HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board 2016-07-26Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 26, 2016
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 26th day of July 2016.
Present:
Also Present:
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Walker
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited
the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Boys and Girls Club representatives invited the Board and the community to the
upcoming performance of "The Hysterical History of the Trojan War" performed by the
children on July 28th and 29th at the Estes Park Elementary School.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen advocated the Town not turnover the Senior Center to
the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated the applications for the Community Service grants are
available.
Trustee Walker extended his appreciation for the Transportation Advisory Board's
recommendation to complete the final paving surface on Dry Gulch after the second
phase has been completed. The new roadway continues to see heavy equipment
traffic which would have negatively impacted the new roadway.
Trustee Norris reviewed the items considered by the Estes Valley Planning Commission
at their recent meeting, including the Location and Extent Review for the Community
Center. He has received extensive input from the senior population as it relates to the
Senior Center facilities at the new Community Center. The main concerns raised are in
relation to the loss of the kitchen, social services and educational programs; concern
with the EVRPD's lack of a mission to provide social services; and the suggestion to
keep the current center open to provide the meals and social services and move the
recreational aspect of the center to the Community Center.
Trustee Martchink commented the Rocky Mountain Half Marathon would take place
July 30, 2016 with 2,000 registered for the event. The next Parks Advisory Board
meeting would take place on August 19, 2016.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
The hydrology study presentation scheduled for August 23, 2016 has been rescheduled
for October 25th to allow for the peer reviews to be completed prior to the meeting.
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek introduced the new Community Development
Director Randy Hunt who began work on July 19, 2016.
Board of Trustees — July 26, 2016 — Page 2
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated July 12, 2016 and Town Board Study
Session July 12, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated June 15, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
4. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated June 17, 2016 (acknowledgement only).
5. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated June 21, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (outside entities):
1. ESTES VALLEY PARTNERS FOR COMMERCE (EVPC) QUARTERLY
REPORT. Kent Smith/EVPC Vice President provided a quarterly report stating
the organization has completed its strategic plan. A new business packet has
been completed and would be delivered to the Town, Library and the Economic
Development Council for distribution to new businesses. EVPC would take
over the ribbon cuttings for new businesses in conjunction with the Mayor's
support. The "Explore Your Store" event continues to be a success in
engaging the local retail community. He invited the Trustees to EVPC's annual
dinner in October.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. SPECIAL REVIEW 2016-01 - LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS.
Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Planner Gonzales reviewed the
application for the approval of a three -phased Special Review Development
Plan to accommodate a 750-person occupancy Chuck Wagon Dinner and
Live Entertainment facility on an approximately 5-acre site located at 1665
Hwy 66. The property currently operates as the Elk Meadow Campground
RV Resort and the new development would be located on the overflow
parking area with an approximately 18,000 sq. ft. building and 192 parking
spaces. The application also includes the widening of Mill Drive, installation
of a right turn lane on Hwy 66, new landscaping installed and a loading area
for the building within the 110-foot setback from the street center line. The
proposal calls for a 61.6-foot setback from the street center line which
would require a variance. The proposed development would encroach into
a 50-foot wetland setback by no more than 5-feet, a minor modification to
be approved at staff level. The applicant has proposed measures to
address and mitigate potential impacts on nearby land use, public facilities
and services, and the environment, including items such as locating the
entrance off of Mill Drive to facilitate traffic congestion on Hwy 66, hiring off -
duty traffic control officer during peak traffic periods, utilizing the shuttle
system, propose using tour buses to transport guests to the event facility,
limited employee housing on -site, proposed limited hours of operation
during the summer months, and improved view shed for homes along Mills
Drive with a tree lined drive and buried electrical line to improve the overall
appearance of the property. Staff found the development complies with the
standards in the Estes Valley Development Code; is consistent with the
Board of Trustees — July 26, 2016 — Page 3
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; expands tourism and arts industry; and
redevelops a currently underutilized site and increase commercial sales tax
revenue for the Town. The project would increase trip generation on Hwy
66 and Mills Drive and proposed mitigation efforts were denied by CDOT.
