HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-04-26The 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, April 26, 2016
7:00 p.m.
----------- CURRENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES ----------
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PROCLAMATION: “Emergency Preparedness Month”.
PROCLAMATION: “Month of the Tree”.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated April 12, 2016 and Town Board Study Session April 12,
2016. Special Town Board Minutes dated March 30, 2016 and April 12, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. None.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated March 16, 2016 (acknowledgement
only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated March 18, 2016 (acknowledgement only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated March 15, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
7. Lease Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley Fire
Protection District for the use of the Dannels Fire Station and the Estes Park Fire
Training Area.
8. Tolling Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Stonegate Homes, LLC
and Steve Caldwell.
Prepared 4/17/16
* Revised 4/21/16
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
9. Intent to Annex Resolution #10-16 – Mountain Meadow Addition, Public Hearing
scheduled June 14, 2016.
10. Appointment of Kristin Nordeck Brown as independent hearing officer – personnel
matter.
11. Easement between the Town of Estes Park and Upper Thompson Sanitation
District for a 20’ wide sanitary sewer easement, Lot 1 Stone Bridge Estate
Subdivision.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. NEW TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE - LAZY B RANCH AND WRANGLERS, LLC
DBA LAZY B RANCH AND WRANGLERS, 1665 CO HIGHWAY 66. Town Clerk
Williamson.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEM:
A. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT & PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION
PLAT, Black Canyon Inn Townhomes, 800 Macgregor Avenue; Sloan
Investments LLC, Owner. Consulting Planner McCool.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MAYOR PINKHAM & TRUSTEES ERICSON & PHIPPS.
Presentation to Trustee Ericson – Mayor Pinkham.
Presentation to Trustee Phipps – Mayor Pinkham.
Presentation to Mayor Pinkham – Mayor Pro Tem Koenig.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. SWEARING-IN CEREMONY FOR NEWLY-ELECTED MAYOR AND TRUSTEES.
Municipal Judge Brown.
Mayor: Todd Jirsa
Trustees: Patrick Martchink, Ron Norris and Cody Rex Walker.
2. MAYOR PRO TEM.
3. TOWN BOARD POLICY 101 – BOARD ASSIGNMENTS.
4. STAFF APPOINTMENTS.
1. Town Officers:
- Town Clerk
- Interim Town Treasurer/Town Clerk Pro Tem
- Town Attorney
- Assistant Town Attorney
- Municipal Judge
- Assistant Municipal Judge
2. Town Administrator
5. ADJOURN.
10-MINUTE RECESS
NEW SLATE – BOARD OF TRUSTEES
*
*
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 12, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town
of Estes Park on the 12th day of April 2016.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Pinkham presented Proclamations recognizing the 28th Anniversary of the Duck
Race, Month of the Young Child, Parks Prescription day April 24, 2016 and Parkinson’s
Awareness Month.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
John Meissner/Town citizen invited the Board to a celebration of Jean Weaver’s 88th
birthday.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen thanked staff for updating the Surprise Sidewalk Sale
Resolution to include the extended hours and sandwich boards. He also thanked staff
for their support in producing this year’s event poster.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris stated the sales tax receipts are up 25% to date compared to 15% in
2015. He informed the public the Army Corp of Engineers would visit downtown
properties during the week of May 9th to provide free flood risk assessments to the
properties to identify potential measures for reducing future flood damages. A meeting
on May 9th would provide additional flood risk and flood damage prevention.
Trustee Phipps commented the next Planning Commission meeting would be held on
April 19th.
Trustee Ericson expressed his appreciation for the letter from Community Development
on the Army Corp of Engineers visit and action being taken to prevent future flood
damage downtown. He also thanked the Fire District for the recent visit by staff to
assess his downtown store for fire safety. The Transportation Advisory Board would
meet on April 20th to continue discussion on their action plan.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
- Governance Policy Report – 3.3 Strategic Planning and 3.7 Emergency
Management. He reported partial compliance with 3.7.2 because the business
continuity plan has been completed, but has not been fully reviewed and adopted.
- Broadband Grant – The Town received an Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance
grant from DOLA for the broadband project in the amount of $1.4 million. The
funding was increased with help from LETA to secure additional funds to place a
second line down Hwy 7, providing a redundant fiber route. PRPA would spend an
Board of Trustees – April 12, 2016 – Page 2
additional $4 million to run a second line up Hwy 34 and Hwy 43 to prevent
communication outages for the Town in the future.
- Vacation Homes – The regulates adopted by the Town Board and the County
Commissioners at their March 30th meeting were in conflict, therefore, there have
effectively been no changes to vacation rental regulations in the Estes Valley
Development Code. The two Boards were willing to reconvene to discuss the issue
before the terms of the current Town Board ended on April 26th; however, the need
for a 15-day public notice could not be met. The discussion would be delayed until
the new Board has the opportunity to become fully informed on the topic.
- The Town received the final $650,000 from Grand Heritage for the purchase of Lot
4, Stanley Historic District.
- A public reception would be held at the Visitor Center on April 14th for the
Community Development Director candidates.
- He acknowledged Finance Director Steve McFarland for his years of service as the
Town Finance Officer and wished him well in his new position with the City of
Layfette.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated March 22, 2016 and Town Board Study Session
March 22, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development / Community Services Committee, March 24,
2016.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated March 16, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
5. Resolution #09-16 “Surprise Sidewalk Sale Days – May 7 - 8, 2016”.
6. Appointment of Daniel C. Muffly as independent hearing officer – personnel
matter.
7. Approval of Representation Agreement with Kissinger and Feldman P.C. for
legal services – Fiber and Broadband.
Attorney David Herrera requested the removal of Consent Item 6 and Trustee
Phipps requested the removal of Consent Item 7. It was moved and seconded
(Koenig/Holcomb) to approve the Consent Agenda Items 1-5, and it passed
unanimously.
Consent Item 6 – Appointment of Daniel C. Muffly as independent hearing
officer – personnel matter: Attorney Herrara requested the Board appoint a
neutral independent hearing officer for his client and presented the resume of
Monica Plak for the Board’s consideration. He further commented Attorney Muffly
has served as an independent hearing officer in other cases for the Town and has
ruled in favor of the Town in each case. After further discussion, it was moved and
seconded (Norris/Koenig) to continue the item to the April 26, 2016 meeting,
and it passed with Trustees Ericson and Nelson voting “No”.
Consent Item 7 – Approval of Representation Agreement with Kissinger and
Feldman P.C. for legal services – Fiber and Broadband: Trustee Phipps stated
concern the agreement would be premature as the Town has not received the grant
funding and begun work on the Broadband issue. Attorney White stated the legal
counsel would work on contractual issues with WAPPA as it relates to fiber which
must be addressed immediately. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Ericson) to
approve Consent Agenda Item #7, and it passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees – April 12, 2016 – Page 3
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. RENEWAL LICENSE – GALEX LLC., DBA CHELITOS MEXICAN
RESTAURANT, 145 E. ELKHORN AVENUE, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT
LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson stated renewal of the liquor license
has been forwarded to the Town Board for review because an employee of the
liquor establishment served to an underage person during a compliance check
conducted on September 14, 2015. The violation was handled by the State
Liquor Enforcement Division and a Stipulation Agreement has been approved.
The licensee has present a copy of their alcohol sales policy and a list of
trained staff. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Holcomb) to approve the
renewal of the Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License held by Galex, LLC,
dba Chelitos Mexican Restaurant, and it passed unanimously.
2. RENEWAL LICENSE – SHAMBALA, INC., DBA FAMOUS EASTSIDE
GROCERIES, 381 S. ST. VRAIN AVENUE, 3.2% OFF PREMISES LIQUOR
LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson stated renewal of the liquor license has
been forwarded to the Town Board for review because an employee of the
liquor establishment served to an underage person during a compliance check
conducted on August 24, 2015. The violation was handled by the State Liquor
Enforcement Division and the licensee elected to serve a five-day active
suspension of their license in December 2015. The licensee has present a
copy of their alcohol sales policy and a list of trained staff. It was moved and
seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to approve the renewal of the 3.2% Beer
License held by Shambala, Inc., dba Famous Eastside Groceries, and it
passed unanimously.
3. NEW TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE - LAZY B RANCH AND WRANGLERS,
LLC DBA LAZY B RANCH AND WRANGLERS, 1665 CO HIGHWAY 66. It
was moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to continue the item to the April
26, 2016 meeting as the applicant was not present, and it passed
unanimously.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #05-16 – PUBLIC HEARING – 2015 INTERNATIONAL
BUILDING CODES ADOPTION & LOCAL AMENDMENTS. Chief Building
Official Birchfield stated staff has revised the local amendments as
recommended by the Board at their March 22, 2016 meeting. The main
revision pertained to the automatic sprinkler systems for one and two-family
dwelling units and vacation home rentals, as recommended by the Estes Park
Board of Appeals. If approved by the Board, staff in conjunction with Larimer
County staff would complete a joint outreach to assist the building community
with addressing the new codes.
Frank Theis/CMS Planning supported the approval of the new building codes
with the local amendments as presented.
Attorney White read Ordinance #05-16. It was moved and seconded
(Norris/Holcomb) to approve Ordinance #05-16 adopting the 2015
International Building Codes with local amendments, and it passed
unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION #08-16 – 2016 BUDGET RESTATEMENT. Finance Officer
McFarland presented a request to approve the 2016 Supplemental Budget
Appropriation for the General and Community Reinvestment funds. The Town
reports/budgets projects that span multiple years into the current year. This
practice overstates the current year; however, it provides the Board, staff and
the citizens the actual costs of the project upfront. The strategy requires the
multi-year projects must be restated annually as the project matures. The CRF
has been restated to reflect changes to items rolled over from the 2015 budget,
Board of Trustees – April 12, 2016 – Page 4
Visitor Center parking structure and other small projects, partially funded
projects such as Elm Road, and final payment for Lot 4, Stanley Historic
District. The CRF has a forecasted fund balance of $283,060 at the end of
2016. The General fund contains approximately $1.2 million in addition to the
2016 Budget from restatements and continuations of 2015 flood projects.
There are $2.5 million in projects extending beyond 2016, with the largest being
the Fish Creek corridor restoration. The vast majority of these expenditures
would be offset by grant and FEMA/FHWA/CDGB-DR reimbursements. It was
moved and seconded (Ericson/Norris) to approve Resolution #08-16 that
supplementally appropriates 2016 Budget revisions for the General and
Community Reinvestment Funds, and it passed unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE #11-16 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL & ACCOMMODATION DENSITY
CALCULATIONS. The Estes Valley Development Code establishes density
regulations that apply to the residential and non-residential zone districts.
Density refers to the number of residential dwellings and accommodation units
an individual may build on a given property. Current regulations require that all
fractions as a result of a density calculations be rounded down. The proposed
regulation would allow fractions of one-half or more to be rounded up. The
amendment would increase development and redevelopment potential.
Attorney White read Ordinance #11-16. It was moved and seconded
(Koenig/Norris) to approve Ordinance #11-16, and it passed unanimously.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - CDBG-DR GRANT CLOSE OUT ITEMS.
The State is preparing for an audit from HUD and requested a second public
hearing to ensure grant requirements have been met and reflect final costs.
Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing for the Fall River Hydroplant and
Upper Fish Hatchery Reaches Stabilization Project (D5DR 1-40-EP5). Hearing
no comment Mayor Pinkham closed the public hearing.
Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing for the FHWA Cost Share for
Community Drive (M405-018-20074, R1-40-EP2). Hearing no comment Mayor
Pinkham closed the public hearing.
Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing for the FEMA Cost Share for
Various Road Sites (FEMA PW#69, R1-60-EP1.2). Hearing no comment
Mayor Pinkham closed the public hearing.
5. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR ELM ROAD
LANDFILL DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Engineer Ash presented
a request to increase the project costs by $115,513.93 for a total contract
amount of $663,097.92, an 18% adjustment. Unforeseen project costs were
encountered including an extensive granite rock lenses requiring rock breaking
equipment; and multiple pockets of refuse were encountered requiring proper
sampling, disposal methods and field modification to the design. Field
modifications were directed by CDPHE staff and per their standards. Approval
of the change order would allow scheduled completion of the project and would
meet CDPHE drainage improvement requirements imposed on the Town. It
was moved and seconded (Nelson/Ericson) to approve a budget increase
to the construction services contracted with C&H Excavation for the Elm
Road Landfill Drainage Project for a total cost not to exceed $633,097.92,
and it passed unanimously.
6. 2016 FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION &
CONSULTANT SERVICES AWARD. Town Administrator Lancaster informed
the Board the next round of Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grants
were announced and are due May 21, 2016. The Town would utilize Felsburg
Holt and Ullevig to prepare the grant at an estimated cost of $36,000. The
Transportation Advisory Board held a special meeting on April 4th to review
Board of Trustees – April 12, 2016 – Page 5
options for a Town application and recommended six options: Fall River
Construction, flood mitigation projects related to the Downtown Estes Loop,
transit center and parking garage at the Post Office lot, expand the Visitor
Center parking structure to four levels and improve the transit hub
configuration, roadway and intersection improvements on Moraine Avenue
(bike lanes, turn lanes, and a detached multi-use trail along the Big Thompson),
or do not apply for funding. The flood mitigation option was ruled out as the
new bridges would not improve capacity on the roadways. The downtown
parking structure was ruled out as the Town had requested the current project
fund the parking structure and the Town was denied. The Visitor Center
parking structure and Fall River Trail were determined not to be a strong fit for
the grant objectives. The TAB unanimously recommended the Moraine Avenue
improvements as it fits the grant objectives, expected to be widely acceptable
by the community, and provides options for the Town to use Open Space/1A
Trails Expansion funds for the local match. CDOT may provide additional
matching funds because the roadway is state highway.
Kimberly Campbell/TAB Chair reiterated the Board’s recommendation to apply
for grant funds to improve the Moraine Avenue corridor from Crags to Mary’s
Lake Road to provide improved safety for motorist, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig recommended the Board forego applying for additional
FLAP grant funds because the Town should focus on completing current grant
work and a number of items such as the hydrology study are not complete.
The project could be well over the estimated $10 million. Trustees Nelson,
Norris and Holcomb spoke in favor of applying for the grant to improve the
roadway and plan for the future.
Those speaking against the Moraine Avenue grant application included the
following: Paul Fishman/Town citizen recommended the Board complete an
application for the downtown parking structure. The Moraine roadway should
be addressed by CDOT as the Town does not have the responsibility or the
authority to repair the road. Johanna Darden/Town citizen would support the
Board not applying for further grant funds at this time. The Town should
complete the current projects. John Meissner/Town citizen would not support a
grant application.
Those speaking in favor of the Moraine Avenue grant application included the
following: Heidi Tryon/Town citizen would advocate for the improvements to
Moraine Avenue to provide safe routes to schools from the west end of town.
Belle Morris/Town citizen encourage the Board to support the preparation of a
grant application for improvements to the Moraine Avenue corridor.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Nelson/Ericson) to
approve the appropriation of $36,000 to engage FHU to prepare and
submit a Federal Lands Access Program grant application for the
proposed improvements to Moraine Avenue, and it passed with Mayor Pro
Tem Koenig voting “No”.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado April 12, 2016
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
Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of April, 2016.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Town Attorney White, Director Hinkle, Chief
Kufeld, Directors Cumbo and Hinkle, and Town Clerk
Williamson
Absent: None.
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
NOISE ORDINANCE REVISIONS.
Attorney White stated he along with Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Police Chief Kufeld
drafted revisions to the current Town noise ordinance in an effort to produce a simplified
and enforceable ordinance. The draft would increase the decibel levels to 80 dbz,
standardize the quiet hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., delete the technical
requirements, delete the reference to motor vehicles using the public right-of-way, and
change the variance procedure to a temporary permit process. The Police department
has reviewed the proposed draft and finds the revisions would aid in addressing a
number of the issues they routinely deal with in the community. Chief Kufeld stated a
database has been set up to log noise complaints in an effort to provide information to
the Board moving forward on the effectiveness of the revised ordinance. The Board
consensus was to bring the ordinance forward for the Board’s consideration at an
upcoming meeting.
UPDATE ON EVENTS COMPLEX.
