HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2012-04-10The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable,
high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take
great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community
by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PROCLAMATION: DUCK RACE - MAY 5, 2012.
PROCLAMATION: MONTH OF THE YOUNG CHILD.
RESOLUTION OF RESPECT – BETTY KILSDONK.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated March 20, 21, and 27, 2012, Town Board Study
Session Minutes dated March 27, 2012 and Special Town Board Minutes dated
April 4, 2012.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development/Community Services, March 22, 2012.
4. Estes Park Tree Board, February 24, 2012 (acknowledgement only).
5. Resolution #05-12 – Schedule public hearing date of May 8, 2012 for a New
Tavern Liquor License Application filed by C-Zak, Inc. dba Rodeway Inn of Estes
Park, 1701 N. Lake Ave.
Prepared 4/2/12
*Revised
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
a. ORDINANCE #04-12 Amend the Estes Valley Development Code as it
relates to Accessory Dwelling Units. Director Chilcott.
3. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS.
1. TRANSPORTATION VISIONING COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. PAUL S. SARBANES TRANSIT IN PARKS GRANT FOR CVB PARKING
STRUCTURE. Director Zurn.
2. 2012 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND PROJECTS (CAPITAL ASSET
MANAGEMENT PLAN). Finance Officer McFarland.
5. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
24-6-402(4)(e) C.R.S. - For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that
may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing
negotiators – Kiowa Ridge.
24-6-402(4)(b), C.R.S. – For a conference with Attorney White for the purposes of
receiving legal advice on specific legal questions. – Litigation.
6. ADJOURN.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 20, 2012
Minutes of a Special 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 20th day of March, 2012. Meeting called
to order by Mayor Pinkham.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Eric Blackhurst
Mark Elrod
John Ericson
Wendy Koenig
Jerry Miller
Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney
Gary Suiter, Mercer Group
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m.
INTERVIEWS PROCESS FOR THE TOWN ADMINISTRATOR.
The Board conducted a formal interview of finalist Ed Green for the Town Administrator
position.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 8:30 a.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 21, 2012
Minutes of a Special 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 21th day of March, 2012. Meeting called
to order by Mayor Pinkham.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Eric Blackhurst
Mark Elrod
John Ericson
Wendy Koenig
Jerry Miller
Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney
Gary Suiter, Mercer Group
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
INTERVIEWS PROCESS FOR THE TOWN ADMINISTRATOR.
The Board conducted formal interviews of the following finalists for Town Administrator:
Richard Olson
David Mitchem
Michael Segrest
Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting at 11:40 a.m. for lunch and reconvened the
meeting at 1:00 p.m. to conduct the following interviews:
Frank Lancaster
Lowell Richardson
Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting for a 10 minute break at 3:10 p.m. and
reconvened the meeting at 3:22 p.m.
REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Blackhurst) for discussion of a personnel
matter; not involving any specific employees who have requested discussion of
the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the
appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or
personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to
particular employees – Review Town Administrator Candidate Interviews under
C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(f), and it passed unanimously.
Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting into Executive Session at 3:23 p.m. where the
Board entered into Executive Session.
Mayor Pinkham reconvened the meeting at 4:49 p.m. into regular session. Whereupon
Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 4:49 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Board of Trustees – March 21, 2012 – Page 2
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 27, 2012
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 27th day of March, 2012. Meeting called
to order by Mayor Pinkham.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Eric Blackhurst
Mark Elrod
John Ericson
Wendy Koenig
Jerry Miller
Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney
Lowell Richardson, Interim Town Administrator
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
SWEARING IN OF SERGEANT SWALLOW. Town Clerk Williamson performed a
swearing in ceremony for Sergeant Swallow.
GRADUATION CEREMONY: 2012 CITIZENS INFORMATION ACADEMY (CIA)
PARTICIPANTS. Mayor Pinkham, Public Information Officer Rusch and Interim Town
Administrator Richardson - Present Participation Certificates to the following class
members:
Rebecca Bailey Bob Balint Kim Comstock
Judi Cunningham Shelley Davis Thomas Gootz
Jen Imber Lexi Jacobson Susie Parker
Daniel Kirkpatrick Ray Nieder Pamela Seaver
Alice Reuman Pete Sumey Diana Van Der Ploeg
Kathy Sherrod Ann Finley Pat Nelson
Mayor Pinkham called a 10 minute break for a public reception at 7:12 p.m. and
reconvened at 7:22 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Charley Dickey/Town citizen recommend the Board hold future Study Sessions in the
Town Board Room and televise the proceeding. With the termination of the MOU with
SOPA, he suggested the funds set aside for the performing art theater be used for
improving the Town’s road system.
Jim Cope/Town citizen stated a grant was written for $40,000 for 24 new recycling bind
through CML. The Town now has 13 recycling bins and 125 trash cans. He stated the
goal is to have a recycling bin next to each trash can in town. The grant would also
provide recycling education through the League of Women Voters.
Fred Mares/Town citizen thanked the Board for the transition in Town government
resulting in improved citizen confidence and renewed citizen interest in local
government with improved budget processes, town services, strides in planning,
accountability and transparency. He requested the Board continue these efforts by
postponing the ADU discussion to a date after April 10th to provide citizens the time to
review and comment on the proposed code amendments.
Board of Trustees – March 27, 2012 – Page 2
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
Trustee Miller reminded the public of the Pride Award nomination deadline of March
31st.
Trustee Koenig encouraged the electorate to vote in the upcoming Municipal Election
on April 3, 2012.
Trustee Ericson stated Larimer County has small grants for community partnering
available up to $2,000 per project per year for a total of $20,000 annually. Sales tax
revenues for the County have exceeded budget and additional funds of $1.5 million
have been made available for acquisition of open space.
Trustee Blackhurst thanked staff for the recent efforts in conducting the interview
process for the Town Administrator. He stated the Housing Authority continues to move
forward with the formal separation of the Pines condominiums into two subdivisions.
Mayor Pinkham also thanked staff for the efforts on the Town Administrator search and
thanked the community members and staff for their time and efforts related to the
interview panels. A special Town Board meeting would be held on April 4, 2012 at 1:00
p.m. in the Board Room to consider a contract for the Town Administrator with Frank
Lancaster.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
• On April 30th, the ISO would conduct an assessment of the Town’s fire rating,
measuring the ability to manage and respond to fire, water system, and dispatching.
The Town’s current rating is 4 out of 10 with 1 being the best rating. The ratings do
affect property insurance rates for a number of residents.
• CDOT has begun the improvements to Mall Road with the addition of a left turn lane
off of Hwy 34 onto Mall Road.
• SOPA has terminated the MOU agreement with the Town for a performing art
theater located on Town property located on the Fairgrounds effective April 12,
2012.
• CDOW is responsible for managing wildlife within the Estes Valley including town
limits. Town staff does not manage wildlife except when assisting the CDOW with
an injured animal. The Town has not and has no plans to regulate wildlife
populations with in Town limits.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated March 13, 2012, Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated March 13, 2012 and Special Town Board Minutes dated March
5, 2012.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
a. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee, March 8, 2012.
4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated February 21, 2012
(acknowledgement only).
It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) to approve the Consent Agenda, and it
passed unanimously.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. NEW TAVERN APPLICATION FILED BY HILLSIDE BURGER INC. DBA
HILLSIDE BURGER, 205 VIRGINIA DRIVE FOR A TAVERN LICENSE.
Board of Trustees – March 27, 2012 – Page 3
Town Clerk Williamson presented the application stating all required paperwork
and fees were submitted. Veija Regalado/co-owner was present, stating she
has owned a liquor license establishment in the past and takes the serving of
liquor seriously. Mayor Pro Tem Levine reminded the applicant they are the
first line of defense and not the Police department. It was moved and
seconded (Blackhurst/Miller) to approve the New Application filed by
Hillside Burger Inc. dba Hillside Burger for a Tavern liquor license at 205
Virginia Drive, and it passed unanimously.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. REPORT ITEMS:
a. Amending the Estes Valley Development Code as it relates to
Accessory Dwelling Units. Public hearing scheduled for April 10,
2012. Director Chilcott stated on March 22, 2012 the Planning
Commission approved recommendation for amendments to the Estes
Valley Development Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
for consideration by the Town Board and County Commission. The
Planning Commission has been considering amendments to the code
since 2008. Extensive public comment has been received on the issue
ranging from support by entities such as the Housing Authority to
provide additional affordable housing options to property owners
requesting the units not be allowed in single-family zoned districts.
The final recommendations from the Planning Commission include
allowing attached and detached ADUs, no minimum lot size for
attached units, 1 acre minimum for detached units, no Planning
Commission review for new ADUs, no architectural controls, require a
land use affidavit, no short-term rentals and long term rentals only to
one household.
Justin Drake/County citizen stated concern with the limitation placed
on their property as it relates to the rental of an ADU used by their
family since the 1920s as a short term vacation rental, and requested
the Board reconsider limiting the use of the property.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen stated the enforcement of the rentals to
ADUs would be difficult and how and what jurisdiction would enforce
the rentals.
The Board would hold the public hearing to consider the code
amendments on April 10, 2012.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPOINTMENTS.
Director Chilcott stated a formal application and interview process to fill two
positions on the Board of Adjustment was conducted. The interview team
recommended the reappointment of Wayne Newsom, current Board member,
and the appointment of Jeff Moreau, current alternate member, for 3-year terms
expiring on February 28, 2015. It was moved and seconded
(Blackhurst/Levine) to approve the appointments of Wayne Newsom and
Jeff Moreau for 3-year terms on the Board of Adjustment expiring on
February 28, 2015, and it passed unanimously.