Potential increase incidences with wildlife, especially bears, are created
with the first phase of the project, a temporary tent facility. Rocky Mountain
National Park has expressed concern with noise impacting their employee
housing, bear activity, increased traffic on Mills Drive, and light pollution.
The Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the
Special Review at their May 17, 2016 meeting.
Trustee comments were heard and have been summarized: questioned the
impact to driveways along Mills Drive; could the property owner continue the
use of the temporary tent for the facility if the building is not constructed;
why was Mills Drive preferred over the use of the current Elk Meadow RV
entrance; questioned why the property was not rezoned commercial in 2008
rather than A -Accommodations; and questioned how the properties to the
west of Mills Drive were developed so close to the property line.
Staff has identified one driveway that would be impacted with the new
widening of Mills Drive. Any changes to the proposed phasing of the
development would come back for the Board's consideration. The
Comprehensive Plan would not allow a rezoning of the property to
commercial zoning and proposed use is an allowed principle use in the A -
Accommodation zoning through a Special Review.
Troy Krenning/Attorney for the applicant commented the use has occurred
under a temporary use in 2016 since May with an average of 50 guests per
night mostly from the existing campground guests. The applicant would
mitigate the traffic and parking to its ability as the facility grows. The
property has on average four to five bear sightings per season due to the
proximity to the Park and the current campground use. The proposed solid
brick structure with trash receptacles should address any issues related to
concerns with increase bear activity. He confirmed that one dwelling unit
would be impacted by the widening of Mills Drive. The applicant would
entertain discussions with staff on the development requirements to
address the impact to the homeowner. The applicant would also entertain
an egress located farther to the south on Mills Drive to address the
headlight concerns by neighbors. The applicant's concerns with moving the
entrance to the current Elk Meadow entrance include the negative impact to
the campground, leads to additional impacts to traffic on Hwy 66, and the
possible division of the property in the future and a need for a separate
entrance at such point in time when this would occur.
Attorney White provided a legal opinion that Mills Drive is a private road
located on private property used as a public roadway for a number of years,
and may be used as access by the public for the proposed use on the
property. He stated Section 4.4.1.b — Permitted Uses — Non Residential
Zoning District provides that an Entertainment Event, Major would be a
permitted use in the A -Accommodation zoning district. The Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) does allow this use on the property through the
review process. He further stated staffs classification of the proposed use
as an Entertainment Event, Major is supported by the applicable provisions
of the EVDC. The Spur 66 planning area was incorporated into the Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan. Numerous court cases have found
Comprehensive Plans to be regulatory in nature and are advisory, and
therefore, hold no legal requirements. The EVCD contains the standards
and regulations for land use within the Estes Valley.
Those speaking in opposition to the application included Jeff Noyes/County
resident, Jay Vetter/County resident, Jeremy Vetter/County resident,
Corriane Thomas/County resident, Sherrie Duris/County resident, Art
Board ufTruetees—July 26, 2D1G—Page 4
MoaoukTuwn citizen, K4inhe|ka Hi|and/T�mvn citizen, Alex Hodges/Town
citizen, Johanna Oandon/Townoitizen. Michael Biloo/Countynasidunt, and
Michael Egan/Countynooident. Comments have been summarized: good
project wrong |noaUnn, would impact the residents of Mills Drive negatively;
the increase of Mills Drive would leave one property owner with no parking
for their home; mitigate the impact to the residents of Mills Drive by using
the current ontnsnua to the RV resort; the 2008 rezoning provided for the
Chuck Wagon as an accessory use and not a principle use; the project
should never have moved forward by staff; the zoning code does not allow
a stand-alone commercial use inthe Af\ccommodaUon zoning district; the
project does not provide a buffer as required by the EVDC; the project
would increase bear and guest interactions to the determent ofthe boars;
expressed concern with increased runoff to the wetlands and pond and the
effects of the pollutants on the wildlife; concern with the decrease setback
to the wot|ando, the corner of Mills Ohvn and Hwy 08 is already congested
and u safety concern; the project violates the zoning code and contradicts
the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; the project does not fit with
Entertainment Event, Major definition in the EVDC; requested u sidewalk be
required along Mills Drive if the project moves forward as many walk from
the Park housing area tothe Rock Inn; ownership of Mills Drive should be
oe(nb|inhod prior to the project moving forward; future purchase of the Lazy
8 property would require a rezoning of the property to commercial which is
not supported bythe Comprehensive Plan; and the property should beused
for additional housing for the community.