Director Hinkle provided an update on the Event Complex after 90 days on the job. He
stated a Mission and Vision statements need to be developed, goals, policies and
procedures, fees and standardized contracts. The fee structure should cover the
services being provided by staff. Contracts have been standardized and include the
appropriate insurance language to ensure adequate levels and protection. These steps
would require the renegotiation of contracts for existing events to bring them in line with
current standards. An RFP has been issued for both food and alcohol concessions at
the Complex in an effort to provide high quality food and service at the Event Center.
Outside catering companies have been allowed to offer their services to events with the
Town receiving 15%. Users of the silo meeting space would be allowed to bring in their
own food and drink. Director Hinkle stated the Complex has an identity crisis and would
move towards the use of the Estes Park Events Complex and move away from the use
of fairgrounds. He suggested the property needs to enhance the aesthetics by including
more green space, landscaping for events such as concerts, weddings, etc. A review of
the office and storage space has identified the need to improve the current office space
and the addition of storage for new amenities. The department would complete the
hiring process for two Special Event Coordinators and an Administrative Assistant.
Additional staffing needs include a full-time position to the Operations team and a part-
time Sales & Marketing Coordinator. He provided an overview of the current marketing
strategy and stated staff would further develop a plan to enhance marketing and sales
efforts with quality photos to showcase the facilities, updated website, and a video
Town Board Study Session – April 12, 2016 – Page 2
showcasing the Events Complex and other amenities such as Bond Park and
Performance Park. An Events Focus Group has been developed to review events both
current and future, and to complete a survey to look at demographics for those
attending different events. Visit Estes Park would collaborate on the survey, utilizing
their equipment, and the Town to provide the personnel through the Ambassadors.
The Board discussed the report stating a strategic plan should be developed for the
department to determine the critical success factors, key milestones, funds needed for
success, and marketing resources needed in order for the Complex to be successful.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
None.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
The Board requested the off budget cycle funding requests and how they are handled
be scheduled for an upcoming study session.
Interim Community Development Director Cumbo commented staff has developed a
lengthy list of Development Code changes, identifying which changes can be completed
under the confines of the current Comprehensive Plan, and what items would impact
economic development and address housing issues. An overall work plan for code
changes would be developed.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 30, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town
of Estes Park on the 30th day of March 2016.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Larimer County Commissioners Tom Donnelly, Lew Gaiter
and Steve Johnson
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
ACTION ITEM:
1. TOWN OF ESTES PARK ORDINANCE #10-16 - PUBLIC HEARING –
AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
RELATED TO VACATION HOME REGULATIONS. Planner Kleisler
provided a review of the amendments to the vacation home regulations to
address growing issues related to short-term rentals within the valley. In
2010, the Development Code was amended to allow vacation rentals as a
principle use throughout the Estes Valley rather than as an accessory use.
Larimer County prohibited vacation homes prior to these changes in the Estes
Valley Development Area. Vacation rentals have increased each year since
the changes in 2010, bringing with them ancillary services such as local
marketing websites and professional property managers. The increase in
rentals is expected to increase for the foreseeable future. The proposed
amendments, particularly those related to neighborhood communication, are
critical in facilitating harmonious relationships in residential neighborhoods.
The Estes Valley Planning Commission was directed by the two Boards to
review and provide a recommendation on the concept of a cap. The
Commission held two public hearing at their regular scheduled meetings in
February and March, and after review recommended that a valley-wide limit
on the number of annual operating/business licenses be limited to 700, with
an annual review by the Board. The proposed limit would be approximately
10% of the current housing market. This limit would have the greatest impact
to residential neighborhoods. If approved staff would manage a waitlist for
properties once the 700 cap was reached.
Neighborhood communication would facilitate communication between the
vacation home owner and the nearby property owners. The EVDC does not
require neighborhood notification through the licensing process. The
proposed regulations would require an internal posting for renters to include
items such as local contact, maximum occupancy, water and gas shutoff
locations, quiet hours, etc.; require a reference to the property’s
Board of Trustees – March 30, 2016 – Page 2
permit/license number with all online listings; and require that a written notice
be mailed to nearby neighbors providing the local contact and owner contact
information. The mailings would not constitute a comment period for the
permit issuance.
Enforcement regulations have been drafted using existing regulation including
the Community Development Director may deny or withhold a permit/license
during the annual renewal process until a violation has been corrected or
resolved in court; the Community Development Director may call a public
hearing to revoke a vacation home permit pursuant to Section 12.4.A.1 as a
result of a code violation; and revise the required 15-day period for the
property owner to address the violation by making the 15-days optional by the
Code Enforcement Officer. The Estes Valley Planning Commission has
requested the Commission be the appealing authority rather than the Town
Board or the County Commissioners. The Code Compliance Policy 480
would be revised following the adoption of the proposed Ordinance to include
specific information about how staff administers the new regulations such as
revocation of a license. Staff proposes the new policy would be drafted for
approval by the Town Administrator within 30-days from approval of the
Ordinance.
Linda Hardin/Code Enforcement Officer reviewed the current procedures
outlined in Policy 480 for complaints filed. She stated disturbance complaints,
noise and lighting complaints are addressed by the Police or the Sheriff.
These complaints occur most often during the weekends. Staff addresses
most complaints through voluntary compliance and works up to stop work
orders, fines and Municipal Court. The revised policy would be amended to
address vacation homes separately from other violations. Staff completed a
review of VRBO listings in the Estes Valley and found 440 vacation homes
with 107 not permitted/licensed. 100 Notices of Violations were sent earlier
this year causing an increase in the number of applications being processed.
Mayor Pinkham opened the public meeting. Public comments were heard
against the proposed regulations and have been summarized from Heidi Welsh,
Seth Smith, Nick Thomas, Martha McCarver, Millicent Cozzie, Carol Beidleman,
Eric Blackhurst, Judy Anderson, Eric Marske, William Kisfer, Betty Harrison, Ed
Peterson, Doug Bigge, and Jeff Moreau. Comments included the approval of a
new complaint process and enforcement regulations would be developed by staff
without a public process. Vacation home owners are being targeted by the
proposed regulations. The new task force being formed by the County should
address enforcement regulations before they are implemented. There needs to
be a definition of guest/individual. There is a fundamental disconnect in
enforcement and what the public wants from enforcement which should be
completed locally. Government should not regulate personal property rights and
the proposed regulations could be perceived as a taking of property. Concern
raised by realtors on how they would be notified if a vacation home permit/license
becomes available once the cap is reached. Stronger language on noise control
and outdoor activities should be addressed. Current enforcement has already
proven to work and regulating a diverse industry with a one size fits all approach
will not work. Enforcement should be addressed to manage vacation home
rentals with a fine system. Concerns were heard on how to comply with items
such as marking of property lines, exterior lighting standards and gas shutoffs
when Excel does not permit an individual to shut off the gas.
Those speaking in favor of the proposed regulations included Theresa White,
Tom Hochstetler, Bob Leavitt, Carol Beidleman, Bob Rising and Mick Scarpella.
The proposed regulations place the responsibility on the vacation home owners
and some responsibility should be placed on the renters. Vacation homes are a
commercial business that does not belong in residential neighborhoods and
should be taxed as a commercial property. These properties would impact the
local taxing entities such as schools and hospitals negatively. Requested the
Board of Trustees – March 30, 2016 – Page 3
Boards consider a 4% cap to protect residential neighborhoods and limit the
number in each neighborhood.
Mayor Pinkham closed the public hearing.
Town Board comments were summarized: the public has highlighted the need
to have thoroughly vetted enforcement procedures in place for vacation
rentals, a lack of good information on violations, there would be an inequity in
enforcement of regulations in the County as Sheriff Smith has stated a lack of
staff to address code enforcement issues within the unincorporated Estes
Valley; approval of a cap would be premature without a better understanding
of the number of permits issued; concern with the quality of life for those living
among vacation rentals and how an unlimited number may impact the
character of the neighborhoods; and the general consensus of the Board was
to move forward with the proposed regulations without a cap at this time, as
further research on the current numbers would be needed before a specific
number could be adopted.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig requested a number of changes to the proposed
regulations including 5.1.B.1.a.2 add the wording by phone or cell phone,
5.1.B.1.c.4 regarding accessory buildings be removed from the code,
5.1.B.1.c.7 should align quiet hours with hotels, the notice requirements
should be updated to reflect those outlined and recommended by staff,
5.1.B.1.g should be updated to explicitly state ADUs cannot be rented at the
same time as the primary unit is rented as a vacation home.
Commissioner Gaiter recommended the exclusion of A or A-1 zoned
properties as well as any bed and breakfasts from the proposed cap.
Commissioner Gaiter also requested that a definition of guest be included in
the Ordinance. Commissioner Johnson stated support of the amendments
recommended by Commissioner Gaiter.
Trustee Nelson commented the proposed regulations do not adequately
address the enforcement issues and the difference between issues
addressed by law enforcement and code enforcement. He further stated he
would not support the proposed Ordinance with a cap and would submit the
Boards should wait to gather further data on how many permits have been
issued before setting a cap.
Attorney White read Ordinance #10-16. It was moved and seconded
(Ericson/Phipps) to approve Ordinance #10-16 with the deletion of 5.1.B.1.a.5
Density/Cap. A substitute motion was made.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve Ordinance #10-16
with the deletion of section 5.1.B.a.5 – Density, the exclusion of A and A-1
zoned properties and bed and breakfast from any future cap consideration,
define guest, add the local contact must be available by phone, delete
section 5.1.B.1.c.4 related to accessory buildings, remove the requirement
for copies of the mailing list to be provided under section 5.1.B.1.d.3.c,
clarify under section 5.1.B.1.e.1.i that accessory dwelling units are not to
be occupied as a vacation rental at the same time as the primary dwelling
unit, and develop the enforcement procedures for review by both the Town
Board and the County Commissioners before moving forward with
enforcement, and it passed with Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Nelson
voting “No”.
County Commissioner Donnelly opened the Board of County Commissioner meeting.
Discussion ensued with Commissioner Johnson stating concern with regard to the lack
of permanent housing within the Estes Valley and the lack of work force housing. As
the trend to convert permanent housing into vacation rentals grows without a cap on
Board of Trustees – March 30, 2016 – Page 4
short-term rentals, the quality of the community would be altered. Commissioner Gaiter
agreed and recommended a cap with the exclusion of A and A-1 zoned properties and
bed and breakfasts.
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
Ordinance with a cap of 700 on short-term rentals excluding A and A-1 zones and bed
and breakfasts, with modifications to exhibit A to move Paragraph 5.1.B.1.a.(5) as it
relates to density to create a new paragraph 5.1.B.3.c only putting the density in
vacation rentals, excluding bed and breakfasts; and additionally, the wording should be
changed from “the total number of annual operating permits shall be limited to 700” to
“the total number of annual operating permits shall be limited to 700 excluding vacation
rentals in the A and A-1 zones. The motion passed unanimously.
Town Attorney White acknowledged the Boards had approved language that was not in
agreement, and therefore, could not be codified in the Development Code.
Administrator Lancaster stated the only disagreement was the cap.
Discussion followed with Commissioner Gaiter stating agreement with the
recommended code changes proposed by the Town Board; however, there must be a
cap to protect the character of the neighborhoods. He would be willing to discuss the
700 number. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig commented on the need to set a reasonable cap
that looks at the distribution because the number alone would not protect the integrity of
the neighborhoods. Trustee Norris agreed and stated the two Boards do not have the
information needed to make a decision. Trustee Holcomb would be hesitant to set a
cap at this time. Trustee Ericson requested the task force complete its work and have
them also address the cap. Trustee Nelson would like to have the information prior to
making a decision and acknowledged all 10 of the elected officials are concerned with
the quality of life for its citizens.
Town Attorney White suggested the two Boards reconvene within the next 30 days to
discuss the item of a cap further.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 12, 2016
Minutes of a Joint Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park
and the Larimer County Commissioners, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting
held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of April,
2016.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Via Conference Call: Commissioner Tom Donnelly
Commissioner Lew Gaiter
Commissioner Steve Johnson
Manager Linda Hoffmann
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Terry Gilbert, Director - Larimer County Community
Development Division
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
1. VACATION HOME 9 OR MORE GUESTS TASK FORCE APPOINTMENTS.
Mayor Pinkham requested a roll call of the Town Board Members and of those
attending the meeting via conference call.
Larimer County Community Development Director Gilbert informed the Board of
the process utilized to screen and select the members of the Task Force that
were being recommended for appointment by the Town Board. He noted that
the goal was to create a 15-member Task Force consisting of a mix of vacation
home owners, individuals who reside in close proximity to a vacation home, and
representatives selected by seven different local organizations. (The
organization representatives are not appointed by the Town Board and the
County Commissioners.) The individuals selected will be a mix of in-town and
county residents. An initial screening of the pool of approximately 70 applicants
was conducted via email and followed up with a telephone interview.
Applicants were asked to make a commitment to attend all meetings of the task
force which are scheduled for every other week beginning on April 27, 2016,
and continuing through late July; and to provide statements as to why they
wanted to serve on the task force, their involvement and experiences with
vacation rentals and also their interaction with local government.
Subsequently, eight individuals were recommended to the Board and the
Commissioners for appointment to the Task Force. Regarding the
recommendation to appoint Bettye Harrison, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig requested
Board of Trustees – April 12, 2016 – Page 2
that an alternate be considered since Ms. Harrison is the spouse of the
representative named by the Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association,
Ed Peterson. The County Commissioners concurred. Director Gilbert stated
he was unaware of the relationship and changed his recommendation to
replace Ms. Harrison with alternate, Mick Scarpella.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to appoint Fred Mares,
Millicent Cozzie, Richard Spielman, Bernie Holien, Claudine Perrault, Jo
Anne Ollerenshaw, Mick Scarpella, and Linda Moak to the Task Force, and
it was passed by the Town Board unanimously.
The County Commissioners concurred with the appointment selections and
stated that final approval of the appointments will be forthcoming at their
upcoming meeting scheduled for April 19, 2016.
The remaining Task Force members and the organizations they are
representing are as follows:
Representative Organization
Art Blume Association for Responsible Development
Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
Bill Van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp.
Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 4:27 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Cynthia A. Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 16th, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Rooms 202 & 203 of Town Hall, in
said Town of Estes Park on the 16th day of March, 2016.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Stan Black
Amy Hamrick
Belle Morris
Gregg Rounds
Gordon Slack
Thom Widawski
Ann Finley
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
John Ericson, Town Board Liaison
Samantha Phillips, Recording Secretary
Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager
Absent: Bryon Holmes
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:06 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
It was moved and seconded (Black/Finley) to approve the February meeting minutes as
amended and the motion passed unanimously.
Erica Goad, Estes Park Cycling Coalition, was present in the public and spoke to the
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) about bike infrastructure in the Town. She
emphasized the economic benefits associated with creating Estes Park more bicycle
friendly. Currently, she argued that there is no safe route for kids to ride to school and
that more people would ride their bikes if the facility was there. She argued that while
there are options for big changes that the Town can make, there are also easy and
cheap alternatives such as signage. Similar to the TAB’s initiatives, the Estes Park Cycling
Coalition would like to see more connectivity within the Town. Todd Plummer, Estes
Park Cycling Coalition, brought up the concern about the crosswalks that vehicles do
not stop for which leads to safety issues regarding bicyclists. He mentioned an idea for a
possible flashing light at the crosswalk to alert drivers to stop therefore increasing
safety conditions.
Sandy Osterman presented the monthly Shuttle Committee update. The Committee had
sent out a survey to which over 300 citizens had responded with a goal of reaching 600
responses. A public meeting will be held at a later date in which the survey results
would be released. A grant dependent possibility was discussed of picking citizens up
upon request.
Transportation Advisory Board – March 16th, 2016 – Page 2
Chair Campbell confirmed that Board members, Thomas Widawski and Brian Wells,
terms would be expiring in March. Trustee John Ericson’s term would be expiring in
April. It was announced that Ken Zornes and Tom Street had been approved as the new
TAB members with their terms commencing in April.
Trustee Ericson announced that the Board would continue their discussion on vacation
rentals which indirectly effect transportation because of the parking issues associated
with them. The Board hopes that an ordinance will take effect in 2017. The consultant
Logan Simpson would be doing work for the Downtown Neighborhood Plan which is
underway. There is a survey which would have a big impact on buildings, roadways,
vehicles, pedestrians, and bike lanes. The Rocky Mountain National Park released their
numbers and attendance for 2016 was up 23.5% which would have significant traffic
impacts for the Town.