2. CREATIVE SIGN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPOINTMENTS.
Director Chilcott stated a formal application and interview process to fill two
positions on the Creative Sign Design Review Board was conducted. The
interview team recommended the reappointment of Diane Muno, current Board
Board of Trustees – March 27, 2012 – Page 4
member for a 3-year term expiring on March 1, 2015. The second applicant
decided not to pursue appointment to the Board, therefore, staff would
advertise for the position. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Miller) to
approve the reappointment of Diane Muno for a 3-year term on the
Creative Sign Design Review Board expiring March 1, 2015, and it passed
unanimously.
3. ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD APPOINTMENTS.
Director Kurelja requested the reappointment of Jack Dinsmoor to the Housing
Authority for a 5-year term expiring on April 11, 2017. Trustee Elrod stated
concern with the requested reappointment because Town practices if
advertising and interviewing for the position were not completed. Trustee
Blackhurst commented the Housing Authority currently has an additional
position open on the Board which has been advertised with no applications filed
to date. Mr. Dinsmoor has continued to be a valuable member of the Board
and would request the Board consider reappointment. After further discussion,
it was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Miller) to approve the
reappointment of Jack Dinsmoor for a 5-year term on the Estes Park
Housing Authority expiring April 11, 2017, and the motion failed with
Trustees Elrod, Ericson, Koenig and Mayor Pro Tem Levine voting “No”.
4. VOLUNTEER MANUAL.
Director Kilsdonk presented a volunteer manual for the management of the
more than 500 volunteers that contribute more than 50,000 hours to assist the
Town annually. A draft manual was presented to the Board during a Town
Board Study Session on October 11, 2011. The overall goals of the manual are
to provide clear expectations for volunteers and staff, a basis for volunteer
orientation and training, and a way to manage liability for both the volunteers
and the Town. The manual was updated to address recommendations from the
Board during the previous Study Session.
Board discussion followed with regard to Town employees volunteering for
Town sponsored events such as the rodeo; the manual should be reviewed in
12 months from the date of adoption; concern with impact on volunteers;
document contains too much information and may not be read by a volunteer;
key points should be highlighted or an appendix created for quick reference; the
document protects both the Town and the volunteers; and all affected volunteer
groups should review the document and comment before adoption.
Attorney White addressed the employee issue stating FSLA regulations require
the Town to pay employees working as volunteers at Town events for similar
work conducted. Monitoring volunteer work of employees would be difficult and
stated the policy would address potential liability.
Jim Cope/Town citizen suggested placing a short description at the beginning
of the document to help the volunteers understand the manual.
Sandy Osterman/Town citizen and Ambassador President stated volunteers
can read the portions of the document that apply to them. She stated the
Ambassadors are aware of the handbook. She suggests maintaining a list of
all volunteer groups because they volunteer to a number of groups.
Amended motion, it was moved and seconded (Elrod/Ericson) to seek
comments from the volunteer groups impacted and delay consideration
of the manual for a month, the motion passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Levine) to approve the volunteer
manual and a review of the manual and its impact in April 2013, the motion
died with the approval of the amended motion.
Board of Trustees – March 27, 2012 – Page 5
5. VIRGINIA DRIVE, PARK LANE AND MACGREGOR AVENUE
REHABILITATION PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. Director Zurn
stated and RFP was issued on March 2, 2012 for the project and two bids were
received from Coulson Excavating, $1.014 million and Connell Resources,
$1.037 million. After bid opening on March 20th, staff completed a review of the
submitted documents and found the Coulson Excavation bid to be complete.
The contract requires the improvements be completed and accepted by staff
before Memorial Day. Staff recommends a standard 10% contingency be
added to the contract. The contract was reviewed and Trustee Miller
suggested Article 2 reference a position by title and not a specific employee
name. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded
(Blackhurst/Ericson) to approve the contract with Coulson Excavating for
the Virginia Drive, Park Lane, MacGregor Avenue and Steamer Drive
Rehabilitation Project at a cost not to exceed $1,115,468 which includes a
10% contingency, and it passed unanimously.
6. WIRELESS SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR FAIRGROUNDS.
Manager Winslow stated many of the users of the fairgrounds have requested
wireless service access for the purpose of conducting business, communicate
with clients, check email, access forms, rules and regulations related to show or
the rodeo, provide amenity available at other facilities, problem solving,
download veterinary research on procedures and exams, and order processing
by vendors. Staff contacted three local companies, including Airbits, Baja
Broadband, and Rocky Mountain Data Availability Services (RMDAS), to
provide a bid for wireless internet services at the fairgrounds. RMDAS was the
only vendor capable of meeting the requirements providing 45 mbps with over
100 mbps planned in the future, coverage of the entire property, faster
symmetric service, maintain and own the equipment and support with priority
support during town events. Customers using the service would be charged a
fee ranging from $1.95 for 2 hours to $19.95 a month. Vendors and Town
costs would be $19.95 per day. Staff recommends approval of a pilot wireless
internet access agreement with RMDAS for one year with an option to renew
for five years. Trustee Miller stated section 6.11 As-Built Drawings should
clarify ownership of the drawings. It was moved and seconded
(Blackhurst/Miller) to approve a contract with Rocky Mountain Data
Availability Services to provide wireless internet access available on the
Fairgrounds property, and it passed unanimously.
7. ONLINE SPECIAL EVENT TICKET SALES.
Manager Winslow stated staff has been reviewing ways to improve customer
service through high-quality services such as online ticket sales. After
researching other local venues, staff contacted four venders (Imagitix, Diamond
Tickets, Thundertix and Regtix) and selected Thundertix, a web-based
company requiring no additional software. All transactions would be conducted
through a secure site by the third party vendor. The base fee rather than per
ticket fee would be $5,250 for up to 15,000 tickets per year, or $.35 per ticket.
Additional costs include the purchase of equipment to process and scan the
tickets at an estimated cost of $1,200. Staff recommends a $2.00 handling fee
per ticket to cover credit card fees, system fee and equipment costs. After
further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Ericson) to
approve online ticketing of special events through Thundertix including
the purchase of equipment and approval to charge a $2.00 per ticket
handling fee as outlined above, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 9:46 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Board of Trustees – March 27, 2012 – Page 6
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 27, 2012
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town
of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in
the Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 27th day of March,
2012.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees
Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig and Miller
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig
and Miller
Also Attending: Interim Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney
White, Directors Kilsdonk and Zurn, Managers Fortini and
Winslow and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Levine
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
SOPA/FOSH FUND UPDATE.
Interim Town Administrator Richardson stated Bob Gunn/SOPA President terminated
the MOU between the Town and SOPA on March 12, 2012 in writing as outlined in
Section J of the MOU. This notification terminates all financial obligations between the
two entities effective April 12, 2012. Two outstanding financial components of the MOU
1) distribution of FOSH funds and 2) reallocation of $858,000 reserved for the
construction of infrastructure improvements held in the Community Reinvestment Fund
(CRF), would require further consideration by the Board. Staff recommends bringing
forward recommendations to the Board at a Study Session in May or June. Trustee
Blackhurst stated the funds could be used for other capital projects. He also stated the
MPEC could be relocated to its previous location on the fairground property, which the
Town owns, opening up the possibility of additional financing options for the project
such as Certificates of Participation (COPs).
FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN (CAMP).
Finance Officer McFarland stated the CAMP contains specific Town infrastructure and
the costs associated with maintaining, repairing and replacing assets, and a Capital
Improvement Planning portion addressing a five year view of capital projects. An
overview of fund expenditures/projects and fund balance through 2017 were reviewed
for the General Fund, Community Reinvestment Fund, Open Space, Light and Power,
and Water. A number of non-budgeted capital improvement projects have been
identified after the approval of the 2012 budget including Highway 34 Transit Hub, Elm
Road Mitigation, Rock Side/Hix Cabin, Museum Master Plan, Stanley Manor, Kiowa
Ridge Open Space and Kiowa Water Tank with a total cost of $505,000 in 2012.
A discussion followed on the Museum Master Plan, the potential of purchasing the
Stanley Manor to preserve Estes Park history and build a museum storage facility onsite
and relocate the Rock Side/Hix cabin onto the property. Trustee Blackhurst stated
concern with moving a commercial operation onto a property zoned residential. Staff
would hire a firm to conduct a master plan for the Museum and Senior Center to
address the issues raised.
ELM ROAD MITIGATION
An RFP would be developed to identify an environmental firm to develop scoping of the
state mandated cleanup project. A preliminary timeline for the project would be
Town Board Study Session – March 27, 2012 – Page 2
developed within the next thirty days. Trustee Miller requested alternatives to the
drainage master plan be identified to address the leakage issue at the transfer station.
HIGHWAY 34 TRANSIT HUB
Director Zurn stated the project would be designed through the winter of 2012 and
constructed in the fall of 2013 with construction to be completed within 9 to 10 months if
precast is used. In order to move the project forward, the Board would need to formally
approve the project and the matching funds. Additional grant funding may be available
for the project, thereby reducing the Town’s financial obligation. Further discussion
followed with the Board requesting additional information on funding for the project,
location of the structure, and timing of the Town’s matching funds. The item would be
added to the April 10, 2012 Town Board meeting as an action item.
KIOWA RIDGE OPEN SPACE AND WATER TANK LAND PURCHASE
The acquisition of the water tank property would come forward for the Board’s
consideration at an upcoming meeting; however, further negotiations are required for
the purchase of the open space land.
