HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2017-05-09The 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, May 9, 2017
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.
1.CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Town Board Minutes dated April 25, 2017 and Town Board Study Session dated
April 25, 2017.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes.
A. Community Development/Community Services Committee Minutes dated,
April 27, 2017.
1. Resolution #13-17 to allow a variance of Ordinance #15-91 and Municipal
Code 17.66.170 for “Hot Cars Cool Nights”.
4. 4
th Amendment to the IGA between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County for
Planning Services.
2.REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Outside Entities):
1.DISCUSSION ON HOME RULE. Sam Mamet, CML.
Prepared 04/2817
* Revised
1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
2. ESTES VALLEY PARTNERS FOR COMMERCE QUARTERLY REPORT.
3.ACTION ITEMS:
1.ORDINANCE #13-17 EXTENDING INTERIM FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS.
Director Hunt.
2.ORDINANCE #12-17 AMENDMENTS TO THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL
RESIDENTIAL CODE LOCAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO DWELLINGS,
VACATION HOMES AND SMALL HOTELS. Chief Building Official Birchfield.
3.REQUEST TO INITIATE ACTION ON MASTER LIST OF PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Director Hunt.
4.BYLAWS FOR FAMILY ADVISORY BOARD. Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek.
4.ADJOURN.
2
COMMENTS TO THE TOWN
Good evening. My name is Rene Moquin and I am chairman of the Estes Valley Indivisible Immigration
Committee. At the last Estes Valley Indivisible meeting over 100 people were in attendance. They were there
out of concern for environmental issues, human rights, immigration, the 2018 election, education, health care,
etc. that affect all of us.
Based on the severity and scope of President Trump’s Order on Enhancing Public Safety …., there is great risk
to our immigrant community and to the economy and school system here in Estes if that Order were enforced to
its fullest.
I am encouraged by the position of the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police and our local police chief
which have stated that “Immigration Law is a federal responsibility and that it is not our role to assist with
deportation efforts. Getting involved in immigration enforcement would be outside of our responsibility and
mission, and would have a chilling effect on the willingness of individuals to report crime or assist with our
investigation of crime.” Some say that ICE won’t bother with us up here in Estes Park, that resources will be
focused on larger metropolitan communities. Let’s hope so.
Many of us here tonight represent Estes Valley Indivisible. All of us want to express thanks to Mr. Lancaster
and Mr. Kufeld for their concerns for our Latin American friends in town and our Estes Park schools and
economy. We look forward to working with them.
It is the unintended consequences of such enforcement that is of concern for our Hispanic friends and neighbors
and for many of us. The family is an extremely important social structure in our society, both among immigrants
and our culture as a whole. Should an Estes Park resident be deported under the guidance of the Order, there is a
great risk that the whole family would voluntarily leave with him or her, including the US citizen children in
that family. If that happens, who is going to supply the labor needs of our community? There is also a moral
issue. Each of us has to assume responsibility to reach out to those in need, to those who face injustices and to
do what we can.
Immigrants here in town form a significant portion of our labor force. Many are in the service sector: room
cleaners in hotels and private homes, construction workers, maintenance workers, cooks, servers, dish washers,
etc. I know many of these people. Volunteers in our community provide conversational English tutoring and
other services to Hispanic residents. These residents work hard and many hope to become American citizens.
About 25 percent of our school students are of Latin descent. A large exodus of these students would have a
serious impact on the effectiveness of our school system and what it can offer.
Their concerns regarding “deportation fear” or the feeling of being alone or not always welcomed in the
community are real. These are our neighbors and let us not fool ourselves, if, for no other reason, they are also
the life blood in maintaining a viable economic and holistic community.
Ultimately, we need national immigration reform. Meanwhile, the very survival of our community, both
economically and politically, is threatened unless we come together as a community and address issues
impacting the immigrant community. This is not a conservative or liberal issue, Republican or Democrat. It is
doing what is right. We are hopeful that the Town Trustees, Mr. Lancaster and Police Chief Kufeld will
continue to work with us in finding ways to reach out to our neighbors and assuring them that they are more
than welcomed in our community.
Rene Moquin
Estes Park Resident and Home Owner
Chair of EVI Immigration Group
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 25, 2017
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 25th day of April, 2017.
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
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the
Pledge of Allegiance.
REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Martchink) to enter Executive Session for
discussion of a personnel matter per Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not
involving any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in
open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any
person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do
not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees – Town
Administrator Annual Review, and it passed unanimously.
The Board entered Executive Session at 6:03 p.m. and concluded at 6:45 p.m.
Mayor Jirsa called the regular 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/Holcomb) to approve the Agenda as presented,
and it passed unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Michelle Hiland/Town citizen spoke to the importance of transparency among the Board
members and the public, and the need to utilize “confidential” and “private” in the subject
line of Board emails appropriately. She expressed concern that Board members were
submitting comments through email regarding the qualifications of Local Marketing
District Board applicants prior to the Interview Committee presenting their
recommendation to the full Board.
David Batey/County citizen presented an overview of the Colorado legislative attempt to
undermine municipal efforts to provide broadband to their communities. The Rural
Broadband bill would eliminate the freedom of choice that 92% of Estes Park citizens
voted in favor of in 2015. He encouraged the Board and citizens to lobby their legislatures
against the passage of the bill.
Kent Smith/Town citizen stated he has written letter to his legislatures regarding the
proposed bill and would recommend the Town send letters as well and address the funds
already spent toward providing local broadband.
DRAFT3
Board of Trustees – April 25, 2017 – Page 2
Joel Holtzman/Town citizen stated the Town of Estes Park was listed in Money Magazine
as number two for value to the visitor.
Art Messal/Town citizen reiterated the statements made by Michelle Hiland. He stated
the comments made by some of the Board members was inappropriate and due process
for those that applied to the Local Marketing Board should have been allowed to run its
course.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Martchink commented the Mountain Festival would be held on April 28 and 29,
2017 at the Event Center. The Parks Advisory Board heard a proposal for a WWII
monument at their recent meeting. The utility box decoration project continues to move
forward.
Trustee Norris stated the League of Women Voters annual recycle meeting would be held
on April 26, 2017. The Estes Valley Planning Commission held a special meeting April
21, 2017 to review the occupancy of vacation homes with nine or more occupancy and
approved ten applications. At the Commission’s regular study session on April 18, 2017
discussion continued on the proposed code amendments to allow a height increase over
30 feet. The newly formed Family Advisory Board would hold its first meeting on May 3,
2017.
Trustee Walker thanked Laura’s Fudge for the ice cream contest held with the fourth
grade class.
Mayor Jirsa attended the RTA meeting where ongoing questions regarding the future of
the program were discussed. At the onset, the projects were asked to fund the operations
of the RTA. The question remains if TIFF increment would be available to fund RTA
before the original funds are depleted.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig announced the next Sister Cities meeting would be held on April
28, 2017. The organization would develop a survey to aid in the development of a
strategic plan. A recognition party for Weld and Larimer County residents over 100 years
old would be held in Greeley in the next few weeks.
Trustee Nelson invited the public to attend and provide input at the upcoming Downtown
Visioning Plan public events to be held on April 26 and 27 2017 at the Rodeway Inn.
Trustee Holcomb thanked the dispatch and paramedic professionals for their service to
the community and for their professionalism. He commented that since electing to make
his emails public, he has not received the same level of public comment, therefore, he
has elected to remove his email from the Town’s website.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Administrator Lancaster provided several updates:
The Broadband bill discussed has not been introduced as of the meeting.
Staff and the Estes Park Housing Authority met to discuss concerns the Planning
Commission has related to the regulation of workforce housing and how the
regulations would be enforced.
Governance Policy Report – 3.3 Strategic Planning and 3.7 Emergency Management.
He reported partial compliance with 3.3.6. because the budget contingency plan
remains in development; however, it would be ready for review by the Board at the
next meeting.
Update on Noise Ordinance – Staff proposed coming back to the Board in September
after the summer season to report on the effectiveness of the new Ordinance.
1.CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Town Board Minutes dated April 11, 2017 and Town Board Study Session
dated April 11, 2017.DRAFT4
Board of Trustees – April 25, 2017 – Page 3
2. Bills.
3. Estes Valley Board of Appeals Minutes dated March 2, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated March 21, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
5. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated March 15, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
6. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated March 17, 2017 (acknowledgement only).
7. Acceptance of Town Administrator Policy Governance Monitoring Report.
8. 2017 Street Overlay Program Contract, The Perfect Patch Asphalt Company,
Inc. for $358,133.59 – Budgeted.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. NEW BEER & WINE LIQUOR LICENSE FILED BY ELK MEADOWS RV
ESSENTIAL GROUP LLC DBA ELK MEADOWS LODGE & RV RESORT,
1665 HIGHWAY 66, ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Mayor Jirsa opened the public
hearing. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the application for the new Beer &
Wine liquor license, stating all paperwork and fees have been submitted. The
location was previously licensed by the applicant prior to the Lazy B in 2016 with
a Beer & Wine license. A temporary use permit was issued for the location to
allow the liquor license. The Mayor closed the public hearing. It was moved
and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to approve the Beer & Wine Liquor
License Application for Elk Meadows RV Essential Group LLC dba Elk
Meadows Lodge & RV Resort, 1665 Highway 66, and it passed unanimously.
2. TRANSFER OF A 3.2% ON/OFF BEER LIQUOR LICENSE FILED BY HSE3
LLC DBA TINY TOWN EAGLE STOP, 860 MORAINE AVENUE, ESTES
PARK, CO 80517. Town Clerk Williamson presented the application to transfer
the license to the new owners. All required paperwork and fees were submitted
and a temporary was issued on March 30, 2017. TIPS training has not been
confirmed as of the date of the meeting. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Norris) to approve the Transfer of Ownership from Tiny Town
Texaco, Inc. dba Tiny Town 1 Stop to HSE3 LLC dba Tiny Town Eagle Stop,
860 Moraine Avenue, 3.2% Beer On/Off Premise Liquor License, and it
passed unanimously.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, VIEW @ 242; METES & BOUNDS
PARCEL, 242 VIRGINIA DRIVE. Director Hunt stated the applicant has
requested continuance of the item to the May 23, 2017 meeting. The
applicant is requesting a development of the RM-Multi-family residential
property to provide ten units in three buildings with six market rate and four
proposed attainable units.
Dan Timbrell/Town citizen stated the proposed development would
negatively impact his property value by eliminating the views from his home.
He requested the Board consider the impact and the protection of the
residents in the area.
DRAFT5
Board of Trustees – April 25, 2017 – Page 4
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to continue the item to the
May 23, 2017 Town Board meeting per the applicant’s request, and it
passed unanimously.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. FUNDING REQUEST FOR CHILDCARE STUDY.
Michael Moon and Charley Dickey/EDC Childcare Committee member
requested funding to conduct a childcare study to assess the need and ultimately
address the problem. The Committee estimated the cost of the assessment at
$40,000 and has received $30,000 in funding from the Estes Park Economic
Development Council, Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success, Estes
Valley Partners for Commerce, YMCA, Estes Area Lodging Association and the
Estes Park School District.
