HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2018-03-27The 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, March 27, 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. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated March 13, 2018 and Study Session dated March 13,
2018.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes – None.
4. Estes Park Board of Appeals Minutes dated May 4, 2017 (acknowledgement only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated February 15, 2018 (acknowledgement only).
6. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated February 21, 2018
(acknowledgement only).
7. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated January 16, 2018 and February
20, 2018 (acknowledgement only).
8. July 4, 2018 Fireworks Agreement, Tri-State Fireworks, Inc., $35,000, Budgeted.
9. Mobile Stage Purchase, Stageline Mobile Stages, $142,040, Budgeted.
10. Extension of Agreement to Operate Water System with Prospect Mountain Water
Company Inc.
Prepared 03/16/18
*Revised 03/23/2018
*
1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. AMENDED PUD, AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DP 2017-09, AND
AMENDED PRELIMINARY CONDO MAP, Fall River Village II, 200 Block of
Sunny Acres Court. Planner Becker. Request continuance to April 10, 2018.
B. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL TOWNHOME PLAT, Stanley Avenue Townhomes,
260 Stanley Avenue, Michael R. & Cynthia A. Kingswood/Owners. Request
continuance to May 8, 2018.
C. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #7, The Meadow Condominiums,
2746 & 2752 Kiowa Trail, Marys Meadow Development, LLC/Owner. Planner
Becker.
D. AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #1, Stone Bridge Estates,
1147 Fish Creek Road, N.C. Wilson, LLC/Owner. Planner Becker.
E. AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #11, Stone Bridge
Estates, 1145 Fish Creek Road, Kingswood Homes Inc./Owner. Planner
Becker.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
A. APPEAL, GRAND ESTATES APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN,
FNPKROPP REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC. Appeal of Estes Valley
Planning Commission decision for DP 2017-10 on February 20, 2018. Director
Hunt.
B. GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS MINOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY
AND FINAL PLAT, 507 Grand Estates Drive, FNPKOPP Real Estate
Investments, LLC. Planner Woeber.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ESTES VALLEY FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT REGARDING IMPACT FEES. Town Administrator
Lancaster.
2. RESOLUTION #07-18 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS TO THE
2018 BUDGET. Director Hudson.
3. POLICY 901 – UTILITY FEE WAIVERS. Utilities Coord. Rusch & Director Bergsten.
4. MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE APPOINTMENT. Mayor Jirsa.
5. ORDINANCE 04-18 AMEND ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.08.010
COMMITTEES TO SUNSET THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/COMMUNITY
SERVICES COMMITTEE AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY/UTILITIES/PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE. Town Administrator Lancaster.
4. ADJOURN.
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 13, 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 13th day March, 2018.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Rex Walker
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
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 (Nelson/Walker) to approve the Agenda, and it passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen requested an update on the Moraine bridge replacement
and the need to have the bridge replaced by Memorial Day for the downtown businesses.
Director Muhonen stated the Town received a letter from the Department of Local Affairs
outlining the funding of the stormwater sewer repair at a cost of $295,000. The funding
would accelerate the project timeline. Staff anticipates the project would be completed
by Memorial Day.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS
Trustee Holcomb stated Adam Shake/EDC would be performing the day-to-day duties of
the EDC while Jon Nicholas/EDC CEO takes a leave of absence.
Trustee Norris commented the Wind River development team held a community meeting
with 40 in attendance to discuss the development on Hwy 7 and to hear from the
neighborhood.
Trustee Martchink reminded the public of the upcoming Parks Advisory Board to discuss
the Loop, Mrs. Walsh’s Garden and lighting.
Trustee Nelson requested Community Development staff provide the Board with an
outline of upcoming land use projects to avoid ex parte communication.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance Quarterly Report: Reported overall compliance with Policies 3.1
through 3.11 with the exception to 3.4.2 where he reported technical non-compliance
because the fund balance dipped below 20%.
Mayor Jirsa requested the removal of Policy 3.1 to provide further review of customer
service provided in the Building division because he has received a number of complaints. DRAFT3
Board of Trustees – March 13, 2018 – Page 2
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated February 27, 2018 and Study Session dated
February 27, 2018.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes – None.
4. Special Meeting of the Town Board, Estes Valley Planning Commission &
Larimer County Commissioners Minutes dated February 22, 2018.
5. Family Advisory Board Minutes dated February 1, 2018 (acknowledgement
only).
6. Estes Park Board of Adjustments Minutes dated November 7, 2017 December
5, 2017 (acknowledgement only).
7. Parks Advisory Board Bylaw Update.
8. Transportation Advisory Board Bylaw Update.
9. Town Administrator Policy Governance Report Acceptance.
10. Board of Appeals Appointments:
x Brad Klein, Reappointment, 3-year term expiring May 1, 2021
x Joe Calvin, Reappointment, 5-year term expiring May 1, 2023
11. Transportation Advisory Board Appointments:
x John “Gordon” Slack, Reappointment, 3-year term expiring March 31,
2018
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve the Consent Agenda
with the removal of Policy Governance Report 3.1, and it passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Walker/Koenig) to reschedule the Policy
Governance Report 3.1 for the June 12, 2018 Town Board meeting, and it passed
unanimously.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. ORDINANCE #03-18 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT CODE §11.4 ADDING A SUBSECTION FOR A
“RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND AGREEMENT” WITHIN THE
INCENTIVES FOR ATTAINABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING. Planner
Woeber provided a review of the current Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC) requirement to deed-restrict attainable and workforce housing for
developments utilizing the density bonus. Any ownership deed for these
attainable and workforce units must have a restriction, where the unit can only
to be rented or owned by those qualified per the income or residency
requirements. Under current Code, this deed restriction must be for a time
period of at least fifty years. The amendment would add an additional option,
for a Restrictive Covenant and Agreement to allow a range of development
projects. Staff researched various other communities where there are similar
attainable and workforce housing programs and found that a provision for a
Restrictive Covenant and Agreement has been a viable alternative to deed
restrictions.
DRAFT4
Board of Trustees – March 13, 2018 – Page 3
Kent Smith/Town citizen commented restrictive covenant work better than
deed restrictions and would favor the amendment to the EVDC.
Attorney White read the Ordinance into the record. It was moved and
seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve Ordinance #03-18, and it passed
unanimously.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. RESOLUTION #05-18 - 2018 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION
FOR DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITIONS. Director
Muhonen stated to ensure the Downtown Estes Loop project moves forward
without delay, the remaining Town local matching funds of $3.9 million be utilized
to pay for project design and right-of-way acquisition. A final project cost share
reconciliation would be performed post-construction to assure the maximum
Town payment of $4.2 million, and a minimum of 17.21% of total project funding,
has been honored as previously agreed in Section IV of the FHA/Town
Agreement. Providing the funding would minimize the risk of delay to land
purchases needed to complete the project due to funding interruptions at the
federal level; provide closure for the property owners; position the Town to
request Colorado Federal Lands Access Programing Decision Committee to
move the project construction funding forward from 2021 to 2019 to reduce the
risk of higher project costs, implement solution to traffic congestion, and reduce
downtown flood risk; and accelerated payments could reduce the administrative
costs to staff. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Nelson) to approve Resolution #05-18, and it passed unanimously.
2. CONTRACT TO BUY REAL ESTATE - LOT 1 KEARNEY MINOR
SUBDIVISION (1360 BROOK DRIVE) – WATER DIVISION. Director Bergsten
stated the Town has outgrown the Elm Road shop space. The Water division
recommended the purchase of Lot 1, Kearney Minor Subdivision, I-Industry
zoned property, at a cost of $950,000 and relocate Water operations from Elm
Road to the new location off of Fish Creek. This property would allow the division
the room needed to store equipment and materials for day-to-day operations and
for the expanded in-house project work. The current Water shop facility on Elm
Road could be used by Public Works to address the facility needs of Streets and
Fleet divisions. Staff estimates the current building on the property could be
remodeled at a cost of approximately $200,000 and ready by the end of the year;
however, the move could be phased with the heavy equipment moved
immediately and the storage of materials. The Water division would fund the
purchase of the property, thereby impacting the capital projects outlined for the
year.
Attorney White reviewed the terms of the contract and the Town’s request for
three additional items: 1) the installation of a sidewalk along Brook Drive by the
current owner; 2) the transfer of three sewer taps to the Town; and 3) closing
on June 25, 2018.
It was moved and seconded (Walker/Koenig) to approve entering into a
contract for the purchase of the property at 1360 Brook Drive, Lot 1,
Kearney Minor Subdivision by the Water division with the amend/extend
contract and it passed unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION #06-18 - 2018 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION
FOR PURCHASE OF LOT 1 KEARNEY MINOR SUBDIVISION. Director
Hudson presented the Resolution to appropriate $1 million from the Water fund
to purchase Lot 1, Kearney Minor Subdivision. Mayor Jirsa questioned if the
expense would alter the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Staff indicated the CIP
would change the capital projects for the Water division. It was moved and
seconded (Holcomb/Martchink) to approve Resolution #06-18, and it passed
unanimously. DRAFT5
Board of Trustees – March 13, 2018 – Page 4
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFT6
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado March 13, 2018
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TTOWN BOARD of the Town
of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in
the Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 13th day of March,
2018.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town
Administrator Machalek, Town Attorney White, and
Recording Secretary Disney
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
QUARTERLY UPDATES ON DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP PROJECT.
The Project Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) team presented an update on the
progress of the Downtown Estes Loop project over the past three months. They
highlighted the signing of the concurrence letter for the Finding of No Significant Impact,
which was published in the Federal Register. The TAC presented updated design
concepts to the Parks Advisory Board, Transportation Advisory Board, and the
Downtown Plan Steering Committee in July 2017. The final design of the loop is
underway and the Colorado Department of Transportation has commenced the right of
way (ROW) acquisition process for 7 parcels identified for full acquisition. TAC
emphasized the design refinements of diagonal parking on Moraine, pedestrian
crossing locations, post office parking lot layout, Ivy bridge configuration, and Rockwell
bridge sidewalk. The preliminary construction design consisted of 5 phases over a 9-12-
month period. TAC proposed continuing the design and acquisition efforts in preparation
of bidding the construction work in early 2021.
Trustee questions and comments of the project have been summarized: questioned if a
pedestrian bridge would be more beneficial in high traffic areas; what the biggest
concerns in the construction process are; how flood control in the post office parking lot
would be considered; and the extended timeline of ROW acquisitions and the
importance of maintaining a timeline for acquisitions.
CONSTRUCTING ROCKY MOUNTAIN PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AT STANLEY
PARK (RMPAC). Executive Director Albert Milano presented an update of the RMPAC
and proposed constructing the RMPAC at Stanley Park along Highway 36 with the
potential of creating a cultural center in Estes Park. He highlighted the benefits of the
new location, including the space available on a construction ready site, available
parking at the fairgrounds, the cost, and the ease of transportation to and from
downtown. Milano stated both Rocky Ridge Music Center and Nashville Music Masters
have shown interest in partnering with RMPAC for the creation of a music education
program. He provided a rendering by architect Roger Thorpe of the theater design,
displaying a unique building with visual interest along the highway. A second phase of
construction would create an IMAX theater next to the RMPAC, which would further
community interest at Stanley Park. DRAFT7
Town Board Study Session – March 13, 2018 – Page 2
Trustee questions and comments on the proposal have been summarized: questioned
the cost difference between this newest proposal and the two previous proposals; and
should a master plan of Stanley Park be done before allowing the RMPAC to acquire
land at the park.
The creation of a master plan was further discussed to include the School District’s
vocational training building and museum storage. A Request for Proposals would go out
at the end of the month and a completed master plan could be expected in 6 months.
SUNSET REVIEW OF PUP AND CD/CS.
Town Administrator Lancaster began the discussion to determine the continuation of
CD/CS and PUP Committees. Board Policy 102 Section 4w, sets a sunset review
schedule for all non-statutorily required Town committees. In 2017, the Town Board
revised the procedures and criteria for agenda items to be first reviewed on the
committee level before advancing to the Board. Additionally, reports and updates not
containing a specific request were included for review only. These changes resulted in a
majority of meetings cancelled due to lack of agenda items. The Board discussed the
options to continue both committees for review in 5 years, to sunset one or both
committees, or to schedule a more in-depth discussion of the committees at a later
study session. Trustees commented on the positive and negative attributes of both
committees and it was determined to sunset both committees with the ability of calling a
special committee of the Board if the need arose.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS
None.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS
Administrator Lancaster requested the Board review the Public Posting of Town Board
Email Policy 107, it was determined to review the policy after the new Board was seated
in April.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:32 p.m.
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary DRAFT8
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 15, 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 15th day of February, 2018.
Present Carlie Bangs
Vicki Papineau
Merle Moore
Ronna Boles
Geoffrey Elliot
Also
Present: Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Patrick Martchink, Town Board Liaison
Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Absent: Dewain Lockwood
Wade Johnston
Acting Chair Merle Moore called the meeting to order at 8:31 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comments
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded (Papineau/Bangs) to approve the January meeting minutes
and the motion passed unanimously.
PAB BY-LAW MODIFICATIONS
Chair Moore presented the modifications to the by-laws as requested by Town of Estes
Park Administration, to the PAB. The suggested changes are as follows:
Section IV.C.7 – (wording in red removed) “The Chairperson has the same right
as any other member of the Board to vote on matters before the Board and to
speak for or against proposals, provide, however, that if the Chairperson desires
to speak for or against a proposal which has been formally moved and seconded
9
Parks Advisory Board – February 15, 2018 – Page 2
at a public meeting, the Chairperson shall relinquish the chair to the vice-
Chairperson while he or she is speaking.”
The other modification was to Section VIII – (wording in blue added) “A member
of the Board who has a personal or private financial interest in a matter proposed
or pending shall disclose such interest to the committee; shall not vote on the
item; and shall not attempt to influence the decisions of other members voting on
the matter.”
A motion was made and seconded (Papineau/Bangs) to accept the modifications to the
by-laws and all were in favor.
DECORATING UTILITY BOXES (DUB) UPDATE
Member Boles updated the PAB on the current happenings with the DUB program. She
reminded all that the program was transferred to the Parks Division from the Light &
Power Division and that it would be led by Parks Supervisor Brian Berg moving forward.
During this time of year, there are specific items needing to take place for the purposes
of timing. Boles met with Supervisor Berg and sent him a timeline for DUB preparation.
At this time it is important to get in contact with Kent Smith so he’s aware and can order
the appropriate supplies to prime the boxes. Light & Power will be changing the process
to allow the utility boxes to be stickered immediately after priming due to the length of
time it takes for the paint and seal to cure.
In March a discussion will need to occur to approve sending out the RFP. Boles posed
the question of whether an RFQ should still be issued prior to the RFP or if could be
combined into one solicitation. The approach will need approved at the March PAB
meeting. Another item needing determined is the method of advertising the solicitation –
newspaper, Town email blast, Facebook, etc. If using the Town email blast, approval of
the verbiage will need expedited to allow enough time for responses. Nick Smith, Chair
of the Estes Arts District (EAD) offered to send out information on the solicitation as
well. Once the Town decides to advertise, Smith will need notified so he can do the
same.
Supervisor Berg will create a list of recommendations on specific utility boxes to be
painted for the coming season and will bring to the March meeting for approval.
Chair Moore thanked Member Boles for all the work she’s put into the DUB program.
10
Parks Advisory Board – February 15, 2018 – Page 3
PARKS DIVISION UPDATE
Public Works Operations Manager, Kevin McEachern presented the Parks Division
Updates in Supervisor Berg’s absence:
Most of the Parks Division staff is currently in attendance at the ProGreen
Conference held in Denver this week. This provide Continuing Education Credits
(CEUs) for staff certifications and is a valuable annual conference.
Tricia Morales-Diaz has been studying to become a certified arborist
Matt O’Reilly is working to get his backflow certification. Matt is the primary staff
person that works on the irrigation in town.
Supervisor Berg and Tonya Ziegler are applying for their applicator license to
spray weeds in town. This will enable the Town to tackle spraying the weeds in
between Larimer County spray efforts or handle those that get missed.
A rough draft of the plant listing for Veterans Monument Park has been
completed. Ordering of these plants is anticipated to take place soon.
The Town has received the new binoculars for the Knoll Willow property (both
standard and ADA binoculars). Installation is planned within the next few weeks.
The Town will not be competing in the America In Bloom program this year.
There will be more efforts toward community beautification and the Estes Park in
Bloom (EPIB) program. One new item this year will be the implementation of the
Resident Bright Spot program highlighting residents in Estes Park that have
beautified their property.
Planning for the Mountain Heritage Festival is moving along well.
The last of the planned baseline irrigation systems will be installed in the next
month. This provides for conservation opportunities when the ground is saturated
and no irrigation is needed; when sprinkler heads are broken an alarm is
generated; and many other streamlined features will now be available. The
irrigation system being replaced was installed in the 1970’s.
Chair Moore requested that any landscape plans or permanent planting plans (shrubs,
trees, etc.) be brought to the PAB prior to plan execution. This allows the PAB to review
the documents and make suggestions to the Town Parks Division prior to them
performing these tasks. This will help gear the plantings to more educational purposes
and he’d like to see this opportunity maximized.
11
Parks Advisory Board – February 15, 2018 – Page 4
MRS WALSH’S GARDEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Chair Merle Moore shared that the committee met yesterday. Moore made a motion to
request approval for authorization of funds to be used from the Town’s Mrs. Walsh’s
Garden (“Garden”) fund for secretarial supplies not to exceed $100. He also requested
the ability for these purchases, since they’re for a Town park, to be tax free. Kevin
McEachern stated this would need done by providing the Town’s tax exempt number for
these purchases. The motion was made and seconded (Papineau/Boles) and all were in
favor.
Moore also requested a motion for approval to authorize funds for purchase of
cardstock flyers to be used at the Mountain Heritage Festival explaining details about
the Garden, as well as the purchase of a banner for the festival. The motion was made
and seconded (Bangs/Elliot) and all were in favor.
Karen Lynch of the Estes Park Events Complex attended the meeting to discuss event
options for this venue and suggested that weddings will take place in the Garden.
Supervisor Berg has been in discussions related to this matter. Residents and visitors
are already asking about having their weddings or family members’ weddings at the
Garden. The charge for the Garden will be $500. Chair Moore stated these funds would
be provided to the Town for Parks Division cleanup efforts after the weddings.
Many concerns came up regarding the impacts on this space and with the charge being
only $500, the Garden may be completely booked with weddings throughout the visitor
season which will inhibit residents and visitors from walking through and enjoying the
Garden at their leisure. Moore indicated that several questions were brought up by the
Committee for Lynch to explore and provide answers. The Town of Estes Park Events
Complex actively has the Garden advertised as a wedding venue on their website.
Megan Van Hoozer will take the concern back to the Public Works Director to determine
why this was posted as a wedding venue without the knowledge of the Mrs. Walsh’s
Garden Advisory Committee or the Parks Advisory Board. If appropriate, the post will be
removed. If the post is intended to stay, explanation to be provided the PAB.
Member Elliot made the motion to recommend the use of the Garden be restricted to
mission-related events and that events in the Garden not exclude the public, which
would exclude weddings as an option. The motion was seconded by Co-Chair Bangs.
12
Parks Advisory Board – February 15, 2018 – Page 5
Chair Moore requested a motion to permit the PAB Chair to receive monthly budget
reports of all expenditures coming out of the Tree Board fund as well as the Mrs.
Walsh’s Garden fund to be made retroactive to the time the Town took over the Garden
funds. The motion was made and seconded (Papineau/Bangs) and all were in favor.
Chair Moore stated that the Committee would consider making a contribution to the
Town’s greenhouse expansion in the amount of $5,000 for a couple years, however
prior to committing the Committee would need assured enough space would be
available with the existing expansion plan to grow native plant species specifically for
the Garden.
OTHER BUSINESS
The AIPP Guidelines were briefly discussed with additional edits requested. A
motion was made and seconded (Elliot/Boles) to accept the suggested edits and
all were in favor.
Parks Division employee, Keri Kelly gave a talk at the Garden Club this week and
it was a full house. She explained her process of beautifying the Town properties
and discussed the implementation of the Resident Bright Spot beginning in 2018.
Co-Chair Bangs brought up the urgency of getting memo or letter to Town Board
requesting a percentage of all large projects be applied to art in Town as is done
in other communities. Chair Moore to draft a document for review.
With no further business to discuss, the motion was made and seconded (Elliot/Boles)
to adjourn the meeting at 10:06 a.m.
13
14
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 21, 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 21st
day of February, 2018.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Gordon Slack
Ann Finley
Tom Street
Belle Morris
Stan Black
Amy Hamrick
Ken Zornes
Also Present: Bob Holcomb, Town Board Liaison
Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
David Hook, Engineering Manager
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Absent: Lochen Wood, RMNP
Claudine Perrault
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
No public comment.
A motion was made and seconded (Slack/Finley) to approve the January minutes and
all were in favor.
TAB BY-LAW MODIFICATION
The TAB reviewed the suggested by-law modifications. A motion was made and
seconded (Slack/Hamrick) to accept the suggested modifications and all were in favor.
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek will present the modified by-laws to the Town
Board for adoption.
A discussion was then held regarding email votes that are primarily for document
approval in preparation of submission to the Town Board. Clarification is needed on
what business can be discussed/held via email.
15
Transportation Advisory Board – February 21, 2017 – Page 2
Director Muhonen referenced other advisory board operations and a recent comment by
a Town Board Trustee asking members to maintain awareness of the Sunshine Law to
ensure violations don’t occur. Email communications with all members is considered a
meeting and cannot occur. The suggestion was made to have all discussions in a
regular meeting.
Muhonen then suggested that when new members are brought on board, there should
be a common practice to review with the Chairperson, the
roles/responsibilities/boundaries, etc. of the advisory board.
SHUTTLE UPDATE
Transit Program Manager, Brian Wells, presented this month’s Shuttle Committee
update. Sandy Osterman has asked to step down as the Shuttle Committee
representative. The Shuttle Committee is working on appointing a replacement. Wells is
the intermediate representative.
Wells summarized 2017 shuttle statistics related to routes and timing. Suggestions have
been received to move the hiker shuttle stop to the east side of the Visitor Center and
leave the Town shuttle stop on the south side. This is being discussed and all affects
considered.
McDonald Transit, the contracting service provider for the Town shuttles, has raised the
renewal for 2018 from $56.48/hr. to $63/hr. As a result, the Green Route will have to be
removed from the system. It would cost over $40K to reinstate this route.
Sponsorship for the shuttles is in full force and sponsors can only be acquired until
March 31, 2018. The current sponsor goal is $13K.
Member Slack questioned the ridership numbers for 2017 being lower than 2016. Wells
stated that the shuttles ended an hour earlier in 2017 and did not provide spring service.
He also reported that the J-1 students more frequently used bicycles in 2017 and that
the RMNP hiker shuttle had more day trippers.
Member Hamrick asked if there has been any progress on getting shuttles to run
through the parking structure. Director Muhonen stated that the Mayor called a meeting
with the US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) leadership and legislative representatives to
discuss the matter. Terry Stroh, the author of the existing Special Use Permit (SUP)
16
Transportation Advisory Board – February 21, 2017 – Page 3
was receptive to the proposal, but only with an addition of electronic gates acting as a
service gate and a gate for the shuttles. Muhonen was excited to hear this possibility.
Public Works is currently reviewing, however the need remains for a determination on
reinstating the Green Route prior to doing going through this effort.
PROJECT UPDATES, Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
Downtown Estes Loop:
The TAC committee met last week. CDOT is currently getting appraisals and providing
offers to seven key property owners for the Right of Way acquisitions required.
The consultant, AECOM reached 70% design completion and will be attending the
March TAB meeting to provide updates. CDOT approved diagonal parking on Moraine
Ave. and is providing for a bike lane.
Downtown Parking Management Plan (DPMP):
Director Muhonen requested feedback regarding the potential request that the savings
from the parking garage be used to reinstate the shuttle’s Green Route at a cost of
approximately $41K. This request would be part of the March 27 Town Board Meeting
as a supplemental budget request. Muhonen plans to present other ideas for potential
expenditures against these savings including approximately $40K for counters at the
parking structure to properly track and monitor structure usage .
Member Campbell stated that, until there is better utilization of the parking structure, it
doesn’t seem appropriate to utilize funds on the Green Route, but that the funds should
be used to provide better service for special events. Since the goal is to get
visitors/residents to walk more, why provide shuttle service at the parking garage rather
than require they cross the bridge to the Visitor Center for the shuttle stop? Muhonen
indicated the reason is less about ease for the residents/visitors and more to do with
maintaining reliable headway. Left turns onto US 34 from the Visitor Center is incredibly
difficult in peak season and creates shuttle delays.
It was further discussed that with the funds being available now, and the BOR being
willing to work with the Town on the SUP now, this seems the most appropriate time to
make these requests. The need will arise and the situation may be different.
Member Hamrick inquired about the future potential for an employee shuttle. Per Wells,
the 2016 4-week test route for employees parking at the Events Complex was a big flop.
17
Transportation Advisory Board – February 21, 2017 – Page 4
Member Campbell clarified that the test route took place in the morning but the real
need is for those with an afternoon shift.
After more in-depth discussions related to existing shuttle routes, ridership and potential
new routes, the TAB expressed full support of Director Muhonen’s suggestion related to
expenditures against parking structure savings.
Director Muhonen discussed the plan for rolling out the DPMP (i.e. logistics,
administrative details, etc.). He stated there is potential for reorganization involving
moving transit operations from the Community Services Department and moving it into
Public Works stating it makes sense to combine transit and parking management in the
early years. This would also create a need for the Shuttle Committee to potentially
combine with the Transportation Advisory Board. The Shuttle Committee would need an
opportunity to review and assess this transition.
Muhonen requested the TAB provide guidance on this topic asking if the members
believe a Shuttle Committee member should fully join the TAB. Manager Wells
described the current Shuttle Committee functions stating they only meet three to five
times each year. Wells will confirm, with the Shuttle Committee, their thoughts on the
matter and will report at the regular March TAB meeting the reactions or ideas
expressed.
Stormwater Master Plan:
This process is moving along. There was recently a presentation at a Town Board Study
Session wherein the Trustees requested public outreach occur and that Public Works
return with the feedback received.
