HomeMy Public PortalAboutTBP 1999-11-03~,
D
5 TOWN OF ERASER d y
"Icebox of the Nation" 0
• D
O
~' P.O. Box 120 ! 153 Fraser Avenue
Fraser, Coloraldo 80442
~` (970)726-5499
FAX Line: (970) 726-5518 ~°~
E-Mail: faser®rkymtnhi.com
~; TowN BOARD AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
. November 3,1999, 7:30 p.m.
~' 1. Roll call
~: 2. Approval of minutes from 10/20/99
~~ 3. Open Forum
r.
4.
Updates
a) Chamber of Commerce, Catherine Ross
~, • b) Housing Authority, Tim Sheehan
~~ 5. Public Hearings
6. Action Items
7. Discussion Items.
a) Housing Auth.,~~l,~ request to lock-in tap fee prices
b) Affordable Housing Toolbox
c) Maryvale street standards
8. Staff Choice
9. Board Member Choice
November 10th: Planning Commission special meeting, 6:00 p.m.
street Improvements, Phase 2, kick-off public meeting
November 17~`: Town Board Regular Meeting
December 1~: Town, Board.. Regular Meeting
ýÿ
~ s.,_ ,F v. SKI
hl ~ ~ r~. 6y - ~ ~ ~ ,1 '~ +.~, fem., .~„ ~'~.
5' ~' i. t
i{'~.~ ~ -f ,~~~~~~~~" ~ ' ~ 4 ~ ~ } 1, ``~t 1^w
~~ P.Q $oor 12@ / i5,~'t~ra~er A~nnp . ~° ~ ^ , ~ ,. , Y x ~'• ~~ ~ ~'a
~~,,yy^: ,i. 4 :Ffas~',>~((~ajl /~ ;tea ~ ~c, " ~ > ; ,` i••~ ~
> r Fl-~4.Liise~'f~+'a~.~728-a~5~8 ,.. } ~ , ~ r r~~~,"#~
w, ~,~ t 4'% r ~-M~i1:: f-~e!'t"rkatRltr~Mli.c~t~- ~ - ~ '~ ' ~ ~ a ` ''~'
fi ~t ^Yr w~
{ ~ yv j ~ t ',r i~ - J [i+& '~/'!~ r _ ~ ~ r r 'S. z .. ,wA /$f~ki
~° fir. ,~ ~R ,L ,, ;q ~ ,. • ~ vJ~3 „ •.
{i f :~1 ~ ~e{' Y yyI
,i;i
Ft4 ~ .i~4 k9~~` %' _ ~~ ~ ~ 4• ~ sus" ~ ~.
.7 ~ S>,~ ` 1 Juju
NKJ4 'yif•", ~i'S vsf - `~ ~ r' s:. ~ C; ~ ~.': "9' 3{ G,E~
111,,, i i. t ~ i x `, i{.{~
y
~y°~~~t of _ f``- e ~4 .? - ~ ~ ,' a .~- ".', `.`' :~, rx i~
~E~.~ .~r_~.~~~~ :fir.. '~"~` '~' y ~ ~_P '___. _ _ sl.°"~,! - __ _ .~~ ~ _~~f. ~'~` _ ~ .. ''~ r 1 ~ ''~-''f_ _ a:~ 1 }`+.
ýÿ
,,
I
•
•
•
TOWN OF ERASER
"Icebox of Elie NatYOn" ,
P.O. Box i20 / i53 Fraser Avenue
Managers Briefing: October 27, 1999
I'd like to begin Wednesday wifh a study session at 6:00 to discuss the proposed
Plant Investment Fee study. Ron McLaughlin will be present to walk us fhrough his
proposal (enclosed) and how it could change our current water fee structure. Pizza
will be served!
During the regular meeting we'll hear updates from the Chamber and the Housing
Authority and discuss the status of the affordable. housing toolbox workgroup
(memo enclosed along with a request made by the Housing Authority to lock-in
"tap" fees for the Fox Run project (see letter). At the October 6t" meeting, we
brief ly discussed Koelbel's request for revised road, standards for the "upper east
side." Following. this conversation, Koelbel's engineers and Jim Swanson have talked
in more detail -see Jim's enclosed letter. I have asked Koelbel to identify existing
comparable road grades so that you have a benchmark from which to evaluate
Koelbel's request on changing minimum grades.. I'm unsure if they will have this
information by next Wednesday but have put it as an agenda topic as they are
working towards a plat submission date, of 12/1/99 for the upper east side.
