HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2014-07-08
The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable,
high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take
great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community
by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
RECOGNITION: Will Birchfield – ASFPM’s 2014 National Local Floodplain
Manager of the Year.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance Report.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Study Session Minutes dated June 24, 2014 and Town Board Minutes
dated June 24, 2014.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development / Community Services, June 26, 2014.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated May 6, 2014 (acknowledgement
only).
5. Estes Valley Library District Appointment of Kirsten Hardin to complete John
Kamprath’s term expiring December 31, 2015.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Prepared 06/30/14
* Revised:
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
1. INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING EFFORTS & UPDATE ON PLATTE
RIVER’S STRATEGIC PLANNING. General Manager Jackie Sargent.
2. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE. Chair Campbell.
3. EVENT CENTER & PAVILION CONSTRUCTION UPDATE. Manager Zurn.
4. AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE – Amending
sections of the EVDC to address the Micro-breweries, -wineries, -distilleries.
Public hearing scheduled for July 22, 2014.
3. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. NEW LIQUOR LICENSE - CENTENNIAL TAP HOUSE, LLC DBA CENTENNIAL
TAP HOUSE, 120 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk
Williamson.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. POLICY 2.1 BOARD & STAFF LINKAGE. Administrator Lancaster.
5. ADJOURN.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
970.577.3705
flancaster@estes.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 8th, 2014
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS
(QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORT POLICY 3.3)
Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide
information to the Board. Policy 3.3, Financial Planning and Budgeting, Policy 3.12,
General Town Administrator – Internal Operating Procedures and 3.13 – Town
Organizational Plan, are all scheduled for reporting to the Board in July.
Policy 3.3 states: “With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities
with a fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or
fiscal integrity of Town government.”
Policy 3.12 states: “With respect to internal operating procedures, the Town
Administrator will ensure that the Town has internal procedures to promote
effective and efficient Town operations.”
Policy 3.13 states: “With respect to internal organizational structure of the Town,
the Town Administrator will maintain a current organizational plan (organizational
chart) of the Town, in a graphical format including through the division level. The
Town Administrator will update the plan annually. The current plan shall be
included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report each year, and
presented to the Board of Trustees at the first regular meeting following the
certification of the results of each biennial election.”
This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions
have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this
date.
________________________
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
3.3.1. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Deviates from
statutory requirements.
REPORT: The current budget and any proposed budget revisions have all been
prepared in compliance with applicable statutory requirements. I am
therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.2. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Deviates
materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among competing
budgetary needs.
REPORT: The current budget and any proposed budget revisions have all been
prepared in following the Board stated priorities expressed during the
budget adoption process. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.3. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which contains
inadequate information to enable credible projection of revenues and
expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow and
subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning assumptions.
REPORT: The current budget was prepared with adequate information as
requested by the Board of Trustees. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.4. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which plans the
expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively
projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available.
REPORT: The current budget for all town funds do not contain any plans for
expenditures in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively projected to
be received in that period, or which are otherwise available. However it is
important to note that there is considerable amount of uncertainty in the current
budget due to flood recovery expenditures and the fact that we have not yet
received much of the planned reimbursement from the State, FEMA and other
agencies. I therefore report compliance, with caution.
3.3.5. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which reduces fund
balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that established by the
Board of Trustees.
REPORT: The ending general fund balance for 2013 was 27%, 2% above the
25% level set by the Board of Trustees. Due to the uncertainty of flood
recovery cost reimbursements, at this time we are unable to project what
the fund balance will be at the end of the current fiscal year. I am therefore
reporting compliance, based on the ending 2013 fund balance.
3.3.6. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Fails to
maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to significant
shortfalls within the Town’s budget.
REPORT: The current budget includes appropriate contingency funding. I am
therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.7. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
provide for an annual audit.
REPORT: The 2013 audit has been completed and presented to the board. I am
therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.8. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the current or
future bond ratings of the Town.
REPORT: Nothing in the current budget as adopted fails to protect the integrity of
the current or future bond ratings of the Town. I am therefore reporting
compliance.
3.3.9. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which results in new
positions to staffing levels without specific approval of the Board of Town
Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve positions funded by
grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in addition
to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing
budgeted funds are allocated.
REPORT: No new positions or additions to the staffing document have been
added without specific approval of the Board of Trustees other than temporary
positions or those grant positions that are 100% grant funded, as allowed by
adopted policy. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.12 With respect to internal operating procedures, the Town
Administrator will ensure that the Town has internal procedures to promote
effective and efficient Town operations.
REPORT: We are continuing to update the internal procedures for the Town.
This work has been delayed by the flood recovery efforts. The Town does
currently have internal procedures to promote effective and efficient operations,
but they are in need of updating and revising. I am therefore reporting partial
compliance at this time.
3.13 With respect to internal organizational structure of the Town, the
Town Administrator will maintain a current organizational plan
(organizational chart) of the Town, in a graphical format including through
the division level. The Town Administrator will update the plan annually.
The current plan shall be included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report each year, and presented to the Board of Trustees at the first regular
meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial election.
REPORT: This is a new policy that reflects changes in the municipal code
completed by the Board in May. An organizational chart was presented to the
board at that time, following the old code requirements. I am therefore reporting
compliance.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 24, 2014
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of
the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the
Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 24th day of June, 2014.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris, and Phipps
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris, and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Finance Officer McFarland,
Director Chilcott, Town Attorney White, and Deputy Town
Clerk Deats
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Materials for Town Board meetings and study sessions are currently distributed to the
Board on the Friday afternoon prior to the meeting. Trustee Holcomb asked if these
materials could be delivered to the Board earlier to provide an opportunity to ask
questions and receive more information from staff prior to the meeting. He also asked
that staff provide options over and above “Yes” or “No” to the Board when considering
action items. Mayor Pinkham and Town Administrator Lancaster concurred that the
discussions between staff and the Board during meetings provides beneficial
information for the entire Board and prevents a situation where each Board member is
having an individual conversation with staff outside of the meeting setting. Discussion
with staff during the meeting also provides an opportunity for staff to review and discuss
available options. Mayor Pinkham noted that when making a motion the Board is not
limited to a simple “Yes” or “No”. Questions can be asked, conditions can be added to a
motion, and the item can be continued or tabled until additional information is received.
The sample motions provided on the memos are there as a framework or starting point
for a motion.
In answer to a question about agenda items, Town Administrator Lancaster stated that
items for the study session agendas are most often determined by the Board’s
discussions and requests. Staff may also request an item be added to the agenda
when direction from the Board is needed on a particular topic. Town Board agenda
items are typically determined as an item progresses through a development and review
process such as exists for planning items, or is reviewed at the Committee level and
moves forward to Town Board for approval. Town Attorney White said the procedure
that has worked well in the past is for agenda items to be suggested during study
sessions at which time the Board can determine whether the item should be added to
the agenda and whether it should be an item for a study session or the regular Town
Board meeting. Topics that come up outside of study sessions should be directed to
Town Clerk Williamson.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
A discussion related to an RTA application will be scheduled for the July 8, 2014, study
session as well as a discussion on vacation homes as staff seeks input from the Board
on how to proceed with regulations and enforcement. Trustee Phipps suggested that a
discussion of commercially-zoned properties be held separate from and prior to
discussing options for the Fish Hatchery property. Regarding discussions of the Capital
Town Board Study Session – June 24, 2014 – Page 2
Improvement Plan (CIP) and Capital Asset Management Plan (CAMP), Town
Administrator Lancaster stated that due to staff’s involvement with flood-related
projects, these discussions have been delayed and once staff is ready with the
necessary information and materials, these topics will be scheduled. Administrator
Lancaster recommended that the Board consider a discussion of the dangerous building
portion of the building code that the Town has not previously adopted. This portion of
the code deals with the authority to red-tag structures that are unsafe to occupy and/or
in some manner pose a danger to the public. Trustee Nelson said that Elizabeth
Fogarty, new CEO of Visit Estes Park (VEP), has requested time to provide a
presentation to the Board regarding Local Marketing District (LMD) highlights and the
direction she and the LMD board will be heading in the future. The Trustees agreed
that the presentation should be scheduled during a regular Town Board meeting.
FLOOD RECOVERY FINANCIAL UPDATE.
Finance Officer McFarland reported that the financial effects of the September 2013
flood have affected over 400 budget line items and nearly all 12 Town funds. He spoke
to flood-related expenses and reimbursements that have been requested and/or
received. He noted that at the time of the flood, it was unknown how long the roadways
in and out of Estes Park would be closed. The Rock Quarry Project was undertaken in
order to mine materials from Lake Estes, and to crush and prepare the rock for base for
road repairs as well as use in other areas where materials were needed. Grand County
provided equipment for the project and approximately 70,000 tons of material was
removed from the lake. This material was sold to Larimer County, Kiewit, Estes Valley
Recreation and Park District (EVRPD), Estes Park Sanitation District, and utilized by
Town of Estes Park departments. To date $1.053 million has been spent on this project
and approximately $831,000 has been either reimbursed or funds have been
transferred internally to cover the costs. The net out-of-pocket is approximately
$222,000, and no additional material remains to be used or sold.
The Town’s insurance carrier is the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency
(CIRSA). Flood-related items covered by CIRSA include Town Hall, sites around Town,
Fish Hatchery and Glen Haven electrical work. To date, paid claims total $1.46 million.
At least one claim is being disputed, however, Attorney White noted that the reason for
denial of the claim is not valid and that the Town is entitled to payment of the claim.
Approximately $212,125 in claims remain outstanding and additional claims related to
permanent overhead electrical system repairs may be made.
Work being done under the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Emergency Watershed Protection program, includes protecting exigent sites from spring
run-off, hauling rock from the Highway 36 blast site, and staging and hauling of rock.
This work is primarily in the Fall River and Fish Creek corridors. Cost share for these
projects is 75% funded by NRCS, 12.5% funded by the State of Colorado, and 12.5%
funded locally. Staff anticipates that the local portion will be covered from rock hauling,
or by private residents, with little out-of-pocket for the Town. NRCS will reimburse to
the State and the State will in turn reimburse to the Town. This creates a negative cash
flow affect that staff will monitor. Approximately $280,000 in reimbursements have been
requested so far however, to date, no funds have been received on an estimated
$700,000 worth of projects.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is expected to reimburse costs
related to debris removal, emergency protective measures, temporary work, roads and
bridges, utilities, trails and parks, and water control facilities with the same cost share
percentages and reimbursement process as NRCS. Numerous projects in Estes Park
and Glen Haven are approved to move forward at an estimated cost of $5.2 million. To
date the Town has received $76,781 in reimbursements and has requested another
$233,572 which has not been received.
Town Board Study Session – June 24, 2014 – Page 3
Emergency and permanent repairs to highways and connectors is funded through the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) at a cost share of 80% with local participation
at 20%. Community Drive and Fish Creek Road fall into this category. It remains
unclear whether the State will be picking up any portion of the 20%. FHWA funds will
be sent to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and distributed to the
Town. Engineering for the project is not complete and the job has not been bid,
however, an estimate for the construction and repair of these roadways is $6.3 million.
There is some overlap and duplication in this area with FEMA providing funds for some
aspects such as trails and utilities with a 12.5% cost share. Christie Crosser, Grants
Specialist, said she has created a document to illustrate agency/project associations
and Project Manager Zurn stated that as the project is designed it will become clearer
as to how expenses will be divided.
Finance Officer McFarland summarized by stating that the Town had $2.13 million in
flood-related expenses in 2013, not including the Rock Quarry project, and has
expended $278,000 so far in 2014. To date, $1.327 million has been recovered through
insurance claims and small FEMA project reimbursements. He stated there is $300,000
in Open Space funds that could be utilized for flood-related expenses and also $1.3
million in the Community reinvestment Fund from the sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic
District. Town Administrator Lancaster said that since sales tax is up it is the public’s
perception that we have recovered from the flood, however the Town is still in
protection/recovery-mode as it is still unknown how much money will be necessary to
pay for repair and restoration projects. He said purchasing and hiring freezes are in
effect.
In response to a question about reimbursements for staff time, Grant Specialist Crosser
said there is some money available but it is not adequate. She said the State of
Colorado has allocated approximately $50,000 in FEMA disaster management funds to
the Town of Estes Park. These funds must be applied for through the State and when
received may be utilized for administrative costs, and could be allocated to expenses
related to staff time or legal feels. She also noted that Notices of Intent (NOI) have
been submitted to FEMA through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and also to
HUD’s Community Development Block Grant program for monies to help cover local
cost share percentages. She said at this time there is no way to know whether the
Town will need to come up with $0 or several million dollars.
Finance Officer McFarland provided challenges to consider as the Town moves forward:
1. Sales tax is received 45 days in arrears and the bulk is collected in the summer.
It will be difficult to make spending decisions based on sales tax until early fall.
2. A budget for the Events Center was created based on the Johnson pro forma.
Actual revenue and expenses are unknown at this time.
3. Parking structure construction costs are up significantly over the original estimate
and may require more funding.
4. FEMA reimbursements are slow in coming and there is some potential for
previously approved expenses to be denied based on different interpretations of
FEMA personnel. Research shows that FEMA reimbursement could be in the
range of 40 cents on the dollar.
5. Other communities affected by the flood are talking about moving ahead with
repairs less quickly and considering multi-year plans to address flood recovery.
Grants Specialist Crosser said that FEMA has placed a deadline of March 2015
on the completion of temporary and permanent work and noted that the Town will
be requesting an extension. Town Administrator Lancaster said that staff has
been asked to focus on mandated recovery projects at this time. PIO Rusch will
prepare an overview for the public outlining the ongoing financial challenges
related to flood recovery.
Town Board Study Session – June 24, 2014 – Page 4
FALL RIVER AND FISH CREEK MASTER PLAN.
Director Chilcott said that after the flood an application was made to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board (CWCB) for funding for the restoration of Fall River and Fish Creek.
The Town has joined a flood-wide master planning effort that is supported by state
agencies, including the CWCB. The master plan will focus on areas affected by the
September 2013 flood; will be vetted through the community and provide a foundation
for permanent recovery work based on strong science and engineering; and will be a
path to resiliency in the community, the economy, and the river systems. A risk-based
approach to master planning has been chosen as the best method to identify short- and
long-term projects with efforts and dollars focused on areas where the most benefit will
be realized. Julie Ash representing Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers said
the plan’s vision is to work with, rather than fight, the river. A resilient stream corridor
can be achieved by providing protection for bridges, roads, and homes; reducing flood
and geomorphic hazards; and promoting stream health. The master planning process
will put the Town in a better position to receive funding to not only restore and rebuild to
pre-flood conditions but also for competitive funding to make improvements so that the
same damage does not occur during future events. The master plan will help identify
scientifically sound projects that may be eligible for funding.
Ms. Ash said comprehensive education and outreach will be utilized in creating the plan
and noted that private land rights are going to be a factor in completing repair and
restoration work. Since work upstream affects properties downstream, making
individual decisions about individual properties will likely result in less protection for the
overall area. She noted that while taking precautions prior to spring run-off, rip-rap was
used in areas along Fish Creek because of the large area and the short time frame to
prepare. She said in the interest of stream health, the rock material cannot remain in
place. A permanent solution may be to re-use or re-distribute the rock to hold grade, for
example, while the willows are re-established.
The first River Advisory Committee (RAC) meeting was held on June 24th. Members
include representatives from EVRPD, the sanitation districts, the Estes Valley Land
Trust, the lodging association, Larimer County, Partners for Commerce, and property
owners along Fall River and Fish Creek. The Board asked that staff share the message
that has been given to members of the RAC so that they can provide a consistent
message when speaking to constituents.
Floodplain Manager Birchfield said that prior to the flood there existed detailed studies
to reference and specific criteria on which to base decisions related to floodplain
management. Post flood, this information is no longer valid. He said the risk-based
master plan will help in identifying hazards and new data can be gathered to aid in the
production of new floodplain maps and materials. He said he anticipates coming back
to the Board some time later in the year with changes to the Estes Valley Development
Code and floodplain management regulations. Floodplain Manager Birchfield noted that
even though flood insurance rates are on the rise due to disasters such as hurricanes
Katrina and Sandy, the Town’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
and any improvements and mitigation that can be done will help with rates in the
community.
DRAFT REVISIONS TO BOARD AND STAFF LINKAGES.
Town Administrator Lancaster brought forward a draft revision to Policy Governance 2.1
that will further define the decisions staff has the authority to make and those that are
the responsibility of the Town Board. He briefly reviewed Section 2.1.8 which is being
proposed as an addition to the policy. The Board discussed item #10 and how to define
“scope” as it relates to Town projects. It was determined that anything that would
materially change the product or outcome of the project would be considered a change
to scope and require Town Board approval. Trustee Ericson requested #5 be re-
worded to indicate Board approval is required for changes to the budget at fund-level.
Town Board Study Session – June 24, 2014 – Page 5
The Board expressed a comfort level with the revisions, therefore, Town Administrator
Lancaster will prepare to bring the policy forward for formal approval at the Town Board
meeting scheduled for July 8, 2014.
USE OF PROJECT CONTINGENCIES.
Project Manager Zurn stated that the purpose of contingency funds is to cover costs
associated with unforeseen situations, architectural errors and omissions, and
negotiating with private sector contractors. He said it is the Town’s practice to add a
contingency to a project which becomes part of the initial budget that is approved by the
Town Board. He noted a difference between contingency funds and underspending or
saving money on a project in which case the underspent funds may be used elsewhere.
As there was little time remaining before the start of the regularly scheduled Town
Board meeting, Town Administrator Lancaster noted that Project Manager Zurn’s
comments provided an introduction to the topic and said the discussion would continue
at the Town Board Study Session scheduled for July 8, 2014.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:47 p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 24, 2014
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 24th day of June, 2014.
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
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.
PROCLAMATION.
Mayor Pinkham proclaimed July 8 – 13, 2014 as “Rooftop Rodeo Week”. The Mayor
encouraged all to attend the rodeo.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Lynn Arenson/AirMedCare provided the Board with an overview of the air ambulance
services provided by the company to outlying communities.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Ericson reminded the community the Community Development/Community
Services committee would meet on Thursday, June 26, 2014. He announced the
Scandinavian Midsummer festival would take place the weekend of June 28-29, 2014.
Trustee Nelson stated he would attend the Larimer County Open Space meeting on
Thursday, June 26, 2014.
Trustee Phipps provided a review of the recent Estes Valley Planning Commission
approvals and recommendations, including approval of the Falcon Ridge Development
Plan, recommended approval of the Falcon Ridge Subdivision and the amendments to
the Estes Valley Development Code for micro-craft beer, wine and spirits, and
recommended the Good Samaritan Annexation Agreement not be amended to increase
the density allowed by the code.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig commented the Rooftop Rodeo would begin with the parade
downtown on July 8, 2014, box tickets for the rodeo are almost sold out, and
encouraged all to attend the rodeo and other events taking place during the week.
Trustee Holcomb thanked Charley Dickey for arranging a tour of the downtown stores.
He stated the Parks Advisory Board monthly meeting was cancelled due to a lack of a
quorum.
Trustee Norris stated Visit Estes Park (LMD) continues to increase their website visits
by 15% and Facebook followers up 60%. The Bear Education Task Force’s work has
resulted in less conflict with bears this season, continues to reach out to
accommodations and vacation homes to educate them on how to reduce bear
Board of Trustees – June 24, 2014 – Page 2
interactions, and Nick Molle would produce an education piece to be played at the Reel
Mountain theater.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
None.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated June 10, 2014 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated June 10, 2014.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
a. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works, June 12, 2014.
4. Tree Board Minutes dated May 15, 2014 (acknowledgement only).
5. Transportation Advisory Committee dated May 21, 2014 (acknowledgement
only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission dated May 20, 2014 (acknowledgement
only).
