HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2017-03-14The 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, March 14, 2017
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated February 28, 2017 and Town Board Study Session
dated February 27 and February 28, 2017.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes.
A. Community Development/Community Services Committee Minutes dated,
February 23, 2017.
4. Estes Valley Board of Appeals Minutes dated December 8, 2016 and February 9,
2017 (acknowledgement only).
5. Estes Valley Library District Board Appointments:
David Hemphill to complete Judy Fontius’ term ending December 31, 2020.
6. Resolution #09-17 Setting the Public Hearing date of April 11, 2017 for a New
Tavern Liquor License filed by Cliff, Inc, dba Hollywoods, 110 ½ W. Elkhorn
Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517.
Prepared 03/03/17
* Revised
1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Outside Entities):
1.LARIMER COUNTY COMMUNITY REPORT. Commissioner Donnelly.
3.ACTION ITEMS:
1.RESOLUTION #07-17 REAPPROPRIATION OF 2016 ENCUMBERED FUNDS
AND PROJECT “ROLLOVERS” TO THE 2017 BUDGET. Finance Director Hudson.
2. ORDINANCE #09-17 PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT CODE: EVDC §5.1.B (VACATION HOMES). Director Hunt.
3. ORDINANCE #08-17 PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT CODE: EDVC §4.3, §5.2, AND §13.3 (ACCESSORY KITCHENS).
Director Hunt.
4. RESOLUTION #08-17 TO OUTLINE PROCEDURE AND SCHEDULE FOR ESTES
VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. Director Hunt.
5. BOARD POLICY #103 TOWN BOARD PROCEDURES AND TOOL BOXES. Town
Administrator Lancaster.
6.BOARD POLICY #105 AGENDAS. Town Administrator Lancaster.
4. ADJOURN.
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 28, 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 28th day of February, 2017.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody 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 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the
Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Rita Kurelja/Estes Park Housing Authority Director stated the Housing Authority Board
has two openings and would be accepting applications through March 10, 2017.
Wendy Bryon/Visit Estes Park staff member read a prepared statement signed by the
current Visit Estes Park staff regarding their interactions and statements made by Art
Messal and Michelle Hiland on the poor treatment of Visit Estes Park staff by
management and the improper conduct of Visit Estes Park management.
Jean McGuire/Visit Estes Park staff member further commented on the working
environment at Visit Estes Park, stating she is supported and enjoys working for the
management at Visit Estes Park.
Art Messal/Town citizen commented on the need to develop modeling for a workforce
housing project to determine its success prior to a private developer spending money to
build a project that may not work. He further commented the funds necessary to
complete the modeling could come from Visit Estes Park. He stated five grievances
against Visit Estes Park: 1) No metrics are available to measure the success of the
marketing efforts; 2) Consistent ethical concerns with the CEO; 3) Serious conflicts of
interest; 4) Lack of transparency; and 5) ineffective Board. He requested the Town
appointed Board members Steve Kruger, Adam Shake, Karen Ericson and Lindsey
Lamson be removed.
Michelle Hiland/Town citizen stated concern with the number of young professionals
that have left Estes Park for a number of reasons. She commented she has discussed
with the Visit Estes Park Board the way in which past employees have been treated and
was treated unprofessionally by the Board instead of addressing the concerns raised.
She thanked the Town Board and staff for their professionalism, transparency and
willingness to assist in providing information requested through the Open Record
process.
Marie Cenac/Town citizen and Taylor Gordon/Town citizen invited the Board and the
citizens to the Rooftop Rodeo parade titled “100 Years in the Saddle” on July 5, 2017 to
honor the Town’s 100th anniversary.
3
Board of Trustees – February 28, 2017 – Page 2
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Martchink reminded the Board the utility art work continues with interested artist
applying to complete up to five boxes in 2017. The Town Board would be the deciding
body with a recommendation from the Parks Advisory Board.
Trustee Norris thanked the utility workers and other staff who helped during the recent
power outage. He announced the new Family Advisory Board positions would be
posted and applications would be accepted in the near future. The Estes Valley
Planning Commission would be transitioning to action minutes for their meetings. The
Commission discussed increasing the height in the RM-Residential Multi-Family zoning
district. A task team of the Commission has begun to draft updated language for the
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Jirsa attended the Mayor’s Summit in Longmont where entrepreneurship and
unity in the community were discussed. He toured the Tinkermill, a maker space, and
he was impressed. He would attend the Duck Race kickoff meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated Christine Hall was elected president of the Sister Cities
Association. During her recent travels to Antarctica she visited Ushuaia, Argentina,
nicknamed the “End of the World” which contained a one-way loop and utilizes busses
to transport guest to their local park.
Trustee Nelson attended the recent Downtown Visioning Committee meeting and
thanked staff and the Committee members for successfully facilitating the public
comment. He further thanked staff for the hydrology report presentation.
Trustee Holcomb thanked the Town staff for the quality of their work, dedication and
enthusiasm.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated February 14, 2017 and Town Board Study
Session February 14, 2017.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes.
a.Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee Minutes dated,
February 9, 2017:
1.Art in Public Places: 6 Pikas in the Park.
4.Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated January 20, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated January 20, 2017 (acknowledgement
only).
6.Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated January 17, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
7. Resolution #03-17 Setting the Public Hearing date of March 28, 2017 for a
New Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License filed by Bird & Jim, 915 Moraine
Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517.
8. Resolution #06-17 Setting the Public Hearing date of March 28, 2017 for a
New Lodging & Entertainment Liquor License filed by Lazy B Chuckwagon
and Show, LLC, 600 W. Elkhorn, CO 80517.
9. Housing Authority Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
4
Board of Trustees – February 28, 2017 – Page 3
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed with Trustee Walker abstaining.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Outside Entities):
1. ESTES VALLEY PARTNERS FOR COMMERCE QUARTERLY REPORT.
Greg Rosenor provided a brief update on the association’s activities, including
the monthly commerce in arts on the third Thursday of the month, the Board
retreat held in January, the addition of Ivy Todd as the newest member to their
Board representing the Youth in Action, the continuance of the Explore Our
Store program, regular communication to their members through email, and the
beginning of associations membership drive, which will run through April 27,
2017 with a goal to add an additional 100 members.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. RESOLUTION #04-17 INTENT TO ANNEX CLOUD NINE SUBDIVISION
ADDITION. Public Hearing scheduled March 28, 2017.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve the Planning
Commission Consent Agenda Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
B. ORDINANCE #07-17 REZONING FROM CO-COMMERCIAL OUTLYING
RM-MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, LOT 35, GRAND ESTATES
SUBDIVISION, 507 Grand Estates Drive; Equinox Community Investment,
LLC/ Applicant. Planner McCool reviewed the application stating the
rezoning would allow the property owner to bring forward a development
plan for workforce housing on the property. The submission of a
development plan with the rezoning was waived due to the size of the lot,
the limited complexity associated with a multi-family development, and the
property would have access to adequate public services and facilities. The
Estes Valley Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
the application at their January 17, 2017 meeting.
Kent Smith/Town citizen stated support for the application and would
further support the development of 16 affordable units per acre.
Steve Lane/Property owner and developer stated after several years of
trying to establish an appropriate commercial use for the property, he has
determined the property would be better suited for residential development.
He intends to move forward with a development plan for workforce housing
on the property if the Board approves the rezoning to RM-Residential Multi-
Family.
Attorney White read Ordinance #07-17. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Norris) to approve Zoning Map Amendment request
including findings of fact and conclusions of law, with no conditions
of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission with the
adoption of Ordinance #07-17, and it passed unanimously.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #06-17 AMENDMENT TO ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
§12.20.060 REMOVAL OF SNOW AND ICE. Chief Kufeld presented changes
to the Municipal Code to address the safety of the public during snow/weather
5
Board of Trustees – February 28, 2017 – Page 4
events or construction, and hold persons responsible for damage by prohibiting
situations where snow/ice hazards are placed in areas on public roadways or
sidewalks, which could cause a risk to the motoring public or pedestrians during
their routes of travel. The amendments would further allow the Town to assess
the costs to the individual(s) associated with the damages to recover costs of
repair to public property. Attorney White stated the Ordinance would allow the
Town to address the inappropriate use of the right-of-way, ticketed the
individual/plow driver for the misuse of the right-of-way and/or causing an
accident, and to address the Town’s liability. The Town does not have
immunity if an accident occurs due to snow piled in the right-of-way.
Attorney White read Ordinance #06-17. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Norris) to approve Ordinance #06-17 with the addition of an
emergency clause to allow the Ordinance to take effect immediately upon
passage, and it passed unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION #05-17 AMENDING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT (IGA) WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (CDOT) PERTAINING TO INSTALLATION OF TWO
ADDITIONAL DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGNS ON US 36 AND US 34. Director
Muhonen presented the Resolution to amend the existing CDOT
Intergovernmental Agreement to increase the grant funding for the construction
of three permanent electronic message signs on Highway 34 and Highway 36
to provide guests information on available parking and shuttles. Staff has
received approximately a dozen public comments regarding the signs and their
location, with most comments being negative and from the neighborhoods
impacted, i.e. Reclamation District. As the signs would be in the CDOT right-of-
way they would be functional/utilitarian and not permanent masonry signs seen
in other communities. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to
approve Resolution #05-17 amending the amending the
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado Department of
Transportation pertaining to the installation of two additional dynamic
messaging signs on US Hwy 34 and US Hwy 36, and it passed unanimously.
3. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD INTERVIEW COMMITTEE
APPOINTMENT. Town Clerk Williamson stated the Town received two
applications for the three positions open on the Board. The applicants, Anne
Finley and Stanton Black, are applying for reappointment to the Board. The
Board consensus was to forego interviews and reappoint Anne Finley and
Stanton Black, and advertise for the third open position. It was moved and
seconded (Nelson/Norris) to reappoint Anne Finley and Stanton Black to
the Transportation Advisory Board with terms expiring on March 31, 2020,
and it passed unanimously.
4. ORDINANCE #05-17 AMENDMENT TO ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
§12.20.070 ACTS PROHIBITED ON SIDEWALKS, TO ADDRESS
TEMPORARY SIDEWALK ART. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek
presented revisions to the Ordinance presented at the February 14, 2017 Town
Board meeting and a new Public Works policy to address issues raised by the
Board. The changes would allow the Parks Advisory Board the ability to
approve non-permanent sidewalk art. The policy would expand options for
non-permanent art to Town-owned streets, parking lots, and trails that are
closed to vehicular traffic. The policy would be reviewed by the Transportation
Advisory Board and approved by the Public Works Director.
Kent Smith/Town citizen stated concern with inadvertent advertisement that
may occur with the artwork.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen questioned what protection a business owner may
have from unwanted art in front of their storefront.
6
Board of Trustees – February 28, 2017 – Page 5
After further discussion, Attorney White read Ordinance #05-17. It was moved
and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to adopt Ordinance #05-17, and it passed
unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION
Mayor Jirsa questioned when the new 100 year floodplain map would be available for
review by the public. Administrator Lancaster stated the draft maps should be
developed by the summer of 2017 by the State of Colorado, with FEMA completing the
final maps and adoption no earlier than 2018. Mayor Jirsa stated it has been suggested
the Board hire another hydrology engineer to review the current report, numbers and
determine if the discretion used by the consultant was appropriate. Discussion followed
and the Board consensus was to move forward with the current study because new
data can be added in the future as it becomes available. Concern was raised over the
need to provide public information on flood insurance and mitigation.
Town Administrator Lancaster reminded the Board the Town continues to operate under
a temporary Ordinance through May 2017 which utilizes the best available data at the
time a decision would be made. The current numbers being utilized are from CDOT.
The hydrology study contained new, lower numbers for the current floodplain.
Therefore, the Planning and Building staff would require direction from the Board on
what numbers should be used during the interim period while the maps are being
drafted.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 8:29 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
7
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado February 27, 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 27th day of February, 2017.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending:All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Director Hunt, Planner Kurtz
and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent:None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.
OVERVIEW OF STATE-WIDE HAZARD MAPPING EFFORTS AND ESTES PARK
CONTEXT. Kevin Houck/ Chief Watershed and Flood Protection Division, Colorado
Water Conservation Board provided a review of Senate Bill 15-245 passed by the
General Assembly to provide new flood maps, hydraulic analysis, and mapping erosion
zones. The funding became available on July 2015 and expires on July 30, 2018. He
stated the hydrology needs to be updated as it is over 40 years old, and additional
stream gauge information has been recorded providing hydrologist with a better
understanding of rainfall. Preliminary analyses suggested the flood risk has been under
portrayed in many areas, and recovery should proceed based on current updated data.
The areas reviewed during the study includes South Platte River, Big Thompson River,
Little Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Left Hand Creek, Boulder Creek and Coal
Creek, and numerous tributaries to above watersheds. The mapping process would
include updating hydrology, gather updated terrain data, survey river infrastructure as
needed, prepare hydraulic model to determine flood elevations, and overlay flood
elevations on to terrain map to produce floodplain boundaries. The next steps would be
the adoption by the State, finalization of the hydraulic analyses using updated hydrology
and topography, prepare draft floodplain maps in 2017, finalize floodplain maps in 2018,
data provided to FEMA to incorporate into Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance
Rate maps, and begin mitigation study to develop and analyze alternatives. The 2013
flood was included in the study because it happened, no physical or statistical reason it
can’t happen again, the flood did not meet any meteorological or statistical criteria to be
considered an outlier, and the flood was a data-rich event that allows for a high level of
calibration not normally available.
STUDY RESULTS AND OVERVIEW OF SCIENCE BEHIND THE STUDY.
Dr. Andrews Earles/Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Lead Engineer provided a review of
the hydrology study process and results. The study was completed with the public
health, safety and welfare of the Estes Park citizens as the priority. The study utilized
gauge information from the 1970s and new precipitation data developed by NOAA,
which includes 40 years of data. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig questioned how flood
insurance premiums are established. He stated the flood insurance map may change
based on the hydrology study; however, homeowners maintaining or purchasing flood
insurance now would be locked into the current rates established by the floodplain maps
adopted by FEMA, and would not change unless the property owner has a lapse in
coverage. Rates would likely increase for those acquiring new flood insurance after the
new floodplain maps are develop and adopted.
8
Town Board Study Session – February 27, 2017 – Page 2
The rather large watershed surrounding Estes Park comprised of 40 square miles for
the Fall River watershed and over 80 square miles for the Big Thompson contain rock
outcrops and impermeable soil which can produce significant flows during an event. He
stated scientifically accepted methods and sound engineering principles were used to
produce a reasonable 100-year flow rate. The study should tie back to reality by
comparing it with actual rainfall/runoff events. A preponderance of evidence was used
to complete the study, which included rain gauges, stream gauge data, high watermark,
additional data points collected by Dr. Robert Jarrett, and modeling completed with the
data that proved to be close to the highwater marks. Mayor Jirsa stated concern with
the data included in the study and questioned the process utilized to collect the data
after the event.
Dr. Earles reviewed the hydrology study process which included a public meeting in
April 2016, a draft report in July 2016, additional peak flow estimates from the 2013
flood, additional analysis and recalibration of the study, 16 individuals provided peer
review of the study, revised report submitted to FEMA in December 2016, approved by
FEMA in January 2017, and a final report issued January 25, 2017.
A review of Bulletin 17B was provided which provides a method to address high outliers.
It was the opinion of Dr. Earles, the 2013 flood was not a statistical outlier and the data
was included in the study because the rate of rainfall was not substantial compared to
other rainfall events on record. The ground was already saturated which impacted the
rate of water flow above ground. The peak rainfall was an ordinary event. Trustee
Walker commented the significant issues that occurred during the flood event such as
large landslides would suggest the event was an outliner.
The study results proposed new Flood Insurance Study peak discharge and
recommended flows much higher than the existing rates in both the Fall River and Big
Thompson River; however, the numbers are lower than those established by CDOT
earlier. Dry Gulch peak discharge would decrease significantly as no credible data
could be established for the high rates in the previous published numbers.
Mayor Jirsa questioned the confidence level for the report. Dr. Earles stated the report
has a plus or minus 20% statistical accuracy, which is consistent with most hydrology
studies. Mayor Jirsa stated concern with the development of floodplain maps based on
a 20% difference and the impact it could have on development and redevelopment
downtown.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
THROUGHOUT THE STUDY AND REMAPPING PROCESS. David Sutley/FEMA
stated a grant would be submitted by the State of Colorado to develop new floodplain
maps which would be developed through 2018. FEMA completed a full review of the
data used in the hydrology study because the final hydrology study would be used in
applying for the grant and preparing the proposed floodplain maps. The draft maps
would be presented to the public for review and public meetings would be held. FEMA
would consider appeals to both the map and the hydrology study. The Town can begin
to address mitigation measures prior to the final adoption of the new floodplain maps to
make the town more resilient. The local ordinance to adopt the new maps would occur
at the time the new maps are officially adopted by FEMA.
Kevin Houck/ Chief Watershed and Flood Protection Division, Colorado Water
Conservation Board stated the State role would be to assist the local community with
regulations and floodplain mapping. The State would develop the floodplain maps for
review by FEMA. He stated the Town Board would need to decide on whether or not to
adopt the hydrology study numbers now or wait to adopt the new numbers once the
maps have been finalized and adopted by FEMA. Adopting the new numbers now
would reduce property owner flood insurance rates moving forward and reduce the risk
of future flood by implementing mitigation methods for new and redeveloped properties.
9
Town Board Study Session – February 27, 2017 – Page 3
Tina Kurtz/Planner stated the Town manages its own floodplain and belongs to the
National Flood Insurance program which allows property owners to apply for flood
insurance. Floodplain regulation and enforcement protects properties from the impact
upstream and downstream. The Town has adopted a temporary Ordinance that directs
staff to utilize the best available data. The Ordinance expires in May 2017; therefore,
the Board would need to provide staff with direction prior to the expiration on how to
move forward.
QUESTIONS & PUBLIC COMMENT
Todd Plummer/Van Horn Engineer questioned if the study has been adopted by the
study. Mr. Sutley/FEMA stated the hydrology study would not be officially adopted until
the regulatory maps have been adopted. Mr. Plummer stated concern with the Fall
River flow measurements and estimates, and would argue the 2013 flood should be
considered a high outlier and should not be included in the study. The inclusion of the
numbers would have a significant impact on the final flow rate for Fall River. He
suggested the flows be considered historic for the Fall River and the rate of discharge
be set at a more realistic 1,000 csf.