ROCK SIDE/HIX CABIN
Trustee Miller recommended the Board consider the generous offer by the Hix family of
the F.O. Stanley cabin; however, the Museum Master Plan would need to be completed
prior to accepting the cabin. Museum Manager Fortini stated staff has not discussed
the project with the Friends of the Museum as a potential fundraising project. A
professional mover provided staff with an estimate of $125,000, which would include
foundation, permits, electrical, water, relocation, building pathway for accessibility of the
building.
STANLEY MANOR
Director Kilsdonk commented the property qualifies for the National Register. She
stated the property would require ongoing subsidy for maintenance if purchased by the
Town. Museum Manager Fortini would suggest the building be treated as a historic site
such as the Hydroplant and not turned into a museum. Mayor Pinkham would not
support the purchase of the property because it would create additional cost on a
speculative basis of turning the property into a historical site. Trustee Blackhurst and
Miller agreed the financial obligation and encumbering future Boards would not be
appropriate and the project should not be pursued.
MUSEUM MASTER PLAN
Director Zurn stated a master plan for the Museum would require a minimum of 6
months to complete. The final plan would not be available until after the October budget
process because the non-budgeted item would need to come forward for Town Board
approval.
Mayor Pinkham called a 15 minute break at 5:45 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
6:08 p.m.
Finance Officer McFarland stated staff has received approval to move forward with the
Wiest retaining wall, Elm Road, Hwy 34 parking garage and the Museum Master Plan.
MPEC
A discussion followed on relocating the building to the previous location identified in the
2005 Fairground Master Plan, a new performa for the building in 2012 to determine the
feasibility of building the structure, funding options, and size and design requirements.
Staff would prepare an RFP for the performa to address a number of issues including
cost benefit ratios, visitor spending, and review the building from an economic stand
point.
STALL BARN
Town Board Study Session – March 27, 2012 – Page 3
Staff stated 500 stall barns with 250 on the east and 250 on the west side of the
property would be staff’s goal and require an additional $600,000 for 2013 and 2014.
The Board would need to make a final decision on the location of the MPEC building
because it dictates the location of the stall barns. After further discussion it was agreed
to use the 2005 Fairground Master Plan as a guide for building additional structures on
the fairground property.
ELKHORN LODGE
Trustee Ericson requested the proposed infrastructure improvements for the Elkhorn
Project be included as a potential project for 2013.
ANNUAL CONTINGENCY
Trustee Ericson requested the item be added to address unforeseen projects each year
not identified through the budget process.
STIP
The Board requested staff provide justification for the projected $1 million in street
improvements outlining the streets to be improved by year and conditions of the
roadways. Staff would bring forward an updated report for the Board’s consideration
including cost projections.
TOWN ADMINSTRATOR PROCESS
Attorney White requested a special board meeting on April 4, 2012 to consider a Town
Administrator contract with Frank Lancaster. The Board reached consensus to hold the
special meeting at 1:00 p.m. on April 4th in the Board room to consider the contract and
take public comment.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 4, 2012
Minutes of a Special 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 4th day of April, 2012. Meeting called to
order by Mayor Pinkham.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Eric Blackhurst
Mark Elrod
John Ericson
Wendy Koenig
Jerry Miller
Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney
Lowell Richardson, Interim Town Administrator
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR CONTRACT.
Attorney White presented a proposed Employment Agreement to employ Frank
Lancaster as Town Administrator. The term of the agreement is for three years
beginning from the date of approval. The compensation for the Employee is $135,000
per year plus benefits. The Agreement contains a severance clause of six month’s
salary plus benefits in the event the Employee is terminated without clause, is not
reappointed as Town Administrator in April of even numbered years, or is not offered a
new Agreement at the end of the three year period. Employee may be terminated for
cause for the reasons set forth in the Agreement with no severance payment or
benefits. The Agreement provides for reimbursement for up to $5,000 for moving
expenses for Employee and requires establishment of residency within the 80517 zip
code area within one year from the date of the Agreement. It was moved and
seconded (Levine/Miller) to approve the Employment Contract to employ Frank
Lancaster as Town Administrator for three years expiring on April 4, 2015, and it
passed unanimously. Frank Lancaster stated appreciation to the Board for their
confidence and opportunity to work with the staff and the community.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 1:10 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 22, 2012
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on
the 22nd day of March, 2012.
Committee: Chair Levine, Trustees Elrod and Miller
Attending: All
Also Attending: Interim Town Administrator Richardson, Directors Chilcott
and Kilsdonk, Managers Winslow and Mitchell, and
Recording Secretary Bailey
Absent: None
Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 7:59 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
• Senior Center Quarterly Report – The Senior Center offers a wide variety of
monthly planned programs and daily drop-in opportunities. Manager Mitchell
reported that attendance at planned programs is running at 100% capacity in
2012. Overall attendance in the first two months has been down 4% over the
same time frame in 2011. The Meals on Wheels program has seen a 10%
increase in meals delivered due to new customers using the service during
recuperative periods. Manager Mitchell participated in the Larimer County Office
on Aging’s Visioning session in February and met with the Lyons Senior Center
board to discuss the future of senior services and delivery of senior nutrition
services. Manager Mitchell confirmed that Staff tries to track free wi-fi uses at the
Senior Center.
• Special Events Quarterly Report – Manager Winslow reported on the planning
and maintenance that goes on during the first quarter to prepare for events later
in the year, in addition to the few events that Staff manage and support during
this time period. All of the 2011 shows, except the Cat Show, are coming back
with an additional three events joining the summer schedule in 2012. The new
events include Ride the Rockies, Marshall Tucker Band, and Bio Blitz. Staff is
working on implementation of the recently approved online permitting process,
researching online tickets sales for ticketed events, and researching a fee based
wireless access at the Fairgrounds. There was discussion on the possibility of
advertising supported free wireless access for attendees. Foreman Lindeman
attended Arena/Dirt Management School in January to expand knowledge on
preparing arenas for the event season. Manager Winslow confirmed that the
Winter Festival, having moved from Bond Park to the Fairgrounds, still provided
traffic to local businesses as a shuttle, which had high usage, ran back and forth
from the event to downtown.
• Events Financial Report – Manager Winslow presented a financial report of the
many events that the Town produces, supports, or rents facilities to. All received
revenues are assigned a project code to help staff track event revenues and
expenses on an individual basis. There is a challenge in producing exact and
Community Development / Community Services – March 22, 2012 – Page 2
accurate amounts due to maintenance expenses that are divided amongst all
applicable events. Total revenues for 2011 events were $553,786. Total
expenses for 2011 events included personnel expenses of $289,973 and O&M
expense of $549,225 for a total of $839,198. The 2011 events had 224,993
attendees and were supported with 13,084 volunteer hours. Staff is working with
Finance to better track costs through the system. The Committee noted that
there are benefits to the Town in terms of sales tax and lodging that are not
recognized on this report.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
• Monthly Report – Director Chilcott reported on the following topics:
- Outreach/Communication – External Customers: Staff created a new
handout about code compliance, began work on a census/trends
report, and offered a free day of International Code Council (ICC)
training to local engineers, architects, and contactors and a local
architecture firm attended wind bracing training.
- Outreach/Communication – Internal Customers: Staff began using the
intranet for internal communication and posted the Community
Development’s policy manual, the Zucker audit and implementation
plan, and development review schedules to the intranet. Staff will post
the draft Code Compliance Policy Manual on the intranet for review
and comment by other departments.
- Staff Development/Training: Secretary Thompson attended a Building
Permit Technician class offered by the ICC. Building Inspector
Traufield attended ICC training focusing on plumbing and mechanical
systems and was also cross-trained to issue over-the-counter permits.
Chief Building Official Birchfield attended training on wind provisions.
Director Chilcott attended training on adult education and management
conflict.
- Addressing: Former addressing coordinator for Larimer County, Karlin
Goggin, is working to correct data entry in the PTWin permit data. This
will enable records to transfer to Sungard OneSolution.
- Building Codes, Permits, and Inspections: Seventy-three permits were
issued and paid for in January and February, 2012, comparable to
2011 permit activity. Fifty-eight of those were turned around in one
day. Building Division staff monitored for compliance with their strict
performance standards. Staff created a spreadsheet of permit
information to determine compliance, starting with permits that typically
do not require review by other departments. Staff will create a report of
the permits that do require review by others in the coming months.
- Code Compliance: Staff created a new handout, drafted policies,
closed old cases, and continued to improve case management.
- Current Planning: Staff is reviewing an Estes Park Medical Center plan
to expand parking, and two horse and carriage ride applications, all of
which are special reviews that will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and Town Board in April.
- Long-Range Planning: Staff continued to participate in ongoing
Planning Commission discussion about updating the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan.
- Boards and Commissions: Interviews were held for the Estes Valley
Board of Adjustment and the Creative Sign Review Board open
positions on March 14, 2012 and recommendations will be forwarded
to the Town Board on March 27th. The February Planning Commission
study session discussed how to create a vision statement of the Estes
Valley and a draft public engagement plan will be brought to elected
officials to determine whether to proceed with developing a vision
Community Development / Community Services – March 22, 2012 – Page 3
statement. There may be potential for significant turnover on the
Planning Commission as Commissioner Fraundorf resigned after
accepting a position with the Town and Commissioners Norris and
Klink are running for positions on the Town Board of Trustees and the
Fire District Board, respectively, and expect to resign their positions if
elected. The March 20th Planning Commission Meeting was
rescheduled to March 22nd to accommodate Town Administrator
interviews. This meeting will discuss accessory dwelling unit code
amendments.
