HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2011-10-25Prepared 10/17/11
* Revised
TOWN. OF . Sr I ES .PAI I<
The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high -quality, reliable
services for the benefit of our citizens, visitors, and employees, while
being good stewards of public resources and natural setting.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PRESENTATION. WEDDING ASSOCIATION.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated October 11, 2011, Town Board Study Session Minutes
dated October 11, 2011.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
a. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee, October 13, 2011:
1. Park R-3 School District Resource Officer Agreement 2011/2012.
2. 2011 Halloween Street Closure.
3. 2012 GMC 3500 HD Truck with Snowplow, Weld County Garage, $31,469
— Budgeted.
4. 2012 Ford F350 4x4 with Utility Body and Crane, Spradley Barr Ford,
$42,512 - Budgeted.
4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated September 20, 2011
(acknowledgement only).
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. RENEWAL APPLICATION FILED BY BOWL FORT COLLINS LLC DBA
CHIPPER LANES ESTES PARK CENTER 555 S. ST. VRAIN AVENUE. Town
Clerk Williamson.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. Amended Plat, Lot 1, Sundance Mountain Subdivision, 1531 Fish Hatchery
Road, Jeff Moreau/Applicant. Item continued from August 23, 2011
meeting.
2. REPORT ITEMS:
A. Discussion Items for the Triangle Meeting — November 15, 2011:
1. Estes Valley Development Code Amendments - 2012 Work Plan.
Director Chilcott.
2. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Director Chilcott.
B. Accessory Dwelling Unit Problem Statement. Director Chilcott.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ESTES VALLEY LIBRARY DISTRICT APPOINTMENTS:
a. Reappointment of John Kamprath for a 4-year term expiring December 31, 2015.
b. Appointment of Jo -Ann Mullen for a 4 —year term expiring December 31, 2015.
c. Appointment of Donald Bryson completing a 4-year term vacated by Jack Ford
expiring on December 31, 2014.
2. REAPPOINTMENT OF CHIEF KUFELD TO THE LARIMER EMERGENCY
TELEPHONE AUTHORITY (LETA) BOARD.
3. RESOLUTION #12-11 ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT BUSINESS
AND OPERATING PLAN FOR 2012. Town Administrator Halburnt.
5. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. BLACK CANYON REALIGNMENT PROJECT. Public Works Zurn.
6. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on
specific legal questions under C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) and for determining positions relative
to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations,
and/or instructing negotiators under C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(e) related to the Bond Park
Project.
ADJOURN.
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
o
ESTES PARK WEDDING ASSOCIATION ( EPWA)
1. History of EPWA—Organized in 2003/ grew to 130 members/ membership rules
were tightened( minimum 25% of business in Estes for at least 12 months) /
tougher requirements for service on committees, etc. = now lean and mean 80
members.
Will always need out of town members for talent to offer 15 services to brides for
some 1,000 weddings.
2. EPWA offers 15 comprehensive services to brides:
Beauty and Spa
Cakes and caterers
Ceremony sites
Florists
Gifts, registry, jewelry
Gowns, formalwear
Invitations, printing
Lodging, honeymoons
Music, DJ's
Party Rentals
Photographers
Reception, rehearsal dinner sites
Videographers
Officiants (ministers)
Limos and transportation
Note: CVB brochure re weddings now suggests call to a CVB staff
member for help. EPWA would suggest referral to EPWA's website
where brides can link directly to 80 professionals offering 15
comprehensive wedding services
3. Organized by Board of Directors and 5 Committees —Internet/ Bridal Shows/
Data Gathering/ Membership and Marketing
4. Introduction of EPWA Board members by Candace Carnahan, EPWA President
ST S
WE(wotwG ASSOCIATION
Marketing Committee Advertising Campaign for 2011
• Rocky Mountain Bride: 1/2 page print and online listing
$2,650.00/year
• The Knot: - Online listing only
$2,200.00/year
• Vacationland Magazine: 1/2 page print ad
$1,200.00/year
• Perfect Wedding Guide: - Full page print and basic online listing
$2,100.00/year
• Brides Colorado - Online listing only
$720.00/year
• EP Trail -Wedding Edition - Insert in Denver Post, full page
$1,275.00
• Canyon Courier: Valentines Insert - 1/4 page
$438.00
• Longmont Times: Wedding Insert - 1/2 page
$707.00
• Loveland Reporter Herald: Valentines/ Wedding Insert - 1/2 page
$599.00
Total Cost $iz,889.00
Estes Park Destination Marketing Organization
2011 Wedding/Romance Promotion Recap
Approximate Budget: $51,411
Print Publications / On-line
The Knot — Colorado: $4,286
Premier National bridal magazine regionalized for Colorado. Prints 2 issues annually, 45,000 copies each,
each reaching 29,000 Colorado Brides. Distributed quarterly throughout Denver, Boulder, Colorado
Springs, Fort Collins, and the mountain cities. Easy to find on quality newsstands, at top vendord
retailer locations, and at bridal shows throughout the local area. 56% of Colorado audience is between
26-35.
1/2 page ad annually, $4,286
• Includes an online profile on theKnot.com and weddingchannel.com
• Monthly list of bride's leads
Wedding Sites & Services / On-line: $3,225
Annual publication that prints 60,000. Readership of 300,000. Distributed at over 750 newsstands
throughout Colorado and at bridal shows. Direct mailed to a list of marketing/event coordinators.
1/2 page ad annually, $3,225
• Includes an online profile on weddingsitesandservices.com
• Free monthly leads
• Access to mailing list
2011 Estes Park Official Visitor Guide
Two -page spread devoted to Weddings market. Annual publication with a printed circulation of 183,000
distributed by request and digital presence: 19,759 downloads. 247,949 digital guide page views
4 �s5
Wage
ED
Digital
• Pay -Per -Click marketing for Wedding Key Words: $1000
• Facebook ads
• Search Engine Optimization for Wedding Key Words
• Wedding Blog/Story (improves SE0)
Creative and Production for print ads and digital: $5.500
• Wedding Landing Page - $1200
• Print Ads - $2500
• Pay -Per -Click text ads - $300
• Online Profile - $1000
• RFP Template - $500
Wedding Trade Shows: $2.400
Public Relations for Weddings Market:
Weddings and romance in Estes Park was specifically used as a key element during a NY press trip in
January. Along with information disseminated during that 3-day trip, Turner PR promoted Valentine's
Day and romantic packages in the Denver -metro region. Coverage received
• Westlake Magazine: romantic Getaways
• The Knot: Romantic Valentine's Day Weekend Getaways
• About.com: Valentine's Day getaways
• Denver Magazine: Renewal of Vows
• Denver Life: Renewal of Vows
• LoveTrekker.com: top romantic hotels
• Brides Magazine: Romantic wedding traditions
• Northern Colorado Mind & Body: Romance in Estes Park
• Travel.com: Renewal of Vows
• Longmont Times CaII: Renewal of Vows
• Loveland Reporter Herald: Renewal of Vows
The number of impressions of these placements totaled 50,093,446
Renewal of Vows Event:
# 1, 00
5, Soo
4t0
ADVGATI iAlev t G , # L I
A special Valentine's Day Renewal of Vows event spearheaded and planned by the DMO's
Communications Department. More than 50 couples attended. Some were celebrating their 50`h
wedding anniversary, others were newlyweds.
fITAFF
Staff: Group Sales & Services Manager, Stakeholder Sales Manager, PR Manager: $35,000 +3$5. 000
ro TA 4 5 i, t} t i
2jPaga
o
WEDDINGS IN ESTES PARK
ECONOMIC BENEFIT
(Estimate for Discussion Purposes Only)
December, 2010
the bridal market
• v
•
; • WIOU,410141!
Tvzo es
c)oo
111,11,Z,
fffv0,11,4,
f'Ci‘k41` f3;t, 2.13 1 w obm,.
I • '7 0000C-Xl 600
WIEl>); G.S — NC.iL
rilS A YEAR-ROUNDi taliSM-SSE
tecwW41
matter what season, or what ha ens Iv i;i
in the world, couples will get married. The
steady I.00 percent audience refresh creates
a constantly replenishing bridal market.
1.LIS MARRIAGES' tOt MONTH
J
PO'K ,SON
+.JU‘tri: 14 mem-ma
FicE.0
r vi
LNr1JM.AUCiai 6
TheiCztatcom WaidintiamneLcom
-40 —19-
rik rfru.percotx,_ r-- 548*4-1--= 79 I**
4-
(siiata_am st:Acci,u4)
Ale 4,1 v' *VP Sg,4 sag
40' kr, TEA 4 mokriAat:g
i414444'14'
D :r„) L,13
NE- "F K
30
(041 C,V4 4, V 444 4',44,4 (444, 1,
D COL,Cgitoo
41'444(.•(44,44 •
1'14 '4414'44,417'14144
"le 'Krillc)t
We (ding Direr „oiry
lelps yoiJv reac'l the
Coloraco brick,!.!:
A DVE IRT/SER PROFILE
rSr.;Tilt.LOn
IAILIRED VNDOR
BADGES
c;ry3 :1,11:7-7t";,',
LOCAL DIRECT Ehil,ALLS
PREMIUM RANNERS
Lz,.E1L-L-c,e
preLdurn b,tmoar
.411milnum o.4 (id Ve
,Z1.:513)71:-3:1!"3 is:
PEST OF WEDDINGS
, r
ONLINE PROGRAM
Qx.e.
wedding professkLnai” CoLr-ita;L-.Lc.:
L.50 hrkies ;70 7A GLCa.
), contact us!. email kx,als.11es@thekoloi„cOri ncafl (800) 843-4983 xl g
TN,4,Kno.?...cvrri !1.7,Ki,234-1gCaannel,com
WEDDINGS IN ESTES PARK
ECONOMIC BENEFIT
( Estimate for Discussion Purposes Only)
1. Average Spent (Vendors) $ 23,700{"'
$ 20,000
2. Guests Spend:
# Guests
-S.T. Goal 60,000
-Intermediate 90,000
-L.T. Goal 120,000
Total
`Spending
Units (5)
30,000 x $600
45,000 x $600
60,000 x $600
$
$
Schedule 3
Number of Annual Weddings
S.T. Goal
1,000 (1)
Intermediate
1,500 (2)
L. T. Goal
2,000 (3)
jenchmark)
23,700,000
$35,550,000
$47,400,000
20,000,000
18,000,000
$30,000,000
27,000,000
$40,000,000
36,000,00C
138,000,000
$57,000,000
$76,000,000
NOTES:
1. "Short Term Goal" (1,000 weddings) represents a "benchmark" approximating the
existing annual volume. Volume in 2009 was somewhat less than this. Weddings
are not recession proof , but are recession resistant. The wedding will definitely be
held, but spending may be curtailed. Similar experience after 9/11 the weddings
took place (terrorism resistant).
The existing volume has been self -funded by member dues since founding of EPWA in
2003 (80 members x $200 dues = $16,000 annually), predominantly spent on marketing
(print and on-line). Wedding advertising has a unique leverage factor. It is only necessary
to reach the bride, who, at no additional cost, will invite perhaps 100-200 guests as a
command performance to attend her wedding (and spend some additional vacation days
in RMNP). This has been done economically through placement in a limited number of
regional and national bridal publications, together with a strong interne presence and
networking among EPWA vendors —without any outside advertising assistance.
2. The wedding volume has reached a resistance level or plateau of approximately
1,000 annually. To significantly increase volume would require substantial investment in
advertising —print (Colorado/ Regional/ National) and intemet.
ttEDVLZ 3
3. To double the existing volume would also require additional capacity, particularly
investment in attractive space for the larger receptions. The largest lodges in Estes can
accommodate approx. 250 guests. Loveland , realizing they are "The Sweetheart City",
has recently emphasized wedding business with a new wedding association ("My
Loveland Wedding and Events"), cash grants for wedding events, The Garden Room
(capacity 250), Fountains of Loveland (capacity 260 ), Embassy Suites Hotel next to
the Budweiser Center (capacity 3,000 in grand ballroom). The Budweiser Center at The
Ranch in Loveland hosts 3 large bridal shows annually with approx. 300 brides per show
interested in Northern Colorado weddings. There will be additional competition from The
Sweetheart City in the wedding industry.
4. The "Average Spent" on Colorado weddings is per The Knot (Schedule 2), who
confirmed that "this amount does not include guest accommodations or meals". It does
represent amounts paid, primarily by parents of the bride, including the venue, lodging
only for the wedding party, rehearsal and reception dinners and all the vendors
(photographers, DJ, flowers, dresses, officiate, etc.) such as EPWA.
5. " Guests Spend" requires additional analysis, with assistance from LMD or CVB,
who use: "on average overnight visitors spend $567 per day...". A breakdown of this
amount is needed: 1,11,MD Used Above
Lodging (dbl. occ.) ? $175 (per EALA)
Meals ? 50 (excludes 2 free dinners)
Entertainment, shopping, gas ? 75
Total per day $ 567 $ 300
Total for 2 days ,$1 34134 $ 600 (rehearsal + wedding days)
Per EPWA Data Committee annual # of wedding guests = 60,000 to 75 000 (60,000 used
above). This has been reduced % to 30,000 on the assumption that there is an average
guest "spending unit" of 2 people ( i.e. typically a couple using one e. card) in applying
the $600 for the 2 days. EPWA receives monthly wedding data from over 20 major Estes
member hotels and lodges, who have a strong interest in the wedding business.
Conclusions and Recommendations:
1. Weddings represent a major Service Industry in Estes Park, providing a
substantial source of potential year-round business growth for the Town.
2. Employment in Estes Park is heavily influenced by government (Town, hospital,
schools, special districts, etc.), with only limited industry other than Tourism.
Weddings provide significant year-round employment in the Estes hotels, lodges
and businesses that service this industry, as well as for EPWA members.
3. Competition will intensify in other communities for the wedding business.
4. Consideration should be given by LMD in future budgeting to increasing its
marketing allocation to bring further wedding business to the Town: 2012
2,010 Actual 2011 Actual $udget
Bridal shows $ 703 } $ 16,400+ staff ?
Weddings -on line 40 }
5. It would be helpful if LMD would assign a staff member with experience in
wedding marketing and advertising to coordinate with EPWA's Marketing Comm.
CO
..i 0. 4— =
4 = O c=
a�
4 cflCDcE
ID
o
r .� l c 71)
`a -0 -a � c
'5 •_ e• c
al m
0 L,. r o
›• � � °-
ij a?'� �.-
-0 0
us
E LE w al E = '.
U 61? Nta
0 'H - 7 ''
0
to Q
C3 = -0 C 0
Qi 0
Wedding Budget
Actual Amount
Adjusted Amount
Recommended Amount
r3
10
�1
4
Photo /Video
0
a a
CO CO
elf kr*
Wedding Rings 4%
te
0 1/24
a a a a
Cil Tr IN
0
o p
C
1 0
ITS • o C v
I,1-4
C it
-
1
Q
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 11, 2011
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 1 1 th day of October, 2011. Meeting
called to order by Mayor Pinkham.
Present:
Also Present:
Absent:
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Eric Blackhurst
Mark Elrod
John Ericson
Wendy Koenig
Jerry Miller
Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator
Town Attorney White
Cynthia Deets, DeputyTow.n Cl$r;
Town Administr.P' alburnt
Mayor Pinkham called the me
recited the Pledge of Allegiark
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Pinkham said
relevant to the To
to exceed three
should be addresse
Ron Nor
hosting
communi
community.'
0
initial
ust be invi` v+ed in the effort to enhance the economic development of our
00 p.m. and all esiring to do so,
ublic comb
oard°and Town
utes and ;aid that
ith Towadministr
Otbd a s
nomi6:, Initiative
limited one topic addressing issues
ions igeneral. He said comments are not
ncerns rested to specific Town employees
on or Town Board members.
Pm Charley Dickey thanking the Town for
eting and said that the private business
Cherie Pettyjohn, wn resident, said that at the last Town Board meeting an individual
was denied his con .lationOtights to express his opinion. She said, the Mayor by his
actions, placed the Toile rd and taxpayers of Estes Park in a position to be sued.
Lindsey Lamson, Estes valley resident, thanked the Board for their support and
expansion of the shuttle system this past summer and requested they keep the need for
the shuttle program in mind while going through the 2012 budget process.
Johanna Darden, Town resident, said the proposed development for the Elkhorn Lodge
property will jeopardize the historical integrity of the lodge. She expressed opposition to
the idea of a ski resort and said visitors come to the area because it is beautiful and
peaceful, not to ski on an artificial surface in the summer time.
Sandy Osterman, Town resident, requested that obsolete signage in the area of the
former location of Silver Lane stables be removed from eastbound Highway 34.
Jim Tawney, Town resident, asked that the Board pay attention to changing economic
conditions during the budgeting process.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
Trustee Blackhurst said the Public Safety / Utilities / Public Works (PUP) Committee
meeting will be held at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, October 13, 2011, in the Town Board
room. He reported that the regular meeting of the Estes Park Housing Authority
Board of Trustees — October 11, 2011 — Page 2
(EPHA) has been postponed one week and will be held on Wednesday, October 19,
2011, at 8:30 a.m. in Room 203 of Town Hall.
Trustee Ericson reported that the Transportation Visioning Committee (TVC) conducted
public input sessions and is now working on drafting a final report to the Town Board.
