HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2018-01-23The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable
services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while
being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town
services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons
with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance Compliance Report Policy 3.3
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated January 9, 2018 and Study Session dated January 9,
2018.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes.
A. Audit Committee Minutes dated November 17, 2017.
4. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated December 14, 2017 (acknowledgement only).
5. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated December 20, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated November 14, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
7. Policy Governance Compliance Report Policy 3.3.
8. Revised Policy 106 - Public Forums and Meetings.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities).
1. ESTES VALLEY PARTNERS FOR COMMERCE QUARTERLY REPORT.
Prepared 01/12/18
* Revised 01/18/18
1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
3. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. NEW BEER AND WINE LIQUOR LICENSE FILED BY DNC PARKS & RESORT AT
TRENDZ, INC., DBA TRENDZ AT THE PARK, 100 E. ELKHORN AVENUE, ESTES
PARK, CO 80517. Town Clerk Williamson.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. ORDINANCE #34-17 – AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE CHAPTER 13 §5.4 & §3-17, REGARDING OUTDOOR MOBILE FOOD
VENDORS & VENDING PERMITS. Planner Becker.
B. ORDINANCE #01-18 – AMENDING THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 17.66 (SIGNS), REPLACING THE EXISTING SIGN CODE.
Director Hunt.
5. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ESTES PARK DOWNTOWN PLAN. Planner Gonzales.
2. DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN. Director Muhonen.
3. POLICY #206 CELL PHONE. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek.
6. ADJOURN.
*
2
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
970.577.3705
flancaster@estes.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 23rd, 2018
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS
(QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORT POLICY 3.3)
Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide
information to the Board. Policy 3.3, Financial Planning and Budgeting requires
quarterly reporting of compliance in April, July, October and January.
Policy 3.3 states: “With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities
with a fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or
fiscal integrity of Town government.”
This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions
have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this
date.
________________________
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
3
3.3.1. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which deviates from
statutory requirements.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that our budgeting practices and policies
comply with all State statutory requirements that are applicable to statutory Colorado
towns.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
There are no deviations in our practices and policies in violation of State Statutes. The
2018 Town budget was submitted to the State of Colorado on time as required by statute
in December of 2017 following Town Board approval.
Evidence:
1. The annual independent audit
2. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
3. All policies are reviewed for compliance with State Statutes by the Town
Attorney.
4. State Department of Local Government has not issued any non-compliance
notifications to the Town of Estes Park regarding our budgetary obligations under
statute.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.2. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which deviates
materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among competing
budgetary needs.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the annual budget, as adopted by the
Board of Trustees, is the officially adopted priorities of the Board. This includes any
budget amendments approved by the Town Board throughout the year and any specific
spending authorizations approved by the Town Board. I interpret “materially deviate” to
mean any change in spending priority that results in diverting resources away from any
Board objective, goal or outcome substantial enough to contribute to not achieving the
objective, goal or outcome. I do not interpret minor deviations resulting from changing
circumstances, community demands and unforeseen circumstances outside of the Town’s
control, as material deviations.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
Budget spending does not materially deviate from the levels approved in the adopted
budget.
Evidence:
1. The adopted budget was prepared based on the Board stated priorities.
2. There have been no substantial budget changes presented to the Board for review
4
and approval as of this date.
3. HTE Budget reports for each department are available on a regular basis or as
requested.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.3. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which contains
inadequate information to enable credible projection of revenues and
expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow and
subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning assumptions.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean the budget, as recommended by the Town
Administrator, must be based on credible data and the best available information
concerning the local economy and other factors that may impact our revenues and
expenses. In addition, the budget is to be structured to separate capital expenditures
from operational costs. All revenue projects will be conservative and it is more critical not
to overestimate revenues vs underestimating revenues.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. Revenue projections are clear and deviations between projected an actual
revenues are within a 5-10%, barring any catastrophic events.
2. Actual revenue received and reported to date is not less than projected.
3. The Budget presented to the Board for adoption is in a format the separates
revenues, expenses and capital expenditures.
4. Any assumptions used in preparing the budget are clearly articulated to the Board
during budget review sessions.
Evidence:
1. Currently our sales tax revenue to date (as reported, collections run about 45
days in arrears due to State collection and reporting) is 5.74% higher than in 2016
and higher than projected for 2017 (3.9%). (through November)
2. Current revenue is not less than projected.
3. The current budget and proposed budget are both presented in the format that
separates revenues, expenses and capital.
4. Assumptions leading to the projects were discussed with the Board during budget
review sessions.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.4. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which plans the
expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively
projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available.
5
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the proposed budget must be balanced.
This includes expenditures for the year not exceeding the revenues received from all
sources. Exceptions are Board approved use of fund balances, and use of funds that have
been accumulated over a period of time, with the approval of the Board, with the intent of
saving funds to pay for a specific project or capital expense.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The proposed budget meets the above criteria and year end expenses do not exceed
year end revenues, inclusive of any board approve spending of fund balance or specific
reserve funds.
Evidence:
1. The adopted budget and the CAFR document provide independent evidence that I
have not allowed budgeting which plans the expenditure in any fiscal year of more
funds than are conservatively projected to be received in that period, or which are
otherwise available.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.5. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which reduces fund
balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that established by the
Board of Trustees.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I the audited year end unrestricted fund
balance in the General Fund does not drop below 20% unless otherwise authorized by the
Board. If the Board approves and adopts a budget that plans for reducing the fund
balance below the 20% level, I interpret this as being authorized by the Board. (This
interpretation will be modified if the Board adopts a cash reserve minimum policy in the
future. Staff will be bringing options for such a policy forward in the near future for Board
consideration, as directed in the September study session.)
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. The final CAFR indicates that a general fund fund balance of 20% or greater, or as
otherwise approved by the Town Board.
2. The proposed budget anticipates an end of year fund balance in the General Fund
of 20% or greater unless otherwise approved by the Town Board..
Evidence:
1. The 2016 CAFR shows a 31.6% fund balance at the end of 2016
2. The 2017 budget anticipates a 20.4% fund balance at the end of 2017
3. The proposed 2018 budget anticipates a 23.1% fund balance at the end of 2018
Report: I report compliance
6
3.3.6. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Fails to
maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to significant
shortfalls within the Town’s budget.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I must prepare the budget, maintain a
fund balance of 20% or more in the general fund, and adequate fund balances in all
enterprise funds, including the required TABOR reserve.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. The final CAFR indicates that a general fund balance of 20% or greater.
2. The proposed budget anticipates an end of year fund balance in the General Fund
of 20% or greater.
3. The Town Board has adopted and approved a Formal Budget Contingency plan
Evidence:
1. The 2016 CAFR shows a 31.6% fund balance at the end of 2016
2. The 2017 budget anticipates a 20.4% fund balance at the end of 2017
3. The proposed 2018 budget anticipates a 23.1% fund balance at the end of 2018
4. Current cash and investment reserves are reported to the Board on a monthly
basis, as required by Board policy 670.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.7. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
provide for an annual audit.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I must ensure that the Town completes
an independent audit annually. Further, that audit report should result in an unqualified
and unmodified opinion from the Board’s auditors.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The audit is complete and presented to the Town Board.
Evidence:
1. The 2016 Audit has been completed and the CAFR prepared and submitted to
the State of Colorado.
2. The 2016 included an unqualified and unmodified opinion from the auditors
Report: I report compliance
3.3.8. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the current or
future bond ratings of the Town.
7
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot take any action that will result
any negative impact on the Town’s bond rating. This includes, maintaining adequate fund
balances as required in 3.3.5 and maintaining adequate bond coverage ratios for all
revenue bonds associated with the Town’s enterprise funds.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. I am in compliance with 3.3.5
2. Required bond coverage ratios are met.
Evidence:
1. The general fund year end fund balance is greater than 20%
2. The required Bond coverage ratio for L&P 125% and for Water is 110%. Our
current coverage for the L&P Bonds is 485% and for Water is 518%.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.9. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which results in new
positions to staffing levels without specific approval of the Board of Town
Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve positions funded by
grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in addition
to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing
budgeted funds are allocated.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot allow any new positions or
expansion of any part-time positions to be advertised or filled without prior Board
approval. I may allow the reduction in staffing without Board approval and any positions
or partial positions funded by grants or any temporary positions for which existing
budgeted funds are allocated may be filled without prior approval of the Board.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
No new positions or expansion of positions are approved and hired without approval of
the board, with the exceptions noted above.
Evidence:
1. All positions are indicated in the adopted and proposed budgets and no
unapproved positions are shown.
Report: I report compliance
8
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 9, 2018
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 9th day of January, 2018.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Rex Walker
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the
Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Walker/Koenig) to approve the Agenda, and it passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Garrett Faillaci/Town citizen spoke in support of using the current senior citizen location
at 220 4th Street for an infant and toddler childcare center. She has lived in Estes Park
for seven years, and commuted to the valley for work. She has struggled locating
childcare in Estes Park suitable for infancy and toddler ages, and would appreciate the
Town’s ability to provide a childcare center.
Maisie Greer/Town citizen understood the Town would be receiving proposals for
potential uses of the current senior center at 220 4th Street. She expressed her hope the
Board would see this as an opportunity to provide a childcare center. She noted using
an existing structure would allow for an easier transition and for families to live and work
in the town. She requested the Board remember the minimal options available for
childcare in Estes Park.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS.
Mayor Jirsa recognized January 9, 2018 as Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, and
encouraged citizens to show their support for Law Enforcers. He thanked Sergeant Rick
Life for his service.
Trustee Norris stated the Estes Valley Planning Commission would meet January 16,
2018. The Family Advisory Board (FAB) met on January 4, 2018, they have completed
the Community Resource Guide, available on the Town’s website. The next proposed
focus area for FAB would be on childcare in Estes Park.
Trustee Martchink requested citizens help Estes Park local Quinn Brett by attending
Hand Stands for Quinn on January 13, 2018. Quinn Brett suffered a severe spine injury
while climbing in Yosemite National Park in October 2017. The event proceeds would
go directly towards Quinn’s rehabilitation and the mental and physical barriers she now
faces. Mayor Jirsa agreed with Trustee Martchink’s sentiments and encouraged those
not able to attend the event visit handstandsforquinn.com and participate in the silent
auction.
DRAFT9
Board of Trustees – January 9, 2018 – Page 2
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated the next Sister City meeting would be held January 10,
2018.
Trustee Nelson announced he would be running for a second term as Trustee during
the April 3, 2018 Municipal Election.
Trustee Holcomb stated the next Visit Estes Park Board meeting would be January 10,
2018. The Economic Development Corporation (EDC) would hold a housing forum
January 10, 2018 to discuss the need for affordable and workforce housing in the town.
He also announced his candidacy for re-election as Trustee.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Town Administrator Lancaster met with the R-3 School District regarding the recently
passed mill levy and their intentions to build a facility for vocational education. In
consideration of the limited land for building, the District proposed building on a section
of Stanley Park land across from the Estes Park High School. The identified land is
deed restricted, held by the defunct and unrepresented Estes Park Development
Company (EPDC). In order to proceed, the Town would apply to the court for a quiet
title of the property. He requested the Board’s opinions on continued discussions with
the School District and further staff and attorney efforts to apply for the quiet title.
Attorney White noted a quiet title was previously attempted on the 17 acres owned by
the EPDC. This process was not completed due to citizen’s fears of the land being sold.
With the quiet title the Town would have the option of selling the land to the School
District or entering into a long-term lease agreement.
Trustee Nelson voiced his interest in the quiet title; however, he would appreciate an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to control the use of the land. Administrator
Lancaster confirmed an IGA would be done if the Town maintained ownership. It was
agreed that the Town would proceed in acquiring the quiet title.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated December 12, 2017 and Town Board Study
Session dated December 12, 2017.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes - None.
A. Audit Committee Minutes dated December 14, 2017.
4. Family Advisory Board Minutes dated December 7, 2017 (acknowledgment
only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated November 17, 2017 (acknowledgment
only).
6. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated November 15, 2017.
7. Resolution #31-17 – Fair Housing (Continued from December 12, 2017
meeting).
8. Resolution #01-18 – Public Posting Area Designation.
9. Resolution #02-18 Setting the Public Hearing date of January 23, 2018 for a
New Beer & Wine Liquor License filed by Trendz at the Park, 100 E. Elkhorn
Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Walker) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously. DRAFT10
Board of Trustees – January 9, 2018 – Page 3
2. ACTION ITEMS:
1. APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING
THE NORTHERN COLORADO REGIONAL TOURISM AUTHORITY
(NCRTA). Town Attorney White presented the IGA between the City of
Loveland, Town of Windsor, Town of Estes Park, and Larimer County,
Colorado to formally establish the NCRTA as a nonprofit entity, a result of “Go
NOCO”. The NCRTA would receive and distribute Regional Tourism Authority
(RTA) funding to four projects in Northern Colorado, including The Stanley Film
Center. The IGA would be governed by 15 board members with Mayor Jirsa
and Mike Abbiatti acting as representatives of Estes Park. Mayor Jirsa noted
grant funds were beginning to be received. It was moved and seconded
(Martchink/Holcomb) to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement
Establishing the Northern Colorado Regional Tourism Authority, and it
passed unanimously.
2. AWARD AUDIT CONTRACT FOR THE YEARS ENDING DECEMBER 31,
2017 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2021. Director Hudson presented the
recommendation to appoint Anton Collins Mitchell LLP (ACM) as the Town
Auditor. A previous recommendation of Swanhorst & Company LLC, was
presented and approved by the Board on November 28, 2017. Confidence in
the Town Auditor, by the Board, would be integral to a successful collaboration.
The previous selection of Swanhorst & Company LLC did not display that
confidence from all members of the Board, thus the Audit Committee
reevaluated its recommendation to the Board. Director Hudson elaborated on
the factors that contributed to the recommendation of Swanhorst. These
included software capabilities, government auditing experience, and pricing
structure. When it was determined ACM had the capability to work with the
Town’s software the Audit Committee felt it appropriate to recommend ACM.
Background checks showed positive feedback on all potential auditors with
ACM having the least detailed experience with government auditing.
Trustee Nelson questioned why ACM was not recommended initially and
voiced concern that the audit contract was being revisited based on two
negative votes overruling 5 positive votes when awarding the audit contract to
Swanhorst. Mayor Jirsa explained that trust from all members of the Board in
the Town Auditor is crucial to a productive audit. Trustee Holcomb and Mayor
Pro Tem Koenig seconded Trustee Nelsons concerns regarding the previous
vote however; Mayor Pro Tem Koenig also acknowledged trust in the auditor as
a crucial component.
Trustees Holcomb and Nelson stated they would support the motion though
they did not agree with the reasons for revisiting the audit contract. Trustee
Norris requested staff alert the Board if any issues with ACM were noticed. It
was moved and seconded (Koenig/Walker) to Award the Audit Contract to
Anton Collins Mitchell LLP for the years ending in December 31, 2017
through December 31, 3021, and it passed with Mayor Pro Tem Koenig
abstaining.
3. APPOINTMENTS TO THE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION TASK
FORCE. Town Administrator Lancaster introduced the County Regional
Transportation Task Force for the purposes of coordinating regional
transportation issues and funding. The County requested a trustee be
appointed to the task force as a representation of the Town, Trustee Holcomb
has volunteered for this position. It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Norris)
to appoint Trustee Holcomb to the County Regional Transportation Task
Force, and it passed unanimously.
DRAFT11
Board of Trustees – January 9, 2018 – Page 4
4. CHANGE TO FAMILY ADVISORY BOARD FOCUS AREA. Assistant Town
Administrator Machalek explained FAB bylaws require a recommended focus
area to direct FAB efforts, approved by the Town Board. The current focus area
was to define gaps in family support services which were defined in the
Community Resource Guide. From the guide, FAB indentified childcare as a
critical issue for Estes Park families, and selected it as the next focus area.
FAB would await the results of the Childcare Needs Assessment currently
being conducted.
Jodi Roman/County citizen expressed her belief that the best use of the current
senior center at 220 4th Street would be for childcare. This would benefit more
citizens in Estes Park then museum storage or a second senior center.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen appreciated the new focus area and inquired
about the level of collaboration that would occur with the Childcare Services
Committee of the EDC.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb), to approve the 2018 Focus
Area on Childcare for the Family Advisory Board, and it passed
unanimously.
REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Martchink) to enter Executive Session for a
conference with the Town Attorney for the purposes of receiving legal advice on
specific legal questions per Section 24-6-402(4)(b), C.R.S., and it passed
unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 7:57 p.m. to enter into Executive
Session.
