Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Town Board 2015-02-24
The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide highǦquality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PROCLAMATION: 100th Anniversary of Rocky Mountain National Park. UNITED WAY PLAQUE PRESENTATION. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated February 10, 2015 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated February 10, 2015. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee, February 12, 2015. 1. 2015 Ford Utility Interceptors (two PD vehicles @ $30,697 each), Spradley Barr of Greeley, $61,394 – Budgeted. 2. 2015 Pothole Patch Truck, MacDonald Equipment Co., - $205,450 – Budgeted. 3. Adam’s Tree Service – Contract amendment for additional crew, no impact to 2015 budget. 4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated January 21, 2015 (acknowledgement only). 5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated January 15, 2015 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated January 6, 2015 (acknowledgement only). Prepared 2/17/15 * Revised: 2/19/15 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.CONSENT ITEM: A. AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH LARIMER COUNTY. Senior Planner Shirk. B. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BYLAWS. Senior Planner Shirk. 2. ACTION ITEMS: A. ORDINANCE #01-15 – AMENDING THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES – BOARD OF APPEALS. Senior Planner Shirk. i. APPROVAL OF THE ESTES PARK BOARD OF APPEALS BYLAWS. B. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, Marys Lake Subdivision Replat, TBD Kiowa Court; Marys Meadow Development/Applicant. Senior Planner Shirk. C. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014-05, Backbone Adventure Rentals, 1851 North Lake Avenue; Kenneth Hitch/Applicant. Planner Kleisler. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT. Town Clerk Williamson. 2. ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPOINTMENTS. Town Clerk Williamson. 4. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. 2014 YEAR END FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland. 2. CDBG-DR ROUND 1 & 2 INFRASTRUCTURE AND FEMA HMGP APPLICATIONS. Planner Kurtz. 5. ADJOURN. * Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 10, 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 10th day of February 2015. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees John Ericson Bob Holcomb Ward Nelson Ron Norris John Phipps Also Present: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Greg White, Town Attorney Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. COLORADO SPRIRIT MOUNTAIN OUTREACH. Representatives from Colorado Spirit Mountain Outreach expressed their gratitude for support received from the Town and presented Mayor Pinkham and Mayor Pro Tem Koenig with an embroidered quilt and mounted print. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Tony Schetzsle, Town resident, recently met with Director Muhonen, Engineer Ash and Joe Holtzman to discuss options regarding the fate of Scott Ponds and presented a rough draft concept by which some of the ponds could be retained through a different holding design. He stated he would be in contact with John Batka, Colorado Division of Water Resources Dam Safety Engineer, to seek comments on the proposal. TRUSTEE COMMENTS. Trustee Norris stated the Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee would meet on Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. in the Board Room. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig reported the Sister Cities organization reelected Nick Molle as president, the next meeting would be February 18, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. at the Other Side Restaurant and a small committee would be investigating Adare, Ireland as an additional sister city to Estes Park. Trustee Phipps informed the Board of the vacancy on the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Two applications have been received. Trustee Ericson stated the Board of Adjustment has two openings and encouraged anyone who would like to volunteer to submit an application to the Clerk’s office. The next meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board would be at 12:00 p.m. on February 18, 2015 in Town Hall Room 202. He reminded the Board of the strategic planning process and reviewed the outcome areas and five to seven year goals. Board of Trustees – February 10, 2015 – Page 2 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland stated December 2014 sales tax saw an increase of 14 percent and the year to date sales tax saw approximately a 15 percent increase over 2013. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 27, 2015 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated January 27, 2015. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development/Community Services Committee, January 22, 2015. 1. 2015 Lease for Shuttles from Rocky Mountain Transit Management. 2. 2015 Road Closures. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated December 2, 2014 (acknowledgement only). Trustee Phipps requested Item #1 - Town Board Minutes be removed from the Consent Agenda. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to approve the Consent Agenda except for Item #1, and it passed unanimously. Trustee Phipps worked with Grant Specialist Crosser to clarify the language in the Residential Anitdisplacement and Relocation Plan which now states the Town is responsible for replacement of affordable housing damaged by a disaster, such as a flood, based on availability of Disaster Recovery Funds. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to accept Item #1 on the Consent Agenda as corrected, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1.RESOLUTION #06-15 REAPPROPRIATION OF 2014 ENCUMBERED FUNDS “ROLLOVERS” TO 2015 BUDGET. Finance Officer McFarland explained the basics of governmental accounting. There are currently 68 purchase orders in six different funds totaling $4,400,000, most of which are flood related projects in mid-completion, that are requesting roll over. Concern exists regarding expenditures versus the timeliness of reimbursement, therefore this is being watched closely. Only essential projects to continue governmental functions are being asked for roll over. It was moved and seconded (EricsonKoenig) to adopt Resolution #06- 15, and it passed unanimously. 2.RESOLUTION #07-15 SUPPORT OF GONOCO REGIONAL TOURISM ACT (RTA) APPLICATION INCLUDING SPECIFIC AREAS WITHIN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. Finance Officer McFarland described the proposed 500 seat state of the art lecture hall project on the Stanley property and presented the Resolution of support for GoNoCo to proceed with the RTA application. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve Resolution #07-15 which supports and authorizes a submittal application by GoNoCo to the Colorado Office of Economic Development for approval of a Regional Tourism project in Northern Colorado, including specific areas in the Town of Estes Park, and it passed unanimously. Board of Trustees – February 10, 2015 – Page 3 3.FACLON RIDGE TAP FEE CONTRIBUTION. Finance Officer McFarland presented the proposal of the Town making a contribution of $369,000 towards the Falcon Ridge final tap fee. The original cost estimate was found to be inaccurate and the Water Department is working with the Estes Park Housing Authority’s civil engineer to reduce the demand on the sprinkler system which would help reduce costs. The funds are not budgeted and would be entered as a mid-year expenditure adjustment as follows: 1. $44,000 from the General Fund. 2. $325,000 from the Light & Power Fund to the Water Fund, to be repaid to the Light & Power fund by the Community Reinvestment Fund once the final payment from the sale of Lot 4 has been received. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Ericson) to approve the Town paying $369,000 towards the Tap Fee total of the Falcon Ridge project, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 10, 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 10th day of February, 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: Finance Officer McFarland, Town Attorney White, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. Trustee Norris noted that the Colorado Municipal League (CML) annual conference is coming up in June with topics that include broadband and economic development. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. Trustee Phipps requested that a presentation from Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) Executive Director Skyler Rorabaugh be scheduled for the February 24th Town Board Study Session to provide a status update on the community center and fundraising plans. Trustee Ericson requested a discussion about a process to add an executive session to an agenda be held at the March 24, 2015, Study Session. On behalf of the Community Development Director, Finance Officer McFarland requested a discussion of an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code related to animal retail sales and animal grooming in the CD zone district be added to the February 24, 2015, study session agenda. SIGN CODE 101 & DISCUSSION OF CODE REVISIONS. Code Enforcement Officer Reichardt introduced sign consultant Randy Morrison who has been selected to assist with updating the sign code. Mr. Morrison provided the Board with a presentation called Sign Law 101 as an introduction to sign law and signs as a form of free speech. The presentation focused on what constitutes a sign; the historical importance of signs; the need for a sign code to contain a broad definition of a sign; exclusions and exceptions that may potentially be considered; on- and off-site signs; mobile signs; commercial speech vs. non-commercial speech, and first amendment rights. He said municipalities traditionally adopt a sign code to control visual clutter in order to preserve aesthetics and to enhance public safety by reducing distractions to drivers and pedestrians. He recommended that the sign code regulate the medium, not the message and be content neutral, and that the code utilize the Time, Place, Manner (TPM) formula when considering size, height, illumination, separation, and setbacks. He also recommended using clear, simple, enforceable rules in the code, rather than guidelines that are statements of preference and not enforceable. He noted that sign code litigation usually ends up as a civil rights case in federal court and stated the sign code needs to be defensible. Additionally, Mr. Morrison addressed the portion of the current sign code which requires that a permit be obtained when changing text on a sign. He recommended immediate action be taken to remove this requirement. Staff noted that this can be accomplished through administrative policy. Town Board Study Session – February 10, 2015 – Page 2 Code Compliance Officer Reichardt said the code revision will make the sign code simpler and easier to understand, but will not change the basic intent of the code. He said that staff has identified several areas of the code to focus on during the revision and provided a tentative schedule that would result in the revisions being completed by June or July 2015. Mr. Morrison proposed using a citizens committee to help with the revisions and to provide the committee with clear expectations at the beginning of the process. The Board directed staff to move forward with the revisions and the schedule as presented. Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting at 5:33 p.m. for a dinner break. The meeting resumed at 5:53 p.m. ADOPTION TIMELINE & PROCESS FOR 2015 INTERNATONAL BUILDING CODES. Chief Building Official (CBO) Birchfield requested the Board provide direction related to the adoption of the 2015 International Building Codes. The Town is currently operating under the 2009 International Building Code (IBC) which was adopted by the Board in 2012, and Larimer County is operating under the 2012 IBC. A disadvantage of adopting the 2015 edition of the Codes is that regulations drive up building costs. Advantages include more consistency between neighboring jurisdictions, and the use of newer standards, technologies and information. Staff is proposing that the Estes Park Board of Appeals (EPBOA) facilitate the adoption process. The membership of the EPBOA is made up of individuals who are actively involved in the building trade and will bring their expertise to the process and discussions. Monthly meetings of the EPBOA will be held on the first Thursday of each month with a specific portion of the Code scheduled for review at each meeting. Potentially significant changes will be identified, reviewed by the CBO, and public comment will be solicited. The CBO will propose local amendments to the Codes when appropriate for our community’s needs. CBO Birchfield will report to the Town Board on a monthly basis regarding the progress of the adoption process. Staff proposes a timeline that will result in the adoption of the 2015 Codes in November 2015, to become effective on January 1, 2016. He noted that there are ten codes with the International Building Code and the International Residential Code being the primary codes, and all other secondary codes being adopted by reference. Staff recommends including discussions of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) during the 2015 Code adoption process, as the IPMC was not adopted by the Board in 2012. Related to fees, CBO Birchfield said the fee schedule currently being used by staff is from 1997. He said at the present time, approximately 50 percent of the department’s expenses are recouped through fees, so raising the fees to cover costs is a goal. He recommended making the fees simpler to calculate, more equitable and consistent. A survey will be done to gather information on fees in jurisdictions in northern Colorado. In addition, the policies and procedures of the Building Division will be incorporated into the Code as local amendments. The Board commented that the process is clear and understandable and directed staff to proceed with the adoption process on the proposed schedule and timeline. 2015 PRIDE AWARDS. Trustee Phipps started a discussion as to whether the Pride Awards as they currently exist should be continued, revised, or eliminated. Due to time constraints the discussion was brief and is summarized: there has been little interest and a lack of nominations in recent years; awarding a Volunteer of the Year Award is better suited to the Town than are the Teacher of the Year and Business Person of the Year awards; other organizations now exist that can provide recognition as well; the intent of the awards is great, but they may have run their course; and Town-wide recognition is Town Board Study Session – February 10, 2015 – Page 3 important. Trustees Phipps and Nelson will provide the Board with information related to the Pride Awards so that discussion can continue at the February 24, 2015, Town Board Study Session. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:48 p.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 12, 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 Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of February, 2015. Committee: Chair Norris, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Nelson Attending: Chair Norris and Trustee Nelson Also Attending: Chief Kufeld, Directors Bergsten and Muhonen, Managers McEachern and Fraundorf, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Koenig Finance Officer McFarland Town Administrator Lancaster Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. PUBLIC SAFETY. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1. Municipal Court Annual Report – Judge Brown provided the Committee with a summary of the court’s activities for 2014. He reported that, overall, the total number of cases and revenue for 2014 show no particular trends from previous years, noted that parking ticket revenue was considerably lower in 2014 than in 2013, and said that the court heard three cases involving trash management/bear issues in 2014. He reported that in 2014, the municipal court was designated as a Court of Record which allowed the court to make increases to its fines and fees. The municipal court judge participates in the Citizens Information Academy, the Citizens Police Academy and speaks to groups throughout the community. He said a study is underway to determine the appropriate financial compensation for the position of Clerk of the Court. When asked by Chair Norris, Judge Brown said he supports the proposed community center and said it would bring positive options to the community. 2. Victim Advocates Annual Report – Executive Director Mesropian reported on highlights of 2014 which included partnering with Western Heritage for a fundraiser for victims of domestic violence; joining with local nonprofits to make a film about the agency that can be viewed on-line; providing shelter for families in the safehouse; and continuing the 24/7 crisis, and counseling programs. When asked by Chair Norris, Ms. Mesropian said she supports the proposed community center and said that it will provide meeting space for support groups and team groups. 3. Verbal Updates – o The Police Department (PD) is in the final stages of selecting a Restorative Justice Program Coordinator who may be on the job as soon as next week. o New design, graphics and reflective tape will be applied to the new police cars. o The department is working to fill a police officer position and is recruiting at the academies located along the Front Range. Recruitment is also underway for Community Service Officers (CSO) in preparation for summer 2015. Chair Norris informed the public that the Larimer County Emergency Preparedness Guide is available in the Town Hall lobby. He also advised the public to be aware of fraudulent activities and scams and reported that the Larimer County Sheriff’s Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – February 12, 2015 – Page 2 website contains detailed information on current scams, fraud alerts, and tips on how to protect yourself from becoming a victim of fraud. UTILITIES. HIGH VOLTAGE POWER LINE TREE TRIMMING 2015-2018. The Town currently has a tree-trimming contract with Adam’s Tree Service for one year- round crew and a summer seasonal crew. Staff is requesting that the contract be amended to increase the man hours within the contract allowing the crews to address the backlog in areas where snow and wind related outages occur. Supt. Lockhart said tree-trimming around the lines increases the line of sight, allows for quicker response times, and increases employee safety. Staff proposes amending the contract to provide for two full-time, year-round crews. The amendment would not affect the 2015 budget, as there are monies in other line items that will not be used during the year that can be transferred to fund the increase created by the contract amendment. The Committee recommends the contract amendment with Adam’s Tree Service be included on the consent agenda at the February 24, 2015, Town Board meeting. Staff will bring forward the purchase of a Four Drum Overhead Puller at the March 2015 PUP Committee meeting. The Committee requested that staff include photos of the equipment/vehicles in future committee meeting and Town Board materials. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1. Verbal Updates – o Water Rates – Water rates need to be clearly stated and understandable. Staff will ask the consultant to calculate a rate that will be simpler to present to the public. For example, rather than using varying percentages to describe the rate hikes, equate the increase to a dollar amount per year. Staff will conduct individual conversations with the Trustees on the water rates to help prepare for the study session and dialogue with the public. o Fish Creek – The first phase of utility work, primarily related to sewer repairs, has begun. o Grant for Flood Recovery Project Manager – The position was advertised and resulted in a good pool of applicants. The position was offered to, and accepted by, one of the candidates who is expected to begin work on February 23, 2015. o Water Master Plan – Work continues with the consultant. The executive summary and map has been sent to the Trustees. o Automated Meter Reading System – Staff is researching automated meter reading systems to upgrade the current equipment. One product being reviewed is a meter reading system that can listen to the meters and pass the information to the billing department. Other options at various price points are also being considered. o February Election – Voters approved the ballot question related to broadband services. The Economic Development Council (EDC) hosted community outreach sessions to solicit questions from various groups which identified the community’s need for stronger, less expensive and a wider range of broadband opportunities. The session facilitator spoke on a variety of options, however, there is currently no predetermined solution. o IT Policies – Nine IT-related policies have been reviewed and approved which apply to staff and all others who utilize the Town’s network including contractors and volunteers. Updates to the policies were overdue and also required by CIRSA in order to provide certain network insurance coverage. IT staff recently completed upgrades that will increase the Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – February 12, 2015 – Page 3 safety, security and reliability of the network. PUBLIC WORKS. POLICE VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS – G78B & G102 Staff received a quote for the purchase of two new Police vehicles from Spradley Barr of Greeley. The dealership provides the Town with good customer service and support, and the quote received from Spradley Barr was $415 below the State of Colorado competitive bid price. Therefore, staff is recommending the purchase of two (2) 2015 Ford Utility Interceptors at a cost of $30,697 each. The Police Department has funded $52,748 for replacement of these vehicles in the vehicle replacement fund. The shortfall will be transferred from other PD line items during mid-year budget revisions. The Committee recommends the purchase of two 2015 Ford Utility Interceptors at a total cost of $61,394 budgeted, from the vehicle replacement fund (Account # 635-7000-435-34-42) be included on the consent agenda at the February 24, 2015, Town Board meeting. STREETS DIVISION POTHOLE PATCH TRUCK PURCHASE. Public Works, through the Vehicle Replacement Fund, budgeted $210,000 to purchase a 2015 Pothole Patch Truck. A bid for a RA400 Patcher mounted on a 2015 Peterbilt chassis was received from MacDonald Equipment Co. of Commerce City. Even though it was a year old, the dealership honored the Weld County 2014 procurement base bid price for the same vehicle at $199,450 plus options. The Town’s options totaled $6,000 putting the cost of the vehicle at $205,450. The Committee recommends the purchase of a 2015 Pothole Patch Truck from MacDonald Equipment Co., of Commerce City, at a total cost of $205,450 budgeted, from the vehicle replacement fund (Account #635-7000-435-34-42) be included on the consent agenda at the February 24, 2015, Town Board meeting. The Committee requested that staff include photos of the equipment/vehicles in future committee meeting and Town Board materials. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1. Verbal Updates – o Downtown Estes Loop – The Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for the devolution of West Elkhorn Avenue has been fully executed. Staff expects to receive the quit claim deed and payment of $4.2 million by March 9, 2015. Additionally, a special study session is scheduled for March 18, 2015, to review the analysis of various options as part of the NEPA study process. The Loop project will provide valuable improvements to bridges and intersections within the downtown area. o Transit Hub – Nothing new to report since last update. o Scott Ponds – Aspen cuttings were dumped into the breached dam at the lower Scott Pond. “No Dumping” and “No Trespassing” signs have been installed as this area is not safe due to sloughing of the soil. The signs are temporary and will be removed once permanent repairs are completed. o Fish Creek – Approximately 30 percent of the design for the road and trail repairs is complete, with final plans expected by June. Staff was initially told by FEMA representatives that in order to receive reimbursement funding the trail had to be returned to its original location. Now FEMA may consider an alternative plan that would be less expensive to construct. The consultant is preparing an alternative design for evaluation. o Dry Gulch Road Improvements – Survey work has begun. Staff is meeting with the owners of Sombrero Stables to talk about the vision of Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – February 12, 2015 – Page 4 the project. The installation of a detached recreation path is being considered. o Virginia Drive – Project awarded to Osmun Construction and is in progress. o Community Drive – Repairs to Community Drive will be funded by an award from Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the monies have been received. Paving will be scheduled as weather permits. o Manford Avenue – Installation of a stop sign on Manford Avenue and Community Drive for eastbound traffic is being considered. o Signage – Staff has received a signage diagram from CDOT indicating proposed, improved signage to assist in navigating from Highway 34, 36, and 7 to Rocky Mountain National Park. The proposal will be reviewed by the Transportation Advisory Board prior to providing feedback on the proposal to CDOT. There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 9:17 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 21st, 2015 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Committee of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 203 of Town Hall, in said Town of Estes Park on the 21st day of January, 2015. Present: Kimberly Campbell Ann Finley Stan Black Cory LaBianca Gregg Rounds Thom Widawski Belle Morris 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 Christy Crosser, Grants Specialist Chief Wes Kufeld, Estes Park Police Department Absent: Amy Hamrick Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:03 p.m. GENERAL DISCUSSION No public was in attendance, so public comment was not heard. Minutes from the November and December meetings and the Special Meeting on 12/3/14 were reviewed by members. It was moved and seconded (Finley/Labianca) to approve all aforementioned minutes, with the motion passing unanimously. The draft bylaws were reviewed and discussed by members. A few minor amendments were proposed. It was moved and seconded (Finley/Rounds) to approve the amended bylaws, with the motion passing unanimously. Ann Finley nominated Kimberly Campbell for committee chair. It was moved and seconded (Finley/LaBianca) to elect Kimberly Campbell as committee chair , with all voting in favor and Kimberly abstaining from the vote. It was moved and seconded (Finley/Morris) for Cory LaBianca to be re-elected as vice-chair and it passed unanimously. Transportation Advisory Committee – January 21st, 2015 – Page 2 Cory LaBianca, Bryon Holmes and Kimberly Campbell have expiring terms on March 31st, 2015. Applications were passed out to these members and each was encouraged to apply for reappointment. Sand Osterman gave a brief update on Shuttle Committee happenings. 2015 will see new logos featured on side of shuttles, new shuttle signage, another trolley will be rented for use on the silver route and the brown route will get larger bus. STAFF UPDATES ON TOWN PROJECTS A brief update was provided on the Downtown Estes Loop project. The Dry Gulch project has been awarded for design to Farnsworth in Fort Collins. The floodplain may cause bigger issue than originally anticipated for the Dry Gulch project, since the floodway comes onto the road, which may cause additional processes and phasing of construction. Obtaining ROW from private property owners could also have an impact on the schedule. An update on the progress of flood recovery projects was also provided. Fish Creek will be completed in two phases - utility work and trail/street work. Utility work has been bid and awarded for design. ROW issues and environmental concerns will take time, construction will probably happen in 2016 with final completion in 2017. MAJOR EVENT TRAFFIC CONGESTION MANAGEMENT Chief Wes Kufeld joined the committee for the major event traffic management plan discussion. Chair Campbell gave a brief overview of the concept. Chief Kufeld said special events take months of planning, including outlying intersections as well as the downtown corridor. Necessary manpower for such events includes all officers as well as 20 auxiliary members. Chief Kufeld has found signage has been the most effective tool for traffic control during events. The Police Department currently struggles with manpower needs and cannot dedicate officers or auxiliary to the proposed traffic management plan. Chief Kufeld suggested formation of another volunteer organization dedicated to traffic control, with the Police Department helping to train them. Chair Campbell asked if signage at Community Drive directing traffic to Fairgrounds and school parking would help congestions. Chief Kufeld indicated that awareness and direction to the location of available parking would be beneficial. He also said events in Bond Park cause backups at the Highway 34/36 intersection because many motorists are slowing down to look at event as they drive by. He believes a person physically Transportation Advisory Committee – January 21st, 2015 – Page 3 standing in the road directing traffic can/will cause another huge backup; it is a delicate balance to avoid creating problems elsewhere. Chair Campbell suggested making the distinction that TAB is taking on parking management and not traffic management, with the primary goal of getting downtown visitors out of their cars as efficiently as possible. Focus on signage with a simple message would be most effective. TAB should discuss what type of message should be delivered through signage, such as directing traffic to free parking areas or indicating that downtown parking was full. Director Muhonen recommended this as a component of the overall downtown parking strategic plan, with effective communication to the motorist being key. Chief Kufeld is supportive, but his department has limited manpower resources, so trained volunteers capable of handling traffic is vital to the success of the plan. The lockup of traffic is concerning on many level, causing road rage and problems getting emergency vehicles through downtown. RV parking and handicap parking are also huge problems. RV parking removed from Visitor Center and Municipal lots would cause complaints, especially from buses dropping off large groups. Chief Kufeld sighted it as more of a traffic issue than a safety issue with large vehicles pulling into the Municipal lot and causing a blockage. If Municipal RV spots are eliminated, they would need to be reallocated somewhere else downtown. Tour buses and RVs need to be a specific component of parking plan. Special event management will be a sub-topic of overall downtown parking strategic plan. TRANSIT HUB PARKING STRUCTURE Director Muhonen reported the south side parking lot is not a viable option for the parking structure in accordance with using grant money. In order to obtain the needed additional 500 parking spaces, structures will be needed on both sides of the river on the Visitor Center campus. At this point the Town needs to decide if the grant money will be used to build on the north side or if the money will be returned to the Feds. Director Muhonen gave an overview of several new options and costs for the north side structure. A smaller building could be built on the north side to utilize the grant money, with the south side site being revisited in the future as a new project. Chair Campbell asked if the board was in favor of recommending the project on the north side, with a show of hands indicating six members were in favor of moving forward Transportation Advisory Committee – January 21st, 2015 – Page 4 with a structure on the north lot and two opposed. With the majority of the board in support of the original location of project, they will move forward with a recommendation to build a structure with a smaller footprint on the north lot. Chair Campbell proposed appearing along with Director Muhonen at a Town Board meeting to summarize TAB discussion on the project, but that the board hasn’t reached consensus. The Transit Hub Parking Structure discussion will continue at the February meeting. With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 2:09 p.m. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 15th, 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 Room 100, Engineering Conference Room, in said Town of Estes Park on the 15th day of January, 2015. Present: Dewain Lockwood Merle Moore Ronna Boles Celine Lebeau Terry Rustin (by phone) Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager Russ Franklin, Parks Division Jen Imber, Public Works Administrative Assistant Bob Holcomb, Town Board Trustee Diane Watson, Estes Park Cultural Arts Council Absent: Chris Reed Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 12:31 p.m. GENERAL BUSINESS A few minor amendments were proposed to the December minutes. It was moved and seconded (Lockwood/Boles) to approve the December 18th meeting minutes as amended and the motion passed unanimously. Allocation of 2015 budget funds was designated as an agenda item for the February meeting. NEW MEETING TIME Members expressed an interest in holding future meetings in Rooms 202/203. Several new meeting times were discussed in conjunction with the availability of that space and members decided on a new meeting time of 11 am – 12 am on the third Friday of each month. It was moved and seconded (Lockwood/Boles) to approve the new meeting time of 11 am – 12 am on the third Friday of each month and the motion passed unanimously. ARBOR DAY 2015 Chair Lebeau updated the group on preparations for Arbor Day 2015. Celine will be meeting soon with principal John Bryant to discuss details and date for Arbor Day at the elementary school. Celine also provided a rundown of proposed activities and an art contest, with the suggestion that bookmarks or temporary tattoos be provided for prizes Parks Advisory Board – January 15th, 2015 – Page 2 this year instead of t-shirts. Celine is working with the art teacher and trying to incorporate Arbor Day activities in class before the day of the celebration. Ronna Boles volunteered to help with Arbor Day preparations. In the absence of additional volunteers, Celine will also contact RMNP to coordinate with representatives from the park who will present at the celebration. Colorado State Forest Service will also present. Celine strongly urged PAB to donate more tree books to the library as part of the 2015 celebration. A meeting will be scheduled with the Eagle Rock school as well; since Eagle Rock school is not in session in April, their Arbor Day celebration usually takes place in May. Eagle Rock students will help with a Town project as part of their celebration, with Platte River donating funds for trees. PUBLIC ART POLICY AND ORDINANCE Merle Moore and Terry Rustin distributed copies of the draft ordinance and guidelines prior to the meeting. Discussion of ordinance was lead by Merle and it was recommended the draft ordinance be taken to Community Development for comment and input. Trustee Holcomb advised that a sign code is currently being developed by the Planning Commission and it may be prudent to wait until it is finalized to be sure there are no conflicts with the new art policy. PAB should be careful to differentiate murals from signs so they are not governed by the same regulations, with murals designated as providing aesthetic pleasure and not for commercial purposes. Chair Lebeau suggested a few fine-tuning changes, such as consistency in terminology throughout the document, as well as changes to the policy’s essence and philosophy, such as including kinetic or interactive art as an art type. Discussion continued on funding, with the group leaning toward theTown absorbing the cost of installation if an artist donates a piece. If a patron purchases and donates, they will be responsible for installation costs as well as the art itself. An appendix of forms within the policy was also suggested. Currently the Town has a program in place for the care and maintenance of bronze artwork, but the policy should cover such issues for existing artwork as well as donations, as well as inventory of indoor art and maintenance. Director Muhonen advocated donors include maintenance schedule and cost so Trustees would know up front what kind of obligations are being incurring by accepting artwork. The board will continue reviewing the art policy at the February meeting. With no other business to discuss, a motion was made (Lockwood/Boles) to adjourn the meeting at 1:28 pm, with all voting in favor. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 January 6, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission:ChairBettyHull,CommissionersDougKlink,CharleyDickey,NancyHills,Steve Murphree,WendyeSykes,andRussSchneider Attending:ChairHull,CommissionersDickey,Hills,Murphree,andSchneider AlsoAttending:CommunityDevelopmentDirectorAlisonChilcott,SeniorPlannerDaveShirk, PlannerPhilKleisler,TownBoardLiaisonJohnPhipps,LarimerCountyLiaison MichaelWhitley,andRecordingSecretaryKarenThompson Absent:CommissionersSykesandKlink ChairHullcalledthemeetingtoorderat1:30p.m.Therewerethreepeopleinattendance.Each Commissionerwasintroduced.Aquorumwasinattendance.ChairHullexplainedtheprocessfor acceptingpubliccommentattoday’smeeting.ShewelcomednewappointeeCommissionerRuss Schneider,aTownresident Thefollowingminutesreflecttheorderoftheagendaandnotnecessarilythechronologicalsequence. 1. PUBLICCOMMENT None 2. ELECTIONOFOFFICERS ChairHullstatedtheChairandViceͲChairpositionsneededtobefilledfortwoͲyearterms, expiringDecember31,2016.SherequestednominationsfromtheCommission.Atthattime, CommissionerDickeyrecusedhimselfandlefttheroom.CommissionerHillsnominated CommissionerHullasChair.Therewerenoothernominations.Avoteofhandswasconducted andthedecisionpassed4Ͳ0,withtwoabsentandCommissionerDickeynotvoting,toelect CommissionerHullasChair.ForthepositionofViceͲChair,CommissionerHullnominated CommissionerKlinkasViceͲChair.Therewerenoothernominations.Avoteofhandswas conductedandthedecisionpassed4Ͳ0,withtwoabsentandCommissionerDickeynotvoting,to electCommissionerKlinkasViceͲChair. Therewasa10Ͳminuterecesstoallowthesecretarytoprogramthevotingstations. CommissionerDickeyreturnedtothedais. 3. CONSENTAGENDA Approvalofminutes,November18,2014PlanningCommissionmeeting. Itwasmovedandseconded(Hills/Murphree)toapprovetheconsentagendaaspresentedand themotionpassed4Ͳ1withtwoabsentandCommissionerDickeyabstaining. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 January 6, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4. HIGHDRIVEHEIGHTSAMENDEDPLAT PlannerKleislerreviewedthestaffreport.Theapplicant,StephenWilson,desirestoamendan internallotlinetocorrectwhatiscurrentlyazoningviolationwithasinglefamilyhome;andto vacateanunusedportionofLarimerCountyrightͲofͲway.Theproposedamendedplatwillkeep thetwoexistinglots.Theproposedshapeofthelotsisirregular,allowingproposedLot2Ato includeanexistingwaterwell.PlannerKleislerstatedanaccesseasementintendedforLarkspur Roadwasplattedin1925alongthewesternendofthesubjectlots.Throughouttime,theactual traveledwayofLarkspurRoadcurvedtothenorthwestoutsideoftheoriginalrightͲofͲway, leavingaportionoftheplattedrightͲofͲwayunusedandwithoutpublicpurpose.Theapplicant hasworkedwithneighboringpropertyownerstodedicatepublicaccessandutilityeasement alongtheactualtraveledwayofLarkspurRoad.ThisamendedplatwillvacatetheunusedrightͲ ofͲwayontheHighDriveHeightsSubdivision.AprivateaccessandutilityeasementtoLot1will bededicatedtoensurethatfuturedevelopmenthasapointofaccessandavailablepublic utilities. PlannerKleislerstatedallaffectedagenciesandadjacentpropertyownerswerenotified.The PlanningCommissionistherecommendingbodytotheLarimerCountyBoardofCounty Commissioners.Hestatedtheapplicanthasalsosubmittedanapplicationforavarianceforthe minimumlotwidthstandards,inorderensuretheexistingwaterwellislocatedentirelyon proposedLot2.TheapplicationwillbeheardbytheEstesValleyBoardofAdjustmentonMarch 3,2015,ifapprovedbytheCountyCommissionersinFebruary. PlannerKleislerstatedtheminimumlotsizefortheE–Estatezonedistrictis0.5acres,butis increasedto2.0acresifaprivatewellorsepticsystemisused.Inthiscase,proposedLot2would increasefrom0.653acresto0.828acres.Whilestillundersized,staffviewsthisasmoving towardscompliance.Additionally,onceproposedLot2connectstopublicwaterservice,the minimumlotsizedecreasesto0.5acres.PlannerKleislerstatedthezoningviolationexists becausetheexistingdwellingcurrentlyextendsovertheinteriorlotline. StaffFindings 1. TheAmendedPlatapplicationcomplieswithEVDCSection3.9.ESubdivisionStandardsfor Review. 2. ThePlanningCommissionistheRecommendingBodytotheCountyCommissionforthe proposedAmendedPlat. 3. Ifrevisedtocomplywithrecommendedconditionsofapproval,theapplicationwill complywiththeapplicablesectionsoftheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode. 4. Approvalofthisapplicationwillnotbemateriallydetrimentaltothepublicwelfare, injurioustootherpropertyintheneighborhood,orinconflictwiththepurposesand objectivesoftheEVDC. Staffrecommendedapproval,withconditionslistedbelow. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 January 6, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall PlannerKleislerstatedsomenotesneedtobeaddedtotheplatforfuturebuyers.Theapplicant wantstoleaveanexistingshedontheupperLot1untilitsells,andtheWaterDepartment requirestheexistingwaterwellwilleitherneedtobeabandonedorabackflowpreventiondevice installedifeitherlotconnectstopublicwaterservice.Hestatedifthevariancerequestisdenied, theapplicantwouldbeallowedtorevisetheamendedplatapplicationtocomplywiththe minimumlotwidthwithoutcomingbeforethePlanningCommissionagain.PlannerKleislerstated LarimerCountywouldneedtoapprovetheaccessandutilityeasementsalongLarkspurRoad. PublicComment AmyPlummer/applicantrepresentativestatedtheapplicantisawareofthestafffindingsand conditionsofapprovalandisinagreementwiththem. Publiccommentclosed. StaffandCommissionDiscussion None. ConditionsofApproval 1. TheapplicantshalladdanotetotheFinalPlatandprovideadisclosuredocumentfor recordingthataddressesthefollowing: a. Theexistingshed,aslabeledonthePreliminaryAmendedPlat,shallberemovedand complywithapplicablesetbackrequirementspriortodevelopmentpermitsforLot1A; and b. ShouldLot1AorLot2Aconnecttopublicwaterservice,theexistingwelllocatedon Lot2Ashallbeabandonedoranapprovedbackflowpreventiondeviceshallbe installed. 2. Shouldthesubmittedvariancerequesttolotwidthbedenied,theapplicantshallrevise theapplicationtocomplywiththeminimumlotwidthrequirement; 3. LarimerCountyapprovalandrecordingofproposedpublicaccessandutilityeasements alongLarkspurRoad; 4. ApprovalandrecordingoftheprivateaccessandutilityeasementforLot1A,and 5. Compliancewiththefollowingagency’scomments: a. TownUtilitiesmemodatedDecember4,2014 b. EstesValleyFireProtectionDistrictmemodatedDecember5,2014 c. LarimerCountyEngineeringemaildatedDecember9,2014 d. LarimerCountyHealthDepartmentmemodatedDecember15,2014 e. TownofEstesParkCommunityDevelopmentmemodatedDecember18,2014 Itwasmovedandseconded(Hills/Murphree)torecommendapprovaloftheHighDriveHeights AmendedPlattotheLarimerCountyBoardofCountyCommissionerswiththefindingsand conditionsrecommendedbystaffandthemotionpassed4Ͳ1withtwoabsentand CommissionerDickeyabstaining. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 January 6, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall REPORTS 1. PlannerShirkreportedtheStanley/EPMCWellnessCentersubmittedanapplicationin DecemberexpectingthescopetoqualifyforastaffͲlevelreview.Afterathoroughreview,it wasdeterminedtonotbeinthescopeforstafflevelreview,andtheapplicantwithdrewthe applicationuntilfurthernotice.CommunityDevelopmentstaffandStanleyHotel representativesmetmultipletimestodiscussproposedplans,includingjoiningthe accommodationsandwellnesscenterbuildings.PlannerShirkreportedanewapplicationwas expected,andwouldlikelygobeforethePlanningCommissioninMarch.Partofthe applicationmayincludeaheightvariancetotheaccommodationsbuilding.Theregulationsof theStanleyHistoricDistrictrequireheightvariancesbereviewedtotheTownBoard. 2. PlannerShirkreportedtheYMCAMountainCenterheightvariancerequestwasapprovedby theBoardofAdjustmentinDecember. 3. PlannerShirkreportedtheCourtyardShopsaremovingforwardwiththeirriserroomforthe firesprinklersystem.Theinitialvarianceapprovalexpired,andtheyresubmittedanew applicationthatwasapprovedbytheBoardofAdjustmentinDecember. 4. PlannerShirkreportedHarmonyFoundationsubmittedarequestforauseclassificationfor theKingstonepropertyonBigHornDrive.Useclassificationsareprovidedwhenauseis unique.Theapplicantprovidesadetailedreportfortheproposeduse,andstaffresearchesit toensureitcomplieswiththeDevelopmentCode.Inthiscase,themainhomeonthe Kingstonepropertywasbuildingin1950andhasbeenusedforvariousretreatsoverthe years.PriortobeingdonatedtotheHarmonyFoundation,thepropertywasusedbynonͲ profitgroups.Thenewproposedusewillbeasagrouphomeforclientsintransitionfrom residencyattheHarmonycampustolivingindependently.PlannerShirkreportedthereisan additionaldwellingonthepropertythatwasdamagedduringthefloodandhasnotbeen occupiedforquitesometime.Thegrandfatheringallowancehasexpiredonthatstructure. 5. DirectorChilcottintroducedTinaKurtz,theEnvironmentalPlannerhiredwithfundsreceived fromDOLA.Shewillbefocusingstrictlyonfloodrecovery,resiliency,projectfunding,Master Planimplementation,etc.CommunityDevelopmentstaffisexcitedtohaveheronboardto helptheTownreducefloodrisks.ShethankedDOLAforfundingthetwoͲyearposition. PlannerKurtzstatedshewasafrequentvisitortoEstesParkfromScottsbluff,Nebraska.Her backgroundisgeologyandhydroͲgeology,policyͲmaking,etc.,andsheislookingforwardto workingwiththeTownonfloodrecovery. 6. DirectorChilcottreportedstaffhasbeenbusywiththenextroundofgrantapplicationsto fundMasterPlanimplementation.TheapplicationsareduetheendofJanuary,includingthe neighborhoodplans.Anotherapplicationwillfocusonchannelmigrationhazardmapping. Oncetheriskshavebeenidentified,wecandeterminetheprocessesformitigation.Director ChilcottexplainedtheTownappliedfor$13.5millioninAugustforvariousprojects.Thestate respondedbysayingtheapplicationmettherequirements,butthestatedidnothavethe fundingfortheprojects.InDecember,thestateannouncedpossibleadditionalfunding,and requestedtheTownsubmitamorefocusedapplicationforthedowntownarea.Staffhasbeen workingwithWalshEnvironmental,AndersonConsulting,andthePublicWorksDepartment RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 January 6, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall tocompletetheapplication.DirectorChilcottreportedanoverviewofthefinalMasterPlan draftswillbepresentedbystafftotheTownBoardonJanuary13th.Staffwillformallyrequest aLetterofSupportfromtheTownBoardonJanuary27,2015andtheCountyCommissionata laterdate.Thoseletterswillgoalongwaywithobtainingfundingfortheprojectsneededfor betterresiliency.ThefinaldraftsoftheMasterPlansareavailableat www.fallrivercoalition.comandwww.fishcreekcoalition.com CommissionerDickeythankedeveryonefortheopportunitytoserveonthePlanningCommission. Hestatedhewasresigningfromthecommitteeduetopersonalconflicts,effectiveimmediately. Therebeingnofurtherbusiness,ChairHulladjournedthemeetingat2:05p.m. ___________________________________ BettyHull,Chair ___________________________________ KarenThompson,RecordingSecretary COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTMemo To:Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Acting Town Administrator McFarland From: David Shirk, Senior Planner Date: February 24, 2015 RE:Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County Amendment to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Bylaws Objective: 1. Amend Inter-governmental agreement (IGA) between Larimer County and the Town of Estes Park to remove the requirement to alternate the Chair. 2. Amend the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Bylaws to be consistent with other Board/Committee bylaws. Present Situation: The Board of Adjustment was created in 2000 with an IGA between the Town Board and the Board of County Commissioners. The IGA specifies the chair alternate between Town and County appointees. In Fall 2014, the Board of Adjustment, Town Board, and Board of County Commissioners adopted revised by-laws. Since adoption of the revised by-laws, the issue of alternating chairs between Town and County appointees for joint Town/County Boards and Commissions has been discussed. The Town Board and Board of County Commission have found this requirement is no longer necessary and that removal of this requirement will provide flexibility in officer elections. This amendment follows a similar revision to the IGA and Planning Commission bylaws approved in 2014 (effective date November 11 2014). The Board of Adjustment unanimously voted to adopt the revised by-laws at their first meeting in 2015 (February 3). The Board of Adjustment did not vote on the IGA because the IGA is an agreement between the Town Board and the Board of County Commissioners. Proposal: Amend the IGA and Board of Adjustment by-laws to be consistent with those for other joint Town/County boards and commissions. This will be accomplished by removing the requirement to alternate the chair between Town and County appointees. No other amendments are proposed. These items are scheduled for the March 17 3:00 PM Board of County Commission meeting. Advantages: x Will provide consistent set of by-laws for joint Town-County boards/commissions. x Provide flexibility in election of officers. Disadvantages: x Staff is not aware of any disadvantages. Action Recommended: Adopt IGA and bylaws as presented. Budget:Not applicable Level of Public Interest: Low Sample Motions: 1. IGA: I move to approve/deny the amended Intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County. 2. Bylaws: I move to approve/deny the amended Board of Adjustment by-laws. Attachments: x Third Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement x Estes Valley Board of Adjustment By-Laws THIRD AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT THIS THIRD AMENDMENT is effective this ____ day of ______________, 2015, by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, hereinafter referred to as the “Town”, and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, hereinafter referred to as the “County”. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Town and the County entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement effective the 1st day of February, 2000 (the “Intergovernmental Agreement”), for the purpose of establishing the Estes Valley Planning Commission (the “EVPC”), providing for the administration of the Estes Valley Development Code (the “EVDC”) within the Planning Area, allocating Town and County resources for the administration of the EVPC and related functions within the Planning Area, establishing a joint Zoning Board of Adjustment for the Planning Area, establishing parameters and procedures for annexation of property to the Town within the Planning Area, and other necessary agreements for the efficient operation of the EVPC and administrative procedures for the Planning Area; and WHEREAS, the parties adopted the Amendment to Agreement dated the 15th day of December, 2003; and WHEREAS, the parties adopted the First Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement dated the 1st day of February, 2010; and WHEREAS, the parties adopted the Second Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement dated the 11th day of November, 2014; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to modify the Intergovernmental Agreement as set forth herein; and WHEREAS,pursuant to the applicable statutes of the State of Colorado, the parties hereto are authorized to enter into this Third Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement for the above stated purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE AND THE COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: The Intergovernmental Agreement is amended as follows: 1. Section IV D. Officers shall be amended to read as follows: 2 There shall be a Chair and a Vice-Chair for the EVBOA. Each shall serve for a one year term beginning with the first meeting of each calendar year. The EVBOA may appoint other officers such as deems necessary for the conduct of its business. Such other officers may be non-members of the EVBOA. All officers shall serve until such time as their successors are appointed. All of the other terms and conditions of the Intergovernmental Agreement not amended herein shall continue in force and effect. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: __________________________ William Pinkham, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO By: __________________________ Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Page 1 of 5 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY-LAWS (Revised February 2015) I. ROLE The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment (the Board) was jointly established by the Larimer Board of County Commissioners and the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees in 2000. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment exercises the authority given to it by the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners, as described in the 2000 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town and County, as summarized below. The Board shall: 1. Perform the duties, responsibilities, and obligations of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); and perform the statutory responsibilities of the Town and County Board of Adjustment within the Planning Area. 2. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment shall hear all variance requests pursuant to the terms and conditions of the EVDC (from IGA Section IV.A Authority). In addition to these bylaws, the Board operates under the terms of the Town of Estes Park operating policy 102 and the terms of the Larimer County operating policy 100.1. A copy of those procedures, along with these bylaws, shall be provided to each member at the time of their appointment. II. MEETINGS A.Regular Meetings shall be held at least monthly. Any item on the agenda which cannot be heard and considered by the conclusion of the meeting may be continued until and heard at the next regularly scheduled meeting or a specially scheduled meeting and shall have priority over any other matters to be heard and considered, provided the applicant agrees to such continuance B.Special Meetings may be held at any time upon call by the Chairperson. The Chairperson shall call a special meeting upon request by the Town Board, County Commission, Community Development Director, Town Administrator, or County Manager, or upon request by three of the members of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. C.Cancellation of Meetings Regularly scheduled meetings of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment may be canceled or rescheduled upon: 1. Approval by two-thirds of the members of the Board, provided no applications are scheduled for review at the meeting; or, Page 2 of 5 2. By the Estes Park Community Development Director in the event that no applications have been submitted for Board review at the meeting to be cancelled. D.Meeting Procedures for matters requiring action by the Board, parliamentary procedure shall be followed in moving, discussion, and acting on such matters. E.Open Meetings All meetings and action of the Board shall be in full compliance with State Statutes governing open meetings, as amended and incorporated herein by reference. It is the responsibility of the Staff Liaison to be familiar with these statutes and regulations. III. MEMBERS AND QUORUM A. Membership. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment consists of five volunteer members who serve three-year terms. Two members are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners; three by the Town Board. B. Terms. Members shall be appointed to a three-year term. The terms of the members shall be staggered so that the terms of an equal number of the members expire each year. C. Vacancies shall be filled by appointment by the Town Board or the Board of County Commissioners for the unexpired portion of the term of the position to be filled. D. Recommendations for Appointment. Upon request by the Town Board or Board of County Commissioners, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment shall make recommendations for appointments to the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners. E. Quorum. A quorum shall consist of three (3) members. F. Action. Action by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment shall be by majority vote of the members attending any regular or special meeting at which a quorum is present, unless otherwise provided in these By-laws. IV. OFFICERS A. Officers. There shall be a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson for the Board. The Community Development Department Administrative Assistant or designee shall serve as Recording Secretary for the Board. B. Elections. Officers shall be elected by the members annually, at the first regularly scheduled meeting of each year. Officers shall be members of the Board. Page 3 of 5 Notification of who is elected Chair will be sent to the Town Clerk and the Larimer County Commissioner’s office. C. Chairperson responsibilities: 1. Preside at all meetings. 2. Insure that all meetings are conducted with decorum and efficiency. 3. Call special meetings in accordance with the by-laws. 4. Sign any documents prepared by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment for submission to the Town Board, Board of County Commissioners or Town and County departments. 5. See that decisions of the Board are implemented. 6. Represent the Board in dealings with the Town Board or other organizations. 7. The Chairperson has the same right as any other member of the Board to vote on matters before the Board and to speak for or against proposals, provided, however, that if the Chairperson desires to speak for or against a proposal which has been formally moved and seconded at a public meeting, the Chairperson shall relinquish the chair to the Vice-Chairperson while he or she is speaking. D. Vice-Chairperson responsibilities: 1. Assist the Chairperson as requested. 2. Accept and undertake duties delegated by the Chairperson. 3. Preside over meetings or perform other duties of the Chairperson in the event the Chairperson is absent or unable to act. E. Chair Pro Tem responsibilities: 1. In the event the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson are both absent or unable to act, a member shall be elected to perform the responsibilities of the Chairperson. F. Recording Secretary responsibilities: 1. Sign or attest the signature of the Chair or Vice-Chair on the documents of the Board. 2. Prepare and keep the minutes of all meetings of the Board in an appropriate and designated file. 3. Give and serve all notices required by State Statute, Town or County regulations or the bylaws. 4. Prepare the agenda in consultation with Chair, or designee, for all meetings of the Board. 5. Be custodian of Board records. 6. Inform the Board of correspondence relating to business of the Board and attend to such correspondence. G. Removal from Office. Any officer may be removed from office by a majority vote of the members of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment in attendance at a Page 4 of 5 meeting provided that at least thirty days’ notice has been given to all members that removal of the officer will be considered at such meeting. H. Officer Vacancies. If any office is vacant, the members of the Board shall elect a member to fill the office for the remainder of the year. V. ATTENDANCE A. All members shall attend all meetings of the EVBOA, if possible. In the event any member misses three (3) consecutive regular meetings or a total of four (4) regular meetings in a calendar year, the Town or the County may remove its appointed member for neglect of duty and designate a new member to fill the vacancy. VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. These by-laws may be amended at any regular or special meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment by a majority of the membership of the Board provided that notice of such possible amendments is given to all members at least 20 days prior to the meeting at which action is to be taken. Any amendments shall be subject to review and approval by the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners. VII. COMPLIANCE WITH TOWN AND COUNTY POLICIES A. The Board shall operate in compliance with the adopted Town Board policy on Town Committees, Policy 102 as amended and in compliance with the adopted County Commission policy on Committees, Policy 100.1, as amended. The terms of these policies are incorporated in these bylaws by this reference and are attached herewith. B. Volunteer members of the Board, appointed by the Town Board, will act in accordance to the adopted Town Volunteer Manual. C. Volunteer members of the Board, appointed by the County Commission, will act in accordance to the adopted policies. VIII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: A. A conflict of interest occurs when a person’s private, personal relationships or interests diverge so that an independent observer may reasonably question whether the person’s actions or decisions are determined by personal benefit, gain, or advantage. B. Members of the Board shall not use their membership for private gain, and shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual. Page 5 of 5 C. A member of the Board who has a personal or private interest in a matter proposed or pending shall disclose such interest to the committee; shall not vote on the item; and shall not attempt to influence the decisions of other members voting on the matter. Adopted this 3rd day of February, 2015 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ________________________ By: Pete Smith, Chair Approved this ___day of ___________, 2015 ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES By: ______________________________ William Pinkham, Mayor Approved this ____ day of ______________, 2015 LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: ______________________________ Lew Gaiter III, Chair COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTMemo To:Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Acting Town Administrator McFarland From: David Shirk, Senior Planner Date: February 24, 2015 RE:ORDINANCE #01-15 – AMENDING THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES – BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVAL TO THE ESTES PARK BOARD OF APPEALS BYLAWS Objective: 1. Amend the Municipal Code section regarding the building Board of Appeals such that alternate members and quorum align with adopted Town policy; and, 2. Approve bylaws for the building Board of Appeals. Present Situation: Ordinance 01-15. The Town of Estes Park first adopted building codes in 1919 to help ensure building safety in the downtown area. The Board of Appeals (the Board) meets as needed to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the Chief Building Official, to advise the Town Board on matters relating to construction codes, and to facilitate amendments and adoption of construction codes. Per Town ordinance, the Board of Appeals must have alternate members and a quorum consists of four (4) out of five (5) members. Ordinance 01-15 would remove the requirement for alternate members and reduce a quorum to three (3) members, which is consistent with Town policy. Bylaws. On February 3, the Board of Appeals voted unanimously to adopt the attached by-laws. These by-laws follow the standard template for Town Boards and Committees. Proposal: Amend the Municipal Code so the Board of Appeals membership and quorum align with adopted Town policy, and approve by-laws consistent with Town policy. Advantages: x Consistent with other committee by-laws. Disadvantages: x Staff is not aware of any disadvantages. Action Recommended: Approve Ordinance 01-15 and approve by-laws. Budget:Not applicable Level of Public Interest: Low Sample Motion: 1.Ordinance. I move to approve/deny Ordinance 01-15. 2.By-laws. I move to approve/deny the Estes Park Board of Appeals by-laws. Attachments: x Ordinance 01-15 x Estes Valley Board of Appeals By-Laws 1 ORDINANCE NO. 01-15 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES - BOARD OF APPEALS WHEREAS, in 2011 the Town Board adopted the 2009 Editions of the International Building Codes, which included Section 113 regarding a Board of Appeals; and, WHEREAS, the Town Board of Trustees desires to align membership and quorum of the Board of Appeals with adopted Town policies regarding Boards and Committees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: 1. Section 113.11.1 Alternate Members shall be deleted in its entirety. 2. Section 113.11.3 Quorum shall be amended to read as follows: A quorum shall consist of three (3) members. 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. Passed and adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado this _________ day of _______________, 2015. TOWN OF ESTES PARK William Pinkham, Mayor ATTEST: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 2 I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the ________day of _____________, 2015 and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of __________________, 2015. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Page1of5 ESTES PARK BOARD OF APPEALS BY-LAWS (February 2015) I. ROLE The Board of Appeals (the Board) meets as needed to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the Chief Building Official, to advise the Town Board on matters relating to construction codes, and to facilitate amendments and adoption of construction codes, as directed by the Town Board. The Board shall: 1. Hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the Chief Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of the International Building Codes and/or of the Town floodplain regulations contained within the Estes Park Municipal Code. 2. Determine if the intent of the codes or the rules legally adopted thereunder has been correctly interpreted, the provisions of the codes do not fully apply, or if an alternate method that is equally good or better form of construction has been proposed. The Board of Appeals shall not have the authority to waive requirements of the codes. In addition to these bylaws, the Board operates under the terms of the Town of Estes Park operating Policy 102. A copy of that procedure, along with these bylaws, shall be provided to each member at the time of their appointment. II. MEETINGS A.Regular Meetings shall be held at least monthly. Any item on the agenda which cannot be heard and considered by the conclusion of the meeting may be continued until and heard at the next regularly scheduled meeting or a specially scheduled meeting and shall have priority over any other matters to be heard and considered. B.Special Meetings may be held at any time upon call by the Chairperson. The Chairperson shall call a special meeting upon request by the Town Board or Town Administrator, or upon request by three of the members of the Board of Appeals. C.Cancellation of Meetings Regularly scheduled meetings of the Board may be canceled or rescheduled upon approval by two-thirds of the members of the Board. D.Meeting Procedures for matters requiring action by the Board, parliamentary procedure shall be followed in moving, discussion, and acting on such matters. Page2of5 E.Open Meetings All meetings and action of the Board shall be in full compliance with State Statutes governing open meetings, as amended and incorporated herein by reference. It is the responsibility of the Staff Liaison to be familiar with these statutes and regulations F.Attendance by Non-members Meetings may be attended by persons who are not members of the Board. At the discretion of the Chairperson, nonmembers may be allowed to speak at meetings. However, in no event shall nonmembers be allowed to vote on matters for which a vote is required. III. MEMBERS AND QUORUM A.Membership.The Town of Estes Park Board of Appeals consists of five volunteer members who serve staggered five-year terms. All members are appointed by the Town Board. B.Terms. Members shall be appointed to a five-year term. The terms of the members shall be staggered so that the terms of an equal number of the members expire each year. C.Vacancies shall be filled by appointment by the Town Board for the unexpired portion of the term of the position to be filled. D.Recommendations for Appointment. Upon request by the Town Board, the Board shall make recommendations for appointments to the Town Board. E.Ex-officio members of the Board shall not vote on matters requiring a vote by the Board. 1. Ex-officio members shall receive copies of all notices documents, and records of proceedings of the Board. 2. Ex-officio members shall not be entitled to vote on motions before the Board F.Quorum. A quorum shall consist of three (3) members. G.Action. As required by International Building Code Section 113.13, approval of appeals requires 60% of the members attending any regular or special meeting at which a quorum is present, unless otherwise provided in these By-laws. IV. OFFICERS A.Officers.There shall be a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson for the Board. The Community Development Department Administrative Assistant or designee shall serve as Recording Secretary for the Board. Page3of5 B.Elections Officers shall be elected by the members annually, at the first regularly scheduled meeting of each year. Officers shall be members of the Board. Notification of who is elected Chair will be sent to the Town Clerk. C.Chairperson responsibilities: 1. Preside at all meetings. 2. Insure that all meetings are conducted with decorum and efficiency. 3. Call special meetings in accordance with the by-laws. 4. Sign any documents prepared by the Board for submission to the Town Board or Town departments. 5. See that decisions of the Board are implemented. 6. Represent the Board in dealings with the Town Board or other organizations. 7. The Chairperson has the same right as any other member of the Board to vote on matters before the Board and to speak for or against proposals, provided, however, that if the Chairperson desires to speak for or against a proposal which has been formally moved and seconded at a public meeting, the Chairperson shall relinquish the chair to the Vice-Chairperson while he or she is speaking. D.Vice-Chairperson responsibilities: 1.Assist the Chairperson as requested. 2.Accept and undertake duties delegated by the Chairperson. 3.Preside over meetings or perform other duties of the Chairperson in the event the Chairperson is absent or unable to act. E.Chair Pro Tem responsibilities: 1.In the event the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson are both absent or unable to act, a member shall be elected to perform the responsibilities of the Chairperson. F.Recording Secretary responsibilities: 1.Sign or attest the signature of the Chair or Vice-Chair on the documents of the Board. 2.Prepare and keep the minutes of all meetings of the Board in an appropriate and designated file. 3.Give and serve all notices required by State Statute, Town or County regulations or the bylaws. 4.Prepare the agenda in consultation with Chair, or designee, for all meetings of the Board. 5.Be custodian of Board records. 6.Inform the Board of correspondence relating to business of the Board and attend to such correspondence. 7.Other duties as assigned. G.Removal from Office Any officer may be removed from office by a majority vote of the members of the Board in attendance at a meeting provided that at least thirty Page4of5 days notice has been given to all members that removal of the officer will be considered at such meeting. H.Officer Vacancies If any office is vacant, the members of the Board shall elect a member to fill the office for the remainder of the year. V. ATTENDANCE A. Regular attendance by the members of the Board is expected. VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. These by-laws may be amended at any regular or special meeting of the Board by a majority of the membership of the Board provided that notice of such possible amendments is given to all members at least 20 days prior to the meeting at which action is to be taken: Any amendments shall be subject to review by the Town Board. VII. COMPLIANCE WITH TOWN POLICIES A. The Board shall operate in compliance with the adopted Town Board policy on Town Committees, Policy 102 as amended. The terms of this policy are incorporated in these bylaws by this reference and are attached herewith. B. Volunteer members of the board will act in accordance to the adopted Town Volunteer Manual. VIII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST A. A conflict of interest occurs when a person’s private, personal relationships or interests diverge so that an independent observer may reasonably question whether the person’s actions or decisions are determined by personal benefit, gain, or advantage. B. Members of committees shall not use their membership for private gain, and shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual. C. A member of any committee who has a personal or private interest in a matter proposed or pending shall disclose such interest to the committee; shall not vote on the item; and shall not attempt to influence the decisions of other members voting on the matter. Page5of5 Approved this 24th day of February 2015 ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES By: ________________ William Pinkham, Mayor Adopted this 3rd day of February 2015 ESTES PARK BOARD OF APPEALS By: ________________, John Spooner, Chair RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes, Russ Schneider and one vacant position Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Hills, Klink, Murphree, and Schneider Also Attending: Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner Dave Shirk, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Commissioner Sykes Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were nine people in attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. A quorum was in attendance. 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. EXCERPTS OF THE MINUTES COMPLETED FOR TOWN BOARD MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 2015. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014‐05, BACKBONE ADVENTURES, 1851 North Lake Avenue Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The application requests approval to operate a scooter, motorcycle, and jeep rental business at 1851 North Lake Avenue. The applicant is Kenneth Hitch, and the owner of the proposed location is Vansteenburgh Engineering Laboratory, Inc. The applicant desires to expand into the southern building on North Lake Avenue. The business, Backbone Adventure Rentals, is currently operating out of a building adjacent to Coyote Mountain Lodge atr 1360 Big Thompson Avenue. Planner Kleisler stated adjacent lots at the proposed location are zoned for Accommodations, Commercial and Residential uses. Sombrero Horse Stables are across Dry Gulch Road to the east, and they use the area immediately to the east of the subject building for overflow parking. The Lot in question is zoned CO–Commercial Outlying. Planner Kleisler stated the business is classified as Vehicle/Equipment Sales and Rentals, and is permitted by Special Review in the CO–Commercial Outlying zone district. Special Review requires applicants mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. The Planning Commission is the recommending body, with the Town Board making the final decision. This project is on the Town Board agenda for the February 24, 2015 meeting. Affected agencies and adjacent property owners were notified, and a legal notice was published in the local newspaper. Staff received one comment from a neighbor adjacent to the existing location, stating the issues he had with scooters going down his street, running stop signs, using horns. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Kleisler stated the applicant requested minor modifications to three sections in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC): Section 5.1.R.2, which state the “Front yard setback areas shall be landscaped to provide a buffer between the right‐of‐way.” Given the existing building location to the property line and right‐of‐way, there is no space for this landscaping. Staff supports the request given the site constraints would force any landscaping on to the public right‐of‐way. The second minor modification request is to Section 7.5.G.3.C.1, which requires that one tree be included in each landscaped island. Staff supports the plan to not include a tree in the proposed island because it would interfere with the existing tree and would create site visibility issues near the intersection. Planner Kleisler stated irrigating the proposed island would be difficult, and there is also an existing overhead power line nearby. Planner Kleisler stated staff had some concerns about parking and vehicle circulation. A shared parking agreement with Sombrero Stables for the area to the east of the project would help with parking and circulation. The area directly in front of the garage doors would be used for parking, with wheel stops installed for safety. The existing awning is in public right‐of‐way, and the applicant is aware it needs to be removed. The building is very close to the southern property line, meaning parking and landscaping will not be feasible there. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant has requested a minor modification to the minimum parking requirement. A total of nine spaces are required for the proposed use. The initial request was for eight spaces; however, one of those (the ADA space) would have been located in the right‐of‐way. Therefore, staff supports allowing the applicant to have seven spaces in order to be keep the accessible space out of the right‐of‐way. Planner Kleisler stated staff requested the applicant to address issues such as noise, hours of operation, and routing details. The applicant submitted documents outlining peak months (March – October) and hours (8 a.m. – 6 p.m., seven days a week). During off peak months, hours would be 9 a.m. – 5 p.m., seven days a week. The applicant has indicated he would install noise reducers on both the scooters and motorcycles, when possible. Planner Kleisler stated all vehicle storage would be inside the building, or screened to comply with the EVDC. At staff’s request, the applicant provided a very specific (and EVDC compliant) area where rental vehicles would be parked. Staff Findings 1. The Special Review application complies with EVDC Section 3.5 Standards for Review, provided that the application is revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval by staff and affected agencies. 2. Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit or commence operation with regard to the special review use approval within three (3) years of the approval shall automatically render the decision null and void. Additionally, if the legally established special review use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive years or more, then the decision originally approved such special review shall automatically lapse and render the decision null and void. 3. The requested Minor Modification to Section 4.4.C.4 Density and Dimensional Standards, regarding the existing structure’s awning that protrudes into the public right‐of‐way, does not RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall advance the goals and purposes of thie Code nor relieves practical difficulties in developing the site; 4. The requested Minor Modification to landscaping and buffering requirements, as described in the staff report, relieves practical difficulties in developing the site; 5. The requested Minor Modification to minimum parking requirements, as described in the staff report, relieves practical difficulties in developing the site; and 6. This is a recommendation to the Estes Park Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees is the Decision‐making Body for the proposed Special Review application. Staff recommended approval with conditions, listed below. Staff and Commission Discussion Town Attorney White commented the existing business near Coyote Mountain Lodge is legally nonconforming. If the number of vehicles increased, it would constitute an increase in the nonconforming use, which would be a code violation and could require the use to be abandoned. He stated the Planning Commissioners could decide if there should be a maximum number of vehicles at the proposed site. Commissioner comments included: the number of rental vehicles should be relative to the number of parking spaces, care should be taken to ensure no one parked in the right‐ of‐way, concern that customers/employees of Sombrero Stables would encroach onto their property; if the applicant wanted to add more paved parking, they would need to meet the impervious coverage standards. Planner Kleisler stated an additional condition of approval could be added if the Commission decided additional signage for no parking areas would be beneficial. Public Comment Jes Reetz/Applicant representative stated applicant’s desire was to mitigate impacts as best as possible with the limitations on the property. Because there is no parking in the front of the building, they tried to maximize the parking in other areas on the lot. North Lake Avenue can be used by customers to get a feel of the vehicles, and the landscaping at the back will buffer the business from the residential properties. A landscaped area on the east corner will help delineate the entryway, and the applicant hopes to use that area as a display for rental vehicles. Large portable planters are planned for the south side to discourage customers from parking there, and would be moveable for Town work in the right‐of‐way. The south side would not be used as a display area. Kenneth Hitch/business owner stated they now have 6 Jeeps, 4 motorcycles, and are proposing to bring over some scooters from the other location. He stated there would be approximately 15 total vehicles, most to be stored indoors. Due to the tight parking issue, there may be times when a customer will be asked to park their personal vehicle off‐site. A Shared Maintenance Agreement with Sombrero Stables will allow communication between the two business owners concerning the area east of the proposed site. Mr. Hitch stated the existing trailer on the site belongs to the property owner. If it was moved, it would not open up any additional parking spaces. Public Comment RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Todd Jirsa/Town resident was concerned about the scooters at the current location. His concerns included: concern about mitigating to the maximum extent feasible; disagreement with the “Routing Past Issues” letter from the applicant; believes there are two separate businesses being run off of one business license; concerned with scooter drivers not following traffic laws. He showed video of scooters on Lakefront Street to support his concerns. Mr. Jirsa and Steve Lamar (scooter business owner) attempted a mediation without success. He understood the public has the right to use the road, but asked the Commissioners to decide if the issues have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Staff and Commissioner comments included, but were not limited to: If number of vehicles being rented is a concern, the Commission can discuss limiting it; is the problem being transferred to another location; does the Police Department have the ability to enforce the laws; law enforcement is not a land use issue; you cannot regulate tourists having fun, and tourism is our main industry; putting limits on the number of rentals is like telling Sombrero Ranch they can only have a certain number of horses; the proposed location is more commercial; model traffic code violations are administered by the Police Department; noise baffling devices on all vehicles could be a condition of approval (if they are made for scooters). Planner Kleisler stated this was the first Special Review application of this type for the EVDC area. Town Attorney White stated the traffic may be an issue, but it is an issue with every business. All businesses have an impact on vehicle traffic, and limiting the use on public roads would be a problem. Conditions of Approval 1. Revise the site plan to note that the Jeep display area to the west of the building as “Possible future Jeep display location. This Jeep display requires a setback variance from the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment”; 2. Amend the site plan to reflect the following: a. Any additional proposed outdoor display area(s); b. Add a note stating that vehicle display shall only take place on the subject’s property in designated areas; 3. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated January 13, 2015; and b. Town of Estes Park Community Development memo dated January 23, 2015; and c. Town of Estes Park Public Works memo dated January 30, 2015’ 4. The following shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; a. All site improvements shall be installed or guaranteed; b. Review and approval of the existing septic system by the Larimer County Health Department; and c. Written letter shall be submitted to the Community Development Department stating; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall (i). The exact number of rentals that will remain at current business location of 1360 Big Thompson Avenue. The number of vehicles shall not exceed current land use approval for the property. (ii). Acknowledgement that any increase in the number of vehicles at 1360 Big Thompson Avenue after that point will constitute an increase in the non‐conforming use and consequently, the use shall be abandoned 5. Recordation of the proposed Share Maintenance Agreement prior to issuance of building permit or change of use permit; and 6. Should the Shared Maintenance Agreement be revoked, the Applicant shall provide adequate parking and access to the site. It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to recommend approval of Special Review 2014‐05, Backbone Adventure Rentals to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, MARYS LAKE SUBDIVISION REPLAT, TBD Kiowa Court Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant for this amended development agreement is Marys Lake Development, Inc., and consultant is CMS Planning and Development (Frank Theis). The applicant proposes to amend a 2005 Development Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Marys Meadow Development Inc. to allow a single‐family dwelling on Lot 7. This lot is located up the hill to the south of Marys Lake Lodge, is very steep, and several acres in size. James Tawney was the property owner in 2005, and intended to place a conservation easement on Lot 7. However, the Estes Valley Land Trust refused to accept the lot into a conservation easement. The current agreement states that “Lot 7 cannot be developed as a single‐family lot unless the plat and development agreements are amended.” The applicant is proposing to not amend the plat, but instead amend the development agreement requirement to amend the plat. There would be several exhibits attached to the amended development agreement that would outline the lot, show a building envelope, and also include a site specific survey that details the slope. Planner Shirk stated the Development Agreement Amendment, if approved, would be recorded and show up during a title search. This is a way to alert potential buyers of specific requirements for that lot. Planner Shirk stated staff reviewed the application according to the EVDC zoning standards. Affected agencies and adjacent property owners (500 foot radius) were notified, and a legal notice was published in the local newspaper. No providers expressed concern about the proposed amendment to allow a single‐family residence. As of February 10th, no comments were received from adjacent property owners. Town Attorney White provided a list of recommended revisions to the agreement, which are included as suggested conditions of approval. Planner Shirk stated Lot 7 was originally not intended for development due to the steepness of the lot. The original intent was open space. Because Lot 7 was not contemplated for development, it was not reviewed for compliance with the following development standards: Sanitary Sewer Systems, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Development Restrictions on Steep Slopes, Grading and Site Disturbance, Limits of Disturbance, Geologic and Wildlife Hazard Areas, Sewage Disposal, Fire Protection, Drainage, Water, Electricity, and General Site Access. However, it is Attorney White’s legal opinion that the Town must allow at least one unit on the lot to avoid this being considered a taking of property rights. Planner Shirk stated, if approved, the lot could be developed with a single‐family dwelling, subject to compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. While the preferred access is from the south, there are no easements in place to allow for that access. The applicant is requesting allowance of a septic system instead of connecting to the public sewer. According to the Larimer County Health Department, the criteria for a septic system have been met. Planner Shirk stated the least steep slope on this lot is 35%; any lots with a slope greater than 30% require staff review and approval of a development plan. Staff would review any proposed dwelling for design, placement, and driveway placement. Wildfire mitigation would be required, as well as an engineered driveway to ensure proper drainage and erosion control. As the intent of the applicant is to sell the lot, recording all documents would make potential purchasers aware of the requirement of a development plan application and review process, which is not typical for a single‐family dwelling on a residential‐zoned lot. Staff Findings 1. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, including §3.9.E Subdivision Standards for Review, §7.1 Slope Protection Standards, §7.2 Grading and Site Disturbance, §7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection, §7.7 Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas, and §7.12 Adequate Public Facilities. 2. The site complies with criteria to allow on‐site sewage treatment. 3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 4. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the amended development agreement. The Town Board is the Decision‐making Body. Staff recommended approval with conditions, listed below. Staff and Commission Discussion Town Attorney White stated one of the notes on the existing plat of record deals with access, which is not adequate as it now stands. He suggested adding a statement in the amendment to change the plat note to read “Access to Lot 7 is currently restricted to an unimproved access and maintenance agreement.” He would also add “Any other future access requires approved by the Community Development Department.” Planner Shirk stated the only legal right of access is through Marys Lake Subdivision. There was discussion as to whether or not an amended plat would be required in addition to the amendment to the development agreement. Public Comment RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Frank Theis/applicant stated Jim Tawney passed away, and the development is currently owned by the estate. Mr. Tawney’s daughter will be receiving title to the property within the year. She intends to sell the property. Jim Sneary /Town resident was concerned about the decline of property values at the adjacent Promontory Condominiums, as the open space was one of the selling aspects for the neighborhood. He was concerned about future development on the lot, in addition to the one single‐family dwelling. Soil erosion was also a concern – three existing homes have added retaining walls because of concerns and issues with erosion and runoff. He stated the area could be difficult to engineer due to the type of soil and rock on the lot. Public comment closed. Staff and commission Discussion Commissioner Schneider expressed concern about ensuring the potential buyers were made aware of all the conditions. Attorney White clarified the documents would be recorded, and would be included in the title policy. Commissioner Klink added potential buyers have a certain responsibility to do their due diligence prior to making a purchase. Conditions of Approval 1. The development agreement shall be revised as follows: a. Paragraph 5 there is a typographical error in the Lot 7 description, and an addition. It shall be corrected as follows: “…improvements on Lot 7 is shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto. All development on Lot 7 shall be reviewed and comply with all applicable conditions of the Estes Valley Development Code including, but not limited to: 1) §7.1 slope Protection Standards, including Development Plan Review; 2) §7.2 Grading and Site Disturbance Standards; 3) §7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection; 4) §7.7 Geologic and Wildfire Hazards; 6) Appendix D.III General Site Access. 7) Access to Lot 7 is restricted to an unimproved access and maintenance easement.” b. Paragraph 7 shall be deleted in its entirety. 2. The development agreement shall include an attachment that delineates site contours; the contours provided for the original preliminary plat may be used to satisfy this requirement. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to recommend approval of the amended development agreement for Lot 7 of the Marys Lake Replat of Lots 2, 4, 5 and Outlot A, Marys Lake Subdivision, to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, with a modification to Condition 1.a.(7), to read: “Access to Lot 7 is currently restricted to an unimproved access and maintenance easement. Any other future access requires approval of the Community Development Department.” The motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTMemo To:Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Acting Town Administrator McFarland From: David Shirk, Senior Planner Date: February 24, 2015 RE:AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, Marys Lake Subdivision Replat, TBD Kiowa Court; Marys Meadow Development/Applicant Objective: Amend development agreement to clarify legal status of Lot 7 Marys Lake Subdivision Replat Present Situation: Lot 7 of the Marys Lake replat was approved by the Town Board in 2005. Approval included a development agreement that specified Lot 7 “can not be developed as a single-family Lot unless the Plat and Development Agreements are amended.” This agreement was made because Lot 7 was not intended for development at that time because the owner desired to place the property under a conservation easement. The land trust opted to not accept the conservation easement. This has left the property in a state of limbo: it is not approved for development, but the Town cannot prohibit development because it would be a taking of property rights. The property has since passed to the previous owner’s estate, who desire to sell the property as a single-family lot. The purpose of this amended development agreement is to address the ‘can not be developed’ section of the current agreement. The amended agreement will have survey exhibit attachments that will satisfy the purpose of an amended plat, and will reference specific sections of the development code that address issues such as a development plan, driveway design, wildfire protection, and steep slopes. The property is over 850-feet away from the nearest sanitary sewer main, and the applicant proposes an on-site sewage treatment facility; both the Larimer County Health Department and the Upper Thompson Sanitation District have approved this concept. On February 17, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval. Proposal: Amend the development agreement to approve Lot 7 as a legal buildable lot, with development standards that address construction on steep slopes and wildfire hazard. Advantages: x Will clarify the legal status of Lot 7. x Will eliminate possible legal challenge to development of Lot 7. Disadvantages: x Will allow for development on a slope that is typically discouraged. Action Recommended: On February 17, the Planning Commission found: 1. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, including §3.9.E Subdivision Standards for Review, § 7.1 Slope Protection Standards, § 7.2 Grading and Site Disturbance, §7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection, § 7.7 Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas, and § 7.12 Adequate Public Facilities. 2. The site complies with criteria to allow on-site sewage treatment. 3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 4. The Planning Commission is the Recommending-Body for the amended development agreement. The Town Board is the decision-making body. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 (one absent, one vacancy) to recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The development agreement shall be revised as follows: a. Paragraph 5 there is a typo in the Lot 7 description and an addition. It shall be corrected as follows: “…improvements on Lot 7 is shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto. All development on Lot 7 shall be reviewed and comply with all applicable conditions of the Estes Valley Development Code including, but not limited to: 1) § 7.1 Slope Protection Standards, including Development Plan Review; 2) § 7.2 Grading and Site Disturbance Standards; 3) § 7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection; 4) § 7.7 Geologic and Wildfire Hazards; 6) Appendix D.III General Site Access. 7)Access to Lot 7 is currently restricted to an unimproved access and maintenance easement. Any other future access would need approval of the Community Development Department, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy (staff note: This condition was revised by the Planning Commission at the meeting; the agreement has not yet been revised to reflect this condition). b. Paragraph 7 shall be deleted in its entirety. 2. The development agreement shall include an attachment that delineates site contours; the contours provided for the original preliminary plat may be used to satisfy this requirement. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest Low. Jim Sneary, resident of The Promontory Condominiums located north of Lot 7, spoke at the meeting. Mr. Sneary expressed concern regarding potential for erosion from development on the steep slope. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the amended development agreement for Lot 7 subject to the findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Attachments: x Revised Development Agreement x Current Development Agreement x Planning Commission staff report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTMemo To:Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II Date: January 13, 2014 RE:SPECIAL REVIEW 2014-05, Backbone Adventure Rentals, 1851 North Lake Avenue, Kenneth Hitch/Applicant. Planner Kleisler. Objective: Review of Special Review Use application 2014-05, Backbone Adventure Rentals, for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. Present Situation: The land use designation for the site is CO Commercial Outlying and it is located within the Lone Pines Acres subdivision (platted in 1960). The site is accessed from North Lake Avenue, a local road parallel to Big Thompson Avenue. The property borders a parking lot to the east (used by Sombrero Stables), a vacant commercial building to the west and single family homes to the north. The site is developed with two (2) buildings, each roughly 3,100 square feet. The Applicant currently operates a scooter and jeep rental business at 1360 Big Thompson Avenue (Coyote Mountain Lodge property). This use is not permitted at the current site, though staff determined in 2013 that the site was non-conforming due to the historic use of the property. Proposal: The Applicant proposes to operate a scooter, motorcycle and jeep rental business called “Backbone Adventure Rentals”. Many of the vehicles located at the Coyote Mountain Lodge site would move to the new location. The Applicant wishes to operate in the southern building, which at one point served as an auto mechanic shop and more recently as a refrigerate maintenance businesses. The use, Vehicle/Equipment Sales and Rentals, is permitted in the CO district through Special Review. Special Review requires applications mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. To that end, the Commission generally discussed the following items: 1. Noise While scooters and jeeps are generally quiet, the addition of motorcycle should and were examined. The Applicant proposes that all motorcycles be “baffled for maximum sound deadening.” 