PROJECT UPDATES, David Hook, Engineering Manager
2018 Street Improvement Program (STIP):
This year’s street improvement program will include chipseal, crack seal, and mill &
overlays on several identified streets throughout Estes Park. This presentation will be
given at the Town Board Study Session next week.
Fall River Trail Extension:
The recent application for grant funding from the Land Conversation and Water Fund in
the amount of $400,000 was approved and the funding has been granted. The
construction is still anticipated to take place in 2019 on Phase 3 of this project meaning
18
Transportation Advisory Board – February 21, 2017 – Page 5
a trail will be constructed beginning at David Drive and extend to the Rocky Mountain
National Park’s Fall River Entrance.
Brodie Avenue Improvements:
The design of the Brodie Avenue improvements is progressing well. The public meeting
held in January at the school had a very low turnout.
Next week, the design consultant should have 90% drawings. The plan is to perform
construction while school is not in session. The Town is hoping to have a decision on
the Safe Routes to School (“SRTS”) grant soon.
The TAB requested the Brodie drawings be provided for review by the entire group.
Manager Hook extended his apology for not realizing the practice of bringing drawings
related to trails for feedback from the TAB. During the meeting, the 30% drawings were
delivered for review by the members. Director Muhonen and Manager Hook explained
the trail portions of the drawings and comments were collected.
Moraine Avenue Improvements:
The Moraine Avenue Bridge project is moving along. The project is currently at a point
where the contractor is constructing rather than destructing. They’re pouring the bottom
slab of the box culvert this week. The rebar and walls have been installed/erected.
Discussions continue regarding construction acceleration to recoup time lost. Schedules
continue to be subject to weather. If there is no acceleration, completion cannot take
place until the end of June. Ideally, with an accelerated date, completion would be by
the end of May. There is a plan that is coming together but there is never a guarantee.
There was a public meeting with downtown business owners today and attendance was
very good. The biggest complaint was about a decline in business due to the Moraine
closure and business owners are distressed about the April closure of Elkhorn Ave.
US36 / Community Drive Turn Lane:
Public Works will be taking a design contract to the Town Board meeting next week for
approval. There is an existing plan to install both a left-turn and right-turn lane based on
a recent traffic study from the Community Center project. There is a scenario where
construction could occur this fall. Funding may be an issue and would delay
construction on this project until 2019.
19
Transportation Advisory Board – February 21, 2017 – Page 6
DMS – Dynamic Message Sign Installation
Manager Hook is currently working with the low bidder to reach an agreement for a
reduction of the bid amount to fit the Town’s budget threshold. The Town of Estes
Park’s Streets and Parks Divisions would take on some of the identified work to allow
removal from the contract scope. These negotiations would equate to a reduction of
approximately $95K from the original bid of $219K. The Town would require a
construction contract of approximately $125K in order to move forward. Out of pocket
costs will take place for materials needed and this has been budgeted. It is critical to get
a contract in place due to the potential of long lead times on needed items.
OTHER BUSINESS
No other business identified.
With no other business to discuss, Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 1:59 p.m.
20
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 16, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
1
Commission:Chair Russ Schneider, Vice-Chair Bob Leavitt, Commissioners Doyle
Baker, Sharry White, Betty Hull, Steve Murphree, Robert Foster
Attending:Chair Russ Schneider, Vice-Chair Bob Leavitt; Commissioners Doyle
Baker, Sharry White, Betty Hull, Steve Murphree, Robert Foster
Also Attending:Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Planner II Audem
Gonzalez, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner I Robin Becker, Code
Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Town Board Acting Liaison Cody
Walker, County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley and Recording Secretary
Karin Swanlund
Absent:None
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
1. OPEN MEETING
Planning Commissioner Introductions
Comment from Chair Russ Schneider as Public Record
“Commissioners and study session attendees: Recently Town Administrator Lancaster
informed the Estes Park Town Trustees that the Estes Valley Planning Commission had
violated the Colorado Open Meeting Law, i.e. the Sunshine Law. To my fellow
commissioners, I am sorry you have been painted by the brush of mistrust. During a
November training session, the EVPC was advised that it would be a good practice to
bring the entire Planning Commission into the agenda setting process, rather than have
the agenda be exclusively set by the chairman and the Community Development Director,
which has been the tradition. Recently however, and prior to having such a session, the
chairman was looking for ideas regarding future meetings, knowing the number issues we
would likely address in 2018 were vast. Some of the commissioners responded to the
email which we have been told constitutes a violation of the Sunshine Law. Our
understanding was that email messages discussing pending actions by the EVPC
constitute a meeting and they are subject to the law. At no time were any agenda items
established, or topics discussed that are currently under review by the EVPC. There was
never any intent to violate any provision of the Sunshine Law, nor any attempt to prevent
anyone from knowing what we were doing.
21
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 16, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2
“We take our duties seriously, including the requirements to adhere to the conditions of
the Sunshine Law and to conduct business in a transparent fashion. Accordingly, we are
taking the following steps: 1) prohibiting any and all discussions via email that may require
action, regardless of the topic; 2) making all EVPC emails public; 3) obtaining additional
guidance from the Town on permitted forms of communication; and 4) working with the
Town to find an acceptable way for the EVPC Commissioners to provide input to the
agenda setting process. The EVPC is requesting specific guidelines as we move forward.
“Also, given the amount of anticipated work ahead, we are considering having an
additional scheduled study session each month. The primary purpose would be to work
on updating the Comprehensive Plan, but it would also be an opportunity to discuss
potential agenda items in an open forum. In addition, we are requesting periodic
meetings between the EVPC, Town Board, and County Commissioners to improve
communication, understanding, and collaboration between the EVPC and these
governing bodies.
“In the coming year we will face many challenges, such as development and writing of a
Comprehensive Plan, traffic, parking, workforce housing, important Estes Valley
development code changes, and significant development projects. We look forward to
working with the Town, County, local organizations, and citizens of the Estes Valley on
these tasks.
“It is our goal to more openly demonstrate our commitment to this community to regain
public trust.”
2. AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved with no second (Leavitt)that the agenda be approved, and the motion
passed unanimously.
3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2018
It was moved with no second (Hull)that the election of Bob Leavitt as Chairman and
Sharry White as Vice Chair be approved, and the motion passed unanimously.
Chair Leavitt received the gavel and presided for the remainder of the meeting.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
The following citizens provided public comment conveying their thanks, support and
appreciation to the Planning Commission: John Phipps, Kevin Conrad, Pat Newsom, Tom
Gibbs, Dick Spielman, Susan Wolf, Connie Phipps, Sandy Lindquist, Pat Blume.
Johanna Darden/town resident thanked Commission and discussed the Comprehensive
Plan advising the Commission to be strong when it comes to reviewing the plan
22
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 16, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
3
Jon Nicholas/Economic Development Corp. (EDC) speaking on Raven Rock appeal,
noting that the Comprehensive Plan decision will make it difficult for future applicants to
apply to code.
Commisioner Comments:
Commissioner Hull stated that her time on the Commison and the recent events that
have put it and her in the public eye have been difficult and thanked the public for their
comments. Chair Schneider echoed Commissioner Hull’s comments.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes from 11/14/17 Planning Commission meeting.
B. Large Vacation Home Review: 541 Heinz Parkway/owner Reichle
C. Large Vacation Home Review: 3960 Little Valley Road/owner Moak
D. Large Vacation Home Review: 3456 Mountainside Drive/owner Moak
It was moved and seconded (Hull/White) that the consent agenda items be
approved, and the motion passed unanimously.
6. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW: 159 STANLEY CIRCLE/OWNER RILEY;
PROPOSED OCCUPANCY-10
Code Compliance Officer (CCO) Hardin reviewed the LVHR memo. The subject property
does not meet the one-acre minimum required lot size and the home sits at 23’ setback
from front property line, setback requirements are 25’. There have been no enforcement
issues with this property.
Public Comment:None
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/White)to approve of the Large Vacation
Home application for 159 Stanley Circle and the motion passed unanimously.
7. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW: 1421 SUNNY MEAD LANE/OWNER ASHBY;
PROPOSED OCCUPANCY-16 *APPLICATION AMENDMENT FROM 5 TO 7
BEDROOMS
CCO Hardin reviewed the LVHR memo. The subject property does not meet the one acre
minimum requirement (lot size is .77 acres). Applicant has been working with Building
Division to bring property into compliance with current building codes.
Public Comment: None
23
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 16, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Hull) to approve of the Large Vacation Home
application for 1421 Sunny Mead Lane and the motion passed unanimously.
8. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.3.D REGARDING
ATTAINABLE/WORKFORCE HOUSING COVENANTS
Planner Woeber reviewed and provided a recommendation for a proposed text
amendment to the EVDC to add a subsection which provides an option for a “Restrictive
Covenant and Agreement” within the chapter regarding incentives for attainable and
workforce housing. Currently, a deed restriction for qualified persons is the only available
mechanism to assure that attainable and workforce housing units are allowed through the
EVDC. This amendment would add an additional option for a Restrictive Covenant
Agreement. This is in the best interest of the Estes Valley community due to the need for
more attainable and workforce housing.
Commission Comment:
Commissioner Foster asked for a comparison between deed restrictions and restrictive
covenants in regard to a) enforcement and b) amendments. Attorney White explained that
attainable housing has successfully been run by the Housing Authority in regard to
compliance and sales. Deed restrictions with projects from the private sector won’t work,
mainly due to the fact that they aren’t amendable. Covenants are agreements, which are
a better vehicle for this code amendment. Commissioner Baker noted that 1) keeping
track of the extension of density bonus to multiple properties and properties owned by
multiple people adds a level of complexity that he is not comfortable with and 2) the final
decision on language is up to town Counsel and not the public. Community Development
Director Hunt answered that items in the development agreement are provided to the
public for comment prior to being approved. He also stated that it is the department’s
responsibility to keep records, uphold them and keep track of them.
Public Comment:
Johanna Darden/town resident spoke in favor of keeping the deed restrictions on
workforce housing.
Jon Nicholas/EDC shared his opinion that he wants to make sure that the mechanisms
used focus on what we want accomplished.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Hull)to continue the proposed Amendment to
the Estes Valley Development Code regarding attainable/workforce housing
covenants to the February 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting and the motion
passed unanimously.
9. GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS: DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY
MINOR SUBDIVISION; 507 GRAND ESTATES DRIVE
24
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 16, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
5
Planner Woeber presented the applicant request for four multi-family structures, each
having 4 units (16 total) and a waiver to the minimum distance required for side setbacks
on each of the four lots. Applicant will use and incentive within the EVDC for a density
bonus for the proposed development. There is no zone change requested. Staff
recommended approval of the proposed Minor Modification request with conditions.
Developer Comments:
Jes Reetz/Cornerstone Engineering reviewed the development plan with regards to
density compared with neighboring plats and parking spaces. Owners are residents of
Estes Valley and will act as property management.
Owner Comments:
Trevor Kropp conveyed that the entire property would be built uniformly. Workforce
housing would be built and occupied before the market rate housing. Plan purposely calls
for two bedroom/two bath units to be more marketable to not just families, but roommates.
Public Comment
Those speaking in opposition to the project included Ray Young/town citizen, Jim
Doctor/town citizen, Melanie Harwood/town citizen, Carol Prince/HOA Spokesperson,
stating concerns regarding traffic on Grand Estates Drive, overcrowding of the
neighborhood, and parking.
Jon Nicholas/EDC spoke on the economic issue between workforce housing and market
rate housing.
Those speaking in favor of the project included Tom Bergman/local engineer, Steve
Lane/local architect, James Poppits/town resident, stating this is what the density bonus
was intended for and the project meets requirements of the EVDC.
Emails submitted by neighbors to the Planning Commission in opposition to this
Development Plan were assembled and placed on the Town’s website for review by the
Commission and the public.
Staff/Commission Discussion
Considerable discussion was held resulting in the recommendation to continue the
proposal to the next meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Hull)to continue the Grand Estates Apartments:
Preliminary Minor Subdivision Plat to the next Planning Commission meeting on
February 20, 2018 and the motion passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded by (Foster/White) to continue the Grand Estates
Apartments: Development Plan and Minor Modification request to the next Planning
Commission meeting on February 20, 2018, and the motion passed unanimously.
25
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 16, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
6
10.FALL RIVER VILLAGE II: AMENDED PUD, AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND
AMENDED PRELIMINARY CONDO MAP
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report stating that the project was previously
approved for 12 accommodation units in 2017. The proposal entails amending the
previously approved to replace one the approved duplexes (2 units) with an 8-plex
building, add recreation/spa area, trash enclosures, expand the community center by 560
square feet, move a drainage catch basin. Staff recommended approval of the proposed
project.
Applicant Comment
Steve Lane, Basis Architecture, stated that this is a small change to plan due to the owner
realizing that the project was lacking single bedroom units.
Public Comment:None
Commissoner Comments
Commissioners Hull, White and Leavitt noted that the property was walked and no
problems were observed.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Murphree)to approve the Fall River Village
II: Amended PUD, and Amended Preliminary Condo Map to the Town Board with the
findings and conditions recommended by Staff, and the motion passed
unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (White/Baker)to approve the Fall River Village II:
Amended Development Plan, to the Town Board with the findings and conditions
recommended by Staff, and the motion passed unanimously.
11.STANLEY AVENUE TOWNHOMES: PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME PLAT AND
DEVELOPMENT PLAN; 260 STANLEY AVENUE
Planner Gonzales reviewed the development plan for 8 townhome units and waiver
request to the front setback and landscape buffer setback. Staff recommended approval
with the following conditions:
The northern parcel will be rezoned to RM before any building permit is applied for
The requested variances to the parking lot landscaping buffer and parking lot location
shall be approved by the Board of Adjustment.
Public Comment
None
26
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 16, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
7
It was moved and seconded (White/Hull)to recommend approval of the Stanley
Avenue Townhomes: Preliminary Townhome Plat to the Town Board with the
findings and conditions recommended by Staff, and the motion passed
unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree)to recommend approval of the Stanley
Avenue Townhomes: Development Plan and Minor Modification to the Town Board
with the findings and conditions recommended by Staff, and the motion passed
unanimously.
12.REPORTS
Staff Level Reviews
1. Director Hunt noted that for the town’s Fish Hatchery Project we are in the very early
stages of this 75 acre property and the town has hired a firm to help with this
development plan.
2. Staff is proposing to implement additional measures for improvement of the town web
site and routing of plans which would include increasing staff.
3. Planner Gonzales will be leaving department the end of January and the replacement
process will be underway soon.
There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 4:40p.m.
___________________________________
Bob Leavitt, Chair
___________________________________
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
27
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
February 20, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
1
Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve
Murphree, Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Doyle Baker
Attending: Chair Leavitt, Vice-Chair White, Commissioners Hull, Murphree, Schneider,
Foster, and Baker
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber,
Planner I Robin Becker, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Town Board
Liaison Ron Norris, and Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley
Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 20 people in
attendance.
1. OPEN MEETING
Planning Commissioner Introductions
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion
passed 7-0.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
None
4. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
B. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW: 961 Old Ranger Road-Owner Talsma
It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the
motion passed 7-0.
5. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 1907 MALL ROAD; OWNER STEPHEN THOMAS-5 BEDROOM,
OCCUPANCY OF 12
Code Compliance Office Hardin stated that the setback requirements are 50 feet on all sides for
this RE zone. This home sits on 28 feet from the rear property line and 38 feet on the east side.
No record of violations.
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Hull) to approve the vacation home at 1907 Mall Road
to allow a maximum of twelve (12) occupants. The motion passed 7-0.
Public Comment
None.
6. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.3.D REGARDING
ATTAINABLE/WORKFORCE HOUSING COVENANTS
Continued from 1/16/18 meeting
Planner Woeber stated that currently, the only available mechanism to assure that attainable and
workforce housing units allowed through the EVDC’s provision for a “density bonus” is limited to
qualified persons through a deed restriction. This amendment would add an additional option for
a Restrictive Covenant and Agreement.
28
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
February 20, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2
Attainable housing includes renters or owner-occupied housing, where qualified households must
meet specific income requirements. Workforce housing is where a qualified resident must meet
specific residency requirements.
Allowing this project is in the best interests of the Estes Valley community due to the need for
more attainable and workforce housing. Staff researched various other communities and found
that this is a viable alternative to deed restrictions.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Baker and Hull questioned the 50 year deed restriction and covenants. Planner
Woeber explained that a time frame needs to be in place in order to keep the work force housing
projects from being short term when long term is what is desired.
Public Comment
None
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Baker again stated that he hasn’t heard anything of substance about the inclusion
of the 50 year time frame. Town Attorney White noted that there are 20 year deed restrictions
already in place but this particular code is 50 years. Governing bodies can change that if they
choose. One option would be replace the time frame with “subsequent owners”. Commissioner
Foster stated that he doesn’t understand the need for this change or what the amendment adds
to the current status quo.
Conditions of Approval (as recommended by the Planning Commission)
1. Approve the text amendment with provision that the 50 year time period for both deed
restriction and attainable housing be dropped.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Baker) to recommend the EVDC Amendment be
adopted with the stated condition. The motion was approved 6-1 with Commissioner Foster
voting against.
7. GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS: DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY MINOR SUBDIVISION
507 GRAND ESTATES DRIVE
Continued from 1/16/18 meeting
Planner Woeber described the plan and plat as development of 4 multi-family structures, each on
an individual lot and each having four units (16 total). Applicant will use an incentive within the
EVDC for a density bonus. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Minor Modification
waiver to reduce the side set back distance to 7.5 feet in lieu of the required 10 foot minimum.
Staff further recommends approval of the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan and
Subdivision Preliminary Plat with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the Minor Subdivision being taken to the Town Board for review, the applicant
shall revise the Preliminary and Final Plat to provide for an easement for access to all lots.
The easement for the trash enclosure must also be revised and clarified.
2. A 20 year restriction for workforce housing occupancy would be inserted into the
agreement
Staff and Commission Discussion
None
Applicant: Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering confirmed that he had read new comments from
concerned neighbors. Mr. Reetz provided these answers to questions raised: 1) Construction
traffic will not be a problem. 2) Original rezone from CO to RM was approved in an EVPC meeting
on January 17, 2017, which was done anticipation of a future multi-family development proposal.
3) Owner will be the property manager. They have experience and live in the Estes Valley,
however not on site. 4) More parking would be good, but project is meeting EVDC requirements.
5) 24 feet is a typical driveway entry width (Original plan was for 30 feet due to semi-truck
29
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
February 20, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
3
parking proposal). 6) Developer does not want to sell immediately after construction. 7)
Minimum width for fire separation is 10 fee. This proposal retains 15 foot fire separation
between buildings. 8) Violations will be on a case by case basis. 9) Lease agreements will be
strictly enforced (2 vehicles per unit, no parking on Grand Estates Drive).
Commissioner White asked if the lease agreement addresses the number of occupants per unit.
Commissioner Leavitt asked how parking and lease restrictions will be enforced. Jes Reetz
answered that it would be by the property manager and that neighbors would have access to
owners.
Attorney White noted that restrictive covenants would be enforced by homeowners association,
the town, or the owner. Covenants could provide for a maximum of 4 people per unit, but there
is no requirement of that. The lease agreement would limit residents to 2 cars per unit (a total of
32 cars).
Reetz answered Commissioner Schneider’s question regarding the narrowness of Grand Estates
Drive, stating that it is the Town’s responsibility to make the street wider. Director Hunt agreed
and noted that there is a long term expectation of the town to provide safe, conforming streets,
with regard to both current and proposed new streets. However, to his knowledge, there is no
specific improvement plan for Grand Estates Drive.
Public Comment
The following town citizens spoke against the project stating reasons such as parking and traffic
issues, density bonus and other neighborhood concerns: Ester Cenac, Patricia Kuschel, Jane
Rudtledge, Gordon Slack and Ray Young.
Joh Nicholas/EDC/ Spoke in favor the project stating that Ranch Meadows itself was not designed
well from the onset. The Planning Commission’s job is to decide if this is code compliant. This is a
good proposal and addresses the housing shortage in this community. Think about the big
picture.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Hull questioned several aspects of the project including why only two lots involve
workforce housing and suggested a maximum of 12 units. A parking demand for as many as 64
cars was mentioned as a concern. With workforce housing many of the residents will be adults.
Each adult will need a car to go to work. With 4 adults per unit and 16 units, there could be a
need for as many as 64 parking spaces. Since the workforce housing is for local residents they will
tend to be in town much of the time rather than traveling out of town. Their use of the parking
spaces will be more intense than a typical apartment complex. Also, when residents have visitors
they will need a place to park. There is no place for the overflow parking other than on the
narrow Grand Estates Drive.
Commissioner Baker agreed that this was a bridge too far and risked setting a bad precedent. The
double density bonus is too open to abuse. Approval of the proposed setback waivers is the only
way to make this project work. It is not in the best interest of the community to approve the
waiver, particularly in light of the number of people expressing legitimate concerns about the
parking and traffic.
Commissioner White expressed that she is concerned about parking; however it meets code,
which is the commission’s job. She continued that she is not sure that dividing the property into
four separate lots meets the spirit and intent of density bonus.
Commissioner Schneider stated that there is more to the code than if it meets setbacks and
parking spaces and questioned if we are truly addressing the true meanings of density bonus and
how it is intended to be utilized.
Commissioner Leavitt answered that this is a difficult issue because we want to support work
force housing but issues raised today, including parking and inadequacy of Grand Estates Drive to
support the growing traffic load, make it a dilemma to know what to do.
Commissioner Hull agreed with Jon Nicholas that we do need workforce housing, but this location
is best suited for only 8 units. There are other places in town which are better located.
30
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
February 20, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4
Commissioner Leavitt summarized that he can go along with the premise that a reduced cost of
construction per housing unit comes with the density bonus. That being said, this is still a difficult
decision for all the issues mentioned previously.
It was moved and seconded (Baker/Hull) to deny the Development Plan finding that there are
potential significant traffic and parking risks, extreme neighbor concerns, and the establishment
of a precedent of unknown consequences of being able to achieve bonus densities on
properties to be divided and sold without restriction. The motion passed 5-2 with
Commissioners Foster, Hull, Schneider, White and Baker voting in favor and Murphree and
Leavitt voting against.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Baker) to deny the Preliminary Minor Subdivision based on
the same rationale as the Development Plan and the motion passed 5-2 with Commissioners
Foster, Hull, Schneider, White and Baker voting in favor and Murphree and Leavitt voting
against.
8. FISH CREEK STORAGE MINOR SUBDIVISION 1901 FISH CREEK ROAD
Planner Becker stated that the proposal entails creating two legal lots from one lot with
continued industrial/commercial use. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Preliminary
Minor Subdivision Plat.
Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering spoke on the subdivision plat and how it has met all
requirements.
Discussion was had regarding Annexation between the Town and County, with Attorney White
summarizing the IGA and annexation processes and procedures explaining that it is the County
that is requiring this procedure. The Town still has authority to deny the petition and the
subdivision itself is scheduled for a March 19 hearing at the Larimer County Board of
Commissioners.
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Hull) to recommend approval of the Fish Creek Storage
Minor Subdivision to the Board of County Commissioners and the motion passed 7-0.
9. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT: TO ADD “PUBLIC SCHOOLS” AND “NON-
PUBLIC SCHOOLS” AS USES ALLOWABLE IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS, AND ALSO REVISE THE
DEFINITIONS OF SCHOOLS.
Planner Woeber explained that the objective is to have the uses “Public Schools” and “Non-Public
Schools” be allowed, under specified criteria, in all zoning districts within the EVDC Boundary.
Establishing a Public School would be subject to meeting State Statutory requirements. A Non-
Public School would require approval of an S2 Special Review.
Staff recommended continuing this code amendment to the March 20 meeting in order to do
more research on the findings of the 500 foot separation distance between an issued liquor
license and a school.
Commission asked staff to bring a stronger justification of why schools are needed in all zoning
districts, have a better definition of schools and bring a master list of schools in Estes Park for the
next meeting.
Public Comment:
Jeff Winston/Eagle Rock School, gave a brief explanation of the reasons this Code Amendment
was applied for.
31
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
February 20, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
5
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/White) to continue the proposed code amendment to
the March 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed 7-0.
10. REPORTS
A. Karin Swanlund is the new administrative assistant in Community Development Department
B. Planning Commission emails will become public as of February 22, 2018
C. Planner II position has been advertised and first review deadline will start Friday, February 23,
2018.
There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m.
_________________________________
Bob Leavitt, Chair
__________________________________
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
32
COMMUNITY SERVICES Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Rob Hinkle, Community Services Director
Date: 3/27/2018
RE: Events Division - July 4th Fireworks Agreement
Objective:
To approve the budgeted July 4th Fireworks Agreement for the Events Division of the
Community Services Department.
Present Situation:
An RFP was published on February 26th for a July 4th professional fireworks display.
This agreement is for 2018, with an option to renew through 2020.
Proposal:
There was one qualified bidder, Tri-State Fireworks, Inc. Tri-State Fireworks held the
last contract which was for 5 years. The bid is for $35,000 and meets all of the proposal
requirements.
Advantages:
● Utilizing a company that has experience with the July 4th Fireworks display in
Estes Park, they have worked with the Events Division, Fire Department, Police
Department and other departments involved in the display.
● The Events Division has had no documented problems with Tri-State Fireworks.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Town Board approval of the July 4th Fireworks agreement with Tri-State Fireworks, Inc..
Finance/Resource Impact:
The budgeted amount is $35,000, 101-5500-455.22-20.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
33
I move for the approval of the July 4th Fireworks agreement with Tri-State
Fireworks, Inc..
Attachments:
None
34
COMMUNITY SERVICES Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Rob Hinkle, Community Services Director
Date: 3/27/2018
RE: Events Division - Mobile Stage Purchase
Objective:
To approve the budgeted purchase of a mobile stage for the Events Division of the
Community Services Department.
Present Situation:
The current stage is falling apart and is dangerous for our employees to operate and for
those using the stage. An invitation for bids for this project closed on February 12,
2018. We received two bids for the mobile stage.
Proposal:
The most qualified bid is the Stageline SL100. The Events Division would like to
purchase the Stageline SL100 for $142,040, to be delivered in April. This purchase is in
the 2018 Capital Projects budget.
Advantages:
● The current stage has many safety problems (wire cables are frayed, the wheel
that collects and spools the cables are not attached properly, the stage has
become worn, siding is brittle and power outlets are exposed to weather).
