentwouldhavedifficultyaccomplishingevenitsmostbasicfunctions.Unfortunately,Amendment74wouldlockthelanguageintotheColoradoConstitution,makingitvirtuallyimpossibletochange.Amendment74isunnecessary.Courtremediesalreadyexist,underestablishedprinciples,whenanindividualbelievesgovernmentregulationhasunreasonablyimpactedpropertyvalues.Amendment74wouldexpandthoseprincipleswithoutanylimitationsorstandardsbywhichclaimscouldbemeasuredduetovaguelanguage.Theresultwouldbethateverydecisionbygovernmentbodieswillbevulnerabletolawsuits,withthecostbornebytaxpayers.Everymunicipalpolicydecisionwhichfocusesonzoning,landuse,liquor,marijuanaandotherformsoflicensing,ordinanceenforcementtoprotectpublicsafety,affordablehousinginitiatives,environmentalprotection(especiallywhenmandatedbystateorfederalregulation),urbanrenewalandredevelopment,andprohibitionsofundesirableusessuchasanadultentertainmentbusinessinaneighborhood,righttofarmordinances,governmentaldecisionmakingmoratoriaoncertainindustrialusesallwillbesubjecttoattackwhenaplaintiffallegessuchagovernmentalactionorregulationreducesaproperty’sfairmarketvalue.Thiswillhaveachillingeffectontheabilityoflocalgovernmentstoexercisetheirauthority,ifpassed.Amendment74mayalsocrippleourlocalbudgetthroughbothincreasedlegalcostsandpay-outstoindividuallandowners.TheStateofOregonbrieflyenactedasimilarstatute,andinjustthreeyears,thousandsofclaimswerefiledinstatecourtstotalingbillionsofdollarsinclaims.Threeyearsafterthepassageofthestatute,oncevotersrealizedtheextentofthiseconomiccalamity,theyeffectivelyrepealedit.Ourcommunities—andourstate—simplycannotaffordtheimpactsofthismeasure.Nowisatimewhenlocalgovernmentsneedtobeinvestinginpoliceservices,fightingwildfires,transportationinfrastructure,andothercrilicalgovernmentfunctionsespeciallywiththeprojectedincreaseinourpopulation.IfAmendment74passes,itwouldimpedestateandlocalgovernmentabilitytoprovidecriticalserviceswhileincreasingthecostofgovernmentatthetaxpayers’expense.Asalocalofficial,myprimaryresponsibilityistoserveyouandtoprotectyourhealth,safety,andwelfare.Ourlocalgovernmentshouldbeabletoexercisethisdutywithouttheconstantthreatofcostlylitigationthatunderminesthequalityoflifeandeconomichealthofourcommunities.ThisAmendmenthasfartoomanyunintendedconsequences.Irespectfullyaskyoutovote“No”onAmendment74.4
RESOLUTIONNUMBERARESOLUTIONOPPOSING“AMENDMENT74”,ANATTEMPTTOAMENDTHECOLORADOCONSTITUTIONTODRASTICALLYLIMITSTATEANDLOCALGOVERNMENTSERVICESATAHIGHCOSTTOTAXPAYERSWHEREAS,localgovernmentservicesareessentialtothecitizensof[nameofmunicipality];andWHEREAS,Amendment74hasbeenwrittenbycertainout-of-statecorporateintereststochangethetextoftheColoradoConstitution,ArticleIl,Section15.whichdatesbackto1876andthreatensbasicgovernmentalservices;andWHEREAS,Amendment74declaresthatanystateorlocalgovernmentlaworregulationthatreduces’thelairmarketvalue”ofaprivateparcelissubjectto‘justcompensation;’andWHEREAS,whileAmendment74isshroudedinsimplelanguage,ithasfarreachingandunintendedimpacts;andWHEREAS,underthecurrentColoradoConstitution.apropertyowneralreadyhastherighttoseekcompensationfromstateorlocalgovernments;andWHEREAS,Amendment74wouldexpandthiswell-establishedconceptbyrequiringthegovernment—i.e.,thetaxpayers—tocompensateprivatepropertyownersforvirtuallyanydecreasewhatsoeverinthefairmarketvalueoftheirpropertytraceabletoanygovernmentlaworregulation;andWHEREAS,Amendment74wouldcreateuncertaintybecauseitisnotclearwhatthelanguageactuallymeansorhowitcanbeapplied;andWHEREAS,Amendment74wouldseverelylimittheabilityofColorado’sstateandlocalgovernmentstodoanythingthatmightindirectly,unintentionally,orminimallyaffectthefairmarketvalueofanyprivateproperty;andWHEREAS,Amendment74woulddrasticallydiminishtheabilityofourstateandlocalgovernmentstoadopt—letaloneattempttoenforce—reasonableregulations!limitations,andrestrictionsuponprivateproperty;andWHEREAS,Amendment74wouldplacelaws,ordinances,andregulationsdesignedtoprotectpublichealthandsafety,theenvironment,ournaturalresources,publicinfrastructure,andotherpublicresourcesinjeopardy;andWHEREAS,Amendment74woulddirectlyimpactzoning,densitylimitations,andplanneddevelopment;andWHEREAS,Amendment74wouldmakeinherentlydangerousorenvironmentallydamagingactivitiesprohibitivelycostlytoattempttolimitorregulate,evenintheinterestofpublichealth,safety,andwelfare;andWHEREAS,anyarguableimpactuponfairmaricetvalue—howeverreasonableorjustifiedorminimalorincidentalortemporary—resultingfromstateorlocalgovernmentactioncouldtriggeraclaimforthetaxpayerstopay;andWHEREAS,governmentswouldbevulnerabletolawsuitsforalmosteverydecisiontoregulateornottoregulate,makingregulargovernmentfunctionprohibitivelyexpensiveforthetaxpayer;andWHEREAS,similareffortshavebeenattemptedanddefeatedinotherstates,suchasthestatesofWashingtonandOregon;andWHEREAS,thefiscalimpactforsimilarlanguageinWashingtonwasestimatedat$2billiondollarsforstateagenciesand$1.5billionforlocalgovernmentsoverthefirstsixyears,andWHEREAS,individualsfiledseveralthousandclaimsagainststateandlocalgovernmentswithanestimatedvalueinexcessofseveralbillionsofdollarsinclaimsinOregonbeforetheresidentsrepealedThetakingsinitiativeThreeyearsafteritspassage.5
NOW,THEREFORE,[NameofMunicipality]opposesAmendment74andstronglyurgesavoteofNOthisNovember.Resolvedthisof2018MayorAttestMunicipalClerk6
TalkingPointsforLocalElectedOfficialsonAmendment74Amendment74—“JustCompensationforReductioninFairMarketValuebyGovernmentLaworRegulation”Amendment74seekstoamendSection15ofArticleIIoftheColoradoConstitutiontorequirejustcompensationifprivatepropertyhasreducedfairmarketvaluebygovernmentlaworregulation”.AsthisAmendmentwillhavenegativeimpactsonlocalgovernmentsifpassed,CMLencourageslocalelectedofficialstospeaktotheircommunities.Belowaresomesuggestedtalkingpoints.•Theabilityofelectedofficialstoactonbehalfofthecollectivehealth,safety,andwelfareoftheircommunityisacorefunctionotgovernment.Amendment74underminestheabilityofslateandlocalgovernmentstoeffectivelyrepresenttheirconstituentsandprotecttheirinterestsinvitalareassuchasdeanwaterandair,zoningenforcement,andinfrastructureimprovements.•UnderthecurrentColoradoConstitution.apropertyowneralreadyhastherighttoseekcompensationfromstateorlocalgovernments.Amendment74expandsthiswell-establishedconceptbyrequiringthegovernment—i.e.,thetaxpayers—topayprivatepropertyownersforvirtuallyanydecreaseinthe‘fairmarketvalue”oftheirpropertyduetoagovernmentlaworregulation.•NoonetrulyknowshowthisproposedexpansionofSection15couldimpactColoradoorlocalgovernments...ButaddingthislanguagetotheConstitutionwilladdnewlayersofambiguitytotheConstitutionandleavelocalgovernmentsandtaxpayerswithunprecedentedlevelsoflegalexposure.•Thisambiguitywillresultintaxpayerdollarsgoingtowardslawsuits,whicheithermeansariseintaxesorareductioningovernmentservicesforneighborhoods,includingparks,police,andutilities.•Anychangeinlaworregulation,eventhosebroadlydesiredbyacommunityorthoseintheinterestofhealth,safety,andwelfare,couldbechallengedbyprivatelandowners.Governmentswillbereluctanttoaddressimportantpolicyissues.•Amendment74willundoubtedlyleadtoincreasedlegalexposureandcostlylitigationthatwillincreasecostsforgovernmentprogramsandservices.Thesewillbepaidforatthetaxpayers’expense.•Municipalitieswillbecomecollateraldamageinprivatepropertydisputesbetweenownerswhofeeltheirpropertyrightshavebeendiminishedatthebehestofanother.Anyactionbyalocalgovernmentcouldrequirethatthesepropertyownersbecompensated.•Insum,Amendment74hasunintendedconsequenceswhichwillcostColoradocommunitiestoomuchmoney,whileatthesametimeputtingColoradocitizensindanger.Itisaveryriskypropositionforourcommunities,ourfamilies,andourColorado.•[CiteapositiveprojectinyourcityortownwhichcouldbeimpactedunderAmendment74.]7
CMLCOLORADOMUNICIPALLEAGUEEMPOWEREDCITIESANDTOWNS,UNITEDFORASTRONGCOLORADO1144ShermanStreet,Denver,CD80203•(p)303-831-6411/866-578-0936•(f)303-860-8175•www.cmi.orgTo:InterestedMunicipalOfficialsFrom:LaurelWitt,StaffAttorneySamMamet,ExecutiveDirectorDate:September2018Subject:Examples:OregonandWashingtonIntheearly2000s,severalstatesconsideredballotmeasuressimilartoAmendment74includingOregon,Washington,California,Idaho!andArizona.ThismemorandumexplainsexperiencesinOregonandWashington—onestatewhopassedaballotmeasureandonewhodidnot—toprovideexamplesforColoradobyhighlightingthemajorthemeoftheseballotmeasures:morelitigationandmorepayoutsattheexpenseoftaxpayers.OREGONMEASURE37UnderMeasure37,ifagovernmentactionreducedaproperty’sfairmarketvalue,theownercouldsue.Iftheindividualwon,Oregoncourtsrequiredthegovernmenttoeitherwaivethelanduseregulationorcompensatetheindividualforthedropinfairmarketvalueoftheirproperty.OregonresidentsapprovedMeasure37ontheNovember4,2004ballot.•Stateandlocalgovernmentswerefacedwithcarryingoutavoter-approvedmandatewithnodearprocedures,virtuallynolegislativeguidance,andwithoutThebudgetarymeanstopayfortheclaims.Themeasureprovidednonewrevenuesourcetopayforindividualclaims.•Measure37hadsomeexceptionssuchashistoricpublicnuisances,publichealthandsafetyregulations,regulationstocomplywithfederallaw,andregulationssurroundingpornography.Amendment74containsnosuchexemptionsandthereforewillhavefargreaternegativeimpactstoColorado.•Theconsequenceswereenormousintermsofliability—themeasuregavepropertyownerstheabilitytocollectmonetarycompensationunlessgovernmentactedwithin180daysoffilingalawsuit.•Withinthreeyears,thousandsofclaimswerefiledwithstateandlocalgovernmentswithclaimscostinginexcessofseveralbilliondollars.ThreeyearsafterMeasure37passed,OregonvotersrepealedthemajontyofMeasure37WASHINGTONINITIATIVE933Initiative933(1-933”)wasaballotmeasureinthestateofWashingtonin2006thatwasdefeatedbyvoters.•TheUniversityofWashingtonconductedastudyonthefiscalimpactsofthemeasuretolocalandstategovernments.Inthenearterm,theUniversityconcluded1-933wouldcosttaxpayersnearly$8billion—morethan$1,000perresident—topaycompensationclaims.•Thetextof-933wassimilartoAmendment74,exceptthatthemeasureincludedanygovernmentactiongoingbacktenyears.Amendment74issilentastowhetherprivatepropertyownerscansuebasedongovernmentactionsthatoccurredinthepast.•1-933alsoincludedsomeexemptionsincludinggovernmentactionsthatuapplyequallytoallpropertysubjecttotheagency’sjurisdiction”andactionsaimedatpreventing“animmediatethreattohumanhealthandsafety.”Amendment74containsnosuchexemptions,creatingmoreliabilitythanwhatwasatstakeinWashington.8
Colorado’sFairCampaignPracticesActRestrictsUseofPublicFundsBallotsinstatewideorlocalelectionsoftenincludeissuesofprofoundimportancetoColoradomunicipalities.Ascommunityleadersmunicipalofficialscanandshouldbecomeactivelyinvolvedinthepublicdiscussionoftheseissues.However,thestateFairCampaignPracticesAct(FCPA)placessignificantrestrictionsontheuseofpublicfundsforadvocacypurposesorfordispensinginformationinconnectionwithlocalorstatewideballotissues(CR5.§1-45-117).TheFCPArestrictionsontheuseofpublicfundsapply:•tostatutorycitiesandtownsortothosehomerulemunicipalitiesthathavenotadoptedprovisionsregardingcampaignfinance,and•onceastatewidepetitionhasbeensubmittedfortitlesetting,or•forlocalballotissues.onceanissuehasbeensubmittedforthepurposeofhavingatitlefixedorthathashadatitlefixed,uponfinalactionofthegoverningbodyplacingareferredmeasureontheballot,or•oncetherecallelectionofanyofficerhasbeencertifiedtovoters.Theseguidelinesareintendedtoprovidemunicipalofficialsandemployeeswithgeneralguidanceconcerningwhattheymayormaynotdo,consistentwiththeFCPA.However,yourmunicipalattorneyshouldbeconsulted,andanyhomeruleprovision(s)reviewed,beforeanyactionistakenthatcouldbeviewedassubjecttothepublic-fundsrestrictionsintheFCPA.PermissibleactivitiesItispermissibletodothefollowingincampaignsinsupportoforinoppositiontoaproposedmeasure:1.Thelocalgoverningbodymaytakeapositionofadvocacyontheissue.Thegoverningbodymaypassaresolutionandtakeapublicstandurgingtheelectoratetovotefororagainstanymatter.Localgovernmentsmayreportthepassageofordistributesuchresolutions“throughestablished,customarymeans,otherthanpaidadvertising,bywhichinformationaboutotherproceedingsof[thegoverningbodylisregularlyprovidedtothepublic”(suchasviaalocalgovernmentnewsletterorcabletelevisionbroadcast).2.TheActprovidesthatanypublicofficialwhohas“policy-makingresponsibilities”mayspendupto$50ofpublicmoneyonphonecalls,letters,orotheractivities“incidental”toexpressinghisorheropiniononanyissue.ttisadvisabletoconsultwithyourmunicipalattorneybeforeexpendingpublicfundsinrelianceonthisprovision.3.ElectedofficialsmayspeakoutontheissuespresentedontheballotThereisnolimitationintheFCPAontherightofpublicofficialstoaddressanymatterbeforetheelectorate;thelimitationsintheActareontheexpenditureofpublicKinds.4.Publicemployeesandpaidelectedofficialsmayworkonacampaignandspeakoutontheissuesontheirowntime.Anypublicemployeewhobecomesinvolvedinthecampaignshouldbepreparedtodocumentthatsuchworkwasdoneonhisorherowntime.Ifthepublicemployeeisonarecorded-hoursystem,makesuretherecordreflectsthatthepublicemployeetooktimeofffrompublicdutiestoengageincampaignactivities.5.Publicemployeesmayrespondtounsolicitedquestionsorrequestsforinformationaboutaballotissue;however,thelocalgovernmentshouldcarefullyavoidproducinginformationfordistributionthatisdesignedtoinfluencethepassageordefeattheissue.6.Thelocalgoverningbodymayusepublicfundstodevelopanddistributeafactualsummaryonanyissuethatwillappearonaballotinthejurisdiction.Thesummarymustincludeargumentsfororagainsttheproposal,butthesummaryitselfmaynotcontainaconclusionoropinioninfavoroforagainsttheproposal.ImpermissibleactivitiesItisimpermissibleundertheFCPA,exceptasindicatedabove,todothefollowingincampaignsinsupportoforinoppositiontoaproposedmeasure:1.Useorexpendpublicfundsorsupplies;2.Allowemployeesorpaidofficerstoworkonacampaignduringtheirworkinghoursoruseanypublicfacilityorequipmentforthepurposesofacampaign;3.Providetransportationoradvertisingusingpublicpropertyorfundstoinfluence,directlyorindirectly,thepassageordefeatofanyissue;or4.Grantanemployeeorofficerleavefromhisjoborofficewiththelocalgovernment,withpay,toworkonacampaign.Formoreinformation,contactLaurelWift,CMLStaffAttorney,atlwittcml.orgor303-831-6411.9
Two(brthescrapheapEditorialsgjseniinel.comPageIoF3https:iIwwwgjsentiIleIcom/opinion/editorials/two-ior-the-scrap-heap/article_87570c62a343-11e8-a811-10604b9Pth.hImI5InsagoTwoforthescrapheap‘-.—-——-‘‘--cKti&DjByTHEDAUYSENTINElOfthesevenproposedcitizens’initiativesthataretryingtoqLIaliItfortheNovemberballot,twostandoutfortheirdangerousrepercussionsandshouldberejectedifvotersareforcedtodecidethemeasures’fate.IfthenextColoradogovernorinheritseitherInitiative97orInitiative108orboth,catastrophicresultsawaitstateandlocalgovernments.Let’sstartwithInitiative97.It’sastatutoryproposaltocreatea2,500-footsetbackfromoccupiedstructuresorother“vulnerableareas”fornewoilandgasdevelopment.That’sasignificantincreasefromthe500-footsetbackcurrentlyinplace.AccordingtotheColoradoOilandGasConservationCommission,thisinitiativewouldeliminatenewdrillingon95percentofthesurfacelandinthestate’stopfiveoilandgasproducingcountiesand85percentofthestate’snon-federalland.Itwouldcostthestate,localgovernmentsandschoolsproceedsfrombillionsofdollarsinlostoilandgasrevenues,saidDianeSchwenke,presidentandCEOoftheGrandJunctionAreaChamberofCommerce,whichhasjoinedacoalitionofbusinessgroupsintheslateopposingtheinitiative.“Weareastatethatalreadyhassomeofthemoststringentregulationsontheenergyindustry,whicharedevelopedthroughapublicprocessunderthepurviewoftheColoradoOilandGasConservationCommission,”Schwenkesaid.‘Thatiswhererulesshouldbemade,notattheballotbox.’108/19/2018
IwoI’orthescrapheapEditorialsIgjsentinel.comPage2of3Becauseit’sessentiallyadefactobanonnewdrilling,Initiative97isamongthemostcontentioustoarisethisyear,rivaledonlybyInitiative108,whichappearstobeacounter-measureto97’simplicationsfortheenergyindustry,hutgoesmuchfarther.Asbadas97i4T)HThaybeworse.)Foronethingitproposeschangingthestateconstitutiontoenablepropertyownerstoseekcompensationifalaworregulationreducestheirland’s“fairmarketvalue.’Embeddingpolicyinthestateconstitutionisneveragoodideaandalwaysrifewithunintendedconsequencesforwhichtherearenoeasyfixes.Undercurrentlaw,agovernmenthastocompensatefora“totaltaking,”eitherbyeminentdomainorwhenagovernmentactionleavesapropertywithnoeconomicuse.Switchingjustcompensationrequirementsto“fairmarketvalue”isaplaintiffslawyer’swildestdream.TheColoradoMunicipalLeaguewarnsInitiative108“couldspawncountlessandexpensivelawsLlitsoveramriadofbasiclocalland-usedecisionssuchaszoningorthesitingofmunicipalfacilities.”Itwouldforcelocalgovernmentstoassesstheriskofalawsuitonanyactionitconsiders.SamMamet,executivedirectoroftheCMI.toldColoradoPolticsreporterMarkJaffe,“MvadvicetocoLintiesandmunicipalitiesisifthispasses,don’tdoanything...nozoning,noordinances.‘l’lwcostofdefendinglawsuitsorpavingtocoveramultitudeofsmalldimunitionsinpropertycouldbankruptsomemunicipalitiesorforcethemtocedetheirauthoritytocontrolgrowthanddevelopment.That’sastiffpricetopayforameasurethatostensiblyseekstomitigatetheimpactsofInitiative97.EitherofthesemeasuresisterribleforColorado.Ifbothpass,thisholywarbetweenanti-drillingactivistsandindustrydefenderswillhaveachievedastateofmutuallyassureddestruction.11https::ww.gjsentineI.com/opinionedi1onalsftwo—for—tI1e—scrap—heap!article87570c62—a3,..8/19/2018
TwofbrthescrapheapIEditorials[gjsentincl.comPage3of3That’swhyit’simportantforsupportersofbothmeasurestoconsiderwithdrawingthemfromconsiderationfortheballot.Weneedatruceonthisstandofforvotersaregoingtodecide.Andifitcomestothat,we’llbeurgingvoterstorejectbothmeasuresastheonlysaneandreasonableoutcometothismadness.12Iittps://w’vw.gjsentinel.coni/opinion/cdikrials’bo—Ior—the—scrap—heap/artideX7570c62—a3...8/19/2()18
172
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
Date: September 25, 2018
RE: Appeal Wind River Apartment Homes Development Plan 2018-03, 1041 St. Vrain
Avenue, Wind River Holdings, LLC/Owner
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Review and reach final decision on the Wind River Apartments Development Plan (DP 2018-03)
on appeal from the Planning Commission’s denial of same on August 21, 2018.
