Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

February 11, 2010

PROJECT PLAN

WOODLAND STATION REVIEW COMMITTEE


1.0 PROJECT OBJECTIVE

The objective of the Woodland Station Review Committee (Committee) is to


gather all pertinent information related to the proposed relocation to the
Downtown Development Authority (DDA) parcel located between West and
Park Streets in Woodland Park Colorado. The Committee will interview all
necessary individuals with a stake in the proposed relocation and develop 1)
a list of facts regarding the proposed move; 2) a list of potential benefits
related to the proposed move; and 3) a list of perceived risks related to the
proposed move.

2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Committee is comprised of 16 members of the parish committed to


conducting an un-biased review of all facts related to the proposed
relocation. Each member of the Committee has volunteered for specific
roles and responsibilities related to the effort as outlined below:

PROJECT DOCUMENT READER/ ANALYST INTERVIEW LISTENER


MANAGER ER CONSOLIDAT ER
ER
Bob Carol Bob Korzekwa Ross Calvert Carol Steve
Korzekwa Korzekwa John Moragues Steve Korzekwa Leininger
–Primary Kay Calvert Paul Cooper Leininger Kay Calvert Todd
Paul Cooper Sheri Basey Dave Luplow Mary Mary Wiseman
– Backup Steve McSorley McSorley Bill
Leininger Sonny Strobl Todd Armstrong
Todd Wiseman Sheri Basey
Wiseman Bill Dana
Bill Armstrong Moragues
Armstrong David Paula Strobl
David Langley
Langley

3.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE

Feb 2 – Wednesday, 6:00 pm – Committee meeting to develop Project Plan

Feb 2 – Feb 12; Develop and QC Draft Project Plan

Feb 13 – Saturday, 9:00 am – Group Meeting – Progress Check – Present


Project Plan

Feb 13 – Feb 15; Finalize and Distribute Project Plan

Feb 15 – Feb 24; Conduct First set of interviews – all interviewees

Feb 24-26; Preparation of draft Facts Documents

Feb 27 – Saturday, 9:00 am – Group Meeting – Progress Check

Feb 28 – March 8; Follow-up interviews, final fact checking

March 9 – March 12 – Preparation of Final Project Brief: Facts, Benefits, Risks

March 13 – Saturday, 9:00 am – Group Meeting – Deliverable Due Date -


Brief Project Report

March 27 – Saturday, 9:00 am to 3:00 pm – Develop Options Based on


Committee Reports (+’s/-‘s)

Week of April 11 – Open Parish Meetings – Ineractive; more +’s/-‘s

April 17 – (Fallback date of May 1, if needed) – Discern Best Option to


present

4.0 LIST OF INTERVIEWERS/INTERVIEWEES

Arden Weatherford – Primary Developer – Woodland Station

Committee Interview Team – Todd Wiseman/Sheri Basey

Kip Unrue – Woodland Station Developer (Phone Interview)

Committee Interview Team – Mary McSorley/Dana Moragues

Beth Kosley – DDA Executive Director

Committee Interview Team – Kay Calvert/Bill Armstrong

Dale Schnitker - DDA Board Member

Committee Interview Team – David Langley/Paula Strobl

Dave Buttery – City Manager

Committee Interview Team – Carol Korzekwa/Steve Leininger


Steve Randolf – Mayor of Woodland Park

Committee Interview Team - – Carol Korzekwa/Steve Leininger

Jim Ignatius – City councilman

Committee Interview Team - David Langley/Paula Strobl

5.0 LIST OF QUESTIONS/INTERVIEWEES

Question # 1:

What is the size of the proposed parcel to be ‘swapped’ for the 6.2 acre
OLW parcel?

a) What restrictions are placed on the parish for outside activities at the
proposed Woodland Station site?
b) What is the size of the proposed building? Are there height or design
restrictions?
c) Are there any incentives for the parish to accept the general concept?

Question # 2:

What fees associated with this proposal would be incurred by the parish?
Please be specific.

a) Would the parish be required to share any sale proceeds with the DDA?
b) We will need a stipulation that the offered DDA parcel be – forever- the
property of OLW (diocese), including any transfer costs.
c) Are there any fees to be incurred by the parish (diocese) in the proposed
‘swap’? [Is this a deal breaker??]

Question #3:

Who pays for the infrastructure costs?

a) Are there any development costs that will be incurred by the parish
including sewer, water, drainage gas, lighting, and common insurance?
b) Specifically, what are the projected yearly maintenance costs, as now
planned, for the parish?
c) What are the long-range expenses projected for the infrastructure?
d) What is an estimate of yearly costs that have not been included in the
‘vision offer’?
e) Who owns the common spaces (parking, plaza, etc.)?
f) Is there any access limits planned for the plaza area for parish functions?
(( Multiple statements were made by group members regarding
taxes to be paid - we need to make clear that the church is tax
exempt! ))

Question #4:

Where, on the 11 acre proposed Woodland Station site, will the parish
parcel be located?

a) Who decides on the location of the church site?


b) How high does the church structure have to be to be “highly visible” from
US 24
c) How much space is designated between the church and adjacent
buildings?
d) Is the rear of the proposed building accessible from the plaza area?
e) How will vehicular access be provided to Emergency vehicles, deliveries,
and vehicles in general, with access to an internal street.
f) The land slopes will require 2 or probably 3 levels: How will the above
pieces be handled, especially with respect to other buildings and how
close they may be.

Question #5:

What will the plaza area look like?

a) What is the proposed ‘style’ of the buildings in Woodland Station?


b) How much space, in the Plaza, will be available for parish activities?
c) Will seasonal religious displays be a potential problem for the parish?

Question #6:

What types of businesses, residences, structures will be around and


adjacent to the church structure?

a) Will we be able to limit the proximity of ‘inappropriate’ businesses to the


church structure?
b) Who decides on what businesses can be in near proximity to the church
structure?
c) Who enforces any of these decisions?
d) What assurances are being offered that “undesirable businesses” and/or a
“carnival atmosphere” will not be in close proximity to the church
structure?
e) Are there or will there be any zoning restrictions for the area surrounding
the church structure?
f) What guarantees are being offered by the developers that they will not
‘disappear’ when the properties are sold?
Question #7:

How much time is projected to complete the land transfer?

a) Are there any assurances given by the developers that the parish will not
have to vacate the property prior to the completion of the proposed new
church structure?

Question # 8:

Is it possible that we could agree to this proposal and then have it fall
apart, in the near future, due to a lack of interest in the current OLW
property?

a) What sort of “OUTS” (timelines, penalties) would you be looking to place


into any agreement should the land (OLW) not sell at a favorable price or
the development not occur on the OLW parcel ?

Question #9:

How long will the platting/planning process take (assuming city/county


has to approve)?

a) What is the proposed timeline to move dirt?


b) There are multiple parties are there multiple answers?

Question #10:

What are the role definitions for DDA, Individual developers, City, County,
OLW?

a) Are we (OLW parish) to share any risk(s) in this development process?


b) If so, what are our profits estimated to be (now and in the future)?

Question #11:

Do the developers need financing or will the project be funded internally?

a) If the financing is needed, is it lined up?

INTERVIEWEE: Question #:
Arden Weatherford 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Kip Unruh 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11

Beth Kosley 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11

Dale Schnitker 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11

Dave Buttery 3, 5, 9

Steve Randolf 5, 9

Jim Ignatius 9