Board comments were heard and summarized: The Town has a process for
considering outside budget requests during the budget process, but funds can
be made available for emergency or unexpected items; the Committee has
reached out to community partners to help fund this critical community issue; the
item fits with the Town’s strategic plan; and what other items can the Town
support and include in the study.
Art Messal/Town citizen commented the Local Marketing District should fund
activities and studies such as the childcare needs assessment to help the
businesses and organizations in the community.
Kent Smith/Town citizen stated he has been impressed with the progress the
Committee has made and how they have involved the community.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve $5,000 from the
General Fund for the Childcare Needs Assessment, and it passed
unanimously.
2. MACGREGOR AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS CONTRACT.
Engineer Stallworth stated the proposed project would provide improvements to
the MacGregor Avenue at the intersection of Wonderview Avenue and continue
north for approximately half mile. The improvements would include two-lane
roadway reconstruction; an eight-foot-wide pedestrian walk/trail on the east side
of the roadway; pedestrian activated rapid flash beacons, raised concrete islands
and tree trimming; and drainage improvements. Public Works received two bids
from SEMA Construction and Mountain Constructors which were within 2% of
each other. After review of the bids and reference checks, staff recommended
awarding the contract to Mountain Constructors at a cost of $1,259,317. The
project would be approximately 26% over the proposed $1 million presented to
the Town Board during the 2017 Street Improvement Program presentation. The
project would repair a section of roadway, complete a needed trail extension
identified in the Estes Valley Master Trail Plan, and improve drainage along the
MacGregor Avenue public right-of-way. Staff recommended a 7% contingency
of $90,683 for the project. The project would be funded with $250,000 from the
1A Trail fund and $300,000 from the Open Lands fund to construct the trail. An
additional $800,000 from the 1A Street Improvement fund would be needed to
complete the project ($64,000 from Dry Gulch Road project unspent funds,
$705,670 unreserved fund balance, and $30,330 from Black Canyon Inn for
deferred development costs). After further discussion, it was moved and
seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to authorize the Mayor to sign a construction
contract with Mountain Constructors for the MacGregor Avenue
Improvements project in the amount of $1,259,317. Public Works staff is
authorized to spend an additional 7% contingency of $90,683 if needed for
unanticipated changes encountered during construction, and it passed
unanimously.
DRAFT6
Board of Trustees – April 25, 2017 – Page 5
3. RESOLUTION #12-17 - 2017 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS.
Director Hudson presented supplemental budget appropriations to the 2017
budget to address needed funding for the MacGregor Avenue Improvement
project, the system design and construction project for the Park Entrance Mutual
Pipeline and Water Company (PEMPWCo), and the acquisition of second source
raw water rights in the Big Thompson River. The Town received offsetting
revenues for the projects: $30,330 from Black Canyon Inn for MacGregor
Avenue, US Department of Agriculture (USDA) loan for $658,000, and an
accompanying grant of $529,000 from USDA for the water project. The Street
fund expenditures would increase by $736,000 and the Water fund expenditures
would increase by $1,287,000. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb)
to approve Resolution #12-17 appropriating additional sums of money for
the budget year ending December 31, 2017, and it passed unanimously.
4. LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT BOARD APPOINTMENT.
Town Clerk Williamson stated Karen Ericson resigned from the Local Marketing
District (LMD) on March 13, 2017 because she moved outside of the district
boundaries. The Board position was advertised and five applications were
received; however, one applicant did not meet the requirements for appointment.
Interviews were held by Mayor Jirsa and Trustee Walker. Steve Krueger of the
LMD Board was present during the interviews. The interview team
recommended the appointment of Sean Jurgens to complete the term of Karen
Ericson beginning May 1, 2017 and expiring on December 31, 2018.
Michelle Hiland/Town citizen stated the appointment of Sean Jurgens would be
a clear conflict of interest because he and a number of the other LMD Board
serve on the Board of the Estes Area Lodging Association (EALA). The LMD
provides marketing to the EALA members. She requested Elizabeth
Fogarty/CEO and President of Visit Estes Park and the Visit Estes Park/LMD
Board members resign from the EALA Board or from the LMD.
Art Messal/Town citizen commented on the inappropriate lobbying from Michael
Bodman/Visit Estes Park employee to appoint a Board member to the LMD
Board and in effect select his boss’ boss. The LMD continues to be an ineffective
board with an ineffective CEO.
It was moved and seconded (Walker/Jirsa) to approve the appointment of
Sean Jurgens to complete Karen Ericson’s term expiring on December 31,
2018, and it passed unanimously.
5. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. AMENDMENTS TO THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE
RELATING TO DWELLINGS, VACATION HOMES AND SMALL HOTELS.
Chief Building Official Birchfield commented the Board Appeals facilitated two
public meetings to review the proposed amendments to the 2015 International
Building Code local amendments based on the direction received by the Town
Board. Staff facilitated additional meetings with stakeholders to develop
informed consent among the stakeholders, including other regulatory agencies.
Larimer County Building has placed their code amendments on hold until the
Town has taken action on the amendments in an effort to align the two agencies.
The amendments would address local concerns related to vacation homes,
sprinkler requirements, accessibility requirements and life safety surveys for
vacation homes. The public hearing on the amendments would be held during
the May 9, 2017 Town Board meeting.
2. RESULTS OF THE 2016 BUILDING CODE EFFECTIVENESS GRADING
SCHEDULE SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE INSURANCE SERVICES
OFFICE (ISO). Chief Building Official Birchfield stated the Building division
recently participated in a voluntary survey by ISO to assess the building codes
in effect and the community enforcement of the codes, with a special emphasis
on mitigation of losses from natural hazards. The Building Code Effectiveness DRAFT7
Board of Trustees – April 25, 2017 – Page 6
Grading Classifications range from a ten being the worst and one being
exemplary. The Town received a three for residential properties and a two for
commercial properties. The residential rating would have been a two if the Town
required sprinklers. Communities with well enforced, current codes should
demonstrate better loss experience and lower insurance rates.
3. PENDING STATE BROADBAND LEGISLATION.
As the bill has not been presented, staff had no update to present to the Board.
6. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Koenig) to enter Executive Session for
discussion of a personnel matter per Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not
involving any specific employees who have requested discussion of the
matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the
appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or
personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to
particular employees – Town Attorney and Municipal Judge Annual Reviews,
and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m. to enter into Executive
Session.
Mayor Jirsa reconvened the meeting to open session at 9:35 p.m.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFT8
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado April 25, 2017
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the
Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 25th day of April, 2017.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending: All
Also Attending: Recording Secretary Bunny Victoria Beers
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 4:50 p.m.
REQUEST FOR A TOWN HOUSING COORDINATOR.
Trustee Holcomb discussed the recommendation for a Housing Coordinator. In 2016
the Estes Park Housing Authority released the Housing Needs Assessment which
proposed hiring a Housing Coordinator. The responsibilities of a coordinator would
include working with employers to provide additional housing for employees; work with
developers to incorporate workforce housing in projects; acquire sites for future housing
development; and communication with community groups and public officials regarding
workforce housing. He added a coordinator can develop a strategic plan and would be
essential to economic development. Finance Director Hudson stated a financial update
would be provided next month to the Board outlining potential funding.
Board discussion followed and has been summarized: funding for the position; is there
an existing group who can take on the role of the housing issue; can the position fill a
portion of need within another department and act as coordinator such as a Senior
Planner position; is there potential for an independent contract position; how and what is
the Town going to do to address the housing problems; evaluate the current housing
issue and create a coordinator position to then address those issues; and recent code
changes may alleviate some housing issues.
KEY OUTCOME DISCUSSION – TOWN FINANCIAL HEALTH & OUTSTANDING
GUEST SERVICES. Town Administrator Lancaster stated the Town Financial Health
outcome area was added in 2017 to the Strategic Plan. The main objective was to
develop and adopt a financial reserve policy, including consideration of an overall
reserve of minimum/maximum levels. He added capital planning process would be
added to the budget in 2017. All of 2016 sales tax returns are in the database and those
not filed can be turned into the State by submitting an audit request on behalf of the
Town. After further discussion, the Board voiced concern on challenges in collecting
unremitted sales tax; how to assure compliance during Town held events; and small
sales tax going unnoticed.
Guest Services goals were discussed, including a look at future ownership and
operation of the Events Complex and the Board requested net projections for 2017 for
the Events Complex.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Holcomb provided a handout related to policy governance and the
Carver Model by Mike Holt.
9
Town Board Study Session – April 25, 2017 – Page 2
Mountain Festival would be held on April 28- 29, 2017.
Pikas in the Park would host a kickoff event on May 4, 2017.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
On June 27, 2017 the Board would discuss the process for funding outside agencies.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m.
Bunny Victoria Beers, Recording Secretary
10
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 27, 2017
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the
27th day of April, 2017.
Committee: Chair Walker, Trustees Holcomb and Norris
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Directors Hinkle, Hunt, and
Fortini, Manager Salerno and Recording Secretary Beers
Absent: None
Chair Walker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
CULTURAL SERVICES.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD.
REPORTS.
Museum Quarterly Report – Director Fortini commented he anticipates the Museum
would close during remodeling. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek added the
remodel is anticipated to be completed in the winter and was delayed due to high
workload in the Facility Manager position, time constraints and the construction
environment for a project of this scope. Director Fortini stated design has been
completed. Other notable items included: Discovery Packs were placed at the
Library which are theme based, developmentally appropriate kits that encourage
children’s literacy skills and promote local history; staff partnered with Families for
Estes for a summer event at the Hydroplant; gallery visits had a decrease in
attendance counts due to a new placement of counters inside the gallery rather than
at the entrance door to provide more accurate attendance numbers. Staff would
provide a Centennial themed exhibit in the fall.
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – None.
COMMUNITY SERVICES.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD.
WEST ELKHORN STREET CLOSURE FOR HOT CARS COOL NIGHTS. Director
Hinkle requested a variance of Ordinance 15-91 and Municipal Code 17.66.170 for “Hot
Cars Cool Nights” to operate June 16, July 14, August 11 and September 15, 2017.
Staff would close streets to allow merchants to expand downtown shops to the sidewalk
during the event. Mark Igel/downtown business owner stated the event would be an
opportunity to gather the community and allow event participants to walk past shops. He
stated a poll was issued to approximately 45 business owners from downtown and they
collected approximately 35 signatures from business owners who would be interested in
participating. The Committee discussed the option of allowing Administration to develop
a permitting process for approval of events downtown. The Committee recommended
the Resolution for “Hot Cars Cool Nights” to operate June 16, July 14, August 11
and September 15, 2017, be included as a Consent Item at the May 9, 2017, Town
Board meeting.
REPORTS. DRAFT11
Community Development / Community Services – April 27, 2017 – Page 2
Events Quarterly Report – Coordinators Benes & Johnson updated the Committee
with a summary on Town sponsored events:
o Winter Festival – Staff added an impersonation of F. O. Stanley by Curtis Kelly
to the event. There were 30 staff volunteers and approximately 2,038 people in
attendance. Staff also added a police and fire chili cookoff.
o Whiskey Warm Up – The event sold out of tickets in 2017. Staff added weather
is a determining factor on attendance and ticket sales.
o Mountain Festival – Would be held on the weekend of April 28, 2017.
o Mountain Music Festival –Staff’s main priority would be promoting the new event
for 2017. Groupon would be used to promote the event.