Have a haunting Halloween!!
Fraser, Colorado 80442
(970)726-5491
FAX Line: (970) 726-5518
E-Mail: fraserC~rkymtnhi.com
ýÿ
September 23, 1999
•
Board of Trustees
Chuck Reid, Administrator
153 Fraser Avenue
Fraser, Colorado 80442
RE: Water Ut><7ity PIF Study
Ladies and Gentlemen:
RONALD G McLAUGHLW
LEO M. ELSEL
WILLIAM R. KENDALL
RALPH L. TOREN
TERRINCE P. KENYON
RICHARD H McLAUGHLW
RONALD J.McLAUGHLW
GENE a BURRELL
MICHAEL E MERCER
JOHN M. PFLAUM
MICHAEL R. GALUT.L[
SCOTT & LEHMAN
BRIAN S. KOLSTAD
G. DEAN DEROSTER
EDWARD D. BAW
BRIAN E. CHEVALIER
DANIEL F. BLAHA
ROBERT J. ANDERSON
LEANDERL.URMY
DANIEL M. PETRAMALP.
RONALD D.LUCERO
ALAN V. JOHNSON
SUSANNE C. NICHOLLS
In order to determine a Plant Investment Fee ~rir~ schedule, it is necessary to assume management policies
regarding the Capital Improvement Program. The intent was for us to identify present and proposed
policies -and then review them with Town Board and Staff before completing the study.
Attached are three draft parts of the study:
Introduction
Present Policies
Recommended Policies -Extension of Service
•
It is suggested that a work session be scheduled to approve and/or modify the draft provisions.
Very truly yours,
Ronald C. McLaughlin
Enclosures
cc: Stan Cazier
McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
~~~..
2420 Alcott ~1.~..:t, Denver, Colorado 80211(303) 458-5550
Facsimile (303) 480-9766
mweQmwewater.com
P:\1995\95-022\00600\wp\RCM-1 L-Reid re-Wtr Util PIF SWy.wpd
COMPLETE ENGWEERING SERVICES W: WATER RIGHTS AND RESOURCES WATER TREATMENT AND DISTRIBLTITON SUBSURFACE DRAWAGE IRRIGATION HYDROGEOLOGY STORM bRA1NAGE AIVD FLOOD CONTROL
WASTEWATER COLLECTION TREATMENT AND REUSE PIRE PROTECTION WATER BASED RECREATION SPECIALTY HYDRAULICS RATE STUDllS AND UTILITIES ECONOMICS
ýÿ
• POLICIES GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF THE ERASER WATER SYSTEM
NOTE: The following policies are drafted relating to management of the Town's water utility -
and are precedent to determination of a rational system development fee schedule.
INTRODUCTION
A comprehensive water utility rate study generally is accomplished in two parts - with two
separate objectives. These are:
1. Determination of the amount of income needed. The recurring income that is
needed to sustain, on a perpetual basis, the operations and maintenance and
replacement of the utility system. Design capital income is usually aone-time
specific situation that is dependent upon the capital improvement budgets for
proposed expansion or upgrading of facilities. Required capital income must be
recognized if cash-in-hand is not sufFcient for the proposed CIP.
2. Equitable allocation of income needs to different types of customers. It is
• impossible to precisely allocate income equitably to each customer. Readiness to
serve costs, fire protection demands, actual water use and peak demands, and
location, all affect the allocation of costs on a rational basis. A rate study is the art
of setting fees as close as possible to equity - but on a practical basis. For a water
utility, the addition of water meters aids in that rate setting. Rate studies are
assumed to normally address recurring services charges; however, in reality, there
are two class of customers on a time basis: one being existing customers and one
being future customers. It is to obtain income equity between these two classes
that is involved with the setting of a system development fee.
The purpose of this report is to provide rationale for developing a reasonable water utility system
development fee schedule.
The scope of this study relates only to the setting of system development fees, that is one-time
capital fees charged to new customers. The term "Plant Investment Fee" (PIE) is assumed to be
synonymous with "System Development Fee" (SPF) for this study.