PROJECT UPDATES
CDOT will begin work on Highway 7 beginning fall 2016 which would start with storm
drainage and pipes. The impact to Estes and the 34/36 intersection will start in spring
2017. Director Muhonen’s understanding was that the project is limited to ramp
improvements, drainage improvements, and resurfacing the road. Manager Ash
expressed the cost concern with a flashing light at the intersection citing that the cost
would range from $20-30K and is not solar powered.
A construction contract for the Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation project had been awarded
to SEMA Construction. Notice to Proceed was anticipated to be scheduled at the end of
March with road closures to begin the first week of April. Phase 1 will include a portion
of Dry Gulch being closed from Highway 34 up to Wildlife Road. The overall schedule
for this project is anticipated to last until the end of August 2016.
Design work continues with the Fall River Trail Extension with the latest plan having
been approved. Options of shuttle pull-offs would be discussed in further detail. The
David Dr. option would not be pursued after further researched revealed that the
retaining wall impacts and the costs were too high.
The Town is in the process of meeting with property owners for easement negotiations
regarding the Fish Creek corridor project. If all 107 easements are obtained, the project
would be put out to bid summer 2016 with construction to start in fall that same year.
Transportation Advisory Board – March 16th, 2016 – Page 3
The structural work would take place in the winter with paving and reconstruction of the
trail to being in spring 2017.
Parking garage: Public Works is currently in discussion with the Bureau of Reclamation
and the FTA over the special use permit. The FTA will not allow the Town to move
forward unless they have a 50 year special use permit. Options would be discussed with
both entities.
TAB INITIATIVES
Co-chair Morris spoke about connectivity regarding bicyclists. She mentioned possibly
sending a formal request to the Town in hopes of having streets that have heavy
bicyclist usage being swept more often than streets with less usage. Morris suggested
there be a bike lane at the intersection of Hwy 34 & 36 that would head north to
Wonderview Avenue and connect to the trail extension at the bypass. The Board also
discussed the possibility of installing a blinking light at the MacGregor Avenue
intersection.
Morris spoke on re-striping heavily focusing on Highway 7. She would like to see more
sharrow roads where bicyclists have full right to be in the lane with the possibility of
widening certain roads. Chair Campbell would like to see a more concise summary with
photos for support that the Board could present to the Town Board moving forward.
Director Muhonen would like to provide comments to consultants who are working on
the Trails Master Plan. Trail Committee, TAB, Cyclists Coalition, PW can then make a list
of projects which will reduce in segments that are fundable, once that is done, the
funded groups can go through the list and build it piece by piece.
Finley and Hamrick laid out their priorities for the walking trails which included safety,
aesthetics, and connectivity. Their goal was to identify the most important priorities for
pedestrian walkways and fill in any gaps. A specific concern was the area near the
Stanley. A sidewalk is present up until Safeway but then disappears by the Stanley. Their
second priority included connectivity. Particularly involving the 34/36 intersection.
Eventually, the Board would like to see more connectivity from the Donut Haus to the
YMCA and more multi-use trails.
Chair Campbell expressed interest in a seasonal lease program for parking meters. The
Town would only pay when the meters are collecting revenue. It was suggested to invite
the representative to speak to Trustees about the options surrounding installation and
payment. The Board would like to present the strategy to the Trustees in June as a top
Transportation Advisory Board – March 16th, 2016 – Page 4
action item. Many options were discussed including a meter in front of each designated
parking spot and a meter at the end of the row for multiple spots. The seasonal leasing
program would be consistent with the 2017 goals for paid parking.
The Board discussed the FLAP grant opportunity for the Town. There were multiple
paths to take including a parking garage, bridges, a post office transit center, and
improvements on Moraine Avenue. Ultimately, the Board decided to hold a special
meeting on April 4th to discuss the options and come to a consensus on which one they
would choose to move forward with.
OTHER BUSINESS
With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 1:48 pm.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 25th, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall Rooms 202 & 203, in said
Town of Estes Park on the 25th day of March, 2016.
Present: Merle Moore
Celine Lebeau
Dewain Lockwood
Terry Rustin (conference call)
Carlie Bangs
Vicki Papineau
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Bob Holcomb, Trustee Liaison
Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor
Sam Phillips, Administrative Assistant
Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 11:07 a.m.
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded (Papineau/Boles) to approve the February meeting minutes
and the motion passed unanimously.
Public comment was heard from Lars Sage, Estes Arts District. The Arts District is in the
process of applying for designation as an arts district from the state. Their goal is to
recognize and enhance local talent. The Town would have more recognition on state
and national level if it were to be an arts destination. It would also provide more money
and promotion from the state. Terry Rustin will be attending these meetings upon his
arrival into Estes Park in May 2016.
ARBOR DAY DISCUSSION
Chair Lebeau and Bangs have met with the fairgrounds and John Bryant weekly in
regard to the upcoming Estes Park Mountain Festival. The festival will celebrate
mountain culture and living with booths from local organizations from Estes Park. The
event will be held at the MPEC fairgrounds on April 29th. The Estes Park Museum will
talk about Estes Park history and the culture of the area. The Boy Scouts will be
speaking about “Leave No Trace”. The local elementary school will be involved with
students creating a culture quilt and family trees. Items to be handed out include t-shirts
and water bottles. The total cost was estimated to be $1600 and will be covered by the
Conservation Fund.
A motion was made and seconded (Moore/Bangs) to request formal authorization to
spend up to $1600 from the Conservation Fund for Arbor Day celebration. A second
Parks Advisory Board – March 25th, 2016 – Page 2
motion was made and seconded (Papineau/Boles) to approve the suggested books for
donation to elementary school library. Both motions passed unanimously.
PARKS DIVISION UPDATE
Parks Supervisor Berg addressed the concern involving artificial turf and the materials
used to create it. The Parks Division will be using sand as a stiffener. They will begin
planting bed and seeding around the library bed with vegetation to be added this spring,
weather permitting. The team will be examining potential options for a piece of art at the
children’s reading area outside of the library. If the artwork chosen is original, it will need
to be brought before the Board pursuant to the Art in Public Places (AIPP) policy. The
Board decided that the Arts District had the authority to have input on the selection
process involving the sculpture. Matt O’Reilly, the Parks Divisions Irrigation Technician,
will begin working toward switching to a water conservation network with a better use of
drip irrigation.
The 3rd Estes in Bloom educational talks will be held on Saturday, April 2nd with Brian
Berg and Michael Donnachie both speaking.
The Parks Division have submitted paperwork requesting permission to update tunnel
tiles and add new lighting to the tunnel on the Riverwalk. The Town is awaiting a
response from CDOT.
Chair Lebeau, Co-Chair Moore, and Parks Supervisor Berg will be working on making
improvements to the current plant selection list.
OTHER BUSINESS
With no other business to discuss, a motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 11:54
pm, with all voting in favor.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry
White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, White, Schneider, and Hills
Also Attending: Director Allison Chilcott, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps,
Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, Environmental Planner Tina Kurtz,
Town Attorney Greg White and Recording Secretary Victoria Webb
Absent: Commissioner Klink
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 23 people in
attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public
comment at today’s meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not
necessarily the chronological sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
Johanna Darden/town resident: She wanted to comment on the makeup of the task force for
vacation rentals. Chair Hull stated that task force is not under this Commission’s purview. Mr.
Terry Gilbert is in charge of the Larimer County Task force on vacation rentals.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, February 16, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as presented and
the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
3. BLACK CANYON INN TOWNHOMES, AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 09‐03B, MINOR
SUBDIVISION PLAT, & PRELIMINARY TOWNHOMES SUBDIVISION PLAT
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The request is to amend development plan 09‐03B to
convert 19 condominium units not yet built to 17 townhome units, keeping most of the site
unchanged with minor changes. The project will also require a variance, which will be heard by
the Board of Adjustment.
Planner Kleisler summarized the project. Site is accessed roughly 2,000 feet north of Wonderview
Ave off Macgregor Avenue. It is roughly halfway developed to this point. It has been initially
approved to be mix of office, condos, restaurants, etc. It is located in the A–Accommodation zone
district. The density and impact of the site is relatively low given the request to decrease density
from 19 to 17 units. The existing access drive will be brought to Town standards with pedestrian
access. The drives will largely follow the path approved in the original development plan for the
site. The major changes are the type of unit layout and access to such units. For example what
was an attached triplex unit accessed via pedestrian walkways to a common parking lot will be
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
switched to an attached duplex unit with a garage and drive to one unit and the common parking
lot. A second example was to two former triplexes being converted to duplexes. The major
changes that would be made to the site are to provide more of a residential feel with driveways
to the units allowing for a car in the drive as well as in the attached garage. These will be primarily
accommodation units, although zoning allows for long‐term residential use.
Planner Kleisler stated the approved plan is for condominiums, and the applicant desires to
change the plan to be a townhome subdivision. A condominium owner owns the air within the
walls of the unit, while a townhome owner owns the structure and the land underneath. Per the
EVDC, one lot cannot have a mix of condominiums and townhomes, so the minor subdivision is
required to put the condos and townhomes on separate lots.
Staff reviewed for compliances with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Estes Valley
Development Code. Portions will be Planning Commission recommendations to the Town Board
and portions will require a motion by the Town Board.
Planner Kleisler stated the key issues. The vehicle and pedestrian use will remain the same as the
initial approved development plan for the site. Additional efforts are being made to avoid rock
outcroppings and tree clusters by the developer. Staff relied on the existing drainage studies, and
wildlife habitat studies for review.
Some recommendations in the wildlife report include timing restrictions of certain development
activities to reduce impact to elk and deer calving, fence removal and modifications to facilitate
wildlife movement, and the installation of bear proof enclosures and/or dumpsters. The town’s
new wildlife ordinance will apply.
Planner Kleisler stated that the other key issue is in the south portion of the site dealing with a
parking modification. The number of parking spaces has not changed, but the unit mix associated
with the lot is a little more compact. Staff recommends approval of a minor modification to
parking.
There are four separate applications and recommended motions in the staff report.
1. Amended Development Plan (DP09‐03B). The Estes Valley Planning Commission is the
decision‐making body for the development plan. The amended development plan keeps the
same circulating patterns, but decreases the available units. There are several improvements:
a public sidewalk along MacGregor Avenue and a connection from that sidewalk to the public
sidewalk in the Black Canyon Inn; and an emergency access road with a locked gate going in
and out of the Overlook.
2. Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat. The EVPC is the recommending body for this
application and the Town Board is the decision‐making body. It changes the ownership
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
patterns from condominium rights to a townhome subdivision. The final townhome
subdivision plat would go to the Town Board.
3. Minor Subdivision. This allows the townhome lot to be created.
4. Related to the EVPC review, but outside of their purview is a variance request going before
Board of Adjustment in May. An undeveloped area in the river setback area is being proposed
to be used as an overflow parking lot for employees. This will be reviewed after the Town
Board hearings.
Planner Kleisler stated that there are adequate services and facilities to serve the development
with a few minor revisions. The Town engineer did review two engineering wavers, appendix D,
and found they relieve practical difficulties in developing the site. The requested minor
modifications to parking standards would result in less visual impact. The applicant states they do
not need the extra space in parking and staff recommends approval to avoid additional
disturbance of the site. The application with recommended conditions would comply with the
applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. A revised application satisfying all
conditions of approval must be submitted prior to April 15 to be added to the agenda of the Town
Board meeting on April 26.
Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions of approval listed below as well as
continued compliance to the original reports.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Regarding the emergency access road proposed, Planner Kleisler stated the Town would possibly
be responsible for the maintenance of the emergency access road if it were open to the public;
the Overlook is part of the Stanley Historic District, which would have its own separate issues if a
public road was created. Attorney White stated it is on private property, and issues would need
to be worked out if it was to be made a through road.
Public Comment
Jess Reetz/applicant representative: He took an existing already approved development plan and
made revisions. Previously approved proposed units near Black Canyon Creek were eliminated.
Parking is very limited by restaurant, and the proposed parking by the creek would be for staff.
The lock on the emergency access gate would be approved by the Fire District.
Johanna Darden/town resident. She is concerned about amended development for Black Canyon
Inn townhomes subdivision plat. In 2009, the EVPC and the Town Board approved of the
development plan of the property with conditions. What she recalls, there was not to be a
supplementary paved drive off MacGregor Ave, and no construction by Black Canyon Creek. Trees
were to be replanted when removed by construction, two to one for every tree removed. She
asked if employee housing was part of the plan. She was concerned about additional traffic in the
area, as well as wildlife protection.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with the following affected agency comments:
a. Estes Park Sanitation District email dated January 28, 2016
b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated February 15, 2016
c. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated February 19, 2016
d. Town of Estes Park Community Development memos dated February 19, 2016 (three
memos); and
e. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated February 19, 2016.
2. Continued compliance with original reports, including but not limited to:
a. Wildlife Impact Assessment dated March 24, 2008 (updated April 20, 2009)’
b. Drainage Report dated March 25, 2009; and
c. Traffic Impact Study dated March 25, 2009.
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Schneider) to recommend approval of the Black Canyon
Inn Preliminary Townhome Plat and Minor Subdivision to the Town Board with the findings and
conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/White) to approve the Black Canyon Inn Amended
Development Plan 09‐03B and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO DENSITY
REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND ACOMMODATION UNITS.
Director Chilcott stated that this is an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code that
controls how density is calculated. Currently density is always rounded down. If your density
calculation on your property says you can get 4.99 units on that property, you are only allowed to
have 4 units. She recently has had conversations with property owners and developers regarding
this rounding, and it has effected the number of units allowed. In turn, this has discouraged
developers because of the reduced number of units allowed. Staff drafted the proposed
amendment to allow rounding to occur in a more mathematical way; any fraction of .49 or less is
rounded down, any fraction of .5 or more is rounded up. This would amend the EVDC section
1.9.C.3. “When applying a density standard to a parcel’s net land area, any fraction of less than
one‐half (1/2) shall be rounded down to the next lower whole number and any fraction of one‐
half (1/2) or more shall be rounded up to the next higher whole number.”
Any proposed code amendment is reviewed to be compliance with the standards in the EVDC
section 3.3.D. Staff found this is a necessary code amendment. While the amendment applies to
both new and redevelopment, it is particularly necessary for redevelopment, which is where most
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
of our development will occur in the future. Director Chilcott stated the proposed code
amendment is in line with the policies and intent of Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and would
encourage redevelopment in the Estes Valley. Director Chilcott stated staff did not see any
disadvantages with this code amendment.
Public Comment
None.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to recommend approval of the proposed
amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code relating to density regulations for
residential and accommodation units to the Town Board and County Commissioners and the
motion passed unanimously with one absent.
5. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE & ESTES PARK
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VACATION HOME RENTALS
Chair Hull stated the Board would only be dealing with rentals of eight persons or less, and
rentals for nine or more would be addressed after Larimer County task force has made
recommendations.
Planner Kleisler stated that the Planning Commission, Town Board, and Larimer County have
had a long conversation about this topic over the last year, including four public forums. This
is the third Planning Commission hearing on this issue. The Town Board and County
Commission requested the Planning Commission look at the ordinance suggested at the
February meeting recommend approval or denial of such an ordinance. This is a continuation
of the February hearing. It would apply to the entire Estes Valley.
Section 5.1.B of EVDC regulates bed & breakfast inns and vacation home rentals within the
Estes Valley. It begins with general applicable standards which apply to both bed & breakfast
inns and vacation home rentals. Some of the proposed changes clean up wordage to give each
ordinance a title. The Planning Commission did not opt to not expand the area of where a
local contact can reside; they need to be within the Estes Valley within 30 minutes of the
rental property. Violations is a new section which points to existing remedies provided within
the code. One clear feedback received is the need for more enforcement, particularly of
current regulations. There has been discussion of some type of review or hold on a license on
an annual basis during renewal, if violations are attached to that property. The Planning
Commission also expressed a desire to not have to wait to the end of the year to resolve some
of the issues in regards to licenses. At any particular time, with the assistance of the Town
attorney, the code compliance officer can site a property into court for violations allowing for
revocation of the license. At any time, the decision‐making body may revoke the Annual
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Operating Permit for twelve months in accordance with section 12.4.A.2 of the EVDC. In this
case, the decision‐making body would be staff. If these changes are approved, a appeals
process (to the Planning Commission) needs to be added. As is currently written, appeals go
to the Board of Adjustment. Staff is not limited to the two revisions so far described in dealing
with violations. They can use any of the remedies in chapter 12 of the EVDC. There was some
discussion by staff and the Commission about term of revocation of the license. Section
5.1.B.1.c discusses some operational restrictions in regards to residential character. The
proposed amendment adds implementing quiet hours for outdoor hot tub use.
