HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2015-04-28
The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable
services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while
being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PROCLAMATION: “Emergency Preparedness Month”.
PROCLAMATION. “Month of the Tree”
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated April 14, 2015, Town Board Study Session Minutes
dated April 14, 2015 and Special Town Board Minutes dated April 15, 2015.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee, April 9, 2015.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated March 18, 2015 (acknowledgement
only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated March 19, 2015 (acknowledgement only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated March 17, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
Prepared 4/17/15
* Revised 4/24/15
** Revised 4/28/15
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. ACTION ITEM:
A. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT – Lot 7, Marys Lake Subdivision
Replat, TBD Kiowa Court; Greg Coffman/Applicant. Planner Shirk. Item
continued to the May 26, 2015 Town Board meeting at staff’s request.
B. AMENDED PLAT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT & REZONING REQUEST
Amended Plat, Development Agreement and Rezoning have been
continued to the May 26, 2015 Town Board meeting at staff’s request.
AMENDED PLAT & DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Portion of Lot 25,
Block 10, Town of Estes Park, & portion of Lot 8A of the Amended Plat of a
portion of Lots 7, 8, 24, & 25, Block 10, 2nd Amended Plat, Town of Estes
Park; 175 Spruce Drive and the adjacent undeveloped land; Silver Moon,
LLC/Owner. Planner Shirk.
ORDINANCE #03-15 Rezone from RM-Multi-Family Residential to CD-
Commercial Downtown, Silver Moon, LLC/Owner. Planner Shirk
C. ORDINANCE #04-15, Rezoning from E-Estate to R-2 Two-Family Residential,
Lot 4, Twin View Resubdivision, 1650 Avalon Drive, Cindy Younglund-Liddell &
Robert Liddell/Applicant. Planner Shirk. Item continued to May 12, 2015,
Town Board meeting at applicant’s request.
2. REPORT ITEMS:
A. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT, Section 4.4.B, Table
4-4: Permitted Uses, Non-Residential Zoning District. Amendment to allow
small-scale pet grooming in the CD-Commercial Downtown zone district as an
accessory use to pet-related retail establishments. Planner Kleisler.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #05-15 – PUBLIC HEARING – 2015 - 2018 WATER RATE
INCREASE. Director Bergsten.
2. FISH CREEK CWCB GRANT TRANSFER TO ESTES VALLEY WATERSHED
COALITION. Planner Kurtz.
3. FALL RIVER TRAIL EXTENSION – APPROVAL OF DESIGN CONSULTANT
CONTRACT. Director Muhonen.
4. ADJOURN.
*
*
**
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 14, 2015
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 14th day of April 2015.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Ericson) to enter executive session for
discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not
involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter
in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of
any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that
do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees – Town
Administrator Annual Review, and it passed unanimously.
The Board entered executive session at 6:18 p.m. and adjourned back to regular
session at 6:55 p.m. Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting for a five minute break.
Upon return from break, all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
RESOLUTION OF RESPECT HONORING JEAN WEAVER.
Mayor Pinkham presented a Resolution of Respect to Jean Weaver honoring her years
of service to the community.
PROCLAMATIONS.
Mayor Pinkham proclaimed May 2nd as 27th Annual Duck Race Day, May as Estes
Cares About Bears Month, and Parkinson’s Awareness Month.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Marlene Hayek, Town Resident, expressed concern that all parties were not given the
same consideration at a recent Town Board meeting. Ms. Hayek stated that a developer
was allowed to speak beyond the three minute time limit, however, citizens were not.
Charley Dickey, Town Resident, remarked on how great it is to live in Estes Park.
Amy Hamrick, Town Resident, invited the Trustees and public to attend a joint
presentation between the Downtown Business Partners and the Town regarding flood
plain issues on April 28, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. in the Board Room.
Jean McGuire, Town Resident, invited the Trustees and public to attend two meetings
presented by the League of Women Voters. One would be April 22, 2015, in the
Hondius Room regarding a study completed on voting rights within the Estes Valley.
Board of Trustees – April 14, 2015 – Page 2
The other would be a panel discussion on Human Trafficking April 28, 2015, in the
Board Room.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris stated the Local Marketing District would be seeking appointments for a
Town position on its Board.
Trustee Holcomb stated the Parks Advisory Board would be meeting on April 17, 2015
in Town Hall Room 202 at 1:00 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig reported the Sister Cities Committee met last week to finalize
plans to visit Monte Verde, Costa Rica and the Rooftop Rodeo would be organizing for
the summer season and seeking volunteers.
Trustee Ericson stated the Transportation Advisory Board would meet April 10, 2015 in
Town Hall Room 202 at noon. He encouraged continued citizen participation in
governmental decisions and processes and discussed public health, safety,
environment and outstanding community services as parts of the strategic planning
process.
Mayor Pinkham stated he has been on the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission
for the past four years and his term would expire in June. He encouraged anyone
interested in serving on the Commission to contact the Colorado Municipal League or
the Larimer County.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance Report Policy 3.3 & 3.7 – Administrator Lancaster reported
compliance for all areas except for the business continuity plan which continues to
be developed by staff under the Emergency Response Plan.
NEPA Analysis & Background Information for Town Board Meeting on April 15, 2015
– Administrator Lancaster clarified the topic of discussion for the upcoming Town
Board meeting stating the purpose would be to determine whether or not to continue
the NEPA process.
STATE OF THE TOWN. Mayor Pinkham provided a summary of the year that focused
on the resiliency of the community since the 2013 Flood. While a lot of work remains to
be completed, progress was made in 2014. Highlights included:
Sales tax collection increased in 2014.
Construction was completed on the Estes Park Events Complex.
The Town would continue to work towards a year round economy as many ski towns
are increasing their summer season attractions.
The Town has to decide whether or not to continue with the LOOP process.
The Visitor Center parking garage would be placed on the south lot and include
restroom upgrades to the Visitor Center.
A main goal for the Town in the coming years would be to stabilize our population
demographics.
Estes Park remains a very difficult place for young people and families to live with a
shortage of childcare and affordable housing.
The next three years would be full of celebration with the centennials of Rocky
Mountain National Park, the National Park Service and the Town of Estes Park.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated March 24, 2015 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated March 18, 2015 and March 24, 2015.
2. Bills.
Board of Trustees – April 14, 2015 – Page 3
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development/Community Services Committee March 26,
2015 Cancelled.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated March 3, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
5. Resolution #10-15 Surprise Sidewalk Sale May 2 & 3, 2015.
6. Upper Thompson Sanitation District Agreement for Fish Creek Lift Station.
7. Resolution #11-15 for Signatory Authority for Grants.
8. Department of Local Affairs Energy/Mineral Impact Assistance Funds Grant
Application for Quantars Replacement on Prospect Mountain.
Trustee Phipps requested Items 6 & 7 be removed from the Consent agenda for brief
discussion. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve Consent
Agenda Items 1-5 and 8, and it passed unanimously.
Director Bergsten stated Item 6 is a request for an amendment to the Intergovernmental
Agreement between the Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) and the Town to
extend a water main from Brodie Avenue to the Fish Creek Lift Station which would
allow for the long term plan of looping the water through Mall Road and improve the
efficacy of operations for UTSD. Instead of exchange of funds for the project, there
would be an exchange of labor and equipment for water taps at Marys Lake Water
Treatment Plant. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to approve the
revision to the Intergovernmental Agreement with Upper Thompson Sanitation
District, and it passed unanimously.
Trustee Phipps stated he was asked by staff if the Board would like to know each time a
major grant application was applied for and he did not know the answer; therefore he
removed Item 7 from the Consent Agenda. Director McFarland stated previously the
Mayor was the signing authority for grants. Currently there are over 20 grants in process
and it would be more expedient for staff if the Town Administrator or Director McFarland
could have signatory authority. Any significant grants that require a cost share, are
controversial, or are a large dollar amount would still be presented to the Board, but
staff would like to have the ability to efficiently obtain the required signatures on
documents to meet the granting organization’s deadlines. It was moved and seconded
(Koenig/Ericson) to approve Resolution #11-15 for Signatory Authority of Grants,
and it passed unanimously.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP – FROM ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND
PARK DISTRICT (EVRPD) ET AL DBA THE HANGAR RESTAURANT TO
EVRPD ET AL DBA THE HANGAR RESTAURANT LICENSE, 1480 GOLF
COURSE ROAD, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Town
Clerk Williamson presented the transfer of ownership of the existing liquor
license of the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District et al, dba The Hangar
Restaurant due to a change of concessionaire. It was moved and seconded
(Koenig/ Phipps) to approve the Transfer Application for a Hotel and
Restaurant with Optional Premises Liquor License filed by Estes Valley
Recreation and Park District et al, dba Hagar Restaurant at Estes Park
Golf Course, and it passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees – April 14, 2015 – Page 4
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #02-15 VACATING UTILITY EASEMENT ON LOT 1,
THOMPSON’S PINEWOOD ACRES RESUBDIVISION. Planner Kleisler
requested the vacation of an unused ten-foot wide portion of the utility
easement so the owners may construct a shed. The subdivision has been built
out since the original platting of the property and the easement is no longer
needed. All relevant utility providers have agreed to the easement vacation.
Attorney White read Ordinance #02-15 into the record. It was moved and
seconded (Norris/ Koenig) to approve Ordinance #02-15, and it passed
unanimously.
2. TOWN BOARD POLICY 106 – PUBLIC FORUMS AND MEETINGS.
Administrator Lancaster stated Policy 106 was created to allow staff to hold
public meetings or forums on public policy issues only under the direction of the
Board. It was moved and seconded (Phipps/Holcomb) to adopt Policy 106
regarding public forums and meetings, and it passed unanimously.
3. TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1.4,
1.6 AND 1.7 AND AMENDMENTS TO POLICY 101. Administrator Lancaster
described the changes made to Sections 1.4, 1.6 and 1.7 of Policy Governance
and to Policy 101. The Trustees may only serve as liaisons to committees
appointed by the Town and represent the Board when given authority. It was
moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to adopt Policy Governance Policies
1.4, 1.6, 1.7 and Town Policy 101 as amended, and it passed unanimously.
4. PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE AND WATER COMPANY
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. The Mayor recused himself. Director
Bergsten presented the Memorandum of Understanding with Park Entrance
Mutual Pipeline and Water Company (PEMPWCo) to create a special
improvement district to allow access to grant funding and low interest loans for
infrastructure improvements to maintain high-quality, reliable water services. All
project funding obligations would be covered by PEMPWCo and its owners. It
was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve the Town of Estes
Park entering into a joint venture with Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and
Water Company and executing the Memorandum of Understanding with
PEMPWCo, and it passed unanimously.
5. REQUEST FOR FUNDING BY THE ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND
PARK DISTRICT FOR COMMUNITY CENTER FUNDRASING EFFORTS.
Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Director Rorabaugh and Board
Members Ken Czarnowski and Ben Greer presented the request for $50,000 to
help fund one year of capital campaign expenses for the Estes Valley
Community Recreation Center (EVCRC). The funds would be matched by
Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) to hire a professional
Campaign Director and assistant to coordinate fundraising efforts. EVRPD
would like to exhaust every possible financing option prior to enacting a mill
levy tax. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Phipps/Koenig)
to approve the appropriation of $50,000 from the 2015 budget to assist in
funding year one of an EVCRC capital campaign contingent upon EVRPD
matching this $50,000 contribution in year 2015, and it passed with Trustee
Ericson voting no.
4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Ericson) to enter executive session for
discussion of specialized details of security arrangements under 24-6-
402(4)(d) C.R.S., and it passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees – April 14, 2015 – Page 5
The Board entered executive session at 9:31 p.m. and adjourned back to regular
session at 10:07 p.m. whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 14, 2015
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of
the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town
Hall in Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 14th day of April,
2015.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Town Attorney White and
Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Ericson noted that he concurred with the decisions made by the Board during
the previous Town Board meeting related to The Barrel liquor license, Lot 4, and the
parking structure. Trustee Ericson was out of town and, therefore, unable to participate
in the meeting.
Trustee Norris reported that two positions on the Local Marketing District (LMD) Board
will be open during 2015. Currently, one town position is open, with a county position
opening up in September. In regard to filling the Town position, it was proposed that a
five-person interview team be created consisting of two trustees, two LMD board
members, with a fifth person, who is not a member of either board, selected by the
interview team. Trustee Norris suggested that the LMD chair be part of the interview
process.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig noted she, Trustee Ericson, and Town Clerk Williamson make
up the Community Service Grants (CSG) committee. The CSG committee will be
reviewing the CSG program and process to make recommendations and align the
CSGs with the Town Board’s strategic plan.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Rezoning Actions – Procedures for Notifications will be moved to the “Items
Approved – Unscheduled” category.
Wildlife Ordinance. Chief Kufeld reported that staff is working on putting together
menu items for possible inclusion in the ordinance to bring forward to the Board
for discussion. He proposed that the ordinance be completed and passed this
year allowing time for an educational component to occur prior to enforcement of
the ordinance beginning in January 2016.
Truancy Ordinance. The School District, the Town, and the Restorative Justice
program are partnering together to work on the community issue of habitual
truancy. Truancy is addressed in the Colorado Revised Statutes, however,
having a truancy ordinance will allow the issue to be dealt with at the local level.
This topic will be scheduled for the May 26, 2015, Town Board Study Session.
Update on Vacation Rental Project and an Update on the Economic
Development Corp. (EDC) Broadband Project will be scheduled for the Town
Board Study Session on May 12, 2015.
PROCEDURE FOR SCHEDULING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.
Town Board Study Session – April 14, 2015 – Page 2
Trustee Ericson expressed frustration with a previous attempt to add an executive
session to a Town Board agenda. Town Administrator Lancaster said that if requested
to do so by a Board member he would add items to the Town Board agenda; and if the
item qualified as a topic for an executive session, it would be added as such. As with all
agenda items, the request must be made in a timely manner to follow the normal
agenda preparation and publishing schedule.
Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting for a dinner break at 4:53 p.m. and resumed the
meeting at 5:07 p.m.
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Town Administrator Lancaster provided a high-level presentation on improvement
districts including Downtown Development Authorities (DDA), Urban Renewal
Authorities, (URA) and special improvement districts. He provided definitions of the
different types of districts, spoke to the various ways districts are created and
organized, and outlined the types of improvements, services, and projects the entities
are allowed to engage in. Funding for the districts ranges from property and/or sales
tax increment financing (TIF) to special assessments on benefiting properties.
He said an improvement district may be a vehicle to finance public infrastructure
improvements. He noted that one type of improvement district may be a better fit than
another type, depending on the projects and services being proposed. For example, a
URA can have multiple project areas within a municipality and a variety of projects
within these areas, as well as enter into public/private partnerships. DDA improvements
and services are restricted to the central business district as defined by the municipality.
Town Administrator Lancaster said that when improvement districts are funded by TIF,
the district should be created prior to development within their boundaries so that the
increment is larger. He identified Cleave Street and the Elkhorn Lodge property as
areas that could benefit from inclusion in an improvement district. Mayor Pro Tem
Koenig said with economic sustainability as a goal, the Town should identify areas for
development within the community and strive to make Estes Park attractive to private
investors.
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND 5-YEAR PLAN.
Due to a lack of time, this agenda item was not discussed by the Board. The topic will
be re-scheduled for a future Town Board study session.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:06 p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 15, 2015
Minutes of a Special meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Event Center, 1125
Rooftop Way in said Town of Estes Park on the 15th day of April 2015.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
1. CONSIDERATION OF CONTINUING THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT (NEPA) PROCESS FOR THE DOWNTOWN LOOP PROJECT.
Administrator Lancaster outlined the purpose of the meeting was to take public
comment on the Loop project to determine whether or not to proceed with the
NEPA process for the two remaining alternatives; one-way couplet or no action,
or to terminate the contract for the grant and reimburse Central Federal Lands
for the cost incurred to date and discontinue the project.
The Town received grant funding through the Federal Lands Access Program
(FLAP) after an extensive public outreach process was conducted and a grant
application was submitted in the spring of 2013 for a one-way couplet with $13
million awarded by FLAP and an additional $4.2 million in matching CDOT
RAMP program funding. No Town funds would be used to complete the
project. A number of alternative were considered including five options that
were ranked: Construction of a transit hub/parking structure downtown;
construction of a one-way loop traffic pattern downtown; construction of a two-
way four-lane Riverside route through downtown; construction of a multi-use
trail along the Big Thompson River connecting the River Walk to Rocky
Mountain National Park; and, “no action.” The first choice of the public was the
transit hub/parking structure. Second was the one-way couplet option. Third
was the two-way, four-lane Riverside Drive option. Third was the multi-use trail.
Last was “no action.” Based on the criteria for the grant, it was determined that
a transit/hub parking structure project, alone, would not be competitive for the
grant, therefore the grant application was submitted for the one-way couplet.
As Federal funds are involved, the project is subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires an analysis of the project to
see if other alternative may have fewer environmental, social and cultural
impacts while providing the same benefits outlined in the scope of the project.
NEPA requires extensive public input and technical analysis. The NEPA
process has been ongoing since fall of 2014, with various alternatives being
examined including several proposed by the participating public. Based on
analysis to date, the NEPA team has reduced the viable options to the one-way
loop, as contained in the original application, and the “no action” alternative. On
March 9, 2015 the Town received a letter from Central Federal Lands (CFL) on
Board of Trustees – April 15, 2015 – Page 2
behalf of the FLAP program Colorado Programming Committee notifying the
Town that only the original scope of work (the one-way couplet) would be
considered for funding and asking for the Town to indicate its intent to continue
with the project as originally contained in the application, by April 16, 2015.
Since that time, CFL has clarified that the NEPA process won’t be complete
until later this summer and therefore they are requesting the Town indicate its
intent to continue with the NEPA process, analyzing the only viable construction
option remaining - the one-way couplet, and the “no action” alternative. Should
the Town decide to not proceed, it must terminate the contract and reimburse
CFL for all study expenditures to date, tentatively estimated by CFL to be
roughly $200,000 - $300,000.
Director Muhonen provided an overview of the current traffic situation and
problem, who is responsible to fix the issue, why the loop project is the
preferred alternative, affects of choosing no action alternative and unanticipated
benefits. The traffic congestion downtown continues to increase each year
which negatively impacts the guest experience, compromises the sense of
safety, and increases frustration, noise and air pollution. Traffic was identified
in both the 2011 and 2014 citizen surveys as a top concern. The Town has
taken the lead in addressing the issue through the identification of grant funding
and a collaborative effort involving all parties, including federal, state and local
government. The Transportation Visioning Committee reviewed transportation
concerns and developed a report in 2012 outlining solutions that involved both
low-cost and expensive implementation solutions which included reviewing
traffic patterns. Through the NEPA process the one-way couplet was identified
as the alternative that would best balance congestion relief, provide minimal
property impacts, minimal environmental impacts and could be constructed with
the available funds. Beyond congestion relief the alternative would provide
shortened emergency response times, improve safety for pedestrians, create
new bicycle lanes for future connectivity, and establish a foundational Riverside
Drive corridor for future parking and congestion mitigation projects. No action
would maintain the current travel patterns and lead to an increase in the
number of gridlock months from approximately 4 to 6 months during the year by
2040. Staff has begun working on the parking issue with a new intercept
parking garage to be built in 2016 and the Transportation Advisory Board to
produce parking policy objectives for the Town Board’s consideration in 2015.
Staff has also been working with CDOT to produce RMNP guide signage and
downtown wayfinding signage to direct park visitors to the north entrance and
reduce congestion downtown. The barnes dance would be reinstated for a
period of time this summer to study the effects on traffic movement. Staff noted
the City of Loveland and Town of Lyons have one-way couplets that do not
negatively impact the character or viability of the business community. The
Town would gain the replacement of three new bridges through the completion
of the one-way couplet project which would positively impact flood mitigation.
Floodplain Manager Birchfield reviewed the floodplain concerns that followed
the 2013 flood. He stated the floodplain may grow considerably in the future as
it has been determined the town’s flows may be under stated. The replacement
of three bridges in the downtown core with the loop project would help to
reduce the flow rates in town and perhaps make significant improvements to
the flood plain, thereby decreasing flood insurance rates in the downtown core.