● The new stage can be used as a traditional stage for outside or inside venues
and as a VIP viewing platform with proper guardrails and steps.
● The new mobile stage will allow for easy leveling and the ability to hang speakers
and lights from the roof (current stage does not allow). It would allow rigging up
to 6,500 pounds, has a life expectancy of over 20 years and a wind resistance
rating of 80mph. The stage is an easy 30 minute set-up for two people and can
be pulled with a standard pick-up truck.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Town Board approval of the Stageline SL100 mobile stage purchase.
Finance/Resource Impact:
The budgeted amount is $150,000, Account 101-5500-455-33-98
Level of Public Interest
Low. The current stage is used for many summer events in Bond Park and also at the
Events Complex.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of purchasing the Stageline SL-100 mobile stage.
Attachments:
Purchase Agreement
SL 100 # 922
Initials ________ Initials ________
PURCHASE AND SALES AGREEMENT
This Purchase and Sales Agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into effective as of
March , 2018, by and between Stageline Mobile Stage Inc. (“Seller”) and Town of Estes
Park (“Buyer”).
WHEREAS Seller designs and manufactures mobile stages;
WHEREAS Buyer wishes to purchase a mobile stage from Seller, which wishes to sell a mobile
stage to Buyer, subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter detailed;
NOW, THEREFORE, SELLER AND BUYER AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1.Preamble. The Preamble hereof forms an integral part of this Agreement as
if herein recited at length in full.
2.Purchase of Stage. Buyer agrees to buy from Seller, which agrees to sell to
Buyer, the mobile stage, additions, attachments, accessories, and collectively the “Stage” and
the Services described in the Sales Quote and Purchase Order, attached hereto in Annex A
subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter detailed.
3.Purchase Price. The price (the “Price”) to be paid under this Agreement and
the payment terms are clearly detailed on the Invoice, attached hereto in Annex B. Buyer's
obligation to pay the Price in full and all other amounts payable to Seller hereunder shall be
absolute and unconditional. Buyer shall be solely responsible for the payment of all taxes,
licenses, tariffs, registration fees, permits and all other fees and assessments in connection with
Buyer's purchase, ownership, transportation, training and use of the Stage.
4.Terms and Condition of Sale. The sale of the Stage will be subject to all of
the provisions of this Agreement. If there are any inconsistencies between this Agreement, on
the one hand, and any terms and conditions of Buyer, on the other, including without
limitation terms and conditions on Buyer's purchase orders, this Agreement shall govern.
5.Delivery. Subject to payment in full of the Price, pick up of the Stage will be
on a date mutually agreed between Seller and Buyer, E.X.W. Seller’s factory or warehouse
located in the city of L’Assomption, Quebec, Canada. At the request of the Buyer, Seller will
make the necessary arrangements for the transportation of the Stage toEstes Park, Colorado, as
well as cargo insurance on behalf of the Buyer. Buyer shall be responsible for the payment of all
freight, transportation, insurance, shipping, storage, handling, demurrage or similar charges.
Risk of loss or damage to the Stage shall pass to Buyer upon delivery of the Stage by Seller to
Estes Park, Colorado.
6.Title. Title to the Stage shall pass to Buyer upon payment in full of the Price
and pick up of the Stage.
37
SL 100 # 922
Initials ________ Initials ________
7.Limited Warranty. Seller represents and warrants that the Stage will be free
from material defects in workmanship and labor for a period of one (1) year from the date of
delivery. Seller shall be solely responsible for the cost of all warranty parts and labor. No
warranty is given by Seller with respect to fabrics, tires or rubber roof seals. If there is a
manufactured flaw with the rubber seals, Seller will cover this in the first year of ownership
(subject to paragraph 8 below). The express warranties set forth in this Agreement are the only
warranties with respect to the stage, and the remedies set forth herein are buyer’s exclusive
remedies in the event of a breach of such warranties. Seller hereby disclaims all express and
implied warranties that are not specifically contained in this Agreement, including without
limitation the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Seller
shall not be liable for any incidental or consequential damages or any nature resulting, directly
or indirectly, from any breach of such warranties, either before or after the delivery of the stage.
8.Warranty Repair. Buyer shall give Seller an immediate detailed written
report (with photographs, drawings and depictions) by email of any mechanical breakdown or
problem with the Stage, whether or not the mechanical breakdown or other problem is covered
by Seller's limited warranty. If the problem is covered by Seller's limited warranty, Seller will
attempt to assist Buyer’s technician by email or telephone to resolve the problem. If Buyer and
Seller are unable to resolve the warranty problem in this manner, as soon as reasonably
practicable, Seller, in its sole discretion, will either: (a) send its own technician to the site of the
Stage to perform warranty repairs at Seller’s expense, or (b) give Buyer written authorization to
have the Stage repaired by a third party.
9.Seller's Confidential Information. Buyer represents, warrants and agrees
that Buyer and Buyer's officers, employees, agents, representatives, attorneys, and successors
("Related Persons") will keep confidential the features of any equipment, patterns, designs,
drawings, production or engineering data, or other technical, confidential or proprietary
information related in any way to the Stage which may be provided by Seller to Buyer or any of
its Related Persons from time to time. Seller shall designate in writing such confindential or
proprietary information. All such confidential and proprietary information will be used by
Buyer and its Related Persons only for the purpose of utilizing the Stage purchased by Buyer
hereunder. At no time will Buyer or any of its Related Persons disclose such confidential or
proprietary information to third parties, or use such confidential or proprietary information for
any purpose other than utilizing the Stage purchased hereunder, without Seller's prior written
consent.
Upon written request from Seller from time to time, Buyer and its Related Persons
will return to Seller all such confidential and proprietary information, and copies thereof, or
dispose thereof as Seller directs.
10.Modifications and Improvements. In the event of any modification or
improvement by Seller in respect of the Stage, Seller, in its sole discretion, may provide Buyer
with technical or instructional bulletins (“Bulletins”) from time to time. Buyer hereby agrees to
comply with all Bulletins. The cost of compliance with the Bulletins shall be Seller's sole
responsibility in the event the Bulletins pertain to safety factors or Buyer’s sole responsibility in
the event the Bulletins pertain to the installation, operation or maintenance of the Stage. If
Buyer fails for any reason to comply with any Bulletins pertaining to safety factors, then, all
warranties set forth in this Agreement in respect of the Stage shall be deemed ipso facto null and
void and of no further force or effect.
38
SL 100 # 922
Initials ________ Initials ________
11.Training. Seller has developed a specific training program for the equipment
purchased and warrants the availability of a specialized technician (hereinafter the “Trainer”)
to convey the training. As a condition precedent to the enforceability of the limited warranties
provided in this Agreement, before using the Stage, and continuing at all times during the
warranty period on the Stage, Buyer will ensure that at least two (2) of its technicians
(hereinafter the “Qualified Persons”) have been trained and certified by Seller to operate and
use the Stage and that the Qualified Persons have all appropriate permits and licenses to
operate and use the Stage, and that the Stage will be used exclusively by or under the direct
supervision of Qualified Persons. All training of Buyer's technicians shall be at Buyer's sole
cost, either at Seller's facility or at another location acceptable to Seller. Buyer shall be solely
responsible for all expenses of the trainer and of the technicians in training. In addition, for
training that takes place away from Seller's facility, Buyer shall pay all expenses of Seller's
instructors, including without limitation, travel, per diem, hotel and ground transportation.
12.Inspection and Maintenance Policy. Buyer acknowledges that the Stage is
comprised of two (2) principal structures; namely: (a) the trailer (the “Trailer”), which includes,
without limitation, the steel or aluminum frame upon which the Stage is manufactured, the
motor that operates the lifting system, the suspension system, the axles, the braking system and
the tires; and (b) all other aspects of the Stage (the “Functional Structure”). During the one (1)
year warranty period, buyer agrees, represents and warrants that it shall fully inspect and
maintain the Stage on a timely and on-going basis, same to include, without limitation, the
following:
(a) Buyer agrees, represents and warrants that it shall fully inspect and
maintain the Trailer at least one (1) time per year, or more often if circumstances warrant, by
fully qualified and licensed mechanics and in conformity with all laws that are applicable in the
circumstances to such inspection and maintenance; and
(b) Buyer agrees, represents and warrants that it shall fully inspect and
maintain the Functional Structure at least one (1) time per year or more often if circumstances
warrant, in accordance with the specifications and standards that are established by Seller from
time to time.
With regard to the foregoing inspections and maintenance, moreover, Buyer shall, on a timely
basis, accurately complete and return to Seller all inspection and maintenance forms issued by
Seller to Buyer.
Failure by Buyer to comply with any of the foregoing provisions shall ipso facto nullify and void
the limited warranty granted to Buyer under this Agreement.
13.Use of Stage. Buyer acknowledges that the Stage comprises specialized and
complex equipment, and that the transportation, installation, set-up, operation, use, de-
installation and storage of the Stage require technicians with specialized knowledge and
training. Buyer, therefore, hereby represents and warrants to Seller that at all times
commencing from the delivery of the Stage to Buyer the Stage will be transported, installed, set
up, operated, used, de-installed and stored in accordance with all requirements of Seller’s most
current operations manual (the “Operations Manual”) exclusively by Qualified Persons.
14. Alterations/Modifications Prohibited. Buyer hereby represents and
warrants to Seller that Buyer shall not under any circumstances whatsoever, unless it has
39
SL 100 # 922
Initials ________ Initials ________
received the prior express written authorization of Seller, alter and/or modify the Stage in any
manner whatsoever, including, without limitation, alter and/or modify any part of the Stage
that will affect or will likely affect the structural integrity of the Stage to the slightest degree.
15.Nullification of Limited Warranty. In addition to any other provision of
this Agreement dealing with the same subject matter, in the event that any of the provisions of
this Agreement entitled “Use of Stage” or “Alterations/Modifications Prohibited” or
“Warranty Repair” are breached by Buyer, the Limited Warranty granted to Buyer under this
Agreement shall ipso facto become null and void and without any further effect.
16.Intellectual Property. Seller is the exclusive owner of the «STAGELINE»,
«STAGEVAN», «SL Series», and «SAM Series» trademarks and all other trademarks, service
marks, logos and trade names associated with Seller's products (collectively, "Marks"), all good
will connected with the Marks, and all designs, patents, technology, know-how, copyrights,
and other intellectual property related to the Stage (collectively, «Intellectual Property»). Buyer
acknowledges and agrees that Buyer has no right, title or interest in or to the Marks or the
Intellectual Property. Neither Buyer nor any of Buyer's Related Persons shall directly or
indirectly do any of the following without the prior written consent of an authorized officer of
Seller: (a) use the Marks or Intellectual Property; or (b) disclose the Marks or Intellectual
Property to any third persons; or (c) copy the Marks or Intellectual Property; or (d) use any
marks, technology or intellectual property that are confusingly similar to the Marks or the
Intellectual Property; or (e) remove or modify Seller's Mark and logo on the Stage. Buyer shall
provide photographs of the Stage to Seller in road and open positions, and shall permit Seller or
its representative to photograph the Stage, and Buyer hereby grants to Seller an unconditional,
irrevocable non-exclusive right and license to use photographs and depictions of the Stage for
promotional purposes without any additional consideration or amounts payable to Buyer.
17.Termination of Agreement. Seller shall have the right to suspend its
performance and terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice to Buyer, if prior
to payment in full of the Price, Buyer shall become insolvent or bankrupt, make a general
assignment for the benefit of, or enter into any arrangement with, any creditor, or if a petition is
filled in respect of Buyer under any bankruptcy, insolvency or similar law. Should Seller
terminate this Agreement as aforesaid, (a) Seller shall be entitled to retain all amounts received
from Buyer, with no obligation to return any portion of such amounts to Buyer; (b) Buyer shall
immediately return the Stage to Seller; and (c) Buyer shall have no rights of any nature
whatsoever in respect of the Stage.
If Buyer decides to terminate this agreement, Seller shall shall be entitled to retain all amounts
received from Buyer, with no obligation to return any portion of such amounts to Buyer and
Buyer shall have no rights of any nature whatsoever in respect of the Stage.
18.Indemnification by Buyer. To the extent lawfully allowed, buyer agrees to
indemnify, defend and hold harmless Seller, and Seller's shareholders, directors, officers,
employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages,
injuries, costs, expenses, actions, claims, suits, demands, legal proceedings, assessments and
similar matters, including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees, resulting from or
arising out of any failure by Buyer to fulfill any of its obligations under this Agreement, or any
negligent act or omission of Buyer or any of Buyer's agents or representatives in respect to the
Stage.
40
SL 100 # 922
Initials ________ Initials ________
19.Indemnification by Seller. Seller agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless Buyer, Buyer’s officers, employees, agents and representative from and against any
and all liabilities, losses, damages, injuries, costs, expenses, actions, claims, suits, demands,
legal proceeding, assessments and similar matters, including without limitation reasonable
attorney’s fee, resulting from or arising out of any failure by Seller to fulfill any of its
obligations under this Agreement, or any act or omission of Seller or any of Seller agents or
representatives in respect of the Stage.
20.Force Majeure. If either party cannot perform any obligation hereunder
(other than a payment obligation) by reason of circumstances beyond such party's reasonable
control, including without limitation, fire, flood, natural disasters, acts of God, war, civil
commotion, labor unrest, strikes, laws or regulations, then the party affected will be excused
from such performance (other than a payment obligation) on a day-to-day basis to the extent of
such interference, and the other party likewise will be excused from performance of its
obligations hereunder; provided the party affected shall use reasonable efforts to remove such
causes of non-performance.
21.Miscellaneous.
(a)Notices. All notices hereunder shall be given in writing to the
address of the other party appearing at the end of this Agreement, and shall be deemed
delivered: (i) upon receipt if by overnight courier or personal delivery, or (ii) seventy-two
(72) hours after being mailed, registered or certified, postage prepaid, return receipt requested.
Either party may change its address by written notice hereunder.
(b)Applicable Law; Severability. This Agreement shall be governed by
the laws of the Province of Quebec, Canada. Any provision of this Agreement which may be
prohibited by or otherwise held invalid, void, or unenforceable under such law shall be
ineffective only to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity and shall not invalidate or render
ineffective any of the remaining provisions hereof. This Agreement shall not be construed for or
against either party on the basis that one party drafted the Agreement or any provision hereof.
(c)Non-Waiver. The failure of either party to exercise any rights in
respect of any breach or alleged breach of this Agreement by the other party shall not constitute
a waiver of said breach or of any provision of this Agreement, and a failure to promptly
exercise any right hereunder shall not be deemed as a waiver to exercise such right in the
future.
(d)Exclusion of U.N. Convention. The parties specifically exclude the
application of each and every provision of the United Nations Convention on Contracts For The
International Sale of Goods (Vienna Convention, April 11, 1980) with respect to each and every
term and condition of this Agreement.
(e) Successors. The covenants, agreements, terms and conditions
contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the, successors
and assigns of the respective parties.
(f)Arbitration; Attorneys Fees. Any controversy, claim or dispute
between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement, shall be settled finally by
41
SL 100 # 922
Initials ________ Initials ________
binding arbitration in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, before one arbitrator pursuant to the
commercial arbitration rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. The prevailing party
in the arbitration or any other legal proceeding between the parties shall be entitled to recover
all of its expenses from the non-prevailing party, including without limitation the reasonable
fees of attorneys and experts.
(g)Compliance with Laws. Buyer will have the sole responsibility for
complying with all governmental laws, regulations, rules and orders with regard to Buyer's
purchase and use of the Stage, including without limitation in respect of exporting the Stage
from Canada and importing the Stage into any other country.
(h) Headings. All paragraph headings in this Agreement are for
convenience only and shall not be a part of the Agreement.
(i)Entire Agreement of the Parties. This Agreement (including the
exhibits attached hereto) constitutes the entire Agreement of the parties and supersedes any
and all prior agreements, oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to the subject
matter hereof. This Agreement is intended by the parties as a final expression of their
agreement with respect to the subject matter hereof and therefore this Agreement shall not be
contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or contemporaneous oral agreement.
(j) The parties further intend that this Agreement constitutes the
complete and exclusive statement of its terms and that no extrinsic evidence whatsoever may
be introduced in any judicial or arbitration proceeding, if any, with regard to this Agreement.
Each party hereto acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements,
oral or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which
is not embodied herein, and that no other agreement, statement, or promise not contained in
this Agreement shall be valid or binding. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective
only if it is in writing signed by both parties to this Agreement.
(k)Counterparts; Email Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in
counterparts and all such executed counterparts shall constitute one (1) Agreement binding on
each of the parties notwithstanding that not all the parties are signatories to the original or to
the same counterpart. Email signatures shall be binding and the parties agree to provide the
other party with original signatures within five (5) days of the email reception.
42
SL 100 # 922
Initials ________ Initials ________
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Per: _____________________________
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
________________________________
Date MM/DD/YYYY
STAGELINE MOBILE STAGE INC.
Per: _____________________________
Pierre Luc Rompre
Commercial Director
________________________________
Date MM/DD/YYYY
Address:
1700 MacGregor Ave
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO
80517
Address:
700 Marsolais
L'Assomption, QC J5W 2G9, Canada
43
SL 100 # 922
Initials ________ Initials ________
Annex A –Stage Quote and or Purchase Order
44
SL 100 # 922
Initials ________ Initials ________ 45
SL 100 # 922
Initials ________ Initials ________ 46
SL 100 # 922
Initials ________ Initials ________
Annex B –Invoice
47
48
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Town Attorney White
Utilities Director Bergsten
Water Superintendent Eshelman
Date: March 27, 2018
RE: Extension of Agreement to Operate Water System with
Prospect Mountain Water Company, Inc.
Objective:
Review and, if appropriate, approve the Extension of Agreement to Operate Water
System (the “Agreement”) between the Town and Prospect Mountain Water Company
for the Town to temporarily operate the Prospect Mountain Water Company system
pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.
Present Situation:
The Town currently operates the PMWC water system for the PMWC Bankruptcy
Trustee. The agreement needs to be extended while the Town, Bankruptcy Trustee,
and PMWC customers work toward a long-term solution.
Proposal:
Staff proposes we extend the agreement and continue operating the system for the
Bankruptcy Trustee.
Advantages:
• The approval of the Extension of Agreement ensures that the Town will continue to
provide treated bulk water to the Prospect Mountain customers and provide a
responsible operator of the water system.
• The Town will be reimbursed for its costs of operating the system.
• The approval of the Extension of Agreement and operation of the Prospect Mountain
water system will allow continued negotiations to pursue a permanent solution to the
provision of treated water to the Prospect Mountain customers.
Disadvantages:
• The Town will be responsible for operation and maintenance of the Prospect
Mountain water system; however, this is what we do and we do it very well.
49
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the approval of the Extension.
Budget:
The Town’s Water Utility budget is not impacted as all expenses incurred are
reimbursed pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.
Level of Public Interest
High. The PMWC customers and Bankruptcy Court are very interested continued water
service to properties.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Extension of Agreement to Operate Water System between
the Town of Estes Park and Prospect Mountain Water Company, Inc.
Attachments:
Extension of Agreement to Operate Water System with Prospect Mountain Water
Company, Inc.
50
EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT TO OPERATE WATER SYSTEM
THIS EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT TO OPERATE WATER SYSTEM (“Extension
Agreement”) is effective May 25, 2017, by and between the Town of Estes Park, a Colorado
Municipal Corporation (the “Town”) and Prospect Mountain Water Company, Inc., debtor in
Chapter 7 bankruptcy Case No. 15-14286 TBM “Prospect Mountain” or the “Company”);
together “the Parties”.
1. The Parties entered into an Agreement to Operate Water System (“Agreement”)
on March 8, 2016.
2. The Agreement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on May 25, 2016.
3. Paragraph 2 of the Agreement provides that the Effective Date of the Agreement
shall be the date of entry of an order by the Bankruptcy Court approving the Agreement.
4. Paragraph 3 of the Agreement provides that the term of the Agreement shall be
one year from the Effective Date, unless terminated or extended by the written agreement of the
Parties.
5. The Parties hereby extend the term of the Agreement to and including May 25,
2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO PROSPECT MOUNTAIN WATER
COMPANY, INC.
By: By:
Todd Alyn Jirsa, Mayor Daniel A. Hepner, Chapter 7 Trustee
ATTEST:
By:
Town Clerk
51
52
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Robin Becker, Planner I
Date: March 27, 2018
RE: Fall River Village II: Lot 1, Fall River Village II Resubdivision; 278 Sunny
Acres Ct.; Fall River Village, LLC Metropia Management
/Owner/Applicant.
Staff asks that this matter be continued to the April 10, 2018 agenda.
53
54
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Robin Becker, Planner I
Date: March 27, 2018
RE: Stanley Avenue Townhomes: Preliminary and Final Townhome Plats, 260
Stanley Avenue: Michael R. and Cynthia A. Kingswood/Owners
Staff asks that this matter be continued to the May 8, 2018 agenda.
55
56
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Robin Becker Planner I
Date: March 27th 2018
RE: Supplemental Condo Map #7- The Meadow Condominiums, Units 15, 16,
17, and 18 Mary’s Meadow Development, Inc./ Owner.
Objective:
Review of the Meadow Supplemental Condominium Map #7 Application, submitted by
Van Horn Engineering for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)
to allow for units 15, 16, 17 and 18.
Present Situation:
The applicant has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for the
Meadow Condominiums; units 15, 16, 17 and 18.
The property is zoned A-Accommodations and is located off of Kiowa Trail
approximately 250 feet north of the Kiowa Drive and Kiowa Trail intersection.
Development Plan DP 06-01 has been approved wherein twenty-three (23) units have
been approved with the first condominium map and six supplemental maps. This
submittal only pertains to units 15, 16, 17, and 18.
Pursuant to state law, condominium units may not be final platted until the units are
substantially complete. Because of this, final “supplemental maps” will be submitted as
the project builds out. According to the procedure set forth in the Estes Valley
Development Code, the Final Condominium map proceeds directly to the Board and is
not reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Proposal:
Approval of the Supplemental Condominium Map #7, condominiumizing a duplex
containing four units (15, 16, 17, and 18).
Advantages:
• This proposal complies with the applicable standards of the EVDC, specifically:
Section 3.9. E “Standards of Review” for subdivisions, and Section 10.5.H
“Condominiums, Townhouses and Other Forms of Airspace Ownership.”
• Approving the Supplemental Condominium Map will allow sale of the two units.
57
Disadvantages:
• None.
Action Recommended:
Approval of the Meadow Condominiums Supplemental Condominium Map #7
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
No public comments have been received.
Sample Motion:
I move for the Town Board of Trustees Approve the Supplemental Condominium Map
#7, Meadow Condominiums.
I move for the Town Board of Trustees Deny the Supplemental Condominium Map #7,
Meadow Condominiums.
Attachments:
1. Supplemental Condominium Map #7- The Meadow Condominiums
2. Full Application may be found at:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark/currentapplications
58
59
60
61
62
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Robin Becker Planner I
Date:March 27, 2018
RE:Amended 1st Supplemental Condominium Map- Stonebridge Estate
Condominiums, Unit 1147, N.C. Wilson LLC, Inc./Owner
Objective:
Review of the Stonebridge Estates Condo 1st Amended Map Application, submitted by
Van Horn Engineering for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)
to allow for unit 1147.
Present Situation:
The applicant has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for the
Stonebridge Estate Condominiums; unit 1147.
The property is zoned RM-Residential Multifamily and is located off of Fish Creek
approximately 505 feet north of the Fish Creek and Johnson Lane intersection.
Development Plan DP 07-09 has been approved wherein fourteen (14) units have been
proposed. This submittal only pertains to unit 1147.
Pursuant to state law, condominium units may not be final platted until the units are
substantially complete. Because of this, final “supplemental maps” will be submitted as
the project builds out. According to the procedure set forth in the Estes Valley
Development Code, the Final Condominium map proceeds directly to the Board and is
not reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Proposal:
Approval of the Amended First Supplemental Condominium Map, condominiumizing a
single family home containing one unit.
Advantages:
•This proposal complies with the applicable standards of the EVDC, specifically:
Section 3.9. E “Standards of Review” for subdivisions, and Section 10.5.H
“Condominiums, Townhouses and Other Forms of Airspace Ownership.”
•Approving the Supplemental Condominium Map will allow sale of the one unit.
63
Disadvantages:
• None.
Action Recommended:
Approval of the Stonebridge Estates Condominiums 1st Amended Supplemental
Condominium Map.
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
No public comments have been received.
Sample Motion:
I move the Town Board of Trustees Approve the Amended 1st Supplemental
Condominium Map, Stonebridge Estate Condominiums.
I move the Town Board of Trustees Deny the Amended 1st Supplemental
Condominium Map, Stonebridge Estate Condominiums.
Attachments:
1. Amended 1st Supplemental Condominium Map Stonebridge Estates Phase II
2. Full Application may be found at:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark/currentapplications
64
65
66
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Robin Becker Planner I
Date: March 27, 2018
RE: Amended Supplemental Condominium Map #11- Stonebridge Estate
Condominiums, Unit 1145, Inc./Owner
Objective:
Review of the Stonebridge Estates Condominium Supplemental Map #11 Application,
submitted by Van Horn Engineering for compliance with the Estes Valley Development
Code (EVDC) to allow for unit 1145.
Present Situation:
The applicant has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for the
Stonebridge Estate Condominiums; unit 1145.
The property is zoned RM-Residential Multifamily and is located off of Fish Creek
approximately 505 feet north of the Fish Creek and Johnson Lane intersection.
Development Plan DP 07-09 has been approved wherein fourteen (14) units have been
proposed. This submittal only pertains to unit 1145.
Pursuant to state law, condominium units may not be final platted until the units are
substantially complete. Because of this, final “supplemental maps” will be submitted as
the project builds out. According to the procedure set forth in the Estes Valley
Development Code, the Final Condominium map proceeds directly to the Board and is
not reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Proposal:
Approval of the Amended First Supplemental Condominium Map, condominiumizing a
single family home is containing one unit.
Advantages:
• This proposal complies with the applicable standards of the EVDC, specifically:
Section 3.9. E “Standards of Review” for subdivisions, and Section 10.5.H
“Condominiums, Townhouses and Other Forms of Airspace Ownership.”
• Approving the Supplemental Condominium Map will allow sale of the one unit.
67
Disadvantages:
• None.
Action Recommended:
Approval of the Supplemental Condominium Map #11 Stonebridge Estates
Condominiums.
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
No public comments have been received.
Sample Motion:
I move the Town Board of Trustees Approve the Supplemental Condominium Map #11,
Stonebridge Estate Condominiums.
I move the Town Board of Trustees Deny the Supplemental Condominium Map #11,
Stonebridge Estate Condominiums.
Attachments:
1. Supplemental Condominium Map #11 Stonebridge Estates Condominiums (2 sheets)
2. Full Application may be found at:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark/currentapplications
68
69
70
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
Date: March 27, 2018
RE: Appeal of Estes Valley Planning Commission decision on February 20, 2018 of
Development Plan 2017-10 (Grand Estates Apartments) 507 Grand Estates
Drive; Fred Kropp, FNPKropp Real Estate Investments, LLC/Owner; Cornerstone
Engineering and Surveying, Inc./Applicant
Objective:
Review and reach final decision on the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan (DP 2017-
10) on appeal from the Planning Commission’s denial of same on February 20, 2018.
Present Situation:
The Grand Estates Apartments proposes four, multi-family structures, each on an individual lot
and each having four units (totaling 16 apartment units). The property is 0.95± acre in size, and
is within an RM, Multi-Family Residential Zoning District. Section 1.9.C.3 of the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) requires that the 0.95± acre size be rounded up to 1 full acre. The
applicant has used an incentive within the EVDC for a density bonus to allow for the 16 units
proposed. A waiver, or minor modification, was requested by the applicant, to allow the four
proposed structures to each have a setback of 7.5 feet, in lieu of the 10-foot minimum required
in the RM Zoning District. The EVDC, Section 3.7.A.2.b., provides the Planning Commission
the authority to grant such a minor modification.
The Estes Valley Planning Commission reviewed application materials and related items and
held public hearing(s) on two applications in connection with the Grand Estates Apartments
Project: a Preliminary Plat and a Development Plan. The first hearing was on January 16, 2018,
at which time the Planning Commission voted to continue the application to February 20, 2018.
At the February 20 hearing, the Planning Commission voted to deny the Development Plan.
Five voted in favor of the motion to deny, and two voted against.
On February 22, 2018, the property owner, Fred Kropp, of FNPKropp Real Estate Investments,
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 February 20 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 Grand
Estates 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.
71
The Grand Estates Apartments Preliminary Plat and Final Plat are also on the Town Board’s
March 27, 2018 agenda. This staff memorandum and accompanying items are in connection
with the Development Plan.
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 actual motions for the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan and Preliminary Plat
have been transcribed by staff and are attached.
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 Grand Estates 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).
(For example, the reason for denial by Planning Commission seems to have
been due to concerns related to traffic and parking impacts, as well as the
potential for unknown consequences in developing a project with the density
bonus incentive.)
2. Approve the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan and minor modification
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 Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan and minor modification
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].
(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 Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan and minor modification
request to a future date-certain Town Board meeting, with a request for staff to provide
specific findings to support approval/denial of the Grand Estates 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 Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan.)
72
Action Recommended:
Staff recommended approval of the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan, along with
the associated minor modification request for reduced side setbacks, to the Planning
Commission at both the January and February hearings. Staff stands by this recommendation
today on appeal. We continue to assert that the project meets requirements in the EVDC,
including the reduced setbacks allowable per Section 3.7.A.2.b. The record may speak for itself
concerning Planning Commission’s decision.
Finance/Resource Impact:
n/a
Level of Public Interest
Very high.
Sample Motions:
I move for the approval of the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan (DP 2017-10),
along with the associated minor modification request for reduced side setbacks, on appeal from
the Planning Commission’s denial of same on February 20, 2018, finding that the Development
Plan meets the Estes Valley Development Code’s requirements for approval per EVDC Chapter
3 (Review Procedures and Standards).
I move for the approval of the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan (DP 2017-10),
along with the associated minor modification request for reduced side setbacks, on appeal from
the Planning Commission’s denial of same on February 20, 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 Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan (DP 2017-10) 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 Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan (DP 2017-10), along with
the associated minor modification request for reduced side setbacks, 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. Letter, requesting appeal, from Fred Kropp (owner/applicant), dated February 22, 2018
2. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 16, 2018.
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated February 20, 2018.
4. Transcribed motions from February 20, 2018 Planning Commission (verbatim)
5. Planning Commission hearing minutes from January 16, 2018 (See Consent Agenda
Item #7)
6. Planning Commission hearing minutes from February 20, 2018 (See Consent Agenda
Item #7)
73
74
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION (EVPC)
MEETING DATE & LOCATION: January 16, 2018, 1:30PM; Board Room, Town
Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue
APPLICANT REQUEST: Approval of a Development Plan for the development of
four, multi-family structures, each having four units (totaling 16 apartment units).
Also, request for recommendation of approval of a Preliminary Plat for a four lot,
Minor Subdivision. The applicant is also requesting a waiver (Minor Modification)
to the minimum distance required for side setbacks on each of the four lots.
Staff recommends approval of the Minor Modification request, the Development
Plan and the Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION OBJECTIVE:
1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC).
2. Conduct a public hearing to consider applicant’s testimony, public
comment, and Town staff’s findings and analysis; and
3. Provide a recommendation to the Town Board of approval or denial of the
Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat application.
4. Approve or deny the Minor Modification request Development Plan
application and related Minor Modification request.
LOCATION: 507 Grand Estates Drive, located approximately 300 feet south of
the intersection of Big Thompson Avenue (aka Highway 34) and Grand Estates
Drive, within the Town of Estes Park.
VICINITY MAP: See attachment.
OWNER/APPLICANT: FNPKropp Real Estate Investments, LLC
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering and
Surveying, Inc.
STAFF CONTACT: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Present Situation: The subject property is 0.95± acre in size, and is undeveloped.
In 2004 the property went through a Development Plan process to construct a
structure with both commercial and residential uses. That did not move forward,
and in 2008 a previous applicant processed another Development Plan, which
proposed a school, along with a residential use. This also did not move forward.
The applicant then determined the property could be better utilized as a multi-
Grand Estates Apartments
Development Plan and Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat
Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division
Room 210, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org
75
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 16, 2018
GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS, MINOR SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PAGE | 2
family development, and went through review and approval of a rezoning, from CO
Outlying Commercial to the current RM, Multi-Family Residential Zoning District. A
different owner is now proposing this Grand Estates Apartments project, a use-by-
right in the RM Zoning District.
Proposal: Development of four, multi-family structures, each on an individual lot
and each having four units (totaling 16 apartment units). Applicant will use an
incentive within the EVDC for a density bonus for the proposed density of the
development (see below, Review Criteria, No. 2). Utility easements are proposed
to be dedicated, with a new, 8-inch water main being required. There is no zone
change requested with this development. The Final Plat was included in this
submittal, and is scheduled to be taken to the Town Board of Trustees for review
and final action; the EVPC does not make a recommendation on the Final Plat, per
the EVDC.
SITE DATA TABLE:
Engineer: Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, c/o Jes Reetz
Parcel Number: 2519405035 Development Area: 0.95± acre
Existing Land Use: Undeveloped Proposed Land Use: Four lots, each with
a four-unit, multi-family building
Zoning Designation: RM – Multi-Family
Residential
Adjacent Zoning:
East: CO Outlying Commercial North: CO Outlying Commercial
West: RM Multi-Family Residential South: RM Multi-Family Residential
Adjacent Land Uses:
East: Commercial/Business North: Commercial/Business
West: Multi-Family, Residential South: High-Density, Residential
Services:
Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation
District
REVIEW CRITERIA: Depending upon the complexity of the project, this section
may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may involve a more detailed
analysis of the standards based upon issues relevant to any particular project.
1. Buildings and Lots. The project consists of four, four-unit multi-family
structures. Each of the four structures will be on a separate lot. The total
number of units in the development area will be 16. The lots conform to
maximum impervious coverage. The buildings conform to maximum
allowed heights.
2. Density Bonus. The “base density” allowed on the 0.95± acre lot is eight
units. The applicant is proposing 16 units. Chapter 11 of the EDVC,
Incentives, includes incentives for developers to establish attainable or
workforce housing within the EDVC Boundary. The applicable incentive is
to provide for attainable and workforce housing through a density bonus of
up to twice the allowed base density, for residential development in the RM
76
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 16, 2018
GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS, MINOR SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PAGE | 3
Zoning District. Attainable housing includes renter or owner-occupied
housing, where qualified households must meet specific income
requirements. Workforce housing is where a qualified resident must meet
specific residency requirements. The applicant is proposes utilizing this
density bonus by providing half of the units (eight) as workforce housing.
An Agreement has been drafted, and recently submitted by the applicant
for review by staff, and by the Town Attorney. This agreement will need to
be reviewed, approved, and finalized with proper signatures in order to be
executed and recorded with the Final Plat. As this Agreement is not a
“deed restriction,” per se, as currently required in Chapter 11 of the EVDC,
plans are that the Agreement will be allowable upon review and approval of
a Code Amendment that is currently being processed by staff. The Code
Amendment proposes adding an option where a “Restrictive Covenant and
Agreement” will be available. This Code Amendment will also be reviewed
by the EVPC at the January 16, 2018 meeting.
3. Landscaping. Non-arterial, street frontage landscaping is required along
Grand Estates Drive along the western boundary, and parking lot perimeter
landscaping is required along the southern and eastern property
boundaries. Staff finds the street frontage and the parking lot landscaping
adequate as proposed by the applicant, with the calculations adding up to
a total of 27 trees and 98 shrubs.
4. Open Space. Private Open Area is required by the EDVC at a minimum of
15%, which is met by this proposed development. The applicant has
calculated 42.9% open space with this Development Plan.
5. Water. A new water main is required, to connect to existing mains to the
east and west property boundaries. Twenty-foot easements are proposed
for this water main.
6. Fire Protection. There is an existing fire hydrant near the proposed
entrance to the site. Estes Valley Fire Protection District provided
comment, and states the multi-family structures must have fire sprinklers,
which will require a permit from the District.
7. Electric. Arrangements are being made with Town of Estes Park Utilities to
move an existing power pole on the property. Electrical easements are
proposed along each side of the property.
8. Sanitary Sewer. The Upper Thompson Sanitation District provided
comments, noting the applicant will be required to construct lateral sewers
to serve the proposed units, which will first involve a “sewer system
extension submittal” be submitted to the District by the applicant.
9. Stormwater Drainage. Drainage is addressed in a Preliminary Drainage
Report submitted by the applicant, which has been reviewed by the Town
of Estes Park Public Works Department (see Attachment 7). Public
Works finds the Report to be “…generally acceptable.” A signed, sealed
drainage report will be required, and must be reviewed and approved by
Public Works prior to recordation of the Final Plat. The drainage report
77
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 16, 2018
GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS, MINOR SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PAGE | 4
must include infrastructure improvement plans and financial securities to
guarantee completion of improvements. The final plans will go into more
detail on the drainage systems of a project. The Preliminary Plat drainage
plan is a detailed conceptual plan only.
Stormwater runoff will flow to the southeast corner of the site, where a
detention basin with a capacity of 712 cubic feet in volume is proposed.
10. Access. Access to the site is to be from Grand Estates Drive, a 30-foot
Town Right-Of-Way. Each of the proposed lots, 1 through 4, will share this
access. The applicant is working with staff to provide a platted easement,
which must be reviewed and approved by Town staff, and finalized prior to
recordation of the final plat. The Town of Estes Park Public Works
Department will require a Right-Of-Way Permit prior to the start of
construction of improvements within the Grand Avenue Right-Of-Way.
Public Works has specific requirements regarding this Permit, see
Attachment 7. No additional Right-Of-Way is required to be dedicated
through this subdivision process.
11. Comprehensive Plan. The site is located within the “North End Planning
Sub Area,” per Chapter 6, Community Wide Policies, of the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan’s description of this area between Highway
34 and Lake Estes is being primarily commercial accommodations. There
are commercial uses bordering the subject property to the north and east,
while there are existing, fairly high-density residential uses to the south and
west. Chapter six does not point to specific recommendations for this
residential area within this part of the North End Planning Sub Area.
Chapter 6 of the Plan does specify, under Section 5.0 Housing, Community
Wide Land Use Policies. These include:
5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges.
5.3 Establish a balanced program of incentives, and public and
private actions, to provide affordable housing.
5.6 Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area.
As this development involves 50% of the units proposed as workforce
housing, staff finds the development to be consistent with these
recommended policies.
12. Minor Modification. The applicant has requested a waiver of the
minimum side setback distance, where the four proposed structures would
each have a setback of 7.5 feet, in lieu of the 10-foot minimum required in
the RM Zoning District. Chapter 3 of the EDVC, Review Procedures and
Standards, Section 3.7, Minor Modifications, 2. Minor Modifications from
General Development and Zone District Standards, b. EVPC Authority to
Grant Minor Modifications, allows the EVPC to grant modifications of up to
25%, for specific standards including setback requirements, if the EVPC
finds the proposed modification “…relieves practical difficulties in
developing a site.” In staff’s opinion, this is the case and reducing the side
setback standard 25%, from 10 to 7.5 feet, is appropriate and does not
create issues or concerns.
78
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 16, 2018
GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS, MINOR SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PAGE | 5
REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: This application has been submitted to
reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or
concerns were expressed by reviewing staff.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: In accordance with the notice requirements in the EVDC,
legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette. Adjacent property
owners were mailed notices within a 100-foot radius of the subject property.
At this writing, staff has not received any comments regarding the Grand Estates
Apartments Development Plan or Subdivision.
STAFF FINDINGS:
Based on the foregoing, staff finds:
1. The Planning Commission is the Approving Body for the Development Plan
and Recommending Body for the preliminary plat.
2. Adequate public/private facilities are currently available to serve the proposed
project.
3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were received.
4. The Development Plan and Subdivision Preliminary Plat will comply with
applicable standards set forth in the EVDC upon approval of a waiver to the
side yard setback standard as described above.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Minor Modification request, to
reduce the side setback distance to 7.5 feet, in lieu of the required 10-foot
minimum. Staff further recommends approval of the Grand Estates Apartments
Development Plan and Subdivision Preliminary Plat with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the Minor Subdivision being taken to the Town Board for review,
the applicant shall revise the Preliminary and Final Plat to provide for an
easement for access to all lots, across the access/parking area depicted on
the plats. The easement for the trash enclosure depicted on Lots 2 and 3
also must be revised and clarified. These revisions shall be revised as
directed by staff.
2. Prior to recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall finalize the deed
restriction or covenant agreement, in order to assure the required
workforce housing units meet availability requirements per Chapter 11 of
the EVDC. The Agreement shall be reviewed and approved by Town staff
and the Town Attorney, and finalized with proper signatures in order to be
executed and recorded with the Final Plat.
SAMPLE MOTIONS FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT:
79
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 16, 2018
GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS, MINOR SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PAGE | 6
1. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the Grand Estates Apartments
Subdivision Preliminary Plat according to findings of fact with findings and
condition recommended by Staff.
2. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the Grand Estates Apartments
Subdivision Preliminary Plat according to findings of fact with findings
recommended by Staff.
3. I move to CONTINUE the Grand Estates Apartments Subdivision
Preliminary Plat to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
4. I move to recommend DENIAL of the Grand Estates Apartments
Subdivision Preliminary Plat, finding that … [state findings for denial].
SAMPLE MOTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND MINOR MODIFICATION:
1. I move to APPROVE the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan
application and Minor Modification Request according to findings of fact
with findings and conditions recommended by Staff.
2. I move to APPROVE the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan and
Minor Modification Request application according to findings of fact with
findings recommended by Staff.
3. I move to CONTINUE the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan
and Minor Modification Request application to the next regularly scheduled
meeting.
4. I move to DENY the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan and
Minor Modification Request application, finding that … [state findings for
denial].
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Statement of Intent
3. Application
4. Development Plan Set
5. Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plan Set
6. Building Elevations, Floorplan
7. TOEP Public Works Department Comments
80
ATTACHMENT 1 81
ATTACHMENT 2
82
83
84
ATTACHMENT 3
85
86
87
ATTACHMENT 4
88
89
90
ATTACHMENT 5
91
ATTACHMENT 6
92
93
94
All written comments received by Community
Development can be accessed at:
www.estes.org/currentapplications
3/27/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - Fwd: Grand Estates Apartments
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=Z-grDj2gpow.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=16267d54cb07bb65&siml=16267d54cb07bb65
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Fwd: Grand Estates Apartments
1 message
Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 8:20 AM
To: Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org>
I was asked to forward this to you for inclusion in Board Comments.
TM
Travis Machalek
Assistant Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park
970-577-3707
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sarah Kane <sarah@station514.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:53 PM
Subject: Grand Estates Apartments
To: Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>
Hi Travis!
How are you doing? Hope all is well with you.
I've just recently learned about a proposed development in Estes at 507 Grand Estates, called Grand Estates Apartments
project. Our family owns a condo right across the street & has told us some of the concerns around the density, lack of
management company to oversee it, parking availability, and concerns about common area upkeep, snow removal, etc.
Do you have any involvement in this process? It sounds like the Town Board & Planning Commission might be wise to
take more time to iron out all these factors before approving the development.
As a family member of an owner, I love visiting Estes frequently. In fact, I just toured the new Rec center last week...wow!
We want to continue to enjoy the Estes experience & support the local economy. Attending to these development
concerns so the project meets the needs of the future residents & fits well with the surrounding neighborhood seems like
a win-win!
Who else should I send my thoughts to? Please forward this to whoever is appropriate.
Thank you for listening & I hope all is well!
Sarah Kane
970-310-9981
3/27/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - Mayor and Estes Park Trustees
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=Z-grDj2gpow.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1626086a1f445587&siml=1626086a1f445587
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Mayor and Estes Park Trustees
1 message
Rita Nowak <ritii3@yahoo.com>Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:16 PM
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "tjirsa@estes.org" <tjirsa@estes.org>, "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>, Bob Holcomb <bholcomb@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>,
"wnelson@estes.org" <wnelson@estes.org>, "rnorris@estes.org" <rnorris@estes.org>, "cwalker@estes.org"
<cwalker@estes.org>, "jwoeber@estes.org" <jwoeber@estes.org>, "dwolf@estes.org" <dwolf@estes.org>,
"wkufeld@estes.org" <wkufeld@estes.org>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
To: Todd Jirsa, Wendy Koenig, Bob Holcomb, Patrick Martchink, Ward Nelson, Ron Norris and
Cody Walker
From: Rita Nowak
Subject: Grand Estates Apartments
Dear Mayor and Town Trustees:
I am writing once again about the concerns of the Grand Estates Apartments proposal.
I have detailed below my concerns in an e-mail sent previously to the Planning Commission.
Please take time to read it.
I would like to make it clear that I, and a great majority of the neighbors, do not object to a housing
development being built on the property behind Fajita Rita’s.
Our concern is that as it stands now there is no solid, well planned out development. Just an
eagerness to get it approved and built.
The plans presented are not taking the residents, to be, of the Grand Estates Apartments into
consideration. Without a clear picture of how the property will be managed, rules and regulations
put into place, enforcement of community bylaws, and with the breaking up of the project into four
separate properties, which is another whole can of worms, this will just be “the Estes Park
Projects” and soon to be another “Estes Park slum”.
Is the workforce housing expected to live in less desirable conditions than others in Estes. Is this
not their town too. Why rush into a project to provide them housing without first taking into
consideration on how this will affect them. Do we just see them as the “workforce” of Estes and
not part of “OUR” town. Would you feel comfortable renting an apartment with no guidelines on
noise, safety, occupancy, parking, lease terms (minimum 6 month leases to present a stable living
environment), no on-site management or any management to speak of?
I am confident the City of Estes Park wishes to put together an educated, methodically thought out,
studied, researched and a state of the art housing community for these residents, who happen to
be the “workforce” of Estes. It should make no difference if they are the workforce of Estes, senior
residents, families, young couples or singles. They all deserve a nice home to live in, to feel
comfortable in, and to know that they haven’t just been given a place to stay, but a place they can
call home. A place that will be cared for, be it maintenance, landscaping, upkeep, parking, or snow
3/27/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - Mayor and Estes Park Trustees
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=Z-grDj2gpow.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1626086a1f445587&siml=1626086a1f445587
removal and knowing there will be someone to contact and be responsible for the day to day
operating and managing of their community.
Please don’t short change these residents. Treat them with dignity. Do not discriminate against
them by not doing your due diligence with the development of their homes to be.
Make our town admired. Make this ‘template’ of future workforce housing something other small
towns, with the same concerns, can emulate[RN1] . We do not want to fail our workforce or our town
by a hasty decision, one that may end up coming back onto you, our town trustees, as a poor
decision made. To quote Benjamin Franklin; “Haste makes waste.”
Sincerely,
Rita Nowak
514 Grand Estates Drive, B3
Estes Park, CO 80517
720.771.2690
[RN1]
Dear Planning Commission Board:
Our request is for the Planning Commission Board to pay very close attention to the process of providing the type of
housing situation as proposed for the Grand Estates Apartments. If this is to be a “template” of future Work Force
Housing – let’s be sure it is done correctly. We are aware of other properties in Estes Park that have work force
housing (such as on Graves Avenue) which is not taken care of. There is no on-site management or any management
to speak of, no maintenance or upkeep taking place. Does the city want a project like this?
It is extremely important not only to build housing, but to keep it up, have money in escrow for future repairs, painting,
upkeep, parking lot repairs, leaks, sewer problems, etc. Mandates must be made and in place to provide for current
and future monies for maintenance/upkeep. If an experienced on-site individual is not an option, than an experienced
Property Management Company should be secured. The developer is not in the business of property management as
a long term solution. And, besides the developer is going to sell it in the future. So, who will take care of it then?
Especially if it is divided up. Why is the developer going to all this work to get the clearance for work force housing –
when he is just going to turn around and sell it? This is not an investment in Estes Park’s work force, but one in his
own pocket. BE VERY CAREFUL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS and keep your eyes wide open. Stay FOCUSED
on what the real reason is behind this or any other development. STAY FOCUSED on the needs of the town of Estes
Park, its residents, its working force, its value!
We are in objection to the proposed variances and Minor Modifications to the Grand Estates Apartments.
Concerns and questions of the neighborhood homeowners:
1. The extremely high density building being proposed.
3/27/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - Mayor and Estes Park Trustees
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=Z-grDj2gpow.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1626086a1f445587&siml=1626086a1f445587
It is our understanding that the developer is proposing 16 apartments (2 stories in 4 buildings) that will be 2
bedroom and 2 bath. Which eight of the sixteen will be designated for work force housing. History shows the city
would only have allowed, on a .95 acre parcel, eight units for the size of the lot, however under section 11 of the
EDVC, it allows the developer to double the units to provide work force housing.
Yet, it is being proposed - that of the work force housing, only one individual would need to be employed in Estes
Park. We understand how this would work for a family. Yet, if there are 4-6 unrelated individuals in a home it only
makes sense, if this is truly work force housing, that more than one should be employed in Estes Park. Is this
project really to provide for attainable and workforce housing through a density bonus of up to twice the allowed base
density? Or, for monetary gain?
2. What are the occupancy limits for rentals? The H.U.D. (Housing and Urban Development) guidelines are
for two individuals per bedroom plus one. This is related or unrelated individuals.
3. Development of four, multi family structures, each on an individual lot. How can one lot now be made into
four lots, each with a four unit, multifamily building? The property is one lot.
4. There is talk that the individual units can be sold separately. This opens up a whole new set of questions
and concerns.
a. If one building is sold to Mr. Smith and another to Mr. Jones, who takes care of the common
areas?
b. How are the parking spaces to be divided up?
c. How is maintenance and upkeep going to take place?
d. Who maintains and pays for snow plowing, etc. of the entry to the property?
e.
Why would this proposal even be considered?
5. Also, we have heard comments that the hospital might want to purchase to house visiting, temporary, etc.
staff (as they do now via local hotels). Has the hospital been in on this proposal? Do they want to purchase a
building, only to have to completely furnish it with furniture, bedding, towels, and household items as provided by a
hotel? Then who is going to turn the units between staff members? Who is going to take care of the
maintenance? Upkeep? We don’t see the hospital’s role as a property manager, do they?
6. Access to the site is to be from Grand Estates Drive, a 30 foot Town Right Of Way. Each of the proposed
lots, 1 through 4, will share this access. Again, if each unit sold separately, who takes care of this?
7. The requested waiver of the minimum side setback distance, where the four proposed structures would each
have a setback of 7.5 feet, in lieu of the 10 foot minimum required in the RM Zoning District should not be
allowed. Has the Fire Department been involved in any of these request reviews?
8. Again, the developer should not be allowed to have the land broken into 4 parcels to have one building on
each parcel. A homeowner in Estes Park is not allowed this privilege. Doing so allows for a residential type of
loan rather than a commercial loan for this developer. The reality is this is a commercial project with a potential
for significant income.
9. The driveway from Lake Meadow Condo’s property will be directly across from the proposed driveway (which
it’s being proposed narrowing more than the usual size - from 30’ to 24'). We request that the planning board
deny the proposed changes in set-back and narrowing of the driveway to the property. This could cause more
traffic issues on a very narrow street. There are concerns about overflow parking from the units interfering with
plows, emergency vehicles, trash trucks and delivery vehicles, not to mention the increased hazard to children
going to the bus or people out walking.
10. There are other areas in town that provide work force housing and those areas should be considered first for
high density as there is more space for parking and can better accommodate the number of people who would
live there.
3/27/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - Mayor and Estes Park Trustees
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=Z-grDj2gpow.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1626086a1f445587&siml=1626086a1f445587
Since I will be at work in Boulder and unable to attend the council meeting, here are further questions to be
considered, which some I have asked before and have not heard if any were addressed:
*Rental License Requirements?
*Will there be an on-site manager?
*A property management company?
*Are these apartments or condos?
*Are all up for re-sale as individual units?
*If so, there will need to be an H.O.A. with bylaws and rules.
*Assigned Parking?
*Where is everyone going to park their vehicles?
*Will there be a limit to the number of vehicles allowed?
*Do the residents think they’ll be able to park on the street – Grand Estates Drive?
*How will violations of residents be handled?
*Will there be community rules included in the lease?
*How long will the leases be for? 3 months, 6 months, a year?
Lesser lease terms only increase the moving in/out of a congested property and driveway.
*Who is responsible for the day to day operations of this proposed rental property?
*What are the proposed rentals per unit?
*Where will trash containers be placed? Backing up to the “Day Break” community homes?
*Who will handle noise complaints of residents, lease infractions, non-working vehicles on the parking lot, and other
lease infractions?
*What does the lease look like?
*How will the non-working work force housing differ from just rental housing?
*Why is it divided up as work force housing and just rental housing?
*Has the developer presented any of the above to the council?
*Has the Fire Chief of Estes Park been in on this process?
*Has the Police Chief of Estes Park been in on this process?
*What about other city officials? The Mayor?
*This will affect the entire town of Estes Park, not just our little neighborhood.
*Be Wise In Your Decision Making. There is a lot at risk here when defining work force housing.
It is one thing, to ask for all the variances, permits, etc., yet, what will the final project look like in reality - day to day
and who is to take care of the rental property and all its needs?
The two condo communities adjacent from this parcel are regulated by H.O.A. rules and regulations.
This is residential area with homes owned by individuals of the community. To place rental property in such a setting
will affect ownership values. I don't believe this is the intent of the council - as ownership of residential properties
contributes to the City of Estes on many levels.
Sincerely Submitted,
Rita Nowak
514 Grand Estates Drive, B3
Estes Park, CO 80517
720.771.2960
ATTACHMENT 7
95
96
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION (EVPC)
MEETING DATE & LOCATION: February 20, 2018, 1:30PM; Board Room, Town
Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue
APPLICANT REQUEST: Approval of a Development Plan for the development of
four, multi-family structures, each having four units (totaling 16 apartment units).
Also, request for recommendation of approval of a Preliminary Plat for a four lot,
Minor Subdivision. The applicant is also requesting a waiver (Minor Modification)
to the minimum distance required for side setbacks on each of the four lots.
Staff recommends approval of the Minor Modification request, the Development
Plan and the Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION OBJECTIVE:
1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC).
2. Conduct a public hearing to consider applicant’s testimony, public
comment, and Town staff’s findings and analysis; and
3. Provide a recommendation to the Town Board of approval or denial of the
Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat application.
4. Approve or deny the Minor Modification request Development Plan
application and related Minor Modification request.
UPDATE:
PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUANCE: These applications were reviewed
by the Planning Commission at their January 16, 2018 meeting. At that time,the
Planning Commission voted to continue them to the February 20, 2018 meeting.
The Code Amendment for adding an option for a Restrictive Covenant and
Agreement to the EVDC was also continued from the January to the February
Planning Commission meeting. This Grand Estates Apartments project must have
that in place to move forward as proposed.
That, as well as some other questions and concerns, led the Planning Commission
to vote to continue the applications.
The Planning Commission asked that the Restrictive Covenant and Agreement for
the Grand Estates Apartments be available for review with the application. This
was then submitted by the applicant, and revised by staff and the Town Attorney,
and is attached as Attachment 8.
Grand Estates Apartments
Development Plan and Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat
Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division
Room 210, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org
97
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20, 2018
GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS, MINOR SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PAGE | 2
There was also discussion at the January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting
regarding the rezoning that was approved for the subject property, where it was
rezoned from CO Commercial to RM Multi Family Residential. The minutes from
the January 17, 2017 Planning Commission meeting are attached as Attachment
9, and the February 28, 2017 Town Board of Trustees meeting are attached as
Attachment 10 (p 3). The Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of
approval of the rezoning by a vote of 6 – 0. The Town Board approved the
rezoning by a vote of 7 – 0.
LOCATION: 507 Grand Estates Drive, located approximately 300 feet south of
the intersection of Big Thompson Avenue (aka Highway 34) and Grand Estates
Drive, within the Town of Estes Park.
VICINITY MAP: See Attachment 1.
OWNER/APPLICANT: FNPKropp Real Estate Investments, LLC
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering and
Surveying, Inc.
STAFF CONTACT: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Present Situation: The subject property is 0.95± acre in size, and is undeveloped.
In 2004 the property went through a Development Plan process to construct a
structure with both commercial and residential uses. That did not move forward,
and in 2008 a previous applicant processed another Development Plan, which
proposed a school, along with a residential use. This also did not move forward.
The applicant then determined the property could be better utilized as a multi-
family development, and went through review and approval of a rezoning, from CO
Outlying Commercial to the current RM, Multi-Family Residential Zoning District. A
different owner is now proposing this Grand Estates Apartments project, a use-by-
right in the RM Zoning District.
Proposal: Development of four, multi-family structures, each on an individual lot
and each having four units (totaling 16 apartment units). Applicant will use an
incentive within the EVDC for a density bonus for the proposed density of the
development (see below, Review Criteria, No. 2). Utility easements are proposed
to be dedicated, with a new, 8-inch water main being required. There is no zone
change requested with this development. The Final Plat was included in this
submittal, and is scheduled to be taken to the Town Board of Trustees for review
and final action; the EVPC does not make a recommendation on the Final Plat, per
the EVDC.
98
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20, 2018
GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS, MINOR SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PAGE | 3
SITE DATA TABLE:
Engineer: Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, c/o Jes Reetz
Parcel Number: 2519405035 Development Area: 0.95± acre
Existing Land Use: Undeveloped Proposed Land Use: Four lots, each with
a four-unit, multi-family building
Zoning Designation: RM – Multi-Family
Residential
Adjacent Zoning:
East: CO Outlying Commercial North: CO Outlying Commercial
West: RM Multi-Family Residential South: RM Multi-Family Residential
Adjacent Land Uses:
East: Commercial/Business North: Commercial/Business
West: Multi-Family, Residential South: High-Density, Residential
Services:
Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation
District
REVIEW CRITERIA: Depending upon the complexity of the project, this section
may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may involve a more detailed
analysis of the standards based upon issues relevant to any particular project.
1. Buildings and Lots. The project consists of four, four-unit multi-family
structures. Each of the four structures will be on a separate lot. The total
number of units in the development area will be 16. The lots conform to
maximum impervious coverage. The buildings conform to maximum
allowed heights.
2. Density Bonus. The “base density” allowed on the 0.95± acre lot is eight
units. The applicant is proposing 16 units. Chapter 11 of the EDVC,
Incentives, includes incentives for developers to establish attainable or
workforce housing within the EDVC Boundary. The applicable incentive is
to provide for attainable and workforce housing through a density bonus of
up to twice the allowed base density, for residential development in the RM
Zoning District. Attainable housing includes renter or owner-occupied
housing, where qualified households must meet specific income
requirements. Workforce housing is where a qualified resident must meet
specific residency requirements. The applicant is proposes utilizing this
density bonus by providing half of the units (eight) as workforce housing.
An Agreement has been drafted by the applicant, and revised by staff, and
by the Town Attorney. See Attachment 8. This Agreement will need to be
finalized with proper signatures in order to be executed and recorded with
the Final Plat. As this Agreement is not a “deed restriction,” per se, as
currently required in Chapter 11 of the EVDC, plans are that the Agreement
will be allowable upon review and approval of the Code Amendment that is
currently being processed by staff. The Code Amendment proposes
adding an option where a “Restrictive Covenant and Agreement” will be
99
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20, 2018
GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS, MINOR SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PAGE | 4
available. This Code Amendment is also to be reviewed by the EVPC at
the February 20, 2018 meeting.
3. Landscaping. Non-arterial, street frontage landscaping is required along
Grand Estates Drive along the western boundary, and parking lot perimeter
landscaping is required along the southern and eastern property
boundaries. Staff finds the street frontage and the parking lot landscaping
adequate as proposed by the applicant, with the calculations adding up to
a total of 27 trees and 98 shrubs.
4. Open Space. Private Open Area is required by the EDVC at a minimum of
15%, which is met by this proposed development. The applicant has
calculated 42.9% open space with this Development Plan.
5. Water. A new water main is required, to connect to existing mains to the
east and west property boundaries. Twenty-foot easements are proposed
for this water main.
6. Fire Protection. There is an existing fire hydrant near the proposed
entrance to the site. Estes Valley Fire Protection District provided
comment, and states the multi-family structures must have fire sprinklers,
which will require a permit from the District.
7. Electric. Arrangements are being made with Town of Estes Park Utilities to
move an existing power pole on the property. Electrical easements are
proposed along each side of the property.
8. Sanitary Sewer. The Upper Thompson Sanitation District provided
comments, noting the applicant will be required to construct lateral sewers
to serve the proposed units, which will first involve a “sewer system
extension submittal” be submitted to the District by the applicant.
9. Stormwater Drainage. Drainage is addressed in a Preliminary Drainage
Report submitted by the applicant, which has been reviewed by the Town
of Estes Park Public Works Department (see Attachment 7). Public
Works finds the Report to be “…generally acceptable.” A signed, sealed
drainage report will be required, and must be reviewed and approved by
Public Works prior to recordation of the Final Plat. The drainage report
must include infrastructure improvement plans and financial securities to
guarantee completion of improvements. The final plans will go into more
detail on the drainage systems of a project. The Preliminary Plat drainage
plan is a detailed conceptual plan only.
Stormwater runoff will flow to the southeast corner of the site, where a
detention basin with a capacity of 712 cubic feet in volume is proposed.
10. Access. Access to the site is to be from Grand Estates Drive, a 30-foot
Town Right-Of-Way. Each of the proposed lots, 1 through 4, will share this
access. The applicant is working with staff to provide a platted easement,
which must be reviewed and approved by Town staff, and finalized prior to
recordation of the final plat. The Town of Estes Park Public Works
100
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20, 2018
GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS, MINOR SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PAGE | 5
Department will require a Right-Of-Way Permit prior to the start of
construction of improvements within the Grand Avenue Right-Of-Way.
Public Works has specific requirements regarding this Permit, see
Attachment 7. No additional Right-Of-Way is required to be dedicated
through this subdivision process.
11. Comprehensive Plan. The site is located within the “North End Planning
Sub Area,” per Chapter 6, Community Wide Policies, of the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan’s description of this area between Highway
34 and Lake Estes is being primarily commercial accommodations. There
are commercial uses bordering the subject property to the north and east,
while there are existing, fairly high-density residential uses to the south and
west. Chapter six does not point to specific recommendations for this
residential area within this part of the North End Planning Sub Area.
Chapter 6 of the Plan does specify, under Section 5.0 Housing, Community
Wide Land Use Policies. These include:
5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges.
5.3 Establish a balanced program of incentives, and public and
private actions, to provide affordable housing.
5.6 Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area.
As this development involves 50% of the units proposed as workforce
housing, staff finds the development to be consistent with these
recommended policies.
12. Minor Modification. The applicant has requested a waiver of the
minimum side setback distance, where the four proposed structures would
each have a setback of 7.5 feet, in lieu of the 10-foot minimum required in
the RM Zoning District. Chapter 3 of the EDVC, Review Procedures and
Standards, Section 3.7, Minor Modifications, 2. Minor Modifications from
General Development and Zone District Standards, b. EVPC Authority to
Grant Minor Modifications, allows the EVPC to grant modifications of up to
25%, for specific standards including setback requirements, if the EVPC
finds the proposed modification “…relieves practical difficulties in
developing a site.” In staff’s opinion, this is the case and reducing the side
setback standard 25%, from 10 to 7.5 feet, is appropriate and does not
create issues or concerns.
REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: This application has been submitted to
reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or
concerns were expressed by reviewing staff.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: In accordance with the notice requirements in the EVDC,
legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette. Adjacent property
owners were mailed notices within a 100-foot radius of the subject property.
There is significant opposition to the project from area residents. Density, traffic,
and parking issues are the main concerns expressed in the numerous emailed
letters of opposition, which will again be distributed to the Planning Commission at
the February 20 meeting.
101
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20, 2018
GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS, MINOR SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PAGE | 6
STAFF FINDINGS:
Based on the foregoing, staff finds:
1. The Planning Commission is the Approving Body for the Development Plan
and Recommending Body for the preliminary plat.
2. Adequate public/private facilities are currently available to serve the proposed
project.
3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were received.
4. The Development Plan and Subdivision Preliminary Plat will comply with
applicable standards set forth in the EVDC upon approval of a waiver to the
side yard setback standard as described above.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Minor Modification request, to
reduce the side setback distance to 7.5 feet, in lieu of the required 10-foot
minimum. Staff further recommends approval of the Grand Estates Apartments
Development Plan and Subdivision Preliminary Plat with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the Minor Subdivision being taken to the Town Board for review,
the applicant shall revise the Preliminary and Final Plat to provide for an
easement for access to all lots, across the access/parking area depicted on
the plats. The easement for the trash enclosure depicted on Lots 2 and 3
also must be revised and clarified. These, and any other technical
modifications to the plats, shall be revised as directed by staff.
SAMPLE MOTIONS FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT:
1. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the Grand Estates Apartments
Subdivision Preliminary Plat according to findings of fact with findings and
condition recommended by Staff.
2. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the Grand Estates Apartments
Subdivision Preliminary Plat according to findings of fact with findings
recommended by Staff.
3. I move to CONTINUE the Grand Estates Apartments Subdivision
Preliminary Plat to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
4. I move to recommend DENIAL of the Grand Estates Apartments
Subdivision Preliminary Plat, finding that … [state findings for denial].
SAMPLE MOTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND MINOR MODIFICATION:
102
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20, 2018
GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS, MINOR SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PAGE | 7
1. I move to APPROVE the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan
application and Minor Modification Request according to findings of fact
with findings and conditions recommended by Staff.
2. I move to APPROVE the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan and
Minor Modification Request application according to findings of fact with
findings recommended by Staff.
3. I move to CONTINUE the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan
and Minor Modification Request application to the next regularly scheduled
meeting.
4. I move to DENY the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan and
Minor Modification Request application, finding that … [state findings for
denial].
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Statement of Intent
3. Application
4. Development Plan Set
5. Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plan Set
6. Building Elevations, Floorplan
7. TOEP Public Works Department Comments
8. Restrictive Covenant and Agreement
9. Record of Proceedings, EVPC, 1/17/17
10. Minutes, Town Board, 2/28/17
103
ATTACHMENT 1 104
ATTACHMENT 2
105
106
107
ATTACHMENT 3
108
109
110
ATTACHMENT 4 111
112
113
ATTACHMENT 5 114
ATTACHMENT 6
115
116
117
ATTACHMENT 7
118
119
ATTACHMENT 8
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
ATTACHMENT 9
128
129
130
ATTACHMENT 10 131
132
133
134
135
Planning Commission 2018‐02‐20: Motions re Grand Estates Apartment, 507
Grand Estates Drive
0:59:40 Development Plan motion and vote
BL: So, it would be a motion on the development plan first.
RF: I’ll make a motion. It’s with the understanding that as part of consideration of the development
plan, we’ve also being asked to consider the terms of the covenant. And with that, I move to
recommend denial of the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan… I guess it’s not a… sorry, I read
the wrong thing ‐‐
BL: You have to read the whole ‐‐
RF: Yeah. I apologize, um… (unclear)
BL: Would you please include your findings, or your opinions of the findings, when you give your
motion, if you can. You can take some time if you want.
RF: I move to deny the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan and minor modification request
application on the basis of not having a full and complete understanding of the ramifications of the
proposed covenants as written.
BL: Do we have a second on that motion?
SM: This motion is to not approve?
BL: The motion is to not approve…
SW: To deny…
BL: … essentially on the basis that it… we don’t – go ahead.
RF: Mr. Chair, I’m gonna withdrawal that motion and just simply say, I move to deny.
SM: If we don’t… if we deny this, then the other one is a moot point.
BL: That is true. Also, it’s beneficial if we include our reasoning in any denial or approval, because that
is all that goes to the next level. Only those words.
BH: Have you withdrawn your motion?
RF: I’ve withdrawn the motion that stated the reasons, and I’m simply moving to deny the Grand
Estates Apartments Development Plan and minor modification request application. That’s my motion.
BH: I’ll give a reason for denial.
BL: First, we have to have a second, then discussion.
(Several speaking ‐ unclear)
BL: De we have a second?... I don’t believe we have a second. Any additional motions?
136
BH: I move to deny the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan and minor modification request
application on the basis of using common sense for maximum parking and street parking. Gee, that
made no more sense than the other one… Go ahead.
DB: I move to deny the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan and minor modification request
application, finding that there are potential significant traffic and parking risks associated with the
proposal; secondly, extreme concern has been expressed by many neighbors adjacent to the property;
and third, it establishes a precedent with unknown consequences of being able to achieve bonus
densities on properties to be divided and sold without restrictions.
BL: Got all that down? OK…
RS: I’ll second that.
BL: We have a second.
BH: Oh. It was seconded.
SM: Can we ask counsel if we’re doing this right?
BL: We can have discussion at this point, by the way, before we vote, so that’s…
SM: OK.
BL: Go ahead.
(Unclear audio)
RF: I didn’t have an opportunity to review them. I’m concerned about (unclear) wasn’t in there. I’m also
concerned about what appears to be kind of an ad‐hoc approach to how to deal with ambiguities in the
Development Code on a case‐by‐case basis of looking at the individual wording of the proposed
covenant. And… I mean, I can’t change the Development Code sitting here with my vote, but I’m saying,
I oppose the development. And that’s where I am.
BL: You want to amend…
DB: No, I wouldn’t want to amend it, if you don’t mind, Robert, simply from the standpoint of, we’ve
already dealt with the covenants issue, and whether we think that that’s a little bit of a risky thing or
not, we’ve already dealt with that separately. So, I think the issue is, in this particular proposal that
would use covenants, unless we had an objection to the suggested wording of the covenants, I don’t
think we should actually base the decision on the covenants alone. I think the issue is, in this particular
case, is probably more Betty’s issue about, what’s this all mean related to future proposals in which half
the properties in a proposal are gonna get density bonuses. We just don’t know what that all means. It
seems in this particular place, this is not the place to establish the precedent when you have so many
other concerns expressed about having that type of density on a point‐nine‐five acre lot.
BH: Kind of like the camel’s nose under the tent flap. Just waiting for the rest of the camel.
BL: So we’ve had a motion. I believe we had a second…
BH: Uh‐huh.
137
BL: … Betty. Any further discussion before we vote?
SM: I would still like to hear from counsel if we could.
BL: I think we have a question for Attorney White.
GW: I think the motion is clear. It’s not my job to tell you whether or not…
BH: … you agree or not…
GW: … whether I agree with it or not. No, the motion is clear, and I think that’s the… My job here is to
make sure the motion is clear, and there’s no ambiguity in there, that you’ve expressed in the motion
the reasons for…
SM: We’re ok?
BL: We’re not violating any rules by… (unclear)
GW: No.
BL: OK.
(unclear‐several voices)
RS: What does the vote mean? “Yes” means to vote to deny?
SW: Yes. That’s correct.
[VOTE: Foster yes, Murphree no, Hull yes, Schneider yes, Leavitt no, White yes, Baker yes]
BL: All right. The motion has carried on a vote of 5‐2. It’s been denied.
1:06:46 Preliminary Plat motion and vote
BL: All right, let’s move on to the next item.
RS: That covered both (unclear) and preliminary?
BL: Oh yeah. We have to vote on the next one.
RS: That’s right.
BH: Do we as well?
BL: Yes, we do. We have to vote on the plat…
(several voices‐unclear)
BL: We’ll need a motion on that one, and a second.
BH: Wow. OK. I move to recommend denial of the Grand Estates Apartments Subdivision Preliminary
Plat, based on the same details as… or rationale as our previous vote. Whew. Does that work, Greg? …
OK.
138
BL: Second?
(Second inaudible ‐ seconded by Baker)
BL: OK. So we can vote now.
BH: So, “Yes” is a denial.
[VOTE: same as DP vote]
BL: And the vote… the motion is carried to deny. Five to two.
1:07:55 [end of motions and votes on 507 Grand Estates Drive]
BL = Bob Leavitt [Chair]
RF = Robert Foster
SM = Steve Murphree
SW = Sharry White [Vice‐Chair]
BH = Betty Hull
DB = Doyle Baker
RS = Russ Schneider
GW = Greg White [Town Attorney]
139
507 Grand Estates Drive
1 message
katie ford <katieraye1@gmail.com> Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM
To: townclerk@estes.org
Town Board Of Trusties
This letter is in reference for the request of a building permit at 507 Grand Estates Drive. This
request was proposed to the Planning Commission and voted down.
I hope the Town Board follows their own Planning Commission and deny this request.
There is plenty of opposition for this project with numerous concerns, I hope you take the time to read
the concerns of the neighbors and ask yourself if this is the correct type of project for this property.
The property itself is not large enough for this type of development, they are asking for way to many
privileges to build this amount of units.
I hope each of you drive by this proposal a couple of times to really get the fill of the impact this will
have on Grand Estates, besides the parking issue in the proposed units, Grand Estates cannot allow
on street parking, the street is not wide enough to allow this.
You have the problem of United States mail boxes right along the roadway that are a hazard. Pine
Meadows subdivision has visibility issues getting turned onto Grand Estates, everyone turning onto or
out of Highway 34 have issues in the summer and by adding to this with more traffic is going to cause
a nightmare for all.
The units themselves are way to small to handle up to six people in each unit as was
proposed. There was no thought given about families with children and no area proposed for any
type of play area except on the street.
I hope you will make an honest effort to look at this and follow your Planning Commission and reject
this request. Eight units will not make an impact of workforce housing except cause a nightmare for
everyone in the neighborhood and unfortunately for the Town of Estes.
Katie Ford
514 Grand Estates Drive Unit B5
140
March 15, 2018
Mayor Jirsa
Town Trustees
Town of Estes Park
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
I am writing in support of the Grand Estates Apartments, which is being appealed
following a denial by the Estes Valley Planning Commission.
This project, 16 units of rental housing is the first to be utilizing the additional
density based on the Workforce Housing bonus section of the Development Code
and is the ideal project to be utilizing the allowable additional density. The Estes
Park Housing Authority, The Estes Park Economic Development Corporation and
many others lobbied for several years for the workforce housing amendment to the
Estes Valley Development Code. Those changes were approved by the Town Board
as a means of incentivizing developers to build housing that the local workforce can
utilize. Developing rental housing is a tremendous challenge financially for a
developer. The additional density/units is the difference between a project that will
get built or not built. Making a reasonable profit is not a negative, but rather vital in
order for the private sector to develop housing.
The need for housing is well documented and cannot be denied. Most all businesses
in Town, both large and small have struggled with employees who cannot find
housing. The Town of Estes Park is not immune to this and have lost numerous
qualified employees due to the lack of housing. The Workforce Housing density
bonus was carefully and thoughtfully crafted to assist with this problem. To deny
this project would be counter productive.
I would like to address a few items that have been stated by the Estes Valley
Planning Commission and public comments.
1. Parking and Traffic: The developer has stated that they will limit the number of
cars permitted for each unit to 2. Yet despite this, several commissioners continue
to use the number of 64 cars. If there are 16 units, and 2 vehicles per unit, that is 32
cars and NOT 64. Having managed many units locally limiting the # of vehicles is
standard practice and NOT difficult to enforcement. The developer has committed
to putting this requirement in the lease documents. The Estes Park Housing
Authority owns and manages a rental property where each unit is limited to 1 car.
This was part of the agreement with the Town and has been successfully
administered for 12 years.
141
2. ‘It’s only 16 units’: this was stated by a commissioner at the last PC meeting
when this project was denied. Every project providing workforce housing is vital,
regardless of its size. The housing problem will not be solved by any one
development, but rather by many projects, of different size, types and locations.
3. Number of residents: It is not uncommon for the number of inhabitants to be
limited by the landlord. Again, the developer/management has committed to liming
the number of residents.
4. ‘This project will set a negative precedence.’ This was stated numerous times by
the Planning Commission. By approving this development, the precedence that
would be set would be one of commitment to solving the housing issues that
currently exist.
The Grand Estates Apartments will provide housing for 16 families in the Estes
Valley. These are not vacation rentals, but rather long term housing for the
households who work in our community.
I strongly encourage you each to vote affirmatively to approve this project. By
doing so you will be proving your commitment to the Workforce of the Estes Valley,
to the local business owners and to the residents of the Estes Valley.
Sincerely,
Rita Kurelja
Allenspark, Colorado
142
From: "jmckeen@q.com" <jmckeen@q.com>
Date: March 22, 2018 at 4:00:47 PM MDT
To: cwalker <cwalker@estes.org>
Subject: Re: 507 Grand estates Dr. proposed developement.
Thank you Cody for corresponding to my letter.
The word "Hybrid” used in this instance is asking for two different projects to be
used with one outcome.
1. eight restricted workforce units, {they are strictly designated for work force
units}.
2. eight units without restriction, {these units can be designated as workforce
units also.}
As I understand this, the type of financing will cover both designations, &
therefore cost less.
Whereas each 8 unit financed separately will cost more. This where the
word bonus comes in. I maybe wrong in interpreting the word "Hybrid" & "Bonus" this
way. If I am, I apologize.
I made a copy of the Cornerstone---Town of Estes Park Community Development
Plan.
Under "Traffic", it stated minimal increases to peak traffic flow are foreseen with the
proposed development.
Surrounding properties ----Lake Meadow Condos-- to the west, are built with "high
density development" on 5 acres.{ I don't know that we have that designation}, but if
we do, then what can 507 G E Estates possibly be with 16 units on less than an acre
with all the utilities, car spaces, roads to all the units & a dumpster that will be
needed?.
As to the impact of possibly 64 extra cars coming from 507 G. E. Dr. out on to our
very narrow road, from a 24' width entry/exit in place of the existing 30' one, it will be
huge I really do have to disagree with the written statement made by the Planning
Developer, minimal increase of traffic.
There has to be with possibly 50--60 more cars in this small area.
In our beautiful town, how will the new residents feel about being crammed in, in
such close quarters to each other? This is a city type way of living at its worst, &
we are not a city. Cody, you have lived here all your life, {I think}.
So please take a really good look at this project & let us not spoil what we have
here. I do hope that the letters you receive from us will have some meaning to you
all & see why this is so important to us.
Janet Mckeen.
143
From: "cwalker" <cwalker@estes.org>
To: "jmckeen" <jmckeen@q.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 2:09:07 PM
Subject: Re: 507 Grand estates Dr. proposed developement.
Janet-
Thanks for reaching out.
I agree that the .95 acres is the result of a granted variance.
I am not sure why you are considering using the workforce housing density bonus as
an exemption. Can you expand on that?
I think the “hybrid” is part of the definitions in workforce bonus in the code. Help me
if I’m missing what your trying to communicate on this one. Little clarification please:
On number 4 - I will double check if the density can be applied to the entire
project. My understanding is that it can.
I did drive over and look at the street the other day and I agree there is no on street
parking. I didn’t see Grand Estates drive as poor entry/exit or dangerous from HW
34 but I will double check with emergency services.
I appreciate you expressing some concerns. I’ll do my best.
Right from the horses mouth,
Cody
"Under CO Open Records Act, all messages sent to or by me from this account may
be subject to public disclosure, unless the word "private" or "confidential" is in the
subject line. "
On Mar 21, 2018, at 1:44 PM, "jmckeen@q.com" <jmckeen@q.com> wrote:
Developer Steve Lane, was voted down 5-2 by the Planning Commission on the
original proposal, now he is coming back to the Town Trustees with a new & totally
unacceptable plan. Steve Lane is asking for not one but FOUR
exceptions {exemptions} on .95 acres. in the middle of a low impact residential area.
1 -variance on .95 acres instead of a full acre.
144
2 - He is asking for the " work force housing bonus" which allows him to DOUBLE
the DENSITY.
3 - He wants "Hybrid" developement with Eight Work force- restricted units , &
Eight units without restrictions.
4 - Not satisfied with the " the first three requests," HE STILL WANTS THE
WORKFORCE DENSITY BONUS for the
ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
This is all wrong & falls into the category of TOTAL GREED.
Lake Meadows Assoc. is not asking for no building to be done, but please read
all the letters we have written
against giving Steve Lane permission to go ahead with his "High Density
Development Proposal"
Problems-- too many units that can house up to four people, too many cars for
the space.- Grand Estates Dr is too narrow with NO street parking, a poor
entry & exit. Hazard for the PD, Fire Dept, Ambulances, etc, etc etc,?
This project is completely flawed, & should be turned down AGAIN!!
Why do we have Planning Commissioners if their decision to turn down this
project, can be overturned
by the Town Board?
Janet Mckeen.
145
to TownTrustes: appeal of planning commision 507 Gand Estates
1 message
Esther Cenac <esther.cenac@gmail.com> Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:49 AM
To: townclerk@estes.org
I may or maynot be able to attend this meeting so I will put my objections in writing. First this plan
has been submitted and rejected twice by the planning commission. Why have a planning board if all
one has to do is keep appealing until the ojectors get tired of objecting???
This plan is using an idea for low and working income people in a very grey and dangerous
manner. IF the plan is for that purpose then all four units should have equal apartments for that
purpose and not be subdivided with two units of 4 having low income and two units of four with
options to buy or rent to average income tenants. High density was voted for to increase the places
for low or working class people. There should be at least 2 units in each building for low income with
one owner to oversight that the rules are enforced.
This plan also has no oversight for the future. Who will manage after a few years. Who will see that
the parking off street is upheld? There is really no room for on street parking at that turn in the road.
This is a dangerous precedent that you should not say yes.
At the last meeting of the planning commission it was also stated the danger narrowness of the road,
pure visibility at the curve of road,children getting off the bus and at that point crossing to o into their
homes, noise factor..,ect, ect, ect.
But the real and urgent danger of going forward with this project is the future with absolutely no
oversight and the misuse of a
a rule or law that was designed for high density only to provide housing for workers. These
developers want their cake and to eat it as well. Put less units and make one owner who will control
and manager the property in the manner the law was designed to do. How can having four plots with
four units each do that if two plots have regular tenants and all may have separate owners?
Some of you will soon either be vacating you office due to term limits or running for a second
term. Be careful for what you leave as a legacy or are not voted back in because of foolish and
dangerous decisions.
Esther A. Cenac
146
March8,2018To:MayorandTrusteesFrom:EricW.Blackhurst,ChairmanC’J,EstesParkHousingAuthorityLAJSub]ect:GrandEstateApartmentsYesterdayItookaphonecallatmyofficefromagentlemanlookingforalong-termrental.HehasbeenofferedajobinEstesPark,buthecannotfindanapartmentorcondominiumtorent.Hehasbeenlookingforaplacetoliveforsometimeandisnowwonderingifhewillbeabletotakethejobthathasbeenoffered.ThispersonalsoinquiredaboutparkinghisRVonalotorinanRVparkpayingamonthlyrentalfee.HequestionedhowEstesParkwasgoingtocontinuetodowellasaconmiunityifitdidnothaveenoughplacesforitsemployeestolive.Agoodquestionindeed.TheGrandEstatesApartmentsprovideaplaceforsixteenfamiliesworkingintheEstesParkareatolive.ItconformstothestandardsadoptedbytheTownBoardandPlanningCommissionforenablingandincentivizingprivatesectorinvestmentinhousingopportunities.Byitselfitdoesnotsolvetheshortageofhousingforthemiddle-incomefamily,butitisabeginningforsixteenhouseholds.WorkforcehousinghasbeenapriorityforvariousTownBoardsforanumberofyearsnow.Iurgeyoutosupportthisprivate-sectorefforttobringafewofthemuch-neededhousingunitsonline.PleaseapprovetheGrandEstateApartmentsdevelopmentandprovideaplaceforsixteenfamiliestolive.ShouldyouhavequestionsorwishtodiscussthisfUrtherpleasedonothesitatetocontactEstesParkHousingAuthorityme.
GreggH.Coffman,PC.ATTORNEYATLAW501SAINTVRAINLANE,SUITE200ESTESPARK,COLORADO80517GREGO@ESTESLAWYER.NET(970)586-5566VOICE__________________________(970)586-5995FAXMarch22,2018MAR22Z018BoardofTrusteesTownofEstesPark________________HandDeliveredRE:GrandEstatesApartmentsDevelopmentPlanAppealDearTrustees:lamwritingtoinformyouthatIwillbeappearingbeforetheTownBoardonbehalfofFrederickKroppinconnectionwiththeappealofplanningcommissiondenialofthedevelopmentplanforGrandEstatesApartments.IwishtoaddresstheBoardandpresentargumentsinfavoroftheBoardofTrusteesoverrulingtheplanningcommission’sdenial,andapprovingthedevelopmentplanforGrandEstatesApartments.Bywayofhistory,IamattachingacopyoftheinitialstatementofintentsubmittedtotheplanningdepartmentonNovember15,2017.Theapplication,statementofintentanddevelopmentplanhavebeenreviewedandprocessedbystaff;theplanwasfinalizedandsubmittedtotheplanningcommissionandfirstconsideredatitsmeetingonJanuary16,2018.Staffrecommendedapproval,publiccommentswerereceived,andtheplanningcommissionvotedtodenyapproval.Furtherdiscussionswithstafffollowed,minorrevisionsweremadeintheplan,andtheapplication,letterofintentandreviseddevelopmentplanwerepresentedtotheplanningcommissionandconsideredattheplanningcommission’smeetingonFebruary21,2018.Staffrecommendedapproval,publiccommentwasreceived,andtheplanningcommissionvotedtodenyapprovalofthedevelopmentplan.Theplanningcommissionmotionfordenialstatesasfollows:“Itwastizovedandseconded(‘Baker/Hull,)todenytheDevelopmentPlanfindingthattherearepotentialsignificanttrqfficandparkingrisks,extremeneighborconcerns,andtheestablishmentofaprecedentofunknownconsequencesofbeingabletoachievebonusdensitiesonpropertiestobedividedandsoldwithoutrestriction.Themotionpassed5—2withCommissionersFoster,Hull,Schneider,WhiteandBake,-votinginfavorandMurphreeandLeavittvotingagainst.
IthinkitiswellestablishedbythisBoardandSection3.8ofthedevelopmentcode,thatthestandardsapplicabletoplanningcommissionreviewofdevelopmentplansconsistof:1.Thedevelopmentplancomplieswithallapplicablestandardssetforthinthiscode;and2.Thedevelopmentplanisconsistentwiththepolicies,goalsandobjectivesofthecomprehensiveplanandanyotherrelevantlanduse,parksandtrails,capitalimprovementsandsimilarplans.ThesestandardswererecentlyaffirmedbythisBoardintheMackey/RavenRockappeal,involvingsimilarissues.ThispolicyandprecedentwasfurtheremphasizedatthejointmeetingofthisBoard,theBoardofCountyCommissioners,andtheEstesValleyPlanningCommissionheldonFebruary22,2018.Indissectingthemotiontodenyapproval,thegroundsspecifiedbytheplanningcommissionconsistsofthefollowing:1.Potentialsignificanttrafficandparkingrisks2.Extremeneighborconcerns3.TheestablishmentofaprecedentofunknownconsequencesofbeingabletoachievebonusdensitiesonpropertiestobedividedandsoldwithoutrestrictionIncomparingthesethreejustificationsfordenialtothestandardsofreviewsetforthinEVDCSection3.8(D),Isubmitthefollowing.Thefirststandardofreview(compliance)hasbeenandisfulfilled.Staffhasthoroughlyreviewedthedevelopmentplanandisrecommendingapproval.Sinceitisstaffsresponsibilitytoverifycompliance,theirrecommendationofapprovalconstitutescertificationthattheproposedplanmeetsallapplicablestandardssetforthinthedevelopmentcode.Furthermore,noneoftheissuescontainedinthemotionfordenialmentionorrefertoanycodedeficiency.Accordingly,forpurposesofthisappeal,wesubmitthattheBoardshouldconsideritafactthatthisdevelopmentplancomplieswithallrequirementsofthedevelopmentcode.Astothesecondstandard(Section3.8(D)2)thereviewfortheplanningcommissionislimitedtoconsistencywiththecomprehensiveplanandconsistencywithanyotherestablishedplanregardinglanduse,parksandtrails,capitalimprovementsorothersimilarplans.Again,thethreeidentifiedjustificationsforrejectionoftheplandonotidentify,mentionorinvokeanyinconsistencywithanyestablishedplan.Specifically:(1)potentialsignificanttrafficandparkingrisks:theseissuesareaddressedbythedevelopmentcode.Therequirednumberofparkingspacesisaformulaspecifiedinthedevelopmentcode.Inviewofstaffsrecommendationofapproval,itisclearthatthedevelopmentplanmeetstherequirementsofthedevelopmentcodewithrespecttoparkingspaces.Trafficissuesarealsowithinthepurviewofstaff,andagain,inviewofstaffrecommendingapproval,itisclearthatallnecessaryalltrafficissueshavebeenaddressedwithinthesubmittalprocessandindialoguebetweenthedevelopmentandstaff.Further,thisjustificationdoesnotrefertothe
comprehensiveplanoranyotherplanthatcouldbeapplicabletothispropertyortheproposeddevelopmentplan.Wesubmitthisjustificationisirrelevantandshouldbedisregarded.(2)Extremeneighborconcerns:thisjustificationissimplynotarelevantconsiderationintheprocessforapprovalforadevelopmentplan.ThisissueisnotcontainedinEVDCSection3,8(D).Publiccommentandrighttobeheardiscertainlyimportanttoourgovernmentalsystem.Ifacitizenbroughtupapotentialcodeissueorinconsistencywithsomeexistingplan,thatwouldberelevantinformationfortheplanningcommission.However,generalconcerncannotbeallowedtooverridetheclearstandardsofreviewidentifiedinEVOCSection3.8(D).Wesubmitthisjustificationfordenialbedisregarded.(3)establishmentofaprecedentofunknownconsequences...:Aswiththeothertwojustifications,thereisnocodeprovisionor“plan”referencedinthisjustification.Asaresult,thesameargumenisastothefirsttwojustifications,areapplicabletothethirdjustification.Thedensityissueisaddressedinthecodeandrequirescoordinationbetweenthedeveloper,planningstaffandthetown.Negotiationsregardingadevelopmentagreementareongoing,whichwilladdressallpertinentdetailsofthedensitybonus.Accordingly,thisissueisnotarelevantconsiderationunderthestandardsofreview.Furthermore,theactionsofplaimingcommissioncannotpossiblyestablishanyformofprecedentsincefinalactiononthismattermustbeapprovedbythegoverningbody,theBoardofTrustees.AstheBoardiswellaware,hadtheplanningcommissionvotedinfavorofapproval,thematterwouldhaveappearedonthenextTownBoardagendaasaconsentitemandtheapproval(andprecedentialvalue,ifany)wouldbeestablishedbyTownBoardapproval.Basedupontheforgoing,wesubmitthatacompleteandthoroughanalysisoftheprogressionofeventsleadingtoandincludingtheplanningcommissiondenial,demonstratesthatthisdevelopmentplanshouldhavebeenapprovedbytheplanningcommissionbecause(1)therearenocodecomplianceissuesand(2)therearenoidentifiedinconsistencieswithanyexisting“plan”tojusti’denial.Basedupontheforgoing,thedeveloperrespectffillyaskesthisBoardtooverrulethedenialoftheplanningcommissionandgrantunconditionalapprovaloftheGrandEstatesApartmentsdevelopmentplan.Respecfully,GggHarcc:FredKroppJessReetzGregWhite
aPPHONE970.586.2458FAX970.5862459EMAILce,®ces-ccc.comWEBwww.ces-ccc.com1692BigThompson.Suite200CflRrERS—rDrEEstosPark,Colorado80517ENCINEERING&5URVEYING.INC.November15,2017TownofEstesParkCommunityDevelopmentP.O.Box1200EstesPark,Co.80517RE:GrandEstatesApartmentsMr.RandyHunt,CornerstoneEngineeringandSurveying,Inc.(CES),onbehalfoftheownersFNPKroppRealEstateInvestments,LLC,issubmittingapreliminaryandfinalplatfor507GrandEstatesDrive,EstesPark,Colorado.EveryattempthasbeenmadetoensuretheapplicationmeetstheguidelinesoftheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode(EVDC).LegalDescriptionLot35,GrandEstatesintheTownofEstesPark,CountyofLarimer,StateofColoradoExistingConditionsCurrently,Lot35isvacantpropertyslopingtowardsthesoutheastat±5%.Thepropertyhasbeenthroughseveraldevelopmentplansthathavebeenapprovedbuthavenotcometofruitionduetounforeseencircumstances.ThepropertyiszoneAM-ResidentialMulti-familywithsimilarzoningtothesouthandtothewestacrossGrandEstatesDrive.PropertiestothenorthandeastarezoneCD-CommercialOutlying.PropertyHistoryAsstated,thesubjectpropertyhasbeenthroughseveraldevelopmentapplicationswhichhavebeenapprovedbytheEstesValleyPlanningCommission.Previously,thepropertyhadbeenzonedCO-Commercialoutlyingwithpreviousdevelopmentsproposedunderthatzoningdesignation.Firstly,duringthesummerof2004(DevelopmentPlan04-07),theowneratthattimewishedtodevelopthepropertywithasinglestructureforuseasacommercialshoponthelowerlevel(6000sf)andlivingquartersabove(2000sf).Afterwardsthepropertywassoldwiththeintenttoconstructamixedusedevelopmentin2008(DevelopmentPlan08-04).Theplanproposedaschoolmixedwithresidentialunitsutilizingthe‘AttainableBonus”foradditionalunits.Intotal,DP08-04proposed13,505sfoftotalfloorspace.Thedevelopmentwasnotabletocometofruitionandwasputbackonthemarketin2009.ThepropertyhadlittletonointerestwiththeCD-Commercialoutlyingzoningdesignationsothepreviousownerwentthroughthere-zoningprocesstohavethesubjectpropertyre-zonedtoRMResidentialMulti-familywiththeintenttohavethepropertydevelopedasresidentialunits.
GrandEstatesApartmentsPage3of3November15,2017ProposedWaiverstotheCodeThougheveryattempthasbeenmadetoensurethedevelopmentconformstotheEVDC,someitemswereunabletobemeet.SideQropertylinesetbacks:DevelopmentswithintheRMzoningdistrictarerequiredtohaveminimum10-footsideyardsetback.SetbackshavebeenmeetforthecurrentboundaryofLot35.Theproposedwaiverpertainstointernalpropertylinesetbacksbetweentheproposedstructures.Thedevelopmentisproposinga7.5-footsetbacktherebykeeping15-feetbetweenthestructures.Typically,10-feetistheminimumseparationbetweenstructurestomaintainfireseparation.NotefromtheApplicant:Weareaskingforawaivertohelpoffsetthecostofthedevelopmentofthispropertyforworkforcehousing.Weplanonusingthedensitybonusof8workforcehousingunits,butevenwiththeadditionalunits,thepriceofland,building,andutilitiesarestilltoohightomakeitfinanciallyfeasiblefordevelopers.Tomitigatethestillhighcostwithourdesiretoincreasetheavailabilityofmultifamilyhousing,weareaskingforasetbackwaiverof7’-6”ftinsteadofthe1Oftthatcoderequires.Thatwillallowustoputeach4plexonitsownlotchangingthefinancingfromcommercialtoresidential.Acommercialloanisusuallyamortizedat20-25yearsandyoumustrefinanceevery3-5yearswithahigherinterestrate.Aresidentialloanwouldbea30yearamortizationwithnoneedtorefinance.ThischangewouldallowustomoveforwardwithourplantoprovidemoreWorkforcehousinginEstesParkSincerely,CornerstoneEngineering&Surveying,Inc.JesReetzPlanner
SIGN-INSHEETFORPUBLICCOMMENTTownofEstesParkTownBoardMeetingMarch27,2018PlanningActionItemA-APPEAL.GRANDESTATESAPARTMENTDEVELOPMENTPLANFNPKROPPREALESTATEINVESTMENTS.US.AppealofEstesValleyPlanningCommissiondecisionforDP2017-10onFebruary20,2018.F-FORNAME(PLEASEPRINT)STREETADDRESSA-AGAINST1Cnrc_I_trCc2ftt)c3h-Sive-1ord__E%rt}cflOC/J/IvDL’46V)aem:i’//4(/4C/il%5C&çA8A6c1f\%‘n/AJL_4)(271i(cFFM%JF10//::L%(ZJt’(ScrAa\-ta7-f1314TheTownofEstesParkCouncilencouragesresidentsofthecommunitytoattendTownBoardmeetings.IndividualswishingtobeheardduringPublicCommentproceedingsareencouragedtobepreparedandwillgenerallybelimitedtothree(3)minutesinordertoalloweveryonetheopportunitytobeheard.PublicCommentsareexpectedtobeconstructive.WrittencommentsarewelcomeandshouldbegiventotheTownClerkpriortothestartofthemeeting.
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
Date: March 27, 2018
RE: Grand Estates Apartments Minor Subdivision, Preliminary and Final Plat, a
Resubdivision of Lot 35, Grand Estates, 507 Grand Estates Drive; Fred Kropp,
FNPKropp Real Estate Investments, LLC/Owner; Cornerstone Engineering and
Surveying, Inc./Applicant
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing and make a decision on a four-lot, Minor Subdivision, Preliminary and
Final Plat, in compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
The subject property, 0.95± acres in size, is undeveloped. In 2017, a former owner determined
the property could be best utilized as a multi-family development, and went through review and
approval of a rezoning, from CO Outlying Commercial to the current RM, Multi-Family
Residential Zoning District. The current owner is now proposing this Grand Estates Apartments
project, a use-by-right in the RM Zoning District.
Proposal:
Four individual lots are proposed. Utility easements are proposed to be reconfigured and
dedicated with this plat, as well as dedication of drainage easements. Cross-access easements
are also indicated for shared parking. There is no zone change requested with this
development.
This project has two applications associated with it. 1) A Development Plan, for which the Town
Board will hear an appeal at their March 27, 2018 hearing. The Planning Commission denied
the Development Plan, which has been appealed to the Town Board by the property owner. 2)
This Minor Subdivision, Preliminary and Final Plat. The Town Board is the decision-making
body for both of these Minor Subdivision Plats.
This report and recommendation pertains only to recommended action on the Minor
Subdivision, Preliminary and Final Plat.
Advantages:
Allows for developing a property consistent with existing densities in this area of the
Town.
Allows for developing a property consistent with plans for use and density that were
expressed in early 2017, at meetings and hearings for the rezoning of the site to RM,
Multi-Family Residential.
Report
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
147
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, MARCH 27, 2018
GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
PAGE | 2
The subdivision allows for development that is aligned with the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan’s “Community Wide Land Use Policies” which encourage a variety
of housing types and price ranges; which recommends establishing a balanced program
of incentives through public and private actions to provide affordable housing; and which
encourages housing infill within the existing urban area.
The subdivision will allow a project to move forward which proposes much-needed
workforce housing in the Estes Valley.
Disadvantages:
Creates density on an undeveloped property.
Increases traffic in this area of Town.
Action Recommended:
Planning Commission voted and recommended denial (5 in favor, 2 opposed) of the Preliminary
Townhome Subdivision application on February 20, 2018. The Planning Commission minutes
and a transcript are included in this packet with the Development Plan appeal materials (Item
2.2.A).
Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat to the Planning Commission in January and
again in February. Staff stands by this recommendation today. Our findings and rationale are
available on the Full Application webpage, linked below. Staff recommends approval of both the
Preliminary Plat and the Final Plat.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Very high.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of the Grand Estates Apartments Subdivision, Preliminary Plat and
Final Plat.
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
Full Application: www.estes.org/currentapplications
148
149
150
151
152
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: March 27th, 2018
RE: IGA regarding collection of Impact Fees for the Estes Valley Fire
Protection District
Objective:
To consider an IGA for the collection of impact fees on behalf of the Estes Valley Fire
Protection District.
Present Situation:
The Fire District Board has adopted impact fees to defray costs of capital facilities
needed to serve new development. The District is desirous of having the Town collect
the impact fees on their behalf, as part of the normal development process.
Proposal:
To approve IGA
Advantages:
Assists the Fire District with collection of their impact fee
Collection of the impact fee at the Town in association with other development
fees is more customer friendly than requiring applicants to pay the fee at the Fire
House
Disadvantages:
Time and minimal cost to collect and remit the fee
Action Recommended:
To approve/not approve the IGA with the Fire District regarding collection of Fire District
Impact Fees
Finance/Resource Impact:
There is a financial impact in staff time to collect and remit the fees. The IGA includes a
portion of the fee to be retained to cover these costs.
153
Level of Public Interest
High interest in the fee itself, but minimal interest in the process of collection by the
Town on behalf of the District.
Attachment:
Info sheet from previous study session regarding this issue on 1/23/18
IGA
Exhibit A: Resolution NO. 2018-01
154
Impact Fee Proposal
Estes Park Town Board – January 23, 2018
CHALLENGE
- Increased demand for services outpacing revenue growth
OBJECTIVE
- Goal to keep the Fire District property tax mil levy at 1.95 as long as possible.
- Have development offset increased costs due to construction and growth.
STATE STATUTE AUTHORIZING
- Colorado Revised Statue authorizing Fire Districts to collect Impact Fees: C.R.S. 29-20-104.5.
AUTHORIZED USE OF FEES
- Impact fees collected can only be used to defray costs of capital facilities needed to serve “new” development
impacting the Authority or Fire District.
- The statute does not limit where the district or authority may invest its impact fee revenue within its boundaries, so
long as the purchase or construction of capital facilities is directly related to “development”.
BASIS/JUSTIFICATION FOR FEES
- EVFPD contracted with Pinnacle Consulting Group to do an analysis on the proportional capital costs associated with
all forms of new development in the entire EVFPD service area.
TIMELINE
- EVFPD would like to have all IGAs in place by April 1, 2018
PROCESS
- EVFPD presenting to Town of Estes Park Board (1/23) and Larimer County Board of Commissioners (2/21) to outline
study results and process.
- Draft IGAs to both Boards by early February.
155
{00606579.DOCX / }
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Assessment and Collection of Emergency Services Impact Fees
2607386.4
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT,
COLLECTION, AND REMITTANCE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES IMPACT FEES
This INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT, COLLECTION, AND
REMITTANCE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES IMPACT FEES ("Agreement") is entered into by and
between the Town of Estes Park ("Town") and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District ("District"). The Town
and the District are referred to collectively as the "Parties" or individually as a "Party".
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Town is a statutory municipality in the State of Colorado ("State"), and the District is a
political subdivision of the State organized pursuant to the Special District Act, C.R.S. § 32-1-101, et seq.;
WHEREAS, the District was organized to provide fire protection, rescue, and emergency services
(collectively, "Emergency Services"), as well as other services including fire suppression, public education,
water rescue, hazardous materials, emergency medical, and ambulance services, to the citizens and property
within its jurisdiction, and to individuals passing through its jurisdiction, either directly or through third-party
providers;
WHEREAS, pursuant to §32-1-1002(1)(d.5), the District has authority to receive and spend impact fees or
other similar development charges imposed pursuant to the provisions described in §29-20-104.5, C.R.S.;
WHEREAS, the District obtained an Impact Fee Study dated January 2018 to evaluate the nexus between new
development within the District's jurisdictional boundaries and the projected impact that such development has
on the District's Capital Facilities ("Nexus Study"). The Nexus Study recommended an Impact Fee schedule
for both residential and non-residential development at a level no greater than necessary to defray the impacts
of new development on the District's Capital Facilities ("Impact Fee Schedule");
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2018, the District's Board of Directors ("Board") adopted Resolution No. 2018-
01, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A approving initial impact fees less than those in the
Impact Fee Schedule recommended by the Nexus Study (the “Initial Impact Fees”. A copy of the maximum
fees included in the Impact Fee Schedule in the Nexus Study is attached as Attachment 1; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with C.R.S. § 29-20-104.5(2)(c), the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to
define the District Impact Fee, and the details of assessment, collection, and remittance, all in accordance with
the requirements of C.R.S. § 29-20-104.5 ("Act").
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained in this Agreement, the Parties agree
as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Definitions. In addition to the definitions provided elsewhere in this Agreement, the terms "Development
Permit" and "Capital Facility(ies)" shall be defined as provided in Sections 29-20-103(1) and 29-20-104.5(4),
C.R.S., respectively, including any amendments thereto. The parties agree that the Town’s issuance of a
building permit constitutes a “preliminary or final approval of an application” as provided by C.R.S. 29-20-
103 (1), such that, for purposes of this Agreement, a building permit issued by the Town is a “Development
Permit.”