Mayor Pinkham said the Town Board encourages public input and offered a public
apology related to action taken at the last Town Board meeting when an individual was
not allowed to speak during the public comment section of the meeting.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
No report.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated September 27, 201,1, Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated September 27, 2011.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes: None.
4. Estes Valley Board of
(acknowledgement only).
Adjvst ent Minutes dated September 13, 2011
It was moved and seconded (L vine/Miller) the.
passed unanimously.
PRESENTATION — CANYON LA
Richard Edwards, Ca
the condition of a
682,000 acres rest hay
The district has deV4oped p
infestationh inclu
roadways-ki re'dit tional
of wat uupplies. H sai
wildfire protection plan
and strategically placing eels t
behavior. Implementation "f th
began in 2006 artjnvolves
2. ACTION ITEMS:'`
t Agenda be approved, and it
TRICT UPDATE.
Lake Forest Distr` rovided.. Board with an update as to
. He reported thLarimer County, approximately
een affected by t ,. ountain pine beetle infestation.
rities in fifer to : al with conditions created by the
of hazard :.. fuels adjacent to communities, along
s, a •r;pow`lines and utility corridors, and protection
el reduction -strategies include implementing community
enhancing defensible space adjacent to private land,
ents across the landscape to change large fire
el reduction plan in the Estes valley project area
450 acres of forest.
ST SERV
1. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR CONTRACT.
Mayor Pinkham read a letter from Town Administrator Halburnt thanking the
Mayor and the Trustees for the opportunity to serve the Town of Estes Park
and requesting that the Board not consider renewing her employment contract.
Mayor Pinkham stated that the Board will determine how to move forward to
address the situation and noted that Town Administrator Halburnt will fulfill her
current contract which ends on December 31, 2011.
2. RESOLUTION #12-11 ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT
BUSINESS AND OPERATING PLAN FOR 2012.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Miller) to continue Resolution #12-11
Estes Park Local Marketing District Business and Operating Plan for 2012
to the October 25, 2011, Town Board meeting to provide additional time
for discussion of details, and it passed. Those voting "Yes" Trustees Elrod,
Board of Trustees — October 11, 2011 — Page 3
Ericson, Koenig, Miller, and Mayor Pro Tem Levine; with Trustee Blackhurst
abstaining from the vote.
3. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS.
1. CITIZENS SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY.
PIO Rusch summarized the results of the community survey that was
conducted this summer. The survey was mailed to 1200 randomly selected
Estes Park households and had a response rate of 54%. The information
collected from the survey may be used to monitor trends in opinions, measure
government performance, and decision making related to budget, land use and
strategic planning.
Overall, a majority of the respondents rated Estes Park as a good or excellent
place to live, and also rated the overall quality of Town services as good or
excellent. Drinking water, Town parks, the Visitor Center, the Senior Center,
the power utility, the Museum, snow r - ..al, police services, and
Fairgrounds/Special Events, all ranked abo a nonal benchmark, when a
benchmark was available. Economic of ent; tend use, planning and
zoning; building permits; code enforcem ; street repair; and bus or transit
services were ranked below the natimark:-..._
In response to customized .4 tons related to To�'.gprojects and the
community's willingness to `o. or to se projects, r ents ranked
maintaining and improving streets, n of open spa ew affordable
housing options, and initiatives for eco velopment a e top of the list.
The Board identified a dtscOrinact between e respondents' interest in Town
projects and their desire t,fun ` se same with additional taxes or
fees. Truste ,od noted that pa nts in t survey were not necessarily
registered rs'and said a ° de riot support a tax increase but
that res ent could:.also be ,non -vote a Board expressed a desire to
review and dy the complete -rvey re ults more thoroughly to develop a
prod ss for a oaol end utili he information collected. The Board
eatti4h at :, Usch Lod ct orado communities that have previously
onducted t veys to inquire t the strategies they use in processing
sttivey informa°an.
2. ELKORN PROJI T INc 1 TA APPLICATION UPDATE.
Frank Tf.s, Elkhorn Project, Inc. (EPI), said that additional information and
clarification elated' to the RTA application were provided to the third party
analyst on Se r 30'h with a report due from the analyst on November 4'h.
After that times- and up until the holidays, applicants can challenge the
assumptions and conclusions included in the report, however this would require
payment of an additional fee by the applicant. Following that period, the Staff
and Director of the Economic Development Commission will begin reviewing
the projects, ask for comments from local agencies which in this case will most
likely be Larimer County, and complete their analysis in preparation to meet on
March 1st, to select up to two projects for 2012. Once the third party opinion is
received on November 4th, EPI will move forward with public meetings and
outreach with neighbors, community groups, and individuals. Mr. Theis said a
meeting was held with the proposed RTA board to keep them informed of the
project schedule. Mr. Theis said EPI would like to move forward in November
with annexation of the property, however no development plans or rezoning
requests have been submitted at this time.
The Board expressed concern about not having been involved in formulating
the responses to the third party analyst's questions, and said that the Town, as
the applicant, must be kept in the loop. The Board asked about the prospects
of finding an operator for the ski area. Mr. Theis responded that a Request for
Board of Trustees — October 11, 2011 — Page 4
Proposal (RFP) has been drafted, and proposed publishing the RFP before the
end of the year to solidify interest by ski area operators.
The Trustees requested another project update be provided to the Board
following receipt of the third party analyst report early in November.
4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION.
It was moved and seconded (EricsonfBlackhurst) to enter into Executive
Session for a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of
receiving legal advice on specific legal questions under C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b)
and for determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to
negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators under C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(e) related to the Bond Park Project, and
it passed unanimously.
Mayor Pinkham said that no action will be taken by the Board after the executive
session and recessed at 8:41 p.m. for a ten minute •.='prior to entering executive
session at 8:53 p.m.
Mayor Pinkham reconvened the meeting et 9 39 p r% from Executive Session
whereupon he adjourned the meeting at 9:39
inkham, Mayor
Cynthia Deats, De i Town
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 11,
2011.
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 201/202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the
1 1 th day of October, 2011.
Board:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees
Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, and Miller
Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees
Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, and Miller
Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney
White, Director Kilsdonk, and Deputy Town Clerk Deets
Town Administrator Halburnt
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
VOLUNTEER POLICY.
Following discussions in the fall of 2010 related to volunteer background checks, and
safety and liability, staff has drafted a Volunteer Manual incorporating practices to follow
in the management of all Town volunteers. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson said
that having a volunteer policy manual in place will provide department heads and
supervisors with the tools and operating guidelines necessary to effectively manage
volunteers.
Director Kilsdonk initiated a review of the draft manual which addresses the topics
referenced above and includes, but is not limited to, additional topics such as volunteer
conduct, vehicle usage, and harassment. A Volunteer Release of Liability and
Indemnification form which was reviewed by Town Attorney White is also included in the
manual. By signing the form, which is required by CIRSA, volunteers release the Town
from liability related to their duties (which are covered by Workman's Compensation)
and, additionally, indemnify the Town against the actions of a volunteer that may cause
a loss to a third party.
Feedback from the Trustees included:
• Expectations are the same for volunteers as they are for Town employees
• Volunteers must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects favorably on the
Town
• Make positive statement by reorganizing information and wordsmithing
• Include pertinent information from personnel manual in an appendix rather than
making reference to the personnel manual
• Need to address weapons and workplace violence for all employees, including
volunteers
• Provide a thorough explanation related to the required Volunteer Release of
Liability and Indemnification form
• Remove references to Union Fire Insurance Company and other unrelated
organizations
• Volunteers fall into three categories: Town appointed, independent groups
working with Town departments, and ad hoc committees
• Volunteers working under 501(3)(c) non -profits are covered by the organization's
Memorandum of Understanding with the Town
• Include non-profit organizational chart with MOU
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town Board Study Session — October 11, 2011 — Page 2
• Volunteers who handle money, work with seniors or youth, and/or handle
confidential information will be required to undergo a background check
• Remove ad hoc committees as they are temporary
• Include job descriptions so volunteers know the scope of their responsibilities
• Clarify statement related to uniforms
• Page 17 #14 should read: As a public entity, the Town of Estes Park...
The Trustees thanked staff for their work on the manual and concurred that it is a good
start in meeting the overall goal of providing clear expectations for volunteers and a
premise for orientation and training.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.
• October 25 — Local Marketing District 2012 Budget and Operating Plan
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:32 p.m.
Cynthia ()eats, Deputy Town Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 13, 2011
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 13' day of October, 2011.
Committee: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Ericson and Koenig
Attending: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Ericson and Koenig
Also Attending: Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Chief Kufeld, Dir.
Zurn, and Recording Secretary Rebecca Bailey
Absent: Town Administrator Halburnt
Chair Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen stated concerns with vehicles parked on both sides of
MacGregor Avenue, north of Wonderview Avenue, during events, and requested the "no
parking" signs be more visible to the pub[ic along the roadway. She commented on the
weeds growing within the Knoll Willow property, and stated it is the Town's responsibility
to maintain the property. Mrs. Darden also requested Open Space funds not be used to
fund Phase II of the Bond Park Master Plan, stating the Community Reinvestment fund
should be used for the improvements if the Town moves forward with the project.
PUBLIC SAFETY.
PARK R-3 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESOURCE OFFICER AGREEMENT 2011/2012
The Police Department has provided School Resource Officer (SRO) services to the
Park R-3 School District since 2005. For the 2009/2010 school year the School District
paid $20,000 to offset personnel costs associated with this position. In the 2010/2011
school year the Park School District requested the $20,000 fee be waived due to lack of
funding for the school year. During the current 2011/2012 school year, the School
District has faced additional budget cuts, therefore, Superintendent Linda Chapman has
requested a waiver of the SRO fee for the 2011/2012 school year. The SRO hours have
been modified to three days a week with the other hours spent on patrol. Chief Kufeld
noted upcoming changes in staffing may require less time in the schools in order to
cover patrol shifts.
The Committee stated appreciation for the efforts staff has made to balance the
responsibilities and work towards a compromise in the tough financial times and
recommended approval of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Town
of Estes Park and Park School District R-3 for a School Resource Officer for the
2011/2012 school year to the Town Board consent agenda.
Chairman Blackhurst requested an update on staffing changes. Chief Kufeld
commented that there are two officers that are number one on each the Larimer County
Sheriff list and the Loveland Police Department list and a couple more that are testing
for other departments. He stated the main issues relate to commuting to Estes from the
valley, starting salaries are $8,000 to $10,000 higher, and the high cost of living in
Estes.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee — October 13, 2011 — Page 2
HALLOWEEN STREET CLOSURE
Commander Rose presented a study conducted to identify alternate street closures for
Halloween in response to a request from the Town Board which explored issues such
as traffic, manpower, and safety.
Current — This plan closes Elkhorn Avenue at Spruce Drive and Riverside Drive
and requires a total of eight personnel.
- Option 1 closes Elkhorn Avenue from the 34/36 intersection to Spruce Drive and
would require 20 personnel. It would limit access to parking and traffic for people
trying to cross from Riverside Drive to Park Lane to access the event.
Option 2 closes Elkhorn Avenue from the 34/36 intersection to Spruce Drive
while allowing vehicle traffic to cross on Riverside Drive to Park Lane and would
require 16 personnel.
Option 3 closes Elkhorn Avenue from Spruce Drive to Riverside with the right
eastbound lane closed from Riverside Drive to the 34/36 intersection and
requiring 9 personnel. The lane closure would allow for a buffer zone between
pedestrians and vehicle traffic.
Staff recommended Option 3 as the most feasible alternative with regard to manpower,
traffic flow, and safety to both pedestrians and traffic in the case of inclement weather.
The coned area would not be intended for pedestrians; however it would provide a
larger buffer for those participating.
Trustee Koenig expressed concern that Option 3 doesn't prevent kids from crossing
directly across the street from the US Bank parking lot to those businesses on the east
end of Elkhorn Avenue, and questioned if pedestrians could be directed to the
crosswalk for safe crossing. Chief Kufeld suggested portable fencing could be placed in
the gutter to prevent jaywalking and direct the flow of pedestrian traffic.
The Committee recommended the implementation of Halloween Street Closure
Option 3 as described above with additional fencing along the sidewalk adjacent
to the US Bank and Municipal parking lot to the pedestrian crosswalk to the Town
Board consent agenda. Johanna Darden/Town citizen stated the road closure should
remain as in the past and would recommend the Town not advertise the event.
UTILITIES.
REPLACEMENT OF WATER TRUCK #9036
The 2011 Vehicle Replacement budget includes $44,000 for the replacement of the
Water Department's 2004 Ford F350 4x4 Truck w/utility Body and Crane (9036). This
truck is seven years old with 94,700 miles and is within the Vehicle Replacement Policy
parameters for the replacement. It was noted that no alternative fuel option exists for
this type of equipment. Staff solicited bids for the vehicle with the following results:
Spradlev Barr Ford, Fort Collins, Colorado
2012 Ford F350 4x4 w/Utility Body and Crane... $ 52,012.00
Trade-in: 2004 F350 4x4 w/Utility Body and Crane $ 9,500.00
Bid Price $ 42,512.00
Groove Ford, Centennial, Colorado
2012 Ford F350 4x4 w/Utility Body and Crane $ 52,360.10
Trade-in: 2004 F350 4x4 w/Utility Body and Crane $ 7,635.00
Bid Price $ 44,725.10
Phil Long Ford, Colorado Springs, Colorado
2012 Ford F350 4x4 w/Utility Body and Crane NO RESPONSE
Staff recommends trading in the 2004 Ford F350 4x4 w/Utility Body and Crane and
purchasing the 2012 Ford F350 4x4 w/Utility Body and Crane from Spradley Barr Ford
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee — October 13, 2011 — Page 3
at the low bid price of $42,512.00 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund. The Committee
recommends purchasing a 2012 Ford F350 4x4 w/Utility Body and Crane from
Spradley Barr Ford at a cost of $42,512 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund, #635-
700-435-34-42 budgeted, to the Town Board consent agenda.
REPORTS
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Glen Haven Line Replacement Project. The project involves upgrading 12,430 ft
of three phase main line on CO. Rd. 43 from the top of switchbacks to Glen
Haven General Store. The first phase was completed in July; however, work on
the project slowed with the need for blasting of power pole holes. As of October
7th, the first eight poles were set and staff anticipates completing the project
down the switchbacks by next Friday. L&P would expect to be halfway to the
General Store by the end of 2011 with the entire project complete in 2012.
Completing projects of this nature take longer because they are completed when
the crews are not addressing work orders and outages. New equipments such
as the tugger and smaller bucket truck have been useful on this project. The
Committee commended L&P for their hard work.
2. Fish Creek Circuit Upgrade. The contractor, Selcon Utility, completed their
portion of the project in July, which included upgrading 47 poles of overhead
power line and installing 16,000 ft of trench conduit, and 16 bores under
roadways. Light and Power has finished pulling in and terminating all the new
underground cable and converted all load to the new underground cable and
removed the overhead lines in September. The Fish Creek project will be
completed once Baja & Century Link underground their respective lines to allow
for the removal of the power poles. The Committee thanked L&P for completing
the project ahead of schedule, appreciated the public notifications regarding
outages, and for completing the task quickly in order to limit outages.
IT
REPORTS
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Introduction of Intern Greg Cenac. Greg started with the Town as a work study
student from Estes Park High School four weeks ago and will work with IT
through mid December. He has helped with roll outs and assisted with
troubleshooting computer problems allowing IT staff to address other issues. The
Committee commended staff for cultivating this relationship with the school and
encouraged other internships.
PUBLIC WORKS.
REPLACEMENT OF STREET TRUCK #G100B
The 2011 Vehicle Replacement budget includes $35,000 for the replacement of the
Street Department's 2002 Ford F250 4x4 Snowplow Pickup Truck. This truck is nine
years old and has 79,400 miles and is within the Vehicle Replacement Policy
parameters. It was noted that no alternative fuel option exists for this type of equipment.
Staff solicited bids for the vehicle with the follow results:
Weld County Garage, Greeley, Colorado
2012 GMC 3500 HD 4x4 w/Snowplow $ 32,469.00
Trade-in 2002 F250 4x4 w/Snowplow $ 5,000.00
Bid Price .$ 27,469.00
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee — October 13, 2011 — Page 4
Groove Ford, Centennial, Colorado
2012 F350 4x4 w/Snowplow $ 33,285.10
Trade-in 2002 F250 4x4 w/Snowplow $ 5,735.00
Bid Price.......$ 27,547.10
Hajek Chevrolet, Longmont, Colorado
2012 Chevrolet 3500 hd 4x4 w/Snowplow $ 37,760.00
Trade-in 2002 F250 4x4 w/Snowplow $ 6,000.00
Bid Price $ 31,760.00
Spradlev Barr Ford, Fort Collins, Colorado NO RESPONSE
Staff recommends keeping the current vehicle in the Street Department to use during
the summer season and purchasing a 2012 GMC 3500 HD Pickup Truck w/Snowplow
from Weld County Garage, Greeley, Colorado for the purchase price of $32,469.00. The
Committee recommends purchasing a 2012 GMC 3500 HD Pickup Truck
w/Snowplow from Weld County Garage at a cost of $32,469.00 from the Vehicle
Replacement Fund, #635-7000-435-34-42 budgeted, to the Town Board consent
agenda.