Kimberly Campbell/Transportation Advisory Board member stated the Board
held a special meeting on March 30, 2015 to provide a recommendation to the
Town Board on whether or not to proceed with the NEPA study. The Board
recommended support to complete the NEPA study and continue to review the
one-way couplet.
Adam Shake/Estes Valley Partners for Commerce Board member stated he
was not advocating for either position but encouraged the sharing of
information to help inform the citizens. The Board wants to work with the
business and citizens to address the issues regardless of the outcome.
Board of Trustees – April 15, 2015 – Page 3
Those speaking against moving forward with the NEPA study included Jeff
Carpenter/county citizen, Holly Moore/town citizen and business owner, Scott
Davis/town citizen, Gordon Slack/town citizen, Leslie Peterson, Elaine
Sparks/town citizen and business owner; John Meissner/town citizen, Tom
Street/county citizen, Ron Wilcocks/county citizen and business owner, Mary
Simon/town citizen, Todd and Karen Jirsa/town citizen and business owner,
Krisi Nielsen, Ed Grueff/county citizen and business owner, Ellen
Reinertsen/town citizen and business owner, John and Wini Spahnle, Mark
Newman/town citizen, Lynn Ciolli/town citizen, Mark Igel/town citizen and
business owner, Carissa Streib/county citizen, Craig Conley/county citizen,
Rick Grigsby/Town citizen, Durango Steele, Jerri Paulson/town citizen and
business owner, Alice Schwartz/county citizen, Norma Blackwell/town citizen,
Donny Yeager, Norman Lee/county citizen, Lee Lasson/town citizen, Stanley
Atkison/town citizen, Jeremy Plume/business owner, Doug Warner, Jennifer
Lusch/county citizen, Susan Wolf/county citizen, Mark Hewitt/county citizen,
Maureen Marsh/town citizen and business owner, and Lawrence
Replogle/county citizen. Comments were heard and summarized: altering the
traffic patterns downtown would negatively affect the businesses that collect
sales tax for the Town; the Town should focus their efforts on producing more
parking downtown; traffic congestion during the summer months could be
addressed through proper signage, reestablishing the barnes dance and proper
transportation alternatives; data used by CDOT is flawed and cannot accurately
predict future traffic conditions; the traffic improvements would not be significant
compared to the impact on businesses downtown; the loop would allow visitors
to speed through downtown and the Town should find ways to keep visitors
downtown; the Town should use the approximately $4 million from the
devolution of Business 34 to fix the West Moraine and Water Wheel bridges; a
Downtown Development Authority could be established to help the downtown
businesses make decisions for their future; the Board should do no harm and
should consider the quality of life of its citizens living along Riverside; the Town
should establish a plan before implementing a significant change; Alternative 1
would negatively impact the environment; and direct visitors to use the north
entrance of the park to help address congestion.
Those speaking for continuing the NEPA study included Dick Spielman/town
citizen, Brian Berg/town citizen, Diane Muno/town citizen and business owner,
Bill Almond/town citizen and Visit Estes Park Board President, Elizabeth
Fogarty/county citizen and Visit Estes Park CEO, Charley Dickey/town citizen
and business owner, Amy Hamrick/town citizen and business owner, Kirby
Hazelton/town citizen, Paul Fishman/town citizen, Lindsay Lamson/county
citizen and business owner, Teresa Maria Widawski/property and business
owner ,and Kent and Judi Smith/town citizens and business owner. Comments
were heard and summarized: the congestion downtown in the middle of the
summer should be mitigated and the Town should take advantage of the grant
funds to address the issue; choosing to move forward with Alternative 1 would
allow three bridges to be fixed and mitigate flooding in the future; the Town
Board has gone through a substantial process and it should continue to gather
further information and complete the NEPA process; the congestion affects the
visitor experience; the loop project would positively affect the community,
improve safety and economic viability of the community; the project would be
the first improvement that future projects would build from and would not fix all
the traffic issues; the CVB commissioned a study in 2010-2011 and found guest
were least satisfied in the summer for several reasons with one being the traffic
congestion; congestion downtown causes guest to spend less money; the
FLAP project is the beginning and not an ending to addressing the congestion
issues; and thanked the Board for the vision to seek out resources to address
the issue of congestion and failing infrastructure.
Board comments followed the public hearing with the Board acknowledging
their appreciation of the public comment received: Trustee Ericson stated the
Town has reviewed all aspects of the issues including parking, shuttles, roads,
Board of Trustees – April 15, 2015 – Page 4
floodplain, signage and technology which are all inter-related. The Town
commissioned a traffic study in 2003 that led to the shuttle system that has
improved each year. The Transportation Visioning Committee reviewed the
issues and developed a report outlining solutions such as traffic patterns.
Trustee Nelson commented the Board and staff have done significant outreach
to gain public input. The Town does not have all the information to know if the
one-way couplet would be a viable option until the NEPA study has been
completed.
Trustee Phipps reminded the public he voted “no” at the March 2013 meeting to
apply for the grant as there was no master plan for the downtown including
Riverside, possible condemnation and the lack of involvement by the National
Park. He stated some improvements are necessary and bridge work is needed;
flood insurance continues to be a concern; the Town has a grant to complete a
downtown master plan; vehicle traffic in the park may be restricted in the future
and increase the use of the shuttle system; and outlying parking areas would
capture vehicle traffic before it enters downtown to ease the traffic. All of these
items need to be considered as well as the economic impact of moving forward
with the loop. He has not been convinced the one-way couplet would solve the
congestion problem and a master plan should be developed first.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig concurred with Trustee Phipps. The environmental
impact study once completed would likely not allow the one-way couplet to be
constructed due to a significant impact on the environment. A master plan
needs to be completed for the area and the issue needs to be looked at further
before moving forward.
Trustee Holcomb stated the comments received throughout the process have
been equally for and against the project. He stated the objective continues to
be what is best for the community moving forward. The evaluation process
should consider all entities involved, the need for access to the park to sustain
the town, and the continued degradation of the Town’s market share by other
mountain communities are all significant issues to consider. The one-way
couplet would only be one piece of the solution in addressing the congestion
issue and the Town would continue to address master planning, parking,
pedestrian movement, flood insurance rates, and other pressing issues.
Stopping the process now would lead to many unanswered questions and
concerns. The Town needs the economic and social concerns answered in
order to make an informed decision.
Trustee Norris commented the large complex project requires additional
information the NEPA study can provide before a decision can be made. The
Town needs to understand the economic, safety, and environment costs to
make an objective decision that would come from the completion of the NEPA
study. The Board does not do the project justice without the completion of the
NEPA process.
It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Holcomb) to continue forward with
the NEPA process for further review of Alternative 1 - one-way couplet
and the “no action” Alternative, and it passed with Mayor Pro Tem Koenig
and Trustee Phipps voting “No”.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 11:33 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 9, 2015
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY/UTILITIES/PUBLIC
WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County,
Colorado. Meeting held in the Board Room of Town Hall in said Town of
Estes Park on the 9th day of April, 2015.
Committee: Chair Norris, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Nelson
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Commander Rose, Director
Bergsten and Muhonen, Superintendent Boles and Lockhart,
Supervisor Berg, and Recording Secretary Limmiatis
Absent: None.
Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
PUBLIC SAFETY.
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS ENERGY/MINERAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE
FUNDS GRANT APPLICATION FOR QUANTERS REPLACEMENT ON PROSPECT
MOUNTAIN. Commander Rose requested authorization to apply for a grant from
Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) to replace the public safety radio
equipment on Prospect Mountain. The current communication equipment, known as
Quantars, would soon reach the end of their useful life and with the assistance of the
grant no money would be needed from the Town to replace the equipment and maintain
reliable communications for emergency services. The Committee recommended the
Town Board to authorize the DOLA EIAF grant application to replace radio
communications equipment on Prospect Mountain as a Consent Item at the April
14, 2015 Town Board meeting.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Commander Rose informed the
Committee at the end of the week every police officer would be trained in Critical
Incident Training (CIT), which is a comprehensive training to help officers work
with mentally ill individuals on the street. Estes Park would be one of the only
police departments in Northern Colorado to have all officers trained in CIT.
UTILITIES.
PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE AND WATER COMPANY MOU.
Director Bergsten requested support to enter into a joint venture project with Park
Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company to allow access to grant funding and low
interest loans with the creation of a Special Improvement District to fund the
construction and operation of a new distribution system. The Committee
recommended including the Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company
MOU as an Action Item at the April 14, 2015 Town Board meeting.
UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT IGA.
Director Bergsten requested the approval of a revised Intergovernmental Agreement
which would allow a water main extension to be constructed to the Fish Creek Lift
Station for Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) in exchange for the equivalent
value in additional sewer taps to the Marys Lake Water Treatment Plant. Benefits
include improved efficiency of UTSD’s operational performance, the acquisition of
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – April 9, 2015 – Page 2
additional sewer taps needed for Marys Lake operations and the build out of the Town’s
drinking water system to complete a looped supply around Mall Road. The Committee
recommended approval of the Upper Thompson Sanitation District IGA as a
Consent Item at the April 14, 2015 Town Board meeting.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Recap of Water Rates Study Information – Director Bergsten provided
information on the Water Rate Study which would go before the Town Board on
April 28, 2015. Substantial water rate increases over the next four years would
take effect to ensure enough revenue would be collected to complete several
deferred capital projects while continuing operations and maintaining safe,
reliable drinking water. The Committee encouraged additional press releases be
made to solicit public comment.
2. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Director Bergsten informed the
Committee the Light & Power fund is healthy which allows for capital projects to
be completed in a timely manner to ensure quality power.
PUBLIC WORKS.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Art in Public Places Policy – Supervisor Berg provided an update on the Art in
Public Places Policy to go before the Town Board on May 12, 2015. The Parks
Advisory Board (PAB) sought input from other local communities with established
Art in Public Places Policies. Several drafts have been reviewed by Attorney
White and staff. The final draft would be voted on by the PAB at the April
meeting.
2. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Director Muhonen provided updates
on several items including Scotts Ponds dam modifications, expansion of the Fall
River Trail to Rocky Mountain National Park, the Facility Manager and Pavement
Manager recruitment processes, the repair schedule for Community Drive, the
Dry Gulch Road improvements and the arrival of the Spray Patching Truck.
There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 8:48 a.m.
Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 18th, 2015
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Rooms 202 & 203 of Town
Hall, in said Town of Estes Park on the 18th day of March, 2015.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Ann Finley
Stan Black
Cory LaBianca
Gregg Rounds
Thom Widawski
Belle Morris
Amy Hamrick
Bryon Holmes
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Kevin Ash, Public Works Civil Engineer
Jen Imber, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Sandy Osterman, Shuttle Committee Representative
John Ericson, Town Board Liaison
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The public in attendance declined to comment.
Minutes from the January and February meetings were reviewed by members. It was
moved and seconded (Hamrick/Finley) to approve all aforementioned minutes, with the
motion passing unanimously.
Sandy Osterman gave a brief update on Shuttle Committee items. The 2015 shuttle
scheduled has been published and copies were passed out to TAB members. The
brochure is also available on estes.org/shuttles.
Cory LaBianca and Amy Hamrick presented the new member orientation process at
February’s meeting. The draft proposal was distributed and reviewed by members. It
was moved and seconded (Black/Holmes) to approve the new process, with the motion
passing unanimously.
Cory LaBianca shared an article from the Coloradoan entitled “Fort Collins eyes paid
on-street parking in Old Town.” The article talked about the consideration of paid on-
street parking in Old Town Fort Collins. The article highlighted many of the same
problems that Estes Park currently faces, including on-street parking demands and
downtown employees taking up parking spaces intended for business customers.
STAFF UPDATES ON TOWN PROJECTS
Director Muhonen updated members on the Loop project. Numerous public meetings
and small group meetings have been held as part of the NEPA study. The Loop Project
TAC will be providing a summary of these meeting results at the March 18th Town Board
Study Session. Another meeting will be held on March 25th to deliver the same
information to the public and provide an opportunity for public input.
Kevin Ash gave an update on the Dry Gulch project. Town staff continues to meet with
the consultants and are pushing to move forward with design ideas to bring forward for
public comment, with the goal to accomplish some construction work during the summer
Transportation Advisory Board – March 18th, 2015 – Page 2
of 2015. Basic design ideas exist, but the Town is looking for a greater level of detail,
construction expenses estimates, etc. The project will greatly improve the intersection of
Dry Gulch and Hwy 34.
RECOMMENDATION TO TRUSTEES REGARDING TRANSIT HUB PARKING
STRUCTURE
Director Muhonen said the FTA would conditionally support moving the parking
structure to the South Side. The Town Board would have to allocate additional funds to
move forward with exploration of the South Side. Trustee Ericson indicated since no
specific proposal has been presented to the Trustees yet on this topic, the Trustees
would like to see what the additional cost would be t o pursue the South Side site.
After the board formulated a recommendation to the Trustees during the February
meeting, Chair Campbell prepared a draft memo to present to the Trustees. Since the
Town Board agenda item had been postponed and new information regarding the
project has surfaced, the board continued discussion and made minor revisions and fine
tuning to the recommendation memo
Ann Finley suggested revisiting the vote and modifying the wording of TAB’s support of
the South Side.
A motion was made for recommendation of the South Side two-story option, contingent
upon final federal approval (Black/Morris), and the motion passed with a vote of eight
(8) to one (1).
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRATEGY
Chair Campbell reviewed the 2015 Town Board objectives with the board, focusing
specifically on transportation goals and needs. It was expressed that a guiding strategy
would be needed in advance of implementing paid parking. Chair Campbell provided a
summary of TVC parking recommendations for cross reference, as well as a section of
the 2013 parking study “Recommended Transit and Parking Enhancements.”
The board reviewed the TVC Parking Recommendations summary and identified which
bullet points they were in agreement with in order to create goals for creation of the
parking plan.
The board was in favor of balanced shuttle and pedestrian use of the downtown area,
elimination of much current on-street downtown parking and an enhanced pedestrian
environment in the downtown district.
The downtown parking strategies from the study were also reviewed and discussed.
Chair Campbell will group and shape the topics to summarize the results of the
discussion.
With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 1:58 p.m.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 20th, 2015
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall Rooms 202 & 203, in said
Town of Estes Park on the 20th day of March, 2015.
Present: Merle Moore
Ronna Boles
Celine Lebeau
Terry Rustin (by phone)
Dewain Lockwood
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor
Jen Imber, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Bob Holcomb, Town Board Trustee
Absent: Chris Reed
Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 11:10 a.m.
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded (Boles/Moore) to approve the February 20th meeting
minutes and the motion passed unanimously.
Merle Moore shared communication he received from Susan Ison, Director of Cultural
Services for the City of Loveland. A meeting will take place on April 4th at the Rialto
Theater in support of the formation of a Scientific and Cultural Facilities District in
Larimer County. Anyone interested is invited to attend.
ARBOR DAY 2015
Chair Lebeau updated on Arbor Day events. May 15th will be the date of the 2015 Estes
Park Elementary School celebration. A list of book donations was provided by the
elementary school librarian for approval. Platte River Power Authority would like to
donate $1700 for tree planting and education. A portion of that money will be used to
purchase the donated books, so all suggested books will be purchased for donation.
The book plates will include Platte River Power Authority’s name as well as Town of
Estes Park and the Parks Advisory Board.
The elementary art teacher has incorporated Arbor Day art in class, so students are
creating art for the contest, which will conclude on April 15th.
Parks Advisory Board – March 20th, 2015 – Page 2
PUBLIC ART POLICY AND ORDINANCE
Merle Moore and Terry Rustin distributed updated Draft #6 prior to the meeting for
members to review. They opened the floor for questions and comments for the group.
Director Muhonen had comments on the Funds for Works of Art section. The whole
program will be operated out of the reserve fund and no separate account for
maintenance will be needed.
A few minor consistency errors were discussed and corrected. Merle provided examples
of sample contracts to the board. The samples will be used to create a contract for the
Town’s Public Art program, which will be reviewed for approval by the Town attorney.
Trustee Holcomb expressed an interest in presenting the ordinance and guidelines to
the Town Board at a Study Session. Copies will be included for review in a Study
Session packet and then Merle Moore will present at a Town Board Meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Boles/Lockwood) to approve Draft #6 as amended, with
the motion passing unanimously.
With no other business to discuss, a motion was made and seconded (Lebeau/Boles) to
adjourn the meeting at 12:05 pm, with all voting in favor.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree,
Wendye Sykes, Russ Schneider, Sharry White
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Hills, Murphree, Schneider, White
Also Attending: Director Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner Dave Shirk, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town
Board Liaison John Phipps, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, Town
Attorney Greg White, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: Commissioners Sykes and Klink
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 55 people in
attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Sharry White was welcomed as the recent
appointee by the Town Board to fill the vacancy on the Commission. Chair Hull explained the process
for accepting public comment at today’s meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the
agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, February 18, 2015 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Schneider) to approve the consent agenda as presented and
the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
3. REZONING REQUEST, LOT 4, TWIN VIEW SUBDIVISION, 1650 Avalon Drive
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicants, Robert Liddell and Cindy Youngland‐
Liddell, requested to rezone their property from E–Estate to R‐2–Two‐Family Residential. The
property was zoned E–Estate as part of the overall rezoning process with the 1996 adoption of
the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the property had been zoned for two‐family
development since at least 1974. The change to E–Estate zoning occurred due to the existing
single‐family dwelling on the property. Other parcels in the area were kept as two‐family zoning
because they contained existing duplexes.
Planner Shirk stated in 1993, the applicant pulled a building permit for an interior remodel,
including a bedroom, toilet, small living area, and kitchenette. The use was designated as mother‐
in‐law living quarters, and did not qualify as an accessory dwelling unit due to the design. Thus,
when the rezoning occurred, the home was considered a single‐family dwelling. Planner Shirk
stated if the rezoning is approved by the Town Board, and the applicant opts to convert this
remodeled area into a full dwelling unit, additional utility fees and building permits will be
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
required. Staff is recommending disapproval. Planning Commission is the recommending body,
with Town Board being the decision‐making body, scheduled to be heard on April 28, 2015.
Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property
owners. Compliance with agency comments will be conditions of approval. Staff received three
letters of support for the rezoning.
Planner Shirk stated according to the Estes Valley Development (EVDC), the rezoning request shall
be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Town Board for compliance with the relevant
standards and criteria as follows:
1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected;
Staff Finding: The neighborhood includes a mix of zoning districts. The applicant considers
this application a corrective rezoning to restore the previous two‐family designation. Staff
considered the following in the review for a corrective rezoning:
a. The dwelling is a single‐family dwelling unit, not a duplex. Building permit applications
to convert the dwelling to a duplex were not received; water tap fees for a duplex have
not been paid, and the Larimer County Assessor lists the property as a single‐family
dwelling unit.
b. The property was rezoned from R‐S residential to E–Estate in 2000, as part of the overall
rezoning of the Estes Valley. Because of the single‐family dwelling features, this
property was assigned a single‐family zoning designation. Nearby multi‐family or duplex
properties were assigned the appropriate multi‐family or duplex zoning designations.
c. EVDC Section 3.3.B.3 states that ‘within one year from the effective date of [the EVDC],
any property owner may apply for rezoning on the basis that an error in the original
zoning was made.’ This one year timeframe expired in 2001.
Planner Shirk stated because of these factors, staff did not consider this a corrective
rezoning.
2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to the EVDC would allow, is
compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with
existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley;
Staff Finding: Based on the small‐scale of the rezoning request, staff waived the
requirement for a development plan.
3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide
adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved;
Staff Finding: Utility providers have not expressed significant concerns about the rezoning
request. Upper Thompson Sanitation District noted additional plan investment fees would
be required for an additional dwelling unit or conversion of the existing accessory dwelling
area into a separate unit.
Staff Findings
1. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to the Town Board.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2. The proposed rezoning conflicts with the land use plan described in Chapter 4 of the Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan.
3. Approval would be in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the EVDC.
4. The request is not a corrective rezoning.
5. Use of the structure as a two‐family dwelling, including use of the accessory living area as
a vacation home, shall require compliance with applicable building codes.
6. Approval of the rezoning will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property in the neighborhood.
7. The amendment is not necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected.
8. The Town and other relevant service providers have the ability to provide adequate
services and facilities that might be required if the application is approved.
