HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-07-12The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide highǦquality, 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, July 12, 2016
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
MONTEVERDE, COSTA RICA SISTER CITIES PRESENTATION.
HIGH SCHOOL PRESENTATION – SISTER CITIES SCIENCE EXCHANGE.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
x Policy Governance Report
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated June 28, 2016 and Town Board Study Session June 28,
2016.
2. Bills.
Prepared 6/30/16
* Revised:
1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
3. Committee Minutes
A. None
4.Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated June 7, 2016 (acknowledgement
only).
2. ACTION ITEMS:
1.BROOK COURT STREET IMPROVEMENTS & MORAINE AVENUE DITCH
PROJECT CONTRACT. Engineer Ash.
2.RESOLUTION #17-16 SETTING DIRECTION FOR SENIOR SERVICES & THE
ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER.Town Attorney White.
3.NORTHERN COLORADO REGIONAL TOURISM AUTHORITY APPOINTMENTS.
Mayor Jirsa.
3. ADJOURN.
2
3
4
5
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 28, 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 28th day of June 2016.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Walker
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the
Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Bernie Holien/County resident and Vacation Home Task Force member stated the
overview presented by Larimer County Planning Director Gilbert during the study
session was the first time the Task Force members had seen the progress update. The
document had a number of discrepancies. Only three votes have been held and none
of them had unified consensus. He stated concern with the elimination of a unified
decision on issues rather than a general consensus or simple majority.
Judy Anderson/County citizen, property manager and Task Force member commented
the process has been challenging and extremely difficult to work through the issues.
The Task Force has not addressed a number of the volatile issues to date.
Enforcement needs to be addressed and be a priority. She recommended the Town
consider the iCompass solution for monitoring vacation homes and to provide a 24-hour
complaint line.
Ed Petersen/Town citizen and Task Force member stated retirees purchase more
homes in the Estes valley and create the housing needs, not vacation homes. The
community needs more accessory dwelling units to address the housing issue. The
vacation home group wants solutions and enforcement. The Task Force needs clear
direction on how to move forward with regard to unified consensus or a simple majority.
Millicent Cozzie/Town citizen and Task Force member commented the group has not
discussed difficult issues and there are only three meetings left. She stated the Task
Force can make progress if the group moves away from a unified consensus. The Task
Force needs direction. She reiterated the recommendation to use iCompass as a
solution to collecting data for vacation homes, gather facts and aid in enforcement.
Paul Fishman/Town citizen stated the 1A funds are for the building of the Community
Center. He stated a discussion should be held on why the Town subsidizes one service
over another such as the Senior Center versus another service like the Community
Center.
Art Messal/Town citizen recommended the Town ban vacation rentals in order to
address the housing shortage. He questioned the appropriateness of email
communication with the Board on quasi-judicial items. He stated concern with the
6
Board of Trustees – June 28, 2016 – Page 2
Habitat rezoning request for the property adjacent to Salud. The proposal to place two
homes on a small sloped lot does not make sense for the community. He stated the
Rocky Mountain National Park is full every day making the Town not a gateway
community but a destination.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Nelson stated the Open Spaces Passport program was launched on May 31,
2016 as part of the 20th anniversary celebration of the Help Preserve Open Spaces
sales tax in Larimer County. The program consists of visiting different locations
throughout the county to collect rubbings from each location. Open Lands has
distributed 2,000 passports in the first printing. Additional passports are being printed
due to the success of the program. On June 13, 2016, GOCO granted a $4 million
grant to Larimer County in conjunction with Fort Collins to preserve 2,300 acres in the
western foothills near Horseshoe Reservoir area. They are preparing application to the
International Dark-Sky Association to designate Red Mountain Open Space and
Soapstone as Dark Sky Parks. Construction of a new 6-mile trail in Hermit Park has
begun and would provide visitors with excellent viewpoints of the park.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig commented the Sister Cities delegation from Monteverde, Costa
Rica would visit Estes Park July 5 – 12, 2016. The Art district has been meeting and
developing their first Friday Fun event in July.
Trustee Walker stated he attended the recent Parks Advisory Board meeting in place of
Trustee Martchink. The Board discussed the screening of utility boxes. The recent
Community Development/Community Services Committee discussed the shuttle system
and the methods that may be used to decrease the per ride cost to $3. The Rooftop
Rodeo preparations continue. He attended the CML conference and found most
successful board focus on vision. Steamboat Springs has utilized deed restrictions to
try and address housing issues and has not found them to work in their community. Vail
has addressed parking issues successfully. He stated the Town needs to address
housing issues now.
Trustee Norris commented he also attended the CML conference and found two
universal topics for most communities consisted of the need for additional workforce
housing and sensible regulations for vacation homes.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Director Muhonen provided an update on the Dry Gulch Road Phase I construction and
stated the roadway would be opened during the July 4th holiday weekend. The road
would be closed again to complete the construction with an anticipated reopening on
July 11th. At that time Phase II, north end, would be closed to begin construction.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated June 14, 2016 and Town Board Study Session
June 14, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development / Community Services Committee, June 16,
2016.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated May 18, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated May 20, 2016 (acknowledgement only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated May 17, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
7
Board of Trustees – June 28, 2016 – Page 3
7. Larimer County Emergency Management Mutual Aid Agreement.
8. Resolution #12-16 Adopting the Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1.CONSENT ITEMS:
A. SPECIAL REVIEW 2016-01 - LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS.
The applicant requested the item be continued to the July 26, 2016 Town
Board meeting. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to
continue the Special Review 2016-01 Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers to the
July 26, 2016 Town Board meeting, and it passed with Trustee Walker
abstaining.
B. MOUNTAIN MEADOW ANNEXATION. Staff requested the item be
continued to the August 9, 2016 Town Board meeting. It was moved and
seconded (Holcomb/Martchink) to continue the Mountain Meadow
Annexation to the August 9, 2016 Town Board meeting, and it passed
unanimously.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1.ORDINANCE #17-16 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE VERIZON WIRELESS
LAND LEASE AGREEMENT. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing.
Manager Landkamer stated through the review process, Public Works
Engineering requested the proposed construction plans outline a 24-foot-wide
drive lane to be maintained through the area of the new construction, with a
centerline painted to help direct the vehicular traffic through the parking lot.
The amendments require an amendment of the lease agreement and the
exhibits. Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. Attorney White read
Ordinance #17-16 and amended the Ordinance to state amendment in lieu of
agreement throughout the Ordinance. It was moved and seconded
(Norris/Holcomb) to approve Ordinance #17-16, and it passed unanimously.
4. DISCUSSIONS AND REPORT ITEMS:
1.ELECTRIC RATE INCREASE REPORT. Tom Gould/Vice President HDR
Engineering, Inc. provided an overview of the Electric Rate study conducted for
the Town of Estes Park’s Light and Power. The study reviewed key
assumptions as it relates to revenue requirements, cost of service, and rate
design. He stated O&M continues to grow by annual inflationary factors. The
department developed a 5-year review of expenses and capital improvements
to determine funding needs while maintaining the required Bond reserves. A
cost of services analysis was completed to properly allocate the cost to the
customer classes, i.e. residential versus commercial, thereby producing fair and
equitable rates. The study proposes an increase to the fixed customer charge
to better reflect the fixed costs on the system and an increase to the usage
charge (kWh and kW). The proposed rates would result in resetting the Power
Cost Adjustment or Purchase Power Rider. The proposed rate increase for
residential and commercial customers would be 6.25%/2016, 5.50%/2017,
5.50%/2018 and 5.00%/2019. The proposed rate increase would be effective
September 1, 2016 if approved by the Board.
Director Bergsten stated the rate study ensures continued high-quality utility
services and plans for future upgrades through capital improvement projects.
8
Board of Trustees – June 28, 2016 – Page 4
In developing the study, the Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities (CAMU)
standards were used for comparison due to the high percentage of second
homes. Compared to other entities the Town’s proposed residential rates
would be below the average costs, while the small commercial would be above
the average and large commercial well below the average. The utility has fixed
costs on the system that occur regardless of the electricity used by customers,
such as monthly utility billing and tree trimming along easements and rights-of-
way. The monthly base fee would offset the gap between fixed costs and fixed
revenues. The utility has made efforts to reduce costs by improving workflow,
outsourcing wherever it provides the best value, i.e. GIS services, centralize
database of assets and documentation, and decrease outages.
Paul Fishman/Town citizen questioned if the rate increases would include the cost
of energy from PRPA. He stated the proposed rate increases would be an
additional $200 a year per household. This increase would decrease the money
spent in Town on other services and goods.
5.REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to enter into Executive Session
for the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be
subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or
instructing negotiators with the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District
regarding the Estes Valley Community Center, 24-6-402(4)(e) C.R.S., for a
conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice
on specific legal questions related to Ballot Issue 1A and the Estes Valley
Community Center, 24-6-402(4)(b). C.R.S., and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 8:30 p.m.
Mayor Jirsa reconvened the meeting to open session at 9:35 p.m.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
9
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado June 28, 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 the
Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 28th day of June, 2016.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending:All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Town Attorney White, and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent:None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
VACATION HOME TASK FORCE UPDATE.
Terry Gilbert/Larimer County Planning Director and Vacation Home Task Force staff
liaison provided an overview of the formation of the Task Force to address vacation
homes of 9 or more occupancy. The Task Force was charged with providing the
County Commissioners and the Town Board with recommendations that would be
enforceable. He stated the Task Force has held a number of meetings and has found it
difficult to come to a unified consensus on issues. The Task Force has moved to a
simple majority and would forward recommendations with an outline of how many
members did not agree with an issue and any related concerns. The County
Commissioners were briefed on the concept and have agreed with the change in
philosophy moving forward. Board discussion ensued on the Task Force moving
forward with a simple majority rather than a unified consensus. Trustee Nelson stated
concern with providing the Task Force with direction as the group is not a Town Task
Force.
The building officials for both the County and Town would attend the next meeting to
discuss building code issues as it relates to specific recommendations, i.e. sprinkler
needs. Local amendments may be need to address changes to the building codes for
vacation homes.
Director Gilbert reviewed the Vacation Home Task Force status as of June 22, 2016:
established a process for occupancy count of 2 per bedroom plus 2; minimum age limit
for counting occupancy has not been determined; same land use standards established
for vacation homes of 8 and under should be used with additional requirements
recommended for larger homes; use existing traffic limits; use existing speed limits
within the area; no limit would be set on the number of vacation homes within a
neighborhood; establish the number of bedrooms based on a review of the Assessor’s
records and the Building Department records; land use, building, health, fire, etc.
inspections to be utilized; grandfathering of existing vacation homes of 9 or more to be
established by the County Commissioners and the Town Board so long as they are
licensed within 30 days of the final adopted regulations and would not apply to the
inspections; and would be allowed in the same zoning districts as the 8 and under with
the exception of a 1 acre minimum and 25 foot setbacks. Items needing further
discussion include who gets cited for violations, parking limitations, renter notification
requirements, noise, local contact requirements for manager/owner, recommendation
on fines, proof of insurance, rental agreements to protect liability of neighbors, and how
to address neighborhood character.
10
Town Board Study Session – June 28, 2016 – Page 2
BROADBAND TAKE RATE STUDY.
Jill Mosteller, Ph.D. was hired by the Town of Estes Park to provide the Town with a
Take Rate study for broadband service operated by the Town of Estes Park Utility. She
provided an overview of the study results including response rate, residential survey
results, business survey results, competitive landscape and insights into future potential
offers. The survey participant response rate included 214 residents with 58% primary
and 42% secondary, and 266 businesses participated with a variety of business type,
size and revenue streams. The household size in the sample closely reflected the actual
household composition, as well as median household income for primary residents.
The survey found 58% of households currently bundle their internet service. Residential
participants place positive value on the Town being the provider, internet speeds of
50Mbps/15 Mbps for download and upload speeds, price point below $70/month and
installations fees may provide positive value depending upon what is included.
Business participants also positively value the Town as a provider, internet speeds at or
above 250 Mbps/125 Mbps for download and upload speeds, and a price point below
$150/month. She recommended the Town test the viability of two offers for the
residential rate to maximize the take rate; however, the Town should be cognizant not to
price the service too low. In doing so the Town may have more customers than it can
provide high quality service too.
Administrator Lancaster stated no decision has been made on if the Town would run the
utility. There would be further discussion needed on how the utility would be built and
rolled out. The engineering and construction costs are needed to refining pricing of the
service.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Norris stated he compiled his notes from the CML conference and had staff
forward to all Trustees for review.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Administrator Lancaster asked if the Board would like to have CDOT provide an update
on the Hwy 34 closure at an upcoming study session. The Board consensus was to
have CDOT provide regular email updates rather than a study session. He stated a
meeting of the key agencies and businesses has been set up for July 14th to discuss the
impact of the closure.
Mayor Jirsa stated he received a letter requesting appointment to the Northern Colorado
Regional Tourism Authority. The item would be set for the July 12, 2016 Town Board
meeting.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:31 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
11
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
June 7, 2016 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Don Darling, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Pete Smith,
Jeff Moreau, and John Lynch
Attending: Chair Darling, Members Newsom, Lynch, and Smith
Also Attending: Planner Audem Gonzales, Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Member Moreau
Chair Darling called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were five people in
attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes dated May 3, 2016.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented and the motion passed 3-0 with Member Moreau absent and Member
Lynch abstaining.
3. LOT 4A, 2
nd AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 4 & 5, SPANIER SUBDIVISION, 1774
Spur 66; The Landing at Estes Park
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicants, Jennifer and
Jerome Johnston, requested variances from EVDC Section 7.5.F.2.b(3) Landscape
Buffering and Screening, and 7.5.G.2.b(1) Parking Lot Landscaping. The request is
to allow a 12.5-foot wide street and parking lot landscape buffer in lieu of the 25-
foot wide required buffer in the A–Accommodations zone district. These areas
overlap on the lot. The site is in the unincorporated Estes Valley. Planner Gonzales
stated there was an informal 20-foot buffer. A recently approved amended plat
reduced the buffer area to 12.5 feet. There is a portion of the site that could meet
the required buffer, but the location is not ideal regarding the rest of the
development.
12
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
June 7, 2016
Planner Gonzales stated the site recently underwent a Development Plan review to
redevelop into Resort Lodge/Cabin use. The plan was approved March 29, 2016
and includes remodeling the existing cabins and lodge building and building two
new cabins and a private recreational hall. The application was routed to all
affected agencies and adjacent property owners. A notice was published in the
local newspaper. No major comments or concerns were received by affected
agencies, and no public comments were received.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
The property was originally developed in the 1970’s with three cabins along the
river, and has been used with this configuration for the last 40 years. With the
Amended Plat and Development Plan applications, an additional ten feet of right-
of-way was required to be dedicated, reducing the existing buffer area. The
proposed parking area will be asphalt and have curb and gutter. Code
requirements for this type of development at this location call for a 25-foot
landscape buffer along Highway 66. Providing a 25-foot street landscape and
parking lot buffer would require the parking area to be reduced by 12.5 feet, which
would eliminate the drive aisle and make the existing and proposed parking
inaccessible. Staff feels the site had many constraints in the pre-development
stage and has address many of those issues. The variance request would relieve
practical and topographical difficulties associated with redeveloping an existing
site.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Staff found the existing configuration of the site may continue to be used. Any
substantial redevelopment of the site would require a Development Plan, which
would require the landscape buffers. The existing buffer is not code compliant
in regards to width or landscape units. The existing strip of land is merely grass
and dirt, while the proposed buffer would consist of a mix of trees, shrubs, and
boulders.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff found the variance request is for a 50% reduction from code requirements,
from 25 feet to 12.5 feet. The parking area location is below the view plane of
Highway 66, and proposed landscaping will help shield and buffer parking from
the road. The existing grass area in the additional 10-feet of right-of-way will not
be altered.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance:
Staff found the character of the neighborhood would not be substantially
altered, and the adjoining property would not suffer a detriment. Staff believes
13
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
June 7, 2016
the redevelopment proposal would enhance the neighborhood. The parking
area will be improved. Additional parking is proposed on the western portion of
the site that would include the same 12.5 landscape buffer width.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer;
Staff found the approval of the variance would not have any effect on public
services such as water and sewer. All public service locations were approved
with the development plan.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
The applicant assumed Highway 66 was a Minor Collector Street, based on the
Larimer County classification. Through the Amended Plat process, additional
right-of-way was required to be dedicated. Per code, any street with a 60-foot
right-of-way or greater is designated an Arterial Street, and landscaping
standards increase from a 15-foot buffer to a 25-foot buffer.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance;
Staff found because this is a redevelopment project, the constraints of the site
are numerous. Meeting landscaping code standards would require the existing
parking area to be moved to the lower portion of the site. This would conflict
with fire access and river setback requirements. Formalizing the existing
parking area is the most practical solution for this property.
3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations
that will afford relief:
Staff found the variance request is a result of additional right-of-way dedicated
through the Amended Plat and Development Plan process. A variance would be
the least deviation from Code that would allow the site to be redeveloped as
proposed.
4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its
independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified.
Staff found all proposed landscaping shall be irrigated per the approved
Development Plan. The applicant shall also provide as-builts for the parking area
and sidewalks which shall ensure compliance with the approved plans. Staff has
no additional conditions of approval for this variance request.
Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance request with
no recommended conditions.
Member and Staff Discussion
14
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4
June 7, 2016
Chair Darling inquired about the location of the original sign (in the right-of-way).
Planner Gonzales stated the original sign was recently removed, with a new sign
erected entirely on the applicant’s property.
Public Comment
The applicants were in attendance but had no comment.
Member and Staff Discussion
Planner Gonzales stated the appropriate place for a trail or sidewalk along this
property would be right along the road within the right-of-way. The county would
be responsible for plowing a sidewalk. If a trail was installed instead, the Town and
County would negotiate the maintenance. The county engineer had no comments
on the variance, but did have comments on the development plan. The grassy
area on the plan will remain in order to have a larger pervious area.
Several members commented on how much of an improvement to the area this
redevelopment would be.
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lynch) to approve the variance with the
findings presented by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one
absent.
4.LOT 1A, LARIMER TERMINALS SUBDIVISION, 444 ELM ROAD; Polar Gas
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The property is located in the
unincorporated Estes Valley and is currently occupied by Polar Gas. The variance
request is to allow a 0.92-foot front setback in lieu of the 15-foot required front setback
required in the I-1–Industrial zone district. Approval of the variance would allow an
existing 144 square foot building to remain at its current location, which is almost
entirely in the setback.
Planner Gonzales stated the building was constructed in 2007 without proper building
permits. Earlier this year, staff conducted a site analysis in regards to a code violation.
At that time, staff gave the property owners the option of moving the building or
applying for a variance. The building is currently used as the office for Polar Gas.
Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and
adjacent property owners. A notice was published in the local newspaper. No major
comments or concerns were received by affected agencies or the general public.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
15
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5
June 7, 2016
Staff found the property is approximately 1.727 acres and zoned I-1–Industrial.
Only 50% of the site is being used due to the steepness of slope. The existing
building was placed on a concrete foundation and is located almost entirely within
the 15-foot front setback. Staff found no reason the building could not have been
placed at a different location. At 144 square feet, size was not an issue. There are
no special circumstances or conditions associated with this property that would
justify the current building location.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Staff found without the variance, the shed/office building would need to be
relocated on the property. If the variance is granted, the building may continue
to be used at its current location. Relocating the building would create
additional costs for demolition and new construction.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff found the variance request is for nearly a 100% reduction from Code
requirements; therefore, substantial in that regard. Staff did not find that
allowing the building to continue to be used at this location was a substantial
request, as it has been there since 2007 with no comments or concerns
presented to the Community Development Department.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance:
Staff found the character of the area would not be substantially altered, and the
adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment. No complaints or documented
adverse impacts have been noted in the nine years the building has been in
place. Drainage, lighting, access, etc. were reviewed with this application.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer;
Staff found approval of the variance would not have any effect on public
services such as water and sewer. The application was routed to various
reviewing agencies and no comment or concerns were received in regards to
the 10-foot utility easement.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff found the shed/staging office was constructed in 2007 when the Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC) setbacks were in effect. A county building
permit was not applied for in 2007, which would have flagged this location as
inappropriate.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance;
Staff found the building could be placed at a new location, compliant with the
EVDC. Because the building is constructed on a permanent concrete
16
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6
June 7, 2016
foundation and no complaints or concerns have been received, staff believes
the location of this small office building is not detrimental or poses any risks to
the property or adjacent properties. Relocating the building is not financially
practical.
3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations
that will afford relief:
Staff found a variance would be the least deviation from Code that would allow the
building to continue to be located at this location on the property.
4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its
independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified.
Staff recommends the applicant apply for a Larimer County building within 30 days.
If the building permit is denied, the variance would become null and void.
Public Comment
Nathan Reed/applicant stated he leased the property from Doug Klink, and the
property line was incorrectly determined. Had he truly known where the property line
was, he would have built the structure in a compliant area. Mr. Reed stated the Zoning
Approval Form was completed and approved by former Planner Dave Shirk following a
site visit; however, a county building permit was never applied for. He presented a
copy of a zoning approval form, required for projects in the EVDC area but outside of
town limits. (Note: this was the first staff had heard of or seen an approved zoning
form for this location). Chair Darling stated a site plan would have shown the property
lines and setbacks.
Mickey Leyba/applicant stated they called the county building department and there
was some confusion as to whether or not a building permit was required for this size
building.
Chair Darling recommended the applicants speak with the Larimer County Building
Department regarding the building permit process. Member comments included but
were not limited to: the applicant did his due diligence prior to construction; the 2003
adopted building codes were in effect in 2007, and permits were required for any
structures over 100 square feet; if the road is expanded in the future it will be
completely on the subject property.
Conditions of Approval
1. If required by the County, a building permit shall be applied for with one month
of variance approval. If the building permit is not issued by the County, the
Variance shall become null and void.
2. Proof of the County permit issuance shall be provided to Community
Development staff.
17
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7
June 7, 2016
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Lynch) to approve the variance request with
the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed
unanimously with one absent.
5. REPORTS
1. Recording Secretary Thompson reported on the hiring process for a new
Community Development Director and a Planner to replace Phil Kleisler. The
Director candidate turned down the offer of employment and the position was
reopened. Two interview teams will be interviewing three candidates this Friday,
June 10th. The top two choices for the Planner position turned down the offer. That
position has been reposted and interviews are forthcoming.
There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:39 a.m.
NOTE: Following adjournment of the meeting, Chair Darling informed Secretary
Thompson that he no longer lived in the Estes Valley Development Code area; therefore,
was no long qualified to serve on the Board of Adjustment, effective immediately.
___________________________________
Don Darling, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
18
19
ENGINEERING Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager
Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: July 12, 2016
RE: Brook Court Street Improvements & Moraine Avenue Ditch Project
Construction Contract Award
Objective:
Public Works seeks Town Board approval for award of a construction contract to
complete the 2013 Flood Damage Repair Project. Two projects remain – Brook Court
Street Improvements & Moraine Avenue Ditch Project.
Present Situation:
In September 2014, the Town Board approved a construction contract to Osmun Inc. to
repair flood damage to Town owned roads and drainage ways for 20 different sites
throughout Town. A Notice to Proceed with construction was issued on November 3rd,
2014 with a completion date of December 19th, 2014. After nearly one year of
construction, this contract was terminated (October 13th, 2015) for non-compliance with
the contract documents leaving two projects incomplete:
1. Brook Court Street Improvements require installation of curb and gutter around
half the cul-de-sac, paving of the road and drainage improvements.
2. The Moraine Avenue Ditch Project requires installation of a customized concrete
inlet, a concrete plunge pool at the downstream outlet, site regrading and
revegetation.
Proposal:
On June 2, 2016, Public Works advertised a Request for Bid that would complete
construction of drainage infrastructure, concrete curb and gutter, and asphalt paving on
Brook Court and complete drainage infrastructure for the Moraine Avenue Ditch.
Six companies attended the mandatory pre-bid on June 9th. Of those six, two
companies submitted a bid for construction. After three weeks of advertising, the bids
were opened on June 23rd. The following table contains the bids for each company:
COMPANY CITY BROOK CT MORAINE DITCH TOTAL FEE
Mountain Constructors Inc Platteville $153,297 $54,181 $207,478
Walsh Construction Inc Loveland $215,147 $95,947 $311,128
20
Mountain Constructors submitted the lowest bid for both projects. They have previous
work experience with the Town from 2014 with the Moraine Avenue Sidewalk
Improvement Project. Town Staff and its consultant have reviewed the bid evaluation,
checked references and recommend Mountain Constructors, Inc. as the Brook Court
Street Improvements & Moraine Ave Ditch Project construction company.
RG Associates will be retained to provide construction management services for the
final 2 projects. They have provided valuable and consistent support for the Town
throughout the previous contract. Engineering Manager Kevin Ash will provide
management of the contract for the Town.
Advantages:
Completion of the Brook Ct improvements provides project closure for
residents who have endured multiple starts and stops with this work since the
original contract was signed with Osmun in October 2014.
Completion of the Moraine Avenue Ditch Project will complete the routing of
stormwater runoff from the Elm Road area north of Moraine Avenue to the
river.
Disadvantages:
There will be vehicular access restriction to Brook Ct during paving
construction of the road, however on-street parking along Brook Drive is
permitted.
Action Recommended by Staff:
To advance the Brook Court Street Improvements & the Moraine Avenue Ditch Project,
Staff recommends award of a construction contract to Mountain Constructors Inc., in the
amount of $207,478. Staff also recommends spending authority up to $230,000 for
unknown construction conditions that may arise. This represents a 9.8% contingency.
Budget:
This $207,478 project budget will be funded from flood recovery dollars allocated from
the 2013 Flood Project (budget account #101-3100-431-22-02). Originally these 2
projects were bid by Osmun at $143,306.15. The $207,478 will be submitted to FEMA
as part of the 2013 flood recovery allocation. The Town will submit a scope change
request to support these additional costs. FEMA supports 75% of the eligible costs with
a 25% local share being the responsibility of the receiving entity. The State will be
covering 12.5% of the 25% local share leaving the remaining 12.5% ($25,934.75) match
to be funded as a Town General Fund expense.
Schedule:
Construction is scheduled to begin on August 1st. Final completion has a September
30th, 2016 deadline.
Level of Public Interest
The level of public interest is high for those property owners surrounding the Brook
Court cul-de-sac and the businesses adjacent to the Moraine Ditch.
21
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of a construction contract for the Brook Court Street
Improvements & the Moraine Avenue Ditch Project, to Mountain Constructors Inc, for a
contract cost not to exceed $207,478. Public Works also requests spending authority
up to $230,000.
Attachments:
Project Plans
Construction Contract – Mountain Constructors Inc
22
23
N
4885 Ward Road, Suite 100 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Gypsum Loveland Monte Vista Wheat Ridge
303-293-8107 303-293-8106 (fax) www.rgengineers.com
S:\951.0010 - Estes Park Flood Damage Repair\DWG\0101-0127-Estes Park\sheets\2016 Brook Ct and Moraine Avenue\Estes Park-COVER SHEET.dwg, 4/28/2016 4:14:15 PM, karlk,1:124
4885 Ward Road, Suite 100 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Gypsum Loveland Monte Vista Wheat Ridge
303-293-8107 303-293-8106 (fax) www.rgengineers.com NBROOK COURT
TYPICAL ASPHALT SECTION
S:\951.0010 - Estes Park Flood Damage Repair\DWG\0101-0127-Estes Park\sheets\2016 Brook Ct and Moraine Avenue\0102-Estes Park-BROOK CT.dwg, 4/28/2016 4:22:43 PM, karlk,1:125
4885 Ward Road, Suite 100 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Gypsum Loveland Monte Vista Wheat Ridge
303-293-8107 303-293-8106 (fax) www.rgengineers.com NS:\951.0010 - Estes Park Flood Damage Repair\DWG\0101-0127-Estes Park\sheets\2016 Brook Ct and Moraine Avenue\0102-Estes Park-BROOK CT.dwg, 4/29/2016 8:16:53 AM, karlk,1:126
4885 Ward Road, Suite 100 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Gypsum Loveland Monte Vista Wheat Ridge
303-293-8107 303-293-8106 (fax) www.rgengineers.com NSECTION A-A
CONCRETE PAN DETAIL
S:\951.0010 - Estes Park Flood Damage Repair\DWG\0101-0127-Estes Park\sheets\2016 Brook Ct and Moraine Avenue\0102-Estes Park-BROOK CT.dwg, 4/29/2016 8:12:48 AM, karlk,1:127
℄
℄
4885 Ward Road, Suite 100 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Gypsum Loveland Monte Vista Wheat Ridge
303-293-8107 303-293-8106 (fax) www.rgengineers.com
BROOK COURT FLOWLINE PROFILE (EAST)NBROOK COURT
TYPICAL ASPHALT SECTION
S:\951.0010 - Estes Park Flood Damage Repair\DWG\0101-0127-Estes Park\sheets\2016 Brook Ct and Moraine Avenue\0102-Estes Park-BROOK CT.dwg, 4/28/2016 4:27:54 PM, karlk,1:128
4885 Ward Road, Suite 100 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Gypsum Loveland Monte Vista Wheat Ridge
303-293-8107 303-293-8106 (fax) www.rgengineers.com
BROOK COURT FLOWLINE PROFILE (WEST)NBROOK COURT
TYPICAL ASPHALT SECTION
S:\951.0010 - Estes Park Flood Damage Repair\DWG\0101-0127-Estes Park\sheets\2016 Brook Ct and Moraine Avenue\0102-Estes Park-BROOK CT.dwg, 4/28/2016 4:52:43 PM, karlk,1:129
4885 Ward Road, Suite 100 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Gypsum Loveland Monte Vista Wheat Ridge
303-293-8107 303-293-8106 (fax) www.rgengineers.com NSECTION A-A
S:\951.0010 - Estes Park Flood Damage Repair\DWG\0101-0127-Estes Park\sheets\2016 Brook Ct and Moraine Avenue\0123-Estes Park-MORAINE AVE.dwg, 4/29/2016 8:21:33 AM, karlk,1:130
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Date: July 12th, 2016
RE: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NEGOTIATION OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ESTES VALLEY
RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT FOR THE ESTES VALLEY
COMMUNITY CENTER
Objective:
To provide framework for future cooperation and collaboration between the Town and
the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District in the provision of Senior Services and the
Estes Valley Community Center
Present Situation:
On April 1, 2014, the electors of the Town of Estes Park passed Ballot Issue 1A which
provided for collection and distribution by the Town of sales tax for the construction of
the Estes Valley Community Center (EVCC) including facilities for the Estes Park Senior
Center; and on November 3, 2015, the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (Rec
District), Ballot Issues 4C & 4D were approved by the electors of the Rec District. Ballot
Issue 4C provided that the Rec District could incur up to $19.83 million of debt to
construct, improve and equip the EVCC; and Ballot Issue 4D provided for a mill levy
increase of up to $200,000 for a ten year period commencing in 2018 for operating and
maintaining the EVCC.
With the design of the EVCC well underway, the Town and the Rec District are striving
to establish a solid foundation for the construction and operation of the EVCC including
the integration of senior services into the EVCC per the recommendations of the Town’s
2013 Senior Center Master Plan.
Proposal:
That the Board approve the resolution which states the intent of the Town to transfer of
the management of senior services from the Town to the Rec District upon the opening
of the EVCC, and outlining the general terms and conditions of this transfer, to be
further defined in a MOU between the Town and the District.
Advantages:
Simplifies the management and operation of the Community Center
Insures the integration of facilities and programming with the facility to serve a
multigenerational clientele.
50
Eliminates the need for ongoing lease/ operating agreements between the Town and
the District for the operation of the Community Center.
Provides Senior Center patrons seamless integration into all program offerings at the
Estes Valley Recreation Center.
Disadvantages:
Some programming may change from the traditional delivery methods.
Some seniors may be more comfortable with the senior center being part of the Town of
Estes Park rather than the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District.
Action Recommended:
That the Board approve the resolution
Level of Public Interest
Very high
Sample Motion:
I move for the adoption of RESOLUTION NO. 17-16 APPROVING THE NEGOTIATION
OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ESTES VALLEY
RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT FOR THE ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY
CENTER
Note – Any item requiring a change to the Municipal Code, Development Code or any
other action requiring an Ordinance to be passed by the Town Board is required to have
the Ordinance included.
51
RESOLUTION NO. 17-16
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NEGOTIATION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT WITH THE ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
FOR THE ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2014, the electors of the Town of Estes Park passed Ballot Issue 1A
which provided for collection and distribution by the Town of sales tax for the construction of the
Estes Valley Community Center (EVCC) including facilities for the Estes Park Senior Center; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2015, the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (Rec
District), Ballot Issues 4C & 4D were approved by the electors of the Rec District. Ballot Issue 4C
provided that the Rec District could incur up to $19.83 million of debt to construct, improve and equip
the EVCC; and Ballot Issue 4D provided for a mill levy increase of up to $200,000 for a ten year
period commencing in 2018 for operating and maintaining the EVCC; and
WHEREAS, with the design of the EVCC well underway, the Town and the Rec District are
striving to establish a solid foundation for the construction and operation of the EVCC; and
WHEREAS, integration of senior services into the EVCC was the primary recommendation of
the Town’s 2013 Senior Center Master Plan, receiving strong support through the public process; and
WHEREAS, following discussions among Town and Rec District Staff and representatives of
their respective Boards, the Town and the Rec District are considering the transfer of the
management of senior services from the Town to the Rec District upon the opening of the EVCC; and
WHEREAS, as owner of the EVCC, the management of senior services by the Rec District
would allow for integration, streamlining and management of senior services by one entity; and
WHEREAS, through this process, the Town will remain committed to providing a solid
foundation for the continuation of senior services for Estes Valley residents; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of this Resolution, the Trustees of the Town of Estes Park hereby
directs the Town Staff to continue the process of negotiating an Intergovernmental Agreement with
the Rec District based upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Resolution.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK:
1. The following is a list of the terms and conditions to be included in the Intergovernmental
Agreement between the Town and the Rec District to disburse Town sales tax revenues to
the Rec District for construction of the EVCC and the transfer of senior services from the
Town to the Rec District upon completion of the EVCC as follows:
a. The Town will transfer all sales tax revenues distributed to the Town pursuant to Ballot
Issue 1A (3) to the Rec District. The transferred funds will be used by the Rec District
for construction of the EVCC.
52
b. The Rec District will assume responsibility for provision of senior services upon
completion of the EVCC. The Rec District will commit to providing generally the same
type of senior services that the Town currently provides with the exception of meal
services and support for Via Mobility Services.
c. The Town and the Rec District will enter into negotiations regarding the transition of
existing Town senior services employees to the Rec District.
d. The Rec District is solely responsible for the design and construction of the EVCC. The
Town will not require a minimum square footage or design for space committed to
senior services.
e. The Town will cooperate with the Rec District in the transfer of the 1A sales tax
revenues to the Rec District to facilitate the Rec District’s financing of the construction of
the EVCC, including, but not limited to providing information to any financial entity that
provides financing to the Rec District for construction of the EVCC.
2. Town Staff is hereby directed to immediately begin negotiations for an Intergovernmental
Agreement with the Rec District addressing the above listed matters and all other issues
needing to be addressed to provide for the transfer of Ballot Issue 1A (3) sales tax revenue
to the Rec District for the construction of the EVCC and the transfer of senior services from
the Town to the Rec District.
Dated this ____ day of _________________, 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Town Clerk
53
54