2. Hours of Operation Peak months (March – October) hours of operation will be from 8am – 6pm, seven days a week. The business will be open during off-peak months (November – February) from 9am – 5pm, seven days a week. These hours appear reasonable and generally correspond with the quieter hours of the Estes Park Noise Ordinance. 3. Client Test Drive Routes The Applicant has submitted a letter describing their communication with customers as it relates to test drive routes. This letter was primarily a result concern about traffic code violations along Lake Front Street. The Planning Commission opined on this concern, but ultimately conceded that traffic code violations are not within the land use purview of the Commission. 4. Outdoor Display The Applicant proposes a 350 square foot display space just north of the proposed landscaped island. The Applicant must receive a variance to setback standards to utilize an existing display pad on the west end of the property. No variance application has been received yet. There is also public parking on Town right-of-way directly across the street. The Planning Commission recommends that a note be added to the plan specifically prohibiting any off-site areas from functioning as an outdoor display area. 5. Site Improvements The applicant proposes improvements to the site: a) A landscaped island was proposed in an attempt to better define the entryway. Because of problems with irrigation, the Applicant now proposes to fill the island with pervious materials (e.g. decorative rocks and soil). The photo on the following page generally shows the island location, which will double as an outdoor vehicle display location; b) The parking spaces will be striped; c) A shared parking agreement was provided, that allows vehicles to also enter through the lot to the east. This allows for an adequate driveway opening/entryway; d) Wheel stops will be provided in the spaces east of the building; e) The awning along the street frontage is within the Town right-of-way. This will be removed prior to a certificate of occupancy; and f) The site plan proposes landscaping in the northwest corner along the westerly property line, which in staff’s opinion is the most important area to landscape given the nearby residential properties. 6. Minor Modifications Per §3.7, the Planning Commission considered a number of minor modification requests: a) Landscaping. The Commission approved a request to waive landscaping requirements for the street frontage, north property buffer, eastern parking lot screening and within the landscaped island. The Commission found that this request relieved practical difficulties in developing the site. Outdoor Display Area b) Awning. The Commission found that the request to keep the awning within Town right-of-way did not relieve practical difficulties in developing the site. The Applicant will take down the awning prior to opening his business. c) Parking. The Commission found that the proposal of seven (7) parking spaces in lieu of the required nine (9) spaces does help relieve practical difficulties in developing the site. As such, this request was approved. Advantages: x Compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. x Improvements to an underutilized and partially vacant commercial property. Disadvantages: x Some degree of potential neighborhood disruptions, particularly during scooter test drives. Action Recommended: During their February 17, 2015 hearing, the Estes Valley Planning Commission found that: 1. The Special Review application complies with EVDC §3.5 Standards for Review, provided that the application is revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval by staff and affected agencies. 2. Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit or commence operation with regard to the special review use approval within three (3) years of the approval shall automatically render the decision null and void. Additionally, if the legally established special review use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive years or more, then the decision originally approved such special review shall automatically lapse and render the decision null and void. 3. The requested Minor Modification to Section 4.4.C.4 Density and Dimensional Standards,regarding the existing structure’s awning that protrudes into the public right-of-way, does not advance the goals and purposes of this Code nor relieves practical difficulties in developing the site; 4. The requested Minor Modification to landscaping and buffering requirements, as described in the staff report, relieves practical difficulties in developing the site; 5. The requested Minor Modification to minimum parking requirements, as described in the staff report, relieves practical difficulties in developing the site; and 6. This is a recommendation to the Estes Park Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees is the Decision-making Body for the proposed Special Review use application. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously 5-0 (one commissioner absent, one position vacant) to recommend approval of Special Review application 2014-05, subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise the site plan to note that the Jeep display area to the west of the building as “Possible future Jeep display location. This Jeep display requires a setback variance from the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment”; 2. Amend the site plan to reflect the following: a. Any additional proposed outdoor display area(s); b. Add a note stating that vehicle display shall only take place on the subject’s property in designated areas; 3. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated January 13, 2015; and b. Town of Estes Park Community Development memo dated January 23, 2015. c. Town of Estes Park Public Works memo dated January 30, 2015; 4. The following shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: a. All site improvements shall be installed or guaranteed; b. Review and approval of the existing septic system by the Larimer County Health Department; and c. Written letter shall be submitted to the Community Development Department stating: i. (i) The exact number of rentals that will remain at current business location of 1360 Big Thompson Avenue. The number of vehicles shall not exceed the current land use approval for the property. ii. (ii) Acknowledgement that any increase in the number of vehicles at 1360 Big Thompson Avenue after that point will constitute an increase in the non-conforming use and consequently, the use shall be abandoned. 5. Recordation of the proposed Shared Maintenance Agreement prior to issuance of building permit or change of use permit; and 6. Should the Shared Maintenance Agreement be revoked, the Applicant shall provide adequate parking and access to the site. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest: Low. One member of the public commented in opposition to the application during the Planning Commission hearing. The primary concern expressed by this resident related to scooter rentals traveling along Lakefront Street. The resident displayed videos of customers using scooter horns and disobeying traffic laws. The Police Department is aware of this concern and is taking the appropriate steps to address. Sample Motion: I move to Approve (Deny) the Special Review application 2014-05. Attachments: 1. Exhibit A Map 2. Exhibit B Map 3. Statement of Intent 4. Site Plan 5. Agency Comments BIG THOMPSON AVEDRY GULCH RDLONEPINE DRRAVEN AVENORTH LAKE AVELAKEESTESAAACOCOCOCOER-2RE-1RMRM0100 200Feet1 in = 200 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentExhibit A MapPrinted: 2/2/2015Created By: phil kleislerProject SiteTown BoundaryZoningLotsProject Name:Project Description: Petitioner(s):Parcel ID Number(s):Location/Address:Backbone Adventure RentalsSpecial Review forvehicle rental businessAndy Hitch25203-12-0061851 North Lake Ave,BIG THOMPSON AVEN SAINT VRAIN AVEMORAINE AVEE HIGHWAY 36MACGR E G OR AVELAKE ESTESSiteVicinity Map BIG THOMPSON AVEDRY GULCH RDLONEPINE DRRAVEN AVENORTH LAKE AVELAKEESTESAAACOCOCOCOER-2RE-1RMRM0100 200Feet1 in = 200 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentExhibit B MapPrinted: 2/2/2015Created By: phil kleislerProject SiteTown BoundaryZoningLotsProject Name:Project Description: Petitioner(s):Parcel ID Number(s):Location/Address:Backbone Adventure RentalsSpecial Review forvehicle rental businessAndy Hitch25203-12-0061851 North Lake Ave,BIG THOMPSON AVEN SAINT VRAIN AVEMORAINE AVEE HIGHWAY 36MACGR E G OR AVELAKE ESTESSiteVicinity Map KƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĨŽƌĂĐŬďŽŶĞĚǀĞŶƚƵƌĞƐ ,ŽƵƌƐ ϵĂŵʹϱƉŵϳĚĂLJƐĂǁĞĞŬEŽǀĞŵďĞƌͲ&ĞďƌƵĂƌLJ ϴĂŵʹϲƉŵϳĚĂLJƐĂǁĞĞŬDĂƌĐŚʹKĐƚŽďĞƌ /ŶƐŝĚĞKƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ • 'ŝĨƚƐŚŽƉǁŝƚŚdͲ^ŚŝƌƚƐŝŶƚŚĞƐŚŽǁƌŽŽŵ • ZĞŶƚĂůƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶƐĂƚƚŚĞĨƌŽŶƚĚĞƐŬŝŶƚŚĞƐŚŽǁƌŽŽŵ • ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞĂŶĚůŝŐŚƚŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞŽĨƐŽŵĞ:ĞĞƉƐĂŶĚŵŽƚŽƌĐLJĐůĞƐŝŶƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞĂƌĞĂ KƵƚƐŝĚĞKƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ • ƵƐƚŽŵĞƌƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ • :ĞĞƉͬŵŽƚŽƌĐLJĐůĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ͕ŝĨƌŽŽŵŝƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ EŽŝƐĞZĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŽŶƐ • ůĞĐƚƌŝĐƉŽǁĞƌǁĂƐŚĞƌƚŽďĞƵƐĞĚĨƌŽŵƚŝŵĞƚŽƚŝŵĞ;ŝŶƐŝĚĞĨĞŶĐĞĚŝŶĂƌĞĂͿ • ůůŵŽƚŽƌĐLJĐůĞƐĂƌĞďĂĨĨůĞĚĨŽƌŵĂdžŝŵƵŵƐŽƵŶĚĚĞĂĚĞŶŝŶŐ͘;ŶŽƚŽŶůLJĚŽǁĞŶŽƚǁĂŶƚƚŽďŽƚŚĞƌŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͕ǁĞĚŽŶ͛ƚ ǁĂŶƚƚŽĚŝƐƚƵƌďƚŚĞŚŽƌƐĞƐĂƚ^ŽŵďƌĞƌŽ͘ůƐŽ͕ŵŽƐƚŽĨŽƵƌĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌƉƌĞĨĞƌƋƵŝĞƚĞƌŵŽƚŽƌĐLJĐůĞƐ͘ WĂƌŬŝŶŐWůĂŶ • KŶůLJŽŶĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞĐĂƌǁŝůůďĞŽŶƐŝƚĞ͘dŚŝƐĐĂƌǁŝůůďĞƉĂƌŬĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞĂƌĞĂŽƌĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂƌĞĂŝĨƐƉĂĐĞ ĂůůŽǁƐ͘ • 'ĞŶĞƌĂůĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌƉĂƌŬŝŶŐǁŝůůƚĂŬĞƉůĂĐĞŝŶƚŚĞŵĂƌŬĞĚĂƌĞĂƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶŐƚŚĞůŽƚ͘ • DŽƚŽƌĐLJĐůĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐǁŝůůƚĂŬĞƉůĂĐĞŝŶĚŽŽƌƐƉƌŝŵĂƌŝůLJ͘/ĨƐƉĂĐĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐ͕ǁĞŵĂLJƉĂƌŬŽŶĞŽƌƚǁŽŽƵƚƐŝĚĞĨŽƌĚŝƐƉůĂLJ ƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐĚƵƌŝŶŐďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐŚŽƵƌƐ͘ • :ĞĞƉƉĂƌŬŝŶŐǁŝůůƚĂŬĞƉůĂĐĞŝŶƐŝĚĞƚŚĞĨĞŶĐĞĚŝŶĂƌĞĂ͕ŝŶƐŝĚĞƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞ͕ĂŶĚƐŽŵĞŵĂLJďĞĚŝƐƉůĂLJĞĚŝŶĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐŝĨƌŽŽŵŝƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ͘ • KŶĞ:ĞĞƉǁŝůůďĞƉĂƌŬĞĚŽŶƚŚĞǁĞƐƚĞŶĚŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJďĞŚŝŶĚƚŚĞƐĞƚďĂĐŬĨŽƌĚŝƐƉůĂLJƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐ͘ • ƵƐŝŶĞƐƐŚŽƵƌƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚƉƌŝŵĂƌŝůLJĨŽƌĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ͘ŶLJ:ĞĞƉƐŽƌŵŽƚŽƌĐLJĐůĞƐŝŶƚŚĞǁĂLJǁŝůůďĞ ŵŽǀĞĚďĞŚŝŶĚƚŚĞĨĞŶĐĞŽƌŝŶĚŽŽƌƐ͘ ^ĂĨĞƚLJĂŶĚ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ • hƉƚŽĚĂƚĞĨŝƌĞĞdžƚŝŶŐƵŝƐŚĞƌƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƐŚŽǁƌŽŽŵĂŶĚŝŶƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞĂƌĞĂ • EŽŐĂƐŽůŝŶĞƚŽďĞƐƚŽƌĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ • &ŝƌƐƚĂŝĚůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞďƌĞĂŬƌŽŽŵĂƌĞĂ͘ • ŚĞŵŝĐĂůƐŽŶƐŝƚĞǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚĐůĞĂŶŝŶŐƐƵƉƉůŝĞƐ͕ϭĐĂƐĞŽĨŵŽƚŽƌĐLJĐůĞŽŝů͕ϭĐĂƐĞŽĨŵŽƚŽƌŽŝů͕ϮũƵŐƐ ŽĨĂŶƚŝĨƌĞĞnjĞ͕ϭĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞƌŽĨďƌĂŬĞĨůƵŝĚ͕ǀĂƌŝŽƵƐĐĂƌĐůĞĂŶĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚƐƐƵĐŚĂƐĂƌŵŽƌĂůů͕ĂŶĚǀĂƌŝŽƵƐŽƚŚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚƐ ƐƵĐŚĂƐtϰϬ͕ŐƌĞĂƐĞ͕ĂŶĚǁŝŶĚŽǁĐůĞĂŶĞƌƚŽŶĂŵĞŽĨĨĞǁ͘tĞŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŚŝŶŐLJŽƵǁŽƵůĚŶ͛ƚĨŝŶĚŝŶĂŶLJĐŽŵŵŽŶ ŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚŐĂƌĂŐĞŽƌďĂƚŚƌŽŽŵ͘ • sŝĚĞŽƐƵƌǀĞŝůůĂŶĐĞǁŝůůďĞƌƵŶŶŝŶŐŝŶƐŝĚĞ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĂŶdƐĞĐƵƌŝƚLJƐLJƐƚĞŵ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚsĞŚŝĐůĞƐŽŶWƌĞŵŝƐĞƐ • ϲ:ĞĞƉƐ • ϰŵŽƚŽƌĐLJĐůĞƐ • ϭƚƌĂŝůĞƌ;ƐƚŽƌĞĚďĞŚŝŶĚĨĞŶĐĞĚŝŶĂƌĞĂͿ • sĂƌŝŽƵƐds͛Ɛ;ĂůůƐƚŽƌĞĚŝŶŐĂƌĂŐĞĂƌĞĂŽǀĞƌŶŝŐŚƚͿ • ϭĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞǀĞŚŝĐůĞ ƵƐŝŶĞƐƐDŽĚĞů ϵϱйŽĨŽƵƌďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐŝƐĚŽŶĞďLJƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘ůƚŚŽƵŐŚǁĞŐĞƚǁĂůŬŝŶĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌƐ͕ŵŽƐƚŬǁĞůůŝŶĂĚǀĂŶĐĞ͘<ŶŽǁŝŶŐ ŚŽǁŵĂŶLJĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌĐĂƌƐǁĞĐĂŶĞdžƉĞĐƚĂƚĂŶLJŐŝǀĞŶƚŝŵĞĂůůŽǁƐƵƐƚŽƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĨŽƌƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŝŶĂĚǀĂŶĐĞ͘/ŶƚŚĞƉĂƐƚ͕ǁĞ ŚĂǀĞĐĂƵŐŚƚƚŚĞĨĂĐƚƚŚĂƚǁĞŵĂLJŶŽƚŚĂǀĞĞŶŽƵŐŚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ͘dŽƐŽůǀĞƚŚŝƐƉƌŽďůĞŵ͕ǁĞĂƐŬŽƵƌĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌƐƚŽ ƚĂŬĞƚŚĞŝƌƌĞŶƚĂůĐĂƌďĂĐŬƚŽƚŚĞŝƌŚŽƚĞůŽƌĐĂďŝŶƌĞŶƚĂů͘ƚƚŚĞϭϴϱϭůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶǁĞŚĂǀĞƚŚĞĂĚĚĞĚďĞŶĞĨŝƚŽĨƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƌĞŶƚĂůĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌĐĂƌƐŝŶƐŝĚĞŽƵƌŐĂƌĂŐĞŝĨŶĞĞĚďĞĂƐǁĞůů͘ Backbone Adventures Routing Details We have two types of rentals that leave from our shop, (Motorcycles and Jeeps). In both cases when our customers leave our parking lot, we suggest they start off on Big Thompson Ave (HWY 34). From there they will head north or south toward their destination. For Jeeps, destinations include Old Fall River Road in the Rocky Mountain National Park, and various 4x4 trails in the national forest outside city limits. For motorcycles, destinations include Lyons, Allenspark, Grand Lake, Drake, and Ward to name a few. All routes are via highways such as HWY36, HWY 7, and HWY 34 in and out of Rocky Mountain National Park. All of our rentals come with a GPS (destinations preprogrammed), and hard copy maps to individual national forest 4x4 trails, leaving no opportunity for our customers to get lost. We never advise our customers to travel in residential or private areas. We go over every aspect of proper vehicle operation, safety, and laws regarding insurance, traffic, and the national forest. Our documentation includes vehicle inspection forms, general rental waiver and liability contract, insurance verification, operation and safety training course form, US valid driver’s license verification, and hard copy maps of particular national forest service trail systems outside city limits. Scooter Routing Past Issues I am writing this letter on behalf of my brother-in-law, (Steve Lamar), owner of Estes Park scooter rentals at 1360 Big Thompson Ave in Estes Park. Over the last two years, Steve’s scooter business and my business of Jeep rentals have been blended together in the same location. The reason for my application for special review is so that I may relocate my portion of the business (Backbone Adventures) to a new, and more well suited location at 1851 North Lake Ave. Steve will remain at the 1360 Big Thompson Ave location. Over the last couple years there have been some complaints by one resident in the area at the 1360 location. This resident contends that scooter riders beep their horns too frequently and fail to stop at the stop sign when driving down Lakeview Ave where the resident lives. It is true that Steve did suggest his riders start off by driving down Lakeview Ave so they could get more familiar with the scooter. However, after complaints from the resident, and a mediation meeting between Steve, the resident, and the planning department, he thought it best to stop that practice. Although there have not been any complaints from other residents, he now suggests they start out on Big Thompson Ave (HWY 34) and stay out of residential areas altogether. Moreover, he suggests his customers not use the horn as a toy, mind traffic laws, and drive safely above all. Steve’s main concern is harmony with his customers, the city, and the residents of Estes Park. If there are any further complaints or issues, Steve would be happy to hear about them. He is open to suggestions for improvement by any resident, member of the city government, or law enforcement. However, at the end of the day, Lakeview Ave is a public road with access to an attraction, (the lake). If a person wants to drive down there in their car, scooter, or any other type of transportation, they have the right to do so. All Steve can do is suggest his customers stay out of all residential areas, including Lakeview Ave. To:Mike Todd & Jess Reetz, Project Engineers From:Phil Kleisler, Planner II Date:January 23, 2015 RE:Special Review Application, Backbone Adventure Rentals – Findings of Compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) This written analysis includes only those EVDC provisions that apply to this development proposal. Community Development Staff has performed a code analysis, and finds the December 1, 2014 submittal: Complies with (or will if revised per recommended conditions): 1. §4.4.B Permitted Uses: x Vehicle/equipment Sales and Rentals use is permitted in the CO Commercial Outlying district through Special Review. 2. §7.2.D Limits of Disturbance. 3. §7.11.O.2. 4. Appendix D.III.6 regarding a maintenance agreement. 5. Appendix D.II.F.2 regarding site distances Does not comply with (or requires additional information): 1. Statement of Intent: Please include the estimated number of vehicles, scooters and motorcycles in the statement of intent. Also, are all vehicles, including scooters, leaving the current site at Lakefront Street? 2. §4.4.C.4 Density and Dimensional Standards. The Planning Commission will consider this request. 3. §7.5.D.3.c: The Public Works Department must approve the requested landscaped island because it is in the public right-of-way. If approved, construction will require a Right-of-Way permit, available through the Estes Park Public Works Department. 4. §5.1.R.1: “Vehicles or equipment displays shall not be located within a required setback area.” You have requested a minor modification to setback standards. Community DevelopmentMemo Page 1 However, the proposed location is beyond the authority of the Planning Commission to grant (the Commission may grant a 25% minor modification). Therefore, the Board of Adjustment must review that request through a separate variance application. Please either submit an application for a variance or remove the proposed vehicle display pad from the plan. 5. §5.1.R.2: “Front yard setback areas shall be landscaped to provide a buffer between the right-of-way….” Given the building’s location to the property line there is no space for landscaping. The Planning Commission will need to consider this as a minor modification. 6. §7.5 Landscaping and Buffers. The Planning Commission may consider this minor modification to landscaping requirements. 7. §7.5.G.3.c.1 Landscaped Islands. Islands typically require one (1) tree, curb and an automatic sprinkler system. In this case we concur with your plan to only plant shrubs because of the existing overhead electric line. However, please add the attached landscaping notes, which include language about an automatic sprinkler. 8. §7.10 Operational Performance Standards. Please add a note on Plan detailing hours of operation and that noise muffling devises shall be used on all motorcycles (per conversations with the applicant). 9. §7.11.F.2 & 3. The proposed accessible space is located in the front setback area. This is beyond the Planning Commission’s authority to regarding a 25% minor modification. Therefore, it appears that this parking space will need to be deleted or moved. Can the space labeled “5” be converted to an accessible space? 10.§7.11.O.4 Wheel Stops and Continuous Curbs. Per our conversation on 1/23/15, please add wheel stops in the proposed parking spaces. 11.Appendix D.II.2. Please comment on if the current paving thickness is adequate for the proposed use. 12.Drafting/Notes: a. Please add a note about timing of improvements (e.g. landscaping, parking lot striping). b. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the square footage of the building is 3,100 square feet, although it is labeled 1,300 in the parking calculation table. Is only 1,300 sf being used for this use? c. 7.13.B.3 Please add this note about outdoor storage to the plan. d. Please replace the Planning Commissioner signature block with that of the Estes Park Mayor. Page 2 PUBLIC WORKSMemo To:Phil Kleisler From:Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Civil Engineer Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date:January 30, 2015 RE:Backbone Adventure Development Plans Phil – Public Works has reviewed the Backbone Adventure Rental Development Plans submittal and offers the following conditions: 1. The existing awning overhang extends into the public right-of-way and should be removed. 2. The proposed landscape island at the southeast corner of the building should be moved to the north – outside the public right-of-way. PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Date: January 13, 2015 Project Identification: Backbone Adventures Location: 1851 North Lake Avenue Referral: Backbone Adventures SR 2014-05 Development Review The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed the submitted material describing the proposed project referenced above, and has no comments or concerns (approves) regarding the site plan (Development Review). However, when building permits are submitted the following shall be addressed. 1. The applicant should consult with an architect and / or building life-safety code consultant to determine active and passive fire protection system requirements for the proposed future buildings. At this time the Fire District cannot determine fire protection system requirements due to unknown building occupancy classification, use, size of fire areas, and storage arrangements. If an automatic sprinkler system is proposed / required at a later date due to applicant desire and or required for the proposed occupancy / storage arrangements, the applicant shall provide supplemental construction drawings depicting the location, size and type of piping of the on-site fire protection water line serving the interior automatic fire sprinkler system. All construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the International Fire Code (2009 Edition) and the International Building Code (2009 Edition). Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Marc W. Robinson Fire Marshal 970-577-3689 mrobinson@estesvalleyfire.org From:Hice-Idler, Gloria To:pkleisler@estes.org Subject:Backbone Adventures Rentals Date:Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:31:03 AM CDOT has no comment regarding this proposal. Gloria Hice-Idler Region 4 Permits Manager Region 4 Permits Unit - Traffic P 970.350.2148 | C 970.381.2475 | F 970.350.2198 1420 2nd Street, Greeley, CO 80631 gloria.hice-idler@state.co.us | www.coloradodot.info | www.cotrip.org Backbone Adventure Rental Special Review; Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 17, 2015Backbone Adventure Rentals Special Review Use I. Summary of ProjectII. Process and Review CriteriaIII. Key IssuesIV. Planning Commission FindingsV. Planning Commission Recommendation Backbone Adventure Rental Special Review; Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 17, 2015Summary of Project Backbone Adventure Rental Special Review; Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 17, 2015Summary of Project Backbone Adventure Rental Special Review; Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 17, 2015Summary of Project Backbone Adventure Rental Special Review; Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 17, 2015Process and Review CriteriaI. Estes Valley Comprehensive PlanII. Estes Valley Development CodeIII. Planning Commission RecommendationIV. Motion by Town Board Backbone Adventure Rental Special Review; Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 17, 2015Key Issues – Site Improvements Backbone Adventure Rental Special Review; Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 17, 2015Key Issues – Minor Modifications Backbone Adventure Rental Special Review; Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 17, 2015Key Issues – Special Review CriteriaNoise Hours of OperationClient Test Drive Routes- Public CommentOutdoor StorageOutdoor Display Backbone Adventure Rental Special Review; Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 17, 2015Staff Findings1. The Special Review application complies with EVDC §3.5Standards for Review, provided that the application is revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval by staff and affected agencies. 2. Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit or commence operation with regard to the special review use approval within three (3) years of the approval shall automatically render the decision null and void. Additionally, if the legally established special review use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive years or more, then the decision originally approved such special review shall automatically lapse and render the decision null and void.3. The requested Minor Modification to Section 4.4.C.4Density and Dimensional Standards, regarding the existing structure’s awning that protrudes into the public right-of-way, does not advance the goals and purposes of this Code nor relieves practical difficulties in developing the site; 4. The requested Minor Modification to landscaping and buffering requirements, as described in the staff report, relieves practical difficulties in developing the site;5. The requested Minor Modification to minimum parking requirements, as described in the staff report, relieves practical difficulties in developing the site; and6. This is a recommendation to the Estes Park Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees is the Decision-making Body for the proposed Special Review use application. Backbone Adventure Rental Special Review; Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 17, 2015Recommendation to Planning CommissionAPPROVALof Special Review Application #2014-05, subject to the following conditions; 1. Revise the site plan to note that the Jeep display area to the west of the building as “Possible future Jeep display location. This Jeep display requires a setback variance from the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment”;2. Amend the site plan to reflect the following: Any additional proposed outdoor display area(s);Add a note stating that vehicle display shall only take place on the subject’s property in designated areas;3. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated January 13, 2015; andTown of Estes Park Community Development memo dated January 23, 2015.Town of Estes Park Public Works memo dated January 30, 2015; Backbone Adventure Rental Special Review; Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 17, 2015Staff Recommendation, cont.4. The following shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: All site improvements shall be installed or guaranteed;Review and approval of the existing septic system by the Larimer County Health Department; andWritten letter shall be submitted to the Community Development Department stating: (i) The exact number of rentals that will remain at current business location of 1360 Big Thompson Avenue. The number of vehicles shall not exceed the current land use approval for the property.(ii) Acknowledgement that any increase in the number of vehicles at 1360 Big Thompson Avenue after that point will constitute an increase in the non-conforming use and consequently, the use shall be abandoned.5. Recordation of the proposed Shared Maintenance Agreement prior to issuance of building permit or change of use permit; and6. Should the Shared Maintenance Agreement be revoked, the Applicant shall provide adequate parking and access to the site. Estes Valley Planning Commission Appointment Town Clerk Memo 1 To:Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Finance Officer McFarland From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: February 20, 2015 RE: Estes Valley Planning Commission Appointment Objective: To appoint a new Town-appointed commissioner to the Estes Valley Planning Commission to complete the term of former Commissioner Charley Dickey which expires December 31, 2016. Present Situation: Former Commissioner Dickey resigned his position on January 6, 2015. The Town advertised the position in the local paper and on the Town’s website through February 6, 2015. Two applications were received and interviews were scheduled with Trustees John Phipps and Ward Nelson, Planning Commission Chair Betty Hull and Senior Planner Dave Shirk on Wednesday, February 18, 2015. Proposal: The interview team is recommending the appointment of Sharry White to complete the remainder of former Commissioner Dickey’s term, beginning immediately upon approval of the Town Board and expiring on December 31, 2016. Sharry White has lived in Estes Park for ten years. She served as a commissioner on the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority from 2008-2010, and is active in various local organizations including the Friends of the Library, the League of Women Voters and the Association for Responsible Development. Prior to moving to Estes Park, Ms. White held numerous civic positions including serving for nine years on the City of Tulsa Board of Adjustment. Advantages: The position would be filled. Disadvantages: If the appointment is not made, the position would remain vacant until the position can be re-advertised and interviews conducted. Estes Valley Planning Commission Appointment 2 Action Recommended: Appoint Sharry White to the Estes Valley Planning Commission to a term beginning immediately upon Town Board approval and expiring on December 31, 2016. Budget: None. Level of Public Interest. Low. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the appointment of Sharry White to the Estes Valley Planning Commission to a term beginning immediately and expiring on December 31, 2016. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Appointment Town Clerk Memo 1 To:Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Finance Officer McFarland From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: February 20, 2015 RE: Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Appointments Objective: To appoint two Town-appointed members to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment (EVBOA) for three-year terms. Present Situation: The terms of both Board Member Jeff Moreau and Board Member Wayne Newsom expire on February 28, 2015. The Town advertised these positions in the local paper and on the Town’s website through February 6, 2015. Two applications were received and interviews were scheduled with Trustees Ron Norris and Bob Holcomb, and Senior Planner Dave Shirk on Wednesday, February 18, 2015. Proposal: The two applicants were Jeff Moreau and Wayne Newsom, both seeking re- appointment to the Board of Adjustment. Following interviews of the candidates, the interview team is recommending the re-appointment of both Jeff Moreau and Wayne Newsom to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment for three-year terms, beginning on March 1, 2015, and expiring on February 28, 2018. Mr. Moreau has been a resident of Estes Park for 25 years and is the owner of Dallman Construction Company. Mr. Moreau was originally appointed to the EVBOA in May of 2010. Mr. Newsom has resided in Estes Park for 33 years, is the owner of Coldwell Banker Real Estate here in Estes Park, is a former Town of Estes Park Trustee, and has served on the Board of Adjustment for the past 25 years. Advantages: The positions will be filled. Disadvantages: If the appointments are not made, the positions would remain vacant until re-advertised and interviews are conducted. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Appointment 2 Action Recommended: Appoint Jeff Moreau and Wayne Newsom to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment to three year terms beginning March 1, 2015, and expiring on February 28, 2018. Budget: None. Level of Public Interest. Low. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the appointment of Jeff Moreau and Wayne Newsom to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment for three-year terms beginning March 1, 2015, and expiring on February 28, 2018. Page 1 FINANCE Memo To:Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Steve McFarland – Finance Officer Date: February 24th, 2015 RE: Financial Report for 4th Q 2014 Background: Attached is the Draft Financial Report through December 2014. With all of the Town’s financially-affected areas from the Flood, Staff decided to take a break from the usual dashboard reports to specifically discuss the major individual Funds. When the Budgets were developed, there were 2 presentation options. Projects could have been broken up into different years, which would have optimized the accuracy of the portrayal of projects and their cash flow. Instead, Capital and Flood repair projects as well as grant and reimbursement revenues were placed entirely in 2014. This gave the viewer an easy reference for what the total financial scope of a project was. In reality, very few of these projects were completed in 2014. This resulted in several funds (namely General, CRF, Light & Power, Water) being overstated in both revenues and expenditures. These Funds will need to be restated through Budget amendments, which Staff will bring to the Board in March 2015. It is extremely difficult to extract flood reimbursements and expenditures from the regular activity within the financial statements, as there are more than 400 flood-related line items. However, Staff is pleased to report that the Town came in under budget in all Funds, excepting the Medical Insurance Fund (the extraordinary nature of which has been discussed in the past). All Funds are solvent, and in fact all Funds have healthy fund balances, although we are closely monitoring the General Fund. Staff will discuss the Fund activity in more detail at the Board meeting. Page 2 FINANCE Memo Flood cost/reimbursement update Staff is working on an update for flood costs/reimbursements and will bring it to the Tuesday night Board meeting. Staff is expecting relevant information to come in over the weekend so is waiting on issuing the report. Concluding/Other thoughts 2014 has seen an ongoing financial “battle”, with terrific sales tax numbers bolstering the General Fund on one hand, while flood expenses coupled with slow-paced reimbursements have been a drain. At present, General Fund fund balance appears to be ~19% vs. the estimate Staff made in November of 18%. While Staff would love to take credit for this accuracy, it is in fact a fortuitous result of many line items moving in opposite directions. But, we will take what we can get in this era of financial uncertainty. Great care will need to be taken in 2015 as leadership determines to what projects to fund additional monies. The margin is thin on the General Fund, and the projects are large. Timely reimbursements from Federal and State agencies will be critical. Budget: N/A Staff Recommendation: N/A Sample Motion: N/A UPDATE:FinancialandSalesTaxReport(DRAFT– throughDec2014)SteveMcFarland–FinanceOfficer FINANCIALINDICATORSTOWNOFESTESPARK– THROUGHDEC31st,2014Revised2014 2014 %of 2013YearͲtoͲDate Budget budget YearͲtoͲDateREVENUESTaxes $9,875,642 $9,229,184 107.0% $8,639,392Other 2,808,353 5,982,255 46.9% 2,481,710 EDC/Police/ReimbsTransfersͲUtilities 1,513,961 1,507,596 100.4% 1,488,135TOTALREVENUES 14,197,956 16,719,035 84.9% 12,609,237EXPENSESGeneralGovernment 3,797,531 4,865,030 78.1% 3,336,466 EDCGrantͲ300kPublicSafety 5,167,730 5,505,110 93.9% 3,710,559 PoliceͲ300kEngineeringͲPublicWorks 2,071,245 3,009,260 68.8% 2,587,274 FloodrelatedprojectsCultureͲRecreation 1,039,429 1,243,650 83.6% 1,070,150 FloodrelatedprojectsInterfundTransfersOut 2,965,000 2,965,000 100.0% 3,180,000TOTALEXPENSES 15,040,935 17,588,050 85.5% 13,884,449NETINCREASE/DECREASE($842,979) ($869,015) ($1,275,212)FundBalance%19% 18% 36%GENERALFUND FINANCIALINDICATORSTOWNOFESTESPARK– THROUGHOct31st,2014COMMUNITYREINVESTMENTFUNDForeasyreference,majorprojects(MPEC,ParkingStructure)budgetedforcompletionin2014.Nothingoverbudgetin2014.Itemstoberestatedin2015:FLAPmoniesreceivedinFeb15.MPECrolloverof$830k.ParkingStructurerevenues/expensestobemovedto2015.ElmRoadnumberstoberevisedup$170k–finalestimatereceived. FINANCIALINDICATORSTOWNOFESTESPARK– THROUGHOct31st,2014OTHERITEMSOFSIGNIFICANCECommunityServicesFundunderbudget(netincome).Willbetransferring~$150ktoGeneralFundasCSFclosesout.OpenSpaceFundspentverylittlein2014– shouldcarryover~$300kinfundbalanceinto2015.NewFunds(EmergencyResponse,CommunityCenter,Trails,andStreets)broughtinover$1.8m,almostallofwhichiscarryingoverinto2015.Utilities:RevenuesfavorableExpendituresunderbudgetlargelybecausesomecapitalprojectsdidnotyetoccur. FINANCIALINDICATORSTOWNOFESTESPARK– THROUGHOct31st,2014OTHERITEMSOFSIGNIFICANCEInvestmentsfluctuatedbetween$28.1mand$28.5min4thQ.Thisisthesumofallofthefunds;thereforemost$restricted/committed.Interestrateshavebeenlevelat0.12%ͲFedsintimatenochangeonhorizon. SALESTAXFACTS•2014 (through December):•14.5% ahead of 2013.•7.0% ahead of 2014 budget.•24 CAST communities currently reporting:•2014 is another strong year. CASTCOMMUNITIES11.4%8.0%Ͳ6.7%10.2%16.7%5.8%5.1%14.4%5.1%14.6%7.4%6.7%9.0%6.2%2.2%16.7%6.7%9.2%6.4%5.0%Ͳ5.7%8.4%8.8%10.9%16.0%8.3%8.2%Ͳ10.0%Ͳ5.0%0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%2014v2013 CASTCOMMUNITIES CASTCOMMUNITIES SALESTAXRATEOFCHANGE NEWSALESTAXINFOONWEBSITE•www.colorado.gov/townofestespark•Updates to new funds•Emergency Response•Community Center•Trails•Streets•Five year history of General Fund•Sectors FLOOD UPDATEStaff will present a financial update at the Board meeting. Data is still being gathered at this time. Community Development Department Memo To:Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Tina Kurtz, Environmental Planner Date: February 24, 2015 RE: CDBG-DR Round 1 & 2 Infrastructure and FEMA HMGP Applications Objective: Update the Town Board on the status of grant applications for downtown flood mitigation. Specifically: Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Round 2 Infrastructure Grant application for the Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement project submitted Friday, February 13, 2015 FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) application due March 17, 2015 CDBG-DR Round 1 Infrastructure Grant Present Situation: Staff is operating with the following broad post-2013 flood objectives: Reduce number of properties in revised special flood hazard areas Increase resiliency to future flood events – involves construction, e.g., channel widening and bridge replacement (coordinated with Public Works) Pursue post-flood funding opportunities to implement the above objectives, knowing these are limited time opportunities and that the Town does not have funds to implement these objectives. In the downtown area, probability of future flooding is high and the consequences of flooding are severe. Future flood events may have an even more devastating impact on the downtown corridor than was experienced during the flood of 2013 without mitigation projects. Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement CDBG-DR Round 2 Infrastructure Grant Application The conveyance capacity of water under the Moraine Avenue Bridge is estimated to be 800 cubic feet per second (cfs). However, according to the best available information from a post-2013 flood study by CDOT, the estimated 100-yr peak flow on Fall River is 1,669 cfs. Based on these estimates, the bridge is only able to convey 48% of the 100- yr flood peak discharge. For reference, the 2013 flood peak discharge in Fall River was estimated at 1,100-1,200 cfs. The undersized condition of the bridge caused a backwatering situation due to the bridge being at capacity during the high flow period of the flood, which had an estimated peak discharge of 1,100-1,200 cfs. The bridge did not overtop because a significant amount of water had left the channel by the time the floodwater reached the bridge. The backwatering situation caused water to overtop the banks upstream of the bridge sending water down Weist Drive and Moraine Avenue and eventually onto East Elkhorn Avenue adding to the water already flowing down the street and into the buildings. Unless the bridge is replaced to have a conveyance capacity equal to the 100-yr flood discharge, future flooding will likely result in damage in excess of what occurred during the 2013 flood event. Still from video taken in the early morning of September 13, 2013 On February 13, the Community Development Department, in cooperation with the Public Works Department, submitted an application for the replacement of the Moraine Avenue Bridge to the Colorado Office of Emergency Management for CDBG-DR Round 2 Infrastructure Grant funds. The general purposes, objectives and outcomes of this bridge replacement project are to: 1. Reduce future flood risk in downtown Estes Park. 2. Create a strong and safer downtown to reduce loss of life and property. 3. Enable individuals and the community, including downtown as a whole, to recover more rapidly from future flood events. 4. Lessen the financial impact of flooding, i.e., reduce the risk of repetitive losses from flooding in downtown Estes Park. 5. Protect the safety and well-being of the citizens of the Estes Valley area and visitors. 6. Remove assets from hazard areas and reduce inundation depths by increasing flood conveyance. 7. Increase resiliency of the bridge, and thereby the Town, by designing and building it to convey the 100-yr flood discharge using the best available post-2013 flood data. The replacement of the Moraine Avenue Bridge to convey the CDOT estimated 100-yr. peak discharge of 1,669 cfs will contribute greatly to the resiliency of Estes Park and the entire Estes Valley area by preparing for the next flood event. Keeping a major transportation artery of the Town open during a flood event to provide emergency services and connectivity between the east and west parts of Town, in addition to keeping accessibility to Rocky Mountain National Park, will help the community not only during the event, but will increase the efficiency of post-flood recovery efforts. The replacement bridge will also keep Fall River floodwaters from inundating downtown business buildings, thereby helping maintain the economic health and vitality of the community. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Application The Community Development Department staff and Colorado Office of Emergency Management (OEM) staff are engaged in ongoing dialogue regarding the viability and eligibility of potential downtown infrastructure projects for funding through an HMGP grant. The grant application is due March 17, 2015. In August 2014, the Town submitted an HMGP application for $13.5 million for six downtown projects that was not funded. While the grant was not awarded in December, OEM notified staff that we could submit a revised/new application with a narrower scope. Since April 2014, Town staff has been thoroughly researching all possible projects that could benefit the community and fit within the HMGP guidelines. To date, we have found only one project that may fit with this program. We have learned that stand-alone projects previously identified in long-range stormwater master plans and long-range floodplain master plans may be the best fit for HMGP funding, such as purchase of repetitive loss properties in floodways and floodplains. This program is not geared toward drainage (system) wide solutions as is needed in the downtown, so there is a chance that staff will find that is not a viable funding opportunity. Through preparing the Fall River Plan for Resiliency and the August HMGP application, we collected valuable information about the magnitude of the problems downtown and identified potential projects to increase resiliency to future flood events. Staff are using this information to pursue other potential funding opportunities. CDBG-DR Round 1 Infrastructure Grant Award Last November, the Town was awarded approximately $1.25 million in funding through the CDBG-DR Round 1 Infrastructure Grant Program to use for the Town’s cost-share portion of the HMGP application submitted last August. The Town did not receive funding for the HMGP application, but did receive the cost-share funding from the CDBG-DR Round 1 Infrastructure Grant Program. Approximately $300,000 of the $1.25 million will be used for cost share reimbursement for Fish Creek infrastructure projects. In order to use the remaining funds, a project must be completed by March 2016 and meet the program requirements. Due to this short timeframe, Town staff are looking at the potential for implementation of the projects identified as a high priority in the Fall River Plan for Resiliency to meet the timeline and program requirements. Proposal: x This report is for informational purposes only. Advantages: x Replacement of the Moraine Avenue Bridge to convey the 100-yr discharge (1,669 cfs), will prevent floodwaters from overtopping and/or creating a backwater situation, both of which result in water running down Weist Drive and Moraine Avenue onto Elkhorn Avenue, causing additional flooding of buildings. In addition, it would keep Moraine Avenue, a vital transportation link, within the Town open during a 100-yr or less flood event. x If HMGP funding is obtained for flood mitigation projects, it would continue moving the Town closer to flood resiliency. x If CDBG-DR Round 1 Infrastructure funding is available for high priority flood mitigation projects, it would continue moving the Town closer to flood resiliency. Disadvantages: x Disruption to public transportation would occur if the bridge replacement projects are funded. Action Recommended: Not applicable at this time. If we identify a viable HMGP project, staff will be asking for support to submit an application to the Colorado Office of Emergency Management for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds at the March 10th Town Board meeting. Budget: The Town has requested $2 million dollars, which is a rough estimate of the cost of bridge replacement, from the CDBG-DR Round 2 Infrastructure Grant program for the replacement of the Moraine Avenue Bridge with no cost-share required from the Town. This project will be done in partnership with CDOT, which will include exploration of additional funding sources. The total of grants applied for/received is as follows: CDBG-DR Round 1 Infrastructure Grant Program - received $1.25 million CDBG-DR Round 2 Infrastructure Grant Program – requesting $2 million for replacement of Moraine Avenue Bridge HMGP March 17th submission – may request up to $3 million for infrastructure projects Total potential grant requests = $5 million Level of Public Interest High. Attachments: 1. CDBG-DR Round 2 Infrastructure Grant application for the Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement Project CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 2 of 20 PART A - NOI: APPLICANT INFORMATION 1.Applicant Legal Name: 2.FIPS Code: DUNS Number: 3.U.S. Congressional District: Congressman Name: 4.State Senatorial District: Senator Name: 5.State Legislative District: Representative Name: 6.Primary Point of Contact: The Primary Point of Contact is the person responsible for coordinating the implementation of this proposal, if approval is granted. Ms.Mr.Mrs.First Name:Last Name: Title:Organization: StreetAddress: City:State:Zip Code: Telephone:Fax:Mobile:E-mailAddress: 7.Alternate Point of Contact: The Alternate Point of Contact is the person that can address questions or concerns in the Primary Point of Contact’s absence. Ms.Mr.Mrs.First Name:Last Name: Title:Organization: StreetAddress: City:State:Zip Code: Telephone:Fax:Mobile:E-mailAddress: 8.Application Prepared by: Ms.Mr. Mr s.First Name:Last Name: Title:Organization: StreetAddress: City:State:Zip Code: Telephone:Fax:Mobile:E-mailAddress: 9.Authorized Applicant Agent: Ms.Mr. Mr s.First Name:Last Name: Title:Organization: StreetAddress: City:State:Zip Code: Telephone:Fax:Mobile:E-mailAddress: The Authorized Applicant Agent MUST be the chief executive officer, mayor, etc. This person must be able to sign contracts, authorize funding allocations or payments, etc. Town of Estes Park 08-25115 078355450 CO-2 Jarid Polis 15 Kevin Lundberg 49 Perry Buck ✔Greg Muhonen Director, Public Works Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue, P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park CO 80517 970-577-3581 970-586-6909 970-402-7400 gmuhonen@estes.org ✔Frank Lancaster Town Administrator Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue, P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park CO 80517 970-577-3705 970-586-2816 970-227-9444 flancaster@estes.org ✔Tina Kurtz Environmental Planner Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue, P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park CO 80517 970-577-3732 tkurtz@estes.org ✔William "Bill" Pinkham Mayor Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave, P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park CO 80517 970-586-0992 970-586-2816 970-443-7738 bpinkham@estes.org CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 3 of 20 PART A - NOI: PROJECT DESCRIPTION & NATIONAL OBJECTIVES MET 1.Project – Eligible Activity Description: Describe the proposed project. Explain how the proposed project will address recovery and/or resilience needs in your community either independently or as part of a larger project. Include a description of the desired outcome and the recovery objective(s) to be achieved. This narrative should describe the CDBG-DR Eligible Activity. 2.Site / Physical Location: Describe the area(s) affected/protected by this project, including location by complete street address and longitude and latitude (coordinates in decimal degrees). 3.Population Served:Briefly describe the demographics of the population served or protected by this project. Include the percent of the overall community population benefiting from this project. Explain your response. 4.Priority of this Project: If you are submitting more than one CDBG-DR Infrastructure NOI, what is the relative priority of this project? Please indicate the priority as: Priority # of ## Projects Submitted. Double check we have 5 This project involves removal and replacement of the Moraine Avenue (US Hwy. 36) Bridge over Fall River within the downtown area of Estes Park to convey the 100-yr flood discharge, estimated by CDOT post-2013 flood to be 1669 cubic feet per second (cfs). The current estimated conveyance capacity of this bridge is 800 cfs. Refer to narrative attachment for additional information Moraine Avenue Bridge coordinates: 40.375588, -105.523568 (decimal degrees), directly adjacent to and west of 130 Moraine Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517 Refer to narrative attachment for additional information If the Moraine Avenue bridge is not replaced so that it is able to convey the 100-yr peak discharge on Fall River, floodwaters will either overtop the bridge and/or cause extensive backwatering causing main roads to be shut down and flooding of the downtown business corridor, both of which will negatively impact the economic engine of the Estes Valley and the health, safety and welfare of persons within the Estes Valley. For this reason, this project will benefit the entire population of the Estes Valley, (approximately 12,000 residents), and visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) (approximately 3.4 million visitors in 2014). Refer to narrative attachment for additional information Priority #4 of 4 Projects Submitted. The first three are requests for Fish Creek infrastructure. CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 4 of 20 PART A – NOI: CDBG-DR FUNDING QUALIFICATIONS Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding can be approved for a project in which ALL of the following requirements are met The physical location of the activity must be within a county listed in Table 1 of the program Recover Colorado Infrastructure Grant Program Guidelines (Guidelines). 1.Connection to Disaster Recovery CDBG’s Disaster Recovery funds must be used for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, economic revitalization, and mitigation from future damages.. The activity must show a direct link to damages received during one or more of the events listed in Table 1 of the Guidelines. Please provide a brief explanation of how the proposed acquisition activity: (1) was a result of the disaster event; (2) will restore infrastructure or revitalize the economy; or will (3) mitigate future damages. 2.Compliance with National Objectives State recipients receiving allocations under the CDBG-DR program must certify that their projected use of funds will ensure, and maintain evidence, that each of its activities assisted with CDBG-DR funds meets at least one of the three National Objectives. a)Which of the National Objectives are met by proposed project? Will benefit low and moderate income (LMI) persons; or Will aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or Is an Urgent Need in which meet community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community where other financial resources are not available to meet such needs. b)How will the proposed project meet the above checked National Objective(s). The inability of the Moraine Avenue Bridge to convey the 50-year event floodwaters experienced during the September 2013 flood resulted in extensive backwatering and caused (1) main roads to be shut down and (2) the flooding of the downtown business corridor. This resulted in widespread damage downtown. Structure and content damages downtown were estimated at $3.2 million and income loss for downtown businesses was estimated at an additional $7 million four months immediately following the flood (September -December 2013). Mountain Outreach, a FEMA-funded flood recovery/mental health organization, spent hundreds of man-hours walking door-to-door obtaining this data from business owners on behalf of the Town. Refer to narrative attachment for additional information ✔ This project meets the Urgent Need National Objective and addresses LMI persons. The severely undersized Moraine Avenue Bridge poses a serious and immediate threat to the health and welfare of Estes Park. Refer to narrative attachment for additional information CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 5 of 20 3.Compliance with the primary objective.As indicated in the Guidelines: “A proposed project’s benefits to LMI persons will be an important factor in evaluating potential infrastructure projects. A total of 20% of the Recover Colorado Infrastructure project funding must benefit LMI persons. Due to the very low percentage of LMI projects submitted in the first round of infrastructure funding, it is estimated that approximately 25% to 30% of the funding available in this second allocation must meet the LMI requirement to make up for the deficit.” This section does not need to be completed if the project does not meet this National Objective. The primary objective for using CDBG Disaster Recovery funds is benefitting, byat least 51 percent, persons of low and moderate income. The following section provides the information necessary to complete this requirement. a)Is the proposed activity: jurisdiction wide specified target area If you checked specified target area, which data source was used? (Note: select the smallest unit of Census data that encompasses your proposed target area.) b)Enter the number of households involved in the proposed project. c)In the space below, describe how the applicant will comply with the requirement that at least 51 percent of CDBG-DR dollars will principally benefit low- and moderate-income households and persons. d)Enter the number of households within each income category expected to benefit from the proposed project. Incomes above 80% of the County Median .................................. Incomes above 50% and up to 80% of the County Median.......... Incomes at or below 50% of the County Median.......................... e)Which type of income was used to determine the above? (Check only one) $VGHWHUPLQHGE\WKH$PHULFDQ&RPPXQLW\6XUYH\ 3XEOLF)DFLOLWLHVSURMHFWV Annual income as defined for Public Housing and Section 8 Annual income as reported under the Census long form Adjusted gross income as defined for reporting under IRS CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 6 of 20 PART A - NOI: COMPREHENSIVE RISK ANALYSIS INFORMATION 1.Community Hazards Review: Please list and briefly describe in rank order of importance the natural or man-made hazards in your (the Applicant’s) service area. 2.High Risk Hazards Addressed by the Project: Describe how, and the degree to which, the proposed project mitigates high risk hazards. Include damage history, source and type of problem, frequency of event(s), and severity of damage information, if available. Hazard 1 Hazard 2 a. Hazard 1 – Flooding Flooding is not infrequent in Estes Park, due to the variability of mountain snowmelt conditions and the short duration, intense thunderstorms area common in the summer months. Estes Park has experienced two flood events that were presidentially declared disasters - the Lawn Lake flood in 1982, caused by failure of an earthen dam in Rocky Mountain National Park and the September 2013 flood event, caused by an excessive long-duration rain event. Refer to narrative attachment for additional information Refer to narrative attachment for additional information Refer to narrative attachment for additional information CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 7 of 20 Hazard 3 Note: If your proposed project addresses more than three Hazards, please provide that information as an attachment. 3.Elimination of Risk: Does the proposed project result in the elimination of a hazard from your (the Applicant’s) service area? If so, please describe. If not, please estimate the degree to which this project will mitigate the risk from the hazards identified in Item #2. 4.Environmental Quality Improvements: Does the proposed project result in an improvement in the quality of the natural environment in your (the Applicant’s) service area? If so, please describe. 5.Climate Change Improvements:Does the proposed project reduce or ameliorate a projected impact of climate change in Colorado? If so, please briefly describe the benefit of the project. Refer to narrative attachment for additional information When the Moraine Avenue Bridge is replaced and able to convey the correct capacity, this will in turn allow for a more natural river processes in the channel upstream and downstream. This will allow for more natural river conditions and more human interaction with the river because the riverwalk trail can be relocated under the bridge. Refer to narrative attachment for additional information Yes. Estes Park’s neighbor, RMNP has studied climate change in depth. Climate change may result in more extreme spring temperatures causing faster snow-melts and higher peak discharges during spring-runoff. Refer to narrative attachment for additional information CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 8 of 20 6.Community Process: Does the proposed project include a community planning or involvement process that increases community resiliency? If so, please briefly describe the process. 7.Reduction in the Costs of Future Response or Recovery : Will the proposed project result in a reduction in the cost of response or recovery from an incident occurring due to one or more of the hazards identified in Item #1 or #2? If so, please briefly describe how response or recovery costs will be reduced. 8.Floodplain/Floodway/Substantially Damaged Properties: Does the proposed project include a property or properties located in a floodway or floodplain; or not located in a regulatory floodplain but which were substantially damaged or have a history of damage from at least two disaster events? If so, please identify those properties below. 9.Mitigation Planning: Does your community have a current FEMA approved multi-hazard mitigation plan? Yes No Location of proposed project in mitigation plan strategies: Page Section/Part Is the community a member of good standing with the National Flood Insurance Program? Yes No Yes. Public outreach for this project will be a continuance of the extensive outreach conducted during Fall River Corridor Plan for Resiliency (aka Master Plan) development, finalized in early 2015. Through ongoing education and outreach, the plan was designed to: (1) foster consensus-driven and technically sound resiliency solutions for Fall River; (2) serve as a technical reference for final design, construction, and project prioritization; (3) define a vision for resiliency and identify goals to achieve that vision. This plan identified the need to replace the Moraine Avenue bridge. Refer to narrative attachment for additional information Replacement of the Moraine Avenue Bridge will eliminate the threat of 100-yr or less floodwaters overtopping and/or backwatering, which causes the bridge to be closed to traffic and floodwaters to be routed to the downtown area and through businesses, will result in cost reductions in response and recovery from a future flood event. Refer to narrative attachment for additional information The project does not include any properties currently located in a floodway or regulatory floodplain or properties that were substantially damaged. However, the “current” FEMA Flood Insurance Study is approximately 30 years old. Refer to narrative attachment for additional information ✔ 96 4 ✔ CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 9 of 20 10.Community Plan Compliance:Does the proposed project comply with and/or address an issue recognized in key community plans? Key plans include, but are not limited to : a Comprehensive Master Plan, a Stormwater Management Plan, a Hazard Mitigation Plans, or key community codes. If so, please describe how the project integrates into the plan(s). 11.Environmental / Historic Preservation Issues: Please describe any significant environmental, historic, or cultural features that may be affected by the project. Please also describe any features that may be improved by the project. 12.Permitting: Please list the local, state, and federal permits that will be required to complete this project. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan: Moraine Avenue Bridge replacement is compatible with the vision for downtown, articulated in the 1996 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. This vision includes, but is not limited to the following, the downtown will: 1. Serve as a key economic engine for the Town of Estes Park and the Valley. 2. Maintain the downtown’s function as the Estes Valley’s focal point of guest shopping and entertainment activity. 3. Develop in ways that integrate and even enhance the qualities of the streams, rivers, topography and other natural assets of the area. Refer to narrative attachment for additional information During the summer of 2014, the Town of Estes Park thoroughly evaluated Environmental/Historic Preservations issues in downtown Estes Park, including the Moraine Avenue Bridge area. Based on this evaluation, which includes hundreds of pages of analysis and maps, there are no known significant environmental, historic, or cultural features that may be negatively affected by the Moraine Avenue Bridge replacement project. Refer to narrative attachment for additional information Town of Estes Park will apply for and obtain all required permits, which may include but are not limited to: Federal Permits: (1) Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or New Study; (2) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); (3) Section 404 to include threatened and endangered (T&E) species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); (4) Section 404 to include historic and cultural issues under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); (5) Section 404 to include annual monitoring for the typically required five year period; (6) FHWA Categorical Exclusion Refer to narrative attachment for additional information CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 10 of 20 13.Community Resilience: Please describe how this project will increase the resilience of your community. As defined in the Guidelines:“Resilience incorporates hazard mitigation and land use planning strategies; critical infrastructure, environmental and cultural resource protection; and sustainability practices to reconstruct the built environment, and revitalize the economic, social, and natural environments.” 14.Maps Please attach the following maps with the project site and structures marked on the map. Use SAME ID number as in the Individual Property Worksheets. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). If the FIRM for your area is not published, please attach a copy of the Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM). City or county scale map (large enough to show the entire project area) USGS 1:24,000 topo map Parcel Map (Tax Map, Property Identification Map, etc.) Overview photographs. The photographs should be representative of the project area, including any relevant streams, creeks, rivers, etc., and drainage areas which affect the project site of will be affected by the project. 15.Additional Comments (Optional): Enter any additional comments related to the proposed project’s ability to reduce hazard risk and increase community resiliency. When the Moraine Avenue Bridge is replaced and able to convey the correct capacity, this will in turn allow for a more natural river processes in the channel upstream and downstream. This will allow for more natural river conditions and more human interaction with the river because the riverwalk trail can be relocated under the bridge. Refer to narrative attachment for additional information ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ None CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 11 of 20 PART A - NOI: DECISION MAKING PROCESS 1.Decision-Making Process: Describe the process you used to decide that this project is the best solution to the problem. Explain why this project is the best alternative you considered. Address questions such as: x Are you focusing on the area in your community that has the greatest potential for losses? x Have you considered the risks to critical facilities and structures and benefits to be obtained by mitigating this vulnerability? x Have you considered those areas or projects that present the greatest opportunities given the current situation(s) of interest in your community? x Are you addressing a symptom or the source of the problem? Addressing the source of the problem is a long-term solution which provides the most mitigation benefits. x If impacts to the environment, natural, cultural or historic resources have been identified, explain how your alternatives and proposed project address, minimize, or avoid these impacts. 