REPORTS
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Black Canyon Realignment Protect — Staff has begun design efforts to mitigate
the risks associated with rockfall from the cliff area above Black Canyon (Knoll -
Willows property) immediately north of the Town Hall parking lot.
Recommendations from Geologic Hazard Report provided by CTL Thompson
included measures of mechanical rock restraint such as fences and rockbolting,
or systematic removal of the least table rocks. Director Zurn stated he was not in
favor of options that would change, blast, or damage the rock face and the
aesthetics of those options. The most effective means to reduce risk is to
eliminate traffic altogether in the area. The Geologic Hazard Report indicated
that the runout zone from a dislodged rock would be at least 25'-30' from the face
of the cliff. The current design focuses on splitting the flow of Black Canyon
Creek in the area where human traffic could easily encroach this runout zone.
The goal is to create a natural buffer that is a native environment along the
proposed split creek and revegetate the banks with plants that are not inviting to
the public. Rocks and two little islands will be placed in the creek to provide bank
stabilization and dissipate the high flows within the creek during runoff. This
would eliminate access to the rock walls while still maintaining a habitat for
wildlife. The Committee commended staff for this creative solution and requested
a presentation to the full Board. Chairman Blackhurst recommended the Parks
Department develop the landscaping plan.
MISCELLANEOUS
Chairman Blackhurst reviewed the recent Citizen Survey and noted the following: the
Police Department received overall high ratings in many areas (85% rated police
services as much above the national average, 86% approval rating in crime prevention,
70% approval rating of above average in traffic control, and courts received recognition
at 80% rating of either excellent or good); the overall positive ratings for the Utilities
Department (89% rated electric utilities as good or excellent, drinking water was rated
as good or excellent by 94% if population surveyed, and storm drainage was rated at
64%); and the overall positive ratings for the Public Works Department (cleanliness
rated at 92% excellent or good, quality of overall natural environment was rated much
above average, preservation of natural or open spaces rate at good or excellent by 65%
of population). He commended and thanked all the departments for their continued
efforts, success and hard work.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee - October 13, 2011 - Page 5
There being no further business, Chair Blackhurst adjourned the meeting at 9:04 a.m.
Rebecca Bailey, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 20, 2011, 1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Doug Klink, Commissioners Ron Norris, Alan Fraundorf, John
Tucker, Betty Hull, Rex Poggenpohl, Joe Wise
Attending: Chair Klink, Commissioners Non -is, Fraundorf, Poggenpohl, Tucker, and
Wise
Also Attending: Director Chi!cott, Town Planner Shirk, Town Attorney White, Town Board
Liaison Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Commissioner Hull
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There was one person in attendance.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
Johanna Darden/Town resident stated she gives a lot of thought to her comments and
would appreciate the Commissioners taking time to read them. Commissioner Tucker and
Chair Klink expressed their appreciation for her comments.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, August 16, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting
It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Wise) to approve the consent agenda as
corrected, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
3. REZONING OF LOT 1, WITT SUBDIVISION
Planner Shirk reviewed staff report. The property is located at 900 West Elkhorn Avenue
and is currently zoned CO —Outlying Commercial. The applicant desires to rezone the
property to A-1—Accommodations (low density) and convert the existing house to a small
hotel with a change of use permit. Planner Shirk reviewed the history of these lots,
indicating in November, 2003, the other three lots of the Witt Subdivision were rezoned
from CO to A-1, and Lot 1 zoning was retained as CO at the property owner's request.
Planner Shirk stated the CO zone district is no longer appropriate for this neighborhood.
Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to all affected agencies. Upper Thompson
Sanitation District noted that floor plans must be provided to them to address any
additional fees. The Division of Building Safety stated the new use would need to comply
with the current building codes.
Planner Shirk stated the requirement for a development plan was waived since the
structure is in place. He stated the parking area will require more review to ensure
adequate parking facilities.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request with the conditions listed below.
Public Comment
Bob Fixter/Applicant stated the previous owners built the home as a bed and breakfast.
There would be minimal changes made to the structure. Any changes would be
completed in stages.
Conditions
Prior to the issuance of a business license, a Change of Use permit shall be obtained
from the Division of Building Safety. This may require additional site work to address
EVDC parking requirements and requires compliance with comments described in memos
from:
a. Chief Building Official, dated 2011.09.05
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
September 20, 2011
b. Utilities and Public Works, dated August 5, 2011
c. Upper Thompson Sanitation District, dated August 3, 2011
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Poggenpohl) to recommend approval to the Town
Board of Trustees of the proposed rezoning of Lot 1, Witt Subdivision from CO —
Outlying Commercial to A-1—Accommodations with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
4. REPORTS
A. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Revised Problem Statement
Director Chilcott stated there were several issues related to ADUs. In revising the
problem statement, a section was added for community and property owner needs and
desires. She stated ADUs are limited to 30% of all residential lots in the Estes Valley,
with 1.33 times the minimum lot area required for an ADU. Director Chilcott stated
there are multiple reasons for ADUs, including guest quarters for family and friends,
income (short-term and long-term rentals) and caretaker quarters. ADUs could also
address provisions for affordable rental housing and aging in place.
Director Chilcott stated the current definition of an ADU presents difficulty with
regulations. The current code states "ADUs may contain private sanitary
facilities...and may contain cooking and food storage facilities. In the case of any
conflict between the accessory dwelling unit standards of this Section and any other
requirements of this Code, the standards of this Section shall control." Staff would
prefer not to focus on the details of cooking or food storage facilities as they relate to
ADUs. There is also a conflict in the code with Accessory Kitchen regulations, which
are less restrictive than then ADU regulations. Staff would encourage the Commission
to review the direction from the Town Board and the community desires to complete
the problem statement. Staff would then present the problem statement and general
recommendations to the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners prior to
drafting code amendments, with the exception that key issues for attached and
detached units would be addressed in order to determine where the focus should Ile.
One of the big concerns has been from property owners with detached ADUs that
were potentially legal prior to the adoption of the EVDC in 2000. Some of those
property owners would like clarification as to how they can repair and/or improve their
ADUs. Currently, ADUS can be repaired and maintained, but not improved. Staff
would like to make as many non -conforming ADUs as possible conforming. A minimal
amendment to Chapter 6 of the EVDC would allow property owners of legal non-
conforming detached ADUs to make changes/improvements within the footprint of the
existing unit.
Public Comment
Betty Nickel/Local professional designer was very invested in the ADU issue. Her
clients desire detached guest houses for family or caretaker housing. She stressed the
importance of the uniqueness of ADUs, and not categorizing them as "one size fits all".
Clear direction in the code is necessary for her to continue designing for her clients.
Many properties are large enough that ADUs would not impact the community and
adjacent neighbors, while providing property rights to the owners. Ms. Nickel asked the
Commission to weigh the impacts of the surrounding neighborhood when drafting code
language.
Johanna Darden/Town resident supports the current ADU regulations. She was
concerned about rentals and enforcement. She would oppose property owners
improving their detached ADUs by adding additional stories to existing units.
Closed public comment.
Problem statement comments
ATTACHED ADUs
Commissioner Poggenpohl was in favor of a land use affidavit for ADUs. Staff
recommended one comprehensive set of ADU regulations rather than separate ADU
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
September 20, 2011
and Accessory Kitchen regulations. Any action on grandfathering would be completed
separately from other amendments. Commissioner Poggenpohl recommended
revising the Desired Outcomes to read "...to address the ADU issues outlined above."
Commissioner Tucker suggested identifying the benefits to the community as a result
of the actions taken by the Commission.
Last month, Commissioner Fraundorf provided a draft chart as a guide to determine
recommendations by staff, Planning Commission, and Town Board. That chart was
revised and presented by Director Chilcott. Discussion occurred as to what
recommendations the Planning Commission would present to the Town Board (see
attached charts). Staff recommended eliminating the minimum lot size for attached
ADUs due to inconsistent lot sizes in the E-Estate zone districts established in 2000.
Director Chilcott stated the E-1—Estate zone district (one acre minimum) has many
undersized lots which would limit many properties in that zone district from being able
to construct an attached ADU. Eliminating the minimum lot size would align the code
with the Accessory Kitchen regulations. Director Chilcott stated there may be other
options for minimum lot size, and she wanted the Commission to be aware of the
potential constraints associated with minimum lot sizes. Planner Shirk stated many
county lots were established from the center line of the road, which makes many of
them just undersized for the zone district, after accounting for right-of-ways.
Additional discussion occurred concerning minimum lot size. Planner Shirkstated that
out of approximately 4700 lots in the Estes valley, 55% meet the minimum lot size for
the respective zone district, and only about 28% meet the current requirement of 1.33
times the minimum lot size. He stated with the accessory kitchen amendment,
attached ADUs can essentially be built in any zone district. He encouraged the
Commission to also think about the current EVDC definition for households, which
limits the number to eight unrelated individuals. Five out of six Commission members
were in favor of eliminating the minimum lot size for attached ADUs.
Director Chilcott stated the accessory kitchen regulations allow an attached ADU of
any size with a deed restriction. Currently, ADU regulations contain a size limit of 800
square feet, or 33% of the principal dwelling size, whichever is Tess. If the area is not
closed off to the main house, staff suggests it is not an ADU. It would only be
considered an attached ADU if it could be closed off as a separate dwelling. There
was general consensus to limit the size of an attached ADU to 1000 square feet, or
49% of the size of the principal dwelling, whichever is less.
The Commission agreed to not require Planning Commission review for attached
ADUs, and would revisit possible code language for grandfathering after the initial
code language was drafted. It was agreed that there should be no architectural
controls written into the Development Code.
Staff suggested requiring a land use affidavit so future property owners would
understand that rentals were not allowed. Director Chilcott stated the current code
does not allow properties with accessory dwelling units to be used as vacation homes.
There was general consensus from the Commission to require a land use affidavit,
with one Commissioner opposed.
Concerning rentals, there was unanimous consensus to not allow rentals of attached
ADUs. The Commission would not support changing the characteristics of single-
family residential zone districts. Commissioner Norris stated affordable housing could
be addressed in multi -family and other zone districts.
DETACHED ADUs
After discussion about establishing minimum lot sizes for detached ADUs, the majority
of the Commission supported a two -acre minimum lot size. Commissioner Wise would
support a one -acre minimum, stating that the number of allowable lots of two acres or
larger would be fairly minimal, and more property owners would be able to build
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
September 20, 2011
detached ADUs if the minimum lot size were one acre. Director Chilcott stated 18% of
the Tots in the Estes Valley are two acres in size,
It was agreed that there should be no architectural controls written into the
Development Code. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated this was a building department
issue, but would hope the appearance of a detached ADU would be similar to the
principal dwelling.
There was unanimous consensus to require a land use affidavit, and to not allow
rentals of detached ADUs. As with attached ADUs, the issue of grandfathering would
be addressed after initial draft code amendments have been presented.
Town Attorney White reminded the Commission that private property rights state that
you can rent your house on a long-term basis. There was lengthy discussion about
rentals of ADUs. There was consensus to be able to rent a property containing an
ADU to one party. Unity of ownership must be maintained. The Commission was
against one party living in one dwelling (long or short-term) and having the ADU being
available for rent (long or short-term) to a different party.
Discussion occurred concerning affordable housing. Chair Klink suggested stating in
the problem statement that the Commission chose not to address the affordable
housing issue as it related to accessory dwelling units.
Town Attorney White stated the problem still exists between the definition of an
accessory dwelling unit and an accessory structure. The definition needs to be
addressed for Tots less than two acres. There was lengthy discussion about the
differences between ADUs and accessory structures and also about the accessory
kitchen regulations. Staff recommended merging the definitions of ADUs and
accessory kitchens.
Discussion occurred relating to size restrictions for detached ADUs. Director Chilcott
stated the larger the lot, the more accessory use space is allowed. A statement in
Chapter 5 of the EVDC states an accessory use structure needs to be clearly
incidental and customarily found with the principal use. Accessory use square footage
allotment can be used for various structures. Impacts of accessory structures can be
very different depending on the property (e.g. trees versus open space). The
Commission did not give a final recommendation for size restrictions of detached
ADUs.
Chair Klink directed staff to forward the problem statement on to the Town Board and
the Board of County Commissioners for their review and feedback.
B. Triangle Meeting
Director Chilcott reported the meeting with the Town Board and County Commission
was rescheduled to Tuesday, November 15, from 2:00-5:00 p.m. in the Town Board
Room. Staff will work with Public Information Officer Kate Rusch to publish a
notice/announcement. The Planning Commission meeting will occur in November at a
time and date to be determined, depending on development submittals received in the
next few days. Staff received written comment from local resident Johanna Darden
concerning the Triangle Meeting agenda. Chair Klink suggested making the Triangle
Meeting agenda a regular agenda item for the October meeting in order to allow public
comment.
C. Director Chilcott and Planner Shirk reported on the following:
1. The Livingston Amended Plat was continued to the October 25th Town Board
meeting, as requested by the applicant.
2. The Town Board approved the Birch Avenue Condominiums Map on August 23,
2011.
3. The staff report addressing the code amendments for RLUIPA and Private Schools
will be heard by the Town Board on September 27, 2011.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
September 20, 2011
4. The rezoning of Lot 1, Witt Subdivision will be going in front of the Town Board on
September 27, 2011.
5. The Town Board will review a supplemental condominium map for Park River West
Condominiums on September 27, 2011. This project is almost built out.
6. An Amended Condominium Map for East Riverwalk Center Condominiums will be
reviewed by the Town Board on September 27, 2011. If approved, a portion of the
general common element would be changed to limited common element to allow
the Timeout Sports Bar provisions for an outdoor seating area.
7. A Pre -Application meeting was held for a proposed development on Fall River
Road, south of the river and accessed through Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums.
The project would require a new bridge. The tract is about 13 acres, and the
developer is proposing a townhome subdivision with six to eight free-standing
units. A wildlife habitat assessment and traffic impact analysis would be required.
The name given to this proposal is Stonegate Homes, and the long-time developer
is from the Colorado Springs area.
8. Staff has not scheduled any pre -application meetings nor received any submittals
for the Elkhorn Lodge project.
9. For the record, Commissioner Tucker sent an email to County Commissioner
Donnelly concerning the Duncan Subdivision. He did not receive a reply.
There being no further business, Chair Klink adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m.
Doug Klink, Chair
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Memo
To:
Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Halburnt
TOWN OF FSTES PARK
101
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: October 20, 2011
RE: Renewal Application Filed by Bowl Fort Collins LLC dba Chippers Lanes
Estes Park Center, 555 S. St. Vrain Avenue
Background:
On January 22, 2011, an alcohol sales compliance check was conducted by the Liquor
Enforcement Division with the support of the Town of Estes Park Police department.
Unfortunately an employee of the establishment illegally sold and served alcohol to an
underage person and/or did not ask for identification and sold and served the underage
person alcohol.
This is a violation of the State Liquor Code and has been handled by the State Liquor
Enforcement Division. This type of violation can include a fifteen (15) day suspension of
the liquor license with five (5) days served and ten (10) days held in abeyance. In lieu
of an active suspension, the licensee can elect to pay a fine and enter into a Stipulation
agreement, and therefore, the five (5) day suspension would be deemed automatically
stayed. Chippers did enter into an agreement with five (5) days served and ten (10)
days held in abeyance with a $200 fine paid on August 10th. If further violations occur
within a year of the stipulation, the licensee will serve all or any days of the suspension
held in abeyance.
Staff has confirmed the applicant has completed T.I.P.S. training as required by the
Town and continues to send new staff to training when available. The manager that
served the alcohol to the minor has been replaced and no longer works for the
establishment.
All necessary paperwork and fees have been submitted for the renewal.
Budget:
N/A
Staff Recommendation:
N/A
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the renewal application for Bowl Fort Collins LLC dba Chippers
Lanes Estes Park Center.
Page 1
DOWN OF ESTES PART(
To: The Honorable Mayor Pinkham and Town Trustees
Town Administrator Halburnt
From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director
Date: 25 October 2011
RE: Prescriptive easements, Livingston (aka Sundance Mountain)
Background:
A prescriptive easement is an easement acquired by use rather than granted through a
written agreement. According to Town Attorney White, the holder of a prescriptive
easement is entitled to the same rights as a standard easement. In the case of utility
easements this would include the right of access for repair and upgrade including
running additional lines over the property in the same location.
During the variance review process for Ms. Livingston's project Light and Power
recommended the overhead electric easement be shown on the plat. Ms. Livingston is
challenging the right of a prescriptive easement to be upgraded from the existing single
phase line to a three phase line. (see attached letter from her attorney)
At this time the Light and Power Department continues to require the easement to
be shown on the plat. We have asked Town Attorney White to review this letter to
determine if our position should change.
Budget:
n/a
Staff Recommendation:
Attorney White will provide more information during the Town Board meeting on Tuesday.
Sample Motion:
I move for the acceptance/denial of the Livingston amended plat contingent on the
modifications as recommended by staff.
Page 1
SCHEUERMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C.
JACK J. SCHEUERMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
5616 NORTH UNION BOULEVARD
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO 80918-1940
Jack(r7r-,JackSc heuerman.com
TELEPHONE (719) 522-1012
FACSIMILE (719) 57 a-6050
October 17, 2011
VIA Electronic transmission and regular mail
Town of Estes Park
Attn: David W. Shirk, AICP, Planner
170 MacGregor Ave.
P.D. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Re: Jane Livingston / Request for amendment to building envelope on Lot 1
1531 Fish Hatchery Road
Dear Mr. Shirk:
This office has been retained by Jane Livingston concerning her request to have the
building envelope on her lot amended and expanded. Somehow in the process, that
request became entangled in the Town's request that she grant it an easement for the
power line that crosses her Lot. The Town acknowledges that it already has a
prescriptive easement for the current use but wants her to agree to expand the easement
for future uses.