Director Chilcott commented on residential character. She is concerned about enforceability.
A general rule is that if it is something extremely objective it is enforceable. It is important to
recognize there are some sections of proposed code regulations that are more subjective and
they will be more difficult to enforce. For example, the statement on residential character is
subjective and could be difficult to determine if a violation has occurred. Attorney White
clarified that you are allowing the vacation home rental use in residential zone areas. The
vacation home rental use is allowed in one section, and this section states it must fall in line
with residential use. It makes it difficult to enforce. This language is from the first attempt at
regulating vacation home rentals and they are now doing a better job of categorizing the
objectionable aspects that hadn’t been done at the start.
Planner Kleisler described the proposed section 5.1.B.1.d requiring a notice posted on site
listing specific requirements/restrictions for renters including but not limited to; property line
boundaries so they don’t trespass on adjacent properties; address for emergency responders;
name and number of the local contact; the max number of occupants and vehicles allowed at
the site; safety information such as gas/water shutoff; etc. Staff is working to craft a template
that can be adjusted to a specific rental in plain language.
Director Chilcott had a question for Attorney White. If additional items are identified that
should be added to the notice, would it be better to have this list as part of staff policy or to
require additional code amendments? Attorney White stated that they can be added either
way.
Commissioner Moon stated he doesn’t understand why a requirement on exterior lighting is
present. It is a code compliance issue for property owners and not the renters. Discussion
occurred about guests not understanding the dark sky standards in the Estes Valley and the
need to inform them. Planner Kleisler would provide user friendly language to remind guests
to shut off exterior lights. In close quarters, some exterior lighting illuminates adjacent
properties. Even if it is an older cabin whose lights do not comply with current code, they still
need to turn off the lights. This would not force property owners to change their lighting to
comply with current standards, only to encourage compliance with the dark sky ordinance.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commissioner Schneider asked about including the location of other safety equipment with
the location of fire extinguishers, defibrillators, first aid kits, etc. Director Chilcott explained it
may be easier to make the code simpler and easier to understand by writing policy that spells
out the requirements of the list. The Commission could consider that option. The code could
just state that information shall be provided that contains property owner information,
development code requirements, etc. It would be more general.
Discussion included but was not limited to:
Concern over how that would relate to the violation process.
Concern over whether Town and Larimer County would be held to the same standard if
part of the requirements are Town policy, not Estes Valley Development Code.
If these requirements are listed in the EVDC as it is currently proposed, if the notice misses
an item it would be considered a code violation.
The Commission wants the items listed in the code and as specific as can be made to
lessen confusion by the guests.
Fire extinguishers are not required in residential dwellings. A posting stating “Fire
Extinguishers: None” would be in compliance.
Discussion of where fire extinguishers are required.
The Larimer County task force may provide more direction on this.
Including fire extinguishers on the list may remind property owners it would be a good
idea to have one.
Where fire extinguishers appear on the list, perhaps with the gas/water shutoff.
Planner Kleisler stated local contact information will include license and permit number to
ease the code compliance process. Neighbor notification would be required for all existing and
new vacation home rentals. Either at the time of the initial permit or sometime this year for
existing vacation rentals there needs to be a courtesy mailing to neighbors within 100 feet
stating the name of the local contact person. This is not opening up the opportunity to
question the property owners. It is meant to make it easier for neighbors to know who to call
if there are issues with the vacation rental property. The contact information for a property is
public information; however, providing a courtesy mailing will make it easier to access the
information.
Planner Kleisler stated they’ve been attempting to address number of bedrooms listed versus
number of bedrooms advertised during the annual licensing process. Staff checks the Larimer
County records to determine if the number of bedrooms stated in the license match the
number of bedrooms in the County Assessor’s records. No on‐site bedroom inspections are
taking place at this time. The Town Board could decide to adopt the dwelling life safety survey
allowing for building code inspection of vacation rentals. It is his understanding the Board of
Appeals is recommending that the Town Board postpone the adoption of that local
amendment to the International Property Maintenance Code.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 8
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Planning Kleisler stated that the changes to licensing fees is allowing them to hire additional
staff to allow for additional customer service. If this ordinance passes, staff will provide a
welcome packet to new vacation rental properties. The packet will include the list of notices
and other information specific for that rental, e.g. courtesy mailing materials, etc.
Commissioner Moon wanted clarity about the Town heading in the direction of no inspections
for vacation rental homes. There are lot of safety requirements that would be expected in an
accommodations property (smoke detectors), and currently there is no way in the code to
ensure that these things are present in a vacation rental. He feels that a compliance
inspection would not force the property to upgrade to code on most issues, and there is no
way to enforce that. The exceptions being the items required by state law (CO detectors,
smoke detectors, etc.).
Planner Kleisler stated there was discussion from last month’s meeting regarding parking
standards. Public comment indicated they wanted to create a new, more viable standard.
Currently vacation rentals are allowed no more than three vehicles at the site. Current
vacation home owners requested that the same parking standards that apply to all residential
zone districts apply to vacation homes in those zone districts. One exception would be the
prohibition of on‐street parking. Staff recommends that the on‐street parking prohibition
remain in place.
Planner Kleisler stated he spoke with the Town Attorney and other parties regarding resort
cabins. There is confusion over this issue. For example the Black Canyon Inn properties being
constructed may have full‐time owners or short‐term renters. Code does not allow that in the
A zone district. There is confusion over why this is allowed in A‐1 and not the A zone districts.
The initial intent was to encourage vacation home rentals in the A‐1 zone district and promote
only high intensity use in the A zone district. Market demand is increasing toward the low
intensity vacation home. Staff recommends allowing short‐term rentals in the A–
Accommodation zone district to remove the confusion.
Planner Kleisler stated that some of the proposed amendments are to clean up the language.
Staff is deleting reference to a vacation rental being allowed as an accessory use in residential
zones. They are currently allowed as a principal use. If it is allowed as a principal use, it is
allowed as an accessory use. This does not impact any of the standards.
Planner Kleisler stated that section 12.7 deals with enforcement procedures. Town Attorney
White recommended that language be added to allow the local contact to receive the written
notice of violation. Currently the code requires code compliance officers to give property
owners 15 days to correct the violation unless it is an emergency matter. That makes it
difficult to address an issue when the renters are in and out in less than that time. Staff
recommends changing the existing 15‐day notice from a requirement to an option, by
changing the wording from shall to may.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 9
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Planner Kleisler stated at today’s study session, the Planning Commission discussed at length
about placing a potential cap on the annual permits in the Estes Valley. They recommend
adopting a cap of 10% of housing units, which is 749 housing units in the Estes Valley. If the
cap is reached, there are two options: (1) Staff could begin a waitlist or, (2) Town Board could
increase that cap, probably at the recommendation of the Planning Commission. There are an
estimated 500 or so vacation rentals in the Estes Valley, both licensed and unlicensed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Discussion included but was not limited to:
The Board believed that the 10% cap was to be reviewed annually, not just when we’ve
reached the limit.
As a percentage, the number of the cap will change continually as the number of homes in
Estes Valley changes as development occurs.
Attorney White felt that the Board needs to set a number representing the cap in the
number of vacation rental licenses. It can be difficult to define a “housing unit” and a
percentage changes the actual number of allowed licenses all the time. There needs to be
an actual number that staff can act upon. He suggested picking a number based on the
data provided and add language about reviewing that every year to see if that 10%
remains appropriate.
Looking at the data they could just say 750 vacation rentals for now and reexamine it next
year.
Census data gets updated every few years and occurs on a regular basis.
Commissioner Moon suggested using the electric meter count as a means of tracking the
number of homes in Estes Valley. The utilities department would know which meters are
being charged commercial vs residential rates. He hoped that when they come back to this
they can have a better, crisper definition of the numbers involved.
Public Comment
Chair Hull opened the floor to public comment. She reminded the public that they currently
only accepting comments on vacation rentals of parties of eight persons or less. She stated
that over the last month, people approached her to state that they feel criminalized by the
establishment of all of these rules. Chair Hull clarified that rules criminalize you only when you
break them and that they exist for a reason.
Johanna Darden/local resident: She urges a cap be placed on the number of vacation rentals,
and it be a specific number (i.e. her hope would be 600 total), not a percentage. Her concern
is a change in neighborhoods and their character and quality of life for permanent residents
and long‐term renters. Short‐term renters do not come with a sense of community. People
who have applied for licenses under the law should be included under the cap. Those who
have disobeyed the law and are currently operating illegally should not be brought under the
cap. If there are licenses remaining under the cap other vacation rental property owners
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 10
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
should be considered under a first come, first served basis. Enforcement should be taken
seriously.
Eric Blackhurst/local resident: He does not have or manage any vacation rental properties, but
it is an economic fact of our community. He believes the Board has been placed in a difficult
situation. It is a diverse, unique industry. It is an industry unique to the destination and it is
almost impossible to regulate. There are two different sets of standards, long‐term rentals
versus short‐term rentals. There are issues of legal protection. Property owners have a
different standard versus vacation renters. It is an impossible task to regulate, particularly
when authorized by covenants or when property is purchased specifically in areas allowed for
vacation rental properties. Where do long‐term renters and second homeowners fit into this?
Are they going to be regulated to the same standards as vacation rentals? When does it make
sense to regulate this industry that varies so much even from subdivision to subdivision? How
do you know if a violation has been responded to within 30 minutes? It could be dealt with
over the phone in which case the local contact doesn’t really need to be within that 30‐minute
drive time. How do we know what the violation is? Is it a violation or a complaint? Can the
authority in charge revoke a license on a compliant versus an actual violation? Twelve months
on a violation is a long time. The penalty for selling liquor to a minor is a 15‐day suspension of
the liquor license. Registered sex offenders are not required to notify neighbors. These
proposed regulations make vacation rentals more onerous than a pedophile. He urged the
Commission to be cautious in what you recommend to the governing bodies because you are
placed in a very untenable position on an industry that is extremely difficult to regulate and
has had very few complaints.
Holly Moore/local resident: She shared some of Eric’s concerns and those in the community.
She was concerned about the balance between vacation homes and residential properties.
Her primary concerns are with enforcement. This is a difficult situation and very complicated.
The Board needs to look at different ways of regulation than what has been suggested so far.
What are the consequences on a property owner that has a vacation rental without a license
and how to we identify that person? The proposed amendment says that staff can withhold a
license until the violation is corrected, but some things can be corrected almost immediately.
In regards to withholding the license for 12 months, what constitutes a violation? She is
concerned that it would be enforced on one complaint versus a pattern of complaints. A
pattern implies the owner needs correction. Her biggest concern is how do we know who is
doing this and who is not doing this and how do we control that?
Chair Hull stated that during the study session they brought up the issues raised by the last
speaker. They’d talked about the possibility of a point system attached to the severity of the
violation. They discussed the potential of a website where violations could be recorded. The
Commission is trying to determine a process to track violations.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 11
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Ed Peterson/representing Estes Park Vacation Rental Owner’s Association: They want to be
solution oriented. They understand there can be issues and want to solve those issues in an
amicable way. He does not believe there are as many issues as have been addressed but
understands the need for planning for problems that may occur. Posting a violation is an
option, but if you are not at your rental for a couple of weeks you might not be aware. He
stated the issues are being made out to be bigger than they really are. His group shared
vacation home rental information from Salt Lake City and Lake Tahoe, who have mastered this
over the years. These cities are larger but have similar demographics. Staff has not referred to
these recommendations. Staff has spent thousands of dollars researching and hiring people to
come in to run meetings. It is unconscionable. It is time to slow down and figure out a plan
that makes sense for everybody.
Rebecca Urquhart/town resident: Everyone has said that we need more enforcement. She
does not believe that full‐time and short‐term residents should be treated the same way. A
resident can be talked to and is unlikely to engage in undesirable behavior night after night. If
they do there are methods to address that under the law. That happens with short‐term
renters. She is concerned that the code offers only one remedy if there is a confirmed and
proven violation. She has lived in two different neighborhoods. She or her neighbors have
filed 20‐25 complaints, but not one violation has been found. The Town has never found a
violation since this code was adopted, outside of not having a license. A violation will never be
proven and end up resulting in enforcement. She has collected recordings and data about
vacation rental violations. She believes the police do not even put it into the record that they
have been called. She was told that what she has collected is not evidence. The owners are
almost never informed that there were issues. She filed 17 complaints about the property
adjacent to her and the owners were informed only twice. We need something with teeth to
it. Someone who calls multiple times should not be ignored. A point system might work. She’s
called the property manager without success. How do you prove that you’ve taken the
necessary steps if the other side claims innocence? We need something more than a verified
complaint that has a remedy. We need a way to actually take action; otherwise, it is business
as usual for the people with vacation rentals. She would suggest having a standard, such as
excessive undisputed complaints instead of proven violation. She is concerned over the
discretionary language that is in the code.
Ed Peterson: He agreed with Ms. Urquhart about fines and revocation of licenses. He was
supportive of issuing enforcement tickets on the spot to the violators causing the problems,
similar to getting a ticket for a traffic violation. If the violations continue, the owner should be
fined as well. Something needs to be done to address the issue beyond revoking the license.
He thinks we need something that addresses the issue directly.
Bill Urquhart/town resident: He thought the study session was amazing today. He thought
Commissioner Moon’s idea of using the internet to handle communication was great. We can
generate data out of it. When he was first involved with this issue he was head of an HOA with
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 12
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
covenants against rentals of less than two weeks. Procedurally, it became really difficult to
enforce and he reached out to the Town for help. One particular owner was telling neighbors
that everybody was friends and family. He wonders if the staff will have a right to audit. As a
neighbor, you have no idea who is in the property. What rules should apply to them? If you
advertise that you are renting short‐term should the presumption be that guests are short‐
term renters? He is trying to look at it from a resident’s standpoint not as a theoretical
exercise. He couldn’t agree more with Mr. Peterson. Rolling in and revoking the license is a
heavy move. If you can do fines or something smaller, then you avoid going to the top level of
penalty out the gate. Revoking a license is a severe penalty and may create reluctance to use
that penalty. At the study session it was mentioned licensed vacation rentals make up 4.7% of
housing units in Estes Valley. Less then 10% of noise violations were out of vacation rentals.
The conclusion was that noise was a low problem for vacation rentals. On a relative basis it
could be twice as high. The data does not support the conclusion, in his opinion. It may make
sense to specify when the 15‐day period should be applied for code violations (weeds, etc.).
Most renters will only be there for 2‐3 nights. A website is a step in the right direction. The
neighbor has only one right currently, to make a complaint and submit evidence. They have
no right to follow‐up on their complaint. They aren’t even a party in a continuing dispute.
There is no right to appeal or to a hearing (the neighbor doesn’t have the right to attend or be
notified even if the rental owner must attend a hearing due to the complaint). “In theory
there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there often is.” The
enforcement issue is very difficult. What is evidence? What is enforcement on a practical
matter? What is a foundation we can expect? What happens here will be followed by the task
force on larger homes. It is disheartening that no inspection for health and safety is being
recommended. For the town to issue commercial licenses without taking any effort to
physically inspect even for just carbon monoxide detectors is pretty risky. He provided the
case where he filed a series of complaints (two years ago) with the Town. Unknown to them a
hearing had taken place in late 2013. It was determined there was no violation and no
evidence was officially made by the Town (March 2014). He was told by the Town attorney
they had no right of standing, right of appeal (April 2014), and the Colorado administrative
procedure act does not apply.
Bob Leavitt/Carriage Hills: He looked through the database of permits and licenses and
noticed that a lot of licenses do not have a local contact. How do we ensure that we do have a
local contact? Many regulations depend on having a local contact. It is time to put this
information online. Neighbors would be able to reach out to the owner even if the owner lives
out of state. Many of the owners are oblivious that there is a problem. Most neighbors don’t
know who to call. When we have fire restrictions, it would be good to get that info out to
everybody especially vacation renters, so they know open fires and fireworks are illegal. Not
having any way to inspect homes for code compliance really will be a problem. He cncouraged
the Commissioners to send something to Town Board saying that we really need it.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 13
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Johanna Darden: There are other violations that the sound ordinance does not take into
consideration, e.g. bass vibrations. She hoped that something will be added to the suggestions
to deal with those kinds of issues as well.