Visitor Center Quarterly Report – Manager Salerno stated the new video counters
are installed and showing counts up 4.95% over 2016 in the first quarter. Staff
received additional applications for Ambassadors and were operating with a total of
60 Ambassadors at the end of the first quarter. There has been community concern
about visitors walking across the highway in front of the Visitor Center. Public Works
has discussed the possibility of adding barriers or landscaping to detour crossing the
highway.
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – None.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
REPORTS.
2016 Annual Report – Director Hunt presented his report and there were no
Committee questions.
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – None.
There being no further business, Chair Walker adjourned the meeting at 8:45 a.m.
___________________________
Bunny Victoria Beers, Recording Secretary
DRAFT12
RESOLUTION #13-17
WHEREAS, on November 3, 1999, the Board of Trustees adopted the Estes Valley
Development Code (Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, Section 4, specifically paragraph D.1.a
Outdoor Sales, Use, Storage and Activity in the CD Zoning District, Number (3)
Exceptions).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
That the following guidelines shall be adopted for the "Hot Cars Cool Nights"
being organized by the West Elkhorn Merchants, scheduled one Friday per month
between June and September; June 16th, July 14th, August 11th, September 15th, 2017:
1. Hours of operation shall be from 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. West Elkhorn
between Moraine and Spruce streets will be closed to traffic during this
time.
2. This is available to businesses on West Elkhorn between Moraine and
Spruce Ave.
3. This will be held rain or shine.
4. Business will be allowed to sell merchandise in front of their stores only
during the hours specified above.
5. Sidewalk displays, including signage, shall provide a minimum clearance
of four feet for pedestrian walkways and handicapped accessibility.
Displays and/or merchandise will not be allowed in any street.
6. Sandwich board signs and other temporary signage are allowed.
7. Each participating business must possess a current Town Business
license.
DATED this ______day of______, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
13
14
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: May 9, 2017
RE: 4th Amendment to the IGA between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer
County for Planning Services
Objective:
Amend the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town and County to
formalize the Host Compliance software cost share with the County.
Present Situation:
Host Compliance (sometimes referred to as iCompass) is the Town’s software service
provider for vacation-home monitoring and enforcement. On December 15, 2016, the
Town Board authorized execution of a contract with Host Compliance to provide these
services. This one-year contract is for $50,185 and runs through December 31, 2017.
In August, the County verbally committed to sharing the contractual cost 50/50 with the
Town for this service, pending budget approval and pending the Town’s contract
approval with Host Compliance. Subsequently, the County and Town budgets were
approved, the Host Compliance contract signed, and service delivery has been
underway since early January 2017.
The County has asked that an amendment to the IGA also be executed to authorize the
50/50 cost split. This is accomplished by approval of the attached “4th Amendment to
the IGA between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County for Planning Services”,
and by parallel approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
While it is not strictly necessary (as the existing IGA authorizes cost-sharing with the
County for development services in Estes Valley), the IGA amendment would confirm
the cost split at $25,092.50 each in 2017 and would authorize an ongoing 50/50 share
in future contract years.
Staff has no concerns with this amendment and recommends adoption.
Proposal:
Amend the current IGA with the County by authorizing the 4th Amendment as drafted.
15
Advantages:
• Execution of this IGA Amendment will provide for the County to pay 50 percent of
the Host Compliance cost in the current year and future years.
Disadvantages:
• None
Budget:
Following execution, the County will remit its 50 percent share to the Town.
Level of Public Interest:
High, regarding vacation homes in general; low, regarding this particular amendment.
Sample Motion:
I move for approval of the Fourth Amendment to the IGA between the Town of Estes
Park and Larimer County for Planning Services.
Attachments:
Fourth Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement
16
FOURTH AMEMDMENT TO
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT is effective this 1st day of January, 2017, by and
between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO (“Town”) and the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO (“County”).
WHEREAS, the Town and County entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement
effective the 1st day of February, 2000 (“IGA”) for the purpose of establishing the Estes Valley
Planning Commission (“EVPC”), providing for the administration of the Estes Valley
Development Code (“EVDC”) within the Planning Area, allocating Town and County resources
for the administration of the EVPC and related functions within the Planning Area, establishing a
joint Zoning Board of Adjustment for the Planning Area, establishing parameters and procedures
for annexation of property to the Town within the Planning Area, and other necessary
agreements for the efficient operation and administration of the EVPC and Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, the parties amended the IGA by an Amendment to Intergovernmental
Agreement with an effective date December 1, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the parties amended the IGA by a First Amendment to Intergovernmental
Agreement with an effective date of February 1, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the parties amended the IGA by a Second Amendment to
Intergovernmental Agreement with an effective date of November 11, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the parties amended the IGA by a Third Amendment to Intergovernmental
Agreement with an effective date of March 16, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to additionally amend the IGA as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the applicable State statutes, the parties are authorized to enter
into this Fourth Amendment to the IGA for the above stated purposes.
NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE AND THE
COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE TO
AMEND THE IGA AS FOLLOWS:
Section IX (L) is added as follows:
L. Host Compliance Software and Services
1. The Town has contracted with Host Compliance LLC (“Host Compliance”) for a
license to certain hosted software and other services necessary for the productive
use of such software (“Software”), as described in the Host Compliance Software
and Services annual agreement between the Town and Host Compliance. The
17
Software will aid the Town and County in the identification of vacation rental
properties and in management of the complaint process.
2. The cost for the System is $50,185 for the initial term, and County agrees to
contribute $25,092.50 toward this cost. The County will contribute 50% of the
annual cost for future terms, subject to the parties consulting and agreeing to any
increases to such cost. If County chooses to withdraw its contribution for future
years, it shall provide the Town with a minimum of 60 days advanced written
notice prior to renewal of the Host Compliance contract.
All other terms and conditions of the IGA, as amended, shall continue in full force and effect.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
By:
Board Chair
ATTEST:
Board Clerk
18
1
Overview of Colorado
Municipal Home Rule
by Sam Mamet, Executive Director
Colorado Municipal League
Your source for advocacy, information and training.
The views expressed at this forum are those solely of the presenter, and
any legal advice should be obtained by appropriate legal counsel
Prepared in 2017
.
Municipal Home Rule in Colorado
• Municipalities lacking home rule status are limited to exercising those
powers that have been granted by the state
1902 - Citizens in cities of the first and second class may adopt home rule
under amendment to the Colorado Constitution
1912 - Section 6 of Article XX specifically enumerated various municipal
home rule powers with a “catch-all” paragraph
1970 - Section 9 extended the right to adopt home rule to the citizens of
every municipality
• Article XX of the Colorado Constitution reserves both structural and
functional home rule powers to municipalities and “the full right of self
government in local and municipal matters “ to citizens
2
General Arguments For Home Rule
• Article XX of the Colorado Constitution grants both general and
specific powers to home rule municipalities
• Provides greater flexibility to solve local problems because
municipalities are less constrained by state requirements
• Allows quicker response time to emergency situations as there is no
need to wait for the entire state legislative process
• Home rule municipalities are not required to follow state statutes in
matters of local and municipal concern and therefore enjoy freedom
from state interference regarding local and municipal matters
General Arguments For Home Rule
• Allows municipalities to legislate with confidence on any
and all matters of local concern
– Authority granted by state statutes is sometimes ambiguous.
• Enhances citizen control, interest, involvement and pride
in their municipal government
• The embodiment of the principle that the best
government is the one that is the closest to the people
3
General Arguments Against Home Rule
• Restrictive charters may limit the potential flexibility of
home rule
• Dissatisfied citizens may adopt binding charter
amendments, i.e. amendments which cannot be
changed or repealed by the governing body without a
subsequent vote of the people
• Legal uncertainties may arise when the municipality
legislates in a relatively new area; the ultimate
determination of whether a matter is truly of “local
concern” requires an ad hoc determination in court
General Arguments Against Home Rule
• Costs for adopting a home rule charter can burden the municipality –
attorney’s or other consultant’s fees, expenses incurred from
publication requirements, election costs, etc.
• A change in the status quo may create unnecessary risks in a
community that is satisfied operating under existing statutes
• Unless restricted by the charter, a home rule municipality has the
potential to exercise more governmental powers than are available
to statutory municipalities, which some local citizens may see as a
disadvantage
4
Timeline for Home Rule Election
• Within 180 days of its election, the charter commission
shall submit to the governing body a proposed charter
• Within 30 days after the date that the charter
commission submits the proposed charter to it, the
governing body shall publish and give notice of an
election to determine whether the proposed charter shall
be approved
• The election shall not be held less than 30 nor more than
185 days after publication of the notice
Drafting a Home Rule Charter
Under Colorado law, the charter is principally an instrument of
limitation in Colorado.
The charter sets forth the basic:
(1) structure and organization of government;
(2) procedures to be followed by municipal government in the conduct of its business;
(3) powers of municipal officials and agencies, including any limitations.
It is not necessary for the charter to spell out the details of
municipal operations
• Details can be left to the city council.
• State law applies in the absence of a charter or ordinance provision.
Charters are not easily or readily amended; consequently, great
care must go into their drafting and unnecessary details and
verbiage should be avoided.
5
Contents of a Municipal Charter
•Mandatory provisions:
– Initiative and referendum of measures
– Recall of officers
– Provisions continuing, amending, or repealing existing ordinances
– Prefatory synopsis
•Other examples of charter provisions
– Form of government – allocation of legislative and administrative powers
– Qualifications, terms of office, number of councilmembers and method of election
– Election procedures
– Administrative organization
– Boards and commissions
– Procedures for passage of ordinances, resolutions and motions
– Personnel, merit or civil service system
– Legal and judicial affairs
– Budget control and financing
– Municipal borrowing
– Eminent domain
•Borrowing provisions from other charters is helpful and time saving, but be wary of using charters from Colorado municipalities that were adopted years ago, guard against lifting unnecessary detail from other charters and be aware that charter provisions borrowed from the municipalities may not be relevant or appropriate for your community.
Considerations in Drafting a Charter
• Be aware of the tight timeline
• Research and organize resource information beforehand
• Use your staff or consultant extensively and effectively
• Obtain competent legal advice
• Provide adequate opportunity for citizen input before finalized decisions
• Charter commissions may adopt an organization similar to their existing
organization
• Think long term
6
Considerations in Drafting a Charter
• Define which actions must be by ordinance as opposed to resolution or
motion and the procedures applicable to enactment of ordinances. Make
clear who votes and how many votes are necessary for the council to act
• Include fundamental and priority features, leaving other provisions to
subsequent action by city council and staff. Leave the elected officials with
sufficient flexibility to act and be responsive
• Cross-reference state statute where appropriate, such as municipal election
procedures
• Financing provisions, such as municipal bonding and use of local
improvement districts, are important
• Be careful about including unnecessary provisions sought by special
interests
Considerations in Drafting a Charter
• A good process can facilitate drafting of a good charter
and enhance chances for its approval by the citizens
• Constructive debate can be healthy – remember the
debate which was carried out at the Constitutional
Convention in Philadelphia.
•Work as a team!