- Office Organization/Records Management: Building Division staff was
assisted by Shelly Tressell, Simplicity Organizing Services, with file
organization due to lack of space for storage. The filing space issue is
being addressed by file digitization, eliminating paper when possible,
and replacing the existing traditional filing cabinets with a high-capacity
filing system.
- Technology – Permitting Software, Geographic Information Systems
(GIS): With Utilities Superintendent Fraundorf leadership, staff is
“restarting” the Sungard implementation, and will involve widespread
involvement of Town staff, rather than being limited to Community
Development staff. Preparation continues by Staff for the transition to
new software. A five-year Xerox DocuShare contract was cancelled by
Staff because it never worked properly.
- Policies and Procedures: Staff drafted code compliance policies and
will hire Karlin Goggin to draft addressing policy/procedures. Ms.
Goggin led a successful multi-year addressing project for Larimer
County.
MISCELLANEOUS.
Chair Levine commented how thankful he was to have served on this Committee for the
past eight years. Director Kilsdonk and Manager Winslow thanked Chair Levine for his
years of service. Trustees Miller and Elrod thanked Chair Levine for making it a
pleasure to serve on this Committee with him.
There being no further business, Chair Levine adjourned the meeting at 8:58 a.m.
Rebecca Bailey, Recording Secretary
Tree Board Minutes
February 24, 2012
Members Present:
Sandy Burns
Barbara Williams
Mike Richardson
Rex Poggenpohl
Members Absent:
Chuck Levine
Others Present: Russ Franklin, Scott Zurn, Dave Mahany, Jen Imber
Quorum: Yes
General Discussion
Scott Zurn informed the board that the advertisement for the open Tree Board position would be
posted in the local newspaper starting Wednesday, February 29th and will close on Wednesday,
March 14th. The board will discuss the applications received during the March meeting.
The board discussed possibilities of acknowledging and commemorating Tree Board member
Carol Shannon, who passed away on January 29th, 2012. It was decided the board would plant a
tree in her honor and hold a small ceremony. Rex Poggenpohl will contact her family to notify
them of the commemoration and invite them to join the ceremony. Scott Zurn recommended a
location in Bond Park for the tree, while Russ Franklin will locate an appropriately-sized tree to
be planted. The ceremony will take place in May.
Barbara Williams suggested drafting a resolution to create a policy that will direct the Tree
Board on how to handle similar situations should they arise in the future. Sandy Burns will write
the resolution.
Meeting Minutes
Mike Richardson motioned to approve meeting minutes from January 20, 2012. Barbara
Williams seconded the motion and the rest of the Tree Board members unanimously approved.
Arbor Day
Sandy Burns updated the board on the planning of Arbor Day celebration events at the
elementary school. The commemorative bench has been ordered and is being funded by the
Sunrise Rotary. Barbara Williams will follow up on the progress of the bench. Marcia Seifert
will provide the smaller prizes, including t-shirts. The board discussed ideas for other
prizes/giveaways/snacks which included cookies and Arbor Day or tree stickers. “I Love Trees”
will be the theme of this year’s celebration. The tree cookie for the contest will be provided by
Mike Richardson. Thirty blue spruce seedlings have been ordered for prizes for the tree cookie
contest winners. Vaughn Baker from RMNP, Boyd Lebeda from CSFS and Mayor Pinkham are
all confirmed speakers. Jen Imber will work with Sandy Burns to handle PR for the event.
Arboretum
The Tree Board would like to pool budget money for a master plan for the entire area of the
arboretum. Putting together a more appropriate master plan document would allow pursuit of
grant money for the project. The scope of the master plan could be written in phases to
accommodate the available budget. The board agrees that the transit hub is a unique opportunity
to reach out to incoming visitors and educate them at one of their first stops in town. An RFP
could be created and advertised in June so a consultant/landscape architect could be brought in
during the summer months.
Legacy Trees
Rex contacted nine vendors about signage options for the Arboretum, the Legacy Tree program
and educational signs. The lowest quote was $25 for a sign with very simple verbiage, no
pictures, and a low-level of durability. The cost of a high-end bronze sign is $125 per sign. The
average for a decent, durable, mid-cost sign will be around $50 per sign. The placement of
signage was also discussed with options being on the tree, in the ground or on a stake around the
donated tree. The maintenance cost of each type of sign is also a factor for consideration, as well
as the maintenance cost of the donated tree itself. The board also discussed available land for the
program and the sustainable number of trees that can be planted each year. Scott Zurn suggested
tabling the Legacy Tree discussion until fall due to the number of issues requiring
research/resolution before continuing forward with the program.
Tree Symposium
The keynote speaker will be Dave Leatherman. Merle Moore will give a presentation on local
plants/identification. Beetle mitigation will be covered by Diana Selby and Sky Stevens. A panel
of experts including Sue Pinkham will speak on fire and emergency mitigation. Rex Poggenpohl
will contact the speakers to confirm dates and participation. The Symposium will have an 8am
start time and will end at 1pm. Introductions of speakers will be handled by various Tree Board
members. Costs will include speakers’ fees, and snacks, coffee and lunch for the speakers. Food
and drink will not be provided for the audience. Mike Richardson suggested having a local
coffee shop donate coffee for the audience. Vendors will be invited to provide information and
brochures, but no booth space will be available. Prizes will not be available at this year’s
Symposium, but 60 douglas fir and blue spruce seedlings have been ordered for giveaway.
The next Tree Board meeting is scheduled for Friday, March 16th, 2012.
RESOLUTION #05-12
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
That the filing date of the application for a New TAVERN Liquor License, filed by,
C-Zak, Inc., dba, Rodeway Inn of Estes Park, 1701 North Lake Avenue, Estes Park,
Colorado, is April 4, 2012.
It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the
Board Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, May 8, 2012,
at 7:00 P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and
hearing shall be the area included within a radius of 4.0 miles, as measured from the
center of the applicant's property.
DATED this 10th day of April, 2012.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
Community Development Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Interim Town Administrator Richardson
From: Director Chilcott
Date: April 10, 2012
RE: Ordinance #04-12 Amending the Estes Valley Development Code as it
relates to Accessory Dwelling Units.
Background:
On March 22, 2012, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to forward accessory
dwelling code amendments to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Larimer
County Board of County Commissioners.
Recommendations are based on public comment and discussion in numerous public
hearings over the past five years. For background information please refer to the
Accessory Dwelling Unit webpage at www.estes.org. This includes:
▪ Over 160 pages of public comment.
▪ A summary of public comment prepared by Planning Commissioner Hull. In general,
those opposed expressed concern about the impact on the character of single-family
neighborhoods, specifically regarding detached units or rental. Those in favor
support expanding the use of their property to allow short and or long-term rental
and detached accessory dwelling units. Support for workforce housing dispersed
throughout the community has also been voiced.
▪ A list of 20+ public meetings at which ADU code amendments have been discussed.
▪ Previous reports reviewed.
Below is a summary of recommended amendments. Proposed Ordinance 04-12
contains the code language.
Key Discussion
Points/Issues Current Code Estes Valley Planning Commission
Recommendation
Allow attached Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs)? Yes Yes
Allow detached ADUs? No Yes
Reduce or eliminate minimum lot
size for attached ADUs?
1.33 times zone district
minimum lot size
Second kitchens allowed
with no minimum lot size
No minimum lot size for attached accessory dwelling
units
1 acre minimum lot size for detached accessory
dwelling units
Limit the size
of an ADU
800 square feet or 33% of
total principal dwelling size,
whichever is less
49% of the principal dwelling size
Require EVPC review of all new
ADUs? No No
Require architectural controls? No No
Require Land Use Affidavit? No Yes
Allow short‐term rentals? No No
Allow long‐term rentals? No Yes
One household can rent the property
Allow more flexibility to expand
existing grandfathered ADUs?
Normal repair and
maintenance
Revise code so many non‐conforming ADUs become
conforming.
Code language approved in 2011 to allow for
modernization of the interior of non‐conforming
ADUs.
Revisit after code language is drafted to see if
adequately addressed.
Clarify what constitutes an
accessory dwelling 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
At the March 27th Town Board meeting, Town resident Fred Mares requested the April
10th hearing be continued. Trustees discussed this option.
Staff recommends that public comment be taken at the April 10th meeting; members of
the public may have taken time of their schedules to attend this meeting and submit
public comment. A press release encouraged public comment at this meeting. The
Town Board can decide whether or not to continue to the hearing.
The draft code amendment will be discussed at a County Commission work session on
scheduled for April 9th at 1:30, no action will be taken at this time. If Town Board
approves this code amendment it will be forwarded to the County Commission for
action.
Last month, you received a very rough draft of the digital staff report. I apologize for this
mistake and the confusion it caused.
Budget:
N/A
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Planning Commission recommended approval of the code amendments (5-1, with one
vacant position).
Sample Motion:
I move to approve (deny) Ordinance 04-12.
ORDINANCE NO. 04-12
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
TO ADDRESS
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the
Estes Valley Development Code; and
WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit
“A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS Since 2008 the Estes Valley Planning Commission has held numerous public
hearings to take public comment and consider accessory dwelling unit code amendments to
broaden the ability of private property owners to construct accessory dwelling units on their single-
family residential zoned lots.
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the
best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, set forth on
Exhibit “A” and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN
OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth
on Exhibit “A.”