•
1
ýÿ
• APPROACH
Plant Investment Fees (PIE's) are one time charges made to new customers tapping into the City's
existing water system. PIF income should related to the capital program and not be used to
support the ongoing operations budget. For example, PIF proceeds should be reserved for capital
needs, such as:
• Purchase of water rights;
• Construction of new "wholesale" infrastructure, or expansion of existing facilities;
• Major facility rehabilitations of replacements which are normally capitalized.
By connecting a new in-Town customer to the water system and accepting a PIF, the Town is
essentially committing resources to provide water to that customer permanently.
PIF levels can be computed using two approaches. It is then proper to assess a fee, being the
higher of the two results. The two methodologies are summarized following:
G rowth-Pays-Its-Own-Way
The premise behind this approach is that growth should not result in increased costs to existing
customers. Thus, PIF's are based on the incremented capital costs of service for new
development. In orderto properly determine PIF levels underthis approach, it is necessary to have
an accepted Comprehensive Plan for development (which provides growth rates and locations).
It is also necessary to have a corresponding water system Master Plan which predesigns,
schedules, and estimates the cost of the long-term capital improvement program (CIP).
Equity
The Water Enterprise Fund is essentially anon-profit corporation in which each customer within
the Town has an equitable "share" in the utilities value. It is rational, then, that anon-customer,
to become a shareholder in the utility, should purchase a relevant share in an amount equal to its
equity value.
This has a practical result: generally utilities which have high equity values (in other words have
good facilities which are paid for) have relatively low continuing service charges. Conversely,
utilities with low value (e.g. poor facilities and/or high debt) need to set higher service charges.
•
2 P:/93-016.000gO/Policies-TWS Devlpmnt Fee Study.wpd
• MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
The management of a municipal utility, in this case a water system, can be segregated into two
functional categories: (a) Operations and Maintenance (O&M), and (b) Capital Improvement
Program (CIP)
Facilities are constructed and/or replaced or upgraded as part of a capital improvement program.
Once constructed, these facilities primarily become the responsibility of the utility on an operating
basis and operations management assumes the responsibility of operating, maintaining and
keeping these facilities in a useable condition. The financial link between the two functions is that
the operating budget (recurring income) generally includes a reserve for depreciation; this reserve
fund is banked as a capital fund for use in replacement of major infrastructure.
System development fee income, the subject of this study, is intended to relate entirely to the CIP;
system development fee income should not be used for operating expenses.
CATEGORIZATION OF ASSETS
• For financiaUmanagement purposes, all fixed utility facilities can be functionally assigned to one
of three categories as described following. Note, that in addition to the three categories for fixed
assets, there is another group of capital assets which are generally thought of as short term and
include such things as backhoes, pickups, computers, word processors and other operating
equipment that are usually capitalized. These are not the subject of this study.
Customer Facilities
Customer facilities are those that serve only one individual customer. Therefore their size, quality
and operating condition may not directly affect other utility customers. For the Fraser water utility,
customer facilities consist of corporation stops put on the Town main and customer service
pipelines, including curb valve, meter, pressure regulating valve, and other related appurtenances.
Local ("Retail") Facilities
Retail facilities are those which generally serve an identifiable local area such as a subdivision
within the Town service area. The local facilities category includes water distribution pipes which
serve a group of lots or customers or a subdivision, and are generally in streets orrights-of--ways.
Local facilities include fire hydrants, valves, and other appurtenances which are part of the
distribution system.
•
3 P:/93-016.000gO/PoBcies-7'WS Devlpmnt Fee Study.wpd
• Regional ("Wholesale") Facilities
Wholesale facilities are those which generally serve large areas of the Town, or may serve the
entire Town. The master planning and usability of these facilities interrelate with almost all
customers, and will affect total system costs and total system serviceability. For the Fraser water
system, wholesale assets would include water rights and augmentation plans, rawwater reservoirs,
raw water conduits, water treatment facilities, wells and well pumping stations, major treated water
transmission lines, storage tanks and booster pump stations. Occasionally, watertransmissionavd
distribution functions can be provided in a dual use pipeline by one conduit; in this case, the
oversize of the base conduit is considered to be transmission, or having a wholesale function, while
the base size is considered to be retail. For a system the size of Fraser, we would normally
assume that base retail distribution lines would be 8" in size or less, and that over size would only
pertain to capacity larger than an 8" pipeline would provide.
•
•
4 P:/93-016.000gO/Policies-TWS Devlpmnt Fee Study.wpd
ýÿ
• PRESENT POLICIES
GENERAL
Management of the Fraser Water Utility is the responsibility of the Town Board, operating through
the Administrator. Present policies are stated in several ordinances and resolutions as follows.
Ordinance N° 75 Oct, 1978
86 Aug, 1980
93 June, 1981
127 Mar, 1984
173 Dec, 1988
205 Jan, 1994
Resolution N° 1-1-89
10-1-90
7-1-91
7-2-91
1-1-94
10-2-94
Ordinance Ns 75 was comprehensive and is the base document; later ordinances modify Ordinance
75.
Provision of these documents, which affect the Town's water utility CIP and PIF setting, are
summarized following.
OWNERSHIP
New or replacement customer facilities are the cost responsibility of the customer. Meters are
required; all but the meters are the maintenance responsibility of the customer.
• 5 P:/93-016.000gO/Policies-TWS Devlpmnt Fee Study.wpd
• CHANGE OF USE
A customer may not change or extend use without consent of the Town.
CONNECTION FEES
The cost of service connections to be paid by the customer/applicant.
PLANT INVESTMENT FEES (PIF's OR SDF's)
A common denominator unit, the single family equivalent (SFE or EQR) is defined and used to set
PIF income from new users. An SFE value is to be assigned to all customers other than single-
family residential. Ordinance 75 gives the characteristics of an average SFE in terms of water
demand limitations. It also contains an SFE Table and Rate Schedule. This Table does not
adequately differentiate between size of new customers, other than for residential categories
(modified by Ordinance 86). The PIF was established at $2,000/SFE in 1984.
EXTENSION OF SERVICE
• Line extensions (which can generally be categorized as Local Facilities) are paid for by Developers.
There are provisions for rebates -but only to be derived from other customers, and not from Town
PIF's, or rate income. Presumably, this is for later intervening development.
Extensions can be accomplished by any of three methods: a) advance payments to Town; b) by
Developer's contractor; or c) by Developer construction. The choice is left to the Town Board. In
any case, the Town must approve engineering and construction, all at the expense of the
Developer.
There is not a clear definition between local and regional facilities. The Section relating to mains
also makes reference to storage and pumping facilities. Evidently, in some cases, these can be
regarded as Local Facilities.
•
6 P:/93-016.OWg0/Policies-TWS DevlpnuU Fee Swdy.wpd
• CUSTOMER FACILITIES (SERVICE LINES)
Service connections outside of the Town Limits, and connections larger than 3/a" must be
specifically approved by the Town Board.
Service lines are to be constructed to Town Standards.
REVIEW COMMENTS
In contemplation of significant new development, suggested additional provisions include:
A. How to revise SFE rating/fees.
• Incremental use.
• Credits after cessation of service.
• Transferability.
B. Standby service charges.
• C. Discuss water rights dedication . Provide for Water Resource Fee (WRF).
D. Better define Town/Developer responsibilities.
E. More sophisticated provisions for financing capital improvements, e.g. rebate provisions,
prepared PIF's.
•
7 P:/93-016.000gO/Policies-TR+S Devlpmnt Fee Swdy.wpd
DRAFT
RECOMMENDED POLICIES -EXTENSION OF SERVICE
• GENERAL PROVISIONS
New service will be furnished only after all of the following conditions are satisfied:
• The proposed new Service Area/Customer is included within the Fraser City limits, or the
Board has furnished a written specific exceptions pursuant to the terms of a written
agreement.
• Regional Facilities needed to serve the Area/Customer have been provided by the Town.
• All Local Facilities needed to serve the Area/Customer are in place and have had design
and construction approval by the Town's Engineer.
• The applicable permits have been applied for and approved and all required System
Development Fees paid.
• The Customers' service lines have been installed in accordance with Town standards and
construction approved by the Administrator.
No privately owned wells or other water supply systems, septic tanks or other individual sewage
disposal system, or on-site drainage detention facilities shall be planned or construction within the
• boundaries of the Town without the express written consent of the Town Board.
POLICIES -CUSTOMER FACILITIES
1. Customer facilities are to be constructed by the customer or his builder or, with permission
from the Town, may be partially preconstructed by the Developer.
2. Customer facilities are generally not those which are engineered for a specific customer.
The Town will provide design standards and minimum specifications for service lines, which
are to be adhered to by each customer.
3. All costs of construction of customer facilities shall be paid for by the customer.
4. The Town representative must inspect each service line before it is backfilled and placed
in service. The cost of such inspection shall be included in a tap fee.
•
8 P:/93-016.000gO/Policies-TWS Devlpmnt Fee Study.wpd
ýÿ
POLICIES -RETAIL FACILITIES
. 1. Retail facilities shall be designed by an engineer registered in Colorado and may be chosen
by the Developer; or, at the Developer's (Town's?) option, the Town can design such
facilities using the Town's Engineer.
2. The Town will provide master planning input into the design, and will provide minimum
design criteria and standards. However, the Engineer of Record is to be responsible forthe
successful design of the subject retail facilities.
3. The Developer shall provide the Town with a request for service and a preliminary design
for the subject retail facilities. Such preliminary designs shall be reviewed by the Town's
Engineer, modified if necessary, and be approved prior to submission of final design
drawings.
4. During the preliminary design submittal phase, if the Town determines that certain lines
should be oversized to accommodate a simultaneous transmission function, then the Town
shall so notify the Developer and will agree to be responsible for the oversize costs in
amounts approved by the Town. In some cases the Developer may be required to prepay
oversize costs, or to extend a connecting line; in such cases the Town will enter into a
• rebate contract (maximum 10-year duration).
Note: The Town's minimum design criteria and standard details should be fairly lengthy so
that facilities will be consistent and reasonably maintainable.
5. Final design drawings and specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the Town
before construction is started. Construction shall be in accordance with the Town approved
drawings and specifications.
6. Inspection of construction of the retail facilities must be by the Town or its Engineer.
7. The Developer shall provide adequate easements or street rights-of-way for the facilities
at no cost to the Town. The completed facilities shall be deeded to the Town and shall
include record drawings and aone-year warranty so that any defects discovered in the first
year shall be paid for by the Developer. After that period, the Town shall assume perpetual
maintenance, operation and replacement responsibilities for such retail facilities.
8. The Developer shall pay all costs of retail facilities including preliminary design, final design,
• Town design review, Town inspection, construction, testing, and warranty.
9 P:/93-016.~Og0/Policies-TWS Devlpmnt Fee Study.wpd
ýÿ
POLICIES -WHOLESALE FACILITIES
• 1. The Town shall plan the design, construction, and financing of all wholesale facilities.
2. It is intended that the contribution of the Developer, or new owners, in the form of a Plant
Investment Fee (PIF) is to be considered as fair compensation for the City's provision of
such wholesale facilities.
3. In certain cases, it may be determined that a specific development will result in the need
for wholesale facilities, for which the cost would not be initially covered by the plant
investment fee or potential income from the development. In this case, in order to make
the project feasible, the Town may require the Developer to either prepay system
development fees or provide funds for the construction of needed wholesale facilities with
a rebate agreement. It is the intent of this provision that the Town will not be responsible
for risk capital needed to finance new development.
Note: In the case of extension of transmission lines in a development, the Town may also
agree to require rebates to be paid by future Developers who might connect to the
intervening connection facilities.
• 4. Utility assets such as computers, billing machines, trucks, and similar equipment are not
considered wholesale facilities. However, they are considered as assets for the utility; and,
for the purposes of financial management, may be classified as wholesale items.
5. Water Resource Fee
It is recommended that the Town divide the PIF into two components:
• a facilities PIF, and
• a water resource fee.
The reason for this that water rights availability is limited in much of Colorado -but that
adequate water rights are mandatory to the provision of service. The resulting policies
could then state: the petitioner shall deed to the Town water resources adequate for the
proposed development (in the Town's opinion); or pay the WRF - at the Town's option.
•
P:l93-016.OOOg0/Policies-TWS Devlpmnt Fee Study.wpd
ýÿ
GRAND COUNTY
i..
~~
HOUSING AUTHORITY
• Phone: (970) 726-4572 Fax: (970) 726-4579
200 Eisenhower • P.O. Box 2560 Fraser, CO 80442-2560
Mr. Chuck Reid, Town Manager
Town of Fraser
P.O. Box 120
Fraser, CO 80442
Dear Chuck:
October 21, 1999
During the past several months, as you are aware, the Grand County Housing Authority
has proceeded with securing financing for the 64 unit FoxRun affordable housing project.
We deeply appreciate the support that has been extended to the Housing Authority, by the
Town of Fraser in addressing affordable housing
FoxRun will be a mixed income ,~,a~481 housing project assisting persons as low as 50%
of Area Median Income. Thus far, the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority has
provided conditional commitment for private activity bond financing for the project. The
• Housing Authority has also submitted an application for funding to the Federal Home
Loan Bank In November an application for funding will also be submitted to the
Colorado Division of Housing. These types of leveraged funding sources are critical for
the devel~.r...ent of affordable housing in our mountain communities. Without these types
of funding sources, it would not be possible to address affordable housing due to the
currently high cost of developing. Our plans are to break ground in the ~~,~ xug of next
year and to complete the project by fall.
We would like to begin the negotiation process for water for FoxRun. I recognize that
the Town is about to begin reviewing it's plant investment plan to determine whether it
will be necessary to in.,~.,~se water taps fees. We would like to request that the Town
permit us to lock in at the cu...;.~1 water tap raze. Since we have no way of knowing what
the rate would be once the plant investment plan is revised, it makes it very difficult to
budget for the project. By permitting us to lock in the current rate, we are better able to
establish financial feasibility for FoxRun. We all recognize that the cost of water taps is a
significant consideration for any housing development. But for affordable housing, it is
c.. ~.,,ounded due to the rent restrictions which are placed on affordable housing projects
by funding sources. Unlike a market rate r.~.,;ect, we can not simply increase our
revenues generated from rental rates to compen~.te for higher development costs.
Certainly anything that Fraser can do to negotiate the water tap charges based on this
multi family project will help a great deal.
•
• Mr. Chuck Reid
Town of Fraser
Page 2
October 21, 1999
We look forward to working with the Town of Fraser in the months ahead as we make
FoxRun a reality for our community. Again, on behalf of the Grand County Housing
Authority, thank you verb much for your support of affordable housing.
Please let me know when you aze free to further discuss this issue.
Sincerely,
%" ~ , ~~ ~,
Jim Sheehan
Executive Director
•
"Our 1Vlission is to foster the availability of quality affordable housing and .+.,.rYortive services for the
Grand County community."
• Housin Q ,mi
g ri ~ ., ty"
TOWN OF ERASER
• "Icebox of the Nation" ~
P.O. Box 120 / 153 Fraser Avenue
Fraser, Colorado 80442
(970)726-5491
FAX Line: (970) 726-5518
E-Mail: faser@ckymtnhi.com
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Johnston and Fraser Trustees
From: Chuck Reid
Date: October 26, -1999
Subject: Housing Toolbox
Following the meeting at SilverCreek during which the proposed inclusionary zoning
ordinance way discussed, a group has been working to broaden the scope of regulations
that affect housing development. Several tools have been discussed and could be added
to the toolbox: the list is described below. The group has agreed that the best tools are
those that create incenrtives for the private sector to build affordable units on their own,
but so-far, a list of specific incentives needed by developers' has not been identified.
• I need additional direction from you about how you'd like to proceed.
Fee Waiverss Qualified projects (those that serve a market up to 150% of area median
income) would be eligible for reduced fees. These wouldinclude water and sewer "tap"
fees, park fees, and building permit fees, and could include school impact fees. Any fees
waived would, most rely, need be to subsidized with general fixed dollars and, as such,
would be atrade-off, i.e: housing for parks. Tap fee waivers could take the form of
deferred payments or reduced fees for certain projects or development.
Amendments to the zoning coder There was substantial discussion about amending
zoning codes that would allow for increased densities (through decreased open space
and/or increased height restrictions), ,decreased minimum lot sizes, accessory units, zero
lot-line development, and etc. One intriguing idea that arose during this discussion is that
of a maximum lot size, but it garnered little support.
Occupational Privilege tag: This is a rY.,NOSed new tax that would be assessed against
all employers in Fraser, and could possibly be passed along to employees. As discussed,
this would be based on a certain percentage of total_payroll. Thin tax would need voter
approval.
Inclusionary Zonings Ordinance 293, which would require a land dedication and a fee
per square foot of construction for affordable housing or as otherwise negotiated, is
. inclusionary zoning. The premise behind inclusionary zoning is to scatter-site affordable
i
housin throu out the communi The develo went comet
g ~ ty. p unity that has been part of
• the work group has resisted this tool, stating that it is not legal (there is a pending court
case out of Telluride that claims that mandatory deed restricted pazcels is a form of rent
control, which is illegal in Colorado). Still being discussed by the group is a graduated
fee structure based on the new construction. One issue. still needing discussion is the
accompanying "guidelines" that provide exemptions to qualified individuals or builders
that offset the proposed fee and/or land dedication.
Public/Private Partnerships: This tool would encourage private developers to access
funding streams that provide tax credits or decreased interest costs.
Some Random thoaghts: when we set out on the task of creating an affordable housing,
toolbox, we felt that it was important that Fraser, Winter Pazk, and as much of the rest of
the County that was interested (especially east of Red Dirt Ilill) would adopt similar
regulations. It was my understanding that the Board wanted something done as
expeditiously as possible. The work group made up of Town of Winter Park, Fraser-and.
Grand County staffs came back with the first tool for the toolbox, inclusionary zoning.
As stated above, I believe the key to making inclusionary zoning work is the
acc.,...ranying guidelines, which provides grants to those for whom the toolbox is
designed. For example, I don't believe that Paul Jones should have to pay the proposed
fee on his second story residential 1 he is building housing for the mazket intended to be
served by the Ordinance. Likewise, I believe that we need to look closely at Maryvale:
the annexation agreement requires them to build up-to 144 affordable housing units in
one planning area and 20% of another area needs to be available as affordable housing.
But even if these details could be worked-out, there remains the argument that to simply
adopt the inclusionary zoning provisions firstwould create an inequitable cost burden for
the devel~.r...ent community,
Here is where I need direction: do you want to move forward with adoption of the
inclusionary zoning ordinance at this tune, and follow this with other tools later, br would
you prefer to wait until the ~~lue toolbox is complete and adopt all the regulations at one
time? Also, are there other tools:you would like to see added to the toolbox, or some
removed? Finally, I am assuming that we are still taking a "three musketeer" approach
on affordable housing regulations, i.e. "all for one and one for all." Does this hold true?
I look forward to hearing your discussion and following-up on your direction.
•
ýÿ
~~~~~~~ BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF
~~1~/~~ CORPORATIO N
ENGINEERS 1 PLANNERS 1 ARCHITECTS
•
October 21, 1999
Mr. Chuck Reid
Town Manager
Town of Fraser
153 Fraser Avenue
Fraser, CO 80442
Re: Maryvale Development
Additional Criteria Summary
Dear Chuck:
We are in receipt of the October 14, 1999 letter from Carroll & Lange regarding additional design
parameter review for the above referenced project. A copy of their letter is attached for reference/record.
Tan>?ent Lengths at Intersections The developer has requested the use of twenty-five (25) foot tangent
lengths from the edge of shoulder for collector roads, local roads and private driveways. In reviewing
their preliminary plan, last revision dated October 5, 1999, we recommend for this development the one
hundred (100) foot setback as described in Section 12-6-7 Public Rights-of--Way, Article 6 intersections
be maintained for collector roads. Local roads and private driveways in the mountainous areas shall
• maintain a minimum tangent length of twenty-five (25) feet from the outer edge of the shoulder. This will
allow the roadway to be "best fit" with the terrain. Sight distance per AASHTO requirements shall be
maintained for the proposed design speed.
Private Driveways The developer has proposed private driveways with lengths exceeding one thousand
(1,000) feet, with turnarounds and pullouts at intermediate points. The topography and layout doesn't lend
itself to private driveways less than a 1,000 feet unless a portion of the development is abandoned. We
concur with the developer's proposal, with the following stipulations:
Intermediate turnarounds are spaced at 1,000 feet or less.
Turnarounds are sized and configured suitable for maneuvering emergency vehicles to turn around.
Turnarounds are maintained by the entity maintaining the road and the maintenance program be
satisfactory with the Town and emergency services providers.