Mayor Jirsa reconvened the meeting to open session at 8:34 p.m. whereupon Mayor
Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary DRAFT12
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado January 9, 2018
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
Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 9th day of January 9,
2018.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Town Attorney White, Director Muhonen and
Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m.
REVIEW OF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND GOAL RANKINGS.
Administrator Lancaster stated the Board ranked the 2018 Board goals and those
rankings were presented to the Board. He requested direction from the Board on how
and if the rankings should be added to the 2018 Strategic Plan. Discussion followed by
the Board and it was noted the ranking should not mandate the items are addressed in
a specific order. All items outlined in the Strategic Plan are important to the Board and
the rankings should be used as a reference only.
DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Director Muhonen provided an overview of the plan which was developed to explore
downtown parking strategies focused on three key elements: seasonal paid parking, an
employee/resident parking program, and a downtown parking expansion plan. A
steering committee was formed to ensure the Transportation Advisory Board’s
objectives were heard as the plan was being developed. Public Works hired Kimley
Horn in early 2017 to develop a plan to address the concerns. An extensive public
outreach was conducted with 19 public outreach meetings and approximately 195
comments were received. Staff requested the Board provide guidance on next steps
such as the adoption of the plan at the January 23, 2018 Board meeting; expectations if
the plan moves forward, i.e. implementation efforts for 2018; and would the Board
support a budget amendment to fund implementation costs.
Vanessa Solesbee/The Solesbee Group provided a review of the key elements the plan
reviewed, including existing conditions summary, community conversation, best
practices research, comprehensive review of management strategies, exploration of
seasonal paid parking, analysis of future parking infrastructure. A comprehensive
review of management strategies included time-limited parking, add enforcement,
seasonal paid parking, multimodal investment, permit parking options,
dedicated/reserved parking, real-time info/guidance, education and marketing. The plan
recommended a four phase approach to address the parking issues downtown: Phase I
– Data collection and technology investments; Phase II - Initial seasonal paid parking
implementation; Phase III - Full implementation of seasonal paid parking; and Phase IV
- Investment in additional parking supply.
Phase I would include time limit modifications, real-time parking availability detection,
digital messaging signage, consistent enforcement & parking administration, and
performance evaluation. The phase would change some parking from 30 minutes to DRAFT13
Town Board Study Session – January 9, 2018 – Page 2
one hour and enforcing the time-limited parking, not aggressively but actively. Parking
downtown would remain free during the phase, and real-time parking detection and
digital messaging would be visible. The cost to implement the phase has been
estimated at approximately $100,000 in one-time costs and $100,000 in O&M with no
offsetting revenue.
Phase II would implement 562 paid parking spaces with pay stations and mobile
payment applications, include active enforcement, and parking performance
evaluation/occupancy and turnover study. Phase I changes would be reviewed to
ensure the changes were effective. Seasonal paid parking implementation would be
essential in addressing how behavior changes with the cost of parking in the downtown
area. The cost of the phase has been estimated at $200,000 in one-time costs and
$200,000 in O&M cost with $300,000 in annual revenue. The phase would maintain
58% of the downtown spaces as free parking. It was suggested the initial cost be no
less than a $1/hour because anything less would not encourage drivers to change
parking behavior.
Phase III would increase paid parking spaces up to 996 spaces, include online parking
permits, enhanced trolley service, additional real-time parking availability detection,
additional enforcement, additional parking administrator, and parking performance
evaluation/occupancy and turnover study. Capital cost for the phase would be
approximately $450,000 to $500,000 for trolley service and the cost of O&M at
$500,000. The estimated revenues using a conservative estimate would be $650,000
to $700,000. The available free parking spaces would decrease to 37%.
Phase IV would ensure the usage of the parking structure, offer a menu of
transportation choices, monitor effectiveness of recommended parking management
strategies, and identify sites and funding sources for an additional parking structure.
Sites reviewed and outlined in the plan included Town Hall, Post Office, Piccadilly
Square, Performance Park, Wiest/Moraine, and Cleave/Big Horn. The cost to build an
additional parking structure range from $2 million to $21 million. Public comments
suggested support for funding the structure through seasonal paid parking revenue,
sales tax, special taxing district and property tax, in that order of preference.
Trustee comments were heard and have been summarized: Overall the Board was
supported of the overview provided and the phased approach, which would provide the
Town a chance to gather data to make future phasing decisions; questions were raised
on how staff would monitor and enforce the parking limitations; how would the phasing
of the Master Plan move forward because the program was not included in the 2018
budget; questioned if the additional funds from the parking garage should be used to
implement the new program or should it be used to fund the needed turn lane from Hwy
36 onto Community Drive; and the Town needs the flexibility of a phased approach in
order to address the impacts of the Downtown Plan on parking and the use of the new
parking garage for a full season.
Staff indicated a park administrator and two parking attendants would be utilized to
gather the data and enforce parking. The parking attendants would be civilian positions
rather than sworn police officers, such as the CSO positions. Staff stated if the Plan
was adopted by the Town Board at the January 23, 2018 meeting, Phase I would begin
in 2018 and continue in 2019 to ensure the Town has collected needed data to
implement the next phase in 2020.
After further discussion the Board consensus was to move forward with consideration of
the Downtown Parking Master Plan at the January 23, 2018 Town Board meeting,
implementation of Phase I in May 2018 through 2019, and consideration of a
supplemental budget appropriation to fund Phase I in 2018. Mayor Jirsa and Trustee
Walker stated concern with adding staff and questioned the need.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS DRAFT14
Town Board Study Session – January 9, 2018 – Page 3
Administrator Lancaster informed the Board of Municipal Judge Brown’s retirement in
April. Staff has discussed a timeline and a process for the Board’s consideration and
input.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS
Future sessions scheduled include a discussion on the County Wide Wasteshed Study
and Stormwater Master Plan on February 13, 2018, Third Party Building Inspections on
February 27, 2018, and quarterly updates from CDOT on the Downtown Loop project to
be held on March 13, 2018, June 12, 2018, September 11, 2018 and December 11,
2018.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFT15
16
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 17, 2017
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the AUDIT COMMITTEE of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal
Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 17th day of November 2017.
Committee: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustee Holcomb,
Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Finance Director Hudson, Accounting Manager
Garcia, Accountant Johnson
Attending: Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustee Holcomb, Assistant Town
Administrator Machalek, Finance Director Hudson,
Accounting Manager Garcia, and Accountant Johnson
Absent: Mayor Jirsa, Town Administrator Lancaster
Chair Koenig called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Michael Bodman was also
present representing Visit Estes Park in the selection process.
AUDITOR INTERVIEWS
Director Hudson briefly reviewed the auditor selection process to date. The Request for
Proposals for Professional Auditing Services was issued September 6, 2017 with a
closing date of October 30, 2017. A total of five proposals were received. The proposal
review team consisting of Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Finance Director
Hudson, Accounting Manager Garcia, and Accountant Johnson reviewed and ranked
the proposals for qualifications, after which the dollar bids were opened. After
discussing the relative experience of the firms, the hours proposed, and the amount bid,
the review team recommended three firms be interviewed, Haynie & Company, Anton
Collins Mitchell LLP, and Swanhorst and Company LLC. Director Hudson stated that
the purpose of this meeting of the audit committee is to hold these interviews and for the
audit committee to recommend a firm to be appointed as the Town’s auditors to the full
Town Board.
Haynie & Company: Ms. Christine McLeod and Ms. Lori Morris presented a handout
going over the proposal from Haynie & Company. The proposed audit team from
Haynie & Company would consist of Ty Holman, Audit Partner; Nich Warnick,
Engagement Quality Review Partner; Christine McLeod, Audit Manager; and Shannon
Fuller, Senior Auditor. Other staff may be utilized as needed. Haynie & Company has
over 50 years of experience with 6 different locations. They currently serve
approximately 60 governmental clients.
Anton Collins Mitchell LLP: Mr. Steven Bolz and Ms. Krista Shockley presented a
handout going over the proposal from Anton Collins Mitchell LLP. The proposed audit
team from Anton Collins Mitchell LLP would consist of Randy Watkins, Engagement
Partner; Steven Bolz, Senior Manager; and Krista Shockley, Audit Senior. Other staff
may be utilized as needed. Anton Collins Mitchell LLP is based out of Greeley Colorado
and has approximately 15-20% of the audit practice devoted to government audits.
Krista highlighted the “Beyond the Numbers” report that Anton Collins Mitchell LLP
prepares and presents to the governing body in addition to the regular audit report. This
additional report includes comparison to peers, various ratios and other statistical data
to help the non-financial user understand the financial data presented.
Swanhorst & Company LLC: Ms. Wendy Swanhorst and Mr. Ken LeCrone presented
the proposal from Swanhorst & Company LLC. Unlike the other firms, Swanhorst &
Company LLC specializes in government audits, generating 85% of firm revenues from
auditing services and 80% of audits are governmental clients. The proposed audit team DRAFT17
Audit Committee – November 17, 2017 – Page 2
from Swanhorst & Company LLC would include Wendy Swanhorst, Engagement
Partner; Ken LeCrone, Audit Manager; Jacy Hochstetter, Audit Supervisor; Ron
Richardson, Senior Auditor; and Linda Frueh, Information Technology Consultant.
Swanhorst & Company LLC contracts with Linda Frueh to perform a detailed review of
the client’s IT functions and controls over financial software programs.
After the presentations were completed, the audit committee and staff discussed the
merits of each firm. After discussion of the challenges of extracting electronic data out
of the accounting system, it was agreed that Swanhorst & Company LLC seemed most
comfortable working with the data in the form available. Swanhorst & Company LLC
had performed the Town’s audit in the past with satisfactory results and was also the
low bidder. After further discussion, the Audit Committee unanimously agreed to
recommend appointment of Swanhorst & Company LLC as the Town’s auditors for the
year ending December 31, 2017 with optional renewals for the next four years through
December 31, 2021.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
Duane Hudson, Finance Director DRAFT18
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 14, 2017
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Conference Room of the Estes Park
Museum on the 14th day of December, 2017.
Present Carlie Bangs
Vicki Papineau
Merle Moore
Ronna Boles
Also
Present: Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Patrick Martchink, Town Board Liaison
Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor
Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
Absent: Dewain Lockwood
Terry Rustin
Acting Chair Merle Moore called the meeting to order at 8:36 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comments
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded (Papineau/Boles) to approve the November meeting
minutes with minor corrections and the motion passed unanimously.
PARKS DIVISION UPDATE
The Estes Park In Bloom (EPIB) Steering Committee decided not to have judges come
to Estes Park in 2018. One reason for this is to allow more focus on the Business Bright
Spot (BBS) program. In 2018 the program will incorporate homeowners to recognize as
the “Resident Bright Spot” (RBS) for a determined time period. The Parks Division is
looking at allocating funds to these programs.
The Parks Division is working to switch out benches throughout town and Keri Kelly is
working on the flower order for next year.
19
Parks Advisory Board – December 14, 2017 – Page 2
Wade Johnston, the individual appointed to fulfill the remainder of a term ending
December 31, 2019, attended this month’s meeting as part of the public. Johnston will
begin his term in January. Merle Moore was reappointed, and Geoffrey Elliot was newly
appointed to 3-year terms beginning in January and ending December 31, 2020 .
AIPP GUIDELINE REVIEW
The PAB reviewed and discussed minor edits to the Arts In Public Places (AIPP)
Guidelines. Megan Van Hoozer will make the approved changes and will redistribute the
draft to the PAB for final review.
Member Bangs will look into grant opportunities for art in public spaces. Acting Chair
Moore expressed the need for the Town to support artwork in a more active manner.
In 2018, it was suggested to have other towns with successful AIPP programs to attend
a meeting to share their experiences and lesson’s learned (i.e. Grand Junction, Vail,
Salida, etc.) Per Supervisor Berg, it would be best to have them attend earlier in the
year rather than later. Public Works Director, Greg Muhonen stated that the Town Board
reviews the strategic plan in June and suggested the meeting take place prior because
the strategic plan becomes the basis for the upcoming budget. It is important to have
the art community in Estes Park attend the same meeting and join the unified cause.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussions took place regarding Light & Power relinquishing management of the
utility boxes and appointing Supervisor Berg to assume responsibility moving
forward. This will require further discussion between department directors.
Mountain Heritage Festival – In 2018 the festival takes place at the same time
another mountain music festival occurs. The other festival would take over the
music portion typically handled by the Mountain Heritage Festival. This will now
allow time to concentrate more on the educational portion of the festival.
Co-Chair Moore will be taking photos of the newly painted utility boxes to add to
inventory of public art.
Larimer County plans to visit ELSA on 1/4/18 at 9:30am at the US Bank building
about weed management.
Mrs. Walsh’s Garden Committee to begin committee meetings in January
establishing one-year and five-year planning.
20
Parks Advisory Board – December 14, 2017 – Page 3
With no further business to discuss, the motion was made and seconded
(Bangs/Papineau) to adjourn the meeting at 9:54 am.
21
22
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 20, 2017
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 203 of Town Hall on the 20th
day of December, 2017.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Gordon Slack
Ann Finley
Belle Morris
Stan Black
Ken Zornes
Also Present: Bob Holcomb, Town Board Liaison
Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
David Hook, Engineering Manager
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Lochen Wood, RMNP
Absent: Claudine Perrault
Tom Street
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:03 p.m.
For the record, the Town of Estes Park thanks the dedicated volunteers of the
Transportation Advisory Board for all the hard work throughout 2017.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
A motion was made and seconded (Slack/Finley) to approve the November minutes with
minor edits and all were in favor.
SHUTTLE UPDATE
No Shuttle Committee representation was in attendance.
PROJECT UPDATES, David Hook, Public Works Engineering Manager
US36 / Community Drive Turn Lane:
Manager Hook informed the group that this project will proceed under his direction
beginning after the first of the new year. No updates were provided at this time however
Hook stated that construction is planned to begin in spring 2018.
23
Transportation Advisory Board – December 20, 2017 – Page 2
Fall River Trail:
Grant applications to both Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) and Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) have been submitted and any needed follow-up information
has been provided. On January 11, 2018 there will be a presentation for grantors.
Manager Hook feels confident a positive outcome will occur.
Public Works continues to look into other grant opportunities for recreational activities
including fishing to be incorporated along the new trail.
Rocky Mountain National Park representative Lochen Wood to provide contact
information to Manager Hook for future grant support letters.
Digital Message Signs:
Manager Hook will begin work on getting the installation of the digital message signs
moving along with a goal to have all signs erected by summer 2018.
Brodie Avenue Improvements:
This is the primary 2018 Street Improvement Project (STIP). A design consultant has
been selected and a contract secured with Drexel Barrell for this project. The design
process has started and will continue for the next several months. Public Works
anticipates soliciting bids for construction in April, 2018. Prior to that two public meetings
will take place when the design is 30% complete and again at 90% completion.
MacGregor Avenue Improvements:
Punchlist items will continue to take place this week and will be finalized next week.
Completion of MacGregor Avenue Improvements will close out 2017 STIP projects.
CDOT has identified a project for the MacGregor/Wonderview (Hwy34) intersection. The
project will be to design and construct intersection improvements including a potential
roundabout installation. The project may take place in 2019, but the summer visitor
season may require the project be pushed to 2020. Public Works Director Greg Muhonen
and Manager Hook will serve as the Town liaisons to the selected CDOT contractor.
Chair Campbell asked about the potential for an underpass to be constructed under
Wonderview (Hwy34) along MacGregor to allow safer crossing. Manager Hook will
communicate this as a suggestion.
24
Transportation Advisory Board – December 20, 2017 – Page 3
Moraine Avenue Improvements: Construction continues and the Town of Estes Park
Utilities Department has completed a large portion of their planned work. Shoring is
currently taking place at the four corners utilizing soil nails. It is critical to secure these
corners due to their close proximity to businesses. All shoring to be complete this week.
Once complete, the larger demolition and excavation can proceed.
Town utility work south of the Moraine Bridge is complete for this phase of work and is
now open to 2-way traffic (change made today). Public Works has invited comments from
the TAB once new detour is used.
The construction contract reflects completion date of May 17, 2018. Public outreach
regarding full closure of Elkhorn/Moraine intersection in April 2018 will begin taking place.
From Riverside Drive to the water wheel at the west end of downtown, vehicle traffic will
be prohibited for approximately 2 weeks. The details on the detour will be released very
soon.
Member Morris shared complaints expressed on Facebook stating some businesses feel
no one knows their business is open due to lack of signage.