Planner Shirk stated staff recommended denial of the requested rezoning.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
Public Comment
Robert Liddell and Cindy Younglund‐Liddell/applicants have lived in the area since the 1950s. The
two‐family zone district appealed to them when they purchased the property. She stated the
remodel included a back entrance. In the winter, they remove “partitions” to open up the
mother‐in‐law quarters as part of the main home, and in the summer they put them up and use
the space as a rental. They were unaware of the rezoning until this past summer. She stated she
did not receive notice in the mail concerning the rezoning that occurred in 2000. The Liddell’s
have been using back portion of the home as a rental since 1994. She is requesting the two‐family
zoning be re‐established in order to continue renting the mother‐in‐law quarters.
Johanna Darden/Town resident has known the Liddells since 2006. She stated they have always
been very careful, law‐abiding citizens, and are an asset to the community.
Public Comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Planner Shirk stated if approved, the applicants would be required to pay additional water and
sewer fees if they use the mother‐in‐law quarters as a second dwelling. Additionally, building
permits and associated fees would be required to comply with the building codes for a two‐family
dwelling.
Town Attorney White stated the process to adopt the zoning changes began in 1992, with notices
being sent to all affected property owners. The mailing lists used were from the Larimer County
Tax Assessor’s database (still used today). While the system is not perfect, it is the best they have.
There were many public meetings and newspaper articles concerning the rezoning, and the public
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
had the opportunity to voice their opinion at that time. The Town of Estes Park and Larimer
County adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 1996, which detailed the land‐use planning process
used to rezone properties. In late 1999, the Estes Valley Development Code was adopted. Prior to
the zoning changes, there were opportunities for property owners of proposed rezonings to meet
with Town staff and/or the Mayor to request the zoning not be changed. Additionally, property
owners had one year following the zoning changes to challenge the decision. In this case, the
Liddells did not come forward to request the zoning remain two‐family residential. Staff
commented many properties in the immediate area were down‐zoned from two family to single‐
family, and the Liddell property was not singled out.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with memos from:
a. Estes Park Community Development memo dated March 5, 2015
b. Upper Thompson Sanitation District email dated February 20, 2015
c. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated January 27, 2015.
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Schneider) to recommend approval to the Town Board
of the Rezoning request of Lot 4, Twin View Subdivision with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
4. LOT CONSOLIDATION PLAT AND REZONING REQUEST, Portions of Lots 7, 8, 24, and 25, Block 10,
Town of Estes Park, 175 Spruce Drive and an adjacent undeveloped property, Silver Moon Inn
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant proposed to adjust the property line
between Mountain Gate Condominiums and the Silver Moon Inn. Both parcels are owned by the
applicant, Silver Moon LLC, and have different zoning designations; the Silver Moon property is
zoned CD–Commercial Downtown, and the adjacent undeveloped property is zoned RM‐Multi‐
Family Residential. Planner Shirk stated no development is proposed at this time. In order to
mitigate potential impact of the rezoning on adjacent properties, the owner has submitted a
development agreement that would require Special Review for any development on the portion
of Mountain Gate being incorporated in the Silver Moon property. This Special Review would be
heard by the Planning Commission, who would make a recommendation to the Town Board for
the final decision.
Planner Shirk stated the request is to rezone the undeveloped property from RM to CD, then
consolidate the Silver Moon Inn property with the undeveloped property, with a CD zone district.
Planner Shirk stated the applicant has mitigated some rockfall to protect the Silver Moon Inn. In
the past, rocks have fallen and caused damage and a safety hazard. The undeveloped lot is fairly
steep, with quite limited access. Any additional access would require abandonment of one of the
entryways into the Silver Moon Inn, and a variance to the EVDC to allow driveway access. Planner
Shirk stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. Staff
received one letter from the Mountain Gate Condominiums Homeowner Association opposing
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
the rezoning. They had concerns about potential uses. Planner Shirk reminded the Commission of
the requirement to go before the Planning Commission for any development proposals. The
undeveloped property was previously part of the Mountain Gate Condominiums. Removal of this
property still allows Mountain Gate Condominiums to meet the density requirement in the EVDC.
Planner Shirk stated the Standards for Review were as follows:
1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected;
Staff Finding: In the past, rocks from the cliff behind the Silver Moon Inn have fallen onto
the Silver Moon Inn causing damage and a safety hazard. In November 2014, the owner of
the Silver Moon Inn purchased the undeveloped portion of the Mountain Gate Condos to
facilitate rockfall mitigation. The property owner desires to combine his property into a
single parcel. Section 1.7.C specified that zoning district boundaries should be lot lines,
and makes no provision for mixed‐zoning districts on a lot.
2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to the EVDC would allow, is
compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley;
Staff Finding: Because no development is proposed at this time, staff has waived the
requirement for a development plan. The proposed development agreement requiring
Special Review will require a development plan for review and approval.
3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide
adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.
Staff Finding: Utility providers have not expressed any significant concerns about the
requested rezoning. Any future development will need to demonstrate compliance with
EVDC Section 7.12 Adequate Public Facilities.
Staff Findings
1. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to the Town Board.
2. The requested rezoning is generally consistent with the land use plan described in Chapter
4 of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply
with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.
4. Approval of the amended plat and rezoning will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes
and objectives of this Code.
5. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected.
6. The Town and other relevant service providers have the ability to provide adequate
services and facilities that might be required if the application is approved.
Planner Shirk stated staff recommended approval of the Lot Consolidation Plat and Rezoning,
with conditions listed below. He noted approval will not affect non‐conforming uses.
Public Comment
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated he had no comments at this time, but would like
the opportunity to reply to other public comments.
Dan Herlihey/Mountain Gate Condominiums HOA President stated six of the fifteen buildings
directly abut and overlook the subject property. There were originally 19 units planned, but the
final phase was never developed and the development rights expired. He stated commercial
zoning was not appropriate for that parcel, based upon the slope, natural undisturbed nature of
the hillside, lack of access, and adjacency of that property to the Mountain Gate residential units
and other adjacent residential parcels. If the rezoning request was approved, the HOA requested
a restriction to the undeveloped parcel to residential use. This would ease their concerns about
the potential for commercial development on that parcel.
Rene Krahn/Town resident was concerned about future development on such a steep lot. He
agreed with Mr. Herlihey’s comments.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
Conditions of Approval
1. The following notes shall be included on the plat:
a. Boundary lines indicated on this map are adjustments of former boundary lines of the
property depicted hereon. Such adjustments do not create additional lots or building
sites for any purposes. The area added to each lot shown hereon by such adjustment is
to be considered an addition to, shall become part of, and shall be conveyed together
with, each lot as shown.
b. Approval of this plat does not affect the nonconformity of any structures.
2. Compliance with memos from:
a. Estes Park Community Development memo dated March 5, 2015
b. Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated February 16, 2015
c. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated February 20, 2015
d. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated January 29, 2015
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to recommend approval of the Lot Consolidation
Plat with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed
unanimously with two absent.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Hills) to recommend approval of Rezoning from RM‐
Multi‐Family Residential to CD–Commercial Downtown with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff, while limiting development on the currently undeveloped property to
only residential use, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
5. ASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEY; AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW 2014‐01; TBD
Steamer Drive
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicant received approval by Town
Board of Special Review 2014‐01 in February, 2014. The site is Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic
District, and is zoned A–Accommodations. Stanley Village Shopping Center is located to the south,
and public open space is on the west, Stanley Hotel complex to the northwest, and a mix of
single‐family residential and outlots to the northeast. The original approval included an
Accommodations‐1 building, a Wellness Center, and the Accommodations‐2 building. The original
development plan proposed building the Wellness Center and the Accommodations‐1 buildings as
separate buildings, along with the infrastructure that included the parking lots. The
Accommodations‐2 building was only a conceptual footprint, with an undetermined construction
date (part of a future phase). The applicant is now requesting approval to construct the
Accommodations‐2 building first, with the Wellness Center and Accommodations‐1 building to
follow once the Estes Park Medical Center (EPMC) obtains necessary funding. When EPMC
realized the original separate buildings were not the ideal layout for day‐to‐day operations, they
approached the applicant about “fusing” the Wellness Center and the Accommodations‐1
building together, allowing clients easier accessibility to both buildings. Planner Kleisler displayed
a diagram of the approved plan, and overlayed the proposed changes to allow a better visual for
the Commissioners and public in attendance. He stated because the Accommodations‐2 building
was only a concept with the first approval, the application being reviewed today includes an
architectural review and analysis. The changes include a slightly larger footprint for the fused
buildings, and a shift of the Accommodations‐2 building approximately five (5) feet to the
northwest. The original construction phases would be reversed.
Planner Kleisler stated the process and review criteria included the following: consistency with
the goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (this parcel is part of the
Downtown Neighborhood); compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); and
compliance with the Stanley Historic District guidelines, which are located in the Estes Park
Municipal Code. The Stanley Historic District Master Plan does not apply to this specific lot. The
Planning Commission is the recommending body, with the Town Board hearing the item on
Tuesday, March 24, 2015 for a final decision. Planner Kleisler stated the Special Review criteria
requires applications mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on
nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. The application should
accomplish these in order to receive a positive recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Planner Kleisler stated the Stanley Historic District guidelines include view corridors from the
Stanley Hotel. The Accommodations‐2 building is proposed to lie just outside a view corridor, and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 8
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
the Accommodations‐1 and Wellness Center (Phase II) would lie within a view corridor. Additional
analysis would need to occur for the approval of Phase II, which would include a hearing before
the Planning Commission and Town Board. Planner Kleisler stated the Statement of Intent portion
of the application lists a number of efforts made on their behalf to comply with the Special
Review criteria, such as limited grading and pedestrian connectivity. The applicant has recorded
an easement for public access throughout the site. The social trail from the Stanley Hotel to
Stanley Village Shopping Center has been solidified legally through a public access easement. The
applicant has also committed to working with the adjacent property owners on final landscaping
designs, including placement of trees and shrubs. Exterior lighting will be limited; no parking lot
lighting was proposed, but staff requested bollard lighting be provided along the pedestrian ways
to ensure safe access throughout the site at night.
Planner Kleisler stated the applicant provided photo simulations of the proposed
Accommodations‐2 building. The northwest side complies with the 30‐foot height limit. As the
site slopes down, the building exceeds the allowable height by just under five (5) feet on the
south edge, after slope adjustment provided in the EVDC. The applicant provided additional
photo simulations today, including “Option 2”, which changes the design of the roof to comply
with the 30‐foot height limit. The applicant desires to receive a height variance to construct the
Accommodations‐2 building as planned (over the height limit); however, Option 2 could be an
alternative. Planner Kleisler stated the portion of the building that would be over the height limit
faces south towards Stanley Village Shopping Center. There has been considerable public
comment and neighbor concern opposed to the height variance. Some comments also addressed
the location of the building and the parking lot as a way to reduce the height of the
Accommodations‐2 building. During the original review process, staff recommended the parking
lot be located behind the building in order to screen the parking from the public street.
Planner Kleisler stated the site design does not show the proposed sidewalk along Steamer Drive.
The applicant has had difficulty obtaining the necessary easements through the Stanley Hills
Subdivision. If the Commission recommends approval, one of the conditions for Phase II would
require the applicant to gain all necessary easements to construct the sidewalk in this area. If the
easements are not obtained, the sidewalk should be constructed fully on the applicant’s property,
which will be fairly disconnected from the road.
Planner Kleisler stated staff also requested the issue of any proposed outdoor activity on the site
be addressed with Phase II, as the note from the original plan was not carried forward to the
amended plan. Staff had three concerns pertaining to the amended site plan:
Proposed outdoor activity on the eastern side of the site:
Through internal discussions, the applicant proposed small‐scale wedding receptions take
place on the eastern side of the site plan. Given this proposal was not initiated earlier in the
application process, staff requested and the owner agreed to remove the allowance of that
activity from the plan. A condition of approval will be added to ensure removal of that
statement prior to Town Board review on March 24th.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 9
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Potential for outdoor use on deck located at the southwest corner of the Accommodations‐2
building:
Staff requested additional information as to whether any outdoor uses would be conducted in
this area. The applicant stated the deck is directly connected to one of the accommodations
units, and no organized outdoor uses would be conducted on the deck.
A pedestrian connection and patio on the western edge of the site is not on the amended
plans:
The applicant explained that feature was deleted from the current proposal.
Staff Findings
1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan and the Downtown area plan. The application
advances several Community–Wide policies, as delineated in the Staff report.
2. The application for the proposed amendment to the Special Review use mitigates, to the
maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities
and services, and the environment.
3. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development.
4. The application complies with the Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley
Historic District Standards for Development regarding: view corridors, open space, site
design, pedestrian circulation, and signs.
5. The request to exceed the Stanley Historic District maximum allowed building height of
30‐feet is allowed through special review approval, and complies with Section 1.9.E.2
Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes.
6. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will
comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the
Review Discussion in the staff report.
7. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board of the Town of Estes
Park.
8. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to
placing the application on the board agenda. Placement on the March 24 Town Board
agenda requires a March 18 submittal or a revised application that fully satisfies all
conditions of approval.
Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval of the amendment to the approved Special
Review 2014‐01, with conditions of approval listed below. Director Chilcott stated there may be
additional conditions to Condition of Approval #8, which will require additional discussion
between Planner Kleisler and herself.
Chair Hull called a ten‐minute recess at 2:35. The meeting reconvened at 2:45 p.m.
Public Comment
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 10
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Lucia Liley/applicant representative briefly explained the issue concerning the name of the
complex. She stated there has been no change in relationships since the beginning of the concept.
In March, 2015, EPMC entered into a formal contract with the University of Colorado Health
Sciences Center (Anschutz Medical Center) for licensing and use of their proprietary wellness
programs. These programs will be implemented as part of the Wellness Center project in Estes
Park. A lease between Grand Heritage Hotels and EPMC is intact. She stated because of the
complexity of the redesign of Phase I, the process will take additional time and another special
review process will be forthcoming. Grand Heritage Hotels has funding in place and is prepared to
begin construction as soon as possible, so it made sense to reverse the phasing and build the
Accommodations‐2 building first. Because that building had not been designed prior to the
original review process, the height and architecture required review by Staff, Planning
Commission, and Town Board. She stated it was important to note that the major categories of
the project remain in place: the uses have not changed; the amount of open space exceeds the
requirement; the building to lot coverage ratio is under what is allowed; native landscaping and
wildlife mitigation techniques are in place. She stated a large amount of work was done on the
stormwater drainage plan, which was revised following concerns and questions from some of the
downstream property owners, and some of which was related to drainage of Lot 1. Engineers
spent more time analyzing the drainage plan, and the current design would put some of the water
into a pond system on Lot 4 and have the water recede from there. She stated the building
envelope was approved during the original approval process, as was the parking lot placement.
The building has been shifted five feet to accommodate some pedestrian connections. She stated
it is generally considered a superior planning technique to screen parking by putting is at the rear
of the building. In the Stanley Historic District standards, parking should be placed behind the
building. Once room sizes were determined, parking requirements increased. A few more spaces
were added on site, and eight more were added off‐site, which Town code allows. Those off‐site
spaces will be located at the Stanley Hotel, but because the distance is more than 300 feet from
the proposed development, transportation must be provided. The Stanley Hotel purchased a
London taxi to run on demand between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. to provide access to the overflow
parking spaces. The use of those eight spaces would assume 100% occupancy of the
accommodations buildings, and all rooms larger than 750 square feet would have two cars. That
situation is not likely to occur. The Town Board, during the approval of the original plan, made
some clarifications and changes to the architectural standards of the Stanley Historic District.
Ms. Liley stated a letter from the Colorado Historical Society recognized the site for the building is
likely the best placement, and is not anticipated to have an adverse affect on the Stanley Hotel.
The third‐party architect hired by the hotel suggested a few minor changes, all of which the
applicant has agreed to do. The height issue has been studied extensively. Another potential way
to design the Accommodations‐2 building to comply with the height requirement has been
submitted. The architecture of the roof would be altered. The pros and cons of each option would
need to be weighed as to what you would gain or lose.
Tim Lego/applicant’s architect stated the proposed Accommodations‐2 building would maintain
the Stanley cohesiveness while creating its own set of modifications. Window trims are
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 11
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
complementary but slightly different; trims, deck railings, and columns are similar; there will be a
stone base to the building, and colors will comply with the Stanley Historic District requirements.
Don Burnholtz/applicant’s architect stated throughout the process, the photo simulations have
been challenged for accuracy. The most recent photo simulations are available on the Town
website for this project, titled View Corridor Presentation. He used GPS to ensure accuracy. After
reviewing the slides, he stated there are grave sacrifices to the architectural integrity of the
building when using Option 2. The roof pitch would be altered, and the dormers would be
flattened on top. The applicant’s team did not think Option 2 would complement the
architectural standards of the Stanley Hotel complex.
There was brief discussion between Chair Hull and Ms. Liley concerning the letter from the State
Historical Society. It was ultimately concluded by the society there would be no adverse affect
from this project. It was understood the project would be required to meet the Town design
standards.
David Bangs/applicant’s engineer stated the building floor could not be lowered due to the
complex pipe system flowing underneath the building. Making it lower would require waivers to
other standards of the EVDC. He stated the main reason for the shift of the Accommodations‐2
building is to accommodate the required pedestrian walkways alongside the building.
There was brief discussion between Commissioner Schneider and Mr. Burnholtz concerning the
room sizes. It was noted the proposed building will have 40 units and 48 beds. Due to the larger
size of a few of the units, additional parking spaces were required.
John Cullen/applicant stated the eight corner units will be larger, to accommodate families with
children and be ADA compliant. ADA rules have changed and additional restrictions now apply. He
stated he is celebrating his 20th anniversary of owning the Stanley Hotel, and does not consider
himself a “foreigner”. He stated the original plan for the Accommodations‐2 building called for
larger rooms; however, the market is for individual rooms, so although the footprint has not
changed, the number of rooms has. The Town requested only short‐term rentals (less than 30
days) in the Accommodations‐2 building, and they will comply with that request. The Wellness
Center will have doctors, nurses, therapists, etc. staying in this building, and rotations will
typically be two to three weeks each. The rooms will have kitchenettes. The clients at the
Wellness Center may stay as long as six weeks, and they will stay in the Accommodations‐1
building, which will not have cooking facilities in the rooms. There was brief discussion between
Mr. Cullen and Commissioner Schneider concerning the completion of the entire project. Mr.
Cullen welcomes the partnership with EPMC. If EPMC does not raise the funds, Mr. Cullen will
build it himself. It is in his best interest to encourage EPMC to raise the funds and build the
Wellness Center. Mr. Cullen stated he also has wellness center projects planned for Japan, China,
and England. The Estes Park facility would be the flagship wellness center.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 12
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Planner Kleisler stated after consulting with the Town Attorney, staff would like to amend Staff
Finding #5, removing “and complies with Section 1.9.E.2 Measurement of Maximum Building
Height on Slopes.” This was a finding during the original development plan approval process. The
current application does not comply with the height limit; therefore, this portion of the finding
must be removed. Condition of Approval #1 will be deleted, as reference to the contract does not
apply to this application. During the recess, Community Development staff had a brief
conversation with the applicant and staff is recommending the use of the eastern drainage
facilities for outdoor activities (including outdoor recreation) be reviewed with Phase II. Staff has
some concerns with that area of the site. While the wedding reception note will be removed from
the plans, staff wants to ensure any outdoor uses associated with the project are provided the
public review process, which can happen during review of Phase II.
David Bangs stated the shape of the pond on the landscape plan has morphed from the original
plan. The proposed pond will be a retention pond, in that it will store water permanently. It will
have aesthetic value and minimize visual impacts of stormwater facilities on neighboring
properties and surrounding areas. Typically, retention ponds are heavily landscaped, and also
require a substantial amount of maintenance. As for use for outdoor activities, the applicant
agrees with staff that this area would not be used in that manner with this application.
Public Comment
Ann Finley/Town resident stated was imperative that the project be done correctly. The new
proposal was not what the voters approved, and she wondered if the vote would have passed if
the proposal presented today were the original plans (accommodations being built prior to the
Wellness Center). She urged Commissioners to hold the project to the same standards as
everyone else in the Estes Valley; not to show favoritism or waive fees. She did not support the
amended plan.