Those speaking in favor of the application included Joe Adair/County
resident, Elizabeth Fogarty/Visit Estes Park, Charley Dickey/Town citizen,
Thomas Beck/County resident, and Jon Nioho|aa/Towmcitizen. Comments
have been summarized: The Lazy B and Estes Park have been
synonymous in the past; there are a number of accommodations and
businesses on Hwy00 and one more would not be significant; bears and
wildlife are a port of the landscape and are not attracted to this one
business; all research has shown that aChuck Wagon dinner theater would
beagood product bzadd hothe Estes valley; the project has been mitigated
by the applicant to their fullest ability; and projects brought forward by
developers should not be turned down due to contradictory codes as the
applicant has followed the recommendations of staff. The Town should
consider aform based code rather than ause based code moving forward.
Tmoh*e Martnhink commented the Development Cod* use classification
used for this project by staff does not fit after his reading of the Code. He
stated if the EVOC contains contradictory language it would be preference
to use the more stringent code or interpretation. The proposed project
would be a continuous use, and them/oro, does not meet the use
classification for Entertainment Event. [Nojoc Planner Gonzales noted the
proposed use would be limited to two hours per day during the summer
months. Staff did not interpret the use as continuous and found it similar to
amovie theater which falls under the same use classification.
Trustee Norris stated the proposed application has not mitigated the
concerns tothe full extent possible and the application does not comply
with the EVOC. The code dictates that any inconsistencies orconflicts in
the code with one another would require the more restrictive provision to
govern.
Mayor Pro Tern Koenig stated she supports the application, personal
property rights and respects the opinion of Attorney White. She requested
the applicants work with the neighbors to slide the building in on effort to
mitigate the neighbor issues related tulights and parking.
Trustee Holcomb commented he supported the epp|inadon, stating the
Board of Trustees — July 26, 2016 — Page 5
Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded
(Norris/Martchink) to deny the Special Review 2016-01 Lazy B Ranch &
Wranglers, and it failed with Trustees Martchink and Norris voting "Yes"
and Trustee Walker abstaining.
It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Holcomb) to find the application
meets the review criteria and to approve the Special Review 2016-01
Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers with the conditions of approval and
compliance with affected agency emails and memos as outlined in the
staff report, and it passed with Trustees Martchink and Norris voting "No"
and Trustee Walker abstaining.
B. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY & SALUD CLINIC. Planner McCool.
Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, The Neighborhood Subdivision, 995 Dry Gulch Road &
1950 Red Tail Hawk Drive.
1. SUBDIVISION. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Planner
McCool reviewed the application to combine a portion of Lot 1 to Lot 2
(proposed Lot 2A), then subdivide the remainder of Lot 1 into two
residential lots (proposed Lots 1A & 1B) to build two affordable single-
family residences and a 29-space parking lot to meet the increased
needs of the Salud Clinic as they expand their services to the
community. The request includes the rezoning of the newly created Lot
1 from O-Office to R-1 Single Family Residential to allow for the
affordable housing units. Staff found the application to comply with the
EVDC and conform to the housing policies of the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan by promoting a balance of housing opportunities
within the community. The Estes Valley Planning Commission
recommended approval of the Minor Subdivision and denial of the
rezoning request. No action was taken on the proposed Development
Plan. If the Board approves the rezoning request, the approval should
be contingent upon the approval of the Development Plan by the
Planning Commission as they are the decision -making body for
development plans. The plan has received opposition from the
surrounding neighborhood.