156
{00606579.DOCX / }
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Assessment and Collection of Emergency Services Impact Fees
2607386.4
2. Establishment of District Impact Fee.
a. The Town agrees to impose an impact fee on New Development that currently is located within both
the Town and the District, or that in the future becomes located within the Town and the District, in accordance
with the Initial Impact Fee established by the Board, or such other impact fee which may be adopted in the
future by resolution of the Board as set forth herein, and further adjusted for inflation as set forth herein
(“District Impact Fee”). The District Impact Fee shall be imposed on all New Development for which a
Building Permit application is submitted to the Town on or after July 1, 2018.
b. Beginning in 2019, if the receipt of fees from the Initial Impact Fee is deemed less than necessary to
defray the impact of New Development on the District, then by September 1 of the then-current calendar year,
the District Board shall, after considering any data which may be available, have the discretion to adopt a
Resolution approving an increased impact fee at a level up to and including the fees authorized by the Impact
Fee Schedule. If such action is taken by the Board, on or before September 10 of the then-current calendar
year, the District shall submit to the Town a copy of: (i) the District Impact Fee; and (ii) the Resolution
approving the District Impact Fee, and such District Impact Fees, as adopted by the Board, shall be effective
January 1 of the following calendar year.
c. The District may additionally update the Nexus Study, at its sole expense and no less frequently than
every seven years ("Updated Nexus Study"). If the Updated Nexus Study recommends any changes to the
then current District Impact Fee greater than those included in the Impact Fee Schedule, then by September 1
of the then-current calendar year, the District Board shall, after considering such recommendations, adopt a
Resolution approving an updated Impact Fee Schedule at a level no greater than necessary to defray the impacts
of New Development on the District's Capital Facilities ("Updated Impact Fee Schedule"). If such Updated
Impact Fee Schedule is adopted, then on or before September 10 of the then-current calendar year, the District
shall submit to the Town a copy of: (i) the Updated Impact Fee Schedule; (ii) the Resolution approving the
Updated Impact Fee Schedule; and, (iii) the Updated Nexus Study. Unless the Town objects to the Updated
Impact Fee Schedule in accordance with Section 6, C below, a copy of the Updated Impact Fee Schedule shall
be effective January 1 of the following calendar year.
d. On December 31 of each year to be effective for any District Impact Fees collected beginning on
January 1 of the following year, the fees set forth in the attached Initial Impact Fee, the Impact Fee Schedule,
or any Updated Impact Fee Schedule shall automatically be adjusted by the increase, if any, in the Denver-
Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) over the preceding twelve-month
period. The District shall provide the Town with an updated Impact Fee Schedule showing the adjusted fees
no later than January 1 of each year.
3. Procedures for Assessment, Collection, and Remittance.
a. As part of its Development Permit application process, the Town shall refer the developer of any
proposed New Development within the District's jurisdictional boundaries which, under the Impact Fee
Schedule (or any Updated Impact Fee Schedule), a District Impact Fee is owed to the District. The developer
and the District may mutually determine whether an in-kind contribution will be made by the developer to the
District in lieu of paying all or any portion a District Impact Fee ("In-Kind Contribution"). The developer and
the District shall sign an Impact Fee Form that is substantially the same as the form attached as Exhibit B,
stating one of the following: (i) a District Impact Fee is not owed; (ii) a District Impact Fee is owed and the
amount of the District Impact Fee; or, (iii) the developer will make an In-Kind Contribution as described in
the Impact Fee Form.
b. The developer shall submit the signed Impact Fee Form with the other documentation required by the
Town as part of the Development Permit application process.
157
{00606579.DOCX / }
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Assessment and Collection of Emergency Services Impact Fees
2607386.4
c. The Town shall promptly notify the District of the Town's final decision on whether to grant or deny
the Development Permit application. If the Town denies the Development Permit application, the developer
shall not be required to pay a District Impact Fee [or make an In-Kind Contribution to the District]. If the
Town grants the application and issues a Development Permit, the Development Permit shall require the
developer to pay the District Impact Fee on behalf of the District, or to make the In-Kind Contribution to the
District], as provided in subsection d, below.
d. The Town shall collect on behalf of the District any District Impact Fee imposed, and shall remit any
collected District Impact Fee within thirty (30) days of its collection. [The District shall be solely responsible
for receiving and confirming receipt of any agreed upon In-Kind Contribution from the developer, if applicable.
The Town shall have no responsibility for ensuring a developer makes any In-Kind Contribution to the District.
The District shall promptly notify the Town when it has accepted the In-Kind Contribution from the developer.
For purposes of this paragraph 3(d), if an In-Kind Contribution to be made by the developer constitutes
construction of improvements, or the conveyance of any apparatus, equipment, or real property, then
"acceptance" shall mean a written agreement between the District and the developer for such construction or
conveyance.]
e. No developer shall be required to provide any site-specific dedication or improvement to meet the
same need for Capital Facilities for which the District Impact Fee is imposed, and no District Impact Fee shall
be imposed on a developer if the developer already is required to pay an impact fee or other similar
development charge for another Capital Facility used to provide similar Emergency Services, or if the
developer has voluntarily contributed money for such other Capital Facility.
f. The District shall account for all District Impact Fees in accordance with Part 8 of Article 1 of Title
29, Colorado Revised Statutes. On or before February 1 of each year, the District shall provide the Town with
a written report outlining: (i) the amount of District Impact Fees collected, by land use category; (ii) the Capital
Facilities for which the District Impact Fees were used; and (iii) how the Capital Facilities support New
Development within the District’s jurisdiction.
g. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall invalidate any existing agreement for impact fees or
development charges between the District and a developer to pay for Capital Facilities.
h. The Town may assess an administrative fee of up to five (5) % to cover the actual and reasonable costs
related to the collection and remittance of District impact fees.
4. Use of District Impact Fees; Records.
a. All District Impact Fees shall be utilized by the District solely for the purpose of defraying projected
impacts on Capital Facilities caused by New Development in accordance with applicable law, including but
not limited to, C.R.S. § 29-20-104.5.
b. Upon request, the District agrees to make available its accounting records related to the District Impact
Fees and Capital Facilities and audits to the Town or the Town’s designated representatives for verification of
compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
5. Effective Date and Term. This Agreement is effective as of the date the last Party signs this Agreement,
and shall continue in effect until terminated in accordance with its terms.
6. Termination.
a. The Parties may at any time mutually agree in writing to terminate this Agreement.
158
{00606579.DOCX / }
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Assessment and Collection of Emergency Services Impact Fees
2607386.4
b. The District may at any time terminate this Agreement upon 30 calendar days prior written notice to
the Town. The Town may terminate this Agreement upon six (6) months prior written notice to the District.
c. Within 30 calendar days of receiving an Updated Impact Fee Schedule and/or an Updated Nexus
Study, the Town may send the District written notice that it objects to the Updated Impact Fee Schedule. The
Parties shall promptly meet to determine if they can agree upon a mutually acceptable Updated Impact Fee
Schedule, or to continue the then-current Impact Fee Schedule. If the Parties are unable to agree upon a
mutually acceptable Updated Impact Fee Schedule, or to continue the then-current Impact Fee Schedule, the
Town may terminate this Agreement upon 30 calendar days prior written notice to the District, and the Town
shall cease imposing the District Impact Fee as of the effective date this Agreement is terminated.
7. Default. If either Party defaults in its performance under this Agreement, the non-defaulting Party shall
notify the defaulting Party of the default. The defaulting Party shall have the right to cure, or to make
substantial efforts to cure, the default within 30 calendar days after the non-defaulting Party's notice of default
is given. If the defaulting Party fails to cure, or to make substantial efforts to cure, the default within the 30
day period, the non-defaulting Party, at its option, may immediately terminate this Agreement or may elect to
treat this Agreement as being in full force and effect. If the non-defaulting Party elects to treat this Agreement
as being in full force and effect, then the non-defaulting Party shall have the right to bring an action for any
remedy available to such Party in equity or at law.
8. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the District shall, at its own expense, be responsible for
defending any and all claims (whether filed against the Town, District, or both) arising from the Town’s
adoption, enforcement or implementation of the District Impact Fees or this Agreement; for its attorney fees
and costs; and for the payment of any final monetary judgment entered against the Town in any such action.
9. Governmental Immunity. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of the limitations
on damages or any of the privileges, immunities, or defenses provided to, or enjoyed by, the Parties under
common law or pursuant to statute, including but not limited to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act,
C.R.S. § 24-10-101, et seq.
10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the matters
covered by it, and supersedes any prior understanding or agreements, oral or written, with respect thereto.
11. Notices and Requests. Any notice permitted or required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall
be hand-delivered or sent by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the
following addresses. Notices are effective upon receipt.
Town of Estes Park Estes Valley Fire Protection District
Attn: Town Administrator Attn: Fire Chief
1700 MacGregor Avenue 901 N. Saint Vrain Avenue
P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park CO 80517
Estes Park, CO 80517
12. Financial Obligations of the Parties. Any financial obligation of a Party under this Agreement is
contingent upon appropriation, budgeting, and availability of specific funds to discharge those obligations.
Nothing in this Agreement constitutes a debt, a direct or indirect multiple fiscal year financial obligation, a
pledge of a Party’s credit, or a payment guarantee by one Party to the other.
13. Miscellaneous. Colorado law governs this Agreement. The Parties agree to enter into good faith discussion
and mediation of any dispute prior to filing an action in District Court to enforce the terms of this Agreement.
Jurisdiction and venue shall lie exclusively in the County of Larimer District Court. This Agreement may be
159
{00606579.DOCX / }
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Assessment and Collection of Emergency Services Impact Fees
2607386.4
amended only by a document signed by the Parties. Course of performance, no matter how long, shall not
constitute an amendment to this Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable,
all other provisions shall continue in full force and effect. Waiver of a breach of this Agreement shall not operate
or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of this Agreement. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit
of and be binding upon the Parties and their legal representatives and successors. Neither Party shall assign this
Agreement. This Agreement is not intended to, and shall not, confer rights on any person or entity not named as
a party to this Agreement. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and by facsimile or electronic PDF,
each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT
By: By:
Doug Klink, Board President
Date: Date:
ATTESTED: ATTESTED:
Town Clerk Board Secretary
160
Exhibit A
{00606579.DOCX / }
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Assessment and Collection of Emergency Services Impact Fees
2607386.4
ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
EMERGENCY SERVICES IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
Effective January ____, 2018
No individual landowner is required to provide any site-specific dedication or improvement to meet
the same need for capital facilities for which an impact fee is imposed pursuant to this schedule.
161
Attachment 1—Impact Fee Study
{00606579.DOCX / }
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Assessment and Collection of Emergency Services Impact Fees
2607386.4
ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
IMPACT FEE FORM
Developer Information
Development
Company
State of
Incorporation
Address
Telephone
Fax
Contact Person
Name
Title
Telephone
Cell Phone
Email
Address
Development Information
Name of
Development
Location (Address
or Cross Streets)
Residential Units Non-Residential Square Footage
Single Units
($___ per unit)
Commercial
($___ per square foot)
2+ Units
($___ per unit)
Impact Fee
Check one: No impact fee owed or Impact fee owed in the amount of $________________________
If applicable: An in-kind contribution will be made in lieu of paying all or a portion of an impact fee.
Description of the in-kind contribution (attach additional information if necessary) and amount of impact fee
off-set:
The developer must submit this signed Impact Fee Form with the other documentation required by the Town of
Estes Park as part of its development permit application process. If the Town denies the application, the developer
is not required to pay the Impact Fee or make an In-Kind Contribution to the District. If the Town grants the
application and issues a development permit, the developer must pay the Impact Fee and/or make the In-Kind
Contribution or enter into a written agreement with the District before the Town will issue a certificate of
occupancy in connection with the development.
DEVELOPER: ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
By: By: David Wolf, Fire Chief
Date: Date: ____________________________________
162
Attachment 1—Impact Fee Study
{00606579.DOCX / }
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Assessment and Collection of Emergency Services Impact Fees
2607386.4
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
FINANCE DEPARTMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director
Date: 3/27/18
RE: Resolution # 07-18, Supplemental Budget Appropriations to the 2018
Budget
Objective:
Re-appropriate remaining balances on uncompleted projects in 2018 to fund completion
of the projects started in 2017. This amendment also some additional appropriations for
new items identified in 2018.
Present Situation:
At the end of each year, the Town will have certain purchases, contracts or projects
already in progress that were not completed within the fiscal year just ending. 2017 was
no exception to this process with several projects under construction at year end.
These projects were budgeted in 2017 but were not completed within the year. The
Town follows the practice of budgeting for the full project up front when possible,
requiring the funding to be clearly identified and budgeted before the project can start.
The 2018 budget was developed with the expectation that these projects would be
completed and the appropriations would be fully utilized. Since the projects were not
completed, the unused appropriations fall to fund balance and must be re-appropriated
in 2018 to allow completion of them. This is similar to PO’s which were rolled last
month but these are for project balances not committed to a PO or contract yet. Also,
the grants associated with some of these projects must also be rolled over into 2018 to
help pay for the project costs. This is a standard accounting process common to
governmental entities that perform significant capital projects each year.
The following contains explanations of the more significant items to be rolled forward
into 2018:
177
Summary of Supplemental Appropriations:
General Fund – Increase of $1,569,030
This includes rollovers of $1,527,105 in capital projects as noted on the attached
schedule of capital projects. Related grant revenue increases were included as well. A
pending FEMA “scope change” grant amendment of $522,919 for the Fish Creek Road
project was not included in the project grant revenues due to the uncertainty of when
FEMA will process the amendment.
The General Fund increase also included $30,000 for contract labor in the Community
Development Department to hire temp agency staffing for office assistance in an effort
to allow staff time to address vacation home building code amendments and other
vacation home matters. Another item is for additional community initiative funding of
$11,176 resulting from a communication error with the original budget. $20,000 had
been included in the budget when it was intended to be closer to $32,000. The funds
had already been awarded by board action to supported organizations before this was
discovered.
Community Reinvestment Fund – Increase of $1,170,039
This includes rollovers of $396,600 in capital projects as noted on the attached
schedule of capital projects. Related grant revenue increases were included as well.
The Moraine Ave Bridge project had an additional increase of $295,439 along with a
matching increase in grant funding. To allow the US 36 / Community Dr Intersection to
move forward, the $400,000 originally put into reserves has been appropriated and
$123,500 in funding from the parking lot repair project was redirected to this purpose.
Once the preliminary design comes back, we will know how much more is needed.
Staff is hoping the CRF fund balance may have enough to move this project forward this
year.
Larimer County Open Space Fund – Increase of $847,084
This is primarily rollover for the open space / trails work done as part of the Fish Creek
Road Repair project. It should be noted that the Open Space Fund is projected to end
2017 with a deficit fund balance of $297,212 due to timing of grant reimbursements
receivable related to the Fish Creek Road Repair project at the end of 2017. To cover
this 2017 deficit fund balance, $300,000 is being transferred from the 1A Trails
Expansion Fund to help pay for the open space / trail work along Fish Creek Road.
This piece of the entire project qualifies for either Open Space or 1A Trails Expansion
Fund so we are still using the restricted funds in an acceptable manner.
This deficit stems from a Feb 2017 “scope change” grant amendment that has been
pending in front of FEMA for several months. The State has already reimbursed the
Town up to the amount currently approved but cannot reimburse any more costs until
FEMA takes action. Due to this, the full amount of this pending grant amendment of
$941,519 has been removed from projected grant revenues in this budget amendment.
In this manner, even if FEMA denies all of this grant amendment, the costs of the Open
Space work will be covered. Once FEMA approves the grant amendment and
reimbursements occur, other Open Space projects can be added back to the budget.
178
Trails Expansion Fund – Decrease of $100,000
The Trails Expansion Fund appropriations were decreased by $400,000 to defer the
Brodie Ave Trail Improvement project into 2019. This change freed up sufficient funds
to transfer $300,000 to the Open Space fund for the Fish Creek Road open space /
trails work as described above.
Street Improvement Fund – Increase of $18,256
This is primarily for the Brodie Ave improvement project which was partially funded by
the $336,000 safe routes to school grant awarded in 2018. Originally, $300,000 had
been budgeted for Brodie Ave and to offset the grant revenues, the appropriations for
this project were increased $36,000 to match the grant. Due to the need to delay
Brodie Ave into 2019 due to the Fish Creek Road project as mentioned above, the
additional funds needed to complete Brodie will not be appropriated until 2019. The
increase of $36,000 has been partially offset by closing a $17,744 PO rolled forward last
month that is no longer needed.
Light & Power Fund – Increase of $1,329,437
This includes rollovers of $680,437 in capital projects as noted on the attached
schedule of capital projects. An additional $649,000 in appropriations and $649,000 in
additional revenues are included for a large contract with PRPA to install fiber for them
in the Glen Haven area.
Water Fund – Increase of $1,393,347
This is for rollovers of $1,393,347 in 2017 projects as noted on the attached schedule.
The largest item is the Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline system design and construction
project which will be funded by a USDA loan later in the year.
The remaining amendments for the other funds are detailed out on Attachment B.
Proposal:
Staff is seeking approval of the amended 2018 Budget and its accompanying resolution.
Advantages:
The Town will be able to operate in compliance with statutory requirements regarding
municipal budget law. The Town will also be able to complete the projects already
underway at year end.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the 2018 supplemental budget appropriation resolution to
roll these projects forward from 2017 along with the additional appropriations as
mentioned above.
179
Finance/Resource Impact:
The rollover of uncompleted 2017 projects was factored into the development of the
2018 budget so rollover of these projects will not negatively impact fund balances.
Level of Public Interest
Limited
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Resolution # 07-18 appropriating additional sums of
money for the Town of Estes Park for the budget year ended December 31, 2018.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution for Supplemental Budget Appropriations to the 2018 Budget.
Attachment B: Recaps of Proposed Budget Adjustments and Supporting Documents
180
Attachment A
RESOLUTION FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS TO THE 2018 BUDGET
NO. 07-18
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has adopted the 2018
annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 28th, 2017;
and
WHEREAS, appropriations for certain projects underway in 2017 that have not been
encumbered with a purchase order need to be rolled over to facilitate completion of these
projects; and
WHEREAS, additional projects and activities have been identified that were not known or
included in the original annual budget; and
WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the revenues
provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below, so as not to impair the
operations of the Town of Estes Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
That the appropriations be increased by $6,272,945 for funds specified below and these
amounts are hereby appropriated from additional revenue or available fund balance of each
fund.
Fund
#
Fund Name Existing
Appropriations
Amendment Amended
Appropriations
101 General Fund 18,545,441 1,569,030 20,114,471
204 Community Reinvestment Fund 2,726,745 1,170,039 3,896,784
211 Conservation Trust Fund 32,541 0 32,541
220 Larimer County Open Space Fund 512,345 781,385 1,293,730
236 Emergency Response System Fund 45,685 0 45,685
238 Community Center Fund 696,700 0 696,700
244 Trails Fund 400,000 (100,000) 300,000
260 Street Fund 5,617,577 18,256 5,635,833
502 Light & Power Fund 18,653,594 1,329,437 19,983,031
503 Water Fund 8,825,441 1,393,347 10,218,788
606 Medical Insurance Fund 2,002,909 0 2,002,909
612 Fleet Maintenance Fund 426,571 0 426,571
625 Information Technology Fund 715,771 0 715,771
635 Vehicle Replacement Fund 255,465 111,451 366,916
Total All Funds 59,456,785 6,272,945 65,729,730
181
Attachment A
ADOPTED this 27th day of March, 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
182
TOWN OF ESTES PARKRECAP OF PROPOSED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTSFOR YEAR ENDED 12-31-2018RESOLUTION 07-18AS OF MARCH 27, 2018101204211220236238244260GENERAL FUNDCOMMUNITY REINVESTMENT CONSERVATION TRUSTLARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACEEMERGENCY RESPONSECOMMUNITY CENTERTRAILSSTREETRevenues, As Amended$22,575,351 $3,830,396$32,550 $1,713,847$69,800 $696,700 $356,930 $2,021,900Expenses, As Amended20,114,471 3,896,78432,541 1,293,73045,685696,700300,000 5,635,833Net2,460,880(66,388)9420,11724,115056,930 (3,613,933)Estimated Beginning Fund Balance, 1/1/181,685,219609,37753,119 (297,212)31,8020193,744 4,136,981Estimated Ending Fund Balance, 12/31/18$4,146,099 $542,989$53,128 $122,905$55,917$0 $250,674 $523,048Budget Reserves Community Drive / US 36 Intersection (Appropriated in 18) FLAP reserve Nonspendable Prepaid Fund Balance & Restricted Donation60,000 Total Restricted Fund Balance 60,000 20.3%502 503 606 612 625 635LIGHT & POWER WATERMEDICAL INSURANCE FLEETINFORMATION TECHNOLOGYVEHICLE REPLACEMENT TOTALRevenues, As Amended $16,952,962 $5,596,748 $2,590,625 $428,825 $726,276 $892,419 $58,485,329Expenses, As Amended 19,983,031 10,218,788 2,002,909 426,571 715,771 366,916 65,729,730Net (3,030,069) (4,622,040) 587,716 2,254 10,505 525,503 (7,244,401)Estimated Beginning Fund Balance, 1/1/18 8,577,461 7,977,106 809,414 470,571 255,695 1,484,478 25,987,755Estimated Ending Fund Balance, 12/31/18 $5,547,392 $3,355,066 $1,397,130 $472,825 $266,200 $2,009,981 $18,743,354Attachment B183
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
FOR YEAR ENDED 12-31-2018
RESOLUTION 07-18
AS OF MARCH 27, 2018
Fund/Dept Fund Name Current Budget
Resolution
# 03-18
Budget
As Amended
101 GENERAL FUND 17,354,656 5,220,695 22,575,351
204 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 3,010,230 820,166 3,830,396
211 CONSERVATION TRUST 32,550 - 32,550
220 LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE 608,155 1,105,692 1,713,847
236 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 69,800 - 69,800
238 COMMUNITY CENTER 696,700 - 696,700
244 TRAILS 352,100 4,830 356,930
260 STREET 1,685,900 336,000 2,021,900
502 LIGHT & POWER 16,279,710 673,252 16,952,962
503 WATER 5,596,748 - 5,596,748
606 MEDICAL INSURANCE 2,590,625 - 2,590,625
612 FLEET 428,825 - 428,825
625 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 726,276 - 726,276
635 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT 892,419 - 892,419
TOTAL 50,324,694 8,160,635 58,485,329
Attachment B 184
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
FOR YEAR ENDED 12-31-2018
RESOLUTION 07-18
AS OF MARCH 27, 2018
Fund/Dept Fund Name Current Budget
Resolution
# 03-18
Budget As
Amended
101 GENERAL FUND
101-1100 Legislative 213,362 - 213,362
101-1200 Judicial 80,131 - 80,131
101-1300 Executive 360,886 19,204 380,090
101-1400 Admin Svcs 614,185 25,683 639,868
101-1500 Finance 549,452 - 549,452
101-1600 Com Dev ( Planning)805,068 - 805,068
101-1700 Facilities 1,053,264 272,067 1,325,331
101-1800 Employee Benefits 159,651 - 159,651
101-1900 Community Service Grants 1,059,065 11,176 1,070,241
101-2100 Police - Patrol 3,359,637 - 3,359,637
101-2155 Police - Communications 1,003,181 - 1,003,181
101-2175 Police - Comm Svcs 348,097 - 348,097
101-2300 Building Safety Divison 559,092 30,000 589,092
101-2400 Engineering 512,412 16,985 529,397
101-2600 Visitor Center 461,529 - 461,529
101-3100 Streets 1,692,074 1,193,915 2,885,989
101-5200 Parks 1,182,604 - 1,182,604
101-5304 Senior Center 21,250 - 21,250
101-5500 Special Events 2,333,439 - 2,333,439
101-5600 Transit 466,678 - 466,678
101-5700 Museum 360,062 - 360,062
101-9000 Transfers 1,350,322 - 1,350,322
101 GENERAL FUND 18,545,441 1,569,030 20,114,471