Frankly, this sounds like extortion. The opposition to the amended plat apparently came
from the Estes Park Light and Power Department who wanted a dedicated aerial
easement. If, as the Town argues, it already has an aerial easement by prescription, there
is no reason the desire to have a dedicated easement should factor into the consideration
of granting the amended plat. Apparently, other departments are amenable to the
amendment.
Of even more concern is that the Light and Power Department wants an expanded
easement and sees this as an opportunity to get it. The Colorado Supreme Court has
clearly set forth the law concerning expansion of the extent of an easement acquired by
prescription. See Wright v. Horse Creek Ranches, 697 P.2d 384 (Colo. 1985). Under the
facts here and in applying the ruling in Wright, I see no justification for any expansion in
the use of the proscriptive easement if there is one.
October 17, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Unless the Town reconsiders the unreasonable request of the Light and Power
Department, it is my expectation that we will have to use open records laws to look at
what the Town has done in similar situations and what basis it has used for granting or
denying amendments to plats.
Sincerely,
SCHEU Mt N LAW.QFPICE, P.C.
1
By:
Jac10.
.riS js
n
s!scheuerma lawoffice;cl3emt frlealivingston junc`:1irj2(148-UO miscellaneous matters'1 110 17 letter to town plaraner.dac
M
To:
emo
Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Halburnt
From: Alison Chilcott, Director
Dave Shirk, Planner
Date: October 25, 2011
rfar ✓�v �r +nit l^ a r r rrr tilt rrrilrl �irr� zr'
�t4)4
i UI. �"" p tll��� "� �fqui VI',,�
- RE: Lot 1, Sundance Mountain Subdivision, 1531 Fish Hatchery Road;
Livingston Amended Plat; Jane Livingston/Applicant
Background: This is a request to vacate a platted building envelope on Lot 1 of the
Sundance Mountain subdivision. The property is located at 1531 Fish Hatchery Road,
The applicant is Jeff Moreau, Daliman Construction, on behalf of owner Jane Livingston.
The property owner wishes to
add onto the existing cabin as
shown on the attached drawing.
The lot contains a platted
building envelope that defines
where additional development
can occur. The property owner
wishes to build outside this
building envelope and closer to
the river. Staff supported this
request due in part to the fact
that the adjacent lot is in also
owned by the same property
owner and is in a conservation easement.
Prior to building the addition; approval of a variance application by the Board of
Adjustment (river setback variance) and an amended plat (Planning Commission and
Town Board review) was required.
In April, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment approved the river setback variance
In July, the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended approval of the amended
plat with conditions.
Electric Line & Electric Easement: An existing single-phase electric line crosses over
the existing house. The property owner wishes to expand the house directly under the
line. This line serves several properties located on the north side of the river, including
Fawn Valley Inn.
The line has been in place since 1967 and the Town has an assumed prescriptive
easement for the line.
Utilities Director Bergsten has noted:
• The existing single-phase line provides electricity to a number of customers
including Fawn Valley Inn (see attached map).
• Benefits of a dedicated easement to the Town and public include:
> Dedication of the easement establishes the location, size and use of the
easement.
> Provides access to the property for maintenance or repair case of power
outages
> Clarification of Light and Power's requirements which insures reliable service
to all our customers.
Staff and Planning Commission Recommendation: The Light and Power
Department requested that the plat dedicate a formal easement for the electric line and
the Planning Commission recommended dedication of this easement.
The property owner does not want to dedicate an easement that would allow
replacement of the existing single-phase line with a three-phase line.
The applicant, Dallman Construction (on behalf of the property owner), has had multiple
discussions with the Light and Power Department regarding options, which are limited:
move the line and dedicate an easement for the new line location or leave the line in its
current location and dedicate an easement. Relocating the line would be costly for the
property owner due to the river crossing. Staff's understanding is that the property
owner has decided not to pursue this option.
The property owner wishes to request that Town Board approve the amended plat
without easement dedication that would allow an expansion of the existing line. Staff
understanding is that the owner is concerned that a dedicated easement would allow
the Town to replace the single-phase line with a three-phase line over her house.
The following table outlines differences between a prescriptive easement and a formally
dedicated easement:
Prescriptive Easement
Dedicated Easement
Undefined.
Defines the location, size and use of the
easement.
Unrecorded. Does not appear in title
searches.
Recorded. Appears in title searches.
Quiet title required.
Quiet title not required.
Vacate automatically with removal of line.
Vacate automatically with removal of line.
Budget: NIA
Planning Commission Recommendation On July 19, the Estes Valley Planning
Commission found:
1. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development
Code, including Section 3.9.E "Standards for Review" and 10.3 "Review
Procedures."
2. Approval will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other
property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this
Code.
3. This request has been submitted to a!I applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment. The Light and Power Department has requested an
aerial easement be dedicated for the existing overhead lines.
4. Within sixty (60) days of the Board's approval of the amended plat, the developer
shall submit the plat for recording. If the plat is not submitted for recording within
this sixty-day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and
void.
5. This is a Planning Commission recommendation the Town Board of the Town of
Estes Park;
At that same meeting, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend APPROVAL
of the proposed Amended Plat of Lot 1 Sundance Mountain CONDITIONAL TO:
1, Revise the plat to include dedication of an aerial easement for the existing overhead
lines, including revision to the dedication statement.
2. Revise the plat to include the note "Relocation of the overhead lines, and recordation
of .a new easement if necessary, shall automatically vacate the aerial easement
dedicated with this plat,"
Sample Motion: I move to approve (or disapprove, or continue) the proposed
Amended Plat of Lot 1 Sundance Mountain subject to the findings and conditions
recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission.
•
r--
ij
:Yh
'or
rmeZ IPZIV
: y , ' ,'..? ,i 1 ,
/'°1 i 1 j'‘IVIi 7 ; i i .•
1
-..1 . , i 0\ 1
Ple i. i ,k' ik i
I
; .?
/
i 1
11 1
L... 1 L.....'4. ./ _ _............
.II 1 1 \ \ i
i, 1 'X'' TA
Li
11 ' , •,,,,
! 1-1 114 1
4.17 ;NW ..U"N -f . IN •
Ilt_IY.P.
„ efffnlY40, KNEP-VDTPARO
/
zzz;* -kzzy/
L
x a
Ca 0
CO e
co E as
on
co
co
a..
Three Phase
44414
u
Q
04
To:
cc:
•
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
to I
�II ��� � I
Town Administrator Halburnt
Light and Power Superintendent Todd Steichen
im19!
From: Reuben Bergsten, Interim Utilities Director
Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2011
RE: Prescriptive easements, Livingston (aka Sundance Mountain) &
Hochstetler
Background:
Land issues are often complex and politically difficult. For this reason they are at times
neglected. North America and Western Europe have established successful systems for
documenting land ownership. Easements are one way in which land use is documented
and they facilitate serving the greater population, Even so, conflicts over property rights
still arise,
Prescriptive easements are the most commonly challenged. A prescriptive easement is
an easement acquired by use rather than granted through a written agreement.
According to Town Attorney White, the holder of a prescriptive easement is entitled to
the same rights as a standard easement. In the case of utility easements this would
include the right of access for repair and upgrade including running additional lines over
the property in the same location.
When prescriptive easements are questioned we typically communicate with the
,property owner and come to a mutual understanding. Additionally, we do our best to
convert prescriptive easements through Community Development's processes for
variances, developments and building permits. By doing this, property use modifications
are documented for future owners and the Town.
At this time th•e Utility is facing two prescriptive easement challenges which are
elevating above typical. Attorney Greg White has responded to the Hochstetler
challenge with a letter dated 10 August 2011 (attached). The second is Ms. Livingston
at 1531 Fish Hatchery Road. Ms. Livingston's situation, an overhead electric power line,
accentuates the need to document easements,
Page 1 of 5
" ViN OF FSTES P
•
4
During the variance review process Light and Power recommended the overhead
electric line easement be shown on Ms. Livingston's plat. She is challenging this by
pointing out that no documentation of the overhead electric line is found in her property
title paperwork and she states she didn't see the power line until after purchasing the
property.
As we continue to work with Ms. Livingston it is important to note that a local builder and
local engineering firm are involved in these discussions. Our enforcement of this
prescriptive easement will help communicate the importance of these easements, our
desire to document them and bolster the need for construction related companies to
communicate this information to their clients.
Ms. Livingston stated she has spoken to a lawyer and understands her right to
challenge prescriptive easements. She has specifically asked that we leave the line as
single phase and not allow future upgrades to three phase power. This restriction would
limit future electrical services, potentially hindering development on the north side of Fall
River due to costly alternatives. Attached is an image of the existing distribution system
around Ms. Livingston's property.
On Monday, the 22" d of August 2011, Todd and I met Jeff Moreau of Dallman
Construction and Jane Livingston at her home. We discussed underground alternatives
and the use of overhead tree cable (covered conductors). The underground option was
estimated by Mr. Moreau to be $80,000 which Ms. Livingston considers too high for the
benefit she would receive. The option to install insulated conductor did not appeal to
Ms. Livingston.
Ms. Livingston asked about re-routing the overhead line on either side of her home. This
would create a number of challenges:
1. An agreement from the Town to allow the re-routing to be overhead in lieu of our
policy requiring new construction to be underground.
2. New easements granted from three property owners including the Fawn Valley
Chalets HOA. From experience this is VERY difficult. Other owners rely on the
Town's policy of undergrounding to preserve their existing natural views.
3. Removal of a number of trees both on her property and on other's properties.
4. An agreement with Baja Cable Company to move their conductors along with
ours.
5. Verification that ail National Electric Safety Code clearances would be met.
Ms, Livingston's variance request is on the consent agenda before the Town Board
tonight, The Planning Commission has approved the variance with staffs
recommendations (which includes showing the overhead utility easement on the plat), If
Town Board approves this tonight, Ms. Livingston's building permit will not be issued
until the plat with the easement is recorded, For this reason, Ms. Livingston has
submitted a written request for continuance as she does not want to record the
easement,
Page .2 of 5
TOWN OF FSTES PARK
•
4
fP
North Park Place
1423 West 29th Street 970/667-5310
Loveland, Colorado 8O538 Pax 979/667.2 27
IW. Tom & Katy Hoehstetier
230 Bighorn Drive
Estes Park, CO 140517
Dear Mir, and Mrs. Hochstetier:
GREGORY A. WHITE
Attorney at Law
August 10, 2011
I have been asked by the Light & Power Department of the Town of Estes Park to
respond to your letters dated :July 15, 2011. The second letter was received by the Town on
July 29, 2011.
Please be advised that the Town of Estes Park has a prescriptive easement for the
overhead lanes as they currently exist on your property due to the fact that these utility lines
have been in place, in user and visible on your property since at least 1950. A prescriptive
eaeernent is an easement acquired by use rather than the granting of a written easement. The
holder of a prescriptive easement, in this case the Town of Estes Park, has all of the .rights to
continue to subject to your property to the overhead utility lines including the right, to run
additional times over the property in the same location.
In 2010, you applied for a variance to build a 25 ft x 2.5ft gar a on the northeast earner
of the existing develiing on your property. As part of that review process and in accordance
with Town pokey, the eight & Power Department requested that an vverhead utility easement
be dedicated on your property for overhead utility lanes :prig to the issuance of a building
permit, A search of Town records indicate that this easement has never been received. The
minutes of the Board of Adjustment truing Indicate thata representative from Van Horn
Engineering, Celine i.e au, stated that she had met on -site with tip tight & Power employees
who requested this easement. She stated that you, as the applicant, had agreed to dedicate
the new easement.
Enclosed pease --Pod an easement form for the dedication of the easement es required
by the variance greeted by The Board of .A strr+erlt ar+ January 2f71 `t, Please execute the
Easement 'before a eatery pubee:, and dearer the same to the Tov.n.
Page 3 of .5
TOWN OF FSTES PA
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
GA/bar
Cc: Ruebe Bergsten
Todd Steichen
Dave Shirk
Lonnie Sheldon, Van Hom Engineering
bacquie Hatbumt .
Page 4 af 5
v
f
1111111111111111111111111111
)
%§
1
LAMA, VA.
li.VVFN
Introductions:
Opening Statements:
Purpose:
JOINT MEETING
LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES
AND
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
2:00 p.m. — 4:00 p.m
Board Room
TFiP A tit g,
47 LORA 4,71,"
Town Hall
Meeting Chairperson; Mayor Pinkham
County Commissioner Chair Donnelly
Estes Valley Planning COMMISSIOrl Chair Klink
ESTABLISH PLANNING COMMISSION 2012 WORK PLAN
JOINT GOAL SETTING
A. Estes Valley Development Code Amendments 2012 Work Plan
1. Staff Recommendations: Director Chilcott
2. Planning Commission Recommendations: Chair Klink
3. Public Comment
4. Board and Planning Commission Discussion
5. Board (County Commission and Town Board) Establish 2012 Work Plan
B. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
1. Activity Plan Update and Recommendation! Director Chilcott
2. Public Comment
3. Board and Planning Co mission Discussion
4. Board (County Commission and Town Board) Establish 2012 Work Plan
C. Goal Setting/Communication
1. Should we use a similar goal -setting agenda for next year's meeting?
2. Are current communication processes working, e.g. problem statement process?
Closing Statements:
Estes Valley Planning Commission Chair Klink
County Commissioner Chair Donnelly
Mayor Pinkham
TVict Town Ezerd., .Com(345.101:1Ien5 3;50 Pliar"41013 PeSeroR uti'iS eight I* appralorVate
vvot db• t thr.,, t4rore 41,.tricla WaS prepalTd,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town of Estes Park, Larirner County, Colorado, August 30, 2010
Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD,
LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ESTES VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County,
Colorado. Meeting held at Holiday Inn in Salon E & F in said Town of
Estes Park on the 30th day of August, 2010.
Town Board:
County Commission
Planning Commission
Also Attending:
Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson,
Koenig, Levine and Miller
Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter
Commissioners Hull, Klink, Lane, Norris, Poggenpohl and
Tucker
County Manager Lancaster, Chief County Planner Legg,
Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator
Richardson, Town Attorney White, Town Clerk Williamson,
Director Joseph and Planners Shirk and Chilcott
Absent: County Commissioner Johnson and Planning Commissioner
Fraundorf
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
PAST YEARS ACCOMPLISHMENT.
Planning Commission Chair Norris reviewed the accomplishments of the past year,
including the development and use of a problem statement template, review of statutory
role of the Planning Commission and how it relates to the Town Board and County
Commission, and a new emphasis on communication through the Town Board liaison to
the Planning Commission.
The group discussed areas that are working well:
• A collaborative Planning Commission that is effective and result -oriented.
• Working relationship is good between the Board and Planning Commission;
however, disagreements should be handled respectfully. Important to
acknowledge and agree to disagree in a professional manner.
• Problem statement has work well and allows for a formal written explanation with
legislative input.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town Board Study Session - August 30, 2010 - Page 2
• Planning Commission members are open and express their opinions. Comments
are not intended to be personal.
• The enhanced community outreach, Mayor Chat, Commissioner Donnelly
community meetings and public hearings by Planning Commission have been
beneficial.
• The vetting of the issues by the Planning Commission and the Town Board prior
to the County Commission is a helpful and allows the Commissioners to focus on
the main issues.
The group discussed areas of improvement:
• Need to develop a process for dealing with difficult legislative issues in which all
three Board/Commissions can be involved. Issues are reviewed first by the
Town Board with no input from the County Commissioners. Members of the
Planning Commission would like to receive input from the County as well.
• Planning Commissioners need to understand whether appointed by the Town or
the County, they represent the entire valley.
• Concern with the Town Board and the County Commissioners hearing issues
with a different subset of constituents, and not receiving the same input Planning
Commission hears. it was noted the process of reviewing issues with the Town
Board followed by the County Commissioners has been an informal tradition that
has worked well for the past 10 years.
• Town Board has directed Planning Commission to review an issue with the
expectation of a certain outcome. Planning Commission continues to address
issues and develop the best outcome for the valley.
• Planning Commission is advisory to the elected officials and their role is to
provide a recommendation on issues that can be changed by the elected
officials.
The group outlined suggestions on how to address concerns raised:
A Continue to use the problem statement, identify difficult issuee up front and hold
joint meeting to discuss before Planning Commission begins a review of the
issue.
4 -Town Board staff reports should he forwarded to the County Commissioners for
concurrent review,
• Representation .at Town Board and Cciunty Commission meetings by staff and a
Tanning Commissioner to provide an overview rat the public comment and
discussion heard at the Planning Commission meetings,
4 Town Board Liaison should facilitate ongoing communication between the Board
and Tanning Commission early in the process on difficult issues to provide
feedback as the Planting Co111ni siOn evaluates options. The Board agreed this
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town Board Study Session — August 30, 2010 — Page 3
would be helpful and suggested a bullet list of issues be brought forward to
discuss at a Town Board meeting or study session.
• A County Commissioner Liaison present at Planning Commission meetings.