Amy PlummerNan Horn Engineering stated the project has complied
with all items of concern from Public Works and the Utilities
departments. The EVDC encourages shared driveways and a driveway
maintenance agreement has been drafted. The area is a high density
housing area that includes affordable housing. The development
complies with the slope requirement as outlined in the EVDC. The two
housing units would make an impact for the two families that have been
identified by Habitat for Humanity. The proposed development would be
low intensity in use compared to a large office building that could be
placed on the lot under the current zoning.
Mark Wandas/Habitat for Humanity and Joe Adair/Habitat for Humanity
stated the organization would build two homes for families living and
working in the Estes Park area. The Kuntz Habitat homes were built by
Steve Murphree a local contractor with high quality materials and the
intent would be to provide the same level of homes on the new site.
This project would help address the lack of workforce housing in the
Estes area.
Those speaking in opposition of the application included Dena
Sohocki/Town citizen, Sue Hansen/Town citizen, Bruce BrackmanlTown
citizen, Dennis Berg/Town citizen, Corinne Dyer/Town citizen, Art
Messal/Town citizen, Michelle Hiland/Town citizen, Jerry James/Town
citizen, JaAnn Baxter/Town citizen, and Dennis Sohocki/Town citizen.
Board of Trustees — July 26, 2016 — Page 6
The opposition stated concerns with the reduction in property values, a
Brownfield site with underground tanks, drainage, lot size, shared
driveway, low quality of building materials used by Habitat for Humanity
and the use of carports rather than garages, safety of residents and
children on the small lot, lack of adequate parking in the surrounding
neighborhood, visual appearance of low income housing development
and lighting impacts from the new parking lot. A petition of the
immediate neighborhoods was presented that are against the rezoning
of the property. Habitat for Humanity should renovate existing homes to
improve a neighborhood. Habitat neighborhoods are not well
maintained and this should be the focus of the organization.
Those speaking in support of the application included Judy
Nystrom/Habitat for Humanity, Thomas Beck/County citizen, and Eric
Blackhurst/Housing Authority Board member. The contaminated soil on
the lower lot was removed from the property on Lot 1 and Lot 2 prior to
the development of Salud, therefore, the Brownfield site has been
mitigated; the slope of the property conforms to the slope requirements
in the EVDC and the slope is similar to the Vista Ridge development; the
project would provide much needed workforce housing; the Salud
parking lot lighting would be down casted; the shared entrance moves
the entrance away from the intersection making the entrance safer; the
Housing Authority supports the project that would be built under the
2015 building code standards; the property was donated to Habitat for
Humanity to assist the organization in providing affordable homes to
their clients; the organization does not have funds to purchase existing
homes and renovate them; the number of cars parked and other
recreational vehicles has been addressed in the covenants for the
property; and Habitat for Humanity has learned lessons with each of its
projects and admits the first project on Halbach Lane could have been
done better.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to continue the meeting
past 10:00 p.m. and complete the agenda, and it passed
unanimously.
Board comments were heard and summarized: Would encourage
Habitat for Humanity to build the new houses to the same or better
standard than those on Kuntz Lane; the rezoning would limit the
property development to residential housing rather than a potential large
office building; Trustee Norris was a member of the team that completed
the clean-up of the Brownfield site, and he would not have concems as
the lower portion that may contain storage tanks would be paved over; it
should be confirmed the tanks have been addressed and that families
would not be living above the tanks; and confident Habitat for Humanity
would build the homes to the same standard as others in the area.
Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded
(Walker/Norris) to find the application meets the review criteria and
to approve the subdivision with the conditions of approval as
outlined in the staff report, and it passed with Trustee Holcomb
abstaining.