7
Authority and Flexibility Afforded to
Home Rule Municipalities
• Form of Government:
– City manager who answers to council, strong mayor - weak council, or
strong council - weak mayor system
– Clear authority to adopt the council/manager form of government
• Elected Officials
– Clarification of powers for mayor, council, manager, other officers, and
boards and commissions
– Disqualifying circumstances, grounds and procedures for discipline, or
removal from office
– Minimum age requirements
Authority and Flexibility Afforded to
Home Rule Municipalities
• Elective Offices
– Number and types of offices, the date when newly elected officials take
office, and provide flexibility for being elected at-large, by districts and
redistricting
– Modify or eliminate term limits for mayor and council
• Elections
– Regular election dates and times other than the dates required by
statute
– Flexibility for special election dates
– Procedures for initiative, referendum and recall
– Expand the right to vote in municipal elections
– Expand certain citizen powers, like initiative, referendum and recall
8
Authority and Flexibility Afforded to
Home Rule Municipalities
• Procedures
– Enactment of local ordinances to expedite consideration and effective
dates, such as one-reading procedure for emergency ordinances in
cities
– Option to delegate decisions to administrative staff
– Repeal or modify statutory provisions governing bidding and awarding
of public projects and disposal of public property
– Establish local zoning, subdivision and other land use procedures which
are different from those applicable to statutory municipalities
– Provide council procedures and bind elected officials to them
Authority and Flexibility Afforded to
Home Rule Municipalities
• Finances
– Collection and enforcement of local sales/use taxes
– Broader or narrower sales and use tax base
– Additional types of excise taxes: admissions, entertainment, tourism,
and lodgers’ taxes
– Clarify, simplify, or otherwise revise procedures for budget and
appropriation and municipal enterprises
– Authorize refunds and exemptions not authorized by state law
– Increase general obligation bond authority and streamline requirements
for issuance of bonds
– Facilitate formation of special improvement districts and expand
purposes for which they can be formed
•Home rule does not exempt municipalities from TABOR
requirements.
9
Authority and Flexibility Afforded to Home Rule
Municipalities –
• Miscellaneous Powers
– Alternative procedures for management and operation of municipal
utilities
– Terms and conditions of municipal employment
– Broaden municipal court jurisdiction
– Provide additional tools for economic development
– Clarify authority for or expand the types of services which the
municipality can provide
– Set forth more specific ethics and conflict of interest rules
Decisions To Be Made By The Town Board
•Size of the Charter Commission
– If your municipal population is over 2,000, then the commission
may be composed of 9 to 21 members (must be an odd-number)
– If your municipal population is under 2,000, then the commission
shall be composed of 9 members
•Date & time that the charter commission meets
– Eligibility to serve on the charter commission shall extend to all
registered electors of the municipality
– The commission may employ a staff; consult and retain experts.
•Calendar for placing a home rule initiative on the ballot
10
Growth in Home Rule Municipalities
•Most Colorado residents benefit from home rule
•Number of Colorado home rule cities and towns
•1940 – 10
•1960 – 22
•1980 – 56
•2000 – 80
•2017 – 101
•93% of municipal residents in home rule cities/towns
•69% of Colorado residents in home rule cities/towns
11
Resources at the League
•Matrix of Home Rule Charters (2017) publication
•Home Rule Handbook (2017) publication
•Copies of every home rule charter
•Sample educational materials to distribute to citizens
Questions
Feel free to contact Sam Mamet via e-mail at
smamet@cml.org and via phone at (303) 831-641.
30
Community Development Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: May 9, 2017
RE: Ordinance No. 13-17 – EXTENDING INTERIM FLOODPLAIN
REGULATIONS
Objective:
Extend and amend interim floodplain regulations adopted in November 2013.
The consideration of Ordinance 13-17, continuing with amendments to the temporary
building requirements for development on lots adjacent to drainages established in
Ordinance 13-13, adopted by the Board on November 12, 2013.
This is the continuance with amendments of an interim measure pending revisions to
the Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.28, Floodplain Regulations, and new
hydraulics information.
Present Situation:
Ordinance 13-13 was adopted by the Town Board on November 12, 2013. This
Ordinance replaced emergency provisions that were put in place immediately following
the September 2013 flood that had limited permanent construction adjacent to
drainages.
Ordinance 13-13 was adopted as an interim measure to establish the high-water mark
of the 2013 flood as the regulatory floodplain pending revision to the Flood Insurance
Rate Maps. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Study and associated Flood Insurance Rate Maps are used by the Town of Estes Park
Floodplain Administrator to regulate special flood hazard areas (areas with a 1% annual
chance of flooding).
Ordinance 16-14 continued the provisions of Ordinance 13-13, which was followed by
Ordinance 15-15 and Ordinance 23-16. Minor amendments to Ordinance 13-13
occurred during the subsequent Ordinances.
Ordinance 23-16 adopted on November 8, 2016 is set to expire on May 31, 2017.
Proposal:
31
Ordinance 13-17 allows for permanent construction in drainages within Town limits,
while taking appropriate measures to reasonably protect lives and properties from
flooding and minimize potential non-compliance with FEMA regulations (namely, future
updated floodplain maps).
The Ordinance further ensures that staff have all necessary information when reviewing
building and floodplain development permit applications and that the application
requirements are more well-defined for the applicant.
Ordinance 13-17 provides criteria for reviewing floodplain development permit
applications for structures on properties located adjacent to drainages.
Ordinance 13-17 will replace Ordinance 23-16.
Effective Period:
If passed, this Ordinance will take effect immediately upon adoption by the Town Board
and continue until amended or terminated by further action of the Town Board.
New hydraulics studies will be completed during the last quarter of 2017. The Colorado
Water Conservation Board (CWCB) is expected to submit the new hydraulics studies
and the Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) hydrology study to FEMA in late 2017,
early 2018.
Advantages:
• Allows for continued for new construction in drainage areas within Town limits.
• Lives and properties are better protected from future flood events and more likely to
be in compliance with future floodplain maps.
• Consistent with management practices suggested by FEMA and CWCB. CWCB
adopted the WWE hydrology study at their March 22, 2017, Board meeting. CWCB
is using this hydrology study information in their floodplain mapping project, the
results of which will be submitted to FEMA along with the WWE hydrology study to
begin the FEMA adoption process.
• Increases likelihood that federal and state funding agencies will fund flood resiliency
and public infrastructure improvements designed for the updated hydrology
discharges.
• Floodplains have been regulated since 2014 using post-flood hydrology developed
for CDOT. The WWE hydrology study was a much more detailed hydrology study.
• Ordinance 13-17 clarifies requirements for permits and removes language regarding
high water mark information which is not fully mapped or defined and is not
appropriate for use in floodplain development regulation implementation.
Disadvantages:
• None identified with this specific Ordinance.
Action Recommended:
32
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 13-17.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
High, regarding floodplain regulations in general; medium to low on this particular
Ordinance. The January 2017 hydrology study remains of interest to some.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Ordinance Number 13-17 to extend temporary floodplain
development requirements for development on lots adjacent to drainages.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance 13-17
2. Exhibit A
33
ORDINANCE NO. 13-17
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, LARIMER COUNTY,
COLORADO, EXTENDING INTERIM REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT
ADJACENT TO DRAINAGES.
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park has adopted Estes Park Municipal Code
Chapter 17.28 Floodplain Regulations to identify and clarify where flood hazards may
exist and to ensure that potential buyers and builders are aware that certain properties
are in areas with special flood hazards; and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2013, Estes Park was impacted by a severe flood
event; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Town of Estes Park enacted temporary
requirements for development on properties located within the Town and adjacent to the
Black Canyon, Fish Creek, Fall River and/or the Big Thompson River drainages; and
WHEREAS, the temporary requirements enacted on November 12, 2013, will
expire on May 31, 2017; and
WHEREAS, due to the September 2013 flood event, the Town does not know
the final location of stream/river channels or banks; the final location of floodplains; and
the final base flood elevations; and
WHEREAS, the Town wants to ensure compliance with FEMA regulations to
ensure businesses and residents are eligible to purchase flood insurance; and
WHEREAS, the Town recognizes that property owners may wish to initiate,
continue, and complete construction adjacent to stream/river channels; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees hereby determines that it is in the public
interest to adopt this Ordinance in order to adopt floodplain standards for properties
located within the Town and adjacent to the Black Canyon Creek, Dry Gulch, Fish
Creek, Fall River or the Big Thompson River drainages.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Temporary floodplain standards and regulations for properties located within
the Town and adjacent to the Black Canyon Creek, Dry Gulch, Fish Creek, Fall River
and/or the Big Thompson River drainages is hereby established, as more fully set forth
on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
34
Section 2. The temporary floodplain standards and regulations set forth in Exhibit A
shall take effect upon the effective date of this Ordinance and continue until amended or
terminated by further action of the Board of Trustees.
Section 3. The immediate passage of this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation
of health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town in order to prevent unsafe
construction adjacent to drainages, and therefore the Ordinance shall take effect and be
in force immediately after its passage, adoption, and signature of the Mayor.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, this ________ day of
________________, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
________________________________
_______
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________________
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at the meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the ____ day of _____________, 2017, and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the ______
day of ________________, 2017.
________________________________
_____
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
35
EXHIBIT A
Flood Protection Elevation
In order to account for the impacts of future development on flood depths and to ensure
the least expensive insurance rate for property owners, all new structures, substantial
changes and additions on properties located within the Town and adjacent to the Black
Canyon Creek, Fish Creek, Fall River, and/or the Big Thompson River and/or the Dry
Gulch drainages shall be built a minimum of one vertical foot above the calculated base
flood elevation using the new hydrologyflood of record. The flood of record shall be
measured from the high water marks from the September 2013 flood event, as
minimum elevation regardless of the current regulatory flood location. When the high
water mark and FEMA regulatory floodplain are inconsistent with one another, the more
restrictive shall govern.
To administer the floodplain regulations, the Town floodplain administrator shall is
authorized to use best available data, herein defined asincluding, but not limited to the
peak discharge flows for the 1% annual chance flood as determined by the January 28,
2017, Wright Water Engineers hydrology study for Fall River, Big Thompson River,
Black Canyon Creek, and Dry Gulch, and the peak discharge flows for the 1% annual
chance flood as determined in by the August 21, 2014, Matrix Design Group hydrology
study report for Fish Creek.revised/increased peak discharge flows for the 1% annual
chance flood.
Floodplain development permits shall be required for any construction or improvement
within the effective FEMA floodplain boundaries at the time of application. At the
present, these numbers are 990 cubic feet per second (cfs) for Fish Creek and 1670 cfs
for Fall River. These flows are approximately 250% of pre-flood flows.
Floodplain Development Permit Submittal Requirements
Minimum requirements for Floodplain Development Permit application submissions are
as follows:
i. Site plan shall include:
a. Current Regulatory Floodplain.
Location of the current regulatory floodplain, including elevation points
adjacent to proposed development and distance from the floodplain boundary
to the nearest point of theto proposed development; and
b. High Water Marks and Lines.
High Water mark and line locations from the September 2013 flood event,
including elevation points adjacent to proposed development, and distance
from marks and line to the proposed development.