The developer has requested clarification of the roadway classification serving planning areas lE, 2E, 3E,
SE and 8E. Their request includes classification of the roadway from the T intersection located on the east
side of the Fraser River to the top of the development as a local road. In review of this request, several
points are noted.
The preliminary layout includes one hundred eight (108) developable lots along this length of
roadway.
The upper end of the development is connected to the adjacent development by a gated access for
emergency traffic only.
•
1743 WAZEE STREET, SUITE 200 ~ DENVER, COLORADO 80202-1280 1 303/292-5056 1 FAX: 303/292-5668
• Mr. Chuck Reid
October 21, 1999
Page Two
• The previous Maryvale Traffic Impact Analysis utilized published data for average week day trip
generations of Single Family Permanent Units of 6.25 trips and Single Family Tourist Units of 4.75
trips. It also assumed sixty (60) percent of the units are permanent and forty (40) percent of the units
are tourist.
• The previous Maryvale Traffic Impact Analysis defines a local road classification with average daily
traffic with less than 2,000 vehicles per day.
Based on the foregoing data the trip generation for this portion of the development is less than one-half
the maximum trip generation cap for a local road even if all units are considered permanent single family
residences.
We recommend the roadway from US 40 extending east be classified a collector road to the T-
intersection. The road from the T-intersection extending to the top of the development serving planning
areas lE, 2E, 3E, SE and 8E, be classified a local road.
We understand our proposed recommendations will be presented to the Town Board for consideration.
We would be happy to review any concerns they may have.
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact our office.
•
TLIFF CORPORATION
JRS/jc
C: Eric Fallstrom, Carroll & Lange
Robert Taylor, Koebel & Company
• X:\1999PB\PRASER-MARYVALE DEVEL LTR_10-21-99.dce
Sincerely,
ivi ivi vv a-a~a iv. uu a [emu uvv ..uv uuuo vnavwa.., o,, a..[aawa:.
~LJVVL
Carroll ~ Lange
Professional Engineers & Land Surveyors
Lakewood -Winter Park
• October 14, 1999
JN: 2028
Bucher, Willis 8r Ratliff
Attn: Jim Swanson
1743 Wazee Street, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80202
RE: October 12`" meeting summary and roadway criteria requests
Dear Jim:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us en Tuesday. I thought the meeting was very
informative and helpful. I am sending this letter at your request to briefly summarize the major
discussions at this meeting, and also to propose additional design parameters that were not
included in the Roadway Design Criteria Table. The following summarizes the two additional
design parameters.
1. Tangent lengths at intersections. Carroll & Lange, Inc., on behalf of Koelbel 8~ Company, is
proposing the use of a 25' tangent length from edge of shoulder for collector roads, local
roads and private driveways.
2. Pnvate driveways. Carroll 8 Lange, Inc., on behalf of Koelbel 8 Company, is proposing the
use of the private driveways serving planning areas 3E & 5E with total lengths in excess of
the 1000 feet length approved in the annexation agreement. Hammerhead turnarounds and
• pullouts will be designed and built at appropriate locations along these longer private
driveways.
Also discussed at this meeting was the need to determine the classification of the roadway
serving planning areas 1 E, 2E, 3E, 5E, & 8E. Due to the fact that a "T° intersection would be
provided at the lower east side (within planning area 9E), Carroll 8r Lange, Inc. requests that this
roadway be considered a local roadway for design purposes. The roadway will fit the topography
and lot layout much better if it is classified as local.
As 1 explained in the meeting, prompt response to these questions would be greatly appreciated
as these criteria and constraints dictate the final alignment of the roadway. Please do not
hesitate to contact our office at (303) 980-9600 with any questions regarding this letter, and I look
forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
CARROLL & LANGE, INC.
Eric E. al[strom
Cc: Robert Taylor, Koelbe{ & Company
Jeff Vogel, DHM Design, Inc.
Jack Bestall, Koelbel ~ Company
E/R
P.O_ Box 3345
165 South Union Blvd.. Suite 156 63 Cooper Creek Way. Suite 334E
• Lakewood. CO 80228 Winter Park. CO 80482-3345
(303) 980-0200 Fax 980-0917 (970) 726-8100 Fax 726-9100
Denver-Winter Park Dir. 980-9600 Denver-Winter Park Dir. 980-9600