2. ORDINANCE #18-16 — REZONING. Planner McCool reviewed the
rezoning proposed for Lots 1A & 1B from O-Office to R-1-Residential
per the proposed Development Plan under the subdivision item above.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to approve Ordinance
#18-16 contingent upon the approval of the Development Plan by
the Estes Valley Planning Commission, and it passed with Trustee
Holcomb abstaining.
Board of Trustees — July 26, 2016 — Page 7
3. FEE WAIVER REQUEST. Director Hunt presented a request to waive
development application fees only, not building permit fees for the
development of the two Habitat for Humanity homes and the Salud
parking lot. More specifically the request would waive fees for the pre -
application meeting, development plan, preliminary plat and final plat for
a total of $9,100. Staff found the proposal to comply with the Town's
Fee Waiver policy because the development would provide low-income
health and human services and low-income housing. The item was
presented to the Community Development / Community Services
Committee and forwarded to the Board with no recommendation.
Trustee Walker agreed the waiver of fees for the project would be
appropriate; however, the Town cannot continue to waive fees.
Trustee Martchink questioned if the project would move forward without
the fee waiver. Mark Wandas/Habitat for Humanity stated the project
would move forward. The organization looks for support and donations
wherever possible from the local community.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to approve the fee
waiver request in the amount of $9,100, and it passed unanimously.
C. ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER. Metes and Bounds, 650
Community Drive.
1. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing.
Planner McCool reviewed the application to approve the subdivision of a
metes and bounds property currently owned by the Estes Park School
District R-3 into two lots; Lot 1 would accommodate the existing school
buildings on 37.86 acres, and Lot 2 would accommodate a new
community center with associated parking, landscaping, detention, and
internal walkways on 6.49 acres. Lot 1 is owned by the School District
and is not subject to review by the Planning Commission and/or the
Town Board of Trustees. The applicant also seeks a 1' 0 3/8" deviation
from the 30-foot maximum building height in the Outlying Commercial
zone district, to accommodate a defined main entry to the community
center building. The variance requests would be reviewed by the Board
of Adjustment following all other land use approvals. A condition of
approval would require a sidewalk along the south side of Manford Drive
from the intersection of Community Drive and Manford Drive on the west
to the intersection of Community Drive and Manford Drive on the east
rather than an internal walkway. The requirement would provide safe
access by school children to the school campus.
Tom Carasello/Executive Director Estes Valley Recreation and Park
District stated the new sidewalk has been added to the development
along with the internal sidewalk at a cost of $20,000.
Art Messal/Town citizen would support the project and the application.
Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded
(Koenig/Nelson) to find the application meets the review criteria and
approve the Minor Subdivision Plat for the Estes Valley Community
Center, Metes and Bounds, 650 Community Drive with the findings
and conditions recommended by the Estes Valley Planning
Commission and outlined in the staff report, and it passed
unanimously.
4. FEE WAIVER REQUEST. Director Hunt presented a request to waive
development application fees, building permit fees and plan review fees
for the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Community Center at
Board of Trustees — July 26, 2016 — Page 8
an approximate cost of $137,000. The Town's Fee Waiver Policy states
in part that a public funded government construction may be exempted
from building permit fees, development review fees and sign code fees.
The item was presented to the Community Development / Community
Services Committee and forwarded to the Board with no
recommendation. A significant portion of the requested waiver would be
for building permit fees of approximately $133,000. Staff would
recommend maintaining approximately 20% of the building permit fees
and no waiver of the plan review fee as the division intends to outsource
plan review to Colorado Code Consulting due to workload. The partial
fee would cover the general administrative costs associated with the
project.
Board comments were heard and summarized: EVRPD is a separate
taxing district with revenues to cover the cost of the fees; the fee waivers
would allow the District to use the funds for the project that has already
experienced financial concerns; and could direct the District to use the
fee waiver funds for the Senior Center portion of the building. After
further discussion it was recommended the Board consider continuing
the fee waiver until the Intergovernmental Agreement has been
completed.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Norris/Nelson) to
continue the item to the August 9, 2016 meeting, and it passed
unanimously.