7. Resolution #14-14 – Setting the public hearing date of July 8, 2014 for a new
Tavern Liquor License for Centennial Tap House, LLC dba Centennial Tap
House, 120 Riverside Drive, Estes Park, CO.
Trustee Phipps requested the removal of Consent Item 1 for discussion. It was moved
and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve the Consent Agenda Items 2-7, and it
passed unanimously.
Consent Item #1: Trustee Phipps requested the Town Board Study Session minutes
dated June 10, 2014 include the word “fund” after contract contingency under the future
study session agenda items. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to
approve the Consent Agenda Item 1 with the requested amendment to the Town
Board Study Session minutes dated June 10, 2014, and it passed unanimously.
2. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. LONG TERM RECOVERY GROUP UPDATE. Chris Moody/Long Term
Recovery Group provided an update on the activities of the group, including a
review of the case management process to match resources with needs; since
January 1500 volunteers from 14 states and 12 organizations have served
Estes Park; and 119 requests have been completed since the September 2013
flood. The Board thanked the group for their efforts and continued support of
the community.
2. EVENT CENTER & PAVILION CONSTRUCTION UPDATE. Project Manager
Zurn stated the Event Center main floor area has received its final coat of paint
and touch ups; restrooms receiving final finishes; front main architectural timber
work would begin; and flatwork completed. The Board of Adjustment would
consider the height adjustment for the silo at their upcoming meeting. Ongoing
work at the facility includes painting, drywall, overhead doors, man doors and
glass installation. Staff requested direction on the addition of a second story to
the silo above the office space, creating a 500 sq. ft. meeting space. The
savings from the elimination of the turn lane off of Hwy 36 onto Community
Drive would be used to fund the $80,000 addition to the project. The Board
consensus was to add the second floor to the silo as a meeting space for the
community utilizing the funds budgeted for the turn lane.
Board of Trustees – June 24, 2014 – Page 3
2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
1. AMENDED PLAT, Lots 30A & 18A, 2nd Amended Plat of Lot 18, 22, 30,
Grand Estates Subdivision, 1450 Big Thompson Avenue; Caribou
Chalet, Inc./Owner. Planner Kleisler.
2. SUPPLEMENTAL MAP #6, Stone Bridge Estates Condominiums, 1127
Fish Creek Road; Kingswood Homes/Owner. Planner Kleisler.
Trustee Ericson requested Planning Commission Item 1.2 be removed for further
discussion. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to approve the Consent
Agenda Item 1.1 with the Planning Commission recommendations, and it passed
unanimously.
Planning Commission Item 1.2 – Trustee Ericson stated concern with the approval of
the condominium map due to its proximity to Fish Creek, changes to the floodplain, and
the possibility the condominium could fall into the creek in the future. Planner Kleisler
stated the Chief Building Official & Floodplain Manager Birchfield reviewed the high
watermark before the condominium construction was allowed. It was moved and
seconded (Ericson/Norris) to approve the Consent Agenda Item 1.2 with the
Planning Commission recommendations, and it passed unanimously.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. AMENDMENT TO GOOD SAMARITAN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT.
Trustee Holcomb recused himself from the proceedings. Planner Kleisler
provided a review of the request as outlined at the June 10, 2014 meeting
and restated the request, if approved, would increase the density to the
maximum allowed by the Estes Valley Development Code and extend the
vesting period for 15 years from approval of the amendment. The original
development plan approved in 2002 was for owner occupied 2-story
condominium units with a 10-foot setback. The new development plan would
increase the number of units to 66, add one additional building, townhomes
stacked and flats, include a community building, park and basketball court,
decrease rooms by 2 over original plan, increase lot coverage from 41.7% to
49.49%, increase setbacks from neighboring lots, add 25 additional parking
spaces, and increase view obstruction from 68% to 84%. Density would
increase from 10 units per acre to 12 units per acre. The Estes Valley
Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the development
plan; however, five of the six commissioners opposed the amendment to the
annexation agreement.
Eric Blackhurst/Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Chair reviewed the
2008 Housing Needs Assessment that illustrated a need for 756-959
additional housing units for all segments of the community including retirees.
Rita Kurelja/EPHA Director stated the original development plan of 2002 was
abandoned due to economic conditions. The amendment would allow EPHA
to preserve a lot for future community housing needs. The conditionally
approved development plan would be developed in two phases with 45 units
built now and 21 units for future development. The amendment would allow
the Housing Authority to proactively address housing needs addressed in the
housing assessment. She reiterated statements outlined at the June 10,
2014 meeting including a community wide vacancy rate of 1.9%, well below
the average and the reduction of long-term rentals due to vacation homes.
Matthew Heiser/EPHA Board member reviewed the mitigation efforts the
Housing Authority has made to address neighbor concerns, including
increasing setbacks, reducing south facing second story windows along the
property line shared with the Neighborhood subdivision, and lowering the
Board of Trustees – June 24, 2014 – Page 4
grade of the buildings along the south property line to mitigate the height of
the buildings.
Those speaking against the amendment to the annexation agreement
included Lisa Foster/Town citizen, Pamela Seavers/Town citizen, Tony
Drees/Town citizen, Alex Kostadinov/Town citizen, and Steve Krueger/Town
citizen. The area would not be an appropriate location for an affordable
housing development due to the lack of adequate bike and walk paths. The
Housing Authority should redesign the development to meet the density
approved by the annexation agreement. The citizens of the Neighborhood
Subdivision spoke to the lack of communication from the Housing Authority
on the proposed development and engagement of the neighbors in the design
process. The neighbors purchased their homes with the understanding that
48 units would be developed and the contract should be honored and upheld.
Those speaking in favor of the amendment to the annexation agreement
included Louise Olson/Town citizen, Sue Doylen/Town citizen, and Matthew
Heiser/Town citizen. The town continues to need additional affordable
housing units to address housing for the work force in Estes Park ranging
from tourist industry workers to police officers and teachers in our community.
It was stated doing what may be right for the community is a matter of
integrity, i.e. amending the agreement to allow full density for an affordable
housing development. There are few locations available in the valley to build
additional affordable housing, and therefore, this location should be
maximized to the full allowance of the code. The housing units would
maintain diversity of age, income levels, and families in the valley. The plan
has been amended to address neighbor concerns and makes better and full
use of the land. As the needs and intents of development change over time
the Town codes, regulations and zoning are changed to address the issues.
When the annexation agreement was approved it was envisioned change
may occur and provisions were made in the agreement to do so. Amendment
of the agreement would continue to support the responsible development of
affordable housing in the Estes valley and to address the needs of the
community. Diana Muno/President Estes Valley Partners for Commerce
conducted a survey of the membership which demonstrated support for the
amendment.
Board comments have been summarized: Mayor Pro Tem Koenig questioned
if the density was maintained at 48 units and the development agreement for
66 units was upheld could the Housing Authority request the additional units
at a later date; Trustee Norris reviewed development code requirements to
ensure the development would meet the code and questioned if the rental
units would be long-term or short-term; Trustee Phipps stated homeowners
purchased their homes in good faith and the knowledge of the density to be
developed; Trustee Ericson stated there appears to be a need for this project;
Trustee Nelson commented there is a need for housing in the valley, the
proposed density meets the current code requirements, contracts are
amended routinely, and the Board needs to do what would be best for the
community; Trustee Norris stated the fundamental issue was the lack of
involvement of the neighbors; and Mayor Pro Tem Koenig recognized the
importance of housing, however, the good faith of the agreement trumps
affordable housing. She would also request the Housing Authority review the
use of high density apartment style housing in the future.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Phipps/Koenig) to
deny the First Amendment to the Good Samaritan Annexation
Agreement, and it passed with Trustee Ericson and Nelson voting “No” and
Trustee Holcomb abstaining.
It was moved and seconded (Phipps/Norris) to extend the meeting to no
later than 10:30 p.m., and it passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees – June 24, 2014 – Page 5
2. 2013 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR).
Finance Officer McFarland presented an overview of the annual financial
reporting process. The auditing firm of CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP conducted an
independent audit of the Town of Estes Park’s financial statements as of
December 31, 2013 and have expressed an unqualified opinion (clean
opinion) that the financial statements presented fairly, in all material respects,
the financial position of the funds and activities of the Town of Estes Park in
conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The
CAFR has been completed; however, the A-133 Single Audit has not been
completed and would be delivered to the Board at a later date as well as the
final management letter. Justin Petrone/CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP, provided a
review of the CAFR and stated the financial practices identified last year were
resolved. The auditors did identify one deficiency in the accounting of grants
related to flood matters. It was moved and seconded (Eriscon/Norris) to
approve the audit report and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
for the year ended December 31, 2013, and it passed unanimously.
3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH LAFAYETTE AND
LOUISVILLE FOR LUCITY SERVICES. The Town hired a consultant to
research work management software programs to update the Town’s current
system. After extensive review the Town with Lafayette and Louisville would
share in the cost of the Lucity enterprise software based on population size.
The Town’s cost would be 12% of the $16,500 or $4,400 with the cost split
amongst Public Works and the Water department. The software would
improve work order process, establish baseline performance measurements,
improve the scheduling of staff, improve tracking of completed and pending
preventative maintenance, establish benchmarking metrics, and improve
asset management and budgeting. Attorney White reviewed the agreement.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to approve the
Intergovernmental Agreement with Lafayette and Louisville for the
purchase of Lucity’s work management software, and it passed
unanimously.
4. REVISED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH ESTES VALLEY
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT. The Town entered into an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Estes Valley Fire Protection District
effective December 8, 2009 and through the agreement would make monthly
payments of 7% of the Town’s net sales tax receipts for each month. On April
1, 2014, the voters approved a 1% increase to the Town’s sales tax rate for
10 years to facilitate specific infrastructure improvements and projects. The
amendment to the IGA clarifies the Town’s obligation to remit net sales tax of
7% on the original 4% (80%) and not 7% of the total net sales tax from the
new 5% sales tax. Additional sections of the IGA were deleted as they have
been completed or are no longer relevant. Fire Chief Dorman stated thanks
for the continued cooperation to provide fire services to the valley. It was
moved and seconded (Ericson/Holcomb) to approve the Amendment to
the Intergovernmental Agreement for Continuing Operations Between
the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, and
it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 26, 2014
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the
26th day of June, 2014.
Committee: Chair Ericson, Trustees Holcomb and Phipps
Attending: All
Also Attending: Administrator Lancaster, Directors Winslow and Chilcott,
Manager Salerno, Coordinators Claypool and Jacobson,
Planner Kleisler, Chief Building Official Birchfield and
Recording Secretary Limmiatis
Trustee Ericson called the meeting to order at 8:03 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Senior Services Quarterly Report – Coordinator Claypool informed the Committee of
two grants received from the Office on Aging (OOA) which allowed her and local
business owner, Diana Laughlin, to become certified instructors of a Consortium for
Older Adult Wellness N’ Balance course, and for 200 blizzard boxes which would be
distributed to citizens 60 and older beginning in October 2014. Staff participated in a
senior nutrition study with the OOA to understand the future of the senior meal
programs within Larimer County, established a collaboration with Families for Estes
called Families and Seniors Together (F.A.S.T.), and attendance at all planned
programs has increased approximately 13% from 2013.
June & July Event Report – Coordinator Jacobson updated the Committee on the
events that have taken place thus far this season and upcoming events in July. The
move of the Farmer’s Market to Bond Park received positive feedback from vendors
and citizens.
Event Benefit & Cost Report – Director Winslow discussed the process of producing
the Event Benefit and Cost Report for special events, the value of evaluating annual
events, the success of the Events Committee, and the growing partnership with Visit
Estes Park. Chair Ericson requested a summary, ranking by benefit score and
ranking by financial impacts of the Event Benefit and Cost report.
Shuttle Update – Manager Salerno provided ridership statistics for the current shuttle
season. Director Winslow informed the Committee of a partnership with the YMCA to
provide shuttle service for the World YMCA Conference. Manager Salerno notified
the Committee a CDOT representative met with Coordinator Wells and Janice Crow/
Rocky Mountain Transit to discuss grant opportunities and stated the Town was
approved for funds to expand the days of shuttle service.
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Chair Ericson requested information on
how events are matched with venues throughout Town. Director Winslow stated staff
attempts to match the best venue with the event based on needs. Trustee Holcomb
inquired how the rental price is determined for the Event Center and Pavilion.
Director Winslow stated price is based on the industry standard of $.06 per square
foot.
Community Development / Community Services – June 26, 2014 – Page 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
FALCON RIDGE FEE WAIVER.
Planner Kleisler presented the request by the Estes Park Housing Authority to waive the
development application and review fees for the Falcon Ridge Development Plan and
Minor Subdivision. The Committee recommended the Falcon Ridge fee waiver be
listed as an action item on the July 22, 2014 Town Board agenda with the Minor
Subdivision Application review.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Courtyard Shop Update – Chief Building Official Birchfield updated the Committee
on the status of the sprinkler and alarm system installation at the Courtyard Shops.
An extension was granted in the Fall of 2013 due to the flood and inability to obtain
an excavation contractor. No progress has been made since the extension was
granted. Staff would initiate legal action against the property owner in the form of a
Notice of Violation and Order to Abate. The violation would be code specific and the
abatement would be time and action specific. The owner would be informed of the
right to appeal. If noncompliance occurs, the case would be referred to Municipal
Court. Staff would meet with Attorney White to ensure due process is followed.
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Chair Ericson requested an update on
the Comprehensive Plan, an overview of how changes are made to the
Development Code, and inquired about the safety of the Elkhorn Lodge structures.
Director Chilcott stated code compliance would be resumed by Code Enforcement
Officer Reichardt and staff would begin work on the Comprehensive Plan within a
month; described various code amendment processes exist based on the type of
amendment and stated a written policy would be helpful to ensure staff followed
proper procedure; and indicated complaints have been received regarding the
electrical system at the Elkhorn Lodge, but without adoption of the Dangerous
Building Code staff has limited authority to enforce safety in existing buildings. Chief
Building Official Birchfield stated staff recommends the adoption of the newest
International Building Codes which would allow the Building Official to enter existing
buildings when there is reason to believe safety issues exist. Trustee Phipps
requested an update on the status of Fall River Village. Administrator Lancaster
stated a company has been hired to remediate and sell the property.
There being no further business, Chair Ericson adjourned the meeting at 9:29 a.m.
Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
May 6, 2014 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair John Lynch, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Members Bob McCreery,
Wayne Newsom, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Chris Christian
Attending: Vice-Chair Moreau, Members McCreery, Smith and Newsom
Also Attending: Senior Planner Shirk, Planner Kleisler, Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Chair Lynch
Vice-Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There was a quorum in
attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence. There were three people in attendance.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT
Approval of minutes of the April 1, 2014 meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented and the motion passed 4-0, with one absent.
3. LOT 1, VISITOR CENTER SUBDIVISION, 500 Big Thompson Avenue, Estes Park
Transit Facility & Parking Structure
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicant, Walker Parking
Consultants, had requested three variances from Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC) Section 4.4, Table 4-5, which requires a maximum setback of 16 feet and a
maximum height of 30 feet in the CD–Commercial Downtown zone district. The applicant
requested the following to align with construction plans for a proposed three-level parking
structure: 1) A maximum front setback of approximately 82 feet; 2) A 500 square foot stair
tower roof to be approximately 32 feet above grade; and 3) The proposed light fixtures to
extend approximately 47 feet 6 inches above grade.
Planner Shirk stated the proposed project is located at 500 Big Thompson Avenue, at the
Estes Park Visitor Center. The existing parking lot contains 134 parking spaces at ground
level. A parking structure containing 217 spaces is proposed. The site would be
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
May 6, 2014
accessed from Big Thompson Avenue, and have shared access with the Estes Park
Sanitation District and the Town Park Shops.
Planner Shirk stated the maximum setback was established to preserve the street wall in
the downtown area. In this case, the shape of the lot creates a hardship, and the
structure would be very inefficient if the 16-foot setback was required. Additionally,
access would be difficult with a 16-foot setback.
Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent
property owners. The Estes Valley Planning Commission approved the Development Plan
on May 2, 2014 with several conditions, including approval of the requested variances.
He stated the primary concerns from neighbors are related to the lighting. No concerns
were expressed regarding the setback or stairway height. Planner Shirk introduced Don
Monahan, the lighting expert for Walker Parking Consultants.
Mr. Monahan showed a very informative PowerPoint presentation, which was posted to
the Town website at www.estes.org/currentapplications. His goal was to balance safety
and security through lighting. The parameters for this parking structure were based on
horizontal luminance. There would be enhanced lighting at the entrance to the facility.
Security lighting has been designed to 6.2 candles, where six is the average. He
explained the difference in wattage and the types of fixtures planned for the structure, and
suggested considering the use of lighting controls for high summer use and low winter
use. Mr. Monahan stated the roof lighting is less than the lowest standard required. He
explained the standards for different types of lighting zones (LZ). In his research, he
determined this proposed parking structure would be considered an LZ3, due to traffic
counts, number of busses, and the two highways both coming in to town near the
proposed location. LZ3 is typical for areas of medium population density or areas
intended for public and light commercial activities. This zone has a lumen standard of 5.0
lumen per square foot. The proposed light fixtures illuminate at an amount less than the
maximum allowed. He stated backlight, uplight, and glare illumination all comply with the
EVDC, with the exception of one small area on the south side of the proposed structure
adjacent to the Big Thompson River. This area is lower in elevation, and exceeds the
standard by one foot candle.
Mr. Monahan went into further detail about the lighting controls, stating police
departments typically do not like to turn lights all the way off, but it would be possible to
put them on a timer or motion sensor to dim when not in use. Sensors could be installed
on individual lights. He explained the height of the pole is also needed so light will infiltrate
between vehicles. Eight light poles/fixtures are proposed for the top level. The large
panels around the perimeter would block light spillover immediately around the structure.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
May 6, 2014
Discussion occurred between the Board and Planner Shirk concerning the improvements
in types of outdoor lighting, whether or not the EVDC should be amended to increase the
height limit, the desire to require motion sensors, dimmable fixtures, and hours of
operation to lessen the impact on adjacent property owners. Mr. Monahan added motion
sensors would be hard-wired in at the time of construction. Planner Shirk expressed
concern about limiting the hours of operation, stating general parameters may be better
than specific times. He mentioned the option adding an additional condition of approval to
monitor the hours of operation during the first year of operation and adjust as necessary.
Public Comment
None.
Findings
1. The requests comply with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley
Development Code.
2. The development proposal is consistent with transportation goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance
with Code standards.
4. The variances are not substantial.
5. Nearby property owners have expressed concern about lighting, and requested the
lighting be minimized.
6. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor
would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. This finding includes
consideration of the proposed impact of lighting.
7. Community-wide policies in the Comprehensive Plan include “the natural colors of
wood and stone are most desirable tor building exteriors.” The proposed structure
would have a stone veneer for the lower level, and concrete for the upper levels.
8. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by
reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.
9. The variances would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. The parking
structure would help alleviate downtown traffic congestion.
10. The variances represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief.
11. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general
or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general
regulation for such conditions or situations.
12. Failure to apply for a building permit and comment construction or action with regard
to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall
automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4
May 6, 2014
Planner Shirk stated staff recommended approval of the variance requests, with the
following conditions of approval:
Conditions of Approval
1. Surveyor shall verify building location and height.
2. Motion sensors and dimmers shall be installed with initial construction.
3. Hours of operation shall be monitored during the first year of operation and adjusted
as necessary.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Newsom) to approve the variance requests for
the Estes Park Transit Facility and Parking Structure with the findings and
conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 3-1, with one absent and
Member McCreery voting against the motion.