2.Acquisition Projects - Describe the community’s methodology for selecting the properties to be acquired in this application and how each is ranked (highest to lowest): Yes, downtown has the greatest potential for losses. The Town began assessing needs and considering possible projects since January 2014, when the Town contracted with the Walsh Team as Master Planners for the Fall River corridor. Refer to narrative attachment for additional information Not applicable CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 12 of 20 PART A - NOI: SCOPE OF WORK / BUDGET OVERVIEW / FINANICAL FACTORS 1.Project Scope: Please provide a comprehensive and detailed description of the scope of the proposed project. Describe each of the project components and the steps necessary to complete that work. If the proposed project is a funding match for another disaster recovery or infrastructure development program, please identify the agency, program funds, and project reference number that CDBG-DR funding is intended to support. Also describe any critical deadlines that must be met to accomplish this work. 2.Community Priority: Please describe why this project is a priority for your organization. The goal of the Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement project is to reduce hazards to downtown by reducing the number of assets (structures, bridges) located within flood or geomorphic hazard areas and to reduce inundation depths at assets during both large, infrequent flood events (100-, 500-year) and smaller, more frequent events (10-, 50-year). The Moraine Avenue bridge is a CDOT bridge, which is located approximately mid-way along the Waterwheel to Confluence reach. Refer to narrative attachment for additional information The Town of Estes Park has carefully and thoroughly considered those areas and projects that represent the greatest opportunities to reduce flood risk and determined that reducing risk in the area of the community that has the greatest potential for future flood losses, i.e. the downtown, is the highest priority. Downtown Estes Park is vital to the economic health and well-being of the entire Estes Valley, the region and the State of Colorado. It is the primary place tourists frequent and spend money. Refer to narrative attachment for additional information CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 13 of 20 3.Project Cost Summary: Please summarize the major cost components of the project. Please round all values to the nearest dollar. i.Total of a-h j.Duplication of Benefits (if unknown at time of application enter zero).$ k.Subtract j. from i. to determine Total Project Cost $ Notes: Housing Program Assistance costs include the cost of compliance with Uniform Relocation Assistance (URA) and Comparable Housing Assistance (CHA) requirements. Project Delivery Costs include the costs of project delivery by the sponsoring organization but do not include administrative overhead. 5.Basis of Cost Estimate: Briefly describe how the cost estimates listed in #3 above were developed (e.g. lump sum, unit cost, quotation, etc.). 6.Project Management: Describe how you will manage the costs and schedule, and how you will ensure successful performance. Note: The applicant must agree to furnish quarterly reports during the entire time the project is in active status. Quarters end on March 31st, June 30th, September 30th, and December 31st. Reports are due to the State within 15 days after the end of each quarter.) a.Planning / Engineering / Design $ b.Environmental Compliance $ c.Real Property Acquisition / Demolition $ The value of general and/or professional labor wages must be tabulated in accordance with the Davis Bacon Act of 1931 $ $ $ e. f. g. h. Closing Costs / Legal Fees Housing Program Assistance Construction Costs Project Delivery Costs Other (specifybelow) $ $ $ 4.Total Project Cost Allocations Proposed ProjectTotal Cost:$ Federal Cost Share: $ State Cost Share: $ Local Cost Share $ 181,000.00 108,000.00 65,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 1,208,000.00 100,000.00 333,000.00 20% Contingency 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 Unit cost for bridge replacement:$350/SF x 36' x 80' = $1,008,000 15% Design Engineering, 6% construction management Channel wall transitions: lump sum 4C$50K each = $200K, 2% escalation $15/SF Commercial property acquisition A qualified bridge engineering design firm will be hired to design and manage the planning, design, and bidding of the project. The same firm will likely be retained to perform the construction management. CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 14 of 20 7.Project Maintenance Requirements:The following questions are to give assurance on the project’s maintenance over its useful life. Please answer each question and give a brief explanation. a. If the project involves the acquisition of real property, what is the proposed land use after acquisition? (i.e., Agriculture, Recreation, Vacant Land, Park, Wetlands, etc.) b.Will the project require periodic maintenance? c.If yes, who will provide the maintenance? d.What is the estimated cost of maintenance on an annual basis? Note: Cost of maintenance is considered an application prioritization weighting factor. Projects with high maintenance costs have a greater risk of future failure due to deferred maintenance. Therefore, the responses provided above should be as complete and verifiable as possible in order to minimize the likelihood of ranking point reductions due to maintenance concerns. 8.Additional Comments:Enter any additional comments related to the proposed project’s funding, if desired . 9.Financial / Fiscal Health Factors: Please indicate the total budget (all funds) of your organization. Please describe the impact of disaster recovery efforts to date on this budget. In addition, if this objective is selected based on the local governments inability to finance the activity, the municipality must also include in the application package a resolution stating this fact and supporting documentation such as budgetary information, a description of TABOR restrictions, and the most recent audit report or approved exemption from audit. New, expanded river channel Yes Town of Estes Park Public Works Department working in partnership with CDOT $ 8,000.00 Estimated maintenance cost: $8,000.00 For street sweeping, snow removal, channel maintenance, and pavement maintenance Total 2015 budget for all funds: $47,676,546 Refer to narrative attachment for additional information CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 15 of 20 PART B – APPLICATION: PROJECT MILESTONES / TIMELINES / TASKS 1.Timeline / Tasks Insert the proposed work schedule as tasks to accomplish the overall goal of the proposed activity (i.e., appraisals, title search, closing, etc.), and provide a description of the task’s purpose. This timeline will be used as a measurement tool for progress in the project’s implementation and is included in the required Quarterly Reports. Also, FEMA uses the timeline for determining the approved period of performance. It will be the basis used to justify delays or extensions, if necessary, and should be estimated carefully. The first and last entries are state requirements and have already been entered. Task 1: Timeframe: Task 2:Timeframe: Task 3:Timeframe: Task 4:Timeframe: Task 5:Timeframe: Task 6:Timeframe: Task 7:Timeframe: Task 8:Timeframe: Task 9:Timeframe: Task 10: Timeframe: Total Project Timeframe: Final Inspection Report and Project Closeout The Final Inspection Report is a review of the activity’s paper documentation, showing the project was implemented as required. Once the review is completed,the report and findings will be provided to the grantee for review and concurrence. The State submits the concurrence to FEMA as part of a closeout package to formally 3 Months CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 16 of 20 2.Start Date & Pre-Award Costs: The start date for any project begins upon GRANT AGREEMENT approval by the State Controller. If a different start date or timeframe is needed, provide an explanation below. Also indicate if any pre- award activities or costs have been incurred or authorized. CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 17 of 20 Please note that Part B is required for the final Application submittal. Part B sections may optionally be completed and submitted with the NOI. Please update any Part A section information when submitting you full Application. PART B – APPLICATION: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 1.Environmental Review Background Information & Environmental Review Worksheet: In accordance with 24 CFR Part 58.22 (see below), all federally funded projects must accomplish an environmental review prior to beginning any work on a project. These HUD regulations are in place for two purposes: 1. To ensure federal funds are used to place people of low and moderate income in environmentally safe conditions; and 2. To ensure federal funds are NOT used to negatively impact environmental conditions that exist near a project site. _____________________________________________________________ Please note the following limitations on CDBG-DR grant activities pending environmental clearance per 24 CFR Part 58.22. (a) Neither a recipient nor any participant in the development process, including public or private nonprofit or for-profit entities, or any of their contractors, may commit HUD assistance under a program listed in Sec. 58.1(b) on an activity or project until HUD or the state has approved the recipient's RROF and the related certification from the responsible entity. In addition, until the RROF and the related certification have been approved, neither a recipient nor any participant in the development process may commit non-HUD funds on or undertake an activity or project under a program listed in Sec. 58.1(b) if the activity or project would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. (b) N/A for DOLA/CDPS projects. (c) If a recipient is considering an application from a prospective sub-recipient or beneficiary and is aware that the prospective sub-recipient or beneficiary is about to take an action within the jurisdiction of the recipient that is prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section, then the recipient will take appropriate action to ensure that the objectives and procedures of NEPA are achieved. (d) An option agreement on a proposed site or property is allowable prior to the completion of the environmental review if the option agreement is subject to a determination by the recipient on the desirability of the property for the project as a result of the completion of the environmental review in accordance with this part and the cost of the option is a nominal portion of the purchase price. There is no constraint on the purchase of an option by third parties that have not been selected for HUD funding, have no responsibility for the environmental review and have no say in the approval or disapproval of the project. (e) Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP). In accordance with section 11(d)(2)(A) of the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 12805 note), an organization, consortium, or affiliate receiving assistance under the SHOP program may advance non-grant funds to acquire land prior to completion of an environmental review and approval of a Request for Release of Funds (RROF) and certification, notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section. Any advances to acquire land prior to approval of the RROF and certification are made at the risk of the organization, consortium, or affiliate and reimbursement for such advances may depend on the result of the environmental review. This authorization is limited to the SHOP program only and all other forms of HUD assistance are subject to the limitations in paragraph (a) of this section. (f) Relocation. Funds may be committed for relocation assistance before the approval of the RROF and related certification for the project provided that the relocation assistance is required by 24 CFR part 42. CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 18 of 20 Environmental Review Worksheet Check ALL of the activities listed below that will be included as part of the project, REGARDLESS OF THE FUNDING SOURCE: EXEMPTExhibit IV-A(identified in the award letter)F Information and financial services F Administrative and management activities F Environmental and other studies, resource identification, and the development of plans and strategies F Most engineering and design costs associated with eligible projects F Inspections and testing of properties for hazards or defects F Project planning F Purchase of insurance F Purchase of tools F Technical assistance and training F Interim assistance to arrest the effects of an imminent threat or physical deterioration in which the assistance does not alter environmental conditions. F Public services that will not have a physical impact or result in any physical changes (e.g., employment, child care, health, education, counseling, welfare) F Assistance for temporary or permanent improvements that do not alter environmental conditions and are limited to protection, repair, or restoration activities necessary only to control or arrest the effects from disasters or imminent threats to public safety including those resulting from physical deterioration (Must also complete the Regulatory Checklist at the end of Exhibit IV-A)CENSTExhibit IV-BF Operating costs (e.g., maintenance, security, operation, utilities, furnishings, equipment, supplies, staff training and recruitment, other incidental costs) F Relocation costs CESTExhibit IV-CF Acquisition, repair, improvement, reconstruction, or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements are in place and will be retained in the same use without change in size or capacity of more than 20 percent F Special projects directed to the removal of material and architectural barriers that restrict the mobility of and accessibility to elderly and handicapped persons F Acquisition (including leasing) or disposition of, or equity loans on, an existing structure F Acquisition (including leasing) of vacant land provided the structure or land acquired, financed, or disposed of will be retained for the same use EAExhibit IV-DF Acquisition, repair, improvement, reconstruction, or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements are in place, but will change in size or capacity of more than 20 percent F Acquisition, repair, improvement, reconstruction, or rehabilitation when the facilities and improvements are in place, but will involve a change in land use, such as from non-residential to residential, commercial to industrial, or from one industrial use to another F Demolition F New construction This checklist must be included with the CDBG application. Please direct questions to the appropriate contact person below: DOLA/DLG DHSEM Tamra Norton, Environmental Compliance Officer Department of Local Affairs 1313 Sherman Street, Room 521, Denver, CO 80203 303-866-6398 tamra.norton@state.co.us Steven Boand, State Disaster Recovery Manager Department of Public Safety Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 9195 E Mineral Ave, Suite 200 Centennial, CO 80112 720.852.6713 steven.boand@state.co.us DPS/DOLA USE ONLY: Required level of environmental review: { Exempt { CENST { CEST {EA Reviewed by: __________ Date of Review: __________ CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 19 of 20 2.Supplemental Environmental Review Information Enter any additional comments related to environmental concerns for the proposed project if desired. Please list and attach any documents or studies that have been prepared that support the Environmental Review Worksheet responses. CDBG-DR Infrastructure Application Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Attach any continuations or additional items as an Attachment to the electronic application and e-mail submittal. Page 20 of 20 PART B – APPLICATION: DETAILED PROJECT BUDGET 1.Detailed Project Budget: Please enter or attach a detailed and comprehensive final proposed budget for the project. Please note that CDBG-DR funds may be limited to the amount submitted with the NOI pending the availability of additional funding Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND NATIONAL OBJECTIVES MET 11. Project – Eligible Activity Description: Describe the proposed project. Expla in how the proposed project will address recovery a nd/or resilience needs in your community either independently or as part of a la rg er project. Include a description of the desired outcome and the recovery objective(s) to be a chieved. This narrative should describe the CDBG-DR Elig ible Activity. This project involves removal and replacement of the Moraine Avenue (US Hwy. 36) Bridge over Fall River within the downtown area of Estes Park to convey the 100-yr flood discharge, estimated by CDOT post-2013 flood to be 1669 cubic feet per second (cfs). The current estimated conveyance capacity of this bridge is 800 cfs. Replacement of this bridge to convey the 100-yr discharge will prevent floodwaters from overtopping and/or creating a backwater situation, both of which result in water running down Moraine Avenue onto Elkhorn Avenue, the main downtown business corridor, and then into downtown buildings in addition to flooding the adjacent buildings. During the 2013 flood, this scenario happened due to a backwatering situation. The bridge did not overtop during the flood, which was estimated to have an estimated discharge of 1,100 to 1,200 cfs, because a significant amount of the floodwater had left the channel by the time the water reached the bridge. However, there was enough water still in the channel that it filled the bridge to capacity. This resulted in water backing-up in the channel upstream of the bridge causing it to overtop the walkway on the channel bank, resulting in water flowing down Moraine Avenue to Elkhorn Avenue (the main street through the downtown corridor) adding to the water already flowing down Elkhorn Avenue exacerbating the downtown flooding damage. Many of the buildings in the downtown area received heavy amounts of water and mud during the 2013 flood. Future flood events will have an even more devastating impact on the downtown corridor than was experienced during the flood of 2013 without mitigation projects, such as the replacement of the Moraine Avenue Bridge. If peak discharge flows for a 100-yr flood event are revised to the volume the preliminary hydrologic data indicates, which for Fall River is 1,669 cfs, and the bridge is not replaced, it will be one of the causes of buildings within the downtown corridor, including Town Hall which is a critical facility, being included in the regulatory floodplain (see Map 1). None of the buildings in the downtown corridor are currently in the regulatory floodplain (based on the Town of Estes Park’s current Flood Insurance Study). Inclusion in the regulatory floodplain will have a significant detrimental economic impact on businesses due to the exorbitant costs of flood insurance premiums. This would no doubt put a number of downtown businesses out of business. Those working in the lower wage service industry downtown would lose their jobs. Without a business to operate, owners and families face moving out of Estes to seek work elsewhere. The loss of sales tax revenue to the Town from core CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 1 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement businesses (63% of the Town budget comes from sales tax) would challenge the Town’s ability to offer basic services. The ripple effect of this for Estes Park, the region and the State of Colorado could be significant. Moraine Avenue is one of the main thoroughfares within the Town of Estes Park. It connects the downtown with the Beaver Meadows entrance to Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), which is the most popular entrance station. During the tourist season (May through October), there is a heavy traffic volume over this bridge. The bridge also serves as the primary link between the eastern and western parts of the town, making it an important route for emergency services and the economic viability of those businesses west of the bridge. When the bridge is overtopped, damaged by floodwaters or flood debris or has to be otherwise closed due to flooding, this critical link (Moraine Avenue access) will be severed until the water recedes or repairs are made. Given the above negative consequences from the severely undersized Moraine Avenue Bridge, which can only convey 48% of the estimated 100-yr peak discharge of 1,669 cfs, it is imperative that it be replaced to increase the resiliency of the Town of Estes Park for future flood events. The general purposes, including the intended outcomes and objectives, of this bridge replacement project are: 1. Reduce future flood risk in downtown Estes Park. 2. Create a strong and safer downtown to reduce loss of life and property. 3. Enable individuals and the community, including downtown as a whole, to recover more rapidly from future flood events. 4. Lessen the financial impact of flooding, i.e., reduce the risk of repetitive losses from flooding in downtown Estes Park. 5. Protect the safety and well-being of the citizens of the Estes Valley area and visitors. 6. Remove assets from hazard areas and reduce inundation depths by increasing flood conveyance. 7. Increase resiliency of the bridge, and thereby the Town, by designing and building it to convey the 100-yr flood discharge using the best available post-2013 flood data. The specific outcome and objective of this project is for the replacement bridge to be built to adequate dimensions to be able to convey the CDOT estimated 100-yr floodwater volume of 1,669 cfs for the Fall River without overtopping or creating a backwatering condition that would (1) send flood waters down Moraine Avenue to Elkhorn Avenue resulting in flooding downtown buildings and (2) close the road thereby cutting off a main thoroughfare through town. Following the recommendation from FEMA, the Town is using the recent hydrology report from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) as the best available hydrologic information for flood recovery project implementation, such as the Moraine Avenue Bridge. The first phase will entail hydrology studies and detailed engineering analysis and design to address the current unknowns and assumptions. Detailed hydrologic analysis will be conducted to refine the assumed discharge values. This will include data collection and base mapping as well as other data such as aerial photography, land use mapping, and other pertinent GIS data such as hydrography. Detailed CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 2 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement hydraulic models will be developed and floodplain and geomorphic analysis will also be conducted. The Town has applied for a CDBG-DR Planning grant to do a hydrology and hydraulics study on Fall River. If the Town is successful in obtaining this grant, the information obtained from the study will be used for this project. Using best available base mapping, new field data, master plan data, and final hydraulic and geomorphic assessment results, construction documents (CDs) will be developed. Construction drawings will detail design of the landform, grading, channel modifications, in-stream structures, soil amendments, native plant communities, and bank stabilization techniques including traditional and bioengineered / biotechnical treatments as appropriate. If the CDBG-DR Planning grant application is not funded, the Town will request that the Fall River hydrology and hydraulics necessary for construction of the Moraine Avenue Bridge be funded through this grant, as discussed in Task 3 and included in the cost estimates. The finalized detailed design developed in phase one will be submitted to FEMA and other relevant agencies for approval prior the implementation of the mitigation projects themselves (Phase 2). When implemented, this project will significantly reduce the risk of flooding throughout this portion of the commercial downtown corridor of Estes Park making a significant contribution to protecting the economic engine of the town and thus the well-being of its citizens. Furthermore it will prevent buildings in the downtown corridor from being placed in the 100-yr regulatory floodplain. It is important to note that additional harm would be unlikely to occur to other properties or property owners by replacement of the bridge. Had the Moraine Avenue Bridge had adequate conveyance capacity, the 50-year flood waters in Fall River during the 2013 flood would have remained in the channel reach between the Moraine Ave Bridge and the confluence of Fall River and Big Thompson River (see maps for location reference) and, if the capacity of the channel in this reach was not adequate, the excess floodwater would have flowed into a municipal parking lot within this stretch. This municipal parking lot serves, and will continue to serve, as an overflow storage area for floodwaters. However, because the bridge was incapable of conveying the amount of 2013 flood water in the channel, it caused backwatering which directed flood waters into and through the downtown area where it finally returned to the river via flowing through and between the downtown buildings. In addition to reducing the risk of downtown flooding, replacement of the bridge to convey the 100-yr flood volume, will prevent two of the primary roads in Town (Elkhorn and Moraine) from having to close to regular traffic and even more importantly emergency vehicles. Detour routes when streets are flooded can increase response times by 10 or more minutes. Keeping these streets open will also keep Rocky Mountain National Park accessible to visitors who contribute to the local economy. Overall, the replacement of the Moraine Avenue Bridge to be able to convey the CDOT estimated 100- yr. peak discharge will contribute greatly to the resiliency of Estes Park and the entire Estes Valley area by preparing for the next flood event. Keeping a major transportation artery of the Town open during a flood event to provide emergency services and connectivity between the east and west parts of Town, in addition to keeping accessibility to Rocky Mountain National Park, will help the community not only during the event, but will increase the efficiency of post-flood recovery efforts. The replacement bridge will also keep floodwaters from that portion of Fall River from inundating downtown business buildings, which are vital to the economic health and vitality of the community. The replacement bridge will be a major step forward in addressing resiliency to future flood events in Estes Park. CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 3 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement 22. Site / Physica l Location: Describe the area (s) affected/protected by this project, including location by complete street address and long itude and la titude (coordina tes in decima l degrees). Moraine Avenue Bridge coordinates: 40.375588, -105.523568 (decimal degrees), directly adjacent to and west of 130 Moraine Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517 3. Population Served: Briefly describe the demographics of the population served or protected by this project. Include the percent of the overall community population benefiting from this project. Expla in your response. If the Moraine Avenue Bridge is not replaced so that it is able to convey the CDOT estimated 100-yr peak discharge on Fall River of 1,669 cubic feet per second (cfs), floodwaters will either overtop the bridge and/or cause extensive backwatering causing main roads to be shut down and flooding of the downtown business corridor, both of which will negatively impact the economic engine of the Estes Valley and the health, safety and welfare of persons within the Estes Valley. For this reason, this project will benefit the entire population of the Estes Valley, (approximately 12,000 residents), and visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) (approximately 3.4 million visitors in 2014). Downtown Estes Park is unique in that all but a couple businesses are locally-owned and operated small retail and restaurant businesses. This is part of the charm of Estes Park, but also part of the challenge during a flood. Business owners do not have the resources of large corporations to help them recover from flood events. After the 2013 flood many businesses closed for months to complete flood repairs. While closed, business had no income and large repair expenses. Business owners struggled to stay afloat in our seasonal economy. Many received support from community members and United Way, and a few obtained Small Business Administration loans. Compounding this problem, these service sector businesses employ low-wage workers, including waiters, kitchen staff, and retail clerks. Workers lost their jobs, could not wait months for their jobs to resume and were forced to move from Estes Park, and did not return. Since Estes Park is an isolated community, families often moved 100 or more miles away. Families and the fabric of the community were uprooted. The emotional toll is still felt today. The low-wage workers that have remained in Estes Park and the current downtown business owners continue to face challenges related to future flooding and the potential of buildings downtown being included within the projected new 100-yr regulatory floodplain boundaries. This designation would result in business owners having to purchase expensive flood insurance placing a very heavy financial burden on them, and for some it would be too heavy of a burden to bear. Another damaging flood event downtown would likely result in the loss of multiple businesses downtown, as occurred due to the 2013 flood. All of this would result in not only low-wage service workers losing their jobs; it would be likely that the business owners who lost their businesses would look elsewhere for new income opportunities. The loss of workers, business owners and the resultant tax income loss for the Town would have an overall detrimental impact on the Estes Valley. CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 4 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement Replacing the Moraine Avenue Bridge will reduce the risk of flood damage to the downtown businesses and the resultant loss of employment and business owners. In addition, it will lessen the chances of buildings downtown being included in the 100-yr regulatory floodplain, thereby reducing the financial burden of flood insurance premiums on business owners. The downtown and the location of the Moraine Avenue Bridge includes two Census Block Groups, with a minority population of 24% and 12%, an elderly population of 20% and 28%, and a median income of $46,032 and $65,349 (refer to Map 2 -Census Block data). In summary, the population that would be served and protected by this project includes approximately 12,000 residents of the Estes Valley area, 3.4 million annual visitors to RMNP, and the downtown business owners and their customers. The project location and focus is the downtown area which has the greatest potential for losses. Downtown Estes Park is vital to the economic health and well-being of the entire Estes Valley area, the region, and the State of Colorado. It is the primary place tourists frequent and spend money. This was evidenced during the flood of 2013 when sales tax receipts were down 45 percent in September and 18 percent in October, which are “shoulder months” that local businesses rely on to survive for the year. Visit Estes Park has worked to market these months and the visitation rates have been steadily increasing as guests come to see the fall colors and the elk rutting season. The ripple effect of this is significant including the impact to the region and state and schools. Without the core businesses providing sales tax to the Town (63% of the Town budget comes from sales tax), the Town will struggle to continue to offer basic services. CDBG-DR FUNDING QUALIFICATIONS 11. Connection to Disaster Recovery: CDBG’s Disa ster Recovery funds must be used for necessary expenses rela ted to disa ster relief, long -term recovery, restora tion of infra structure a nd housing , economic revita lization, and mitigation from future dama ges. The activity must show a direct link to da mag es received during one or more of the events listed in Table 1 of the Guidelines. Plea se provide a brief explanation of how the proposed a cquisition activity: (1) wa s a result of the disaster event; (2) will restore infra structure or revita lize the economy; or will (3) mitig a te future damages. The inability of the Moraine Avenue Bridge to convey the floodwaters experienced during the September 2013 flood resulted in extensive backwatering and caused (1) two main roads through downtown to be shut down and (2) the flooding of the downtown business corridor. This resulted in widespread damage downtown. Structure and content damages downtown were estimated at $3.2 million and income loss for downtown businesses was estimated at an additional $7 million for the four months immediately following the flood (September -December 2013). Mountain Outreach, a FEMA- funded flood recovery/mental health organization, spent hundreds of man-hours walking door-to-door obtaining this data from business owners on behalf of