Bill Van Horn/Van Horn Engineering commented the 100-year flood rates should be
used to establish the new peak discharge and flows. He stated there was a wealth of
data that should have been used in the study that was not utilized. He requested the
Board refer the study back to the consultant to review additional data and to provide
flows that would meet the 100-year flood numbers.
John Spooner/Van Horn Engineering stated the study should have reviewed adjoining
watersheds in the analysis. The study should have also reviewed Bulletin 17B
procedures.
Brian Varrella/CDOT Region 4 Hydraulic Engineer stated during his peer review he
reviewed both the data and the process used to complete the hydrology study and
concurred with both.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 4:14 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
10
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado February 28, 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 28th day of February, 2017.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending:All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Directors Bergsten, Hinkle, Hudson, Hunt, Kufeld
Muhonen and Williamson
Absent:None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
COMMUNICATIONS WORKSHOP.
Dallas Everhart/Consultant provided a review of Emergenetics which outlines thinking
preferences, including analytical, structural, conceptual and social. The critical
concepts are symmetrical, asymmetrical, abstract and concrete, which help determine
thinking preferences and communication style. He provided each Trustee and Director
with a copy of their thinking preference. A review of the difference in how we process
information was further discussed.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
11
12
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 23, 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
23rd day of February, 2017.
Committee: Chair Walker, Trustees Holcomb and Norris
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Directors Hinkle, Hunt, and
Fortini, Managers Mitchell and Salerno and Recording
Secretary Beers
Absent:
Chair Walker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
CULTURAL SERVICES.
REPORTS.
2016 Museum Annual Report – Director Fortini stated the Museum is hiring for the
position of Museum Curator. Staff has taken over the Newsletter which was
previously completed and distributed tri-annually by the Friends Foundation. Staff
utilizes social media to generate conversation, provide information to the public and
showcase items currently not on display. The Museum received grant funding
through the State Historical Fund to build a walkway to the Birch Ruins, extending
the walkway to the front porch area. He elaborated on the acquisition of items for the
museum, clarifying the breakdown of numbers when processing several single
similar items as one collection item. Volunteer comparisons show steady
volunteering. A long range marketing plan would be developed outlining work with
Visit Estes Park. In 2017 staff would attempt to obtain accreditation which includes a
pledge of excellence by the governing Board and a steps program by the American
Association of State and Local History taking approximately a year to complete. The
museum would be closed during remodeling allowing staff the opportunity to
collaborate with other entities including the Estes Valley Library. Staff plans on
building a sound recording studio at the museum to record narratives. This would
bring costs down and would allow them to share the space with non-profits to create
an oral history of their organization.
Museum Meeting Room Update – Staff notified the Committee they would no longer
offer the Museum meeting room for public rentals as of March 14, 2017. The
meeting room is primarily used as programming space for the Museum. A review of
use for the last 13 years found room revenue as minimal, if not a loss with higher
maintenance costs incurred during public rentals. Meeting room use would be limited
to Town entities, as long as a Town staff member would be in attendance and
available to access the calendar for scheduling, with the Museum maintaining
priority on room reservation.
2016 Senior Services Annual Report – Manager Mitchell provided highlights below:
o Staff continues work on the Community Center with the Estes Valley Recreation
and Park District (EVRPD).
o Staff conducted a very thorough search for food service contractors for 2017 and
2018 for the Community Center. Only one response from the current contractor
and no responses for food services provided by a vendor lead staff to change
kitchen design and amenities at the center during remodeling.
o Town Board and the EVRPD Board entered into an Intergovernmental
Agreement in August 2016 to transition the management and operation of senior
services to the EVRPD upon opening of the Community Center. The transition
created a directive from the Board to investigate options for Meals on Wheels DRAFT13
Community Development / Community Services – February 23, 2017 – Page 2
with the noon meal discontinuing in 2018. Crossroads Ministry Board voted
officially to assume and operate all Meals on Wheels operations in 2018. Staff
would prepare a press release to announce the change. Estes Park Good
Samaritan Society has fully committed to be the food services contractor for
Meals on Wheels. Crossroads Ministry would own, manage, fund and fundraise
for the program and buy meals from Estes Park Good Samaritan through a
contractual agreement.
o Number of dining room clients has decreased. Staff would research a method to
add the social value aspect since the noon meal program would stop at the end
of 2017. Holiday meal would continue to be planned.
COMMUNITY SERVICES.
REPORTS.
2016 Visitor Center Annual Report – Manager Salerno stated the Vision, Mission
and Values has been updated. She stated the Visitor Center was selected as
number one in services in Estes Park by the National Citizen Survey in 2016. Staff
received new accurate traffic counters for the Visitor Center. Staff distributed 43,000
visitor guides through the Visitor Center to groups and individuals in 2016.
Distribution of guest documents available at the Visitor Center is invaluable and
helps staff answer questions about local businesses. During the different seasons
staff has two different guides for businesses that are seasonal or weather
dependent. Due to a high volume of visitation the Ambassadors extended the 2016
fall season and are scheduled to serve an early spring season starting in April 2017.
She added sales were up in 2016.
Town Administrator Lancaster mentioned the sale of Town logo merchandise at the
Visitor Center would not include the sale of clothing. He added it is in the Town’s
best interest to avoid the sale of identifiable official Town logo clothing with regard
for public safety.
2016 Events Annual Report – Coordinator Benes provided an overview of the
following events:
o Ride the Rockies – National Park permitting only allows the event to come to the
Town every four years. There were 2,000 riders in attendance at the event in
2016 who completed a survey ranking Estes Park as 2nd in Best Overnight.
o Elkfest – Highest attendance in recorded history and turned a profit.
o Tree Lighting Ceremony – Attendance pushed the capacity of the George Hix
plaza.
o Walking – Opening the Event Center for walking has been successful and
positive.
o Whisky Warm Up – Would take place in March 2017.
o Policies & Contracts – Staff has reviewed and updated policies and contracts for
all Town facilities to bring them up to date with expectations from renters of the
facilities. Permits are required 90 days prior to an event.
2016 Transportation Annual Report – Manager Wells stated a new ridership record
was set by eclipsing 101,000 riders in 2016. Staff initiated a sponsorship program
with 23 organizations from within the Estes Valley raising over $5,000 to offset
shuttle cost in 2016. They received the lowest riders per dollar rate to date. Staff
received approval of a Green Route for 2017, an express route from Park-n-Ride
running from the Event Complex, to the Visitor Center, to Bond Park and back. He
stated this route would be helpful during parking garage construction to shuttle
visitors. Concerns for the year would be the initial impact of volume when the
parking garage opens. Staff would have six stops an hour at the fairgrounds. Staff
continues to use social media to update the public and maintain communication.
Estes Area Lodging Association continues to provide funds to supply the shuttle
maps in lodging facilities, restaurants and businesses throughout Town. Vacation
Land and the Visit Estes Park Visitor Guide have showcased the shuttle service. In
order for staff to increase the shuttle service season, staff would need to secure DRAFT14
Community Development / Community Services – February 23, 2017 – Page 3
funding by approximately May or June 2017. He added the sponsorships are above
the $7,500 goal for 2017. Town Administrator Lancaster proposed limiting shuttle
service to businesses that are not sponsors. There are a number of businesses
served by shuttle service paid by tax dollars. Charging fees to businesses outside
Town limits would provide funding for the expansion of the shuttle service.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
HOUSING AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU). Assistant
Town Administrator Machalek presented minor changes to the MOU between the Town
of Estes Park and the Housing Authority. Staff presented changes in the language of
the MOU to reflect practice. The Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) has been paying
for the cost of Information Technology services provided by the Town for the last two
years. This is not reflected in the current version of the MOU and an update is needed
for accuracy. Additionally a change in funding would allow the Town greater flexibility in
choosing the manner in which financial support would be provided to the EPHA. The
EPHA Bboard met on February 8, 2017, and approved the changes. The Committee
recommended the changes to the Memorandum of Understanding between the
Town of Estes Park and the Estes Park Housing Authority and to be included as a
Consent Item at the February 28, 2017, meeting.
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Director Hunt stated the progress of
vacation home registration continues on track. He added staff would have formal
statistics provided to the Board and public after March 31, 2017. Code amendments
would be brought forward with minor changes to simplify the registration process
and provide guidance to the Planning Commission on decision making for 9 and
over vacation homes. Staff would prepare an amendment for consideration at the
March 14, 2017 Town Board meeting. Staff would prepare an amendment to the
Development Code regarding Accessory Kitchens. The amendment would address
the Town’s decision not to approve attached Accessory Dwelling Unit long-term
rental regulations in 2016, making it necessary to remove Accessory Kitchens as an
allowable use in the Estes Valley Development Code.
Trustee Walker questioned the County delay on vacation homes. Director Hunt
stated the County Assessor’s records and Town records are not showing the same
information in regards to number of bedrooms. This has caused a delay in the
process of vacation home registrations. He stated approximately 20% of
registrations in the unincorporated area are affected by the County delay on records.
He added the County has updated their records when discrepancies are found.
Building height – The Planning Commission proposed actual code language and
code amendment to be considered by raising the maximum building height in the
RM-Multi-Family zoning district from 30 ft to 45 ft. Staff would prepare more
information for a future Study Session.
Director Hunt stated the department would complete the hiring process for a Planner
I. Staff has a strong candidate interested in joining the department in March.
The Downtown Visioning Plan would host a workshop at the Event Center on
February 23, 2017.
Hydrology Report discussion presentations would occur February 27, 2017.
Town Administrator Lancaster stated in the past Airbnb members did not pay sales
tax. Airbnb has entered into an agreement with the State of Colorado to remit tax for
Municipalities who collect tax at the State level. The Town has not received State tax
funds from Airbnb to date.
There being no further business, Chair Walker adjourned the meeting at 9:47 a.m.
___________________________
Bunny Victoria Beers, Recording Secretary
DRAFT15
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 1
December 8, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo
Attending: Chair Spooner, Members Klein, Calvin, and Schiaffo
Also Attending: Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield, Community Development Director
Randy Hunt, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Plans Examiner Charlie Phillips,
Building Permit Technician Jacki Wiedow, Larimer County Building Official Eric
Fried, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: Member Darling
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
There were approximately 30 people in attendance.
Chair Spooner called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Each Board member introduced himself and
provided their area of expertise.
CONSENT AGENDA
Minutes from November 3, 2016 Board of Appeals meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Schiaffo) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion
passed unanimously with one absent.
PURPOSE OF MEETING
Chair Spooner explained the purpose of the Board of Appeals (BOA). Today’s discussion will be
regarding building codes as they relate to vacation homes (VHs) with occupancies greater than eight.
The BOA consists of members that are experts in their field. Normally, the BOA would be addressing
issues related to an interpretation of the code applied by the Chief Building Official. The BOA is the
avenue for appeals of those decisions. The BOA only deals with issues within the town limits. Larimer
County has their own BOA. The Town Trustees is the decision‐making body for any BOA
recommendations.
CBO stated that Don Darling has moved outside the Estes Valley Development Code area. The bylaws
do not have any residency requirement in order to serve on this Board. He will still be on the Board,
but was not available for today’s meeting.
CBO Birchfield stated the consent to be governed must come from the people, and he was pleased to
have community members in attendance. He stated the codes are confusing to those not versed in the
language. Once the codes are adopted, designers and contractors must build to those codes. The
adopted codes are the minimum requirements. The codes recognize the responsibility to first
responders that are putting their lives at risk to protect us and our property. Interpretation of the
codes should not be affected by economics or future impact to any party. Once codes are adopted,
economic impact cannot be considered. CBO Birchfield explained his authority to enforce the
16
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 2
December 8, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
provisions of the building codes, and must enforce all aspects of all the adopted codes. Local
amendments are adopted where applicable.
CBO Birchfield presented his interpretation of the building codes as they relate to vacation rentals.
This document can be viewed at www.estes.org/BoardOfAppeals.
Greg Rosener stated the difference between the IBC and IRC was still not clear to him.
CBO Birchfield stated if you are building a single‐family dwelling on one lot, it would be regulated by
the IRC. A two‐unit dwelling (duplex) would also be regulated by the IRC. Townhomes (side by side,
with openings on front and back, with independent ingress/egress on each unit) are regulated by the
IRC. All accessory structures associated with those dwellings are regulated by the IRC. If the structure
does not fall into one of those categories, it is regulated by the IBC. The IBC includes commercial uses,
mixed‐use buildings, stacked triplexes, etc. Work on existing buildings is regulated by the
International Existing Building Code (IEBC). CBO Birchfield stated the IRC says if you change the use
and it is no longer a dwelling, you must follow the IEBC. Any change in that use requires a change of
use permit and a new certificate of occupancy. The plans for the change of use must comply with the
code for that specific use and type of construction. Certificates of Occupancy are issued for the use as
described in the building permit. There are some significant differences between residential and
commercial structures (stairs, ADA, etc.) The IBC’s definition of dwelling is “any building that contains
one or two dwelling units used, intended, or designed to be built and used, rented, leased, let, or
hired out to be occupied or that are occupied for living purposes.” Refer to #4 of the Official
Interpretation or listen at minute 38:08. According to the building codes, the classification for
transient use (not more than 30 days) is a hotel. After much thought and peer discussion, it was
determined that a change of use permit, inspections, and a Certificate of Occupancy are required
before a dwelling may legally be used as a vacation home. This is the case regardless of the number
of occupants.
CBO Birchfield reminded the Board that the requirement for automatic sprinkler systems in one‐ and
two‐family dwellings was removed by local amendment with the adoption of the 2015 codes.
CBO Birchfield, Members Joe Calvin and Don Darling, and Fire Marshall Marc Robinson met several
weeks ago to complete a sample code analysis on changing a single‐family dwelling to a vacation
rental, as regulated by the IEBC. Member Calvin explained what would happen if the code is not
amended. His presentation can be read at www.estes.org/BoardOfAppeals . The document is titled
“What are the Requirements if dwellings used as vacation homes are regulated by the IEBC?” The
group considered whether or not a vacation home is a suite of rooms. When comparing a house to a
hotel, a hotel is many suites, and in the hotel, all suites have to stand independent with fire walls,
bathrooms, etc. A home is many bedrooms, but it was determined that fire rating requirements did
not apply. A vacation home is considered a single suite of rooms. Requirements that have to be met,
if not amended: sprinklers required; fire alarms and detection required; means of egress; stairway
geometry needs to comply with the IBC, however, in a vacation home situation where a single‐family
dwelling is becoming an R‐1, stair geometry would not need to be changed because that would be
considered not feasible per the IEBC; multiple means of egress if there are people sleeping in upstairs
17
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 3
December 8, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
rooms (in buildings over 2000 square feet), a second exit would be required from the upper level;
egress windows or doors are required in every sleeping room; fire walls would not be required
between rooms; height and area requirements would not apply to most vacation rentals (it would be
applicable to three‐story homes, 7000 square feet or larger); probably not any issues with the
construction of exterior walls; handicap accessibility requirements include an accessible entrance
requirement, and accessible route from a parking space to the accessible entrance and to all primary
functions in the building (sleeping rooms, living rooms, kitchen, bathroom, etc.); certain amount of
signage that identifies accessibility; parking and loading zones; doing a change of occupancy does not
require a restroom to be accessible. However, restroom improvements could be triggered with other
changes to the structure (remodels, additions, etc.). If something is technically infeasible, there are
some exceptions that allow the waiver of the requirements. Member Calvin stated the ADA is Federal
law, and the Board of Appeals does not have the authority to amend Federal law. Caution must be
taken in any proposed amendments regarding accessibility. CBO Birchfield stated the change of use
requirement was a Division of Building Safety Policy. When he found the provision in the EVDC about
vacation homes, there was no adopted residential code, only the building code. There was no Existing
Building Code. He stated the bar was lowered when sprinkler systems were exempted from single‐
family dwellings, and it would be lowered more by allowing more occupants in those dwellings. CBO
Birchfield will request direction from the elected officials, as he will no longer unilaterally not require a
change of use for vacation homes. The Board of Appeals can make any recommendations to the
elected officials they feel is necessary. Following the Board’s recommendations, draft code language
will be written and presented to the elected officials.
Chair Spooner stated six written public comments were received. Of those, five were supportive of
sprinklers in vacation homes, and the other was from the owner of a large vacation rental and was
opposed to sprinkler and ADA requirements due to the difficulty of the installation.
Public Comment
Chairs Spooner stated public comment should be limited only to building code issues relating to
vacation rentals.
George Leonard/county property owner was opposed to the change of use requirement for vacation
homes.
Jeff Moreau/town property owner recommended an amendment to reduce the financial burden to
those that wanted to rent their homes as vacation homes.
Greg Rosener/town property owner stated additional regulations would cause the elimination of
many vacation homes, which would have an impact on the local ecomony.
CBO Birchfield stated there is no definition for vacation home in the building codes.
Elizabeth Fogarty/town resident stated the vacation home industry will move underground if rules are
too strict, and we should find a compromise.
18
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 4
December 8, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Bob Fixter/town property owner stated his large vacation home was retrofitted with sprinklers and is
ADA compliant. Being code compliant is part of the responsibility of being a vacation home owner.
John Grady/county resident and vacation home owner stated the financial burden of some possible
requirements could be financially devastating to him. He was supportive of large vacation homes.
CBO Birchfield stated his recommendation would be to classify existing vacation homes with
occupancies of eight and under and licensed as of December 31, 2016, as legally nonconforming. A
change of use permit and inspection would be required. If there were no violations, a certificate of
occupancy would be issued. Sprinklers and ADA compliance would not be required. Director Hunt
stated federal and state laws read that more than eight people is classified as a group home, which is
the reasoning behind the occupancy of eight.
Seth Smith/property manager stated a solution to the problem would be to define a vacation home.
Member Calvin stated the economic issue is intermingled with the code. Economic feasibility is taken
into consideration in regard to accessibility (because accessibility is not life‐safety).
Tony Schetzsle/town resident wanted equal protection for equal uses. Vacation rentals have taxable
income, and should be considered a business.
Ed Peterson/town resident was supportive of new regulations for new construction. Estes Park should
use common sense when creating new regulations for vacation rentals.