• Hold joint public meetings on code changes in an effort to provide the same
information and public input to both the Town Board and the County
Commission.
• Joint study sessions with all three entities should be held to discuss difficult
issues to identify key concerns before Planning Commission begins researching
and discussing the issue.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Planning Commission Chair Norris reviewed the findings of the Comprehensive Plan
Committee. The plan as a whole continues to be valid; however, several areas need to
be addressed as they relate to housing, traffic, historic preservation and sustainability.
Funding for a new plan or major overhaul would not be available. The Town Board and
County Commission consensus is the plan as a whole is good and needs some
updating. Discussion followed and is summarized:
• Sustainability is too broad a term and needs to be narrowed. Look at the issue
from a macro level as it relates to economic viability and infrastructure. It was
suggested scenario development be used to address sustainability.
• A comprehensive plan requires public input and should be considered when
discussing the process as it moves forward.
• The population of the valley has changed dramatically since the adoption of the
plan; therefore, public input on the vision statement should be heard. The
current population would like to see the Town move away from a tourist based
community and not grow the shoulder season.
• Planning Commission should take the lead on developing the process to update
the plan and communicate it to the elected officials for consideration.
• The plan should be updated every 10 years to identify specific issues that need
to be addressed such as sustainability through economic, environmental and
social impacts. These issues directly impact land use.
• Need to identify potential commercial land, redevelopment opportunities and
commercial businesses that could be attracted to Estes Park in an effort to
develop a non -tourist economy.
• issues are already being reviewed by other entities; therefore, the Planning
Commission should not work on the issues separately. The Commission should
coordinate with the separate groups and use the information developed to update
the plan,
• Public input may identify other issues that should be addressed other than those
determined by the subcommittee,
SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town Board Study Session — August 30, 2010— Page 4
Director Joseph updated the group on the recent effort to permit vacation rentals in the
entire Estes valley. He stated staff has completed the first round of public outreach and
anticipates initiating a second round in September. The next phase would be
addressing those businesses/property owners not registered.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkharn adjourned the meeting at 11:35 a.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
To:
Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Halburnt
Willi �r w i I
From: Director Chilcott
Date: October 25, 2011
RE: Estes Valley Development Code Amendments
2011 Accomplishments
The Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners jointly adopted the below code amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code in 2011 with recommendations from the Estes Valley Planning
Commission.
OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE Added a limit on the square footage of a lot
that can be used for temporary outdoor display of merchandise.
ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY Removed obsolete references to
EPURA,
LOT COVERAGE AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DEFINITIONS Revised the lot
coverage and impervious surface definitions to clarify that permeable pavement is not
exempt from the maximum allowable lot coverage standards.
SOLAR COLLECTORS Amended the Estes Valley Development Code to specifically
allow solar collectors as an accessory use,
LAND SUBDIVISION OF MULTI -FAMILY AND ACCOMMODATIONS
DEVELOPMENT Allowed townhome subdivisions in additional zoning districts and
redefined "townhome,"
PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND THE RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED
PERSONS ACT (.RLUIPA) Code revisions provide clear development standards and
review processes that are consistent with purpose and character of the zoning districts
and that ensure compliance with RLUIPA,
Pending
Review of reviewed Planned Unit Deveiopment and Accessory Dwelling unit regulations
is also underway.
Page 1 of 1
To:
From:
Date:
RE:
),„ Rik
isgMliktAt
Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Halburnt
Director Chilcott
October 25, 2011
2012 Work Plan — Estes Valley Development Code Amendments
Background:
At the November 15, 2011 Triangle Meeting, the Town Board, County Commission, and
Planning Commission will have the opportunity to jointly establish a 2012 work plan for
Estes Valley Development Code Amendments. To prepare for this meeting, staff is
providing the below information to each Board/Commission. Similar staff reports will be
included with the Triangle meeting packet.
At a November 2009 joint Planning Commission and Town Board Study Session, the
Town Board prioritized code amendments. All prioritized code amendments have been
completed except those listed below:
\\\ 11111!Clilli'lrlii ,
1111, 0A101 k,'4&,°"' 1111i 011 iu0,10,t 1 illU
umumi dNt:Iiiiiiii' uu8uuu
)11111i1ALoktg6hvaAgot,Alt!::::7
u
eouu
0
Ili;
Accessory Dwelling Units/Kitchens
Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)
Especially provisions downtown
RM Multi -Family Residential and A -Accommodations standards:
Replace existing kitchen based density formulas with a floor
area ratio
2011
2011
2011
Street Design and Construction Standards (Appendix D):
Public Works has budgeted funds in 2012 for a consultant to
assist with aligning Town and County road standards
Tours:
Create a 'tours' use classification for various tour operations,
such as mountain biking, vehicle tours, horse-drawn carriages,
segways and rafting.
Limit site disturbance on lots platted prior to 2000
2012-2014
2011
J
2012-2014
Page i of 2
Inclusionary Zoning: Affordable housing quotas
2012-2014
Commercial/Residential Interface Zoning
2012-2014
Budget:
Staff will draft all code amendments, with the exception that Public Works has budgeted
for a consultant to draft Street and Construction Design Standards.
Staff Recommendation:
Based on the above, staff recommends that the following code amendments be
addressed in 2012.
1. Accessory Dwelling Units;
2. Planned Unit Developments
3. RIVE -Multi -Family and A -Accommodations Standard
4. Appendix D
Sample Motion:
NIA. This is a report only.
:Pr"'iae "2 of .2
iv
To:
Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Halburnt
From: Alison Chilcott, Director
Date: October 25, 2011
RE: Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
mi m
Background:
At the November 15, 2011 Triangle Meeting, the Town Board, County Commission, and
Planning Commission have the opportunity to jointly establish a 2012 work plan for the
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. This is the one time each year the two elected
bodies (Town Board and County Commission) and the appointed Estes Valley Planning
Commission gather and have the opportunity for a shared discussion about the
communities vision and how we are achieving that vision.
A shared vision for the community and implementing that vision is critical to the success
of our community. Comprehensive Planning helps communities articulate their vision for
the future and helps guide day-to-day decision -making.
To prepare for the Triangle meeting, staff is providing the below information to each
Board/Commission. Similar staff reports will be included in the Triangle meeting packet.
Community Vision. In 1996, the Town Board and County Commission jointly adopted
the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan which describes the Estes Valley's shared vision
and steps for implementing that vision.
"The Comprehensive Plan articulates a common vision for the future; it informs
citizens, landowners and developers of the goals, guidelines and desired future
land use character within the Valley; and it . provides a means for
communication and coordination between the Town and Larimer County,
as well as federal, state, and other governmental agencies." (From Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1: The Planning Approach)
One step in implementation the Comprehensive Plan was joint adoption of the Estes
Valley land use land use regulations; the Estes Valley Development Code.
Recent Dialogue, Over the past few years, there has been dialogue amongst
community members about whether the vision is still valid; and, if so, is it being
implemented.
Payo 1
In 2010, a small task force was formed to review the Comprehensive Plan. This task
force reported to Town Board and the County 'Commission that the plan, including the
vision, was still valid. They did suggest some areas that could be added or updated.
The Town Board and County Commissioners supported this evaluation.
The dialogue continues as to when and how to update the plan.
Staff. At the end of 2010, long-time Community Development Director Bob Joseph
retired, .and in 2011 a Planner II position was eliminated. As the new director, a number
of opportunities and challenges have presented themselves. Focus during the first nine
months has been primarily on staff retention and morale; rethinking how our core
functions, such as permitting and plan review, can be provided in an efficient manner;
and improving efficiencies and customer service. During this time, a number of Planning
Commissioners and some members of the public have voiced strong opinions that the
Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated. Community Development staff's opinion
could be summed up as;
▪ Staff agrees the current plan is valid;
• Updating the plan has value; however, to do it "right' takes a significant resource
commitment; and
• Staff recommends that the focus be on implementing the plan (e.g. Chapter 7 Action
Plan).
Staff Recommendation:
• Outreach/Community Engagement. To be a valuable resource and guide, the
Comprehensive Plan needs to be more than a document on a shelf used by
planners. This is a living document that speaks to the community's future.
Staff recommends building on the 2010 work of Commissioners Poggenpohl and
Null to reach out to the public and discuss the value of comprehensive planning.
• implementing the Vision. Staff recommends that we use the Triangle meeting to
annually review the Action Plan (Chapter 7). This chapter discusses specifics for
implementing the community vision.
'The intent —has not been to draw a map for the next decade that
provides detailed directions for each department. Instead, „to .utilize
the broader community vision and community values to act as a
compass always pointed toward'true north'. Therefore, reviewing
the recommended actions on an annual basis will .allow The
vision and actions to be regularly aligned."
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Staff is continuing to research ways to update portions of the plan with community
engagement, but without paid consultants, Staff remains concerned about doing too
much too quickly, and poorly, For 2012, Staff recommends 'focusing our efforts on
'the Action Plan (implementing the vision).
If staff is directed tQ update other areas of the Comprehensive Plan in 2012 such as
those listed below, staff recommends postponing work on time -intensive code
amendments, such as Accessory Dwelling Units and Planned Unit Developments.
At the 2010 Triangle meeting the Town Board and County Commission consensus
was that the plan as a whole is good and needs some updating."
The 2010 Task Force identified the following areas that may need attention, either because they
have not been fully addressed, or were not included in the 1996 Plan.
1. Continue to promote community diversity -including retention of younger families and a stable
work force.
2. Provide improved guidelines for infill development and provision of open space, both in the
downtown area and beyond.
3. Provide guidelines that will promote sustainability of our community in anticipation of higher
energy costs, reduced travel, etc.
4, Continue work to implement a viable long-term transportation plan for the Valley, especially in
Tight of Item 3, above.
5. Provide guidelines for historic preservation in the Valley.
Motion:
N/A. This is a report only.
Page 3
0) TS
N U
E c
O y
a>°
U)
00
cQ
a) m
Q> N
E
-0
L cit
To
a)0
UJ +=
E
O 0
(fib
C
VC
r..s O
Z Q
J Y o
v�-
Z E o
O N
�- pie
w•- •
Q
co-a
Z
J ,J g
a v�
W c
ci
Y/
WN
x E 0
UJ cQ)o
(tl U
2 y
0
itl Ci
W .74
T�
a
W 000
E
W ,o o
0- u>
C -0
yC
E
i
— a1
a.r 9...
as as
o O
.y
> 5
o
c;
E3
0 Ta
C 3
O 5
Q
Tom
7as
l'tl
-0 O
ai y
C
C
Ctl N .O
cs
Q N
N
o
3
Eu
N
0
0
L
Q'
aH
•
a 2
12
1300
y C�">
0 C � Q
0 0
1n a)
c ns U
EyE
0
Q ti
E `-
2 O Li
a C
o E
at
O O 5
' ` -E'' to Q) Q)
-a N j
cri
Ego'' aaE
0 46
5 c c E O
�r oI—
U Q) k'"' OU CS
y ;
Vl .
o Not initiated
z
z
0
z
0 m a N 6
aL
O 23 0• 0 2
a c m
• o E ro -o
m
oO fD N
E 3 v ai
`n = m
O a fa
n C E
N V O o
a
C of i a,
7 73 r a
v—U3-a
c C •' -o
'n 0 0 2.: w •
fE ~ 3 �u1
Oa 07 fll fO
C c c pV O
O 13
m c
C L
c
c
V
o N .�c u
O c c
6 3 Y O— U
O 13 as • al
� 0 m0 .4
C m ra • no w
o_ :E°' 0 m
O C 11 C
a n
-da 3 o t6 5
N v c 0
97 O 00 E
♦L a
U Q
N
E m
z
•
er action TBD
Revised code language pending
no
3
m
0 0
3 m
o
L1 L1
m
0
0
z
z
0 a
0
0
h
CV
LO
CAE
N
.0
U
0
0
0
E
Q
0
>,
0
U
01
m
.iJ
0
0
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan - Action Plan
September 16, 2011
To: Larimer County Commissioners
Honorable Mayor William (Bill) Pinkham and the Estes Park Board of Trustees
Estes Valley Planning Commissioners
From: Johanna Darden, Full -Time Resident of Estes Park
501 Mac Gregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado 80517 tJt
In Re: Requested Agenda. Topics for the Autumn 2011 Tri Meeting of the
Latimer County Commissioners, Estes Valley Planning Commission,
and the Estes Park Board of Trustees
A. The Estes Park Board of Trustees and the Larimer County Commissioners should
make decisions independent of each other and base those decisions on input
from citizens and information obtained by listening to tapes of meetings in
addition to relying on their knowledge and experience. Minutes from meetings
are often incomplete or incorrect and should not be used.
B. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan should be carefully inspected and changes
made where necessary with respect to air and water quality, open space, wildlife,
and any other areas which will affect the future of the Estes Valley. It will be a
long time before this document will be changed and there are current issues which
need to be addressed. Now is the time to deal with them, not later when it will be
too late.
C. Since communities in Larimer County are very different and it is not possible to treat
Fort Collins, Loveland, Estes Park, etc. the same, More careful thought needs to
take place to assure that each community retains its uniqueness and is not changed
to suit the needs of another to its own detriment.
D. How can we keep change from overwhelming and destroying the uniqueness of our
communities? Better, not bigger! And, less is morel What we want is quality
not quantity.
E. Care needs to be taken when entering into public/private projects. If a project goes
bankrupt, then the public sector pays heavily. Background information needs to
be carefully checked before making commitments.
September 12, 2011
To: Larimer County Commissioners
Estes Valley Planning Commission
Honorable Mayor William (Bill) Pinkham, Town of Estes Park
Estes Park Board of Trustees
From: Johanna Darden, Full -Time Resident of Estes Park
501 Mac Gregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado 80517In re: re: Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Revisions
1 would like to see "open space" defined in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan as land
that is not developed and has natural features such as boulders, trees, shrubs, plants native
to the area, lakes, creeks, rivers or river tributaries. Open space land should remain
undeveloped except to create pathways, resting areas, trash receptacles and parking
spaces, all of which should be made from natural materials; or to preserve historic
structures which have existed on the land for 100 years or more. Maintenance of "open
space" can include planting of vegetation natural to the area. Spaces for parking should
be kept to a minimum so as not to overwhelm the open space. Open space within the
Estes Valley should be places where people can walk and observe nature, rest, and
contemplate the beauty around them without vehicle disturbance,
Parks should not be considered "open space" unless they fit into the above criteria. Town
parks which are used for recreational or commercial purposes should fit into a separate
category and not use funding intended for "open space." They should be supported by
funds from the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District. Great Outdoors Colorado
(LOCO) has been very generous in the past in their support of such purposes, and other
sources are available,
September 12, 2011
To: Latimer County Commissioners
Estes Valley Planning Commission
Honorable Mayor William (Bill) Pin!diem
Estes Park Board of Trustees
From: Johanna Darden, Full -Time Resident of Estes Park
501 Mac Gregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Q'
In re: Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Revisions Pertaining to Wildlife
I would like a definition of wildlife to be written into the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan along
with guidelines to preserve and protect it. Please consider my thoughts that follow:
Animals living in a natural, undomesticated state are wildlife. Wild animals are to be protected
from harm except in situations which comply with Colorado Department of Wildlife regulations.
Plants living in a natural state are wildlife. Plants in the Estes Valley which are poisonous to
humans and animals or which are invasive should be removed. Removal of plants designated in
the Colorado Noxious Weed Act is required.
My thoughts on the protection of animals take into consideration the laws on hunting which are
set forth by the Department of Wildlife (DOW). These laws control the elk and deer herds by
permitting hunting by permit. It is not legal to hunt in the Town of Estes Park, so animals are
protected from hunting here. Wildlife is protected from harassment by law as well.
Wildlife is important throughout the Estes Valley and it is especially important to Estes Park.
The animals I am aware of in the Estes Valley are many. elk, deer, beaver, bighorn sheep,
squirrels, mountain lions, ground squirrels, chipmunks, foxes, fish, coyotes, bear, birds, raccoons,
rabbits, etc. They should not be harmed intentionally. We should protect them. Many are food
for other animals, some are run over by cars or harmed by cruel people, but we should try to keep
them in the Estes Valley and in Estes Park. It is possible to educate our visitors and uninformed
citizens on how to co -exist with our wildlife and protect all from harm: both animals and people.
Plants living in a natural state are wildlife. Keeping plants natural to our area protected is done in
part by prohibiting invasive plants. The bum unit that the Town of Estes Park owns and operates
for disposing of pine bark beetle infested trees is also used to get rid of noxious weeds and
invasive plants. I have pulled out many invasive or noxious plants and taken them to be burned
there, and I appreciate the effort made to provide this service to our citizens. I do not know if
there is a burn unit elsewhere in the Estes Valley, but it is a good idea to have one to rid the area
of the plants which are harmful.
To:
Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Halburnt
From: Director Chilcott
Date: October 25, 2011
RE: Estes Valley Development Code
Problem Statement — Accessory Dwelling Units
Background:
At the September 2011 Planning Commission meeting (minutes attached), the
Commission directed staff to forward the below Accessory Dwelling Unit problem
statement to the Town Board and County Commission for review and approval.
Planning Commission requests approval of the problem statement prior to proceeding.
Issue:
There are several issues related to ADUs as described below.