The project team is now sending letters out to businesses as part of the one-on-one
outreach. A public open house is scheduled in February, 2018. Chair Campbell suggested
for future projects it would be best to send the letters to the affected businesses prior to
public outreach efforts.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK UPDATE:
Lochen Wood shared that she is continuing the work previously conducted by Erika Cole.
At that time, Cole’s team worked on short-term activities to help with transportation issues
within RMNP. Wood stated it is now time to focus on more in-depth, long-term solutions
which is the role for which she was hired. Not all transportation issues can be solved, but
the key initiative is a day use visitor access strategy. Wood has been tasked with creating
an adaptable strategy to improve access issues, improve staff safety, and to help the
overall visitor experience. Wood has been going through a comprehensive review
process to identify critical needs. Short-term solutions will continue to be utilized
throughout 2018.
Wood also informed the group that Larry Gamble would be retiring from his position at
Rocky Mountain National Park at the end of the month. A card would be circulated for
member signatures and notes of appreciation for all the support provided the TAB
25
Transportation Advisory Board – December 20, 2017 – Page 4
initiatives over the years. Once complete the card would be provided to Wood for delivery
to Gamble.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chair Campbell reminded the TAB that Chair / Co-Chair elections take place in January
and she will not be continuing as TAB Chairperson so she asked that members be
thinking about that.
The Downtown Parking Management Plan (DPMP) Steering Committee is taking a new
approach. At the first January Town Board Study Session, Kimley-Horn will be presenting
the draft plan with Chair Campbell and Director Muhonen speaking.
The first step is for the TAB support letter to be provided to the trustees by TAB
representative Campbell prior to the first January Study Session
The second step is to gain Town Board approval of the plan at the January 23 rd
Town Board meeting. This date may need pushed back if concerns arise.
The third step is to create and present a new letter of recommendation/support.
The TAB discussed the letter drafted by Chair Campbell per input communicated by the
members in the November meeting.
Member Slack expressed concern that the letter is communicating a different plan than
what was proposed to the public. Chair Campbell wants all concerns/ideas/philosophies
shared in the letter of support to be properly presented in the study session to allow
flexibility in the plan.
Slack also expressed that the technology desires need pushed in the letter of support
although it’s all been defined within the draft plan. Chair Campbell suggested waiting until
a Parking Manager has been hired before communicating all preferences but does feel it
is critical that the letter focus on the multi-modal aspect of the plan. Director Muhonen
concurred that the specific needs can be communicated at a later time.
Muhonen further stated that the overall goal at this time is to gain Town Board approval
to move forward with the plan document. Moving forward will allow proper allocation of
funds in the future and will allow usage of the parking structure savings to implement
phase one in 2018.
26
Transportation Advisory Board – December 20, 2017 – Page 5
As the discussion continued, Member Morris stated it is important to incorporate all the
historical studies into the letter and Campbell agreed. Member Finley wants the group to
focus on the fact that the key is the TAB wants this plan to succeed as parking
management is critically needed in Estes Park.
Member Black expressed disappointment that there’s no employee protections to paid
parking as originally stated. Campbell stated the strategy it is only to modify driver
behavior. Employees can park off-site and not have to pay. Muhonen reminded the TAB
to revisit pages 63-68 of the plan where shuttle expansion options help address employee
needs.
Member Hamrick expressed that due to all member concerns being communicated in the
letter, the TAB may be putting up its own road block to getting the plan approved to move
forward. Hamrick asked if an option would be to revamp elements of the plan at a later
date. Director Muhonen agreed reminding that this plan is not intended to be a regulatory
document but a guiding document. As with other guiding documents many items will
require change over time.
Town Board Liaison Holcomb suggested that the letter be kept simple and supportive
while acknowledging appreciation to the Town Board Trustees for their review of the plan.
It is important to set aside funding in each budget year to support realization of the plan.
Chair Campbell requested a vote to draft a new, more focused letter, emailing the letter
to the TAB and getting an email vote for approval. All were in favor.
With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 1:48 p.m.
27
28
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 14, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Russ Schneider, Vice‐Chair Bob Leavitt, Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve
Murphree, Sharry White, Robert Foster, Doyle Baker
Attending: Chair Russ Schneider, Vice‐Chair Leavitt, Commissioners Steve Murphree, Sharry
White, Robert Foster
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner Audem Gonzales,
Planner Carrie McCool, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Planner Robin
Becker, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley,
and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: Commissioners Baker and Hull
Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. He explained the purpose of the Planning
Commission. There were approximately 50 people in attendance.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (White/Foster) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion
passed 5‐0 with two absent.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Greg Rosener/town resident commented on the two memos presented by Town Attorney White
and Director Hunt regarding the responsibilities of the Planning Commission.
Rebecca Urquhart/town resident stated Town Attorney White issues opinions on how “the Code”
is interpreted.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes of October 17, 2017 Planning Commission meeting.
B. Large Vacation Home Rental; 1020 Otis Lane; Melissa Hawley/Owner
It was moved and seconded (White/Leavitt) to approve the consent agenda as amended and the
motion passed 5‐0.
4. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 17.66 ‐ SIGNS
Linda Hardin, Code Compliance Officer (CCO) stated this item was continued from the September
19, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. She met with the Estes Valley Board of Realtors and the
Estes Park Partners for Commerce regarding the proposed revisions to the sign code to get their
feedback. The most recent revisions to the code can be viewed on the Town website.
Staff/Commission Discussion
There was brief discussion regarding political signs. 29
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 14, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Public Comment
None.
It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Murphree) to recommend approval to the Town Board of
Trustees the amendment to the Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66 as presented,
including findings as recommended by staff and the motion passed 5‐0 with two absent.
5. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING OUTDOOR FOOD
VENDORS
Planner Becker stated this item was continued from the October 17, 2017 Planning Commission
meeting. Revisions were made following feedback from businesses using food trucks, and food
truck owners. The proposed amendment would require the applicant to undergo an application
process with a staff‐level review.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Planner Becker stated there would not be a limit on the number of food trucks allowed. Town
Attorney White stated it would be difficult for mobile food vendors to serve liquor due to state
regulations.
Public Comment
None.
It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Foster) to recommend approval to the Town Board of
Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners the text amendment to the Estes
Valley Development Code, with findings of fact and as recommended by staff and the motion
passed 5‐0 with two absent.
6. LOT 20, LITTLE PROSPECT MOUNTAIN ADDITION; REZONE FROM E–Estate to RM–Residential
Multi‐Family; 260 STANLEY AVENUE
Planner Gonzales stated the applicant desires to rezone 260 Stanley Avenue to proceed with a
proposed workforce or attainable housing development. Staff waived the requirement for a
development plan submittal with the rezoning application. A legal notice was published in the
local newspaper and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. No public comment was
received. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Murphree was supportive of the project. There was brief discussion regarding the
process for notifying adjacent property owners.
Public Comment
None.
30
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 14, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Murphree) to recommend to the Estes Park Town Trustees
the 260 Stanley Avenue Zoning Map Amendment according to findings of fact with findings
recommended by staff and the motion passed 5‐0 with two absent.
Chair Schneider read a statement concerning differences of opinion and the goal to be a community.
He expects the members of the public in attendance today to be respectful and accepting of the
outcome of the Commissioner’s decisions. Commissioner Murphree stated Engineers are licensed by
the state and their findings should be considered valid and accurate.
7. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT; RAVEN ROCK
TOWNHOMES; TBD PROMONTORY DRIVE
Planner Gonzales stated this application was continued from the October 17, 2017 Planning
Commission meeting. The applicant met with the neighbors, and subsequently made some
revisions to the plans. Darcy Tiglas/environmental consultant submitted a letter stating the elk
migration patterns would not be interrupted by this development. Staff presented research on
county zoning of this parcel prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. Staff
does not make recommendations based on the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, but uses it as a
development guideline. The comprehensive plan is not a regulatory document. Staff
recommends approval of the project.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Planner Gonzales stated the most recent staff report does not include reference to the
comprehensive plan in order to avoid confusion with the public and the Commissioners who may
think the comprehensive plan is a regulatory document.
Applicant Presentation
Jim Mackey/applicant stated his team applied best practices and principles in the code regarding
this development
Joe Coop/project manager reviewed the revisions made to the plans, which were the result of
meetings with the neighbors
David Bangs/project engineer briefly discussed the final drainage design, which will be reviewed
by the Town Engineer and will be a part of the Final Plat application.
Darcy Tiglas/environmental consultant reviewed her letter regarding elk migration in the area.
According to comments from the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife Officer Larry Rogstad,
there are no set elk migration corridors across the subject property. Mr. Rogstad recommended
protecting the riparian area, building clustering, and landscaping that will keep residents safe by
not surprising wildlife. Other recommendations can be read in his letter. As a state agency, CPW
only becomes involved in local land use review at the request of the local agencies, and their
comments are advisory.
31
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 14, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering commented on traffic. Greg Muhonen/Public Works
Director reviewed and approved the traffic report. Crosswalks are not warranted for this area,
and the parking requirement has been exceeded.
Jim Mackey/applicant reviewed his discussions with the neighbors and explained the changes that
were made to the plans. He clarified how square footage of the dwellings is calculated.
Public Comment
Michael Keilty/town resident submitted and read a written comment.
Dawn James/town resident thanked Planner Gonzales for sending the application to the Division
of Parks and Wildlife.
Richard James/town resident stated the applicant needs to comply with both the development
code and the comprehensive plan.
Marie Gordon/town resident stated the comprehensive plan’s overall theme is to protect the
Marys Lake corridor. She was opposed to the development.
Claire Ray/town resident stated there have been some positive revisions to the plan that would
not have happened if it were not for the continuances.
Jon Nicholas/Economic Development Corp. shared his opinion regarding what might happen if the
Planning Commission begins to base their decisions on the contents of the comprehensive plan
rather than the development code.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Each Commissioner provided a closing statement. There were final comments also made by Mr.
Sheldon and Mr. Mackey.
It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/White) to recommend denial of the Raven Rock Preliminary
Plat Townhome Subdivision to the Estes Park Town Board and the motion passed 3‐2 with
Commissioners White, Leavitt and Foster voting for and Commissioners Schneider and
Murphree voting against.
It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Foster) to deny the Raven Rock Development Plan finding
it does not meet comprehensive plan standards and it is an unacceptable precedent moving
forward and the motion passed 3‐2 with Commissioners White, Leavitt, and Foster voting in
favor and Commissioners Schneider and Murphree voting against.
32
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 14, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Director Hunt stated the appeal process will involve a written request to appeal. The deadline to
appeal to the Town Board for the November 28th meeting is tomorrow at 5 p.m.
8. REPORTS
Senior Planner Woeber reminded the Commissioners of the Planning Refresher workshop on
November 29, 2017 from 4 to 6:30 p.m. This workshop will be presented by the state Department
of Local Affairs.
There being no further business, Chair Schneider adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m.
_________________________________
Russ Schneider, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
33
34
Public Forums and Meetings 1/23/2018
Revisions: 1/23/2018 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Policies Page 1 of 2
Effective Period: until supersceeded
Review Schedule: Annually - February
Effective Date: April 14th, 2015
References: Policy Governance 1.1
ADMINISTRATION
106
PUBLIC FORUMS AND MEETINGS
1. PURPOSE –
To provide direction for holding public outreach through public meetings and/or forums
on public policy issues.
This policy is only applicable to forums sponsored by the Town of Estes Park.
2. POLICY
a. For the purposes of this policy, a public forum is any meeting, forum, charette or
open house that is designed for the purpose of soliciting input and public opinion
from citizens on proposed new or revised regulations, ordinance or program of
the Town. It does not include regularly scheduled meetings or meetings with
citizens associated with existing projects, such as land use applications or
approved infrastructure projects, or any meeting designed to disseminate
information to the public.
b. Approval of the Board of Trustees is required prior to the scheduling or
promotion of any public meeting or forum as defined above.
3. PROCEDURE
a. Any staff or appointed Town body desiring to host a public meeting or forum as
defined in this policy must first contact the Town Administrator and request that
he/she bring the proposal for the meeting before the full Town Board.
b. The Town Administrator may either bring the proposal for the meeting before the
full Town Board at a regular board meeting, or may poll individual board
members via e-mail. If no Trustee objects to the public meeting, staff may
proceed. If any Trustee individual objects to the public meeting, the Town
Administrator shall schedule the issue for discussion at an upcoming regularly
scheduled Town Board meeting.
c. Only after receiving approval from the Town Board shall staff proceed with a
public forum on any public policy issue as defined in 2a above.
35
Public Forums and Meetings 1/23/2018
Revisions: 1/23/2018 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Policies Page 2 of 2
Approved:
_____________________________
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
_____________
Date
36
1
July 2002
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION
NEW LIQUOR LICENSE
1. MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on the application of DNC Parks
& Resorts at Trendz, Inc. dba Trendz at the Park for a new Beer & Wine Liquor
License located at 100 E. Elkhorn Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the facts and evidence
determined as a result of its investigation, as well as any other facts, the reasonable
requirements of the neighborhood for the type of license for which application has
been made, the desires of the adult inhabitants, the number, type and availability of
liquor outlets located in or near the neighborhood under consideration, and any other
pertinent matters affecting the qualifications of the applicant for the conduct of the type
of business proposed.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
2. TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following:
The application was filed December 6, 2017.
At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on January 9, 2018, the public hearing
was set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 23, 2018.
The neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing
were established to be 2.90 miles.
The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs.
The applicant is filing as a Corporation.
The property is zoned CD – Commercial Downtown which allows this
type of business as a permitted use.
The notice of hearing was published on January 12, 2018 .
The premises was posted on Janaury 10, 2018 .
37
2
There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant.
Status of T.I.P.S. Training:
X Unscheduled Scheduled * Completed
There is a map indicating all liquor outlets presently in the Town of Estes Park
available upon request.
3. APPLICANT.
The applicants will be allowed to state their case and present any evidence they
wish to support the application.
4. OPPONENTS.
The opponents will be given an opportunity to state their case and present any
evidence in opposition to the application.
The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal limited to the evidence presented by the
opponents. No new evidence may be submitted.
5. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the application and, if so, to read all communication.
Indicate that all evidence presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any questions of any person speaking at
any time during the course of this hearing.
Declare the public hearing closed.
6. SUGGESTED MOTION:
Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the
neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and
that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor
license.
Motion. Based upon the above findings, I move that this license be granted/denied.
38
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: January 23, 2018
RE: Liquor Licensing: New Beer & Wine Liquor License Application for DNC
Parks & Resorts at Trendz, Inc. dba Trendz at the Park, 100 E. Elkhorn
Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado
Objective:
Approval of a new Beer & Wine liquor license located at 100 E. Elkhorn Avenue, Estes
Park, Colorado. Application filed by DNC Parks & Resorts at Trendz, Inc. dba Trendz at
the Park.
Present Situation:
An application for a new Beer & Wine liquor license was received by the Town Clerk’s
office on January 6, 2017. All necessary paperwork and fees were submitted; please
see the attached Procedure for Hearing on Application – New Liquor License for
additional information. The applicant is aware of the Town Board’s Training for
Intervention Procedures (TIPS) requirement and has not been schedule at the time of
this memo.
Proposal:
To present the application for the Town Board’s review and consideration for a new
Beer & Wine liquor license.
Advantages:
Approval of the license provides the business owner with the opportunity to operate a
liquor-licensed establishment in the Town of Estes Park.
Disadvantages:
The owner is denied a business opportunity to serve alcohol to patrons.
Action Recommended:
Approval of the application for a new Beer & Wine liquor license.
Budget:
The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a new Beer & Wine liquor license is
$1,112.00. The fee covers the administrative costs related to processing the
application, background checks, and business licensing. In addition, the annual 39
renewal fee payable to the Town of Estes Park for a Beer & Wine Liquor license is
$662.
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood
are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of
the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor license. Based upon
these findings, I move that the application for a new Beer & Wine liquor license filed by
DNC Parks & Resorts at Trendz, Inc. dba Trendz at the Park be approved/denied.
Attachments:
Procedure for Hearing
Application
Individual History
Police Report
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Robin Becker Planner I
Date: January 23, 2018
RE: Ordinance # 34-17 Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley
Development Code: EVDC §5.4 Temporary Uses and Structures:
Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit, §3-17 Outdoor Mobile Food
Vending Permit Review Procedures and Standards, §4.4
Nonresidential Zoning Districts, Chapter 13 Definitions, and
Appendix B Submittal Requirements
Objective:
Review and Recommendation on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) regarding the inclusion of an Outdoor Mobile Food
Vending Permit.
The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to do the
following:
Provide an opportunity for a current unsatisfied need in the Estes Valley for
Outdoor Mobile Food vendors to operate with a permit specific to the use.