Present Situation:
The Wind River Apartments proposes a multi-family development with 94 total units. The
property is 5.77± acres in size, and is within an RM, Multi-Family Residential Zoning District.
The 5.77 acres is the total area of the two-lot Wapiti Minor Subdivision, approved by the Town
Board of Trustees and recorded in 2014. For this proposal, the applicant submitted an
application for a lot consolidation, to re-combine the two lots into one. This staff-level lot
consolidation has been approved by staff. At this writing, the applicant is preparing the required
plat for signatures and recordation. The applicant has used an incentive within the EVDC for a
density bonus to allow for the 94 units proposed.
A waiver is requested by the applicant, to allow a minimum centerline radius of 37 feet, in lieu of
the required minimum 50 feet.
The Estes Valley Planning Commission reviewed application materials and related items and
held public hearing(s) on the Development Plan. The first hearing was on June 19, 2018, at
which time the Planning Commission voted to continue the application to July 17, 2018. The
applicant agreed to make some revisions and clarifications to the plans. At that time, it was
again continued by the Planning Commission, as the applicant was still working to make some
Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
173
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
WIND RIVER APARTMENTS, DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPEAL
PAGE | 2
revisions to the plans. The hearing was on August 21, 2018, at which time the Planning
Commission denied the Development Plan, with four voting in favor of the motion to deny, and
two against. No findings were made in the motion to deny, which was as follows:
“I move to deny the Wind River Apartments Development Plan application.”
On August 22, 2018, the property owner, Paul Pewterbaugh, of Wind River Properties, LLC,
filed a request with the Town Clerk for appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the
Development Plan.
Per EVDC Sec. 3.8.C.2, the Planning Commission’s August 21 decision is considered “final
action”; however, per Section 12.1.B. of the EVDC, any “party-in-interest may appeal a final
decision made by the Estes Valley Planning Commission pursuant to this Code…” to the Town
Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners, depending on jurisdiction. The Wind
River Apartments site is in the Town; thus, an appeal goes to the Town Board in this case. The
owner qualifies as a party-in-interest.
There is an application for a Special Review application, also on the September 25, 2018
agenda. This Special Review is for a “Day Care Center” in an RM, Multi-Family Residential
Zoning District. There is one existing residential structure on the subject property, which is
proposed to be expanded and remodeled for the day care use as well as a leasing office.
Although part of the Wind River project as a whole, this day care is a separate and distinct use.
It has a separate staff report and is a separate agenda item, and requires a separate action by
the Town Board. It is not part of this appeal.
Proposal:
Staff reports and exhibits for the two Planning Commission hearing dates are included as
Attachments in this packet; please review these for full background. Minutes from these
meetings are also included as Attachments.
The owner’s attached letter of appeal set forth the applicant’s basis for appeal.
The Town Board has four options in deciding and voting on this appeal. They correspond to four
possible Board motions, as the Board may see fit. The four options are:
1. Deny the Wind River Apartments Development Plan as submitted on appeal, finding that
it does not meet the Estes Valley Development Code in one or more particulars (the
particulars will need to be stated in the motion).
2. Approve the Wind River Apartments Development Plan and waiver request as submitted
on appeal, finding that it meets the Estes Valley Development Code’s requirements for
approval per EVDC Chapter 3 (Review Procedures and Standards).
3. Approve the Wind River Apartments Development Plan and waiver request as submitted
on appeal with conditions, finding that it meets the Estes Valley Development Code’s
requirements for approval per EVDC Chapter 3 (Review Procedures and Standards)
[with conditions stated in the motion].
174
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
WIND RIVER APARTMENTS, DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPEAL
PAGE | 3
(Because development plan reviews are ministerial and not discretionary, any
conditions must be grounded in established standards, such as the EVDC, the
Town’s Water System Engineering Design Standards, etc. For example, an
appropriate development-plan ministerial condition might require that the exact
height of a retaining wall be dimensioned on the plan. An example of an
inappropriate discretionary condition would be that the development have an
HOA or POA (Property Owner’s Association)).
4. Continue the Wind River Apartments Development Plan and waiver request to a future
date-certain Town Board meeting, with a request for staff to provide specific findings to
support approval/denial of the Wind River Apartments Development Plan.
(For example, the motion for continuance should give Staff specific direction on
what specific findings need to be provided to support a decision of the Town
Board for approval/denial of the Wind River Apartments Development Plan.)
Staff Comments:
1.The Restrictive Covenant and Agreement for the Wind River project, a requirement of
increasing density with the density bonus provisions in the EVDC, has been slightly
revised from that which is attached to the August 21, 2018 Planning Commission staff
report. The revised, finalized version is attached.
2.Recently it was questioned whether the alternative parking study submitted by the
applicant, which proposes fewer spaces than required in the Off Street Parking
Requirements in the EVDC, requires a waiver request. It was determined, with
concurrence of the Town Attorney, that this does not require a waiver, per Section
7.11.E of the EVDC.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission of the Wind River Apartments
Development Plan, along with the associated waiver request for reduced centerline radius.
Staff stands by this recommendation today on appeal.
Finance/Resource Impact:
n/a
Level of Public Interest
Very high. Written comments have been received for this application. All written comments are
posted to: www.estes.org/currentapplications.
Sample Motions:
I move for the approval of the Wind River Apartments Development Plan (DP 2018-03), along
with the associated waiver request for reduced centerline radius, on appeal from the Planning
Commission’s denial of same on August 21, 2018, finding that the Development Plan meets the
Estes Valley Development Code’s requirements for approval per EVDC Chapter 3 (Review
Procedures and Standards).
175
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
WIND RIVER APARTMENTS, DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPEAL
PAGE | 4
I move for the approval of the Wind River Apartments Development Plan (DP 2018-03), along
with the associated waiver request for reduced centerline radius, on appeal from the Planning
Commission’s denial of same on August 21, 2018, finding that the Development Plan meets the
Estes Valley Development Code’s requirements for approval per EVDC Chapter 3 (Review
Procedures and Standards). The following conditions of approval are included:
[cite conditions here, including EVDC section(s)]
I move for the denial of the Wind River Apartments Development Plan (DP 2018-03) as
submitted on appeal, finding that it does not meet the “Standards for Review” under Section
3.8.D. of the Estes Valley Development Code, including the following particulars:
[cite particulars here]
I move to continue the Wind River Apartments Development Plan (DP 2018-03), along with the
associated waiver request for reduced centerline radius, as submitted on appeal to _________
[date certain], and direct that staff provide additional information prior to that date toward the
ability to assess specific findings, as follows:
[state needed additional information]
Attachments:
1.Appeal Request, dated August 22, 2018
2.Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 19, 2018 (Attachments Not Included)
3.Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 21, 2018.
4.Planning Commission hearing minutes from June 19, 2018
5.Planning Commission hearing minutes from August 21, 2018
6.Restrictive Covenant and Agreement
176
Comments, letters, and emails
regarding this application
can be found at the following link:
www.estes.org/currentapplications
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
(Not included for Town Board Packet)
185Presented August 21, 2018
186
187
188
189Not Included - Updated Agreement is included after minutes.
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 19, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Betty Hull,
Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Doyle Baker, Steve Murphree
Attending: Chair Leavitt, Commissioners Schneider, Hull, Foster, Murphree and
Baker
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff
Woeber, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Town Board Liaison Ron
Norris, County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley, Recording Secretary Karin
Swanlund
Absent: Commissioner White
Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 200 people in
attendance.
1.OPEN MEETING
Planning Commissioner Introductions
Director Hunt announced that future Planning Commission Study Sessions will be
recorded and streamed on YouTube starting July 17.
2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Hull) to approve the agenda as presented and
the motion passed 6-0
3.PUBLIC COMMENT
Robert Ellis/1707 Ptarmigan Trail, spoke on the Mountain Coaster plan questioning the
parking and zoning and requested that it be brought before the Planning Commission.
Linda Langer/1861 Raven Ave, expressed that the coaster as planned exceeds the intent
of zoning requirements, and traffic, speeding, wildlife disruption, noise and light pollution
will all be factors. This project should have a more in depth review.
Pamela Henderick/1861 Raven Ave, stated the Mountain Coaster is in a wildlife corridor,
causing a dangerous situation with traffic, speeding, noise, and disrupting the natural
setting. The Town has responsibility to protect citizens who border on a county road. She
presented a letter to Chair Leavitt, which can be found on the town website.
3.CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of May 15, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Hull) to approve the consent agenda as
presented and the motion passed 6-0.
221
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 19, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4.LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 3153 Fish Creek Road. 4-bedroom, 10-person
occupancy. Owner: William and Linda Warne
Code Compliance Officer (CCO) Hardin stated that the home sits on a lot size of .46-acre,
Large Vacation Home use requires 1-acre lot size, with 25 foot setbacks, there is a 15 foot
setback on the east side which causes no concern to neighboring properties. There have
been no public comments received. Commissioner Baker asked about the East and West
buffers of the property.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Foster) to approve the vacation home at 3153 Fish
Creek Road to allow a maximum of ten (10) occupants according to facts and
findings recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-1 with Baker voting no.
5.ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) TEXT AMENDMENT
Review of the current conditions with regard to the vacation home cap.
CCO Hardin stated that the current cap of 588 vacation home registrations had been
reached in May, with a current waiting list of 13. She explained how the cap was derived
and that without any history to look back on, there is no way of knowing how those
numbers may change. Staff recommended leaving the current code unchanged with a
cap of 588.
Committee and Staff Discussion:
Some of the 40 homes being processed may not complete the registration, therefore
opening up spaces. Leavitt noted that there are a substantial number of citizens that think
the cap should be lowered, it does need to be reviewed every year, and that many of the
vacation homes in residential districts are in single family neighborhoods which has an
impact on affordable workforce housing.
Public Comment:
None
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Murphree) to recommend denial of any change to
the cap per Exhibit A. The motion passed 5-0 with Foster recusing himself.
6.EVDC TEXT AMENDMENT
Review and revise Section §13.2.C.15 to amend definition of “Cultural Institutions”
Director Hunt stated that this Code Amendment is related to the Special Review that will
be discussed in the July Planning Commission meeting, and asked permission for
“blended” discussion on both projects. Chair Leavitt granted permission. Hunt then
reviewed the proposed Text Amendment regarding removal of the uses “art galleries” and
“libraries”, and a revised Table 4-1, Permitted Uses in Residential Zoning Districts to
extend Special Review Use (S2) in Residential Zoning Districts to allow for review and
approval procedures for Cultural Institutions on a case by case basis. An amendment was
brought up in the Study Session, recommend by a town citizen, which Staff thought was a
222
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 19, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
reasonable and appropriate change, defining the Cultural Institutions definition in Code to
read as follows: Nonprofit Institutions displaying or preserving objects of interest in one or
more of the arts or sciences, to allow for nonprofit institutions that educate, display or
preserve objects of interest that are connected to the history of that property. Staff
recommended approval of the Code Amendment, specifically the current definition’s
inclusion of art galleries and libraries. This text amendment is not just a one time or one
property issue but could be used with other institutions such as The Dunraven House and
MacGregor Ranch in the future.
Staff and Commission comment:
Director Hunt answered in the affirmative to Commissioner Foster’s question, referring to
page 2 of staff report memo, that the Town is withdrawing its justification that limits the
definition of Cultural Institutions to those areas that are connected to the real property,
adding that Staff believes there is adequate coverage elsewhere in Code for art galleries,
libraries and other institutions. Making terms more specific in new Comprehensive Plan
with definitions and adding rows to the table for permitted and special uses will provide
further distinction and appropriate context.
Public Comment: (comments are condensed, meeting can be viewed on the Town of
Estes Park website for 12 months from this date)
•The following people commented in favor of the proposal:
Steve Lane, Basis Architecture, representing applicant, commended Randy and Staff on
the long process to get to this point.
Tom Shamburg/625 Steamer Drive, Director of the Historic Stanley Home Group, gave a
brief history of the grass roots organization begun two years ago. There is a list of
citizens stating they approve and recommend project, which currently has 538 signatures,
38 supporters present today.
Bill Pinkham/760 Meadow Circle, project is good for the community, with neighbor issues
able to be resolved.
Charlie Dickey/265 Steamer Court, spoke in favor of individual merit of a Special Review
Curtis Kelly/2850 Fall River Road requested adoption of this amendment as a special
review mechanism for future options.
•The following people commented against the proposal:
Paul, Ellen Romig/411 Big Horn Drive, expressed concerns about a 5 month, 7 day a
week operation, noise, traffic and crowd control.
Ross Maxwell/503 Big Horn Drive, stated that the House could have been placed on
Historic Register or a conservation easement applied for, neither of which was done. This
being a residential neighborhood, E1 zoning should be preserved.
Dave Shirk/301 Far View Drive, referenced the Hydro Plant on Fish Hatchery Road and
that may be a solution that is already out there.
Connie Phipps/585 Wonderview Avenue, would like to see respect for the neighbors and
neighborhood and not base the decision on the good response to the foundation letter,
noting that other home museums are not operated 7 days a week and have controlled
hours.
223
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 19, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Sue Maxwell/503 Big Horn Drive, 100 percent opposed to allowing Cultural Institutions in
residential districts, and it is not better than having 4 homes on the property. With a gift
shop, and possibly food items this could open the door to other commercial business
which will begin “creeping” along Wonderview Avenue going west.
Commissioner/Staff Discussion:
Hull asked Tom Shamburg if the Foundation would be willing to adjust hours to be the
same as the EP Museum to which he answered that the demand for visits and financial
model are needed to help sustain and maintain the home. The numbers come out to 12
visitors, once per hour, via shuttle. A meeting to address the neighbor’s concerns was set
for June 21.
Foster counter-proposed to keep the published definition of Cultural Institution and not
have any connection to the phrase Important Real Estate with respect to what is allowed
in a residential neighborhood, limiting it to Cultural Institutions, which do have a
connection to the real estate, adding the real estate comment to Table 4.1, rather than
adding it to the definition of Cultural Institutions. Baker supported this and stated he will
not vote for this amendment as proposed for the following reasons: 1) The definition of
Cultural Institutions, either as written or modified, has nothing to do with a normal
definition of Cultural Institutions and a single town shouldn’t refine what the concept is. 2)
The comments today make it clear that this Code Amendment is to accommodate a
particular proposal and it is inappropriate to continue to make ad hoc changes to our
Code in order to accommodate specific proposals as opposed to looking at our
community as a whole. 3) A Code should not pre-judge which type of culture is
acceptable or not. 4) We shouldn’t restrict or limit an opportunity to establish Cultural
Institutions and if we do, we should allow all to be considered. Hunt stated that either way
is feasible and could be done. After further discussion, it was decided to continue the
item to the next meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Foster) to continue the Code Amendment request
of the EVDC to the due to questions yet to be answered and an agreement yet to be
reached. The motion passed 5-0, with Schneider recusing himself.
A 10 minute break was taken from 2:45-2:55
7.RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOCATED AT
1041 SOUTH SAINT VRAIN AVE, KNOW AS WIND RIVER APARTMENTS.
Planner Woeber noted that this application was initially scheduled for the May 15 Planning
Commission Meeting. Staff recommended the application be continued in order to clarify
and revise some parts of the application. Woeber then reviewed the waivers requested
and the overall development plan for the property which will consist of four multi-family
structures, 78 units with two bedrooms, 16 units with one bedroom. Applicant will be
using the EVDC incentive for a density bonus allowing 38’ height. The Covenant
Agreement was recently revised and drafted. The Day Care proposal will be reviewed in
July. Affected agencies were consulted and reviewed the project, giving
224
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 19, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
recommendations. Public input is high. Staff recommend approval of the Wind River
Apartments Development Plan and approval of the associated waiver request with
conditions.
Staff and Commission Discussion:
(Director Hunt recused himself from the discussion as he is an adjacent neighbor to the
property)
Schneider questioned the minimum lot area for a day care, which could reduce the total
area, thus taking away from the housing numbers, arguing that the area required is
greater than area available and the numbers don’t add up. Woeber answered that density
is based on full 5.7 acres, combining the 2 lots. Child care would be open to public
making it an economic incentive.
Applicant Discussion:
Paul Pewterbaugh, owner/applicant, introduced himself and described his connection to
the town and his reasons for this Development Plan, referring to the Estes Valley Housing
Needs study.
Steve Lane, Basis Architecture, discussed the history of RM zoning and density bonus
noting that zero private development plans were applied for in 16 years with 1.5 density
bonus. In 2016 town increased bonus to 200% and height increases in 2017 for RM
specifically to encourage this type of project. He stated that in the Estes Valley, there are
18 vacant lots, 7 are open space, only 3 over 1 acre, 2 of which are on this property. He
gave a slide presentation of early and current plans, showing view corridors with proposed
building drawings
Joe Coop, Van Horn Engineering, reviewed the utilities, reporting the convenience of
having the sewer, water, gas, fiber, phone and electric right next to the property.
Lonnie Shelton, Van Horn Engineering, responded to the letter submitted by Ascent
Planning Solutions, stating that he believes this project meets all Code requirements and
conditions of approval. The question was again raised on how the density bonus
numbers were calculated, with disagreement on the total square foot figure.
Matt Delich, Delich and Associates, spoke on the amount of parking spaces proposed,
reviewing the town standards and how he conducted his alternate traffic and parking
studies on this proposal. Considerable discussion on traffic safety was had.
Public Comment: (comments are summarized, meeting can be viewed on the Town of
Estes Park website for 12 months from this date)
)
Dave Shirk, Ascent Planning Solutions, gave his planning background and presented his
Code Analysis to the Recording Secretary for submittal. He reviewed the study findings in
detail.
•The following citizens spoke against the project, with each speaker reviewing
different concerns.
Adam Bensman/1085 Lexington Lane, read a letter explaining the concerns of the
surrounding neighbors, all living within the Lexington Lane, Eagles Landing, Eagle View,
Fairway Club Condos and The Pines neighborhoods.
225
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 19, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Josh Weaver/1031 Lexington Lane: Safety, traffic control.
Lisbeth Lord/President of Eagles Landing Condo Association: Storm runoff situation on
east side of Highway 7.
Chris Hill/919 Lexington Lane: Density Bonus determinations
Karen Nicholson/905 Village Green Lane: Staff report leaves holes, missing documents,
plan prematurely presented to Planning Commission.
Mitch Mitchell/1015 Lexington Lane: Project must adheres to Town Codes on this plot of
land making sure safeguards are applied.
Brookie Gallagher/1030 Lexington Lane: Untested height increases and density bonuses,
alternative parking study, open space calculations, lack of clarity as to who is responsible
for traffic safety studies and who will fund them.
Dick Coe/1070 Pine Knoll Drive: Original owner wanted property to be maintained as
open space, wildlife use this property as their natural habitat, and wildlife viewing for
tourists will be diminished. He also requested the speed limit be reduced from 45 to 35
mph on Highway 7.
Sundee Pietsch/1023 Lexington Lane: Height of buildings impacting views, 6 month
lease, up to 8 unrelated people living in one unit.
Chris Harris/1061 Baily Lane: Variances are the killers of neighborhoods.
•Those speaking in favor
Charlie Dickey/265 Steamer Court: Estes Valley Partners for Commerce, spoke in favor
of the project, siting the housing shortage as the main reason.
James Poppitz/650 Devon Drive: work force housing is needed, we’ve been talking about
if for a decade, what is getting done and when are we going to approve a project.
Kent Smith/661 Big Horn Drive: The job of the Planning Commission is to protect
individual property rights, both the neighbors and developers.
Other Comments:
Director Hunt explained the density calculation process: divide number of square feet into
number of units. CDOT did not require dedication of right-of-way. Attorney W hite noted
that inside the development is not a private street, but a driveway. Lonnie Shelton
summarized that this was submitted as two proposals, a Development Plan and a Special
Use for the Day Care, going hand in hand together, requesting a continuation to July in
order to submit a complete plan. Hunt stated we should expect better performance from
the State Department of Transportation than we have seen on this, and many other
projects, he is disappointed and will do what he can to work with CDOT.
Commissioner comments:
After extensive analysis, Commissioners supported the request to continue the action
item in order to hear the final package due to the amount of information and complicated
nature of project and questions to be addressed, requesting that future information be
given to the Commission as it is received, not 5 days before the next meeting.
226
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 19, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Hull) to continue the Development Plan and
associated waiver requests to the next Planning Commission Meeting and the
motion passed 6-0.
8.REPORTS
Due to the length of meeting there were no reports given.
There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.
_________________________________
Bob Leavitt, Chair
__________________________________
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
227
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 21, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Betty Hull,
Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Frank Theis, Steve Murphree
Attending: Chair Leavitt, Commissioners Schneider, White, Foster, Murphree and
Theis
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff
Woeber, Planner Robin Becker, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County
Staff Liaison Michael Whitley, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: Commissioner Hull
Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 70 people in
attendance.
1.OPEN MEETING
Planning Commission/Staff Introductions
2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (White/Schneider) to approve the agenda as presented
and the motion passed 6-0.
3.CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of July 17, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Foster) to approve the consent agenda as
presented and the motion passed 6-0.
4.BLACK CANYON WEDDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Planner Becker reported that this item was continued to the next Planning Commission
meeting to be held October 16, 2018 and that a public meeting with neighborhood and
community members was to be held August 23 at the Black Canyon Office.
Public Comment:
Anna Claassen, town citizen, questioned when the public meeting was planned and noted
that neighbors have not been notified
Jay Blackwood, town citizen, stated that a glitch in GPS brings people to the Black
Canyon neighborhood rather than the Black Canyon Inn, and this project would cause
more issues with people coming to the wrong address. He would like GPS to be fixed.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Theis) to continue the Development Plan to the
October 16, 2018 meeting and the motion passed 6-0.