Christie Smith/representative for Doug Warner/Town resident stated he was opposed to the
project if it did not comply with the height limit.
Christie Smith/Town resident stated she lived nearby, and was concerned her property value and
quality of life would be negatively impacted by the project. There are people in her neighborhood
that voted for the project. Others are not being vindictive because “they lost the election,” They
are just concerned about their property values and quality of life issues.
Marlene Hayek/Town resident stated prior to purchasing her home, she learned the Stanley
Historic District Master Plan limited commercial development to 35,000 square feet (the
proposed project is over 100,000 square feet). She was upset when Lot 4 was excluded from the
Master Plan due to the expiration of such plan. She believed the Town made changes and ignored
comments in order to accommodate the sale of Lot 4 and pave the way for development. She was
opposed to the request to build the Accommodations‐2 building prior to the Wellness Center, to
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 13
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
the request for a height variance, and encouraged the Commissioners to disapprove the
application.
Ed Hayek/Town resident and President of Stanley View Homeowners Association supported
denial of the application. The HOA has serious concerns about declining property values. The
neighbors had to comply with regulations when their homes were built, and the Stanley Hotel
should have to comply as well. He stated the proposed building could be stepped down to lower
the height. He was opposed to the project being rushed through the process, stating that was
when errors were made and opportunities missed. He disagreed with the accuracy of the photo
simulations. He did not agree the applicant had mitigated to the maximum amount feasible.
Judy Schrieber/Town resident stated while she voted in favor of the sale of Lot 4, she was
opposed to flipping the phases and building the Accommodations‐2 building first. She encouraged
the Town to move the parking lot so the building can be moved further down the hill. A view of
Longs Peak is very important to those in the Estes Park Community, and it has emotional
significance.
Dana Small/Town resident lives in Estes Park because the views are outstanding. The codes were
adopted for a reason, and should be complied with. He was opposed to the height variance
request.
Johanna Darden/Town resident stated the approval of the sale of Lot 4 also approved the
proposed use. She stated the application presented violates the approval that was passed with
the vote. She stated the Accommodations‐1 building and the Wellness Center should be
constructed first. She stated the photo simulations from Barb Davis’ property were misleading.
Susan Wolf/County resident agreed with Marlene and Ed Hayek’s comments. She was opposed to
the height variance. She read additional comments from Barb Davis, who was unable to attend
the meeting. These comments will be posted to the web once received by staff. She was
concerned about the negative impacts of the Accommodations‐2 building on the Stanley Hills
neighborhood. She recommended parking be behind the building or screened. If parking was
allowed north of the building, the viewscape for the neighbors would improve. She had concerns
about the proposed drainage plan and the “grand ditch” that runs through her property without
easements. Her written comments went into detail concerning the photo settings used for the
photo simulations. She did not believe all concerns had been fully addressed.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Comments included, but were not limited to: the building could be spread out and would still
comply with lot coverage requirements and would lower the height; the voters took the ballot
question seriously; part of the ballot question was read, concerning the allowance of lodging for
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 14
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
staff physicians; the Wellness Center is still a concept, and it was questioned who the building
would be accommodating; the will of the voters may not be for more motel rooms; has a problem
with the height variance request; if the building were redesigned and parking lot moved, it may
solve the height problem; architecturally, it could be done differently.
Ms. Liley stated with the original plan, there was a special finding by the Town Board to increase
the height limit of 30 feet with the Phase I building. The architects were able to meet the EVDC
slope requirements, but unable to meeting the 30‐foot height limit. On the table today, the
proposed height variance still requires a finding by the Town Board. Option 1 would not comply
with the height limit, while Option 2 would comply.
Mr. Cullen stated Option 2 is in full compliance with the height limits. It doesn’t drop height of the
northwest corner, but will drop the rest of the building. He stated he was willing and prepared to
withdraw Option 1 and continue with Option 2 to please the Commission and the Town. He added
the proposed project includes major landscaping and retention ponds that will solve drainage
issues for the entire neighborhood, including an area that has been in litigation for several years.
If EPMC does not raise the funds to construct the Wellness Center, he stated he would face a
$650,000 penalty and also be required to build the center without assistance from EPMC.
Ms. Liley stated specifics about buildings were not specified in the contract to sell Lot 4, as was
implied by some of the public comments. She reviewed and clarified portions of the contract for
the Commission. She stated the purpose of the building is to accommodate guests and employees
of the EPMC program, and nothing was being proposed that is different from the contract.
Mr. Cullen explained he had every intention to construct first the Accommodations‐1 building
adjacent to the Wellness Center, with the Accommodations‐2 building to follow at a later date.
When EPMC requested to attach the Accommodations‐1 building to the Wellness Center, it
changed the entire design and building process. Once the design changes were made, it was
determined both buildings would need to be built at the same time. Because EPMC is funding the
Wellness Center and the Stanley Hotel is funding the Accommodations‐1 building, it only made
sense to delay that portion of the project until EPMC acquires the necessary funding. Because
funds were already in place for an accommodations building, he would like to get started on the
Accommodations‐2 building while EPMC continues to raise funds for the Wellness Center.
Commissioner Hills moved to recommend approval of the amendment to Special Review 2014‐01
application as described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended and
amended by staff with Option 2 used as the design for the Accommodations‐2 building.
Town Attorney White requested a five minute recess at 4:22 p.m. to allow staff time to reflect the
accurate conditions of using Option 2 prior to seconding the motion and the vote. The meeting
reconvened at 4:29 p.m.
.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 15
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Planner Kleisler clarified an additional condition of approval would be added to relate directly to
using the Option 2 design. See condition #10. The reason behind the added condition is to have a
third‐party architect review the plans for compliance with the architectural standards. The
Community Development Department would complete the final height verification to ensure
compliance. Approval of Option 2 at the Town Board level would be conditional to compliance
with agency comments. He stated staff feels comfortable with the application moving forward as
scheduled. Additional conditions could be imposed at the Town Board level.
Mr. Cullen concurred with the additional condition of approval.
Conditions of Approval
1. Continued compliance with January 10, 2014 real estate contract between Grand Heritage
Hotel Group, LLC and the Town of Estes Park.
2. All improvements and public facilities necessary for Phase I uses shall be installed with
Phase I.
3. MUTCD wildlife crossing signs are required on Wonderview Avenue, near the crossing
between Lot 5 and the Knoll‐Willows. Design and location shall be determined by staff
during Construction Plan approval.
4. Landscaping Plan:
a. Landscaping plan shall accommodate elk migration, with trees focused close to
buildings and parking areas, with outlying areas kept natural grasslands (with
irrigation).
b. Compliance with Section 7.8.G.1.b Non‐Native Vegetation.
5. Staff review and approval shall be required for any future parking lot lighting. Unless more
information is requested by staff, the Applicant shall submit a photometric plan,
illustrations of fixture models, height and location of proposed lighting. Compliance with
17.44.060(d)(11) and EVDC 7.11 is required.
6. Compliance with the following affected agency comments:
a. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated January 29, 2015;
b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated February 11, 2015;
c. Town of Estes Park Water Division memo dated February 19, 2015;
d. Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division memo dated February 19, 2015;
e. Town of Estes Park Community Development Department memo dated February 20,
2015;
f. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated February 20, 2015;
g. Colorado Historical Society memo dated February 20, 2015;
h. RBB Architects, Inc. memo dated February 25, 2015.
7. Should necessary easements not be granted for the proposed sidewalk along Steamer
Drive, the applicant shall construct such sidewalk along their property during Phase II
construction.
8. The Applicant shall delete Note #24 from the site plan, relating to outdoor wedding
receptions.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 16
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
9. Use of the eastern drainage facilities for outdoor activities, including outdoor recreation,
shall be reviewed with Phase II.
10. Option 2, as presented in the Estes Valley Planning Commission hearing on March 17,
2015, reducing the height of the building to comply with EVDC 1.9.E.2, shall be reviewed
by affected agencies, including:
a. Architectural review through a licensed, third party architect;
b. Estes Park Community Development Department
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to recommend approval of the Amendment to
Special Review 2014‐01 to the Town Board as described in the staff report, with the findings
and conditions recommended and amended by staff, using Option 2 as the design for the
Accommodations‐2 building, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
6. RIVERVIEW PINES DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2015‐02 AND AMENDED PLAT, Tract 56B, Amended Plat
of Lot 2, Deercrest Subdivision, 1150 W. Elkhorn Avenue
Planner Kleisler stated the applicant, Fred Kropp, has requested a continuance of the Riverview
Pines application.
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Schneider) to continue the Riverview Pines
Development Plan and Amended Plat application to the April Planning Commission meeting
and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
7. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT RELATING TO SMALL‐SCALE PET GROOMING
IN THE CD–COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN ZONE DISTRICT
Planner Kleisler stated he was approached by a downtown business owner requesting to amend
the EVDC to allow small‐scale pet grooming in the CD zone district. The Town Board has
expressed interest in this code amendment, and has asked the Planning Commission to review
the amendment and make a recommendation. Planner Kleisler requested feedback from the
Commission prior to proceeding with draft code language. He stated public outreach would take
place in the form of a press release and mailed notices to all property owners in the CD zone
district. He will have draft code language at the April meeting.
Planner Kleisler stated noise issues and abatement on neighboring properties, boarding, parking,
and loading zones will be considered in the review. Chair Hull stated this item was discussed at
the Planning Commission Study Session. Commissioner White stated there was some discussion
about limiting the number of animals on site at one time. Planner Kleisler stated the business
owner’s intent is to provide a fast and efficient grooming service, not a dog sitting service. There
could be a limit to the hours of operation.
8. ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MODERNIZATION
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Hills) to continue this item to the April Planning Commission
meeting and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 17
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
9. REPORTS
A. Director Chilcott reported the Board of Adjustment recently heard three variance requests:
1. Proposed attached garage at 1418 Narcissus Dr. denied March 3, 2015
2. Decrease in minimum lot width at 660 Larkspur Rd. approved March 3, 2015
3. Allowance of outdoor activity in the CD zone district at 116 E. Elkhorn Ave. approved
March 3, 2015
B. Director Chilcott reported the Town Board heard the following items:
1. Marys Lake Replat Amended Development Agreement continued to April 24, 2015
2. Backbone Adventures Special Review approved February 24, 2015.
C. Larimer County Board of County Commissioners
1. High Drive Heights Amended Plat approved February 17, 2015
D. Flood Mitigation/Recovery
1. Director Chilcott reported there will be a request for a Letter of Support from the Town
Board on the Fish Creek Plan for Resiliency at a Town Board meeting in the near future
E. Commissioner Klink stated he will be absent in April, Chair Hull stated she will be absent in
June, and Commissioner Sykes will be back in town for the April meeting.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:38 p.m.
___________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Alison Chilcott, Community Development Director
Date: April 28, 2015
RE: Ordinance #04-15, Rezoning from E-Estate to R-2 Two-Family
Residential, Lot 4, Twin View Resubdivision, 1650 Avalon Drive, Cindy
Youngland-Liddell & Robert Liddell/Applicant
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing to consider a rezoning application for compliance with the
Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
The applicant requests rezoning of
Lot 4 of the Twin View subdivision
from E-Estate single-family zoning
to R-2 Two-Family.
This property is about ¾ of an acre
in size and contains a single-family
home with an accessory living
area.
The property was zoned E-Estate
with the comprehensive Valley-
wide rezoning in the year 2000.
Prior to 2000, this property and many others in Town had been zoned for one/two-family
development since at least 1974.
On March 17, 2015, the Estes Valley Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning
request and determined that the request complied with the Estes Valley Development
Code standards for review for rezoning applications.
Proposal:
This re-zoning, if granted, will allow the property owner to convert the existing single-
family home into a duplex.
Once converted, the property owner has a number of options including converting to
condos and selling the two units individually; or living in one unit and renting the second
unit for long-term rental or as a vacation home.
E-1
E-Estate R-2
R-2
RM
Site
There will be expense associated with conversion to a duplex. Conversion is likely to
require some remodel work such as work to meet minimum building safety requirements
for fire separation between dwelling units. Also additional water and/or sewer tap fees
may be required.
If the property owner chooses not to convert the single-family dwelling to a duplex
immediately after re-zoning, the owner may be able use the accessory living area for
long-term rental. This requires further staff analysis that will be completed prior to the
Town Board meeting on April 28th. Vacation
rental of the accessory living area is not
allowed; it is not a legal grandfathered use.
Advantages:
Refer to Planning Commission minutes.
Disadvantages:
Refer to Planning Commission minutes.
Action Recommended:
On March 17, 2015, the Estes Valley Planning
Commission voted unanimously 5-0 (two absent) to recommend conditional approval of
the rezoning to Town Board, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with memos from:
a. Estes Park Community Development memo dated March 5, 2015
b. Upper Thompson Sanitation District email dated February 20, 2015
c. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated January 27, 2014
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve (or deny) Ordinance #04-15.
Attachments:
Ordinance #04-15
The application, planning commission staff report, public comment, can be reviewed at:
www.estes.org/currentapplications
Planning Commission meeting minutes are a part of this April 28th Town Board packet
ORDINANCE NO. 04-15
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
TO REZONE LOT 4 OF THE TWIN VIEW RESUBDIVISION
LOCATED AT 1650 AVALON DRIVE
WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended rezoning
Lot 4 Twin View Resubdivision, located at 1650 Avalon Drive, from E Estate single-
family residential to R-2 Two-Family Residential; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined
that it is in the best interest of the Town that the recommended zoning change be
granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The zoning Lot 4 Twin View Resubdivision, located at 1650 Avalon
Drive, shall be changed from E Estate single-family residential to R-2 Two-Family
Residential.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS 28th DAY OF APRIL, 2015.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________________
William Pinkham, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular
meeting of the Board of Trustees on the 28th day of April, 2015 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the
day of , 2015, all as required by the Statutes of the State of
Colorado.
Town Clerk
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Estes Park Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Philip Kleisler, Planner II
Date: April 28, 2015
ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT, Section 4.4.B,
Table 4-4: Permitted Uses, Non-Residential Zoning District. Amendment
to allow small-scale pet grooming in the CD-Commercial Downtown zone
district as an accessory use to pet-related retail establishments.
Objective:
Consideration of an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to
permit small-scale Animal Grooming in the Commercial Downtown District (CD).
Present Situation:
Animal Grooming includes the bathing and trimming services for small domestic animals
and short-term boarding (no more than 48 hours). Animal Grooming is only permitted in
the CO Commercial Outlying zone district. Because this grooming use is specifically
prohibited in the CD Commercial Downtown district it is not permitted as an accessory
use.
An owner of a downtown pet boutique store has approached Town staff with a request
to amend the EVDC to permit Animal Grooming as an accessory use in the CD district.
As outlined in the attached letter, this owner receives consistent requests for grooming
services throughout the summer, primarily after muddy day hikes.
The Planning Commission provided initial feedback about this proposal during the
March 17, 2015 hearing regarding numerous land use matters that are outlined below.
Town staff has taken the following actions throughout the past month:
Public Outreach
o To ensure adequate public involvement, a press release was published on
April 7, 2015 and individual mailings were sent to all property owners
within the CD district.
o Numerous pet-related businesses were contacted to explain the request
and receive initial feedback.
Page 2 of 5
Researched current laws about pet handling in public spaces
o Estes Park Municipal Code Section 7.06.040 requires that pet owners
remove “any dog or cat feces deposited by said dog or cat on public
sidewalks, right-of-way, street, parks or recreation areas.” This section
also specifies the same removal requirement for private properties.
Lastly, this section requires that any place where a dog or animal are kept
be clean and sanitary.
o Estes Park Municipal Code Section 7.12.040 requires that dogs and cats
be in control of their owner by either confinement (e.g. car, crate) or leash.
o Estes Park Municipal Code Section 7.12.120 establishes that it is unlawful
“for any person to keep or maintain any animal within the Town which
habitually or continually disturbs the peace and quiet of any individual or
neighborhood by barking, whining, howling or making any other noise.”
o The purpose of the CD district is to establish a “wide variety of relatively
high intensity of retail and commercial services within Downtown Estes
Park to serve both residents and visitors…The district is intended to
encourage a predominance of compact and pedestrian-scale retail,
service and office uses in the Downtown core.” The full purpose
statement is attached to this report.
o The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan establishes community-wide
policies and specific neighborhood policies throughout the Valley. The
code amendment is consistent with the following objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan:
Community-wide policies 1.3: “Encourage existing and future
community commercial uses to located within a compact, well
defined downtown business district.” In order to provide any
grooming service at this time downtown businesses must relocate
to outlying commercial areas.
o Staff met with the Colorado Department of Agriculture, who administers
the Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act (PACFA). The PACFA Program is
a licensing inspection program dedicated to protecting the health and well-
being of those animals in pet care facilities. Staff at PACFA made several
comments:
Page 3 of 5
Consider if the Town prefers a full service wash or a self-serve
wash.
Staff does not recommend specifying if the business must be a full
service or self-serve wash. There are higher State permitting
standards for full service washes.
What prevents a dog from going out the front door?
Municipal Code Section 7.12.040 appears to address this concern.
Drains should catch hair.
The Estes Park Sanitation District reviews building permits for any
remodels to this type of business. During that review the District
requires that the owner install screens to catch hair. No concerns
were expressed by the District relating to this code amendment.
o Staff discussed this proposal with the Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners on April 20. The Commissioners did not express any
concerns about the proposal.
Proposal:
The proposed code amendment allows the Animal Grooming in the Commercial
Downtown District with three restrictions:
1. Permitted as an accessory use only.
2. Service shall not exceed two (2) animals at any time.
Staff Comment: This restriction was intended to address the Board and
Commission’s preference to limit the grooming component of the business to
ensure a small capacity. The intent is to allow one animal being groomed, while
another is waiting to be picked up.
3. Shall not include Animal Boarding at any time.
Staff Comment: Similar to number two above, this restriction is intended to strictly
prohibit any Animal Boarding in the CD district. Staff expects the animals to be
crated for a brief period while waiting to be picked up.
Advantages:
Encourages a new type of downtown service not currently offered;
Dog-friendly amenities often strengthen the vibrancy of urban areas;
Page 4 of 5
Such a service would bring some visitors downtown for several hours while their
pet is being groomed.
Disadvantages:
Downtown animal grooming may lead to some degree of land use conflicts. The
proposed regulations seek to limit such conflicts through operational restrictions.
The Animal Sales/Services zoning uses appear to have been established to limit
land use conflicts relating to noise. At this point no Animal Sales/Services uses
are permitted in the CD district. This code amendment may be in conflict with the
original intent of the Animal Sales/Services Use.
Action Recommended:
On April 21, 2015, the Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing and
voted unanimously (6-0, one commissioner absent) to recommend APPROVAL of the
proposed code amendment, conditional to:
1. Amending bullet three in the code amendment to reflect the following:
“Shall not include Animal Boarding at any time.”
Staff Comment: The Commission added “at any time” to the amendment.
2. Consideration of a local building code amendment for noise abatement.
Staff Comment: The Board of Appeals is examining the local amendments to the
upcoming 2015 International Building Code adoption. The Town Board could
add this to the Board of Appeals’ work plan for further examination.
Staff will schedule the formal ordinance adoption for May 12, should the Board wish to
continue this project.
Budget:
Legal notice, publication and codification fees are minimal ($300); and
Staff time.
Level of Public Interest
Low. A press release was published on April 7 and notecards were mailed to all
property owners within the CD district. Staff has received the following comments:
- A downtown business owner called to express concerns about potential noise
impacts of this use in the downtown core;
Page 5 of 5
- A pet groomer called to speak against the code amendment. Specifically, the
owner believes that this use is unfair to other groomers in town who needed to be
located other commercial areas;
- Two owners of pet grooming/supply stores were contacted by staff. Each of
these owners expressed support for the code amendment, citing an expanded
tax base and the promotion of small business as the primary reasons.
Three (3) members of the public spoke in opposition to the request during the Planning
Commission meeting. All comments were provided by local owners of animal grooming
businesses. Many of the comments focused on unfair treatment, as most groomers are
required to be located in the Commercial Outlying district, which at times has been
difficult.