Provide a clear interpretation of how and where this operation is allowed in
specific zoning districts in the Estes Valley Zoning Code.
Update our plan to accommodate current mobile food vendor needs that are
economically beneficial to the Town and local business owners.
Present Situation:
Currently the process to regulate these outdoor mobile food vendors is through a
temporary use permit. It is common planning practice around the United States to
provide a more streamlined and activity specific permit.
This lack of applicable code and or permit specific to this use due to the fact that
outdoor mobile food vendors were limited in existence and they have evolved in the
past ten to fifteen years. It is our time to adapt to meet the changing food requests and
needs of the population.
Proposal:
An outdoor mobile food vending permit would allow local and new entrepreneurs to
become invested and involved in the Estes Valley. These businesses would also serve
a need for alternative food options for businesses that find it cost prohibitive to have a
kitchen on site, i.e. distilleries, breweries and beer gardens. The one year permit would 71
allow for flexibility with both the businesses being served and the outdoor mobile food
vendor. Furthermore by providing this permit to local businesses and outdoor mobile
food vendors we are allowing our community to both have their cake and eat it too.
It is staff’s recommendation that including this outdoor mobile food vending permit in
the EVDC would meet a growing need for both new and local businesses and locals
and visitors alike. This is shown through our outreach with many current mobile food
vendors and local businesses. These include feedback and code amendment
contributions from Elkins Distilling Co, Lumpy Ridge Brewing Co, Rock Cut Brewing
Co, and Snowy Peaks Winery. Further feedback was provided from Rations LLC, and
Ladybug BBQ (food trucks operating in Town). We appreciate their time and energy in
the public outreach process and hope to provide them the best with this Code
Amendment.
Amend EVDC section §5.4, §3-17, §4.4, Chapter 13 Definitions, and Appendix B
Submittal Requirements, as stated in Exhibit A [“TB Draft”], dated January 23, 2017,
attached.
Advantages:
Provides a specific permit for outdoor mobile food vendors instead of attempting
to add them to permits not applicable to their use; e.g., Temporary Use Permits.
Provides more food variety and options to locals, business owners and visitors.
More organized structure and health and safety regulation for Outdoor Mobile
Food Vendors.
Disadvantages:
Local restaurants may perceive a strain or more competition.
Action Recommended:
Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review for a decision to approve, deny, or
approve with conditions.
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
High: This issue has attracted the interest of local business and restaurant owners.
Low: This particular Code Amendment
Sample Motion:
APPROVAL
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve Ordinance No. 34-17, amending the
Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibit A, finding that the amendment is in
accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code.
72
Attachments:
Ordinance #34-17 (OUTDOOR MOBILE FOOD VENDING PERMIT)
Exhibit A- (January 23rd, 2018)
73
ORDINANCE NO. 34-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
REGARDING OUTDOOR MOBILE FOOD VENDING PERMIT
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
conducted public hearings on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code, Sections §5.4 Temporary Uses and Structures: Outdoor Mobile
Food Vending Permit, §3-17 Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit Review Procedures
and Standards, §4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts, Chapter 13 Definitions, and
Appendix B Submittal Requirements; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
voted to recommend approval of the text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text
amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review and has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that
the amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, as set forth on Exhibit A, be
approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code is set forth
on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
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 day of _______, 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
74
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting
of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2018 and
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on
the ________ day of , 2018, all as required by the Statutes of
the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
75
EXHIBIT A
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees
[January 23, 2018]
Chapter 3. Review Procedures and Standards
Table of Contents
§3-17 OUTDOOR MOBILE FOOD VENDING PERMIT…………………………………………3-23
A. Applicability.
B. Procedures for Approval of Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit.
C. Conditions of Approval.
D. Time Limits on Permit.
76
§ 3.17 Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit
A. Applicability. All outdoor mobile food vendor uses and structures shall obtain an
Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit pursuant to the procedures set forth in this
Section, prior to commencing operation and continuing throughout the entire period
(s) of operation.
B. Procedures for Approval of Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit. The
procedure for processing or approving an application for an outdoor mobile food
vending Permit shall be as follows:
1. Step 1: Pre-application Conference. A pre-application conference shall be
voluntary for outdoor mobile food vending permit.
2. Step 2: Staff Review and Action. Within (10) days from the date a complete
application is submitted, the Staff shall review the application according to the
standards set forth in this code, and make a final decision to approve, approve with
conditions or deny the application.
C. Conditions of Approval. In approving an outdoor mobile food vending permit, the
Staff may impose conditions, regarding control of nuisance factors (e.g., glare, noise,
smoke, dust), provision of security and safety measures, and limitations on hours of
operation, storage and parking, provided that staff determines such conditions are
necessary to:
1. Achieve the general purposes of this Section and not interfere with specific
purposes of the zoning district in which the outdoor mobile food vending use will be
located, or to be consistent with the Code;
2. Protect the public health, safety and general welfare; or
3. Ensure operation and maintenance of the outdoor mobile food vending use in a
manner compatible with existing uses on adjoining properties and in the surrounding
area.
D. Time Limits on Permit. Outdoor mobile food vending permits shall be valid for a
specified period of time, not to exceed one year (365) days.
77
§4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts
D. Additional Zoning District
Standards……………………………………………………………………………………………4-21
1. Operational Requirements.
a. Outdoor Sales, Use, Storage and Activity in the CD Zoning District.
(3)Exceptions . Notwithstanding paragraph (1) above, the following outdoor uses,
storage or activity shall be permitted within the CD zoning district:
(f) Outdoor Mobile Food Vendor Uses.
78
Chapter 5. Use Regulations
Table of Contents
§5.4 OUTDOOR MOBILE FOOD VENDING USES………………………………………………5-27
A. Permit Required
B. Permit
C. General Standards for Review
D. Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Uses Allowed
79
§ 5.4 – Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit Uses
A. Permit Required.
All outdoor mobile food vending shall obtain an outdoor mobile food vending permit
pursuant to the procedures set forth in §3.17 of this Code prior to commencing
operation and continuing throughout the entire period (s) of operation.
B. Permit.
An outdoor mobile food vending permit authorizing an outdoor mobile food vending
use shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of §3.17, and shall be
reviewed, approved or revoked only in accordance with the regulations of this Section
and §3.17.
C. General Standards for Review.
All outdoor mobile food vendors shall meet the following requirements:
1. Outdoor mobile food vending uses shall not violate any applicable conditions of approval
that apply to the principal use on the site.
2. Outdoor mobile food vendors shall be classified as accessory uses in the zone districts
in which they are permitted provided they are on lots that contain a principal building
wherein active operations are being conducted. Outdoor vendors that qualify as
accessory uses shall not be subject to change-of-use regulations which would otherwise
require the properties upon which they are located be brought into compliance with the
standards of this Code.
3. The proposed outdoor mobile food vending use shall be located, operated and
maintained in a manner consistent with the policies and the provisions of this Code.
4. The outdoor mobile food vending use shall not be detrimental to property or
improvements in the surrounding area or to the public health, safety or general welfare.
5. Outdoor mobile food vendors shall be prohibited on undeveloped lots.
6. The proposed outdoor mobile food vending shall comply with all applicable general and
specific regulations of this Section and §3.17.
7. Permanent signs shall be prohibited. All approved temporary signs associated with the
temporary use shall be removed when the activity ends.
8. The following additional requirements shall apply to outdoor mobile food vendor permits,
as specified:
a) Vend only on lots in zone districts (CD, CO, I1, A, and CH);
b) Permanently affixed or paint any signage only on the mobile food facility, with
no signs/banners in or alongside street right-of-way or across roadways.
c) No permit applicant shall use, for the purpose of onsite storage, display, or
sale, any vehicle, cart, kiosk, table, chair, stand, box, container or other
structure or display device not described on the permit.
80
9. The vehicles, structures, devices and other similar items described by the permit for
any outdoor mobile food vendor shall not be located by the vendor in any of the
following manners or places:
a) Within the extended boundaries of a crosswalk
b) Within ten (10) feet of the extension of any building entranceway, and or
doorway;
c) In an location in which the vehicle, structure or device may impede or interfere
with or visually obstruct;
1) the safe movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic;
2) parking lot circulation; or
3) access to any public street, alley or sidewalk;
10. Each permittee shall pick up and dispose of any paper, cardboard, wood or plastic
containers, wrappers or any litter which is deposited within twenty- five (25) feet of the
center point of the designated location or within twenty-five (25) feet of the point of any
sale or transaction made by the permittee if any transect of the designated location
exceeds twenty-five (25) feet. The permittee shall have available a suitable container for
the placement of such litter by customers or other persons.
11. Each permittee shall not leave the outdoor mobile food facility unattended for more than
fifteen (15) minutes at any one time while engaged in business operations described in
the permit.
12. Each permittee shall prominently displace the permit issued hereunder in a location
readily visible to the public on each vehicle, structure, device and any other item
described in the permit.
13. Each permittee shall comply with the provisions of all applicable rules regulations and
ordinances of the Town and County as well as requirements of all state and federal laws,
including, but not limited to noise restrictions, sign regulations, limitations on discharge
of liquid waste, sales tax requirements, food safety, wildlife protection and other related
requirements.
14. No permittee shall operate from a location that is not authorized in the permit.
15. All lighting on vehicles must be compliant with applicable regulations.
16. The outdoor mobile food vending regulations of this Section shall not exempt the
Applicant from any other required permits, such as health department permits or
business licenses.
81
CHAPTER 13. DEFINITIONS
§ 13.3 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES
Outdoor Mobile Food Vendor; shall mean any person, whether as owner, agent, consignee or
employee, who sells or attempts to sell, or who offers to the public free of charge, any services,
goods, wares or merchandise, including, but not limited to, food or beverage, from any outdoor
location.
82
Appendix B. Submittal Requirements
Table of Contents
XI. OUTDOOR MOBILE FOOD VENDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL
REQUIREMENTS………………..B-19
A. Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit Application Requirements
Appendix B
XI. Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit- Submittal Requirements
A. Outdoor Mobile Food Vending Permit application requirements
The Application shall contain the following information:
1. An address or legal description for each location for which the application is made;
2. Written consent of the property owner(s) or lessee (s) of location(s) for which the
application is made;
3. A sketch plan of each location for which the application is made, showing the location
and approximate dimensions of existing and proposed structures, access, equipment
and parking;
4. Statement of Intent: A written Statement of Intent explaining:
a) The type or types of mobile food vendor operation the permittee will conduct;
b) The period of time within which the applicant proposed to operate;
c) The hours and days of proposed operation;
5. A brief description of any vehicle, cart, kiosk, table, chair, stand, box, container or other
structure or display device to be utilized by the permittee;
6. Any special terms and conditions of issuance;
7. A statement that the permit is personal and not transferable in any manner;
8. A statement that the permit is valid only when used at the location or locations
designated on the permit; a statement that the permit is subject to the provisions of this
Article.
9. Any other information the Applicant believes illustrates the proposed activity.
10. Documentation of a sales tax license in good standing issued by the Colorado
Department of Revenue, the County and or the Town;
11. Documentation of regulatory approval as a retail food establishment by the County.
12. Fee. All applicable fees as set forth by the Community Development Department.
83
13. Any proposed grease trap disposal within the boundary of the Estes Valley
Development Area shall require written prior approval by the appropriate sanitation
district.
84
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Linda Hardin, Code Compliance Officer
Date: January 23, 2018
RE: Ordinance No. 01-18 – Amendment to the Estes Park Municipal Code
Chapter 17.66 regarding Signs
Objective:
Adopt Ordinance 01-18 which amends the Estes Park Municipal Code (EPMC) to: 1)
update the Sign Code to a standard consistent with the vision of the Estes Park
community and; 2) bring the Sign Code into compliance with the recent Supreme Court
decision of Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ.
Present Situation:
The Estes Park Municipal Code chapter 17.66 regulating signage within Town
boundaries is severely outdated. The current sign code is difficult to review and
understand. Regulations for compliance and options, such as appeals, are confusing
and in some instances vague.
Technology has evolved in signage, specifically with electronic message boards
(EMB’s). The current sign code is outdated in its regulation of this new technology, and
the terminology used to define EMB’s.
The existing Sign Code is not compliant with the Supreme Court decision on signs
regarding constitutional rights and freedom of speech. It is unlawful for any jurisdiction
to allow or deny a sign based on the content of the sign. Size, location and other
physical factors can be regulated, but we can no longer regulate a sign based on its
content or message.
Proposal:
Ordinance 01-18 adopts the new Sign Code as set forth on Exhibit A.
85
Advantages:
The proposed new Sign Code is better presented and easier to follow and
understand.
Complies with the Supreme Court ruling of Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ.
Incorporates current trends in signs and technology.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Staff: Adopt Ordinance No. 01-18
Planning Commission: Adopt Ordinance No. 01 -18
Budget:
There are no budget implications for the adoption and enforcement of this Ordinance.
Level of Public Interest:
Moderate: There is interest in allowing a certain historic sign in the Downtown area that
has been previously denied. There have also been inquiries both with the Town’s
Public Works department and the private sector on EMD’s, and their uses.
Code Compliance has presented the proposed changes to various groups and
individuals in the community for input and suggestions to create a document that meets
the needs of the community while preserving the intent of the regulations.
No negative comments have been received.
Sample Motion:
APPROVAL
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve Ordinance No. 01-18, amending the
Estes Park Municipal Code as presented in Exhibit A as recommended by Staff and the
Planning Commission.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 01-18
2. Exhibit A [Amendment to the Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.66
regarding Signs]
86
ORDINANCE NO. 01-18
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING CHAPTER 17.66 SIGNS
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
conducted public hearings on proposed text amendments to the Estes Park Municipal Code,
Chapter 17.66 Signs; and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text
amendment complies with requirements of Colorado Revised Statues, and has determined
that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendment to the Estes Park Municipal
Code, as set forth on Exhibit A, be approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendment to the Estes Park Municipal Code is set forth on Exhibit
A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The Estes Park Municipal 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 day of , 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
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 day of , 2018 and published in
a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the ________
day of , 2018, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees
[January 23, 2018]
Chapter 17.66 Signs
Chapter 17.66.010 Title.
This Chapter shall be known and cited as the “Town of Estes Park Sign Code.”
17. 66.020 Intent and Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens by
providing for uniform control of signs. It is the intent of the regulations set forth in this Chapter
to:
(1) Encourage the effective use of signs as a means of communication in the Town;
(2) Enhance economic development opportunities for the community;
(3) Provide for a safe and efficient transportation network;
(4) Ensure that pedestrians, motorists, travelers, and other citizens are protected from
damage or injury caused or attributable to the distractions and obstructions which are
caused by improperly situated signs;
(5) Minimize the adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property;
(6) Preserve Estes Park area’s natural scenic beauty;
(7) Improve the aesthetic appearance of Estes Park.
The Town intends to provide a reasonable balance between the right of an individual to
convey a message, and the right of the public to be protected from the visual discord that
results from unrestricted proliferation and uncoordinated placement of signs.
This Chapter is not intended to and shall not regulate: (a) building design, exclusive of sign
regulatory elements; or (b) the content and message of signs.
17.66.040 Definitions
For the purposes of this Chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings set
forth in this Definitions subsection. Other words and phrases shall be given their common,
ordinary meaning, unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
“Abandoned sign” means a sign that no longer identifies or advertises a bona fide
business, service, or product. An abandoned sign is not defined as a nonconforming
sign.
“Animated sign” means any sign that uses movement or change of lighting to depict
action or create a special effect. An animated sign is not defined as a changeable copy
sign for purposes of this Section.
“Area, sign” See “Sign display area”
“Banner” means any wall sign made of fabric, plastic, or other non-rigid material with no
enclosing framework. A banner is deemed to be a type of temporary sign.
“Beacon” means any light with one or more beams directed into the atmosphere or
directed at one or more points not on the same lot as the light source; also, any light with
one or more beams that rotate or move.
“Billboard” means an off-premise sign on a permanent structure on which the copy may
be periodically changed, typically designed for viewing from interstate or primary arterial
corridors. An off-premise sign on a permanent structure with sign display area of two
hundred (200) square feet or more is deemed to be a billboard for purposes of this
Chapter.
“Building marker” means any sign indicating the name of a building and date and
incidental information about its construction, which sign is an integral part of a masonry
surface or made of bronze or other permanent material.
“Building frontage, street” means the width of a building parallel to the street frontage. In
a shopping center or mall where buildings do not have direct access or frontage on a
street, the building frontage is defined as the width of the building parallel to the public
parking lot frontage.