36
ii. Federal Emergency Management Agency Elevation Certificate (FEMA Form 086-
0-33; Revised 7/122015). A FEMA Form 086-0-33, Revised 20157-12 or
subsequent revisions, shall be submitted for each new or substantially improved
structure within a proposed development, taken from the regulatory floodplain.
iii. A qualified Colorado registered professional engineer in good standing shall
direct or supervise floodplain projects within the regulatory floodplain and/or the
high water mark from the flood of record. Project designs within the regulatory
floodplain shall be certified and sealed by the Colorado registered professional
engineer of record.
iv. Measurements shall be taken in accordance with Estes Valley Development
Code §1.9.D.2.
v. The location of fill material to be imported to the site and confirmation from a
qualified expert that the engineering characteristics of the fill are appropriate for
development.
vi. The location where material being exported from the site will be deposited. The
land owner or agent accepting the deposit must be identified and proof of the
land owner’s or agent’s approval confirmed by staffthe Town floodplain
administrator.
vii. Identification of all existing structures on, or adjacent to the site that may be
affected by grading and development, and presentation of detailed mitigation
measures to reduce any negative impact to existing structures during
development.
viii. Staff may waive submittal requirements depending on the amount of information
necessary to perform a complete and reasonable review of the development.
37
38
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Todd Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official
Date: May 9, 2017
RE: Ordinance 12-17 Setting Public Hearing - Amendments to the 2015
International Residential Code relating to Dwellings, Vacation Homes, and
Small Hotels
Objective:
Facilitate a public meeting to consider adoption of local amendments to the 2015
International Residential Code relating to single family dwellings, vacation homes and
hotels. At the conclusion of the meeting, schedule the public hearing for May 23, 2017
and provide staff with direction as to any revisions to the proposed amendments.
Present Situation:
The Chief Building Official met twice with the Town Trustees to receive direction regarding
amending the International Building Codes to address local concerns relating to vacation
homes. Subsequently, the Estes Park Board of Appeals facilitated two public meetings
to review proposed amendments to the 2015 International Residential Code, based on
direction received from the Trustees. Staff facilitated additional discussion with multiple
stakeholders and worked to create informed consent among all the stakeholders. The
Chief Building Official believes there is informed consent from all effected regulatory
agencies to adopt the amendments as presented in Exhibit A (attached). At the March
02, 2017 Town Board of Appeals meeting, that Board recommended adoption of the
proposed amendments in Exhibit A. At the Estes Park Board of Appeals public meeting
on May 4, 2017, those who participated in the meeting expressed informed consent to
the amendments, with two exceptions related to the Life Safety Survey. These concerns
are the 2019 time frame and egress window requirements. The Board of Appeals is willing
to revisit the egress window requirement if the Trustees want them to do so. Staff will
propose revisions to the 2019 timeframe for compliance with the life safety survey.
Proposal:
Town staff and the Town Board of Appeals recommend adoption of the proposed
amendments to the 2015 International Residential Code as presented in Exhibit A, with
the effective date of July 1, 2017. These proposed amendments address public concerns
relating to vacation homes and the direction staff received from the Trustees to address
those concerns. Staff is requesting the Trustees facilitate a public hearing during the May
9, 2017 Town Board meeting.
39
Advantages:
Adoption of the amendments to the International Residential Code will:
• Address local concerns relating to vacation homes, sprinkler requirements,
accessibility requirements and life safety surveys for vacation homes.
• Provide safeguards, establishing minimum safety standards for all vacation homes.
Disadvantages:
Most vacation homes will be exempt from sprinkler requirements, making them less safe.
Exempting one-and two-family dwellings negatively impacts the Town’s ISO BCEGCs.
Action Recommended:
Schedule a public hearing to discuss adoption of proposed amendments to the 2015
International Residential Code.
Budget:
Life safety surveys will increase building division staff workload by an estimated 20% for
at least the next two years. Enforcement of the vacation home provisions in the EVDC
has already resulted in an approximate 15% increase in workload for Building Division
staff.
Staff will be requesting one temporary (12-18 months) contract person to assist with
records management. This person would be dedicated to digitizing records to increase
productivity and reduce the need for storage space.
Level of Public Interest
Extremely High
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Ordinance 12-17.
OR
I move to approve/deny continuing the public hearing to May 23, 2017.
Attachments:
• Ordinance #12-17
• Exhibit A for the public hearing
• Handout: Dwellings regulated by the 2015 IRC
• Handout: Dwellings regulated by the 2015 IBC
40
1
ORDINANCE NO. 12-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, 2015 EDITION
THE SAME PERTAINING TO BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, the Town adopted the International Residential Code, 2015 Edition
by reference, by the adoption of Ordinance No. ____; and
WHEREAS, Section 31-16-207 C.R.S. provides that the Town, by ordinance,
may amend the International Residential Code, 2015 Edition; and
WHEREAS, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this
reference, are amendments to the International Residential Code, 2015 Edition; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has reviewed the proposed amendments to
the International Residential Code, 2015 Edition and determined that the amendments
are appropriate and beneficial to the Town of Estes Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO as follows:
Section 1: The International Residential Code, 2015 Edition issued by the International
Code Council, 4051 W. Flossmoor Rd., Country Club Hills, IL 60478-5795, is amended
as more fully set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
Section 2: The amendments to the International Residential Code, 2015 Edition shall
be effective July 1, 2017.
Section 3: 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 _______________, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
41
2
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2017, and
published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on
the day of , 2017.
Town Clerk
42
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENTS
TO THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE RELATING TO
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, VACATION HOMES AND HOTELS
Add the following exceptions to Section R101.2 Scope:
1. Vacation homes shall be permitted to be regulated in accordance with the
International Residential Code for one-and two-family dwellings, where the
dwellings legally existed prior to the effective date of this provision and where
compliant with Section R327.
2. Large vacation homes shall be permitted to be regulated in accordance with the
International Residential Code for one-and two-family dwellings, where a 2017
vacation home or large vacation home license was applied for prior to April 01,
2017 and where compliant with Section R327. The occupant load for large vacation
homes regulated by the International Residential Code shall be determined based on
the number of bedrooms approved in conjunction with the 2017 license application
received prior to April 01, 2017.
3. Vacation homes constructed under permits applied for on or after the effective date
of this provision shall be permitted to be regulated in accordance with the
International Residential Code for one-and two-family dwellings, where new large
vacation homes are prohibited by land use regulations and where compliant with
Section R327.
4. Vacation homes constructed under permits applied for on or after the effective date
of this provision shall be permitted to be regulated in accordance with the
International Residential Code for one-and two-family dwellings; where new large
vacation homes are allowed; where they have less than 1800 square feet of enclosed
floor area, excluding attached garages; and where compliant with Section R327.
5. Vacation homes constructed under permits applied for on or after the effective date
of this provision shall be permitted to be regulated in accordance with the
International Residential Code for one-and two-family dwellings, where constructed
under a Development Plan approved prior to the effective date of this provision and
no floor area or additional rooms used for sleeping purposes are added beyond the
approved Development plan and where compliant with Section R327.
43
Add the following definitions to Section R202 Definitions:
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). A dwelling unit, either attached or detached, which is on the
same lot and under the same ownership as the primary dwelling. When accessory dwelling units
and primary dwelling units are attached, they shall be regulated as two attached single family
dwellings.
Hotel. A building or a portion of a building which contains dwelling units and/or sleeping units
where accommodations are provided for nine or more occupants transient in nature and where
units may be individually rented.
Large Vacation Home. A one-family dwelling constructed in compliance with the scoping
provisions of the International Residential Code, where accommodations are provided for a single
group of nine or more occupants transient in nature and where rooms may not be individually
rented to guests which are not part of the group.
Small Hotel. A building or a portion of a building which contains dwelling units and/or sleeping
units where accommodations are provided for less than nine occupants, transient in nature and
where units may be individually rented.
Transient. Occupancy of a dwelling unit or sleeping unit for not more than 30 Days.
Vacation Home. A one-family dwelling constructed in compliance with the scoping provisions of
the International Residential Code, where accommodations are provided for a single group of less
than nine occupants transient in nature and where rooms may not be individually rented to guests
which are not part of the group.
Vacation Home Occupant Load. For the purposes of using a dwelling as a vacation home, the
approved maximum number of occupants shall be determined by allowing 2 occupants per
approved bedroom plus 2 additional occupants. In vacation homes, all occupants shall sleep only
in rooms designated and approved for sleeping purposes.
Revise Sections R313.1.1 through R31.2.1 as follows:
R313.1.1 Design and installation. Automatic residential fire sprinkler systems for townhouses
shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA standards.
R313.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire sprinkler systems. An automatic
residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required in detached one- and two- family dwellings.
R313.2.1 Design and installation. If installed, automatic residential fire sprinkler systems shall
be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA standards.
44
Add Section R327 as follows:
SECTION R327
VACATION HOME AND LARGE VACATION HOME
LIFE SAFETY SURVEY
R327.1 General. Vacation homes and large vacation homes shall comply with Section R327.
Prior to occupancy as a vacation home or a large vacation home in 2019, the dwelling shall have
been issued a Certificate of Occupancy in accordance with R327.3.
R327.2 Life safety survey. After December 31, 2018, a vacation home or a large vacation home
shall not be approved for occupancy until the Building Official performs and approves a life safety
survey. At minimum, vacation home and large vacation home life safety surveys shall include the
provisions of R327.2.1 through R327.2.18.
R327.2.1 Address identification. Vacation homes and large vacation homes shall have approved
address identification, in compliance with the requirements of the International Building Code in
effect at the time of the survey.
R327.2.2 Unapproved uses. Uses of all rooms/spaces shall comply with approved uses per
Building Division records. Change of use permits, inspections and approvals shall be required for
all rooms with uses different from Building Division records.
R327.2.3 Unpermitted work. All unpermitted work shall be permitted, compliant and approved.
R327.2.4 Unapproved work. All unapproved work authorized by permits which have expired
shall be re-permitted, compliant and approved.
R327.2.5 Structural concerns. Obvious structural concerns shall be mitigated.
R327.2.6 Emergency escape and rescue openings. Compliant emergency escape and rescue
openings shall be provided for all spaces used for sleeping purposes.
R327.2.7 Window wells. When required, compliant window wells shall be properly installed at
emergency escape and rescue openings.
R327.2.8 Smoke alarms. Approved smoke alarms shall be properly installed at all locations
required for new construction.
R327.2.9 Carbon monoxide alarms. Approved carbon monoxide alarms shall be properly
installed at all locations required for new construction.
45
R327.2.10 Fuel gas appliances.
a. Fuel gas appliances shall be in approved locations.
b. Fuel gas appliances shall be in dedicated spaces, where applicable.
c. Fuel gas appliances shall comply with required clearances.
d. Fuel gas appliances shall be provided with required combustion air.
e. Fuel gas appliances shall be connected to approved venting systems.
f. Fuel gas appliances shall have required temperature and pressure relief valves.
g. Fuel gas appliances shall have proper condensate disposal.
h. Rooms/spaces containing fuel gas appliances shall be properly fire-blocked.
i. Other than existing cook tops, no ventless fuel gas appliances are allowed in Estes Park.
R327.2.11 Dwelling/garage separation. Dwellings shall be separated from garages with
materials on the garage side as required for new construction.