I. Community and Property Owner Needs and Desires. Accessory dwelling units are
limited to 30% of all residential lots in the Estes Valley. 1.33 times the minimum lot
area is required for an ADU, This means that in the E-1 zoning district, 1.33 acres is
required for an ADU and in the RE-1 zoning district 13.33 acres is required.
Property owners want ADUs for multiple reasons, including:
▪ Guest quarters for family and friends (non -rental)
• Income (short- and long-term rental)
• Caretaker quarters
ADUs can address community needs such as:
• Provision of affordable rental housing
• Aging in place
Currently, rental of accessory dwelling units is not allowed unless it can be
documented the units were allowed when built (with permits if required) and have
been regularly rented.
The Housing Authority recommended long-term rental of ADUs to help address
employee housing needs in the Estes Valley. Also, prohibition of rentals is difficult to
Page 1
enforce. Town Board directed the Planning Commission to revisit the 2009
recommendation to prohibit the rental of ADUs.
II. Determine what constitutes an ADU.
Below are references in the EVDC applicable to the discussion about what
constitutes an ADU. Staff relied on the first definition and looked at the design of the
structure as a whole to make this determination in the past.
5,2.B,2.a
Accessoryy_ _ unit o
..,,,. t
Dwelling y Units . . .accessory� g contain private sanitary
An dwelling
facilities with hot and cold running water and '.-ooJ ind and foodslorgoo1 c;filf ies .. , In
sat between the accessory dwelling unit standards of this Section and
any other requirements of this Code, the st nderds of; this Section shallcoil*
13.3.3
Accessory Dwelling Unit shall mean a second dwelling unit integrated with a single-
family detached dwelling that is located on the same lot as the single-family detached
dwelling. "Accessory Dwelling Unit" does not include mobile homes, recreational
vehicles or travel trailers.
13.3.95 Dwelling Unit shall mean a building or portion of it designed and used as living and
sleeping quarters for a single household, and thsifOloluditis exclusive sleeping, kftliert,
eating and sanitary facilities.
13.3.130 Kitchen shall mean a room or space within a room . q hoed will uch ei ctricL gji.,t as 1
lais r) A1 'Itpullo onaare the instellation of il ramp oven 01"1,t o iiaOce using
or natural gas (or similar fuels) for the preparation of food, and also
containing either or both a refrigerator and sink.
13.3.130,1 Kitchen, Accessory shall mean a kitchen other than the principal kitchen associated with
a single-family dwelling.
Staff recommends continuing to use the first definition above.
111. Conflict in Code. The Estes Valley Development Code ADU regulations conflict with
the Accessory Kitchens regulations. Accessory kitchen regulations allow ADUs on ail
lots regardless of lot size, no maximum ADU size, and with limited requirements for
interior connectivity with the main dwelling.
Accese rl Units is
ACC r mm
mmmm itch
1.33 times zoningdistrict minimum lot size
No minimum lot size
Must be "integrated within"
Must maintain interior access
Cannot exceed 33°/0 of total house slze or 800
square feet, whichever is less
No maximum size defined
Land Use Affidavit not required _
Land Use Affidavit required
IV. randfatherinq (Nonconforming status of existing detached accessory dwelling
units).
Existing detached ADUs, which have historically been allowed in many areas of the
Valley, are now nonconforming, Some of these were permitted, some predate
permits, and some have been "bootlegged" over time (without building permits,
which could result in unsafe conditions),
Page 2
Repairs and normal maintenance required to keep legal nonconforming units in safe
condition is permitted. Formal policy would clarify what constitutes an expansion of
the unit.
Purpose:
Broaden the availability of ADUs while minimizing potential negative impacts to single-
family neighborhoods (one lot; one house) and address the above issues.
Scope:
Planning Commission will forward general recommendations to the Town Board and the
Board of County Commissioners addressing the whether the code should be revised to:
1. Determine what constitutes an ADU?
2. Reduce or eliminate the minimum lot size for attached ADUs?
3. Allow detached ADUs?
4. Establish a minimum lot size for detached ADUs?
5. Allow short and/or long-term rental of attached ADUs?
6. Allow short and/or long-term rental of detached ADUs?
7. Require Planning Commission review of all new ADUs?
8. Require architectural controls?
9. Require a Land Use Affidavit (similar to deed restriction)?
10. Allow more flexibility to expand existing grandfathered ADUs?
Once general recommendations are approved by the Town Board and the Board of
County Commissioners, the Planning Commission will draft code language for review.
Desired timing is outlined below:
a. Early fall 2011: Forward the Problem Statement to the Town Board and Board of
County Commissioners.
b. Late fall 2011: Public hearing(s) conducted by the Estes Valley Planning
Commission
c. Early winter 2011: Public hearing(s) conducted by the Estes Valley Planning
Commission to recommend code language to the elected officials. The
recommended code language should reflect the direction identified by the elected
officials,
d. Mid-winter/early spring 2012: Forward recommended code amendments to the Town
Board and Board of County Commissioners for review and approval.
Desired Outcomes:
The desired outcome is to amend the Estes Valley Development Code to address the
accessory dwelling unit issues outlined above,
Pag 3
To:
Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Ha!burnt
&Poky" if
From Director Chilcott
Date: October 25, 2011
RE: Estes Valley Development Code —
Accessory Dwelling Units Recommendations
Background:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission has formulated general recommendations
below and requests policy guidance and feedback prior to drafting code amendments.
These recommendations are based public comment and discussion over the past five
years.
1 '''' '71146,011
issue
),
:17111113711*(501101
Current
Code
u)'i 1,1),Iliq
, „,,,I , A , i ,,I,,,,,,,,v
2011 EVPC
Recommendation
lier
,,
,11
,,
Recommendation
2011
!
TB/CC
Allow attached ADUs?
Yes
Yes
Reduce or eliminate
minimum lot size for
attached ADUs?
1.33 times zone
district minimum lot
size
Eliminate minimum lot size requirement
Limit the size
of an ADU
800 square feet or
33% of total principal
dwelling size,
whichever is Tess
1,000 square feet or 49% of the principal dwelling
size, whichever is less
Require EVPC review of all
new ADUs?
No
Na
Require architectural
controls?
No
No
Require land Use
Affidavit?
No
Yes
Allow short-term rentals?
No
Note; See below chart
No
i
I
Allow longterm rentals?
' No
Note: See below chart
No
Note: A live-in caregiver is not a renter
Revise code so many non -conforming ADUs become •
conforming.
Allow for modernization of the interior of non-
conforming ADUs.
Revisit after code language is drafted to see if
_ adequately addressed.
Allow more flexibility to
i expand existing Normal repair and
rr7ainteoance
' 8randfathered ADUs?
1
old 1110111111111of (An
Prir.ciOwe ling Prim pal M w ll g
Allowed Uses Allowed Uses
Owner -Occupied
Owner
Occupied
Oailinnuslied 011,,%,%% lin [girl 11111P),ril
i111,1, t
11111pia„
in U
Minowed Uses
Guests — non paying
Long -Term Rental
Long -Term Rental
Guests — non paying
Short Term Rental
Short -Term Rental not allowed
y
1
Issue
Allow detached ADUs?
Cutt Code
No
a.f al�„.,;
nil EVPC Remmmendatlon
TB/CC
Recomi endation
Yes
Establish a minimum lot
size for detached ADUs?
Oa
Lots of 2 acres or more
Require EVPC review of
all new ADUs?
n/a
No
Require architectural
controls?
n/a
No
Require Land Use
Affidavit?
n/a
Yes
Allow short-term
rentals?
No
No
Allow long-term
rentals?
No
No
Note: A live-in caregiver Is [iota renter
Allow more flexibility to
expand existing
grandfathered ADUs?
Normal repair and
maintenance
Revise code so many non -conforming ADUs become
conforming.
Allow for modernization of the interior of non -
conforming ADUs.
Revisit after code language is drafted to see if
adequately addressed.
issue
Current Code
2011 EVPC Recommendation
2011 TB/CC
Recommendation
Clarify what constitutes
an accessory dwelling
I unit?
5,2,B,2.a
13..3.3
13,3,95
13.3.130
13,3,130.1
Rely on Accessory Dwelling Unit definition, which
states an ADU may contain cooking and food
storage facilities
Remove the reference to electrical or gas hook-up
in the kitchen definition.
Remove accessory kitchen regulations and
definition
.Page 2
Chapter Seven * Action Plan
A.S Housing - Recommended Actions
Maintaining the supply of affordable housing within the Estes Valley continues to
be a significant issue. Part of the solution will include the identification of land for
affordable housing development, which may include utilizing some Town or County
owned properties. Other solutions are likely to include a combination of incentives
and/or linkages with new commercial or lodging developments.
ia ;t , ,�f "< ` u , ,l ifit m ""
"a�i it a ,ai .. I 1 s � ,i � . r. Providing incentives for the development
of secondfloor apartments in the commercial core or in new commercial developments
may create additional opportunities ii I) b beyriimiqvibotrott,thm ti euve a 11 olatto
While the community as a whole has not been supportive of large-scale subsidies,
they would like to address the issue incrementally, using a ,v;vo,i�
Specific actions include:
1. Completing existing Estes Park Housing Authority (EPfA) project.
The Lone Tree Apartments are underconstruction. This project will ass.ist local
residents and employees to access affordable housing options.
2. Define residential infill areas and strategy.
Within the downtown core and a number of neighborhoods immediately adjacent to
the core, significant infill opportunities existBy identifying these areas and
creating a special incentive zoning overlay, these opportunities and the associated
density incentives would be made apparent. It may also be possible to work with
local lending institutions to coordinate the use of Community Reinvestment Funds
in these areas.
3. ii",valU tcce s my triuctttra opti
Within the core and in a number of outlying areas, it may be appropriate to allow
accessory structures such as Garage Apartments or Attached Units. Specific criteria
should be created to define more specifically where such development should be
encouraged.
4. Evaluate commercial residential linkages and incentives.
Because a substantial portion of impacts associated with •employee housing can be
correlated with development of commercial or lodging uses, it may be appropriate
to .link these uses to the creation of affordable/employee housing, Programs could
be :incentive -based or tied to a direct requirement 'based on the number units or
square footage developed.
+t E. 5 r E LOWEMFNSIVR
7-
a
Access y;P , wain
nits
_Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are small, self-contained living units that typically have their own
kitchen, bedroom(s), and bathroom space. Often called granny flats, elder cottage housing opportuni-
ties (ECHO), mother -daughter residences, or secondary dwelling units, ADUs are apartments that can
be located within the walls of an existing or newly constructed single-family home or can be an addi-
tion to an existing home. They can also be freestanding cottages on the same lot as the principal
dwelling unit or a conversion of a garage or barn.
The benefits to the home owner and the ADU occupant are many. For the home owner, ADUs provide
the opportunity to offer an affordable and independent housing option to the owner's grown son or
daughter just starting out or to an elderly parent or two who might need a helping hand nearby. The
unit could also be leased to unrelated individuals or newly established families, which would provide
the dual benefit of providing affordable housing to the ADU occupant and supplemental rental
income to the owner. Supplemental income could offset the high cost of a home mortgage, utilities,
and real estate taxes. Finally, leasing an ADU to a young person or family can provide an elderly home
owner with a sense of security and an opportunity to exchange needed work around the house and
yard for a discount on rent.
Despite the benefits, some communities resist a°lowing ADUs, or allow them only after `ime-consuming
and costly review procedures and requirements. Public resistance to ADUs usually takes the form of a
perceived concern that they might transform the character of the neighborhood, Increase density, add
to traffic, make parking on the street more difficult, increase school enrollment, and put additional pres-
sure on fire and police service, parks, or water and wastewater. However, communities that have allowed
ADUs find that these perceived fears are mostly unfounded or overstated when ADUs are actually bulit.
ADUs are a particularly desirable option for many communities today considering the current econom-
ic climate, changes In household size, increasing .numbers of aging baby boomers, and the shortage of
affordable housing choices. They provide a low -impact way for a community to expand its range of
housing choices.
ux.A f 'T `1N ? suns E'f' ono 'l l ACT'
Towns, cities, and cojnties across the county have done the right thing by proactively amending local
zoning ordinances to allow ADU."+Mils is typically dune either ass a matter of right or as a special or con-
ditional use. in either case, reasonable conditions may be imposed. Some states, including California,
have enacted legisiation that limits the ability of iocaiitie.s'to zone out ADUs.
it 2iri) ..,ARP retainer: APA Resea'ch De artrreere to V ' G or may' • p Fite a 7 a. ce, report Fo; ..,zer rlP;r=s'ed in
c.orrAincIng 11.: a' and state offrcla;s ar the benefits of aiiowing ADU, and showing hero ro3+v .o do it.
EnVeciAcces5ory Oweang links," tMDde! Str,, E / ci undf 1t4ordei Lora! OrdThrince, the -monograph provide:,
eerriar vc star aria ord arrc(i iz rl.IL'€age useful to 'mpie.men?:r:g ciii fc,rr; a cif ADO .
The Modell oct.W.C'Tfli nc(:iecoirmer i}tlor Po"tlr;°;rn'ti!.- I _ �dr_�G �iwly 6E E I g,en1 e-1 "h,£
arts a:'::e de,,crlbes the permInIng pry t. ss for e?iglbility an.zi approval, and further our.lI nes standards
FOr ADU allt7ovzi ptrt'&'irr q to lot s.ze ocel parr y, i, eUd ng stio%dartds, parkins; ar i trafr, l bit,
-lee,,ItI), and .hrw, m wrth none ontornring A)tJs. 7he119rrk?.atrteArt a u., d f pding5 and po.r':: '
enco a inwT Inc c r)tlrt7ydi oor.ADt1 end ri xn- s IorA fiove,.rn,c- is as t"c ent'i'es enr'it`c.i i,
8 �lmlilill0.ol 11.11.111xxxx1II 000000110000111011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111r 000
11111111111111111 Iluuuuullllllllllll ll�lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIIIII 1�I
1101tt1u1.1,
"-�- I Cwy t
j ownr cities,
Cc.) -unties td °rC:,s';.`)e
.CY, 11'Ci1.? i
rkjilt
f ,r0 c::' !'n:''1v
oee
rkrra .nic a, PP)4rsari4I g)
t ,Oxt.Xx xx ) _.. «+_h.1, ieet i.r r i ;u F}W�C'�- xtia i
61
111111111111 1 IIIIIIIIIIII �I IIIIII II
iiluuuluu { ff
mfiw
dI IIIIII II
mVIIIIIII„ ...II11111.... u o , IIUI uuu pull
�� IA...., � duaoi ild�,.11lllll ,� I, P�eri ,,,,ulll �i�p, ee:p�i��Awo pp�Ip,µlAlj>,,,,i���Ui��Illlll�pillllpppq��(Vlvp,,�lGyQIlpQlll l���ill�l��.ul,:iula � U�upulUlp�„uuidlh��IINW�I��„+ru�..��IiIIIIIINu I of VP�IIIII ,1,41,IdR .. i:,:,
Il,i�lllllllllllllllll 1
IIII IIAIPRNIII!(!jjp yl
ruuuuru�',I�{i,° I�1
III011'il���l�� lill;�J 11111111111
dlllllllllllllllllp
V ul uul111111111121101uuu
adoption of an ADU statute. It specifies
the limits to which local governments
may prohibit ADUs and outlines
default permitting provisions if a locali-
ty does not adopt an ADU ordinance.
It details optional approaches for
adopting ADU ordinances, certifying
local ADU ordinances, gathering data
on ADU efforts, preparing reports and
recommendations, and forming a
statewide board overseeing ADUs.
PROPOSER " IKO ORIORRIANCE
ONNSIMREIN
ADU ordinances offer a variety of ben-
efits to local communities but the road
to implementation may not be an
easy process, While ADUs are more
widely accepted now than in years
past, skeptics still remain and some still
oppose ADU zoning. The following
describes some issues or decision
points that communities must address
in order to successfully navigate the
perilous waters of public acceptance.
The approach that is right for your city
or town will be unique based on local
physical, political, social, and economic conditions.
a
Single storyAIJ(1 floor plan.
Byright Permitting, Should permits for ADUs be issued as a matter of right (with dear standards
built into the ordinance) or should they be allowed by discretion as a special or conditional use after
a public hearing?
Occupancy. Should ordinance language allow an ADU only on the condition that the owner of the
property lives in one of the units'?
Form of Ownership. Should the o-dir-ance prohibit converting the ADU unit into a condominium.?
Preexisting, nonconforming ADUs. How should the ordinance treat grandfathered ADUs? How
do you treat illegal apartments that want to apply for an, ADU permit?
Unit Size: Shouid the ordinance limit the square footage of the ADU to assure that the unit is truly
accessory to the principal dwelling on the property?
Adequacy of Water and Sewer Services. How do you guarantee there is enough capacity in
sewer lines, pumping stations. and treatment faciifr es to accommodate ADUs?