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO, THIS 10th DAY OF APRIL, 2012.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the 10th day of April, 2012 and published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the ________ day of ,
2012, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Ordinance 04-12 Exhibit A April 10, 2012 Town Board Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE 04-12
EXHIBIT A
CHAPTER 13 DEFINITIONS
§13.3.3 Accessory Dwelling Unit, shall mean a second dwelling unit integrated with a
single-family detached dwelling that provides complete independent living facilities, that
includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the
same lot as the single-family detached dwelling. "Accessory Dwelling Unit" does not
include mobile homes, recreational vehicles or travel trailers.
§13.3.130 Kitchen shall mean a room or space within a room equipped with such
electrical or gas hook-up that would enable the installation of a range, oven or like
appliance using 220/40 volts or natural gas (or similar fuels) for the preparation of food,
and also containing either or both a refrigerator and sink.
Kitchen shall mean a room or space within a room designed for or conducive to the
preparation or cooking of food.
13.3.130.1 Kitchen, Accessory shall mean a kitchen other than the principal kitchen
associated with a sing-family dwelling.
SECTION 5.2 ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
Table 5-1
Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts
Accessory
Use
Residential Zoning District
"Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted "
CUP" = Conditional Use Permit
Additional
Requirements
RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No §5.2.B.2.a
subject to
minimum lot
size for
detached
ADUs1.33
times minimum
lot area
required
Accessory
kitchen
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No §5.2.B.2.f (Ord.
03-10 §1)
2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the
Residential Zoning Districts.
a. Accessory Dwelling Units.
Ordinance 04-12 Exhibit A April 10, 2012 Town Board Page 2 of 4
(1) Where Permitted. Accessory dwellings shall consist of living quarters
integrated within the principal single-family detached dwelling on the lot.
Mobile homes, recreational vehicles and travel trailers shall not be used as
accessory dwelling units. Accessory dwelling units are a permitted
accessory use on single-family zoned lots as specified in Table 5-1.
(2) Size of Accessory Unit. No accessory dwellings shall exceed thirty-three
percent (33%) forty-nine percent (49%) of the size of the habitable floor area
of the principal dwelling, for example 2,000 square foot principle dwelling,
may have a 980 square foot accessory dwelling unit. unit or eight hundred
(800) square feet, whichever is less. An accessory dwelling unit may contain
private sanitary facilities with hot and cold running water and cooking and
food storage facilities.
(3) Limit on Tenancy.. Accessory dwelling units shall not be used as rental
units.
(a) Short-Term Rental. Neither the principal dwelling unit nor accessory
dwelling unit may be rented short-term.
(b) Long-Term Rental. Both the principal dwelling unit and the accessory
dwelling unit may be rented together long-term (terms of 30 days or
more) to one household.
(c) Short-Term or Long-Term Occupancy by non-paying guests. Both the
principal dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit may be occupied
short-term or long-term by non-paying guests.
(4) Density Calculations. Accessory dwelling units shall not count toward any
applicable maximum residential density requirement.
(5) Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) accessory dwelling
unit on a lot in addition to the principal single-family dwelling.
(6) Maximum Occupancy. The combined total number of individuals that reside
in the principal and accessory dwelling units shall not exceed the number
that is allowed for a single household. See definition of "Household Living"
in §13.2.C.28 below.
(7) Off-Street Parking. At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be
provided for each bedroom located in for an accessory dwelling unit.
(8) Home Occupations. Home occupations shall be prohibited on the site of an
accessory dwelling unit.
(8) Lot Area. Lot area must be one and thirty-three one-hundredths (1.33) times
the minimum lot area of the district. Detached accessory dwelling units
shall be permitted on lots containing one (1) acre or more. Attached
accessory dwelling units are not subject to a minimum lot size.
Ordinance 04-12 Exhibit A April 10, 2012 Town Board Page 3 of 4
(9) Site Disturbance Standards. Site design shall demonstrate compliance with
Section 7.2 Grading and Site Disturbance Standards.
(10) Land Use Affidavit. Accessory dwelling units developed pursuant to this
section shall be subject to a recorded land use affidavit stating the terms of
use and occupancy in accordance with the requirements in this section. The
affidavit shall be approved by the Town or County Attorney.
(11) Other Regulations.
(a) A permitted accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all other
applicable site and building design, height, access and other standards
for principal dwelling units in the zoning district in which the accessory
dwelling will be located.
(b) In the case of any conflict between the accessory dwelling unit
standards of this Section and any other requirement of this Code, the
standards of this Section shall control
(f) Accessory kitchen.
(1) Approval of a kitchen accessory to a single-family dwelling shall not constitute
approval of a second dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit.
(2) The dwelling shall not be occupied by more than one (1) family unit, as defined in
Section 13.2.C.28 "Household Living."
(3) The dwelling shall have only one (1) address.
(4) Interior access shall be maintained to all parts of the dwelling to ensure that an
accessory dwelling unit or apartment is not created.
(5) Land Use Affidavit
(a) Accessory kitchens located in a portion of the dwelling that also includes
sanitary facilities shall require a Land Use Affidavit prepared by the
Community Development Department.
(b) The Community Development Department shall record this Land Use
Affidavit, at the applicant's expense,
D. General Dimensional and Operational Requirements
5. Maximum Cumulative Gross Floor Area Allowed for all Accessory Uses in Accessory
Buildings, Accessory Structures and/or Principal Buildings for Residential Uses.
Maximum cumulative gross floor area for all accessory uses, (excluding accessory
kitchens accessory dwelling units; and, accessory nightly rentals in accessory or
principal structures) shall not exceed the largest computation of the following:
One thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of gross floor area;
Ordinance 04-12 Exhibit A April 10, 2012 Town Board Page 4 of 4
b. Fifty percent (50%) of the gross floor area of the principal building, excluding the
attached garage floor area;
c. For lots with a net land area greater than one-half (½) acre and less than or equal to
one (1) acre: 500+[1,000(a)]*.
d. For lots with a net land area greater than (1) acre: 1,400+[400(a)]*.
Staff Notes: Refer to code for table with examples.
The codifier will review and revise numbering as needed.
Page 1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Halburnt
From: Director Chilcott
Date: February 21, 2012
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.
Issue Current Code 2011 EVPC Recommendation
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 less
1,000 square feet or 49% of the principal dwelling
size, whichever is less
Require EVPC review of all
new ADUs? No No
Require architectural
controls? No No
Require Land Use Affidavit? No Yes
Allow short‐term rentals? No
Note: See below chart No
Allow long‐term rentals? No
Note: See below chart
No
Note: A live‐in caregiver is not a 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.
Community Development Memo
Page 2
CURRENT CODE
SHORT & LONG‐TERM RENTALS
NO ADU ADU (ATTACHED)
Principal Dwelling
Allowed Uses
Principal Dwelling
Allowed Uses
ADU
Allowed Uses
Owner Occupied Owner‐Occupied Guests –non paying
Long‐Term Rental Long‐Term Rental Guests –non paying
Short Term Rental Short‐Term Rental not allowed
Issue Current Code 2011 EVPC Recommendation
Allow detached ADUs? No Yes
Establish a minimum lot
size for detached ADUs? n/a Lots of 2 acres or more
Provide # of lots by lot size 0 ‐ .25, .25 – 0.5, etc.
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 not a 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.
ADUs (attached and detached)
Issue Current Code 2011 EVPC Recommendation 2011 TB/CC
Recommendation
Clarify what constitutes
an accessory dwelling
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
EB/JM – Agreed
ME – Clarify differences
between
attached/detached
TVC Exec Summary - 1 - 040412
Transportation Visioning Committee’s
“Roadmap to the Future”
Executive Summary
April 10, 2012
Introduction
Traffic congestion, pollution, and parking have been concerns of the citizens of Estes
Park and its millions of annual visitors for many years. During the past two decades
many thousands of dollars have been spent to study the situation and to provide
recommendations for improvements. Many solutions suggested were expensive and
sometimes offensive to local residents. The Town Trustees realized that a long‐range
common vision based on community values could provide some real solutions. The
Trustees voted in May 2010 to create a Transportation Visioning Committee (TVC) for
the purpose of developing a vision for Estes Park’s transportation system 20 years in the
future.
In October of 2010 seventeen community members were appointed from a field of 29
applicants by the Board of Trustees to the Committee. The TVC was charged to
formulate ideas and review concepts that could enhance the efficiency of our
transportation infrastructure over the next 20‐year time frame.
The TVC members first developed a list of assumptions and special considerations to use
as guidelines for the course of the Committee’s activities. These General Assumptions
are:
• Visitors will find their own transportation to and from the Estes Valley;
• Individual vehicles will continue to be the prevalent means of transportation into
the Estes Valley;
• Today’s parking and traffic problems are seasonal only, but that season is
expanding;
• A projected 40% growth in the Front Range population in the coming 20 years
has the potential to increase visitations to the Estes Valley as do the efforts of
“Visit Estes Park” (the local marketing district);
• Downtown will remain the town center; and
• A Transportation Plan must be an integral part of the Valley’s long term vision
and comprehensive planning.
TVC Exec Summary - 2 - 040412
Special Considerations were given to the following concepts:
• Potential solutions should consider moving people and goods, not just vehicles;
• The cost and benefits of mass transit (seasonal vs. year round) need to be
evaluated;
• Relationships with key area destinations such as the YMCA and RMNP are
integral to the process;
• Potential solutions must be made within a local historical, cultural, and natural
context;
• A Transportation Plan must be designed to protect the area’s natural
environment;
• Economic, environmental and social sustainability must be considered;
• Transportation systems must serve residents’ as well as visitors’ needs;
• Solutions should utilize existing infrastructure where possible;
• Enhancing residents’, visitors’ and the Estes Valley business environment is
essential; and
• Solutions must accommodate increasing year round visitations.