4. LOT 1, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT, 333 E. Wonderview Ave, Stanley Hotel
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. This request was for a variance from EVDC
section 4.4, Table 4-5, which requires a maximum height limit of thirty (30) feet in all zone
districts. The applicant is The Stanley Hotel, which desires to erect a 50-foot tall Ferris
wheel for three days during their carnival over the July 4th holiday weekend. He stated the
carnival is an allowed accessory use for this property, and classified as “private
recreational facilities for use by residents, employees, or guests.” Planner Kleisler stated
the Stanley Hotel submitted an application for a Temporary Use Permit for a Ferris wheel
in 2013. At that time, it was determined the temporary use approval would also require
approval of a height variance in order to notify adjacent property owners of the proposed
plan. In 2013, the timeline for variances did not allow the Stanley Hotel to pursue the
height variance. This year, they submitted their application early enough to allow the
Board of Adjustment to hear their request. In reviewing a temporary use permit, staff “may
impose conditions, including but not limited to control of nuisance factors (e.g. glare,
noise, smoke, and dust), provisions of security and safety measures, and limitations on
hours of operation, storage and parking.”
Planner Kleisler stated the proposed site would be located directly in front of the hotel on
the large patio area. Other carnival activities would surround the Ferris wheel. He
provided some view corridor photo simulations, stating there would be minimal view
impacts from view corridors. The application was routed to all affected agencies and
adjacent property owners. Fire Marshall Marc Robinson provided comments concerning
the requirement of an operational permit.
Planner Kleisler stated the variance is the only method to allow the Ferris wheel.
Additionally, should the board approve this variance, staff recommends the Board
consider placing a time of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with the days of
operation set for July 3, 4, and 5, 2014.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5
May 6, 2014
Findings
1. No special circumstances or exceptional topographic conditions exist. Strict
compliance with the Code’s standards would prohibit the use of the Ferris wheel.
2. The carnival event was held in 2013 without a Ferris wheel. Hotel and temporary
carnival use may continue absent of this request.
3. The variance is temporary and not substantial.
4. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with
the approval of this variance. The view corridors established in the Stanley Historic
District Master Plan will be obstructed for the period of the temporary carnival.
5. Reviewing agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this
variance. The Estes Valley Fire Marshall recommends approval conditional to State
permitting compliance.
6. The Stanley Hotel was established well before the adoption of the Estes Valley
Development Code.
7. A variance is the only method to mitigate the applicant’s predicament for the desired
Ferris wheel.
8. The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief.
9. The Board of Adjustment may impose restrictions such as time of operation.
Public Comment
Allen Aspinall/applicant representative stated no music would be associated with Ferris
wheel; however, there would be a band providing music. He is working on finalizing the
temporary use permit for the music. The carnival would be family oriented with bounce
houses and simple carnival games. He stated an on-going approval of the Ferris wheel
would be appreciated to avoid going through the variance process every year. Although
the carnival is not profitable, it does bring people to the hotel. He explained the roof line of
the hotel is slightly over fifty feet, so for most views, the Ferris wheel will not project higher
than the hotel. There are lights on the wheel, which will be on. He stated the start time
will probably be around noon, and go no later than 10:00 p.m. Mr. Aspinall stated the
event last year was organized at the last minute, and more thought has been put into this
year’s carnival. As for the temporary height variance, he stated that was currently a crane
in the neighbor assisting with construction of a new home which was clearly over thirty
feet tall. That construction project did not need a variance to operate, and he saw the
Ferris wheel as a similar situation. It will take less than one day to set up and tear down,
and will be located on a stable concrete pad. Electricity to the site will come from the
nearby pool house. He stated the carnival is open to the public, and tickets will be sold for
food, drink, and activities. The Ferris wheel operators will pull their own state permit, and
the Stanley Hotel will have insurance.
Staff and Board Discussion
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6
May 6, 2014
Member Newsom was concerned if music from the Ferris wheel would have a negative
impact on adjacent property owners. Planner Kleisler stated two neighbors provided
comments on the application, and neither were opposed. He explained the set-up and
tear-down would most likely occur one day on either side of the days of operation. He
stated approved variances are good for one year from the date of approval. The Board
could approve the temporary use for multiple years. Member Newsom suggested
allowing the use for only one year and re-evaluating afterwards for future approvals.
Member Smith agreed with Member Newsom. Member McCreery was in favor of allowing
the use for more than one year. Planner Kleisler stated the Ferris wheel temporary use
would be monitored closely this year. Depending on the outcome, staff would consult
Town Attorney White for a recommendation for future years. Mr. Aspinall stated he would
prefer to not have to pay the $500 variance application fee every year.
Public Comment was closed.
Conditions of Approval
1. Time of operation of the Ferris wheel shall be 10:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m.
2. The days of operation shall be July 3, 2014 through July 5, 2014.
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to approve the height variance for the
temporary use of a Ferris wheel at the Stanley Hotel with the findings and
conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one
absent.
5. LOT 1, DeVILLE SUBDIVISION, 540 s. St. Vrain Ave, O’Reilly Auto Parts
Senior Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant requested variances from
EVDC Section 4.4, Table 4-5, Section 4.4.D.2.a, and Section 4.4, Table 4-7 to construct a
new commercial building. Planner Shirk stated the applicant received a variance for this
site plan over a year ago. Construction was delayed and the variance approval expired. A
few minor revisions have been made since then. The applicant, O’Reilly Auto Parts, plans
to redevelop 540 S. St Vrain, the site of the former Mountaineer Restaurant, located at the
corner of Graves Avenue and S. St. Vrain. Planner Shirk stated the shape and size of the
lot is driving the variance requests. The site is better suited to have front access on
Graves instead of S. St. Vrain, due to the narrowness of the lot. Additionally, there is not
enough land area to comply with the requirement to have the driveway set back 250-feet
from the highway. Typically, a development this size would be a staff-level approval;
however, the number of proposed parking spaces triggered the need for a variance.
Senior Planner Shirk stated one property owner was concerned about drainage from the
proposed development. He stated the existing drainage swale has not been maintained
for several years. There are currently no easements or stormwater management plans in
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7
May 6, 2014
place, and the Public Works department was unaware of the responsibility to maintain the
swale. As a remedy to this situation, the proposed plan includes a drainage easement,
and the Town will begin to provide maintenance of the swale. The new construction would
include a retention pond for sheet flow from the parking lot. Additionally, the applicant
would be relocating the trash pad to the east side. This minor revision would not interfere
with delivery and fire truck turning templates.
Findings
1. The requests comply with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley
Development Code
2. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance
with Code standards.
3. The variances are not substantial.
4. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor
would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment.
5. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by
reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.
6. The variances would not adversely affect the delivery of public services.
Redevelopment of the site will help alleviate neighborhood stormwater management
problems.
7. The variances represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief.
8. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general
or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general
regulation for such conditions or situations.
9. Failure to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard
to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall
automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void.
Board and Staff Discussion
There was a brief discussion concerning the drainage swale and the revisions from the
original site plan.
Public Comment
Tim Uhrik/applicant representative stated all the drainage on the east side would be
captured and routed to the retention pond prior to release through the swale. Stormwater
from the roof would be piped through the building and released in the retention pond,
instead of being allowed to drain off the back of the building. All impervious areas would
drain into the easement. The drainage of the site will be drastically improved from the
current conditions. He stated the trash pad would be relocated, and the retaining wall
location adjusted to allow for additional easement. Additional landscaping will be installed
to screen the trash pad.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 8
May 6, 2014
Rachelle Repine/Town resident stated stormwater currently drains onto her property. She
would like to have the drainage ditch either maintained or altered to contain a greater
amount of water, as the swale has not been maintained and is full of sediment. Planner
Shirk stated his appreciation of Ms. Repine for bringing the issue to staff’s attention. The
proposed improvements to the swale and the proposed setback will make the swale
between 15 and 18 feet wide. The Town will maintain it, keeping sediment removed. This
should resolve issues that have been ongoing since the 1980s.
Tim Bath/adjacent business owner stated the drainage area between the two buildings
needs repair, and explained a wheelbarrow and shovel would be the best method for
maintenance.
Public comment closed.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with the site plan and building design.
2. Setback Certificate. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a surveyor certificate
verifying compliance with approved setback variance.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/McCreery) to approve the requested variances
for O’Reilly Auto Parts with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and
the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
6. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED AT 1337 CLARA DRIVE
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The applicant has requested a variance from
EVDC Section 6.3.C.2 Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Structures Limited. The
applicant, Jim Temple, wishes to construct an addition and new deck to an accessory
dwelling unit (ADU). The subject property includes a single-family residence built in 1897,
an ADU built in 1924, and a small shed built in 1929. The home and ADU were both
remodeled in 1973. The ADU is considered legally nonconforming because it was built
prior to the adoption of the EVDC. Planner Kleisler stated nonconforming structures may
continue to be used, with repair and maintenance permitted to ensure safety.
Planner Kleisler stated the current property, located in unincorporated Larimer County,
was purchased by Mr. Temple in 2012. The dwelling in question has a staircase entry
with questionable safety. The applicant is proposing a deck and new entry addition, and a
new bathroom. The area for the proposed bathroom is directly above bedrock, and
blasting is not an option. The applicant is proposing plumbing be brought to the addition
via drilling through the bedrock. The water department supports the plan.
Findings
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 9
May 6, 2014
1. Exceptional topographic conditions do exist. The ADU is located atop a rock
foundation and exposed boulders. The applicant has sought the opinion of excavation
experts and determined that connecting the ADU to water service through the existing
crawl space would likely destroy the building.
2. Single-family use may continue. Use of the second residence may not continue.
3. The variance is not substantial.
4. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with
the approval of this variance. The closest neighbors are approximately 200 feet to the
east and west.
5. Reviewing agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this
variance. The Water Department has met with the Applicant and is supportive of this
request.
6. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the applicant purchased the property
in 2012 after the adoption of the EVDC.
7. A variance appears to be the only practical method to connect the ADU to water
service and establish safe entry that meets current building code.
8. The bathroom addition and new entry/deck appear to be reasonable extensions to
allow for adequate use of the structure.
9. If approved, the variance will be confirmed with building permit submittal and final
inspection.
Board and Staff Discussion
Planner Kleisler stated the applicant was unable to attend the meeting. He stated one
neighbor comment was received, and was supportive of the variance request.
Public Comment
None.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approve the variance request with
the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed
unanimously with one absent.
7. REPORTS
A. Planner Kleisler reported the Town Board approved an amendment to the EVDC
concerning time lapse of approvals. The previous regulation stated the applicant must
apply for and obtain a building permit within one year of approval, or the approval
would be null and void. The approved amendment allows for greater flexibility with
some projects, such as those connected to a Development Plan or Special Review
where the complexity of the project may delay building permit issuance by more than
one year. Approvals of smaller projects (residential setbacks, signs, etc) would still be
valid for one year. Planner Kleisler clarified the three-year approval would apply only in
cases where the variance was directly tied to another application.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 10
May 6, 2014
There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:23
a.m.
___________________________________
Jeff Moreau, Vice-Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: July 8, 2014
RE: Estes Valley Public Library District Board Appointment
Objective:
To consider the appointment recommended by the Estes Valley Public Library Board.
Present Situation:
Trustee John Kamprath recently stepped down from the Board due to personal reasons.
His term expires on December 31, 2015.
Proposal:
The Estes Valley Public Library District has requested the appointment of Kirsten Hardin
to complete the vacancy created by Mr. Kamprath. The attached letter from Peter
Plaut/Board of Trustee President outlines the background of each individual. All
appointments to the Library Board require the approval from both the Town Board and
the County Commissioners.
Advantages:
To fill a vacancy on the Estes Valley Public Library Board.
Disadvantages: None.
Action Recommended:
Approve the appointment outlined in the letter dated June 17, 2014 from Peter Plaut,
Board of Trustees President.
Budget: None.
Level of Public Interest: Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Kirsten Hardin to the Estes Valley Library
District Board to complete the term of John Kamprath expiring December 31, 2015.
Attachments:
Estes Valley Library Letter dated June 17, 2014.
Estes ParkFort CollinsLongmontLovelandStrategic Planning UpdateJackie Sargent, General Manager/CEOBrad Decker, Strategic Planning ManagerTown of Estes ParkJuly 8, 2014
ResidentialSmall BusinessLarge BusinessDistributionTransmissionGenerationCustomersEstes ParkFort CollinsLongmontLovelandPlatte River Power Authority•Sole electricity supplier•Not for profit•Local governance•Joint OwnershipLocal Electric System PartnershipChanging Boundaries2
Platte River Focus – BalanceReliabilityEnvironmentalResponsibilityCompetitive PriceSafetyInnovation & Sustainability3
Approved by Board of Directors December 12, 20132014 Strategic Planhttp://www.prpa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2014/02/PRPA_SP14_Web.pdf4
Strategic InitiativesImproved Collaboration& CommunicationsDiversified Energy Supply PortfolioSafety ComplianceAssuranceOperational ExcellenceFinancial StabilityExceptional Customer ServiceTechnological Innovation & SustainabilityEmployee EngagementGoals for EachAll DepartmentsAll Employees5
•Programs & Services:–Record performance for Common DSM programs in 2013–New regional brand for services (“Efficiency Works”)–System wide Demand Response study–Electric Vehicle stations at Platte River offices–System wide solar options review–Fiber leases–Residential Energy Audit Program•Stakeholder Engagement:–Boards, Councils, Customers, Community groups–Strategic Plan development and Resource Planning–Listening sessions, webinar, meetings/presentations–Joint customer surveysRecent Activitieswww.efficiencyworks.CO6
•Solar program study:–Potential large solar system at Rawhide–Loveland hydropower alternative–Studying interconnection, energy production potential, and cost•Medicine Bow Wind Project Life Extension/Upgrade:–New retrofit technology (first application in U.S.)–Increased generation output–Increase plant life from 20 years to 30+ years•Spring Canyon Wind Project:–New 32 MW wind project in NE Colorado–Will roughly double supply of wind energy to Municipalities–Construction proceeding on scheduleRecent Activities7
New Wind ResourceMedicineBowSpringCanyonSilverSage8
New Wind Resource9
Strategic InitiativesImproved Collaboration& CommunicationsDiversified Energy Supply PortfolioSafety ComplianceAssuranceOperational ExcellenceFinancial StabilityExceptional Customer ServiceTechnological Innovation & SustainabilityEmployee EngagementGoals for EachAll DepartmentsAll Employees10
STRATEGIC PLAN DIRECTIVES/GOALS:•Investigate options to reduce our carbon footprint:CO2emissions – 20% reduction by 2020 as a guideline•Look at expanded use of renewable resources:Colorado Standard (qualified sources) – 20% by 2020 as a guideline•Evaluate natural gas combined cycle generation:Fuel diversity/reduced emissions/renewable source integration•Analyze benefits & costs of more distributed resources Maintain position as lowest cost wholesale supplier in ColoradoDiversify Energy Supply Portfolio11
Preparing for future needsPhases of Planning at Platte River1970’s-1980s1980’s-1990’sEarly 2000’sCurrent PhaseBuilding:•Craig•Rawhide•TransmissionOperations:•Craig•Rawhide•Transmission•Municipal sales•PSCo sale•Debt reductionSummer Peak:•Five new gas CTs•Transmission•End of PSCo sale•Hydro (drought)•Craig & Rawhide operations•Rate increasesFlexibility:•Renewables•Demand response•Distributed generation•New technologies•Diverse member needs•Balancing multiple uncertainties & managing risks12
•Platte River’s coal capacity is relatively high•Share of hydro and wind resources is higher than industry average•Platte River has a significant share of gas peaking capacityCurrent capacity resource mixIntermediate resources can improve Platte River’s asset mix, and provide flexibility to accommodate more renewablesCoalGas PeakingHydroWind13
Overall Energy Resource Mix – 2013Electric Energy Consumed – All Four Municipalities14Also sell surplus inwholesale market
Supply Opportunities•Platte River is at the headwaters of U.S. fuel supply•Platte River has a favorable geographic location to access renewable resources15GeothermalSolarWindConventionalGasCoalPlatte River is well-situated to access a diverse mix of energy resources
The 2014 IRP focus•Based on the results of Platte River’s 2014 Strategic Plan•Pursue and deploy resource and market options that limit business and environmental risk through:Diversified resource mixInnovationCollaborationCarbon emissionsMaintain position as low-cost provider…while maintaining safety and reliability16
Platte River’s IRP analysisPlatte River’s analytical process can be summarized by the “3 Ms”ModelsMethodsMetricsThe software and systems necessary to conduct an analysis to complete an Integrated Resource PlanThe modeling assumptions, routines, and approaches used to evaluate a system of energy resourcesThe mathematical relationships that convey the performance and behavior of a portfolio of resources under varying assumptions17
ModelsPlatte River’s IRP modeling effort will draw upon a diverse set of industry experts for software and advisory services.All EnergySoftware IntegrationEECEnchantment EnergyMarket Resource OptionsEconomic and Market AnalysisPlant Engineering ServicesConservation,Distributed Generation, and Renewables18
Methods•Modeling will be performed at the system level, with all municipal loads, surplus sales and resources combined. •40-year planning horizon•20-year decision horizon•Resources—mature vs. evolving•Modified coal operations/retirements•Demand-side resources•Distributed resources•GHG reduction guidelinesAURORAxmp will use a 20-year modeling horizonNormal retirements are between 2040 and 2050Existing technologies will be the primary focusPR—20%/2020; 80%/2050FC—80%/2030; 100%/2050EPA—35%/2030•DSM will act as an adjustment to load•DG will act as a dispatchable resource19
Cost Risk•CO2charges•Fuel volatility•MarketsPortfolio Cost(NPV or Life‐Cycle)Case 1Case 8Case 3Case 4Case 5Case 6Case 7Case 220MetricsEvaluation of scenarios will be based on two primary factors: cost and riskLeast-cost planning alone is not ideal for optimizing Platte River’s long-term portfolio
ScheduleStaffing &SupportSoftware andSystemsModeling/AnalysisCommunicationJan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-DecNew Staff AdditionsSoftware Acquisition and DeploymentListening SessionsModeling Plan DevelopmentConsulting SelectionsData CollectionDecision AnalysisStakeholderCommunications/Draft ReportConsultant ReportsFinal ReportSurveyReportingCustomer SurveysDrafting IRPFort CollinsClimate Action Plan/ EPA Proposed Rules Fort CollinsClimate Action Plan/ EPA Proposed Rules Jan-Mar ‘1521
The Value of PartnershipEstes ParkFort CollinsLongmontLoveland22
TOWN BOARD
MEETING
July 8, 2014
Report and Discussion Items #1 - 3
These items will be verbal reports by
the presenters, who will bring all
documents to the meeting for
distribution.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Estes Valley Planning Commission
From: Alison Chilcott, Director
Phil Kleisler, Planner II
Date: July 8, 2014
RE: Code Amendment: Manufacturing of Micro Craft Liquors
Objective:
Receive a report on the subject code amendment and schedule a public hearing for the
consideration of an ordinance amending the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC).
The purpose of this code amendment is to add definitions for “micro” and “conventional”
breweries, wineries and distilleries, and place into appropriate zone districts. The
proposed amendment allows new types of businesses that have not previously been
permitted in the Estes Valley.
Present Situation:
Staff is providing a report on the proposed amendment and recommending that this item
be scheduled for a public hearing later this month for formal adoption. This schedule is
consistent with the process of previous code amendments.
The Estes Valley Planning Commission reviewed the proposed code amendment at
their June 17, 2014 meeting. During that meeting the Commission suggested
numerous changes, which are described below.
Proposal:
Review and comment on the proposed EVDC amendment to allow for “micro” and
conventional” breweries/distilleries/wineries, along with associated regulations (e.g.