228
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 21, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
5.RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOCATED AT
1041 SOUTH SAINT VRAIN AVE, KNOW AS WIND RIVER APARTMENTS.
Planner Woeber stated that this application was reviewed by the EVPC at their June 19,
2018 meeting. Due to questions that were raised by the EVPC, and with concurrence of
the applicant, the application was continued to the July 17, 2018 EVPC meeting. With
revisions not being available in time for that meeting, it was continued to the August 21,
2018 EVPC meeting. The applicant, in their revised submittal materials, has detailed all
requested revisions, and has outlined specifically what has been revised.
The subject property is 5.77 acres in size and is undeveloped. Currently the site is two
separate lots. A lot consolidation application has been submitted to combine Lots 1 and 2
of Wapiti Minor Subdivision into one lot. The development consists of four multi-family
structures, three 24-unit buildings and one 22-unit building resulting in 78 units with two
bedrooms and 16 units with one bedroom. Legal notices were published in the Estes
Park Trail Gazette and adjacent property owners were notified. There is significant
opposition to this project. Staff recommended approval of the Wind River Apartments
Development Plan and approval of the associated waiver request to reduce the radius of
a section of an internal drive.
Staff and Commission Questions:
Director Hunt recused himself from discussion due to owning property and living across
the street from the Development Project. Woeber stated that the housing cost limits has
been revised in the restricted covenant agreements.
Applicant Discussion:
Paul Pewterbaugh stated that the reason for the delay was to be sure to address all the
concerns, feedback and input from both the Planning Commission and the public. All
members of the team were present at the meeting to answer all questions that may arise.
He then summarized the components of the application.
Eric Blackhurst, President of Estes Park Housing Authority, presented an abbreviated
presentation on the housing needs situation. The first housing study was done in 1989-
1990, community wide, and three studies have been done since, 1999, 2008 and 2016, all
with similar results.
Joe Coop, Van Horn Engineering, displayed the sidewalk proposal along Lexington Lane,
and the west side of highway 7. A Pedestrian Study showed that a lighted pedestrian
crossing beacon didn’t warrant a CDOT permit. He also discussed the drainage issues
and plans that would vastly improve the current system. The traffic study determined that
there were 45 trips per hour, thus not triggering a left turn lane onto Highway 7. Mail
cluster boxes will not be on Lexington Lane.
Steve Lane, Basis Architecture, reviewed the lot density which was calculated on being
one lot at 5.77 acres without a dedicated private street. Lot size does not affect the
density of the day care or number of units. The height and density bonus was approved
229
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 21, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
to allow RM zoned properties to solve the housing needs. The 15% open
space/recreational space is met. The height code will be met, with the 3 story buildings
being dug into the west side of the lot. Parking has 182 spaces for units and 16 guest
spaces which is more than most neighboring communities. The EVDC specifies that this
development should have 204 parking spaces. Taking out 4 units would allow us to meet
the requirement, but nothing would change with regard to the site plan and traffic. Our
proposal includes a request to allow 182 spaces rather than the 204 per the EVDC.
Public Comment: Comments are summarized, full comments can be found on the Town
of Estes website at www.estes.gov/meetingvideos for 12 months from the date of meeting
The following town citizens spoke in opposition with concerns related to: pedestrian and
traffic safety, drainage, flooding, work force housing density, parking, garbage generated,
and Vacation Home impacts:
Marcia Weaver, Kristen Hill, Liz Lord, Karen Nicholson, Adam Bensma, Brookie
Gallagher, Nancy Fuller, Martha Rouch, Katie Sykes
Town citizens speaking in favor stating the following reasons: the need for work force
housing, property rights, many business owners and workers in favor, take advantage of
developers willing to invest their money, and 352 people on the affordable housing
waitlist:
James Poppitz, Kent Smith, Jon Nicholas, Greg Rosener, Charley Dickey, Naomi Hawf
Commissioner/Applicant Discussion:
Paul Pewterbaugh emphasized that he understands the concerns of the neighbors, but
this property has been zoned RM for years. Businesses using apartments for employees
would be held to the same requirements as private renters. Covenants have an
occupancy limit of two people per bedroom, plus one. Housing Authority will oversee the
leases, as hired by the Town of Estes Park. One year leases are desired, six month
leases are the minimum. The hope is to attract families that work and help run the town.
Deed restrictions are 50 years, and run with the land. Joe Coop addressed the drainage
questions clarifying how the drainage plan will help the neighborhoods to the east.
Commissioner Comments: Comments are summarized, full comments can be found on
the Town of Estes website at www.estes.gov/meetingvideos for 12 months from the date
of meeting.
•Workforce housing is needed but so is the need to be careful with unintended
consequences
•Abuse of the intended use of the density bonus. Two lots were combined but all the
housing was placed on one lot, producing a density much greater than 16 units per
acre, which was envisioned when the code amendment was adopted.
•Maximum density does not have to be granted. The EVDC says up to a maximum
of 200% depending on site-specific conditions. This is supported by the EVDC
section 11.2.B "site-specific conditions may prevent maximum bonus density levels
from being achieved due to the character of the land or surrounding uses."
230
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 21, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
•Inadequate facilities for parking within the development. Proposed parking is less
than the EVDC requirement.
•Traffic and parking on Lexington Lane. This road is narrow and it will be difficult to
handle the traffic load. The Town does not even want to install "No Parking" signs,
according to the developer.
•Serious concerns for pedestrian and bicycle safety on Lexington Lane and at the
Highway 7 crossing.
•There are no conditions put on the project to mitigate parking and safety issues.
•Lack of compromise on either side in the two months that have passed since the
last public hearing.
•Workforce housing needs to be addressed in sensible and reasonable way,
respecting the rights and interests of all parties involved.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Schneider) to deny the Development Plan
application without findings and the motion passed 4-2 with Theis and Murphree
voting against.
A ten minute recess was called at 4:20
6.APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL REVIEW TO ALLOW A “DAY CARE CENTER” IN A
MULTI FAMILY-RM RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
Summary: in addition to the Development Plan, the applicant has included a proposal for
a day care facility on the apartment site, to serve the residents but which is also intended
to have the capacity or openings for children from outside the development. The daycare
is proposed within an existing structure on the property, which would be remodeled and
expanded, with a portion also used as a leasing office. Legal notices were published in
the Estes Park Trail Gazette and adjacent property owners were notified. Staff
recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the
Special Review Use for the Wind River Day Care Center to the Town Board of Trustees
with the following condition: The approved use shall be consistent with the plans and
information as submitted by the applicant for the Special Review Use.
Applicant Pewterbaugh elected to continue with the Special Review of the Day Care
Center stating that the Development Plan would attract a lot of young families, with a
projected 60% use from the apartments.
Steve Lane reviewed the plans for the day care facility and leasing office.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/White) to approve the application for a
Special Review Use the item and the motion passed 6-0.
7.EVDC TEXT AMENDMENT
231
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 21, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
To add “Sightseeing/Tour Vehicle Facility” as an S2 Special Review use in the A,
Accommodations, the CD, Downtown Commercial and the CO, Outlying Commercial
Zoning Districts, and also add a definition of the same. Staff recommended a review of
the amendment for compliance with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for
Review and forward a recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the
Larimer County Commissioners for a final decision to approve.
Staff/Commission Questions:
It was explained that most users of Sightseeing/bus tours are staying in A zoning, thus the
reason for putting buses in Accommodation Zoning, in addition to Commercial Zoning.
The Special Review would allow rulings based on the specifics of individual applications.
Public Comment:
Bob Berman, 1442 Raven Circle, expressed concerns about putting a bus barn on one of
the major entrances to the town while the other companies have found less obtrusive
areas. This company is not new and had a different place to park at one time. Once
approval is given to one company, it will open up the door for all other Special Reviews in
A zoning, which are all over town.
Commissioner Discussion: comments are summarized
S2 review would be on a case by case basis with conditions allowed to be added. Don’t
see the need to add the A zoning or change the code. This particular property has had
problems with all businesses that have operated out of the location. The code has
prohibitions for fueling and repairs in regard to the word “facility”.
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Leavitt) to recommend that the Estes Park
Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners approve the
text amendment to the EVDC as presented by staff, with findings recommended by
staff. The motion was approved 4-2 with Foster and Schneider voting against.
8.ESTES PARK TROLLEYS S-2 SPECIAL REVIEW
The applicant requested approval of an S2 Special Review for the use,
“Sightseeing/Tour Vehicle Facility” in the A, Accommodations Zoning District.
Summary: this special review was contingent upon approval of the related Code
Amendment. Staff found that this use has been established at this location for
approximately one year, and impacts have been minimal. Staff recommends that
Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the Special Review Use
for a Sightseeing/Tour Vehicle Facility in an A, Accommodations Zoning District with the
following conditions:
1.The approved use shall generally be consistent with the materials submitted by the
applicant, and shall specifically include the applicants proposed use of the facility
only as a sales office and point of dispatch for tours, and the limitation on the
number of vehicles in the fleet.
232
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 21, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2.Within 30 days of Special Review approval, applicant shall submit a Landscaping
Plan to the Community Development Department, providing an effective screening
with trees and shrubs from adjacent roads. The Landscaping Plan shall be
reviewed and approve by staff, and the landscaping shall be established by the
applicant within 60 days after staffs approval of the Landscaping Plan.
Landscaping shall be inspected and approved by staff.
Staff/Commission Questions:
Director Hunt proposed, since the applicant was not present, two alternatives: continue
the item to the next meeting or deny the application without prejudice.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/White) to continue the Special Review Use for a
Sightseeing/Tour Vehicle Facility to September 18, 2018. The motion passed 6-0.
9.UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISCTRICT LOCATION AND EXTENT REVIEW
Planner W oeber detailed the review of a location and extent for a partial rebuild of the
sanitation districts existing office/shop facility in a CO, Outlying Commercial Zoning
District. The proposal involves rebuilding an approximately 3000 square foot building,
including the office and one of the seven garage bays, all proposed within the existing
footprint. Legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail Gazette and adjacent
property owners were notified. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the
Location and Extent Review Application as submitted by the applicant.
Applicant Discussion:
Jess Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering, stated that the project is much needed as the
facility is old and outdated.
It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to approve the Upper Thompson Sanitation
District’s application for a Location and Extent Review, with staff findings. The motion
passed 6-0.
10. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE:
EVDC §3.2 STANDARD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE B. NEIGHBORHOOD
AND COMMUNITY MEETING, §3.2 F SUMMARY TABLE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW PROCESS BY APPLICATION TYPE, CHAPTER 13 DEFINITIONS, AND
APPENDIX B SUBMITTAL REQUREMENTS.
Planner Becker discussed the proposed Text Amendment that would allow property
owners to become informed and involved in the Estes Valley Development Review
Process in regard to projects in their neighborhood.
Staff/Commission Discussion:
An application will be deemed incomplete if meeting is not held. If a meeting was
attempted, but did not happen, a letter would need to be submitted stating why. This
would apply to anything that requires a public meeting, including Annexation and
233
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 21, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Rezoning. Use classification would only be a recommendation and not required, since
use classifications may not be applicable to a specific location.
Public Comment:
Naomi Hawf, Estes Park Housing Authority, questioned how and what type of notice
would be sent. Hunt and Becker answered that a 10 day notice prior to meeting, an ad in
the newspaper and a mailing using the same address list as the Community Development
office would be required.
It was moved and seconded (White/Foster) to recommend that the Estes Park Town
Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners approve the
text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, according to findings of
fact and as recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-0. (Commissioner
Murphree left meeting early)
11. REPORTS
Due to the length of the meeting, there were no reports given.
There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m.
_________________________________
Bob Leavitt, Chair
__________________________________
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
234
1
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND AGREEMENT
THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) dated as of
___________________, 2018 (the “Effective Date”) is entered into by and between Wind River
Holdings, LLC (the “Owner”) and the Town of Estes Park (the “Town”), a Colorado Municipal
Corporation, on the Effective Date stated herein.
RECITALS
Section 11.4.C. of the Estes Valley Development Code (“EVDC”) provides that a property
owner may receive a density bonus with respect to “attainable” and “workforce” housing. The
Owner has obtained approval from the Town for the development of __________ multi-family
structures consisting of ______ residential rental units. Such approval includes the density bonus
which requires that the housing units be subject to the restrictive covenants set forth in this
Agreement to assure occupancy of the residential units qualifies them as workforce housing,
attainable housing, or a combination of both.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals, and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereby declare that the Property (as hereinafter defined) shall be held, sold, occupied and conveyed
subject to the following covenants, restrictions, and conditions, all of which shall be covenants
running with the land and which covenants, restrictions, and conditions shall be binding on all
parties having any right, title, or interest in the Property, or any part thereof.
Definitions.
“AMI” means Larimer County Area Median Income as annually published by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
“Attainable Household” is defined in section 6.3(a).
“Attainable Housing Unit” means a Residential Unit, the occupancy of which is
restricted to an Attainable Household.
“Current EVDC” means the Estes Valley Development Code in effect as of the
Effective Date.
“Earned Income” for a person for any year means the W-2 and/or current pay stubs
and self-employment income earned by that person as reflected on that person’s most recently filed
federal tax return or as set forth in a sworn statement by that person.
“Housing Cost Limit” means with respect to a Residential Unit the amount in the
row corresponding to 150% of AMI (Area Median Income) set forth as the maximum rent, based
on the number of bedrooms, in the rent table for developments with federal low income housing
tax credits and Colorado Housing and Finance Authority loans (the “Maximum Rent Table”)
published annually by Colorado Housing and Finance Authority for Larimer County Colorado
(which is based on tables published annually by HUD to determine eligibility for assisted housing
programs) or if the Maximum Rent Table is not published, the most comparable replacement or
235
Updated Agreement Includes Attorney White's Comments
2
successor table prepared using similar methodology. The Housing Cost Limit based on the
foregoing shall be effective 45 days after publication of the Maximum Rent Table and shall remain
in effect until 45 days after publication of the Maximum Rent Table for the following year. A copy
of the Maximum Rent Table in effect as of the date of this Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit
A.
“Housing Costs” with respect to a Residential Unit means the annual rent of that
Residential Unit plus (i) an amount equal to the annual utility allowances defined by HUD based
on the number of bedrooms in the Residential Unit (regardless of the actual costs or charges for
such utilities) and (ii) any other charges, computed on an annual basis, that are required to be paid
under the Rental Agreement. For this purpose, utility charges may be estimated in good faith by
the Owner. Housing Costs shall exclude any charges that are optional (i.e., not required to be paid
in under a basic Rental Agreement for the Residential Unit that excludes such option such as fees
for pets and amenities).
“Occupancy Certification” means a certification in the form attached hereto (or
such other form as may be approved by the Town) to be executed by the person(s) executing a
Rental Agreement as occupants.
“Occupancy Limit” means one plus two times the number of bedrooms in the
Residential Unit.
“Occupancy Requirements” is defined in section 6.1.
“Owner” means Wind River Holdings, LLC and any subsequent transferee,
assignee, or successor in title to the Property or any portion thereof.
“Property” means the real property described in Exhibit B.
“Qualified Household” is a Qualified Workforce Household or an Attainable
Household.
“Qualified Workforce Household” is defined in section 6.2(a).
“Rental Agreement” is defined in section 6.4.
“Residential Unit” means a residential rental unit located on the Property.
“Workforce Housing Unit” means a Residential Unit, the occupancy of which is
restricted to a Qualified Workforce Household.
“Term” is defined in section 5.1.
Other definitions may appear in the Agreement.
Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to enforce the restrictions in the Current EVDC
that apply to the Property in connection with the grant of the density bonus for attainable and
workforce housing.
236
3
Recording and Filing; Covenants to Run with the Land.
Recording, Covenants Run with the Land. This Agreement shall be placed of
record in the real property records of Larimer County, Colorado, being the county in which the
Property is located and except as otherwise provided herein, the covenants contained herein shall
run with the land and shall bind, and the benefits shall inure to, respectively, the Owner and its
successors and assigns, and the Town and its successors and assigns, and all subsequent owners of
the Property or any interest therein during the Term.
Satisfaction of Requirements. The Owner agrees that any and all requirements of
the laws of the State of Colorado to be satisfied in order for the provisions of this Agreement to
constitute restrictive covenants running with the land shall be deemed to be satisfied in full, and
that any requirements of privity of estate are intended to be satisfied, or in the alternate that an
equitable servitude has been created to insure that these restrictions run with the land. During the
Term, each and every contract, deed or other instrument hereafter executed conveying the Property
or portion thereof shall expressly provide that such conveyance is subject to this Agreement,
provided, however, the covenants contained herein shall survive and be effective as to successors
and assigns of all or any portion of the Property, regardless of whether such contract, deed or other
instrument hereafter executed conveying the Property or portion thereof provides that such
conveyance is subject to this Agreement.
Representations, Covenants and Warranties of the Owner. On the Effective Date, the
Owner covenants, represents and warrants as follows:
Organization. The Owner is duly organized under the laws of the State of Colorado,
and is qualified to transact business under the laws of the State.
Good Title. The Owner has good and marketable title to the Property.
Consistency Requirement. The Owner has not and will not execute any other
agreement with provisions contradictory to, or in opposition to, the provisions hereof, and in any
event, the requirements of this Agreement are paramount and controlling as to the rights and
obligations herein set forth and supersede any other provisions in conflict herewith.
Required Consents. The Owner will obtain the written consent of any prior
recorded lienholder on the Property to this Agreement prior to the first application for any
development permit (i.e. grading or building) for the Property.
Term of Agreement.
Term. In accordance with the requirements of the EVDC, this Agreement shall
remain in effect for each Residential Unit on the Property for a period of fifty (50) years from the
Effective Date (the “Term”).
Termination. Upon expiration of the Term, this Agreement and each of its
provisions shall terminate without further action by the parties. On and after expiration of the
Term, upon the written request of any current owner of the Property, the Town shall promptly
execute and deliver to such owner a statement of termination of this Agreement in recordable form
237
4
which may recorded by such owner, but the Agreement shall terminate whether or not any such
statement is recorded.
Restrictions on Use and Occupancy.
Restriction on Occupancy. Each occupied Residential Unit shall be occupied as
either an Attainable Housing Unit or a Workforce Housing Unit (the “Occupancy Requirements”).
For this purpose, the provisions of Sections 6.2 and 6.3 shall apply.
Workforce Housing.
Qualified Workforce Household Definition. A “Qualified Workforce
Household” means the occupants of a Residential Unit that are either (i) members of a
family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption, or (ii) unrelated individuals living
together whose number does not exceed the Occupancy Limit, in each case who occupy
the Residential Unit; where all occupants have common access to and common use of all
living and eating areas and all facilities for the preparation and serving of food within the
Residential Unit; and where at least one adult (eighteen years old or older) who occupies
the Residential Unit as his or her principal residence is employed (or self-employed) for an
average of at least thirty hours per week on an annual basis within the boundaries of the
Estes Park School District R-3 (such employed occupant is referred to as a “Qualified
Workforce Occupant”).
Transition Rules:
A person age 65 years or older who was a Qualified Workforce
Occupant for at least seven (7) consecutive years ending on the date such person
attained the age of 65 years shall continue to be regarded as a Qualified Workforce
Occupant for so long as he or she continuously occupies the Residential Unit after
attaining the age of 65 years.
If, after the occupancy of the Residential Unit has commenced by
the members of a Qualified Workforce Household, the status of a Qualified
Workforce Occupant changes so that such person is no longer considered to be a
Qualified Workforce Occupant, such person and the other persons occupying the
Residential Unit under the Rental Agreement shall continue to be considered to
constitute a Qualified Workforce Household until termination of the Rental
Agreement unless a longer period of occupancy is authorized in writing by the
Town.
Attainable Housing.
Attainable Housing Definition. An “Attainable Household” means
occupants of a Residential Unit that are either (i) a family unit related by blood, marriage
or adoption, or (ii) unrelated individuals living together whose number does not exceed the
Occupancy Limit, in each case who occupy the Residential Unit and where all occupants
have common access to and common use of all living and eating areas and all facilities for
the preparation and serving of food within the Residential Unit and where –
238
5
the combined Earned Income of all of the occupants does not exceed
150% of AMI, and
the Housing Costs do not exceed the Housing Cost Limit.
Transition Rule. If, after the occupancy of the Residential Unit has
commenced by the members of an Attainable Household, the combined Earned Income of
all of the occupants exceeds 150% of AMI, the occupants of the Residential Unit shall
continue to be considered an Attainable Household until termination of the Rental
Agreement unless a longer period of occupancy is authorized in writing by the Town.
Rental Agreements. Each Residential Unit shall be rented to occupants pursuant to
a written rental agreement (a “Rental Agreement”) that provides a rental term of at least six months
and not more than one year (except that a Rental Agreement may provide that its term ends on the
last day of the month that includes the one-year anniversary of the commencement of the Rental
Agreement) and which requires the occupants to constitute a Qualified Household on the date of
execution of the Rental Agreement and during the term of the Rental Agreement. The form of
Rental Agreement to be utilized by the Owner shall provide for termination of the Rental
Agreement and the consent by the occupants to immediate eviction as a result of any knowing
material misrepresentation with respect to the Occupancy Requirements made by the person or
persons executing the Rental Agreement. Each Rental Agreement shall prohibit occupancy or use
of the Residential Unit as a short term or vacation rental as defined in the EVDC and the Town’s
Municipal Code. Each Rental Agreement shall prohibit assignment or subleasing without the
consent of the Owner which consent must be denied unless after the assignment or sublease, the
occupants will constitute a Qualified Household. Nothing contained in this agreement shall
prohibit the Owner from entering into one or more master leases of Residential Units with terms
in excess of one year provided that each Rental Agreement entered into pursuant to the master
lease satisfies the requirements of this Agreement.