“Canopy sign” means any sign that is a part of or
attached to an awning, canopy, marquee or other
fabric, plastic, or structural protective cover over a
door, entrance, window, sidewalk or outdoor service
area.
“Changeable copy sign” means a sign or portion
thereof with characters, letters, or illustrations that can be changed or rearranged without
altering the face or the surface of the sign, either manually through the use of attachable
letters or panels, or electronically using incandescent bulbs, liquid crystal displays
(LCDs), light emitting diodes LEDs), or similar technologies. An off-premise sign on
which the message changes more than seventy-two (72) times in any given twenty-four
(24) hour day is defined as an animated sign and not a changeable copy sign for
purposes of this Chapter.
“Commercial message” means any sign wording, logo, or other representation that
names, advertises, or calls attention to a business, product, service, or other commercial
activity.
“Commemorative sign” means a sign, tablet, cornerstone or plaque less than ten (10)
square feet memorializing a person, event, structure or landmark.
“Construction sign” means a temporary sign placed in advance of occupancy of a
building or structure indicating the name of the building or
structure, the architects, the contractors, and other information
regarding the building or structure.
“Directional sign” See “Off-premise directional sign” or “On-
premise directional sign”
“Electronic message center (EMC)” means a sign which meets
the definition herein of either an “On-premise Electronic
Message Center (EMC)” or an “Off-premise Electronic
Message Center (EMC)”.
“Electronic message center (EMC), monochrome” means a sign
Canopy Sign
Electronic message
center – EMC
which meets the definition herein of either an “On-premise Electronic Message Center
(EMC)” or an “Off-premise Electronic Message Center (EMC) and displays only one
color within any given eight (8) second period of time, excluding black and white.
“Electronic message center (EMC), multicolor” means a sign which meets the definition
herein of either an “On-premise Electronic Message Center (EMC)” or an “Off-premise
Electronic Message Center (EMC) and displays more than one color at any given time,
excluding black and white.
“Festoon” means a string of ribbons, tinsel, pennants, or pinwheels.
“Flag” means any fabric or bunting containing distinctive colors, patterns, or symbols,
used as a symbol of a government, political subdivision, or other entity, or displaying a
noncommercial message.
“Freestanding sign” means any sign supported by structures or supports that are placed
in, or anchored in, the ground and that are independent from any building or other
structure. Freestanding signs as defined herein are deemed to include monument signs
and pole signs.
“Fuel price sign” means an on-premise sign, located on property whose primary use is
retail dispensing of fuel and fuel products, and that displays any or all of the following
elements: (a) the name or logo of the business on which premises the fuel dispensing
activity occurs; (b) the per-unit price(s) of fuel(s) to be dispensed on the premises.
“Governmental sign” means a sign installed by a unit of federal, state or local
government whose purpose and function is control of traffic or other regulatory
purposes, including government facility identification signs, street signs, detour signs,
danger signs, railroad crossing signs, and temporary or permanent signs erected by or
on the order of a public officer in the performance of his public duty. This term is deemed
to include signs of public service entities whose purpose and function is control of traffic
or other regulatory purposes, including hazard or danger warning signs and similar aids
to service safety.
“Holiday decorations” means noncommercial signs, graphics, or other materials that are
temporarily displayed during civic, patriotic, cultural, and/or religious holidays.
“Home occupation” means a business, profession, occupation or trade that is
conducted for gain as an accessory use within a dwelling unit, or an accessory building
by a resident of the dwelling unit.
“Incidental sign” means a sign, generally informational, that has a purpose secondary to
the use of the lot on which it is located, such as "no parking," "loading only," "telephone,"
and other similar directives. No sign with a commercial message legible from a position
beyond the boundary of the lot on which the sign is located is deemed to be incidental. A
sign that meets the definition of an on-premise directional sign is not defined as an
incidental sign.
“Monument sign (low profile sign)” means a freestanding
sign that is composed of a solid base structure between
finished grade and the topmost point of the sign structure,
such that the base length at grade equals seventy percent
(70%) or more of the maximum sign length, measured
parallel to the widest horizontal dimension of the sign
face(s). Monument sign
“Multi-tenant complex” means a lot or parcel that contains
multiple business entities contiguous to a common parking lot.
“Neon-style sign” means a sign that utilizes electrically
charged neon or other inert gas contained within a vacuum
tube to generate light. “Neon-style sign” may also mean a sign
that uses other technology to mimic or reproduce the visual
appearance of gas-containing tubes, such as LED light
source(s) within flexible light-diffusing tubes. The sign
message is created by bending and forming the tubes into lettering and/or iconic
graphical shapes.
“Nonconforming sign” means any sign that was lawfully established prior to the effective
date of this Chapter or a subsequent amendment thereto, but does not conform to the
requirements of this Chapter.
“Off-premise sign” means a stationary sign that advertises or
displays commercial information about a commercial or
business establishment, good, facility, service or product that
is not sold, conducted or offered on the lot, property or
premises on which the sign is located.
“Off-premise electronic message center (EMC)” means a
changeable copy or animated sign that utilizes a computer or
other electronic controlled means to change and control the message displayed, and
that advertises or displays commercial information about any commercial or business
establishment, good, facility, service or product that is not sold, conducted or offered on
the lot, property or premises on which the sign is located. An off-premise EMC may use
incandescent lamp, LCD, LED or other illuminated display technologies. An off-premise
EMC whose copy changes more than seventy-two (72) times in any given twenty-four
(24) hour day is defined as a type of animated sign; any other EMC is defined as a type
of changeable copy sign. An off-premise EMC that also meets the definition of a
billboard as defined herein is deemed to be a type of billboard for purposes of this
Chapter.
“On-premise sign” means a sign that is located upon the lot, property, or premises of the
activity to which it refers. To be classified as an on-premise directional sign, the subject
sign shall display only a business name or logo and directional information.
“On-premise directional sign” means a sign located upon the lot, property, or premises of
the activity to which it refers that directs the movement or placement of pedestrian or
vehicular traffic.
“On-premise electronic message center (EMC) ” means a changeable copy or animated
sign that utilizes a computer or other electronic controlled means to change and control
the message displayed, and that is located on the same lot, property or premises to
which all sign messages refer. An on-premise EMC may use incandescent lamp, LCD,
LED or other illuminated display technologies. An on-premise EMC whose copy changes
more than seven and one-half (7.5) times in any given minute is defined as a type of
animated sign; any other on-premise EMC is defined as a type of changeable copy sign.
“Pennant” means any lightweight plastic, fabric, or other material, whether or not
Multi-tenant sign
Off-premise sign
containing a message of any kind, suspended from a rope, wire, or string, usually in
series, designed to move in the wind.
“Pole (pole-style) sign” means a freestanding sign that is supported by one (1) or more
columns, uprights, poles or braces extended from the ground or from an object on the
ground.
“Portable sign” means any sign not permanently attached to the ground or other
permanent structure and designed to be transported, including, but not limited to, signs
designed to be transported by means of wheels or signs converted to A- or T-frames.
For purposes of this Chapter, a portable sign shall be classified as either: (a) a
temporary sign; or (b) a vehicle sign, as applicable.
“Principal building” means the building in which is conducted the principal use of the lot,
on which it is located. Lots with multiple principal uses may have multiple principal
buildings, but storage buildings, garages, and other clearly accessory uses are not
deemed to be principal buildings.
“Principal street frontage” for properties with frontage on more than one public street, the
property owner at his discretion shall designate the principal street frontage to be either:
(a) the street with the longest frontage, or (b) the street with the highest functional use.
“Projecting sign” means any sign affixed to a building or wall in
such a manner that its leading edge extends more than twelve (12)
inches beyond the surface of such building or wall.
“Revolving sign” means a sign that has the ability to turn at least
180 degrees. All or a portion of the revolving sign shall be capable
of revolving under external or internal control.
“Roof sign” means any sign erected and constructed wholly on
and over the roof of a building, supported by the roof structure, and extending vertically
above the highest portion of the roof, or any sign painted on the roof of a building.
“Sandwich board sign” means a portable self-supporting sign with one or more faces,
typically designed with an A-frame (i.e., upside-down “V”) or similar shape.
“Setback” means the distance from the property line to the nearest part of the sign,
measured perpendicularly to the property line or right-of-way.
“Sign, signage” means any device, fixture, placard, or structure that uses any color,
form, graphic, illumination, symbol, or writing to advertise, announce the purpose of, or
identify the purpose of a person or entity, or to communicate information of any kind to
the public. The term “signage” is deemed to be identical to the term “sign”, whether
singular, plural, or collective. A graphic display whose purpose and function is purely
decorative or artistic in character, that is recognizable as such to a typical observer, and
that is not intended to convey a particular message, is not deemed to be a sign for
purposes of this Chapter.
“Sign display area (individual) ” means the area of a sign face (which is also the sign
display area of a wall sign or other sign with only one face) shall be computed by means
of the smallest square, circle, rectangle, triangle, or combination thereof that will
encompass the extreme limits of the writing, representation, emblem, or other display,
together with any material or color forming an integral part of the background of the
display or used to differentiate the sign from the backdrop or structure against which it is
placed, but not including any supporting framework, bracing, or decorative fence or wall
Projecting sign
when such fence or wall otherwise meets zoning regulations and is clearly incidental to
the display itself.
“Sign display area (multi-faced)” means the sign display area for a sign with more than
one face shall be computed by adding together all individual sign display areas visible
from any one point. When two identical sign faces are placed parallel (back-to-back), so
that both faces cannot be viewed from any point at the same time, and when such sign
faces are part of the same sign structure and are not more than twelve (12) inches apart,
the sign display area shall be computed by the measurement of the individual sign
display area on one face.
“Sign height” means the height of a sign shall be computed as the distance from the
base of the sign at normal grade to the top of the highest attached component of the
sign structure. Normal grade shall be construed to be the lower of: (1) existing grade
prior to construction; or (2) the newly established grade after construction, exclusive of
any filling, berming, mounding, or excavating solely for the purpose of locating the sign.
“Suspended sign” means a sign that is suspended from the underside of a horizontal
plane surface and is supported by such surface.
“Temporary sign” means any sign that is used only temporarily and is classified as
either: (a) Special-Event Temporary Signs, (b) Supplemental Temporary Signs.
“Temporary sign (special-event temporary sign)” means any temporary sign that is
displayed in association with a town approved event of limited duration that is of special
importance to the greater Estes Park community. For purposes of this Chapter,
temporary signage for a special event whose duration is two (2) consecutive weeks or
longer shall not be classified as special-event temporary signage.
“Temporary sign (supplemental temporary sign)” means any temporary sign that is not
classified as a special-event temporary sign.
“Time-temperature sign” means a sign that displays only an electronic or mechanical
indication of time, temperature, or both. A time-temperature sign is exempt for purposes
of this Chapter, without respect to frequency or duration of the changeable copy
message.
“Total sign display area” means the total aggregate sign display area permitted to an
individual or business, including all on-premise and off-premise signs.
“Vehicle sign” means any sign which is painted on, affixed to or otherwise mounted on
any vehicle or on any object which is placed on, in or attached to a vehicle that is parked
and visible from the public right-of-way, unless said vehicle is used in the normal day-to-
day operations of a business. For the purposes of this definition, the term “vehicle” is
deemed to include trucks, buses, vans, railroad cars, automobiles, tractors, trailers,
motor homes, and semi-tractors.
“Wall sign” means any sign attached parallel to, and within
twelve (12) inches of, a wall, painted on the wall surface, or
erected and confined within the limits of an outside wall of any
building or structure, which is supported by such wall or
building, and which displays only one sign surface.
“Wayfinding sign” means an off-premise directional sign,
located within a right-of-way or on public property that guides
the traveling public to key noncommercial civic, cultural, visitor, or recreational
Wall sign
destinations within Estes Park. A wayfinding sign is deemed to include an off-premise
directional sign guiding the traveling public to a specific neighborhood or district within
the Town of Estes Park.
“Window sign” means any sign, pictures, symbol, or
combination thereof, designed to communicate
information about an activity, business, commodity, event,
sale, or service, that is permanently affixed inside or upon
a window and is visible from the exterior of the window.
“Wind sign” means a sign consisting on one (1) or more pennants, ribbons, spinners,
streamers or captive balloons, or other objects or materials fastened in such a manner as
to move upon being subjected to pressure by wind or breeze, but does not include flags,
supplemental or special event temporary signs.
17.66.041 General Requirements
(a) Sign Permit Requirements
(1) Unless otherwise provided by this chapter, all signs shall require a permit.
(2) If a sign requiring a permit under the provision of this chapter is to be placed,
constructed, erected, or modified on a lot, property or premise, the owner or designee of
the lot, property or premise shall secure a sign permit prior to the construction,
placement, erection, or modification of such a sign.
(3) A permit shall not be required for a modification to an existing sign that changes only the
message content thereof and does not alter or affect the sign structure in any other way.
Examples of such changes that do not require a permit include, but are not limited to:
Repainting faded lettering or graphics; replacing visibly worn materials in the sign display
area, such as plastic lettering; or changing the sign copy to reflect a change in message.
(4) A permit shall not be required for changing the message content of an Electronic
Message Center (EMC), provided that all requirements of Section 17.66.110(h) Electronic
Message Center [EMC] Signs) are met.
(b) Installation, Maintenance
All signs shall comply with all applicable code provisions as adopted by the Town, in addition to
the requirements of this Chapter. The Community Development Department shall have the right
to order the repair or removal of any sign which is defective, damaged, or substantially
deteriorated.
(c) Illumination (Except Electronic Message Center signs)
Illumination of a sign (except Electronic Message Center signs) shall be regulated as specified
in this Section 17.66.110(h). Illumination of signage shall be allowed, with the following
provisions:
(1) No flashing lights, or rotating or revolving beams shall be used;
(2) All direct light shall be directed toward the sign and away from any residential areas and
public rights-of-way;
(3) All lamps or luminance-generating fixtures for external, reflected illumination of signs
shall be shielded such that the lamp or luminance-generating fixture is not directly visible
from any residential property, from any public right-of-way, or from any point higher than
the uppermost point of the subject sign;
Window sign
(4) Sign illumination shall generally be designed and directed such that the illuminated area
lies at or below the horizontal plane corresponding to the topmost point of the sign
structure, and any illumination of the area above the sign’s topmost point shall be minimal
and incidental;
(5) Any illumination that is provided by artificial light shall be constant in direction, intensity,
and color;
(6) Signs shall not have exposed incandescent lamps exceeding fifteen (15) watts per bulb.
Signs shall not have exposed neon or fluorescent lamps exceeding four hundred (400)
lumens per foot.
(d) On-Premise Directional Signs
An on-premise directional sign shall contain no message(s) other than business name or
logo and directional information.
(e) Noncommercial Signage
Signs containing noncommercial speech or messages shall be permitted anywhere that
commercial, business or advertising signs are permitted under this Chapter, subject to the
same regulations applicable to such signs.
17.66.050 Exempt Signs
The following signs may be erected without a sign permit. These exempt signs shall not be
included in the determination of the total allowable number of signs or total allowable sign
area for a business. All signs shall meet all applicable setback, construction, illumination and
safety standards. Any signs larger in size or with any different standards than stated in this
Section shall be required to obtain a sign permit.
(1) Barber poles (whether revolving or stationary);
(2) Building markers, plaques, or cornerstones;
(3) Time-temperature signs that do not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in sign display
area;
(4) Commemorative signs;
(5) Construction signs that do not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in sign display area
and seven (7) feet in sign height;
(6) Display of street addresses or numbers;
(7) Flags of any governmental unit (nation, state, etc.), or flags with a noncommercial
message;
(8) Fuel price signs, provided the copy area devoted to displaying fuel pricing is 32 square
feet or less per each price displayed, and provided that any fuel price sign that also
meets the definition of an on-premise electronic message center (EMC) conforms to
this Chapter’s regulations governing same;
(9) Governmental signs for control of traffic and other regulatory purposes, including street
signs, detour signs, danger signs, and railroad crossing signs;
(10) Signs of public service companies indicating danger or aids to service safety, erected
by or on the order of a public officer in the performance of his public duty;
(11) Holiday decorations;
(12) Neon-style signs that do not display a commercial message (e.g. “Open”);
(13) Neon-style signs displaying a commercial message, provided that such sign:
a. is eight (8) square feet or less,
b. is located and displayed interior to a building, such as behind window glass,
and
c. Shall comply with the frequency, duration, and operational standards for on-
premise EMCs (Section 17.66110(h));
(14) Incidental signs;
(15) Gravestones or grave markers;
(16) Nameplates in residential districts;
(17) Pennants and festoons;
(18) Political Yard signs that do not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in sign display area
and seven feet (7) in sign height, provided they are not located in any public right-of-
way,
(19) Product dispensers and point of purchase displays;
(20) Signs on property being offered for sale or lease, provided that the sign:
a. is an on-premise sign;
b. does not exceed the following sign display area measurements: nine (9)
square feet for residentially zoned property, or thirty two (32) square feet for
non-residentially zoned property; and
c. is not artificially illuminated;
(21) Traffic control signs, whether on public or private property (e.g., parking-lot stop signs),
provided they conform to the standards of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD), and provided they do not contain any commercial message or logo;
(22) Vehicle signs on properly licensed vehicles used to transport persons or property;
(23) Sign not legible from a public right-of-way, with “not legible” defined as: Less than one
inch (1”) height for the largest letter or graphic element on the sign, measured vertically,
for every twenty-five feet (25’) of distance from the nearest point in the right-of-way to
the nearest letter or graphic element in the sign;
(24) Temporary window signs;
(25) Messages and graphics transmitted and displayed that are primarily intended for
interior view within a building, and only incidentally visible from outside;
(26) Window signs that cumulatively constitute less than twenty five percent (25%) of the
window area;
(27) Signs that are held or carried by person(s) at all times when visible from a public right-
of -way.