the Town. Had the Moraine Avenue Bridge had adequate conveyance capacity, the 50-year flood waters in Fall River during the 2013 flood would have remained in the channel (the reach between the Moraine Ave Bridge and the confluence of Fall River and Big Thompson River – see maps for location reference) and, if the capacity of the channel downstream of the bridge was not adequate, the excess floodwater would have flowed into a municipal parking lot within this stretch. This municipal parking lot serves, and will CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 5 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement continue to serve, as an overflow storage area for floodwaters. However, because the bridge was incapable of conveying the amount of 2013 flood water in the channel, it caused backwatering which directed flood waters into and through the downtown area where it finally returned to the river via flowing through and between the downtown buildings. This adverse economic impact was caused by flows estimated to be approximately 1100 -1200 cfs in Fall River. This is approximately 66% of the 100-yr peak discharge of 1669 cfs, as determined by CDOT. Damage from a 100-yr flood event would be expected to be significantly greater. This project will reduce the risk of repetitive damage from both smaller (e.g., 50 year events) and larger flood events. Mitigating future flooding is critical to keeping the economic engine of the Estes Valley area viable. Overall, the replacement of the Moraine Avenue Bridge to be able to convey the CDOT estimated 100- yr. peak discharge will contribute greatly to the resiliency of Estes Park and the entire Estes Valley area by preparing for the next flood event. Keeping a major transportation artery of the Town open during a flood event to provide emergency services and connectivity between the east and west parts of Town, in addition to keeping accessibility to Rocky Mountain National Park, will help the community not only during the event, but will increase the efficiency of post-flood recovery efforts. The replacement bridge will also keep floodwaters from that portion of Fall River from inundating downtown business buildings, which are vital to the economic health and vitality of the community. The replacement bridge will be a major step forward in addressing resiliency to future flood events in Estes Park. 22. Compliance with Nationa l Objectives: State recipients receiving allocations under the CDBG-DR prog ram must certify that their projected use of funds will ensure, and maintain evidence, that ea ch of its a ctivities assisted with CDBG-DR funds meets at least one of the three Nationa l Objectives. b. How will the proposed project meet the above checked National Objective(s). This project meets the Urgent Need National Objective and addresses LMI persons. The severely undersized Moraine Avenue Bridge poses a serious and immediate threat to the health and welfare of Estes Park. This bridge is (1) located on of the main thoroughfares within the Town of Estes Park and adjacent to two others; (2) connects the downtown to RMNP; (3) serves as the primary link between the eastern and western parts of the town, (4) provides is a critical emergency services route; and (5) is critical to the economic viability of businesses west of the bridge in addition to businesses downtown. The bridge must be replaced so that it will be able to convey the 100-yr floodwaters in order to help make sure that any negative impacts to the above mentioned factors that would occur due to the currently undersized condition of the Moraine Avenue Bridge, such as those impacts experienced during the 2013 flood (e.g., flooding of downtown businesses), and sure to happen in subsequent flood events, do not occur or are of a lesser magnitude. The downtown businesses employment opportunities consist primarily of low-wage, service sector jobs, including waiters, kitchen staff, and retail clerks. During the flood of 2013, many of these workers lost their jobs due to the damage to downtown buildings. The low-wage workers and the current downtown business owners continue to face challenges related to future flooding and the potential the inclusion of downtown buildings in the boundaries of the projected new 100-yr regulatory floodplain. This CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 6 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement designation would result in business owners having to purchase expensive flood insurance placing a very heavy financial burden on them, and for some it would be too heavy of a burden to bear to remain in business. Another damaging flood event downtown would likely result in the loss of multiple businesses, as occurred due to the 2013 flood. All of this would result in many of the low-wage service workers losing their jobs. Replacing the Moraine Avenue Bridge would reduce the risk of flood damage to the downtown businesses and the resultant loss of low-wage service sector jobs. In addition, it would lessen the chances of buildings downtown being located within the 100-yr regulatory floodplain, thereby reducing the financial burden of flood insurance premiums on business owners, which would help prevent loss of businesses and in turn service sector jobs. The Town of Estes Park was heavily impacted by the 2013 flood and does not have the financial resources to fund this project. The Town of Estes Park budget is still recovering from the impact of the September 2013 flood. Sales tax receipts were down 45% in September and 18% in October following the flood. As 63% of the Town’s budget comes from sales tax receipts, this was a significant decrease. Even though sales tax receipts were high in 2014, the monumental out-of-pocket expenses involved in flood reconstruction and implementation of resiliency measures will continue for several more years, if not longer. Accordingly, the budget for 2015 is very conservative. COMPREHENSIVE RISK ANALYSIS INFORMATION 11. Community Ha zards Review: Plea se list and briefly describe in rank order of importance the na tural or ma n-made hazards in your (the Applica nt’s) service a rea . 1. Flooding Downtown Estes Park, an approximately 66-acre heavily developed commercial area, is at high risk of future flooding and associated repetitive property damages and losses. The source of hazard is flooding from Fall River and Big Thompson River, which originate in Rocky Mountain National Park and converge in the center of downtown Estes Park. The Big Thompson River begins in Forest Canyon within Rocky Mountain National Park, flows east through Moraine Park, through the downtown corridor where, at the East Riverside Drive Bridge it meets and converges with Fall River. From there it continues through the downtown corridor until it reaches Lake Estes. Fall River begins near the Alpine Visitor’s Center in Rocky Mountain National Park. From there, it flows adjacent to Fall River Road and then through the downtown corridor adjacent to Elkhorn Avenue until it joins the Big Thompson River at the Riverside Drive Bridge. Approximately half of the buildings in the commercial downtown corridor are less than fifty feet from either the Big Thompson River or Fall River. As these are mountain drainages and given the weather patterns in this area, the probability of recurrent flash flooding from a large rain event or flooding from snowmelt is a very real threat to the downtown area. This hazard is considered the greatest risk in the area of natural disasters in the Estes Valley area. Numerous floods in the history of this area have resulted in loss of life and substantial property-related dollar loss. 2. Utility Infrastructure Interruption CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 7 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement Severe damage to utility infrastructure, primarily sewer and water, from flooding occurred as a result of the 2013 flood event on Fish Creek. Given the probability of flash flooding or flooding from snowmelt, there is a very real possibility of infrastructure loss or severe damage from these flood events which can severely impact public safety and welfare. 22. Hig h Risk Ha zards Addressed by the Project: Describe how, and the deg ree to which, the proposed project mitigates high risk hazards. Include da mag e history, source a nd type of problem, frequency of event(s), and severity of damag e information, if available. a. Hazard 1 – Flooding Flooding is not infrequent in Estes Park, due to the variability of mountain snowmelt conditions and the short duration, intense thunderstorms area common in the summer months. Estes Park has experienced two flood events that were presidentially declared disasters - the Lawn Lake flood in 1982, caused by failure of an earthen dam in Rocky Mountain National Park and the September 2013 flood event, caused by an excessive long-duration rain event. The Lawn Lake flood occurred on July 15, 1982 when a 26-foot high earthen dam located at 11,000 ft. in Rocky Mountain National Park failed. The dam released 674 acre-feet, or 29 million gallons, of water at an estimated peak discharge of 18,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) down a tributary of Fall River. The flood resulted in three deaths, damages totaling more than $31 million, the destruction of 18 bridges, damaged roads, inundated 177 businesses (75% of Estes Park’s commercial activity), and damaged 108 private residences. The floodwaters came through the downtown area at the rate of more than 8,500 cubic feet per second and most businesses reported 3 to 4 ft. of water, and as much as 1 to 2 ft. of mud in their establishments. The September 2013 flood resulted in flooding of the downtown corridor, closure of roads, damage to roads and utility infrastructure, river channel degradation, damage to commercial buildings and residences, and significant loss of income for business owners and the Town of Estes Park. The estimated loss of income for downtown businesses during September through December 2013 is $7 million, with structure and content damages estimated at $3.2 million. Sales tax receipts were down 45% in September and 18% in October following the flood. As 63% of the Town’s budget comes from sales tax receipts, this was a significant decrease. When implemented, this project will significantly reduce the risk of flooding throughout this portion of the commercial downtown corridor of Estes Park making a significant contribution to protecting the economic engine of the town and thus the well-being of its citizens. Furthermore it will prevent buildings in the downtown corridor from being placed in the 100-yr regulatory floodplain. In addition to reducing the risk of downtown floo ding, replacement of the bridge to convey the 100-yr flood volume, will prevent two of the primary roads in Town (Elkhorn and Moraine) from having to close to regular traffic and even more importantly emergency vehicles. Detour routes when streets are flooded can increase response times by 10 or more minutes. Keeping these streets open will also keep Rocky Mountain National Park accessible to visitors who contribute to the local economy. CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 8 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement Overall, the replacement of the Moraine Avenue Bridge to be able to convey the CDOT estimated 100- yr. peak discharge will contribute greatly to the resiliency of Estes Park and the entire Estes Valley area by preparing for the next flood event. Keeping a major transportation artery of the Town open during a flood event to provide emergency services and connectivity between the east and west parts of Town, in addition to keeping accessibility to Rocky Mountain National Park, will help the community not only during the event, but will increase the efficiency of post-flood recovery efforts. The replacement bridge will also keep floodwaters from that portion of Fall River from inundating downtown business buildings, which are vital to the economic health and vitality of the community. The replacement bridge will be a major step forward in addressing resiliency to future flood events in Estes Park. b. Hazard 2 – Utility Interruption During the 2013 flood, many services were interrupted, particularly in Fish Creek where sewer lines were severed with repairs taking several months, but throughout the town as well. Major streets, including Moraine Avenue were closed due to the fact that they were flooded and so the damages to utilities caused by the floodwaters in certain areas of town were inaccessible to utilities workers until the roads were passable. Town Hall, which is located on East Elkhorn Avenue, and contains all municipal services, including 911 dispatch and emergency, police and utilities services suffered damage from the flood as well. During the September 2013 flood event, the Electrical/Fiber Room flooded, which includes electrical circuits that power all of Town Hall, including the Police, and communications gears that carries internet and phone signals for all landlines, internet service, cell service for the entire Estes Valley area (including all police/fire/ambulance, hospital, all county and state offices, all residents, all businesses, and the Rocky Mountain National Park). The Fire Department responded to two fires in the room caused by wet submerged batteries connected to communications equipment. Luckily no one was hurt when the entered this energized flooded room and a sump pump was installed in enough time to keep water a couple inches below the rest of this critical infrastructure. Overall, the replacement of the Moraine Avenue Bridge to be able to convey the CDOT estimated 100- yr. peak discharge will contribute greatly to the resiliency of Estes Park and the entire Estes Valley area by preparing for the next flood event. Keeping a major transportation artery of the Town open during a flood event to provide emergency services and connectivity between the east and west parts of Town, in addition to keeping accessibility to Rocky Mountain National Park, will help the community not only during the event, but will increase the efficiency of post-flood recovery efforts. The replacement bridge will also keep floodwaters from that portion of Fall River from inundating downtown business buildings, which are vital to the economic health and vitality of the community. The replacement bridge will be a major step forward in addressing resiliency to future flood events in Estes Park. CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 9 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement 33. Elimination of Risk: Does the proposed project result in the elimination of a hazard from your (the Applicant’s) service area ? If so, please describe. If not, plea se estima te the degree to which this project will mitig ate the risk from the hazards identified in Item #2. This project involves removal and replacement of the Moraine Avenue (US Hwy. 36) Bridge over Fall River within the downtown area of Estes Park to convey the 100-yr flood discharge, estimated by CDOT post-2013 flood to be 1,669 cfs. The current estimated conveyance capacity of this bridge is 800 cfs. Replacement of this bridge to convey the 100-yr discharge will prevent floodwaters from overtopping and/or creating a backwater situation, both of which result in water running down Moraine Avenue onto Elkhorn Avenue, the main downtown business corridor, and then into downtown buildings in addition to flooding the adjacent buildings. During the 2013 flood, this scenario happened due to a backwatering situation. The bridge did not overtop during the flood, which was estimated to have a discharge of 1,200 cfs, because a significant amount of the floodwater had left the channel by the time the water reached the bridge. However, there was enough water still in the channel that it filled the bridge to capacity. This resulted in water backing-up in the channel upstream of the bridge causing it to overtop the walkway on the channel bank, resulting in water flowing down Moraine Avenue to Elkhorn Avenue (the main street through the downtown corridor) adding to the water already flowing down Elkhorn Avenue exacerbating the downtown flooding damage. In addition to the benefit of the replacement bridge preventing overtopping and/or backwatering resulting in channeling water downtown, the ability of the bridge to convey the 100-yr. flood flow will prevent the two main roads in Town (Elkhorn Avenue and Moraine Avenue) from having to close to regular traffic and even more importantly emergency vehicles. Detour routes when these streets are flooded can increase response times by 10 or more minutes. This project will mitigate the utility infrastructure disruption due to flooding by not contributing flood waters to downtown which can harm utilities because of flooding infrastructure, such as electric vaults, utilities in basements or crawl spaces. Also, when public utilities need to be immediately fixed, if the roads are flooded, utility vehicles are unable to reach the area where repairs are needed. This can significantly delay response time, which could compromise safety. CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 10 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement 44. Environmental Quality Improvements: Does the proposed project result in a n improvement in the qua lity of the natura l environment in your (the Applicant’s) service area? If so, please describe. When the Moraine Avenue Bridge is replaced and able to convey the correct capacity, this will in turn allow for a more natural river processes in the channel upstream and downstream. This will allow for more natural river conditions and more human interaction with the river because the riverwalk trail can be relocated under the bridge. Currently Fall River at the Moraine Avenue Bridge has been severely constricted, channelized, and hardened. The Town of Estes Park is committed to understanding Fall River and working with the river processes, rather than forcing it into a mold of what we think it ought to be. The pinch point will be less tight, and a more natural flow will occur. The Moraine Avenue Bridge project will reduce this unnatural and unsafe constriction. Moving another step closer to the physical structure of a healthy stream corridor, i.e. one that displays a complex and diverse set of features, including channel form (meanders, pools, riffles, backwaters, wetlands), channel profile (stream gradient, width, and depth), materials that have fallen into the channel (trees and bank materials), overhanging vegetation, roots extending into the flow, and streambed materials (sand, gravel, rocks, and boulders). This complexity will then influence the physical function of the stream (i.e. increases channel roughness, which in turn dissipates the energy of water and reduces its erosive power) and increase the potential for a higher diversity of aquatic species. The Moraine Avenue project is a risk-based resilient approach. Environmental quality - stream health - improvements are integral to this resilient approach. 5. Clima te Chang e Improvements: Does the proposed project reduce or a meliorate a projected impa ct of clima te change in Colorado? If so, plea se briefly describe the benefit of the project. Yes. Estes Park’s neighbor, RMNP has studied climate change in depth. Climate change may result in more extreme spring temperatures causing faster snow-melts and higher peak discharges during spring-runoff. Since Estes Park borders and is directly downstream of RMNP, Estes Park will be directly impacted by climate change in the RMNP, downtown flooding is expected to occur more frequently. Increasing the Moraine Avenue Bridge capacity will reduce the frequency of flooding downtown. This project is designed to convey a 1% annual event based on best CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 11 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement available data, due expense and physical constraints downtown this bridge is not designed to convey a less frequent event, such as a 500 year event. 66. Public Outreach Yes. Public outreach for this project will be a continuance of the extensive outreach conducted during Fall River Corridor Plan for Resiliency (aka Master Plan) development, finalized in early 2015. Through ongoing education and outreach, the plan was designed to: (1) foster consensus-driven and technically sound resiliency solutions for Fall River; (2) serve as a technical reference for final design, construction, and project prioritization; (3) define a vision for resiliency and identify goals to achieve that vision. This plan identified the need to replace the Moraine Avenue Bridge. As part of this planning process, Town staff and our consultant, Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers, engaged in public discussions with Town Board and met directly with stakeholders about the need for bridge removal and replacement downtown. Given the severe damage caused by the 2013 flood to downtown, businesses and residents understand the need to increase resiliency downtown. Following award of funds, the Town will continue to engage and involve the community. In addition to standard public meetings, Town staff and the selected consultant will host multiple open houses and development and maintain a project website which will include a brief description of the project; contact information; public meeting schedules; and a progress schedule. 7. Reduction in the Costs of Future Response or Recovery: Will the proposed project result in a reduction in the cost of response or recovery from an incident occurring due to one or more of the haza rds identified in Item #1 or #2? If so, please briefly describe how response or recovery costs will be reduced. Replacement of the Moraine Avenue Bridge will eliminate the threat of 100-yr or less floodwaters overtopping and/or backwatering, which causes the bridge to be closed to traffic and floodwaters to be routed to the downtown area and through businesses, will result in cost reductions in response and recovery from a future flood event. This project will not only reduce the direct recovery costs of flooded buildings and contents, which as witnessed during the 2013 flood were in the millions of dollars in the downtown corridor, but it will also reduce the cost of utility repairs by having ready access to utility infrastructure when it needs immediate repair, which will save the utility company and the customer response and recovery costs. The change of damage to the bridge structure from flood waters and debris will also be lessened by replacing the bridge to convey a larger capacity of water. The repair of a bridge is not only costly, but it is time consuming. A long-term repair on a major transportation artery and primary route to RMNP, especially during tourist season, could have wide-reaching impacts on the economy due to tourists avoiding the area because of road construction delays. CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 12 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement 88. Floodplain/Floodway/Substa ntially Damaged Properties: Does the proposed project include a property or properties located in a floodwa y or floodplain; or not located in a regulatory floodpla in but which were substantia lly da mag ed or have a history of damag e from at lea st two disa ster events? If so, please identify those properties below. The project does not include any properties currently located in a floodway or regulatory floodplain or properties that were substantially damaged. However, the “current” FEMA Flood Insurance Study is approximately 30 years old. Based on best available data obtained post-flood, the Town is aware that the study significantly underestimates flood risk today. Based on models, prepared and currently being used by, CDOT and CWCB, Fall River regulatory flows are estimated to increase approximately 2 ½ times. The Moraine Avenue Bridge replacement will keep man properties downtown from being placed in a new floodway and regulatory floodplain. The entirety of downtown Estes Park has experienced two flood events that were presidentially declared disasters - the Lawn Lake flood in 1982, caused by failure of an earthen dam in Rocky Mountain National Park and the September 2013 flood event, caused by an excessive long-duration rain event. Outdoor World Elkhorn Avenue Downtown 1982 Lawn Lake Flood 2013 Flood The Lawn Lake flood occurred on July 15, 1982 when a 26-foot high earthen dam located at 11,000 ft. in Rocky Mountain National Park failed. The dam released 674 acre-feet, or 29 million gallons, of water at an estimated peak discharge of 18,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) down a tributary of Fall River. The flood resulted in three deaths, damages totaling more than $31 million, the destruction of 18 bridges, damaged roads, inundated 177 businesses (75% of Estes Park’s commercial activity), and damaged 108 private residences. The floodwaters came through the downtown area at the rate of more than 8,500 cubic feet per second and most businesses reported 3 to 4 ft. of water, and as much as 1 to 2 ft. of mud in their establishments. The September 2013 flood resulted in flooding of the downtown corridor, closure of roads, damage to roads and utility infrastructure, river channel degradation, damage to commercial buildings and residences, and significant loss of income for business owners and the Town of Estes Park. The CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 13 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement estimated loss of income for downtown businesses during September through December 2013 is $7 million, with structure and content damages estimated at $3.2 million. Sales tax receipts were down 45% in September and 18% in October following the flood. As 63% of the Town’s budget comes from sales tax receipts, this was a significant decrease. 110. Community Plan Compliance: Does the proposed project comply with and/or address a n issue recog nized in key community pla ns? Key plans include, but are not limited to: a Comprehensive Master Plan, a Stormwater Ma nagement Pla n, a Hazard Mitig ation Plans, or key community codes. If so, please describe how the project integrates into the pla n(s). Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan: Moraine Avenue Bridge replacement is compatible with the vision for downtown, articulated in the 1996 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. This vision includes, but is not limited to the following, the downtown will: 1. Serve as a key economic engine for the Town of Estes Park and the Valley. 2. Maintain the downtown’s function as the Estes Valley’s focal point of guest shopping and entertainment activity. 3. Develop in ways that integrate and even enhance the qualities of the streams, rivers, topography and other natural assets of the area. Town Board Strategic Plan. In addition to bridge replacement is compatible with and will further the local elected officials’ strategic goals and objectives, which include: Town Board Goals (5-7 Years): We will implement projects and policies that promote sustainability to improve the quality of the environment Town Board Objectives (1 Year Time Frame): Work to restore the streams damaged by the flood and to redefine the floodplains within Town boundaries. 2015 Fall River Plan for Resiliency The Town Board voted unanimously to approve a resolution of support for this plan. This plan was the first step in a decades-long journey of recovery and preparedness. The plan incorporates a risk-based approach. It provides resiliency ideas that consider both hazard reduction and stream health for the flexibility of the system to bounce back from flood impacts. This risk-based approach is incorporated into three conceptual alternatives downtown and included Moraine Avenue Bridge replacement. The Fall River Plan for Resiliency is available for download from www.fallrivercoalition.org. The Plan outlines resiliency strategies that this project addresses, in particular: (1) Resiliency requires understanding the river and working with river processes; (2) Planning should fully accommodate the complexities of river systems and inter-relationships between roads, homes, and infrastructure; and (3)A broad range of public, private and non-profit stakeholders and widespread outreach and education is necessary to garner public support. In addition, the information garnered from this project will directly CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 14 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement align with the following goals of the Plan: Create strategies to reduce the impact of future flooding and geomorphic hazards on the community of Estes Park and its economy; and Downtown Estes Loop, 2014 This downtown plan will be coordinated with the Downtown Loop Project, funded a Federal Lands Access Program grant, to help facilitate traffic movement through Estes Park, including downtown Estes Park, to the National Park. The project includes evaluation of three primary roadways: Elkhorn Avenue, Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive through downtown Estes Park. The project is in the early phase of scoping, including collection of environmental data and development of alternatives. http://downtownestesloop.com Town of Estes Park Floodplain Management Regulations: The Estes Town Board of Trustees unanimously supported and adopted interim floodplain regulations after the September 2013 flood. Those regulations allow the Floodplain Manager to use best available data for regulatory purposes. Post- flood the best available data for Fall River is a flow of 1,670 cfs. The Town is currently regulating to a higher standard the current Flood Insurance Study. The Moraine Avenue Bridge replacement will be designed best available data; the same data being used by the State (CDOT and CWCB). Northern Colorado Hazard Mitigation Plan: General flood hazard mitigation goals and action items addressed by each community include, but are not limited to: 1.Review and adjust floodplain areas as necessary. 2.Increase the ability to safely divert storm water. 3.Increase the ability to contain the flow of rivers and streams within their banks. 111. Environmental / Historic Preservation Issues: Please describe any sig nifica nt environmenta l, historic, or cultura l features tha t may be a ffected by the project. Plea se a lso describe any features tha t may be improved by the project. During the summer of 2014, the Town of Estes Park thoroughly evaluated Environmental/Historic Preservations issues in downtown Estes Park, including the Moraine Avenue Bridge area. Based on this evaluation, which includes hundreds of pages of analysis and maps, there are no known significant environmental, historic, or cultural features that may be negatively affected by the Moraine Avenue Bridge replacement project. Two cultural and historic resources that will be improved by this project are the Park Theater, and the Riverwalk, which spans the downtown corridor of Estes Park. Built in 1913, the Historic Park Theater is a towering icon of Estes Park. The Park Theater is the oldest theater west of the Mississippi that was built for motion pictures and is still in operation showing motion pictures. The Park Theater sits on Fall River adjacent to the Moraine Avenue Bridge. Water frequently runs CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 15 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement under Park Theater (behind the river retaining wall and into the crawl space/basement) negatively impacting the Theater’s structural stability (3 engineering studies have assessed stability issues related to water). The bridge replacement will reduce the amount of water entering the Park Theater and protect the theater from additional negative impacts. The Riverwalk is a picturesque walkway created to help eliminate blight in this area after the Lawn Lake Flood in 1982. It runs alongside the Big Thompson River and Fall River and is one of the crown jewels of Estes Park. The Moraine Avenue Bridge replacement will enhance the Riverwalk by setting the stage to remove a dangerous at-grade pedestrian crossing on a busy thoroughfare (Moraine Avenue) and re- route the Riverwalk under the Moraine Avenue Bridge. 