Relief and Extraordinary Circumstances. The Town may grant a variance,
exception or waiver from the requirements of this Section 6 based upon the written request of the
Owner. Such variance, exception or waiver may be granted by the Town only upon a finding that:
(i) the circumstances justifying the granting of the variance, exception or waiver are unique; (ii) a
strict application of this Section 6 would result in an extraordinary hardship; and (iii) the variance,
exception or waiver is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Agreement. No variance,
exception or waiver shall be granted by the Town if its effect would be to nullify the intent and
purpose of this Agreement. In granting a variance, exception or waiver of the provisions of this
Section 6, the Town may impose specific conditions of approval, and shall fix the duration of the
term of such variance, exception or waiver.
Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement.
Certification. Each person executing a Rental Agreement as an occupant shall also
execute an Occupancy Certification at the time of execution of the Rental Agreement and each
renewal thereof to ensure compliance with this Agreement. The Owner will deliver to the Town
the executed Rental Agreement and Occupancy Certificates as soon as practicable, but in any event
within three business days, which may be done electronically as a facsimile or an image attached
239
6
to an email. If the Town determines on the basis of reasonable evidence that any statement on an
Occupancy Certificate is substantially untrue and, as a result, the occupants do not meet the
Occupancy Requirements, the Town may notify the Owner within three business days after its
receipt of the Rental Agreement and Occupancy Certifications and the Rental Agreement shall
terminate.
Further Actions. In addition to its specific agreements and undertakings in this
Agreement, the Owner shall take or cause to be taken all other and further actions reasonably
required by the Town in order to confirm satisfaction of the Occupancy Requirements.
Verification and Certification Requirement. The Owner shall be responsible for
taking reasonable steps to verify that Qualified Households occupy all of the occupied Residential
Units in accordance with this Agreement and shall certify to the Town on or before January 31st
of each calendar year that to the best of the Owner’s knowledge, all occupied Rental Units are
occupied in compliance with this Agreement or if not so occupied, the certification shall describe
the steps the Owner is taking to remedy the noncompliance. All certifications required by this
Section shall be in the form and contain all documentation reasonably required by the Town.
Rules, Regulations, Standards, and Fees. Upon not less than 30 days prior written
notice to the Owner, the Town shall have the authority promulgate and adopt such reasonable rules,
regulations, standards, and fees as it may deem appropriate, from time to time, for the purpose of
carrying out its obligations and responsibilities described herein.
Delegation of Owner Verification. The Owner, and any successors thereto, may use
the services of a property manager or other agent (i.e., an accountant, attorney, etc.) to assist it in
meeting its verification obligations hereunder.
Transfer of Town Administration. The Town may contract with or use a third party
to assist or manage the Town’s role in the verification and administration of the occupancy of the
Residential Units and the terms of this Agreement.
Enforcement. The Town and each Owner hereby grants and assigns to the Town
the right to review the Rental Agreements in force and enforce compliance with this Agreement.
Compliance may be enforced by the Town by any lawful means, including without limitation,
seeking any equitable relief including, without limitation, specific performance and other equitable
relief. Any equitable relief may be sought singly or in combination with such legal remedies as
the Town may be entitled to, either pursuant to this Agreement, under the laws of the State of
Colorado.
Remedies; Attorney Fees. In the event the Town commences litigation with respect
to any or all provisions of this Agreement, the party that substantially prevails on the merits shall
be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and court costs.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Notices. Any notice, consent, approval, or request that is required to be given
hereunder shall be given by mailing the same, certified mail, return receipt requ ested, properly
addressed and with postage fully prepaid as follows:
240
7
OWNER: Wind River Holdings, LLC
3303 W. 144th Avenue, Unit 106
Broomfield, CO 80023
THE TOWN: Town of Estes Park
Attn: Community Development Director
P O Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Severability. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement and any other
related document shall be interpreted in such manner as to be valid under applicable law. If any
provision of this Agreement shall be invalid or prohibited under said applicable law, such
provisions shall be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or prohibition without invalidating
the remaining provisions of such document.
Governing Law and Jurisdiction. These Restrictions and each and every related
document are to be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado.
Any legal action to enforce the terms of this Agreement shall be brought in the appropriate court
of Larimer County, State of Colorado.
Binding Agreement. The provisions and covenants contained herein shall inure to
the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the Owner and the Town.
Amendment. Any modifications of this Agreement shall be effective only when
made by a duly executed instrument by the Owner (or its successor) and the Town.
Recordation. Upon execution, this Agreement shall be recorded in the real property
records of Larimer County, State of Colorado.
Entire Agreement. This Agreement including the recitals and the exhibits and
attachments constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the matters
set forth herein. Captions are intended for convenience of reference and shall not be considered a
part of this Agreement.
No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole
protection and benefit of the Town and the Owner. Except as otherwise specifically provided for
herein, no other person, persons, entity or entities, including without limitation the occupants of a
Residential Unit, shall have any right of action with respect to this Agreement or right to claim
any right or benefit from the terms provided in this Agreement or be deemed a third party
beneficiary of this Agreement.
Non-Liability. The Town and its respective employees, members, officers and
agents shall not be liable to any Owner or third party by virtue of the exercise of their rights or the
performance of their obligations under this Agreement. The Town is relying on, and does not
waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Agreement, the monetary limitations or any other
rights, immunities or protections afforded by the Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101,
241
8
et seq. C.R.S., as it may be amended, or any other limitation, right, immunity or protection
otherwise available to the Town.
[Signatures appear on following page.]
242
9
OWNER:
Wind River Holdings, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
By: _____________________________
__________________, its __________
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______ day of _______, 20___, by ____________
______________________ as a manager of Wind River Holdings, LLC.
Witness my hand and official seal.
____________________________
Notary Public
TOWN OF ESTES PARK:
By: _______________________________
____________________________
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______ day of _______, 20___, by
___________________ as ________________________ of the Town of Estes Park.
Witness my hand and official seal.
____________________________
Notary Public
243
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Copy of Maximum Rent Table Currently in Effect
244
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Legal Description of the Property
245
Occupancy Certification
FORM OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATION
(see attached)
246
Occupancy Certification
OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATION
The undersigned (“Applicant”) is making or has made an application to
________________ (the “Owner Representative”) to rent [Unit ____/a unit] (the “Unit”) of the
apartment complex known as _______________________, ______________________, Estes
Park, Colorado (the “Apartment Complex”).
Occupancy of the Unit in the Apartment Complex is limited to those where either the
occupancy qualifies as a Qualified Workforce Household or an Attainable Household as specified
in Section 2 below.
Applicant hereby states and affirms to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado under penalties
of perjury that on the date of this Occupancy Certification each of the following is true and
accurate:
All of the persons who will occupy the Unit at any time during the term of the lease
of the Unit are listed below (the “Occupants”). All of the Occupants are either (i) members of a
family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption, or (ii) unrelated individuals living together
whose number does not exceed 3 in the case of a one bedroom Unit, 5 in the case of a two bedroom
unit or 7 in the case of a three bedroom Unit.
List of Occupants:
_________________________________ _________________________________
_________________________________ _________________________________
_________________________________ _________________________________
_________________________________ _________________________________
The Occupants are / are not members of a family unit related by blood, marriage or
adoption.
Choose at least one of (a) or (b):
_______________________________ (name of one Occupant) is
eighteen years old or older, will occupy the Unit as his or her principal residence and is
currently employed (or self-employed) and on the date occupancy is commenced under the
lease for the Unit will be employed (or self-employed) for an average of at least thirty hours
per week on an annual basis within the boundaries of the Estes Park School District R-3 as
depicted on the attached map of that district.
The earned income of Applicant combined with the earned income of
each other person who will occupy the Unit during the term of the lease does not, and will
not on the date occupancy is commenced under the lease for the Unit, exceed
$__________________ being 150% of AMI.
247
Occupancy Certification
During the term of the lease of the Unit, Applicant will notify the Owner
Representative in writing no later than seven days after any of the statements made in this
Occupancy Certification are not true and accurate (“Changed Circumstances”) determined as if
the lease of the Unit were to commence immediately after the occurrence of Changed
Circumstances.1
Dated ____________________________, 20__.
________________________________________
Occupant Signature
________________________________________
Occupant Name (print)
________________________________________
________________________________________
Occupant Address
________________________________________
Occupant phone number
________________________________________
Occupant date of birth (month, day and year)
1 Note that Changed Circumstances will not prohibit the Occupants from continuing to occupy the Unit until the
termination of the lease of the Unit, but may prevent the lease of the Unit from being renewed or extended. If an
Occupant subsequently attains the age of 65 years and has fully satisfied the requirements of 2(a), above, for at least
seven (7) consecutive years ending on the date such Occupant attained the age of 65 years, such Occupant and other
Occupants shall continue to be regarded as a having met the requirements of 2(a) for so long as he or she continuously
occupies the Unit after attaining the age of 65 years.
248
Occupancy Certification
Map of Estes Park School District R-3
(attached)
249
250
Wind River Apartment Homes Development Application: Code Analys is
June 12, 2018
Dear Commissioners-
Residents of the Lexington Lane neighborhood have retained Ascent Planning Solutions
services to conduct an independant code analysis of the proposed Wind River Apartment
Homes.
1
The code analysis finds at least 31 points of non-compliance. These points are described in the
accompanying Code Analysis, Slope Analysis, and Photographic Descriptions.
The subject property is approximately 5.75 acres and is currently undeveloped with the
exception of a small historic cabin located in the southern portion of the property. The property
is mostly open grassland meadow that is frequented by the various animal species that inhabit
Estes Park. The site has a gentle slope from west down to the east and has no other specific
site design constraints.
This memo summarizes neighborhood survey results and describes how the development code
can address neighborhood concerns.
Neighborhood Survey: A survey of 46 nearby property owners finds three main concerns:
1. Respect for the neighborhood;
2. Vehicular Traffic;
3. Density Bonus;
The neighborhood survey reveals the number one issue is respect for the neighborhood. We
have found the neighborhood is not opposed to the general concept of the development but feel
the development does not respect the neighborhood and has not attempted to mitigate impacts.
This is not a “NIMBY” situation. The neighborhood asks only to follow the code and ensure this
development integrates with the well-established single-family neighborhood. The Planning
Commission can ensure impacts to the neighborhood are mitigated with tools provided by the
development code.
1 This analysis did not include the proposed daycare facility except with consideration to buffering and
traffic specific to that use.
Wind River Apartments Code Analysis
251
Documents Provided by Neighborhood
Code Analysis: A code analysis reveals at least 31 code sections with which the application
does not comply. The Statement of Intent does not explain how the proposed subdivision meets
the applicable standards for review as set forth in Chapter 4 and Chapter 7 of this Code so this
analysis could not determine why these standards have not been met.
These next few pages summarize those issues that have the most impact on the site and the
surrounding land uses.
Requested Waivers: The application lists two requested “waiver” to code standards:
1. Sidewalk along Highway 7:
Justification for this request includes lack of curb/gutter: This is a state highway; the
concept is a detached sidewalk such as on Moraine Avenue. The statement of intent
makes reference to an attached sidewalk, and notes that in some instances a sidewalk
may be located outside of an existing right-of-way. The statement of intent does not
mention that highway right-of-way dedication is 75-feet from centerline and that
additional right-of-way dedication is required for this development.
A detached sidewalk along Moraine Avenue would provide a buffer for pedestrians and
provide area for a drainage swale to help minimize the large stormwater pond proposed
for the NE corner.
The proposed internal sidewalk is an indirect connection from the existing crosswalk to
the daycare facility. This does not appear to satisfy requirements to provide pedestrian
amenities and linkages to schools, nor does it appear to satisfy Appendix D.V.1.A which
requires compliance with the ADA (eg most direct route).
There is no debate regarding the applicability of this standard. Section 4.3 is titled
Additional Zoning District Standards and is not in any way described as a “subdivision
standard” as the Statement of Intent asserts. Furthermore, Section 4.3.D specifically
states “s idewalks shall be provided as set forth in §10.5.D.” This is no ambiguity in the
word “shall”: this is a direct and intentional reference to invoke this code standard. It is
not a typo or an accident this language is in the code.
2. Corner radius for interior drive:
Requests from street design standards must be approved by the Town Engineer. The
development code specifies the Town Engineer shall find the request “advances the
goals and purposes of this Code” and “either results in less visual impact, more effective
environmental or open space preservation, relieves practical difficulties in developing a
site, or results in the use of superior engineering standards than those required.”
Wind River Apartments Code Analysis
252
The Statement of Intent specifies the purpose of the request is “to enable the units to fit”
with supporting justification as a traffic calming device. The Statement of Intent does not
describe any other supporting justification nor explain how this will result in less visual
impact, more effective environmental or open space preservation, relieves practical
difficulties associated with the site, nor describes any superior engineering standards.
The request to change the code to fit the application is not supported with a rational
explanation as to why the code must be changed instead of the building design.
The statement that this would serve as a traffic calming device is not supported by the
Statement of Intent and does not appear in the literature. Traffic calming devices are
never a stand-alone technique and incorporate several items such as speed tables,
chicanes, neck-downs, traffic circles, pavement markings, etc.
Earlier version of the statement of intent included other waiver requests which have been
removed. This appears to be a technical violation of the development code Section
3.2.C which prohibits “changes to the development application or any accompanying
plans or information” after submittal.This standard is intended to ensure applications are
complete and ready for review upon submittal. This ensures applications do not
frivolously waste staff, public, appointed or elected official time and to avoid confusion
and complication in the review process.
Density Calculation: The application does not net rights-of-way from the gross land area before
calculating allowable units, as required by Section 1.9.C. and supported by Appendix D.II.A.
Right-of-way for Lexington Lane, Highway 7 and the private street are required to be netted from
the gross land area. This has not been done, which means the density calculation is based on
gross land area.
Preliminary estimates are that 38,600 s.f. should be netted from the gross 251,412 s.f.. This
would reduce the allowable density to 40 units, 80 with a maximum density bonus (density
bonus assumes all code requirements are met, Section 11.2.B).
Site Grading: Approval of the grading plan as designed will have a significant impact on the site.
Section 7.2.B.3 requires that “c utting and grading to create benches or pads for additional or
larger building sites or lawns shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.”
Wind River Apartments Code Analysis
253
The proposed site grading will
essentially regrade the entire site
to create large building sites,
with the apartment buildings
sitting on top of as much as ten
feet of fill material instead of
stepping buildings down the
slope as required. As a result of
this proposed Building 1 would
tower approximately 55 feet
above Highway 7. See
Attachment A “Slope Profile”
Landscaping: The landscaping
plan does not comply with
several requirements.
Section 7.5.G.3 requires the landscaping plan incorporate landscape islands into the stormwater
management plan to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed landscaping plan does not
incorporate any landscape islands into the stormwater plan.
This issue is significant because
all the storm runoff is concentrated
into one large detention facility
instead of dispersing the impact
throughout the site. Smaller
ponds dispersed throughout the
site reduce visual impact and
create micro-habitats for wildlife.
The landscaping plan includes a
request to reduce the amount of
district buffer landscaping and
arterial landscaping buffer.
The plan also includes a request to plant trees smaller than required by code (this request is not
included in the requested waivers and is instead included as a secondary note conflicting with
another note on the landscape plan).
The plans includes little species variety, as required by the code.
Wind River Apartments Code Analysis
254
The landscape plan locates required district buffer in a utility easement and drainage facility.
This creates a likely situation where once landscaping reaches maturity and full effect it will
need to be removed for maintenance at the detriment of the neighborhood and requiring future
code enforcement. This appears to violate code requirements regarding locating trees to allow
for full natural growth.
Operational Performance Standards : Section 7.10 Operational Performance Standards is a
powerful tool for the Planning Commission. This section allows the commission to impose
conditions “upon the approval of any development to ensure that it is compatible with existing
uses, including but not limited to , restrictions on:
1.Placement of trash receptacles;
2.Location of loading and delivery areas;
3.Location, intensity and hours of illumination; and
4.Additional landscaping and buffering.”
The words “not limited to” are extremely important: these open the door for the commission to
impose conditions to ensure developments fit into the existing neighborhood. This does not
mean the commission can impose any conditions they desire. It does mean the commission
can impose conditions that have a rational and proportional nexis with the impact they are
intended to mitigate.
Traffic and Pedestrian Considerations: The development code requires pedestrian connections
to existing bikeways and walkways (eg Highway 7) unless the Planning Commission finds that
the connection will have a negative impact on environmental factors. This means the proposed
pedestrian signal should be made a condition of approval and CDOT approval should be verified
before Planning Commission decision.
The development code also requires sidewalks, from which the applicant requests a waiver.
This analysis found no provision in the development code to a waiver to this code requirement.
The traffic study finds the additional traffic does not trigger adopted warrants for road system
improvements. The traffic study finds that a deceleration lane on Highway 7 would be
necessary for speeds 40 mph and over and correctly states the speed limit at the intersection is
35 mph. The study does not mention the speed limit is 45 mph on the other side of that
intersection and the study does not mention what the average travel speed is for this portion of
the road. The traffic study also classifies Lexington Lane as local street instead of a collector.
Section 7.12.H specifies “all developments shall be required to demonstrate that there will be no
significant adverse impact on existing transportation levels of service, access and vehicular
movement on any arterial or collector street or intersection within one-quarter (¼) mile of the site
or that any such adverse impact has been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.”
Wind River Apartments Code Analysis
255
This analysis finds that each and every off the nearly 400 daily trips generated by the “bonus”
units brings a significant adverse impact in the eyes of the Lexington Lane neighborhood: Each
and every morning when they take their kids to school or go to work they will encounter “ bonus
traffic .”
Existing residents and property owners are being asked to bear the brunt of additional units with
no consideration for the adverse impact on their daily lives. Planning Commission requirement
for turn lanes would help mitigate this adverse impact
Deed Restriction: Sections 4.3.D and 11.4 require a deed restriction to be eligible for the
workforce housing density bonus. The development code requires the deed restriction “shall be
subject to review by the decision-making body …. with the associated development plan.”
The application package did not include this required document even though the Planning
Commission must review it as part of the density bonus request. This means we do not know
how these units will be reserved for workforce housing or what workforce it will house or any
other number of questions. Are there arrangements with local employers? Will these be for year
round or seasonal employees? What is the targeted income range?
Section 11.2.B No Guarantee of Density . The provisions of this Chapter shall not be
interpreted as guarantees of achievable density. Developments using bonus provisions shall
be subject to all other applicable regulations of this Code. These other regulations or
site-specific conditions may prevent maximum bonus density levels from being achieved due to
the character of the land or surrounding uses.
In summary, the Lexington Lane neighborhood requests the existing application either be
withdrawn by the applicant or be amended to comply with the development code before
Planning Commission decision.
I intend to follow this memo with a short presentation to the Planning Commission. I will keep
my presentation focussed on the body of the memo and allow time for the Commission to ask
questions. Serving on the Commission is an often difficult and thankless task and I thank you
for your time.
Respectfully,
David W. Shirk, MUP, AICP
Principal, Ascent Planning Solutions
About the author: Mr. Shirk has two decades of land planning experience working in multiple jurisdictions.
Mr. Shirk moved to Estes Park to serve as the first town/county planner and administered the Estes Valley
Development Code for its first 15 years.
Wind River Apartments Code Analysis
256
Code Analysis:
This analysis finds the application does not comply with the following Estes Valley Development
Code standards.
1. §1.9.C.1 Net Land Area . Requires right-of-way for public and private streets be netted
from gross land area.
2. §1.9.C.4. “ The number of dwelling or accommodation units allowed on a site is based on
the presumption that all other applicable standards shall be met. The maximum density
established for a zoning district (see Chapter 4) is not a guarantee that such densities may
be obtained, nor a valid justification for varying other dimensional or development
standards.”
3. §3.7.A.2b EVPC Authority to Grant Minor Modifications . Requires “the EVPC finds that
such modification advances the goals and purposes of this Code and either results in less
visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieves
practical difficulties in developing a site”
4. §3.7.A.3: Reference to criteria in determining practical difficulty in developing a site.
5. §4.3.C.1.a Density Calculation . Requires right-of-way for public and private streets be
netted from gross land area.
6. §4.3.D.1 Table 4-3 Minimum Private Open Areas . Requires 15% open area for
Multi-Family developments.
7. §4.3.D.3 Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements .
8. §4.3.D.6g Deed Restriction Required . Deed restriction not submitted with application.
9. §7.2.B.3 Cutting to Create Benches “Cutting and grading to create benches or pads for
additional or larger building sites or lawns shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.”
10. §7.2.B.8 Detention/Stormwater Facilities . “Where detention basins and other storm and
erosion control facilities may be required, any adverse visual and aesthetic impacts on the
natural landscape and topography shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible.”
11. §7.4.A.2 Private Open Areas . Requires compliance with Section 4.3.D
12. §7.5.D.2c Species Mix . “Species variation is required for all landscape plans because
species uniformity can result in disease susceptibility and eventual demise of a large portion
of a landscape at one (1) time. Landscape plans shall exhibit species variation, which shall
increase based on the number of trees proposed in the landscaping plan.”
13. §7.5.D.2.d Minimum Plant Sizes . Requires tree size mix of 50% 6-foot and 50% 8-foot.