Greg Perrotto/town resident: He is the owner of four vacation rentals. He has hosted family
reunions for the past eight years. He is very involved with his rentals and is concerned about
the thirty‐minute response time. He is 45 minutes away, but when he gets a call he responds
immediately. He has a great rapport with his neighbors. He thinks something else needs to be
considered for the contact person. He prefers to be completely involved in his rentals. He is
concerned that some vacation rental owners will be regulated out of business. Some of the
regulations are completely overboard. He thinks spot fines are hitting the nail on the head. It
deals directly with the problem. Follow‐through should include notification of the violation to
the property owner. Signage is good. He is strict on his policies. He has not rented to people if
he was concerned there could be issues. He believes these notifications should be short and
sweet and clearly show that they are requirements for the Town of Estes Park. The regulations
will be ignored if they take too long to read.
Seth Smith/Ponderosa Realty and Management: He is both a real estate and vacation rental
manager. He talked about the GuestStream software used to manage multiple properties
online that was brought up in the study session. One of the things that is lost is how adversely
the cap would affect Town. We don’t know how many rental properties we have now. The
goal is to have compliance. He does not think the cap gets to that goal. It is arbitrary to limit
something we don’t have a full handle on. He doesn’t believe the Planning Commission has
enough information to set a cap. His business has an online database of every rental property
and online marketing that shows when it is vacant. We open these properties up to crime by
showing where these properties are and indicating when these properties are vacant. He is in
the middle of every transaction that happens in his business (owner, guest, him). They send a
four‐page letter to the guests. Most don’t read it. He stated the notices in the rentals should
be brief, listing the most important items, making it clear that these are regulations put in
place by the Town.
Jane Livingston/local property owner: This is an incredible task before the Commission.
Compliance is the main issue, and it needs to be addressed with the guests that are
misbehaving. If they know they are going to get a ticket or pay a fine, it matters. This is
different than threatening to withhold a deposit. Her vacation rental owner group has
proposed a process for enforcement and the license that is similar to the liquor license in
Town. The liquor license has layers for violations and increasing fines. It is something that
warrants further discussion on all sides. It is important we get this right. We had been on a
path of what we could agree on. Now we are back to going back and forth on this issue. She
would like to see balance and harmony come to this process. Last September, she did a
calculation on the financial impact of vacation rentals in Estes Park. She used an economic
study from 2011 and did some extrapolation. She figured that guests conservatively spend
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 14
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
$27 million in local small businesses. That is not counting lodging, taxes or the people who are
employed to service the guests. Over‐regulating and decreasing their number will hurt those
small businesses. It is painful to watch them lose their small business. Think about this on a
broad spectrum and think about the broad impact of how it will affect the Town now and in
the future.
Holly Moore/town resident: She believes the 10% cap is not relevant to the regulation and the
problems that occur in the community. It is more about creating a balance between
residential and vacation accommodations. Right now that balance is beyond unhealthy. We
rely heavily on the tourist dollar and are dangerously close to damaging it. Economy runs on
people power. We can’t attract the people who will support a year‐round economy if we are
expecting them to live out of a car. She is on the verge of losing her long‐term rental because
the owner is considering making it a vacation rental. She supported having a cap on the
number of vacation home rentals. With careful and considered application of enforcement
and regulation we can achieve that balance and prosper with both a year‐round economy and
be a prime and desirable vacation destination. We can’t provide the services that people
expect when they visit here if we don’t have people who live here full‐time.
Mary Murphy/county resident: She is a local realtor in town. This is an issue of enforcement. If
we had a compliance officer that worked weekends and evenings that would solve a lot of the
problems that have been discussed. This Commission is dealing with enforcement and how we
are dealing with vacation rentals going to the future. She stated her main concerns are that
there is too much on the plate. She does not know if there is any other action where a
business or person can be disqualified in their business based on someone else’s actions.
Selling to a minor is something the liquor store has control over, but a vacation rental owner
doesn’t have control over a renter. It is appropriate to deal with that renter, but it is not fair
to punish the homeowner later on down the line. Punishing the property owner for the
renter’s actions are two separate things.
Fred Mares/town resident: He thanked the Commissioners for their hard work on this topic.
Enforcement is a big deal. If current enforcement was effective we wouldn’t be talking this. A
lot of issues being discussed are outside this Board’s purview. At the study session,
Commissioner Moon presented a website data collection and distribution system that would
provide a database for everyone concerned (neighbors, owners, managers). People have been
sharing what they feel is happening or their fears about what may happen. The Town doesn’t
have firm numbers. We are governing based on what it feels like, not to the data. Along with
recommendations on code changes, he requests the Commissioners send a list of the ancillary
issues to the County Commissioners and the Town Board, so everybody can understand how
the pieces fit together. It can be difficult to get everybody to sit down and talk about their
piece of the issue. There have been pros and cons on the cap on the number of licenses. There
needs to be a defensible rational for having a limit. He’s heard reasons to have and not have a
limit. He believes the reason we need some kind of cap is because we don’t know what is
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 15
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
going on. Vacation rentals is an industry that is growing nationwide in double digits. Because
the Town and County have chosen to not enforce anything on the books, we have no idea of
what has been going on in the past. We need some kind of limit until we know what we are
really dealing with. Mr. Mares recommended a time period of more than a year to reevaluate
the cap, if one is put into place. All of what is being proposed is not in place yet. We do not
know in a year where that number should be moved to. We need to collect data and start
assessing where we are and where we want to be. He suggested moving it to two or three
years between assessments. He agreed with Attorney White’s comments. He is concerned
with attaching a percentage to the number of dwellings in town, and would recommend using
a hard number. He thought using 500 for the cap is a good place to start, but may be too low.
If there is a limit, it creates an incentive to be license and stayed licensed. This industry will
start to have a reason to be self‐policing when they haven’t been. He questioned how
effective the new enforcement process would be, and what impacts there would be to
workforce housing. What do you say to a family looking for a nice neighborhood for raising
kids that doesn’t compete with tourism? We have no control over what goes on in our
neighborhoods. We are having to build more housing for workforce. We shouldn’t be taking
residences away on one hand and paying to replace them on the other.
Kenneth Arnold/town resident: He is on the Estes Area Lodging Association board. They are
very inclusive with all businesses including vacation rentals. As we grow this is an important
issue. He believes communication with his guests coming in is so important. He is his own
code enforcement officer. It is important that we educate these people about the rules and
enforce those rules. If you don’t enforce the rules, it creates upset guests who don’t
understand why someone is being allowed to break those rules. We need code enforcement
& fines with teeth. His main concern is noise. If one of the neighboring properties is noisy he
has numbers to call and they would respond because they also don’t want a noisy party
disturbing the rest of their guests. He wants to have important rules and have them enforced.
Loosen up on the rules that aren’t so important.
Jenny Hutchinson/county resident: She was forced into long‐term rental after losing her home
in 2008. She used to live in a historic neighborhood near Spruce and Lawn Lane with 10
properties that have all become vacation rentals now. It is a form of abuse when you have
vacation rentals next door to you that aren’t in compliance. You don’t know how it feels until
it happens to you. She read a list of posts on the Estes Park Housing Facebook page. The posts
were from a span of less than a week. The posts are all listings of people that are looking for
homes/rentals in Estes Park and their difficulty in finding such.
Public comment closed. Chair Hull called for a five‐minute recess.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 16
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
It was moved and seconded (Hills/White) to recommend approval of the code amendments
as presented to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Larimer County Board of
County Commissioners with the findings that the amendments comply with the EVDC
standard for review for text amendments, and the motion passed unanimously with one
absent.
There was discussion by the Commissioners on whether we have the necessary data to
impose a fixed number as a cap. The argument was that we needed to set the precedent
today that there will be a cap. The current suggestion is far enough ahead that it does not
impose on business opportunities while we gather data for a more accurate number.
It was moved and seconded (Moon/Hills) to recommend approval to the Estes Park Town
Board of Trustees and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners to establish a
maximum limit of 700 on the annual operating license/permits issued for vacation rentals in
the Estes Valley, and to recommend that the Planning Commission revisit the issue in a year
to recommend changes to the cap, and the motion passed 5‐1 with one absent.
Commissioner Murphree voted against the motion.
There was discussion by the Commission on the issue of compliance inspections. They could
recommend the Town Board seriously consider compliance inspections (for safety, fire
extinguishers, carbon monoxide detectors, smoke detectors, bedrooms). Attorney White
stated the current proposal for inspections is a local amendment to the International Property
Maintenance Code, created at the direction of the Town Board. It was stated that the Board of
Appeals is recommending not to include the vacation rental provisions. It would be
appropriate that this Commission convey their desire through their chair that it be included in
the adoption of the International Building Codes before the March 22nd meeting, as adoption
of the building codes is on the agenda at that time.
It was moved and seconded (Moon/White) to authorize the chairperson of the Planning
Commission to convey to the Town Board the recommendation of the Planning Commission
that the inspection language in the International Property Maintenance Code be included as
a local amendment to ensure the inspection of vacation rentals for basic life safety
requirements, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
Commissioner Schneider stated that public comment indicated that we needed something to
punish the renter. We can’t just punish the owners for what occurs on a nightly basis.
Attorney White stated that was already present in the code through noise and trespassing
ordinances. The thing to remember is that enforcement is not easy. When you have
enforcement you have to be willing to go to court. Everybody has the right to contest the
enforcement action. You have the right to go all the way through the system before you are
required to pay the fine. The trespass ordinance is the easy one. The noise ordinance has
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 17
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
some problems and is being redrafted right now. He reminded the Commission that with the
Town there is limited jurisdiction with the Town Municipal Court. If they live out of state, they
don’t have to do anything with the ticket. If it is a local person we have some ability, but what
can actually be done is limited. Larimer County is even more limited, as it doesn’t have any
powers with a court. Enforcement is a complex issue. He hopes staff for both the County and
the Town can focus on enforcement and have a positive impact.
Discussion included but was not limited to:
Commissioner White stated that some property owners are already addressing the issue
of enforcement on the renters by including their own punishments for violations within
the rental agreements providing their own self‐policing.
Commissioner Murphree recommended that a list be created of individuals who have
violated rental agreements in the past that all vacation rental owners can refer to and
prevent those problem renters from renting again in Estes Park.
Comment from the audience was that vacation rental owners need help from the police. If
they receive a ticket from the police, most renters will pay the fine and alter their
behavior. They don’t have to be told that they don’t have to pay the fine if they live out of
state.
Planner Kleisler stated that there was one request that had not be discussed by the
Commission today. It is more of an administrative item. Some individuals have requested that
there be an online map with contact information for rentals and license number. It has been
requested numerous times. There have also been concerns for safety in having that
information be available, even though there are websites out there that do that now. The
Commissioners could recommend the Town Board direct the staff to create such an item. It is
not something that staff would do without such direction given the concerns expressed.
Discussion included but was not limited to:
We don’t yet know the issues with releasing information online. There are a lot of privacy
concerns. This goes back to the comments that this is more criminal than what we expect
from a sex offender. Our intent is not to punish vacation home owners.
There is no way the Commissioners can address every issue related to vacation rentals. We
need to first focus on the basics. If we do this correctly, Estes Park could be the flagship of
how to handle vacation rentals for Colorado. The Commissioners feel their hands are
somewhat tied until recommendations come back from the Larimer County task force.
The Board hopes that the public expresses their concerns and participates with the Larimer
County task force. April 4th is the application deadline to apply to be on the task force.
6. REPORTS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 18
March 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
A. Director Chilcott reported that the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment approved the height,
river setback, and exterior lighting variance requests for the Rocky Mountain Performing
Arts Center on February 22nd, 2016.
B. Director Chilcott reported that CBO Birchfield gave an update to the Town Board of Trustees
regarding the 2015 International Building Codes with local amendments.
C. Director Chilcott reported that the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners are in
the process of creating a vacation home rental task force. They will be conducting a joint
teleconference call in mid‐April to appoint that task force.
D. Director Chilcott reported on the following flood recovery and mitigation updates:
a. Environmental Planner Kurtz reported that a public meeting was held on March 4th,
which was well attended and is available for viewing online at
www.estes.org/floodrecovery. More outreach meetings and materials are planned.
b. Environmental Planner Kurtz reported that the Hydroplant Bank Stabilization
project has completed phase I with a focus on fish habitat, healthy stream and
bank stabilization.
c. Environmental Planner Kurtz reported the Town is starting a hydrology study of the
Big Thompson River, Fall River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch and hoping for
results in June.
d. Environmental Planner Kurtz reported the United States Army Corps of
Engineers/Silver Jackets program will be conducting a study relating to flood
proofing in the downtown area. This is at no cost to the Town.
e. Director Chilcott reported this is Planner Kleisler’s last Planning Commission
meeting. He is leaving his position here to work as a Planner for the City of
Loveland. His last day is March 31st. We will miss him very much, and wish him
well.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:37 p.m.
___________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Victoria Webb, Recording Secretary
Final
{00475625.DOC / 2}
LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is effective the ____ day of ___________, 2016, between
the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO (the “Town”) and the ESTES VALLEY FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT (the “District”).
1. LEASE OF PREMISES.
The Town does hereby lease to the District, the Dannels Fire Station and the Estes Park
Fire Training Area located in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the “premises”), including the
building located thereon, more fully described as follows:
See Exhibits A & B
2. USE
The District shall, during the term of this Lease including any renewal or extension
thereof, occupy and maintain the premises as a fire station and fire training area. The District
shall not construct any additional structures on the premises without the specific written
permission of the Town.
3. DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES
The District covenants and agrees as follows:
a. To maintain and repair the premises and keep same in good order and repair and
at the expiration of this Lease, to surrender said premises in as good order and
condition as of the effective date of this Lease, less ordinary wear and tear.
Maintenance and repair includes, but is not limited to, the interior and exterior of
the structure, the irrigation system and landscaping, the roof, and the parking lot.
b. To keep the premises clean, free of debris, and orderly and to obey all ordinances,
regulations and statutes of the Town, Larimer County, the State of Colorado, and
the United States.
c. To be responsible for and pay for the remedying of any and all damage done to
the premises of whatsoever nature. In the event the premises are not left in a
clean and orderly condition or damage has occurred, the expense of cleaning
and/or repair or damage shall be that of the District.
{00475625.DOC / 2}2
d. To use the premises only for a fire station, District office, and fire training area.
There shall be no commercial activity on the premises that is not accessory to the
above uses.
e. Not to alter the premises in any manner except with the Town’s written consent.
Any improvements to the premises shall remain with the property as permanent
additions upon termination of this Lease.
f. To maintain and repair all mechanical and electrical systems on the premises.
g. To allow the Town to have free access to said premises at all reasonable times for
the purpose of examining and inspecting the condition of the same or exercising
any right reserved to the Town on the terms and conditions of this Lease.
h. To be responsible for payment of all utilities for the premises.
4. TERM
The term of this lease shall be for a twenty-five (25) year period commencing on the first
day of January 2016 and ending on the 31st day of December 2041, unless terminated sooner by
the Parties
5. RENT
There shall be no rent payable for leasing of the premises.
6. INSURANCE
a. The District shall provide the Town with certificates of liability insurance for
comprehensive general liability and comprehensive automobile liability insurance
in an amount of no less than Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000)
per person, and Nine Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars ($990,000) per
occurrence, and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) property damage, naming the
Town as additional insured on the policy or policies. The District may satisfy this
requirement by obtaining appropriate endorsement to any umbrella policy or
liability insurance the District may maintain. The District may provide for the
insurance set forth partially or wholly by means of a self insurance pool.
b. The District shall provide the Town with a certificate of property insurance in an
amount no less than the full replacement value of the fire station building
including all fixtures on the premises. The Town shall be named as an Additional
Insured on the policy. The District may provide for the insurance set forth
partially or wholly by means of a self insurance pool.