17.66.060 Prohibited Signs
The following signs shall not be permitted, erected or maintained in the Town:
(1) Beacon signs and displays;
(2) Revolving signs;
(3) Off-premise signs in public right-of-way;
(4) Roof signs;
(5) Signs located in or partially in or above the public right-of-way, whether temporary or
permanent, except governmental, wayfinding signs and projecting and suspended signs
pursuant to Section 17.66.110(e);
(6) Portable signs except vehicle signs as defined in Section 17.66.050;
(7) Billboard signs;
(8) Wind signs
17.66.070 Temporary Signs
Temporary signs shall be allowed under the provisions of this Section. Such signs shall be
classified as either:
(1) Special-Event Temporary Signs; or
(2) Supplemental Temporary Signs.
The following regulations shall apply to each temporary sign so classified:
a. Special-Event Temporary Signs
Special-Event Temporary Signs shall not require sign permits when a Town of
Estes Park Special-event permit is issued. A Special-Event Sign Plan must be
submitted with the special-event permit application. Special-Event Temporary
Signage shall be installed no earlier than one hundred and twenty (120) hours
[i.e., five (5) days] before the commencement of the special event, and shall be
removed no later than forty eight (48) hours after the special event’s cessation.
b. Temporary Off-Premise Signs
Temporary signs associated with entities, not included in the special event sign
plan, shall require sign permits. Any off-premise temporary sign shall require
permission from the property owner. Temporary off-premise signs will be
included in the overall total sign area for the property the sign is located on.
Temporary off-premise signs shall not be erected more than 7 days prior to the
event and shall be removed within 48 hours following the event. No more than
one off-premise sign shall be allowed on each private property. No more than
five off-premise signs shall be allowed per entity. Temporary off-premise signs
shall adhere to all applicable sign code regulations.
c. Supplemental Temporary Signs
Supplemental Temporary Signs shall require sign permits. Any Supplemental
Temporary Sign shall remain in place for a period not to exceed thirty (30)
consecutive days. A maximum of four (4) Supplemental Temporary Sign
permits shall be allowed per applicant, per calendar year.
17.66.071 Historical or Culturally Significant Signs
Signs that have historical or cultural significance to the Town but do not conform to the
provisions of this Chapter may be permitted by the Estes Park Board of Trustees, provided
that the following regulations and procedures are followed:
(1) Application for Historical or Culturally Significant Sign is completed and submitted.
(2) The Board of Trustees holds a public hearing on the application.
(3) The Town Board of Trustees may approve the request, adopting findings supporting
historical or cultural significance of the sign, and directs the Community Development
Department to issue a Historical or Culturally Significant Sign Permit.
Criteria to determine a finding of historical or cultural
significance include, but are not limited to: nostalgic
significance; character, design, or materials that
represent a particular historical period; landmark
recognition; and character or design that are
recognizably important to one or more cultures. Signs
that are hand-painted directly on the surface of a
building and include artistic work, in addition to a commercial message, may be eligible for a
finding of cultural significance. Historic or cultural nature of the signage may be significant to
society generally or in the context of the Estes Park community particularly.
Re-created historical or cultural signs shall be an identical replication of the original sign.
17.66.110 Sign regulations in non-residential zoning districts (A, CD, CO, CH, O I-1)
(a) Total Sign Display Area per Lot or Business: Frontage on a Single Street
(1) Total sign display area for each lot, or for an individual business in the case of multi-
tenant lots, with frontage on only one (1) public street;
a. Shall not exceed one and one-half (1.5) square feet per lineal foot of building
frontage at ground level, and three-quarters (0.75) square foot per lineal foot of
second story building frontage.
b. Shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) square feet total sign display area per lot or
individual business, except in the CD district where the maximum shall be one
hundred fifty (150) square feet total sign display area.
c. Total sign display area shall include sign display area of all signs for which a permit
is required under this Section, including any legally nonconforming signs, and
including any off-premise directional signs on other properties that refer to the
subject property or business.
(b) Total Sign Display Area per Lot or Business: Frontage on Two or More Streets
(1) Shall not exceed one and one-half (1.5) square feet per lineal foot of building frontage at
ground level, and three-quarters (0.75) square foot per lineal foot of second story
building frontage.
(2) The principal street frontage as defined herein shall be allocated two hundred fifty (250)
square feet of total sign display area,
(3) Each additional street frontage shall be allocated one hundred twenty five (125) square
feet of sign display area.
(4) Signage shall be oriented to and primarily visible from the respective street to which the
sign display area is allocated.
(5) Total sign display area shall include sign display area of all signs for which a permit is
required under this Section, including any legally nonconforming signs.
(c) Freestanding Signs
Historical sign
(1) One freestanding sign shall be permitted per property, irrespective of the number of
individual businesses or tenants on said property. For purposes of this subsection, the
term “property” shall refer to a single functional developmental site with common
circulation and parking, irrespective of the number of recorded lots, parcels, deeds, or
similar instruments comprising said property.
(2) Freestanding signs shall not exceed one hundred and twenty (120) square feet in sign
display area,
(3) Freestanding signs shall have a minimum setback of five (5) feet.
(4) Freestanding signs shall have a maximum sign height of twenty five (25) feet.
(5) Exception: Freestanding Signs on Lots with Two or More Street Frontages
a. For properties with more than one (1) public street frontage, the principal street
frontage as defined herein shall be allocated one (1) freestanding sign with size,
height and setback standards as specified in the preceding subsection. In
addition;
1. One (1) freestanding sign per each additional street frontage shall be
allowed;
2. Each such additional freestanding sign shall not exceed forty five (45)
square feet in sign display area;
3. Shall have a minimum setback of five (5) feet;
4. Maximum sign height of twelve (12) feet.
(6) Exception: Freestanding Signs on Corner Lots
a. A property with a corner location (i.e., with frontage at the point of intersection
of two (2) public streets) may elect to combine its front and side street sign
allocation into a single corner sign with a total of one hundred and eighty (180)
square feet of sign display area, measured in accordance with the “sign display
area (multi-faced)” definition herein, provided:
1. The sign is a two-faced sign, oriented diagonally so as to be equally visible
from both streets;
2. The sign is set back at least five (5) feet from the nearest right-of-way; and
3. The sign does not obstruct the vision of traffic from any direction
(d) Projecting and Suspended Signs
(1) One (1) projecting or suspended sign per business or building tenant shall be permitted.
(2) Projecting or suspended signs shall not exceed eight (8) square feet in sign display area.
(3) Projecting or suspended signs shall not extend more than four (4) feet from the building.
(4) Projecting or suspended signs shall provide a minimum clearance from grade of eight (8)
vertical feet.
(e) Right-of-Way Encroachment
Any projecting or suspended sign shall be allowed within any public right-of-way, only when a
right of way permit or encroachment agreement is issued by the Town.
(f) On-premise Directional Signs
(1) The total number of on-premise direction signs per lot or business shall not be limited,
and shall not be counted toward the total sign display area allocation.
(2) Any individual on-premise directional sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet of sign
display area
(3) Any individual on-premise directional sign shall not exceed seven (7) feet in sign height.
(g) Off-premise Signs
(1) Number: One (1) off-premise signs shall be permitted per lot (or per business, in the case
of multi-tenant lots) to which the off-premise sign refers, provided that consent of the
property owner on which the sign(s) are located is obtained. Off-premise signs shall be
included in the overall sign total for the property on which it is located.
(2) Size and Type: Each off-premise sign shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in
sign display area and shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet in sign height.
(h) On-Premise Electronic Message Centers (EMCs): Number and Type of Signs
Permitted
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, the following limitations shall apply to
on-premise EMCs:
(2) No more than one (1) on-premise EMC sign shall be allowed per lot or parcel on which the
sign is located. This limitation shall apply without regard to the number of businesses or
tenants occupying the property or the property’s number of street frontages. This limitation
shall not prevent the installation of both an EMC and fuel price digits on the same property
or frontage for service stations.
(3) No on-premise EMC shall be installed or used as:
1. A temporary sign;
2. A portable sign;
3. A projecting sign;
4. A suspended sign.
(4) An on-premise EMC sign shall have a frame hold time of no less than eight (8) seconds
per static graphic display, and the total number of transitions from one frame to another
shall not exceed seven and one half (7.5) in any given one-minute period.
(5) The following illumination standards shall apply to all EMCs:
a. No Electronic Message Center sign installed after [effective date of Ordinance] shall
be permitted to operate unless it is equipped with:
1. A default mechanism that will freeze the sign display in one position as a
static message if a malfunction occurs; and
2. A mechanism that will automatically adjust the illuminative brightness of the
display according to ambient light conditions by means of a light
detector/photocell.
3. Electronic Message Center sign installed after [effective date of Ordinance]
shall not exceed four thousand (4,000) nits when measured from the sign's
face at its maximum brightness during daylight hours and four hundred (400)
nits when measured from the sign's face at its maximum brightness between
dusk and dawn. The Town shall have the right to view the programmed
specifications of the sign to determine compliance. Conformity with these
illumination levels may be established by submittal of a manufacturer’s
certification that the sign is incapable of exceeding the stated limits, subject to
approval of the Department.
(6) The following operational standards shall apply to all EMCs:
a. Entrance and exit effects may be used to transition from one static display to
another, provided said entrance effects result in all of the text within the frame
appearing at once.
b. Fading and dissolve transition effects may be used, provided the fade or
dissolve effect results in all of the text within the frame appearing at once.
Entrance and exit effects where all of the text within the frame does not appear
at once are prohibited (including, but not limited to, scrolling from left to right,
scrolling from top to bottom, and entrance effects referred to as slot machine,
slots, splice, mesh, radar, kaleidoscope and spin).
c. Except for the transition effects permitted herein, each frame shall remain static
with no additional frame or hold effects applied to text within the frame
(including, but not limited to, the fading or flashing on any part of the message
and hold effects referred to as flash, spin, twinkle, wavy and rumble).
d. The use of background animation shall be prohibited.
e. The use of streaming video or full-motion video on any EMC sign shall be
prohibited
17.66.120 Sign regulations in multi-family residential zones (RM, R-2, and A-1)
(a) For properties used for multi-family residential buildings or townhouse structures
(1) One (1) monument or wall sign per street frontage shall be permitted.
(2) Each sign shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in sign display area.
(3) Monument signs shall not exceed five (5) feet in sign height.
(4) Monument signs shall be set back at least five (5) feet from both the front and side
property lines.
(b) For properties used for multi-family residential buildings or townhouse structures
that have more than one street frontage
(1) A two-faced monument sign oriented so as to be visible from either right-of-way (such
as a diagonal sign on a corner lot) shall be allowed in accordance with the standards in
the preceding subsection and other requirements of this Chapter,
(2) Provided it meets the “sign display area (multi-faced)” definition herein.
(c) For residential subdivisions consisting of more than four (4) residential units
(1) One (1) monument subdivision sign per development entrance shall be permitted.
(2) Each sign shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in sign display area
(3) Each sign shall not exceed five (5) feet in sign height
(4) Each sign shall be set back at least five (5) feet from any property line, unless
designed and constructed as part of an entranceway architectural feature, such as a
gate, decorative wall, archway, or similar element.
17.66.130 Sign regulations in all single-family residential zones (R-1, R, E-1, E, RE, RE-1)
(a) Total allowable sign area
(1) The maximum allowable total display area for any one (1) single-family residential lot
shall not exceed nine (9) square feet.
(2) Home occupation signs shall not exceed four (4) square feet in cumulative area.
(3) Freestanding signs
a. One (1) freestanding sign per lot shall be permitted.
b. Each sign shall not exceed a height of five (5) feet.
c. Each sign shall be set back at least five (5) feet from any property line.
(b) For properties used for any use other than residential uses, no signs shall be
permitted except those reviewed and approved through the Temporary Use or Special
Review process.
(c) Sign Illumination
(1) Non-single-family use residential identification signs, if illuminated, shall be
illuminated only from the exterior.
(2) Single-family use home-occupation signs shall not be illuminated, except for such
illumination as may result from general-purpose household exterior lighting (e.g.,
porch lights).
(d) Animated signs and Electronic Message Centers shall not be permitted in these
zoning districts, except:
(1) Electronic Message Center signage may be reviewed and approved as specifically
provided through Temporary Use or Special Review process; provided:
(2) Signage complies with Section 17.66.110(h) of this Title,
(3) Signage shall not exceed sixteen (16) square feet in aggregate sign area.
17.66.160 Application for Permits
(a) Application for a sign permit shall be made to the Community Development Department
upon a form provided by the Department, and shall provide all information.
(b) All applications for permits filed with the Department shall be accompanied by a payment of
the sign permit fee, in the amount specified.
(c) The Department shall approve and issue a permit for the erection, structural alteration, or
relocation of a sign within fourteen (14) days of receipt of a valid application, provided the
sign complies with the provisions of this Chapter and with all applicable laws and
regulations of the Town.
(d) All required building permits, including electrical permits, shall be duly applied for and
obtained prior to installation of the subject sign, per Town and other code requirements.
Issuance of a sign permit is not intended to and shall not serve as a substitute for any other
required permit.
(e) Issuance and Denial and Revocation
(1) In all applications, where a matter of interpretation arises, the more specific definition or
higher standard shall prevail.
(2) When a permit is denied, the Department shall within seven (7) days of the denial,
provide a written notice to the applicant along with a brief statement of findings and
reasons for the denial, citing code sections and interpretation of applicable
nonconformity.
(3) The Department may suspend or revoke an issued permit for any false statement or
misrepresentation of fact in the application.
(4) The Department’s decision on any sign permit may be appealed to the Town’s Board of
Adjustment, as provided by the Estes Park Municipal Code.
17.66.220 Appeals, variances, and minor modifications
(a) Appeals. The owner of any sign who believes a decision, ruling or order of the Building
Inspector is factually or legally contrary to the provisions of this Chapter may appeal the
same to the Estes Park Board of Trustees. The appeal shall be in writing and filed with the
Community Development Department. The appeal shall be filed within ten (10) days from
the date of the decision, ruling or order of the Code Compliance Officer. The written appeal
shall specify the decision, ruling or order of the Code Compliance Officer being appealed.
The Estes Park Board of Trustees shall have no jurisdiction or hear any appeal not filed
within ten (10) days from the date of the decision, ruling or order.
(b) Variances. The owner of any sign may request a variance from the requirements of this
Chapter. The request for variance shall be in writing and filed with the Community
Development Department. The variance request shall specify the provisions of this Chapter
to which the variance is being requested. There shall be no variance for maximum sign
area on a lot or building. In granting any variance, the Estes Park Board of Trustees shall
find that all of the following conditions exist:
(1) There are special circumstances or conditions, such as the existence of buildings,
topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the
adjacent public right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the
sign in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions must
be particular to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to
draw attention and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises.
(2) The variance is in general harmony with the purposes of this Chapter and specifically is
not injurious to the neighborhood in which the business or enterprise is located.
(3) The variance is the minimum one necessary to permit the applicant to reasonably draw
attention to the business or enterprise.
(c) Conditions. The Estes Park Board of Trustees may grant an appeal or variance subject to
any condition it deems necessary to make the granted appeal or variance compatible with
the purpose of this Chapter.
(d) Procedure. The Estes Park Board of Trustees shall adopt procedures for the review of
appeals and variances pursuant to this Section.
(e) Staff authority to grant minor modifications.