Mayor Jirsa called a break at 10:50 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #19-16 ELECTRIC RATE INCREASE 2016 — 2019. Mayor Jirsa
opened the public hearing. Shawn Koorn/HDR Engineering provided an
overview of the 2016 electric rate study which reviewed revenue requirements,
cost of service and rate design. Director Bergsten provided a presentation
outlining how the rate study ensures continued high -quality utility services and
plans for future upgrades through capital improvement projects. Both
presentations were presented to the Town Board at their June 28, 2016
meeting and recorded in the minutes of the meeting.
Hearing no public comment Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was
moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve Ordinance #19-16 with
new electric rates effective September 1, 2016, and it passed unanimously.
2. ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT OCCUPANCY LIMIT FOR VACATION
HOMES IN TOWN LIMITS. Trustee Walker stated he requested the item be
added to the agenda and did not intend to obstruct the efforts of the Vacation
Home Task Force reviewing the occupancy limits. The moratorium instructed
staff to not enforce the occupancy limit of two per bedroom plus two with a limit
not to exceed eight. He outlined three issues, including the character of
neighborhoods, the right of neighbors to not be in a party zone, and the right of
a vacation rental owner to use their property in a manner that aids the
economy of Estes Park. The sheer number of small and medium vacation
rentals surrounding residences has become significant and has impacted the
neighborhoods the citizens of Estes Park live in. The Town's vision does not
support enhancing its position as a destination resort but rather to enhance its
position as a premier mountain community. The issues require a delicate
balance to be struck to ensure everyone's property rights are addressed. He
suggested the moratorium be amended to enforce the two per bedroom plus
two within town limits, i.e. a 5-bedroom house would be limited to 12 guests.
He encouraged the Town to develop a 24-hour reporting system to address
complaints and fines imposed for multiple infractions.
Board of Trustees — July 26, 2016 — Page 9
Those speaking in opposition to the proposed change to the moratorium
included Millicent Cozzie/Town citizen, Ed Petersen/Town citizen, Bettye
Petersen/Town citizen, Judy Anderson/County resident and Dick
Speilman/Town citizen. Members of the Task Force requested the Board allow
the moratorium to remain in place until the Task Force has completed its work
and established regulations for the Board's consideration. They would support
a two per bedroom plus two approach. Enforcement of the limits needs to be
in place to address the restrictions. The larger issues are related to an
inadequate noise ordinance. The larger homes are not the problem; it's the
homes being used as party houses. Removing the moratorium and restricting
homes to eight would be difficult at this point in time as reservations have been
made and would have to be cancelled causing bad press for the Town. The
Town should consider providing a 24/7 complaint line such as the one by
iCompass to address complaints.
Kaylyn Kruger/Town citizen and EALA member stated a survey of the EALA
membership was completed to determine the impact of vacation homes on
workforce housing. The survey found vacation homes do not appear to impact
the homes available for rent. The EALA membership supports short term
rentals in Estes Park.
Art Messal/Town citizen reaffirmed his position that vacation homes should not
be allowed and commercial business should not be allowed in a residential
neighborhood.
Trustee Norris commented on his visits to a number of the neighborhoods that
are no longer residential neighborhoods due to the number of vacation rentals.
He stated a balance of rights of the property owner to rent their home and the
neighbors living full time in the community need to be addressed. The vacation
home owners need to be responsible for the rentals of their property. Three
main issues need to be addressed: good reporting system, establishing fines,
and good communication to the residents and renters by the vacation home
owner.
After further discussion by the Board, it was moved and seconded
(Walker/Jirsa) to clarify the Town of Estes Park's temporary enforcement
moratorium dated February 24, 2016 to include enforcement of the
portion of the code that limits occupancy to two individuals per bedroom
plus two within the Town limits, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 12:25 a.m.
Todd Jirsa, Ma or
Jack(1/illiamson, Town Clerk