{00475625.DOC / 2}3
c. In the event that the liability limits of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act
are increased over the current limits of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars
($350,000) per person, and Nine Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars ($990,000)
per occurrence, the District shall be obligated to increase its general and
automobile liability insurance in an amount equal to or greater than the limits of
the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act.
7. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY
The parties understand and agree that the parties are relying on, and do not waive or intend to
waive, by any provision of this Lease, the monetary limitations (presently $350,000 per person
and $990,000 per occurrence) or any rights, immunities and protections provided by the
Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, et seq. C.R.S., as from time to time
amended or otherwise available to the parties or any of their officers, agents or employees.
8. INDEMNITY
To the extent lawfully allowed, the District agrees to indemnify, protect and save
harmless the Town from any and all claims, demands and liability for any loss, damage or injury,
including death, or other like or different casualty to persons and property used by and growing
out of, or happening in connection with the District’s use and occupancy of the premises, and
any equipment located or to be located thereon, due to the negligence of the District, its agents,
servants, or employees. Said indemnification shall include all reasonable attorney’s fees and court
costs incurred by the Town for the defense of all claims, damages, and liabilities that are subject
to the District’s indemnification obligation.
9. CONDITION OF SITE
During the term of this lease, the District shall be responsible for any and all damages to
the premises caused by or attributed to any actions by the District or its users. The Town shall
be responsible for any pre-existing environmental condition not caused by the District’s use
located at or adjacent to the premises, including any environmental repair or remediation which
may be required during the Term of the Lease.
10. TERMINATION
Upon termination of this lease, the District shall be entitled to remove all of its personal
property without damaging the Town’s underlying property and/or structure. The Lease may be
terminated by either Party at any time during the Term upon one-hundred and eighty (180) days
advance written notice.
{00475625.DOC / 2}4
11. NOTICES
All notices required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given
if personally delivered or mailed, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or sent by
overnight carrier to the following addresses:
If to the Town, to:
Town of Estes Park
Attn: Town Administrator
P O Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
If to the District, to:
Estes Valley Fire Protection District
Attn: Board President
Estes Park, CO 80517
Or if a more current address, or name, has been given to the other party in writing, to
such other address, or name.
12. WAIVER
Failure or delay on the part of the Town to exercise any right, power or privilege
hereunder shall not operate as a waiver thereof.
13. DEFAULT
If either party is in default of any of its obligations hereunder and such default shall
continue for a period of more than thirty (30) days after written notice thereof, either party may
terminate this Lease Agreement for said default.
14. ASSIGNMENT
The District shall not assign its rights under this Lease Agreement or any interest herein,
or sublet the whole or any portion of the leased area, without the prior written consent of the
Town.
15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
{00475625.DOC / 2}5
The Lease Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties hereto with respect
to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior offers, negotiations, and agreements,
whether written or oral, between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof.
16. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
a. The District agrees that it shall not, by any act or omission, cause a default in any
of the terms or conditions of the Special Use Permit between the United States
Department of the Interior and the Town effective July 15, 1995, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit C, which would result in the
revocation of the Special Use Permit. In the event that the Special Use Permit is
revoked, this Lease shall automatically terminate for the Dannels Fire Station
property and the Town shall have no liability to the District for the termination of
the Special Use Permit and termination of the lease for the Dannels Fire Station
property. In said event, the District agrees to cooperate with the Town to allow
possession of the Dannels Fire Station property by the United States.
b. The Town shall be entitled to access the Dannels Fire Station for use by the
Town of its Redundant Emergency Dispatch Center located in the station. The
District shall provide the Town with means of access to the station for use of the
Center.
c. The Town owns property adjacent to the Fire Training Area which contains the
closed Town of Estes Park Landfill. Due to concerns of leaching of potential
contaminants from the Landfill, the Town is constructing a stormwater drainage
channel along the east side of the Fire Training Area. The District shall discharge
all water used in its training activities on the Fire Training Area into the
stormwater drainage channel. The District shall ensure that all water discharged
into the channel meets all applicable regulations of the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment for discharge of said water into the Big
Thompson River at the base of the stormwater drainage channel. The District
shall also ensure that any other fluids and materials discharged by the District into
the stormwater drainage channel meet all requirements of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment for discharge into the Big
Thompson River. The District shall not permit any hazardous materials to be
discharged from the site into the stormwater drainage channel nor any water,
foam or hazardous materials to discharge onto or migrate to other Town-owned
property abutting the Fire Training Area site. Any CDPHE permit for the
drainage channel shall be owned and managed by the Town, nothwithstanding
any of the terms of the Lease to the contrary. The Town agrees to promptly
notify the District of any hazardous material discovered on the Town property
which impacts the District’s rights or responsibilities pursuant to this Lease.
{00475625.DOC / 2}6
d. Nothing herein shall create or be construed as creating a multiple fiscal year
obligation of either Party.
TOWN:
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
___________________________
By: Mayor
ATTEST
__________________________
Town Clerk,
{00475625.DOC / 2}7
DISTRICT:
ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT
___________________________
By: Doug Klink, President
Attest:
__________________________
Secretary
{00475625.DOC / 2}8
EXHIBIT A
DANNELS FIRE STATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
An easement for the use of the Town of Estes Park, said easement located in the E ½ of the W
½ of Section 30, T5N, R72W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado lying North of the
northerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 36 and being more particularly describ ed as
follows:
COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of said Section 30; thence South along the East line
of said Section 30, 2647.66 feet to the E ¼ corner of the aforementioned Section 30;
thence N 63°35’40”W 3427.54 feet to the Northeast corner of said easement and the TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence S 14°52’00”W 295.00 feet to the northerly right-of-way of said U.S. Highway 36;
thence along said northerly right-of-way N 81°38’06”W 185.00 feet;
thence leaving said right-of-way N 18°09’00”W 139.83 feet;
thence N 14°52’00”E 198.70 feet;
thence S 75°08’00”E 260.00 feet to the TRUE PONIT OF BEGINNING, said easement
containing 1.739 acres more or less.
{00475625.DOC / 2}9
EXHIBIT B
ESTES PARK FIRE TRAINING AREA
That portion of the Northeast corner of Lot 2, Elm Road Second Addition, to the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, State of Colorado, used and occupied by the Estes Valley Fire
Protection District for training activities including non-exclusive use of the current access across
the northern portion of Lot 2, as show indicated in red on the attached map
{00475625.DOC / 2}10
EXHIBIT C
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Town Attorney Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: April 21, 2016
RE: Tolling Agreement – 1050 Fall River Court
Objective:
Review, and if appropriate, ratify the Tolling Agreement between the Town of Estes
Park and Stonegate Homes, LLC and Steve Caldwell, to toll any applicable statute of
limitations to allow the Town, Stonegate and Caldwell to continue negotiations for
resolution of a dispute involving flood mitigation on property located at 1050 Fall River
Court. Stonegate Homes, LLC is the property owner and Steve Caldwell is the sole
principal of Stonegate Homes, LLC.
Present Situation:
In 2014, the Town become a project sponsor for the Emergency Watershed Protection
(EWP) Program to enable property owners to become eligible for removal of debris and
sediment from streams, protect stream banks from further erosion, and repair damaged
property.
The EWP Program provided for reimbursement by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) for costs incurred pursuant to the program. The Town identified
properties along Fall River who were eligible for the program. One eligible property was
located at 1050 Fall River Court, known as the Stonegate property. In 2014, the Town
and Steve Caldwell entered into an Agreement which allowed the Town and its
contractor to access the property to perform debris removal, bank stabilization, and
mitigate eminent threats for further damage to the property as defined in the EWP
Program. The Town hired a contractor to perform the work, and the work was
performed according to the EWP Program.
On the Stonegate property, debris (cobbles and materials) was removed from the Fal
River streambed and deposited on the southern bank of Fall River on the property. In
2015, the Town was contacted by Steve Caldwell with regard to the Town’s failure to
remove the debris from the property. Mr. Caldwell asserted that the agreement
between himself and the Town required the Town not only to remove the debris from
the stream bed, but also remove it from the property and restore the property to its pre-
flood condition. The Town’s position is that the EWP Program nor the Agreement
require the Town to remove the debris from the property. On March 28, 2016, the Town
received a letter from an attorney representing the property owner demanding the Town
remove the debris piles from the property and return the property to its pre-flood
condition.
Town Staff has reviewed the claims made in the letter, conducted a site visit to the
property, and is assessing how to respond, including the possible removal of the debris
from the property.
The applicable statute of limitations for some of the claims in the letter may be a two
year statute of limitation which would run in the latter part of April, 2016. In the Tolling
Agreement, the Town agrees not to assert the statute of limitations for failure of the
property owner to file a law suit within the two year period.
Town Administrator Frank Lancaster and the property owner have already executed the
Tolling Agreement. However, the attorney for the property owner requires that the
Town Board ratify execution of the Tolling Agreement in order for the Tolling Agreement
to be valid. A copy of the Tolling Agreement is attached to this Memo.
Proposal:
The Tolling Agreement allows the parties to continue to negotiate a solution to this
matter.
Advantages:
Ratification of the Tolling Agreement will prevent the property owner from filing a lawsuit
and allow the parties to continue negotiations to resolve this issue.
Disadvantages:
Failure to ratify the Tolling Agreement will result in the filing of a lawsuit and complicate
the Town’s ability to resolve this matter.
Action Recommended:
Ratify the execution of the Tolling Agreement signed by Town Administrator Lancaster.
Budget:
There are no budget implications to the ratification of the Tolling Agreement.
Level of Public Interest
Low. This is an issue only involving the property owner and the Town at this location.
Sample Motion:
I move to ratify/not ratify the Tolling Agreement between the Town of Estes Park,
Stonegate Homes, LLC and Steve Caldwell.
RESOLUTION NO. 10-16
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
That the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance
with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., hereby states its intention to annex the area described
herein. The Board of Trustees finds and determines that the Petition filed with the Town
Clerk requesting annexation of the area described herein is in substantial compliance with
Section 31-12-107(1)(g), C.R.S. The Board of Trustees further finds and determines that
the Petition is signed by persons comprising one hundred percent (100%) of the
landowners in the area proposed to be annexed and owning one hundred percent (100%)
of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, and any land owned by the annexing
municipality. Such area, if annexed, will be known as “MOUNTAIN MEADOW ADDITION”
to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. Such area is described as follows:
Containing Acres.6.17
Former Parcel A - That portion of the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 16, Township
5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th p.m., which lies South of the county road as
now constructed, more particulary descrived as follows: beginning at a point on
the line btween the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ and the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of said Section
16, which point is 50 feet East of the Southwest corner of the NE ¼ of the SE ¼;
thence along said line to the center of the county road as now constructed,
thence in a northwesterly deirection along the center line of said county road to a
point North 0 degrees 10 minutes West of the point of beginning, thence South 0
degrees 10 minutes east to the point of beginning. County of Larimer, State of
Colorado.
Former Parcel B - That portion of the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 16, Township
5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th p.m., which is more particularly described as
follows: beginning at the NW corner of the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of said section 16;
thence e 510.4 feet; thence s 350 feet; thence west 510.4 feet; thence n 350 feet
to the point of beginning, together with the improvements theron, County of
Larimer, State of Colorado.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 31-12-108, C.R.S.,
the Town Board Public Hearing shall be held Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 7:00 p.m., in
the Municipal Building, located at 170 MacGregor Ave., Estes Park, Colorado, for the
purpose of determining if the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions
of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall give the notice of the
hearing as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S.
DATED this day of , 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
Town Attorney Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: April 21, 2016
RE: Appointment of Independent Hearing Officer
Objective:
If appropriate, appoint Kristin Nordeck Brown as the independent hearing officer to hear
an employee’s appeal pursuant to the Town’s Personnel Policy Manual.
Present Situation:
The Town’s Personnel Policy provides that, in certain circumstances, an employee may
appeal an employment decision to an independent hearing officer appointed by the
Town Board. A Town employee has submitted an appeal of an employment action. On
April 12, 2016, the Staff recommended the appointment of Daniel C. Muffly as the
independent officer. At that time, Mr. David Herrera, the attorney for the employee,
objected to the appointment of Mr. Muffly. Mr. Herrera’s letter is attached.
Mr. Herrera recommended appointment of Monica A. Plake. I conducted a phone
interview with Ms. Plake on April 21, 2016. Ms. Plake is currently practicing law in
Estes Park. Prior to beginning her law practice in Estes Park, Ms. Plake worked for a
number of years as an in-house counsel to a large corporate entity in Oklahoma.
During that period, Ms. Plake did engage in legal issues involving employment matters.
Ms. Plake has limited legal experience with regard to public entity employment matters.
Ms. Plake informed me that she has never served as a hearing officer in an employment
matter.
The Town Board continued consideration of the appointment of the independent hearing
officer until the April 26, 2016 regular Town Board meeting.
In order to address any potential bias of Mr. Muffly, Town Staff has reviewed other
possible individuals to serve in the capacity and is recommending the appointment of
Kristin Nordeck Brown as the independent hearing officer. Attached to this Memo is Ms.
Brown’s qualifications. Ms. Brown is very qualified to serve as the independent hearing
officer in this personnel matter.
The Town’s Personnel Policy provides that the Town Board appoint the independent
hearing officer. There are no provisions in the Town Personnel Policy Manual which
provides that the employee approve, recommend or participate in the appointment as
independent hearing officer.
Proposal:
Appoint Kristin Nordeck Brown to serve as independent hearing officer for an appeal of
an employment decision.
Advantages:
Appointment of Ms. Brown to this position enables this matter to move forward pursuant
to the Town’s Personnel Policy Manual.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Appoint Kristin Nordeck Brown as independent hearing officer.
Budget:
Ms. Brown’s fees for the services are an hourly rate well within the standard rates of
persons providing this type of service in this area.
Level of Public Interest
Low. This is a personnel matter and only involves the Town and its employee.
Sample Motion:
I move to appoint/not appoint Kristin Nordeck Brown as independent hearing officer as
provided in the Town’s Personnel Policy Manual.
RESUME OF KRISTIN NORDECK BROWN
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO August 1987
Juris Doctor, Northwestern School of Law at 1990
Lewis and Clark College, Portland, OR
LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW
State of Colorado 1990
JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE
Presiding Judge, Brighton Municipal Court November 2010 - present
Associate Judge, Brighton Municipal Court October 2009 - Nov. 2010
Associate Judge, Thornton Municipal Court November 2008 – present
Associate Judge, Broomfield Municipal Court 2012 – present
Associate Judge, Superior Municipal Court 2014 - present
Presiding Judge, Lyons Municipal Court October 2010 - present
HEARING OFFICER EXPERIENCE
Hearing Officer (administrative appeal matters) 2006 - present
Federal Heights, Commerce City, Sheridan, Littleton,
Clear Creek Fire Authority, Lakewood
Brighton Liquor Authority September 2015 - present
Hearing Officer, City of Thornton July 2003 – present
MUNICIPAL LAW EXPERIENCE
Since 1990 have provided legal services to municipalities, to include legal counsel to City
Council/Town Boards, prosecution services, liquor enforcement, legal counsel to police
departments, drafting of ordinances. Municipal clients have included Erie, Frederick, Mead,
Lyons, Wellington, Louisville, Lafayette, Thornton, Woodland Park, Dillon, Ft. Lupton.
MEMBER OF
Colorado Bar Association
Boulder County Bar Association
Colorado Municipal Judges Association
REFERENCES
Judge Randy Davis, Presiding Judge, Broomfield Municipal Court
Judge Charles Rose, Presiding Judge, Thornton Municipal Court
Judge Will Hardesty, Municipal Judge, Brighton Municipal Court, Broomfield Municipal
Court, Erie Municipal Court, Dacono Municipal Court
Chief Gary Barbour, Frederick Police Department, former Division Chief, Lakewood
Police Department
Chief Marc Vasquez, Erie Police Department
Mark Shapiro, Erie Town Attorney, Dillon Town Attorney
Linda Glantz, Frederick Municipal Court Clerk
Rhonda Eckert, Erie Municipal Court Clerk
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Mayor William C. Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jon Landkamer, Public Works Facilities Manager
Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Date: April 21, 2016
RE: UTSD Easement Request, Golf Course Property
Objective:
It has been identified that there is a need for an easement where a sewer line has been
installed just off of Fish Creek Road.
Present Situation:
The work has been completed and this request is for ongoing maintenance needs of
this sanitary sewer pipeline.