Attachment:
1. Request from business owner
2. Proposed code amendment
3. EVDC Excerpts
4. Planning Commission minutes
From: Pam DeWitt [mailto:dewittpam@gmail.com]
Subject: Grooming
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a new business owner on Elkhorn Ave, called; Fur Babies a Pet Boutique. I would like to
offer a one table pet grooming, for tourist and locals. I was asked almost daily for pet grooming
during the summer months and at least once a week after the tourist rush. I want a high
standard, quality, environmentally sound grooming with; cleanliness a priority, one table-never
more than two dogs at one time and no cages. Here is a list of the benefits of offering grooming
down town:
· Demand-Tourist traveling and their pets are untrimmed/dirty. They come in with dogs
that are filthy from traveling, hiking or in the rivers and lakes. They want to drop off get
their dogs cleaned while they go shopping
· Shopping-While pets are being groomed or cleaned; owners can shop down town. Many
shops do not allow pets in their stores; this frees them up to shop or eat.
· Locals come in wanting a place to just drop off their pets’ quick, easy/conveniently. There
is a drop off parking space right out front for easy access.
Demand is there, need for quality grooming is there. This is a plus for downtown, something
quick/convenient, unique and adds variety to downtown, which shoppers are wanting. I have a
great response from many business owners and shoppers I have spoken too. I am not
competition for the other groomers; I am not full scale, nor could I handle anything large scale
to be any kind of competition. Besides, competition is not a bad thing, it makes businesses work
harder to be better and that is a win/win situation for patrons.
Thanks,
Pam DeWitt
Fur Babies
Attachment 1: Request from business owner
Use Classification
Specific
use
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Additional Regulations
(Apply in All Districts
Unless Otherwise
Stated)
“P” = Permitted by Right
“S” = Permitted by Special Review
“–” = Prohibited
A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1
RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS
Animal
Sales/Services
(cont'd)
Animal
Grooming – – P P – – –
In CD, such use:
Permitted as an
accessory use
only;
Shall not exceed
two (2) animals
at any time; and
Shall not include
Animal Boarding
at any time.
Animal
Hospital – – – P – – P
Animal
Retail Sales – – – P – – –
Animal
Shows/Sale
s
– – – P – P P §5.1.L
Veterinary
Office – – – P – – –
Deleted: –
4. Homeowner Association Required. All new townhome developments containing five
(5) or more dwelling units shall be required to establish a mandatory Homeowner
Association for the maintenance of common property (including private open areas)
within the development.
5. Attainable Housing. All developments in the R-1 District shall be subject to the
attainable housing limitations for rental and owner occupancy set forth in §11.4.C.
(Ord. 13-99 §D, 11/3/99; Ord. 18-01 ##13—15, 10/23/01; Ord. 2-02 §1, 2/12/02; Ord. 11-02 §1,
8/13/02; Ord. 18-02 #3, 12/10/02; Ord. 6-06 §1, 9/26/06; Ord. 25-07 §1, 11/27/07)
§ 4.4 NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
A. List of Districts/Specific Purposes.
1. Accommodations Zoning Districts.
a. A Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning District. This district implements the
“A-Accommodations” land use category set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. It
applies primarily in highway-oriented commercial areas of the Estes Valley, and
allows a wide variety of accommodation uses, including relatively higher-intensity
accommodations such as multi-story hotels and motels. A variety of related
tourist-serving retail and commercial uses, such as restaurants, bars and gift
shops, will be permitted, but only as accessory uses to a principal
accommodations use and only if such supporting uses are located inside the same
structure as the principal use. Stand-alone commercial or retail uses will not be
permitted in this accommodations district; instead, such uses may be developed in
the other commercial zones.
b. A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity Zoning District. This district implements the
“A-1-Accommodations” land use category set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
This district provides for low-intensity and small-scale residential uses, low-
intensity accommodations and very limited accessory uses located along highway
and roadway corridors characterized by low-intensity residential and lodging uses,
including resort lodges, cabins and condominium developments. Aside from these
limited residential and accommodation uses, no new commercial development
shall be permitted in this district. New uses, including new accommodations, shall
be developed consistent in intensity, bulk and design with the low-scale, residential
character of this district.
2. Commercial Zoning Districts.
a. CD Downtown Commercial. This zone district is established to provide a wide
variety and relatively high intensity of retail and commercial services within
Downtown Estes Park to serve both residents and visitors. The CD District
implements the “CBD-Commercial Downtown” land use category set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan. This district is intended to encourage a predominance of
compact and pedestrian-scale retail, service and office uses in the Downtown
core. Residential uses, especially employee housing or when mixed with
commercial or retail uses, are also encouraged within the district to provide
alternative housing choices for the Valley’s workforce.
It is the intent that the Downtown maintain its function as the Valley’s focal point of
tourist shopping and entertainment activity. This area is also a key economic
Attachment 3: EVDC Excerpts
engine for the Town of Estes Park and the Valley; therefore, future sales-tax
generating uses are strongly encouraged.
It is also the intent of this district that new development develop in ways integrating
and even enhancing the qualities of the streams, rivers, topography and other
natural assets of the area.
b. CO Outlying Commercial Zoning District. This zoning district is established to
encourage the development of a wide variety of commercial and retail uses along
the major corridor entryways into the Valley and the Town of Estes Park. This
zoning district is established to implement the “Commercial” and “Commercial-
Recreation” future land use categories recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.
This district should accommodate the majority of the larger, freestanding
commercial and retail buildings to meet future demand in the community.
c. O Office Zoning District. This zoning district is established to implement the
“Office” future land use category recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. The
intensity of future office development will be controlled through district standards
setting forth a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and building height maximum.
d. CH Heavy Commercial Zoning District. This zoning district is intended to provide
for heavy commercial uses, including vehicle repair services, construction trades
and bulk goods retailing. It shall be limited to areas within the Estes Valley that
already contain some of these types of heavy commercial uses, and shall not
include areas fronting the Valley’s highways or arterial streets. Permitted uses
shall include utility facilities and installations, repair services, bulk storage and
limited manufacturing. Most of these uses shall be permitted by right, but subject
to specific size limitations. Larger facilities shall be subject to special review.
3. Industrial Zoning Districts.
a. I-1 Restricted Industrial Zoning District. This zoning district implements the
“Restricted Industrial” land use category recommended in the Comprehensive
Plan. Permitted uses shall include a relatively wide variety of industrial uses, as
reflected in the existing mix of industrial land uses, including several
concrete/asphalt plants, propane distributors, construction trade yards and gravel
mining and crushing facilities. However, to discourage future conflicts, residential
uses shall not be permitted in this zoning district. An important element of
development in this industrial zone district shall be compliance with performance
standards to protect adjacent uses from adverse impacts of industrial
development.
B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-4
Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Use Classification
Specific
use
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Additional Regulations
(Apply in All Districts
Unless Otherwise
Stated)
“P” = Permitted by Right
“S” = Permitted by Special Review
“–” = Prohibited
A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1
RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS
Attachment 3: EVDC Excerpts
resort lodge/cabin use may contain full kitchen facilities in lieu of “limited
kitchen facilities,” but only if such guest rooms comply with all conditions set
forth in §5.1.P of this Code.
3. Adult Businesses.
a. General Definition: Any facility or establishment that conducts as a principal use of
the premises, or as a significant or substantial adjunct to another use of the
premises, the sale, rental, display or other offering of live entertainment, dancing
or material that is distinguished or characterized by its emphasis on depicting,
exhibiting, describing or relating to specified sexual activities or specified
anatomical areas as an attraction to the premises.
b. Examples: Examples include, but are not limited to, the following specific types of
uses:
(1) Adult Bookstore: Any establishment that sells or rents adult material,
including but not limited to books, magazines, movies, films, slides or other
photographic or written material and/or devices.
(2) Adult Cabaret, Restaurant or other Business: A cabaret, restaurant or place
of business that features topless or bottomless dancers, waitresses, waiters
or entertainers.
(3) Adult Motion Picture Theater: Any theater in which the presentation of adult
material is the primary or principal attraction.
4. Animal Sales/Services.
a. General Definition: Any commercial facility or establishment that conducts as a
principal use of the premises the sale or boarding of animals, or the provision of
care, treatment or services for animals.
b. Examples: This classification includes the following types of specific uses:
(1) Animal Boarding: Provision of shelter and care for small or large animals on
a commercial basis. This use includes activities such as feeding, exercising,
grooming and incidental medical care.
(2) Animal Grooming: Provision of bathing and trimming services for small or
domestic animals only on a commercial basis. This use includes boarding of
domestic animals for a maximum period of forty-eight (48) hours.
(3) Animal Hospital: Establishments where small or domestic animals receive
medical and surgical diagnosis and treatment. This use includes only
facilities that are entirely enclosed, soundproofed and air-conditioned.
Grooming and temporary (no more than thirty [30] days) boarding of animals
is included if incidental to the hospital use.
(4) Animal Retail Sales: Retail sales and boarding of small or domestic animals
only, provided that such activities take place within an entirely enclosed
building. This use includes grooming if incidental to the retail use, and
boarding of animals not offered for sale for a maximum period of forty-eight
(48) hours.
(5) Animal Shows/Sales: Exhibitions of small/domestic or large animals for a
maximum of seven (7) days. This use includes animal sales.
Attachment 3: EVDC Excerpts
(6) Veterinary Office: Any facility maintained by or for the use of a licensed
veterinarian in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of animal diseases.
Overnight care and boarding of small or domestic animals is permitted for up
to thirty (30) consecutive days within the interior of such facility.
5. Artist Studio. Work space for artists and artisans, including individuals practicing one
(1) of the fine arts or performing arts, or skilled in an applied art or craft.
6. Bank or Other Financial Institution. Establishments that provide retail banking
services, mortgage lending and similar financial services to individuals and businesses.
This classification includes those institutions engaged in the on-site circulation of cash
money and check-cashing facilities, but shall not include bail bond brokers. This
classification also includes Automated Teller Machines (ATM) located within a fully
enclosed space or building, or along an exterior building wall intended to serve walk-up
customers only.
7. Building Materials/Services. Retailing, wholesaling or rental of building supplies or
equipment. This classification includes lumber yards, building tool and equipment
sales or rental establishments, and building contractors’ yards, but excludes
establishments exclusively devoted to retail sales of paint and hardware and activities
classified under Vehicle/Equipment Sales and Service.
8. Business Services. Establishments primarily engaged in rendering services to
business establishments on a fee or contract basis, such as advertising and mailing;
employment services; management and consulting services; protective services; office
equipment rental and leasing (e.g., photocopy machines); commercial research; photo
finishing; photocopying and printer services; and personal supply services.
9. Catering Service. Preparation and delivery of food and beverages for off-site
consumption without provision for on-site pickup or consumption. (See also
Eating/Drinking Establishments.)
10. Civic, Social or Fraternal Membership Clubs, Lodges or Associations. Meeting,
recreational or social facilities of a private or nonprofit organization primarily for use by
members or guests. This classification includes union halls, social clubs, youth
centers, and fraternal and veteran’s organizations.
11. Commercial Laundry. A business which launders and dry cleans clothing and other
fabric articles in bulk. Dry cleaning agencies are distinguished from commercial
laundries, the latter which perform dry cleaning of materials delivered to the premises
by persons or services other than the owner of the materials. See also Personal
Services.
12. Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishments, Indoor.
a. General Definition: A building or part of a building devoted to providing
amusement, entertainment or recreation for a fee, including movie theaters and
theatrical space for dramatic, musical or live performances, indoor pinball/video
arcades, bowling alleys, health clubs, aerobic exercise studios and including such
activities as billiards and pool, other table games and similar-scale amusements.
b. Examples: This use classification includes the following specific types of uses:
(1) Limited Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishments, Indoor:
Limited to the following indoor entertainment establishments only: Indoor
movie theaters and theatrical space for dramatic, musical or live
performances; indoor billiards, pool and other table games.
Attachment 3: EVDC Excerpts
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
April 21, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Vice‐Chair Doug Klink, Russ Schneider, Nancy Hills, Steve
Murphree, Wendye Sykes, and Sharry White
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Schneider, Hills, White, Sykes, and Murphree
Also Attending: Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town
Board Liaison John Phipps, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and
Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: Commissioner Klink, Senior Planner Shirk
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 6 people in attendance.
Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public comment at
today’s meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the
chronological sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, March 17, 2015 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the
motion passed unanimously with one absent.
3. Chair Hull stated Riverview Pines Development Plan and Amended Plat was withdrawn by
applicant.
4. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PET GROOMING IN THE CD–
COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN ZONE DISTRICT
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. Planner Kleisler stated several months ago, staff
received a request by a downtown business owner concerning a desire to have a dog‐grooming
business in the downtown area. In the Estes Valley Development Code, dog grooming businesses
are allowed only in the CO‐Commercial Outlying zone district. Staff approached the Town Board
at a past study session and was allowed to proceed with draft code language. Planning
Commission is the recommending body to the Town Board and the Larimer County Board of
County Commissioners.
He stated this code amendment was rather unique in that it would only apply to the CD–
Commercial Downtown zone district, and only as an accessory use to a pet‐related business. After
reviewing the draft code language, the Planning Commission may consider certain restrictions to
the scope of work allowed, including but not limited to the number of animals allowed in the
grooming area at one time, noise, etc. He stated noise is currently regulated by the Estes Park
Municipal Code, and enforced by the Estes Park Police Department. Staff found noise regulations
would be best left in the municipal code rather than adding an amendment to the development
code, with the main reason being the ability of the Police Department to issue citations at the
time of violation. The EVDC would need to follow a much longer process for violations. The State
Health Department also regulates animal‐related businesses, and all pet grooming businesses in
the Estes Valley must comply with those regulations. Planner Kleisler stated the sanitation
districts also have certain requirements for this type of business.
Planner Kleisler stated in addition to the legal notice, a press release was published, and notices
were mailed to all property owners in the CD zone district. Staff received valuable feedback from
other grooming businesses located in the Commercial Outlying zone district.
Planner Kleisler stated the proposed code amendment is basic and straight forward. It would
include a change to the use table in EVDC Chapter 4, Nonresidential Zoning Districts. The table
shows this use currently allowed in the CO–Commercial Outlying zone district. The change would
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
April 21, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
add “permitted by right” in the CD–Commercial Downtown zone district, as an accessory use to
pet‐related businesses. Additional restrictions include no more than two animals at one time, and
no animal boarding allowed. He made it clear no pet daycare would be allowed, only a small‐
scale grooming operation.
The Planning Commission could choose to recommend approval as written or revised with
additional (or less) language, recommend denial, or recommend putting this proposed
amendment on hold until the upcoming downtown neighborhood plan process is complete.
Director Chilcott added the newly funded downtown neighborhood plan most likely would not
reach this level of detail, and code changes such as this one would be given a lower priority than
other items such as traffic, parking, wayfinding, etc. This plan just received grant funding, and the
Request For Proposal (RFP) has not been written yet.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Schneider stated he would like to see “at any time” added to the requirement for
no animal boarding.
Public Comment
Pam Dewitt/local business owner stated she owned a pet‐related business, and would like to have
a small, clean, organized, and dedicated space in the back of her store for pet grooming. She
indicated tourists have asked if she does grooming, as they would like to have their pets groomed
after a long day outdoors. Part of her business is animal photos, and grooming would enhance
that portion of her business, as well as bring in additional business. She stated animals will not be
boarded there, and estimates one dog grooming would take approximately one hour. The hours
of operation would probably be about 10:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Her plans are to construct a
separate glassed‐in area specifically for the grooming area. Grooming hours would be the same as
the store hours.
Christine Kalencki/local resident was concerned about animal grooming being allowed in the
downtown area. Other groomers have been forced to locate outside of the downtown area;
several have left the Estes Valley, others have struggled. She thinks it is unfair to other dog
groomers in the Estes Valley to change the code to now allow grooming in the downtown area.
Groomers in Colorado are highly regulated for structure, safety, ventilation, etc. and inspectors
arrive on a regular basis to ensure compliance with state regulations.
Donna Elston/local resident had concerns whether the Estes Valley could support another
groomer. Noise can be an issue, whether you have one dog or ten. She suggested limiting the
number of groomers, so as not to stretch the industry too thin.
Michael Palmington/local resident stated at one time he considered moving his grooming
business from the Dry Gulch Road area to downtown, but was told it was not zoned properly, and
he was not allowed to open a grooming business in the CD zone district.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official, stated the adopted building codes address sound
transmission only for dwelling units such as hotel units, apartments, hallways in residential
buildings, etc. The codes do not regulate sound transmission controls for commercial businesses.
In the downtown area, if a ceiling was removed to try to abate noise, it could trigger the
requirement to install fire‐resistive construction in the entire building. The town has the ability to
require soundproofing either as a local amendment to the building codes or an amendment to
the development code.
Chair Hull clarified if this code amendment was approved, any pet‐related business downtown
could open a grooming operation as an accessory use if they complied with all other state and
local requirements. Commissioner White stated the number of animals allowed would be
enforced by the Code Compliance Officer, who could visit the store at any time. Enforcement
would also be complaint driven. Planner Kleisler added there are no proposed changes to the
current definition of animal boarding. Commissioner Schneider was concerned about the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
April 21, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
potential noise, and wanted to be able to ensure noise mitigation was in place. Planner Kleisler
stated the Police Department had no specific comments concerning how they would address any
noise complaints. When there is a sound complaint, the sound meters are used at the property
line. The number of dogs allowed is enforceable due to the very specific number. If noise
abatement were added to the amendment, enforcement would have to follow the EVDC process
for code violations, which can be a rather lengthy process. Director Chilcott stated the
Commission could recommend an amendment to the building codes be considered to require
some noise mitigation. She added the Estes Park Board of Appeals is currently reviewing the 2015
International Building Codes with plans to adopt them, with local amendments, at the end of this
year.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Hills) to recommend approval of the amendment to the
Town Board and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners Estes Valley Development
Code as described in the staff report, with the consideration of a local building code
amendment for noise abatement, and the words “at any time” be added to the table as it
relates to no boarding, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
Director Chilcott clarified if the Town Board approves this code amendment, they will also be
required to address a noise abatement amendment in the building code approval process.
4. ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE
Phil – transportation will be continued with Dave being sick. Economic section directly related to
the census data. He gave a brief history of the US Census. US Consistution mandate said a census
should be taken every 10 years. First one in 1790. C ensus office established in 1840. Federal
government determines the topics on the census questionnaires. POlicital boundaries versus
statistical boundaries. Census tracts create the ability to capture a population of 4,000. Local
jurisdictions have a say in the area when it’s larger than 4,000. Estes Valley is not a census tract
boundary (it’s a political boundary).
For the Comp Plan, data is compared between 2010 census versus the ACS estimates. ACS survey
done on a yearly basis, US census every 10 years. American Community Survey. Size of the
population determines the estimates provided.
With the data provided to the commission, staff regenerated all the graphs to be current with the
most recent data. Data in the packet will be the basis for the narrative section of the comp plan
over the last couple of decades. He discussed the residential construction graph. Trend since
2011 is larger single family dwellings, 3000 to 6500 square feet, with higher valuations.
Nancy appreciated the time put in by staff. Wendye wanted the comp plan to have data
concerning how many households contains full‐time residents and how many are part time.
Would give an estimate as to workforce housing. LISTEN TO ALISON HERE………………… Would list
unique characteristics of the Estes Valley.
Russ ‐ ‐‐ comments about charts. Would have a very definitive outline or introduction that
shows why we’re doing this, and how to use this information. Use caution that no matter how
good your intentions, they can be used against you. Russ, Steve, and Sharry would appreciate
meeting with staff to discuss this further.
Russ – transportation survey – he would like a copy of the survey. Alison – referencing citizen
surveys that are statistically valid. Can include ctizen survey packet can be included in notebooks
for future reference.
REPORTS
TB Alison – Aspire Wellness complex approved, Easement vacation approved.
BCC – ATT monopole approved
BOA – backbone approved, Earthwood collections variance approved
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
April 21, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Update on status of parking structure – Greg Muhonen – Duretor of Public Works. Wanted to
provide a brief update as to where we stand with the transit hub parking garage. When it come
before the PC, it was on the north side of the river, east of the Visitor Center. Came in over bid.