Staff may grant minor modifications up to a maximum of ten percent (10%) from the
following general sign standards, provided that the staff finds that such modification
advances the goals and purposes of this Code and results in reduction of visual clutter
results in more effective signage, or relieves practical difficulties on the site:
(1) Setback requirements;
(2) Specific sign size restrictions, provided that the total sign display area remains in
compliance; or
(3) Other dimensional and temporal standards contained herein.
17.66.230 Administration and Enforcement
(a) The Community Development Department is authorized to process and approve or
disapprove application for permits, and to enforce and carry out all provisions of this
Chapter. The Community Development Department is authorized to promulgate regulations
and procedures consistent with this function.
(b) The Community Development Department is empowered, upon presentation of proper
credentials, to enter or inspect any building, structure, or premises in the Town of the
purpose of inspection of a sign and its structural and electrical connections to ensure
compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. Such inspections shall be carried out
during business hours unless the Community Development Department in its discretions
finds that an emergency exists.
(c) Removal of Signs
(1) The Department may cause the removal and impoundment of any sign not permitted
under the provisions of this Chapter in cases of emergency, or for failure to comply with
written orders of removal or repair. After removal or demolition of the sign, a notice shall
be mailed to the sign owner stating the nature of the work, and the date on which it was
performed and demanding payment of the costs as certified by the Department. The debt
may be collected in accordance with the established debt collection procedures of the
Town. The owner of the property upon which the sign is located shall be presumed to be
the owner of all signs thereon unless facts to the contrary are brought to the attention of
the Department, as in the case of a leased sign.
(2) For purposes of removal, the definition of sign shall include all sign embellishments and
structures designed specifically to support the sign.
(d) Other Enforcement, Remedies and Penalties
In addition to the foregoing section providing for removal of signs, all applicable provisions
as specified in Section 1.20.010, Required conformance to Code and Section1.20.020,
Fines and Penalties, of this Title, shall pertain to in the case of signage compliance and
violations.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Audem Gonzales, Planner II
Date: January 23, 2018
RE: Estes Park Downtown Plan
Objective:
Review the Estes Park Downtown Plan and approve/adopt the document as a Town of
Estes Park plan.
Present Situation:
In 2015 the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) awarded a planning grant
from the State Energy and Mineral Impact Fund to prepare a Downtown Plan. The
Downtown Plan process was intended to result in documentation of a community-driven
vision for Downtown over the next 20 years.
The planning process was undertaken over the course of 2016 and 2017, and explored
a range of Downtown topics with the community, including the character of
development, multi-modal circulation, flood mitigation, parking strategies and more.
Winter and Company was the lead consultant team dedicated to creating and managing
the Plan and process.
The Downtown Plan Steering Committee (DPSC) was established by the Board of
Trustees on October 13, 2015 to help guide the Plan process. It consisted of ten
volunteer members appointed by the Board. The DPSC’s primary roles were as follows:
1. Provide guidance to the process and ensure ample public participation.
2. Review and provide feedback on process, content and Plan
3. Serve as a link to the community by spreading news about the project.
4. Provide a venue for public input at their meetings.
DPSC met monthly to review and discuss Plan and process-related topics. All DPSC
meetings were noticed and open to the public.
105
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) composed of Town staff and outside agencies
provided technical assistance during the Downtown Plan process. The Town
departments joined representatives from outside agencies, such as Estes Valley Fire
Protection District. TAC meetings were open to DPSC members.
An array of outreach methods were utilized to raise community awareness of the project
and encourage participation, including:
Mailings
Pres releases
Flyers
Property notifications
Project website staff promotion/interactions
Surveys
The key public participation opportunities were organized by Staff during various phases
of the project. Below were the main open house/public meetings that were held:
1. February 2017 – Initial community workshop at the Estes Park Event Center.
Over 45 community members attended. A project overview was provided,
followed by a short question and answer period. Participants engaged in a series
of group exercises to identify key assets and critical issues in the Downtown. At
the end of the work shop, citizen groups shared the highlights of their work.
2. April 2017 – The Town held a multi-day workshop to review preliminary
Downtown policies and concepts generated by Town staff and the consultant
team. This three day workshop took place the Rodeway Inn. Around 50
community members attended. This workshop included a public open house
which provided an overview of the project and offered an opportunity to review
and comment on initial plan concepts. Winter and Company along with Town
staff held learn and share sessions which included expert presentations and
community discussion about technical design, parking, urban design and
implementation/financing. Lastly, the workshop included stakeholder interviews.
These focus group meetings were with key stakeholders, including property
owners, Downtown business owners and various community organizations and
groups.
3. September 2017 – The third and final workshop was held in the Town Board
Room with over 70 community members in attendance. The workshop began
with a brief presentation of the Downtown Plan and then participants reviewed
106
summary posters and shared their feedback with Town staff and the consultant
team.
The proposed Plan was presented to, and discussed by, The Town Board at a study
session on December 12, 2017.
Proposal:
The purpose of this request is to adopt/approve the Downtown Plan as a Town
document, which would set the vision for the Downtown area. This document is not a
regulatory document but instead would serve as a set of guiding policies and goals for
Estes Park. Future Estes Valley Development Code regulations would be reviewed
according to Comprehensive Plan and any adopted/approved Town document such as
the Downtown Plan.
Advantages:
Provides a very clear vision on future development of Downtown Estes Park
Offers flexibility for future projects by giving several options for development
Creates a database of current situations (infrastructure, buildings, open space, etc.)
Provides a framework for implementation
Disadvantages:
Not an overwhelming number of public input comments
Planning Commission chose not to participate throughout the entire project, despite
regular updates and invitations.
Action Recommended:
Staff is recommending the Town Board adopt/approve this document as a Town of
Estes Park plan.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
High. This plan has been vetted through the public with multiple public meetings,
including over 20 Downtown Plan Steering Committee meetings.
Sample Motion:
I move to APPROVE the Estes Park Downtown Plan;
I move to NOT APPROVE the Estes Park Downtown Plan;
Attachments:
1. Estes Park Downtown Plan refer to www.estesdowntownplan.com for document
107
108
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: January 23, 2018
RE: Downtown Parking Management Plan (DPMP)
Objective:
Public Works staff seeks adoption of the DPMP to guide strategic management of the
Town’s public parking resources for the enhancement of the Town’s economic vitality
and downtown visitor experience.
Present Situation:
There is an apparent shortage of available parking in Estes Park’s downtown core from
approximately late May through mid-October. Visitors circle around downtown seeking
spaces while the new parking structure and Events Complex lots operate at less than
full capacity. With no incentive to look elsewhere, visitors compete for the same prime
spaces causing congestion in the main downtown corridors. This frustrates our guests
and diminishes our status as a preferred tourist destination.
Since 2014 the Town Board’s Strategic Plan included the following goal:
We will continue to address parking options throughout the Town.
In 2017 the Town Board identified the following infrastructure objectives:
Pursue funding for additional parking.
Develop on overall parking strategy plan.
Define and consider implementation of a paid parking program.
This was expanded in 2018 to include the following two objectives:
Develop an overall parking strategy plan with input from residents, businesses and
guests.
Implementation of Parking Plan recommendations, including funding options.
In early 2017 the Public Works Department contracted with Kimley Horn to develop the
proposed DPMP. A steering committee, consisting of representatives from the citizen
Transportation Advisory Board, citizen Downtown Plan Steering Committee, Community
Services Department (shuttles), Police Department, Public Works Department, and
Community Development Department, was formed to oversee the development of the
109
DPMP and ensure that it is consistent with the objectives of the represented
boards/committees and the service delivery capabilities of the impacted Town
departments.
An extensive public outreach effort was implemented during the development of the
DPMP.
19 public outreach meetings were conducted in 2017.
Approximately 195 comments were received from the public.
The proposed DPMP was presented to, and discussed by, the Town Board at a study
session on January 9, 2018. Staff was directed to bring the plan back for adoption and
bring a 2018 budget supplement in the approximate amount of $200k to initiate Phase 1
work in 2018.
Proposal:
The Public Works Department proposes adoption of the DPMP and authorization to
purchase equipment and hire a manager to lead a new Parking Services Division to
implement the Phase 1 recommendations presented in the proposed DPMP.
Advantages:
The DPMP respects and responds to extensive public comments were collected
during this study, including requests and recommendations from the citizen
Transportation Advisory Board.
Adoption of this plan is an essential step in achieving specific Board goals and
objectives pertaining to parking dating back to 2014.
Implementation of the recommended strategies will enhance economic vitality
when the customer experience is improved by mitigating downtown congestion,
encouraging parking space availability/turnover in the downtown core, and
encouraging parking on the perimeter of the downtown core.
The DPMP provides the Town flexibility in its implementation and focuses first on
managing the Town’s existing assets before recommending costly
improvements.
Paid parking, if implemented in the future, would allow the parking program to
self-fund implementation of the recommended strategies.
Disadvantages:
The Town is not currently staffed, equipped or funded to deliver this additional
service to the community. Additional personnel and equipment will be needed.
Allocation of Town funds will be required to implement Phase 1 and potentially
capitalize startup of future phases.
Resistance can be anticipated from some community members who do not
support paid parking or expansion of new governmental services.
Action Recommended:
Public Works staff and the citizen Transportation Advisory Board recommend adoption
of the proposed Downtown Parking Management Plan and future approval of a 2018
budget supplement to implement the Phase 1 recommendations.
110
Finance/Resource Impact:
Phase 1 implementation costs in 2018 could be funded by reallocating approximately
$200,000 in unspent contingency funds previously allocated to the parking structure
project. These savings are separate from the $400,000 identified in the Community
Reinvestment Fund by the Finance Director. Work space and equipment storage space
options are under evaluation.
The costs of implementing future phases in future years will need to be budgeted
annually from future paid parking revenue.
Level of Public Interest
Public interest on this proposed plan is high. This effort was initiated by, and is
supported by, the citizen Transportation Advisory Board. Letters of support have been
received from citizen members of the Downtown Plan Steering Committee.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the Downtown Parking Management Plan.
Attachments:
Electronic link to the proposed Downtown Parking Management Plan, Appendices, and
related documents
Executive Summary
Letter of support from the Transportation Advisory Board
111
1 Downtown Parking Management Plan Executive Summary
December 2017 │ Version 1
INTRODUCTION
In November 2016, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) of the Town of Estes Park (Town), Colorado
recommended the development of a Downtown Parking Strategy to explore three key elements:
x Seasonal paid parking
x An employee parking program
x A downtown parking expansion plan
The purpose of this Parking Management Plans is to:
x Provide a summary of past evaluation and findings related to this initiative
x Outline key considerations and high-level costs and revenues associated with available options
x Give an overview of methods and strategies for successful implementation of recommendations
The recommendations from the Parking Management Plan have been developed to achieve the following
goals:
x Enhance the ease of visitor access to Downtown Estes Park by encouraging turnover of the most
centrally-located and convenient parking spaces.
x Encourage individuals in need of long-term parking (more than three hours) to utilize parking lots
outside or on the edge of Downtown in order to prioritize the most centrally-located parking for short-
term parking demands.
x Improve multimodal transportation options to provide convenient alternatives to parking within the
Downtown Core.
x Identify cost-effective options for expanding the parking supply within Downtown as needed to
support economic vitality.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Based on a review of parking management best practices, a detailed review of potential technology
options, outreach to peer communities, input from the TAB, as well as an extensive outreach effort during
the summer and fall of 2017, the following four-phase Implementation Plan was developed.
ESTES PARK, COLORADO
112
Downtown Parking Management Plan Executive Summary
December 2017 │ Version 1 2
Phase 1 – Data Collection and Technology Investments
Timing 2018
Key Recommendations x Time Limit Modifications (1-Hour Zones; Additional 3-Hour Zones)
x Real-Time Parking Availability Detection (5 Lots)
x DMS Parking Availability Integration
x Additional Enforcement
x Parking Administrator
x Parking Performance Evaluation / Occupancy and Turnover Study
Downtown Parking
Management Strategy
(1,763 Spaces)
Capital Costs (One
Time)
≈ $100,000 - $150,000
Operations &
Maintenance Costs
≈ $100,000 / year
Annual Paid Parking
Revenue
-
Free (3-Hour Limit)
25%
Town Hall (Part)
East Riverside
Virginia
Riverside
Post Office
West Riverside
Free (1-Hour
Limit)
6%
Free (No Time Limit)
69%
Visitor Center
Town Hall (Part)
Davis
Wiest/Moraine
Big Horn
Tregent
Spruce
Performance Park
113
3 Downtown Parking Management Plan Executive Summary
December 2017 │ Version 1
Phase 2 – Initial Paid Parking Implementation
Timing After Phase 1
Key Recommendations x Paid Parking Implementation (Up to 562 Spaces)
x Additional Enforcement
x Parking Performance Evaluation / Occupancy and Turnover Study
Downtown Parking
Management Strategy
(1,763 Spaces)
Capital Costs (One
Time)
≈ $150,000 - $200,000
Annual Operations &
Maintenance Costs
≈ $150,000 / year
Annual Paid Parking
Revenue
≈ $350,000 - $400,000 / year*
*Paid Parking Season: May 15 – October 15
Free (3-Hour Limit)
4%
Free (1-Hour Limit)
6%
Free (No Time Limit)
58%
Visitor Center
Davis
Wiest/Moraine (Part)
Big Horn
Tregent
Spruce
Performance Park
Pay-to-Park (No
Time Limit)
22%
Town Hall (Part)
East Riverside
Riverside
Post Office
Wiest/Moraine
(Part)
Pay-to-Park (3-
Hour Limit)
10%
Town Hall (Part)
Viriginia
114
Downtown Parking Management Plan Executive Summary
December 2017 │ Version 1 4
Phase 3 – Full Paid Parking Implementation
Timing After Phase 2
Key Recommendations x Paid Parking Expansion (Up to 996 Total Spaces)
x Online Parking Permits
x Enhanced Trolley Service
x Additional Real-Time Parking Availability Detection
x Additional Enforcement
x Additional Parking Administrator
x Parking Performance Evaluation / Occupancy and Turnover Study
Downtown Parking
Management Strategy
(1,763 Spaces)
Capital Costs (One
Time)
≈ $450,000 - $500,000
Annual Operations &
Maintenance Costs
≈ $500,000 / year
Annual Paid Parking
Revenue
≈ $650,000 - $700,000 / year*
*Paid Parking Season: May 15 – October 15
Free (1-Hour
Limit)
7%
Free (No Time
Limit)
37%
Visitor Center
Performance
Park
Pay-to-Park (No
Time Limit)
44%
Town Hall (Part)
East Riverside
Riverside
Post Office
Wiest/Moraine
Big Horn
Davis
Tregent
Spruce
Pay-to-Park (3-Hour
Limit)
12%
Town Hall (Part)
Virginia
115
5 Downtown Parking Management Plan Executive Summary
December 2017 │ Version 1
Phase 4 – Future Parking Infrastructure Investment
Timing After Phase 3 (If Needed)
Path to Future
Investment
x Ensure usage of existing parking infrastructure
x Offer a menu of choices (other transportation modes)
x Monitor effectiveness of recommended parking management
strategies
x Site identification and analysis
x Identify funding sources
x Land acquisition, site prep, construction, traffic analysis, etc.