Public Comment closed.
Staff and Member Discussion
CBO Birchfield stated now is the time to consider economic impact. Once the code and/or local
amendments are adopted, he cannot consider economics. CBO Birchfield stated the potential
recommendations he presented would be for vacation homes that are currently licensed. The elected
officials could reduce the type of sprinkler system required.
Director Hunt stated the Town Trustees and County Commissioners will meet December 15, 2016. It is
important we have a unified (town/county) path moving forward. While the building code and
development code are separate documents, alignment is strongly encouraged. The Larimer County
Board of Appeals will also be meeting and providing recommendations to the County Commissioners
regarding this issue. The building codes are a large part of the decision‐making process, and the Board
of Appeals may need additional time to deliberate and provide recommendations.
Eric Fried/Larimer County Building Official stated the Town and County are in agreement that once
you go from a single‐family dwelling to a vacation home, you have a change of occupancy and should
move to the IBC. The County building department works hard to keep the county building codes in
alignment with the Town building codes.
19
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 5
December 8, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
CBO Birchfield and Director Hunt agreed an acceptable approach would be a policy direction from the
elected officials.
Director Hunt provided additional information about the December 15th meeting, stating he was
hopeful a decision on EVDC amendments would be made. It was acceptable for the building code
amendments to take a bit longer.
There being no additional business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
___________________________________
John Spooner, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
20
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 1
February 9, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo
Attending: Chair Spooner, Members Klein, Calvin, Darling, and Schiaffo
Also Attending: Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield, Community Development Director
Randy Hunt, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Plans Examiner Charlie Phillips,
Building Permit Technician Jacki Wiedow, Larimer County Building Official Eric
Fried, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: None
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
There were approximately 30 people in attendance.
Chair Spooner called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Each Board member introduced himself and
provided their area of expertise.
CONSENT AGENDA
Minutes from December 8, 2016 Board of Appeals meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Darling) to table the minutes to the next meeting and the
motion passed unanimously.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Klein) to nominate Member Darling for the position of Chair and
the motion passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Schiaffo/Calvin) to nominate Member Calvin for the position of Vice‐
Chair and the motion passed unanimously.
The newly elected officers will begin their terms at the next Board of Appeals meeting.
Member Darling recused himself from the next item on the agenda.
PURPOSE OF MEETING
Chair Spooner explained the purpose of the Board of Appeals (BOA). The BOA consists of members
that are experts in their field. Normally, the BOA would be addressing issues related to an
interpretation of the code applied by the Chief Building Official. The BOA is the avenue for appeals of
those decisions. The BOA only deals with issues within the town limits. Larimer County has their own
BOA. The Town Board is the decision‐making body for any BOA recommendations. The Town Board
has provided direction to the Board of Appeals regarding single‐family dwellings, vacation homes, and
hotels, as they relate to the 2015 International Building Codes. This follows the adoption of
regulations for vacation homes in the Estes Valley Development Code, which took effect December 16,
2016.
21
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 2
February 9, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
CBO Birchfield stated there are certain situations where the International Residential Code is in
conflict with the International Building Code with buildings occupying more than eight individuals.
Common ground needs to be found in order to move forward with regulating single‐family dwellings,
vacation homes, and hotels. The governing body for building code regulations is the Town Board, and
any amendments shall be voted on and approved in order for them to be adopted and implemented.
The area outside the town limits but within the unincorporated Estes Valley is under the jurisdiction of
the Larimer County Building Department, and the governing body is the Larimer County Board of
County Commissioners. They are in the process of working through some of the same issues.
CBO Birchfield reviewed the presentation that is posted on the Town website at
www.estes.org/BoardOfAppeals.
1st Proposed Amendment:
Approximate time 20:00. First proposed local amendment adds definitions for the following:
Transient; Hotel; Small Hotel; Vacation Home Occupant Load; Vacation Home; Large Vacation Home;
and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). He noted these definitions would only apply to the International
Residential Code. Other amendments to the International Building Code would need to be made to
align with the IRC.
Public Comment
Blake Robertson/town resident spoke about the need to be aware of local amendments
Paul Brown/town resident inquired as to whether or not there was a maximum number of occupants.
CBO Birchfield stated it depended how the building was designed.
George Leonard/county resident inquired about the building codes as related to change of use
permits
Ken Arnold/town resident had questions about the two per bedroom plus two.
Public Comment closed.
2nd Proposed Amendment:
Approximate time 52:00. CBO Birchfield stated this amendment would add additional exceptions to
the scoping provisions of the IRC. Director Hunt explained the regulations pertaining to vacation
homes for occupants of nine or more.
3rd Proposed Amendment:
Approximate time 1:09:00. This proposed amendment deals with automatic fire sprinkler systems.
CBO Birchfield stated the proposed amendment follows the Town board direction to not require
sprinklers in one‐ and two‐family dwellings.
Public Comment
22
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 3
February 9, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
George Leonard inquired about homes not yet under construction.
Jim Docter inquired about how the proposed regulations would apply to an existing home that could
sleep more than eight.
Frank Theis stated future development in accommodations zone districts would depend on the size of
the building as far as sprinklers goes.
Eric Fried, Larimer County Chief Building Official shared his interpretation of the county vacation
homes regulations as they relate to the building codes. He explained this item was still being
discussed with the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners.
Public comment closed.
4th Proposed Amendment:
Approximate time 1:25:40. This proposed amendment adds the Vacation Home Life Safety Surveys.
Proposal is to allow two years for property owners to have life safety surveys completed and
approved.
Staff and Member Discussion
Approximate time 2:00:00. Comments included but were not limited to: Staff needs additional
clarification from the Town Board regarding exit signs; the 1600 square foot limitation would come
into play in a non‐residential zone; if it was larger than 1600 square feet, it would have to be regulated
by the IBC and sprinkled; the 1600 square foot limitation does not include garage area; the proposed
amendments are far easier and less restrictive than what was discussed in the past; we need to
consider the reputation of Estes Park, and it is only a matter of time before a fire occurs in a vacation
home; life safety is very important, and there were concerns about the long‐term ramifications of less
strict regulations.
Public Comment
Paul Brown stated an inspection list would be helpful prior to the official inspection.
Tony Schetzsle/town resident appreciated the concern for life safety.
Sharry White/town resident requested Member Calvin’s comments be carried forward to the Town
Board.
Director Hunt stated the Board of Appeals could meet one more time before going to the Town Board
study session in March 14th (tentative date).
CBO Birchfield stated the Board of Appeals will need to provide a recommendation prior to going to
the Town Board and Estes Valley Fire Protection District.
Public comment closed.
23
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 4
February 9, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Staff and Member Discussion
Approximate time 2:17:00. Discussion occurred related to the vacation home chart regarding business
use and proposed code amendments. Existing construction means prior to 2017. Director Hunt
stated there would be a very small group of vacation homes for nine and more in residential zone
districts.
CBO Birchfield will meet one‐on‐one with Member Calvin to provide commentary on the spreadsheet.
Member comments included but were not limited to: the proposed amendments seem to be fair and
equitable; they would like to see more strict regulations regarding sprinkler systems.
It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Klein) to accept the proposed amendments in concept, and if
there are errors in conception, error on the side of being more restrictive. The motion passed
unanimously.
The next meeting is scheduled for March 2, 2017.
CBO Birchfield stated the proposed building code amendments are a living document and will
continue to change as comments and feedback are provided. Director Hunt stated these amendments
are overwhelming, and questions are expected. Please contact staff with your questions. Walk‐in
customers are always welcome, but appointments would be appreciated.
There being no additional business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:31 p.m.
___________________________________
John Spooner, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
24
RESOLUTION #09-17
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
That the filing date of the application for a New Tavern Liquor License, filed by Cliff
Inc., 110 ½ W. Elkhorn Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado, is March 9, 2017.
It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board
Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, April 11, 2017, at 7:00
P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and hearing
shall be the area included within a radius of 3.13 miles, as measured from the center of the
applicant's property.
DATED this day of
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
25
26
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director
Date: March 7, 2017
RE: Resolution # 07-17, 2017 Re-appropriation of 2016 Encumbered Funds
and Project Rollovers to the 2017 Budget
Background:
At the end of each calendar/fiscal year, the Town will have certain purchases, contracts
or projects already in progress that were simply not completed within the fiscal year just
ending. Many of these items were fully budgeted within the fiscal year just ending,
resulting in the need to roll over the committed budgets into the ensuing year to
complete the purchases, contracts or projects. 2016 was no exception to this process
for the Town.
These contracts and outstanding purchases are entered into the 2016 accounting
records as purchase orders (PO’s) to encumber the budgets for specific purposes. At
the end of 2016, the balances left on the PO’s and the project balances need to be
rolled over into 2017 to fund completion of these purchases and contracts. This is a
standard accounting process common to many governmental entities that use purchase
orders. In some instances, these purchases, contracts or projects may have related
revenues, such as grant revenues, to offset the additional costs.
The following pages contain explanations of the more significant changes included
within this budget amendment.
Recap of Proposed Budget Adjustments.
A. State statutes require that budgeted appropriations not exceed available funds
(current revenues plus beginning fund balance). As demonstrated by this
schedule, each fund as amended is projected to have a positive fund balance as
of December 31, 2017.
B. The Town has adopted a fund balance policy specifying that the General Fund
fund balance should not fall below 20% of total expenditures for the year. The
General Fund as amended is currently estimated to end the year at a 20.4% fund
balance reserve in compliance with the policy.
27
Summary of Anticipated Revenue Adjustments:
The revenue schedule presents columns for the original budget and two categories of
changes, grant project rollovers and other changes. Some of the more significant
changes are as follow:
a.General Fund – $3,624,117 in grant revenues on projects that are being
rolled forward. These grants include:
•$2,954,007 - Fish Creek Road Repairs
•$ 271,628 – Stormwater Master Plan
•$ 190,000 – Downtown Neighborhood Planning Grant
•$ 96,170 – Moraine Ave Bridge Project
• $ 79,252 - Grant Funded Staff Positions
•$ 33,060 – Various Others
b.Community Reinvestment Fund – $3,281,474 in grant revenues and
$4,580,616 in other revenue changes are being rolled forward. The
parking garage financing closed in Jan 2017 so it must be budgeted this
year instead of last year. Some of the more significant items are:
•$3,018,777 – Parking Garage Grants
•$ 135,067 – Moraine Ave Bridge Project Grant
•$ 100,000 – Museum Collection Facility “Grant” – Friends of the
Museum
•$ 27,630 – Electronic Sign Grant
•$4,552,617 – Capital Lease Financing for Parking Garage
c.Larimer County Open Space Fund - $1,396,854 in grant revenues are
being rolled forward. The more significant items are:
•$1,265,449 – Federal and State Trails Grants
•$ 131,405 – Scott Ponds Dam Grant
d.Trails Fund – $ 67,048 in grant revenues are being rolled forward as
follows:
•$67,048 – Fall River Trail Grant
e.Light and Power Fund – $ 1,092,206 in grant revenues and $223,218 in
other revenue changes are being rolled forward.
•$1,092,206 – Broadband Planning Grant
•$ 223,218 – Fish Creek FEMA Grant increase in projection
28
Summary of Supplemental Appropriations:
Similar to the revenue schedule, the appropriation schedule presents columns for the
original budget and then three columns for the proposed changes (encumbrances,
project rollovers, and other changes). Encumbrances and project rollovers are detailed
out in supporting attachments. However, for ease of review, the most significant
changes are highlighted below:
a.General Fund – $4,100,391 Increase
•Encumbrance –$193,627 - Winter and Company has a remaining
PO balance on the downtown neighborhood plan.
•Project Rollover - $160,000 – Replacement of Town Hall roofs over
the engineering and police department wings. Also includes
replacement of the windows on the community development and
building services side.
•Encumbrance - $278,547 – Anderson Consulting Engineers has a
remaining balance on the stormwater master plan project.
•Encumbrance - $207,130 – Cornerstone Engineering has a
remaining balance on the Moraine Ave Bridge project.
•Project Rollover - $2,833,125 – Fish Creek Road repairs.
b.Community Reinvestment Fund – $8,808,829 Increase
•Encumbrance - $6,714,626 – Heath Construction has a remaining
balance on the parking garage.
•Project Rollover - $1,331,862 – Additional funding not obligated on
a PO yet for the parking garage.
•Project Rollover - $192,000 – Museum remodel project.
•
c.Larimer County Open Space Fund – $1,719,431 Increase
•Encumbrance - $ 225,067 – Rocksol Consulting Group, Inc. has a
remaining balance on the Moraine Ave Bridge project.
•Project Rollover - $1,463,701 – Fish Creek Trail project
d.Streets Improvement Fund – $861,019 Increase
•Encumbrance - $280,497 – SEMA Construction Inc. has a
remaining balance on the Dry Gulch Road Rehab project.
•Project Rollover - $567,271 – FLAP project
e.Light and Power Fund – $2,405,610 Increase
•Encumbrance - $1,007,096 – Manweiler Telecom Consulting has a
remaining balance on the Broadband Project
•Project Rollover - $855,689 – Allenspark / Little Valley Fiber Project
f.Vehicle Replacement Fund - $102,329 Increase
•Encumbrance - $40,000 – Watson Company has a remaining
balance on 2 water truck beds
29
•Project Rollover - $62,329 – Replacement of 2 Light and Power
Fork Lifts
Proposal:
Staff is seeking approval of the amended 2017 Budget and its accompanying
Resolution.
Advantages:
The Town will be able to operate within the framework of financial compliance as per
the State Auditor and County Treasurer’s Offices. This will also allow the Town to
complete the contracts and projects already underway.
Disadvantages:
The disadvantage to not approving the Supplemental Budget for 2017 is that the Town
would not having budget authority to complete contracts and projects already underway
without cancelling new projects planned for 2017.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the 2017 supplemental budget appropriation resolution.
Budget:
Several funds within the 2017 Budget will be impacted as a result of an approval.
Level of Public Interest
Various sections of the 2017 Budget are probably of moderate to significant interest to
different organizations and citizens.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of Resolution XX-17 appropriating additional sums of money for the
Town of Estes Park for the budget year ended December 31, 2017.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution for Reappropriation of 2016 Encumbered Funds and Project
Rollovers to the 2017 Budget No xx-17
Attachment B: Recap of Proposed Budget Adjustments
Attachment C: Summary of Anticipated Revenue Adjustments
Attachment D: Summary of Supplemental Appropriations
Attachment E: Summary of Encumbrances by Account
Attachment F: Summary of Budgeted Projects
30
RESOLUTION #07-17
REAPPROPRIATION OF 2016 ENCUMBERED FUNDS AND PROJECT
ROLLOVERS TO THE 2017 BUDGET
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park’s accounting system incorporates a
purchase order system that encumbers the budget appropriation when commitments for
the purchase of goods or services are made; and
WHEREAS, encumbrances that were not liquidated in the fiscal year ended
December 21, 2016 are to be re-appropriated in the next fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, appropriations for projects underway that have not been
encumbered with a purchase order are to be rolled over to facilitate completion of these
projects; and
WHEREAS, the estimates included in the adopted budget have been revised to
more accurately represent the actual revenues and expenditures necessary to operate
the government; and
WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the
revenues provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below, so as not to
impair the operations of the Town of Estes Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
That the following attached sums are hereby appropriated from the revenue or
available fund balance of each fund for the purposes stated.
ADOPTED this 14th day of March, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
31
Town of Estes Park
Recap of Proposed Budget Adjustments
For Year Ended 12-31-2017
Resolution 07-17
101 204 211 220 236 238 244 260
GENERAL FUND
COMMUNITY
REINVESTMENT
CONSERVATION
TRUST
LARIMER COUNTY
OPEN SPACE
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
COMMUNITY
CENTER TRAILS STREETS
Revenues, As Amended 20,177,555$ 10,546,973$ 32,371$ 1,765,047$ 68,861$ 694,632$ 414,477$ 1,675,528$
Expenses, As Amended 21,027,695 11,781,755 32,716 2,404,997 58,913 694,632 341,371 2,052,372
Net (850,141)(1,234,782)(345)(639,950)9,948 0 73,106 (376,844)
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance, 1/1/17 5,184,550 1,250,804 33,527 761,182 36,012 0 728,085 3,670,477
Estimated Ending Fund Balance, 12/31/17 4,334,409$ 16,022$ 33,182$ 121,232$ 45,960$ -$ 801,191$ 3,293,633$
Budget Restrictions - Nonspendable Prepaid Fund Balance 50,000
20.4%
502 503 606 612 625 635
LIGHT & POWER WATER
MEDICAL
INSURANCE FLEET
INFORMATION
SYSTEMS
VEHICLE
REPLACEMENT TOTAL
Revenues, As Amended 17,509,711$ 5,520,450$ 2,398,946$ 397,797$ 612,682$ 703,476$ 62,518,506$
Expenses, As Amended 19,895,987 5,504,575 2,340,020 407,680 1,038,656 407,483 67,988,853
Net (2,386,276)15,875 58,926 (9,883)(425,974)295,993 (5,470,347)
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance, 1/1/17 19,557,754 22,965,880 413,570 375,864 778,830 3,084,638 58,841,173
Estimated Ending Fund Balance, 12/31/17 17,171,478$ 22,981,755$ 472,496$ 365,981$ 352,856$ 3,380,631$ 53,370,826$
32
Town of Estes Park
Summary of Anticipated Revenue Adjustments
For Year Ended 12-31-2017
Resolution 07-17
Current Budget
Fund/Dept Original Budget Grant Project Rollovers Other Changes Total Amendment As Amended
101 GENERAL FUND 16,553,438 3,624,117 - 3,624,117 20,177,555
204 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 2,684,883 3,281,474 4,580,616 7,862,090 10,546,973
211 CONSERVATION TRUST 32,371 - - - 32,371
220 LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE 368,193 1,396,854 - 1,396,854 1,765,047
236 68,861 - - - 68,861
238 COMMUNITY CENTER 694,632 - - - 694,632
244 TRAILS 347,429 67,048 - 67,048 414,477
260 STREETS 1,675,528 - - - 1,675,528
502 LIGHT & POWER 16,194,287 1,092,206 223,218 1,315,424 17,509,711
503 WATER 5,520,450 - - - 5,520,450
606 MEDICAL INSURANCE 2,398,946 - - - 2,398,946
612 FLEET 397,797 - - - 397,797
625 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 612,682 - - - 612,682
635 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT 703,476 - - - 703,476
716 THEATER - - - - -
TOTAL 48,252,973 9,461,699 4,803,834 14,265,533 62,518,506
33
Town of Estes Park
Summary of Supplemental Appropriations
For Year Ended 12-31-2017
Resolution 07-17
Fund/Dept Original Budget Encumbrances Project Rollovers Other Changes Total Amendment
Current Budget As
Amended
101 GENERAL FUND
101-1100 Legislative 209,619 5,000 - - 5,000 214,619
101-1200 Judicial 53,889 - - - - 53,889
101-1300 Executive 413,764 1,575 - - 1,575 415,339
101-1400 Admin Svcs 546,088 18,237 - - 18,237 564,325
101-1500 Finance 539,068 - - - - 539,068
101-1600 Com Dev ( Planning)1,033,478 236,252 - 225,000 461,252 1,494,730
101-1700 976,032 19,242 194,500 - 213,742 1,189,774
101-1800 Employee Benefits 181,990 - - - - 181,990
101-1900 CS grants 993,822 - - - - 993,822
101-2100 Police 2,997,399 952 - - 952 2,998,351
101-2155 Police - Communications 979,756 - - - - 979,756
101-2175 Police - Comm Svcs 324,442 - - - - 324,442
101-2300 Building Safety Divison 743,093 22,823 - - 22,823 765,916
101-2400 Engineering 403,589 494,767 - - 494,767 898,356
101-2600 Visitor Center 405,908 4,920 - - 4,920 410,828
101-3100 Streets 1,042,308 - 2,849,125 - 2,849,125 3,891,433
101-5200 Parks 1,092,438 - 10,000 - 10,000 1,102,438
101-5304 Senior Center 351,150 - - - - 351,150
101-5500 Events 1,912,081 - - - - 1,912,081
101-5600 Transportation 442,476 - - - - 442,476
101-5700 Museum 334,993 - - - - 334,993
101-9000 Transfers 949,921 - - 18,000 18,000 967,921
101 GENERAL FUND 16,927,304 803,766 3,053,625 243,000 4,100,391 21,027,695
34
Town of Estes Park
Summary of Supplemental Appropriations
For Year Ended 12-31-2017
Resolution 07-17
Fund/Dept Original Budget Encumbrances Project Rollovers Other Changes Total Amendment
Current Budget As
Amended
204 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 2,972,926 6,991,460 1,799,369 18,000 8,808,829 11,781,755
211 CONSERVATION TRUST 32,716 - - - - 32,716
220 LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPA 685,566 255,730 1,463,701 - 1,719,431 2,404,997
236 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 49,250 9,663 - - 9,663 58,913
238 COMMUNITY CENTER 694,632 - - - - 694,632
244 TRAILS 250,000 91,371 - - 91,371 341,371
260 STREETS 1,191,353 293,748 567,271 - 861,019 2,052,372
502 LIGHT & POWER 17,490,377 1,289,929 990,681 125,000 2,405,610 19,895,987
503 WATER 5,451,126 53,449 - - 53,449 5,504,575
606 MEDICAL INSURANCE 2,340,020 - - - - 2,340,020
612 FLEET 407,680 - - - - 407,680
625 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 1,035,722 2,934 - - 2,934 1,038,656
635 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT 305,154 40,000 62,329 - 102,329 407,483
716 THEATER - - - - - -
TOTAL 49,833,826 9,832,051 7,936,976 386,000 18,155,027 67,988,853
35
Town of Estes Park
Summary of Encumbrances by Account
For Year Ended 12-31-2017
Resolution 07-17
VENDOR #VENDOR NAME PO #PO DATE ACCOUNT #PROJECT ENCUMBRANCE $LIQUIDATED $OUTSTANDING $
0001958 III IMAGE, INC.035503 11/17/2016 101-1100-411.60-01 5,000.00 - 5,000.00
0005756 MIKE DWYER SCULPTURES 035472 10/10/2016 101-1300-413.29-34 PIKA 5,400.00 3,825.00 1,575.00
0004275 SIMPLICITY ORGANIZING SERVICES INC 035057 2/16/2016 101-1400-414.22-98 9,975.00 3,487.50 6,487.50
0003935 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYER COUNCIL,035499 11/15/2016 101-1400-414.22-98 5,460.00 4,371.63 1,088.37
0003195 PRODUCTIVE OFFICE & SCHOOL 035560 12/30/2016 101-1400-414.26-23 10,660.83 - 10,660.83
0005742 TELESTO SOLUTIONS INC 035464 8/2/2016 101-1600-416.22-13 50,000.00 7,375.00 42,625.00
0005797 WINTER & COMPANY 035660 12/1/2016 101-1600-416.22-13 DTDOLA 210,000.00 16,373.20 193,626.80
0001955 035515 12/2/2016 101-1700-417.25-02 4,975.00 - 4,975.00
0000829 WESCO DISTRIBUTION INC 035518 12/6/2016 101-1700-417.25-02 4,942.00 - 4,942.00
0004228 PIPESTONE EQUIPMENT 035552 12/29/2016 101-1700-417.25-02 5,024.88 - 5,024.88
0000804 VILLAGE MAINTENANCE SERVICE 035338 8/2/2016 101-1700-417.32-22 13,480.00 9,180.00 4,300.00
0000799 NEVE'S UNIFORMS, INC.035286 7/11/2016 101-2100-421.26-11 PDPOST 5,852.00 4,900.00 952.00
0004930 SLATE COMMUNICATIONS 035117 3/23/2016 101-2300-423.22-13 15,275.00 9,533.53 5,741.47
0004422 COLORADO CODE CONSULTING LLC 035184 5/4/2016 101-2300-423.22-13 52,500.00 35,418.75 17,081.25
0005699 LANTZ ASSOCIATES LLC 035317 6/30/2016 101-2400-424.22-02 9,315.00 7,225.00 2,090.00
0002522 CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING AND 035375 8/23/2016 101-2400-424.22-02 MORBRG 220,000.00 12,870.00 207,130.00
0005366 ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC 035397 9/1/2016 101-2400-424.22-02 STORM 300,000.00 51,453.47 248,546.53
0005366 ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC 035398 9/1/2016 101-2400-424.22-02 STORM 30,000.00 - 30,000.00
0005786 HANGE ENGINEERING 035558 12/30/2016 101-2400-424.22-02 7,000.00 - 7,000.00
0005768 TRAF-SYS INC 035505 11/22/2016 101-2600-426.25-02 4,500.00 2,745.00 1,755.00
0005806 MARESH CABLING LLC 035670 12/1/2016 101-2600-426.25-02 755.00 - 755.00
0005771 FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES INC 035517 12/6/2016 101-2600-426.26-23 4,819.68 2,410.00 2,409.68
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 974,934.39 171,168.08 803,766.31
0005689 HORD COPLAN MACHT 035279 7/28/2016 204-5400-544.32-22 MUSREM 36,900.00 29,520.00 7,380.00
0004769 SPACE INTO PLACE AD 035443 10/6/2016 204-5400-544.35-52 CVBPRK 176,917.90 82,872.70 94,045.20
0004866 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 035459 10/20/2016 204-5400-544.35-52 CVBPRK 153,000.00 28,913.30 124,086.70
0005755 STANTON CONSTRUCTIBILITY SERVICES 035460 10/13/2016 204-5400-544.35-52 CVBPRK 39,997.50 26,740.71 13,256.79
0000961 HEATH (R. C.) CONSTRUCTION CO.035461 10/20/2016 204-5400-544.35-52 CVBPRK 6,973,473.00 258,846.59 6,714,626.41
0005782 AQUA DE VITA 035546 12/18/2016 204-5400-544.35-52 CVBPRK 7,847.50 5,915.00 1,932.50
0000903 TERRACON CONSULTANTS INC 035610 11/17/2016 204-5400-544.35-52 CVBPRK 42,680.00 6,547.50 36,132.50
TOTAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND 7,430,815.90 439,355.80 6,991,460.10
0005679 AMERICAN WEST CONSTRUCTION LLC 035255 6/23/2016 220-4600-462.22-02 CDBGCH 780,000.00 761,456.73 18,543.27
0005718 DEERE AND AULT CONSULTANTS INC 035391 8/29/2016 220-4600-462.22-02 CDBGCH 25,000.00 12,880.46 12,119.54
0005775 ROCKSOL CONSULTING GROUP INC 035527 12/9/2016 220-4600-462.22-02 MORBRG 240,000.00 14,932.63 225,067.37
TOTAL LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND 1,045,000.00 789,269.82 255,730.18
36
Town of Estes Park
Summary of Encumbrances by Account
For Year Ended 12-31-2017
Resolution 07-17
VENDOR #VENDOR NAME PO #PO DATE ACCOUNT #PROJECT ENCUMBRANCE $LIQUIDATED $OUTSTANDING $
0001810 WIRELESS ADVANCED COMM. INC.035547 12/22/2016 236-3600-436.26-46 9,663.04 - 9,663.04
TOTAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND 9,663.04 - 9,663.04
0005391 LORIS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.033953 1/1/2016 244-3400-434.36-60 FRTRL 205,151.05 113,780.48 91,370.57
TOTAL TRAILS FUND 205,151.05 113,780.48 91,370.57
0005607 SEMA CONSTRUCTION INC 035105 3/10/2016 260-2000-420.35-51 DRYGUL 4,088,480.00 3,807,982.52 280,497.48
0005291 GROUND ENGINEERING 035206 5/11/2016 260-2000-420.35-51 DRYGUL 25,000.00 22,680.00 2,320.00
0004594 FARNSWORTH GROUP INC 035288 4/10/2016 260-2000-420.35-51 DRYGUL 21,930.00 10,999.00 10,931.00
TOTAL STREETS FUND 4,135,410.00 3,841,661.52 293,748.48
0000961 HEATH (R. C.) CONSTRUCTION CO.035536 12/19/2016 502-6301-540.25-33 CVBPRK 20,000.00 - 20,000.00
0005310 LUCITY INC.035529 12/14/2016 502-6501-560.25-01 7,500.00 - 7,500.00
0000829 WESCO DISTRIBUTION INC 035450 10/13/2016 502-7001-580.33-35 7,132.00 - 7,132.00
0000828 WESTERN UNITED ELECTRIC SUPPLY 035539 12/19/2016 502-7001-580.33-35 29,919.58 - 29,919.58
0000829 WESCO DISTRIBUTION INC 035548 12/22/2016 502-7001-580.35-55 29,653.80 19,157.40 10,496.40
0000828 WESTERN UNITED ELECTRIC SUPPLY 035451 10/14/2016 502-7001-580.35-58 AP2016 96,443.62 52,993.62 43,450.00
0005740 POWER CONTRACTING LLC 035474 10/27/2016 502-7001-580.35-58 AP2016 80,350.00 - 80,350.00
0003423 LARIMER COUNTY ENGINEERING 035543 12/20/2016 502-7001-580.35-58 FISHC2 70,000.00 - 70,000.00
0005725 SSP INNOVATIONS LLC 035407 9/14/2016 502-7001-580.35-66 BB0001 17,405.00 11,305.00 6,100.00
0005724 MANWEILER TELECOM CONSULTING LLC 035490 11/7/2016 502-7001-580.35-66 BB0001 1,095,969.00 88,872.76 1,007,096.24
0000347 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY INC 035516 12/5/2016 502-7001-580.35-66 BB0001 9,180.12 1,295.27 7,884.85
TOTAL LIGHT & POWER FUND 1,463,553.12 173,624.05 1,289,929.07
0004102 GE ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTS INC 035260 6/28/2016 503-6200-530.26-14 7,807.00 5,805.00 2,002.00
0003601 HDR ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.035381 8/24/2016 503-6300-540.22-02 HONTRF 12,500.00 9,278.75 3,221.25
0003601 HDR ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.035382 8/24/2016 503-6300-540.22-02 25,000.00 13,646.47 11,353.53
0005770 WATER SYSTEMS SERVICES LLC 035514 11/30/2016 503-6300-540.25-01 PMWCON 18,000.00 6,000.00 12,000.00
0004596 GE WATER & PROCESS TECHNOLOGIES 035292 7/13/2016 503-7000-580.33-36 8,990.00 - 8,990.00
0003601 HDR ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.035382 11/14/2016 503-7000-580.35-62 15,882.00 - 15,882.00
TOTAL WATER FUND 88,179.00 34,730.22 53,448.78
0000469 LEWAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.035434 9/30/2016 625-2500-425.22-13 6,500.00 3,566.00 2,934.00
TOTAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS FUND 6,500.00 3,566.00 2,934.00
0000957 WATSON (O. J.) COMPANY, INC.035632 12/1/2016 635-7000-435.34-42 40,000.00 - 40,000.00
TOTAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 40,000.00 - 40,000.00
TOTAL ENCUMBRANCES FOR ALL FUNDS 15,399,206.50 5,567,155.97 9,832,050.53
37
Town of Estes Park
Summary of Budgeted Projects
For Year Ended 12-31-2017
Resolution 07-17
Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER 2017 Project Budget
2017 Additional
Request
2016 Project Budget
Rollover
2016 Encumbrance
(PO) Rollover
Total Project Budget
After Amendment
DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE & EQUIP 101-1400-414.37-01 165,554 - 165,554
DOWNTOWN ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 101-1600-416.22-13 - 193,627 193,627
FLEET/STREETS ROOF 101-1700-417.32-22 150,000 - 150,000
PAINT EXTERIOR OF FISH HATCHERY RENTALS 101-1700-417.32-22 34,500 4,300 38,800
TOWN HALL ROOFS ( ENGINEERING & PD WINGS)101-1700-417.32-22 90,000 90,000
TOWN HALL WINDOWS (CD & BS SIDE)101-1700-417.32-22 70,000 70,000
MPEC SERVER ROOM AC 101-1700-417.33-32 10,000 - 10,000
SECURITY CAMERAS PHASE 2 101-1700-417.33-32 26,000 - 26,000
MORAINE AVE BRIDGE MORBRG 101-2400-424.22-02 - 207,130 207,130
STORMWATER MASTER PLAN STORM 101-2400-424.22-02 - 30,000 30,000
STORMWATER MASTER PLAN STORM 101-2400-424.22-02 - 248,547 248,547
SANDER REPLACEMENTS - 2 101-3100-431.34-98 16,000 16,000
FISH CREEK ROAD REPAIRS FHWAFC 101-3100-431.36-55 2,833,125 2,833,125
JD CART 4X4 101-5200-452.34-98 10,000 - 10,000
SANDER REPLACEMENT - 1 101-5200-452.34-98 10,000 10,000
REBUILD CENTER ARENA FOOTING AT EVENT CENTER 101-5500-455.32-22 125,000 - 125,000
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 486,554 - 3,053,625 683,603 4,223,782
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS AND RESEARCH FACILITY MUSCOL 204-5400-544.22-02 81,100 81,100
MUSEUM REMODEL MUSREM 204-5400-544.22-02 7,380 7,380
MUSEUM REMODEL MUSREM 204-5400-544.25-02 192,000 192,000
MUSEUM REMODEL MUSREM 204-5400-544.32-22 - 7,380 7,380
COMMUNITY DR ENGINEERING DESIGN 204-5400-544.35-51 50,000 - 50,000
MORAINE AVE BRIDGE MORBRG 204-5400-544.35-51 1,850,000 135,067 1,985,067
DOWNTOWN PARKING PLAN 204-5400-544.35-52 45,000 - 45,000
PARKING GARAGE CVBPRK 204-5400-544.35-52 - 1,933 1,933
PARKING GARAGE CVBPRK 204-5400-544.35-52 (0) 13,257 13,257
PARKING GARAGE CVBPRK 204-5400-544.35-52 - 36,133 36,133
PARKING GARAGE CVBPRK 204-5400-544.35-52 0 94,045 94,045
PARKING GARAGE CVBPRK 204-5400-544.35-52 (0) 124,087 124,086
PARKING GARAGE CVBPRK 204-5400-544.35-52 1,331,862 1,331,862
PARKING GARAGE CVBPRK 204-5400-544.35-52 - 6,714,626 6,714,626
DMS ELECTRONIC SIGNS US36/US34 DYNMSG 204-5400-544.36-52 130,000 51,960 181,960
TOTAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND 2,075,000 - 1,799,369 6,991,460 10,865,829
FISH CREEK TRAIL 11CATG 220-4600-462.22-02 1,463,701 1,463,701
MORAINE AVE BRIDGE MORBRG 220-4600-462.22-02 - 225,067 225,067
SCOTT PONDS (CARRIAGE HILLS) DAM CDBGCH 220-4600-462.22-02 - 12,120 12,120
SCOTT PONDS (CARRIAGE HILLS) DAM CDBGCH 220-4600-462.22-02 - 18,543 18,543
FALL RIVER TRAIL EXT 220-4600-462.35-60 200,000 - 200,000
MACGREGOR AVE TRAIL 220-4600-462.35-60 300,000 - 300,000
IRRIG IMPR RIVERWALK US36 TO CHILDRENS PARK 220-4600-462.35-61 65,000 - 65,000
IRRIG IMPROV LIBRARY, RIVERSIDE PARK & TREGENT PARK 220-4600-462.35-61 66,500 - 66,500
38
Town of Estes Park
Summary of Budgeted Projects
For Year Ended 12-31-2017
Resolution 07-17
Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER 2017 Project Budget
2017 Additional
Request
2016 Project Budget
Rollover
2016 Encumbrance
(PO) Rollover
Total Project Budget
After Amendment
VISITOR CENTER BIG T RIVERBANK STABILIZATION 220-4600-462.35-61 13,585 - 13,585
TOTAL LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND 645,085 - 1,463,701 255,730 2,364,516
MACGREGOR AVE NORTH OF WONDERVIEW IMPROVEMENTS FRTRL 244-3400-434.36-60 250,000 - - 91,371 341,371
TOTAL TRAILS FUND 250,000 - - 91,371 341,371
FLAP/RAMP ESTIMATED COSTS FLAP 260-2000-420.22-02 567,271 567,271
GENERAL ENGINEERING AND DRAINAGE DESIGN WORK 260-2000-420.22-02 70,000 - 70,000
DRY GULCH ROAD REBUILD DRYGUL 260-2000-420.35-51 - 2,320 2,320
DRY GULCH ROAD REBUILD DRYGUL 260-2000-420.35-51 - 10,931 10,931
DRY GULCH ROAD REBUILD DRYGUL 260-2000-420.35-51 - 280,497 280,497
TOTAL STREETS FUND 70,000 - 567,271 293,748 931,019
PARKING GARAGE CVBPRK 502-6301-540.25-33 - 20,000 20,000
NONSPECIFIC OFFICE EQUIPMENT 502-7001-580.33-32 7,000 - 7,000
SERVER FOR METERING - AMI 502-7001-580.33-33 25,000 - 25,000
TRANSFORMER PURCHASES 502-7001-580.33-35 29,920 29,920
TRANSFORMER PURCHASES 502-7001-580.33-35 75,000 - 7,132 82,132
SMART METER PURCHASES 502-7001-580.33-36 25,000 - 25,000
NONSPECIFIC TOOLS 502-7001-580.33-41 10,000 - 10,000
UTILITY TRUCK-1 TON - New Addition to Fleet 502-7001-580.33-98 50,000 - 50,000
STREET LIGHTING, POLES & FIXTURES 502-7001-580.35-55 125,000 - 10,496 135,496
BIGHORN / FALL RIVER ELECTRIC LINE REBUILDS 502-7001-580.35-57 200,000 - 200,000
ALLENSPARK CIRCUIT UNDERGROUND WORK AP2016 502-7001-580.35-58 323,206 323,206
BIG HORN / FALL RIVER UNDERGROUND WORK 502-7001-580.35-58 500,000 - 43,450 543,450
FISH CREEK PHASE II UNDERGROUND LINES FISHC2 502-7001-580.35-58 - 70,000 70,000
FISH CREEK PHASE II UNDERGROUND LINES FISHC2 502-7001-580.35-58 50,000 63,867 80,350 194,217
BROADBAND PROJECT BB0001 502-7001-580.35-66 - 6,100 6,100
BROADBAND PROJECT BB0001 502-7001-580.35-66 - 7,885 7,885
BROADBAND PROJECT BB0001 502-7001-580.35-66 71,125 71,125
BROADBAND PROJECT BB0001 502-7001-580.35-66 - 1,007,096 1,007,096
MIDDLE MILE FIBER TO ALENSPARK/LITTLE VALLEY AP2016 502-7001-580.35-66 532,483 532,483
AR & CLICK-TO-GOV UTILITY BILLING MODULES 502-7001-580.37-01 76,027 - 76,027
TOTAL LIGHT & POWER FUND 1,018,027 125,000 990,681 1,282,429 3,416,137
BUILDING WORK AT GLACIER PLANT 503-7000-580.32-22 215,000 - 215,000
SCADA UPGRADES AT GLACIER WTP 503-7000-580.33-36 109,000 - 8,990 117,990
VARIOUS LAB EQUIPMENT 503-7000-580.33-37 5,500 - 5,500
FEEDER REPLACEMENT 503-7000-580.33-40 17,000 - 17,000
STORAGE TANK MIXER 503-7000-580.33-40 12,000 - 12,000
VARIOUS EQUIPMENT 503-7000-580.34-42 129,000 - 129,000
NCWCD SUBDISTRICT WATER RIGHTS (INCLUSIONS) 503-7000-580.35-54 41,400 - 41,400
PRV VAULT METERING 503-7000-580.35-54 16,000 - 16,000
39
Town of Estes Park
Summary of Budgeted Projects
For Year Ended 12-31-2017
Resolution 07-17
Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER 2017 Project Budget
2017 Additional
Request
2016 Project Budget
Rollover
2016 Encumbrance
(PO) Rollover
Total Project Budget
After Amendment
WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT - 2017 503-7000-580.35-54 401,370 - 401,370
TOTAL WATER FUND 946,270 - - 8,990 955,260
ALLENSPARK NETWORK GEAR 625-2500-425.33-98 8,000 - 8,000
FIBER SWITCH GEAR TO LONGMONT 625-2500-425.33-98 15,000 - 15,000
FIREWALL VLAN ENHANCEMENT 625-2500-425.33-98 5,000 - 5,000
NEW NETWORK SERVER 625-2500-425.33-98 20,000 - 20,000
NEW NETWORK SWITCHES 625-2500-425.33-98 5,000 - 5,000
PRPA RING SWITCHES/GEAR FOR NEW CIRCUIT 625-2500-425.33-98 15,000 - 15,000
TOTAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS FUND 68,000 - - - 68,000
EVENTS G-123 06 BOBCAT 2200 4X4 635-7000-435.34-42 19,000 - 19,000
L&P 93323A 06 FORD F-550 4X4 635-7000-435.34-42 59,666 - 59,666
PARKS G-60A FORD F-550 4X4 635-7000-435.34-42 85,603 - 85,603
POLICE G-78B 09 DODGE CHARGER 635-7000-435.34-42 32,000 - 32,000
STREETS G-63A 08 FORD F-550 4X4 635-7000-435.34-42 75,000 - 75,000
STREETS G-75B 06 GMC K3500 4X4 635-7000-435.34-42 33,885 - 33,885
WATER TRUCK BEDS FOR 2 TRUCKS - 9032C & 9033B 635-7000-435.34-42 - - 40,000 40,000
L&P FORK LIFT REPLACEMENTS - 2 - 93387A & 93388A 635-7000-435.34-42 - 62,329 62,329
TOTAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 305,154 - 62,329 40,000 407,483
TOTAL PROJECT RECAP 11,423,026 250,000 15,811,623 19,254,663 46,739,312
40
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report
To: Hon. Mayor T. Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator F. Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: March 14, 2017
RE: Ordinance No. 09-17: Proposed Text Amendments to Estes Valley
Development Code: EVDC §5.1.B (Vacation Homes)
Objective:
Review and recommendation on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) §5.1.B (Vacation Homes): amendments to the Vacation
Homes (VH) regulations regarding processing of applications, standards for reviewing 9-
and-over vacations homes, and minor changes made for clarity or consistency.
Code Amendment Objective:
The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to do the following:
Require that all 2017 VH applications be filed by March 31, rather than registrations
issued by that date;
Remove (for the time being) the requirement that all registered VH homes have a
Certification of Occupancy issued by Dec. 2016;
Place maximum parking requirements for VHs in residential districts in this section
of code;
Specify that VH applications in non-residential districts can be applied for after
March 31, 2017 (as they are not subject to the cap);
Allow flexibility in the actual date of registration issuance;
Provide additional guidance to the Planning Commission in criteria for making
determinations regarding 9-and-over VHs in residential districts;
Clarify a number of minor language and reference ambiguities.
Proposal:
Amend EVDC Section 5.1.B (Vacation Homes) as stated in Exhibit A [“PC Draft”], dated
Feb. 21, 2017, attached.
Both staff and the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommend that the Board of
Trustees approve Exhibit A as drafted.
41
Ord. No. 09-17 (memo written March 7,
2017)
Discussion:
This set of amendments has been assembled as a result of various practical
difficulties staff has observed during the administration of the VH regulations. In
some cases, they only make clear what most parties understood to be the spirit
and intent of the regulations as adopted in December.
March 31 deadline:
The most notable problem we have encountered is that the March 31, 2017
deadline to issue all operating registrations has turned out to be impossible for
some owners/applicants and the staff alike.
Most such problems have come up in connection with the need to reconcile
number of bedrooms. In some cases – less than half, but still significant – VH
applicants are reporting a certain bedroom count that does not match Larimer
County Assessor property records. The reasons vary. Sometimes, a room may
have been converted to a bedroom (legitimately or otherwise), but the Assessor’s
office does not have the updated figure. A few applicants may not understand the
way bedrooms are counted. And in some cases, the Assessor’s records seem to
be wrong or incomplete (records have been found by County staff that show
houses with zero bedrooms, for example). Regardless of cause, the records must
match for many reasons, including proper registration.
The reason this affects deadline is that changing or verifying the records is a slow
process, especially for County properties. The only current ways to reconcile a
bedroom discrepancy are either: (a) go back through old building-permit records;
or (b) conduct a new building inspection. County records before 1998 are not
systematically accessible and require hand searching, and many County records
do not even exist if a house is older than approx. early 1970s. The Town’s building
records system has older data but suffers from its own inefficiencies, many due to
obsolete software.
Building inspections can be done, but there is no clear authority to inspect just to
determine number of bedrooms. And, building inspections are not free and cannot
be scheduled on a moment’s notice; travel time from Fort Collins is a factor. (The
County retains authority for building regulations in unincorporated Estes Valley.)
The bottom line is that the March 31 deadline is unattainable for some applicants
who otherwise are trying to comply, and unattainable for staff as well. A solution is
to require that all applications be filed by March 31, but add flexibility as to when
the application must be completed. An “abeyance policy”, currently administered
42
Ord. No. 09-17 (memo written March 7,
2017)
by staff, will not interfere with VH operators’ ability to honor rental contracts already
in the pipeline, even if registration takes longer than we wish.
(A collateral benefit is straightening out record-keeping glitches as they are found.
Unorganized public records would not be a formula for good government or citizen
satisfaction.)
Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.):
For much the same reason as above – irregularity of records and difficulty
accessing them – this requirement has proven infeasible. The original intent was
to stop someone from getting a registration as a “placeholder” for an incomplete
house or even a vacant piece of ground, which under the cap would potentially
kick current operators out of the queue and onto a waiting list. In practice, current
regulations – specifically, the requirement for a site inspection – are keeping this
from happening in 2017.
Staff would like to suggest a longer-term solution for the C.O. matter. This
regulation seems manageable for now due to the inspection requirement, but
inspections only required in limited situations after 2017. We will work on an
acceptable mechanism and bring that forward later this year.
Maximum Parking Requirements:
These have been in EVDC for years, but with two problems: (a) they are currently
in a weird Code location where few people (including staff) know how to find them
easily; and (b) it is not clear whether they apply to VHs, since they are phrased as
applying to “accessory uses” in one- and -two-family dwellings.
Our recommendation is that the regulations be copied from their current location
in Sec. 5.2.e.(6).(b) and repeated in the vacation home section, which is what the
amendment does. The rules themselves remain the same as they have been in
residential districts.
Non-residential district VHs fall under the “Hotel, small” category for parking
regulations. This is also unchanged from current Code, but repeated here for
completeness, so all parking rules can be found in the same spot.
2017 VH deadline in non-residential districts:
This is also a March 31 issue, but deals with a different facet of VH policy. Staff’s
understanding is that new VHs (whether brand-new construction or new
registration for existing structures) should be encouraged toward Accommodations
or Commercial locations, other things being equal. Removing the rigid March 31
deadline for non-residential VH applications is aimed toward this goal. Two
elements make the March 31 deadline less important in these districts to begin
43
Ord. No. 09-17 (memo written March 7,
2017)
with: (a) There is no cap in the non-residential districts, so hard deadlines for
registration do not translate into competition to stay under the cap; and (b) 9-and-
over VHs in those districts do not go through Planning Commission review, so the
gate-keeping function of March 31 deadline in residential areas does not have the
same applicability.
Update on 2017 deadline: Staff met with the Estes Park Board of Realtors
(EPBOR) on Mar. 2 regarding this amendment package. Several concerns
were expressed, but probably the main one was the March 31, 2017
deadline for residential properties to register. The December 2016
amendment is worded such that a residential VH that does not file
registration by this March 31 is not eligible to register for the rest of 2017.
That requirement is not proposed for change here. The Code does allow
open registration again from Jan. 1, 2018 onward. The reason for this
provision is so the community can accurately assess where we are with
regard to the cap and with regard to VH impacts generally. After 2017
settles, out, the scene is expected to become clearer.
The concern by EPBOR is that potential buyers and sellers who are not in
Estes Park, or otherwise do not know about the December regulations, may
close on a property without knowing it can’t become a vacation home for
the 2017 season. The newness of the VH regulations and the temporary
character of the post-March prohibition give this argument some validity.
Staff has no specific concerns with allowing for post-March 31 registration
in residential districts, as long as we have an accurate picture of where our
numbers stand at the March 31, 2017 deadline. We believe an amendment
could be written to allow post-March 31 registration, while still providing for
adequate data collection and impact assessment in 2017.
However, the Planning Commission will have to review an amendment of
this magnitude. Sending the current amendment back to Planning
Commission will put final decision on the current amendment into April;
some of these issues need to be dealt with right now.
If the Board wishes to see such a change, that can be addressed in an
amendment in the April-May 2017 review cycle, and staff can be directed to
initiate it. This would leave a small gap of approx. 6-8 weeks in which new
VH registrations in residential districts could not take place, but relaxing the
restriction after that seems feasible. Of course, public input and dialog is
always a key component. This issue deserves its day in the sun.
44
Ord. No. 09-17 (memo written March 7,
2017)
Flexibility in Registration Issuance:
This one has already been discussed. Uncertainties in accessing and finalizing
records mean this provision is necessary. It would be awkward at best if the staff
held to a firm deadline to complete our work and then found we couldn’t get at the
needed information; that is even more the case for applicants. The public does
benefit from known deadlines and outcomes, but in this case there is no help for
it. Staff commits to getting pending registrations done as soon as resources allow.
Planning Commission Guidance in 9-and-over Decision-making:
This amendment deals with the criteria for making alternative judgments in cases
where a 9-and-over residential-district application involves a property with less
than one (1) acre, and/or smaller setbacks. The amendment gives direction on the
types of criteria that in classic zoning practice can substitute for acreage and
setbacks in reducing impacts on neighboring properties. The list of criteria in the
amendment is not exhaustive, and other buffering elements can also come into
play.
It is legally required that the Planning Commission come up with objective
substitutes like these for acreage and setbacks in making their decisions, though.
Without guidance like these criteria, decisions could easily slip into becoming
“arbitrary and capricious”. Those are bad words in local-government decision-
making, and get downright dangerous when a judge uses them to describe your
decision. We don’t need to go there.
Minor Language and Reference Fixes:
Most of these need no explanation and are clear when read in context. A typical
example is adding the words “Off-Street” in front of “Parking”, in Sec. 5.1.B.1.e.(1).
Since the old Vacation Home regulations addressed on-street parking regulation
(technically not feasible under a development code), this clears up any lingering
confusion.
Staff Findings of Fact:
The text amendment complies with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for
Review).
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review
“All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:”
1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected;”
Staff Finding:
45
Ord. No. 09-17 (memo written March 7,
2017)
The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected.
2. “The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would
allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in
the Estes Valley;”
Staff Finding:
The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the
Estes Valley.
3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability
to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the
application were approved.”
Staff Finding:
Providers of public water, sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and
transportation services have expressed no concerns with the proposed
amendment in principle.
Advantages:
Complies with the EVDC Section §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.
Clarifies EVDC Vacation Home regulations so as to conform with current realizations
and recent developments in practical administration of the Dec. 2016 amendments.
Disadvantages:
People may find themselves weary of continued flux in Vacation Home rules.
Action Recommended:
Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review, and approve the amendment as
drafted.
Level of Public Interest:
High: Anything affecting vacation home regulations has been the subject of strong,
sustained interest in Estes Valley.
46
Ord. No. 09-17 (memo written March 7,
2017)
Sample Motions:
APPROVAL
I move that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees approve Ordinance No. 09-17,
including Exhibit A, as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission.
DENIAL
I move that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees deny Ordinance No. 09-17, including
Exhibit A, finding that . . . (state reasons for denial).
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A: Text Amendment: Sec. 5.1.B (Vacation Home) & related sections
[Amendment pkg. 2017-A, Version A]
47
Ordinance No. 09-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
REGARDING VACATION HOMES
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code, Section 5.1.B (Vacation Homes), and found that the text
amendments comply with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted
to recommended approval of the text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text
amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review and determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the
amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 5.1.B (Vacation Homes),
as set forth on Exhibit “A”; be approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth
on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully
set forth on Exhibit “A”.
Section 2: Immediate passage of this Ordinance is necessary for the
preservation of health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town in order to provide
for appropriate registration processing for vacation home applications by March 31, 2017,
and therefore the Ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately after its
passage, adoption, and signature of the Mayor.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town Of Estes Park,
Colorado, this day of _______, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
48
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular 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, all as required by the Statutes of
the State of Colorado.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
[REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
49
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A – Amendment pkg 2017-A, Version A
Feb. 21, 2017 – PC meeting
EXHIBIT A
Estes Valley Development Code
Text Amendment: Sec. 5.1.B (Vacation Home) & related sections
[Amendment pkg. 2017‐A, Version A]
§5.1 SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS
B. Vacation Home.
1.All vacation homes shall be subject to the following:
a. Annual Operating Registration.
(1) All vacation homes shall obtain an operating registration on an annual
basis, according to an application period as specified in this which Code. An
operating registration shall be effective on and following the date of issuance
for all of the remaining calendar year in which it is issued, unless suspended
or revoked for cause, provided that registered vacation homes may continue
operation during January 1 and March 31 of any calendar year following a
year in which the vacation home was duly registered..
(2) If the property is located within Town limits, the business license shall be
considered the operating registration. If the property is within the
unincorporated Estes Valley, an operating registration shall be obtained
from the Town of Estes Park Town Clerk's Office.
(3) Beginning January 1, 2017, the annual period for filing operating registration
applications shall begin January 1 of each year and end on March 31 of each
year, in accordance with subsection (1). Issuance of an operating registration
between April 1 and December 31 in any given calendar year shall take place
on a schedule determined by the Town Clerk’s office and such schedule shall
be at the sole discretion of the Town.
(4) Pro-ration and partial reduction in any required registration fees for an
operating registration issued after January 1 in any given year shall not be
authorized.
(5) No more than one (1) operating registration shall be issued and effective in
any given calendar year for any given each vacation home. An active
registration for a specific vacation home shall be transferable to a different
owner in accordance with procedures in this Code and as established by the
Town Clerk’s Office.
(6) Effective December 16, 2016, vacation home operating registrations in
residential zoning districts (designated herein as zoning districts E,
E-1, R, R-1, R-2, RE, RE-1, and RM) shall be held at a maximum total
(“cap”) of 588 registrations in effect at any given time. This cap shall be
reviewed annually by the Planning Commission and governing Boards, in or
near the month of April beginning in or near April 2017. Applications received
at any time such that their approval would cause the cap to be exceeded shall
be held and kept on file in the order they are received and deemed complete
by the Town Clerk’s Office. Registrations held on such list shall be issued
during the calendar year as operating registrations may become available.
50
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A – Amendment pkg 2017-A, Version A
Feb. 21, 2017 – PC meeting
(7) Vacation homes in non-residential zoning districts (designated as all zoning
districts except those enumerated in the preceding subsection) shall not be
included in or subject to this cap.
(8) Beginning December 16, 2016, every vacation home for which an operating
application is made shall require that the vacation home undergo and pass an
initial inspection in accordance with this Code prior to issuance of the
operating registration.
(9) Beginning December 16, 2016, no operating registration for a vacation home
shall be issued unless the vacation home structure has a valid Certification of
Occupancy issued by the appropriate authority.[Reserved]
(10) Issuance of an operating registration for a vacation home shall not constitute a
zoning entitlement for a property’s use as a vacation home, nor shall absence
of an operating registration for a vacation home constitute removal or
abrogation of a property’s zoning permissibility for use as a vacation home.
However, both appropriate zoning permission and compliance and a valid
current operating registration are shall be necessary elements in order for
operation as a vacation home to occur.
(11) Operating registrations that are deemed active as of December 31 in any
given year shall have priority for renewal in the following calendar year over
any new operating registration applications, provided a re-application for said
active registration by the same owner is received and deemed complete, all
required inspections passed, and fees paid by March 31 of the renewal
calendar year.
(12) Local Representative. The registration shall designate a local resident or
local property manager in the Estes Valley who can be contacted by
telephone and is available when the vacation home is rented, with regarding
to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on
the application shall be the representative of the owner for immediate
violation resolution purposes with regard to the operation of the vacation
home. The local representative may be the same person as the property
owner. An annual operating registration shall not be valid unless the property
owner, and the designated local representative (if different), sign the
operating registration application acknowledging all vacation home
regulations. If the local representative changes during the calendar year, it
shall be the responsibility of the property owner to notify the Town Clerk within
fifteen (15) days of change, and to insure the new local representative is
knowledgeable of all vacation home regulations. If the property owner
changes during the calendar year, it shall be the responsibility of the new
property owner of record to transfer the operating registration into his/her
name and to ensure all other regulations in this Section are in compliance.
(13) State Sales Tax License. A condition of issuance of the annual operating
registration shall be proof of a current sales tax license, provided by the
applicant.
(14) Violations. The relevant Decision-Making Entity may deny or withhold the
renewal of an annual operating registration until a violation related to such
property, use or development is corrected, in accordance with §12.4.A.1. The
relevant Decision-Making Entity may revoke or suspend the annual operating
registration at any time in accordance with §12.4.A.2. Operating the vacation
home during any such period of suspension or revocation shall be a violation
of this Code. Appeals to this section shall be made in accordance with the
appeals process in the Estes Valley Development Code.
51
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A – Amendment pkg 2017-A, Version A
Feb. 21, 2017 – PC meeting
(15) Nothing described herein shall limit the Town or County, within their
respective jurisdictions, from exercising other remedies and enforcement
powers pursuant to Chapter 12 of this Code or other penalties and
enforcement powers as may be available at law.
b. Estes Park Municipal Code. Properties located within the Town of Estes Park
shall comply with all the conditions and requirements set forth in the Town of Estes
Park Municipal Code, Chapter 5.20 (Business Licenses). In case of conflict between
Chapter 5.20 and provisions of §5.1.B of this Code, the provisions of §5.1.B of this
Code shall control.
c. Residential Character in Residential Zoning Districts. V acation homes in residential
zoning districts as designated in this Section shall not be designed or operated in a
manner that is out of character with residential use of a dwelling unit by one
household. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Design shall be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and
character, with low-intensity, low-scale residential use.
(2) For purposes of §5.1.B of this Code, “bedroom” and “sleeping room” are
deemed equivalent terms to each other, and equivalent to a sleeping space
pursuant to the currently adopted and applicable International Building Codes.
Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single-family residential
use. No kitchen facilities or cooking shall be allowed in guest rooms, sleeping
rooms or bedrooms.
d.Postings.
(1) Vacation homes in all zoning districts shall have a clearly legible notice posted
on-site. The posted notice shall be provided by the Town Clerk’s Office at the
time the operating-registration is initially applied for, shall be posted in a
prominent location inside the vacation home prior to or during the initial
inspection, and shall remain posted in the same location for the duration of its
use as a vacation home. The posted notice shall include standard contents as
determined and approved by the Community Development Department.
(2) Property Line Boundaries: The property owner or local representative shall
inform all occupants of property boundaries.
(3) Property owner or local representative shall include in all print or online
advertising the operating registration number in the first line of the property
description.
(4) Advertising shall accurately represent the allowed use of the property,
including the maximum number of allowed occupants.
(5) Neighbor Notification. Prior to issuance of the initial annual operating
registration, the owner or local contact shall be responsible for mailing a
written notice.
(a) Notice shall be mailed, with certificate of mailing or other method as
approved by staff, to the owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet
of the boundary of the subject property.
(b) Notices shall provide a name and telephone number of the local
representative and property owner. Any change in the local representative
or property owner shall require that the name and telephone number of the
new representative or owner be furnished to the Community Development
Director and owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet of the
subject property within15 days two (2) weeks of the change. Mailed notice
of such changes shall follow the same procedure as the initial notification
52
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A – Amendment pkg 2017-A, Version A
Feb. 21, 2017 – PC meeting
as specified herein.
(c) Copies Proof of mailing certificates shall be provided to the Community
Development Director upon issuance of initial annual operating registration.
e.Parking.
(1)Minimum Required Off-Street Parking. Except in the CD Downtown
Commercial zoning district, the number of off-street parking spaces available to a
vacation home shall not be less than two (2).
(2) Maximum Off-Street Parking – Residential Zoning Districts. This Section
applies to all vehicles that are not parked or stored in a fully enclosed garage. No
more than a total of four (4) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot of two (2)
acres or less. No more than a total of five (5) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a
lot greater than two (2) acres in size, but less than five (5) acres. No more than a
total of six (6) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot equal to, or greater than
five (5) acres, but less than ten (10) acres. No more than a total of eight (8) vehicles
shall be parked or stored on a lot equal to, or greater than ten (10) acres.
(3) Maximum Off-Street Parking – Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Maximum
parking for vacation homes in nonresidential zoning districts shall be regulated
according to the parking standards applicable to “Hotel, small”
e.f. Employee Housing Units. Employee housing units as designated in §5.2.C.2 shall
not be designated as vacation homes as defined and regulated herein.
f.g. Attainable Housing Units. Attainable housing units as designated in §11.4 shall not
be designated as vacation homes as defined and regulated herein.
g.h. Accessory Dwelling Units. Vacation homes shall not be allowed on residential lots of
record containing an accessory dwelling unit as defined and regulated herein.
h.i. Density. Only one (1) vacation home shall be allowed per residential dwelling unit.
One (1) or more vacation homes may be allowed on an individual lot of record,
subject to all regulations in this Code and other regulations as may be applicable.
2. All vacation homes shall also be subject to the following:
a. Maximum Occupancy in Residential Zoning Districts: 8-and-Under occupants.
Except for 9-and-over vacation homes that may be approved and registered under the
provisions of this Code via Large Vacation Home Review (LVHR) application, the
maximum allowable occupancy for an individual vacation home shall be eight (8)
occupants. Occupancy shall be further limited to a maximum of two (2) individuals
per sleeping room plus two (2) individuals per vacation home.
b.Maximum Occupancy in Residential Zoning Districts: 9-and-Over occupants. A
residential structure with four (4) or more sleeping rooms may
apply for Large Vacation Home Review (LVHR) approval as a “9-
and-over vacation home”, in accordance with the regulations in
§5.1.B.3. The maximum occupancy in a 9-and-over vacation
home shall be as specified in the Large V acation H ome R eview
terms of approval; provided that occupancy shall be limited to a maximum
of two (2) individuals per sleeping room plus two (2) individuals per vacation home.
c. Maximum Occupancy in Non-Residential Zoning Districts.
Occupancy shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) individuals per sleeping room
plus two (2) individuals per vacation home. No overall maximum occupancy for a
vacation home in a non-residential zoning district shall be applicable, provided that the
vacation home is deemed to be in compliance with all Building, Fire, and Health
53
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A – Amendment pkg 2017-A, Version A
Feb. 21, 2017 – PC meeting
Codes and that a valid operating registration is issued.
d. For purposes of this Code section, occupancy shall not be counted differentially on
the basis of age or status.
e. Number of Parties:, Vacation homes in residential zone districts as those districts are
defined herein shall be rented, leased or furnished to no more than one (1) party,
occupying the vacation home as a single group. Owners of the vacation home shall
not be allowed to occupy the vacation home while a party is present. All occupants
must shall be registered by name on or before the time of the party’s initial occupancy.
The name registry shall be maintained by the property owner or manager, and shall
be made available to the appropriate regulatory entity(s) upon the regulatory entity’s
request.
f. Home Occupations. Home occupations shall not be operated on the site of a vacation
home, nor shall vacation homes offer ancillary services to guests.
g.Vacation homes shall be required to meet applicable Building, Health and Fire codes.
h. Except as specifically provided for elsewhere in this Code, general development
standards (Chapter 7) as required by the underlying zoning district shall be
applicable. In residential zoning districts, development standards shall be those for
single-family detached dwellings in the zoning district. In non-residential zoning
districts, development standards shall be those for “hotel, small” in the zoning district.
i. Vacation homes, whether new or existing structures, shall be subject to the
requirements of Sec. 7.9 (Exterior Lighting) for new development.
j.Initial Time Frame for Compliance. All vacation homes in every any residential zoning
district whose owners wish to obtain an operating registration during 2017 shall be
required to obtain apply for a new or renewed, as the case may be, operating
registration by a deadline no later than March 31, 2017. Vacation home owners in
any non-residential zoning district may apply at any time during 2017 for an operating
registration, provided that in all cases: (a) the vacation home shall not be occupied by
clients until the registration is approved and issued; and (b) the operating registration
remains valid only until December 31, 2017, subject to re-registration in 2018 or later
per requirements of this Code.
j.k. Issuance of the operating registration by the Town shall have no fixed deadline;
however, the Town shall make all reasonable effort to issue operating registration
approvals in an orderly and expeditious manner, as may be determined by the Town.
3.Large Vacation Home Review (LV HReview) for 9-and-Over Vacation Homes in
Residential Zoning Districts.
a. The owner of record of a vacation home in a residential zoning district that has
obtained an approved valid operating registration filed a complete application for an 8-
and-under vacation home operating registration on or before March 31, 2017, may
make application for Large Vacation Home Review (LVHR) under the procedures of
this Section and Code to allow nine (9) or more individuals to occupy the vacation
home, provided that:
(1) The vacation home for which Large Vacation Home Review application is
made has four (4) or more sleeping rooms; and
(2) The vacation home is in compliance with all applicable Building, Health, and
Fire Codes, or is brought into compliance with said Codes by deadline dates
as specified in accordance with the Codes.
b. The Large Vacation Home Review application shall be reviewed and may be
54
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A – Amendment pkg 2017-A, Version A
Feb. 21, 2017 – PC meeting
approved by motion and affirmative vote of the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission’s decision shall be final, except that an appeal by a party in interest of
the Planning Commission’s decision may be made to the Town of Estes Park Board
of Trustees or the Board of Larimer County Commissioners, whichever has
jurisdiction.
c. Large Vacation Home Review for a 9-and-over vacation home shall comply with the
following policies and procedures:
(1) The procedure for application, review, and approval shall comply with the
“Procedure Checklist for Large Vacation Home Review: 9-and-Over Vacation
Homes”, promulgated and maintained by the Community Development
Department;
(2) The required “Vacation Home Safety Inspection Report” and “Vacation Home
Location Inspection Report” shall be provided to the Planning Commission
prior to any Planning Commission approval of a Large Vacation Home Review;
(3) The minimum lot size for a 9-and-over vacation home shall be one (1) acre,
unless the Planning Commission makes a specific finding of fact that the
vacation home is in conformance with applicable has demonstrated adequate
buffering or screening from adjacent and nearby properties, such that use and
development standards with a lot size of less than one (1) acre is
commensurate with Large Vacation Home use. Appropriate alternative
standards for demonstrating adequate buffering or screening shall include, but
not be limited to: orientation of the Large Vacation Home on the property away
from nearby residential structures, linear separation from other residential
structures, separation from other structures by an intervening right-of-way,
topographic features such as rock formations or grade differences, and mature
vegetation or fencing;
(4) The minimum front, side, and rear setback from any lot boundary shall be
twenty-five (25) feet or the setback under the zoning district, or whichever is
greater, unless the Planning Commission makes a specific finding of fact that
the vacation home is in conformance with applicable use and development
standards with has demonstrated adequate buffering or screening from
adjacent and nearby properties, such that a setback of less than twenty-five
(25) feet or less than the setback under the zoning district, whichever may be
applicable, is commensurate with Large Vacation Home use. Appropriate
alternative standards for demonstrating adequate buffering or screening shall
include, but not be limited to: orientation of the Large Vacation Home on the
property away from nearby residential structures, linear separation from other
residential structures, separation from other structures by an intervening right-
of-way, topographic features such as rock formations or grade differences, and
mature vegetation or fencing;
(5) An approved Large Vacation Home shall in no case be occupied by more than
two (2) occupants per bedroom plus two (2) additional occupants.
d. Denial of a Large Vacation Home Review zoning permission for use as a 9-and-over
vacation home shall not void an existing operating license for an 8-and-under vacation
home, nor shall such denial in itself void zoning permissibility for use as an 8-and-
under vacation home; provided that 8-and-under vacation home zoning requirements
in this Code and other applicable regulations remain applicable.
4.Inspections
a. Beginning December 16, 2016, inspections of all vacation homes per the
55
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A – Amendment pkg 2017-A, Version A
Feb. 21, 2017 – PC meeting
requirements of this Code shall be completed prior to initial approval of any operating
registration.
b. All vacation homes with registrations approved during calendar year 2017 shall be
inspected at least one (1) time during calendar year 2017.
c. Inspection after a violation is cured, and or after a change in ownership, shall be
required.
d. Inspections shall be completed by the Department in accordance with the applicable
inspection checklist as promulgated and maintained by the Community Development
Department. The checklist shall be either the “Procedure Checklist for 8-and-Under
Vacation Homes” or the “Procedure Checklist for Large Vacation Home Review: 9-
and-Over Vacation Homes”, whichever may be applicable. These checklists are
hereby adopted and incorporated by reference in this Code.
5. Transitional Regulations. In order to establish an equitable method of transitioning
from pre-existing vacation-home regulations and those taking effect on December 16,
2016 and beyond, the following interim regulations shall be effective. In case of any
conflict between regulations elsewhere in this Code and the transitional regulations,
the transitional regulations shall control:
a. All 2017 operating-registration applications for vacation homes that have active
operating registrations as of December 15, 2016, shall have first priority in
application processing and operating-registration approval for 2017.
b. Within such application first-priority queue as may result from applications filed
under subsection a., sequencing of registration issuance shall be determined by the
date/time received filing stamp by the Town Clerk’s Office on the face of each
application.
c.All 2017 operating-registration applications for vacation homes that do not have
active operating registrations as of December 15, 2016, but for which either or both
of the following is provided to the Town Clerk’s office at the time of initial application,
shall have second priority in application processing and operating-registration
approval for 2017:
(1) a written signed contract for vacation-home occupancy during 2016 is
provided to the Town Clerk’s Office;
(2) an executed and signed sales tax return establishing that sales tax has been
paid during Year 2016 to the State of Colorado for the vacation home.
d. Within such application second-priority queue as may result from applications filed
under subsection c., sequencing of registration issuance shall be determined by the
date/time received filing stamp by the Town Clerk’s Office on the face of each
application.
e.All 2017 operating-registration applications for vacation homes that do not satisfy
the requisite conditions in subsection a. or c. shall have third priority in application
processing and operating-registration approval for 2017.
f. Within such application third-priority queue as may result from applications filed
under subsection e., sequencing of registration issuance shall be determined by the
date/time filing stamp by the Town Clerk’s Office on the face of each application.
g. In the event the cap for vacation homes in residential zoning districts in §5.1.B.2 is
reached at any point in the 2017 queuing process, applications shall be maintained
on a waiting list in the order established within priority queues as specified above.
h.All operating registrations approved and issuedpursuant to applications filed
56
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A – Amendment pkg 2017-A, Version A
Feb. 21, 2017 – PC meeting
between December 16, 2016 and March 31, 2017 shall initially be for 8-and-under
occupants only. The Large Vacation Home Review shall determine whether or not
operating-registration-approved vacation homes with four (4) or more sleeping
rooms may be approved as 9-and-over vacation homes.
i. All vacation home permits in effect on December 15, 2016 shall be automatically
extended and in effect through March 31, 2017. This extension shall be deemed a
separate matter from the operating registration requirements beginning January 1,
2017. Either an approved 2017 operating registration or an extended 2016 permit
shall allow operation of an 8-and-under vacation home at a given location, provided
the vacation home remains in compliance with all other applicable regulations.
Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-4
Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts
Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-4
Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Specific
Use
Residential Zoning Districts
"P" = Permitted by Right
"S" = Permitted by Special Review
“LV” = Permitted by Large Vacation Home
Review
"—" = Prohibited
Additional Regulations
(Apply in All Districts
Unless Otherwise Stated)
RE‐
1 RE E‐1 E R R‐1 R‐2 RM
Low-Intensity
Accommodations
Bed and
Breakfast
Inn
̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ S P §5.1B
Vacation
Home:
8-and-
under
Occupants
P P P P P P P P §5.1B
Vacation
Home:
9-and-over
Occupants
LV LV LV LV LV LV LV LV
§5.1B (Large Vacation Home
Reviews may be approved by
Planning Commission only,
subject to specified criteria)
57
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A – Amendment pkg 2017-A, Version A
Feb. 21, 2017 – PC meeting
Use
Classification
Specific
Use
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
"P" = Permitted by Right
"S" = Permitted by Special Review
"—" = Prohibited
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts
Unless Otherwise
Stated) A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1
Low-Intensity
Accommodations
Vacation
Home P P P P — — —
§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
Table 5-2
Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Accessory Use
Residential Zoning District
"Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted
"CUP" = Conditional Use Permit Additional
Requirements A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1
Vacation Home No Yes Yes No No No No §5.1.B
In CD, such use shall
not be located on
the ground floor of a
building fronting on
Elkhorn Avenue.
(Ord. 02‐10 §1)
§7.9 EXTERIOR LIGHTING
B. Applicability. All new development shall comply with the standards set forth in this Section.
Vacation homes as designated and regulated in §5.1.B of this Code shall comply with the
standards set forth in this Section, whether new or existing.
§ 12.7 - ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
A. Nonemergency Matters.
In the case of a violation of this Code that does not constitute an emergency or require immediate
attention, written notice of the nature of the violation shall be given to the property owner, agent,
or the Applicant for any relevant permit or registration. Notice shall be given in person, or by
certified U.S. Mail, or contact via website contact. The notice shall specify the Code provisions
allegedly in violation, and—unless a shorter time frame is allowed by this Chapter—shall state
that the individual has a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of the receipt of the notice in
which to correct the alleged violations before further enforcement action shall be taken. The
notice shall also state any appeal and/or variance procedures available pursuant to this Code.
The Board of Trustees or Board of County Commissioners, as applicable, may grant an
extension of the time to cure a violation, up to a total of ninety (90) days, if the Board finds
58
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A – Amendment pkg 2017-A, Version A
Feb. 21, 2017 – PC meeting
that due to the nature of the violation, it reasonably appears that it cannot be corrected within
fifteen (15) days. (Ord. 2-02 #3)
[REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
59
60
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report
To: Hon. Mayor T. Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator F. Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: March 14, 2017
RE: Ordinance No. 08-17: Proposed Text Amendments to Estes Valley
Development Code: EVDC §4.3, §5.2, and §13.3 (Accessory Kitchens)
Objective:
Review and decide upon proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development
Code (EVDC) §4.3, §5.2, and §13.3 (Accessory Kitchens): amendments to the Accessory
Kitchen regulations regarding the elimination of accessory kitchens as an independent
accessory use in residential districts.
Code Amendment Objective:
The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to do the following:
Eliminate Accessory Kitchens (often called “second kitchens”) as legally
conforming accessory “uses” in the Estes Valley Development Code;
Eliminates the possibility that using a different label for the same part of a house
may allow an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit to be rented out separately from
the principal Single Family Dwelling to which it’s attached, in violation of EVDC;
Eliminates the possibility that even a non-rented accessory-kitchen part of a house
could be built or maintained in circumvention of the requirements for ADUs (e.g.,
1.33 times minimum lot size, 800 sq. ft. minimum floor area, additional parking,
etc.);
Provides for an exception in the above changes to Code so that outdoor kitchens
can be built or maintained, and also adds a definition to Code for “Kitchen,
Outdoor”.
Proposal:
Amend EVDC Sections 4.3, 5.2, and 13.3 as stated in Exhibit A [“PC Draft”], dated Feb.
21, 2017, attached.
Staff recommends that Town Board approve language in Exhibit A as drafted.
61
Ord. No. 08-17 (memo written March 8,
2017)
Discussion:
Reason for the Proposed Amendment:
This text amendment is a follow-up to the Town’s decision not to approve attached
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) long-term rental regulations in late 2016. The ADU
amendment was sent forward with a “do not pass” recommendation by unanimous
vote of the Planning Commission on Oct. 18, 2016. The amendment subsequently
failed approval by the Town Board of Trustees by a vote of 3 in favor of adoption
and 4 opposed.
In an August 2016 study session with Town Board and in a September study
session with Planning Commission, staff indicated that if the ADU amendment did
not pass, it would be appropriate and necessary to remove Accessory Kitchens as
allowable “uses” in EVDC. The current accessory-kitchen amendment is a follow-
up to that commitment.
Purpose and Use of an Accessory Kitchen:
The Accessory Kitchens section has probably served legitimate purposes over the
years since the EVDC was amended to allow them (a quick review seems to show
that amendment was approved in 2010). There are times when someone may wish
to have a full second kitchen in a single-family residential house for reasons that
have nothing to do with renting or allowing an unrelated household to occupy that
area of the house.
However, a full second kitchen in a single-family structure – especially a full second
kitchen in a part of the house that also has a separate external entrance, which is
probably the norm for any house built under modern-day building codes – is
virtually a wide-open pathway to allowing attached ADUs without any of the ADU
regulations in EVDC.
In longstanding planning and zoning practice across the U.S., a full second kitchen
is one of the dividing lines between one unit in a “single-family” structure, versus
two units. We usually rely on at least one of four criteria in code administration and
code enforcement to determine whether it is one unit, or two; and a second kitchen
(specifically a second 220-volt stove or equivalent gas-fired appliance) is the main
one on the list.
For completeness, the other three criteria are: (a) a second electric meter; (b) a
second domestic water service line or meter; and (c) a second USPS address.
Every college town and many visitor communities in America have a wide selection
of all four types of curiosities. Second kitchens are the primary indicator, though.
62
Ord. No. 08-17 (memo written March 8,
2017)
Staff has no systematic information on all the uses and purposes to which
accessory kitchens may be put in the Estes Valley. Some are no doubt currently
functioning as ADUs; others undoubtedly are just regular old second kitchens. The
problem is that there is no way to distinguish between the two. Someone who has
a regular old second kitchen this year may sell the house next year to someone
who sees it as a rental opportunity – quite unaware of the Code restrictions,
perhaps. Setting up conditions for accidental land-use changes is not good
planning practice.
Affidavit:
Included in this packet is a sample of our current “Accessory Kitchen – Estes Valley
Development Code”. This is the affidavit that staff created some years ago to fulfill
the requirement in EVDC Sec. 5.2.B.2.f.(5).
The affidavit may have seemed like a good idea at the time, as a way to keep
accessory-kitchen dwellings from turning into rentable ADUs. In practice, this
affidavit is virtually unenforceable. It serves as window dressing to give the illusion
of code compliance. In reality, it is not even a good cosmetic. Staff would suggest
that a disingenuous enforcement mechanism is worse than none at all.
Interior Access:
Sec. 5.2.B.2.f.(4) currently requires that interior access to the rest of the dwelling
be maintained “… to ensure that an accessory dwelling unit or apartment is not
created.” As with the affidavit, this section is essentially meaningless and seems
to serve nothing more than a cosmetic purpose.
A few caveats:
The term “Kitchen” is defined in EVDC as a complete or full kitchen
(definition is included in Exhibit A for reference; no change is proposed).
We do not define “limited kitchen” or “partial kitchen”, but since a kitchen by
definition includes 220-volt appliance service or gas equivalent, the
absence of that service by default means a limited kitchen is under different
regulations. Staff does not see a need to eliminate or further regulate limited
kitchens at this time.
Existing accessory kitchens would become legally non-conforming
(popularly called “grandfathering”).
The amendments would only affect the eight residential zoning districts -
those beginning with letters “R” or “E”. Accessory kitchens in other zoning
districts would not be affected.
63
Ord. No. 08-17 (memo written March 8,
2017)
Outdoor Kitchens:
Outdoor kitchens would get a new definition under this amendment, and would not
be considered accessory kitchens. A residential dwelling could have an outdoor
kitchen as defined under the proposed amendments.
Staff’s reason for proposing this amendment:
Staff’s understanding is that the Planning Commission and a majority of Town
Board were clear in expressing direction that attached ADUs need tight regulation.
The Accessory Kitchens provision was undoubtedly well-intended. However, in
practice it has offered a back-door way to create potentially rentable and possibly
substandard ADUs in residential neighborhoods.
New regulations that prohibit or circumscribe activities should always have an
identifiable relationship to positive public policy. Deciding to eliminate accessory
kitchens should meet that test. In this case, staff’s perception is that the community
wishes to avoid adding density, additional traffic, and similar things to quiet
neighborhoods in the Estes Valley. This seemed to be a dominant theme among
those concerned about the ADU-rental amendment last year.
To be clear: Staff does not believe current accessory kitchens are causing
problems in the Estes Valley. We don’t think they are going to cause problems in
the future.
We also continue to hold the professional view that rentable ADUs do not now
cause concerns, and are unlikely to cause concerns in the future. The Planning
Commission and Town Board consensus brought our community to a different
conclusion. That is appropriate, fair, and a good example of the integrity of our
democratic process.
The problem is we have a conflict in our regulations. An applicant can come in with
a set of house floor plans with “ADU” labeled in one area of the house, and we
would have to reject the plans if the ADU is over 800 square feet, or does not
occupy a lot 1.33 times the minimum lot size, or otherwise violates the ADU
regulations in EVDC Sec. 5.2.B.2.a. The same person could erase “ADU” on those
plans, write in “Accessory Kitchen”, and have a perfectly legal plan set.
Moreover, the same label switch would allow legally renting the second-kitchen
part of the house, but keeping the ADU label would make it illegal. This outcome
seems arbitrary at best.
To maintain integrity in our land-use regulations, eliminating accessory kitchens is
a necessary step. Without that, the decisions in fall 2016 regarding ADUs would
basically be meaningless.
64
Ord. No. 08-17 (memo written March 8,
2017)
Planning Commission Discussion and Recommendation:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission reviewed this amendment (in slightly different
form) at their February 21, 2017 meeting. Points of discussion by the Planning
Commission and/or public included:
Whether website monitoring services (e.g., iCompass) can detect and advise
localities about ADUs and similar dwelling circumstances that are being offered
for long-term rental (answer from staff: No – iCompass and similar services only
look at short-term rentals);
Whether disallowing 220-V appliances might lead to homeowners using hot
plates or similar 110-volt appliances that could be less safe;
Whether limiting a type of cooking appliance really reduces the likelihood that
part of a house could become a de-facto ADU;
Whether this amendment constrains a property owner’s ability to use an area in
the home as they wish, in a way we do not do elsewhere in Code;
Whether this amendment is a less-than-adequate structural substitute for getting
at an underlying social concern: namely, an undefinable influx of non-family
residents renting parts of houses.
Additional comments during the Planning Commission concerned: legitimate need for
an accessory kitchen that weren’t related to the owner’s desire for an ADU; the need to
keep consistency between building codes and zoning codes; and the meaningless
nature of the interior-access and affidavit requirements.
Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend denial of the amendment as drafted,
with the motion including a “finding that it is a solution to an unenforceable non-
problem”. (Staff was advised that the single “no” vote was an accidental error.)
Staff Findings:
The text amendment complies with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for
Review).
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review
“All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:”
1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected;”
65
Ord. No. 08-17 (memo written March 8,
2017)
Staff Finding:
The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected.
2. “The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would
allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in
the Estes Valley;”
Staff Finding:
The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the
Estes Valley.
3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability
to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the
application were approved.”
Staff Finding:
Providers of public water, sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and
transportation services have expressed no concerns with the proposed
amendment in principle.
Advantages:
Complies with the EVDC Section §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.
Removes a loophole in current Code that could allow, inadvertently or otherwise, a
land use that is currently prohibited in the code.
Disadvantages:
A few property owners who wish to add a second kitchen for reasons unrelated to
ADU capability will find it impossible to do so.
Level of Public Interest:
High: Addressing housing attainability and affordability in the Estes Valley
Low: This particular Code amendment
Sample Motions:
APPROVAL
I move that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees approve Ordinance No. 08-17,
including Exhibit A, as recommended by staff.
66
Ord. No. 08-17 (memo written March 8,
2017)
CONTINUANCE
I move to continue Ordinance No. 08-17, including Exhibit A, to the regularly scheduled
Town Board meeting on March 28, 2017, because… (state reason(s) for continuance -
findings).
DENIAL
I move that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees deny Ordinance No. 08-17, including
Exhibit A, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Attachments:
1. Ord. No. 08-17 (incl. Exhibit A: Accessory Kitchens).
2. Sample affidavit: “Accessory Kitchen – Estes Valley Development Code”
67
Ordinance No. 08-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
REGARDING ACCESSORY KITCHENS
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code, Sections 4.3, 5.2, and 13.3 (Accessory Kitchens), and found that the
text amendments comply with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code
Amendments, Standards for Review; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted
to recommended approval of the text amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text
amendments comply with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review and determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the
amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Sections 4.3, 5.2, and 13.3
(Accessory Kitchens), as set forth on Exhibit “A”; be approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth
on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully
set forth on Exhibit “A”.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado, this day of _______, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Town Clerk
68
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular 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, all as required by the Statutes of
the State of Colorado.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
[REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
69
EXHIBIT A
[Mar. 14, 2017 – Town Board]
§ 4.3 – RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
D. Additional Zoning District Standards.
5. Kitchens in Single-Family Dwellings. No single-family dwelling in a residential
zoning district shall have more than one (1) kitchen as defined in this Code;
provided, however, that a single-family dwelling may also have one (1) outdoor
kitchen as defined in this Code; and further provided that a single-family dwelling
may also have one (1) additional kitchen in association with an Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) in compliance with Sec. 5.2.a of this Code.
§ 5.2 - ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS)
AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
B. Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts
Table 5-1
Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts
RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM
Outdoor kitchen Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Accessory kitchen Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
§5.2.B.2.f
(Ord. 03-10 §1)
2.Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted
in the Residential Zoning Districts.
f. Accessory kitchen.
(1) Approval of a kitchen accessory to a single-family dwelling shall not
constitute approval of a second dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit.
(2) The dwelling shall not be occupied by more than one (1) family unit, as
defined in Section 13.2.C.28 "Household Living."
70
(3) The dwelling shall have only one (1) address.
(4) Interior access shall be maintained to all parts of the dwelling to ensure
that an accessory dwelling unit or apartment is not created.
(5) Land Use Affidavit
(a) Accessory kitchens located in a portion of the dwelling that also
includes sanitary facilities shall require a Land Use Affidavit prepared by the
Community Development Department.
(b) The Community Development Department shall record this Land
Use Affidavit, at the applicant's expense, at the time of issuance of a
building permit.
f. Outdoor kitchen. A single-family dwelling may have one (1) outdoor kitchen,
either attached to the principal structure or detached, in addition to a kitchen inside
the principal structure, provided that:
(1) An outdoor kitchen shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the rear lot line and
not closer to the side lot line than the required side yard setback of the
applicable district.
(2) Cooking appliances in an outdoor kitchen shall maintain a minimum distance
from combustible materials as recommended by the appliance manufacturer
and as may be required under the applicable International Fire Code (IFC).
§ 13.3 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES
130. Kitchen shall mean a room or space within a room equipped with such electrical
or gas hook-up that would enable the installation of a range, oven or like
appliance using 220/40 volts or natural gas (or similar fuels) for the preparation
of food, and also containing either or both a refrigerator and sink.
130.1 Kitchen, Accessory shall mean a kitchen other than the principal kitchen
associated with a single-family dwelling.
130.3 Kitchen, Outdoor shall mean a kitchen as defined herein, except that an
outdoor kitchen shall be located in an unenclosed area that may be roofed, but is
open on at least two sides and exposed to weather.
71
ACCESSORY KITCHEN – ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
PROPERTY OWNER(S):
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER:
PARCEL NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
I/WE, the undersigned as owner(s) of the above referenced real property (the
“Property”), have read and understand Section 5.2.B2g, entitled Accessory Kitchens, of
the Estes Valley Development Code.
I (we), as owner(s) of the Property, understand and acknowledge the requirements and
conditions under which this Accessory Kitchen is approved. This shall include the
following requirements:
(1) Approval of the accessory kitchen shall not constitute approval of a second
dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit on the Property.
(2) The dwelling on the Property shall not be occupied by more than one family
unit, as defined in Section 13.2.C.28 “Household Living.”
(3) The dwelling on the Property shall have only one address.
(4) Interior access shall be maintained to all parts of the dwelling on the Property
to assure that an accessory dwelling unit or apartment is not created.
This Agreement shall constitute covenants running with the Property as a burden
thereon, for the benefit of, and enforceable by, the Town of Estes Park/Larimer County,
Colorado and its respective successors and assigns. This Agreement shall bind each
Owner, and each Owner shall be personally obligated hereunder for the full and
complete performance and observance of all covenants, conditions and restrictions
contained herein, during the Owner’s period of ownership of the Property. Each and
every conveyance of the Property, for all purposes, shall be deemed to include and
incorporate by this reference, the covenants contained in this Agreement, even without
reference to this Agreement in any documents of conveyance.
Each Owner agrees to comply with the provisions of this Agreement as a requirement
for title and is therefore personally obligated to perform and observe all the conditions of
approval and restrictions on the use of the Property set forth above.
72
The Town of Estes Park/Larimer County, Colorado shall have the right to enforce the
terms and conditions of this Agreement including, but not limited to, a suit for equitable
relief to enforce compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The
Owner shall pay all court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the Town of
Estes Park/Larimer County, Colorado in the enforcement of any of the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the undersigned, his/her personal
representatives, heirs, transferees, successors and assigns, and future owners of the
Property.
ACKNOWLDEGED AND AGREED TO this _______ day of ____________________,
20__.
________________________________
OWNER (print name)
________________________________
OWNER (signature)
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF _____________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of
_______________________, 20___, by _______________________________.
Witness my hand and official seal.
______________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
73
74
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report
To: Hon. Mayor T. Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator F. Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: March 14, 2017
RE: Resolution No. 08-17: A Resolution to Outline Procedure and
Schedule for the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Update
Objective:
Review and decide upon a Resolution providing Town Board guidance to the Planning
Commission, staff, stakeholders, and the public regarding proposed process and
schedule for updating the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan during 2017 – 2018.
Present Situation:
Colorado Revised Statutes require a joint role for Planning Commissions and governing
bodies in creating and updating Comprehensive Plans. The Resolution is a fulfillment of
the Town Board’s role in setting broad parameters on the process and schedule for
updating our 1996 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
The current Plan is now twenty years old. It has served its purpose well, but conditions
have changed since 1996 – among other changes, the Estes Valley Development Code
and joint Town/County Planning area were created after the Plan. (The Plan in fact played
an important role in setting the stage for the joint Planning and Development Code area.)
Our community has also changed. Although a complete revision of the 1996 Plan does
not seem necessary, many elements are now dated and need updating.
The Planning Commission has begun an informal but organized task to update the Plan.