The Goal of this committee was to provide a better experience for all who come to the
Estes Valley by reducing seasonal traffic issues and to provide a roadmap of realistic,
cost‐effective actions for the Town decision makers aimed to address today’s and
tomorrow’s traffic and parking concerns.
The Vision of this committee is to help the Town provide a safe and easy‐to‐navigate
Estes Valley with minimal traffic congestion, adequate parking, a convenient and
effective shuttle system, with reduced pollution all year round.
Inter‐relationships and priorities
As the TVC analyzed current transportation issues and the needs for the future, it
became apparent that there are actions to be taken in the areas of roads, parking,
shuttles and information distribution that might provide better traffic flow, ease
congestion and pollution. It also became apparent that none of these potential
remediations were capable of significant improvement by themselves.
As an example:
Congestion on Elkhorn Avenue cannot be reduced unless action is taken to remove
vehicles circulating through downtown while looking for parking. Relief for downtown
parking cannot be achieved without better utilization of remote parking (or possibly
parking structures). Improved signage is required to direct vehicles to all parking areas.
TVC Exec Summary - 3 - 040412
The successful use of remote parking as an alternative to parking downtown is
dependant on a shuttle system that transports people to their destinations effectively
and efficiently. Increasing the use of the shuttle system is contingent on providing
incentives for remote parking and shuttle use.
Analogous interrelationships and inter‐dependencies exist for other areas of concern,
such as traffic routing and vehicular back up at intersections.
Committee Methodology
A number of studies have been commissioned by the Town of Estes Park over the last
several years to investigate and recommend solutions for issues such as parking capacity
or traffic congestion on Elkhorn Avenue. These studies were prepared by engineering
firms—professional in their methodologies and proposed solutions. They were also
limited in scope, focusing on the specific subject for which they were commissioned, (for
example, downtown parking during peak season, traffic congestion on Elkhorn Avenue,
etc.) and, as a result, solutions tended to focus on specific remedies to specific issues
and did not provide an overview of how to alleviate the traffic‐related problems
occurring during times of peak usage. The studies did not often look deeply into the
interrelationships and interdependencies of various components creating the
congestion.
The TVC wanted to find recommendations to the Town’s transportation‐related issues
by taking a more holistic approach. There were three primary approaches taken by the
Committee:
1. Creation of a knowledge base, including:
• Reviews of studies prepared for the Town;
• Reviews of new practices for traffic management;
• Presentations by guest speakers; and
• Ideas from other towns and communities.
2. Seek Public Opinion
• Four public sessions were conducted.
• Public sessions were facilitated by an independent, professional facilitator
from the Colorado State University Extension office.
• Public input was analyzed and incorporated into the committee’s
recommendations.
TVC Exec Summary - 4 - 040412
3. Formulate Workgroups (or sub committees) to enable more in‐depth study and
discussions of targeted areas of interest. The following Workgroups were
formed:
• Information Distribution
• Parking, Shuttles, and Public Transportation
• Roads
Committee Findings
Information Distribution
The general observation of the Information Distribution Workgroup was the information
currently provided to Valley visitors is limited and does not clearly direct the visitor to
the major destinations and attractions in the Valley or the best routes to take to
destinations such as Downtown, Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), the YMCA, RV
campgrounds, etc.
The Workgroup identified three high priority areas of information distribution needing
improvement.
1. Informing people of where to park and what parking is available
2. Better informing people of where and how to use the shuttle system
3. Better informing people of routes to take to specific attractions and destinations
Many specific ideas regarding how information is, or should be, provided to residents
and visitors were discussed, investigated and then organized into several sub‐categories.
These subcategories are Physical Signs, Digital Information Distribution, Information
Collection and Consolidation, Traffic Lights, Websites/Maps/Informational Kiosks.
(NOTE: Specific recommendations are shown in the Roadmap and Timetable section of
this summary.)
Shuttle and Public Transportation
TVC members strongly support the shuttle program and see it as a significant
component of a long‐term traffic management plan for the Estes Valley.
The committee has numerous distinct recommendations for the improvement of the
current shuttle offerings in order for the shuttle system to become an effective transit
solution. These recommendations focus on changes that the Committee feels will
enhance the user experience, increase the efficiency of getting riders to their preferred
destinations, and define the shuttle system as a part of the Estes Park experience for all.
Key recommendations include:
TVC Exec Summary - 5 - 040412
• Make the shuttles easy to use, and inviting to ride;
• Improve the information available regarding all aspects of the shuttle service;
• Improve and enhance the routes & schedules; and
• Provide incentives for using shuttles.
Parking
Parking strategy is a core component of a comprehensive transportation solution for the
Estes Valley. Parking is one of the first things visitors experience as they enter
downtown Estes Park for a day of shopping, dining, festivals and other events. As such,
it can define their overall opinion of Estes Park. To keep traffic moving, parking must
be:
• Easy to locate;
• Readily available; and
• Convenient to desired amenities.
The TVC found there to be a total interdependence between parking and the shuttle
system. A continuum exists between unlimited downtown parking with minimal‐to‐no
requirement for a shuttle system to the other extreme of no parking allowed downtown
with a total dependence on shuttles to move downtown visitors to and from remote
parking areas. The TVC concludes that real world remedies for Estes Park exists
between these two extremes.
The Committee considered the pros, cons, and applicability of the following parking
measures:
• Increasing downtown parking;
• Paid parking downtown;
• Removal of on street parking from Elkhorn Avenue;
• Parking restrictions in residential neighborhoods;
• Downtown parking structures;
• Additional remote lots with shuttle service; and
• Employee parking.
(NOTE: Specific recommendations are shown in the Roadmap and Timetable section of
this summary.)
Road Configuration
Although signage is inadequate to properly guide drivers to their destinations without
traveling through the downtown area, the existing road system is fairly simple and easily
TVC Exec Summary - 6 - 040412
navigated when not congested. A simple analysis reveals that one road intersection is
the source of much traffic congestion and pollution during peak periods: the
intersection of Moraine and Elkhorn Avenues.
To reach RMNP’s most popular entrance—Beaver Meadows—by any of the popular
routes from the Front Range population centers, signage directs drivers through this
intersection. During the summer “high” season, traffic at Elkhorn/Moraine far exceeds
capacity, and directly causes traffic congestion through other Elkhorn Avenue
intersections, from Wonderview Avenue to Riverside Drive to Moraine Avenue.
Ultimately, this troublesome intersection must be addressed by the Town and by the
Colorado Division of Transportation (CDOT). The committee believes that some
improvements can be made quickly and for little cost, while an ultimate “Western”
bypass may remain elusive indefinitely.
The Roads Workgroup considered a wide spectrum of opportunities for reducing traffic
congestion in the downtown core area. Specific considerations discussed include:
• Rerouting US Hwy 34 from Elkhorn Avenue to Wonderview;
• Eliminating the US Hwy 34 “business route” designation from Elkhorn Avenue;
• Rerouting and changing the designation of US Hwy 36 to W. Riverside (two way
traffic);
• Building a western bypass connecting US Hwy 34 and US Hwy 36;
• Extend Cleave Street from Big Horn Drive to Virginia/Park Lane;
• Creating an eastbound Elkhorn alternative through the Weist parking lot to
Moraine Avenue;
• Creating one‐way couplets on existing roadways;
• Seasonal reconfigurations of the Elkhorn/Moraine/Bighorn intersection; and
• Improvement and flexibility of traffic signal timing.
(NOTE: Specific recommendations are shown in the Roadmap and Timetable section of
this summary.)
Multi‐Modal Transportation
The Committee thought it was important to include alternatives to vehicular
transportation. While we briefly discussed scooters and Segways, the pedestrian and
bicycle needs were of most interest. Our local residents tend to be environmentally
aware and recreation minded, but the Committee was still surprised at the very strong
interest in pedestrian and bike friendly comments at the public outreach sessions.
Four options for improving our multi‐modal transportation options are:
TVC Exec Summary - 7 - 040412
• Develop policies for the implementation of a multi‐modal approach to street
design for new or reconstructed streets.
• Work with CDOT to explore ways to provide multi‐modal solutions to State and
Federal highways running through Town, including the “Roads Fit for People”
concepts (highlighted in detail in TVC’s final report).
• The installation of bike racks at all public facilities; and
• The continued development of bike/walk paths throughout Town.
Roadmap and Timetable
After reviewing a myriad of ideas, options and data, the Committee compiled a
comprehensive list of options available to the Town. The Committee then organized this
list into preferred timeframes for implementation. Finally, the Committee further
refined this list by selecting its top recommendations in each timeframe.
Short‐Term Recommendations (1‐to‐5 years)
Short‐term recommendations could easily be implemented, have a short planning
horizon, and be relatively inexpensive. The recommendations for this timeframe were
heavily weighted in favor of projects that improve the information already available to
drivers, as well as shuttle system improvements.
It should be noted that many of the short‐term actions can provide temporary, low‐cost
remedies today and function as pilot tests for specific ideas. In those cases, the
recommendation can be evaluated for effectiveness and a cost/benefit analysis
performed prior to Town officials making longer‐term financial commitments for more
permanent implementations.
Information Distribution
• All destination or attraction signs need to be evaluated and a signage plan
developed and adopted to easily direct people to their destination without
unnecessarily sending them down Elkhorn Avenue. Signs must be of appropriate
size and location to be effective. Unnecessary and redundant signage should be
removed and electronic signage utilized to display real time information.
• Improve directional signage to remote parking lots and downtown parking
locations.