257
14. §7.5.D.3 Location and Arrangement of Required Landscaping . “Trees shall be planted to
allow for normal growth in height and shape without the need for excessive pruning.”
15. §7.5.F Buffering and Screening . “Buffering is intended to help mitigate the physical, visual
and environmental impacts created by development on adjacent properties. Buffering and
screening creates a visual buffer between incompatible or differing land uses.”
16. §7.5.F.2a3. “A minimum buffer consisting of eight (8) evergreen trees and eleven (11)
shrubs per one hundred (100) linear feet of district boundary shall be installed.”
17. §7.5.F.2b6 No Development in Street Frontage Buffer Area . The proposed stormwater
detention facility falls within the definition of development, per Section 13.3. 80, which
means “... the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or
land”.
18. §7.5.G.2 Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping . “All parking lots containing six (6) or more
spaces shall provide perimeter landscaping pursuant to the General Requirements below,
except where abutting property is determined by Staff to be unbuildable or visually separated
by topographic features.”
19. §7.5.G.3b Minimum Requirement . “ A minimum of six percent (6%) of the total interior
parking lot area shall be landscaped with planted islands. A minimum of one (1) tree and two
(2) shrubs must be planted in interior islands for every two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet of parking lot, exclusive of perimeter plantings.”
20. §7.5.G.3c3 Landscape Islands . “ Islands shall be arranged to maximize shading of parking
spaces.”
21.§7.5.G.3c5 Landscape Islands. “To the maximum extent feasible, landscape islands shall
be incorporated in the stormwater management plan and located to break up large areas of
impermeable surface, allowing areas for water infiltration.”
22. §7.5.J Maintenance Requirements . Maintenance requirements for landscape buffer
located in stormwater swale will prevent district buffer from functioning as intended.
23. §7.9.A Purpose : “Exterior lighting shall be evaluated in the development review process to
ensure that the functional and security needs of the project are met in a way that does not
adversely affect the adjacent properties or neighborhood. The degree to which exterior night
lighting affects a property owner or neighborhood will be examined considering the light
source, level of illumination, hours of illumination and need for illumination in relation to the
effects of the lighting on adjacent property owners and the neighborhood.”
24. §7.11.E Parking Studies . Parking studies are intended for uses that don’t fit into existing
land use classifications described in the code. These are apartments/condos, no
different from any other in Estes Park (except for the ‘bonus’ parking).
258
25. §7.11.J3 Location of (ADA) spaces . “Required spaces for persons with disabilities shall be
located in close proximity to building entrances and shall be designed to permit occupants of
vehicles to reach the building entrance on an unobstructed path.
26. §7.11.M Bicycle Racks . Required bike parking not provided.
27. §7.11.O2 Surfacing and Maintenance . Required information not provided.
28. §7.12.H.1a: Requires the application mitigate adverse traffic impacts. No mitigation
proposed.
29. §7.13.B.2 “ Areas for outdoor storage, trash collection or compaction, loading or other such
uses shall be located in the rear of the lot. If that is not feasible, then the side yard can be
used, but in no case shall areas be located within twenty (20) feet of any public street, public
sidewalk or internal pedestrian way.”
30. §7.13.B.3 “ Outdoor storage, HVAC equipment, trash collection, trash compaction and other
service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building and the
landscaping plan. Views of these areas shall be screened from visibility from all property
lines and separated from pedestrian areas.”
31. §11.2..B No Guarantee of Density. “The provisions of this Chapter shall not be interpreted as
guarantees of achievable density. Developments using bonus provisions shall be subject to
all other applicable regulations of this Code. These other regulations or site-specific
conditions may prevent maximum bonus density levels from being achieved due to the
character of the land or surrounding uses.”
32.Appendix B.III.A.4 Statement of Intent . “All development plan applications shall include a
written Statement of Intent explaining how the proposed subdivision meets the applicable
standards for review as set forth in Chapter 4 and Chapter 7 of this Code.
33.Appendix B.III.C Development Plan Submittal Requirements :
x. Parking and Loading Area Plan . Plan drawings (scale of 1" = 20") showing the following:
(1)Location, dimensions and amounts of off-street parking spaces and off-street
loading areas, including handicapped parking spaces and accessible handicap
routes from such spaces to building entrances.
(2)Parking and driving aisle configuration.
(3)Bike facilities.
(4)Provisions for vehicular and pedestrian circulation.
(5)The location of sidewalks, wheel stops, lighting and curbs on and adjacent to the
property.
(6)The location of utilities, barriers, shelters and signs.
(7)As applicable, location, dimensions and amounts/types of landscaping for the
parking lot, with interior and perimeter landscaping indicated.
259
(8)Typical cross-sections of pavement/surfacing.
(9)Stormwater drainage facilities for the parking and loading areas.
(10)Any other information deemed necessary by Staff to make a fully informed and
deliberate decision on the parking plan.
y. Streets and Driveways . Locations and cross-sections of all existing and proposed public
and private streets, driveways and access fire lanes bounding, intersecting and lying within
the subject area, including access points to boundary streets and locations and dimensions
of all existing and proposed curb cuts. Include a notation as to whether each street is
intended for through traffic, neighborhood traffic or local service traffic. If private streets or
driveways are included, show surveyed centerline geometry for such streets and label such
private streets on the plan.
z. Walkways, Sidewalks and Trails . Location and dimension of all existing or proposed
pedestrian walkways, sidewalks, equestrian trails, bikeways and other trails. Include
locations and dimensions of all easements across property abutting the subject property
that are necessary to link the subject property to existing or proposed off-street pedestrian,
bicycle or equestrian trails.
aa. Land Dedication Areas for parks, public open areas, trails, storm drainage. Also areas
for nondedicated (private) open areas and recreation areas.
bb. Landscaping, Buffering and Exterior Lighting Plan . Plan drawings (scale of 1" = 20')
showing the following:
(1)Location and character of existing and proposed landscaping, including types of
surfaces to be used for specific areas. Include planting schedule and species, sizes
and quantities of planting material.
(2)Location, character and species of all individual trees measuring eight (8) inches
DBH and larger located inside of and within twenty-five (25) feet of the proposed
limits of disturbance. All trees greater than eight (8) inches DBH that are proposed
to be removed shall be noted on the plan.
(3)Location, dimensions and materials to be used for fences, walls, berms,
screening (where applicable) and retaining walls. Include proposed typical designs
for all fencing.
(4)Location and dimensions of all buffer areas from zone district boundaries,
wetlands and stream/river corridors.
(5)Cost estimate of proposed landscaping improvements.
(6) Proposed maintenance plan for landscaping improvements.
(7) Location, height and type of exterior lighting fixtures.
cc.Signage Design . General location, dimensions and typical design for signs.
mm.Transmittal Letter Confirming That the Proposed Development Has Been Staked at the
Site for purposes of Staff and Planning Commission on-site review and inspection.
260
Slope Profile: Wind River Site Grading Plan
Why grading are requirements important: Approval of this grading plan will result in a building 50'+ tall above the existing grade at the corner of Lexington
Lane and Highway 7
This graph plots data points extrapolated from the development plan. The graph and illustrates the grading profile creates a bench profile across the overall property.
The area between the lines represents fill material. This graphic below approximates the data point locations through the site
Distance
from East
property
line Ex. Elv Prop. Elv
0 78 83
19 80 76
39 82 92
68 84 93
85 85 92
123 88 93
154 90 94
180 92 95
198 94 96
228 95 97
255 97 99
270 99 99
280 100 100
290 101 101
261
Photographic Descriptions of Development Requirements
Grading to Create Benches: The development code is intended to protect the natural
character of Estes Park as the community builds. The concept is for individual developments to
minimize their impact on the existing natural character of the site. These individual efforts have
a cumulative impact, with the idea being to maintain our mountain character in the face of
urbanization.
Example of overlot grading:
Example of a development complying with one
standard (maximum change to grade with retaining
wall) but failing to comply with another (creating
benches).
262
Solitude - Design buildings to fit the site instead of changing the site to fit buildings.
263
Stormwater Management and W ildlife Habitat: The development code requires parking lot
landscaping islands be incorporated into the stormwater management plan.
No landscape islands:
Example of micro-habitat created
from parking lot stormwater runoff
264
Landscaping: A thick solid wall of evergreens is
required to provide a visual and aural buffer
between developments.
Mature street buffer (note the detached sidewalk
and storm swale):
Opportunities Lost
Interior parking lot landscaping
Street landscape buffer: No parking lot perimeter landscaping:
265
Pedestrian Connections: A common argument against installing sidewalks or pedestrian
connections is “this does not connect to anything.” An excellent example of how sidewalks and
pedestrian connections fit into an overall system is seen at Park River West, which built a
sidewalk along Moraine Avenue and a trail connection along the Big Thompson River in the
early 2000s.
Pedestrian amenities - river trail connection
266
Equipment Screening: This is a requirement to help reduce the visual impact of new
development. This is a detail that can sometimes be overlooked. The application does not
specify where mechanical equipment will be located so we do not know if this should be
addressed with the landscaping plan or building plans.
None:
After the fact:
Incorporated into the overall design
267
1
Date: September 18, 2018
To: Estes Park Board of Trustees
CC: Jackie Williamson
Subject: Proposed Wind River development on Lexington Lane, an updated neighborhood position
statement
For the public record and for posting in the Trustees’ packet of materials for their September 25, 2018,
appeal hearing.
Introduction
A coalition of neighborhoods, the adjacent Lexington Lane neighborhood with the Eagles Landing, Eagles
View, and Fairway Club neighborhoods (located directly across Highway 7 from the proposed
development), are collectively opposed to the Wind River Apartment projects and the combination of
Lots 1 & 2 of the Wapiti Crossing Minor Subdivision.
We are not opposed to the proposed day care center on Lot 2 of the Wapiti Crossing Minor Subdivision,
nor are we opposed to development of the Wapiti Crossing Lot 1 into site appropriate multi-family
housing.
The following list of issues pertain to our neighborhood and to this specific development proposal but
affect our entire community. This hearing, the processes, the procedures followed, and the extreme
measures taken by the applicant and staff to leverage the maximum number of units under the label of
“workforce” and “attainable” will become the example for all workforce and attainable housing projects
in the future.
Combining of Lots 1 & 2
The neighborhoods are opposed to the combining of Lots 1 & 2 of the Wapiti Crossing Minor Subdivision
for the purpose of manipulating the combined land area in order to calculate the density on the
combined lots while only actually developing the multifamily dwellings on Lot 1. You’ll also notice that
by combining the lots, the greenspace and other code-required open spaces are present predominantly
on Lot 2. This is a gross manipulation of the code and is resulting in a calculated 20 units per acre on the
land that will actually be developed.
The development of either property is not contingent on the recombination of Lots 1 and Lot 2. Each is
an individual property, and each is zoned RM. Lot 1 can be developed into workforce and/or attainable
housing. The applicant is proposing to do so with 94 apartment units. Lot 2 is zoned appropriately, and
has been approved by the Planning Commission, for the stand-alone, commercial, community day care
facility as proposed by the applicant.
268
2
The proposed density of the Lot 1 development is overwhelming for the available land area, is not code
compliant, and is incongruent with the bordering E-zoned residential area.
As two examples of what might be considered appropriate solutions for family workforce and attainable
housing for this specific location and an area of this size, we offer:
Reference Attachment A: The first is a creative example of attractive workforce housing for families, on
a lot of equal area to Lot 1 (4.6 acres vs the 4.7 acres available on Lexington lane), submitted by Paul
Brown and entitled “Twin Owls Village”. The plan is interesting and aesthetically pleasing with ample
parking. The layout is not cramped. It presents a nicely landscaped development which blends easily
with the surrounding residential neighborhood. This plan exemplifies an appropriately planned
workforce or attainable housing development intended for young families.
Reference Attachment B: The second example is the original Wapiti Crossing development plan as
approved by the Town Board of Trustees ten years ago. Please note the combination of housing types,
including a large multi-unit building accompanied by smaller individual units. The plans are appropriate
to the landscape and surrounding area and are complete with attached or underground parking (an
efficient use of the limited land area). It should be noted that these units were intended to be “market
rate” properties just as the Wind River proposed “workforce” and “attainable” rental units are intended
to be “market rate”.
Code Non-Compliance Issues and Defects
A recent review of the applicant’s revised and most recent submittal, the Addendum to the
Statement of Intent of August 7, 1018, the “Changes to Plan” document filed by Van Horn
Engineering dated August 7, 2018, and the applicant’s Development Plan, revised August 7,
2018, we continue to find a large number of code violations, objections, and concerns.
Please refer to the “Wind River Apartment Homes Development Application: Code Analysis”,
June 12, 2018, by Ascent Planning Solutions, for a complete analysis of the non-code compliant
issues associated with this project. The misinterpretation of the EVDC in several areas plus the
erroneous calculation for density have resulted in a proposed, overbuilt development.
•Creates terribly unsafe vehicular and pedestrian movement
•Calculation for density is incorrect and not based on the land area which will be developed
•Access from Highway 7 and from Lexington Lane is via a private street, not a driveway and must
be subtracted from the gross land area of Lot 1
•Parking that is non-compliant with the EVDC (proposed 182 spaces vs. code required 204
spaces)
•No transitional buffer between an extremely high-density proposal and an E zoned residential
area.
•The landscaping buffer planted in drainage swales and over an easement contrary to EVDC
7.5.D.3
269
3
•Safety concerns (Substantially increased traffic, the narrow width of Lexington Lane in the area
of the proposed development, no turn lanes onto or from Highway 7, lack of a safe pedestrian
cross walk)
•Revised Grading/Fill minimally lowers the building heights and still presents a 50’+ building
height relative to Highway 7 street level
•Requesting a waiver for 37’ minimum centerline radius vs. 50’ as required by EVDC, Appendix D
Street Design and Construction Standards.2. H.1
•Non-compliance with the CDOT request for an additional 25’ Right of Way along Highway 7
•No storage is to be provided in non-compliance with EVDE 7.13.B.2 & 3
•Aesthetic concerns (violation of green space, appropriate landscaping and effective buffering,
etc.)
Lot 1 Density Calculation
The density for Lot 1 has been incorrectly calculated. The proposed 94-unit complex is based
on the maximum bonus density allowable plus the addition of the gross land area of Lot 2
(added to the gross land area of Lot 1) in order to provide the maximum number of units
possible. Those units will, as stated in the application and shown on the development plan,
only be built on Lot 1. Lot 2 is a separate development with its own development plan which
has been approved for a child care center by the Planning Commission. As stated in the Revised
Statement of Intent, 05/15/18, pg.1, “In addition to developing Lot 1 as a 94-unit apartment
complex, the area of Lot 2 is proposed to be developed as an associated leasing office and day
care facility.” The 94-unit density calculation is in error. The land area which must be used to
calculate the allowable density is the gross area of Lot 1, minus the areas of rights-of-way and
private streets.
Note: In addition to the density being incorrectly calculated, the open space and landscaping
requirements must also be based on the net area of Lot 1.
The 94-unit density which is intended to be built on Lot 1 would result in 20 units/acre density
(94 units/4.73 acres = 20 units/acre). This non-code compliant and this extreme overbuilding is
responsible for creating most, if not all, of the problems being discussed by this Board today.
For general reference see below and Attachment D:
4.73 acres x 16 units/acre = 76 units
4.73 acres x 8 units/acre = 38 units
Graves Ave apartments (are all condos owned by one person)
18 units/1.5 acres = 12 units/acre
Twin Owls Motor Lodge
44 units/4.56 acres = 10 units/acre
270
4
Private Through Street
The private street, Golf Course Road, passing through the property as proposed, connecting
Highway 7 and Lexington was said to be a driveway but that statement is in error. The EVDC
clearly states in Appendix D, Section III General Site Access.3. B.6.e: “Multi-family
Developments. A driveway may provide access for not more than one hundred twenty (120)
vehicle trips per day.” This is a private street which is intended to provide access for more than
774 vehicle trips per day (per the TIS) and as an access to a child care center. Private street
requirements do apply and the area covered by the street subtracted from the gross land area
of Lot 1.
Parking
Rather than complying with the EVDC code requirement of 2.25 parking places per unit, the developer
has presented a “parking study” which suggests only 164 parking spaces will be required by this
development. In addition, the applicant has presented examples of what other communities require in
their regulations. It should be noted that both the parking study and the examples cited by the
applicant have a typical suburban and non-seasonal based economy supported by public transportation
and abundant 24/7 shift work opportunities unlike Estes Park.
Neither the study, nor the “look what they can do, why can’t we” argument changes the fact that this
plan is so over-developed that the EVDC required number of parking spaces cannot be met.
In consideration of the lack of public transportation to this area, a case can be made that, due to the
type of block housing this is, more parking spaces than required by code will be needed rather than
fewer. Consider, since this complex has already obtained, per the developer, a number of businesses
committed to master lease agreements for large numbers of apartments, e.g. the school district and the
Stanley, including some for summer employees, each apartment could house up to eight people. If half
the 8 tenants/unit had automobiles, the number of parking spaces required would be nearly double
what is projected by the study or proposed in the development plan.
94 units/8 persons per unit = 752 occupants. If half of the occupants had cars, 376 parking places would
be required.
A second method of calculating parking, using the applicant’s statement of anticipated occupancy, is
based on 2 people per bedroom plus one. Given his assumptions:
16 one-bedroom units x 3 occupants per unit = 48 occupants
76 two-bedroom units x 5 occupants per unit = 390 occupants for a total of 438 occupants. Again, if
only half of the occupants had vehicles, 219 parking spaces would be required.
Neither method takes into consideration the need to park or store trailers, campers, ATV’s, boats,
motorcycles, etc.
In addition, the developer stated that he intended to offer “Master Leases” to businesses who were
“lining up” for the opportunity. This clearly implies the intent of housing multiple, non-related
individuals per unit at the maximum occupancy allowed. It is reasonable to assume that these non-
related individuals will most likely have separate vehicles, thus requiring a higher number of parking
spaces.
271
5
Should this development be built with inadequate parking, parking will naturally overflow to the
surrounding neighborhoods starting along Lexington Lane – a narrow street with insufficient room for
parked vehicles which would choke the road to 1 lane only causing a significant safety concern for
pedestrian and vehicle traffic turning onto and off of HWY 7.
The number of parking spaces is a code requirement, it is not optional.
Buffering
The lack of appropriate buffering is a two-fold problem.
1)A high density/ three story development is not appropriate adjacent to an established, e-
zoned residential area without a transition buffer.
The Mayor and Town Board of Trustees, on June 26, 2018, heard an appeal of the Twin Owls
proposed rezoning of an R-2 parcel to RM for the purposes of obtaining an increase in density
and a 3-story height allowance. The appeal was denied in large part because, as commented by
the Mayor, “R2 is the appropriate zoning for a buffer between A-accommodations and the
estate zoning…. …. I am very leery of changing zoning just to accommodate more density
especially this close to estate zoning.……if we were talking about RM then R2 then Estate zoning
I think that’s the appropriate to go because that actually maintains the buffer that I think we
need” (Town of Estes Park Board meeting, June 26, 2018, 2:10:10). Trustee Norris had
previously commented that he liked “the idea of having a buffer zone between A (zones) and E
(zones)”.
It is understood that the Twin Owls appeal was in regard to a re-zoning proposal and the Wind
River Apartments proposal is for an existing RM zoned property. However, this proposal
creates similar, but twice as dense, unacceptable conditions (actually 20 units/acre vs 10
units/acre for A zones and the Twin Owls) as ruled on by the Town Board. This is a property
with RM zoning requesting a maximum density bonus and a 38’ building height allowance with
little to no buffering and sharing a property line with established E-zoned residential properties.
RM zoning (8 units/acre) with a code compliant landscaping buffer would be appropriate.
2)As a second related problem, the current proposal so overbuilds the land area that the code
required basic landscaping buffers have not (cannot) be met. The EVDC (7.5. Landscaping and
Buffers) details specific requirements for buffers meant to screen large-scale developments and
parking lots from districts (adjacent properties with different zoning), streets, and parking lots.
Although corrections have been made to the landscaping plan, the landscaping buffer is still
less than adequate and is planned to be planted in the drainage swale and on a utility
easement. This is in non-compliance with EVDC.
Traffic & Safety
The inter-related subjects of traffic and safety have also fallen victim to interpretations,
assumptions, and uncertainty between responsible agencies. The Traffic Impact Study has been
cited by the applicants and by staff as the reason why widening Lexington Lane in the area of
the development is not required and why turn lanes onto Highway 7 are not required as a
272
6
means to mitigate the increased danger to pedestrians and kids on bicycles resulting from the
increased traffic.
The same is true regarding turn lanes from Highway 7 on to Lexington Lane and into the
development on the proposed Golf Course road extension accessing and passing through the
complex.
The Traffic Impact Study estimate of an additional 774 daily trips created by this development
was too low to trigger any street or safety improvements.
Reference Attachment D: The Town Board should be aware that a number of 51 (rather than the
assumed number of 50 provided in the Traffic Impact Study) left turns at the peak hour from Lexington
onto Highway 7 would have triggered the requirement for a left had turn lane.
It should be noted that the Pedestrian Study commissioned by the applicant, performed on Friday and
Saturday, July 27 – 28, 2018, prior to the opening of the school year is now considered further
justification for not pursuing the matter further with CDOT and insisting on a lighted crosswalk across
Highway 7.
It is clear that turn lanes should be required as well as a lighted, rapid-flash crosswalk at Lexington Lane.
These safety problems are of a higher importance then the targeted housing types and demand
non-award of any density bonus. The housing on the 4.7-acre lot can still freely be
attainable/workforce – just within the RM density limit.