Received TB authorization to revisit it, on the south side of the river (Hwy 36). Access is superior,
substantial reduction in utility conflicts, larger footprint, will allow building at lower cost per stall,
less visual impact. Planning has encountered challenges – parking lot is on town and BOR land, so
application will come to the EVPC in July or august. Proposing to put a structure on a property
line, which is also a zoning boundary line (part in one zone district and part in another). Proposing
a fugure maintenantce access on the west side to accommodate the BOR need to dredge the
river. Exploring with CDOT for maintenance only access. With increased funding authorized by the
Board, there is not enough money to build three levels. Will be two levels, and discussions will be
held with architects to work out a solution. Schedule – hoping to review in July, Auugst, with
construction in January, 2016???? Shortened construction period with two story structure
instead of three. Welcome engagement and input. There will be public outreach. The report was
well received by the Planning Commissioners. Betty thinks the lighting will be better with less
impact to the neighbors on the north side of Hwy 34. Greg – Phase I would add 96 spaces to the
existing parking lot. Each additional floor would add an additional 99 spaces. Could Phase it up to
four floors.
Alison – flood recovery/mitigation update. $1 05,800 for hydrology study for Fall River, Big
Thopmson, and black Canyon Creek. Will help determine what the actual flood risk is for
properties along the rivers.
$190,000 for downtown estes park neighborhood plan. How to tie land use, floodplain
management, traffic, parking, all together in one plan. Will be drafting an RFP in the next few
weeks. Will be requesting in put for the draft RFP. Commissioners are welcome to provide input.
Steve would be willing to participate in that.
Not awarded the channel MZ and Risk Mitigation money. CWCB may be looking at completing
some of those studies.
Meeting on april 28th to discuss downtown floodplain status. Joint with Downtown Business
Partners and Insurance Associates. Hoping to engage downtown property and business owners to
inform them about insurance, floodplain studies, mitigation projects, etc. Reps from CWCB and
FEMA will be attending. 8:30 – 10:30. Meeting will be streamed live.
Alsion – Two commeissioner terms expiring – Hull and Sykes. County reps. Betty has already
submitted her position. Sykes will not be living in Estes full=time and will not be requesting
reappointment.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:45 p.m.
___________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Utilities Department Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director
Cil Pierce, Senior Project Manager/Financial Analyst, HDR
Date: 28 April 2015
RE: Ordinance #05-15 – Public Hearing – 2015 - 2018 Water Rate
Increase
Objective:
To publicly share information on recommended water rate increases and pass an
ordinance to implement the new rates.
Present Situation:
The Town’s public water utility is a cost-based entity that relies solely on user fees.
Costs and revenues must be balanced in order to maintain operations, plan for future
upgrades and keep the utility in compliance with ever-increasing federal standards. A
financial analysis is periodically performed to ensure the rates paid by customers are
equitable between the rate classes and adequate to fund capital projects and
operations.
Public Information Officer Kate Rusch created a communications plan which resulted in
the following public outreach:
January
through April Utility bill messages
February 10 Bergsten Column sent (email, newspapers, social media)
March 2 Overview News Release sent (email, newspapers, social media)
March 10 Presentation at the Town Board Study Session
March 10 www.estes.org/ratestudy live - repository for all references and
schedule
March 24 Town Board Presentation
March 26 FAQ document sent (email, newspapers, social media, iTown)
March 25
through April
Direct phone calls with commercial customers; phone calls with EALA
and the Downtown Business Partners; held meetings with the School
and Director Winslow
March 26 Talking points/FAQ provided to staff and elected officials
March 27 Printed rate presentation and proposed rates made available at the
Library, Town Clerk’s Office and the Utilities’ Office
April 9 Recap of Water Rates Information to PUP Committee
April 10 Coverage by the Trail Gazette
April 14 News Release sent (email, newspapers, social media)
April 21 Rate Hearing Reminder sent (email, newspapers, social media)
April 21 Channel 12 hearing announcement slide
April 24 What's Up to Town staff
April 28 Town Board presentation
Tonight we will present the proposed rates along with justification for the increases and
address any public questions before requesting the ordinance be approved.
Proposal:
The proposed rates increases are attached to the ordinance and were included in the
documents provided online and at the Library, Town Clerk’s Office and the Utilities’
Office.
Advantages:
The proposed rates will ensure continued high-quality water services, finance future
upgrades through capital improvement projects and meet ever increasing regulatory
requirements. Upkeep of our systems is a critical part of maintaining our quality of life.
These proposed rates allow costs to be equitably divided among the four customer
classes: Residential, Commercial, Pumped Flow and Bulk. For example, there are
areas which require water to be pumped up to higher elevations. The costs to operate
and maintain those pumps are charged only to those customers through the Pumped
Flow class.
Disadvantages:
No one looks forward to paying more.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed water rates.
Budget:
This will increase the Water fund’s revenue.
Level of Public Interest:
These new rates will affect all Town water customers. Interest is high; however, all our
direct communication with customers has resulted in their understanding of why these
rates are required. Some customers will notice this change when new rates are
implemented. We will continue to provide excellent customer service and explain why
the increases are necessary.
Recommended Motion:
I move to approve the proposed water rates as set forth in Ordinance 05-15.
Attachments
Ordinance 05-15
Water Rate Study: Results, Recommendations, Public Hearing Presentation
ORDINANCE NO. 05-15
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
WATER RATE SCHEDULES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that it is necessary to amend the Water Rate
Schedules of the Town of Estes Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: That the Water Rate Schedules shall be amended as more fully set forth
on Exhibit “A”.
Section 2: These rate schedules will take effect June 1, 2015.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK,
COLORADO, THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
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 28th day of April, 2015, and published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the _______ day of _________________,
2015, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
_________________________________________
Town Clerk
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Water Rate Schedule 2015-2018
Effective June 1, 2015
TO CALCULATE YOUR MONTHLY WATER BILL:
Follow the formula below using the charts for Base Fee and Volume Charge on this page
Base Fee + [ (Gallons Used divided by 1,000) x Volume Charge] = Monthly Water Bill
BASE FEE BY METER SIZE
*Most residential meters are 3/4"
METER SIZE
Inches:Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural
5/8"$23.82 $38.11 $26.92 $43.06 $30.15 $48.23 $32.56 $52.09
3/4" *$23.82 $38.11 $26.92 $43.06 $30.15 $48.23 $32.56 $52.09
1"$28.58 $45.73 $37.68 $60.29 $50.34 $80.55 $54.37 $86.99
1-1/2"$41.68 $66.69 $67.29 $107.66 $100.38 $160.61 $108.41 $173.46
2"$67.88 $108.61 $114.39 $183.03 $160.67 $257.08 $173.52 $277.65
3"$119.09 $190.55 $201.87 $322.99 $301.45 $482.32 $325.57 $520.91
4"$214.37 $342.99 $336.44 $538.31 $502.52 $804.04 $542.72 $868.36
6"$252.17 $403.47 $402.68 $644.29 $553.20 $885.12 $747.46 $955.93
8"$1,270.27 $2,032.43 $1,435.40 $2,296.64 $1,607.65 $2,572.24 $1,736.26 $2,778.02
10"$1,826.20 $2,921.92 $2,063.61 $3,301.77 $2,311.24 $3,697.98 $2,496.14 $3,993.82
VOLUME CHARGE BY RATE CLASS PER 1,000 GALLONS
Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural
Residential $4.59 $7.35 $4.73 $7.57 $4.87 $7.80 $5.26 $8.42
Commercial $4.65 $7.44 $4.85 $7.76 $5.00 $8.00 $5.40 $8.64
Pumped Flow $6.43 $10.29 $6.63 $10.60 $6.82 $10.92 $7.37 $11.79
Bulk Water **$5.15 $8.74 $5.30 $9.60 $5.46 $10.55 $5.90 $11.39
** A volume charge per 1,000 gallons shall be assessed to existing bulk water or pumped flow customers
in lieu of a connection charge.
EXHIBIT A
RATE CLASS
Effective June 1, 2015
2015 2016 2017 2018
Effective June 1, 2015
2015 2016 2017 2018
Water Rate Study:
Results,
Recommendations,
Public Hearing
Presented by:
Cil Pierce,
Senior Project Manager/ Financial Analyst
April 28, 2015
Estes Park Water Department
2
Overview of the Presentation
•Summary of the Water
Department needs
•Summary of the financial
plan and cost of service
results
•Summary of proposed
rates –Levelized Rates
2
3
Highlights of Department Needs
•Revenue growth rate of 0.5%
•O&M expenses escalated an average of 3%/year
–35 year CPI average
•Difference between growth in sales and growth in
expenses creates a shortage in cash flow
–Rates must be increased to eliminate the shortfall
•One new FTE positions in 2016 & two in 2017
–Required to support pipe replacement, maintenance
and regulatory compliance
•Current capital planning is fiscally constrained
–Capital projects have been deferred annually until
adequate funding is available
–Funding capital projects at an average of $1 million
per year 2015 through 2018
4
Type of Main
Useful Life
(years)Average Age Inventory
(installed)Notes
Galvanized Steel 35-40 70 - 80 ~30 miles Largest Liability
Cast Iron (brittle)125 50 - 70 ~20 miles Frequent Breaks (snaps)
Ductile Iron 125 40 - 50 ~50 miles Best ROI
Other Capital Needs of the Department
•A 75 -year useful life (fully depreciated) 1.3 miles per
year should be replaced, at an average cost of $150/foot
= $1.0 million/year (2014$)
•A 100-year life for water mains = $800,000 / year
•This rate proposal moves toward funding the
100-year life main replacement schedule
•Treatment projects are deferred (the 10-year Master Plan
identifies approximately $11 million in future projects
to be bonded)
•Funding capital projects is necessary to maintain
current levels of service
5
5-Year Water Capital Improvement Plan
•Projects have been prioritized through the Master
Planning process
•The backlog of historically deferred capital projects
will require additional funding in the future
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
2015 2016 2017 2018
System Equipment $78 $40 $41 $42
Trans/ Distribution $762 $725 $600 $1,025
Treatment $273 $80 $531 $32
Water System Capital Plan (1,000's)
6
Water Revenue Requirement Results ($000’s)
6
•Rate revenue above shows revenues at existing rates
–Without any rate adjustments applied; rates are inadequate
to fully fund operating and capital expenses as projected
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
2015 2016 2017 2018
Water Revenue Requirement by Category
Change in Working Capital
(+/-)
CIP Funded Through Rates
Net Debt Service
Total Taxes and Transfers
Total Operations &
Maintenance
Rate Revenue - With No
Increase
7
2015 2016 2017 2018
Total Revenue $3,538 $3,554 $3,571 $3,588
Total Expenses $3,862 $4,238 $4,654 $5,029
Balance/(Deficiency) of Funds ($324)($684)($1,083)($1,441)
Addt'l Taxes/Franchise Fees ($20)($42)($66)($88)
--------------------------------------------
Total Balance/(Deficiency)($344)($725)($1,149)($1,529)
Balance as % of Rev from Rates 9.9%20.8%32.7%43.4%
Proposed Rate Adjustment 9.9%9.9%9.9%8.0%
Summary of Water Revenue Requirement ($000’s)
7
1
•Historically, deficiencies have been met by reserves and by
deferring capital projects
•Prudent financial management dictates that current revenue
should support current operational and capital needs, as in
any business enterprise
•Rate adjustments provide funding for improvements –in
redundancy, resiliency, and operational efficiency
•Can begin to fund 50 miles of fully depreciated mains
8
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
Residential Commercial Pumped Flow Bulk Water
Projected 2015 Revenue and Allocated Expenses
Projected Rate Revenues Allocated Costs
Cost of Service Results (000’s)
8
•Illustrates that the commercial customer class is
farthest from meeting the cost to serve it
–The commercial class rate adjustment will be
higher than the 9.9% overall adjustment
9
Rate Design
9
•The amount of bill increase is different for each
customer. The bill increase depends on:
–Which customer class you are in
–The size of the service meter
–The amount of water used
0 5 10 30 50
Option 3 - Levelized Rates $23.82 $46.79 $69.77 $161.67 $253.56
Option 2 $23.17 $47.56 $71.96 $169.54 $267.12
$0.00
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
$300.00
Residential (Urban) 2015
Bill Comparison -3/4" meter
10
Benefits of Proposed Rates: Increased
Monthly Fixed Charges –Option 3
•Rate design should strive to:
–Increase revenue stability
–Develop cost-based and equitable rates
–Any change in rates should be gradual
•Reflects cost of service results
–Provides a phased-in transition to cost of
service to facilitate customer budgeting
•Improves revenue stability:
–Total rate revenue shifts from 43% fixed
charges in 2014 to 52% by 2018
–Residential class moves from 54% fixed
revenue in 2014 to 62% fixed revenue by 2018
–Improves ability to pay fixed costs with fixed
revenue, whether or not customers are in Town
using water
10
11
Benefits of Proposed Monthly Fixed Charges –Option 3
•It is more equitable between customers
–Larger meters require larger treatment
plants and pipes. The monthly base charge
reflects the costs of the larger infrastructure
capacity required to serve them.
•A six -inch (6”) meter customer requires 33 times greater capacity than a
residential customer, therefore it is more equitable for their base charge
to be 33 times higher.
•A customer’s meter size is determined by their design professional.
Meter AWWA
Size Ratios
5/8"1.00
3/4"1.00
1"1.67
1-1/2"3.33
2"5.33
3"10.00
4"16.67
6"33.33
8"53.33
10"76.67
11
Time it takes to fill an Olympic sized pool
6” Meter –
11 Hours
Residential
¾” Meter –
15 DAYS
and
6 Hours
12
Option 3 Rate Schedule –Levelized Rates
•6-inch meter fee implemented over 6 years.
Present 2015 2016 2017 2018
Proposed Revenue Adjustment 9.9%9.9%9.9%8.0%
Meter Charge
All Classes
5/8"$21.08 $23.82 $26.92 $30.15 $32.56
3/4"21.08 23.82 26.92 30.15 32.56
1"23.16 28.58 37.68 50.34 54.37
1-1/2"28.14 41.68 67.29 100.38 108.41
2"31.62 67.88 114.39 160.67 173.53
3"72.53 119.09 201.87 301.45 325.57
4"101.65 214.37 336.44 502.52 542.72
6"101.65 252.17 402.68 553.20 747.46
8"N/A 1,270.27 1,435.40 1,607.65 1,736.26
10"N/A 1,826.20 2,063.61 2,311.24 2,496.14
Volumetric Charge $/1,000 gal
Residential
All consumption $4.44 $4.59 $4.73 $4.87 $5.26
Commercial
All consumption $4.32 $4.65 $4.85 $5.00 $5.40
Pumped Flow
All consumption $6.22 $6.43 $6.63 $6.82 $7.37
Bulk Water
All consumption $4.97 $5.15 $5.30 $5.46 $5.90
Option 3 -Meter Equivalencies Levelized over 3 years
*Rural rates have a 60% differential *
Rate Schedule
13
Residential –Monthly Bill Comparison, Option 3
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Meter Charge $21.08 $23.82 $26.92 $30.15 $32.56
Volumetric Charge $22.20 $22.97 $23.66 $24.37 $26.32
Total $43.28 $46.79 $50.58 $54.52 $58.88
Change N/A $3.51 $3.79 $3.94 $4.36
Cumulative Change N/A $3.51 $7.30 $11.24 $15.60
Average Residential 3/4” meter, 5,000 gallons of use/month, Option 3
0 5 10 30 50
Option 3 - Levelized Rates $23.82 $46.79 $69.77 $161.67 $253.56
Option 2 $23.17 $47.56 $71.96 $169.54 $267.12
$0.00
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
$300.00
Residential (Urban) 2015
Bill Comparison -3/4" meter
Average monthly bill
change is $3.90 each
year
14
Commercial Monthly Bill Comparison, Option 3
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Meter Charge $21.08 $23.82 $26.92 $30.15 $32.56
Volumetric Charge $64.83 $69.75 $72.75 $75.00 $81.00
Total $85.90 $93.57 $99.67 $105.15 $113.56
Change N/A $7.67 $6.10 $5.48 $8.41
Cumulative Change N/A $7.67 $13.77 $19.25 $27.65
Average Commercial 3/4” meter, 15,000 gal of use/month, Option 3
0 5 15 50 75 150
Option 3 - Levelized Rates $23.82 $47.07 $93.57 $256.32 $372.57 $721.32
Option 2 $23.17 $46.91 $94.41 $260.65 $379.39 $735.61
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
Commercial (Urban) 2015 Bill
Comparison -3/4" meter
Average monthly bill
change of $6.90 per year
15
Pumped Flow Monthly Bill Comparison, Option 3
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Meter Charge $21.08 $23.82 $26.92 $30.15 $32.56
Volumetric Charge $31.09 $32.16 $33.13 $34.12 $36.85
Total $52.17 $55.98 $60.05 $64.27 $69.41
Change N/A $3.81 $4.07 $4.22 $5.14
Cumulative Change N/A $3.81 $7.88 $12.10 $17.23
Average Pumped Flow ¾” meter, 5,000 gal of use/month, Option 3
0 5 10 30 50 100
Option 3 - Levelized Rates $23.82 $55.98 $88.15 $216.80 $345.46 $667.10
Option 2 $23.17 $57.33 $91.50 $228.16 $364.83 $706.49
$0.00
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
$600.00
$700.00
$800.00
Pumped Flow (Urban) 2015 Bill
Comparison -3/4" meter
Average monthly bill
change is $4.30 per year
16
Bulk Water Monthly Bill Comparison, Option 3
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Meter Charge $31.62 $67.88 $114.39 $160.67 $173.53
Volumetric Charge $1,987.76 $2,058.50 $2,120.26 $2,183.87 $2,358.58
Total $2,019.38 $2,126.38 $2,234.65 $2,344.54 $2,532.11
Change N/A $107.00 $108.27 $109.89 $187.56
Cumulative Change N/A $107.00 $215.27 $325.16 $512.72
Average Bulk Water 2” meter, 400,000 gal of use/month, Option 3
10 30 50 100 150
Option 3 - Levelized Rates $119.35 $222.27 $325.20 $582.51 $839.83
Option 2 $89.36 $198.59 $307.82 $580.89 $853.96
$0.00
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
$600.00
$700.00
$800.00
$900.00
Bulk Water (Urban) 2015 Bill
Comparison -2" meter
Average monthly bill
change is $128.20 per year
17
•Each utility has unique operating characteristics and regulatory
requirements
•Comparisons are like comparing apples to oranges
•Similar small mountain communities, and larger nearby utilities
* Pinewood Springs limits use to 6,000 gallons/month/EQR, due to their Augmentation Plan
Rate Comparison –Average Residential Rates
Estes Park Dillon Steamboat
Springs Breckenridge Fort Collins
Eagle River
Water &
Sanitation
Dist.
Pinewood
Springs
Water
District*
@ 5,000 gallons $43.28 $50.80 $34.61 $46.81 $28.98 $42.88 $103.00
2015 Option 3 Rates $46.79
$0.00
$15.00
$30.00
$45.00
$60.00
$75.00
$90.00
$105.00
Comparison of Local/Similar Utilities, 2014 Rates
18
Study Recommendations
•Option 3 rates are the preferred and
recommended rate option:
–Option 3 promotes:
•Revenue stability
•Rate equity
•System resiliency and reliability
•Easier to understand and administer
•Option 3 meter equivalencies are gradually
implemented over a 3-year period
•Option 3 rates result in lower overall residential bills
–Increases some commercial bills higher than the
overall annual rate adjustment
•This reflects the cost of service
•Recommended rates fund the operating and capital
needs, as projected
–A prudent step toward funding infrastructure
replacement and renewal / maintenance of current
level of service and system reliability
Community Development
Department Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Tina Kurtz, Environmental Planner
Date: April 28, 2015
RE: Fish Creek CWCB Grant Transfer to Estes Valley Watershed Coalition
Objective:
To consider transferring Senate Bill 14-179 grant funds awarded to the Town of Estes
Park for the Fish Creek Restoration Project to the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition.
Present Situation:
The Town received notice from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) on
July 25, 2014, stating that the Town was approved for funding for a Fish Creek
Restoration Project from Brook Drive to County Club Drive in the amount of $200,000
through Senate Bill 14-179.
The Town met with representatives of the Brook Drive to Country Club Drive
landowners and the President of the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition (Coalition) about
the potential transfer. The landowner representatives were in favor of the transfer. At
the April 8, 2015, Coalition meeting, the Board of Directors approved working with the
Town and CWCB to transfer this grant award to the Coalition. Kevin Houck and Chris
Sturm with CWCB are both in favor of the grant award transfer. In fact, CWCB has
facilitated transfers such as this elsewhere in the state.