R327.2.12 Environmental duct terminations. Dryer ducts and exhaust fans shall terminate
at approved locations.
R327.2.13 Handrails. Approved handrails shall be properly installed at locations as required
for new construction.
R327.2.14 Guards. Approved guards shall be properly installed at locations as required for
new construction.
R327.2.15 Cook stove. Anti-tip devices shall be installed for all cook stoves.
R327.2.16 Wildfire hazard. Wildfire defensible spaces shall be maintained as required for
new construction, as it relates to vegetation, not to building construction.
R327.2.17 Fire pits. Exterior fire pits shall comply with Fire Department requirements.
R327.2.18 Lighting at exterior stairs. Lighting at exterior stairs shall be properly installed as
required for new construction.
R327.3 Certificate of Occupancy. After a life safety survey has been performed and
approved, the Building Official shall issue a Certificate of Occupancy for use as a vacation
home or a large vacation home. In addition to other requirements for Certificates of Occupancy
in this code, Certificates of Occupancy for vacation homes and large vacation homes shall
specify the number of rooms approved for sleeping purposes and the maximum approved
occupant load for use as a vacation home or large vacation home.
46
DWELLINGS REGULATED BY THE
2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC)
USE THIS APPLICATION FOR ALL LEGALLY EXISTING AND NEW DWELLINGS WHEN ALL CONDITIONS OF ITEM 1
APPLY. NEW = SUBMITTALS FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED ON OR AFTER JUNE 01, 2017.
CIRCLE ALL NUMBERS & LETTERS THAT APPLY.
ITEM 1. DWELLINGS constructed / designed in compliance with the scoping provisions of the IRC. USE THIS
FORM FOR DWELLINGS WHICH COMPLY WITH ALL THE FOLLOWING. IF NOT, THE IBC FORM IS REQUIRED.
a. EXISTING AND NEW Dwellings must be one of the following: detached Single Family Dwelling (SFD), one
of two attached SFD’s (duplex), or an attached Townhouse (three or more attached SFD’s in which each
unit extends from the foundation to the roof and with a yard or public way on not less than two sides).
b. EXISTING AND NEW Dwellings must be a maximum of three stories.
c. EXISTING AND NEW Dwellings must be located in non-mixed use buildings.
DWELLINGS NOT USED AS VACATION HOMES OR LARGE VACATION HOMES DO NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH
ITEMS 2 AND 3 UNLESS THEY ARE USED AS SUCH IN THE FUTURE. IF A DWELLING WILL BE USED AS A VACATION
HOME, IT MUST COMPLY WITH AT LEAST ONE CONDITION OF ITEM 2. IF A DWELLING WILL BE USED AS A LARGE
VACATION HOME IT MUST COMPLY WITH ALL CONDITIONS OF ITEM 3.
ITEM 2. VACATION HOMES = Dwellings rented to a group of less than 9 occupants for 30 days or less (maximum
occupant load based on 2 per bedroom + 2). USE THIS FORM FOR DWELLINGS USED AS VACATION HOMES WHICH
COMPLY WITH AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING. IF NOT, THE IBC FORM IS REQUIRED.
a. EXISTING AND NEW Dwellings located where NEW LARGE VACATION HOMES ARE PROHIBITED. Currently
applies to all dwellings in the following zone districts: RE-1, RE, E-1, E, R, R-1, R-2, RM.
b. EXISTING AND NEW Dwellings with LESS than 1800 square feet of enclosed floor area, excluding garages.
Applies in all zone districts.
c. EXISTING dwellings with not more than 3 bedrooms. Applies in all zone districts.
d. EXISTING dwellings with Vacation Home occupant loads of less than 9. Applies in all zone districts.
e. NEW Dwellings constructed PER development plans approved prior to June 01, 2017 and the design is
NOT revised to increase floor areas or increase the number of bedrooms beyond the approved
development plans. Applies in all zone districts.
ITEM 3. LARGE VACATION HOMES = Dwellings rented to a group of 9 or more occupants for 30 days or less
(maximum occupant load based on 2 per bedroom + 2). USE THIS FORM FOR DWELLINGS USED AS LARGE
VACATION HOMES WHICH COMPLY WITH ALL THE FOLLOWING. IF NOT, THE IBC FORM IS REQUIRED.
a. EXISTING Dwellings where a 2017 Vacation Home registration was applied for prior to April 01, 2017.
Applies in all zone districts. NO NEW LARGE VACATION HOMES REGULATED BY THE IRC ARE ALLOWED.
b. EXISTING Dwellings NOT increasing the maximum allowable occupant load beyond the load approved
with a pre-April 01, 2017 registration application. Applies in all zone districts.
NOTE: DWELLINGS WHICH DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE CONDITIONS, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, SHALL
BE REGULATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, NOT THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE.
Signature Date Print Name
47
DWELLINGS REGULATED BY THE
2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC)
USE THIS APPLICATION FOR ALL LEGALLY EXISTING AND NEW DWELLINGS WHEN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
APPLY. NEW = SUBMITTALS FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED ON OR AFTER JUNE 01, 2017.
CIRCLE ALL NUMBERS & LETTERS THAT APPLY.
ITEM 1. DWELLINGS NOT constructed / designed in compliance with the scoping provisions of the IRC. THIS
FORM IS REQUIRED FOR DWELLINGS WHICH MEET ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
a. EXISTING AND NEW Dwellings in buildings with more than 2 Dwellings not meeting the definition of
Townhouses (three or more attached SFD’s in which each unit extends from the foundation to the roof
and with a yard or public way on not less than two sides).
b. EXISTING AND NEW Dwellings in mixed use buildings.
c. EXISTING AND NEW Dwellings with more than three stories.
d. EXISTING AND NEW sleeping units only (no kitchens).
DWELLINGS NOT USED AS VACATION HOMES OR LARGE VACATION HOMES DO NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH
ITEMS 2 AND 3 UNLESS THEY ARE USED AS SUCH IN THE FUTURE. IF A DWELLING WILL BE USED AS A VACATION
HOME, IT MUST COMPLY WITH ITEM 2. IF A DWELLING WILL BE USED AS A LARGE VACATION HOME IT MUST
COMPLY WITH ITEM 3.
ITEM 2. VACATION HOMES = Dwellings rented to a group of less than 9 occupants for 30 days or less (maximum
occupant load based on 1/200 square feet). THIS FORM IS REQUIRED FOR DWELLINGS WHICH MEET ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
a. NEW Dwellings where new Large Vacation Homes are allowed, exceeding 1800 square feet of enclosed
floor area, excluding garages. Currently applies in the following zone districts: A, A-1, I-1, CO, CD, CH, O.
b. NEW Dwellings where Large Vacation Homes are allowed, constructed under development plans
approved prior to June 01, 2017 and revised to increase floor areas in excess of 1800 square feet or
increase the number of bedrooms to more than 3 beyond the approved development plans.
ITEM 3. LARGE VACATION HOMES = Dwellings rented to a group of 9 or more occupants for 30 days or less
(maximum occupant load based on 1/200 square feet). THIS FORM IS REQUIRED FOR DWELLINGS WHICH MEET
ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
a. EXISTING Dwellings where a 2017 Vacation Home registration was not applied for prior to April 01, 2017.
Applies in all zone districts.
b. EXISTING Dwellings increasing the maximum allowable occupant load beyond the load approved with a
pre-April 01, 2017 registration application. Applies in all zone districts.
c. NEW Dwellings MUST COMPLY WITH ITEM 2.
NOTE: DWELLINGS WHICH MEET ANY OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, SHALL BE
REGULATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, NOT THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE.
Signature Date Print Name
48
May 4, 2017
To: Estes Park Board of Appeals
From: Lindsay Lamson, President
Estes Area Lodging Association (EALA)
Re: Proposed Amendments to the International Residential Code relating to Dwellings,
Vacation Homes and Small Hotels
Missing from the Proposed Amendments is any analysis or detailed discussion of the economic
impact of complying with the Amendments on the Town of Estes Park or individual property
owners.
What is the cost to the Town of conducting the various inspections contemplated in the
Proposed Amendments including, specifically, the Life Safety Survey of all vacation homes.
What is the fee schedule, if any. What are the additional staff and budget requirements? Can
the 18 month time frame for inspecting all vacation homes and small hotels ending in
December, 31, 2018 actually be met – including any re-inspections required for mandated
modifications or additional permit requirements? Will properties be forced to close because of
the inability of the Town to complete the inspection process. Will properties be forced to close
because of insufficient time to comply with Town inspection mandates after an inspection is
completed?
For property owners, what is the cost of complying with the mandates of the “Life Safety
Survey”? Specifically, what is a “compliant emergency escape and rescue opening”? Does
current building code apply or the code specification for the year the property was constructed
or modified? What is the cost of installing new compliant emergency and rescue openings
(windows, window wells, ladders, grates, grading changes)? Would structural modifications
would be required (headers, foundation support)? What architectural and design costs would
be necessary for obtaining necessary permits to make modifications? For the many older
properties that are currently vacation rentals, what about the cost of potential asbestos and
lead paint abatement? What is the potential lost rental revenue (and lost sales and lodging tax)
during the construction of modifications mandated?
The EALA Board is completely confused with the concept of minimum occupant loads. How
does the minimum occupant load limit the number of people that can occupy a unit?
The Proposed amendment to the IRC on page 18 references that “according to the International
Existing Building Code (IEBC) increasing occupant loads greater than minimum design occupant
loads is a change in the charter of how buildings are used and requires approval by the Building
Official. The process for approval is a code analysis by and Architect, a change of use permit,
inspections and a Certificate of Occupancy for the new use (increased occupancy load). What is
the cost of this process? Since the occupancy load is one person per 200 square feet, would not
49
every lodging unit not meeting this ratio have to go through the process? Very few
accommodation units or vacation homes meet this ratio!
Under the proposed amendment, does having a sofa sleeper in a living room in compliance with
the “2 plus 2” occupants limit require a change of use permit? What are those costs and what
other modifications would be required because of the “change of use”?
EALA believes that there are many unanswered financial and practical questions that have not
be addressed with this Proposed Amendment. We therefore request a continuance of action
by the Board of Appeals and a delay in action by the Town Trustees until these questions can be
fully addressed.
It is better to get it right than get it right now!
50
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: May 9, 2017
RE: Request to Initiate Action on Master List of Proposed Amendments to
EVDC
Objective:
The following is an outline list of amendments to the Estes Valley Development that
Community Development Department staff wish to propose for action in the future,
beginning in mid-2017.
As this list is lengthy – and as in recent months, EVDC amendments seem to have
taken an extraordinary (by most communities’ standards) long time to process – we
expect the processing and disposition of amendments on this list to stretch beyond
December 31, 2017. The task list in this memo will be updated at least annually, or as
events warrant.
Staff requests that the Board approve the following:
• Concurrence with the overall goal to extensively revise the EVDC;
• General concurrence with the outline list - understanding that specific items may
vary and that no pre-approval of specific changes is expressed or implied;
• Direction to staff and the Planning Commission to prioritize, elaborate on, and
allocate appropriate and available resources to the tasks in the outline list.
A favorable vote on the Sample Motion to Approve will affirm these elements.