Zoning is an aspect of governmental police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of
the public. Protecting public safety is zoning’s paramount purpose and justification – far more
important than trying to achieve social goals, however laudable – and to use zoning to imperil
public safety is particularly antithetical and irresponsible.
CDOT Right of Way
CDOT has requested twenty-five feet additional right of way along Highway 7 to meet its standards.
According to CDOT it is the Town’s responsibility to require that additional ROW of the developer. It
was deemed by staff that the 15’ easement proposed by the applicant might suffice because CDOT had
no plans for that ROW in their immediate scope of work. Since that time, the applicant has presented
CDOT’s plan for an improved stormwater drainage project. It is a code requirement to execute CDOT’s
request for ROW, not an option.
Firetruck turning radius - Reference Attachment D
The applicant has requested a waiver from the required (Appendix D Street Design and Construction
Standards.2. H.1) minimum centerline radius of 50’ down to 37’.
Please take note of the cautionary warning on the Fire Truck Turning Template drawing: “NOTE: ACCESS
FOR EMERGENCY FIRE APPARATUS WILL REQUIRE CAREFUL DRIVING BY THE OPERATOR OF THE
VEHICLE. THIS PATH HAS BEEN DESIGNED SUCH THAT THE WHEEL PATHS OF THE FIRE APPARATUS
CAN PASS ALONG THE FINISHED SURFACE OF THE ROAD/PARKING LOT. CARE MUST BE TAKEN
SHOULD ACCESS BE REQUIRED DURING ADVERSE WEATHER/DRIVING CONDITIONS”.
273
7
This highlights a dangerously marginal condition which has serious safety and welfare implications.
Grading and Fill
The applicant withdrew the waiver request for grading and fill. The letter from the engineering
company, August 7, 2018, indicates that buildings 2 -4 will be lowered by 6 inches on the east
and building 1 lowered from 15 to 27 inches”. However, the revised plans still show grading
and filling that will result in the three-story buildings appearing higher than the 38’ allowance at
street level. They will appear 50’+ in height, much higher than the 38’ allowed.
A review of the Restrictive Covenant and Agreements indicates that several important topics
have not addressed:
•Regulating lessees to ensure attainable housing is being provided (and paid for) by individuals.
•Requirement for tenants to be the lessees.
•Restricting or regulating businesses or corporations from leasing large blocks of units for use as
“dormitory” style housing and taking advantage of both the density allowance and market rate
housing intended for our workforce.
•A rent schedule or formula for determining how actual rents (in dollars) will be determined.
Please note that this developer’s “property rights” extend only to property as it is zoned and Sections
11.2(B) and 11.4(B) & (D) of the Estes Valley Development Code state that the density incentive is not
guaranteed and that the surrounding property uses are to be considered.
In closing, it is important that you know that this neighborhood group consists of young professionals,
families with children in grammar school through high school. We are school teachers, health care
professionals, business owners, and retirees. We are a cross section of the community, of the residents
of Estes Park you represent. We are not nay-sayers opposed to development and we are not opposed
to the development of this lot. We have provided solutions, examples of multifamily developments that
are compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and can meet code requirements.
We are asking the Town Board to carefully examine the details of this application and the ramifications
of overbuilding the land area. We know this proposal is labeled “workforce” and “attainable” but there
are just too many non-compliance issues, too many marginal conditions, and too many liberties taken
that jeopardize public safety and defy common sense! Too many is too many regardless of the cause it
may be serving. There are clear and ample grounds to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and
deny this appeal.
Respectfully,
The following residents of the neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed Wind River development:
Respectfully,
Elizabeth (Betsy) Ugalde
911 Elk Hollow Court
Suzanne Williams
1131 Fairway Club Cir B4
274
8
Carla Anderson
1131 Fairway Club Cir B4
Norma Pettijohn
1151 Fairway Club Circle, Unit 1
Adam and Sheena Bensman
1085 Lexington Lane
Pat Boynton
1130 Fairway Club Circle Unit 2
Dick and Linda Bushmiller
1150 Fairway Club Circle Unit 2
Richard Coe
1070 Pine Knoll Drive
Coreen Boeding
1130 Fairway Club Circle #
John Grogan
1130 Fairway Club Circle #3
Elaine Downing
1066 Pine Knoll Drive
Steve and Carol Enyeart
csenyeart@juno.com
Steve and Marie Fladung
1022 Pine Knoll Drive
Frederick and Judy Hess
1172 Fairway Club Lane #1
Chris and Kristen Hill
919 Elk Hollow Court
Donald and Sandra Libby
910 Elk Meadow Court
Shon Dermody
1019 Lexington Lane
Lisbeth Lord
Eagles Landing G-2
Lindsay Meeks and Brookie Gallagher
1030 Lexington Lane
Rick and Peggy Pepmiller
1039 Pine Knoll Drive
Kathryn Reed
1034 Pine Knoll Drive
Dr. Carla Jane Shinners
1030 Pine Knoll Drive
Gary and Jan Trunnell
1061 Lexington Lane
Fred Mares and Paulette Robles
895 Elk Meadow Court
John and Nancy Micek
1170 Fairway Club Circle #2
Larry and Gwenda Purdy
1035 Pine Knoll Drive
Mitch (Derrell) and Beverly Mitchell
1016 Lexington Lane
Ray and Cindy Leaycraft
1170 Fairway Club Cir. Unit 1
Cindy and Andy Morgan
1075 Lexington Lane
Linda and Steve Mosier
1101 Lexington Lane
Blake and Karen Nicholson
905 Village Green Lane
John and Connie Phipps, owners
1051 Lexington Lane
Barbara Pratt
1101 A Lexington Lane
Jim and Robin Scritchfield
907 Elk Hollow Court
275
9
John and Sally Stevenson
Sallystevenson@msn.com
Josh and Marsha Weaver
1031 Lexington Lane
Sundee Pietsch
1023 Lexington Ln
Diane Wolf
1190 Fairway Club Circle#2
Joel and Elizabeth Paddock
1180 Fairway Club Circle #1
Mike & Cindy Vanek
1034 Lexington Lane
Ted Hockenberry
1130 Fairway Club Circle #3
Susan Ricci
1141 Fairway Club Circle #4
Jeff and Kathy Klipstein
810 Bailey Lane
Barry K. Stein
Stein & Associates
Dorothy & Richard Billingham
1141 Fairway Club Circle
Beverly Anne Estes, MD
1210 Fairway Club #2
276
10
Attachments
277
11 278
12 279
13 280
14 281
15 282
16 283
17 284
18 285
19 286
MEMORANDUM
TO: Estes Park Board of Trustees
FROM: Rick Zier, Attorney at law
RE: Wind River Apartment proposal
DATE: September 19, 2018
The following comments are offered for your consideration as you deliberate, discuss, and decide whether to
approve the above proposal.
1.Section 11.2.B. of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) makes clear that density
bonuses are never guaranteed, but rather are subject to all other relevant aspects of the Code
AND to site-specific conditions. A developer may be denied a density bonus or have his
requested bonus reduced depending on the issues and problems pertaining to the particular
proposal. It is necessarily a case by case review; each case is different and must be examined
closely to determine the appropriateness of any density bonus. RM zoned properties are merely
eligible for a density bonus regarding attainable or workforce housing - they are by no means
assured of it.
2.Section 11.4.D. of the EVDC contains the maximum limit of a density bonus for attainable
and workforce housing units, fixed at 200% of the maximum density of the particular property
as it is zoned. Significantly, the Code says such units are eligible for "up to" 200% of the base
maximum density. This language underscores that if some density bonus is allowed in a given
case, it is not automatically or necessarily the full 200% of maximum bonus. It is erroneous to
contend, if a bonus is applied for and the request is found to have merit, that the maximum
bonus allowed by the Code MUST be accorded. The Town may freely fractionalize any bonus
award as it deems fit under the applicable Code provisions and site conditions.
3.In the context of this proposal, where double density bonus of 5.7 acres is sought, the combination of
the 4.7 acre lot and the 1.0 acre lot is fraught with legal problems.
The 1.0 acre lot is the subject of a separate and independent childcare facility proposal, in
which little if anything about the lot combination has been mentioned. The applicant hopes to
use open space and landscaping on the 1.0 acre lot to achieve his minimum requirements in
those areas after the 4.7 acre lot is combined with it. This divide-and-conquer approach does
not allow for the comprehensive review of all relevant issues having to do with the ultimate
condition of a childcare facility and housing units on a single lot. That is NOT the intent of the
Code and it is unfair to the Town to be asked to review such a changing proposal. The open
space will not be easily or practically useable by the apartment residents and the landscaping
won't act to screen or soften the visual aspect of the apartments at all. The density bonus
requested for the full 5.7 acres is tainted by the fact that the requested apartments AND the
childcare facility will both occupy the 5.7 acre lot, if it is combined. The Code does not
contemplate a staggered series of uses that are combined into one - it assumes, naturally,
287
that a proposal that involves mixed uses such as this one be submitted as a single, integrated
one that may be comprehensively reviewed at once as a whole. Adding one lot to a second
one that is proposed for housing, merely for the purpose of purloining credits inuring to the
first lot in order to gain approval of a use that is occurring solely on the second lot, is illegal.
There is simply no authority for such a scheme to be found in the Code.
4.There is no basis for the staff to grant a minor modification which acts to reduce minimum
required parking standards on this crammed site. Inadequate parking leads to greater vehicle
emissions as spaces are sought, conflicts among people, illegally parked cars, and safety
problems. Section 3.7 of the EVDC only permits staff-approved minor modifications where the
staff determines that "such modification advances the goals and purposes of [the] Code and
results in more effective environmental or open space preservation or relieves practical
difficulties in developing a site." None of those factors are present here, and quite obviously
the opposite of each of them is what a reduction is parking would mean. Developers who
request maximum density bonuses through gerrymandering while at the same time requesting
reduced parking make the case for denying both themselves.
5.The safety problems for vehicular travelers and pedestrians that will be caused by this
development, if approved as proposed, are manifest. Traffic counts that are one or two vehicle
trips below thresholds that would require significant road improvements (such as this
applicant's traffic report) should always be viewed skeptically; if site conditions merit, the road
improvements should be imposed nevertheless. That is certainly the case here. These issues
involving safety are not just casual matters to be treated as any other development review
criteria. They are central to the Town's governmental charge from the people: Protect us. The
very fundamental power of government in the United States, the police power, is based on
ensuring the health, safety, and welfare of the people. The zoning power has been determined
to be, and is justified as, an element of police power. Consider: If the Town Board declared
openly that it was going to change the Municipal Code to say that henceforth in Estes Park
attainable/workforce housing would be regarded as more important than public safety, the
uproar would be deafening and the recall of any Trustee who voted for such an outlandish
measure certain. No one would doubt that. And so, although attainable/workforce housing is a
worthy goal, it must not be achieved - or achieved at an unwarranted density - at the expense
of public safety.
Thank you.
288
289
Additional Public Comment
Mayor Todd Jirsa and
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees
170 MacGregor Avenue
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
September 17, 2018
Dear Mayor Jirsa and Members of the Board of Trustees of Estes Park,
This letter is in regard to the proposed Wind River Development. The Estes Park Planning Commission
voted on August 21, 2018 to reject the application for the Wind River Apartments Development. We
urge the Town Board of Trustees and the Mayor to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and to
reject the application for the Wind River Apartments Development.
We have major reservations about the proposed Wind River Apartments Development on Highway 7
near its intersections with Lexington Avenue and Golf Course Road. We live lower in the watershed
from this property in the Fairway Club Condominiums. The most obvious concern about this project
(even to a casual observer) is the issue of housing density. The proposal calls for building 94 multi-
family dwelling units on 5.77 acres in an area surrounded by single family homes. However, after
reading the proposal, we also have concerns about the alleged purpose of the project, and the project’s
impact on flooding and traffic flow in the area.
The proposal describes the development as an “attainable work force housing project.” However, the
only mention of this aspect of the development is in the opening statement. There is never any
mention of how affordable long-term housing would result from this project. Would there be
requirements for long-term leases? What would prevent this project from becoming nothing more than
providing short-term vacation rentals? Without detailed requirements that this project is indeed for
long-term renters at affordable rates, one can only assume that “attainable work force housing” would
not result from this development.
We are very concerned about the possible effects of this project on flooding. Our homeowners
association recently expended a considerable amount of money and effort to address water mitigation
issues in the aftermath of CDOT alterations on Highway 7. On several occasions we have witnessed
torrents of water rushing through our neighborhood during normal summer monsoonal thunderstorms.
Building four three-story apartment buildings with 94 units and associated parking lots directly above us
in the watershed could be a major threat to our property. We already have flooding issues. Building
and paving over a significant part (the proposal states 5.2 acres of the 5.77 acre site will be “disturbed’)
of the watershed directly above us will likely make this much worse.
The section of the proposal on water runoff is not reassuring. It states that the runoff coefficients “are
directly related to the percentage of impervious coverage for a particular basin and are based on the
N.R.C.S. Type D soils as shown on the U.S.G.S. soil mapping included in the appendix of this report.”
There is no appendix to this report. We did find an attachments section which included a “soil map” that
has mislabeled the road on the north side of the area (i.e. what appears to be Lexington Lane is labeled
Concord Lane). The “map” also includes a warning that it “may not be valid at this scale,” and the report
is not clear about how the soil measurements were obtained. The report also “uses
290
theoretical hydrologic rainfall information for statistical rainfall events in this area,” without referring to
what “this area” is, or how the “theoretical hydrologic rainfall information” is calculated. While none of
this necessarily refutes the accuracy of this part of the report, it does make it difficult for a layperson
with obvious concerns about water runoff issues to determine its validity.
The report states that “off-site flow” will be “diverted at the western boundary and passed through the
northern portion of the site” through a system of detention ponds and then funneled underneath
Lexington Avenue. Will the geology of this area allow for the development of detention ponds with the
capacity to handle runoff from a 100 year event? The report does not address this. What happens to
the water after it is diverted under Lexington Lane? The discharge from the southern part of the project
is supposed to be “diverted along the southern boundary of the project within existing drainage flow
paths that will not be altered by this development.” This is not at all reassuring to those of us who
reside directly below in this watershed. We already have flooding problems, which would be further
exacerbated by building and paving over a significant part of the watershed immediately above us.
We have read the proposal on the impact on traffic flow in the area, and, once again, are quite
concerned. The proposal includes creating a new four-way intersection at Golf Course Road and
Highway 7. There is nothing in the proposal about adding new lanes or a stoplight. Drivers going east
or west at the stop signs at this intersection will be confronted with monitoring north-south traffic on a
major highway leading into Estes Park, while also trying to determine the intent of drivers trying to turn
onto the other side of the highway. This will significantly increase the odds of accidents at this
intersection.
In summary, we see a proposal that purports to create affordable housing without providing any
evidence that it will do so. The proposed development is much too dense for the character of the
surrounding neighborhood, and will likely lead to significant flooding and traffic problems. We strongly
oppose this development. We urge the Mayor and the members of the Estes Park Board of Trustees to
uphold the decision made by the Estes Park Planning Commission and to reject the application for the
Wind River Development.
Sincerely,
Joel and Elizabeth Paddock
1180 Fairway Club Circle #1
Estes Park, CO 80517
lizhagenpaddock@gmail.com
291
Wind River Apartment Development appeal
September 14, 2018
Dear Trustees
I respectfully urge you to reject the appeal of this proposed project without requiring
significant modifications. While the need for workforce housing in Estes Park is very real,
approving a project that is not in keeping with the character of the community and will not
provide quality housing for professionals or families is not in the best interests of the town.
Mistakes made today will be with us for decades to come and could produce a blight rather than
a model.
The proposed design intends to take advantage of multiple recent significant changes in
zoning--requesting maximum density bonus, that would allow double the current density limit,
and building to the new increased 3 story limit. Just one of these density increases will result
in an enormous change in the character of the neighborhood and the town. But, here it would
be two significant density increases, which together may compound their impacts with
unanticipated negative results.
Additionally, it is of great concern that the developer has requested the combining of two
lots, with the apparent purpose of even further increasing the density of the development by
using the combined acreage for density calculations but building the apartments essentially
on only one lot. I wonder whether this is even legal… It is certainly not a design that will
provide desirable housing for professionals or families, as promised. This will provide
warehousing instead of quality housing that the town can be proud of. Once built, we will all
have to live with this for decades to come.
My letter will be too long if I go into detail about the inadequate parking provided in the
design, the unaddressed safety concerns, including but not limited to, lack of safe pedestrian
crossing to allow access to sidewalks and multi use trails to schools, rec center, etc. But, I
believe it is clear that there are enough significant issues with the design that must be
addressed before it can be approved.
I do understand the serious need for workforce housing in Estes Park, and I am not
opposed to the development of the property, but I urge against moving hastily to approve
what may not ultimately be the best long term solution for the community. Please, demand a
292
design that provides quality desirable housing that residents, and the entire community, can
be proud of. Please do not allow yourselves to be swayed by a paper presentation of the
numbers that can be housed in this development. It is people we want to house, not numbers.
If they are not well housed, no one is being well served. And, ultimately the entire community
will suffer, rather than thrive, as a result of a numbers only decision.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Brookie Gallagher
293
September 18, 2018
To: Estes Park Mayor Todd Jirsa
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees
Ref: Wind River Development
Dear Mayor Jirsa and Town of Estes Park Trustees:
I am sending this email in regard to the proposed Wind River Apartments development. I stand
with many others in opposition to this project.
As a nearby neighbor to the proposed project, I have read the documents, attended meetings, and
closely followed the discussions pro and con. The fact is, the Town of Estes Park has seen fit to alter the
development code for properties zoned RM in order to award the developer a workforce/attainable
housing “density bonus.” The “density bonus” allows for the doubling of the density and increasing the
building height limit to 38 feet.
The proposed Wind River “density bonus” means cramming a 94-unit apartment complex of four
three-story buildings onto a modestly sized plot of ground, with all of its attendant noise, lights, and
traffic dangers. The project’s slope and grading plan would mean the three-story roofed buildings would
have the appearance of towers over four stories in height – a shocking, ugly intrusion which would
dominate the Highway 7 corridor and stand in stark contrast to the privately owned homes and
condominiums which fit comfortably into the neighboring landscape.
I do not object to multi-family housing designed in harmony with the neighborhood and the
landscape. I would not object to multi-family housing placed on this property that would follow the
original density code which was in effect before recent series code changes took place.
Development code requirements should not be quietly relaxed in a piecemeal fashion. Zoning use
regulations should mean something. In a residential neighborhood they should be an assurance that the
local government is looking out for the safety, stability and integrity of the area. Allowing this high-
density behemoth to ruin the neighborhood would be nothing less than a betrayal.
Yours truly,
Diane Wolf
1190 Fairway Club Circle #2
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-586-2105
294
Wind River Development
Anna Claassen <arclaassen@gmail.com> Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 8:48 AM
To: townclerk@estes.org
To the Town Trustees,
My concerns regarding this development is the high density. It seems as if the Codes have been
“stretched” to allow the developer to cram as many units as possible into this project. With the
daycare facility being proposed on one of the lots, I find it interesting that the developer is also trying
to put as many housing units on that same lot and combining it with the other. TOO MUCH! Does
the developer really care about needs, or is he/she just concerned about making as much money as
possible?
Anna Claassen
Windriver Project on Hwy 7
Kay Tritico <gktritico@gmail.com> Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 12:14 PM
To: townclerk@estes.org
We are deeply concerned about the Windriver Project on Hwy 7. Putting 3 story apartment buildings
on this land is above the normal number for a property in a residential area. We are concerned of
traffic coming and going in this quiet neighborhood, parking for visitors which will most likely overflow
into the surrounding areas.
We are not against seeing a lower volume of homes on that property, but definitely do not agree to
the current plan.
Respectfully,
Guy & Kay Tritico
1152 Fairway Club Ln, Unit 1
Ester Park, Co 80517
(no subject)
Dr. Carla Jane Shinners <McConahaey@live.com> Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 4:29 AM
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>
Wind River Development, Sept, 2018
Dear Trustees:
As a neighborhood we are totally OPPOSED to this Wind River Developer building an incredibly
oversized potential ghetto in our quiet, safe, fully occupied neighborhood. So far Mr. Pewterbaugh
has completely refused to address the ridiculous oversized density issue, the safety issue, the
parking issue, the drainage issue so that his plans would have any credibility. The Planning
Commission has voted him down..no changes made. He has shown NO RESPECT for our long
standing neighborhood, full of well educated professional people, some of whom are retired, most not
retired who understand exactly what he is trying to force on our community. We have raised very valid
questions, all of which have been expressed on paper, in meetings, at town meetings, etc. Apparently
295
our very valid concerns have fallen on deaf ears, his ears. Just force ahead with the plans, make the
money, etc.
Until he can cut his density plans in half and address the various very valid issues that have been
raised, which HE HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED, WE ASK THAT YOU VOTE “NO” ON HIS
PROJECT. If we were coming into his neighborhood with the intent to destroy it, would he like it? No,
he would not. Neither do we.
Sincerely,
Carla J. Shinners, EdD
Fwd: Proposed Wind River Apartments Development
Beverly Estes <bevatbayside@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:09 AM
To: townclerk@estes.org
To the Town Board of Trustees:
I am writing this e-mail regarding the proposed Wind River Apartments
Development on Lexington Lane.
I own a condominium at 1210 Fairway Club #2 and would like to share my concerns
about this proposal. We are across Highway 7 to the east of Lexington Lane.
I am concerned about this development, and the possibility of any further
problems with run off water drainage. We have already had to have special
assessments for water mitigation resulting from water coming off Highway 7.
I want to be sure this issue is properly addressed in their proposal.