Potential Locations x Town Hall
x Post Office
x Piccadilly Square
x Performance Park
x Wiest/Moraine
x Big Horn
Capital Costs (One
Time)
≈ $2,000,000 - $21,000,000 ($23k - $32k per parking space)
Annual Operations &
Maintenance Costs
≈ $50 - $75 / space / year
116
Estes Park Downtown Parking Expansion Options LEGEND: 1 Ծ = Best Performer in Category; 2 Հ = Tolerable/Neutral; 3 Ժ = Lowest Performer in Category Criteria Town Hall / Library Post Office Piccadilly Square Performance Park Moraine/ Weist Big Horn Increase in Parking Supply Net increase in number of parking stalls 1 Ծ 2 Հ 1 Ծ 2 Հ 3 Ժ 3 Ժ Existing parking stalls 268 93 75 81 50 41 Potential parking capacity (3 levels ǀ 4 levels) 525 700 300 400 450 600 225 300 150 200 (2 levels only) 80 Total potential parking capacity minus existing stalls (3 levels ǀ 4 levels) 257 432 207 307 375 525 144 219 100 150 (2 levels only) 39 Proposed footprint (Square Feet) 60,000 ft2 35,000 ft2 55,000 ft2 24,000 ft2 18,000 ft2 12,000 ft2 Costs Estimated Costs (Excluding Land Acquisition) 1 Ծ 2 Հ 2 Հ 1 Ծ 2 Հ 1 Ծ Estimated Cost per parking stall (3 levels ǀ 4 levels) *See footnote for Visitor Center Garage Costs. $28.7k $30.0k $29.3k $30.6k $30.7k $32.1k $26.8k $28.0k $30.1k $31.5k (2 levels only) $22.8k Estimated Structure Cost (3 levels ǀ 4 levels) $15.0M $21.0M $8.8M $12.2M $13.8M $19.2M $6.0M $8.4M $4.5M $6.3M (2 levels only) $1.8M Land Acquisition Considerations 2 Հ 2 Հ 3 Ժ 1 Ծ 1 Ծ 1 Ծ Existing ownership of land (Town vs. private owner) and timing and ease of acquisition Public with Redevelopment Public/Private with Redevelopment Private with Redevelopment Public Public Public Site Acquisition, Development, and Staging Anticipated Construction and Environmental Considerations Does the site require extensive site preparation (i.e., slopes, access, and reconfiguration of site)? 1 Ծ 1 Ծ 3 Ժ 2 Հ 1 Ծ 1 Ծ - - Close Businesses Business Impacts - - Operational Considerations 3 Ժ 2 Հ 2 Հ 2 Հ 1 Ծ 1 Ծ Will buildout remove significant parking capacity during construction? Significant Medium Medium Medium Minor Minor Location and Transportation Impacts Site Aesthetic Considerations Sight lines, disruption of views, impact to natural environment, etc. 2 Հ 3 Ժ 2 Հ 3 Ժ 2 Հ 1 Ծ Some Disruption Adjacent to River Some Disruption Impacts to Park Some Disruption Limited Impacts Location Service Area Does the site location serve the Downtown as well as special events in the area? 1 Ծ 1 Ծ 3 Ժ 2 Հ 1 Ծ 1 Ծ Core Core Fringe Fringe / Events Core Core Location Visibility Is the location easy for visitors to find (following completion of the Loop) 1 Ծ 1 Ծ 1 Ծ 2 Հ 1 Ծ 2 Հ Very Prominent Very Prominent Very Prominent Off Main Corridor Very Prominent Off Main Corridor Shuttle Service 1 Ծ 1 Ծ 1 Ծ 1 Ծ 3 Ժ 3 Ժ Will a shuttle stop serve the location once the Loop is constructed? Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Bicycle Access 2 Հ 2 Հ 1 Ծ 1 Ծ 2 Հ 2 Հ Does a recreational trail serve the site? On-Street Only On-Street Only Yes Yes On-Street Only On-Street Only Traffic Impact 2 Հ 3 Ժ 1 Ծ 2 Հ 3 Ժ 3 Ժ Does the site’s access points (ingress/egress) impact traffic flow, queuing, and circulation? Edge of Core Requires Travel Through Core Potential Traffic Capture Some Travel Through Core Requires Travel Through Core Requires Travel Through Core Multipurpose Potential Mixed Use / Multi-purpose Does the location offer street level activation? Retail on ground floor? Mixed-use development or opportunity to incorporate existing nearby land uses? 1 Ծ 1 Ծ 1 Ծ 2 Հ 3 Ժ 3 Ժ Street-Level Retail Potential Street-Level Retail Potential Mixed-Use Concept Some New Street Frontage Limited New Street Frontage Limited New Street Frontage Flood Risk Has the location flooded in the past? 2 Հ 2 Հ 2 Հ 2 Հ 1 Ծ 1 Ծ Flood History Flood History Flood History Flood History Community Support Community Response 1 Ծ 2 Հ 2 Հ 3 Ժ 3 Ժ 3 Ժ Level of support expressed by residents, employees, business owners, and visitors 1st 2nd 2nd 3rd 3rd 3rd Average Score 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 Rank 1 2 2 3 3 5 *Visitor Center Garage: $9.7M, 33,400 ft2, 361 stalls (313 net new stalls): $26.9k per stall ($31.0k per net new stall) 117
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kimberly Campbell, Chair, Transportation Advisory Board
Date: January 7, 2018
RE: TAB supports the adoption of the Downtown Parking Management Plan
You have recently been presented with a draft of the Downtown Parking Management Plan for
your consideration. The Transportation Advisory Board encourages you to adopt this plan.
Background:
In November 2016, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) presented to the Trustees a
memo requesting that the Town of Estes Park develop a downtown parking program, consisting
of a seasonal paid parking program, an employee parking program, and a parking expansion plan.
In early 2017, the Town hired Kimley Horn to prepare a downtown parking management plan.
The Transportation Advisory Board would like to thank the Town for acting on our proposal
and pursuing a solution to a challenging downtown parking environment. We are excited to be
moving forward with an actionable plan.
TAB participation in the development of Downtown Parking Management Plan:
The Transportation Advisory Board monitored the Downtown Parking Program throughout its
development. The Town created the Downtown Parking Management Plan Task Force to
manage this initiative. At each TAB meeting, updates from the Task Force were presented by
members Greg Muhonen (Director of Public Works) and/or Kimberly Campbell (Chair,
Transportation Advisory Board).
TAB actively participated in the public process to gather data that contributed to the
development of the Downtown Parking Management Plan. At the recommendation of Kimley
Horn, a comprehensive community outreach program was developed to gather the necessary
data to customize this program to the needs and wants of the Estes Park community. TAB
members hosted and facilitated community outreach events (small group conversations, both
private and public), as well as actively solicited community input at a booth at farmer’s market
in June 2017. Input from these events was shared with Kimley Horn and incorporated into the
plan. TAB members also participated in the community outreach events hosted by the Town
and facilitated by Kimley Horn, listening to the community’s perspectives on the developing plan
and to provide input on the preliminary recommendations.
TAB has now reviewed the proposed Plan and ask that the Trustees adopt the Downtown
Parking Management Plan.
118
Plan benefits:
TAB finds the proposed Downtown Parking Management Plan to be:
Well-organized
Inclusive of past studies conducted by the Town
Shaped by the input received from the community and our community’s unique
characteristics
Objective in its performance targets
Focused first on managing the Town’s existing assets before recommending costly
improvements, and
Flexible in its implementation.
TAB looks forward to the opportunity to work with a dedicated parking manager to fine tune
the implementation of this plan and shape its rollout to the community.
Summary:
The Transportation Advisory Board shares a vision of downtown that is focused on people and
creating positive experiences during their visit downtown; a vision that values pedestrians,
bicycles and shuttles, and is not defined by vehicles, traffic and congestion. Achieving this goal
requires action on many fronts, one of which is a strong parking strategy. Pedestrian facilities
need to be enhanced (more parks, trails and wider sidewalks). A comprehensive bike strategy
needs to be developed (east/west & north/south bike corridors to allow unfettered access
through downtown, sufficient bike racks, a bike-share program, and bike racks on Town and
RMNP shuttle systems). The proposed Downtown Parking Management Plan is a vital first step
in achieving this vision.
This plan is a huge step forward for the Town’s management of its parking operations, which
has been an area of dissatisfaction for residents and visitors alike, as reflected in previous
surveys of both audiences. This plan, coupled with constructed parking structure at the Visitor
Center, should have a significant impact on the experience of residents and visitors enjoying
our downtown during the busy summer season for years to come.
We ask the Trustees to adopt the Downtown Parking Management Plan.
119
120
ADMINISTRATION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Date: January 23, 2018
RE: Policy #206 Cell Phone
Objective:
Present an updated cell phone policy to the Town Board for consideration.
Present Situation:
The Town currently uses one of two options to provide a cell phone to employees that
require one for business reasons: (1) a Town-provided cell phone or (2) a cell phone
allowance.
Town-Provided Cell Phone
Current policy permits the Town to purchase cell phones for employees who use that
Town-provided cell phone predominantly (90%) for Town business. While some
organizations use this as the only option for employees who need a cell phone for
business, the Town has discovered that this option is cumbersome for both the
employee and the organization. For the employee, this option often necessitates that
they carry two cell phones, one for personal use and one for business.
This option is also cumbersome for the Information Technology (IT) staff managing the
phones. The use of this option has scaled down over the past six years because of the
burden it placed on the IT division. Back in 2011-2012, staff completed an analysis that
showed about 20% of the IT group’s time was spent managing Town-provided phones.
This was equivalent to roughly $30,000 per year in management expenses (not to
mention the materials expenses from replacing phones and chargers). Managing the
phones also drew IT time away from other pressing technology issues.
Cell Phone Allowance
The current cell phone policy (approved in 2012) provides for 12 different levels of
allowance ranging from $15 to $110. These levels were developed using usage criteria
along with a distinction between voice only, voice/text, and voice/text/data use (see
table below).
121
Plan Type Minimal Usage
(example, 200
Min or Less)
Low Usage
(example, 450-
650 Min)
Moderate Usage
(example, 650-
750 Min)
High Usage
(example, over
750 Min)
Voice Only $15 $38 $52 $68
Voice/Text Msg $25 $52 $71 $84
Voice/Text/Data $35 $74 $94 $110
The allowance amounts contained in the table above are reflective of cell phone use
patterns in 2012, as well as the plan pricing structures in place at that time. With the
growth of unlimited plans, the widespread increase in data use, and the changes in plan
pricing, changes need to be made in order to bring our allowance levels in-line with
newer cell phone use patterns and plan pricing.
Proposal:
The proposed Policy 206 (Cell Phones) eliminates the Town-provided cell phone option,
simplifies the allowance levels, and removes a significant amount of unnecessary
paperwork by eliminating the annual reauthorization process.
Town-Provided Cell Phone
Staff made the decision to recommend eliminating the Town-provided cell phone option
after consultation with IT. The cost in terms of staff time and hard dollars far outweighs
any benefits gained by this option. As mentioned previously, the use of this option has
been phased out starting in 2012 (there are only a few Town-provided phones left).
Simplifying Allowance Levels
The proposed cell phone policy has only two allowance levels: (1) Job Critical and (2)
Availability/Efficiency. These levels and their associated qualification criteria more
accurately reflect usage patterns by Town employees than the 12 that are contained in
the existing policy. Additionally, by providing an annual process to recalculate the
allowance amount, the Town would ensure that cell phone allowance levels keep pace
with changes in pricing plan structure as they occur. The inclusion of the allowance
calculation in the policy also enhances transparency.
For 2018, the Job Critical Allowance under the new policy would be $80 and the
Availability/Efficiency Allowance would be $30.
Eliminated Paperwork
Under the existing cell phone policy, every employee must submit an annual allowance
reauthorization that includes a cell phone bill. By moving to a system with only two
allowance amounts with qualification criteria that are predicated on the responsibilities
of the position, this annual reauthorization can be eliminated. Eligible positions will
receive the allowance that has been assigned to that position without having to submit
paperwork and bills every year.
122
Advantages:
Eliminates cumbersome Town-provided cell phone option.
Dramatically simplifies the Town’s cell phone allowance structure and process.
Transparent with calculation of allowance amounts.
Self-adjusting allowance amounts keep track with market.
Disadvantages:
This system is based on average usage and does not reflect the exact amount of
time each employee uses their phone for business. Accordingly, some
employees will likely receive a disproportionately high or low allowance relative to
their actual use of cell phones for Town business. However, calculating the exact
amount of each employee’s cell-phone usage that is business-related is not
realistic.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of Policy #206.
Finance/Resource Impact:
There is a projected net total annual cost reduction of $74 across all Town Departments
from these changes.
Level of Public Interest
Medium.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Policy 206.
Attachments:
Policy 206
123
Document Title Cell Phone Policy 1/23/2018
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administration
Effective Period: Until superceded
Review Schedule: Annually in June
Effective Date: 03/01/2018
References: Governing Policies Manual 3.12, Policy 303
ADMINISTRATION
206
Cell Phone Policy
1. PURPOSE
To establish a policy and procedure regarding the use of, and allowance for, wireless
communication devices for Town business that is consistent with Internal Revenue Service
regulations and meets Town standards.
2. POLICY
The Town of Estes Park provides a means of wireless communication to employees meeting
necessary criteria for the purpose of conducting Town business.
3. PROCEDURE
a. Definition
Under this policy, the term “cell phone” refers to mobile phones, tablets, and similar
telecommunication devices that are used to make or receive wireless telephone calls and/or
transmit data on public cellular telephone networks.
b. General Requirements
i. Internal Revenue Service Regulations
The Town abides by the relevant Internal Revenue Service Regulations pertaining to
Town-provided cell phone allowances.
ii. Cell Phone Usage by Non-Exempt Employees
Non-exempt employees receiving a cell phone allowance may not use said phone for
Town business outside of their normal working schedule (unless they are working
overtime in compliance with Policy 303.3.d).
iii. Use of Cell Phone Number
All employees receiving a cell phone allowance must sign up for emergency and closure
notifications from the Town. The employee must agree to give their personal cell phone
number to the Town and must agree that their personal number will be known and used
by Town staff for Town business.
iv. Device Ownership
Under this policy, a cell phone is a personal device owned and operated by the
employee. This device may be used for both business and personal use. The employee
is responsible for purchasing and maintaining a cell phone and service plan which meets
the requirements of their department and their personal needs. Departments may
specify a particular service provider and/or type of equipment for the employee to qualify
for the allowance. The cell phone cannot be obtained through IT or any other department
of the Town. Any device which connects to Town data services must conform to Town
124
Document Title Cell Phone Policy 1/23/2018
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administration
standards. IT will configure cell phones which must communicate with the Town network
and/or for email integration. The Town will NOT be responsible for paying any charges
associated with the purchase of any future new device/accessories, or for the repair of
existing devices/accessories.
v. Termination of Allowance
If the supervisor determines the allowance is no longer needed due to business
requirements or other reasons, the cell phone remains the property of the employee.
The allowance may be discontinued at any time.
vi. Allowance for Temporary, Seasonal, and Contract Employees
The allowance does not need to be based on an entire year. Stipends can be used for
temporary and/or seasonal employees for project work. All stipend requests must be
included in the initial Personnel Action Notice Form.
c. Qualification Criteria
The Town has two levels of cell phone allowances: a job-critical allowance and an
availability/efficiency allowance.
i. Job-Critical Allowance Criteria
Qualification for the Job-Critical allowance requires meeting one or more of the following
criteria:
1) Job requires frequent use of a cell phone for voice/text along with significant data
use (workflow management, applications, etc.);
2) Significant amount of working time spent away from office landline/personal
computer/tablet/radio and the employees needs to be in regular communication
with others; and/or
3) Personal safety concerns for individuals while traveling, working evening or
weekend hours, or working in isolated areas.
ii. Availability/Efficiency Allowance Criteria
The criteria for the “Availability/Efficiency Allowance” are as follows (note: all of the
criteria must be met to receive the availability/efficiency allowance):
1) Employee is frequently away from office/landline/personal computer or tablet;
and
2) Use of cell phone communication during workday increases efficiency but is not
critical to completing assigned work; and
3) Work efficiency benefits from light voice/text use, with minor data use.
d. Allowance Amounts
1) Job-Critical Allowance: 65% of monthly cost of average single line as calculated in
Section e (rounded to nearest multiple of five)
2) Availability/Efficiency Allowance: 25% of monthly cost of average single line as
calculated in Section e (rounded to nearest multiple of five)
3) Part-time employees may receive a pro-rated cell phone allowance from either
category above (pro-ration will be the same as the pro-ration for benefits).
125
Document Title Cell Phone Policy 1/23/2018
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Administration
e. Annual Calculation of Monthly Cost of Average Single Line
Each allowance amount will be calculated annually in June. The allowances will be
calculated by averaging the cost of a single line with AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon. The plan
that is priced shall include unlimited text and talk, at least 4 GB of data, a $10 added
monthly charge to cover taxes and fees, and the monthly charge to finance the most current
iPhone available. The new allowance will be implemented for the first pay period of the
following year (for example, a June 2018 change will be reflected in the first payroll of 2019).
f. Allowance Process
1) Initial enrollment to implement this policy will be completed by Human Resources.
2) Future enrollment of new employees, or changes in allowance levels, will be
completed using the Town’s Personnel Action Notice Form.
3) Employees will receive the appropriate monthly allowance in the first paycheck of
each month and the amount will be included in the employee’s taxable income.
g. Other Considerations
i. Exceptions
The Town Administrator may approve an allowance different than the options provided in
section 206.3.d upon written request from the Department Director with full
documentation of the need for the exception.
.
ii. Prepaid Phone Cards/Phones
Employees may utilize a cell phone allowance to purchase prepaid cards/phones as long
as the resulting service meets the needs and requirements of their department.
Approved:
_____________________________
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
_____________
Date
126