Tasting/Tap Room). The Planning Commission will make a formal recommendation to
the Town Board at their July 15, 2014 meeting. Following this the Town Board may
formally adopt an ordinance at their July 22, 2014 meeting. The Larimer County Board
of County Commissioners may then consider the code amendment at their July 28,
2014 land use work session.
There are various components of this proposed amendment, including:
Table 4-4 Permitted Uses
This table lists allowed uses and in which zone district each use is permitted. The
proposal adds four uses:
1. Brewpub: Brewpubs are often restaurants with a brewery on site to serve patrons
and provide for some degree of distribution. The State Liquor Code requires that
brewpubs food sales account for at least 15 percent of the total food and drink
income. Brewpubs are currently regulated in Table 5-2 as an accessory use. In
an effort to provide more clear codes that are easily located, staff and the Town
Attorney recommends that this use be moved from Chapter Five Accessory Uses
to Chapter Four, Table 4-4. The proposal allows brewpubs in the same zone
districts as is currently allowed, but limits their use in the A Accommodations
district to (i) an accessory to an accommodations use and (ii) they must be
located within the accommodations structure.
2. Microbrewery/Microdistillery/Microwinery: Research on best practices suggests
that most communities that regulate microbreweries/distilleries/wineries by
square footage provide one umbrella definition for all three uses. The alternative
means of regulation is a production limit, which would set different limits to each
use (thus requiring separate definitions). The Town Board directed staff to
pursue the square footage option. The Planning Commission proposes allowing
these uses in the CD Commercial Downtown, CO Commercial Outlying, O Office
and I-1 Restricted Industrial districts. Staff initially proposed also allowing these
uses in the CH Commercial Heavy district. The Planning Commission suggested
not allowing them in the CH district due to likely conflicts with surrounding
residential properties.
In keeping with the intent of keeping larger manufacturing operations out of retail-
centric areas, these uses that contain more than 15,000 square feet of gross
floor area are required to undergo a Special Review. Permitting these uses in
the I-1 district also allows businesses to grow into a larger operation over time.
3. Breweries/Distilleries/Wineries: The EVDC currently allows this use as “Industry”.
However, this proposed amendment allows for a Tasting/Tap Room on site. The
Planning Commission suggests placing the conventional
Breweries/Distilleries/Wineries in the I-1 Restricted Industrial district, but not in
the CH Commercial Heavy district for the same reasons noted above.
4. Tasting/Tap Room: Tasting/Tap Rooms are proposed in zone districts that permit
“micro” and “conventional” breweries/distilleries/wineries. Such uses are
generally found on the same premises as the breweries/distillery/winery, to allow
patrons to sample and purchase the manufacturers products.
The State Liquor Code allows more than one tasting room per business. It
appears that the intent of is to allow for an on-site tasting/tap room and another
location focused primarily on retail. In the Estes Valley this would likely involve a
“micro” business being located outside of downtown, with a Tasting/Tap Room
located on or near Elkhorn Avenue.
Tasting/Tap Rooms differ from a “bar” in that patrons may purchase the
manufacturers products for on-site consumption or sale to be taken off site (e.g.
bottle of wine). Staff has received one request from a prospective business
owner to align with the State Liquor Code to allow multiple tasting/tap rooms; the
proposed language provides for this. The Planning Commission suggested not
limiting the number of Tasting/Tap Rooms.
Table 5-2 Accessory Uses
1. The proposed amendment deletes the Brewpub use, which is then moved to
Chapter Four, as detailed above.
Section 7.11.D Off-Street Parking and Loading: Minimum Off-Street Parking
Requirements
This table lists the minimum parking requirements for various uses.
1. Brewpub, Microbrewery/microdistillery/microwinery and Tasting/Tap Room: these
requirements are all consistent with that of a bar/tavern and restaurant.
2. Conventional Breweries/Distilleries/Wineries are addressed with current regulations, with
the exception of added spaces for an on-site Tasting/Tap Room.
Section 13.2 Use Classifications/Specific Use Definitions
1. Brewpub: This definition aligns with the State Liquor Code language and
requirements. While Brewpubs are currently permitted in the Estes Valley, the
use is not defined.
2. Microbrewery/Microdistillery/Microwinery: Keeping with the intent to retain retail
establishments in retail-centric areas, this definition requires an on-site
tasting/tap room.
3. Tasting/Tap Room: The proposed definition does not limit the number of such
uses as described above. The Town Board also wanted to ensure that the
definition does not unnecessarily limit “other beverages” in which patrons may
consume.
4. Brewery/Winery/Distillery: Tasting/Tap rooms are optional with these uses, but
are limited in size. This is consistent with other municipal definitions such as that
of the City of Boulder.
Advantages:
Aligns with the Town Board’s strategic plan to encourage a diverse, healthy year
round economy.
Supports and accommodates the evolving nature of microbreweries,
microdistilleries and microwineries;
Prevents industrial uses from located in retail areas;
Considers impacts to adjacent residents and businesses; and,
Better alignment of the EVDC with state liquor laws.
Disadvantages:
Alcohol consumption contributes to instances of alcoholism and driving while under the
influence of alcohol. Planning staff has consulted with the Police Department, who
suggested monitoring instances of alcohol-related incidents. Staff further suggests that
an annual report be given to the Boards summarizing what new businesses have
opened, how the regulations are working and if there have been any unintended
consequences (e.g. spikes in alcohol-related arrests, concerns from neighboring
businesses).
Action Recommended:
Schedule a public hearing on July 22, 2014 to formally adopt an ordinance to amend the
EVDC to allow for “micro” and “conventional” breweries/distilleries/wineries and
associated regulations.
Budget:
Legal notice, publication and codification fees are minimal ($300).
Possible increase in tax base from new businesses.
Level of Public Interest
The level of public interest is moderate in general, and high among those interested in
these industries.
Sample Motion:
N/A
Attachments:
1. Code Amendment
2. Benchmarking: Municipal Definitions
3. Public comment
4. Joint Study Session Staff Report
Code Amendment: Manufacturing of Micro Craft Liquors
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees ~ July 8, 2014
1
B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-4
Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Use
Classification Specific use
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Additional Regulations
(Apply in All Districts
Unless Otherwise
Stated)
“P” = Permitted by Right
“S” = Permitted by Special Review
“–” = Prohibited
A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1
Eating/Drinking
Establishments
Bar/tavern P – P P – P P §5.1.G
Brewpub P – P P – – –
In the A district:
Permitted as
accessory to an
accommodations use
only; and
Use shall be located
within the same
structure as a
permitted
accommodations use.
Microbrewery/
microdistillery/
microwinery
– – P/S P/S P/S – P
In the CD, CO and O
districts, uses containing
more than 15,000 square
feet of gross floor area
shall be subject to special
review
Restaurant P – P P P P P §5.1.G
Tasting/Tap
Room – – P P – – P
With outdoor
seating or food
service
P – P P P P P §5.1.G and §5.1.M
With drive-
through service – – – P – P P §5.1.G
Code Amendment: Manufacturing of Micro Craft Liquors
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees ~ July 8, 2014
2
B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-4
Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Use
Classification Specific use
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Additional Regulations
(Apply in All Districts
Unless Otherwise
Stated)
“P” = Permitted by Right
“S” = Permitted by Special Review
“–” = Prohibited
A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1
INDUSTRIAL USES
Industry
Brewery/
Distillery/
Winery
– – – – – – P
Custom – – – – – P P §5.1.L
General – – – – – – P §5.1.L
Industrial
services – – – – – – P §5.1.L
Limited – – – – – P/S P
§5.1.L;
•In CH, uses containing
more than 15,000 square
feet of gross floor area
shall be subject to special
review
Research &
development – – – P P P P
Code Amendment: Manufacturing of Micro Craft Liquors
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees ~ July 8, 2014
3
Table 5-2
Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Accessory Use
Nonresidential Zoning District
“Yes” = Permitted “No” = Not Permitted
Additional Conditions A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1
CHAPTER 13. DEFINITIONS
Code Amendment: Manufacturing of Micro Craft Liquors
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees ~ July 8, 2014
4
§ 13.2 USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples.
17. Eating/Drinking Establishments.
a. General Definition: Retail businesses serving prepared food or beverages for
consumption on or off the premises.
b. Examples: This classification includes the following types of specific uses:
(1) Bar/Tavern: An establishment providing or dispensing by the drink for on-site
consumption of fermented malt beverages and/or malt, special malt, vinous
or spirituous liquors, and in which the sale of food products such as
sandwiches and light snacks is secondary (also known as a tavern). A
bar/tavern may include provision of live entertainment and/or dancing;
however, a bar/tavern shall not include any adult business use.
(2) Brewpub: An establishment where the brewing, fermenting, or distilling of
malt, vinous, spirituous liquors or other alcoholic beverages for the
consumption on or off the premises, which requires food sales. Food sales
shall account for a minimum of fifteen percent of a brewpub’s gross on-
premises food and drink income.
(3) Microbrewery/microdistillery/microwinery: An establishment in which malt,
vinous, spirituous liquors are brewed, fermented, or distilled for sale,
distribution or consumption. Food service is permitted as an accessory use,
but not required. Tasting/Tap Rooms for the consumption and sale of on-site
produced beer, wine, or distilled products on the premises is required.
(4) Restaurant: An establishment where the principal business is the sale of
food and beverages in a ready-to-consume state where fermented malt
beverages, malt, special malt and vinous and spirituous liquors may be
produced on the premises as an accessory use.
A restaurant may include an outdoor seating area or outdoor food service,
subject to all applicable use and development standards set forth in this Code
(see §5.1.M below).
(5) Tasting/Tap Room shall mean a use associated with a microbrewery/
microwinery/microdistillery or brewery/winery/distillery at which guests may
consume and purchase the manufacturer’s products and other beverages.
(6) With Drive-Through Service: An eating/drinking establishment in which the
principal business is the sale of foods or beverages to the customer in a
ready-to-consume state and in which the design or method of operation of all
or any portion of the business allows food or beverages to be served directly
to the customer in a motor vehicle without the need for the customer to exit
the motor vehicle.
CHAPTER 13. DEFINITIONS
Code Amendment: Manufacturing of Micro Craft Liquors
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees ~ July 8, 2014
5
§ 13.2 USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples.
29. Industry.
a. Industry, Brewery/distillery/winery: An establishment in which malt, vinous, and
spirituous liquors are brewed, fermented, or distilled for sale, distribution or
consumption. Tasting/Tap Rooms for the consumption of on-site produced beer,
wine, or distilled products are permitted on the premises. Tasting/Tap Rooms
shall be less than or equal to thirty percent of the total floor area of the facility or
one thousand square feet, whichever is greater (see §13.2.C.17 above).
b. Industry, Custom: Establishments primarily engaged in on-site production or
repair of goods by hand, involving the use of hand tools and small-scale
equipment, including small engine repair, furniture making and restoring,
upholstering, custom care or motorcycle restoring, and other similar uses.
c. Industry, General: Manufacturing of products, primarily from extracted or raw
materials, or bulk storage and handling of such products and materials. Uses in
this classification typically involve a high incidence of truck traffic and/or outdoor
storage of products, materials, equipment or bulk fuel. This classification includes
food processing and packaging, laundry and dry cleaning plants, small animal
breeding, stonework and concrete products manufacture (including concrete
ready-mix plants) and power generation.
Products may be finished or semi-finished and are generally made for the
wholesale market, for transfer to other plants, or to order for firms or consumers.
Goods are generally not displayed or sold on site, but if so, they are a subordinate
part of sales. Relatively few customers come to the manufacturing site.
Accessory activities may include offices, cafeterias, parking, employee recreational
facilities, warehouses, storage yards, repair facilities, truck fleets and caretaker’s
quarters.
d. Industrial Services: Firms engaged in the repair or servicing of industrial, business
or consumer machinery, equipment, products or by-products. Operations often
include outdoor activities and storage of products, materials, equipment or bulk
fuel. Firms that service consumer goods do so by mainly providing centralized
services for separate retail outlets. Few customers, especially the general public,
come to the site. Accessory activities may include offices, parking, and storage.
(1) Examples: Examples include welding shops; machine shops; tool repair;
electric motor repair; repair of scientific or professional instruments; repair,
storage, salvage or wrecking of heavy machinery, metal and building
materials; vehicle towing; auto and truck salvage and wrecking; heavy truck
servicing and repair; tire retreading or recapping; building, heating, plumbing
or electrical contractors; printing, publishing and lithography; exterminators;
fuel oil distributors; solid fuel yards; uses that involve the transfer or storage
of solid or liquid waste; and photofinishing laboratories.
e. Industry, Limited: Manufacturing of finished parts or products, primarily from
previously prepared materials, or the provision of industrial services, both within an
enclosed building. This classification includes laboratories, processing,
Code Amendment: Manufacturing of Micro Craft Liquors
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees ~ July 8, 2014
6
fabrication, assembly, treatment and packaging, but excludes basic industrial
processing from raw materials, food processing and vehicle/equipment services.
Typical uses include custom bookbinding, ceramic studios, candle-making shops
and custom jewelry manufacture. Limited industry uses shall not include uses
such as mining and extracting industries, petrochemical industries, rubber refining,
primary metal and related industries, or other noxious industrial uses. Incidental
direct sale to consumers of only those goods produced on-site is permitted.
f. Research and Development: Establishments primarily engaged in the research,
development and controlled production of high technology electronic, industrial or
scientific products or commodities for sale. Uses include biotechnology, films and
nontoxic computer component manufacturers.
D. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements. The following Off-Street Parking Schedule
establishes the minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be provided for the use
categories described in this Code.
Code Amendment: Manufacturing of Micro Craft Liquors
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees ~ July 8, 2014
7
Use Classification Specific Use
Minimum Number of
Off-Street Parking Spaces
(See §7.11.C above for
measurement rules)
Off-Street
Loading Group
(See §7.11.N)
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USES
Eating/Drinking
Establishments
Bar/tavern 1 per 100 square feet of
customer service area
1
Brewpub
1 per 100 square feet of
customer service area (indoor
and outdoor)
1
Microbrewery/
microdistillery/
microwinery
1 per 100 square feet of
customer service area (indoor
and outdoor)
1
Restaurant
1 per 100 square feet of
customer service area (indoor
and outdoor)
1
Tasting/Tap Room
1 per 100 square feet of
customer service area (indoor
and outdoor)
1
With drive-through
service
1 per 50 square feet of
customer service area + vehicle
stacking spaces as required in
§7.11.I
1
Nightclub 1 per 4 persons (capacity) 1
INDUSTRIAL USES
Code Amendment: Manufacturing of Micro Craft Liquors
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees ~ July 8, 2014
8
Industry
Research &
development
1 per 500 square feet 1
All other 1 per 300 square feet of office
or administrative space;
+ 1 per 200 square feet of
indoor sales area;
+ 1 per 1,000 square feet of
outdoor sales or display area;
+ the following per square feet
of indoor storage, warehousing,
vehicle service, or
manufacturing area:
•1 - 3,000 square feet: 1 per
250 square feet
•3,001 - 5,000 square feet: 1
per 500 square feet
•5,001 - 10,000 square feet: 1
per 750 square feet
•10,001 or more square feet : 1
per 1,250 square feet
1 per 100 square feet of
Tasting/Tap Room space
1
Brewery/Winery/Distillery Benchmarking Municipal Land Use Definitions 1 City/Population Definition Limitations/Notes Fort Collins 148,612 Microbrewery shall mean a facility that produces no more than fifteen thousand (15,000) barrels per year of fermented malt beverages on site and shall include a taproom in which guests/customers may sample the product. Microdistillery shall mean a facility that produces no more than fifteen thousand (15,000) gallons per year of spirituous beverages on site and shall include a tasting room in which guests/customers may sample the product. Microwinery shall mean a facility that produces no more than one hundred thousand (100,000) gallons per year of vinous beverages on site and shall include a tasting room in which guests/customers may sample the product. Allowed in the same districts as “bar, taverns”, with the addition of General Commercial districts (not exactly similar to our CO district). Each are required to have a taproom or tasting room respectively. Vail 5,253 Brewpub: An eating place which includes the brewing of beer as an accessory use. The brewing operation processes water, malt, hops, and yeast into beer or ale by mashing, cooking, and fermenting. The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total floor area of the commercial space. The brewery shall not produce more than seven thousand five hundred (7,500) barrels of beer or ale per year. A barrel is equivalent to thirty one (31) gallons. Microbrewery: A mixed use commercial operation that processes water, malt, hops, and yeast into beer or ale by mashing, cooking, and fermenting that shall also include an on site public restaurant and/or bar which sells the beer and ale produced on site. The maximum brewing capacity for the microbrewery shall be seven thousand five hundred (7,500) barrels per year. A barrel is equivalent to thirty one (31) gallons. The microbrewery Vail does not currently have any microbreweries, wineries or distilleries. The regulation was written for a specific brewery that is no longer in business.
Brewery/Winery/Distillery Benchmarking Municipal Land Use Definitions 2 City/Population Definition Limitations/Notes use shall not exceed eight thousand (8,000) square feet of floor area, excluding enclosed areas for loading, trash, and delivery. The public restaurant and/or bar shall have a minimum seating area of two thousand (2,000) square feet and shall be excluded from the total microbrewery maximum square footage limit. Boulder 101,808 "Brewery" means a use with a manufacturer or wholesaler license issued under § 12-47-401, et seq., C.R.S., and does not include any retail type liquor license under § 12-47-309, et seq., C.R.S., on the lot or parcel, that is primarily a manufacturing facility, where malt liquors are manufactured on the premises, that may include a tap room that is less than or equal to thirty percent of the total floor area of the facility or one thousand square feet, whichever is greater. "Brewpub" means an establishment that is primarily a restaurant where malt liquor is manufactured on the premises as an accessory use. A brewpub may include some off-site distribution of its malt liquor consistent with state law. "Distillery" means a use with a manufacturer or wholesaler license issued under § 12-47-401, et seq., C.R.S., and does not include any retail type liquor license under § 12-47-309, et seq., C.R.S., on the lot or parcel, that is primarily a manufacturing facility, where spirituous liquors are manufactured, that may include a tasting room that is less than or equal to thirty percent of the total floor area of the facility or one thousand square feet, whichever is greater. "Winery" means a use with a manufacturer or wholesaler license issued under § 12-47-401, et seq., C.R.S., and does not include any retail type liquor license under § 12-47-309, et seq., C.R.S., on the lot or parcel, that is primarily a manufacturing facility,
Brewery/Winery/Distillery Benchmarking Municipal Land Use Definitions 3 City/Population Definition Limitations/Notes where vinous liquors are manufactured, that may include a tasting room that is less than or equal to thirty percent of the total floor area of the facility or one thousand square feet, whichever is greater. "Taproom" means a use associated with and on the same premises as a brewery, at which guests may sample the manufacturer's products and consume other nonalcoholic beverages. "Tasting room" means a use associated with and on the same premises as a winery or distillery, at which guests may sample the manufacturer's products and consume other nonalcoholic beverages." Breckenridge 3,535 Each are allowed in their “Commercial and Light Industrial Uses” zone district. Their Code does not regulate or define these uses specifically; rather it only calls it commercial/industrial. When asked about lessons learned in administering these codes their answer was “Nothing. The less roadblocks the better”. There is a distillery with tasting room and a brewpub located downtown. There is also a microbrewery in Summit County close to Breckenridge. Mixed use development cannot be connected to distilleries. Code requires developer to build affordable housing units if they reach a certain square footage threshold.