These ere not easy isst.es. however, Comr??'.;r k)e.5 wOIi d tic w&1 : o senousiy consi'i "adeptieg ran
approach'that. a',iows A Ls by ?- 9ilt Wll ' d iJ'iiten CtiF"..!iit'rnS: coin fJ{ re'c'l:ire u,Nnei par?'
cy; prohibits condominium ownership on the basis that a condo could not be considered accessory,
onvid e_s .s -rnpte prrx;r;+ctrp foi. leg ilein preex!srrr wr. ri ''t + try 'd d t
,. J ,� ,. ..y , ��� -.=+t: �+y :.t ..^s't+ r)�'d�ir. :en,i s'3r� �"�E�tir'�he
u 1 is nsr.3ecte.d; provkies e oi. s mand::;rcl and. rrov'i�'.'es a Vs 3_r?r an teW.71 udequai:y ::'iin-
`ard.y _,
— J' 'r.„01' . 7 < <jj.� _ t'E _'1:.e 1: {I.Linnod ?-6 fximt,n 2,1s
ESTES VALLEY C �
LIBRL:
Jackie Williamson, Clerk
Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Dear Ms. Williamson:
Claudine Perrault
Library Director
cperrauitgestesvalleylibrary.org
www.estesvalleylibrary.org
21 September 2011
The Estes Valley Public Library District (Library) is recommending Jo -Ann Mullen and
Donald L. Bryson to fill two Library Board of Trustee vacancies. In addition, we are
recommending the reappointment of Brian 'John' Kamprath for his first full term.
John Kamprath has 30 years of experience in commercial construction with an emphasis
in business development and project management. He graduated from Estes Park High
School and has a long history of civic engagement locally and throughout the Front
Range. The Board believes that Mr. Kamprath's extensive experience in construction,
project management and capital campaigning will be of great value to the Board for
building projects. This is for a 4-year term beginning January 1, 2012 and ending on
December 31, 2015.
Jo -Ann Muller, a long term resident of Estes Park and very strong library supporter, is
recommended for a 4 year term as a Trustee on the Library Board of Trustees beginning
January 1, 2012 and ending on December 31, 2015. Jo -Ann will replace Raymond
Nieder who is term limited and cannot be nominated for another term as a Library
Trustee. Jo -Ann has multiple degrees in Education and retired as a Professor of Literacy
Education at the University of Northern Colorado. Her many community activities include
serving as a Library Foundation Board member, as President of the Friends of the Weld
County Library and Vice President of the Estes Park Summerset Condominium
Association Board. Jo -Ann will provide the Board with valuable public relation skills as
well as strong public speaking communications skills for the local community.
Donald L. Bryson is recommended by the Board to finish the remaining 3 years of
current Trustee Jack Ford's term beginning January 1, 2012 and ending on December 31,
2014, Mr. Ford is resigning from the Board due to his and his wife's health
concerns. Don's current community activities include serving as a volunteer for
Crossroads Ministry, Ambassador at the Town of Estes Park Visitor Center and a Tax
Aide for the AARP tax assistance program. Previous community activities include being
on the City of Thornton Planning Commission for 9 years. Don is a Geophysical Engineer
and has extensive corporate management experience for corporate departments and
church congregations. He is very familiar with conducting public meetings and
hearings. Don will provide the Board with valuable management and financial skills.
The Board believes that John Kamprath, Jo -Ann Mullen and Don Bryson will provide
much needed skills that will be required over the next few years as the Library searches
for additional revenue sources and implements various cost containment activities.
Si cerely,
L)
AaLi,/,‘,„
Sarah Walsh, President - Board of Trustees
Estes Valley Public Library District
970-586-8116 • fax 970-586-0189 �' PG Box 1687 • 335 East Eikhorn Avenue • Estes Park, CO • 80517
Memo
To:
Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Halburnt
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: October 21, 2011
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
rJ 1i1111i11,1
1.1111
RE: Reappointment of Chief Wes Kufeld to the Larimer County Telephone
Authority (LETA) Board for a 2-year Term beginning January 1, 2012 and
Expiring on December 31, 2013.
Background:
On December 31, 2011, the term of Chief Kufeld will expires. The Chief represents the
small towns in Larimer County on the LETA Board. Chief Kufeld is eligible to continue
on the LETA Board and has expressed interest in continuing to represent not only Estes
Park but the small communities in Larimer County.
The LETA Board has requested the Town of Estes Park submitted the names of
individuals it would like the LETA Board to consider filling the upcoming vacancy. The
LETA Board will consider all applicants at its November 2, 2011 meeting.
The Town of Estes Park has always nominated a representative for the LETA Board
and has been successful at maintaining a position for numerous years. Staff finds this
appointment important because the Town houses one of the dispatch centers.
Budget:
N/A
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the reappointment of Chief Wes Kufeld to the LETA Board for an
additional 2-year term.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the reappointment of Chief Wes Kufeld to the Larimer County
Telephone Authority Board for a 2-year term expiring December 31, 2013.
October 11, 2011
To: The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees
From: The Estes Park Local Marketing District
Regarding: Budget Request Consideration
The Estes Park Local Marketing District hereby requests an investment by the
Town of Estes Park for direct marketing, advertising and promotion of the Estes
Park Area in the amount of $175,000. We also request that consideration be
given to establishing a non -binding commitment of 2.5% of Sales Tax Revenues
in future year to allow the Local Marketing District the ability to better project
income sources in future budgets.
Budget Request Rational
1. Tourism is the industry of Estes Park.
2. Maintenance and growth of the Sales Tax base generated by Tourism
requires marketing and promotion of the area.
3. The Local Marketing District's Destination Marketing Team and key
strategic partners have demonstrated the skills and understanding of
appropriate tools and techniques to maximize the utilization of available
funds to promote the area and attract tourism.
4. Destination Marketing Studies indicate that at a minimum the Investment
of $1.00 in Direct Marketing returns $20.00 in Sales Tax Dollars. We do
not have the tools to project the ROI in Estes Park at this time but feel
confident that this is a minimum return in our regard.
5. The State of Colorado Tourism Budget has recently again been cut.
6. The Local Marketing District relies on one Sales Tax base that being a 2%
Accommodations Tax within the district.
7. The town of Estes Park currently benefits from a 4% Sales Tax on
Accommodations within the Town as well as the same tax on retail,
restaurant and grocery within the Town.
8. The Local Marketing District is currently making significant investments in
developing the "intellectual capital" necessary for us to be the premier
Destination Marketing Organization that Estes Park Deserves. These
areas include research, the development of a new website and the
destination branding program.
9. If pressed to cut marketing spending the LMD would likely need to
address those areas that do not directly effect accommodations spending
in order to best maintain our income source.
0
cc
0
LU
0
5
0 0
411.m 0 0
0.. 0
0
cn e-I N.r•Li N 4-J
0
c-41
rn
0
09 in Ln
0000 U1O1 01
0 •ct
N 01.01
L.11 tr) .0-01 01
tn-
tn. VI-
0
ij
1.0
ril
3-4
co
0
0
0
U1
3-▪ 4
01
01
4-0
CU
00
5
N
oa
co
0.
1
T.^4
rn
01
0
r-
(1-
0
0
a▪ )
Q3
▪ 0
0.
00
if) ul
0
r‘is
0
0
0
r1
rJ
DO
01
00
1-1
0 0
00
Ln
in▪ .
en
0
00
Ln
-Ln-
rn
Ln
rn
0
ij
N.
00
Ln
r4
ri
rn
Nt
00 Lrf
Lf1 01
0 .1
LA' <Nis
01 N
N 00
4-Z
In tn.
01
Nt
Ln
in.
00
Nt
0
1'4
Lfl
c31
Nt
Nt
00
00
4-I
4-1
0
r1
0
4/9
tia
-a
ea
00
0 IA
0 0
en
r-1
0
0
0
0
00
en
eels
e-t
0
0
00
0
00
Tr
00
VI -
Tv5
0
4-1
0
•
in 0
CO 0
010
Le u-is
m
0
0
0 0
0
in
00
01
00
•cr
tn.
00
00
r1
0
0
0
cc;
t n.
e-1
00
11
rfl
Nis
0
Ln
0
0
0
°cis
tn.
Nt
00
tri•
Investment
0)
r‘i
00
01
w
5
5
OZ
0I
0.
a3
0
cn
c
0.1
X
Lit
Total Person
L n
00
N.
1-4
Nt
Nt
Nis
L n
CD
1-1
00
01
ro
CI) a
•C C
03 CI)
Ct.
x
LU
.1-
531)
0
5
U
0 0
0
00
CO
0
141
00
1-4
Nt
Nt
3-4
N
4.o
'-▪ 4
tn-
00
03
in•
.rt
LO 0
00 0
NI 0
00 Ln
tn.
0
14,3
L C)
.4"
Ln
rn
Nt
0
1.0
Nt
N
*6
00
tn.
Ln
to
1.0
tn.
0
00
143
1-3
00
to
4 4
4.4
00
in. IR
CD
4-1
00
00
4/1)
z
01
in
4-
CU
0.
31)
0
t11
C)
Z.
31)
00
CL
03
RESOLUTION # 12-11
WHEREAS, the Estes Park Local Marketing District has filed with the Town Clerk
the Estes Park Local Marketing Business and Operating Plan for 2012 along with its
proposed budget for the 2012 calendar year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 29-25-110 C.R.S. and the applicable provision
of the Intergovernmental Agreement dated August 26, 2008, between the Town of
Estes Park and the Board of County Commissioners, Larimer County, the Town
Board shall approve or disapprove the Operating Plan within thirty (30) days after
receipt of said Plan, the proposed budget and all additional documentation
requested by the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the Operating Plan and proposed
budget and has determined that the Operating Plan will provide efficient and cost
effective marketing and promotion services for the Estes Park Local Marketing
District Service Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE RECITALS SET FORTH ABOVE
WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The Estes Park Local Marketing District Business and Operating Plan for 2012
as filed with the Town Clerk is hereby approved.
Dated this , 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
ES11 NATION
'1' i %
1✓l
September 30, 2011
Mayor Pinkham and Estes Park Board of Trustees
PO box 1200
Estes Park, Co 80517
Dear Mayor Pinkham and Estes Park Board of Trustees:
The Estes Park Local Marketing District Board is pleased to submit our 2012 Operating Plan for
The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees review and approval. A duplicate copy has also been
submitted to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners.
Peggy Campbell (Executive Director), Scott Webermeier and I will plan on making ourselves
available should there be any questions regarding the Operating Plan and Budget. We have
submitted a print copy of the plan and also emailed our Operating Plan to Town Administrator,
Jacquie Halburnt.
We look forward to receiving your support! A solid partnership with the Town of Estes Park and
Larimer County is paramount to our ongoing success.
Please feel free to contact me directly or any of our Board members should you have any
questions.
Cory Blackman — Estes Park LMD Chairperson
Estes Park Local Marketing District Board of Directors:
Bill Almond - Vice Chairperson
Scott Webermeier—Secretary/Treasurer
Lindsay Lamson
Chris Wood
Kathy Palmeri
Lee Lasson
EST NAT , ON
KEFING
ANZiVflON
•
'1,11 it4 IC) •5'.; 1 9'
Estes Park Loca/ Marketing District
2012 Operating Plan
September 2011
The Local Marketing District (LMD) Model
According to Colorado State Statute, the Local Marketing District may provide any of the
following services within the district:
Organization, promotion, marketing, and management of public events;
Activities in support of business recruitment, management, and development;
Coordinating tourism promotion activities.
(II) No revenue collected from the marketing and promotion tax levied under section 29-25-112
may be used for any capital expenditures, with the exception of tourist information centers.
(f) To have the management, control, and supervision of ail the business and affairs of the
district and of the operation of district services therein;
(g) To appoint an advisory board of owners of property within the boundaries of the district and
provide for the duties and functions thereof;
(h) To hire employees or retain agents, engineers, consultants, attorneys, and accountants;
(i) To adopt and amend bylaws not in conflict with the constitution and laws of the state or with
the ordinances of the local government affected for carrying on the business, objectives, and
affairs of the board and of the district; and
(j) To exercise all rights and powers necessary or incidental to or implied from the specific
powers granted in this article. Such specific powers shall not be considered as a limitation upon
any power necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and intent of this article.
Estes Park LMD Overviews
The Estes Park Local Marketing District is organized e Intergovernmental
MD ��� Larinmer Courrty.ments The purpose
po e
GA's)
between the LMD and the Town of Estes Park and
is to proactively market the Estes Park area, resulting in the positive economic impact of visitor
dollars. The formation of the Local Marketing District and the 2% lodging tax were approved by
District voters in November 2008 and lodging tax collections went into effect on January 1,
2009.
Funding for the district continues to be provided via the 2% lodging tax which is collected by
lodging properties from their guests for stays of less than 30 days. This tax is collected by
lodging establishments and remitted to the Colorado Department of Revenue on a quarterly
basis and then distributed to the Estes1 �� e too earlyMo accuratelygtax f� cast asions were
only the 1st and
$1,250,623 in 2010. Estimates for 20
2nd Quarter's distributions have been received. The first two quarters of 2011 saw a 1.5%
period in 2010.Third quarterlodgingtax, which re
presents our increase over the same pre - WEE
W..
._ 01mu i�u�u�miuur�vwi�ur. ,-;Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan Page 2
summer season, will be received by the State on or around November 15, 2011, at which time
2012 revenue forecasts will be more reliable.
A seven (7) Member Board is appointed with five (5) members appointed by the Town of Estes
Park Board of Trustees and two (2) by Larimer County Board of County Commissioners.
The LMD will continue to use existing CVB Operational Policies. Changes required to the
policies will be brought to the LMD Board for review and/or possible action.
The Destination Marketing Organization (DMO), the functional name of the LMD, continues to
work closely with Visitor Services and Events, both of which are funded and managed by the
Town of Estes Park. The three areas continue to operate under the umbrella of the Estes Park
Convention & Visitors Bureau.
�
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating P.
Plan
Page 3
Estes Park LMD Organizational Structure
Key Players
• Local Marketing District Board of Directors (7 Members)
• DMO Staff
• Town of Estes Park government officials
• Town of Estes Park staff, particularly Visitor Services and Events
• Rocky Mountain National Park Liaison
Organization
The LMD Board focuses direction directly to the Executive Director of the LMD Staff. Ail LMD
Board direction will be focused through the Executive Director, other than ordinary involvement
in committees, in order to keep reporting direct and focused without confusion. We believe this
is very important to keep individual agendas from getting involved in the direct line of reporting
and direction that could cause confusion. Any necessary communication and direction to be
given to the Executive Director during periods between Board meetings will be handled by the
LMD Chairman with a follow-up summary to the entire Board. In the absence or incapacitation
of the Chairman, this responsibility will be handled by the Vice Chairman.
LMD Board of Directors
Cory Blackman, Chairman - Best Western Bill Almond, Vice -Chair - YMCA
Plus Silver Saddle
Scott Webermeier, Secretary/Treasurer - Kathy Palmeri - YOGI Bear Campground
National Park Village
Lindsay Lamson - Rocky Mountain Resorts Lee Lesson - Front Desk Consulting
Chris Wood- McGregor Mountain Lodge
DMO Staff
Peggy Campbell, Executive Director
Suzy Blackhurst, Communications & Public Relations
Peter Marsh, Advertising
Kirby Nelson, Stakeholder Sales & Services
Mike Oline, Administrative Assistant
TBD, Group Sales & Services
Estes Park Local
Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan Page 4
Estes Park LMD Mission, Vision, Core Values
Mission: Attract visitors to the District through effective and efficient marketing in order to drive
year-round economic growth.
Vision: To be a year-round tourism and group destination that supports our healthy mountain
community with a balance of financial success, memorable experiences for visitors and quality
of life for our residents and employees.
Core Values:
• Accountable
• Ethical
• Proactive
• Respectful
• Responsive
• Transparent
2011 Operating Plan Highlights
In our second year of full operation, the Estes Park Destination Marketing Organization (DMO),
the functional name of the LMD, continues to track well to our 2011 Operating Plan.
Beginning January 1, 2011, to improve transparency, the LMD and the Town of Estes Park
implemented significant financial changes in 2011. Unlike 2010, when the Town of Estes Park
funded salaries and benefits for the four employees transferred from Town of Estes Park staff to
LMD staff (about $364,475), the LMD fully funded all employees in 2011. In addition, the LMD
paid the Town of Estes Park for rent in the Visitor Center,payroll processing,'/ FTE for Visitor
Services staff support, IT support, and other misc. expenses such as property / liability
insurance coverage, printer costs, etc. In 2011, the LMD will have paid the Town approximately
$62,239 in rent, payroll processing, Visitor Services staff support, and IT support.
Since the LMD is responsible for generating and supporting stakeholder sales and services, the
LMD began to receive the revenue associated with those services effective January 1, 2011.
Marketing and advertising services available to district businesses include website listings,
Visitor Center brochure rack display, group services, and leads, among others. This represents
approximately $250,000 in revenue. However, DMO stakeholder participation fees for out of
Town but within District lodging properties will be reduced in 2012, and as a result, revenue will
decline by about $30,000.
In 2011, the Town of Estes Park, recognizing the importance of tourism to the local economy
and Town sales tax revenue, committed to a marketing investment of $128,985 to support LMD
efforts. This investment enhanced the DMO's ability to provide exceptional destination
marketing services, which in tum directly affects the Town's sales tax collections. Town of Estes
moi
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan
Page 5
Park 2012 marketing investment in support of DMO efforts has not been determined as of this
writing, but is expected in early October.
LMD emergency reserve funds remained at $500,000 as planned. The LMD Board continues to
believe that it is important to set aside this amount not only in case of emergency, but also if
needed to cover first and second quarter expenses which are inherently high versus our income
stream during the same time which is inherently low. Due to the seasonal nature of tourism in
Estes Park, our income stream peaks in November when we receive the third quarter lodging
tax collections. •
We continued to staff the DMO with six employees and as the 2011 Operating Plan indicated,
we did convert a part time seasonal position to a full time employee position. The Executive
Director continues to report directly to the Estes Park LMD Board and directs the. DMO Staff.