Present Situation:
I believe I speak for a vast majority in stating that the Estes Valley Development Code is
difficult to administer and confusing to the development community and public. This
fundamental fact means there’s an immediate, in fact urgent, task before us:
Extensively revising our Development Code.
The original creation of this Code in the years leading to its adoption in 2000 was a solid
accomplishment in principle and intent. The geographically unified EVDC, and the
Town/County uniformity of regulations in the Estes Valley Development Area, were
innovative and visionary. This legacy lives on and is a clear advantage to Town, County,
and our citizens. 51
2000 EVDC and Zoning Map:
Inconsistencies were present in the EVDC and the Zoning Map from the very beginning.
The best way to illustrate is by an example or two. To name one example, we have a
significant number of single-family residential properties that were zoned with minimum
lot sizes greater than the actual lots included therein. It is inconsistent for zoning lots of
less than ½-acre to be included in a district that requires a one-acre minimum lot size.
Many such lots also have sizeable setbacks resulting in a lot of already-built
nonconforming structures. In some cases, setbacks leave a buildable area of zero.
Whatever the original idea, these things are not workable today. A fix is needed.
Amendments since 2000:
Inconsistencies with the 2000 Code have been compounded since then by amendments
that made the Code even harder to understand, administer, and enforce. Again, one
example of many will suffice: The term “Lot Coverage” is defined as “…portions of a lot
which are covered by development that prevents or impedes the passage or absorption
of stormwater” (§13.3.137.a). That definition goes on to state that “…Porous pavement
and graveled areas are included in this definition” (§13.3.137.c). The latter section
appears to have been added in 2011.
There are two reasons why this amendment is a problem:
a. Definitions should be used to define – not to regulate. That may sound trivial and
obscure, but it is not – as anyone who has ever tried to calculate EVDC lot
coverage can tell you. No one would ever think to look in Definitions for
calculations, except those who’ve had to deal with eccentric codes like ours.
b. More to the point: The definition is internally contradictory. Any regulation that
says “impervious” surface includes “porous” surface has lost its way in the fog.
Additionally, the definition means that detention ponds are included in lot
coverage – detention ponds literally “...impede the passage or absorption of
stormwater”. Detention areas are usually considered a good way to preserve
open or green space and to manage stormwater – a classic win-win scenario. It
is hard to fathom why a detention area would be defined as “lot coverage”.
There have been a sizeable number of amendments like the above over the years.
This proposal is not aimed at second-guessing previous staff or decision-makers, nor
would that serve any useful purpose in changing the Code now. We may presume that
past code amendments were done with the best of intentions. Some amendments no
doubt reflect policies of a former time that no longer pertain to the Estes Valley. Others
show lack of coordination or finesse.
Be that as it may, the task forward is to revise the EVDC to meet the Goals, and to keep
at it. As noted, this will take some time. That scope is no reason to wait. If we delay until
we can fix all the Code at once, we will be waiting a long time. The child may wish for
high tide to wait until her perfect sandcastle is finished… but the tide rises all the same,
regardless of wishes. We build what we can, when we can.
The critical things are: (a) to have a road map of where we’re going; and (b) to get
started and keep at it. This request is aimed at both. 52
Proposal:
GOALS:
Overall Goal: Provide an extensively revised (virtually every page) EVDC that meets the
following criteria.
More specifically:
• Simplifies, streamlines, and makes more transparent and accountable all
elements in the Estes Valley Development Code.
o Specifically, makes the revised Code at a minimum twenty-five percent
(25%) shorter than current EVDC, measured by word count.
• Updates language, procedures, and criteria to 21st Century standards.
• Imposes clearly defined and understandable regulations.
o In other words, let’s have a Code that’s written in plain English. Maybe it
will catch on.
o Let’s create a Code that can be picked up by the ordinary citizen, the
design professional, the developer, the elected / appointed official, or the
staff member, and after any of those individuals read the appropriate
sections, all parties can understand what is written and see a clear path
forward on the issue at hand.
• For projects, or any other geographically defined proposal, appropriately balance
the legitimate wishes and needs of neighboring property owners with overall well-
being and policy direction for the entire community, including long-time
permanent residents, recent arrivals, businesses, and daily and seasonal visitors.
• Identifies a clear process, with measurable benchmarks, for every development-
code procedure.
• Uses a “deliberate speed” approach to Code-required process timelines:
“deliberate”, meaning adequate time for public comment, staff analysis, and
decision-maker review; “speed”, meaning without arbitrary delay nor time for
indecision or polarization. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the
good.
• Reduces to a minimum the number of “approvals with [lengthy] conditions”.
(Such approvals are not approvals at all.)
OUTLINE LIST of Proposed EVDC Amendments:
Following is a list of amendments to EVDC the staff has identified as necessary to meet
the Goals. For brevity, this list is only an outline. There is no particular order in the list;
priorities will be determined in further consultation with staff and elected officials.
More detail could be written about every item. And in fact, that will be happening when
staff reports and draft code language are created for each item. For now, this list is
intended to give an overall scope.
• Revise Development and Dimensional Standards in specific EVDC sections,
including:
53
o Building Height in RM (Multi-Family) District
o Building Height in CD (Downtown Commercial) District
o [Possible] Building Height in A (Accommodations/Highway Corridor), A-1
(Accommodations/Low-Intensity), CO (Outlying Commercial), CH (Heavy
Commercial), and/or O (Office) Districts
o Change “net density” to “gross density” (e.g., allow for clustering).
o Eliminate Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from Code
o Rationalize and clarify “lot coverage” (impervious surface), in conjunction
with completion of the Town’s Stormwater Master Plan
o Consider how other development and dimensional standards could affect
and be affected by changes in the above-listed standards (e.g., setbacks
are relayed to lot coverage and vice-versa)
• Extensively revise Chapter 7 [General Development Standards], to change the
following to become more understandable and less obscure:
o The aforementioned change from net to gross density
o Ridgeline protection standards
o Limits on changing “original, natural” grade (an obscure term)
o Restoration of disturbed areas; limitations on site disturbance
o Tree and Vegetation Protection
o Public Trails (align with Trails Master Plan)
o Private Open Areas
o Landscaping and Buffers
o Parking Lot Landscaping
o Fences and Walls
o Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection
o Geologic Hazards
o Wildfire Hazards
o Wildlife Habitat Protection
o Exterior Lighting
o Off-Street Parking and Loading
o Adequate Public Facilities [see section on “Improvements” below]
o Outdoor Storage Areas
• Sign Code – complete replacement
• Adding a chapter on Redevelopment, with criteria, procedures, and incentives
• Planned Unit Developments: streamline, eliminate unnecessary steps, provide
for added flexibility
• Subdivision Standards: call out different categories, requirements (incl. public
improvements) for each type, timelines, securitization, basic design standards
• New Chapter on “Improvements”, in conjunction with other agencies (Town
Public Works, Utilities, Fire District, Sanitation Districts, etc.), to include:
o Street improvement thresholds & standards (existing)
o Requirements for new streets, incl. thresholds, standards (drainage, curb,
sidewalks, etc.)
o Water system design and installation requirements (public infrastructure)
o Wastewater system design and installation requirements (public
infrastructure)
o Electrical system design and installation requirements (public
infrastructure)
54
o Timeframe for installation of public improvements
Separate timeframes for “build & dedicate” vs. securitized
In-lieu fees
o Securitization standards (type of security, when required, when released,
partial release)
o Default of Terms/Agreements
o Inspection and Acceptance / Notice of Completion
o Warranty requirements – conditions, terms, security
o Standards for T.C.O. and final C.O. issuance, enforcement
o Requirement for as-built plans before C.O.
o Reimbursement for oversized public improvements
o Delayed Improvements: protocols, securitization, administration and
enforcement
o [Note: This Chapter and the Code are not intended to include specific
engineering design standards and criteria. Those are better left in
administrative policies and procedures.]
• Any use of the phrase “to the maximum extent feasible” (or parallel language with
the same interpretation) is to be eliminated, unless that term is accompanied by a
precise definition and measurable criteria
• Elimination of authority to approve “Minor Modifications” from certain
development/dimensional standards, thus bypassing the variance process:
o Eliminate staff authority to approve up to 10% “modifications”
o Eliminate EVPC authority to approve up to 25% “modifications”
• Elimination of unnecessary review procedures, and/or steps in the review
procedures
o Example: “Preliminary” and “final” condominium map approvals (it seems
adequate to combine into a single plat for approval and recordation)
o Example: Streamlining Special Reviews, so that minor Special Reviews go
to only one body instead of two for approval; compliance with quasi-
judicial decision-making criteria
o Example: All Development Plans to be approved administratively, rather
than tasking Planning Commission with larger ones
o Revise variance criteria for Board of Adjustment to align with best planning
practices and eliminate non-variance-related elements
o Realign and rationalize Subdivision review procedures
• Provide specific steps and timelines for other reviewing entities
• Provide additional flexibility and/or incentives to encourage redevelopment of
underutilized or obsolete properties
o Specifically, provide additional flexibility for non-conforming structures to
move toward conformity during redevelopment process
o Specifically, focus on Code-related redevelopment opportunities in
commercial corridors, accommodations areas, and on multi-family
properties
• Modify Temporary Uses section to provide for longer Temporary Uses but limit
number of times they can be renewed or extended
• Create new section (separate from Temporary Uses) to regulate and facilitate
mobile food vendors
55
•Extensively revise “Separate Lot Determinations” section to allow alternatives for
development
•Eliminate Conditional Use Permit section (replace with new Special Review
procedure and criteria)
•Codify recent administrative determination that rezonings do not require
development plans to be provided in connection with rezoning approval
•Consider creating a “floating zone” for higher density (16 units/acre) multi-family
housing
•Expand employee housing development options (currently tied to accessory
housing in mixed-use projects only)
•Implementation of new floodplain maps (when finalized and approved by FEMA)
and hydrologic data, coupled with complete rewrite of floodplain regulations with
sensitivity and incentives as applicable to foster redevelopment
•Making appropriate modifications to the Stanley Historic District review process
and regulation; may include sunsetting, revision, and/or amendment of the
District; may also include modifications to the Stanley Master Plan
•General: Clarification of language, tightening of definitions and applicability,
removal of ambiguity, elimination of cumbersome and archaic procedural steps
and substantive elements
Placement of EVDC Revisions within Overall Planning and Strategic Goals:
In best planning practice, a Comprehensive Plan is the first step in articulating the
community vision and direction for land use and development. Once the
Comprehensive Plan is created or updated, the follow-up steps often involve
(re)aligning the Development Code to match the community’s vision and goals.
That is not the sequence proposed here. It is still the preferable order of things.
However, my reasons for going straight to Code revisions are altogether pragmatic. A
Comprehensive Plan update is underway, but that timeline is 12 to 18 months away
from completion. Frankly, we do not have the luxury of waiting. Various recent analyses
and plans, such as the 2015 Estes Valley Economic Development Strategy and the
2016 Housing Needs Assessment, point to a clear and present need for EVDC revision.
Timeline:
The process for considering a relatively simple code change in 2016 (the Accessory
Dwelling Unit [ADU] amendment) was approximately four months. That amendment
would have taken five months if the typical last phase, review by the County, had not
been eliminated by the Town Board’s disapproval of the amendment. Another recent
Code amendment – eliminating the 40,000 square-foot minimum lot size in the RM
District – took approximately 2.5 months for an uncomplicated and uncontroversial
Code amendment.