Brewery/Winery/Distillery Benchmarking Municipal Land Use Definitions 4 City/Population Definition Limitations/Notes Steamboat Springs 12,029 Brewery: A manufacturer and distributer that the primary use is a manufacturing facility where fermented malt, vinous, and/or spirituous beverages are manufactured on the premises. Brewpub: A restaurant where fermented malt, vinous, and or spirituous beverages are manufactured on the premises. Manufacturing facilities (brewery) shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the overall floor area. No more than fifty (50) percent of the fermented malt beverages manufactured on the premises shall be distributed or sold to off-premises customers. A Brewery may include a taproom or tasting room that is less than thirty (30) percent of the total floor area of the facility or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is greater. A brewery in the Commercial Services zone district shall include a taproom. Breweries must comply with their general performance, operational and environmental standards. One of the ten Operational Standards for General Development include the following: Heat and odor. Every use shall be operated so that heat and odors generated are imperceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the property in which the use is located. Longmont 88,669 Brewery: means an establishment where malt liquors or fermented malt beverages are manufactured that has a manufacturer's or wholesaler's license under the Colorado Liquor Code. Brewpub: means a retail establishment that produces fermented malt beverages, malt, special malt, and vinous and spirituous liquors. Distillery: means an establishment where spirituous liquors are manufactured that has a manufacturer's or wholesaler's license Brewery, distillery, winery (with or without an on-site tasting room) may be no closer than 250 feet from a residential use or zone district, excluding residential uses located in a nonresidential zoning district.
Brewery/Winery/Distillery Benchmarking Municipal Land Use Definitions 5 City/Population Definition Limitations/Notes under the Colorado Liquor Code. Winery: means an establishment where vinous liquors are manufactured that has a manufacturer's or wholesaler's license under the Colorado Liquor Code. Aurora 339,030 Brewery: means any establishment where malt liquors are manufactured and production exceeds 60,000 barrels of malt liquor per year, but shall not mean a "brew pub" or "microbrewery". Brewpub: means a retail establishment that manufactures not more than 9,000 barrels of malt liquor on its licensed premises each calendar year. Microbrewery: means any establishment where malt liquors are manufactured and packaged on or off-premises, manufacturing more than 9,000, but less than 60,000 barrels of malt liquor on its licensed premises each calendar year. Winery: means an establishment that manufactures vinous liquors which may include a restaurant or a sample venue that sells the winery’s products, including retail sales. Code allows distilleries, but does not define it.
Brewery/Winery/Distillery Benchmarking Municipal Land Use Definitions 6 City/Population Definition Limitations/Notes Missoula, Mo 68,394 Microbrewery: A brewery (for malt beverages) that has an annual nationwide production of not less than 100 barrels or more than 10,000 barrels. Micro distillery: Produced 25,000 proof gallons or less of liquor annually in accordance with MCA 16-4-310 through 312. Microbrewery, Small-Scale Winery or Food Production and Microbrewery, Small-Scale Winery or Food Production are allowed in most industrial districts Rapid City, SD 69,854 Microbreweries: a. A microbrewery is defined as an establishment which manufactures less than 5,000 barrels of malt beverages a year; b. In addition to the malt beverage manufacturer’s license required by SDCL 35-4-2-(14), the operator of a microbrewery must obtain the appropriate city issued retail liquor license if it intends to sell its product directly to the public; c. Accessory uses to a microbrewery specifically include, but are not necessarily limited to, the selling of food operation of a restaurant, and/or selling of products associated with the microbrewery or manufacture of beer. Winery: Facilities for the production of table, sparkling, and sacramental wines or other wines, as defined in SDCL Chapter 35-12, including storage, bottling and distribution and related administrative offices and functions such as on-site tasting facilities subject to the following regulations: 1. The amount of wine the winery is allowed to sell or distribute in one year is limited to 150,000 gallons;
Brewery/Winery/Distillery Benchmarking Municipal Land Use Definitions 7 City/Population Definition Limitations/Notes 2. Authorization under this use shall allow on-off sale of wine as per state law; and, 3. Accessory uses to a winery specifically include, but are not necessarily limited to, the serving of food and/or operation of a restaurant; the selling of glassware, wine literature and accessories, and/or food products. Lafayette 25,733 Brewery: means an establishment, licensed as a manufacturer by the appropriate state and/or federal authorities, where malt liquors or fermented malt beverages are manufactured, packaged or distributed, and which may also include sales of such products for on- or off-premises consumption, and which does not meet the definition of brew pub, micro brew pub or microbrewery. Micro brewery: means an establishment, licensed as a manufacturer by the appropriate state and/or federal authorities, where malt liquors or fermented malt beverages are manufactured, packaged or distributed with all production and manufacturing equipment and processes enclosed within a building, and which may also include sales of such products for on- or off-premises consumption, with manufacturing not exceeding a total seventy-seven thousand five hundred (77,500) gallons (or two thousand five hundred (2,500) barrels, where one (1) barrel equals thirty-one (31) gallons) of malt liquor and fermented malt beverages on its licensed premises each calendar year and any off-premises wholesale distribution not exceeding twenty-five (25) percent of the total annual production,
Brewery/Winery/Distillery Benchmarking Municipal Land Use Definitions 8 City/Population Definition Limitations/Notes and which does not meet the definition of a micro brew pub. Tastings means the sampling of malt, vinous, or spirituous liquors that may occur on the premises of a retail liquor store licensee or liquor licensed drugstore licensee by adult patrons of the licensee pursuant to the provisions of this section. (b) Permitting in general. (1) The city hereby authorizes tastings to be conducted by retail liquor store or liquor licensed drugstore licensees in accordance with this section and pursuant to C.R.S. § 12-47-301. Within the city, it is unlawful for any person or licensee to conduct tastings unless a permit has been obtained in accordance with this section. The local licensing authority is authorized to issue tasting permits in accordance with the requirement of this section. (2) A retail liquor store or liquor licensed drugstore licensee that desires to conduct tastings shall submit an application for an annual tastings permit to the local licensing authority. All applicants shall pay an application and application renewal fee in an amount determined by resolution of city council. The local licensing authority may reject the application if the applicant fails to establish that the licensee is able to conduct tastings without violating the provisions of this section or creating a public safety risk to the neighborhood. The local licensing authority shall establish the application procedure and may, subject to conditions, delegate renewal of permits to the city clerk.
Brewery/Winery/Distillery Benchmarking Municipal Land Use Definitions 9 City/Population Definition Limitations/Notes (3) Tastings shall be subject to the following limitations: a. Tastings shall be conducted only by a person who has completed a server training program that meets the standards established by the liquor enforcement division of the Colorado Department of Revenue and who is either a retail liquor store licensee or a liquor licensed drugstore licensee, or an employee of a licensee, and only on a licensee's licensed premises. b. The alcohol used in tastings shall be purchased through a licensed wholesaler, licensed brew pub, or winery licensed pursuant to C.R.S. § 12-47-403, at a cost that is not less than the laid-in cost of such alcohol. c. The size of an individual alcohol sample shall not exceed one (1) ounce of malt or vinous liquor or one-half (½) of one (1) ounce of spirituous liquor. d. Tastings shall not exceed a total of five (5) hours in duration per day, which need not be consecutive. e. Tastings shall be conducted only during the operating hours in which the licensee on whose premises the tastings occur is permitted to sell alcohol beverages, and in no case earlier than 11:00 a.m. or later than 7:00 p.m. f. The licensee shall prohibit patrons from leaving the licensed premises with an unconsumed sample. g. The licensee shall promptly remove all open and unconsumed alcohol beverage samples from the licensed premises or shall destroy the samples immediately following the completion of the tasting.
Brewery/Winery/Distillery Benchmarking Municipal Land Use Definitions 10 City/Population Definition Limitations/Notes h. The licensee shall not serve a person who is under twenty-one (21) years of age or who is visibly intoxicated. i. The licensee shall not serve more than four (4) individual samples to a patron during a tasting. j. Alcohol samples shall be in open containers and shall be provided to a patron free of charge. k. Tastings may occur on no more than four (4) of the six (6) days from a Monday to the following Saturday, not to exceed one hundred four (104) days per year. l. No manufacturer of spirituous or vinous liquors shall induce a licensee through free goods or financial or in-kind assistance to favor the manufacturer's products being sampled at a tasting. The licensee shall bear the financial and all other responsibility for a tasting. m. The applicant for a tastings permit shall certify on the application that all persons serving alcohol at tastings have completed a server training program that meets the standards established by the Liquor Enforcement Division of the Colorado Department of Revenue. The applicant for a tastings permit shall state on the application the days and times that tastings will occur. (4) The city recommends that permitees, without charge to their patrons, have available for consumption sandwiches and light snacks for all patrons who are served samples. (5) A violation of a limitation specified in this section or of C.R.S. § 12-47-801, by a retail liquor store or liquor licensed drugstore licensee, whether by his or her employees, agents, or otherwise, shall be the responsibility of the retail liquor store or liquor licensed drugstore licensee who is conducting the
Brewery/Winery/Distillery Benchmarking Municipal Land Use Definitions 11 City/Population Definition Limitations/Notes tasting. (6) A retail liquor store or liquor licensed drugstore licensee conducting a tasting shall be subject to the same revocation, suspension, and enforcement provisions as otherwise apply to the licensee and are imposed by the local licensing authority. Newport News, VA 180,781 Micro-brewery, micro-distillery, and/or micro-winery: A facility with no more than three thousand (3,000) square feet of floor area, for the production and packaging of alcoholic beverages for distribution, retail, or wholesale, on or off premises and which meets all alcohol beverage control laws and regulations. Permitted in commercial, mixed use and light industrial districts. Englewood 31,177 Brewery: Any establishment, licensed by the appropriate State and Federal authorities, where malt liquors or fermented malt beverages are manufactured, except brew pubs as defined. Or, as this definition may be modified in C.R.S. 12-47-103. Distillery: Any establishment, licensed by the appropriate State and Federal authorities where spirituous liquors are manufactured. Or, as this definition may be modified in C.R.S. 12-47-103. Sales Room: An establishment, or portion of a manufacturing establishment, that allows customers to taste samples of wine, beer or spirituous liquors manufactured or produced by a single distillery, brewery or winery and licensed as a sales room pursuant to a State Manufacturer's License (C.R.S. 12-47-402) or a State Limited Winery License (C.R.S. 12-47-403). A sales room may include the sale of such products in addition to related items, marketing events, special events entertainment and/or food. Or, as this definition may be modified in C.R.S. 12-47-103 et. seq. Vintner's Restaurant: A retail establishment, licensed by the
Brewery/Winery/Distillery Benchmarking Municipal Land Use Definitions 12 City/Population Definition Limitations/Notes appropriate State and Federal authorities, that sells food for consumption on the premises and that manufactures not more than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) gallons of wine on its premises each year. Winery: Any establishment licensed by the appropriate State and Federal authorities, where vinous liquors are manufactured, except that the term does not include a Vintner's Restaurant license pursuant to 12-47-420 C.R.S. Or, as this definition may be modified in C.R.S. 12-47-103. New Castle 4,551 Allows in the Planned Unit Development/Mixed Use District, but does not define the term. Silt 2,972 Permits “Breweries and Bottling Facilities” in three business districts, but doesn’t define the term.
PhilKleislerFrom:KarenThompson<kthompson@estes.org>Sent:Monday,April14,20143:57PMTo:CharleyDickey;BettyHull;KathyBowers;SteveMurphree;DouglasKlink;WendyeSykes;NancyHillsCc:FrankLancaster;PhilKleislerSubject:Re:EstesParkDistilleryFrankLancasteraskedthatIforwardthislettertoallPlanningCommissioners.Iwillalsoputitonthewebassoonaspossible.Pleaseletmeknowifyouhaveanyquestions.Thanks.KarenThompsonExecutiveAssistantCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentTownofEstesParkPhone:970-577-3721Fax:970-586-0249kthompson@estes.orgOnMon,Apr14,2014at12:56PM,FrankLancaster<flancaster@estes.org>wrote:Karen,canyoupleaseforwardthisontothePlanningCommission?Thanks,FrankForwardedmessageFrom:MarkElrod-EstesParkTownTrustee<melrod@estes.org>Date:Mon,Apr14,2014at12:09PMSubject:Fwd:EstesParkDistilleryTo:FrankLancaster<flancaster@estes.org>,GregWhite<greg@gawhite.com>YoumaywishtosharewithCountyCommissioners;PlanningCommission;andappropriatestaff.MESentfrommyiPhoneBeginforwardedmessage:From:JoeElkins<Loe.t.elkins@gmail.com>Date:April14,2014at11:30:06AMMDTTo:eblckhurst@estes.org,bpinkham@estes.org,rnelrod@estes.org,jericson@estes.org,1
wkoenig@estes.org,mrris@estes.org,jQhipps@estes.orgSubject:EstesParkDistilleryDearMayorPinkhamandTrusteesofEstesPark,IamaresidentofLarimerCountyandaprofessorattheUniversityofNorthernColoradoandIaminterestedinstartingadistilleryinEstesPark.IhaveattendedallthepublicsessionsandTownofEstesParkworksessionstodateandhavelistenedcarefullytothetrustee’scommentsinthelastworksessionon4/9/2014relatedtorevisionofordinancesrelatedtobreweries,wineries,anddistilleries.Craftdistilleriesarecurrentlyexperiencinggrowthsimilartowhatcraftbreweriesexperiencedtwentyyearsago.Americans’tastesforadultbeveragesareevolvingandtheirtastesforhigherquality,locallysourced,andethicallyproducedproductsisdrivingthecraftdistillingrevolution.Colorado’slaw,inparticular,makeopeningacraftdistilleryforsmallbusinessownerslikemeattractivebecausethoselawsallowustomonetizeretailcomponentsofourbusinessthatgenerateneededcashflowinthefirstfewyearsofstartingupforlongtermsuccess.Smallbusinessesthatgetintocraftdistillingdosobecauseoftheopportunitytospecializeandproducesuperiorproductstowhatwasfoundonshelvesjusttenyearsago.Thesecraftspiritsaremadebyhand,withaprocessthatismoreakintoculinaryartsthananindustrialprocess.Theselectionofartisanalandlocally-derivedfeedstocks,uniqueagingprocesses,andthehighestqualityingredientsmakethesespiritsmoreexpensivethanspiritsthatareconsumedinhighvolume.Foradultsthatenjoyalcoholicbeverages,craftdistilleriesofferagreatdealofspecializationandanalternativetowineandbeer,whichisnotsuitableforeveryone.Inparticularpeoplewithsensitivitytosulfitescannotenjoywine,andfolkswithglutenintolerancescannotenjoybeers.Craftspiritsallowadeferentalternativetootheradultbeverages,butcostsavings(andthusoverindulgence)isnotoneofthem.Craftspiritmanufacturersproduceproductsthatretailforabout$40abottleandattractcustomersthathavemedianhouseholdincomesaround$100,000/year.Thecostofaservingofcraftspiritputsourproductsabovethecostofcraftbeersandjustbelowsmall-scalewineries.Simplyput,craftspiritsdonothaveapricepointthatmakestheirconsumptioneconomicalforthoseconsuminghighvolumesandareabusingalcohol.I’dliketopointyoutowhatseveralbusinessesinpeercommunitiesandneighboringtownsaroundColoradoandtheNationaredoingasexamplesofhowmybusinesscouldhavepositiveimpactsonthedevelopmentofayear-roundeconomy.InBreckenridge,CO,BreckenridgeDistilleryoperatesa500gallonmashsystemtoproducewhatisawardedasoneofthefinesthourbonsintheworld.Lyons,COishometoSpiritHoundwhichmakesGinandVodkaina700gallonstillwitha500gallonmashtun.Onanationallevel,Gatlinburg,TN,thegatewaytoGreatSmokyMountainsNationalPark,ishometoOleSmokyDistillery.Thatdistilleryinparticularhasbeenagreatsuccessforthecommunity,drawing2millionvisitorsin2013.inGreenville,SC,DarkCornerdistilleryoperatesa400gallonmashsystemwithadirectfiredstillindowntown,onMainSt.Theterm‘micro’whenappliedtocraftalcoholbeverageproductionissomewhatarbitrary.Theterm‘craft’ispreferredbecauseitimpliestheattentionanddetailthatdistinguishesourproductsfrommass-producedspiritsconsumedinvolumeatlowcost.Economicmodelsforstartingthisbusinesssuggestthattheproductionof500gallonsofmash/dayistheidealeconomicentrypoints.Suchproductionresultsinaboutonepalletofcased,750mlbottlesperday.Thatdaily2
productionfitsintothebackofvan.Weaskthatwhateverlimitsgetputonourbusinessbeconstantwiththatofbreweriesandwineriesintermsoftherawmaterialstheyarehandling.Forexample,a15barrelbeersystemsuchastheonebeingsuggestedbySt.VramBrewingforuseinEstesPark,usesthesameamountofgrainandwaterasa500gallonmashsystemfordistilledspirits.Ourstillsrangeinsizebasedonthetypeofmashandtheir‘foaminess’.Measuringmashcapabilityisamorefairmeasureofproductionforadistillerysinceourfinishedproductscanrangein%alcoholcontentwidely-fromliqueursat15-20%to50%forsomerums.ThiswasnotsomethingthecityofFortCollinsconsideredwhenitsetthearbitrarylimitof15,000proofgallons/yearondistilleries.Thisarbitrarynumberonproductionlimitsalsolimitsthetaxrevenuethecitycancollect.Thesuggestionmadebyyourplanningofficialsinthelastworksessionregardingallowingunlimitedproductionupto15,000sq/ftseemstobethemostfairandencouragesbusinesstobeefficient.ThetownofEstesParkisideallysituatedforproductionofagedspirits.AccesstosnowmeltwaterfromtheRockyMountains,thatisironfree,isakeyconsideration:60%ofourproductsare,afterall,water.Also,theagriculturalregionsofLarimerCountyandNorthernColoradoproducesomeofthefinestgrainsavailableforadultbeverageproduction.ButperhapsthebestthingaboutEstesParkisthealtitude.World-wide,craftdistillersdesirethehighestaltitudeanddriestclimatepossibleforagingtheirproducts.Unfortunately,mostplacesworld-widedonothavethecombinationofpurewaterandclimateforgrainproductionwithaccesstohighaltitudeanddryclimate.TheonlycomparableplaceisthehighmountainsofCentralAmerica.Inthatcase,purewaterandhighaltitudeareavailable,butthewetclimateismostconducivetogrowingsugarcaneandtheproductionofrum.CentralAmericaisworld-famousforitsproductionofthefinestrumonearthbecausethealtitudemakesagingadynamicprocess.IbelievethatEstesPark’snaturalenvironmentcanresultintheproductionoftheworld’sfinestsinglemaltandcornwhiskies-competingwithKentuckyandScotland.Ihavebeenresearchingthedetailsofopeningacraftdistilleryforacoupleofyearsandhaveputmucheffortintoeducatingmyselfabouttheindustryoverthattime.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,comments,orconcernsaboutmyplansandthisindustryIwouldbehappytodiscussitwithyouindividuallyorasagroup,inpersonoronthephone.IliveinFortCollinsandworkinGreeleyandcanbeinEstesonthesamedayifneedbe.Ifitwouldhelpmakethedialoguemoreefficient,IwouldbehappytoattendthenextworksessiononthistopicandbeavailabletoansweryourquestionsasbestIcan.Iamalsoevaluatingothercommunitiesinwhichtolocatemybusiness,butEstesParkismytopchoiceforreasonsoutlinedabove.Becauseoftheboomincraftdistilling,thedecisiononwheretostartmybusinessistime-sensitiveandIwouldappreciateyourdiligenceinmakingthisitemapriorityconsiderationinyourworkagenda.Thepermittingprocessislengthyandexpensive.IftheEstesParkallowedforthistypeofbusinesstomorrow,itwouldnotbeuntilMarchof2015untilIcouldopenmydoors.Iwouldideallyliketobeproducingtwomonthspriortothesummerof2015andtodothatrequiresthatyoureachadecisiononthissubjectbeforeJune.Iamhappytopointyoutoresourcesandassistyouwithlocatingpeerexamplesofhowthisbusinesswouldfitintoyourcommunity.IhopethatyouultimatelydecidethatthepositiveeffectsofmybusinessonyourcommunitysuchastheimpactthedistilleriesinGatlinburg,Breckenridge,andLyonshavehadontheirsinanchoringayear-roundeconomyissomethingyouwouldliketoseeinEstesPark.Pleasedonothesitatetocontactmeifyouhaveanyquestionsorwouldliketospeakwithmefacetoface.Regards,Joe3
JoeT.Elkins.Ph.!).Cell:419-575-17044
PhilKleisler,PlannerApril9,2014Micro-Breweries/Distilleries/WineriesPresentSituation:TOWNoESTESPARKCOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTHonorableMayorPinkhamEstesParkBoardofTrusteesHonorableCommissionerChairDonnellyLarimerCountyBoardofCountyCommissionersPlanningCommissionChairHullTownAdministratorLancasterCountyManagerHoffmannObjective:Obtainpolicydirectiontocreatenewdefinitionsfor“micro”and“conventional”breweries,wineriesanddistilleries,andplaceintoappropriatezonedistricts.BackgroundColorado,andparticularlytheFrontRange,hasgainednotorietyforanabundanceofcraftbreweries.Untilthepastcoupleofdecades,nearlyallmalt,spirituousandvinousliquorsintheU.S.wereproducedbyverylargecompaniesor,inthecaseofwineries,concentratedinagriculturalregionssuitableforgrapeproduction.Ahandfulofsmall,localmicro-distilleriesbeganemerginginthe2000swithinanemphasisontheproductionofunique,handcraftedspiritsandliquors.Thebrewery,distilleryandwineryindustrieshavebecomeincreasinglydecentralized,transitioningfromlarge-scaleoperationstoentrepreneurialbusinessesservinglocalizedorregionalmarkets.AccordingtotheBrewer’sAssociation,anationaltradegrouprepresentingthecraftbrewingindustry(locatedinBoulder),therewere89commercialbrewerofanytypeinthelate1970s.By2013therewere1,165brewpubsand1,221microbreweriesintheU.S.Althoughnotasabundantasbreweries,wineriesanddistillerieshavealsogrowninpopularity(seeattached“PracticeBreweries”,page2).ColoradoranksfifthinpercapitabreweriesandthirdintotalbreweriesintheU.S.PolicyDirectionTheEstesValleyComprehensivePlanrecognizestheimportanceofmaintainingauniqueblendofbusinessesinCommunityWidePolicies7.1:Maintainauniqueblendofbusinesses,residentsandvisitors,withoutnegativelyaffectingthenaturalbeautyoftheEstesValley.MemoTo:From:Date:RE:
TheEstesParkBoardofTrusteeshasadopteda2014strategicplan,whichincludesakeyoutcomeofarobusteconomy:adiverse,healthyyearroundeconomy.CurrentUseLimitationsTheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode(EVDC)allowsthe“productionoffermentedmaltbeverages,malt,specialmalt,andvinousandspirituousliquors(brewpub)”asanaccessoryusetorestaurantsinthefollowingzonedistricts:1.AAccommodations2.CDCommercialDowntown3.COCommercialOutlyingInresponsetothegrowingpopularityofbreweries,distilleriesandwineries,staffhasreceivedconsistentrequeststoopensuchbusinessesabsentofarestaurantcomponent.ThehighexpenseofarestauranthasappearedtolimitbreweriesfromopeninginEstesPark,withonebrewery(EstesParkBrewery)andonewinery(SnowyPeaksWinery)operatingintheEstesValley.Initialdiscussionscenteredonmicro-breweries/wineries/distilleries,butthroughtheresearchnotedbelow,staffisalsobringinganoptiontopermitconventionalbreweries/wineries/distilleries.BenchmarkingAccordingtotheAmericanPlanningAssociation,communitieshavegenerallytakentwoapproachestoregulatingsmall-scalealcoholproduction.Eithertheydefinebrewpubs,microbreweries,microdistilleriesandmicrowineriesasdistinctuses,ortheydefineanumbrellatermthatencompassesmultipletypesofproductionfacilities.Staffrecommendsdefiningeachuse,asexplainedbelow.Communitiesthatdefineeachusegenerallyrelyonaproductionvolumethresholdtodistinguishbetweena“micro”and“conventional”versionofeachuse.Forexample,FortCollinssetathresholdof15,000barrelsperyearformicrobreweries,whichcorrespondswiththeAmericanBrewersAssociationdefinedlimit.Researchindicatesthatcommunitiesmaymodifythisthresholdasaresultofpopulationsizeorcapacityofspecificzonedistricts.ThethresholdformicrobreweriesinVailis7,500barrelsperyear,whilethatofAurorais60,000barrelsperyear.Similarthresholdsformicrodistilleriesandmicrowineriesappeartobeusedlessfrequently.Somecommunitiesalsoregulatetheproductionthresholdbysettinglimitstothefloorareaof“micro”operations.Duringstakeholdermeetingstherewasconcernexpressedaboutproductionlimits(e.g.barrelsperyear)fromthosewishingtoopena“micro”brewery,wineryordistillery.Concernscenteredonthesomewhatarbitrarynatureofsettingproductionlimitsandtheimpactsthattheycanhaveonstartups.Inresponsetotheseconcerns,staffisproposingasquarefootagerequirementforthe“micro”usesinlieuofaproductionlimit.TheEVDCsetsasimilarsquarefootagerequirementforsomeindustrialuses.Page2of10
Proposal:AmendtheEVDCtoallowformicro-breweries/wineries/distilleriesandconventionalbreweries,wineriesanddistilleriestooperateasaprincipleuseinappropriatezonedistricts.AnalysisStaffrevieweddefinitions,intentandlocationalinformationforeachzonedistrictthatrelatestothisproposedcodeamendment(seeAttachment2forfulldistrictdefinitions).Loading/UnloadingStaffisnotproposinganyadditionalrestrictionstooff-streetparkingandloading.EVDCSection7.11Off-StreetParkingandLoadingappliestonewdevelopmentinallzonedistrictsexceptintheCommercialDowntowndistrict.NoiseTheTownwillrelyontheexistingnoiserestrictionsinTitle8oftheEstesParkMunicipalCode.StaffisparticipatingintoursofseveralbusinessesalongtheFrontRangeandwillreporttotheBoardsanyconcernsrelatingtonoise.OdorStaffisresearchingthisissueandreachingouttoneighborsadjacenttobreweriestoaccesspotentialimpacts.Additionally,weplantovisitbusinesseswhilethebrewingprocesstakesplace.OutdoorStorageExistingcodesaddresstheissueofoutdoorstorage.WhilemostrestrictiveintheCommercialDowntowndistrict,alldistrictsrequirescreeningfrompropertylinesandpublicstreets.StaffwillalsotakenoteofanyoutdoorstorageduringtheupcomingtoursandreportsuchfindingstotheBoards.Advantages:•Encourageslocal,year-roundbusiness;•Supportsandaccommodatestheevolvingnatureofmicrobreweries,microdistilleriesandmicrowineries;•Preventsindustrialusesfromdominatingnon-industrialareas;•Considersimpactstoadjacentresidentsandbusinesses;and,•MorealignmentoftheEVDCwithstateliquorlaws.Disadvantages:•Alcoholconsumptioncontributestoinstancesofalcoholismanddrivingwhileundertheinfluenceofalcohol.PlanningstaffhaveconsultedwiththePolicePage3of10
Department,whosuggestedmonitoringinstancesofalcohol-relatedincidents.StafffurthersuggeststhatanannualreportbegiventotheBoardssummarizingwhatnewbusinesseshaveopened,howtheregulationsareworkingandiftherehavebeenanyunintendedconsequences(e.g.spikesinalcohol-relatedarrests,concernsfromneighboringbusinesses).ActionRecommended:Reachconsensusonpolicydirectionforthefollowingoptions(SeeAttachment1foracomparisonofeachoption)andanacceptabletimelinetoschedulethecodeamendmentforconsideration.Option1:Permitboth“micro”and“conventional”breweries,wineriesanddistilleries.Discussionsonthistopicinitiallycenteredon“micro”,small-scaleoperationsgenerallyfoundinadowntownsetting.Researchindicatesthatmostmunicipalitiesallowforconventionaloperations,whileslightlyfewerdefine“micro”operations.AttendeesofpublicstakeholdermeetingsrequestedthattheTownconsiderallowingboth“micro”and“conventionaloptions,citingthedesiretogrowfroma“micro”businesstoalarger“conventional”business.OptionIpermitsmicro-breweries/wineries/distilleriesintheCDCommercialDowntownandCOCommercialOutlyingzonedistricts.“Conventional”breweries/wineries/distillerieswouldbepermittedintheCHCommercialHeavyandtheI-iRestrictedIndustrialzonedistricts.Theproductionthresholdforthe“micro”operationswouldbeaddressedintheusetableamendment,requiringaSpecialReviewforsuchusescontainingmorethan15,000squarefeetofgrossfloorarea(SpecialReviewrequiresBoardapproval).“Conventional”operationswouldbeausebyrightintheI-iDistrictandrequireaSpecialReviewintheCHDistrictiftheusecontainsmorethan15,000squarefeetofgrossfloorarea.TheEVDCsetsasimilarsquarefootagerequirementforsomeindustrialuses.Additionally,theCHDistrictpurposestatementreadsinpartthat“largerfacilitiesshallbesubjecttospecialreview”.“Micro”operationswouldberequiredtohaveataproomortastingroom,whilesuchroomswouldbeanoptionalaccessoryusefor“conventional”operations.OptionIPros:•Allowsstartupstogrowintolargerbusinesses,whileremaininginEstesPark;•Wouldlikelyestablishyear-roundbusinesses;and,•Consistentwithpracticesofothercommunities.Page4of10
OptionICons:•Restricts“conventional”businessestoheavycommercialandindustrialzonedistricts,whicharelimitedintheEstesValley.Option2:Permitboth“micro”anduconventionalbreweries,wineriesanddistilleries,withadditionalrestrictionsintheCommercialDowntowndistrict.Attendeesoftherecentstakeholdermeetingssuggestedestablishingdifferentstandardsbyzonedistrict.ThisoptionallowsforusesasdescribedinOption1,butsetsstricterlimitationsintheCommercialDowntowndistrict.Staffrecommendsthatstricterstandardsconsistoflowerproductionlimitsand/orlimitstooff-sitesalesanddistribution.Option2Pros:•AllowsrequirementstobetailoredfortheCommercialDowntowndistrict;and,•Wouldlikelyestablishyear-roundbusinesses.Option2Cons:•Additionalregulations,whichmaydetersomeentrepreneurs.Option3:Permitonly“micro”breweries,wineriesanddistilleries.Stakeholdercommentsindicatethat“micro”businessesaremostdesirableatthistime,givenourheavylocalretailindustryandlackofindustrialland.Thisoptionpermitsthe“micro”businesses,yetprohibitslarger,“conventional”businesses.Pros:•Allowsthe“micro”operations,whichwilllikelybemoreprominentthanthe“conventional”operations;•Wouldlikelyestablishyear-roundbusinesses;and,•Allowsthecommunitytoaddressanyunintendedconsequencesonasmallerscale.Cons:•Limitedabilityforstartupstogrowtoaregionaloperation,whichmayleadtobusinessesmovingtocommunitieswithlessrestrictiveregulations.ProposedDefinitions:StaffproposesaddingthefollowingdefinitionstoEVDCChapter13Definitions.NotalldefinitionswillbeuseddependingonwhichoptiontheBoardswishtopursue.Page5of10
•Microbrewery:Anestablishmentwheremaltliquorsorfermentedmaltbeveragesaremanufactured,andshallincludeataproomtoselltheproductstopatronsonsite.StaffNote:ThislanguageisgenerallyconsistentwiththeColoradoLiquorCode.Theintentofthetaproomistopreventmanufacturingusesfromdominatingretailareas.•Microwinery:Anestablishmentwherevinousliquorsaremanufactured,andshallincludeatastingroomtoselltheproductstopatronsonsite.StaffNote:ThislanguageisgenerallyconsistentwiththeColoradoLiquorCode.•Microdistillery:Anestablishmentwherespirituousliquorsaremanufactured,andshallincludeatastingroomtoselltheproductstopatronsonsite.StaffNote:ThislanguageisgenerallyconsistentwiththeColoradoLiquorCode.•Brewery:Anestablishmentwheremaltliquorsorfermentedmaltbeveragesaremanufactured,thatmayincludeataproomthatislessthanorequaltothirtypercentofthetotalfloorareaofthefacilityoronethousandsquarefeet,whicheverisgreater.StaffNote:ThisdefinitionisconsistentwiththeStateLiquorCode.ThefloorarearequirementisusedbytheCityofBoulder.Theintentofthetaproomlimitationistopreventsmall-scaleproductionoperationsfromdominatingindustrialareas.•Winery:Anestablishmentwherevinousliquorsaremanufactured,andmayincludeatastingroomthatislessthanorequaltothirtypercentofthetotalfloorareaofthefacilityoronethousandsquarefeet,whicheverisgreater.StaffNote:ThisdefinitionisconsistentwiththeStateLiquorCode.ThefloorarearequirementisusedbytheCityofBoulder.•Distillery:Anestablishmentwherespirituousliquorsaremanufactured,andmayincludeatastingroomthatislessthanorequaltothirtypercentofthetotalfloorareaofthefacilityoronethousandsquarefeet,whicheverisgreater.Page6of10
StaffNote:ThisdefinitionisconsistentwiththeStateLiquorCode.ThefloorarearequirementisusedbytheCityofBoulder.•Taproom:Auseassociatedwithandonthesamepremisesasabrewery,atwhichguestsmaysamplethemanufacturer’sproductsandconsumeothernonalcoholicbeverages.StaffNote:ThisdefinitionisusedbytheCityofBoulder.•TastingRoom:Auseassociatedwithandonthesamepremisesasawineryordistillery,atwhichguestsmaysamplethemanufacturer’sproductsandconsumeothernonalcoholicbeverages.StaffNote:ThisdefinitionisusedbytheCityofBoulder.Budget:•Legalnotice,publicationandcodificationfeesareminimal($300).•Possibleincreaseintaxbasefromnewbusinesses.LevelofPublicInterestThelevelofpublicinterestismoderateingeneral,andhighamongthoseinterestedintheseindustries.PublicMeetingsTwopublicmeetingswereheldonMarch26,2014toreviewthecurrentregulationsandhowothercommunitiesregulatetheseindustries.Althoughtheconceptspresentedbystaffwerewellreceived,severalattendeesexpressedconcernswithsettingproductionlimitsfordistilleriesandwineries.Forexample,distilleriesoftenblendtheirproductswithoff-siteingredientsduringthefirst1-2yearsofoperation(whiletheirproductages).Aproductionlimitintheseinstanceswouldimpacttheirabilitytogettheirbusinessofftheground.Asummaryofthesemeetingsareattached.WrittenCommentsTheTownhasreceivedtwowrittencommentsinsupportoftheproposedcodeamendment(attached).Attachments:1.Comparisonofpolicyoptions.2.ZonedistrictdefinitionsPage7of10
3.Summaryofpublicmeetings4.Writtencomments5.AmericanPlanningAssociationZoningPractice:MicrobreweriesPage8of10
Attachment 1:Comparison of policy options.
Use Current Code Option 1:“All In”Option 2:“Stricter Option 3::Micro
Requirements Downtown”Only”
Microbreweries Accessory to Restaurant Principle use in the CD and Principle use in the CD and Principle use in the CD
Use in A,CO and CD CO Districts.CO Districts,and CO Districts.
Micro wineries Districts.
Floor area above 15,000 Floor area above 15,000
Microdistilleries square feet requires a square feet requires a Floor area above
Special Review.Special Review.15,000 square feet
requires a Special
Shall include a Shall include a Review.
taproom/tasting room.taproom/tasting room.
Shall include a
Limits to production and/or taproom/tasting room.
off-site sales in the
Commercial Downtown
District.
Breweries Accessory to Restaurant Principle use in the CH and Principle use in the CH and I-Prohibited
Use in A,CO and CD I-i Districts.1 Districts.
Wineries Districts.
In the CH District,floor area In the CH District,floor area
Distilleries above 15,000 square feet above 15,000 square feet
requires a Special Review,requires a Special Review.
.May include a tasting room May include a tasting room
that is less than or equal to that is less than or equal to
thirty percent of the total thirty percent of the total floor
floor area of the facility or area of the facility or one
one thousand square feet,thousand square feet,
whichever is greater.whichever is greater.
Attachment2:ZoneDistrictDefinitionsCDDowntownCommercialThiszonedistrictisestablishedtoprovideawidevarietyandrelativelyhighintensityofretailandcommercialserviceswithinDowntownEstesParktoservebothresidentsandvisitors.TheCDDistrictimplementsthe“CBD-CommercialDowntown”landusecategorysetforthintheComprehensivePlan.Thisdistrictisintendedtoencourageapredominanceofcompactandpedestrian-scaleretail,serviceandofficeusesintheDowntowncore.Residentialuses,especiallyemployeehousingorwhenmixedwithcommercialorretailuses,arealsoencouragedwithinthedistricttoprovidealternativehousingchoicesfortheValley’sworkforce.ItistheintentthattheDowntownmaintainitsfunctionastheValley’sfocalpointoftouristshoppingandentertainmentactivity.ThisareaisalsoakeyeconomicenginefortheTownofEstesParkandtheValley;therefore,futuresales-taxgeneratingusesarestronglyencouraged.Itisalsotheintentofthisdistrictthatnewdevelopmentdevelopinwaysintegratingandevenenhancingthequalitiesofthestreams,rivers,topographyandothernaturalassetsofthearea.COOutlyingCommercialZoningDistrictThiszoningdistrictisestablishedtoencouragethedevelopmentofawidevarietyofcommercialandretailusesalongthemajorcorridorentrywaysintotheValleyandtheTownofEstesPark.Thiszoningdistrictisestablishedtoimplementthe“Commercial”and“Commercial-Recreation”futurelandusecategoriesrecommendedintheComprehensivePlan.Thisdistrictshouldaccommodatethemajorityofthelarger,freestandingcommercialandretailbuildingstomeetfuturedemandinthecommunity.CHHeavyCommercialZoningDistrictThiszoningdistrictisintendedtoprovideforheavycommercialuses,includingvehiclerepairservices,constructiontradesandbulkgoodsretailing.ItshallbelimitedtoareaswithintheEstesValleythatalreadycontainsomeofthesetypesofheavycommercialuses,andshallnotincludeareasfrontingtheValley’shighwaysorarterialstreets.Permittedusesshallincludeutilityfacilitiesandinstallations,repairservices,bulkstorageandlimitedmanufacturing.Mostoftheseusesshallbepermittedbyright,butsubjecttospecificsizelimitations.Largerfacilitiesshallbesubjecttospecialreview.I-IRestrictedIndustrialZoningDistrictThiszoningdistrictimplementsthe“RestrictedIndustrial”landusecategoryrecommendedintheComprehensivePlan.Permittedusesshallincludearelativelywidevarietyofindustrialuses,asreflectedintheexistingmixofindustriallanduses,includingseveralconcrete/asphaltplants,propanedistributors,constructiontradeyardsandgravelminingandcrushingfacilities.However,todiscouragefutureconflicts,residentialusesshallnotbepermittedinthiszoningdistrict.Animportantelementofdevelopmentinthisindustrialzonedistrictshallbecompliancewithperformancestandardstoprotectadjacentusesfromadverseimpactsofindustrialdevelopment.