Their energy, enthusiasm and expertise are much appreciated. The proposed Town
Board Resolution is brought forward in the interest of adding the Town governing body’s
direction to this effort, providing some milestones for scheduling, and outlining a
reasonable process and time frame to the Planning Commission’s good start.
It is also important to recognize that key stakeholders, and the public as a whole, need to
have seats at the table from beginning to end of the update process. The process and
schedule outlined in the Resolution are expected to accomplish that.
If approved, the Resolution will be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners in
a format suitable for their review and approval. Once both bodies have made their
decisions, formal transmission to the Planning Commission will take place. (Staff
75
Res. No. 08-17 (memo written March 9,
2017)
anticipates providing this resolution informally well before the process comes to a formal
conclusion.)
Proposal:
Adopt Resolution No. 08-17, dated Mar. 14, 2017 (attached), and transmit to the Board
of Larimer Country Commissioners for parallel consideration and adoption, with
subsequent transmission to the Planning Commission.
Advantages:
Complies with EVDC §2.1.B: Code Administration and Review Roles.
Complies with Colorado Revised Statutes regarding Comprehensive Plan creation
and updates – specifically 31-23-206 and 31-23-208.
Provides an accessible and transparent process for approaching the Plan update.
Disadvantages:
A 12-to-18-month process for the Plan update is lengthy and involved, and will require
affirmative efforts by all parties to sustain momentum toward completing the update.
Level of Public Interest:
Low: Comprehensive Plans tend to be viewed as abstract documents. However, certain
elements, such as transportation or environmental issues, are likely to generate interest.
Sample Motions:
APPROVAL
I move that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees approve Resolution No. 08-17, and
ask that the substance be transmitted to the Board of Larimer County Commissioners for
their consideration and approval.
CONTINUANCE
I move to continue Resolution No. 08-17 to the regularly scheduled Town Board meeting
on March 28, 2017, because… (state reason(s) for continuance).
DENIAL
I move that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees deny Resolution No. 08-17.
Attachments:
1. Res. No. 08-17 (draft)
76
RESOLUTION NO. 08- 17
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK,
COLORADO
A RESOLUTION TO OUTLINE PROCEDURE AND SCHEDULE FOR THE
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes Sec. 31-23-206 provides that a Planning
Commission shall “… adopt a master plan for the physical development of the municipality,
including any areas outside its boundaries, subject to the approval of the governmental body
having jurisdiction thereof…”; and
WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes Sec. 31-23-208 provides that an “…attested
copy of the plan or part thereof shall be certified to each governmental body of the territory
affected and, after the approval by each body, shall be filed with the county clerk and recorder
of each county wherein the territory is located”; and
WHEREAS, Sec. 2.1.B of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) similarly
provides for jointly shared authority over the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan’s adoption and
amendment among the Estes Valley Planning Commission, the Estes Park Town Board of
Trustees, and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, twenty (20) years have elapsed since the 1996 Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan was duly approved by the applicable authorities in the Estes Valley
Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, it is reasonable and appropriate that a Comprehensive Plan update be
undertaken according to mutual concurrence among the three aforesaid official bodies; and
WHEREAS, it is reasonable and appropriate for the Town Board of Trustees and Board
of County Commissioners to provide leadership and guidance in shaping the process and
schedule for a Comprehensive Plan update:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Trustees of the Town
of Estes Park, Colorado, that:
Section 1. Upon the adoption of this Resolution and concurrence with the contents by
the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, a general process and schedule is hereby
determined for a 2017-2018 update of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2. In order to allow adequate time for all interested stakeholders, the public,
and elected and appointed officials to accurately determine and weigh various elements and
aspects of the Comprehensive Plan update, it is determined that a minimum of 12 to 18 months
is appropriate and necessary for a thorough and transparent update process. All elements in the
77
Comprehensive Plan update will be conducted with adequate time and attention to public and
stakeholder review, with mutual consultation among the Planning Commission and governing
bodies as appropriate.
Section 3. Within the 12-to-18-month time frame, the following elements should
generally be addressed:
A. An update of statistic and similar basic data in the Plan;
B. A general text-based outline of land-use policy;
C. An element addressing population growth, housing needs and housing supply;
D. An element addressing economic development;
E. An element addressing transportation;
F. An element addressing utilities and similar infrastructure;
G. An element addressing parks, trails, and recreational and tourism needs of residents
and visitors;
H. An element addressing public safety and emergency-service needs;
I. An element addressing environmental considerations;
J. Any other element(s) as determined appropriate, necessary, and/or required by law;
and
K. An element addressing implementation of the updated Plan.
Section 4. The 12-to-18-month time frame should begin approximately when the Town
Board of Trustees and Board of County Commissioners have both approved this Resolution or
its equivalent.
Section 5. It is expected the Planning Commission will complete and approve Sec. 3.A
(the statistical/data update), and certify same to the two governing bodies, before substantially
undertaking the other tasks in this Resolution.
Section 6. Other elements, beginning with Sec. 3.B, will be completed with adequate
public and stakeholder input and review.
Section 7. The processes for updates of one or more elements in Sec. 3 may run
concurrently, except for prior completion of Sec. 3.A (statistics).
Section 8. After receipt and review of public and stakeholder input and completion of
any final revisions, it is expected the Planning Commission would approve the Comprehensive
Plan update followed by certification to and approval of the two governing bodies, according
to the Colorado Revised Statutes as recited herein.
DATED this day of , 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
78
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
[REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIOANLLY BLANK]
79
80
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
Public Information
970‐577‐3705
flancaster@estes.org
ESTES PARK, CO 80517 www.estes.org 170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: March 14, 2017
RE: Revisions to Board Policies 103 and 105
Objective:
To clarify and codify the Board’s procedure for a Board member to add an item to the
agenda at a Board meeting and for public participation in Board Study Sessions, and for
minor housekeeping updates to the policies.
Present Situation:
Policy 105 – Currently Board policy states that: “By an affirmative vote of a majority of
the Trustees present at a meeting, additional matters may be added to the agenda of
any such meeting, as long as it is allowed by statute.” This addition make take place at
any time during the meeting, including at the end of the meeting when the public may be
unaware a change to the agenda has taken place. It also has been common practice of
the Board to normally not include public comment during a Study Session, but to
reserve this time for open Board discussion and discussion with staff. At times, the
Board has asked members of the public or others with information related to the
discussions at hand to participate in a study session discussion. This has been done
with the agreement of the full board. This has been a common practice but is not
codified in policy.
Policy 103 – This policy outlines the order for Board meeting agendas, which was
developed in 2011. Since that time, the order and items on the agendas has changed,
although in minor ways. This policy was also silent on Board members approving or
amending the current agenda at the meeting. Also, the list of motions presented in the
current policy does not address the need for a second motion in the negative, stating
facts for denial, that is needed in quasi-judicial actions when a motion in the positive
fails.
81
Proposal (including budget if applicable):
Changes to Policy 103 are included in the attached redline version and include:
Adding information regarding motions in quasi-judicial actions
Adding an item for Agenda Review at the beginning of regular board meetings
Minor housekeeping changes to the standard board meeting agenda format to conform
with current Board practice.
Change to Policy 105 is the addition of a clarifying statement on procedure to allow
public comment and participation at Board study sessions.
Advantages:
Codifies and documents current Board practice
Insures full transparency and public awareness of any board meeting agenda
changes made during the meeting.
Articulates and clarifies motions for quasi-judicial actions.
Disadvantages:
Limits agenda modifications to the beginning of the Board meeting
Adds one more required action during Board meetings
Requested Action and Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of revised board policy 103.
I move for the approval/denial of revised board policy 105.
Level of Public Interest
low
82
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annual ‐ January
Effective Date: May 24, 2016March 14, 2017
References: Governance Policy Manual POLICY 1.9 ANNUAL PLANNING AND AGENDAS
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
TOWN BOARD PROCEDURES AND TOOL BOXES
103
1.Purpose: To establish a uniform procedures and process for how the Town Board will conduct
its meeting and other Town Board official business
2.SCOPE: This Policy and Procedure applies to the Board of Trustees and other parties
conducting business with the Board.
3.RESPONSIBILITY:The Mayor, Mayor Pro‐Tem and Town Trustees shall be responsible for
the implementation of this Policy and Procedure.
4.PROCEDURES: The Town Board will conduct its business in a manner consistent with the
following Tool Box guidelines, adopted by the Town Board in March 2011 as amended.
a.Tool Box for Meeting Procedure Options
b.Town Board Meeting Order of Business
c.Town Board Motions
___________________________________
Todd Jirsa
Mayor
83
a.
Tool box for: Meeting Procedure Options
(Adopted March 2011)
Motions: Purpose, Properties
Basic Motion:
Purpose: Places an action item on the floor for discussion
The motion is stated in the positive.
“Yes” vote supports motion.
“No” vote opposes the motion.
Divide complex issues into individual motions.
Second is required.
Quasi-judicial
Motions:
Quasi-judicial: A motion in the positive includes findings of fact for
approval.
Quasi-judicial: A failed motion in the positive is followed by a motion in
the negative, stating findings of fact for denial
Divide complex issues into individual motions.
Second is required.
Amend a Motion:
Purpose: To change a portion of the Basic Motion.
The amendment uses the original basic motion wording with a change in
wording.
The motion is stated in the positive.
Second is required.
Substitute Motion:
Purpose: To completely remove/replace the Basic Motion.
The substitute motion is a new motion with new wording.
The motion is stated in the positive.
The Mayor determines if motion qualifies as Substitute Motion.
Second is required.
Table Motion:
or
Continue Motion:
Purpose: Stops an action item discussion for more information.
The Mayor generally states a new meeting date to discuss item.
The Mayor may send item back to committee/staff for revising.
The Mayor will recommend to Table or Continue as appropriate.
Occurs when information is lacking or no decision can be made on action
item.
Second is required.
Motion to
Reconsider:
Purpose: Re-open discussion on a finalized action item.
Only a Board Member voting in the majority for the motion that finalized
the action item may request a reconsideration motion and only at the
same meeting at which the original action was taken.
Second is required.
Point of Order:
Purpose: To correct meeting proceedings and help the Mayor.
State “point of order” and what procedure was missed by the Mayor.
No Second is required.
84
Second a Motion:
Purpose: To open discussion on an action item.
Notes: The person providing the second does not need to agree with the
motion.
The originator of the motion or changed motion will need to repeat the
motion for the benefit of the Town Clerk’s record and Town Board clarity
of motion.
Call the Question Purpose: To end discussion of an issue and bring the Board to a vote.
Any Board member may Call the Question at any time during Board
discussion of a motion that is on the floor. No second is required for a
Call of the Question. After a Board member makes the motion to Call the
Question, the board shall vote immediately to Call the Question and bring
the item to a vote. If the Call the Question vote fails, discussion may
continue. If the Call the Question vote passes, the Board shall vote on
the motion on the table without any further discussion.
85
86
B.
Town Board Meeting
Order of Business
(Adopted March 2011)
Call meeting to order
Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda review – Board requests for additions or deletions
Proclamations and Presentations
Public Comment
Town Board Comments
Liaison Reports
Town Administrator’s Report and Public Comment Follow-up
Consent Agenda
Consider items pulled from the Consent Agenda (if any)
Reports and Discussion Items (outside entities)
Liquor Items
Planning Commission Items
o Consent Items
o Action Items
Action Items (repeat process for each action item)
State discussion item with topic to be discussed
Staff Report
Town Board clarification of Staff Report - questions/discussion
Formal Motion/Second (if Ordinance is present, Town Attorney/Town Clerk
reads prior to motion)
Public Comment
Motion modifications/amendments if desired
Debate/Discuss motion
Mayor calls for vote
Vote
Additional Staff Reports
Executive Session (if needed)
Adjournment
__________________________________________________________________________
__
Every Board meeting will end no later than 10:00 p.m., except that (1) any item of
business commenced before 10:00 p.m., may be concluded before the meeting is
adjourned and (2) the Town Board may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later
than 11:00 p.m. for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter
which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Board meeting,
and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been
considered by the Board, will be continued to the next regular Town Board meeting and
will be placed first on the agenda for such meeting.
conclude any business the Board deems necessary.
87
C
Town Board Motions
(Adopted March 2011)
1 The basic motion. The basic motion is the one that puts forward a decision
for consideration. A basic motion might be: “I move that we create a five-member
committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser.”
2 The motion to amend. If a member wants to change a basic motion that is
under discussion, he or she would move to amend it. A motion to amend might be:
“I move that we amend the motion to have a 10-member committee.” A motion to
amend takes the basic motion that is before the body and seeks to change it in
some way.
3 The substitute motion: If a member wants to completely do away with the
basic motion under discussion and put a new motion before the governing body, he
or she would “move a substitute motion.” A substitute motion might be: “I move a
substitute motion that we cancel the annual fundraiser this year.”
Motions to amend and substitute motions are often confused. But they are quite
different, and so is their effect, if passed.
A motion to amend seeks to retain the basic motion on the floor, but to modify it in
some way.
A substitute motion seeks to throw out the basic motion on the floor and substitute a
new and different motion for it…
Voting on motions when there are several on the floor.
The first vote is on the last motion. In the example above, the substitute motion
would be voted on first. If passed, the other two (Basic and Amend) would not
require a vote because they become moot. If the substitute in the above example
passes, it replaces both the Basic and the amendment to the Basic motion.
If the substitute fails, then a vote is needed on the amendment. If the amendment
passes, the basic motion is moot because it was replaced by the amendment.
However, if the amendment fails, the basic motion needs to be voted on. If it
passes, it is final. If the basic fails, then the chair determines if a new motion is in
order, or does the action item need to be tabled for more information, returned to
committee, have staff gather more information, etc. A time for future review of the
action item should be established.
*Instructional scenario quoted verbatim from: Rosenberg’s Rules of Order: Simple
Parliamentary Procedures for the 21st Century, 2003, League of California Cities.
88
Document Title Draft 1 3/10/173/8/173/6/17
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Governance Policies
Effective Period: ongoing
Review Schedule: Annually - January
Effective Date: 1/12/20163/14/2017
References: Policy Governance 1.9.2
TOWN BOARD POLICY
105
Agendas
1. PURPOSE
The Town Clerk is responsible for the preparation and publication of the agendas for any
meeting of the Board of Trustees. The Town Clerk shall establish deadlines for items to
be added to the agenda in order to provide adequate public notice of Board meetings and
to fully meet the requirements of the Colorado Open Meetings Act.
2. REGULAR BOARD MEETINGS
a. Agendas for regular board meetings shall follow the format approved by the Board in
Policy 103 – Town Board Procedures
b. Adding items to the Agenda
i. Routine Administrative Issues – Routine administrative issues, including renewal
of ongoing contracts, approval of bills, approval of minutes, issuance, renewal
and transfer of liquor licenses, land use issues requiring quasi-judicial action and
proclamations or other ceremonial actions may be placed on the agenda by the
Town Clerk without any further approval.
ii. Items requested by Town Staff – Any items, other than routine administrative
items, must be approved by the Town Administrator before being placed on the
agenda. The Town Administrator may place these items on the Regular Board
agenda without any further approval of the Board.
iii. Reports or requests from outside entities – the Town Administrator has the
authority to approve any requests from outside or partner agencies wishing to
present before the Town Board. This includes update reports (i.e. updates from
the Superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park) and requests requiring
action (i.e. requests for letters of support, requests for board participation on
community projects).
iv. Legal issues – Legal issues requiring Board discussion or action may be placed
on the agenda by either the Town Administrator or the Town Attorney.
89
Document Title Draft 1 3/10/173/8/173/6/17
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Governance Policies
v.Trustee requested items – Any trustee may request that an item be added to the
regular board agenda by one of the following methods:
(1) Request that the item be added to the agenda of an upcoming Regular
meeting during the Trustee comment period at a study session. If any other
Trustee objects to the item being placed on the agenda, the request must be
made at a Regular Board meeting.
(2) Request that an item be added to an upcoming agenda during Trustee
comment period at a regular board meeting. The Board may approve the
addition of the item to a future board meeting by consensus or may call for a
vote. If a vote is called for, a majority affirmative vote of the Board is required
to add the item to a future agenda.
(3) By an affirmative vote of a majority of the Trustees present at a meeting,
additional matters may be added to the agenda of any such meeting, as long
as it is allowed by statute.
(4) By referral from a Board Standing Committee.
(5) Emergency items – At times it may be necessary to add items to an agenda
on short notice to protect the immediate health, safety and well- being of the
community or the organization. The Mayor, Town Administrator or Town
Attorney may add emergency items to any agenda at any time, at their sole
discretion.
(6) Issues raised during Public Comment – For any issue raised during public
comment that requires additional Board discussion or an action, any Board
member may request that the item be placed on an upcoming agenda. Taking
action on any item raised during public comment but not previously listed on
the agenda is discouraged in order to give adequate notice for opportunity for
public participation.
3. STUDY SESSIONS
a. The Town Board will review the schedule for upcoming Study Sessions. The Mayor,
Trustees or staff may request or recommend any appropriate matters for Town
Board consideration; however the Town Administrator will only place items on a
Study Session agenda with the direction of a majority of the Board.
90
Document Title Draft 1 3/10/173/8/173/6/17
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Governance Policies
b.By an affirmative vote of a majority of the Trustees present at a meeting, additional
matters may be added to the agenda of any such meeting as long as it is allowed by
statute.
b.c. Public comment and/or participation in subject matter discussions may be
allowed by the chair at a study session by agreement by majority of the Board.
4. BOARD STANDING COMMITTEES (PUP, CD/CS, AUDIT)
a. The Town Clerk shall prepare the agendas for the Board Standing Committees in
consultation with the committee chair and appropriate staff.
b. Items on the agenda should be limited to the scope of the specific committee.
c. Any items requiring Board approval or further action must be referred by the
Committee to the full board including a recommendation as to whether the item
should be considered on the Consent Agenda or as an Action Item.
d. By an affirmative vote of a majority of the Trustees present at a meeting, additional
matters may be added to the agenda of any such meeting, as long as it is allowed by
statute.
e. All Actions of Standing Committees are to be considered recommendations and not
final actions representing the Board of Trustees, unless otherwise authorized by
Board policy.
Approved:
_____________________________
Frank Lancaster, Town AdministratorTodd Jirsa, Mayor
_____________
Date
91