Proposal:
Grant the easement to Upper Thompson Sanitation District.
Advantages:
None
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended by Staff:
Public Works is recommending that Upper Thompson Sanitation District be granted the
requested easement. Town Attorney White has reviewed the request and has asked
that the UTSD be asked to initiate easements prior to construction.
Budget:
None
Level of Public Interest:
None
Sample Motion
I move to recommend/not recommend granting Upper Thompson Sanitation District the
requested as per Exhibit A in the attached easement request.
Attachments:
Easement request from Upper Thompson Sanitation District, including Exhibit A, which
details the survey results.
EASEMENT
THIS EASEMENT is made this ____ day of __________ , 20__, by and between THE TOWN
OF ESTES PARK (hereinafter referred to as “Grantor”), its successors and assigns, and UPPER
THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT, a quasi municipal corporation of the State of Colorado
within the County of LARIMER (hereinafter referred to as “District”).
WITNESSED:
That for and in consideration of the sum of zero Dollars ($0) and other good and valuable
consideration paid by District to Grantor, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
Grantor does hereby grant and convey unto the District, its successors and assigns, a perpetual
easement and right to construct, install, remove, replace, add to, maintain, repair, operate, change
or alter underground sewer lines and appurtenances, together with any and all sewer lines and
manholes situate therein, all necessary rights-of-way for convenient ingress and egress thereto
and therefrom, and the right to occupy and use, from time to time, as much of the adjoining land
of the Grantor as may be reasonably necessary for any of the aforesaid purposes, over, under and
across the following described premises, situate in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to
wit:
LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: EXHIBIT A
Grantor warrants that the Grantor has the lawful right to grant such easement, rights-of-way,
and sewer lines and that the Grantor, and any successors and assigns, will, at no time, permit any
building, landscaping, or other permanent improvement to be hereafter constructed within such
easement.
Following the completion of the purpose of any entry by the District upon such easement for
any of the aforesaid objects, the District shall restore the premises to substantially the same
condition existing at the time of the entry thereon, except for trees, shrubs, plants, sidewalks,
driveways or parking areas thereon located or damaged thereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year
first above written.
GRANTOR: Town of Estes Park
By
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ____________________ )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of __________, 20_____ by
______________ as ________________ of _________________.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
ACCEPTED by the ___________________ District this _____ day of _________, 20__.
_______________ DISTRICT
By
, Chairman
Attest:
, Secretary
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: April 12, 2016
RE: Liquor Licensing: New Tavern Liquor License Application for Lazy B
Ranch & Wranglers, LLC dba Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers, 1665 Highway
66, Estes Park, Colorado
Objective:
Approval of a new Tavern liquor license located at 1665 CO Highway 66, Estes Park,
Colorado. Application filed by Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers, LLC dba Lazy B Ranch &
Wranglers.
Present Situation:
An application for a new Tavern liquor license was received by the Town Clerk’s office
on February 22, 2016. All necessary paperwork and fees were submitted; please see
the attached Procedure for Hearing on Application – New Liquor License for additional
information. The applicant is aware of the Town Board’s Training for Intervention
Procedures (TIPS) requirement and has not yet completed the training.
The liquor license application has been sent to the Colorado Department of Revenue
Liquor Enforcement Division (LED) for a concurrent review as requested by the
applicant. This allows the LED to review the application simultaneously with the Town
and expedites the issuance of the new liquor license.
Proposal:
Town Board review and consideration of the application for a new Tavern liquor license.
Advantages:
Approval of the license provides the business owner with the opportunity to operate a
liquor-licensed establishment in the Town of Estes Park.
Disadvantages:
The owner is denied a business opportunity to serve alcohol to patrons of the
chuckwagon dinner and performance.
Action Recommended:
Approval of the application for a new Tavern liquor license.
Budget:
The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a new Tavern Liquor license is $1319. The
fee covers the administrative costs related to processing the application, background
checks, and business licensing. In addition, the annual renewal fee payable to the
Town of Estes Park for a Tavern Liquor license is $869.
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood
are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of
the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor license. Based upon
these findings, I move that the application for a new Tavern Liquor license filed by Lazy
B Ranch & Wranglers, LLC dba Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers be approved/denied.
Attachments:
1. Procedure for Hearing
1
July 2002
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION
NEW LIQUOR LICENSE
1. MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on the application of Lazy B
Ranch & Wranglers, LLC dba LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS for a new Tavern
Liquor License located at 1665 CO Highway 66, Estes Park, Colorado.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the facts and evidence
determined as a result of its investigation, as well as any other facts, the reasonable
requirements of the neighborhood for the type of license for which application has
been made, the desires of the adult inhabitants, the number, type and availability of
liquor outlets located in or near the neighborhood under consideration, and any other
pertinent matters affecting the qualifications of the applicant for the conduct of the type
of business proposed.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
2. TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following:
The application was filed February 22, 2016.
At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on March 22, 2016, the public hearing was
set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 12, 2016.
The neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing
were established to be 4.7 miles.
The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs.
The applicant is filing as a Limited Liability Company.
The property is zoned A-Accommodations which allows this type of
business as a permitted use.
The notice of hearing was published on April 1, 2016 .
The premises was posted on March 24, 2016 .
2
There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant.
Status of T.I.P.S. Training:
X Unscheduled Scheduled Completed
There is a map indicating all liquor outlets presently in the Town of Estes Park
available upon request.
3. APPLICANT.
The applicants will be allowed to state their case and present any evidence they
wish to support the application.
4. OPPONENTS.
The opponents will be given an opportunity to state their case and present any
evidence in opposition to the application.
The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal limited to the evidence presented by the
opponents. No new evidence may be submitted.
5. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the application and, if so, to read all communication.
Indicate that all evidence presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any questions of any person speaking at
any time during the course of this hearing.
Declare the public hearing closed.
6. SUGGESTED MOTION:
Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the
neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and
that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor
license.
Motion. Based upon the above findings, I move that this license be granted/denied.
Estes Valley Board of Trustees, April 26, 2016 Page 1 of 5
Black Canyon Inn Preliminary Townhome Plat and Minor Subdivision
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Carrie McCool, Planning Consultant
Hearing Date: April 26, 2016
RE: Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision
Plat, Black Canyon Inn Townhomes, 800 MacGregor Avenue;
Sloan Investments LLC, Owner
Objective:
Review of the Black Canyon Inn Townhomes Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary
Townhome Subdivision Plat applications for compliance with the Estes Valley
Development Code.
Present Situation:
The Black Canyon Inn Master Plan Development Plan was approved in 2009 for a mix
of multi-family, duplex and single family accommodation units. The lower portion of the
project consists of a mix of accommodation and residential units, a restaurant,
employees units, pool, an outdoor pavilion and office; all of which have been built, are
currently in operation and are in condominium ownership. The majority of the subject
property is primarily vacant land and is accessed directly from MacGregor Avenue,
approximately 2,000 feet north of the Wonderview Avenue Intersection. The site
borders similar accommodation uses along the south (Overlook Condominiums), and
single and multi-family uses to the east.
Proposal:
The applicant requests approval of a Minor Subdivision Plat to separate the upper
(vacant) land from the developed condominium area and a Preliminary Townhome
Subdivision Plat applicable only to the newly created vacant lot to accommodate the
construction of townhome units with associated parking and entry walk-ways. The
Planning Commission approved an Amended Development Plan to convert the upper
portion of the site to a townhome subdivision to decrease the density from 19 to 17 units
and construct an overflow employee lot on the lower portion of the site. Enhancements
to the site include the construction of an 8-foot public sidewalk along MacGregor
Avenue, 5-foot all weather surface walkway (compacted base course) along the internal
street and an emergency access easement of the Overlook Condominiums to the south
to ensure adequate fire protection.
Estes Valley Board of Trustees, April 26, 2016 Page 2 of 5
Black Canyon Inn Preliminary Townhome Plat and Minor Subdivision
The applicant will request a variance to construct an overflow employee lot within a river
setback. The variance requests will be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment following
all other land use approvals.
Advantages:
1. Complies with standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code;
2. Is consistent with a number of key goals included in the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan, including Community-Wide Policies that address issues such
as scenic and environmental quality, community design, as well as advance the
development guidelines of the North End Planning relating to provisions for wildlife
migration;
3. Enhancement to the site include the construction of a public sidewalk along
MacGregor Avenue.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing for this application on
March 15, 2015. During the hearing, the Commission made the following findings:
1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development.
3. The requested Minor Modifications to Appendix D.II.E.2 and Appendix D.III.B.8.b.(1)
relieves practical difficulties in developing the site.
4. The requested Minor Modification to parking standards (§7.11) results in less visual
impact.
5. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will
comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as
described in the staff report.
6. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the proposed
Development Plan.
7. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the Preliminary Plat and
Minor Subdivision applications. The Town Board of Trustees is the Decision-making
Body for the Preliminary Plat and Minor Subdivision applications.
Estes Valley Board of Trustees, April 26, 2016 Page 3 of 5
Black Canyon Inn Preliminary Townhome Plat and Minor Subdivision
8. Approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the
purposes and objectives of this Code.
9. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition
precedent to placing the application on the Board agenda. Placement on the April
26th Town Board agenda requires an April 15th submittal of a revised application that
fully satisfies all conditions of approval.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval (one Commissioner
absent) of the Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat with
the following conditions recommended by staff.
1. Compliance with the following affected agency comments:
a. Estes Park Sanitation District email dated January 28, 2016;
b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated February 15, 2016;
c. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated February 19, 2016;
d. Town of Estes Park Community Development memos dated February 19,
2016 (three memos); and
e. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated February 19,
2016.
2. Continued compliance with original reports, including but not limited to:
a. Wildlife Impact Assessment dated March 24, 2008 (updated on April 20,
2009);
b. Drainage Report dated March 25, 2009; and
c. Traffic Impact Study dated March 25, 2009.
The applicant submitted a revised Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Townhome
Subdivision Plat that addressed all EVDC Code requirement comments outlined in the
Community Development Department memos relating to lot coverage, density and
dimensional standards, pedestrian linkages, grading, and parking. The applicant has
addressed the single Estes Park Sanitation District comment by depicting an 8 inch
sewer line extension to units 22-25 that ends in a manhole. The manhole has been
placed at a point where the services for units 22-25 can access the line directly.
Comments from the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, Town of Estes Park Utilities
Department and Public Works Department pertain to items that will need to be
addressed at time of building permit review with the exception of draining and grading.
Staff has included the remaining items to be addressed as conditions of approval
accordingly.
Budget:
Estimated to generate building permit fees over the course of the project’s development
to fund building plan review and inspections.
Estes Valley Board of Trustees, April 26, 2016 Page 4 of 5
Black Canyon Inn Preliminary Townhome Plat and Minor Subdivision
Level of Public Interest:
The level of public interest is low. Staff received one (1) phone call from an adjacent
property owner with concerns about potential trespassing onto neighboring properties.
The Commission also considered public testimony wherein one town resident raised
concern about the townhomes subdivision plat. She recalled that there was not to be a
supplementary paved drive off of MacGregor Avenue, and no construction by Black
Canyon Creek. Trees were to be replanted when removed by construction, two to one
for every tree removed. The applicant confirmed that they are not proposing an
additional entrance into Black Canyon off of MacGregor Avenue and all landscaping
requirements will be met throughout the construction of the project. She asked if
employee housing was part of the plan and noted concern about additional traffic in the
areas, as well as wildlife protection. Staff has included conditions of approval that
ensure compliance with the 2009 Wildlife Impact Assessment, Town drainage criteria
and Traffic Impact study is continued as well as standard conditions relating to retaining
wall structural design and driveway slope maximum of 12%.
Sample Motions:
Below are the Town Board’s options related to the Minor Subdivision Plat and
Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat applications:
1. I find that the applications meet the review criteria, and move to APPROVE of the
Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat applications with
the with the following conditions of approval:
a) Rock retaining walls are proposed extensively across the site. Walls taller
than 4’ will require a structural engineering design.
b) Driveway slopes are to be 12% maximum.
c) All drainage evaluation shall be in compliance with current Town drainage
criteria.
d) Continued compliance with original reports, including but not limited to:
a. Wildlife Impact Assessment dated March 24, 2008 (updated on April
20, 2009);
b. Drainage Report dated March 25, 2009; and
c. Traffic Impact Study dated March 25, 2009.
2. I find that the applications meet the review criteria, and move to APPROVE of the
Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat applications with
no conditions;
3. I find that the application does not meet the review criteria, and move to DENY the
Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat applications;
Estes Valley Board of Trustees, April 26, 2016 Page 5 of 5
Black Canyon Inn Preliminary Townhome Plat and Minor Subdivision
4. I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the
applications and move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to provide adequate time to
review additional materials.
Attachments:
Black Canyon Inn Minor Subdivision Plat
Black Canyon Inn Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat
Planning Commission Minutes (Included in Board Packet)
Black Canyon Inn Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat; Town Board, April 26, 2016Black Canyon Inn TownhomesMinor Subdivision Plat &Preliminary Townhome Subdivision PlatI. Project BackgroundII. ProposalIII. AdvantagesIV. Planning Commission Action & RecommendationsV. Public CommentVI. Recommended Conditions of ApprovalPRESENTATION AGENDA
Black Canyon Inn Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat; Town Board, April 26, 20162009 Black Canyon Inn Development Plan approved for a mix of Multi-family, Duplex, Single Family Accommodation UnitsLower portion of the project is built and in operation with a Mix of Residential & Accommodation Units, Twin Owls Steakhouse, Employee Units, Pool, Outdoor Pavilion and OfficeMajority of the property is vacantPrimary Access provided off of MacGregor Avenue – Private Internal DriveSimilar accommodation and multi-family uses in the areaPROJECT BACKGROUND:
1. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT: Separatethe upper 4 acres of vacant land fromthe developed condominium area2. PRELIMINARY TOWNHOMESUBDIVISION PLAT: To accommodate17 townhome units with associatedparking and entry walk-waysBlack Canyon Inn Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat; Town Board, April 26, 2016PROPOSAL:(Only applies to newly created vacant lot )
1. Compliance with the EVDC2. Consistency with the Estes ValleyComprehensive Plan3. Site Enhancements – Public sidewalkalong MacGregor Avenue and allweather surface walkway along theinternal private driveBlack Canyon Inn Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat; Town Board, April 26, 2016ADVANTAGES:
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION:Amended Development Plan to convertthe upper portion of the site to atownhome subdivision to decrease thedensityfrom19to17unitsandtoconstruct an overflow employee lot on thelower portion of the siteMinor Subdivision PlatPreliminary Townhome Subdivision PlatBlack Canyon Inn Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat; Town Board, April 26, 2016
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION:EVPC Recommended Approval withConditions:Standard conditions to be addressed attime of building permit review with theexception of draining and grading•All drainage evaluation shall be incompliance with current Town drainagecriteriaBlack Canyon Inn Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat; Town Board, April 26, 2016
PUBLIC COMMENT:1. Public Notice pursuant to EVDC publicnotice requirements2. Public Comment at PlanningCommission Meeting3. One objection to proposed density inthe area via phone call on 4/25/20164. One Town Resident raised concernabout the emergency access relating topotential fire dangerBlack Canyon Inn Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat; Town Board, April 26, 2016
1. Rock retaining walls over 4’ will require a structural engineering design1. Driveway slopes are to be 12% maximum2. All drainage evaluation shall be in compliance with current town drainage criteria3. Continued compliance:•Wildlife Impact Assessment•Drainage Report•Traffic Impact StudyBlack Canyon Inn Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat; Town Board, April 26, 2016RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Any questions or comments?Black Canyon Inn Minor Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat; Town Board, April 26, 2016Black Canyon Inn TownhomesMinor Subdivision Plat & Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: April 26th, 2016
RE: Board assignments for 2016
Objective:
To approve Trustee board, committee and liaison assignments for 2016, as outlined by
Board policy 101
Present Situation:
The Municipal Code requires the Mayor to appoint trustees to the two board standing
committees, the Community Development/Community Services committee (CD/CS) and
the Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee (PUP.) Board policy 101 also
requires the Mayor to appoint one trustee to chair each of these committees. These
appointments must be done at the first regular meeting following the certification of the
results of the biennial election.
The Municipal Code also requires the Board of Trustees to choose a Mayor Pro Tem at
this same meeting.