?WcMicro-Brewerles/Distlfterles/WineriesPublicMeetingsandCommentsMarch26,2014Thankyoutothosewhohaveprovidedcommentsontheproposedcodeamendmentsrelatingtomicrobrewerles,microdistillerlesandmicrowineries.TheTownofEstesParkheldtwoinformationalmeetingswereheldonMarch26,2014at12:00p.m.and5:30p.m.inTownHalltoexplainthecurrentregulations,howsomeothercommunitiesregulatetheseindustriesandtoreceivepublicInput.Nineteenindividualsattendedthe12:00p.m.meetingandfiveIndivIdualsattendedthe5:30p.m.meeting.AttendeesconsistedalmostexclusivelyofbusinessownersInthebrewery/distillery/wineriesindustries,entrepreneurswhowishtoestablishsuchabusinessinEstesParkandrecreationalbrewers.Overalltheconversationamongstaffandattendeeswasconstructiveandinformative.Staffposedaseriesofquestionstotheattendees.Belowarethespecificquestions,eachfollowedbysummarizedcomments.Atwhatpointdoesamicro-brewery/wInery/dIstIlIe,ygrowoutofItsfacilityandIsmoreappropriateforanIndustrialarea?Toprovidesomeperspective,belowisachartwhichshowsthelimitsformicrobrewerieswithinahandfulofcities.OnceanoperationreachesthisthresholdIt’sthenmoreappropriateforanindustrialzonedistrict(asopposedtoaretail/downtownarea).Aurora60000>FortCoHins15,0000._.Vail7,500roRapidCity5,000I+-.Time•EstesParkBreweryproducesroughly1,200barrelsperyear.•Largeroperationsmaynaturallygrowoutofdowntown,pedestrian-scaleareas.Theaudiencegenerallyagreedthathighdowntownrentandlackofavailablespace(e.g.loading,storage)wouldnaturallydrivelargeroperationstoheaviercommercialandindustrialareas.•Amicrobreweryretailsalesoperationwouldlikelybecappedat2,000—3,000barrelsperyear.•Breckenridgehasadowntowndistillerywithatastingroomthatstaffshouldvisit.PhilKlelsler,Plannerpkleisler@estes.org
Mlcro..Breweries/Dlstflleries/WineriesPublicMeetingsandCommentsMarch262014•Therewasconsiderablediscussionaboutthepurposeoftheseproductionlimits.Somecommunitiesapplyaproductionlimitfordowntownareasvs.Industrialarea,someregulatebysquarefootageofabuilding,whileothersmakenomentionofoperationallimits.ManycommunitiesdonotapplyproductionlimitstomlcrodistiUeriesormicrowineries,giventheiruniqueproduction/storagerequirements.Somemembersoftheaudienceexpressedconcernswithapplyingacaponproductionlimitsandsomecommentedthatproductioncapsshouldberegulatedbydistrict.Stillwillpresenta“menuofoptions”topolicymakers.DoyoufeelthatEstesParkshouldhavesmall-scaleandIndustrialoperationsoronlysmall-scaleoperations(“micro”)?•Thereappearedtobeageneralconsensusthatbothshouldbeallowed,withlargeroperationshavingatastingroomonsite.Thereasonforthiswastoallowlocalsmall-scaleoperationstoeventuallygrowintolargeroperations.•AmemberoftheEconomicDevelopmentBoardcommentedthattheseindustrieswillservicethecommunityandvisitors,doesn’tchangethefabricofthecommunity,producesalocalproduct,contributestothelocaleconomyandisappealingtoourtourismsector.•Itwasalsostatedthathavingbothwillhelpspurvibrancy.•Trucktrafficwouldnotbeoutofscalerelativetorestaurants.Arethereodorsornoisethatmaynegativelyaffectpropertyownersadjacenttobreweries/distIllerIes/wInerIes?•Noconcernswerenoted.•Distillers,particularlymicrodistillerles,whichareoftenbottledbyhand.•AnattendeeaskedIfstaffhavereceivednegativefeedbackfromnearbyneighborsoftheEstesParkBreweryorSnowyPeaksWinery.Staffwere/areunawareofanyconcerns.Doyouconsidercraftbrewing/dlstllllng/wlner’,operationstobeenvironmentallyfriendly?•Thegeneralconsensuswas“yes”.•Breweriesproducespentgrain.•Yeastcanberecycled(e.g.forhorses)•Therearebothorganic/naturalproductsandnon-organic/naturalproductsavailable(asinmostindustries).•Allindustrieswillcreatesomegreywater.StaffIsfollowingupwiththelocalsanitationdistrictsforanyconcerns/comments.•Oneoptionfordistillingiscalled“directfire”,asopposedtousingsteam.StaffisfollowingupwiththeFireMarshallforanyconcerns/comments.PhilKlelsler,Plannerpklelsler@estes.org
tvL;4)etcw’nF5PhilKleislerFrom:KateRusch<krusch@estes.org>SentTuesday,March25,201410:37AMTo:Planningcommdev;PhilKIelsierSubject:Fwd:ReminderProvideinputonproposedregulationsforbreweries,wineriesanddistilleriesHiPhil,pleaseseepubliccommentbelow..,thanks!KateRuschPublicInformationOfficerTownofEstesPark970-577-3701krusch@estes.orgwww.estes.orgLikeus:facebook.com/townofestesparkcoFollowus:twitter.comltownofestesparkFy4çmessageFrom:Dan<dtanton@verizon.ne>Date:Tue,MãI5,2014at9:32AMSubject:RE:Reminder:Provideinputonproposedregulationsforbreweries,wineriesanddistilleriesTo:krusch@estes.orgHiKate-iwon’tbeabletoattendthforums,butpleasepassontheinformationbelowtothepolicymakersforme.ThanksbPositionremicrobreweries/wineries/microdistilleriesinEstesPark1
shTrbeallowedandsupportedtocontinuetobroadennicbase,andhelpusobtainapositiveanddiverseeconomicfuture.From:kruschcestes.orp[maIlto:krusch)estes.ora1Sent;Tuesday,March25,20147:56AMTo:dtantonverizon.netSubject:Reminder:Provideinputonproposedregulationsforbreweries,wineriesariddistilleriesHavingtroubleviewingthisemail?ClickhereYouhaveexpressedanInterestinTownofEstesParknews-pleaseaddkruschestes.orotoyouraddressbooksowe’llbesuretolandinyourInboxiYoumayunsubscribeIfyounolongerwishtoreceiveouremails.IiDiDJ1ikeTOWNoIESTFSPARK,3.25.14Weighinonproposedlocalregulationsforbreweries,wineriesanddistilleries:TheTownwillhosttwopublicforumsWednesday,March26at12:00p.m.and5:30p.m.inRoom202atTownHall.ReadthecompletearticlePleasecontactmedirectlyIfyouneedmoreinformation.KateRuschPublicInformationOfficerTownofEstesParkP.O.Box12002
ForwardedmessageFrom:Hendren<nwhrrnnyldg@hotmail.com>DateTue,Mar25,2ö14at93OAMSubject:RE:Reminder:Provideinputonproposedregulationsforbreweries,wineriesanddistilleriesTo:“krusch(à)estes.or”<kruschaestes.org>Iamunableto’rtoallowmoreaMeries,wineriLKenHendren1351RiversideLaneP.O.Box2960EstesPark,CO80517720-323-3007
A41LZoningforSmalL-ScaLeAlcoholProduction:MakingSpaceforBrewpubs,Microbreweries,Microwineries,andMicrodistilleriesByDavidM.Morley,AICPIncommunitiesacrossthecountry,beertitanslikeSt.Louis-basedAnheuser-BuschandChicago-basedMillerCoorsarefacingstiffcompetitionfromahostoflocallyownedandoperatedcraftbreweries.2,5002,0001,500o1,000a)=0ThenumberofbrewersIshighertodaythanatanypointduringthe20thcentury.Inwe,sAss,U,B,dd,CbIomoMeanwhile,thereIsparallelgrowthincraftdistilleriesandsmall-volumewineries.Whilerenewedinterestinsmall-scalea’cohoproductionIsjustonefacetofthebuy-iocaimovement,ithasspecralrelevanceforplanningandzoningpractitioners,Historically,fewcommunltteshaveusedionlngtodrawdistinctionsbetweenacohotproductionfacilitiesofdifferenttypesands1zes.Morerecently,though,numerouslocalitleshaveaddedprovisionstotheirzoningcodesthatacknowledgethevarietyoralcohoproducers.Theprimarymotivationfortheseregulatorychanges.sadesiretomakespaceforsmallerproducerstooperateouts’deofdustrlaldistricts.Thetwomostcommonsmal-scatealcoho!productionusestoreceivespecialzoningattentionarebrewpubs(restaurantsccmblnedwithbreweries)andmicrobreweries(small-volumebrewerswithorwithoutonsitesales).Butreferencestomicrodistlilerles(smalvolumedistillerieswitho’withouton•sitesales)andmicrowinerles(small-volumewinerieswithouton-sitevineyards)arealsoontherise.Thepurposesorthisart’c.earetohighlightwhythegrowthinsmal-scalealcoholproductionmaymeritzoningchangesandtosummarizehowcommunitieshaveamendedtheircodestoadddefinitions,usepermissions,and,insomecases,additionalstandardstosanctionbrewpubsandmicroproducersTHEBOOMINSMALL-SCALEALCOHOLPRODUCTIONAccordingtotheBrewersAssociation,thetradegroupforsmallbrewers,asofJune2013therewere1,165brewpubsand1,221mcrobreweriesi-’theUnitedStates.Bywayofcomparison,Inthelate19705therewereonly89commercialbrewersofanytype(BrewersAssocIation2013).Thisboominsmall-scaleproductionhasspreadtospiritsandwinetooinApril2012Timereporteda400percentsurgeInrnlcrodlstilleresIntheIiSbetween2005and2012(Stelnmetz2012).AndaccordingtostatisticsmaintainedbytradepublisherWines&Vines,thenumberofwineriesproducingbetween1,000and5,000casesperyeargrew16,5percentbetweenAigustzoziandJanuary2014alone.ThesetrendshavesignificanteconomicdevelopmentImplicatIonsfor‘ocalitiesacrossthecountry.Inaddtlo’tosatisfy’gdemandforlocallyproducedbeer,wine,andspirits,mlcroproducersoftendistrbutetheirproductregionallyornational:y,bringingrewmoneyintotheirhostcommunIties.Furthermore,successfulbrewpubsandmlcroproduce’scanhelpenlivencommercialandmixedusedistrictsthatwouldotherwiseclearoutafterconventionalretailandofficehours.t’snosurprise,then,thatsomecommunitiesareactivelytryingtolurehigh-profilemicrobreweriesfromotherstates(Mcconnell2012).TNETROIIi3IEWIThREGULATORYSILENCEDespitetheexplosivegrowthInbrewpubsandnileroproducers,surprisinglyfewcommunitiesexplicitlysanctionsmallscalealcol-opro-126-YearBreweryCount(1887-2013)1890180019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010CZONINGICE3J4AMER(CANPtA)4NNC550CIAONpcge.
ductior,facilitiesthroughtheirzoningcodes.Withoutcleardefinitionsandusepermissions.planningstafforpublicofficialsareforcedtomakeadhocuseInterpretationsthatcandelayorevenpreventotheiwisedesirabledevelop.ment.ThisregulatorIsilencecreatesuncertaintyforbusinessownerslookingtomakelocationdecisionsandsecurefinancing,andItmayhavetheeffectofscaringawaypotentialapplicants.Finally,explicitdefinitions,usepermissions,andusc-specificstandardsallowcommunitiestoproactivelyaddressthepotentialnegativeeffectsofbrewpubsandmicroproducersonsurroundingareas,therebyminimizingfutureconflictswfthneighbors.Generallyspeaking,thereareIwobasicschoolsofthoughtaboutdefiningusesinzoningcodes.Somecommunitiesbytodefineeveryconceivablepotentialuse,whileothersrelyonusegroups(orcategories)withsimilaroperationalrequirementsandattendantcommunityeffacts.Thefirstmethodcanbringclarityandavoidsomelegaldisputesoverspecificuses,butitmaycreateunnecessarilycomplexreguiatlon5.ThesecondmethodispartofLargertrendawayfromproscriptiveuseregulations,asmanycommunitiesfocusmoreonaprescriptiveapproachtotheformofdevelopment.Inpractice,mostconventionalnewzoningcodesuseahybridoftheseapproaches,withbroadusecategories,suchashouseho’dlivingorgeneralretail,andspecificusedefinitionsforasmallsubsetofhigher-Impactormorecontentioususesundereachcategory.Mirroringthisbroaderconversationaboutthebestapproachtoclassifyinganddefininguses,communitiesthathaveaddedspecificdefinitionsforsmall-scalealcoholproductionfacilitiestotheirzoningcodesgenerallytakeoneoltwoapproaches.Elthertheydefinebrewpubs,microbrewerles,microdlstfllerles,andmicrowlneriesasdistinctuses,ortheydefineanumbrellatermthatencompassesmultipletypesofproductionfacilities.Communitiesthatdefinemicrobreweries,mlcrodistilieries,ormicrowineriesasdistinctusesoftenrelyonaproductionvolumethresholdtodistinguishbetweenthe“micro”and“conventional”versronofaparticularuse.Formlcrobrewerles,15,000barrelsperyearisacommonthreshold,whichcorrespondstotheAmericanBrewersAssociation’sdefinedlimitforamicrobrewery.Giventhattherearenocorespondngindustrydefinitionsformicrodistlileryandmlcrowinery,Itisperhapsunsurprisingthatthresholdsfortheseusesseemtovarymorefromplacetoplace.Whencommu&Vesdefinebrewpubsasadistinctuse,theIntentisusuallytodistinguishbetweenaccessory-andprimary-usebrewingfacilities.Mostcommunitiesstipulatethatbeerproductioninabrewpubmustbeaccessorytoabarorrestaurant,andmanycapthevolumeofbeerproducedannually(usuallylessthan15,000barrels).Furthermore,someJurisdictionsquantifythissubordinaterelationshipbyimiting‘epercentageoffoorareaorsatesattributabletotheb-ewerycomponentothebusiness.Oefiitionsforbrewpbbs,microbreweres,mirrodistlle’ies,andiicrowineriesoftenincludeanacknowledgmentthatthealcoholproducedwillbeconsumedbothon.andoff-site.For“micro”facilities,thepresumptionIstypicalythatonsiteconsumptionwiibeZON!NGAMPCAfPtANNIWGASSOCAOwpage3•1:.•Clearzoningstandards(orsmall-scalealcoholproductionfacilitiesbeginwithclearusedefinitions.f’
ExamplesofUseDefinitionsBewptxlo•Aretailestablishmentthatmanufacturesnotmorethan9,000barrelsofmaltliquoronItslicensedpremiseseachcalendaryear.(Aurora,Colorado)•Arestaurant-brewerythatsells25percentormoreofitsbeeron-site.Thebeerisbrewedprimarilyforsaleintherestaurantandbar.Thebeerisoftendispenseddirectlyfromthebrewery’sstoragetanks.Whereallowedbylaw.brewpubsoftensellbeerogoordistributetooff-siteaccounts.(BrewersAssociation)Arestaurantwithfacilitiesforthebrewingorbeerforon-siteconsumptionandretailsaleattherestaurant.Abrewpubmustderiveatleast40percentofitsgrossrevenuefromthesaleoffood.(Goodyear,Arizona)•ArestaurantfeaturingbeerthatIsbrewedon-site.(Memphis-ShelbyCounty,Tennessee)•Arestaurantthatbrewsbeerasanaccessoryuse,eitherforconsumptionon-sateorinhand-capped,seatedcontainersinquantitiesuptoone-halfbarrelsolddirectlytotheconsumer.Productioncapacityaslimitedto5,000barrelsofbeverage(allbeveragescombined)peryear.Theareausedforbrewing,bottling,andkaggingshaltnotexceed30percentofthetotalfloorareaofthecommercialspace.Abarrelisequivalentto31gallons.(Plainfleld,illinois)Microbrewery.•Asmallfacilityforthebrewingofbeerthatproduceslessthan15.000barrelsperyear.itmayoftenincludeatastingroomandretailspacetosellthebeertopatronsonthesite.(Asheville,NorthCarolina)•Anyestablishmentwheremaltliquorsaremanufacturedandpackagedon-oroff-premises.manufacturingmorethan9.000butlessthan6o,ooobarrelsofmaltliquoronItslicensedpremiseseachcalendaryear.(Aurora,Colorado)•Abrewerythatproduceslessthan15.ooobarrelsofbeerperyearwith75percentormoreofitsbeersoldoff-site,Microbreweriesselltothepublicbyoneormoreofthefollowingmethods:thetraditionalthree-tiersystem(brewertowholesalertoretailertoconsumer);thetwo-tiersystem(breweractingaswholesalertoretailertoconsumer);and,directlytotheconsumerthroughcarlyoutsorOn-sitetaproomorrestaurantsales.(BrewersAssociation)•Abrewery(formaltbeverages)thathasanannualnationwideproductionornotlessthanioobarrelsormorethanio,ooobarrels.(Missoula,Montana)•Theproductionofbeer,regardlessofthepercentageofalcoholbyvolume,inquantitiesnottoexceed5,ooobarrelspermonth,withabarrelcontaining31U.S.liquidgallons.(Nashville-Davidson,Tennessee)Nanobrewery•Theproductionofbeer,regardlessofthepercentageofalcoholbyvolume.inquantitiesnottoexceed1,250barrelspermonth.Ølashville-Davidson,Tennessee)Microdistillery:•Acombinationretail,wholesale,andsmall-scaleartisanmanufacturingbusinessthatproducesandservesalcoholicspiritsorfoodonthepremises.(PortTownsend.Washington)•Afacilitythatproducesnomorethan15,000gallonsperyearofspirituousbeveragesoa4rteandshallinctudeatastingroominwh4chguestsjcustomeesmaysampletheproduct.(FortCollins.Colorado)•Afacilitythatproducesalcoholicbeveragesinquantitiesnottoexceed35,000gallonsperyearandincludesanaccessorytastingroom.Atastingroomallowscustomerstotastesamplesofproductsmanufacturedon-siteandpurchaserelatedsalesitems.Salesofalcoholsmanufacturedoutsidethefacilityareprohibited,(Evanston.Illinois)(continuedonPage5)subordinatetooff-siteconsumption.Forbrew-pubs,theoppositeistrue.Communitiesthatdefineanumbrellatermformultiple“microfacilitiestendtostressspatialoroperationalfeaturesoverproductionvolumelimits.Insomeinstancesthismeansasquarefootagelimitonfacilitysizeortheproportionofafacilitythatcanbeusedforalcoholproduction,inotherinstances,therearenodefinedsizelimits,andtheusedefinitionsimplydescribesasetofoperationalcharacteristics(e.g.,alcoholproductionandsalesforon-andoff-siteconsumption).USEPERMISSIONSDefiningandregulatingsmall-scalealcoholproductionfacilitiesallowscommunitiestopermitsmallbreweries,distilleries,andwineriesinlocationsthatwouldbeinappropriateforconventional,large-scalefacilities.‘T,pically,thistranslatestopermittingbrewpubs,microbreweries,microdistilleries,andmicrowineriesInoneormorecommercialormixedusedistricts,eitherbyright,withministerialapproval,orsubjecttoadiscretionaryusepermit.Permittingausebyrightsendsaclearsignaltopotentialdevelopersandbusinessownersthattheuseisdesirableinacertainzoningdistrict.Thisapproachpresentsapplicantswiththefewesthoopstoumpthroughbeforeobtainingzoningapproval,butitisimportanttonotethatmostsmaii-sca;eproductionfacilitieswillstillbesubjecttostateorlocallicensingorpermittinglawsthatgoverntheproductionorsaleofalcoholicbeverages.Requiringaministerialapprovalforausecommunicatesthatthecommunityisgenerallysupportiveoftheuseinacertainzoningdistrict,butthissupportIsconditionaluponcompliancewithobjectivestandardsintendedtominimizenegativeimpactsonproximateuses.Thisapproacligivesplanningstaffanopportunitytore-viewanappLIcationbeforetrep:anningdirectororzoningadministratorissuesan“over-the-counper”permit,Often,communitiesuseministerialapprovalprocessestoconfirmthataparticularapplcatlonconformstouse-specificstandards(seeadditionastandardsdiscussiorbeow).PermIttingausesubjecttoadiscretionaryusepermit(oftenreferredtoasacondtional,special,orspecialexceptionusepermit)Indicatestnattheco’nmunityispotentiallysupportiveoftheuseinacertainzorqgdistrict,providedthespecificspatialandoperationalcharacteristicsoftheusedonotposecompatibilityproblemsDiscreionZONINGRC31CE,AMErICANPr.AamegIAssocrInoN.page4