112. Permitting: Please list the local, state, and federal permits that will be required to complete this project. Town of Estes Park will apply for and obtain all required permits, which may include but are not limited to: Federal Permits: (1) Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or New Study; (2) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); (3) Section 404 to include threatened and endangered (T&E) species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); (4) Section 404 to include historic and cultural issues under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); (5) Section 404 to include annual monitoring for the typically required five year period; (6) FHWA Categorical Exclusion Federal Environmental Laws/Executive Orders: (1) EO 11988 – Floodplain Management; (2) EO 11990 – Wetland Protection; (3) EO 12898 – Environmental Justice; (4) EO 13112 – Invasive Species State Permits: (1) Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) for Land Development; (2) Air Quality Conformity Permit; (3) Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) Construction Stormwater and/or Dewatering CDPS Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activities, including Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP); (4) CDOT Utility/ Special Use Permit Application; (5) CDOT Right-of-Way/ Access Permit; (6) Senate Bill 40 Wildlife Certification Permits CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 16 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement Local Permits: (1) Town Right-of-Way Permit; (2) Town Floodplain Development Permit; (3)Town Grading Permit; (4) Utilities Agreements 113. Community Resilience: Please describe how this project will increase the resilience of your community. As defined in the Guidelines: “Resilience incorporates hazard mitigation and land use planning strategies; critical infrastructure, environmental a nd cultural resource protection; and susta inability practices to reconstruct the built environment, and revitalize the economic, socia l, a nd natura l environments.” When the Moraine Avenue Bridge is replaced and able to convey the correct capacity, this will in turn allow for a more natural river processes in the channel upstream and downstream. This will allow for more natural river conditions and more human interaction with the river because the riverwalk trail can be relocated under the bridge. Currently Fall River at the Moraine Avenue Bridge has been severely constricted, channelized, and hardened. The Town of Estes Park is committed to understanding Fall River and working with the river processes, rather than forcing it into a mold of what we think it ought to be. The pinch point will be less tight, and a more natural flow will occur. The Moraine Avenue Bridge project will reduce this unnatural and unsafe constriction. Moving another step closer to the physical structure of a healthy stream corridor, i.e. one that displays a complex and diverse set of features, including channel form (meanders, pools, riffles, backwaters, wetlands), channel profile (stream gradient, width, and depth), materials that have fallen into the channel (trees and bank materials), overhanging vegetation, roots extending into the flow, and streambed materials (sand, gravel, rocks, and boulders). This complexity will then influence the physical function of the stream (i.e. increases channel roughness, which in turn dissipates the energy of water and reduces its erosive power) and increase the potential for a higher diversity of aquatic species. The Moraine Avenue project is a risk-based resilient approach. Environmental quality - stream health - improvements are integral to this resilient approach. 14. Maps Requested maps and photographs are attached. CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 17 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement DECISION MAKING PROCESS 1. Decision-Making Process: Describe the process you used to decide that this project is the best solution to the problem. Explain why this project is the best alternative you considered. Address questions such a s: a. Are you focusing on the area in your community that has the greatest potential for losses? Yes, downtown has the greatest potential for losses. The Town began assessing needs and considering possible projects since January 2014, when the Town contracted with the Walsh Team as Master Planners for the Fall River corridor. Throughout this Master Planning process, the Walsh Team, the Town staff and the citizens of Estes Park (during numerous public meetings) spent hundreds of hours considering options for risk reduction. Reducing risk downtown clearly rose to the top due the ability to significantly mitigate flood risk where it has the potential to be the most severe and cause the greatest overall damage to Estes Park. The Town has implemented a risk-based approach as the best method to identify projects. Risk = probability x consequence. In the downtown area probability of future flooding is high and the consequences of flooding are severe. The Town plans on implementing a number of flood mitigation projects downtown. All have been chosen because 1) they will prevent and/or significantly decrease flooding throughout the downtown corridor, and 2) they incorporate the elements of river and riparian health through riparian vegetation (wherever possible and appropriate) so the environment is honored and the rivers will be slowed. This approach is far better than the alternative approach of hardening the rivers, which would not honor the environment, increase velocities and would have a greater potential to break-down over time, thus requiring “shoring up” to maintain flood protection. b. Have you considered the risks to critical facilities and structures and benefits to be obtained by mitigating this vulnerability? The Town of Estes Park has considered the risks to critical facilities and structures and benefits to be obtained by mitigating this vulnerability. The only critical facility at risk of future flooding is the Estes Park Town Hall. All other critical facilities within the Estes Valley are remote from special flood hazard 2013 CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 18 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement areas and at very low risk of flooding. Mitigating potential flooding of the Town Hall will reduces the likelihood of interrupting essential services. During the September 2013, the Town lost all cell service, landline service, and 911 service due to flooding of the Town Hall fiber room. The most cost effective fix is to relocated below grade critical infrastructure. The Town initially pursued HMGP funding for this important project; however, the high cost of the project compared to the low probability the services would be lost resulted in a “non-passing” Benefit Cost Analysis. The Town is considering apply for future CDBG-DR funds for this project. c. Have you considered those areas or projects that present the greatest opportunities given the current situation(s) of interest in your community? Yes. This project presents a great opportunity as it aligns with the Downtown Loop Project, which is fully funded and has significant public interest. From a practical perspective, the current situation is the Town is not in a financial position to finance flood mitigation downtown. We must rely on state and federal funding, including CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure funding. This is a project that can be implemented within required CDBG-DR timeframes, i.e. 18 months, and is a smaller cost projects that fits within CDBG-DR funding limits. d. Are you addressing a symptom or the source of the problem? Addressing the source of the problem is a long-term solution which provides the most mitigation benefits. Yes. This mitigation project directly addresses the source of the problem, flooding from Fall River and the current inability of the Moraine Avenue Bridge to safely contain and convey water during flood events. This project was identified in the Fall River Plan for Resiliency; a plan that (1) focusses on resilient solutions that consider hazards and stream health, including natural restoration, not just hard engineering. e. If impacts to the environment, natural, cultural or historic resources have been identified, explain how your alternatives and proposed project address, minimize, or avoid these impacts. During the summer of 2014, the Town of Estes Park thoroughly evaluated Environmental/Historic Preservations issues in downtown Estes Park, including the Moraine Avenue Bridge area. Based on this evaluation, which includes hundreds of pages of analysis and maps, there are no known significant environmental, historic, or cultural features that may be negatively affected by the Moraine Avenue Bridge replacement project. SCOPE OF WORK/BUDGET OVERVIEW/FINANCIAL FACTORS 11. Project Scope: Please provide a comprehensive and deta iled description of the scope of the proposed project. Describe each of the project components and the steps necessa ry to complete tha t work. If the proposed project is a funding match for another disaster recovery or infrastructure development progra m, please identify the a gency, program funds, a nd project reference number that CDBG-DR funding is intended to support. Also describe any critical dea dlines that must be met to a ccomplish this work. CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 19 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement The goal of the Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement project is to reduce hazards to downtown by reducing the number of assets (structures, bridges) located within flood or geomorphic hazard areas and to reduce inundation depths at assets during both large, infrequent flood events (100-, 500-year) and smaller, more frequent events (10-, 50-year). The Moraine Avenue bridge is a CDOT bridge, which is located approximately mid-way along the Waterwheel to Confluence reach. Because this is a CDOT bridge, discussions have occurred between the Town and CDOT regarding replacement of this bridge. The Town will work cooperatively with CDOT during this project and in acquiring additional funding sources for replacement of the bridge. This project will increase the current estimated bridge capacity of 800 cfs to be able to convey the 100- year discharge, estimated as 1,669 cfs, and will substantially reduce risk in the vicinity of the Moraine Avenue Bridge by eliminating inundation during the 100-year discharge for buildings located upstream of this bridge, in the immediate vicinity of the bridge and on both sides of Elkhorn Avenue, which are otherwise likely to become mapped into the 100-year regulatory floodplain (if this project is not accomplished). The bridge replacement design will consider the sediments conveyed by the river in addition to the water it conveys. This improvement to bridge design will increase longevity of the new bridge infrastructure and further reduce risk in the vicinity because accommodating sediment loads in addition to water flows will reduce sediment deposition upstream of the bridge, which is a notable contributor to flood damage during larger flood events. Preliminary hydraulic modeling indicates that adequate room exists in this reach of Fall River to expand the Moraine Avenue Bridge, such that it can fully convey the 100-year discharge. Preliminary hydraulic modeling by CDOT indicates that bridge capacity needs to be increased from its current approximate capacity of 800 cfs to an estimated 100-year discharge of 1,669 cfs. The bridge replacement is targeted as a width increase from its current 20 foot wide span to an approximately 36 foot wide span and a raise in bridge deck height of approximately 1 foot. This project also includes the acquisition of easements at 2 locations: Plum Creek Shoe Store on river right/ upstream at Moraine Avenue Bridge and the historic Park Theater on river right/ downstream at Moraine Avenue Bridge (and/or the retail shop on river left/ downstream at Moraine Avenue Bridge. Task 1 – Flood Mitigation Project Manager & Construction Manager & Contractor Selection The Town of Estes Park Public Works Department will enter into a contract with a selected consultant for a Project Manager (PM) and a Construction Manager (CM) to support Town engineers and adequately interface with the design team and construction contractor. The anticipated duration of the PM position is two years. The anticipated duration of the CM position is one year. This task includes bid processes for contractor selection for both the Design Team and the Construction Contractor. The PM will provide bid support to the Town to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for, and subsequently to select, a Design Team to complete Tasks 2 through 6 and Task 8 below. Following completion of Task 6, the PM will provide bid support to the Town to solicit construction bids, and subsequently to select, a Construction Contractor for Task 7 below. Bid processes will follow Town procedures for soliciting RFPs and making project awards. The CM will coordinate with the Town during construction to oversee the construction process and serve as Town point of contact for the Construction Contractor. CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 20 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement Task 2 – Public Engagement, Coordination, and Education Flood recovery work since September 2013 has validated the important role that effective public engagement and coordination plays in project success. Further, the higher success rate of engagement and coordination built from an education platform is proven. In Estes Park, private landowners and community members are critical stakeholders in every conceivable flood recovery effort that is needed to bring the Estes Valley area to a state of resiliency – for the community, the economy, and the river system itself. A great many stakeholders started with very little understanding of the riverine systems their properties abut and in which they live, work, and play. The downtown area is not only especially scrutinized, but also more difficult to understand with its substantial constraints to resiliency improvements. Any proposed flood mitigation efforts in the downtown area will face tough challenges in securing stakeholder support that will be necessary to move forward. That said, a bridge replacement project to expand current capacity is a straightforward effort that does not require the same level of outreach and education as other flood mitigation efforts, such that a scaled back engagement, coordination, and education effort is proposed for this project. This task will build on the engagement, coordination, and education efforts started as part of the Fall River Corridor Master Plan in 2014. The new Estes Valley Watershed Coalition (EVWC), formed as a result of the master planning process, will be a lead partner with the Town for continued engagement, coordination, and education. This task will include stakeholder involvement at key stages of engineering analysis and design and construction phases. Stakeholder review and revision coordination will occur at a minimum at project kickoff (start of Task 3) to discuss goals and objectives for the project, then again at concept design (end of Task 3), draft construction documents (Task 4), and construction (Task 7) phases. Additional tools for effective engagement and coordination, beyond stakeholder meetings, include public open houses, targeted interviews with agencies and owners, online reference page for project updates, interactive webpage, blog updates and/or Facebook page, and collaborating with EVWC efforts. Tools for ongoing education efforts will be limited to educational mini-presentations incorporated into stakeholder and public meetings (project specific, general river science, and floodplain management topics). Task 3 – Assessment, Detailed Engineering Analysis and Conceptual Design Engineering work in this task will build off of the ecologic, geomorphic, and flood risk assessments completed for the Fall River Corridor Master Plan. Additional data will be collected as identified in the Master Plan report and/or as determined to be necessary during office- and field-level assessments. Additional data collection will be integrated into a detailed assessment of current conditions. The additional data collection is expected to include, but not be limited to cross sectional, profile, and topographic survey, geotechnical investigation and analysis, pebble counts, and office-level estimation of limits of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. in the project reach to support required permitting and authorizations. CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 21 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement Detailed hydraulic models will be prepared for both regulatory and final design use. Floodplain analysis will include effective, current, and proposed conditions. The models will be evaluated for design purposes over the range of discharge profiles, from the 10- to 500-year. Hydraulic modeling costs for regulatory analysis are included in Task 5 Permitting. After completion of the hydraulic analysis, preliminary roadway and bridge design will be done, developing several bridge structure and foundation alternatives to meet the new width, span and clearance requirements. The bridge and road approach alternatives will consider several attributes such as construction cost, timing, traffic control, staged construction if required, durability and aesthetics. After the alternatives are developed, they will be presented in a matrix format that will allow the City to select a preferred alternate. The preferred alternate will be developed to a 30% ‘Concept Design’ level. Along with the Concept design plans, a written summary, including basis of design, will be developed that documents the background information, alternatives studied and the basis of selection. The Concept design plans will be used for stakeholder review and comment. Task 4 – Final Analysis and Design and Construction Documents Following stakeholder review and comment, final analysis and design will be conducted to respond to comments as directed and finalize design concepts, then develop construction documents to include a construction drawing set and construction specifications. The submittals will be a 60% complete set, 95% review set and then a Final (100%) set. Construction drawings will include plan and profile sheets showing locations and elevations of all proposed treatments, as well as cross sections and typical details. Construction specifications will be correlated to the construction drawings and provide more detail on materials and methods for project implementation. Plans and specifications will conform to the latest CDOT Standard Specifications. Task 5 – Permitting Required permits anticipated for this project are: Federal Permits: (1) Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or New Study; (2) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); (3) Section 404 to include threatened and endangered (T&E) species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); (4) Section 404 to include historic and cultural issues under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); (5) Section 404 to include annual monitoring for the typically required five year period; (6) FHWA Categorical Exclusion Federal Environmental Laws/Executive Orders: (1) EO 11988 – Floodplain Management; (2) EO 11990 – Wetland Protection; (3) EO 12898 – Environmental Justice; (4) EO 13112 – Invasive Species State Permits: (1) Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) for Land Development; (2) Air Quality Conformity Permit; (3) Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) Construction Stormwater and/or Dewatering CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 22 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement CDPS Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activities, including Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP); (4) CDOT Utility/ Special Use Permit Application; (5) CDOT Right-of-Way/ Access Permit; (6) Senate Bill 40 Wildlife Certification Permits Local Permits: (1) Town Right-of-Way Permit; (2) Town Floodplain Development Permit; (3)Town Grading Permit; (4) Utilities Agreements. This scope of work assumes that a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be required for this project because the project will occur in advance of an anticipated new flood study for the drainages in Estes Park. This scope of work additionally assumes that the project will qualify for authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act using Nationwide and/or Regional General Permits (i.e., not require an Individual Permit) and that no threatened and endangered species, historic or cultural issues of note will need to be addressed. Efficiencies in hydraulic modeling costs will be realized between this task and Task 3, however the bulk of modeling costs for regulatory analysis are included in this task. 60% complete plans will be utilized for permit applications. Task 6 - Design Engineering Support for Construction This task provides design engineering support to the Town throughout the construction bid and implementation phases. Support includes provision of pertinent information on the final design and permitting requirements to support preparation of a construction bid and assistance with contractor prequalification, ranking, and selection processes, as well as development of an engineer’s opinion of probable cost to assist evaluation of received bids. Design support to the CM is included in this task as needed for design clarification, site visits, review of shop drawings, etc. as necessary to ensure accurate interpretation and implementation of the construction documents. Included in this task is final inspection and close out, as-built drawings and a final load rating of the bridge. Task 7 – Construction This task comprises the construction phase of work. This bridge replacement project will not impact any existing vegetation, such that no revegetation efforts will be required. Task 8 – Post Construction Monitoring The new bridge installation will be integrated into the Town’s existing procedures for bridge inspection and monitoring. No annual monitoring inspection and reporting is anticipated to be needed for Section 404 authorizations for this project because it entails only temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters of the US (i.e., no vegetation impacts, no wetland or other special aquatic habitat impacts). 22. Community Priority: Please describe why this project is a priority for your organization. The Town of Estes Park has carefully and thoroughly considered those areas and projects that represent the greatest opportunities to reduce flood risk and determined that reducing risk in the area of the CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 23 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement community that has the greatest potential for future flood losses, i.e. the downtown, is the highest priority. Downtown Estes Park is vital to the economic health and well-being of the entire Estes Valley, the region and the State of Colorado. It is the primary place tourists frequent and spend money. The Moraine Avenue bridge replacement is one of a number of priority infrastructure improvements identified downtown that will reduce future flood losses. Of the priority infrastructure projects, the Moraine Avenue Bridge replacement is the best fit with CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure funds. The reduces flood risk, aligns with CDBG DR guidelines, can be completed within the required 18 month maximum project timeframe and is a “smaller” project, i.e. under $3 million with more potential to be funded than the larger, but equally important projects, estimated to cost $6-7 million. 55. Basis of Cost Estimate: Briefly describe how the cost estima tes listed in #3 a bove were developed (e.g. lump sum, unit cost, quotation, etc.). The budget was prepared using nationally published and local cost guides, and professional judgment to the extent possible with this phased project. Resources included RS Means, CDOT and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. As the design, engineering and environmental work continues, more detailed costs will be developed. The proposed $13.5 million budget accommodates Davis Bacon wages. The assumption in the $13.5 million, costs of 15 percent. Overhead and Profit (O&P) reflects highly efficient design and construction processes, such as under a design-build approach. This highly efficient design process is needed to minimize disruption in the downtown area and to coordinate with the Downtown Transpiration Project. The Phase 1 detailed study will specifically address this assumption. 6. Project Ma nagement: Describe how you will manage the costs and schedule, and how you will ensure successful performance. Note: The applicant must agree to furnish quarterly reports during the entire time the project is in a ctive status. Quarters end on Ma rch 31st, June 30th, September 30th, a nd December 31st. Reports are due to the State within 15 days a fter the end of ea ch quarter.) The Town of Estes Park will follow all applicable local, state, and federal procurement procedures. This will ensure an open and competitive selection of a design consultant and construction contractor. The RFQ and bid solicitation packages will detail project milestones and dates and require completion within the timeframe required by the CDBG grant. The project will be supervised by a Project Manager and a Construction Manager reporting directly to the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department. This will ensure to interface with the design consultant and construction contractor and successful performance. Design engineering support will be provided throughout the construction bid and implementation phases. The engineer will provide pertinent information on the final design and permitting requirements to support preparation of a construction bid and assist with contractor prequalification, ranking, and selection processes. CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 24 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement The project timeline/works schedule is aggressive due to the need to ensure this downtown construction project work schedule minimizes disruption to downtown businesses to the extent practicable. CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 25 of 26 2/13/2015 Narrative Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement 99. Financial / Fisca l Health Factors: Please indicate the total budget (all funds) of your organization. Plea se describe the impa ct of disa ster recovery efforts to date on this budget. In addition, if this objective is selected based on the local g overnments ina bility to finance the activity, the municipality must a lso include in the application pa ckage a resolution sta ting this fact and supporting documentation such as budg eta ry information, a description of TABOR restrictions, and the most recent a udit report or approved exemption from a udit. Total 2015 budget for all funds: $47,676,546 Flood expenditures have primarily impacted the General and Proprietary (Light & Power, Water) Funds. The General Fund balance % as of 12/31/12 was 47%. Fund balance dropped to 27% as of 12/31/13. Preliminary Fund balance for 12/31/14 is 17%. The precipitous decline is due largely to the Town using up its reserves to pay for flood recovery efforts. Approximately $1.1 million is anticipated to be yet recovered through submittals for reimbursements to various government agencies. The next stage of flood recovery involves significant capital outlay with the Town's General Fund cannot entirely fund. The Town of Estes Park is de-bruced with respect to TABOR. The most recent audit report (2013) is referenced here and can be accessed on the Town’s website, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark/comprehensive-annual-financial-report. CDBG DR Round 2 Infrastructure Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement - Downtown Estes Park Page 26 of 26 2/13/2015 Date: 8/28/2014 File: AppCensusIncome1_5a.mxd TOWN OF ESTES PARK DOWNTOWN ESTES PARK FLOOD MITIGATION PROJECT CENSUS BLOCK GROUP 2013 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME FIGURE 1.5aMACGREGORAVEBOYDLN VIRGINIA DR GRAVES AVE RIVE R SI D E D R MOCCA S I N C I R C L E D R DAV I S STE WONDERVIE W A V E HILL SIDE LN VIRGINIA DR E ELKHO R N A V E DRIFTWOOD AVEV IR GINIA LN SSAI NT VRAI NAVE4THSTM O C C ASI N STN SAINTVRAINAVE W WONDERVIEW AVE F AWN LN BIRCH AVELANDERS A V E W E L K H O R N AVE PROSPECT AVEWILLOWSTONEDR HIGH ST CLEAVE ST V I S T A L N S K Y L IN E D RLAWN LN3RDSTWESTVIEW LN ELMAVESAINT VRAIN L N BIG T H O M P S O N A V ECHAPINLNFAR VIEW LN NO RTH CT S O U T H C T1STST 5TH STRIDGEVIE W L N STEAMER DR SUNNYL N LOTT ST2NDSTWOODSTOCKDRWRIVERSIDEDRHIGHLANDLN DUNRAVEN ST COMANCHE ST MANFORD AVE C Y T E W O R T HRD PARKVIEWLNBIG HORN DR FIRAVEERIVERSIDEDRCOU RT NEY LN CRAGS DRCRAGSDR AUDUB ON ST STANLEY AVE MORAIN E A V E PI NERI VERLNPONDERO S A DRPARK LNASPENAVEOURAYDR RIVE RROC K C IRM O O N R ID G E R D ROO F TOP WAY S T A N L E Y C IR C L E D R STANLE Y CIR C L E D R LAKE ESTES LAKE ESTES BigThompsonRiverBl a c k C a nyonCreek F a llR iver T hom pson R iv e rB ig T h o m p s o n R i v e r B i g T h o m pson R i v e r £¤36 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Priority #6 Priority #1 $55193 $48026 $55080 $65349 $60875 $46032 [0 250 500 Feet 0 0.05 0.1 Miles Project Areas Project Areas 2013 Median Household Income 0 - $47,500 $47,500 - $50,000 $50,000 - $56,000 $56,000 - $61,000 $61,000 - $66,000 Application Project Site Description Date: 8/28/2014 File: AppCensusPopulation1_5b.mxd TOWN OF ESTES PARK DOWNTOWN ESTES PARK FLOOD MITIGATION PROJECT CENSUS BLOCK GROUP 2010 TOTAL AND MINORITY POPULATION FIGURE 1.5bMACGREGOR AVE BOYD LN VIRGINIA DR FIRAVERIVE R SI D E D R MOCCA S I N C I R C L E D R DAV I S STIVYST VIRGINIA DR E E L K H O R N A V E VIR GINIA LN S SA IN T VRAIN AVE4THSTM O C C ASI N STN SAINTVRAINAVE W WONDERVIEW AVE F AWN LNROCKRIDGERDWELKHORNAVE PROSPECT AVEWILLOWSTONEDR HIGH ST CLEAVE ST HILLSID E L NSKYLINEDR LAWN LNSW STEA ME R P K W Y 3RDSTWESTVIEW LN ELMAVES AIN T VR AIN L N FAR VIEW LN S O U T H C T1STSTVI S T A L N 5TH STRIDGEVIE W L NSUNNYLNLOTT STCHAPINLN BIG T H O M P S O N A V E 2NDSTSTE AMER DR WOODSTOCKDR HIGH L A N D L N DUNRAVEN ST COMANCHE ST MANFORD AVE C Y T E W O R T HRD PARKVIEWLNBIGHORNDRBIG HORN DR ERIVERSIDEDRCOU RT NEY LN CRAGS DRCRAGSDR STANLEY AVE MORAIN E A V E PI NERI VERLNPO NDER O SA D RPARK LNAUDUB O NSTASPENAVEOURAYDRCHIQUITALNM O O N R ID G E R D ROO FTOP WAY S T A N L E Y C I R C L E D R STANLE Y CIR C L E D R LAKE ESTES B ig T h o m p son River B l a c k CanyonCreek F a llR iver T hom pson R iv e rB ig T h o m p s o n R i v e r B ig T h o m p s o n River £¤36 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Priority #6 Priority #1 Total Pop: 818 Minority: 125 Percent Minority: 15% Total Pop: 2165 Minority: 512 Percent Minority: 24% Total Pop: 1687 Minority: 399 Percent Minority: 24% Total Pop: 1394 Minority: 178 Percent Minority: 13% Total Pop: 1301 Minority: 158 Percent Minority: 12% Total Pop: 977 Minority: 231 Percent Minority: 24% [0200400 Feet 0 0.05 0.1 Miles Minority Population By Block Group 5-10% 10.1-15% 15.1-20% 20-25% Project Areas Application Project Site Description Date: 2/13/2015 File: MoraineAveBridge.mxd TOWN OF ESTES PARK MORAINE AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT MORAINE AVENUE BRIDGE "& E ELKH O R N A V E WIEST DRW ELKHORN AVE ROCKWELL STMORAINE AVEBIG HORN DRERIVERSIDEDRWRIVERSIDEDRW RIVERSIDE DRWIEST DR 135 117 111 170 217 144 121 113119 130 152 133 136 156 106 215 135 191 155 152 132 116 141 189 191 213 141 145 144 115 136 130 229 129 108 117 160 100 201 149 148 151 181 122 128 112124128 221 123 201 121 160 225 115 157 164 103 102 150 161 137 209 101 200 BigTho m p so n R iverFall River Moraine Avenue Bridge 40.375562, -105.523604 Imagery ©2015 , DigitalGlobe [0130 Feet Park Theater Mall (Protect) Upstream of bridge, facing bridge Riverwalk (Enhance) Downstream of bridge, facing bridge C O URTNEY LN E E L K H O RN A V E WIEST DRMORAINE AVELAWNLNL O O K O U T STBIG HORN DR WELKHORNAVE CLEAVE ST R O C K W E L L S T WIEST DRSPRUCEDR F a l l R i v e rDate: 2/13/2015 File: MoraineAveFig1.mxd [04590 Feet FIGURE 1 Moraine Avenue Bridge Current 100-yr Floodplain Estimated No-Action Floodplain TOWN OF ESTES PARK MORAINE AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT CURRENT AND ESTIMATED 100-YR FLOODPLAIN Estes Park Moraine Ave Bridge Big T hom pson R iver F is h C reek B uck Creek B ig Thomp sonRiver E astFork F i s h C re e k Be a v e r Bro okBigHor n C re e k BlackCanyon Creek Hidden Va lleyC re e k As p e n Br o o k Fall River W indR iverGlacierCre e k B ig T h o m p s o n River M illC r e e k Little Thompson Riv erDryGulch Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 Date: 2/13/2015 File: MoraineAveFig4.mxd [0 1,650 3,300 Feet 0½1 Miles FIGURE 4 Moraine Avenue Bridge Estes Park Town Boundary TOWN OF ESTES PARK MORAINE AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT CITY SCALE MAP OF PROJECT LOCATION Moraine Avenue Bridge UV66 Bi gT hom psonRiverBigT h o m p sonRi v e rFishCreekBeaver B r o o k BlackCa n y o n Cr eek FallRi ver Big T h ompson Riv er B ig T h o m p s o n R iver LittleTh o m psonRiverDryGulch£¤36 £¤34 £¤36 £¤34 £¤36 Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Date: 2/13/2015 File: MoraineAveFig5.mxd TOWN OF ESTES PARK MORAINE AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT USGS 1:24000 TOPO [0 2,000 4,000 Feet 0 0.25 0.5 Miles FIGURE 5 Moraine Avenue Bridge Date: 2/13/2015 File: MoraineAveFig6.mxd TOWN OF ESTES PARK MORAINE AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PARCEL PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION FIGURE 6MACGREGORAVEBIGHORNDR IVY S T E EL K H O R N A V E WIEST DRDAVIS ST ROCKWELL ST MORAINE AVEPARKLNL O O KOUTS T WELKHORNAVE CLEAVE STLAWN LNWESTVIEW LN WRIVERSIDEDRW RIVERSIDE DRLOTT STWIEST DR ERIVERSIDEDRCO U R T N E Y L NSPRUCEDR VI RG INIA DR 221 221 251 241 300 220 250 251 220 135 207 117 111 170 141 217 180 144 342 342 170 232 252 121 319 251 113 330 221 157 311 230 275 261 200 120 119 261 140 203 130 152 209 295 234 133 124136 211 156 106 215 150 200 135 165 161 291 261 110 191 230 155 152 205 132 170 315 157 238 247 225 145 219 204 116 215 223 238 225 125 141 189 283 191 153 217 213 141 159 340 340 145 144 125 335335 249 208 250 115 251 136 150 340 191 231 111 170 170 320 130 229 157 167 129 310 135 205 310 108 117 160 100 325201 170 236 154 149 106 148 151 181 122 128 271 322 138 301 250 120 240 112 124 128 240 285 235 165 216 113221 123 201 213 121 160 111 225 243 115 157 164 231 265 321220 211 335 215 221 136 142 160 103 251 111 175 251 102 143 260 146 240 231 170 150 161 153 170 137 241 209 101 261 308 139 200 BigThom psonRiverFall River B ig T ho mp s o n R iver [0 75 150 Feet 00.030.06 Miles Moraine Avenue Bridge Parcels