Board Policy 101 also covers the appointment of board liaisons to Town committees
and boards and appointments to outside committees to which the Town Board has
representation.
Board liaisons serve as the primary contact for the committee or community group with
the Board of Trustees. Liaisons are not members of the committee or group, but just
the prime contact for the full Board. The Board is not required to appoint a liaison to all
Town committees or boards. The Mayor presents nominations for liaison assignments
for approval by the full board.
Participation in outside boards or committees are often subject to the by-laws or policies
of each individual group and vary from group to group.
Proposal:
1. That the Mayor make appointments to the CD/CS and PUP committees and
appoint a trustee to serve as chair of each of these committees, as required by
Municipal Code.
2. That the Board choose a Mayor Pro-Tem as required by Municipal Code and
State Statute
3. That the Mayor nominate trustees to serve as liaisons to Town
Boards/commissions/committees if deemed needed and appropriate.
4. That the Board make appointments to specific outside committees with
representation from the Board of Trustees.
Advantages:
Some appointments are required by Municipal code or State Statute
Provides clear lines of communication between groups and the Board of
Trustees
Distributes workload among the Trustees
Disadvantages:
Provides that one trustee will be more familiar with the operation of a group to
which they serve as a liaison than those trustees with more limited interaction
with the group.
Action Recommended:
That the Board and Mayor complete the appointments as outlined above and modify
Board Policy 101 accordingly.
Budget:
n/a
Level of Public Interest
Moderate – possibly high for some specific groups
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Board policy 101 as amended
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: After each municipal election
Effective Date: April 15th, 2015
References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board
Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
101
Revisions: 4/15/2015
1. Purpose The Board of Trustees has many varied responsibilities. In order to effectively use
their time, the Board finds it necessary to divide duties and responsibilities among the Board
members.
2. Assignments To Ongoing Committees: At the first regular meeting following the certification of
the results of each biennial election, the Board of Trustees determines each Board and
Commission Primary Liaison assignments and responsibilities for the remainder of the term of
the current standing Town Board.
a. Interim Assignments: Should the Board deem it necessary to create a new liaison
assignment or to modify assignments at some time other than as described in 101.2,
the Board may do so at any regular meeting of the Board.
3. Assignment To Committees Of The Board Of Trustees (committees comprised solely of
members of the Board of Trustees)
a. Assignments to Standing Committees: “At the first regular meeting following the
certification of the results of each biennial election, the Mayor shall appoint three (3)
Trustees to the following standing committees: community development, public
safety, public works and utilities.” (Estes Park Municipal Code 2.08.010)
i. Assignment of Standing Committee Chairs – At the meeting where the Mayor
appoints the trustees to the two standing committees, the Mayor shall also
appoint a trustee to serve as the Chair of the committee.
b. Assignment to Special Committees: Special committees may be established by the
Board of Trustees. The Mayor shall appoint all members of any special committee
subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees. (Estes Park Municipal Code
2.08.020)
4. Appointment of Mayor Pro‐ Tem: “At its first meeting following the certification of the
results of each biennial election, the Board of Trustees shall choose one (1) of the Trustees as
Mayor Pro Tem who, in the absence of the Mayor from any meeting of the Board of Trustees,
or during the Mayor's absence from the Town or his or her inability to act, shall perform his or
her duties.” (Estes Park Municipal Code 2.16.010)
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: After each municipal election
Effective Date: April 15th, 2015
References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board
Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
101
Revisions: 4/15/2015
5. Special Assignments to Ad‐Hoc and Temporary Committees: The Mayor may nominate
trustees to serve on committees, community groups, or in some other capacities as a
representative of the Town, except in cases where a Board Liaison has been approved by the
Board of Trustees (Policy 1.7.) The Mayor shall present the nomination of any such
appointments to the Board for approval at a regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make
every effort to distribute special assignments equitably among the members of the Board.
6. Interview panels for Town Committees – In accordance with Section IV A 6 of Policy 102,
Town Committees, “Applicants for all committees will be interviewed by the Town Board, or
its designees. Any designees will be appointed by the full Town Board.”
7. Outside Committees – Outside committees are committees or boards where the Town is
represented by a member of the Board of Trustees and/or staff. These are not committees of
the Town of Estes Park and therefore the rules and guidelines for membership are those of
the outside entity not the Town. At times, they may request that the Trustees assign an
individual(s) to represent the Town, however they may also request a specific individual or
position as the Town’s representative to the committee.
8. Liaison Assignments ‐ The Mayor may nominate trustees to serve as a Board Liaison.. The
Mayor shall present the nomination of any such appointments to the Board for approval at a
regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make every effort to distribute special assignments
equitably among the members of the Board.
Effective Period: Until Superseded Review Schedule: After each municipal election Effective Date: April 15th, 2015 References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES 101 Revisions: 4/15/2015 Board Assignments Mayor Pro‐Tem ‐ Wendy Koenig Board and Commission and Community Representation Board, Commission or Task Force Liaison Staff Liaison Type of Committee Creative Sign Design Review Board Alison Chilcott Decision Making Estes Valley Planning Commission Trustee Phipps Alison Chilcott Advisory/ Decision Making Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Alison Chilcott Decision making Western Heritage Inc Trustee Koenig Bo Winslow Outside Estes Park Museum Friends and Foundation Inc. Derek Fortini Outside Ambassadors Teri Salerno Outside Police Auxiliary Wes Kufeld Working Group Parks Board Trustee Holcomb Kevin McEachern Advisory Transportation Advisory Committee Trustee Ericson Kevin Ash Advisory Senior Center Inc Lori Mitchell Outside Estes Valley Restorative Justice Melissa Westover Working Group Local Marketing District (Visit Estes Park) Trustee Norris Outside Estes Park Board of Appeals Alison Chilcott Advisory/Decision Making
Effective Period: Until Superseded Review Schedule: After each municipal election Effective Date: April 15th, 2015 References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES 101 Revisions: 4/15/2015 Sister Cities Trustee Koenig Working Group Committee or Board Appointed Member(s) Staff Liaison Type of Committee Audit Committee Mayor Pinkham, Trustee Ericson Steve McFarland Frank Lancaster Deb McDougall Advisory Platte River Power Authority Board of Directors Mayor Pinkham Reuben Bergsten Outside Public Works/Utilities/Public Safety Committee Trustees Norris (chair) Koenig and Nelson Board Committee Community Development/ Community Services Committee Trustees Ericson (chair), Holcomb, Phipps Board Committee Larimer County Open Lands Board Trustee Nelson Outside Community Grant Review Committee Trustee Ericson, Trustee Koenig, Jackie Williamson Board Committee Estes Park Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors Mayor Pinkham, Frank Lancaster Outside
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: After each municipal election
Effective Date: April 15th, 201526th, 2016
References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board
Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
101
Revisions: 4/15/201526/2016
1. Purpose The Board of Trustees has many varied responsibilities. In order to effectively use
their time, the Board finds it necessary to divide duties and responsibilities among the Board
members.
2. Assignments To Ongoing Committees: At the first regular meeting following the certification of
the results of each biennial election, the Board of Trustees determines each Board and
Commission Primary Liaison assignments and responsibilities for the remainder of the term of
the current standing Town Board.
a. Interim Assignments: Should the Board deem it necessary to create a new liaison
assignment or to modify assignments at some time other than as described in 101.2,
the Board may do so at any regular meeting of the Board.
3. Assignment To Committees Of The Board Of Trustees (committees comprised solely of
members of the Board of Trustees)
a) Assignments to Standing Committees:
At the first regular meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial
election, the Mayor shall appoint three (3) Trustees to the following standing
committees: Community Development/Community Service and Public Safety/
Utilities/Public Works; and the Mayor shall appoint two (2) Trustees to the Audit
committee with the Mayor serving as the third member.
(Ord. 26-88 §1(part), 1988; Ord. 7-03 §1, 2003; Ord. 10-10 §1, 2010; Ord. 10-14 §1,
2014; Ord. 13-15, § 1, 9-22-2015)
a. “At the first regular meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial
election, the Mayor shall appoint three (3) Trustees to the following standing
committees: community development, public safety, public works and utilities.”
(Estes Park Municipal Code 2.08.010)
i. Assignment of Standing Committee Chairs – At the meeting where the Mayor
appoints the trustees to the two standing committees, the Mayor shall also
appoint a trustee to serve as the Chair of the committee.
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: After each municipal election
Effective Date: April 15th, 201526th, 2016
References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board
Appointed Committee Principles
TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
101
Revisions: 4/15/201526/2016
b. Assignment to Special Committees: Special committees may be established by the
Board of Trustees. The Mayor shall appoint all members of any special committee
subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees. (Estes Park Municipal Code
2.08.020)
4. Appointment of Mayor Pro‐ Tem: “At its first meeting following the certification of the
results of each biennial election, the Board of Trustees shall choose one (1) of the Trustees as
Mayor Pro Tem who, in the absence of the Mayor from any meeting of the Board of Trustees,
or during the Mayor's absence from the Town or his or her inability to act, shall perform his or
her duties.” (Estes Park Municipal Code 2.16.010)
5. Special Assignments to Ad‐Hoc and Temporary Committees: The Mayor may nominate
trustees to serve on committees, community groups, or in some other capacities as a
representative of the Town, except in cases where a Board Liaison has been approved by the
Board of Trustees (Policy 1.7.) The Mayor shall present the nomination of any such
appointments to the Board for approval at a regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make
every effort to distribute special assignments equitably among the members of the Board.
6. Interview panels for Town Committees – In accordance with Section IV A 6 of Policy 102,
Town Committees, “Applicants for all committees will be interviewed by the Town Board, or
its designees. Any designees will be appointed by the full Town Board.”
7. Outside Committees – Outside committees are committees or boards where the Town is
represented by a member of the Board of Trustees and/or staff. These are not committees of
the Town of Estes Park and therefore the rules and guidelines for membership are those of
the outside entity not the Town. At times, they may request that the Trustees assign an
individual(s) to represent the Town, however they may also request a specific individual or
position as the Town’s representative to the committee.
8. Liaison Assignments ‐ The Mayor may nominate trustees to serve as a Board Liaison.. The
Mayor shall present the nomination of any such appointments to the Board for approval at a
regular town board meeting. The Mayor will make every effort to distribute special assignments
equitably among the members of the Board.
Effective Period: Until Superseded Review Schedule: After each municipal election Effective Date: April 15th, 201526th, 2016 References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES 101 Revisions: 4/15/201526/2016 Board Assignments Mayor Pro‐Tem ‐ __Wendy Koenig______________ Board and Commission and Community Representation Board, Commission or Task Force LiaisonStaff LiaisonType of CommitteeCreative Sign Design Review Board Alison Chilcott Decision Making Estes Valley Planning Commission Trustee Norris Com dev Dir Advisory/ Decision Making Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Com dev dir Decision making Western Heritage Inc Trustee Walker n/a Outside Estes Park Museum Friends and Foundation Inc. Derek Fortini Outside Ambassadors Trustee Holcomb Teri Salerno Outside Police Auxiliary Wes Kufeld Working Group Parks Board Trustee Martchink Kevin McEachern Advisory Transportation Advisory Committee Trustee Holcomb Kevin Ash Advisory Senior Center Inc Lori MitchellOutsideEstes Valley Restorative Justice Melissa Westover Working Group Local Marketing District (Visit Estes Park) Trustee Walker n/a Outside Estes Park Board of Appeals Com Dev Dir Advisory/Decision Making Sister Cities n/a Working Group Commented [FL1]: 1 trustee, not all must be filled Commented [FL2]: Removed due to code change Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Effective Period: Until Superseded Review Schedule: After each municipal election Effective Date: April 15th, 201526th, 2016 References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES 101 Revisions: 4/15/201526/2016 Committee or Board Appointed Member(s)Staff Liaison Type of Committee Audit Committee Mayor Jirsa Trustee Holcomb Mayor Pro Tem Koenig Steve McFarland Frank Lancaster Deb McDougall Advisory Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) Primary Voting Designee – Mayor Jirsa Alt Voting Designee Administrator Lancaster n/a Outside Platte River Power Authority Board of Directors Mayor Jirsa Reuben Bergsten Outside Public Works/Utilities/Public Safety Committee Chair – Mayor Pro Tem Koenig Trustee Martchink Trustee Nelson n/a Board Committee Community Development/ Community Services Committee Chair – Trustee Walker Trustee Norris Trustee Holcomb n/a Board Committee Larimer County Open Lands Board Trustee Nelson n/a Outside Community Grant Review Committee Trustee Nelson n/a Board Committee Commented [FL3]: “board member” – mayor or trustee “Trustee” –trustee but not the mayor Trustee includes Mayor Pro Tem Formatted: LeftFormatted: Font: 11 ptCommented [FL4]: Finance director
Effective Period: Until Superseded Review Schedule: After each municipal election Effective Date: April 15th, 201526th, 2016 References: Governing Policies Manual; Governance Policy Manual 1.6 Board Appointed Committee Principles TOWN BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES 101 Revisions: 4/15/201526/2016 Trustee Holcomb Jackie WilliamsonEstes Park Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors Mayor Jirsa Administrator Lancaster n/a Outside Estes Arts District Mayor Pro Tem KoenigTravis Machalek Outside Larimer County Wasteshed Policy Group Mayor Pro Tem Koenig ___________________________________ Todd Jirsa Mayor
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: April 22, 2016
RE: Appointments – Town Officers & Town Administrator
Objective:
To appoint Town Officers per Municipal Code 2.24 & 2.28
Present Situation:
The Town held the regular Municipal Election on April 5, 2016. Per the Municipal Code
Section 2.24.010, at the first regular meeting following certification of the results of each
biennial election, the Board of Trustees shall appoint a qualified person as Town Clerk,
Town Treasurer, Town Attorney, Municipal Judge and Assistant Municipal Judge, and
any other officers the Board of Trustees deems necessary for the good governance of
the Town.
Municipal Code section 2.28.10 Town Administrator; appointment states at the first
regular meeting following certification of the results of each biennial election, the Board
of Trustees shall appoint a qualified person as Town Administrator.
Proposal:
To appoint the following officers:
Jackie Williamson – Town Clerk
Travis Machalek – Interim Town Treasurer/Town Clerk Pro Tem
Greg White – Town Attorney
Roger Clark - Assistant Town Attorney
Randy Williams - Assistant Town Attorney
Gary Brown – Municipal Judge
John Easley – Assistant Municipal Judge
Frank Lancaster – Town Administrator
Advantages:
To comply with the Municipal Code and State Statute requirements.
Disadvantages:
None.
Appointments
2
Action Recommended:
Approve the appointments outlined above through separate motions.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest:
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Jackie Williamson as Town Clerk.
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Travis Machalek as Interim Town
Treasurer/Town Clerk Pro Tem.
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Greg White as Town Attorney.
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Roger Clark as Assistant Town Attorney.
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Randy Williams as Assistant Town Attorney.
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Gary Brown as Municipal Judge.
I move to approve/deny the appointment of John Easley as Assistant Municipal Judge.
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Frank Lancaster as Town Administrator.
Attachments:
Letter from Greg White related to his services/fees.
Memo from Greg White regarding the appointment of Roger Clark and Randy
Williams as Assistant Town Attorney.
Town Attorney Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: April 22, 2016
RE: Assistant Town Attorney and Assistant Judge Appointments
I am recommending that the Town Board appoint Roger Clark and Randy Williams of
Loveland, Colorado, to the position of Assistant Town Attorney. I have worked with Mr.
Clark and Mr. Williams for the past thirty-seven years and feel that they will bring a high
degree of integrity, competence, and legal experience to this appointment. Mr. Clark
and I were partners from 1980 to 1997, and Mr. Clark served as Assistant Town
Attorney during that period of time. Mr. Williams has maintained a private practice in
the City of Loveland for approximately thirty-seven years and also was Assistant City
Attorney for the City of Loveland. They are currently partners in the firm of Clark
Williams & Matsunaka in Loveland. The purpose of appointing both of them to the
Assistant Town Attorney position is to provide legal services in the event of potential
conflict of interest and/or unavailability of either one.
I am recommending that John Easley be reappointed as the Assistant Municipal Judge.
Mr. Easley has served in this capacity since the 1990s. Mr. Easley is retired from his
law practice in Loveland, but currently serves as the appointed Municipal Judge for the
Town of Berthoud and the Town of Milliken.