204 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 2,726,745 1,170,039 3,896,784
211 CONSERVATION TRUST 32,541 - 32,541
220 LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE 512,345 781,385 1,293,730
236 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 45,685 - 45,685
238 COMMUNITY CENTER 696,700 - 696,700
244 TRAILS 400,000 (100,000) 300,000
260 STREET 5,617,577 18,256 5,635,833
502 LIGHT & POWER 18,653,594 1,329,437 19,983,031
503 WATER 8,825,441 1,393,347 10,218,788
606 MEDICAL INSURANCE 2,002,909 - 2,002,909
612 FLEET 426,571 - 426,571
625 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 715,771 - 715,771
635 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT 255,465 111,451 366,916
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 59,456,785 6,272,945 65,729,730
Attachment B 185
TOWN OF ESTES PARKSCHEDULE OF CAPITAL PROJECTSFOR YEAR ENDED 12-31-2018RESOLUTION 07-18AS OF MARCH 27, 2018Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION Current 2018 Capital Project Budget 2018 Budget Realloc / Adjs by Depts 2017 Projects to Roll Forward 2018 Additional Appropriation Current 2018 Capital Project Budget VETERANS MEMORIAL PROJECT VETMON 101-1300-413-31-13 LAND IMPROVEMENTS - - - - WILLOW KNOLLS LEGACY PROJECT WILL17 101-1300-413-31-13 LAND IMPROVEMENTS - - 18,455 749 19,204 DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE & EQUIP DOCMGT 101-1400-414.37-01 SOFTWARE 133,800 - 25,683 159,483 DOWNTOWN ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DTDOLA 101-1600-416.22-13 CONTRACT/SKILLED SERVICES - - - - FLEET/STREETS ROOF FLROOF 101-1700-417.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING - - 150,000 150,000 PAINT EXTERIOR OF FISH HATCHERY RENTALS HPAINT 101-1700-417.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING - (32,100) 32,100 - TOWN HALL ROOFS ( ENGINEERING & PD WINGS) THROOF 101-1700-417.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING - - - - WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECT MGT WFHOUS 101-1700-417.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING - 32,100 - 32,100 TOWN HALL ELEVATOR -NA- 101-1700-417.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING - - - - TOWN HALL WINDOWS (CD & BS SIDE) THWIND 101-1700-417.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 55,000 - 70,000 125,000 MPEC SERVER ROOM AC EC AC 101-1700-417.33-32 OFFICE EQUIPMENT - - 10,000 10,000 SECURITY CAMERAS PHASE 2 SECCAM 101-1700-417.33-32 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 16,033 - 9,967 26,000 MORAINE AVE BRIDGE MORBRG 101-2400-424.22-02 ENGINEERING 86,283 - 16,985 103,268 STORMWATER MASTER PLAN STORM 101-2400-424.22-02 ENGINEERING 37,038 - - 37,038 STORMWATER UTILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY STMFEE 101-2400-424-22-02 ENGINEERING 10,294 - (0) 10,294 SANDER REPLACEMENTS - 2 STSNDR 101-3100-431.34-98 OTHER MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 16,000 - - 16,000 FISH CREEK ROAD REPAIRS FHWAFC 101-3100-431.36-55 FHWA-FISH CREEK REPAIRS 461,618 - 1,138,702 1,600,320 FISH CREEK ROAD REPAIRS5CATC 101-3100-431.36-55 FHWA-FISH CREEK REPAIRS47,718 - 55,213 102,931 SMALL 4X4 TRUCK, CART, ETC.ECCART 101-5200-452.34-98 OTHER MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT1,001 - - 1,001 SANDER REPLACEMENT - 1ECSNDR 101-5200-452.34-98 OTHER MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT10,000 - - 10,000 ATV & WEED SPRAYERWEEDSP 101-5200-452-34-98 OTHER MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT20,000 - - 20,000 REBUILD ARENA FOOTING AT EVENT CENTER ARNAFT 101-5500-455.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING125,000 - - 125,000 EVENT CENTER ACOUSTIC IMPROVEMENTECACST 101-5500-455-33-31 FURNITURE/FIXTURES60,000 - - 60,000 MOBILE STAGEMSTAGE 101-5500-455-33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT150,000 - - 150,000 REAL TIME PASSENGER INFORMATION SERVICERTINFO 101-5600-456-33-33 DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT8,300 - - 8,300 TOTAL GENERAL FUND1,238,085 - 1,527,105 749 2,765,939 MUSEUM COLLECTIONS AND RESEARCH FACILITYMUSCOL 204-5400-544.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING- 81,100 81,100 MUSEUM REMODELMUSREM 204-5400-544.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING- 192,000 192,000 PARKING GARAGE COUNTER & COM EQUIPPCOUNT 204-5400-544-33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT- - 40,000 40,000 COMMUNITY DR ENGINEERING DESIGNCOMMDR 204-5400-544.35-51 STREETS50,000 26,000 - 76,000 MORAINE AVE BRIDGEMORBRG 204-5400-544.35-51 STREETS1,589,712 - 295,439 1,885,151 COMMUNITY DR INTERSECTION CONSTRUCTIONCDINTR 204-5400-544.35-51 STREETS- 97,500 - 400,000 497,500 DOWNTOWN PARKING PLAN DTNPKG 204-5400-544.35-52 PARKING LOTS5,169 - 5,169 PARKING GARAGECVBPRK 204-5400-544.35-52 PARKING LOTS6,000 - 6,000 PARKING LOT REPAIRSPARKLT 204-5400-544.35-52 PARKING LOTS- (123,500) 123,500 - DMS ELECTRONIC SIGNS US36/US34 DYNMSG 204-5400-544.36-52 FEDERAL GRANTS-CMAQ138,354 - 38,000 176,354 TOTAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND1,789,235 - 396,600 773,439 2,959,274 SCOTT PONDS (CARRIAGE HILLS) DAMCDBGCH 220-4600-462.22-02 ENGINEERING5,140 - 5,140 MORAINE AVE BRIDGEMORBRG 220-4600-462-35-60 WALKWAYS & BIKEWAYS225,000 - 225,000 MACGREGOR AVE TRAIL MCGRTR 220-4600-462.35-60 WALKWAYS & BIKEWAYS- - - FISH CREEK TRAIL11CATG 220-4600-462.35-60 WALKWAYS & BIKEWAYS239,905 781,385 1,021,290 IRRIG IMPR RIVERWALK US36 TO CHILDRENS PARK, LIBRARY, PRKIRR 220-4600-462.35-61 PARK IMPROVEMENTS- - VISITOR CENTER BIG T RIVERBANK STABILIZATION VCRVRB 220-4600-462.35-61 PARK IMPROVEMENTS- - - TOTAL LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND470,045 - 781,385 - 1,251,430 Attachment B186
Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION Current 2018 Capital Project Budget 2018 Budget Realloc / Adjs by Depts 2017 Projects to Roll Forward 2018 Additional Appropriation Current 2018 Capital Project Budget 4TH DISPATCH CONSOLE PROJECT DCCONS 236-3600-436.33-31 - - - TOTAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM FUND - - - - - - - BRODIE TRAIL EXTENSIONBRODIE 244-3400-434-35-60 WALKWAYS & BIKEWAYS400,000 - (400,000) - MACGREGOR AVE NORTH OF WONDERVIEW IMPROVEMENTMCGRTR 244-3400-434.36-60 FED GRANT-FR TRAIL NEPA- - - FALL RIVER TRAIL FRTRL 244-3400-434.36-60- - - TOTAL TRAILS FUND400,000 - - (400,000) - GENERAL ENGINEERING AND DRAINAGE DESIGN WORK GENENG 260-2000-420.22-02 ENGINEERING- - - MACGREGOR AVE IMPROVEMENTSMCGRTR 260-2000-420.35-51 STREETS- - - DRY GULCH ROAD REBUILDDRYGUL 260-2000-420.35-51 STREETS- - - STREET OVERLAYSOVRLAY 260-2000-420-35-51 STREETS600,000 (100,000) - 500,000 BRODIE AVE IMPROVEMENTSBRODIE 260-2000-420-35-51 STREETS- 300,000 - 36,000 336,000 FLAP/RAMP ESTIMATED COSTSFLAP 260-2000-420.36-60 FED GRANT - FLAP- - - TOTAL STREET FUND600,000 200,000 - 36,000 836,000 PARKING GARAGECVBPRK 502-6301-540.25-33 UNDERGROUND- - - GLEN HAVEN FIBER INSTALL FOR PRPAGHFIBR 502-6301-540-25-33 UNDERGROUND- - 649,000 649,000 OFFICE EQUIPMENTEQUIP 502-7001-580.33-32 OFFICE EQUIPMENT- - - SERVER FOR METERING - AMI MTRSVR 502-7001-580.33-33 DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT- - - METERSELMTR 502-7001-580.33-34 METERS515,000 - 515,000 TRANSFORMER PURCHASESTRANSF 502-7001-580.33-35 TRANSFORMERS157,824 - 157,824 SMART METER PURCHASESSMRTEL 502-7001-580.33-36 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT10,000 25,000 35,000 NONSPECIFIC TOOLSEQUIP 502-7001-580.33-41 TOOLS40,638 - 40,638 SKID STEER TRAILERLPSKID 502-7001-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT20,000 - 20,000 SNOW OUTAGE EQUIPMENTSNWEQU 502-7001-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT30,000 - 30,000 EQUIPMENT TRAILERLPTRLR 502-7001-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT15,000 - 15,000 PLOWLPPLOW 502-7001-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT15,000 - 15,000 NONSPECIFIC EQUIPMENTEQUIP 502-7001-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT20,000 - 20,000 STREET LIGHTING, POLES & FIXTURES LIGHTS 502-7001-580.35-55 STREET LIGHTS50,000 - 50,000 2017 ELECTRIC LINE REBUILDS LRBLDS 502-7001-580.35-57 OVERHEAD LINES- - - OH LINE REBUILD - GOBLIN CASTLEGC2018 502-7001-580.35-57 OVERHEAD LINES115,000 (10,000) - 105,000 OH LINE REBUILD - LONGS PEAK AREALP2018 502-7001-580.35-57 OVERHEAD LINES160,000 (20,000) - 140,000 OH LINE REBUILD - DANDIE WAYDWAY18 502-7001-580.35-57 OVERHEAD LINES50,000 - 50,000 OH LINE REBUILD - HWY 34 OHBT18 502-7001-580.35-57 OVERHEAD LINES200,000 (45,000) - 155,000 ALLENSPARK CIRCUIT OVERHEAD WORKAP2016 502-7001-580.35-57 OVERHEAD LINES64,413 - 64,413 ALLENSPARK CIRCUIT UNDERGROUND WORKAP2016 502-7001-580.35-58 UNDERGROUND CONDUCTORS- 169,885 169,885 UNDERGROUND LINE REBUILD - NONSPECIFICLRBLDS 502-7001-580.35-58 UNDERGROUND CONDUCTORS125,000 - 125,000 FISH CREEK PHASE II UNDERGROUND LINES FISHC2 502-7001-580.35-58 UNDERGROUND CONDUCTORS- 183,807 183,807 MORAINE AVE BRIDGE UTILITY CROSSINGMORB17 502-7001-580.35-58 UNDERGROUND CONDUCTORS15,191 74,943 90,134 MORAINE BRIDGE SOUTH - L&PMORAVE 502-7001-580.35-58 UNDERGROUND CONDUCTORS50,000 (50,000) - NEW SERVICE CONNECTIONSWOKEXT 502-7001-580.35-59 CUSTOMER SERVICE LINES150,000 - 150,000 BROADBAND PROJECTBB0001 502-7001-580.35-66 FIBER OPTIC INSTALL10,000 27,726 37,726 MIDDLE MILE FIBER TO ALENSPARK/LITTLE VALLEYAP2016 502-7001-580.35-66 FIBER OPTIC INSTALL21,244 188,450 209,694 WATER JETMINIJET 502-7001-580.35-66 FIBER OPTIC INSTALL28,822 - 28,822 HWY 34 FIBER OPTIC INSTALLFOBT18 502-7001-580.35-66 FIBER OPTIC INSTALL250,000 - 250,000 GIS MAPPING IMPROVEMENTSGIS18 502-7001-580.37-01 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT- 75,000 - 75,000 AR & CLICK-TO-GOV UTILITY BILLING MODULESUBPRTL 502-7001-580.37-01 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT- 60,626 60,626 TOTAL LIGHT & POWER FUND2,113,132 - 680,437 649,000 3,442,569 Attachment B187
Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION Current 2018 Capital Project Budget 2018 Budget Realloc / Adjs by Depts 2017 Projects to Roll Forward 2018 Additional Appropriation Current 2018 Capital Project Budget GLACIER CREEK LAND CONSOLIDATION PROJECT GCLAND 503-7000-580.31-11 LAND 170,000 - 170,000 BUILDING WORK AT GLACIER PLANT GPBLDG 503-7000-580.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING - 30,000 30,000 MARY'S LAKE WTP - METERING/CFE SAMPLING VAULT MLVALT 503-7000-580.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 35,000 - 35,000 GLACIER CREEK WTP - DISCHARGE OUT STRUCTURE GCDSCH 503-7000-580.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 110,000 - 110,000 WONDERWARE SOFTWARE WONDER 503-7000-580.33-33 DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT - 19,000 - 19,000 METER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SMRTW 503-7000-580.33-34 METERS 300,000 - 300,000 SCADA UPGRADES AT GLACIER WTP GPSCAD 503-7000-580.33-36 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 70,207 119,777 35,823 225,807 VARIOUS LAB EQUIPMENT EQUIP 503-7000-580.33-37 LABORATORY EQUIPMENT - - - FEEDER REPLACEMENT WTFEED 503-7000-580.33-40 PURIFICATION EQUIPMENT 17,000 - 17,000 STORAGE TANK MIXER WTMIXR 503-7000-580.33-40 PURIFICATION EQUIPMENT 16,000 12,000 28,000 TOC ANALYZER, UPS, UV 254 ANALYZER WTTOC 503-7000-580-33-40 PURIFICATION EQUIPMENT - 35,000 - 35,000 CONFINED SPACE ENTRY EQUIPMENT WTTOOL 503-7000-580.33-41 TOOLS 5,000 - 5,000 WALK BEHIND ASPHALT SAW WTTOOL 503-7000-580.33-41 TOOLS 28,000 12,000 - 40,000 PRESSURE TESTING EQUIPMENT WTTOOL 503-7000-580.33-41 TOOLS 17,000 - 17,000 SAFETY EQUIP (TRENCH BOXES AND SPEED SHORING EQUIP) WTTOOL 503-7000-580.33-41 TOOLS 30,000 - 30,000 BULK WATER DISPENSER WTDISP 503-7000-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 35,000 - 35,000 TANDEM AXLE DUMP TRUCK 90393 503-7000-580.34-42 TRUCKS 162,000 - 162,000 NCWCD SUBDISTRICT WATER RIGHTS (INCLUSIONS) NCWTR 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM - - - PRV VAULT METERING PVRMTR 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM - 16,000 16,000 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT - 2017 17WTRL 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM - - - PEMPWCo SYSTEM DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION PEMPWC 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 72,000 1,041,075 1,113,075 MORAINE AVE BRIDGE UTILITY CROSSINGMORB17 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM91,445 218,093 309,538 REDUNDANT WATER SOURCE - BIG THOMPSON WATER RIGHWTRABT 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM- - - ACACIA DR 8" MAIN HYDRANTSACACIA 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM30,000 - 30,000 PRESSURE REDUCTION VALVE/METERINGPRVLM 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM16,000 - 16,000 CIP ASPEN AVE LINE REPLASPENL 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM180,760 - 180,760 4TH STREET LINE REPL4STLR 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM250,000 - 250,000 HWY 34 TO VISTA LANE LINE REPLH34LR 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM175,000 - 175,000 18" MAIN VALVE INSTALLATIONS18VALV 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM120,000 - 120,000 NCWCD MUNICIPAL SUBDISTRICT INCLUSIONSNCWCD 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM21,000 - 21,000 GLACIER CREEK WTP INTAKE ENGINEERINGGCINTK 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM110,356 - 110,356 CIP ROCKWELL/WEST RIVERSIDE DR 16" MAINROCKWL 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM320,000 - 320,000 CIP BUREAU AREA PHASE 2WTBRP2 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM220,000 (220,000) - - CIP BIG THOMPSON AVE (HWY 34) MAINBTHOMP 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM507,903 - 507,903 UTILITY MASTER PLANWTRMPL 503-7000-580.35-62 UT SYSTEM MASTER PLAN- 40,356 40,356 GIS WORKWTRGIS 503-7000-580.37-01 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT- 48,000 - 48,000 CIP USA WATER RIGHTS WITH BORWTRRBR 503-7000-580.37-10 WATER RIGHTS44,000 - 44,000 TOTAL WATER FUND3,153,671 13,777 1,393,347 - 4,560,795 PUBLIC ACCESS WIFI PROJECTSIPA17 625-2500-425.33-33 DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT- - - ALLENSPARK NETWORK GEAR APNETW 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT- - - FIBER SWITCH GEAR TO LONGMONT NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT- - - FIREWALLSNETWRK 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT40,000 - 40,000 NEW NETWORK SERVER NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT20,000 - 20,000 NEW NETWORK SWITCHES NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT10,000 - 10,000 CONTENT FILTER APPLIANCENETWRK 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT7,000 - 7,000 PRPA RING SWITCHES/GEAR FOR NEW CIRCUIT NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT- - - TOTAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND77,000 - - - 77,000 Attachment B188
Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION Current 2018 Capital Project Budget 2018 Budget Realloc / Adjs by Depts 2017 Projects to Roll Forward 2018 Additional Appropriation Current 2018 Capital Project Budget EVENTS G-123 06 BOBCAT 2200 4X4 G-123 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS - - - L&P 93323A 06 FORD F-550 4X4 93323A 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS 11,893 - 11,893 PARKS G-60A FORD F-550 4X4 G-60A 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS 14,722 - 14,722 POLICE G-78B 09 DODGE CHARGER G-78B 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS - - - STREETS G-63A 08 FORD F-550 4X4 G-63A 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS 12,852 - 12,852 STREETS G-75B 06 GMC K3500 4X4 G-75B 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS - - - SMALL 4X4 TRUCK, CART, ETC. ECCART 635-7000-435.34-42 OTHER MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 7,997 - 7,997 WATER TRUCK BEDS FOR 2 TRUCKS - 9032C & 9033B BD9032 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS - - - L&P FORK LIFT REPLACEMENTS - 2 - 93387A & 93388A 93387A 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS - 62,329 62,329 L&P UNIT # 93342 - NEW ADDITIONAL TRUCK 93342 635-7000-435-34-42 TRUCKS - - - WATER FUND JD EXCAVATOR 90393 635-7000-435-34-42 TRUCKS - 29,122 29,122 POLICE G-72 PD INTERCEPTOR G-72 635-7000-435-34-42 TRUCKS 40,071 - 20,000 60,071 POLICE LIGHT BARS G-72 635-7000-435-34-42 TRUCKS 14,000 - 14,000 L&P UNIT 93319 - 07 GMC K1500 4X4 93319 635-7000-435-34-42 TRUCKS 30,485 - 30,485 L&P UNIT 93315B - 11 FORD EXPLOYER 93315B 635-7000-435-34-42 TRUCKS 33,445 - 33,445 POLICE NEW PATROL CAR FOR NEW OFFICER POSITION G149 635-7000-435-34-42 TRUCKS 60,000 - 60,000 PW NEW FACILITIES MAINT WORKER TRUCK G212 635-7000-435-34-42 TRUCKS 30,000 - 30,000 TOTAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 255,465 - 91,451 20,000 366,916 TOTAL PROJECT RECAP 10,096,633 213,777 4,870,325 1,079,188 16,259,923 Attachment B189
190
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Utilities Director Bergsten
Utilities Coordinator Rusch
Date: March 27, 2018
RE: Policy 901 - Utility Fee Waivers
Objective:
To adopt a policy identifying a standard means of addressing water tap fee and electric
connection fee (utility fee) waiver requests.
Present Situation:
Utility fee waiver requests, particularly for water, are common. As such, this has
prompted the need to address these requests in an objective and consistent manner.
The Utilities Department of the Town of Estes Park is responsible for providing high-
quality, reliable electric and water service to customers at the lowest, reasonable cost.
Established rates and fees for these services are based on meeting the financial needs
of daily operations and necessary capital improvement projects. Waiving fees would
hinder the Department’s ability to adequately provide these services without shifting the
burden of costs to the rest of the existing ratepayers.
Proposal:
Staff proposes that the Town not waive utility fees for any project. In certain non-routine
circumstances, the Town Board could consider utility fee subsidy requests as set forth
in section 3.b of the proposed policy (attached).
Advantages:
• Adopting this policy will ensure that the Town is objective and consistent in
addressing utility fee waiver requests.
• By not waiving utility fees, the Town’s Enterprise Fund can continue to meet its
financial needs without shifting additional costs to existing ratepayers.
• This policy can help the Town Board, staff and citizens understand the necessity
of established rates and fees for the services provided by the Utilities
Department.
191
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the Town Board approve the adoption of Utilities Department Policy
901, Utility Fee Waivers.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None
Level of Public Interest
Medium
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval to adopt Utilities Department Policy 901, Utility Fee Waivers.
Attachments:
Proposed Policy 901, Utility Fee Waivers
192
Document Title 3/22/18
Revisions: 0
Policy 901– Utility Fee Waiver Requests
Town of Estes Park, Utilities Department
Effective Period: Until superceded
Review Schedule: Every five years
Effective Date: 04/01/2018
References: Policy Governance 2.1.8(1)
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
901
Utilitiy Fee Waivers
1.PURPOSE
To provide a standard policy for water tap fee and electric connection fee (henceforth
“utility fee”) waiver requests.
2. POLICY
The Utilities Department of the Town of Estes Park is responsible for providing high-
quality, reliable electric and water service to customers at the lowest, reasonable cost.
Established rates and fees for these services are based on meeting the financial needs
of daily operations and necessary capital improvement projects. The Town of Estes Park
will not waive utility fees for any project, as doing so would shift the burden of these costs
to the rest of the ratepayers.
3.PROCEDURE
a.Utility Fee Waiver Requests
Neither staff nor the Town Board of Trustees will consider or grant any requests for
utility fee waivers.
b.Utility Fee Subsidy Requests
While the Town does not grant fee waiver requests, the Town Board will consider
utility fee subsidies that advance key priorities (as set forth in section 3.b.iii of this
policy). It is not the policy of the Town of Estes Park to routinely provide utility fee
subsidies for projects meeting these criteria.
i. Definition
A utility fee subsidy occurs when a project’s water tap and/or electric connection
fee is paid by any non-enterprise Town fund (e.g. General Fund or Community
Reinvestment Fund).
ii.Mechanism
Utility fee subsidy requests must be submitted in writing to the Utilities Director. If
the request meets all of the criteria set forth in section 3.b.iii of this policy, the
Utilities Director will forward the request to the Town Administrator and Finance
Director, and schedule consideration of the request for a future Town Board
meeting.
193
Document Title 3/22/18
Revisions: 0
Policy 901– Utility Fee Waiver Requests
Town of Estes Park, Utilities Department
iii.Project Eligibility Criteria
The Town Board will only consider utility fee subsidy requests for the following
projects:
1)Workforce housing;
2)Child care facilities; and/or
3)Facilities for organizations providing low-income health and human
services.
Approved:
_____________________________
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
_____________
Date
194
Administrative Services Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Director
Date: March 27, 2018
RE: Municipal Court Judge Selection
Objective:
To select a new Municipal Court Judge with the retirement of Judge Brown on April 24,
2018.
Present Situation:
Judge Gary Brown announced his retirement earlier this year after 24 years of service as
the Town’s Municipal Court Judge. The Town began its search for a new judge with the
issuance of an RFP for contract service at the end of January. Nineteen applications
were received by the closing date and three candidates were selected for the interview
process which took place on March 14, 2018. Interviews were posted on the Town’s
website for the rest of the Board to review and the public. The interview committee
consisted of Mayor Jirsa, Trustee Holcomb and Trustee Walker.
Proposal:
As the appointment of the Municipal Court Judge is the responsibility of the Town Board,
staff has not evaluated the three candidates, and therefore, does not have a proposal to
bring forward. All candidates have demonstrated a high level of professionalism and the
ability to perform the position.
Staff does recommend the Board consider appointing one of the three candidates as the
presiding judge and one as a back up judge. Both positions would be appointed at the
upcoming Town Board meeting on April 24, 2018. Currently Judge John Easley presides
as the Town’s back up judge and has done so for numerous years. All three candidates
have stated their interest in serving as the back up judge if they are not selected as the
presiding judge.
Advantages:
To selected the next Municipal Court Judge to be appointed at the April 24, 2018
meeting.
Disadvantages:
The Town would not have a presiding Municipal Court Judge after April 24, 2018.
195
Action Recommended:
None.
Budget:
None. Funds have been allocated in the 2018 budget for the Judge position.
Level of Public Interest.
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve the selection of ________ as Municipal Court Judge and
____________ as the back up Municipal Court Judge.
196
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: March 27th, 2018
RE: Sunset Review of CD/CS and PUP Committees
Objective:
To consider the sunset of the Community Development and Community Services
(CD/CS) and the Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works (PUP) Committees.
Present Situation:
Board Policy 102, Town Committees, section 4w, sets a sunset review schedule for all
non-statutorily required Town Committees. This sunset review is required every five
years. The CD/CS and PUP Committees are scheduled for a sunset review this month.
In 2017 the Board revised the procedures for the agenda’s for the CD/CS and PUP
Committees providing criteria for agenda items that would go to the committees for
review as opposed to coming directly to the Board. In addition, agenda items of routine
updates and presentations that do not require a specific request for Board action were
no longer included. This has resulted in the majority of CD/CS and PUP committees
being cancelled due to lack of agenda items.
The CD/CS and PUP Committees are required by municipal code. A sunset of both or
either of the committees would require a code revision.
At the study session on this issue on March 13th, the Board asked staff to proceed with
preparing an ordinance to sunset both the CD/CS and the PUP committees.
Proposal:
To approve the ordinance eliminating the CD/CS and PUP committees and to authorize
the Town Administrator to make all necessary changes to existing town policies which
current reference either the CD/CS or PUP committees.
Advantages:
Reduces staff time and board time spent in redundant meetings.
Increases the visibility of issues by presenting them at regular board meetings
rather than during the day at committee meetings.
Involves the entire board in policy discussions rather than a sub-set.
Can speed up response time to issues by eliminating one set of meetings.
197
Disadvantages:
Could add to agenda length at Board meetings.
Staff will have less face to face interaction with Trustees
Action Recommended:
To approve/not approve ordinance 04-18 REVISING THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK
MUNICIPAL CODE TO SUNSET THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/COMMUNITY
SERVICES COMMITTEE AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY/ UTILITIES/PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE
Finance/Resource Impact:
There is a financial and staff time savings averaging approximately 4 hours per
month.
Level of Public Interest
Moderate to low
198
ORDINANCE NO. 04-18
AN ORDINANCE REVISING THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL
CODE TO SUNSET THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/COMMUNITY
SERVICES COMMITTEE AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY/ UTILITIES/PUBLIC
WORKS COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, Board Policy 102, Town Committees, section 4w, sets a sunset
review schedule for all non-statutorily required Town Committees; and
WHEREAS, this sunset review is required every five years and the Community
Development/Community Services (CD/CS) and Public Safety/ Utilities/Public Works
(PUP) Committees were reviewed as required, at the Town Board Study Session on
March 13, 2018; and.
WHEREAS, at said study session, the Board determined the PUP and
CD/CS Committees were no longer necessary for the efficient and effective
operation of the Town of Estes Park; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.08.010 of the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code
sets forth the requirement a PUP and CD/CS committee; and
WHEREAS, there may be a need to establish a special committee to
review a matter between regularly scheduled Town Board meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes has determined
that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendment to the Town of
Estes Park Municipal Estes Code, as set forth on Exhibit Red, be approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendment to the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code is set
forth on Exhibit
Red, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The Town of Estes Park Municipal Code shall be revised
as more fully set forth on Exhibit Red.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30)
days after its adoption and publication.
199
Section 3: The Town Administrator is authorized to make all necessary
changes to existing town policies which current reference either the CD/CS or
PUP committees.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by The Board of Trustees of The Town
of Estes Park, Colorado this day of_________________, 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting
of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2018 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day
of , 2018, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
2.08.010 – Audit Committee
At the first regular meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial election, the
Mayor shall appoint two (2) Trustees to the Audit committee with the Mayor serving as the third
member. In the event it is necessary to establish a specialist committee to review a matter
between regularly scheduled Town Board meetings, the Mayor shall establish and appoint the
members of the special committee.
(Ord. 26-88 §1(part), 1988; Ord. 7-03 §1, 2003; Ord. 10-10 §1, 2010; Ord. 10-14 §1, 2014; Ord.
13-15 , § 1, 9-22-2015)
200