At the time the Town applied for these funds, the Coalition had not been established as
an independent entity. Since this time, the Coalition has become a non-profit
organization with Board members representing the Big Thompson, Fall River, Fish
Creek and Black Canyon watersheds. The Estes Valley Land Trust serves as the
Coalition’s fiscal sponsor. The Coalition is currently in the process of contracting with
the State for the grant money they received to hire a coordinator. The Town has a close
working relationship with the Coalition and will continue to work closely with them on
this and other projects.
Proposal:
Staff is providing a letter addressed to CWCB regarding the transfer of Senate Bill 14-
179 funds awarded to the Town for a Fish Creek Restoration Project to the Coalition, to
be signed by the Mayor and the President of the Coalition for the Board’s consideration.
Advantages:
Having the Coalition administer and implement this grant award would free-up
Town staff time to focus on other flood mitigation and resiliency grants and
projects for the downtown area.
The Town and the Coalition have a close working relationship and this transfer
would serve to strengthen that relationship.
The Coalition, which is comprised of members from all Estes Valley drainages,
has received and will continue to apply for planning and implementation grants
for the Estes Valley river corridors outside of the downtown area. The Coalition
will directly interact with landowners and other stakeholders on Fish Creek to
identify and design a project to best utilize this grant award funding.
CWCB is in full support of this transfer and the cooperative relationship between
the Town and the Coalition. This type of transfer has been done in other areas of
the state.
Disadvantages:
No disadvantages noted.
Action Recommended:
Town staff recommends that the Board approve a joint letter from the Town and the
Coalition to CWCB for the transfer of Senate Bill 14-179 grant awarded funding for the
Fish Creek Restoration Project from Brook Drive to Country Club to the Estes Valley
Watershed Coalition from the Town of Estes Park.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Low – Grant award transfer
High – Flood mitigation/recovery project
Sample Motion
I move to approve (or deny) the transfer of Senate Bill 14-179 grant awarded funding for
the Fish Creek Restoration Project from Brook Drive to Country Club to the Estes Valley
Watershed Coalition from the Town of Estes Park and to send a letter to the Colorado
Water Conservation Board notifying them of this transfer approval.
Attachments:
1. Letter to CWCB from the Mayor and the President of the Coalition regarding the
transfer of the Senate Bill 14-179 grant awarded funding
ENGINEERING
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager
Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: April 28, 2015
RE: Fall River Trail Extension Project: NEPA Categorical Exclusion
Development and Consulting Engineering Services
Present Situation:
In March 2013, the Town of Estes Park was awarded a Paul Sarbanes Grant to provide
funding for both a NEPA Categorical Exclusion and Engineering Design Services for
extension of the Fall River Trail. This grant will provide funding to create bid documents
to be used for construction of the Fall River Trail from its current end point at the Sleepy
Hollow Court/Fall River Road intersection west to the Fall River Visitor Center. This
extension is approximately 2.5 miles in length and would continue the 8’ wide concrete
trail section to Rocky Mountain National Park. The September 2013 flood lowered the
priority on this project, but the Town has grant funding requirements that require funds
be spent and grant reimbursement requested by June 2015.
Proposal:
On March 20, 2015 the Public Works Department advertised a Request for Proposal for
the Fall River Trail extension that focused on the following design elements:
1. Development of required NEPA documentation.
2. Consulting Engineering Services for conceptual design, design development and
final design.
3. Evaluation of trail design alignments and location options along the Highway 34
corridor.
Proposals were received by April 10, 2015 and evaluated by a proposal review team
that included: Public Works Director Greg Muhonen, Public Works Engineering
Manager Kevin Ash, Town Consultant Ginny McFarland, and Town Environmental
Planner Tina Kurtz. Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Procurement Policy,
the Town used a qualifications based competitive proposal procedure. Fee was not part
of the review/selection criteria.
Proposals were rated on 10 categories:
1. Responsiveness to Schedule;
2. Project Examples;
3. Qualification of Staff Proposed;
4. Technical Approach;
5. Demonstrated Familiarity with Location;
6. Public Process Experience;
7. Budget Adherence;
8. References;
9. Proposal Presentation;
10. Completeness and Accuracy of Proposal.
Three firms responded to the Request for Proposal. The Proposal review team rated
each of the 3 proposals to select the most qualified firm. The following chart contains
the rankings for each firm:
Firm Name City Ranking
Loris and Associates, Inc. Louisville 1
Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig Centennial 2
Otak Denver 3
The highest ranked firm, Loris and Associates, demonstrated a thorough knowledge of
the NEPA process, identified design challenges in the project area and offered a
detailed conceptual approach to mitigate these challenges and extend a trail to the
National Park Visitor’s Center. Their project experience includes several successful
pedestrian walkway designs in the region. A total project cost not to exceed $334,635
has been negotiated. This amount is lower than the fees proposed by the other two
consultants.
To advance this Fall River Trail Extension Project and meet the grant requirements,
work is scheduled to commence immediately after Town Board approval. The schedule
proposed by Loris shows Final Construction Plan approval and CDOT approval in
August 2016.
Advantages:
Contract approval allows design work to commence and positions the Town to
receive the Paul Sarbanes Grant funding approved for this project as set forth in
the Town Board’s 2015 Board Infrastructure Objective for the Fall River Trail.
Completion of the design and environmental efforts produces a “shovel-ready”
project and elevates the potential for future construction grant funding.
Completion of the final trail design provides clarity and guidance for future land
use decisions on property near the proposed trail alignment.
The project facilitates a future multi-modal connection between the Historic
Downtown, guest lodges, private residences, and Rocky Mountain National Park.
Disadvantages:
The design is expected to identify needs for future easement acquisitions from
private property owners.
The future trail could put bicyclists and pedestrians in close proximity to vehicular
traffic on Highway 34.
Action Recommended:
After proposal review and contract negotiations with Loris, Staff recommends awarding
a design services contract to Loris and Associates, Inc.
Budget:
This project will be funded from the Paul Sarbanes Grant Funds. The Town is the lead
agency on this project, however Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) are instrumental partners in the process.
$337,000 is the grant award and budget for this project. No local matching funds are
required for this project grant.
Level of Public Interest
Public Interest on this project is expected to be moderate. This NEPA process and
design will provide a catalyst to pursue additional future grants to construct this segment
of the Fall River trail.
Sample Motion:
I move for approval/denial of a professional services contract for the Fall River Trail
Extension NEPA Categorical Exclusion Development and Consulting Engineering
Services to Loris and Associates, Inc. for a project cost not to exceed $334,635.
Attachments:
Contract
Loris and Associates Proposal (Includes Technical Approach, Schedule and Fee)
Note – Any item requiring a change to the Municipal Code, Development Code or any
other action requiring an Ordinance to be passed by the Town Board is required to have
a draft Ordinance prepared and included with the Committee packet.
Page 1 of 8
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
This Contract is entered into this 28th day of April, 2015, by and between the Town of
Estes Park, Colorado (“Town”) and Loris and Associates, Inc.(“Consultant”).
Whereas, the parties desire to contract with one another to complete the following project:
Fall River Trail Extension Project:
NEPA Categorical Exclusion and Consulting Engineering Services.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained
herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Services.
a. The Consultant shall perform the services set forth in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Services”). The Town
reserves the right to remove any of the Services from Exhibit A upon written
notice to Contractor. In the event of any conflict between this Contract and
Exhibit A, the provisions of this Contract shall prevail.
b. No material change to the Services, including any additional compensation,
shall be effective or paid unless authorized by written amendment to this
Contract executed by the Town. If Consultant proceeds without such written
authorization, then Consultant shall be deemed to have waived any claim for
additional compensation, including a claim based on the theory of unjust
enrichment, quantum merit or implied contract. Except as expressly
provided herein, no agent, employee, or representative of the Town is
authorized to modify any term of this Agreement, either directly or implied by
a course of action.
2. Price. The Town shall pay the Consultant a sum not to exceed $334,635. The
Town shall make payment within thirty days of receipt and approval of monthly invoices, which
shall identify the specific Services performed for which payment is requested.
3. Term. This Contract shall be effective from April 28, 2015 through December
31, 2015. This Contract may be extended or renewed by written agreement of the parties.
4. Appropriation. To the extent this Contract constitutes a multiple fiscal year debt
or financial obligation of the Town, it shall be subject to annual appropriation pursuant to the
Town’s annual budgeting process and Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. The
Town shall have no obligation to continue this Contract in any fiscal year in which no such
appropriation is made.
5. Independent Contractor. The parties agree that the Consultant is an independent
Contractor and is not an employee of the Town. The Consultant is not entitled to workers’
compensation benefits from the Town and is obligated to pay federal and state income
tax on any money earned pursuant to this Contract.
Page 2 of 8
6. Insurance Requirements.
a. Policies. The Consultant and its subconsultants, if any, shall procure and
keep in force during the duration of this Contract the following insurance
policies and shall provide the Town with a certificate of insurance evidencing
upon execution of this Contract:
i. Comprehensive general liability insurance insuring the Consultant
and naming the Town as an additional insured with minimum
combined single limits of $1,000,000 each occurrence and
$1,000,000 aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises
and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury,
broad form property damage (including completed operations),
personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee
acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and
completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of
interests provision.
ii. Comprehensive automobile liability insurance insuring the
Consultant and naming the Town as an additional insured against
any liability for personal injury, bodily injury, or death arising out of
the use of motor vehicles and covering operations on or off the site of
all motor vehicles controlled by the Consultant which are used in
connection with this Contract, whether the motor vehicles are owned,
non-owned, or hired, with a combined single limit of at least
$1,000,000.
iii. Professional liability insurance insuring the Consultant against any
professional liability with a limit of at least $1,000,000 per claim and
annual aggregate. (Note: this policy shall only be required if the
Consultant is an architect, engineer, surveyor, appraiser, physician,
attorney, accountant, or other licensed professional.)
iv. Workers’ compensation insurance and all other insurance required
by any applicable law. (Note: if under Colorado law the Consultant is
not required to carry workers’ compensation insurance, the
Consultant shall execute a Certificate of Exemption and Waiver,
attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.)
b. Requirements. Required insurance policies shall be with companies
qualified to do business in Colorado with a general policyholder’s financial
rating acceptable to the Town. Said policies shall not be cancelable or
subject to reduction in coverage limits or other modification except after thirty
days prior written notice to the Town. The Consultant shall identify whether
the type of coverage is “occurrence” or “claims made.” If the type of
coverage is “claims made,” which at renewal the Consultant changes to
“occurrence,” the Consultant shall carry a six-month tail. Comprehensive
general and automobile policies shall be for the mutual and joint benefit and
protection of the Consultant and the Town. Such policies shall provide that
the Town, although named as an additional insured, shall nevertheless be
entitled to recover under said policies for any loss occasioned to it, its
Page 3 of 8
officers, employees, and agents by reason of negligence of the Contractor,
its officers, employees, agents, subconsultants, or business invitees. Such
policies shall be written as primary policies not contributing to and not in
excess of coverage the Town may carry.
7. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
Town, its officers, employees, and agents from and against all liability, claims, and demands on
account of any injury, loss, or damage, including court costs and attorneys’ fees, arising out of
or connected with the Services, if such injury, loss, or damage, or any portion thereof, is caused
by, or claimed to be caused by, the negligent act, omission, or other fault of the Consultant or
any subconsultant of the Consultant, or any officer, employee, or agent of the Consultant or any
subconsultant, or any other person for whom the Consultant is responsible. The Consultant’s
indemnification obligation shall not be construed to extend to any injury, loss, or damage to the
extent caused by the act, omission, or other fault of the Town. This paragraph shall survive the
termination or expiration of this Contract.
8. Professional Responsibility.
a. Consultant hereby warrants that it is qualified to perform the Services, holds
all professional licenses required by law to perform the Services, and has all
requisite corporate authority to enter into this Contract.
b. The Services shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with generally
accepted professional practices and the level of competency presently
maintained by other practicing professional firms performing the same or
similar type of work in the Denver metro area. The Services shall be done in
compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules
and regulations.
c. Consultant shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical
accuracy, timely completion, and the coordination of all designs, drawings,
specifications, reports, and other services furnished by Consultant under this
Agreement. Consultant shall, without additional compensation, correct or
resolve any errors or deficiencies in its designs, drawings, specifications,
reports, and other services, which fall below the standard of professional
practice, and reimburse the Town for costs caused by errors and omissions
which fall below the standard of professional practice.
d. Approval by the Town of drawings, designs, specifications, reports, and
incidental work or materials furnished hereunder shall not in any way relieve
Consultant of responsibility for technical adequacy of its services. Neither
the Town's review, approval, or acceptance of, nor payment for, any of the
Consultant’s services shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights
under this Contract or of any cause of action arising out of the performance
of this Contract.
e. Consultant hereby agrees that Consultant, including but not limited to, any
employee, principal, shareholder, or affiliate of Consultant shall not have a
financial relationship with or an ownership interest in any person and/or
entity which entity and/or person shall be the recipient of any contract or
work for the services provided by Consultant pursuant to the terms and
Page 4 of 8
conditions of this Contract. Consultant understands and agrees that the
purpose of this provision is to prevent any information created as a result of
Consultant’s services herein being used by any person and/or entity in the
preparation of any bid or performance of any work for the Town.
f. Because the Town has hired Consultant for its professional expertise,
Consultant agrees not to employ subcontractors to perform more than
twenty percent (20 %) of the work required under the Scope of Services.
Upon execution of this Contract, Consultant shall furnish to the Town a list of
proposed subcontractors, and Consultant shall not employ a subcontractor
to whose employment the Town reasonably objects. All contracts between
Consultant and subcontractors shall conform to this Contract including, but
not limited to, Section 10.
9. Governmental Immunity Act. No term or condition of this Contract shall be
construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the notices, requirements,
immunities, rights, benefits, protections, limitations of liability, and other provisions of the
Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101 et seq. and under any other
applicable law.
10. Compliance with Applicable Laws.
a. Generally. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state,
and local laws, including the ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations
of the Town. The Consultant shall solely be responsible for payment of all
applicable taxes and for obtaining and keeping in force all applicable permits
and approvals.
b. C.R.S. Article 17.5, Title 8. The Consultant hereby certifies that, as of the
date of this Contract, it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal
alien who will perform work under this Contract and that the Consultant will
participate in the e-verify program or Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment (“Department”) program as defined in C.R.S. § 8-17.5-101 in
order to confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly
hired for employment to perform work under this Contract. The Consultant
shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work
under this Contract or enter into a contract with a subconsultant that fails to
certify to the Consultant that the subconsultant shall not knowingly employ or
contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract. The
Consultant certifies that it has confirmed the employment eligibility of all
employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under this
Contract through participation in either the e-verify program or the
Department program. The Consultant is prohibited from using either the e-
verify program or the Department program procedures to undertake pre-
employment screening of job applicants while this Contract is being
performed. If the Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a subconsultant
performing work under this Contract knowingly employs or contracts with an
illegal alien, the Consultant shall be required to: (i) notify the subconsultant
and Town within three days that Consultant has actual knowledge that the
subconsultant is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and (ii)
terminate the subcontract with the subconsultant if within three days of
Page 5 of 8
receiving the notice required pursuant to this subparagraph the
subconsultant does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien;
except that Consultant shall not terminate the contract with the
subconsultant if during such three days the subconsultant provides
information to establish that the subconsultant has not knowingly employed
or contracted with an illegal alien. The Consultant shall comply with any
reasonable request by the Department made in the course of an
investigation that it is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in
C.R.S. Article 17.5, Title 8. If the Consultant violates this paragraph, the
Town may terminate this Contract for default in accordance with
“Termination,” below. If this Contract is so terminated, the Consultant shall
be liable for actual and consequential damages to the Town. (Note: this
paragraph shall not apply to contracts: (i) for Services involving the delivery
of a specific end product (other than reports that are merely incidental to the
performance of said work); or (ii) for information technology services and/or
products.)
11. Termination.
a. a. Without Cause. Either party may terminate this Contract without cause
upon thirty days prior written notice to the other. The Town shall be liable to
pay the Consultant for Services performed as of the effective date of
termination, but shall not be liable to the Consultant for anticipated profits.
b. For Default. Each and every term and condition hereof shall be deemed to
be a material element of this Contract. In the event either party fails to
perform according to the terms of this Contract, such party may be declared
in default. If the defaulting party does not cure said breach within ten days of
written notice thereof, the non-defaulting party may terminate this Contract
immediately upon written notice of termination to the other. In the event of
termination of this Contract pursuant to this Section, the non-defaulting party
shall be entitled to recover all damages caused by said default. In the event
that Consultant is in default, the Town may withhold payment to the
Consultant for the purposes of setoff until such time as the amount of
damages is determined.
12. Notices. Written notices shall be directed as follows and shall be deemed
received when hand-delivered or emailed, or three days after being sent by certified mail, return
receipt requested:
To the Town: To the Consultant:
Kevin Ash, PE Scott Belonger, PE
Public Works Engineering Manager Project Manager
Town of Estes Park Loris and Associates, Inc.
170 MacGregor Avenue 818 W. South Boulder Rd, #200
Estes Park, CO 80517 Louisville, CO 80027
Email: kash@estes.org Email: sbelonger@lorisandassociates.com
Page 6 of 8
13. Special Provisions.
The Contract work shall be completed according to the following schedule unless
otherwise modified in writing with a subsequent Amendment to this Contract.
Task Description Due Date Responsible Party
Notice to Proceed April 29, 2015 Town
Conceptual Design April 30, 2015 Loris
Consultant to Invoice Town May 13, 2015 Loris
NEPA Study May 21, 2015-
June 29, 2016
Loris
Best Path of Trail Concept Design June 30, 2015 Loris
Engineering Design 30% Complete (FIR) July 23, 2015 –
December 9, 2015
Loris & Town
Engineering Design 90% Complete (FOR) Decmber 10, 2015
March 9, 2016
Loris & Town
Final Construction Plan Approval April 20, 2016 Town
Final CDOT Approval August 31, 2016 CDOT
14. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in performance of the Services and
is a significant and material term of this Contract.
15. Entire Agreement. This Contract contains the entire agreement of the parties
relating to the subject matter hereof and, except as provided herein, may not be modified or
amended except by written agreement of the parties. In the event a court of competent
jurisdiction holds any provision of this Contract invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not
invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision of this Contract.
16. Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign this Contract without the Town’s
prior written consent.
17. Governing Law. This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Colorado, and venue shall be in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
18. Instruments of Service. Drawings, models, specifications, research, reports,
studies, data, photographs and other documents, including those in electronic form, prepared by
Consultant and its subconsultants in the performance of obligations under this Contract are
Instruments of Service for use solely with respect to the project identified in this Contract.
Consultant and its subconsultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective
Instruments of Service and shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights,
including copyrights; except that, upon execution of this Contract, the Consultant grants to the
Town a non-exclusive, perpetual, fully-paid, non-revocable license to reproduce and use the
Consultant's Instruments of Service solely in connection with the above-referenced project,
including the project's further development by the Town and others retained by the Town for such
purposes. The Consultant shall obtain similar licenses from its subconsultants consistent with
this Contract. Consultant shall, during the term of this Contract provide the Town with copies of
all Instruments of Service prepared by Consultant or its subconsultants contemporaneous with
Page 7 of 8
such preparation, and shall provide them in electronic format or any other format requested by
the Town.
19. Attorney’s Fees and Costs. In the event it becomes necessary for either party to
bring any action to enforce any provision of this Contract or to recover any damages from the
other party as a result of the breach of this Contract, including, but not limited to, defective work,
and the party that prevails in such litigation, the other party shall pay the prevailing party its
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as determined by the court.
20. Electronic Signature. This Contract may be executed by electronic signature in
accordance with C.R.S. § 24-71.3-101 et seq.
Signed by the parties on the date written above.
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
By: ____________________________________
Title: ____________________________________
ATTEST:
________________________
Town Clerk
Consultant
By: ____________________________________
Title: ____________________________________
STATE OF ________________ )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ________________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________________,
20 by __________________________________________________.
(Insert name of individual signing on behalf of the Consultant)
___________________________
Notary’s official signature
S E A L
___________________________
Commission expiration date
Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT A
See attached RFP and Proposal from Loris & Associates,
Inc.