• Improve shuttle ridership through easier‐to‐read maps and more prominent,
easier‐to‐understand shuttle signage
TVC Exec Summary - 8 - 040412
• For guests leaving Rocky Mountain National Park without planning to stop in
downtown Estes Park, provide better signage directing drivers to US Hwy 34, US
Hwy 36 or CO Hwy 7
• Develop digital applications (such as WIFI/Internet/GPS/cell phone applications)
to deliver static and dynamic information on parking availability, shuttle services,
traffic congestion, special events, etc.
Shuttle system
• Vehicles: Upgrade the shuttle system by enhancing the service and making
ridership fun; Use a trolley or other “fun” vehicle for the downtown route.
Enhance the shuttles’ exteriors with colors or animal motifs to indicate the
route.
• Routes: Restructure existing routes to include a “Downtown Attractions” loop,
one or more “Accommodations Loop(s), and a “Rocky Mountain National Park”
loop.
The “Downtown Attractions” loop should travel between the Park‐and‐Ride
locations, the Visitors Center, up Elkhorn Avenue to Performance Park (and
possibly the Stanley Hotel) with a wait time of 15‐minutes or less
• Schedules: Extend the daily hours of operation and extend the season of
operation. Reduce the wait time between buses.
• Information Distribution: Provide easier‐to‐read maps and signage, as well as
improved usage of digital information.
• Incentives for using shuttles: Encourage ridership through incentives (See
“Shuttle Findings” for additional information)
Parking
• Build an additional Transportation Hub at the Visitor’s Center with Federal grant
monies.
• Create incentives to encourage employees, including Town employees, to park in
remote Park‐and‐Ride locations during the peak season.
• Use smart technology to monitor parking availability and communicate this via
digital signage.
Roads
• Work with Rocky Mountain National Park and CDOT to provide improved signage
on both US Hwy 34 and US Hwy 36 directing visitors to Rocky Mountain National
Park. Visitors to Old Fall River Road, Trail Ridge Road, Sheep Lake or the Alluvial
Fan should be directed to the Fall River entrance via Wonderview/US Hwy 34
West. Visitors to Bear Lake Road and Moraine Park should be directed to the
Moraine Park entrance.
• Use signage to encourage the use of Riverside Drive as an alternate route to and
from Rocky Mountain National Park through downtown Estes Park.
TVC Exec Summary - 9 - 040412
• Close Big Horn Avenue between Elkhorn Avenue and Cleave Street during
seasonal congestion and adjust traffic signal cycle time accordingly.
• Continue to modify signal cycle times to achieve improved performance. During
the slow and at peak seasons (including nighttime hours), skip or modify cycles
when no vehicles or pedestrians have tripped sensors.
• Reconfigure turn lanes at Elkhorn Avenue and Moraine Avenue intersection from
the west. Remove the left turn lane onto Bighorn and create a through lane.
Create a right turn only lane.
• Rename Wonderview Avenue to Fall River Road beginning at the
Elkhorn/Wonderview intersection coming into town.
Multi‐Modal
• Install bike racks at all public facilities
• Continue development of bike/walk paths throughout Town
• Develop policies for the implementation of a multi‐modal approach to street
design for new or reconstructed streets.
• Work with CDOT to explore ways to provide multi‐modal solutions to State and
Federal highways running through Town.
Mid‐term Recommendations (5‐to‐15 years)
The Committee’s mid‐term recommendations are premised on the concept that the
Town is by this time efficiently distributing information to residents and visitors
regarding parking availability, driving directions to popular destinations, and other
relevant data via electronic methods and improved signage. Mid‐term
recommendations, in general require a longer planning horizon than the short‐term
recommendations. The most significant recommendation being made during this
timeframe is the reconfiguration of the Moraine/West Riverside intersection.
Road Reconfiguration
• Re‐build the intersection of West Riverside Drive/Moraine Avenue with a
roundabout to facilitate additional traffic to and from RNMP onto West Riverside
Drive.
• Work with CDOT to remove the US Hwy 34 “business designation” on Elkhorn
Avenue through downtown. US Hwy 34 should continue westbound from Big
Thompson Avenue onto Wonderview Avenue.
• Work with CDOT to route US Hwy 36 down West Riverside Drive to Moraine
Avenue rather than through the Elkhorn/Moraine intersection.
TVC Exec Summary - 10 - 040412
Parking
• Parking lots should use emerging technology to monitor space availability.
Signage at the entrance to parking lots should indicate whether parking is
available prior to a vehicle entering the lot.
Shuttles and Public Transportation
• Continue to refine modifications made in the short‐term recommendations.
• Commit to no more than a 15‐minute wait time for shuttles.
Information Distribution
• Many of the recommendations made for short‐term consideration apply to an
extended outlook. Some information distribution systems may require
installation or updating over time and should be considered dynamic projects
incorporating future technology as it evolves. Continue to improve the real time
data provided to residents and visitors.
Multi‐Modal Transportation
• Continued expansion of bike/walk path development throughout the Estes
Valley.
• Follow policies developed for the implementation of multi‐modal approaches to
street design for new and reconstructed streets.
• Continue working with CDOT to explore ways to provide multi‐modal solutions
to State and Federal highways running through town.
Long‐term Recommendations (15‐to‐30 years)
The Committee’s long‐term recommendations were the most expensive and complex
recommendations proposed. Specifically, the long‐term recommendations focused on
road reconfigurations and increased parking capacity.
Parking
• Build parking structures as necessary to meet demand. These may be located
downtown or at remote locations.
Remote locations for the parking lots signify a commitment by the Town to the
use of shuttles as a primary method of transportation through downtown. A
parking structure downtown can be used to simplify downtown parking options
(replace on‐street parking or small lots with one larger structure) or to facilitate
getting vehicles on and off the roadways efficiently.
TVC Exec Summary - 11 - 040412
• Use cutting edge technologies to facilitate the management, payment options,
and information distribution at parking facilities. All lots should continue to
provide real time parking space availability prior to a vehicle entering the lot.
• Parking structures should be designed to fit the architectural ambiance of their
location, and designed with a unique façade and/or integrated with retail or
commercial space. They should be balanced in size and scale with their
surroundings, and should not draw attention to themselves.
• Proposed downtown parking structure locations include the Town Hall parking
lot with additional retail/mixed use development adjacent to the Estes Valley
Library or at the current Post Office parking lot.
Road Reconfiguration
• If not completed in the mid‐term timeframe, complete reconfiguration of the
West Riverside/Moraine intersection.
• If not completed in the mid‐term timeframe, complete the removal of the US
Hwy 34 “business designation” from Elkhorn Avenue.
• If not completed in the mid‐term timeframe, complete the movement of US Hwy
36 from Elkhorn Avenue to West Riverside along with associated road
improvements as necessary.
Shuttles and Public Transportation
• Continue existing efforts to encourage ridership of shuttles by residents, visitors
and downtown employees. Expand or contract shuttle system as needed to
meet demand.
Information Distribution
• The world of information processing and technology is progressing at such an
ever‐increasing rate it is impossible to imagine what methods or means of
distribution will be available twenty years from now. It is recommended that
this topic be revisited on a regular basis to determine what new technologies
might be appropriate to implement with in the Valley.
Multi‐Modal
• Implementation of the multi‐modal approach to street design for new or
reconstructed streets should be in place.
• Continue working with CDOT to provide multi‐modal solutions to State and
Federal highways running through town.
TVC Exec Summary - 12 - 040412
Conclusion
The Transportation Visioning Committee spent eighteen months researching, analyzing,
discussing and evaluating options to improve the transportation infrastructure in the
Estes Valley. The Committee believes it has developed a multi‐faceted roadmap for the
Town to use in the years to come to guide transportation capital expenditure decisions.
These recommendations did not come easily. In some cases, there historically has been
significant opposition to some of the recommendations made herein. While the
Committee was aware of objections to certain recommendations, we firmly believe the
recommendations put forth in this report are truly the best solutions for our community
as a whole.
The Committee is excited by the prospects of a less congested downtown during the
peak season and recognizes the positive impact that a reduction of congestion could
have on sales at local businesses, as well as the secondary impact on the Town’s sales
tax revenues.
This report is intended to be a working document, a document that can serve as a
reference over the years as well as an action plan. We also propose that a citizen’s
committee be formed to meet two or more times per year with Town Staff to review
the Town’s current transportation initiatives, to revise this plan as necessary in response
to actual usage information, and to ensure that transportation planning remains a top
priority of the Town’s Trustees and administrators.
TVC Exec Summary - 13 - 040412
Committee Members
• Trustee John Ericson, Co‐Chair
• Trustee Jerry Miller, Co‐Chair
• Jacqueline Halburnt, Town Administrator
• Lowell Richardson, Deputy & Interim Town Administrator
• Kimberly Campbell, citizen
• Peggy Campbell, Visit Estes Park
• Charley L. Dickey IV, citizen
• Larry Gamble, Rocky Mountain National Park
• Wayne Groome, citizen
• John Hannon, Rocky Mountain National Park
• Cory La Bianca, citizen
• Fred R. Mares, citizen
• Greg Rosener, citizen
• Rex Poggenpohl, Estes Valley Planning Commission
• Frank Theis, Urban Planner
• Annika Van der Werf, citizen, Senior at Estes Park High School
• Gary Van Horn, YMCA
Town Staff Support
• Scott Zurn, Director, Town of Estes Park Public Works
ENGINEERING
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Interim Town Administrator Richardson
From: Scott A. Zurn, PE, CFPM, Public Works Director
Date: April 10th, 2012
RE: Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Grant for CVB Parking Structure
Background:
PREVIOUS STUDIES
In April 2003, Estes Park, CDOT, and Rocky Mountain National Park conducted the
Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study. The study was conducted to guide
the community’s development of a well-balanced, multi-modal transportation system
that addresses existing deficiencies and accommodates future travel needs for the
Estes Valley in a safe and efficient manner.