The second issue is with the density and height bonus. They have recombined
the 2 lots in order to gain more density. We have reviewed this, and feel that
the density was figured incorrectly.There would be 94 units and the building would
be 3 stories, but would appear as 4 stories with the ridge line.
This building does not fit in with the neighborhood. I have been a proponent of the
need for workforce housing, but it should fit in with our neighborhoods.
The third issue is increasing traffic in the area ,and the safety of children,
and adults attempting to cross Highway 7 to use the walkway,etc on the east side.
The proposal states there could be as many as 8 unrelated adults living
in the units. It does not appear that they have allotted the number of
parking spaces for the number of possible cars. They may be parking on
Lexington Lane and even on the streets of Fairway Club.
I am asking you to take these issues under advisement as you deliberate
on this proposal.
I have attended all of the planning commission meetings regarding this proposal,
but am unable to attend this meeting.
Thank you for considering my issues regarding this proposed project.
Beverly Estes
Re: the proposed Wind River Development
E Downing <downinge@colorado.edu> Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:47 AM
To: townclerk@estes.org
Dear Trustees,
This email is in regards to the proposed Wind River Development. First let me express my
personal opinion; I support the development of workforce housing. It is vital to our community. I am
296
not sure that the figures put out by the housing department are correct. I would like to see an
accurate, current update.
In regards to the Wind River development, I have serious concerns. The planned density on the
two lots is excessive! To cram that many units in that space is beyond good reason. By overriding the
height code and allowing a third floor simply adds to overcrowding. The second major concern is one
of safety. I realize CDOT is not going to put a light at the intersection of Lexington Lane and HWY
7.It currently is very hard to turn left onto HWY 7 especially during the time of our visitors are
accessing town. This will create even more problems with the proposed development. In addition I
fear for the safety of the children who will be trying to walk or ride their bikes to school, the soccer
fields, or the Rec center. Let alone run across the HWY to catch the bus in the morning. Additionally
a sidewalk on the east side of the property fronting HWY 7 would be helpful. I have not heard about
the details of management, maintenance, and upkeep of the facility. Furthermore what happens when
seasonal workers are laid off and cannot afford to stay in Estes Park?
I would like the Trustees to consider that to grow the workforce housing by using developer
incentives with height variances and increased density is not in the best interest of the community
and valley.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Elaine Downing
1066 Pine Knoll Dr.
Estes Park
Wind River Development
Lindsay Meeks <lindsaylmeeks@gmail.com> Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:58 PM
To: townclerk@estes.org
Dear Trustees,
I urge you to reject the appeal for the Wind River Development project as it stands. Instead, I
suggest that you require a reduced density redesign, which would take into account the many
concerns and suggestions made by community members as well as planning board commissioners
over the past few months. The current design is far too dense and as such is inappropriate for the
community.
I do not oppose development of this land, however the proposed plan is just not acceptable or
sustainable. It will not provide quality housing (the density is well beyond what families or
professionals would consider livable). It does not provide adequate parking, which, along with
additional traffic, will likely create safety issues for residents, neighbors, and the community as a
whole.
While it may provide seasonal warehousing, with numbers that look good on paper, the reality will
be a development that the community will ultimately regret. The density of this project should be
reduced and it should be calculated using only the lot on which it is proposed to be built. And,
consideration should be given to allowing less than the maximum bonus allowance for workforce
housing.
As I noted, adequate parking is not being provided. A realistic estimation of spaces needed is
not being used in the design. The likelihood that the proposed development will be populated by
seasonal workers rather than families or professionals is high. The developer has acknowledged
that businesses have inquired about obtaining “blocks: of apartments for their workers. It is
possible, and legal, that up to 8 adults could occupy each unit, and even if only half this number
occupy a unit, and have cars, there is no way the proposed parking spaces can accommodate
these numbers.
This proposed project will have a significant impact on not only the adjacent neighborhood but
also on the entire Estes Park Community. Please consider that the planning commission could not
297
in good conscience approve the project as presented. This was after over 3 months of careful
consideration as well as two public hearings with extensive input from both the developer and
community members. Throughout this process, the developer made little to no adjustments in the
design in response to numerous concerns raised. After numerous questions and concerns about
inadequate parking, they responded by reducing the number of parking spaces.
Adequate parking must be provided for a realistic estimation of spaces needed. The likelihood
that the proposed development will be populated by seasonal workers rather than families is high.
The developer has acknowledged that businesses have inquired about obtaining “blocks: of
apartments for their workers. It is possible, and legal, that up to 8 adults could occupy each unit,
and even if only half this number occupy a unit, and have cars, there is no way the proposed
parking spaces can accommodate these numbers.
I understand the serious need for workforce housing in Estes Park, but I urge against moving
hastily to approve what may not ultimately be best long term solution for the community. If it takes
more time and a required redesign to make sure it’s right, then please take that time and make that
requirement.
This development should only be approved as part of a holistic plan that includes seasonal rentals
on existing residential properties spreading the impact and multiple complexes of reasonable size.
This one complex will not solve the problem but only create more problems.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lindsay Meeks
Wind River Properties Development Proposal
bhuth2@aol.com <bhuth2@aol.com> Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 3:30 PM
To: townclerk@estes.org
Town Board Members,
My wife, Sara Ann Huth, and I, are among those who stand opposed to the Wind River Properties
Proposal to build four 3-story apartment buildings on the lot located on the corner of Highway 7 and
Lexington Lane.
Both of us see a great disregard for existing building codes for the Town of Estes Park and the
builders simply want variances to meet their goals. Yes, workforce housing is needed in Estes Park
but this is NOT the right location. Safety, parking, lack of turn lanes, fire equipment issues,
population density, CDOT recommendations, and more are presented in the present position
statement by the attorney for those of us who live in Thousand Pines, Eagles' Landing, and the Golf
Course Condos.
We know that you will see that the Wind River Development proposal must be voted down by the
sheer weight of the evidence and violations and a more appropriate location found.
Hopefully yours,
Rev. Bill and Sara Huth
921 Village Green Lane
Estes Park, Colorado
970.586.6586
EP Town Board Meeting: Proposed Wind River Development Public Comment
298
Sheena Bensman <sheenabensman@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:00
AM
To: townclerk@estes.org
Dear Trustees,
This email is in regard to the proposed Wind River Development. I strongly oppose the current
development plan. My opposition stems from one primary fact: the current plan is far too dense and is
not site appropriate which has led to a cascading effect of secondary issues such as:
•Inadequate parking by 22 spaces (waiver requested by developer for code violation - not a
solution)
•Too little green space (majority of green space would be on Lot 2, leaving Lot 1
predominately buildings and parking concrete - developer is striving to combine lots to meet
green space requirements - not a solution). The building site is not the gross land area of Lot
1 and Lot 2, it simply isn’t.
•The 4-building development of 94 units would be developed solely on Lot 1 making the
density 20 units/acre. How can we honestly justify using the combined land area of Lot 1 and
Lot 2 to calculate maximum density on Lot 1 only? Since the developer owns both lots, he
can use the separate lots to manipulate the code/density calculation for maximum
density? That’s not honest, it’s not right. Lot 2 contains the approved plans for the daycare
facility and the rest is green space (granite outcroppings); therefore, Lot 2 should be treated
as a separate unit because it is functionally independent of Lot 1.
The developer has said in the two Planning Commision meetings, “if not here, where?” Part of the
housing problem can be solved here, and solved in a way to be a solid foundation for future workforce
housing developments, but not as the current plans sit. As a community, we need to ensure careful
consideration of the limitations of each piece of physical land, the safety of our community members,
and the cause/effect of our current building plans and how they affect our future (adequate space for
parking in a town where employees must have cars due to the limited public transportation, green
space that meets code requirements, proper driveways in highly-populated areas for evacuation
safety), etc.
The developer and the hired engineers had many opportunities to defend the current plan. Defend
that it was appropriate per all Estes Park building codes; however, they used a great deal of their
speaking time hyping the need for workforce housing and painting my neighborhood in a negative
light by saying we wanted to continue looking at an empty field.
This is simply not true. If you look at the Planning Commission meeting recordings, you’ll see that all
of the neighbors are in favor of this parcel being developed, but we are opposed to doing so in
violation of building codes (as described thoroughly in the neighborhood position statement provided
on 18 Sep 2018) and without consideration of the surrounding single family neighborhood (lack of
appropriate transition buffering).
In the Estes Park Trail Gazette (23 Mar 2018), the developer states, “The development meets all the
code requirements, if not here, where?" "If not now, when?" My answers: It does not meet the codes.
The current plan contains manipulation of the codes for the developer’s benefit and waiver requests
for the developer’s benefit. When? When the plan is code compliant and site appropriate. Don’t let
the developer cloud your judgement. This plan should be a case study for future developments in our
beautiful town without regrets.
Thank you for your time,
Sheena Bensman
1085 Lexington Lane
299
9/21/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - Appeal of Wind River Apartment Homes Project
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=7TA383j6YAs.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180913.14_p3&view=pt&msg=165fe2f0e7d6de30&sea…1/2
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Appeal of Wind River Apartment Homes Project
Jon <jnicholas@estesparkedc.com>Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 4:10 PM
To: townclerk@estes.org
Cc: "James H. Pickering" <jhpick@earthlink.net>, Adam Shake <ashake@estesparkedc.com>
Dear Mayor and Trustees:
I write to you on behalf of the Estes Park EDC Board of Directors (which met September 20 to act on this letter) to reiterate
our support for workforce housing and specifically for the Wind River Apartment Homes project. Comments on behalf of this Board
were previously submitted on June 15, 2018 to both the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Town Board via email. Briefly, wenoted that the location of this project was zoned RM in the year 2000 zoning map; that there are other multi-family projects in itsimmediate vicinity that make this location appropriate, and that --based upon existing zoning-- this is the one remaining opportunity
to create an apartment complex that will make a significant difference in addressing workforce housing.
At its August meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to reject this development application. The form of the denialdemonstrates that the Planning Commission could not reach agreement as to reasonable grounds for denying the development
application. During the Planning Commission’s discussion, the objections strongly resembled the same objections raised to the Grand
Estates Apartments project. At its February 20, 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission acted as follows to deny the Grand Estatesproject:
“It was moved and seconded (Baker/Hull) to deny the Development Plan finding that there are potentialsignificant traffic and parking risks, extreme neighbor concerns, and the establishment of a precedent of unknownconsequences of being able to achieve bonus densities on properties to be divided and sold without restriction. The
motion passed 5-2...”
EVPC Minutes, Feb. 20, 2018 at page 4. The Town Board unanimously granted the appeal of that decision.
Also, at its August meeting, the Planning Commission again questioned the Town and County-adopted code provisions thatwere precisely intended to encourage private investment in workforce and attainable housing (rather than second homes or vacationrentals). The Commission provided a single line from the Development Code to justify its exercise of such discretion:
“This is supported by the EVDC section 11.2.B ‘site-specific conditions may prevent maximum bonus density levels frombeing achieved due to the character of the land or surrounding uses.’"
This partial reading of the Code omits the significance of this objective provision. The Estes Valley Development Code, Section11.2.B in full provides:
“No Guarantee of Density. The provisions of this Chapter shall not be interpreted as guarantees of achievable
density. Developments using bonus provisions shall be subject to all other applicable regulations of this Code.These other regulations or site-specific conditions may prevent maximum bonus density levels from being achieveddue to the character of the land or surrounding uses.” (emphasis added).
Here, staff recommended approval of a development project as meeting all other applicable regulations of this code, andapproval of the development plan with conditions appears to be appropriate. For example, the applicant is required to undertake
significant measures to control storm water drainage, requirements that will improve conditions for surrounding properties.
We generally acknowledge there are recurring land use problems, which undermine trust in the development process. We arespecifically concerned that the exercise of subjective discretion to deny development proposals that meet applicable regulations and
code provisions are indicative of the problem, and will hinder the willingness of property owners to reinvest in Estes Park.
We ask that the Town Board grant the appeal and approve the Wind River project. Please return confidence in the objective,
quasi-judicial development process by strengthening public understanding of that process—and not allow an arbitrary denial of the
Wind River project to undermine investment in Estes Park’s workforce.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jon Nicholas
President/CEO
David Batey <DBatey@eph.org> Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 2:57 PM
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: "jwilliamson@estes.org" <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Dear Mayor Todd Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Cody Walker, Trustee Carlie Bangs, Trustee Marie Cenac,
Trustee Patrick Martchink, Trustee Ron Norris, and Trustee Ken Zornes.
Right now, Estes Park Health has an urgent need for employee housing, and the needed housing is
not available.
The Estes Park Health Board of Directors supports Estes Park Board of Trustees’ approval of
projects that can address Estes Park’s urgent need for employee housing when the projects satisfy
the Town’s Community Development Department’s requirements.
Estes Park Health is our community’s leading provider of health and wellness services and is a major
contributor to our community’s quality of life and economy with an approximately $80 million annual
budget and 371 employees.
Estes Park Health’s ability to provide essential services to the thousands of patients we serve each
year is being adversely impacted by the ongoing inadequate supply of employee housing in our
community.
Employee Recruitment Challenges: The difficulty of recruiting needed employees is exacerbated
when potential employees cannot find housing in the Estes Valley. Without access to housing,
potential recruits accept employment elsewhere. Many positions advertised remain open or have
sparse numbers of qualified applicants. Recruitment becomes more viable when we can house
employees locally.
Employee Retention Challenges: Thirty two percent of Estes Park Health’s 371 employees commute
from the Front Range. These employees continue to commute here because they are committed to
Estes Park Health’s mission, patients, and the Estes Park Community. However, the cost, tim e and
stress of commuting can take a toll over time and adversely impact Estes Park Health’s ability to
retain employees. Retention is facilitated when we can house employees locally.
Escalating Contract Labor Costs: As a result of employee recruitment and retention challenges, we
must often hire contract labor for key positions, with subsequent labor costs generally two to three
times higher than the cost of employees for the same positions. This makes budgeting in a cost
competitive environment a serious concern.
If we can house employees locally, employee recruitment and retention is facilitated, labor costs for
employees are significantly lower than using contractors, and millions of dollars of wages can be
spent locally, supporting our community’s quality of life and economy. Overall, the ability to house
employees locally would promote the Estes Valley’s residents desire to operate a community-owned,
community focused, independent facility.
We are ready to work with you and others to take immediate and sustained action to address our
community’s urgent current and future needs for employee housing.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue for our community.
Estes Park Health Board of Directors
David Batey, Sandy Begley, Monty Miller, Diane Muno, Bill Pinkham
9/24/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - Wind River Development Plan and Daycare
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=54517dd595&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1612339914013449795&simpl=msg-f%3A16123399140…1/1
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Wind River Development Plan and Daycare
1 message
reeree1@bajabb.com <reeree1@bajabb.com>Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 2:12 PM
To: townclerk@estes.org
Cc: jwoeber@estes.org
We are owners of a home on Pine Knoll Drive which overlooks the land where this development is going. My husband
and I understand something needs to built on this property but this development is way too large to be butting up to
$500,000-$1,000,000.00 homes. As a community we did ask the they lower the height and size the development,
which they did not. My husband is a draftsman and has a business in this town and we pay taxes and support our
town to the fullest. This is a place where my husband and I are planning to retire and if this is approved we are going
to re-think this decision. We both work at home and will have to look at the apartments along with daycare in my back
yard. This is not why we moved to Estes, we moved for the beauty of the land and the small town feeling. My kids did
go to school here on the 90's before we had to move away to take care of family. When we moved back in 2015 we
were so relieved to live back in the town we have loved so much.
To see this developer has no intension of live in this development and does not care about the residences of Estes.
He is more concerned for his net profit on this development in fact when he was denied at the 2nd hearing he
continued his project and put all the flags on the property where all the buildings. Which pretty much states that no
matter what he will get this through. Why does this developer get to put a 3 story building on when my husband has to
comply with two story buildings limit on his designs.
Please re-consider accepting this proposal for the sake of the residence who live behind it, along side it or in front of
it.
Thanks You,
Steve & Marie Fladung
09/20/2018
Mr. Mayor and Members of the Board of Trustees,
My name is Randy Brigham. I am the Chief Human Resources Officer of Estes Park Health. We currently
employee 371 dedicated healthcare professionals who deliver much needed and desired healthcare services
to the families of the Estes Valley, as well as to countless visitors. We are proud of, and very grateful to
these talented and dedicated men and women. We are also proud to be able to provide excellent healthcare
locally, with state of the art equipment, allowing our neighbors to stay in Estes Park and receive this quality
care.
We are currently challenged with a difficult phenomenon that I have not experienced in my 27 years in
human resources. In Colorado, and across the nation, we have an unemployment rate of 3% or less.
Finding qualified applicants to fill open positions is becoming harder and harder for not only us, but every
employer. In the Estes Valley, that difficulty is compounded by the current lack of employee housing, and
the very minimal development of housing designed to address the need.
Estes Park Health is able to provide very limited housing on our campus for some staff who need lodging
for on call shifts. However, we have also had the need to spend thousands of dollars this past year with
local hotels to provide housing in some situations. We would be very interested, and willing, to enter long
term master leases with developments like the one before you tonight, allowing us to possibly provide
“transitional” housing to a healthcare professional and their family… to become familiar with the area and
begin searching for a more permanent residence. This would allow someone to accept a position, begin a
new career serving our community, have a place to live, and provide some reasonable time to plan for their
residence goal.
Instead, when a candidate is offered a position, the first question is, “what about housing”? This applies to
every employer in our community. We are not looking for “warm bodies” as we recruit, we will not lessen
our hiring standards, and you wouldn’t want us to. We will continue to recruit and hire excellent
employees…but those excellent employees need a place to live! Please consider the benefits to the entire
community of well designed, well planned, attractive, and safe housing developments to allow employees
to live and raise their families where they work. Without dedicated employees providing critical services,
a community does not continue to exist.
Thank you for your consideration and time.
Randy L. Brigham, SPHR, SHRM-SCP
Chief Human Resources Officer
Estes Park Health
Wind River Neighborhood Position statement/Town Board Comments/Wind River
Bart Dannels
Attachments
Mon, Sep 24, 3:10 PM (17 hours ago)
Dear Town Clerk,
Please add our names to the attached Wind River Neighborhood Position Statement.
We were not available to sign when the original was sent to you due to difficult weather
on the East coast.
Thank you for your assistance and consideration.
Bart and Sharon Dannels
941 S. St. Vrain Ave.
Dannels, Bart <bdannels@mitre.org>
5:33 AM (3 hours ago)
From: bdannels <bdannels@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 10:05 AM
To: Dannels, Bart <bdannels@mitre.org>
Subject: FW: Letter to the Editor
_____________________________________________
From: bdannels [mailto:bdannels@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 7:12 AM
To: 'barton.dannels.ctr@langley.af.mil' <barton.dannels.ctr@langley.af.mil>
Subject: FW: Letter to the Editor
_____________________________________________
From: Bart [mailto:bdannels@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:34 PM
To: 'info@estesparknews.com' <info@estesparknews.com>
Subject: Letter to the Editor
Dear Estes Park News,
If possible, I ask that you publish the below letter to the Editor before the Jan 7th Town Board meeting.
Thanks for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Bart Dannels
Dear Editor,
Dear Town Clerk,
If possible and you deem appropriate, I ask that you forward the below message to the Town Board
members in advance of the meeting tonight. Because of my family’s history with administration and
guidance of the future of Estes, I feel it appropriate to address the Board outside and in addition to the
neighborhood position.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bart Dannels
Do The Right Thing
On Sep 25th, the Estes Park Town Board will do the right thing. They will listen to the developers, hear
the concerns of informed citizens, consider the facts, assess the impact on the community, and do the
right thing. They will support the Planning Commission decision to disapprove development of the Wind
River Crossing Development on Highway 7.
No one is opposed to development in Estes Park. In fact, my family has worked hard for it in this
community for more than 50 years, to include honoring my father by when he retired as mayor with the
Dannels-named fire station. He and his father before him on the Town Board were visionaries for the
future of the town and recognized that Estes Park is too wonderful of a place not to share. I am, and
they would have been, opposed to over-development as is apparent in the Wind River development.
I wish every member of the Town Board were with me on two successive nights when I happened to be
traveling down Highway 7 at about 10pm when, both nights, about twenty elk slowly crossed the road in
front of me, cut across Lexington Lane, then walked diagonally across the property where Wind River
proposes over-building the open space. I overlaid the elks’ “crossing” on the proposed development
plan, and found they would have had to walk “through” multiple buildings, around the development up
Lexington Lane, or directly down Highway 7. The elk were majestic yet peaceful, and obviously at home
as they calmly moved at a comfortable, easy pace, unimpeded by over-development. The members of
the Planning Commission would know they had done the right thing if they had been with me for this
moving experience.
Thank you in advance to the Town Board for supporting the informed decision of the experts on the
Planning Commission, and for doing what they know to be right and best for Estes Park by denying
approval of this over-development. Thank you also for the strength of the concerned citizens who have
the conviction to take what action they can - to do what THEY know is the right thing to do.
