HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board Work Session 2000-07-18BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 18, 2000
Minutes of a Work Session of the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal
Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 18th day of July, 2000.
Town Board:
Attending;
Also Attending:
Absent;
Mayor Baudek, Trustees Barker, Doylen, Gillette, Habecker,
Jeffrey and Newsom
Mayor Baudek, Trustees Barker, Doylen, Gillette, Jeffrey
and Newsom
Town Administrator Widmer, Assistant Town Administrator
Repola, Town Clerk O’Connor, Sr. Planner Joseph, Planner
Trustee Habecker
Mayor Baudek called the work session to order at 8:34 a.m.
1. TOWN VISION & MISSION STATEMENTS - REVIEW.
The Vision Statement was reviewed and revised as follows:
As written, it reads: “By the Year 2005, the Town of Estes Park will be the
premier mountain resort community in the United States....”
Consensus: Modify the above-referenced paragraph to: “By the Year 2005, the
Town of Estes Park will continue to be one of the premier mountain resort
communities in the United States...”
The Mission Statement was not revised.
2. DESIGN STANDARDS - DISCUSSION OF CREATING SAME FOR THE
HIGHWAY ENTRANCES AND DOWNTOWN OF ESTES PARK.
Question: Should a draft of the Highway Corridor and Downtown
Architectural Design Standards be completed, and presented for public
review and a public hearing with the Town Board and County
Commissioners?
A portion of the consultant contract in the original Development Code was to
prepare architectural design standards for the highway corridors and the
downtown. An initial draft document was produced at that time; however, it was
set aside so efforts could be concentrated on completion of the basic
Development Code.
Options: If the Town Board is not interested in pursuing these design standards,
this project should be terminated. Should the Trustees elect to pursue this
project, completion of a draft would most likely occur after the first of the year.
The original budget amount for this project was $21,622. The downtown portion
was under a separate contract with EPURA for approximately $5,000. Due to
the elapsed time, a negotiated agreement would be necessary.
Consensus: Staff look at specific items; suggest each Trustee voice their
particular concerns with staff, ie: metal buildings, second story smooth planes.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town Board Work Session - July 18, 2000 - Page 2
incentive program, identifying future problems, etc. No further action was taken
pending review of the examples noted above.
CAPITAL EXPANSION FEES FOR TRANSPORTATION - DISCUSSION OF
CREATING A CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE.
Question: is the Town Board interested in supporting and pursuing the
required steps to implement a Capital Expansion Fee System for
transportation improvements in the Estes Valley?
At a joint work session last Spring, the County Commissioners explained the
County’s Capital Expansion Fee System: the County collects a fee for
transportation improvements for every building permit issued in the un
incorporated portions of Larimer County. There are two components: a regional
fee that is dedicated for improvements to County Roads 17, 18, 19, 32 and 38,
and a county fee that is used for county roads in general. The regional fee paid
by developments in the Estes Valley are dedicated and used to subsidize road
improvements in the Loveland/Ft. Collins area. Should the Town adopt a Capital
Expansion Fee System for Transportation for the Estes Valley, the County would
dedicate a portion of the fee to road improvements in the Estes Valley. An IGA
would be required between the Town and County to establish the fee
distribution.
Consensus: The Town Board does not support implementation of a Capital
Expansion Fee System for Transportation Improvements in the Estes Valley at
this time.
SIGN CODE - DISCUSSION OF REWRITING SAME.
Question: Should the Sign Code be rewritten?
In the recent past, staff prepared a draft revision that included editing, re
organization and deletion of inapplicable sections. The result was a Code that
was considerably shorter and easier to use. Staff could re-examine this edited
version, update it and review with the Town Board. As a supplement, an
illustrated guide could be prepared that would provide diagrams and illustrations
of various sign types and dimensional information. These two steps could be
taken without changing the basic provisions of the Sign Code; however, re
writing the Sign Code should involve some consultant work.
Consensus: Staff re-examine the existing edited version, update it and add an
illustrated guide. Such edited version to be submitted directly to the Town Board
for consideration.
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.16.010 - DISCUSSION CONCERNING USE
OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AS SEASONAL HOUSING FOR
ACCOMMODATIONS.
The Development Code provides that accommodations uses may build one unit
of employee housing for every seven accommodation units. These units must
be deed restricted for a minimum of 20 years. While these units are not included
in the base density, there is a cap limit that provides the total number of units
may not exceed 125% of the maximum allowed density.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town Board Work Session - July 18, 2000 - Page 3
Considerations
include:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
for use of RV’s as seasonal housing for accommodations
What about other businesses/employers?
RV’s are not dwelling units.
Location on a property, setbacks.
How many per property?
Define “seasonal”.
Sanitation and health issues.
Life safety issues.
Time limit for use or placement.
View of the neighbor.
Consensus: Review options such as a central location, possibly on Town
property, establishing stringent regulations, and enforcing existing regulations
should the use of RV’s not be amended.
6.PERMANENT COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND - NOVEMBER BALLOT.
On November 8, 1994, the citizens approved collecting, retaining and spending
all revenues in excess of revenue and spending limitations. The ballot question
contained a term limit through 2003. The Town Board has established this issue
as a Town Board Goal and the Action Team’s Action Plan was reviewed. The
Plan is to place this ballot question on the November 7, 2000.
Town Administrator Widmer briefed the Trustees on a meeting with the owners of the
Stanley Hotel regarding Stanley Hall, and it appears the owners are willing to provide a
99-year lease. The Town may utilize the Stanley’s contractors for historic renovation
work. To facilitate opening Stanley Hall for limited use by June, 2001, construction of
major improvements will not begin before October, 2001, with completion anticipated in
May, 2002. An Operations Agreement will be negotiated.
There being no further business. Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 10:35 a.m.
Vickie O’Connor, CMC, Town Clerk