Objectives of the study included providing a wider range of transportation choices,
maintaining the environment, reducing congestion, pollution and improving the visitor
experience. The study completed a comprehensive analysis of the existing
transportation system and included an inventory of existing downtown parking activity
and a survey of Estes Valley residents and visitors. It included development of a wide
range of transportation improvements to determine how well they would meet the
project objectives. Transportation alternatives considered included transit routes and
bike/pedestrian improvements.
The 2003 Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study considered transit intercept
parking at three locations – the Convention and Visitors’ Bureau, Dry Gulch/US 34 and
the Fairgrounds. The study findings suggest that both the CVB site and the Dry Gulch
site would meet the objectives outlined for the study. However, the CVB site would do
more to relieve parking issues in downtown Estes Park and could capture a larger travel
market. The Fairgrounds site could capture US 36 travelers, Dry Gulch could capture
travelers along US 34 while the CVB site could effectively capture travelers from both of
these travel sheds. In addition, the CVB site would provide a more efficient transit hub,
costing the town less to operate transit service annually.
The Upper Front Range Regional 2035 Regional Transportation Plan was
completed in 2006. This Plan was completed with input from CDOT, Larimer County,
and Estes Park. It identifies US 34 as a high priority corridor because of the congestion
during peak-tourism months and the dependence on tourism for economic activity in the
area. Strategies for addressing mobility along this corridor include transit expansion,
promotion of carpool/vanpooling, and intelligent transportation systems.
CURRENT WORK EFFORT
The Estes Valley Parking and Transit Enhancement Study (NEPA Study) is
evaluating parking and transit enhancements to reduce vehicular congestion in
downtown Estes Park and RMNP by encouraging the use of alternative transportation
systems designed to improve visitor experience and protect natural resources. An
advisory committee consisting of representatives from the Town of Estes Park, Rocky
Mountain National Park, Central Federal Lands, and CDOT are guiding the study.
As part of this effort, and a follow up to the 2003 study, the Town has designed and will
deploy a real-time traveler information system for its shuttle service. The traveler
information system will improve the user experience and increase transit ridership by
providing real-time arrivals for the next bus at each shuttle stop, digital displays of
routes and schedules at park and rides, and a web site with bus arrival and location
information. The real-time information system is expected to be in place during the
summer of 2012.
The study reevaluated demand for intercept parking from the 2003 study and found that
demand for transit intercept parking is between 300 and 500 vehicles. The study is
considering nine potential locations for transit parking expansion. The sites were
evaluated on their ability to reduce congestion and relieve parking demand in downtown
Estes Park, their potential impact to sensitive environmental resources, and their
visibility/accessibility for visitors. Similar to the 2003 study, this evaluation identified the
CVB site as being an optimal site to intercept visitors, provide transit and relieve
downtown parking demand.
As a part of this effort, FTA has approved the proposed transportation hub at the CVB
as a Categorical Exclusion under 23 CFR 771.117(d) because the proposed location
would not have significant impacts to environmental resources. Through this process,
FTA found this site to meet the requirements for an intercept transit hub. Approval of
the Categorical Exclusion enables the Town of Estes Park to construct a structure on
the CVB site while utilizing Federal funds.
In summary, the CVB site provides the following benefits that other sites considered
would not provide.
• Visitor convenience (situated at the confluence of all major entry points)
• Access to visitor information
• Has ability to attract both day and overnight visitors
• Good visibility from US 34 and US 36
• Complements the new Stanley Fairgrounds lot with easier access from US 34
and dedicated use of parking
• Increases downtown parking supply
• Increases the number of people traveling into Estes Park without increasing
vehicles
• Reduces congestion in downtown Estes Park
Budget:
Currently the Town of Estes Park has been awarded the following grants for the
completion of the CVB Transit Structure:
1) Federal Transit Administration Paul S. Sarbanes
Transit in the Parks Program $3,000,000.00
2) Colorado Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
(CMAQ) $ 228,500.00
Subtotal Grants $3,228,500.00
Additional Funding Objectives:
1) Additional future potential grant opportunities $ 371,500.00
2) Local match $ 900,000.00
Total Project Budget $4,500,000.00
Sample Motion:
I move to recommend/not recommend the following; accepting the FTA Paul Sarbanes
Transit in the Parks Program grant for $3,000,000 and the Colorado CMAQ grant for
$228,500.
If first motion passes the second motion would be, I move to direct staff to seek
additional grant opportunities for the CVB transit structure and direct staff to proceed
with the design phase of the CVB transit structure project.
ADMINISTRATION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Lowell Richardson, Interim Town Administrator
From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer
Date: April 10, 2012
RE: 2012 Community Reinvestment Fund Projects (Capital Asset
Management Plan)
Background:
This memo summarizes the discussions of the March 13th and 27th, 2012, Study
Sessions.
The CAMP process has identified potential projects that the Town might consider
undertaking currently through 2017. Projects were identified by Fund (General,
Community Reinvestment, Open Space, Light & Power and Water). Financial estimates
were included; more to provide a frame of reference for the size of the project than to
identify specific design and cost.
Budgetary changes
Most of the projects discussed will be funded through the Community Reinvestment
Fund (CRF). Please refer to Attachment 1 for a comparison of the original 2012 CRF
Budget and the changes that have occurred since the 2012 Budget was confirmed in
November 2011.
The changes include:
1. Approximately $253,000 (NEPA Study, Bond Park) was rolled over from 2011 to
2012. Rolling over expenditures from 2011 to 2012 caused an increase to the
2011 fund balance and appears as an expenditure line item in 2012. There is no
net effect on fund balance as of 12/31/12.
2. Additional stall barns (beyond the 2012 Budget) were discussed at the March
27th, 2012, Study Session. It was decided to refer to/consult the 2005 Stanley
Park Master Plan before determining whether or not to proceed. This action
does not impact the 2012 Budget.
3. The Barn W re-roofing and Wiest signalization projects have been cancelled,
returning $100,000 to CRF fund balance.
4. The Wiest Ave. retaining wall project ($65,000) has been added, having been
approved at the 01/24/12 Town Board meeting.
5. The Elm Road landfill cost estimate for 2012 ($110,000) is for developing a plan,
using appropriate consultants, for mitigation of identified environmental issues.
The plan must meet the approval of the Colorado Department of
Health/Environment. The entire project is forecasted through 2017, potentially
totaling $1,000,000.
6. Federal and State grant funding has been awarded for the CVB Parking
Structure Project. The Town Board is currently considering whether or not to
accept the funding. If accepted, the Town will be required to meet the 20%
match (~$800,000) on the project, expected to total $4.5 million. Approximately
$40,000 (net) of the $800,000 would be expended in 2012, with the remainder
being incurred in 2013.
7. During the 2012 Budget process, $200,000 was committed/set aside for 2012
towards a Museum storage facility. The commitment level is to increase to
$250,000 in 2013 (through 2017), eventually totaling of $1.2 million. During the
Study Sessions, the Town Board determined that a museum master plan study
should be undertaken so that all potential options can be prudently weighed. The
Museum master plan is estimated to cost $25,000.
8. A pro-forma was requested to address the financial viability of the Multi-purpose
Event Center (MPEC). Based on bidding for similarly scoped reports, the new
pro-forma is estimated at $40,000.
9. At the March 27th, 2012, Town Board meeting, it was revealed that the Society
for Performing Arts (SOPA) was releasing the Town from its commitment with
SOPA. This action effectively returns $651,375 in committed monies to the
unrestricted fund balance in CRF as of 12/31/11.
Other CRF-funded projects for 2013-17 were identified for future discussion. Funding
for those projects will be considered separately, as will an update on the Street
Improvement Program (STIP).
Budget:
With the added expenditures listed above, the 2012 CRF budget will likely require a re-
appropriation of funds. This process can be formally accomplished during the annual
budget re-appropriation process in November.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends moving forward with the discussed projects.
Sample Motion:
I recommend approval with moving forward with the listed projects, which will be
accounted for and financed through the Community Reinvestment Fund.
BUDGET '12 CURRENT (04/12)
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (04/01/12 est):***$2,306,595 $2,559,865
INFLOWS:
Transfer from General Fund 800,000 800,000
Investment income 15,000 15,000
TOTAL INFLOWS:815,000 815,000
OUTFLOWS:
BUDGET 2012
Stall Barns 600,000 600,000
Police Dept remodel 40,000 40,000
CVB ‐ upgrade(s) 50,000 50,000
Barn W re‐roofing 50,000 0
Wiest signalization 50,000 0
Rollovers 0 253,270
2012 DEVELOPMENTS
Wiest retaining wall 0 65,000
Elm road* 0 110,000
Parking structure* 0 40,000
Museum Master Plan 0 25,000
MPEC pro‐forma** 0 40,000
TOTAL OUTFLOWS:790,000 1,223,270
NET CASH FLOW:25,000 (408,270)
ENDING FUND BALANCE:
SOPA commitment (set aside) 858,400 0
Museum Storage Facility Commitment 200,000 200,000
Unrestricted $1,273,195 $1,951,595
* ‐ multi‐year project
** ‐ est based on 2011 proforma RFP bid range
*** ‐ Beginning Fund Balance difference = rollovers
ATTACHMENT 1
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND