HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2017-10-24The 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, October 24, 2017
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance Report - Policy 3.3.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated October 10, 2017 and Town Board Study Session
dated October 10, 2017.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes - None.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated September 12, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
5. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated September 19, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
6. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated September 21, 2017 (acknowledgment only).
Item Removed.
7. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated September 20, 2017
(acknowledgment only).
8. Estes Valley Library District Board Appointments:
Beth Ellis, term expiring on December 31, 2021.
Bill Gerritz, term expiring on December 31, 2021.
9. Acceptance of Town Administrator Policy Governance Report.
10. Letter of Support for Fall River Trail Grant Applications.
Prepared 10/13/17
*Revised 10/19/17
**Revised 10/20/17
**
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. AMERICA IN BLOOM REPORT. Parks Maintenance Keri Kelly.
2. ESTES VALLEY PARTNERS FOR COMMERCE QUARTERLY REPORT.
Jon Nicholas.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #3, EPCO; Unit 18; 220 Virginia
Drive, Brent & Deborah Nations and the Estes Highlands Homeowners
Association/Owner. Director Hunt.
B. PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT, Raven Rock Townhomes,
Metes & Bounds Parcel, TBD Promontory Drive. Request to continue to
November 28, 2017.
C. SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT – ESTES PARK RESORT, Lot 1, Lake Estes 2nd
Addition, 1700 Big Thompson Avenue, Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I,
LLC/Owner. Request to continue to November 28, 2017.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
A. SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT – KEARNEY MINOR SUBDIVISION, METES &
BOUNDS PARCEL, 1360 BROOK DRIVE, KEARNEY & SONS
EXCAVATING, INC/OWNER. Planner Gonzales.
B. ORDINANCE 26-17 RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION, METES & BOUNDS
PARCEL, 850 CONCORD LANE, WILLIAM LILEY/OWNER. Planner Becker.
C. ORDINANCE 27-17 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE TO REMOVE FLOOR AREA RATIO AND THE DENSITY
CALCULATION STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO THE NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS ALLOWED. Planner Gonzales.
D. ORDINANCE 28-17 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM RIDGELINE HEIGHT FOR STEEPLY-
SLOPED GABLED & HIPPED ROOF STRUCTURES. Director Hunt.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT BOARD APPOINTMENTS. Town Clerk
Williamson.
2. RESOLUTION 25-17 ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT 2018
BUSINESS AND OPERATING PLAN. Town Administrator Lancaster.
3. CONSIDERATION OF QUORUM CHANGE FOR THE FAMILY ADVISORY
BOARD. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek.
5. ADJOURN.
*
2
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
970.577.3705
flancaster@estes.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 24th, 2017
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS
(QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORT POLICY 3.3)
Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide
information to the Board. Policy 3.3, Financial Planning and Budgeting requires
quarterly reporting of compliance in April, July, October and January.
Policy 3.3 states: “With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities
with a fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or
fiscal integrity of Town government.”
This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions
have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this
date.
________________________
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
3
3.3.1. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which deviates from
statutory requirements.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that our budgeting practices and policies
comply with all State statutory requirements that are applicable to statutory Colorado
towns.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
There are no deviations in our practices and policies in violation of State Statutes
Evidence:
1. The annual independent audit
2. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
3. All policies are reviewed for compliance with State Statutes by the Town
Attorney.
4. State Department of Local Government has not issued any non-compliance
notifications to the Town of Estes Park regarding our budgetary obligations under
statute.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.2. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which deviates
materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among competing
budgetary needs.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the annual budget, as adopted by the
Board of Trustees, is the officially adopted priorities of the Board. This includes any
budget amendments approved by the Town Board throughout the year and any specific
spending authorizations approved by the Town Board. I interpret “materially deviate” to
mean any change in spending priority that results in diverting resources away from any
Board objective, goal or outcome substantial enough to contribute to not achieving the
objective, goal or outcome. I do not interpret minor deviations resulting from changing
circumstances, community demands and unforeseen circumstances outside of the Town’s
control, as material deviations.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
Budget spending does not materially deviate from the levels approved in the adopted
budget.
Evidence:
1. The adopted budget was prepared based on the Board stated priorities.
2. Any substantial budget changes have been presented to the Board for review and
approval.
3. HTE Budget reports for each department are available on a regular basis or as
requested.
Report: I report compliance
4
3.3.3. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which contains
inadequate information to enable credible projection of revenues and
expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow and
subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning assumptions.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean the budget, as recommended by the Town
Administrator, must be based on credible data and the best available information
concerning the local economy and other factors that may impact our revenues and
expenses. In addition, the budget is to be structured to separate capital expenditures
from operational costs. All revenue projects will be conservative and it is more critical not
to overestimate revenues vs underestimating revenues.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. Revenue projections are clear and deviations between projected an actual
revenues are within a 5-10%, barring any catastrophic events.
2. Actual revenue are not less than projected.
3. The Budget presented to the Board for adoption is in a format the separates
revenues, expenses and capital expenditures.
4. Any assumptions used in preparing the budget are clearly articulated to the Board
during budget review sessions.
Evidence:
1. Currently our sales tax revenue to date (through July 2017) is 6.75 % higher than
in 2016 and 0.79% higher than projected.
2. Current revenue is not less than projected.
3. The current budget and proposed budget are both presented in the format that
separates revenues, expenses and capital.
4. Assumptions leading to the projects were discussed with the Board during budget
review sessions.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.4. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which plans the
expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively
projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the proposed budget must be balanced.
This includes expenditures for the year not exceeding the revenues received from all
sources. Exceptions are Board approved use of fund balances, and use of funds that have
been accumulated over a period of time, with the approval of the Board, with the intent of
saving funds to pay for a specific project or capital expense.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The proposed budget meets the above criteria and year end expenses do not exceed
5
year end revenues, inclusive of any board approve spending of fund balance or specific
reserve funds.
Evidence:
1. The adopted budget and the CAFR document that I have not allowed budgeting
which plans the expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are
conservatively projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise
available.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.5. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which reduces fund
balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that established by the
Board of Trustees.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I the audited year end unrestricted fund
balance in the General Fund does not drop below 20% unless otherwise authorized by the
Board. If the Board approves and adopts a budget that plans for reducing the fund
balance below the 20% level, I interpret this as being authorized by the Board. (This
interpretation will be modified if the Board adopts a cash reserve minimum policy in the
future. Staff will be bringing options for such a policy forward in the near future for Board
consideration, as directed in the September study session.)
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. The final CAFR indicates that a general fund fund balance of 20% or greater, or as
otherwise approved by the Town Board.
2. The proposed budget anticipates an end of year fund balance in the General Fund
of 20% or greater unless otherwise approved by the Town Board..
Evidence:
1. The 2016 CAFR shows a 31.6% fund balance at the end of 2016
2. The 2017 budget, as amended, anticipates a 20.1% fund balance at the end of 2017
3. The proposed 2018 budget anticipates a 23.1% fund balance at the end of 2018
Report: I report compliance
3.3.6. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Fails to
maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to significant
shortfalls within the Town’s budget.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I must prepare the budget, maintain a
fund balance of 20% or more in the general fund, and adequate fund balances in all
enterprise funds, including the required TABOR reserve and the current cash reserves
6
meet the criteria defined in Board policy 670 - Cash and Investment Reserve and
Contingency
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. The final CAFR indicates that a general fund fund balance of 20% or greater.
2. The proposed budget anticipates an end of year fund balance in the General Fund
of 20% or greater.
3. The current cash reserves meet the criteria defined in Board policy 670 - Cash
and Investment Reserve and Contingency
Evidence:
1. The 2016 CAFR shows a 31.6% fund balance at the end of 2016
2. The 2017 budget, as amended, anticipates a 20.1% fund balance at the end of 2017
3. The proposed 2018 budget anticipates a 23.1% fund balance at the end of 2018
4. Current cash and investment reserves are reported to the Board on a monthly
basis, as required by Board policy 670.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.7. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
provide for an annual audit.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I must ensure that the Town completes
an independent audit annually. Further, that audit report should result in an unqualified
and unmodified opinion from the Board’s auditors.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The audit is complete and presented to the Town Board.
Evidence:
The 2016 Audit has been completed and the CAFR prepared and submitted to the State
of Colorado with an unqualified and unmodified opinion from the Board’s auditors.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.8. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the current or
future bond ratings of the Town.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot take any action that will result
any negative impact on the Town’s bond rating. This includes, maintaining adequate fund
balances as required in 3.3.5 and maintaining adequate bond coverage ratios for all
revenue bonds associated with the Town’s enterprise funds.
7
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. I am in compliance with 3.3.5
2. Required bond coverage ratios are met.
Evidence:
1. The general fund year end fund balance is greater than 20%
2. The required Bond coverage ratio for L&P 125% and for Water is 110%. Our
current coverage for the L&P Bonds is 415% and for Water is 463%.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.9. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which results in new
positions to staffing levels without specific approval of the Board of Town
Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve positions funded by
grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in addition
to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing
budgeted funds are allocated.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot allow any new positions or
expansion of any part-time positions to be advertised or filled without prior Board
approval. I may allow the reduction in staffing without Board approval and any positions
or partial positions funded by grants or any temporary positions for which existing
budgeted funds are allocated may be filled without prior approval of the Board.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
No new positions or expansion of positions are approved and hired without approval of
the board, with the exceptions noted above.
Evidence:
1. All positions are indicated in the adopted and proposed budgets and no
unapproved positions are shown.
Report: I report compliance
8
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 10, 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 10th day of October, 2017.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Rex Walker
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the
Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Walker/Norris) to approve the Agenda, and it passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Frank Kropp/Town citizen state the Board of Adjustment denied a variance on a project
that included workforce housing and would have allowed the financing of the project. He
requested the Town Board call a special meeting to discuss the project and the variance
request. Administrator Lancaster stated under state statute an appeal of a Board of
Adjustment decision would be heard by the District court and not the Town Board.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS
Trustee Norris stated the Estes Valley Planning Commission met on October 17, 2017
and the Family Advisory Board (FAB) met on October 5, 2017. FAB discussed the
development of a resource guide for families, requested a high school student be
appointed to serve on the Board without voting rights, and the Board would identify gaps
in services for families such as childcare and housing for the Town Board to address.
Trustee Walker thanked Trustee Holcomb, Administrator Lancaster, the EDC and the
Board of Education for attending the Town Hall meeting with Senator Lundberg and
Representative Perry Buck.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig announced the Town was awarded the mid-size Circle of
Champions at the America in Bloom conference. The Town also received special
recognition for its planters, landscaped areas, and the community garden.
Trustee Nelson recognized the Parks staff Keri Kelly and Brian Berg for their efforts
related to America in Bloom and thanked them for their continued efforts.
Trustee Holcomb stated he attended an AARP affordable housing seminar to define the
problem and outline solutions. The seminar outlined there would be a need for 100,000
new households per year, Colorado’s population of 65 and older continues to grow twice
as fast as the national average, current rate of building would take 100 years to catch up
to the demand, and construction costs continue to increase in double digits while salaries
are only increasing by 2% a year. These items would require homeowners to spend more
9
Board of Trustees – October 10, 2017 – Page 2
of their income on housing in the future. There is a need to look for creative solutions to
address the housing issue.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
None.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated September 26, 2017.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes - None.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated September 12, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Walker) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities).
1. ESTES PARK HIGH SCHOOL MONTE VERDE SCIENCE EXCHANGE.
Charolette Mason/Estes Park Environmental Center Institute stated the Town of
Estes Park through its Sister City program and Rocky Mountain National Park
have developed a student science exchange program for students of Estes Park
to conduct a variety of research projects in Costa Rica. Annalise Basch, Bellanie
LeBlanc, May Tice, Kaitlyn Flannery, and Abby Lemirande completed a science
exchange in Monte Verde, Costa Rica this past summer and provided a
presentation of their experience. The group focused on science investigations
and cultural emersion.
2. ESTES PARK R-3 SCHOOL DISTRICT MIL LEVY PRESENTATION.
Superintendent Sheldon Rosenkrance presented a review of the override mill
levy approved by the School Board in August. Ballot Issue 3A would provide
funding for recruiting and retaining teachers and staff, expand college and career
programs such as apprenticeships and career technical education course,
provide mental health, wellness and safety resources, expand technology access
to students, and expand curriculum to include 21st century skills. All funds would
go directly to the school district. Other school districts in the area pay teachers
more and the entire state continues to experience a teacher shortage. An
increase in funding would allow the district to compete for talent.
3. UPDATE FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
Executive Director Nicholas provided an update on the EDC. He stated the EDC
received the International Economic Development Council Silver Award for its
website. The EDC received the Small Community of the Year Award from the
Colorado State Economic Development Council, which is partially based on the
support within the community for economic development and investment in
community infrastructure. The Board of the Innosphere recently approved
moving forward with the Estes Park EDC on developing an operating agreement
to provide incubator services in Estes Park. The EDC would apply for a grant
through OEDIT in the amount of $150,000 to fund the program. With the
additional funding and workload, the EDC would hire a program director in 2018,
therefore, the EDC has requested additionally funding from the Town to offset
the cost.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
10
Board of Trustees – October 10, 2017 – Page 3
A. TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT, – BLACK CANYON INN
TOWNHOMES, 800 MACGREGOR AVENUE, SLOAN INVESTMENTS,
LLC. Director Hunt presented the final plat to place 17 residential lots and
one outlot on 4.047 acres. The plat would have a mix of two-family and
single-family units with associated parking and entry walkways. The A-
Accommodation zoning permits multi-family developments with duplex and
townhouse densities, and allows the development of single-family homes.
The existing slopes and natural features have presented design challenges
causing a slight deviation from the approved Amended Development Plan.
Staff recommended the Development Plan be updated to reflect the minor
changes to ensure the efficient review and approval of all future building
permit applications. The final plat dedicates and vacates a number of
easements and an upgrade to the access for the property to meet the
current minimum standards.
Jesse Reeves/Cornerstone Engineering commented the approved
Development Plan has been re-conceptualized as a townhome
development with the removal of a couple of units.
Victoria Wedan/Town citizen stated her property abuts the development
and has not had a chance to review the plan. She questioned if additions
could be made to the plan once approved. Director Hunt stated once the
plan has been recorded the applicant would have to come forward with a
new submittal to make any changes to the plan.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve the Black
Canyon Inn Final Townhome Plat, and it passed unanimously.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #24-17 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
§8.06 NOISE. Attorney White stated the amendment to the noise ordinance was
continued at the September 12, 2017 to review the state statute requirements and
review other communities’ noise ordinances and how they comply with the state
statutes. The decibel level stated in the state statutes are currently lower than or
equal to that of conversational speech. Noise ordinances from the following
communities were reviewed: Steamboat Springs, Fort Collins, Loveland,
Longmont, Greeley Johnstown, Windsor, Breckenridge and Lafayette. The
ordinances reviewed range from complex in Greeley and Fort Collins to simple one
sentence statement in Windsor. None of the ordinances reviewed comply with the
provisions of the state ordinance which requires “person shall make, continue or
cause to be made or continued any unreasonable noise;…” Attorney White
reached out to Mr. Hayashi who recently completed an extensive review of the
noise ordinance for the City of Golden. He reviewed a number of municipal noise
ordinances, including whether the ordinances have decibel based standards. He
concluded the decibel based noise ordinances are not enforceable. He also could
not find a municipal prosecutor that has prosecuted a violation based upon decibel
based restrictions. He recommended to the City of Golden to address noise
complaints through the adoption of a reasonable standard noise ordinance.
Attorney White recommended the Board consider dealing with noise complaints
through 1) the drafting of a new noise ordinance which does not contain any
decibel based restrictions; 2) noise ordinance shall contain the wording that it is
unlawful for any person to make, cause be made, or to prevent any unreasonable
noise upon any property. The determination of unreasonable noise shall consider
factors including, but not limited to, time of day, size of any gathering of persons
creating or contributing to the noise, present or absence of sound amplification
equipment, or any other factors tending to show the magnitude and disruptive
effect of the noise. The ordinance may also address exempt activities; and 3) deal
with noise from vehicles due to alteration of mufflers and or jake brakes through
the Model Traffic Code.
11
Board of Trustees – October 10, 2017 – Page 4
Chief Kufeld would support the proposed changes to the noise ordinance as
outlined by Attorney White. The changes would aid the police officers with
enforceability of noise complaints and determining unreasonable noise. He would
also support training for the officers in determining muffler and jack brake
modifications.
Jack Knudson/Town citizen read a prepared statement and provided comments
and amendments to the proposed amendments outlined by Attorney White. Most
significantly would be to address noise produced at one property that often can be
heard on another property and deemed by the owner as unwanted, unpleasant,
and a pollutant to their environment.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to table Ordinance #24-17, and
it passed unanimously.
2. LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT INTERVIEW PROCESS. Mayor Jirsa stated the
Board attempted to accelerate the interview and appointment process to provide
Visit Estes Park (Local Marketing District) with a quorum. Since the meeting on
September 26, 2017, the Town Board has been informed VEP would not hold a
regular meeting until December 2017. This provides the Town and County with
the time required to fill vacant positions and provide VEP with a quorum by their
next meeting. Mayor Jirsa stated the Town has received requests that the
interview process be made public. He commented a public process would not be
fair to the applicants; however, he understood the need to be transparent. He
suggested the the interview team consisting of himself, Trustee Norris,
Commissioner Donnelly and Local Marketing District Board Member Jurgens
conduct the interviews in private, record the interviews and post the recording on
the Town’s website. This would allow the remaining Trustees, Commissioners and
public to review the interviews prior to the Board taking action on appointments.
Trustee Norris stated support for an open public interview process to be completed
by the full Board. Trustee Holcomb agreed.
Michelle Hiland/Town citizen comment if the Town changes the process for this
interview, it should change the process for all future interview processes.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Walker/Martchink) to
approve the non-public interview process for the Local Marketing District
Board appointments, and to record and post the interviews on the Town’s
website for review by the Board and the public, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
12
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado October 10, 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
Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 10th day of October,
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, Town Attorney White, Director Muhonen,
Manager Fraundorf and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
UPDATE ON BROADBAND.
Alan Fraundorf/IT Manager stated the engineering work to build a fiber network to serve
premises within the Estes Park Light and Power service area has been completed and a
cost estimate of $30 million has been proposed. As part of the engineering cost, LETA
911 requested a new path and cost estimate for a fiber cable from Estes Park to Lyons.
Kimberly Culp/LETA Chief Executive Official continues to pursue grant funding to fund
the new fiber connection to Lyons. An RFI was published to determine if companies
would be interested in working with the Town to build/run broadband in the Estes Valley.
The Town received 10 responses and continues to engage in conversations with five of
the companies on possible scenarios. None of the companies have expressed an
interest in building and running the entire broadband system. One company has shown
an interest in developing and running the downtown core only. The Town would likely
have to build the system over multiple years and run broadband as a utility. Uptown
Services has been working on several economic business models to determine the
performa with the cost estimates to build the system established at $30 million and the
estimated take rate established. If the Board would like to continue to develop
concepts, staff would recommend a consultant be hired at a cost of $20,000 to $30,000.
After further discussion, the Board consensus was to expend additional consulting fees
to develop broadband concepts in order for the Board to make an informed decision.
DRAFT STORMWATER MASTER PLAN.
Chris Pauley/Anderson Consulting Engineers stated the purpose of the stormwater
master drainage plan included identifying infrastructure problems, the development of
conceptual solutions, cost analysis for potential improvements, an implementation plan
based on priorities, create a basis for funding a capital improvement plan through
grants, loans, fee assessment, taxes, etc., and provide a flexible plan to guide program
implementation. He provided an overview of the existing stormwater facilities inventory
and assessment summary, potential improvements to the system and an
implementation plan. The plan focused on the five major basins, including Dry Gulch,
Black Canyon, Fall River, Big Thompson River and Fish Creek basins. The evaluation
of existing facilities included bridges, culverts, and channels, and the evaluation of
storm sewer and existing capacities with bridges to low chord, culverts prior to
overtopping and channels to bank full. He reviewed the major drainages outlining the
number of crossings, public versus private, sizing of the crossings, ability to contain a
100-year flood event, stream capacity, culvert conditions, and compiled a list of known
flooding problem areas. Flooding issues are generally small, localized, and impact a
13
Town Board Study Session – October 10, 2017 – Page 2
few properties due to a lack of a defined conveyance path, limited capacity in streets
and/or roadside swales and conflicts with existing buildings and/or property. Through
the evaluation process it was determined the largest benefits could be realized on the
Fall River and Upper Big Thompson River basins through the development of regional
detention and channelization. The improvement plan would reduce health and safety
hazards, address areas most susceptible to flood damage, construction phasing and
address secondary flooding issues. A financial plan would be presented at the October
24, 2017 Town Board Study Session.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS
Trustee Holcomb requested an update on the plaque for the parking garage. Director
Muhonen stated the text has been approved and a location for the plaque needs to be
identified.
Trustee Martchink commented on the potential of providing Town property tax rebates
to individuals that rent long term versus a vacation home. Staff requires direction from
the Board to develop an impact analysis. The Board requested staff develop the
analysis and discuss the item during the upcoming budget study sessions.
Mayor Jirsa questioned allowing ATVs on public roadways within town limits. He stated
Chief Kufeld would be supportive of allowing such vehicles on the roadways. Staff
would develop a draft ordinance for the Board’s consideration.
Mayor Jirsa stated he would like to request a rotation of Board members to join him
during his Monday morning meetings with Administrator Lancaster.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS
Administrator Lancaster requested the sunset review for the Parks Advisory Board and
the Transportation Advisory Board be added to an upcoming study session. The Board
consensus was to add the item to the October 24, 2017 agenda.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:47 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
14
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 12, 2017 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Wayne Newsom, Vice-Chair John Lynch, Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau,
Rex Poggenpohl
Attending: Members Newsom, Lynch, Smith and Poggenpohl
Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Robin Becker,
Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Member Moreau
Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were three people in
attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
1. AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Lynch) to approved the agenda as
presented and the motion passed 4-0 with one absent.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes dated July 11, 2017
It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Smith) to approve the minutes as
corrected and the motion passed 4-0 with one absent. Member Smith was
incorrectly left off the attendance list.
4. LOT 31, BLOCK 1, FALL RIVER ESTATES AMENDED PLAT; TBD CRESTVIEW
COURT; LIENEMANN PROPERTY
Planner Becker reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Delmar Lienemann, requested a
variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2 which requires 25-
foot setbacks in the E-1–Estate zone district. The proposed single-family dwelling would
extend 12 feet into the setback. This would include the west-facing decks and eaves.
Planner Becker stated the application was routed to affected agencies, a legal notice was
published in the local newspaper, and adjacent property owners were notified.
Public comments were received from one adjacent homeowner, Rocky Mountain National
Park, and the Fall River Estates HOA.
Planner Becker stated the staff findings could be read in the staff report.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
September 12, 2017
Board and Staff Discussion
There was brief discussion regarding the slope of the utility easement and the proposed
building site, and the ability to shift the home to the east to avoid the variance request. It
was stated that financial hardship cannot be considered by the Board.
Public Comment
Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated all issues with the Public Works and
Water Departments have been addressed and cleared. He stated the proposed dwelling
would be approximately 30 feet high, and would be directly north of the existing
condominiums. The main hardship is for the driveway, which can be built with a 12%
grade rather than a 14% grade if the home were built within the setbacks. All site
disturbance would be on the owner’s property. The proposed dwelling would be 65 feet
from the nearest condo. Fire Wise standards would be adhered to. The decks and
overhanging roofs would project into the setback, but the exterior walls of the home would
be within the setback.
Larry Gamble/Rocky Mountain National Park stated the disturbance would be very close
to the Park, and thought there were other options for the site. The Park is willing to
cooperate with the adjacent property owners.
Caltha Crow/town resident and adjacent property owner was opposed to the request and
was concerned about her view corridors.
Charles Allison/town resident and adjacent property owner recommended shifting the
house east and building a retaining wall for the driveway. He referred to a historical
drawing of a master plan of the area (Community Development is unaware of this plan).
Tim Haight/town resident stated staff comments regarding views were assumed without
contacting any of the adjacent property owners, and he disagreed with those comments.
He was opposed to the setback variance request.
Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative had a brief rebuttal regarding the location of the
proposed dwelling.
It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Lynch) to deny the variance request on the
basis the dwelling could be built to comply with the setback requirements and the
motion passed unanimously.
5. REPORTS
A. Member Poggenpohl stated there are occasional repeated requests for variances on
undersized lots for the zone district. He worked with Planner Gonzales to come up with
statistics showing almost 25% of the lots in the Estes Valley are nonconforming
regarding lot size for their specific zone district, although many of the lots are very
close to being conforming. He recommended working on making a change so the
property owners of the nonconforming lots would not need to come to the Board of
Adjustment to use their lot as zoned, without a variance. An amendment to the Estes
Valley Development Code would be required to resolve the issue, and the Board of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
September 12, 2017
Adjustment could make a recommendation to the Planning Commission to pursue the
code amendment. Director Hunt would be supportive of an amendment after
considering the unintended consequences. There was brief discussion as to the details
of a draft amendment, and noting that the Planning Commission and Town Board may
be unaware of the issue that the Board of Adjustment deals with on a regular basis.
B. Director Hunt reported Monday, September 18, 2017 a meeting with the Town Trustees
and County Commissioners will be held to outline the master list of EVDC changes. He
encouraged the Board to either attend the meeting or watch it online.
There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m.
___________________________________
Wayne Newsom, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 19, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Russ Schneider, Vice‐Chair Bob Leavitt, Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve
Murphree, Sharry White, Robert Foster, Doyle Baker
Attending: Chair Russ Schneider, Vice‐Chair Leavitt, Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve
Murphree, Sharry White, Robert Foster, and Doyle Baker
Also Attending: Planner Audem Gonzales, Planner Carrie McCool, Code Compliance Officer
Linda Hardin, Planner Robin Becker, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, and
Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, County Staff Liaison Michael
Whitley
Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. He explained the purpose of the Planning
Commission. There were approximately 45 people in attendance.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion
passed 7‐0.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Tom Gootz/town resident suggested someone at Town Hall let the public know who was putting
the Comprehensive Plan together. He recommended a press release on the topic.
Pat Newsom/town resident is opposed to change in Estes Park. She is concerned about several
proposed code changes.
Betty Hull/Planning Commissioner requested an explanation about “floating” zoning. She was
confused about all the attention the nonconforming lots were getting. She was opposed to
changes in single‐family zone districts.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
B. Request to continue to the October 17, 2017 meeting an amendment to the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) to add a definition for the term “Single‐Family Use”.
C. Request to continue to the October 17, 2017 meeting an amendment to the EVDC to
eliminate applicability and use of the Attainable Housing Density Bonus in the RE‐1, RE, E‐
1, E, R, and R‐2 zone districts.
It was moved and seconded Leavitt/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the
motion passed 6‐0 with Commissioner Baker abstaining.
4. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 152 STANLEY CIRCLE DRIVE; MIKE & CINDY KINGSWOOD,
OWNERS – 12 OCCUPANTS
Code Compliance Officer (CCO) Hardin stated the lot size is less than one‐acre minimum
requirement.
Commissioner Baker pointed out that the county records shows one less bedroom than the
application. Director Hardin clarified the update to the county records has not yet been made.
The home inspection was approved.
Public Comment
None.
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Hull) to approve the vacation home at 152 Stanley
Circle Drive to allow a maximum of twelve (12) occupants and the motion passed unanimously.
17
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 19, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
5. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 410 RIVERSIDE DRIVE; ANN MISEL (STANLEY KRAUS LIVING
TRUST), OWNER; 12 OCCUPANTS
CCO Hardin stated the lot size is less than one‐acre minimum requirement, and the setback on the
east side is six feet less than the required 25 feet.
Public Comment
None.
It was moved and seconded (White/Baker) to approve the vacation home at 410 Riverside Drive
to allow a maximum of twelve (12) occupants and the motion passed unanimously.
6. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 3430 EAGLECLIFF CIRCLE DRIVE; JEFFREY HYLER, OWNER; 12
OCCUPANTS
CCO Hardin stated the lot size is less than one‐acre minimum requirement, and the front setback
is ten feet and the rear setback is 20 feet, where 25 feet is required on all sides.
Public Comment
None.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Murphree) to approve the vacation home at 3430 Eaglecliff
Circle Drive to allow a maximum of twelve (12) occupants and the motion passed unanimously.
7. SPECIAL REVIEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN; ESTES PARK BAPTIST CHURCH EXPANSION; 2200 MALL
ROAD Continued from August EVPC meeting.
Planner Gonzales stated this project was continued from the August meeting to allow the
applicant to be present, as he was absent last month. There were lingering questions from the
public regarding landscaping, use of the building, and future intentions. The application is a
request to expand the existing church with a 9,000 square foot addition. Written permission has
been provided by the Federal government regarding access to the property from Mall Road.
Additional parking will be added to the south, with the addition being to the west of the existing
building. Landscaping on the west property line was an issue in the last meeting, and the
applicant is now proposing to add two additional trees in that area. Applicant is now proposing a
two‐phased approach; finishing out a portion of the addition with classrooms, but not the entire
building. A future single‐family home is allowed by right on the property, and is not part of the
special review; however, the applicant provided the plans for the benefit of the public. The total
structure count will be two parsonages, one future maintenance shed (20 x 30), one office
building, and the existing church with the addition. The proposed office building will not have a
kitchen. Planner Gonzales stated no additional public comment was received since the last
meeting.
Staff and commission Discussion
Comments included but were not limited to: there are no design standards in the EVDC; the
landscape buffer that is required is around the boundaries; landscaping of the parking area or
around the new addition is not required; no interior landscaping is required.
Public Comment
Lonnie Sheldon/project engineer introduced members of the engineering team.
Paul Logue/Pastor of the church apologized for any issues that he has caused that may have been
offensive. He stated the security lights on the parsonage will remain. He stated he spoke with one
of the neighbors regarding the relocation of the modular, and understood they were in
agreement about the placement. He stated the church often houses volunteers that come to the
area to do various types of work for the community, and they often bring their RVs and park them
at the church.
Ralph Nations/project manager with the church stated there were several incorrect statements
made by the public last month. He stated the waiver request was for landscape buffering so they
would not have to landscape the entire south side of the property. The change was not discussed 18
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 19, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
with the neighbors. Commissioner White stated parking RVs on the property was not allowed,
and recommended the applicant have a conversation with the Community Development
Department regarding allowable uses on the property. After a brief discussion, Planner Gonzales
stated the proposal calls for the planting of eight more trees around the parking area, and twelve
additional shrubs.
Joy Harvey/county resident stated the neighbors would like to have transparency from the church
representatives. The neighbors have no issues with the various church ministries, but they do
have issues with the potential impact of the proposed development to the neighbors. She
requested the Commission deny the landscaping waiver.
Laura Case/county resident was concerned about additional exterior lighting. She requested there
be no construction traffic on Joel Estes Drive if the project was approved, and was opposed to the
landscape waiver.
Jeremy Collinette/county resident was concerned about how they were really going to use the
additional 9,000 square feet, wondering if it would become housing.
Ralph Nations stated the new addition will be used for classrooms for children and youth. He
stated they would not be housing people there, except for occasional overnight volunteers. He
was working with Planner Gonzales regarding Temporary Use Permits for this use.
Lonnie Sheldon stated a neighborhood meeting was not required. The applicant is not required to
pave the gravel road.
Chris Lee/Kennedy Architecture Group stated each level of the addition would be 4,500 square
feet, and would include a warming kitchen. The upper level will allow easier access to the second
floor via two bridges, while the lower level will have natural light to the south.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Planner Gonzales reminded the Commissioners to include any additional conditions of approval in
the motion.
Commissioner comments included, but were not limited to: Temporary Use Permits may solve the
issue of the overnight RVs; a landscaping plan was requested to ensure all required landscaping
would be installed; request to have all exterior lighting be code compliant.
Lonnie Sheldon stated the church is willing to install code compliant interior and perimeter
landscaping as part of the building permit set, which would need to be completed before a
Certificate of Occupancy would be issued. They will also comply with the dark sky ordinance for all
buildings on the property.
Conditions of Approval (as recommended by the Planning Commission)
1. The landscape waiver will not be granted as requested on the south and west property
boundaries.
2. Entire site will be compliant with the dark sky ordinance.
It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to recommend approval of the Estes Park Baptist
Church Special Review to the Larimer Board of County Commissioners according to the findings
of fact and the conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission and the
motion passed unanimously.
Chair Schneider requested a five minute recess at 3:09 p.m.
8. DEVELOPMENT PLAN & PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT; RAVEN ROCK
TOWNHOMES; TRBD PROMONTORY DRIVE
Planner Gonzales stated the subject property is zoned A–Accommodations, and is approximately
10 acres in size. It was annexed into the town limits earlier this year. The applicants, James &
Susan Mackey, propose to develop the property with 38 units in 19 duplexes, including three 19
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 19, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
outlots and three detention ponds. Three utility easements would also to be dedicated on the
plat, along with a dedicated town Right‐of‐Way. A private circle drive is proposed, with additional
private drives that front the individual duplex buildings. The applicant has proposed an alternative
landscaping plan that will disperse the landscaping among the property. They have added
additional trees, and the buffering on the east side is considered adequate by staff. The three
outlots would protect the existing wetland areas. One of the proposed wetlands is in the setback,
and a variance application has been submitted that will be heard by the Estes Valley Board of
Adjustment. A preliminary stormwater drainage plan was also submitted and reviewed by the
Town Engineer. This plan provides for three detention ponds to collect and discharge stormwater.
There have been neighbor concerns with the preliminary drainage report. The final drainage plan
will go with the Final Plat. Regarding access, the entrance to the subdivision will align with
Promontory Drive. A wildlife study was submitted, with no mitigation efforts being
recommended. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan for Future Land Use indicates
accommodations would be appropriate for this property. No major issues were identified by
reviewing staff. There were several public comments received. The application was routed to all
affected agencies. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper, and adjacent property
owners were notified by mail. The Planning Commission is the decision‐making body for the
Development Plan, and the recommending body for the Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat.
Staff recommended two conditions of approval, listed below.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Planner Gonzales clarified inquiries regarding the annexation of this property into the town limits
earlier this year. There was discussion as to whether or not the Final Townhome Subdivision Plat
should be approved prior to the approval of the Development Plan. It was noted the Planning
Commission would not be reviewing the Final Plat; however, the approval of this plat is
conditional to the approval of the Development Plan.
Public Comment
David Bangs/project engineer prepared the preliminary drainage report. The adjacent property
owners are concerned about groundwater. It was his professional opinion the amount of
groundwater flowing onto the neighbor’s property would be the same or less with the proposed
development. The surrounding existing wetlands and associated groundwater could also affect
their property. In the preliminary design, all the detention ponds are built to meet the 100‐year
event (1% annual chance). The ponds will be grass‐lined, pervious, and would hold the water for
hours, not days. The detention ponds are typically maintained by the HOA. There are no
standards for regulating groundwater, and Mr. Bangs assured the Commission there would not be
any additional groundwater caused by this development affecting the neighbors. He explained
where the discharge areas are on the property, stating one of the drainage areas may need to be
redesigned depending on the outcome of the variance application. Historic discharge locations
will be maintained.
Joe Coop/project engineer stated the proposed duplexes would meet all height and setback
requirements. Floor plans are still in the design phase, and will have main floor living. The sewer
manhole is located in the utility easement. There is an existing fence in the easement, which will
be replaced by the applicant.
James Mackey/applicant and property owner purchased the property in 1995 with the intention
of developing it. He has been working on the various parts of this project since 2014. The review
has been thorough and all issues are being addressed adequately. He met briefly with the
neighbors to introduce himself. He has had several conversations with Ms. Ray, but not with the
Keiltys. More than the required landscaping will be installed, to screen the buildings from the
neighbors. Units 35‐38 will not be right up against the property line. Drainage plan will comply
with the required regulations. He is aware of Mr. Keilty’s ongoing groundwater issue. He originally
met with Rita Kurelja of the Estes Park Housing Authority regarding a possible affordable housing
project, but after meeting with various people decided not to pursue it.
Michael Keilty/town resident was concerned the project would create a groundwater problem on
his property, and had a private engineer review the drainage plan. He was also concerned about 20
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 19, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
the potential for trespassing. He stated the postcard he received in the mail was not adequate
notice.
Barbara Keilty/town resident was concerned about what might happen in the future. Based on
the report from their third‐party engineer, their home is in imminent danger.
Claire Ray/town resident was concerned about construction phase, and requested construction
vehicles be limited to Marys Lake Road and not be allowed to use Arapahoe Road. She was
concerned about her privacy and view corridor, and water runoff during construction. She has
had a couple of phone conversations with Mr. Mackey prior to today’s meeting.
Dawn James/town resident submitted a document for the record regarding her environmental
and traffic concerns. Her comment will be posted on the Town website. She was concerned about
wildlife migration, increase in traffic, vehicle speeds, and pedestrian safety. She stated Marys Lake
Road is becoming used more and more as a route to get to Rocky Mountain National Park.
Larry Murphy/town resident was concerned about the density of the project, the wildlife, and the
view obstruction.
Kevin Conrad/town resident complained about the notification process. He stated the
maintenance of the detention ponds will be critical, and was looking forward to reviewing the
Final Drainage Report.
Tom Gootz/town resident commented on whether or not the comprehensive plan would address
areas such as this. He was opposed to the property being zoned A‐Accommodations. He had
comments related to the International Building Codes that were not in the purview of the
Planning Commission.
Richard James/town resident was concerned about traffic and the possibility of having 38 new
vacation rentals in the neighborhood.
Bev Wright/town resident stated the lead planner should explain both the pros and cons of
projects. She was concerned about density, the short‐term rental possibility, wildlife, and view
corridor obstruction.
Mike Gould/town resident and Promontory HOA stated this project will block their view. He was
concerned that the project would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and
traffic would be too congested. He requested additional traffic studies on other nearby
intersections nearby. He was concerned about the drainage impacts to the nearby neighbors. He
stated notifying property owners only within 100 feet is too small an area.
Michael Keilty/requested a continuance.
Carly Lober/county resident stated the high density of the area was not compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Lonnie Sheldon stated the difference between the preliminary and final drainage report is small.
There is one‐foot of freeboard proposed in the report, which will be more than enough to contain
high flows. If ponds are lined, they can be punctured by animal hooves, and bubbles can form
underneath and decrease the volume as designed. The preliminary report complies with the state
stormwater regulations. Regarding the traffic study, the parameters of the study were directed by
former town engineer Kevin Ash.
Joe Coop provided additional information about the proposed drainage channel along the east
side of the property. Trees will be placed on either side of the channel. The stormwater
management plan has to be approved by the county health department prior to commencing
construction. The development plan complies with the EVDC and the drainage plan complies with
the drainage requirements. The property owner has the right to develop his property in 21
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 19, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
accordance to the EVDC. The wetlands are not jurisdictional. It was noted the wetland study was
approved by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). The property owner is aware of the new building
code requirements.
James Mackey appreciated the comments. He is willing to be transparent with neighbors. He is
open to addressing the issues and would support a continuance.
Public Comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Baker was opposed to a continuance, stating if the design met the requirements of
the EVDC, there was no point in delaying the decision. The only comment that pertains to the
Commission was the one about being compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and
furthering the goals of the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Leavitt requested additional
comments from drainage experts on both sides of the issue. Conversation regarding this issue can
occur outside of the Planning Commission meeting, with results presented next month if the
meeting is continued. Commissioner Hull supported a continuance, and reminded those in
attendance that Marys Lake Lodge is also in the A–Accommodations zone district.
Conditions of Approval
1. A Final Townhome Subdivision Plat shall be approved by Town Board within 120 days of
Planning Commission decision date. The Final Plat shall be submitted with a Final Drainage
Study and all associated infrastructure construction plans/financial guarantees. The Final Plat
shall be recorded within 60 days of Town Board approval.
2. An approved Variance to locate the detention pond within the 50‐foot wetland setback is
required.
It was moved and seconded (FosterLeavitt) to continue the Raven Rock Preliminary Townhome
Subdivision to the October Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed 6‐1 with
Commissioner Murphree voting against.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Hull) to continue the Raven Rock Development Plan to the
October Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed 6‐1 with Commissioner
Murphree voting against.
Note: At this point in the meeting, the order of the agenda was changed, and various items will be
continued to future meetings.
9. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)
AND AMEND THE DENSITY CALCULATION STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO EMPLOYEE HOUSING
Planner Gonzales stated the proposed amendment would eliminate FAR from the EVDC, and
eliminate the requirement to use FAR in the employee housing density calculation. The proposed
amendment evolved from discussions with Planning Commission, Town Board, and County
Commission, on streamlining the EVDC and removing redundancies. FAR regulates the
dimensional aspects of lots, and there are many of these in the code. FAR is the relationship
between square footage of a building and how it relates to lot size, and is an outdated planning
mechanism. Regarding the employee housing piece of the amendment, Planner Gonzales stated
we now allow employee housing in commercial zone districts, and the number of units is
dependent on the FAR on the property. If we remove FAR, we will need to recalculate how we
establish density in commercial zone district. Planning staff has proposed tying the accessory use
unit amount to being no more than the square footage of the principle use. Parking for employee
housing units shall not exceed the required parking for the principle use. Removing FAR would
make the EVDC easier to understand.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Foster) to recommend approval of the text amendment to the
Estes Park Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of Commissioners as presented in
Exhibit Red, including findings, and as recommended by staff and the motion passed
unanimously. 22
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 19, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
10. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM RIDGELINE
HEIGHT LIMIT FOR STEEPLY SLOPED GABLED & HIPPED ROOF STRUCTURES
Planner Becker stated the proposed amendment would place an upper height limit for steeply
sloped roofs (A‐frames, in most instances). The recently approved height limit increase applied
only to gabled roofs. If the existing calculation was used on an a‐frame structure, it could exceed
30 feet quite easily. This issue was raised by the Town Board during the building‐measurement
discussion. Following discussion among the Commission, it was decided to continue this item to
the October meeting in order for Director Hunt to provide a visual regarding the calculations.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Foster) to continue the proposed code amendment regarding
maximum ridgeline height for steeply sloped roofs to the October 17, 2017 Planning
Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously.
11. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING BED AND BREAKFAST
INNS
It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to continue the proposed amendment regarding
Bed and Breakfast Inns to the October 17, 2017 Planning Commission meeting and the motion
passed unanimously.
12. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.66 ‐ SIGNS
It was moved and seconded (White/Foster) to continue the proposed amendment regarding
Signs to the November 21, 2017 Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed
unanimously.
13. REPORTS
There were no comments regarding the report items listed on the agenda.
There being no further business, Chair Schneider adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m.
_________________________________
Russ Schneider, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
23
24
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 20, 2017
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 203 of Town Hall on the 20th
day of September, 2017.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Gordon Slack
Ken Zornes
Stan Black
Tom Street
Claudine Perrault
Ann Finley
Amy Hamrick
Also Present: Bob Holcomb, Town Board Liaison
Kelly Stallworth, Public Works Pavement Manager
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Sandy Osterman, Shuttle Committee
Larry Gamble, RMNP
John Hannon, RMNP
Lochen Wood, RMNP
Absent: Belle Morris
Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m.
Chair Campbell introduced the newly appointed TAB member, Claudine Perrault and
reciprocal introductions were made by TAB members in attendance.
A motion was made and was seconded to approve the June, July and August minutes
(Slack/Zornes) and all were in favor.
Public Comment:
Citizen Comment
Sandy Osterman expressed concern about levels 2, 3 and 4 at the Estes Park Transit
Facility Parking Structure. She’s witnessed issues with people navigating strollers and
walking with small children in and around traffic areas. She inquired as to the potential
need for signage stating ‘BEWARE OF PEDESTRIANS’ or something similar.
Additionally, once visitors get outside the parking structure, they often have difficulty
25
Transportation Advisory Board – September 20, 2017 – Page 2
knowing where to go from there. The need for directional signage once out of parking
structure was suggested.
Rocky Mountain National Park
Larry Gamble and John Hannon of Rocky Mountain National Park introduced their newest
member, Lochen Wood. Wood will be in charge of developing the ‘Day Use Visitor
Management Strategy’. She will incorporate creative ideas and will incorporate added
public engagement. Wood was previously a Planning/Compliance Specialist in
Washington DC and has assisted various national parks. She also has experience with
traffic congestion management plans, floodplain management and was a planner for
small towns. She can be reached via email at lochen_wood@nps.gov or by phone at
970-586-1484. Wood has an open door policy and encourages communication and
collaboration. Wood was invited by the TAB to participate in all future TAB meetings for
the continued open line of communication.
Ericka Cole, during her tenure, got the ball rolling on appropriate strategies and is still
periodically available through 10/1/17 (to this RMNP region). Cole did a wide-range study
surrounding the different parks and what other gateway communities do to solve some of
their traffic issue. Chair Campbell requested this study material be made available to the
TAB to share what was learned.
Chair Campbell asked RMNP representatives the overall vision for strategy. Gamble
stated there was significant research work conducted this summer to collect data. One
measurement was collected by analyzing driver behavior. Once preliminary work is
captured, there will be robust public engagement and outreach allowing business owners,
residents, and visitors to participate by sharing their vision / tolerance for what is to take
place.
SHUTTLE UPDATE, Sandy Osterman
Osterman reported on last week’s committee meeting. With summer shuttle service
stopped this year on September 10, analysis showed overall ridership down 14% from
last year. Osterman stated that the decline may be due to some shuttle stops being
scheduled to end an hour earlier than in years past; or foreign employees in the valley
walking rather than riding. There was a specific decrease for July 4 ridership potentially
due to it falling on a Tuesday this year as opposed to a Monday last year. A calculation
was figured for the ‘price per person’ to ride daily coming to $4.37 per ride per individual.
26
Transportation Advisory Board – September 20, 2017 – Page 3
The Shuttle Committee is planning the 2018 schedule to be similar to what was done in
2017. For the remainder of 2017, shuttles will continue to run for special events (Autumn
Gold, Elkfest, etc.)
Osterman also extended appreciation to the TAB for the letter sent to the Town Board
suggesting added shuttle service.
Member Perrault thanked the Shuttle Committee for thinking of downtown employees
when planning shuttle services. There was additional discussion about a potential survey
being extended to downtown employees related to employee shuttle services. It may be
beneficial to look at ways to provide incentive to employees to utilize shuttles.
PROJECT UPDATES, Kelly Stallworth, Pavement Manager
Downtown Parking Management Plan: There is an upcoming public meeting for parking
management to be held on September 28 (in conjunction with the Downtown Plan public
meeting). Chair Campbell discussed with the TAB some of the technology features that
will be presented. The TAB will be taking an evaluative role with the public expressing no
specific stance until the needed research is complete. Once all community meetings are
complete, a compilation of all findings and supporting documentation will be provided to
the Town Board. TAB will analyze the findings at that time to see if support is still the
majority. There will be a collaborative discussion among TAB members about parking
management and the results received in the community meetings.
Chair Campbell raised the question, “W ho should be building parking lots for downtown?”
According to the Estes Valley Development Code, there is a defined number of parking
spaces required for all new development based on the square footage being developed.
At this point, the Town is adopting the burden of all parking in Estes Park. With limited
funding, should there be a mill levy or what is the best method of funding? Potential Sales
Tax District for businesses that don’t already provide appropriate parking? Is this
something the TAB should be looking at? Where should funds be coming from ? The
Downtown Plan outlines some of these features. Member Perrault suggested providing
consultant information and details to citizens regarding the existing civic infrastructure.
Member Hamrick suggested the TAB not confine themselves to discussions only about
parking and would like our committee to expand the discussion topics to include trails,
Moraine Avenue improvements, etc.
27
Transportation Advisory Board – September 20, 2017 – Page 4
Campbell suggested that the streets dictate behavior in their design. The TAB needs to
look at this and determine appropriate design while defining the order to effectively
communicate with CDOT. This analysis is pending adoption of the Downtown Plan and
associated parking plan. Drafting a letter of recommendation for “Complete Streets” will
help guide CDOT planning for future planning/design.
Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement: The Town Board approved a construction contract
pending the finalized Special Use Permit from CDOT. The project manager feels
confident that we’ll be able to begin the first phase of the closure on October 2 with full
closure beginning October 10. A preconstruction meeting is to take place September 26,
2017 at 3:00 pm. Project management is currently working with a sign contractor for area
business wayfinding signage. A pedestrian bridge is to be installed in lieu of a full bridge
pedestrian closure.
Digital Message Signs: This project is still in the works. The Town re-advertised the
invitation to bid for installation of the digital message signs. Again, the bids received were
well over the allotted budget. The Town may have to find another alternative and go back
into design drawings, potentially do a portion of the work ourselves and rebid remaining
work.
MacGregor Avenue Improvement: The project is near completion. At this point, the
contractor is addressing punch-list items and tying up loose ends. The Town has received
quality feedback from the public and there has been significant trail usage.
OTHER BUSINESS
No other business was initiated.
With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 1:40 p.m.
28
29
30
ENGINEERING
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: October 24, 2017
RE: 2018 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Non-Motorized Trails Grant
Application - Fall River Trail Construction
Objective:
Public Works seeks approval from the Town Board to support a CPW grant application
for construction of a portion of the Fall River Trail.
Present Situation:
Public Works has completed a design to extend Fall River Trail along US34 from its
current end point at the Blackhawk Lodges, along Fish Hatchery Road to the Aspenglen
campground in RMNP. CPW has announced grant funding for 2018 focusing on non-
motorized trails.
Proposal:
Public Works has contracted with Sarah Pita to complete the grant application on behalf
of the Town.
The CPW application requires a signed letter of support from the Governing Body as
well as letters of support from any other affected entities. Our partners at Rocky
Mountain National Park and Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District have agreed to
provide these support letters.
A full application is due November 1st. Grantees are allowed up to three years to
complete trail construction.
Advantages:
Meets a 2017 Board Infrastructure Objective to “Pursue funding opportunities for
construction of the Fall River Trail”
Partnerships are developed with the Town and other entities supporting the
project.
Disadvantages:
$250,000 is the maximum award for this grant. Only 4% of the estimated
$6,000,000 project estimate will be funded by this grant program. Construction 31
costs may increase over time and public disruption due to multiple constructions
will be increased.
Additional Staff time is needed to continue pursuit for Fall River Trail construction
funding.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends Town Board support of the grant application.
Budget:
The CPW grant has a $250,000 maximum request limit and a 30% project match will be
required. To receive the maximum $250,000 from the grant program, a $75,000 local
match will be needed. This is not included in the proposed 2018 budget. If awarded
this grant we may need to delay construction to 2019 when we can budget for the local
match from the Open Space Fund.
Level of Public Interest
Public interest on this project is expected to be moderate.
Sample Motion:
I move for approval/denial to authorize the Mayor to sign the support letter for the
CPW grant application.
Attachments:
CPW Grant Support Letter
32
October 10, 2017
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
1313 Sherman Street, 6th Floor
Denver, CO 80203
To Whom It May Concern:
The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees is in support of the Town’s Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2018
Non‐Motorized Trails Grant Application to build a portion of the Fall River Trail. This trail, when
completed, will link downtown Estes Park with residences and businesses along Fall River Road and Fish
Hatchery Road, and provide safe, non‐motorized access to the trails and campgrounds of Rocky
Mountain National Park (RMNP).
In 2016, with funding from GOCO, the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District worked with our
community and the National Park Service to create a Master Trails Plan for the Estes Valley. The
proposed Fall River Trail was identified as a top priority, stating that it will be an important connector of
disjointed trail networks, broadly supported by the community, and presenting an immediate
improvement in safety. This section of trail is entirely on Town‐owned land, and will be available to the
public for outdoor recreation in perpetuity.
Once complete, this trail will provide an extremely valuable benefit to Estes Park, eventually connecting
Estes Park to the RMNP boundary at Aspen Glen Campground. From there, it will connect more than 350
miles of trails in RMNP. It will also provide local residents and visitors another place to walk, run, or ride
bicycles further supporting health and fitness in the community. As a result of this trail, traffic
congestion will also be lessened in the downtown area.
The Town Board of Trustees hopes that, with the support of CPW, the Town will be able to add this
critical segment of the trail, improving access to outdoor recreation for all people all over the Estes
Valley. Estes Park will be an even better and healthier place to live, work and play. The consideration of
CPW funding for this project phase would be very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Todd Jirsa
Mayor
33
ENGINEERING
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kelly Stallworth, EI, Public Works Pavement Manager
Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: October 24, 2017
RE: 2018 Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant Application for
Colorado - Fall River Trail Construction
Objective:
Public Works seeks approval from the Town Board to support a LWCF grant application
for construction of a portion of the Fall River Trail.
Present Situation:
Public Works has completed a design to extend Fall River Trail along US34 from its
current end point at the Blackhawk Lodges, along Fish Hatchery Road to the Aspenglen
campground in RMNP. LWCF has announced grant funding for 2018 which focuses on
public outdoor recreation.
Proposal:
Public Works has contracted with Sarah Pita to complete the grant application on behalf
of the Town.
The LWCF application has a requirement of a signed letter of support from the
Governing Body as well as support letters from any other affected entities. We are also
contacting the National Park Service, EVRPD, and Larimer County.
A full application is due November 1st. Grantees are allowed up to three years to
complete trail construction.
Advantages:
Meets a 2017 Board Objective in Infrastructure to “Pursue funding opportunities
for construction of the Fall River Trail”
Partnerships are developed with the Town and other entities supporting the
project.
Disadvantages:
$400,000 is the maximum award for this grant. Only 7% of the estimated
$6,000,000 project estimate will be funded by this grant program. Construction 34
costs may increase over time and public disruption due to multiple constructions
will be increased.
Additional Staff time is needed to continue pursuit for Fall River Trail construction
funding.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends Town Board support of the grant application.
Budget:
The LWCF grant has a $400,000 maximum request and a 100% project match will be
required. To receive the maximum $400,000 from the grant program, a $400,000 local
match will be needed. This is not included in the proposed 2018 budget. If awarded this
grant we may need to delay construction to 2019 when we can budget for the local
match from the Open Space Fund. I have also asked the EVRPD Trails Committee to
ask their Board to rollover the unspent 2017 funds ($200,000) previously set aside for
the (unfunded) GOCO grant application.
Level of Public Interest
Public interest on this project is expected to be moderate.
Sample Motion:
I move for approval/denial to authorize the Mayor to sign the support letter for the
LWCF grant application.
Attachments:
LWCF Grant Support Letter
35
October 10, 2017
Land and Water Conservation Fund
1313 Sherman Street, 6th Floor
Denver, CO 80203
To Whom It May Concern:
The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees is in support of the Town’s 2018 Land and Water Conservation
Fund Grant Application for Colorado to build a portion of the Fall River Trail. This trail, when completed,
will link downtown Estes Park with residences and businesses along Fall River Road and Fish Hatchery
Road and provide safe, non‐motorized access to the trails and campgrounds of Rocky Mountain National
Park (RMNP).
In 2016, with funding from GOCO, the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District worked with our
community and the National Park Service to create a Master Trails Plan for the Estes Valley. The
proposed Fall River Trail was identified as a top priority, stating that it will be an important connector of
disjointed trail networks, broadly supported by the community, and presenting an immediate
improvement in safety. This section of trail is entirely on Town‐owned land, and will be open to public
outdoor recreation in perpetuity.
Once complete, this trail will provide an extremely valuable benefit to Estes Park, eventually connecting
Estes Park to the RMNP boundary at Aspen Glen Campground. From there, it will connect more than 350
miles of trails in RMNP. It will also provide local residents and visitors another place to walk, run, or ride
bicycles further supporting health and fitness in the community. As a result of this trail, traffic
congestion will also be lessened in the downtown area.
The Town Board of Trustees hopes that, with the support of LWCF, the Town will be able to add this
critical segment of the trail, improving access to outdoor recreation for all people all over the Estes
Valley. Estes Park will be an even better and healthier place to live, work and play. The consideration of
LWCF funding for this project phase would be very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Todd Jirsa
Mayor
36
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Carrie McCool, Planning Consultant
Date: October 24, 2017
RE: Lot 1 EPCO Subdivision Unit 18 - Supplemental Condominium Map [#3;
220 Virginia Drive, Unit 18]: Brent and Deborah Nations and the Estes
Highlands Homeowners Association
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing to consider a supplemental condominium map for compliance
with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
Lot 1 of the EPCO Condominium Subdivision was originally
platted to accommodate construction of four additional
single-family condominium units within the 13-unit Estes
Highlands Condominiums development. This 1.703-acre
parcel is a portion of the EPCO Subdivision property that will
result in a total of 12 single-family units on the full site. The
developer, Roger Sutton, was granted Development Plan
approval to construct three units within Lot 1 in November of
2015. The site is zoned (RM) Multifamily Residential District.
Primary access is provided off of MacGregor Avenue. The
condominium development is in proximity to nearby publicly owned open space and
public facilities such as the Town Hall. The surrounding land uses within a ¼ mile radius
are primarily single-family residential.
Proposal:
The owners, Brent and Deborah Nations and the Estes Highlands Homeowners
Association request approval of Supplemental Condominium Map #3, for the newly
constructed single-family dwelling known as Unit 18.
Advantages:
This proposal complies the applicable standards of the EVDC, specifically:
Section 3.9.E “Standards of Review” for subdivisions, and Section
10.5.H “Condominiums, Townhouses and Other Forms of Airspace
Ownership.” 37
Conformance with the housing policies of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan by
promoting a balance of housing opportunities within the community.
Disadvantages:
None identified.
Action Recommended:
Approval of the EPCO Condominiums Supplemental Map #3.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low: The Community Development Department has not received any written public
comments to date.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of the EPCO Condominiums Supplemental Map #3.
Attachments:
EPCO Condominiums Supplemental Map #3 received on October 18, 2017.
Full Application: www.estes.org/currentapplications
38
39
40
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Audem Gonzales, Planner II
Date: October 24, 2017
RE: PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT, Raven Rock
Townhomes, Metes & Bounds Parcel, TBD Promontory Drive. Request to
continue to November 28, 2017.
Staff is requesting that this item be continued to the November 28, 2017 Town Board
meeting date.
41
42
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Audem Gonzales, Planner II
Date: October 24, 2017
RE: SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT – ESTES PARK RESORT; LOT 1, LAKE
ESTES 2ND ADDITION, 1700 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE. Request to
continue to November 28, 2017.
Staff is requesting that this item be continued to the November 28, 2017 Town Board
meeting date.
43
44
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Audem Gonzales, Planner II
Date: October 24, 2017
RE: Subdivision Final Plat – Kearney Minor Subdivision, Metes & Bounds
Parcel, 1360 Brook Drive, Kearney & Sons Excavating, INC..
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing and make a determination regarding a Final Subdivision plat
for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
The project area is located at the southwest corner of Brook Drive and Fish Creek
Road. The property is zoned I-1 Restricted Industrial. The area is approximately 8-acres
in size and is developed with industrial/commercial uses.
Proposal:
The proposal entails creating two legal lots and one outlot. The resulting lots will be
approximately 1.7 and 5.5 acres in size with the outlot being 0.07 acres in size. The two
lots will continue to have industrial/commercial uses. Neither lot will be accessed from
Fish Creek Road. Access shall be maintained from Acacia Drive and Brook Drive.
There is a sidewalk proposed along Acacia Drive and Brook Drive. This sidewalk was a
condition of approval on the preliminary plat application. The construction documents for
the sidewalk were approved by Town staff as well as the financial guarantee. Staff has
received the security and determined it is acceptable.
Advantages:
Creates an additional industrial lot within the Town of Estes Park
The condition of approval on the preliminary plat for a sidewalk will expand
pedestrian linkages within the community, especially to the Fish Creek trail.
Disadvantages:
None identified
45
Action Recommended:
Town Board voted unanimously to approve the Preliminary Minor Subdivision plat
application on August 22, 2017.
Staff recommends approval of the Final Minor Subdivision plat application.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low: The Comm. Dev. Dept. has not received any written public comments to date.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of the Kearney Final Minor Subdivision plat
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
Final Plat
Full Application: www.estes.org/currentapplications
46
NTAINVIEWCTFISH CREEK RDBROOKCGRAHAMLNBROOK DRACACIADRFish CreekFish Creek RoadAcacia DriveBrook DriveS SAINT VRAIN AVEPEAK VIEW DRMARYS LAKELAKE ESTESS47
48
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Robin Becker Planner I
Date: October 24th 2017
RE: Ordinance #26-17 850 Concord Lane Right-of-Way Vacation
Objective:
This is an application for a right-of-way vacation to vacate a 30’ right-of-way easement
granted to the Town of Estes Park. This right of way easement was a condition on an
annexation petition for the property formerly known as the Waldo Additions and its
incorporated subdivision plat.
Present Situation:
The 30’ right-of-way easement was put in place as access for potential future
development to the north and east of the property. Currently the potential for future
development has been curbed by the placement of conservation easements on the
surrounding residential properties, including land being owned by The Bureau of Land
Management and Town of Estes Park owned land. (See attached Property Context
Map).
In the 16+ years since being enacted further residential development has been limited
due to the surrounding ownership of the properties and conservation easements.
Access has been maintained to the north three lots, Pederson Lots 1, 2, and 3 via a
private 14’ wide easement along the south boundary for a private access road. This
easement is shown on the site plan. Access will continue to be maintained to the land
owned by the Bureau of Land Management and Town of Estes Park via Prospect
Mountain Road as shown on the site plan.
All utilities and outside entities potentially impacted have been contacted and signed off
on the proposed right-of-way vacation. These include TDS Telecom, Century Link, and
Town of Estes Park Utilities. This right-of-way easement borders County and is subject
to Board of County Commission approval.
Proposal:
Vacate the 30’ right-of-way easement owned by the Town of Estes Park along the north
portion of 850 Concord Lane.
49
Advantages:
Reduced road maintenance for The Town of Estes Park on the above mentioned
section of Concord Lane.
Removal of unnecessary access easement
Disadvantages:
None Identified
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of this right-of-way vacation. This item is scheduled to go
before the Board of County Commissioners on November 20, 2017.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Low: This Right of Way Vacation
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of the 850 Concord Lane right- of-way vacation from the Town
Board of Trustees.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance #26-17
2. Property Context Map
50
ORDINANCE NO. 26-17
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF CONCORD LANE
IN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK
WHEREAS, the owner of Lots 1 and 2 of the Waldo Addition-Subdivision to the
Town of Estes Park, known as 850 Concord Lane (the “Property”) has requested that
the Town vacate the 30 foot road right-of-way (the “Right-of-Way”) adjacent to the
Property; and
WHEREAS, the Right-of-Way was dedicated as access for potential future
development to the north and east of the Property; and
WHEREAS, any potential for future development to the north and east has been
negated by the placement of conservation easements on the surrounding residential
properties and land owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the Town of Estes
Park; and
WHEREAS, vacation of the Right-of-Way will not leave any land adjoining said
vacated Right-of-Way without an established access to a public road; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 42-2-302 (a) C.R.S. upon vacation of this Right-
of-Way, the title of the Right-of-Way shall vest in the Property; and
WHEREAS, due to the fact that the boundary of the Right-of-Way constitutes the
boundary line between the Town and Larimer County, Colorado, the Board of County
Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado is required to also approve the vacation of
the Right-of-Way; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that it is in the best interest of
the Town to permanently abandon and vacate the Right-of-Way as more fully set forth
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO as follows:
Section 1: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park hereby vacates the Right-
of-Way as is more fully described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference.
Section 2: The Town surrenders any and all right, title and interest to the vacated Right-
of-Way.
51
Section 3: The Town hereby reserves in the vacated the Right-of-Way easements for
the continued use of any existing sewer, gas, water, electricity, telephone,
telecommunications, and drainage facilities.
Section 4: The vacation of the Right-of-Way is subject to the Board of County
Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado also vacating the Right-of-Way as
provided in Section 43-2-303 (1)(d) C.R.S.
Section 5: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this ____ day of _______________, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2017, and
published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on
the day of , 2017.
Town Clerk
52
EXHIBIT A
53
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Audem Gonzales, Planner II
Date: October 24, 2017
RE: Ordinance 27-17: Proposed Text Amendments to Estes Valley
Development Code: EVDC §3.7, §4.3, §4.4, §5.1, §5.2, §11, §11.8, §13.3
and APPENDIX B (Floor Area Ratio and Employee Housing Density
Calculation).
Objective:
Review and decide upon an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Employee Housing Density Calculations.
Present Situation:
The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to do the
following:
Remove all reference to Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the EVDC.
Remove redundant regulations on dimensional standards in all zone districts.
Remove maximum Floor Area Ratio from Employee Housing Density Calculation.
Establish an alternative Employee Housing Density Calculation
The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the text amendment on
September 19, 2017. This item was on the Board of Larimer County Commissioners’
October 16, 2017 agenda for action at which the item unanimously was approved.
Proposals:
This text amendment is a follow-up to Planning Commission discussion on
amending dimensional standards in all zone districts. Currently, Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) applies to all development, except development of one single-family
dwelling on a single lot.
Floor Area Ratio is defined as: the ratio of gross floor area divided by gross lot
area or land area measured in square feet, less all land area within private
streets or dedicated public rights-of-way.
55
FAR is a calculation used to determine the appropriate allowed mass (cumulative
square footage) of structures in comparison to the size of the lot. This is a very
outdated planning measure used to regulate how a property is built upon. It is not
in common use today, except in dense urban cores such as skyscraper districts
in metropolitan areas. Coupled with setbacks, impervious coverage, building
envelopes and maximum allowed heights, including FAR in the development
Code is an unnecessary and redundant measure taken to regulate development.
Instead of amending all FAR percentages, Staff has proposed to completely
remove all reference to FAR in the EVDC and allow setbacks, impervious
coverage, building envelopes and maximum allowed heights regulate the
development. This approach is more transparent to ordinary citizens and design
professionals.
The Employee Housing section in Code also contains an element of FAR. When
determining the maximum allowed employee housing on a site the EVDC relates
the density to no more than 125% FAR for the site. By removing FAR from the
Code staff needed to re-evaluate the appropriate density allowance for Employee
Housing. The simple solution was to propose that the cumulative floor-area
square footage of all employee housing units on the site and their accessory use
areas (garages, carports, decks, etc.) cannot exceed the square footage of the
principal use. Also, the required parking for employee housing units shall not
exceed the required parking for the principal use.
By amending the employee housing section as proposed, staff has found a way
to remove FAR from the density calculation and introduce a new alternative way
to regulate the maximum density of dwelling units on a commercial site.
Staff and the EVPC both support Exhibit Red as attached.
Advantages:
Complies with the EVDC Section §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.
Creates a more development friendly and easier to understand Code.
Removes redundant land use controls in all zone districts.
Disadvantages:
None identified.
Action Recommended:
Adoption of Exhibit Red as presented.
Budget:
n/a
Level of Public Interest
High: Proposing Code Amendments aimed at simplifying Code and making it easier to
use by various groups
56
Low: This particular Code amendment
Sample Motion:
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve Ordinance No. 27-17, amending the
Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibit Red, finding that the amendment is
in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 27-17
2. Exhibit Red: [Floor Area Ratio and Employee Housing Density Calculation]
57
ORDINANCE NO. 27-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE REGARDING FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) AND EMPLOYEE
HOUSING DENSITY CALCULATIONS.
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
conducted public hearings on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code, Sections §3.7, §4.3, §4.4, §5.1, §5.2, §11, §11.8, §13.3 and
APPENDIX B (Floor Area Ratio and Employee Housing Density Calculation; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted
to recommend approval of the text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text
amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review and has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that
the amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, as set forth on Exhibit Red, be
approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code is set forth
on Exhibit Red, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully
set forth on Exhibit Red.
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.
58
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting
of the Board of Trustees on the 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.
Town Clerk
59
EXHIBIT RED
Floor Area Ratio and Employee Housing Density Calculation
Town Board October 24, 2017
§ 3.7 - Minor Modifications
A. Applicability.
1. Staff Minor Modifications to Approved Final Plans.
f. An increase in the ratio of floor area to lot area (FAR).
2. Minor Modifications from General Development and Zone District Standards.
c. Exceptions to Authority to Grant Minor Modifications. In no circumstance shall the
Staff or EVPC approve a modification of a general development or zone district
standard that results in:
(4) An increase in the ratio of floor area to lot area (FAR).
§ 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts
Notes to Table 4-2
(4) [RESERVED] All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a
single lot, shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30 and a maximum lot
coverage of 50%. (Ord. 25-07 §1)
60
§ 4.4 - Nonresidential Zoning Districts
A. List of Districts/Specific Purposes.
2. Commercial Zoning Districts.
c. O Office Zoning District. This zoning district is established to implement the "Office"
future land use category recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. The intensity of
future office development will be controlled through district standards. setting forth
a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and building height maximum.
C. Density and Dimensional Table
4. Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-5
Density and Dimensional Standards
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Zoning
District
Minimum. Land Area
per Accommodation
or
Residential Unit
(sq. ft. per unit)
Minimum Lot Size
Minimum Building/Structure
Setbacks [4][8] Max.
Building
Height
(ft.)[9]
Max.
FAR
Max. Lot
Coverage
(%)
Area
(sq ft)
Width
(ft.)
Front
(ft.)
Side
(ft.)
Rear
(ft.)
A
Accommodation
Unit =1,800 [1];
Residential Units:
SF = 9,000;
2‐Family = 6,750;
MF = 5,400
40,000 [2] 100 [3]
Arterial =
25 [5];
All other
streets =
15
15 [6] 10 [6] 30 .25 50
A‐1 10,890 15,000 [2] 50 [3]
Arterial =
25 [5];
All other
streets =
15
15 10 30 .25 50
CD
Accommodation
Units Only = 1,800;
SF & 2‐Family
(stand‐alone) =
9,000;
MF = 9,000 + 2,250
for each dwelling
unit located on
ground floor
Accommo
dation
uses =
20,000
All other
uses = n/a
SF & 2‐
Family
(stand‐
alone) =
25;
MF (stand‐
alone) =
100;
All other
uses = n/a
Mini‐
mum = 8
Maxi‐
mum =
16
If lot
abuts
a resi‐
dential
prop‐
erty =
10;
All
other
cases
= 0
If lot
abuts a
residen‐
tial
property
= 10;
All other
cases = 0
30 2.0 n/a
61
CO n/a
Lots
fronting
arterials =
40,000 [2];
Outdoor
Commer‐
cial
Recrea‐
tion/
Entertain‐
ment =
40,000 [2]
All other
lots =
15,000 [2]
Fronting
arterials=
200;
All other
lots = 50
Arterial =
25 [5];
All other
streets
=15
15 [6] 15 [6] 30 .25 50
O
Residential Units
(2nd Floor)
1 unit 2,250 sq. ft.
GFA of principal
use.
15,000 [2]
Fronting
Arterials =
200;
All other
lots = 50
Arterial =
25 [5];
All other
streets =
15
15 [6] 15 [6] 30 .25 50
Zoning
District
Minimum. Land Area
per Accommodation
or
Residential Unit
(sq. ft. per unit)
Minimum Lot Size
Minimum Building/Structure
Setbacks [4] Max.
Building
Height
(ft.)
Max.
FAR
Max. Lot
Coverage
(%)
Area
(sq ft)
Width
(ft.)
Front
(ft.)
Side
(ft.)
Rear
(ft.)
CH n/a 6,000 [2] 50 15 0 [6] 0 [6] 30 .50 80
I‐1 n/a 15,000 [2]
Fronting
Arterials =
200;
All other
lots = 50
Arterial =
25 [5];
All other
streets =
15
10 [6] 10 [6] 30 .30 60
§ 5.1 - SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS
Q. Vehicle Services, Limited.
4. Specific Standards for Service Stations and Quick Lubrication Services.
h. A canopy over the fuel pumps may be erected, provided that the following
conditions are met:
(4) Fifty percent (50%) of the total land area covered by such canopy shall be
counted toward any maximum FAR requirement for such use.
62
§ 5.2 - ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS)
AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
C. Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses in the Nonresidential
Zoning Districts
a. Employee Housing.
(b) In no case, however, may the total cumulative square footage of actual density or
intensity of the project, including the employee housing units and their accessory
use areas (garages, carports, decks, etc.), exceed that of the principal use. one
hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the maximum density or commercial intensity
(FAR) permitted by the zoning district regulations. Also, parking requirements for the
employee housing units may not exceed the total required parking for the principle
use.
§ 10.5 - SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS
H. Townhome Projects, Condominiums and Other Forms of Airspace Subdivisions.
7. Townhome Standards:
e. Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage.
(1) Townhome projects shall be limited to a cumulative FAR and Lot Coverage
not to exceed that established for the underlying zone district (see Tables 4-2
and 4-5).
(2) A table delineating allowed FAR and Lot Coverage for each lot, including the
outlot, shall be included for each townhome project plat.
(3) Individual lots shall be limited to no more than eighty percent (80%) lot
coverage.
(4) There shall be no more than eight (8) attached townhome units per single
structure or building.
CHAPTER 11. INCENTIVES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
§ 11.1 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................... 11-1
§ 11.2 GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................................................................. 11-1
A. Combination with Other Bonuses ......................................................................... 11-1
B. No Guarantee of Density ...................................................................................... 11-1
C. Review and Approval Procedure ......................................................................... 11-1
§ 11.3 OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENTS ............................................................................... 11-1
A. Purpose ................................................................................................................ 11-1
B. Eligibility ................................................................................................................ 11-1
C. Maximum Permitted Density Bonus ..................................................................... 11-2
D. Uses Permitted ..................................................................................................... 11-2
E. Development and Design Standards .................................................................... 11-2
F. Review Criteria for Approval of Open Space Developments................................ 11-3
§ 11.4 ATTAINABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS ............................................................... 11-4
63
A. Purpose ................................................................................................................ 11-4
B. Eligibility ................................................................................................................ 11-4
C. “Attainable” Defined .............................................................................................. 11-4
D. Maximum Permitted Density Bonus ..................................................................... 11-4
E. Development and Design Standards .................................................................... 11-4
§ 11.5 HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE
CD ZONING DISTRICT ................................................................................................ 11-5
§ 11.6 RURAL LAND USE PROCESS .................................................................................... 11-5
§ 11.7 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT UNITS .................................................................... 11-6
§ 11.8 FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMITS AND EXEMPTIONS .................................................... 11-6
A. Purpose ................................................................................................................ 11-6
B. Calculation of Exempted Floor Area ..................................................................... 11-6
§ 11.8 - FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMITS AND EXEMPTIONS (Ord. 8-
05 #1)
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) exemption is to encourage good
design and efficient land use and to minimize the visible off-site impact of building bulk.
(Ord. 8-05 #1)
B. Calculation of Exempted Floor Area.
That portion of habitable building floor area that is placed below existing or original grade
and that remains below finish grade qualifies for an exemption from basic FAR limits, upon
written request. The exemption shall be based on the following formula: (Ord. 8-05 #1)
Volume (c.f.) of habitable space placed below grade divided by the total volume (c.f.) of the
building multiplied by the total floor area of the building equals the square footage of
exempt floor area. (Ord. 8-05 #1)
For Example: A building with a total floor area of 2,000 square feet, a total building volume
of 30,000 cubic feet and a volume below grade of 10,000 cubic feet will qualify for an
exemption of 667 square feet. (Ord. 8-05 #1)
(10,000 c.f./30,000 c.f.) × 2,000 s.f. = 667 s.f. of floor area exemption. (Ord. 8-05 #1)
Note: The total volume of the building shall be calculated by computing the total interior
volume contained within the exterior walls and roofs of the structure. (Ord. 8-05 #1) (Ord.
8-05 #1, 6/14/05)
§ 13.3 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES
107. [RESERVED] Floor Area Ratio (FAR) shall mean the ratio of gross floor area divided
by gross lot or land area measured in square feet less all land area within private streets or
dedicated public rights-of-way.
64
APPENDIX B. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
III. DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
B. Sketch Plan Submittal Requirements
3. Contents.
m. Statistical information as follows:
(4) [RESERVED] Floor Area Ratio (nonresidential and multi-family residential
projects only).
C. Development Plan Submittal Requirements
6. Development Plan Submittal Package Contents.
ff. Statistical Information, including:
(5) [RESERVED] Foor Area Ratio (nonresidential and multi-family residential projects
only).
65
66
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: October 24, 2017
RE: Ordinance #28-17: An Ordinance Amending the Estes Valley
Development Code Regarding Maximum Ridgeline Height for Steeply-
Sloped Gabled and Hipped Roof Structures.
Objective:
Review and approve proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC) to add a specific maximum building height for structures with steep-sloped
roofs, and to adjust technical language on measurement.
Present Situation:
The EVDC was amended in summer 2017 to change the method used to measure
building height. The goal was to simplify the measurement process. A complex
mathematical formula was eliminated and replaced with a simple vertical line connecting
two horizontal planes.
As part of the same set of changes, we introduced an averaging method for calculating
the high plane (upper height limit) of a gabled or hipped roof. The new method is to
average the eaveline (lowest edge) and the ridgeline (highest edge).
While this makes good sense for most sloping roofs with shallow or moderate pitches,
averaging a steep sloped roof with this method could lead to a ridgeline that goes well
above the maximum height number (which is still 30 feet for most structures in most
districts). For example, going halfway up an A-frame roof slope would leave a lot of
vertical roof sticking above the “maximum height” as measure in the new formula. The
question was raised by Town Board during building-measurement discussion: Couldn’t
the new measurement method result in a lot of roof above the midpoint? The answer: It
could.
In practice, we aren’t likely to see many new A-frame or similar roof styles in the near
future, for two reasons: (a) the style just isn’t all that popular these days [no new A-
frames have been built in Estes Valley for at least 20 years]; and (b) newer wind-load
Code requirements no longer allow the classic A-frame style with an open interior as
new construction in our region.
Nevertheless, new A-frames could turn into all the rage again at some future point (keep
an eye on Architectural Digest if you are worried – or excited, as the case may be – 67
about that). And building codes and materials could also evolve so the wind loads can
be borne by pointy tall buildings. So, this concern does have merit for future
development.
Proposal:
The objective of this proposed code amendment is to amend the EVDC to place an
upper (ridgeline) height limit on buildings with steep-sloped roofs. The specific
amendment language would apply to buildings with a 12:12 pitch (45-degree angled
slope) or greater.
The proposed amendment would add an absolute maximum limit for how tall a
structure’s ridgeline (highest plane) could be, if the slope is greater than 12:12 pitch
(i.e., a 45-degree angle or greater from horizontal).
The amendment keeps things simple: For a 12:12 or greater sloping roof, the height is
measured to the ridgeline, instead of the average. For most buildings, that would mean
30 feet from finished grade to ridgeline.
It is a good coincidence that the 30 feet works for both types of measurement. The
Town’s Building division indicates this happens to give similar results to sticking with the
averaging method for steep-sloped roofs but putting in a lower number for that
averaging. We could get to the same result by using averaging but making the average
height around 20 or 22 feet, but that seems more complex. A parallel advantage is that
this way, we do not have to change our dimensional standards in the Chapter 4 tables
for different roof styles.
One other minor suggested change is clarifying the lowest-plane roofline concept for
roofs in general. We have been calling this the “eaveline”, but actually that’s not a
precise term in building terminology. Sec. 1.9.E.1(3) replaces the word “eave” with
“point of the topmost top plate”. That terminology is understood precisely by designers
and builders, and it corresponds to just about the same place as the eave line on most
gabled or hipped roofs in any case. (The top plate’s upper edge corresponds to the
plane on which the roof trusses rest, which is within a foot or so of the eaveline.)
This “top plate” business is a bit technical, so illustrations help. Charlie Phillips, Plans
Examiner in the Town’s Building division, has kindly provided the attached diagrams to
illustrate the new measurement particulars.
Advantages:
Complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.
Advances the intent and community-wide policies set forth in the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan.
Supports a goal of simplifying and providing flexibility and alternatives for
compliance under the Code and regulations.
Results in a straightforward and easy to calculate measurement. 68
Avoids accidentally allowing tall, pointy rooflines to interrupt the tall, pointy landscape
surrounding our Valley, which many prefer to remain in its natural uninterrupted state
unless it can’t be helped.
Disadvantages:
Adds slightly to Code length and complexity.
Action Recommended:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission heard this item on October 17, 2017, and voted
in favor (6 yes, 0 no, 1 absent) of a motion to recommend that the Town Board of
Trustees and the County Board of Commissioners approve the amendment (Exhibit
Red).
Staff continues to support this amendment as drafted in Exhibit Red.
Budget:
n/a
Level of Public Interest
Low. (For the record, Architectural Digest has not called, so far.)
Sample Motion:
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve Ordinance No. 28-17, amending the
Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibit Red, finding that the amendment is
in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 28-17
2. Exhibit Red: [Measurement; Building Height: Max. for Steep Roofs]
3. Bldg Examples - Bldg Height Steep Roofs 2017-10-24 TB
69
ORDINANCE NO. 28-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
REGARDING MAXIMUM RIDGELINE HEIGHT FOR STEEPLY-SLOPED GABLED
AND HIPPED ROOF STRUCTURES.
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley
Development Code, Section 1.9.E (Rules of Measurement - Height); and found that the
text amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code
Amendments, Standards for Review; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text
amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review and has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that
the amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, as set forth on Exhibit Red, be
approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code is set forth
on Exhibit Red, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully
set forth on Exhibit Red.
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.
70
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting
of the Board of Trustees on the 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.
Town Clerk
71
EXHIBIT Red:
[Ch. 1: Measurement; Building Height: Max. for Steep Roofs]
Town Board: Oct. 24, 2017
§ 1.9 - Rules of Measurement
E. Height.
1. Measurement of Maximum Building Height. Height means the vertical distance
measured from the mean average elevation of the finished grade ((lowest point elevation +
highest point elevation) / 2):
(1) To the highest point of the roof surface, excluding parapet, if a flat roof;
(2) To the deck line of a mansard roof; or
(3) To the mean height level between the lowest eave point of the topmost top plate and
highest ridge for a gable, hip or gambrel roof.
(4) Exception: For any building with a steep sloped roof, the highest-point elevation shall
be measured from average finished grade to the highest point on the highest ridge. For
purposes of this subsection, the term “steep sloped” shall mean any roof with a pitch
greater than or equal to a 12:12 ratio.
2. Line of Measurement. Height shall be measured along a vertical (plumb) line
connecting the horizontal plane of roof height measurement to the horizontal plane of
finished grade, as specified herein.
3. Exemptions from Height Standards. The following features shall be exempt from
maximum building height:
a. Chimneys to the extent required by the applicable Building Code(s);
b. Skylights, parapet walls, cornices without windows, communications antennas,
Micro Wind Energy Conversion System (MWECS); and
c. Wireless telecommunications facilities and structures, but only to the extent allowed
by the specific provisions set forth in Use Tables 4-1 and 4-4 in Chapter 4 and in
§5.1.T of this Code.
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Local Marketing District Appointments
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: October 24, 2017
RE: Local Marketing District Board Appointments
Objective:
To appoint four members to the Local Marketing District due to one resignation, removal
of two board members, and one term expiring on December 31, 2017. The Town has a
one-year, two-year, three-year and a four-year term to fill.
Present Situation:
The Town received a resignation letter from Charley Dickey on September 14, 2017
effective immediately. Lindsay Lamson also submitted a resignation on September 21,
2017 effective November 3, 2017. The County Commissioners and the Town Board of
Trustees held votes on September 26, 2017 to remove LMD Board members Steve
Krueger and Lindsay Lamson immediately. A combined six votes, three from the
County and three from the Town, were received thereby removing both members. This
left LMD Board members Sean Jurgens, term expiring December 31, 2018 and Adam
Shake, term expiring December 31, 2019, and therefore, no quorum for the Local
Marketing District.
The Town Board directed staff to advertise the open positions and hold interviews as
soon as possible. The Town and County advertised for the open positions and received
applications through October 16, 2017. An interview committee consisting of County
Commissioner Donnelly, Mayor Jirsa, Trustee Norris and LMD Board member Jurgens
held interviews on October 19, 2017. Sixteen applications were received and 15
interviews were held. All interviews were recorded and made available on October 20,
20o17 for viewing by the County Commission, Town Board and the public.
Proposal:
The Town interview team recommends the appointment of the following:
Lowell Richardson, November 1, 2017 – December 31, 2018 – 1-year term
Chris Amundson, November 1, 2017 – December 31, 2019 – 2-year term
Anne Morris, November 1, 2017 – December 31, 2020 – 3-year term
Deborah Gibson, January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021 – 4-year term
79
Local Marketing District Appointment
Mrs. Gibson’s appointment would not start until Adam Shake’s term has ended on
December 31, 2017.
The interview team will provide verbal comments on their recommendations at the Town
Board meeting.
Advantages:
The appointments would provide the LMD with a quorum and allow the district to move
forward and hold meetings.
Disadvantages:
If the appointments are not made the district board will not be functional.
Action Recommended:
Appoint the following members to the LMD Board:
Lowell Richardson, November 1, 2017 – December 31, 2018 – 1-year term
Chris Amundson, November 1, 2017 – December 31, 2019 – 2-year term
Anne Morris, November 1, 2017 – December 31, 2020 – 3-year term
Deborah Gibson, January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021 – 4-year term
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
High
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointments of Lowell Richardson, Chris Amundson, Anne
Morris and Deborah Gibson as presented.
80
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: October 24, 2017
RE: Resolution 25-17: Estes Park Local Marketing District 2018 Business and
Operating Plan
Objective:
To review and approve or not approve the proposed 2018 Operating Plan for the Estes
Park Local Marketing District (Visit Estes Park) as required by State Statute.
Present Situation:
CRS 29-25-110 requires the Local Marketing District (LMD) to file an operating plan for
the next fiscal year with each of the appropriate local governments by September 30th of
each year. The local governments must approve or disapprove the operating plan
within 30 days after receipt, but no later than December 5th of each year. Should either
local government (The Town or Larimer County) disapprove the operating plan, the
District would not be allowed to collect the LMD tax in the following year.
For 2017, the Town Board directed staff to obtain a third-party expert to review the
submitted operating plan and compare it to the requirements of State Statute and other
operating plans developed by Colorado LMD’s. A copy of this report is attached. In
addition to the review of the Operating Plan, the Town’s Consultant will be submitting
process recommendations for the LMD under separate cover, for consideration.
The Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approved the LMD Operating Plan
on October 17, 2017.
Proposal:
That the Board approve the LMD Operating Plan for 2018 and make recommendations
for the content and format of future operating plans as recommended in the report from
Sandy Hall Consulting LLC.
Advantages:
Allowed the LMD to continue operation and serve the needs of the community
Provides feedback to the LMD for future Operating Plans
Disadvantages:
None
81
Action Recommended:
That the Board (approve/disapprove) the 2018 Operating Plan of the Estes Park Local
Marketing District
Budget:
n/a
Level of Public Interest
Very High
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Resolution #25-17.
Attachments:
Resolution #25-17
2018 VEP Operating Plan
October 20, 2017 Report to Town of Estes Park
82
RESOLUTION #25-17
WHEREAS, the Estes Park Local Marketing District has filed with the Town Clerk
the Estes Park Local Marketing Business and Operating Plan for 2018 along with its
proposed budget for the 2018 calendar year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 29-25-110 C.R.S. and the applicable provision
of the Intergovernmental Agreement dated August 26, 2008, between the Town of
Estes Park and the Board of County Commissioners, Larimer County, the Town
Board shall approve or disapprove the Operating Plan within thirty (30) days after
receipt of said Plan, the proposed budget and all additional documentation
requested by the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the Operating Plan and proposed
budget and has determined that the Operating Plan will provide efficient and cost
effective marketing and promotion services for the Estes Park Local Marketing
District Service Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE RECITALS SET FORTH ABOVE
WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The Estes Park Local Marketing District Business and Operating Plan for 2018
as filed with the Town Clerk is hereby approved.
Dated this___________________________, 2017.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________________
Town Clerk
83
84
ADMINISTRATION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Date: October 24, 2017
RE: Consideration of Quorum Change for the Family Advisory Board
Objective:
Change the quorum for the Family Advisory Board from two-thirds (2/3) of the total
Board to one-half (1/2) of the total Board.
Present Situation:
The new Family Advisory Board (FAB) has not held its last two meetings due to the lack
of a quorum. There was a request after the last missed meeting to consider changing
the quorum from two-thirds (2/3) of the Board to one-half (1/2) due to the number of
people on the Board (there are currently 12 members of the FAB). This change is also
desired because of the dynamic schedules of the members, many of whom come from
working families.
Proposal:
The proposed change to a one-half (1/2) quorum would allow additional flexibility for the
FAB to meet if some members had to miss because of scheduling conflicts. This
flexibility is important to the FAB because many of the Board members are also
members of working families.
Advantages:
FAB will be able to meet regularly; and
There will be more flexibility for those with difficult work/life schedules
Disadvantages:
The additional flexibility could result in reduced participation/more absences, but
this flexibility is critical for enabling members with busy home/work lives to serve.
The Town Board also retains the option of removing a FAB member who misses
three consecutive meetings or four regular meetings in a calendar year.
85
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the bylaw change for the Family Advisory Board.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the amendment to the Family Advisory Board bylaws
changing the quorum from two-thirds (2/3) of the Board to one-half (1/2) of the Board.
Attachments:
Family Advisory Board Bylaws with redlined changes
86
Town of Estes Park
Family Advisory Board
Bylaws
I. Role
The Estes Park Family Advisory Board (“FAB”) is an advisory committee for the
Town Board and Town staff. The FAB is expected to:
A. Research and summarize factual data on issues of importance to families in the
Estes Valley;
B. Develop recommended policies that align with the Town Board Strategic Plan to
address these issues; and
C. Present these recommendations to the Town Board and/or Town Staff.
II.Annual Focus Areas
A. At the first regular meeting of every year, the FAB will select no more than three
(3) focus areas for the coming year. These focus areas will be submitted to the
Town Board for review and approval.
B. These focus areas may be changed at any regular or special meeting of the FAB
by a majority vote, but at no time may there be more than three (3) focus areas.
Any change to the focus areas must be reviewed and approved by the Town
Board.
C. Any work undertaken by the FAB shall be tied to these focus areas.
III.Meetings
A. Regular Meetings – Regular meetings shall be held at least one (1) time per
month, with additional meetings scheduled as needed. Any item on the agenda
which cannot be heard and considered by the conclusion of the meeting may be
continued until, and heard, at the next regularly scheduled meeting or at a special
meeting and shall have priority of any other matters to be heard and considered.
B. Special Meetings – Special meetings may be held at any time upon call by the
Chairperson. The Chairperson shall call a special meeting upon request by the
Town Board, Town Administrator, or Assistant Town Administrator, or upon
request by three (3) of the members of the FAB.
C. Cancellation or Rescheduling of Meetings – Any cancellation or rescheduling of a
FAB meeting must be approved by two-thirdsone-half (2/31/2) of the members of
the FAB.
87
D. Meeting Procedures - Parliamentary procedure shall be followed in moving,
discussing, and acting on matters requiring action by the FAB.
E. Open Meetings – All meetings and actions of the FAB shall be in full compliance
with state statutes governing open meetings, as amended and incorporated herein
by reference. It is the responsibility of the Staff Liaison to be familiar with these
statutes and regulations.
F. Attendance by Non-Members – Meetings may be attended by persons who are not
members of the FAB. Such nonmembers may speak during the public comment
period at the beginning of each meeting and on any agenda item. However, in no
event shall nonmembers be allowed to vote on matters for which a vote is
required.
IV.Members and Quorum
A. Membership – The FAB shall consist of no fewer than ten (10) and no more than
fifteen (15) members.
B. Membership Requirements – Members must:
1.Be a resident of the Estes Park School District R-3;
2.Have adequate time to devote to the FAB (at least six (6) hours per
month); and
3.Have experience dealing with issues facing families in the Estes
Valley.
C. Membership Considerations – In appointing the membership of the FAB, the
Town Board will:
1.Endeavor to ensure that at least three (3) members of the FAB are
members of a working family; and
2.Consider membership representation for key organizations such as
Estes Valley Investment for Childhood Success, the Housing
Authority, the School District, and Families for Estes.
D. Terms – Members shall be appointed by the Town Board to a three (3) year term.
The terms of the members shall be staggered so that the terms of an equal number
of the members expire each year on April 15th.
E. Vacancies – Vacant positions shall be filled by appointment by the Town Board
for the unexpired portion of the term of the position to be filled.
F. Recommendations for Appointment – Upon request by the Town Board, the FAB
shall make recommendations to the Town Board for new FAB appointments.
G. Quorum – A quorum of the FAB shall consist of two-thirdsone-half (2/31/2) of
the members of the FAB being present at the meeting.
88
H. Action – Action by the FAB shall be by majority vote of the members attending
any regular or special meeting at which a quorum is present, unless otherwise
provided in these bylaws.
V. Officers
A. Officers – The FAB officers shall include a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson
as selected by the FAB.
B. Elections – Officers shall be elected by the members annually at the first regularly
scheduled meeting of each year. Officers shall be members of the FAB.
Notification of who is elected Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson will be sent to
the Town Clerk.
C. Chairperson Responsibilities – The Chairperson shall:
1. Preside over all meetings;
2. Ensure that all meetings are conducted with decorum and efficiency;
3. Call special meetings in accordance with these bylaws;
4. Sign any documents prepared by the FAB for submission to the Town
Board or Town Departments;
5. See that decisions of the FAB are implemented;
6. Represent the FAB in dealings with the Town Board or other
organizations; and
7. The Chairperson has the same right as any other member of the FAB
to vote on matters before the FAB and to speak for or against
proposals.
D. Vice-Chairperson Responsibilities – The Vice-Chairperson shall:
1. Assist the Chairperson as requested;
2. Accept and undertake duties delegated by the Chairperson; and
3. Preside over meetings or perform other duties of the Chairperson in
the event the Chairperson is absent or unable to act.
E. Other Officers – There shall be no officers other than the Chairperson and Vice-
Chairperson.
F. Removal from Office – Any officer may be removed from office by a majority
vote of the members of the FAB in attendance at a meeting provided that at least
thirty (30) days notice has been given to all members that removal of the officer
will be considered at such meeting.
G. Officer Vacancies – If any office is vacant, the members of the FAB shall elect a
member to fill the office for the remainder of the year.
VI. Attendance
89
A. Attendance Requirements – Regular attendance by members of the FAB. In the
event that any member misses three (3) consecutive regular meetings, or a total of
four (4) regular meetings in a calendar year, the Town Board may remove its
appointed member and designate a new member to fill the vacancy.
VII.General Provisions
A. These bylaws may be amended at any regular or special meeting of the FAB by a
majority of the membership of the FAB provided that notice of such possible
amendments is given to all members at least twenty (20) days prior to the meeting
at which the action is to be taken. Any amendments shall be subject to review and
approval by the Town Board.
VIII.Compliance with Town Policies
A. The FAB shall operate in compliance with the adopted Town Board Policy on
Town Boards (Policy 102). The terms of this policy are incorporated in the
bylaws by this reference. A copy of this Policy will be provided to all FAB
members upon appointment.
B. Volunteer members of the FAB will act in accordance with the adopted Town
Volunteer Manual.
IX.Conflict of Interest
A. A conflict of interest occurs when a person’s private, personal relationships or
interests converge with their public role on the FAB such that an independent
observer may reasonably question whether the person’s actions or decisions are
determined by personal benefit, gain, or advantage.
B. Members of the FAB shall not use their status as a member for private gain, and
shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private
organization or individual.
C. A member of the FAB who has a personal or private financial interest in a matter
proposed or pending shall disclose such interest to the FAB, shall not vote on the
item, and shall not attempt to influence the decisions of other members voting on
the matter.
Adopted this ____day of ______________
ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES
90
By: _______________________________
Mayor
91
92