These timelines are lengthy by most communities’ standards. In my own experience
elsewhere, an uncomplicated Code amendment usually takes around 1.5 to 2 months. It
is also quite common for a set of uncomplicated amendments to be combined, with
perhaps five or six amendments in a single “housekeeping” Code amendment package.
56
There are approximately 50 amendments listed above. Some are uncomplicated and
could be included in a combination or housekeeping type of amendment package.
Others will need more time. With the caveat that variable timelines are involved, I would
estimate that processing all of the above amendments would need around seventeen
(17) years, based on our current approach to Code amendments. Coincidentally, 17
years is the age of our current development Code.
Ways and Means:
The proposal does not envision the use of outside consulting resources, provided the
timeline is acceptable. Staff would propose to draft amendments, see them through the
internal review and public processes, and take all necessary implementation steps
following adoption (such as adjusting fee schedules, keeping public resources such as
the website updated, etc.)
An accelerated timeline, faster than 17 years, could be accomplished by invoking
external resources, such as a specialized consulting firm. The City of Laramie’s
Development Code was rewritten from scratch in around 3.5 years, from initial contract
to final Code adoption. This relatively speedy pace was accomplished by spending
between $200,000 and $250,000, not counting in-kind resources.
Staff is not asking for a quarter million dollars to repair the Estes Valley Development
Code. We need to fix the Code, but that is not the only budget priority for our
community. We expect this to be an in-house project.
On the other hand, 17 years is a long time.
It is suggested that a deliberate, in-house pace is manageable and affordable. It is also
suggested that we can go faster than 17 years.
Advantages:
•The EVDC is dated, confusing, and does not serve our community well in its current
configuration.
•A goal of simplicity and transparency in the Code, and in our operations within Code,
is good public policy and aligns with community expectations.
•EVDC revisions would also result in more efficiencies for local decision-makers,
including staff and elected and appointed officials.
Disadvantages:
•Significantly changing the EVDC means changing some of the fundamental
assumptions under which the community has been operating.
•Change itself is seen as threatening and produces fear among some.
•Some practical adjustments – such as changes in the fee schedules, application
deadlines, and the like – will need to be considered and addressed concurrently with
a number of code changes.
•The full task list will take a long time.
•Some changes will be differential and even reciprocal.
57
Level of Public Interest:
It is not clear how much public interest exists in the abstract idea of “Code
amendments”. Specific amendments, such as building heights, density, and
redevelopment, have generated quite high levels of interest.
Many stakeholders are not present through much of the year. Our community’s visitors
are also stakeholders. Engaging the attention of all members of the public is important
in this effort.
Sample Motions:
I move for approve/deny the Request to Initiate Action on Master List of Proposed
Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code.
Attachments:
None.
Cc: Board of Larimer County Commissioners
Cc: County Manager L. Hoffmann
Cc: Estes Valley Planning Commission
58
ADMINISTRATION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Date: May 9, 2017
RE: Bylaws for Family Advisory Board
Objective:
To obtain Town Board approval of bylaws for the Family Advisory Board.
Present Situation:
The Family Advisory Board (FAB) was formed by the Town Board on February 28th.
Bylaws for the FAB were not approved at that meeting because the Town Board
expressed a desire to allow the appointed members of the FAB to provide feedback and
edits on the bylaws prior to approval.
The FAB met on May 3rd and discussed the bylaws. The board came to a consensus on
the proposed bylaws that are attached to this memo. Since there are currently no
bylaws for the FAB providing for a voting/recommendation mechanism, no official action
was taken with regard to making a recommendation to the Town Board. It is worth
noting that the FAB can submit suggested bylaw revisions to the Town Board at any
time (Section VII.A).
The FAB will elect officers at its June 1st meeting if the proposed bylaws are approved
by the Town Board.
Proposal:
The proposed bylaws are attached to this memo and have been reviewed by the FAB.
Advantages:
•Provides processes and structure for the newly formed FAB.
Disadvantages:
•As noted by one of the members of the FAB, bylaws do impose structure and
could limit “out-of-the-box” thinking. However, bylaws are necessary in order to
ensure accountability, focus, and efficient conduct of advisory board business.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the FAB bylaws as proposed.
Budget:
No budget impact 59
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the bylaws for the Family Advisory Board.
Attachments:
Family Advisory Board Bylaws
60
Town of Estes Park
Family Advisory Board
Bylaws
I. Role
The Estes Park Family Advisory Board (“FAB”) is an advisory committee for the
Town Board and Town staff. The FAB is expected to:
A. Research and summarize factual data on issues of importance to families in the
Estes Valley;
B. Develop recommended policies that align with the Town Board Strategic Plan to
address these issues; and
C. Present these recommendations to the Town Board and/or Town Staff.
II.Annual Focus Areas
A. At the first regular meeting of every year, the FAB will select no more than three
(3) focus areas for the coming year. These focus areas will be submitted to the
Town Board for review and approval.
B. These focus areas may be changed at any regular or special meeting of the FAB
by a majority vote, but at no time may there be more than three (3) focus areas.
Any change to the focus areas must be reviewed and approved by the Town
Board.
C. Any work undertaken by the FAB shall be tied to these focus areas.
III.Meetings
A. Regular Meetings – Regular meetings shall be held at least one (1) time per
month, with additional meetings scheduled as needed. Any item on the agenda
which cannot be heard and considered by the conclusion of the meeting may be
continued until, and heard, at the next regularly scheduled meeting or at a special
meeting and shall have priority of any other matters to be heard and considered.
B. Special Meetings – Special meetings may be held at any time upon call by the
Chairperson. The Chairperson shall call a special meeting upon request by the
Town Board, Town Administrator, or Assistant Town Administrator, or upon
request by three (3) of the members of the FAB.
C. Cancellation or Rescheduling of Meetings – Any cancellation or rescheduling of a
FAB meeting must be approved by two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the FAB.
61
D. Meeting Procedures - Parliamentary procedure shall be followed in moving,
discussing, and acting on matters requiring action by the FAB.
E. Open Meetings – All meetings and actions of the FAB shall be in full compliance
with state statutes governing open meetings, as amended and incorporated herein
by reference. It is the responsibility of the Staff Liaison to be familiar with these
statutes and regulations.
F. Attendance by Non-Members – Meetings may be attended by persons who are not
members of the FAB. Such nonmembers may speak during the public comment
period at the beginning of each meeting and on any agenda item. However, in no
event shall nonmembers be allowed to vote on matters for which a vote is
required.
IV.Members and Quorum
A. Membership – The FAB shall consist of no fewer than ten (10) and no more than
fifteen (15) members.
B. Membership Requirements – Members must:
1.Be a resident of the Estes Park School District R-3;
2.Have adequate time to devote to the FAB (at least six (6) hours per
month); and
3.Have experience dealing with issues facing families in the Estes
Valley.
C. Membership Considerations – In appointing the membership of the FAB, the
Town Board will:
1. Endeavor to ensure that at least three (3) members of the FAB are
members of a working family; and
2. Consider membership representation for key organizations such as
Estes Valley Investment for Childhood Success, the Housing
Authority, the School District, and Families for Estes.
D. Terms – Members shall be appointed by the Town Board to a three (3) year term.
The terms of the members shall be staggered so that the terms of an equal number
of the members expire each year on April 15th.
E. Vacancies – Vacant positions shall be filled by appointment by the Town Board
for the unexpired portion of the term of the position to be filled.
F. Recommendations for Appointment – Upon request by the Town Board, the FAB
shall make recommendations to the Town Board for new FAB appointments.
G. Quorum – A quorum of the FAB shall consist of two-thirds (2/3) of the members
of the FAB being present at the meeting.
62
H. Action – Action by the FAB shall be by majority vote of the members attending
any regular or special meeting at which a quorum is present, unless otherwise
provided in these bylaws.
V. Officers
A. Officers – The FAB officers shall include a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson
as selected by the FAB.
B. Elections – Officers shall be elected by the members annually at the first regularly
scheduled meeting of each year. Officers shall be members of the FAB.
Notification of who is elected Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson will be sent to
the Town Clerk.
C. Chairperson Responsibilities – The Chairperson shall:
1.Preside over all meetings;
2.Ensure that all meetings are conducted with decorum and efficiency;
3.Call special meetings in accordance with these bylaws;
4. Sign any documents prepared by the FAB for submission to the Town
Board or Town Departments;
5. See that decisions of the FAB are implemented;
6.Represent the FAB in dealings with the Town Board or other
organizations; and
7.The Chairperson has the same right as any other member of the FAB
to vote on matters before the FAB and to speak for or against
proposals; provided, however, that if the Chairperson desires to speak
for or against a proposal which has been formally moved and seconded
at a public meeting, the Chairperson shall relinquish the chair to the
Vice-Chairperson while he or she is speaking.
D. Vice-Chairperson Responsibilities – The Vice-Chairperson shall:
1. Assist the Chairperson as requested;
2. Accept and undertake duties delegated by the Chairperson; and
3. Preside over meetings or perform other duties of the Chairperson in
the event the Chairperson is absent or unable to act.
E. Other Officers – There shall be no officers other than the Chairperson and Vice-
Chairperson.
F. Removal from Office – Any officer may be removed from office by a majority
vote of the members of the FAB in attendance at a meeting provided that at least
thirty (30) days notice has been given to all members that removal of the officer
will be considered at such meeting.
63
G. Officer Vacancies – If any office is vacant, the members of the FAB shall elect a
member to fill the office for the remainder of the year.
VI.Attendance
A. Attendance Requirements – Regular attendance by members of the FAB. In the
event that any member misses three (3) consecutive regular meetings, or a total of
four (4) regular meetings in a calendar year, the Town Board may remove its
appointed member and designate a new member to fill the vacancy.
VII.General Provisions
A. These bylaws may be amended at any regular or special meeting of the FAB by a
majority of the membership of the FAB provided that notice of such possible
amendments is given to all members at least twenty (20) days prior to the meeting
at which the action is to be taken. Any amendments shall be subject to review and
approval by the Town Board.
VIII.Compliance with Town Policies
A. The FAB shall operate in compliance with the adopted Town Board Policy on
Town Boards (Policy 102). The terms of this policy are incorporated in the
bylaws by this reference. A copy of this Policy will be provided to all FAB
members upon appointment.
B. Volunteer members of the FAB will act in accordance with the adopted Town
Volunteer Manual.
IX.Conflict of Interest
A. A conflict of interest occurs when a person’s private, personal relationships or
interests converge with their public role on the FAB such that an independent
observer may reasonably question whether the person’s actions or decisions are
determined by personal benefit, gain, or advantage.
B. Members of the FAB shall not use their status as a member for private gain, and
shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private
organization or individual.
C. A member of the FAB who has a personal or private interest in a matter proposed
or pending shall disclose such interest to the FAB, shall not vote on the item, and
shall not attempt to influence the decisions of other members voting on the matter.
Adopted this ____day of ______________
64
ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES
By: _______________________________
Mayor
65