One final thought. Please don’t be swayed by the arguments that the developers are doing it for the
community. You will undoubtedly recognize their motive is financial, nothing else, despite their well-
researched rhetoric.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bart Dannels
TownofEstesParkSIGN-INSHEETFORPUBLICCOMMENTTownBoardMeetingSeptember25,2018PLANNINGACTIONITEM#1-APPEALWINDRIVERAPARTMENTHOMESDEVELOPMENTPLAN2018-03.1041SSTVRAINAVENUE.WINDRIVERHOLDINGSLLCIOWNER.F-FORNAME(PLEASEPRINT)STREETADDRESSA-AGAINST1/‘&—Vpc?56fro7cuvV.iV4AAIJ48ioP)ILr1.-L’r5&I&HAa7I/eJ/1oD3Jjttrcjixi,2/8/Lm%7tv-,%A-eVflyyf7cyF::Y--FINiCoc527/IF143’oo\cCE1&&io4ert°Oi4iLntTheTownofEstesParkCouncilencouragesresidentsofthecommunitytoattendTownBoardmeetings.IndividualswishingtobeheardduringPublicCommentproceedingsareencouragedtobepreparedandwillbelimitedtothree(2)minutesinordertoalloweveryonetheopportunitytobeheard.PublicCommentsareexpectedtobeconstructive.WrittencommentsarewelcomeandshouldbegiventotheTownClerkpriortothestartofthemeeting.tJ
9Eticccas68Z9Z_____________________________zl.zNThY@dN)tVoiozv/-3)°J/afln/o/w9/2C3-Q81.a7p4/A“+J91.)Q34S9tic\o}Rc’Ne-’o;t1.L1o541.‘“-kISNIVOV-Vssaeiaav133N1S(miNd3SV]ld)31VNdOd-i
4A SIWS SATURDAY,SEPTEMBER
—--
22,2018 •DENVERPOST.COM •THE DENVER POST
New construction and slot homes that dwarf smaller,more quaint homes,such as
the one on the left,are becoming the norm along Tennyson Street in Denver.The
relocation of Feral Mountain Gear is just the latest change on Tennyson Street,
which is being transformed by gentrification.“It’s losing a lot of its charm and
personality ...By the end of the next three years,(the neighborhood is)going to
be unrecognizable,”one business owner says.Helen H.Richardson,The Denver Post-
--
When looking at this picture and reading the caption,envision
Wind River on Hwy 7 at Lexington Lane and how it could
change the character of the neighborhood
*
Please drive by Fall River Village on Far View Drive and see
how the same developer changed the character of that
neighborhood
j
—t--”en,1
-ç
V
—Jr
S
4jJ
F
--
Th
I
I C
L
___
K
4 ‘
F
I
.s
-
j
•-.-.:s.i -a
•Pat’Newsom —450 West Wonderview at the corner of Far View Drive
“Old-timers”in town know the property on West Elkhorn just east of the Far View Drive
intersection as the old Trailer Park which was washed away in the 1982 Lawn Lake Flood.
As 1 remember,sometime after the Lawn Lake Flood,the upper portion of the property was
zoned F-i and for duplexes.This is in the Sunny Acres Court and Far View Drive area which
consists several single family dwellings and the Willows Townhomes.At some point the area was
zoned Accommodations without the neighbors’knowledge.
In 2014 a Broomfield real estate entrepreneur discovered the property and the rest is history.
According to an employee,the resort now has 80 or more accommodations and short term rentals
with many amenities.These are one to four bedroom units,several being three stories.
I asked Community Development if the resort has workforce housing.Their reply,and I
quote “There was no density bonus in the Fall River Project;therefore no workforce housing is
required.”...end of quote.If anyone does not know “density bonus”just ask Community
Development.
One would think a seasoned accommodations developer would know such a large complex
would require and employ a large work force.They would think about this critical need,making
some housing available as other employers in the area have done.Oh...1 guess he did...he
thought about that with his Wind River project of four,three story buildings with 94 units for
work force and attainable housing in a residential area of one-story homes and a narrow street.
I want to give you a concise version of the vision of Metropia,LLC,the developer’s
Broomfield based company,...it reads “...a real estate re-development,investment and
management company specializing in the acquisition,value-recovery,and value-add of
distressed,under-valued,and under-performing commercial multifamily properties.The
company is inspired by the process of reclaiming,reviving,and renewing underutilized
properties and the impact transformation has on the lives of their residents,the surrounding
neighborhood,and the community.
To me,this out-of-town developer has shown in several ways he has no respect for the
community of Estes Park but only what he can financially gain.
I urge you to deny this project for the sake of that neighborhood and for all residents who
want to keep the unique charm and character of this special place we call home.
As usual.my thought of the day:
10/8/2018
1
WIND RIVER APARTMENTS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPEAL HEARING
September 25, 2018
1
Day Care Services
There are two parts to this project
Multifamily Apartment Homes
Appealed to Town Board
Daycare Facility
Special Review – Town Board is Decision Maker
From project inception, the project was to be 94
Workforce Housing units on 5.77 acres.
Daycare concept came later in the process and
was initially an amenity for the residents.
Daycare Facility will not happen without the
housing.
2
10/8/2018
2
Process to Date
Neighborhood Meeting 3/7/18
Submittal Date
Development Application ‐ April 14
1st hearing pushed from May to June due to staff
shortages
Two Planning Commission hearings
(June 19 and August 21)
Planning Commission denies Project Without
Findings ‐(August 21)
split vote (4 – 2)
Appeal filed (August 22)
3
Changes Throughout Process
•Added Full 8’ Curbed & Guttered Sidewalk along
Length of Property
•New Bus Stop on Highway 7
–Encourage resident use of Public Transportation
•Pedestrian Study and Additional Parking Analysis
•Relocation of Speed Limit Change Sign
•Change in Bldg Foundations to reduce view
impact
•Grading & Drainage Improvements
4
10/8/2018
3
Neighbor Concerns
Project Parking Requirements
Parking along Lexington Lane
Pedestrian Safety
Highway 7 Crosswalk
Project Density
Drainage
5
PP1
Development Team
•Steve Lane – Basis Architecture
–Architect
•Lonnie Sheldon/Joe Coop ‐ Van Horn Engineering
–Civil Engineers
•Chris Payne – Ballard Spahr
–Land Use/Housing Attorney
•Matt Delich – Delich Associates
–Transportation Engineer
•Lucia Liley – Liley Law Offices
–Land Use Attorney
Slide 5
PP1 Maybe "What We Heard". I feel like we should go over what the major concerns were that we heard
from the Commissioner discussion and from the neighbors.
Paul Pewterbaugh, 9/19/2018
10/8/2018
4
First Motion
Foster: I move to deny the . . . application as
proposed.
Schneider: I second.
Hunt: . . . there were no findings stated . . .
Foster: That was intentional.
Leavitt: . . . good idea to have reasoning, findings . .
. those go forward if it’s an appeal
Foster: . . . that just creates an appeal record that I
don’t want to create . . .
7
Modified Motion
Foster: . . . I move to deny the Wind River
Apartments Development Plan application on the
ground that there has not been an adequate
demonstration that the requirement of adequate
public facilities is met.
Murphree: I don’t think that’s true. I don’t. I don’t
think that’s true. I think it has been met.
Leavitt: Do you still second the modified motion?
Schneider: No.
Leavitt: . . . motion fails.
8
10/8/2018
5
Final Motion
Foster: I’ll go back to my original motion. I
move to deny the . . . application.
Schneider: I second.
Vote :
4 in favor – Foster, Leavitt, Schneider and White;
2 opposed – Murphree and Theis.
9
Use By Right
•Zoning is RM (Multi‐family Residential)
•Multi‐family apartments are Use‐by‐right
•No rezoning necessary
•Lot Consolidation Plat
•Valid Minor Subdivision under EVDC Table 2.1,
Section 3.9.D.1.c
•Approved by Staff
10
10/8/2018
6
Workforce/Attainable Housing
•Applicant is eligible for full density and height bonus
(RM zoning district)
•Served by public sewer and water
•Short‐term rentals are prohibited
•Secure for 50 years through Restrictive Covenant
Agreement – approved by Town Attorney
•No additional design or development standards under
EVDC
•EVDC “Developer Incentives” for Workforce and
Attainable housing are what make the Wind River
Apartments project financially viable.
11
DENSITY BONUS
•EVDC § 11.4 (B): All residential subdivisions and
developments in the RM (Multi‐Family
Residential) zoning district are eligible for the
attainable or workforce housing density bonus
set forth in this Section.
•EVDC § 11.4 (D): . . . attainable or workforce
housing units are eligible for a density bonus of
up to two (2) times (two hundred percent
[200%]) of the base Max. Net Density standard.
12
10/8/2018
7
HEIGHT BONUS
•EVDC § 4.3.D.5.b: All multi‐family dwelling
buildings incorporating attainable housing units .
. . in the RM Zoning District are eligible for the
height bonus . . .
•EVDC § 4.3.D.5.e: . . . designation of one hundred
percent (100%) of dwelling units in an eligible
multi‐family dwelling building as attainable
housing units shall make such building eligible for
a maximum building height of thirty‐eight (38)
feet . . .
13
SITE PLAN
14
Hwy 7
Garages
Natural Open
Area
Office + DaycareLexington LaneBus Stop
Playground
Common
Lawn
Bldg
1
Bldg
2
Bldg
3
Bldg
4
•Preserve Existing natural areas
•Preserve Existing Cabin
•Orienting Buildings E‐W opens views through site
•Building floors/roofs step down at halfway point
•Garages provide additional buffer with landscaping
•Set into hillside ‐ screen buildings + parking
•From west, Buildings appear 2‐story
•Tallest on Hwy 7, but ends not sides
10/8/2018
8
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
15
BUILDING FLOOR PLANS
16
10/8/2018
9
BUILDING ARCHITECTURE
17
BUILDING ARCHITECTURE
18
10/8/2018
10
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
19
Eagles Landing
+/‐20units/acre
Eagle View
+/‐18units/acre
Wind River
16 units/acre
DENSITY
251,412sf
5,400sf = 46.56
47*2 = 94
The Properties to
the East are
MORE Dense
than proposed at
Wind River
PARKING
EVDC Parking Schedule 7.11.D
78 two‐bedroom units 156
16 one‐bedroom units 24
Subtotal 180
Guest spaces 24
Total per EVDC Table : 204
Provided: 182
Leasing office/Daycare: 12 required
16 provided
Total spaces on site 198
20
10/8/2018
11
ALTERNATIVE PARKING
•7.11.G Off‐Street Parking Alternatives.Staff shall be authorized to approve
alternatives to providing the number of off‐street parking spaces required by the
off‐street parking schedule…in accordance with the following standards:
•3. Other Eligible Alternatives.Staff may approve any other alternative to providing
off‐street parking spaces on the site of the subject development if the Applicant
demonstrates to the satisfaction of Staff that the proposed plan will protect
surrounding neighborhoods, maintain traffic circulation patterns and promote
quality urban design to at least the same extent as would strict compliance with
otherwise applicable off‐street parking standards.
21
ALTERNATIVE PARKING
•Parking Study, Delich & Associates: 1.75/unit 164 spaces (for apts)
•Other Communities would require:
•Ft Collins: 1.76/unit 165
•Larimer County: 1.59 149
•Summit County: 1.90 179
•Greeley: 1.94 182
•Longmont: 2.00 188 *updating code in 2018
•Loveland: 2.00 189 *updated code in 2018
Average: 1.85/unit 175 spaces
22
10/8/2018
12
OTHER ESTES PROPERTIES
See 2nd Parking Assessment, Delich and Associates, September 2018
Actual occupied ratio Open Spaces
Talons Pointe 44 units 1.12 50
Falcon Ridge 48 units 1.38 44
Lone Tree 57units 1.41 32
Wind River 94 units 1.93**36% + increase
23
PARKING SUMMARY
24
EVDC Parking schedule (20+ years old) should be revisited/updated.
Wind River Proposed Parking Spaces = 182 spaces 1.94/unit
Parking Study for Wind River = 164 1.74/unit
Other municipality requirements (avg) = 175 (avg) 1.86/unit
Other Similar Estes Properties = 123 (avg) 1.30/unit
10/8/2018
13
§ 7.12 ‐ ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
When constructing the motion for denial one of the Planning
Commissioners initially stated that the project did not meet adequate
public facilities. This is not true.
•Levels of Service Standards are met for Sewer, Water, Drainage,
Transportation, Fire Protection and Electricity.
Transportation and APF for VEHICLES:
•Traffic Engineer concluded:
–At buildout, no significant adverse impacts on existing transportation
levels of service.
–At buildout, no significant impact on any arterial or collector street or
intersection within one‐quarter mile of the site.
–There is Safe and Adequate access to the nearest paved road
–There is legal access to a public street.
25
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ANALYSIS
•No Code Requirement ‐ attempt was made to work with CDOT to get a
lighted pedestrian crossing installed.
•Crossings have to meet warrants before installation. ‐‐ No warrants met.
•(50 pedestrians and 1000 vehicles per hour)
•Accident history (none in the last 5 years)
•At Planning Commission, a video was shown of bicycles/riders waiting to
cross the highway at the existing signed and painted crosswalk.
•Possible improvements:
•Repainting crossing
•Additional signage –
•Volunteers for crossing guards‐for school kids.
•Two recent pedestrian crossing counts (7am to 8am hour) with zero
crossings
•This is a Town/CDOT issue which we feel will be settled in the future.
26
10/8/2018
14
TURNING LANE
•The original TIS used a synthesized peak hour traffic number with staff
approval since high season counts weren’t available.
•Analysis showed 37 existing, plus 13 projected vehicle trips per hour (50)
•Not enough to warrant the SB right turn lane per CDOT ‐ trigger is 51
vehicles trips per hour.
•Delich + Associates measured Actual counts in July
•20 existing vehicle trips per hour ‐much lower than the synthesized number
•20 measured (existing) plus 13 projected vehicle trips = 33
•Significantly lower than CDOT warrant of 51
•CDOT concurs with the lower counts:
Therefore the turn lane is not required
27
DRAINAGE
•Proper Resources were used for drainage analysis
•Denver Urban Drainage Manual
•Larimer County Addenda.
•A common use Detention Pond is proposed for on‐site mitigation
•No increase in stormflows downstream.
•Will off‐set all impervious coverage on the Project
•Calculations for the pond are correct and have been accepted by Town Staff.
•Water quality is controlled by use of a rain garden with the detention pond.
•There have been drainage problems at this intersection in the past. This
condition will be improved:
•Wind River detention/drainage improvements
•CDOT will provide, in addition to the existing 18”, a 29”x45” underground pipe.
•Outfall of the new pipe will be placed in the same location as historic flows.
•The pipe does not outfall into Eagles Landing
28
10/8/2018
15
Closing Statements
•HNA‐ “Do not let the vocal minority have a
disproportionate amount of influence on the
process”
•Majority of town in favor of this project
–Broad and diverse base of community support
•Land Zoned Multifamily almost 20 years
•Town amended Development Code to Attract
this exact type of project.
•Last significant piece of multifamily land left
29
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
Date: September 25, 2018
RE: Special Review, Wind River Apartments Day Care Facility, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue;
Wind River Properties, LLC, Paul Pewterbaugh/Owner; Van Horn Engineering,
Inc./Applicant
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Review of an application for a “Day Care Center,” an S2-level Special Review in an RM, Multi-Family
Residential Zoning District.
Present Situation:
The subject property is zoned RM, Multi-Family Residential. The 5.77-acre site is presently developed
with a residential structure, to be used for the proposed day care, with the majority of the site proposed
for the Wind River Apartments project. The property is located at the southwest corner of the
intersection of S. St. Vrain Avenue (Highway 7) and Lexington Lane.
The Wind River Apartments Development Plan was denied by the Estes Valley Planning Commission
on August 21, 2018, and appealed by the owner to the Town Board. The appeal is scheduled to be
heard at the September 25, 2018 Town Board hearing, separately from and prior to this proposed
Special Review application.
Proposal:
As part of the Wind River Apartments project the applicant proposes to establish a Day Care Center.
This would be to serve the residents, but which is also intended to have capacity or openings for
children from outside the Wind River Apartments. See Attachment 2. The day care is proposed within
an existing structure on the property, which would be remodeled and expanded, with a portion also
used as a leasing office. A fenced playground is proposed. The applicant is aware of, and has stated
they will comply with, all applicable day care licensing requirements of the State of Colorado
Department of Human Services.
Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
301
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
SPECIAL REVIEW, WIND RIVER DAY CARE
PAGE | 2
EVDC Standards:
The following is from the EVDC, Chapter 3 Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.5 Special
Review Uses:
A.Procedures for Approval of Special Review Uses. Applications for approval of a special
review use shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in §3.2 of this
Chapter. Uses that require a Special Review and are subject to the regulations of this section
are stated in Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts and Table 4-4:
Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Special Review Uses shall be reviewed through an S1 or S2 procedure. Those uses that have
a wider public interest or impact shall be reviewed through the S2 procedure. Both review
procedures provide an opportunity to allow the use when there are minimal impacts, to allow
the use but impose mitigation measure to address identified concerns, or to deny the use if
findings establish that concerns cannot be resolved.
Approval of a Special Review Use shall not constitute a change in the base zoning district and
shall be granted only for the specific use approved at the specific site. Approval is subject to
such modifications, conditions, and restrictions as may be deemed appropriate by the
Decision Making Body.
B.Standards for Review. All applications for a special review use shall demonstrate
compliance with all applicable criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 5, "Use
Regulations," of this Code.
Applications for S1 or S2 Special Review shall provide a narrative that describes how the
proposed use fulfills the applicable requirements and standards for the use. In order to
minimize adverse impacts of the proposed use, an approval of Special Review Use may be
conditioned based upon information provided in the narrative and staff findings.
For purposes of the Special Review, the narrative shall describe the following, as applicable.
The applicant has provided a narrative describing the following, as applicable:
1. The proposed use and its operations;
2. Traffic generation;
3. Existing zoning compatibility;
4. Location of parking and loading, including size, location, screening, drainage, landscaping,
and surfacing;
5. Effect on off-site parking;
6. Street access points, including size, number, location and/or design;
7. Hours of operation, including when certain activities are proposed to occur;
8. Exterior lighting;
9. Effects on air and water quality;
10. Environmental effects which may disturb neighboring property owners such as;
a. Glare; This may be described in terms of location, design, intensity and shielding;
b. Noise; and
c. Dust;
302
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
SPECIAL REVIEW, WIND RIVER DAY CARE
PAGE | 3
11. Height, size, setback, and location of buildings and activities;
12. Any diking, berms, screening or landscaping, and standards for their installation and
maintenance; and
13. Other resources. This description shall include information on protection and
preservation of existing trees, vegetation, water resources, habitat areas, drainage areas,
historic resources, cultural resources, or other significant natural resources.
The “Use Regulations” from Chapter 5 of the EVDC specific to the day care use are below (Section
5.1.F.). Staff notes the proposed day care use meets the definition of a “Day Care Center” as
defined in Chapter 13, Definitions, of the EVDC.
5.1.F. Day Care Centers and Large Family Home Day Care. Day care centers and large family
home day care shall be subject to the following standards:
1.The minimum lot area for a day care center in residential zoning districts shall be twelve
thousand (12,000) square feet.
(Ord. 6-06 §1)
2. In approving day care centers and large family day care homes, the Decision-Making Body
may impose conditions related to location, configuration and operational aspects of the center or
home to ensure that the use is compatible with surrounding uses. This includes, but is not
limited to, hours of operation, noise, lighting and parking.
(Ord. 6-06 §1)
3. In approving day care centers and large family day care homes, the Decision-Making Body
may impose conditions on the site design and structures to ensure compatibility with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood in terms of building mass, scale and design.
(Ord. 6-06 §1)
4. Large family day care homes shall have direct access to a paved public street.
(Ord. 6-06 §1)
5. Day care centers in the E, E-1, RE and RE-1 residential zoning districts shall be adjacent to
an arterial street.
The following is from Section 3.5.A., Procedures for Approval of Special Review Uses: “Both review
procedures (S1 and S2 Special Review) provide an opportunity to allow the use when there are
minimal impacts, to allow the use but impose mitigation measure to address identified concerns, or to
deny the use if findings establish that concerns cannot be resolved.”
Note: Although staff emphasized the Special Review was a separate and distinct use review from the
Wind River Apartments Development Plan application when referring the application out for comment,
the review agencies understandably treated the project as a whole for review purposes. Few
comments were directed specifically at the day care proposal. The Development Plan and the Special
Review are being reviewed concurrently, although they are separate application processes.
Advantages:
•Provides an amenity for the associated multi-family project, which would likely have residents with
day-care age children.
303
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
SPECIAL REVIEW, WIND RIVER DAY CARE
PAGE | 4
•Can provide another option for day care in the Estes Valley area, which is recognized as a service
which is in short supply.
•Complies with standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code
Disadvantages:
•The day care may increase traffic somewhat in this area, especially in the morning and evenings.
Action Recommended:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing for this application on August 21, 2018
and voted to recommend approval of the Special Review application by a unanimous vote of 6 – 0. The
Planning Commission recommendation included staff’s finding and condition of approval, as follows.
Finding:
1.Staff finds that the Day Care Center use would meet all applicable Procedures, Standards,
and Use Regulations as proposed.
Condition of Approval:
1.The approved use shall be consistent with the plans and information as submitted by the
applicant for the Special Review Use.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest:
High: Numerous comments have been received for the Wind River Project, predominantly for the
Development Plan for the multi-family project, but including some that address the day care proposal.
These comments can be accessed at:
www.estes.org/currentapplications
Comments will be added to this webpage as they are received.
Sample Motions:
1.I move to approve the Special Review application for the Wind River Day Center according with
the finding and condition of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff.
2.I move to deny the Special Review application for the Wind River Day Center, finding that …
[state findings for denial].
3.I move to continue the Special Review application for the Wind River Day Center application, to
the next regularly scheduled meeting. (State reasons for continuance.)
Attachments:
1.Vicinity Map
2. Application
3.Statement of Intent
4.Floor Plan, Elevations
NOTE: For Site Plan, Refer to Wind River Development Plan Appeal Staff Report
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320