Estes Fall River Road~LORIS Fee Rescope~2015-04-23r2.xls
ALL PHASES
LORIS 4/23/2015 - Page 1 of 6
TASK #TASK NAME TASK DETAIL Task ID PM Struct.
PE Civil PE Civil PE Civil
Design Adm LORIS Subtot LORIS
Expense LORIS Total King Kumar Logan
Simpson
Western
States SUBS Subtot TEAM Subtot
Rate:$150 $115 $115 $115 $90 $70 Survey Geotec Environ & LA ROW
1.0 Conceptual Design 73,820$ 300$ 74,120$ 9,892$ 12,000$ 28,752$ -$ 50,644$ 124,764$
a. Kick-off Meeting
Meetings
Prepare for Meeting 26-TRA 16 16 8 4,960$ 4,960$ 693$ 693$ 5,653$
Attend Meeting 26-TRA 4 4 1,060$ 100$ 1,160$ 1,894$ 1,894$ 3,054$
Site Meeting
Site Walkthrough 26-TRA 4 4 1,060$ 1,060$ -$ 1,060$
b.Data Collection
Obtain Existing
General Information 26-TRA 2 4 760$ 760$ -$ 760$
Site Analysis
Preparation 26-TRA 2 4 760$ 760$ -$ 760$
Site Visit 26-TRA 8 8 2,120$ 2,120$ -$ 2,120$
Geotechnical
General
Recommendations
Kumar 26-TRA 1 150$ 150$ 12,000$ 12,000$ 12,150$
LIDAR Base Map
Field Survey King 26-TRA 1 2 380$ 380$ 9,199$ 9,199$ 9,579$
Utility Locates 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Environmental
Logan Simpson 26-TRA 1 150$ 150$ -$ 150$
Hydraulics
Baseline LORIS 26-TRA 1 40 4,750$ 4,750$ -$ 4,750$
c.Public Involvement
Public Involvement Plan 26-TRA 2 300$ 300$ 2,028$ 2,028$ 2,328$
Notifications Assume 3 public meetings only 26-TRA -$ -$ 1,912$ 1,912$ 1,912$
Public Comment Log 26-TRA 2 300$ 300$ 3,048$ 3,048$ 3,348$
Web Site Town will handle website with graphics provided
by Loris developed incidental to public meeting
graphics.
26-TRA 3 270$ 270$ -$ 270$
Property Owners
Assume up to 10 meeting with property owners in
two visits to Estes Park
26-TRA 16 4 2,760$ 2,760$ -$ 2,760$
General Public
Prep Meeting #1, Meeting organized and conducted by
LSD, displays by LORIS.
26-TRA 4 4 12 2,140$ 2,140$ -$ 2,140$
Meet Meeting #1 26-TRA 6 6 1,590$ 1,590$ 2,708$ 2,708$ 4,298$
d.Alignment Study
General
Project Management 26-TRA 16 2,400$ 100$ 2,500$ 2,804$ 2,804$ 5,304$
Meetings 26-TRA 2 300$ 100$ 400$ -$ 400$
CDOT Coordination 26-TRA 4 600$ 600$ -$ 600$
Quality Control 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
General Information
Cover Sheet 26-TRA 2 180$ 180$ -$ 180$
Typical Section & General
Notes
26-TRA 1 2 330$ 330$ -$ 330$
Trail
East Section: Exist to Fish
Hatchery Rd
Best Path of Trail Analysis and Map 26-TRA 16 24 8 12 7,160$ 7,160$ -$ 7,160$
Drainage 26-TRA 2 8 1,220$ 1,220$ -$ 1,220$
Stormwater Management 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
West Section: Fish
Hatchery Rd to RMNP
Best Path of Trail Analysis and Map. Include
study along US 34, Fish Hatchery Road, and
multiple possible connection locations to RMNP
Vistor Center and/or Aspen Glen Campground
26-TRA 20 32 8 12 8,680$ 8,680$ -$ 8,680$
Drainage 26-TRA 2 8 1,220$ 1,220$ -$ 1,220$
Stormwater Management 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Landscape
26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Structures
East Section Retaining Walls or Bridges 26-TRA 2 16 16 3,580$ 3,580$ -$ 3,580$
West Section Retaining Walls or Bridges 26-TRA 2 16 16 3,580$ 3,580$ -$ 3,580$
Estes Fall River Road~LORIS Fee Rescope~2015-04-23r2.xls
ALL PHASES
LORIS 4/23/2015 - Page 2 of 6
TASK #TASK NAME TASK DETAIL Task ID PM Struct.
PE Civil PE Civil PE Civil
Design Adm LORIS Subtot LORIS
Expense LORIS Total King Kumar Logan
Simpson
Western
States SUBS Subtot TEAM Subtot
Hydraulics
East Section 26-TRA 1 24 2,910$ 2,910$ -$ 2,910$
West Section Assume none required 26-TRA 1 150$ 150$ -$ 150$
Environmental Permits
CatEx 26-TRA 4 460$ 460$ 11,650$ 11,650$ 12,110$
Constructability
26-TRA 2 4 760$ 760$ -$ 760$
Cost Opinion
Quantities 26-TRA 2 4 8 8 2,400$ 2,400$ -$ 2,400$
Costs 26-TRA 12 1,800$ 1,800$ -$ 1,800$
Design Memos
Drainage, Utilitites, Traffic, Right of Way 26-TRA 12 6 2,490$ 2,490$ -$ 2,490$
Right-of-way
Impacts 26-TRA 4 460$ 460$ -$ 460$
e.Public Involvement
General Public
Prep Meeting #2, Meeting organized and conducted by
LSD, displays by LORIS.
26-TRA 4 4 16 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,708$ 2,708$ 5,208$
Meet Meeting #2 26-TRA 6 6 1,590$ 1,590$ -$ 1,590$
f.Preferred Alternative
Selection
Revisions
Plan 26-TRA 8 8 8 16 4,480$ 4,480$ -$ 4,480$
Review & Meet
Meeting 26-TRA 4 4 1,060$ 1,060$ -$ 1,060$
Estes Fall River Road~LORIS Fee Rescope~2015-04-23r2.xls
ALL PHASES
LORIS 4/23/2015 - Page 3 of 6
TASK #TASK NAME TASK DETAIL Task ID PM Struct.
PE Civil PE Civil PE Civil
Design Adm LORIS Subtot LORIS
Expense LORIS Total King Kumar Logan
Simpson
Western
States SUBS Subtot TEAM Subtot
2.0 Preliminary Design 48,840$ 550$ 49,390$ 46,374$ -$ 15,222$ -$ 61,596$ 110,986$
a. 30% Design
General
Project Management 26-TRA 8 1,200$ 100$ 1,300$ 2,804$ 2,804$ 4,104$
Meetings 26-TRA 4 600$ 100$ 700$ -$ 700$
Quality Control 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
General Information
Cover Sheet 26-TRA 8 8 1,640$ 1,640$ -$ 1,640$
Typical Section & General
Notes
26-TRA 1 8 8 1,790$ 1,790$ -$ 1,790$
Summary of Approximate
Quantities
26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Tabulations 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Survey Control 26-TRA 1 8 8 1,790$ 1,790$ -$ 1,790$
Boring Logs 26-TRA 1 8 8 1,790$ 1,790$ -$ 1,790$
Geotechnical
Borings & Report Kumar 26-TRA 1 150$ 150$ -$ 150$
Survey
Survey & ROW King 26-TRA 1 2 380$ 380$ 29,156$ 29,156$ 29,536$
Trail
East Section Plan & Profile, Cross Sections 26-TRA 1 40 8 16 7,110$ 7,110$ -$ 7,110$
Drainage (BMP)26-TRA 2 24 3,060$ 3,060$ -$ 3,060$
Stormwater Management 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
West Section Plan & Profile, Cross Sections (FHR TO ASPEN
GLEN CG or RMNP Visitor Center)
26-TRA 2 8 4 12 2,760$ 2,760$ -$ 2,760$
Signing and Striping for Shared Use of FHR 26-TRA 8 4 8 2,380$ 2,380$ -$ 2,380$
Drainage (BMP)26-TRA 2 4 760$ 760$ -$ 760$
Stormwater Management 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Landscape
Assume basic restoration plan. No irrigation.26-TRA 1 4 510$ 510$ 8,110$ 8,110$ 8,620$
Structures
East Section Retaining Walls or Bridges 26-TRA 4 32 16 5,720$ 5,720$ -$ 5,720$
West Section Assume None Required 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Hydraulics
East Section 26-TRA 1 2 16 2,220$ 2,220$ -$ 2,220$
West Section Assume none required 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Report 26-TRA 1 2 24 4 3,500$ 3,500$ -$ 3,500$
Environmental Permits
404 Permit 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Noxious Weed Survey -$ -$ 1,600$ 1,600$ 1,600$
Constructability
26-TRA 1 1 240$ 240$ -$ 240$
Cost Opinion
Quantities 26-TRA 2 4 8 16 3,120$ 3,120$ -$ 3,120$
Costs 26-TRA 4 600$ 600$ -$ 600$
Specifications
Special Provisions Outline only 26-TRA 8 8 2,120$ 2,120$ -$ 2,120$
Right-of-way
CDOT Drawings 26-TRA 2 8 1,220$ 1,220$ 17,218$ 17,218$ 18,438$
b.30% Design Review
Prepare for Meeting 26-TRA 1 150$ 150$ -$ 150$
Teleconference 26-TRA 2 300$ 300$ -$ 300$
c.Public Involvement
General Public
Prep Meeting #3, Meeting organized and conducted by
LSD, displays by LORIS.
26-TRA 4 4 12 2,140$ 250$ 2,390$ 2,708$ 2,708$ 5,098$
Meet Meeting #3 26-TRA 6 6 1,590$ 100$ 1,690$ -$ 1,690$
Estes Fall River Road~LORIS Fee Rescope~2015-04-23r2.xls
ALL PHASES
LORIS 4/23/2015 - Page 4 of 6
TASK #TASK NAME TASK DETAIL Task ID PM Struct.
PE Civil PE Civil PE Civil
Design Adm LORIS Subtot LORIS
Expense LORIS Total King Kumar Logan
Simpson
Western
States SUBS Subtot TEAM Subtot
3.0 90% Design 48,450$ 550$ 49,000$ -$ -$ 9,270$ -$ 9,270$ 58,270$
a. 90% Design
General
Project Management 26-TRA 4 600$ 100$ 700$ 2,804$ 2,804$ 3,504$
Meetings 26-TRA 4 4 1,060$ 100$ 1,160$ -$ 1,160$
CDOT Coordination 26-TRA 2 300$ 300$ -$ 300$
Quality Control 26-TRA 8 920$ 920$ -$ 920$
General Information
Cover Sheet 26-TRA 2 180$ 180$ -$ 180$
Typical Section & General
Notes
26-TRA 1 2 330$ 330$ -$ 330$
Summary of Approximate
Quantities
26-TRA 1 2 8 1,100$ 1,100$ -$ 1,100$
Tabulations 26-TRA 4 12 1,540$ 1,540$ -$ 1,540$
Survey Control 26-TRA 1 2 330$ 330$ -$ 330$
Boring Logs 26-TRA 1 2 330$ 330$ -$ 330$
Trail
East Section Plan & Profile, Cross Sections 26-TRA 1 16 8 32 5,790$ 5,790$ -$ 5,790$
Drainage (BMP)26-TRA 2 8 4 1,580$ 1,580$ -$ 1,580$
Stormwater Management 26-TRA 4 12 1,540$ 1,540$ -$ 1,540$
Details 26-TRA 8 16 24 5,200$ 5,200$ -$ 5,200$
West Section Plan & Profile, Cross Sections (FHR TO ASPEN
GLEN CG or RMNP Visitor Center)
26-TRA 2 4 16 2,200$ 2,200$ -$ 2,200$
Signing and Striping for Shared Use of FHR 26-TRA 8 8 1,920$ 1,920$ -$ 1,920$
Drainage (BMP)26-TRA 2 4 2 940$ 940$ -$ 940$
Stormwater Management 26-TRA 4 2 640$ 640$ -$ 640$
Landscape
Assume basic restoration plan. No irrigation.26-TRA 4 8 1,520$ 1,520$ 6,466$ 6,466$ 7,986$
Structures
East Section Retaining Walls 26-TRA 4 32 32 7,160$ 7,160$ -$ 7,160$
West Section None required 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Hydraulics
East Section Final hydraulics at 90%26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
West Section 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Report 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Environmental Permits
CatEx See above 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Constructability
Review 26-TRA 1 150$ 150$ -$ 150$
Cost Opinion
Quantities 26-TRA 2 4 8 16 3,120$ 3,120$ -$ 3,120$
Costs 26-TRA 4 600$ 600$ -$ 600$
Specifications
Special Provisions 26-TRA 16 8 4 3,600$ 3,600$ -$ 3,600$
Right-of-way
See above 26-TRA 4 460$ 460$ -$ 460$
b.90% Design Review
Prepare for Meeting 26-TRA 1 2 380$ 380$ -$ 380$
Teleconference 26-TRA 6 6 1,590$ 1,590$ -$ 1,590$
c.Public Involvement
Stakeholder
Prep 26-TRA 4 4 8 1,780$ 250$ 2,030$ -$ 2,030$
Meet 26-TRA 6 6 1,590$ 100$ 1,690$ -$ 1,690$
Estes Fall River Road~LORIS Fee Rescope~2015-04-23r2.xls
ALL PHASES
LORIS 4/23/2015 - Page 5 of 6
TASK #TASK NAME TASK DETAIL Task ID PM Struct.
PE Civil PE Civil PE Civil
Design Adm LORIS Subtot LORIS
Expense LORIS Total King Kumar Logan
Simpson
Western
States SUBS Subtot TEAM Subtot
4.0 Final Design 39,865$ 750$ 40,615$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 40,615$
c.100% Design
General
Project Management 26-TRA 8 1,200$ 100$ 1,300$ -$ 1,300$
Meetings 26-TRA 4 4 1,060$ 100$ 1,160$ -$ 1,160$
CDOT Coordination 26-TRA 4 600$ 600$ -$ 600$
Quality Control 26-TRA 8 920$ 920$ -$ 920$
General Information
Cover Sheet 26-TRA 2 180$ 180$ -$ 180$
Typical Section & General
Notes
26-TRA 1 2 330$ 330$ -$ 330$
Summary of Approximate
Quantities
26-TRA 1 4 8 1,330$ 1,330$ -$ 1,330$
Tabulations 26-TRA 4 8 1,180$ 1,180$ -$ 1,180$
Survey Control 26-TRA 1 2 330$ 330$ -$ 330$
Boring Logs 26-TRA 1 2 330$ 330$ -$ 330$
Trail
East Section Plan & Profile, Cross Sections 26-TRA 2 8 8 1,940$ 1,940$ -$ 1,940$
Drainage (BMP)26-TRA 2 8 4 1,580$ 1,580$ -$ 1,580$
Stormwater Management 26-TRA 2 4 590$ 590$ -$ 590$
Details 26-TRA 8 8 6 2,660$ 2,660$ -$ 2,660$
West Section Plan & Profile, Cross Sections (FHR TO ASPEN
GLEN CG or RMNP Visitor Center)
26-TRA 2 8 8 1,940$ 1,940$ -$ 1,940$
Signing and Striping for Shared Use of FHR 26-TRA 6 6 1,440$ 1,440$ -$ 1,440$
Drainage (BMP)26-TRA 4 2 640$ 640$ -$ 640$
Stormwater Management 26-TRA 2 4 590$ 590$ -$ 590$
Landscape
26-TRA 4 8 1,520$ 1,520$ -$ 1,520$
Structures
East Section Retaining Walls 26-TRA 2 4 8 1,480$ 1,480$ -$ 1,480$
West Section None Required 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Hydraulics
East Section 26-TRA 1 2 380$ 380$ -$ 380$
West Section 26-TRA 1 2 380$ 380$ -$ 380$
Environmental Permits
404 Permit 26-TRA 1 150$ 150$ -$ 150$
Constructability
Boundaries 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Cost Opinion
Quantities 26-TRA 2 4 8 8 2,400$ 2,400$ -$ 2,400$
Costs 26-TRA 4 600$ 600$ -$ 600$
Specifications
Special Provisions 26-TRA 8 8 4 2,400$ 2,400$ -$ 2,400$
Right-of-way
Boundaries King 26-TRA 4 1 550$ 550$ -$ 550$
Acquisition Not included in base fee. See additional services
below.
26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Appraisals Two appriasals. Assumes that appraisal checks
by our team will not be needed.
26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
b.100% Design Review
Prepare for Meeting 26-TRA 1 1 265$ 250$ 515$ -$ 515$
Meeting 26-TRA 4 4 1,060$ 100$ 1,160$ -$ 1,160$
c.Final Revisions
Project Management 26-TRA 4 600$ 100$ 700$ -$ 700$
Design Meeting 26-TRA 2 2 530$ 100$ 630$ -$ 630$
Quality Control 26-TRA 12 1,380$ 1,380$ -$ 1,380$
Trail 26-TRA 4 12 12 3,060$ 3,060$ -$ 3,060$
Landscape 26-TRA 1 150$ 150$ -$ 150$
Structures 26-TRA 2 4 4 1,120$ 1,120$ -$ 1,120$
Hydraulics 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
CDOT FORMS 26-TRA 4 16 8 3,000$ 3,000$ -$ 3,000$
Estes Fall River Road~LORIS Fee Rescope~2015-04-23r2.xls
ALL PHASES
LORIS 4/23/2015 - Page 6 of 6
TASK #TASK NAME TASK DETAIL Task ID PM Struct.
PE Civil PE Civil PE Civil
Design Adm LORIS Subtot LORIS
Expense LORIS Total King Kumar Logan
Simpson
Western
States SUBS Subtot TEAM Subtot
4.0 Bid Assistance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
a. Bid Assistance NIC
General
Solicit Bidders 45-CM -$ -$ -$ -$
Attend Pre-bid Meeting 45-CM -$ -$ -$ -$
Answer RFI's 45-CM -$ -$ -$ -$
Bid Submittal Evaluation 45-CM -$ -$ -$ -$
5.0 Construction -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
a. CA NIC
General
Pre-Con 45-CM -$ -$ -$ -$
Answer RFI's 45-CM -$ -$ -$ -$
Site Observation 45-CM -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction
Management
45-CM -$ -$ -$ -$
Punch list Meeting and
Follow-up
45-CM -$ -$ -$ -$
Close-out 45-CM -$ -$ -$ -$
REIMBURSIBLE EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$
428 156 483 212 531 16 1,826
64,200$ 17,940$ 55,545$ 24,380$ 47,790$ 1,120$ 210,975$ 2,150$ 213,125$ 56,266$ 12,000$ 53,244$ -$ 121,510$ 334,635$
210,975$ 334,635$
NEPA CatEx 11,650$
Conceptual Design 113,114$
30% Design 110,986$
90% Design 58,270$
100% Design 40,615$
Total Amount 334,635$
6.0 Additional Services
Landscape
Irrigation We are assuming that landscape will be non-
irrigated, xeriscape due to water restrictions and
cost of implementation
26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Right-of-way
Boundaries ROW drawings & monumentation will be an
additional $3,000 for each additional parcel.
26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Acquisition Western States -- $5k per additional acquisition 26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Appraisals $5,000 to $7,500 per appraisal if a Value Finding
is not acceptable
26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Appraisal Review $1,000 to $2,000 per appraisal review if CDOT is
not able to perform them
26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Environmental
NEPA Additional fee for NEPA process if CatEx is not
acceptable -- $40,000. Additional studies may
also be required.
26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Floodplain
FEMA Assume that CLOMR is not required. Fee will
depend on the amount of floodplain constriction
and in how many locations.
26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Geotechnical
Borings If more than 10 borings are required, they will be
performed at a cost of $1,000 each.
26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
26-TRA -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Hours
Total Amount
Assumes the project will be consist of a separate trail on the south side of US 34 east of Fish Hatchery Road and shared use
treatments along FHR with a separate trail connection between FHR and Aspen Glen Campground and/or RMNP Visitor Center.
Includes alignment study along both Fall River Road and Fish Hatchery Road with various possible connections between FHR and
Aspen Glen Campground and/or RMNP Visitor Center.