2011 Marketing Plan YTD Highlights
Under the leadership of Executive Director, Peggy Campbell, the DMO is tracking well to our
2011 Operating Plan and 2011 Marketing Plan. As indicated in the 2011 Operating Plan and
Marketing Plan, we continue to partner closely with industry experts. Key strategic partners
include Hill Aevium, Advertising Agency; Pace Communications, 2012 Official Visitor Guide
Publisher; Guest Research, Visitor Study; Turner PR, Public Relations; and BrandStrategy,
Destination Branding. Key accomplishments to date include:
• Developed an integrated Estes Park Marketing Plan. Extended goals and objectives into
strategies and tactics for each DMO department.
• Established and tracking of key Estes Park tourism indicators to monitor trends and shift
direction when appropriate.
• Significantly expanded creative assets portfolio including two new high definition
television commercials and extensive portfolio of new photography.
• Completed year-round Visitor Survey research project yielding 7,622 completed surveys.
Expanded survey through February 2011 to ensure even deeper off-season data.
• Initiated all new interim advertising creative, creating a bridge between the existing
creative and the new branding effort in 2012. New creative reflects the key positioning
points acquired in the 2010-2011 visitor survey research study. Elevated the design
standards to reach the target markets more effectively. Effort includes print ads, event
posters, Internet banner ads, social media, email marketing, and group sales proposal
templates.
• Expanded the social media presence with branded Facebook, You Tube Channel, and
Flickr. New Facebook promotion (Rooftop Rodeo) was implemented to strategically grow
the fan base and create additional visitor loyalty.
• Developed and executed an RFP for a destination branding company. The branding
company has been selected and the research phase of the project is in process.
Branding will continue through 2012.
District-2012 Operating Plan „.__. Page 6
Estes Park Local Mar
ketingrketrngP g �
• Redirected the 2011 media mix due to the findings of the Guest Research Visitor study.
Increased the ratio of digital to print/broadcast mix by 10% over 2010 (35% digital in
2011). Expect to increase digital ratio again in 2012.
• Developed and executed an RFP for a new Visitor Guide publisher. New publisher was
selected and major redesign of the 2012 Official Estes Park Visitor Guide is in the
process of being finalized. This is the first change in the annual publication in six years.
The new look and feel reflects current trends in destination visitor guides and better
represents the Estes Park experience.
• Developed and executed an RFP for Visitor Guide fulfillment services and a vendor has
been selected. This will result in a significant improvement to the entire process
including Visitor Guide delivery and more streamlined operations (on-line). This will be
the first change to our fulfillment house in sixteen years.
• Created a more targeted group sales effort focusing on the 'low hanging fruit' of
weddings and reunions while expanding awareness and reach to the SMERF (Social,
Military, Educational, Religious, Fraternal), corporate and association markets.
2012 LMD operational Plan
The DMO staff is in need of additional office space. The LMD Board felt that keeping the
marketing arm of the CVB in the Visitor Center was important and requested Town Board
consider renovating the second floor of the Visitor Center to accommodate LMD staff. The Town
Board of Trustees, considered this request, along with Town' staff presentation regarding the
town -owned Visitor Center facility, and learned that Visitor Services and public space also have
space challenges due to the increase in visitor traffic to the building. This, among other reasons
such as the significant costs associated with the renovation, caused the Town Board to deny the
LMD's request torenovate the second floor of the Visitor Center. The DMO staff, which had
already been researching office space options outside of the Visitor Center, are preparing for
the relocation.
In 2011, funding for payroll and benefits for all DMO Staff Members transferred from the Town
of Estes Park to the LMD. This will continue, and in addition, as envisioned by the Town of
Estes Park and the LMD, LMD staff will fully transition from Town of Estes Park to beooming
employees of the LMD. LMD managed HR services for LMD staff, including a new employee
handbook, will be in effect January 1, 2012. Through an expected revised 2012 Town of Estes
Park/LMD IGA, LMD employees will continue uninterrupted participation in, and be eligible for,
all Town of Estes Park benefits.
Currently, the LMD Board intends to operate the plan with the 6 employees plus the hiring of
external firms as necessary to enhance certain areas. Group Sales and Services recently
became an open position and is being managed by a temporary staff person until such time as
the position is reevaluated and posted. Major changes to the Group Sales effort are not
expected.
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan
Page 7
2012 LMD Marketing Plan
The marketing plans developed in our first two years of operation proved to have laid a solid
and successful foundation for current and future destination marketing efforts. The 2010
Marketing Plan developed by Hannah Marketing and the 2011-2012 Marketing Plan developed
by the DMO team will continue to serve us well as our road to destination marketing excellence.
Marketing Strategies
We will focus our 2012 Marketing strategy on the original path outlined by the CVB Assessment
and the 2011 Marketing Plan. The changes for 2012 are in two key areas — branding and
interactive. The destination branding effort which began in 2011 will be completed and all
advertising materials will be modified to complement the new brand. The website, now seven
years old, will be scrapped and a new website will be developed which will embrace the new
branding along with the latest in technology and mobile readiness. The 2012 media allocation
will capitalize on 2011 successes and continue the shift towards electronic media from
traditional media with a primary focus on the overnight visitor. Goals and objectives from the
2011 plan will also be updated. Tracking and reporting will continue for each marketing initiative
using research, goal setting and conversion analytics. Group sales and services efforts will
continue to focus on the meetings, weddings and reunion market with research being
commissioned to determine the viability of the corporate market. Public Relations will focus on
identifying the unique story ideas to support the effort of attracting more overnight visitors.
Research in 2012 will include a comprehensive conversion study.
2012 Media Plan Synopsis
Hill Aevium was retained to complete the research and development of the 2012 media plan for
the Local Marketing District. Following is a brief overview of the strategies and tactics
associated with the plan and some additional thoughts relating to promotional and branding
efforts that will deployed to enhance the plan during the 2012 year.
Integrated Marketing Effort
The advertising plan developed for the Estes Park DMO is not meant to be a static or singular
document. It was developed as part of a larger integrated effort being implemented by the
Estes Park DMO that includes:
• Public Relations
• Promotions
• Email marketing
• Social Networking and Blogging
• Search Enk:ine Optimization
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan
Page 8
• Stakeholder communication
• . Direct Sales
• Research
• Tracking and reporting
Adjustments will be made during the year as market demands or conditions change. Tracking
and reporting will utilize Google Analytics as well as 800 number calls, visitor inquiries, click
through rates, impressions and a series of vanity URL's. Landing pages will be created where
appropriate to further assist with tracking.
The Guest Research, Inc. Visitor Study has again been used as the basis for the media
decisions. The Visitor Study now includes 13 months, providing even more information on
shoulder and winter seasonal attributes.
Using Research to Drive Media Selection
Who Is Coming to Estes Park and Why?
The most recent data from Guest Research, Inc. indicates that 63% of visitors to Estes Park are
staying overnight. Day visitors make up only 37%. On average overnight visitors spend $500-
$860 per day depending on the season, vs. the day visitor's daily spend of $83-$102. 43% of all
visitors are from Colorado.
Rocky Mountain National Park and a relaxing mountain getaway trade one and two positions as
the reason most visitors come to Estes Park. This is followed by wildlife viewing, outdoor
recreation and low cost/good value.
Primary Tartlet Demographics
The largest visitor age group ranges between 45 and 54 years of age. Average household
income is $110,000-$149,000 and the majority of people in this group are married and have
children. Per the most recent Guest Research, Inc. results, 26% of people in this group did not
have children, 39% had children at home, and 35% have children that no longer live at home.
Travel Party indicated 43% were couples and 54% were families. This changes dramatically by
season
These people are highly educated with 84% having a college degree or post -graduate degrees.
They are coming to Estes Park from CO, TX, NE, KS, MI, IL, IA and CA
A large percentage of these people are staying overnight in Estes Park.
Seasonally
We now have the data to look at the makeup of the visitor by season in Estes Park. Note that
due to multiple answers to the same question, e.g., who were you traveling with?, certain
questions may not result in 100% total.
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan
Page 9
The Summer day and overnight visitors are age 45-54 with a tie for second at 38-44 and 55-63.
60% are Families (3-10) and 59% are Individuals/couples (1-2).
The Fall day visitor is 45-54, with overnight visitor in the 55-63 age group. 59% are Couples (1-
2) and 46% are Families (3-10).
• The Winter day and overnight visitors are age 45-54 with a dose second place of 55-63.
The travel party status shifts even more to the Individual/couples with 64% and Families
at 43%.
Group Target Demographics
The Group audience for Estes Park comes primarily from the Front Range and drives to Estes
Park.
Media Objectives for 2012
• Increase overnight stays while maintaining traffic from day visitors
• Increase overnight stays from within Colorado
• Increase conversion of Visitor Guide inquiries
• Increase website visitation
• Increase group business from Front Range drive
• Increase percentage of "new" visitation
• Expand email database
market
Media Strateav
• Eliminate publications that did not perform in 2011 while re -investing in publications that
focus more directly on the 2012 target audience.
• Target Families in the Spring and Summer / April — July
• Target Empty Nesters in the Fall and Winter / August — March
• Increase media spend in Colorado to target overnight visitors
• Maintain online investment that will drive decision makers to the Estes Park website as
well as increase the email database.
• Allocate budget for Group business focusing on government and association
meetings/retreats, corporate meetings market, SMERF primarily social, e.g., weddings
and reunions.
qEstes Park Local Marketing District �
2012 Operating Plan
Page 10
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
$180,180
Media Breakdown by Year
2010
2011 2012
Magazine
Newspaper
Radio/TV
OnlineIPPCISE0
2012 Media Spend By Medium
$72,289 $25,000
$93,000
$33,340 $75,811
$335,713
Magazine 41%
Newspaper 9%
Radio 4%
TV 11%
Online 22%
PPC 10%
SEO 3%
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan Page 11
Traditional Media by Day Visitor
vs.Overni ht Visitor
Day Visitor
Newspaper
Radio
Broadcast
2011 2012
`r 7 %
i3°'.'[ 9o/
Total % of Bud . et 350/0 25%
Overnight Visitor 2011 2012
Mag in
. Ncil` spapt r.
tirssocicasi
Total 0/0 of Budget 65% 75%
mLawomm
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan
FmitteentteRt
Page 12
2012 Budget
Since its inception, the LMD Board has endeavored to continue to support and grow all of the
marketing activities previously funded by the Town of Estes Park with the desire to be
supportive of all of our stakeholders. In addition, the Board has recognized the need to build the
"intellectual capital" necessary for us to be the premier Destination Marketing Organization that
Estes Park deserves. Investments in these areas include research, the development of a new
website, the hiring of a new creative advertising agency, the hiring of a Public Relations firm and
the destination branding program. The financial benefit of these investments will not always be
immediately apparent. Conceptually we have paid for these investments out of the original fund
balance that we received at our inception. In addition to these investments we have moved to
be a more transparent and self sufficient organization by assuming all of our payroll and now
moving to office facilities outside of the Visitor Center, both of these areas have been supported
by the Town of Estes Park. We have also continued to set aside $500,000 as a fixed
Emergency Reserve which if not used will again roll into the ending fund balance.
In evaluating our efforts it has become increasingly apparent that in order for us to continue the
work at hand we must grow our revenue source, that being accommodations tax income. This
priority may ultimately be at odds with our original proposition of carrying forward many of the
programs that do not directly enhance accommodations revenue.
In 2011 the Town of Estes Park invested in the marketing of Estes Park through efforts of the
marketing district and we are currently discussing a similar investment in 2012 hence the
income item noted as Town of Estes Park Investment has been left "to be determined". Without
a clear indication of this investment from the town we felt it wise not to commit to specific details
in this budget presentation as were provided in previous operating plans.
Tabor Reserve is noted as a restriction on our spending capacity.
Rio uu EEEE ene m�mi
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan
Page 13
2012 Budget - Annual Operating Plan (September 30, 20111
Budget Projected Budget
2011 2011 2012
Revenues
Intergovernmental (Visitor Guide) $197,000 $0 $0
2% Tax 1,272,050 1,272,050 1,291,131
Stakeholder Services 250,000 252,000 210,000
Town of Estes Park Marketing Investment 128,985 128,985 ??
Other 0 0 0
Investment 0 0 0
Total Revenues
Expenses
Personnel Services
Operations & Maintenance
Total Current Expenses
Total Expenses
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over
expenditures
Other financing sources (transfers in)
Other financing uses (transfers out)
Increase (decrease) in fund balance
1,192,442 1,192,442 821,364
$1,848,035 $1,653,035 $1,501,131
$502,321 $502,321 $527,437
502,321 502,321 527,437
1,719,414 1,521,792 1,295,058
2,221,735 2,024,113 1,822,495
$2,221,735 $2,024,113 $1,822,495
0
0
0
Beginning Fund balance
Ending Fund balance
$818,742 $821,364 $500,000
RESTRICTIONS
TABOR Reserve: 3% of expenditures $66,652 $60,723 $54,675
Future - To be
determined
Memo
To:
Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Halburnt
TOWN OF ESTES EM
( vr 7rormr7,-
From: Scott A. Zurn, PE, CFPM, Public Works Director
Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Civil Engineer
Date: October 25, 2011
RE: Black Canyon Realignment Project
Design Update:
Town staff has begun design efforts to mitigate the risks associated with rockfall from
the Black Canyon cliff area immediately north of the Town Hall parking lot.
Recommendations from a Geologic Hazard Report provided by CTL Thompson (July, 2,
2010) included measures of mechanical rock restraint such as fences and rockbolting,
or systematic removal of the least stable rocks. The most effective means to reduce
risk is to eliminate human traffic altogether.
The Geologic Hazard Report indicated that the runout zone from a dislodged rock would
be at least 25' — 30' from the face of the cliff. Staff's current design focus is to split the
flow of the Black Canyon Creek in the area where human traffic could easily encroach
this runout zone. Two island buffers will be created with this split. Native plant species
will be planted along the proposed split creek and the banks will be revegetated with
willows, birch and alders that are not inviting to the public. Rocks will be placed in the
creek to provide bank stabilization and dissipate the high flows that the creek sees
during peak runoff times.
The construction approach is to use Town Staff and equipment as frequently as
possible. The Parks Department will be instrumental in setting the rocks and planting
the native species and willows and alders and birch. Construction material hauling,
import and export of rocks, placement of native plants, trees, etc will be done by staff.
The one construction item that will not be addressed by town staff is the trackhoe and
its operator. Staff met with three contractors on -site and solicited quotes for this work.
Since this will require some effort of field fitting and coordination with town staff, we
asked the contractors to provide a "time and materials" quote for the excavation work.
The following was received:
Contractor
City
Excavator Cost
Kearney & Sons Excavating
Estes Park
$100/hr
Cate Brothers Inc
Loveland
$120/hr
Fairbanks Excavation
Estes Park
$150/hr
Kearney & Sons Excavating quoted the lowest hourly rate. All three contractors
estimated a construction schedule of 1-2 weeks. Staff has subsequently negotiated a
"not to exceed" amount of $12,000 with Kearney & Sons.
Utility locates are underway and the location of the realigned creek will be painted and
flagged in the field. Staff is finalizing a floodplain permit before releasing the contractor
to start construction. The current schedule is to have the realignment constructed by
Thanksgiving.
l
October 12, 2011
Mr. Dave Shirk
Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Re: Amended Plat
1531 Fish Hatchery Road
Lot 1 Sundance Mountain Subdivision
Dear Dave,
rITOTT
CT 2 5 2011
By
This is a request to continue the Amended Plat for 1531 Fish Hatchery Road until the December 2011
meeting. My apologies that we have needed to continue this several times, but we were not
anticipating the issue of the overhead easement when i started this process nor did I know my father
was going to pass in March nor did I know I was going to start a new job September 30. I understand
the Town would like an official easement and not just an Easement by Prescription over my home for
the electrical power line. I was not aware that there was a power line over my home until I started this
process. The power line was not shown on the survey or plat that was done in 2001 or on any other
document I received. I would not have purchased the home had I known there was a power line
directly over it. Since 1 purchased it, i have improved the interior of the house dramatically which I
would not have done had I known about the power line. 1 hope to make the property my retirement
home which is why this process was started, but having the power line/more electricity over my home is
very concerning not only for health and safety concerns but also because of the negative impact to the
value of my property.
I have been working on various options. I have learned that to bury the power line under the river
would cost approximately $87,756 which I cannot afford. I have spoken with the HOA President at
Fawn Valley which is across the river and they do not have the funds to share in any expense of burying
the power line. I have consulted with 2 different attorneys and they both are of the opinion that while
the town has a prescriptive easement, a prescriptive easement does not allow for changes or upgrades
to service but only replacing the line with the same level of service that has existed. At this time, with
the granting of the variance and amending of the plat, I am willing to have the prescriptive easement
put on the plat with the limitation that the easement is only for the level of service that has existed and
while replacement/maintenance of the existing level of service would be permitted, upgrades or
increasing the level of service/power would not be.
I would like to be present at the town meeting when this is heard and due to starting a new job, I am
unable to attend the October 25 or the November 22 meetings. I am requesting a continuance to the
December 13th meeting which 1 would be able to attend.
I appreciate all of your help in this matter.