myapprovalprocessesInvolveoneormorepublichearingsbeforethelocallegislativebody,planningcommission,orzoningboardrendersafinaldecisiononanapplication.Becausethelongerapprovaltimeframeandagreaterdegreeofuncertaintycandiscouragesomeapplicants.itisimportantforcommunitiestoreservediscretionaryusepermissionsforlocationsorcircumstanceswhereobjectivestandardsarelikelytobeinsufficienttoensurecompatibility.Sinceabrewpubtypicallyhasmoreincommonwitharestaurantthanafactory,manycommunitiespermitbrewpubseitherbyrightorwithministerialapprovalInawiderangeofcommercialandmixedusedistricts.Meanwhile,usepermissionsformicrobrewerles,microdistilieries,andmicrowineriesvaiyconsiderablyfromplacetoplace.Withthatsaid,though,manycitiesdopermitmicroproductionfacilitieseitherbyrightorwithministerialapprovalinatleastonecommercialormixedusedistrict.Furthermore,itisrelativelycommontopermitmicrobreweries,microdistilleries,ormicrowineriesbyrightinmoreintensecommercialormixedusedistrictsandsubjecttoadiscretionaryusepermitinlessintensedistricts.(Seethetableonpage6.)ADDITIONALSTANDARDSManycontemporaryzoningcodesiimitusepe-misslonswithuse-specificdevelopmentoroperationalstandards.BycodifyingaddItiona’standardsforspecificuses,thecommunitycanpermitawiderrangeofuseswithoutrelyingondiscretionaryusepermitstoensurecompatibility.insomecases,use-specificstandardsappyonlyIncertainzoningdistricts,whileinothercasesthestandardsapplycommunity-wide.Sofar,relativelyfewcommunitieshaveadoptedaddt1onaldeveopmentoroperationalstandardsforsmat-scalealcoholproductionfaciitIes.Amongthosethathave,themostcommonprovisionsrelatetooutdoorstorage,thesizeofthefacilityorvo’umeofproducton.loadingandunloading,andproximityeithertosensitiveusesortoothersimilarproducers.OutdoorStoragePerhapsthemostprevalenttypeofadditionalstandardsfo’brewpubsandmicroproducersarescreeningrequirementsorlimitationsontheamountofspacebisinessowrerscanusetostoreequipment,productionwaste,orproduct,insomecasesthesestandardstaketheformofanoutrightprohibitiononoutdoorstorage.Toillustrate,Covington,Kentucky.flatlyprohibitsalloutdoorequipmentandstorageforbrewpubsandmicrobreweries(6.a8.oa03).Meanwhile,DallaspermitsmicrobreweriesandmicrodistilleriestostorespentgrainoutsideInsilosorcontainers,providedthestorageisscreenedfromview(C5IA-4.21o(b)(4)(E)(ii)(cc))AndNovi,Michigan,prohibitsalloutdoorstorageforbrewpubsandmicro-breweries,withtheexceptionofstorageIntractortrailersforaperiodlessthan24hours(Z50i.t1.banda5oa.1a.b).Thetwobasicrationalesforstoragerestrictionsareaestheticsandpublichealth.Outdoorstoragecanbeanuninvitingeyesore,especiallyInpedestrian-orientedareas.Andleftunattended,productionwastemayproducefoulodorsandattractvermin.UseDefinitions(continuedfrompane4)aAnyplaceorpremiseswhereinanywinesorliquorsaremanufacturedforsale,nottoexceed5,000gallonsperyear,generallyreferredtoasacraft,boutique,orartisandistillery.Microdistilieriesmayormaynotincludeanon-sitetastingroom,andmayormaynotoperateinconjunctionwithanon-siterestaurantorbar.Foroperationofanon-sitetastingroomorinconjunctionwithanon-siterestaurantorbaradditionalpermittingmayberequired.Altrelevantfederal,state,andlocalregulationsapply,IncludingbutnotlimitedtoTCATitle57andMemphisCodeofOrdinancesTitle7.Foron•sltesalesbymanufacturercompliancewithTCA57-3-104applies.(Memphis-ShelbyCounty,Tennessee)MIC(OWInaty•Acombinationretail,wholesale,andsmall-scaleartisanmanufacturingbusinessthatproducesandserveswineandfoodonthepremises.(PortTownsend,Washington)•Afacilitythatproducesnomorethansoo,ooogallonsperyearofvinousbeverageson-siteandshallincludeatastingroominwhichguests/customersmaysampletheproduct.(FortCollins.Colorado)•Asmallwineproducerthatdoesnothaveitsownvineyard,andinsteadsourcesitsgrapeproductionfromoutsidesuppliers.Microwineriesproducewineforsaleon-oroff-site.Forthepurposesofthischapter,amicrowlneryisiimltedtoaproductionofnomorethan2.000barrelsperyear.On-siteconsumptionisnotallowed,otherthansampletastingbycustomersshoppingon-site.(Glenville,NewYork)Micmbrewery/mlcrodlstiliery/microwinery:aAfacilitywithnomorethan3,000squarefeetoffloorarea,fortheproductionandpackagingofalcoholicbeveragesfordistribution,retail,orwholesale,on-oroff-premisesandwhichmeetsallalcoholbeveragecontrollawsandregulations.(NewportNews,Virginia)•Anestablishmentforthemanufacture,blending,fermentation,processing,andpackagingofalcoholicbeverageswithafloorareaofio,ooosquarefeetorlessthattakesplacewhollyinsideabuilding.Afacilitythatonlyprovidestastingorretaitsaleofalcoholicbeveragesisnotamicrobrewery,microdistillery,orwineryuse.(Dallas)•Afacilityinwhichbeer,wine,orotheralcoholicbeveragesarebrewed,fermented,ordistilledfordistributionandconsumption,andwhichpossessestheappropnatelicensefromtheStateofMaryland.Tastingroomsfortheconsumptionofon-siteproducedbeer,wine,ordistilledproductsarepermittedonthepremises.(Denton,Maryland)•Anestablishmentwithaprimaryuseasatableservicerestaurantwherebeer,liquor,wine,orotheralcoholicbeverageismanufacturedonthepremisesinalimitedquantitysubordinatetotheprimarytableservicerestaurantuse.Thegrossfloorareautilizedinamlcrobrewery,microdistiltery,ormicrowineryfortheproductionofbeer,liquor,wine.orotheralcoholicbeverageshahbenogreaterthanthegrossfloorareautilizedfortheassociatedtableservicerestaurant.Amicrobrewery,microdistillery,ormicrowinerymayIncludesomeoff-sitedistributionofitsalcoholicbeveragesconsistentwithstatelaw.AtastingroomortaproommayexistInamlcrobrewery,microdistillery,ormicrowlnerywherepatronsmaysamplethemanufacturer’sproducts.(Wooster,Ohio)ZONING3.14WMR(ANPW4N:KOASSOCwiIONpo5e5
EXAMPLESOFDEFINEDUSESANDPERMISSIONSPeimittediOneorMoreMixedUseorCommercialDistrictsDensityByRightorStibjec:toSubjectto2010(pop./squareMinistetialDiscretionaryAddiHonalCmmntyStatePoatormiie9chnedUsesAppovatusePermitStanoerds-\sheviiieNC8ci.7’6moEvetyXK.§ibrewpjb§14o3-o8.4uElismarckND61.272i,n86microbreweryXBlooHngtonIN80,4053,472brcwpubK§20.05.089BJrtLngtonVT42,4174,116ml::‘b:v,erKXColumbiaSC129.272978micobrewecyX§17.290hrewpubK§6.28CovingtonKY4o,6ro3,079rnIcroorewerKm:odis:dleryK§6.28rnicrobrewery/DallasTX1,197,8163.518microdistillerv/Kwinerymicrobreery/DritcnMD4,418837microwinery/KrriicrodistillerymicrobreweryXKFortCxdirisCO143,9862,655microdistilleniKKmicrowineryXXGienvilleNY29.4808omKrobreweryXmicrowineryXC’oodyearAZ6s.?’t31bewpubK§4-2-15microbreweryX§4-2-16brewpubKK§2.6.3.GMemphis•ShelbyTN646,8892,053micrcbreweryKXmicrodistitteryXX§2.6.4.FMissoulaMT66,7882,428microbreweryKModestoCA201,1655.457microbrewery‘Kmicrobrewery/NewportNewsVA180,7192,630microdistillerv/microwneryXNoviMl55,2241,825brewp0KX§1501.11microbreweryXK§1501.12microbreweryXXPoitTowosendWA9,1131,306microdistilleryKmicrowineryKSt.PetersburgFl244,7693.964hrewpubXX§16.o.o45mrhwery,,§6.50.04microbrewery/WoosterOH26,1191.601microdistdlerv,’xmicrowirieryZONING344AMe1ICANPI.ANNMGASSOCIA1ONpnge6
FacilitySizeorVolumeofProductionSomecommunitiesuseadditionalstandardstorestrictthesizeofthefacility,scaleofproduction,ortherelationshipbetweenthealcoholproductionfacilityandcollocatedfoodorbeverageservice.ThisismostcommonIncodeswheretheusedefinitiondoesnotstipulateaspecificproductionlimitorthenatureoftherelationshipbetweenprimaryandaccessoryuses.However,communitiescanalsousethistypeofoperationalstandardtomodifydefinedlimitsorrelationshipsinlower-intensityzoningdistricts.Forexample,Asheville,NorthCarolina,limitsmicrobrewerlesto4.000squarefeetoffloorareaintwospecificofficedistricts(17-16-1(c)(43)a.3).Columbia,SouthCarolina,limitsmicrobreweryproductiontoi,ooobarrelsperyearinthreelower-intensitycommercialandmixedusedistricts(t7-29o(2)).AndNovi,Michigan,stipulatesthatnomorethan50percentofthegrossfloorspaceInabrewpubshallbeusedforbrewing(15o111.e).an.1nloadlngAfewcommunitieshaveadoptedadditionalstandardsstipulatingtheprovIsionorlocationot,oadngspacesorprohibitingdeliveriesduringcertainhours.Bothofthesetypesofdeiveryrestrictionscanhelpbrewpubsandmlcroproducersbebetterneighborsbymlriimizingtrafficcongestionoriimitingnoiseduringcertaintimesoftheday.Still,it’simportanttonotethatInsomepedestrlarr.orienteddistrictsItmaybeinfeasibleorundesirabletorequirededicatedtoadingspacesduetopremiumsonspaceorurbandesigngoals.Asoneexample,Asheville,NorthCarogina,stipuatesthatallmicrobreweriesmusthaveanoff-streetoralley-accessibleloadingdock(17.l6.(c)(43)a,4).Meanwhile,St.Petersburg,florida,discouragesmicmbreweryaccessandloadingfromstreetsandrequiresanystreet-facingloadingbaystokeeptheirdoorsclosedataltimes,exceptwhenactivelyIiuseThecityalsorestrictsservicetruckloadingandumoadingtothehoursbetween$a.m.and8p.m.,MondaythroughSaturday,andbetweenisa.ni.and7p.m.onSundaysandnationatho’idays(16.5o.o454—6).churches,orrequireaminimumseparationbetweensimilaruses.Forthefirsttypeofdistancingrequirement,therationaleIstolimitpotentialspillovereffectsonpropertieswherechildrencongregate.TherationaleforthesecondtypeofrequirementIstopreventanover-concentrationofbrewpubsormicroproducersInaspecificdistrict.Toillustrate,Novi,Michigan,requiresmicrobreweriestobeseparatedfromoneanotherbyatleast2,500feet(i5oa,12.h).AndBlsmarck,NorthDakota,requirespropertyownerconsentasaconditionofapprovalformicrobrewerieslocatedwithin300feetofatotlineforanyschool,church,library,orhospital(14-o3-o8.4.U.t).CONCLLJSIONWhenlocalitieschoosetodefineandregulatesmall-scalealcoholproductionfacilitiesasoneormoredistinctuses,itallowsthemtopermittheseusesinlocationsthatwouLdbeinappropriateforma)orIndustrialoperations.Bydoingso,communitiescansetthestagetocapitalizeontheeconomicandplacemakingbenefitsofbrewpubsandmicroproducers.Wit),thatsaid,theprecedingdIscussiononlyhintsatthevarietyofapproacheslocaliteshavetakentoregulatebrewpubs,microbreweries,microdistilleries,andmicrow.inerles.Furthermore,anumberofcommunitieswiththrivingcraftbrewnganddistillingscenes,suchasChicagoandPortland,Oregon,haveyettosingleoutsmai-scalealcoholproductionfacilitiesforspecialzoningtreatment.Othershavemadeaconsciousdecisiontominimizeuse-basedrestrictionsinfavorofprescriptivestandardsfortheformofdevelopment.However,communitiesthatdon’tthoughtfullyconsiderregulatoryalternativesforbrewpubsandmicroproducersruntheriskofbeingcaught“flat-footed”byanapplicationforanewfacilitythatmaybebeneficialtothecommunitybutIsinconsistentwithcurrentzoning.finally,aswithanysignificantpotentialzoningchange,Itcanbehelpfultotalktoothercommunitiesthathavetakenasimilarapproachtoseewhat’sworkingandwhatmightneedfurtherattention.And,ofcourseit’salwaysimportanttoreviewbothnewprovisionsandtheintentbehindthoseprovisionswithresidents,businessowners,andothercommunitystakeholdersbeforerecommendingortakingaction.2)13.“Numbe1Aailableatwww.brerstion.org/pagea/business.touls/craftngtatisticsnurnber-of.breweries.nell,),Katie.2022CitiesCourtCraftries.”CitiesSpeak.org,August9.‘athttp;)/citiesspeak.org/2o12ies-court-craft-breweries.“f.2012.“ABoozeofOne’sDistilleryBoom.”fine,Apriltp://business.time.corn:-dictiltprc.Asmallnumberofcommunitieshaveadopteddistancingrequirementsthateitherlimittheproximityofsmall-scalealcohoproductio9facilitiestosensittveuses,suchasschoolsorZONING3.14PMER•CANPi.ANNNCA5socwOp29’?
Proposed Code Amendment- Manufacturing of Craft LiquorJuly 8th: Town Board Report. Schedule public hearing.July 15th: Formal Planning Commission voteJuly 22nd: Town Board consideration of ordinance July 28th: County Commission consideration of ordinance
Proposed Code Amendment- Manufacturing of Craft LiquorChanges since last meeting 1. Code Amendment Formatting 2. Permitted Use Districts 3. Parking Requirements 4. Outdoor Storage
Code Amendment Formatting
Permitted Use Districts
Permitted Use Districts
Permitted Use Districts Commercial Heavy District15 acres in the ValleyConcern: Residential Conflict
Further Public Comments
Further Public Comments
Permitted Use Districts
Parking Requirements
Parking Requirements 600 sf800 sfMicrobrewery Parking600 / 100 = 6 spacesTasting Room Parking800 / 100 = 8 spacesTOTAL: 14 spaces
Parking Requirements
Outdoor StorageSign CodeEquinoxO’DellCoopersmith’s
Recap: Staff GuidanceShould Tasting/Tap Rooms be allowed in the Accommodations district as an accessory to an accommodations use?Should “micro” and “conventional” breweries/distilleries/wineries be allowed in the Commercial Heavy district. Planning Commission prefers that they are not permitted in the CH district.May staff edit the language of the Restaurant use to be consistent with that of breweries/distilleries/wineries?
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: July 8, 2014
RE: Liquor Licensing: New Tavern Liquor License Application for Centennial
Tap House, LLC dba Centennial Tap House, 120 Riverside Drive
Objective:
Approval of a new Tavern liquor license located at 120 Riverside Drive, Estes Park,
Colorado. Application filed by Centennial Tap House, LLC, dba Centennial Tap House.
Present Situation:
An application for a new Tavern liquor license was received by the Town Clerk’s office
on June 4, 2014. 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 fulfilled the requirement by attending and
successfully completing a class offered by certified trainer Barb Boyer Buck on June 30,
2014.
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 operate a tap house that will serve locals
and visitors to downtown Estes Park.
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:
I move to approve/deny the application for a new Tavern liquor license filed by
Centennial Tap House, LLC dba Centennial Tap House at 120 Riverside Drive, Estes
Park, Colorado.
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 Centennial
Tap House, LLC dba CENTENNIAL TAP HOUSE for a new Tavern Liquor License
located at 120 Riverside Drive, 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 June 4, 2014.
At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on June 24, 2014, the public hearing was
set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 8, 2014.
The neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing
were established to be 3.15 miles.
The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs.
The applicant is filing as a Limited Liability Company.
The property is zoned CD which allows this type of business as a permitted
use.
The notice of hearing was published on June 27, 2014 .
The premises was posted on June 19, 2014 .
2
There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant.
Status of T.I.P.S. Training:
Unscheduled Scheduled X 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.
Town Administrator Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: July 8th, 2014
RE: Draft revisions to Policy Governance 2.1
Objective:
To further clarify the decisions that are exclusivly the responsibility of the Board of
Trustees and what other decisions are delegated to the Town Administrator
Present Situation:
In some cases, staff has pointed out that it is not completely clear what decisions staff
has the authority to make and what decisions should be taken to the Town Board. This
can cause problems by either slowing down the decision making process in order to get
a routine decision on a bi-monthly Board meeting, or on the other side of the coin, staff
making a decision that should be reserved for the elected body. The Board reviewed
this draft at the study session on June 27th
Proposal:
The revised policy 2.1 further clarifies what decisions are the purvue of the Board of
Trustees.
Advantages:
Avoids misunderstandings
Can speed up the decision making process in some cases, to enable better
customer service
Ensures the Board has exclusive decision making authority for major issues.
Disadvantages:
It is impossible to anticipate all situations and there still may be some judgement
calls necessary.
Action Recommended:
That the Board approve the revisions to Policy Governance Policy 2.1
Budget:
n/a
Level of Public Interest
low
1
POLICY TYPE: BOARD/STAFF LINKAGE
POLICY 2.1
Rev. July 8,2014 POLICY TITLE: DELEGATION TO THE TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
The Board of Trustees’ job is generally confined to establishing the broadest vision and policies.
Implementation and subsidiary decision making is delegated to the Town Administrator as specified
in the Estes Park Municipal Code 2.28.
2.1.1 Only decisions of the Board of Trustees, by majority vote, are binding on the Town
Administrator.
2.1.2 With the exception of the Town Attorney and the Municipal Judge, the Town Administrator
shall have line authority over all Town departments. This authority shall include supervision and
control over day to day functions and management decisions required to carry out the objectives of
the Board of Trustees.
2.1.3 The policies, goals and objectives of the Board of Trustees direct the Town Administrator to
achieve certain results; the policies permit the Town Administrator to act within acceptable
boundaries of prudence and ethics. With respect to the policies, the Town Administrator is
authorized to make all decisions, take all actions and develop all activities as long as they are
consistent with any reasonable interpretation of the policies of the Board of Trustees.
2.1.4 The Board of Trustees may change its policies, thereby shifting the boundary between Board
and Town Administrator domains. Consequently, the Board may change the latitude of choice
given to the Town Administrator, but so long as any particular delegation is in place, the Board will
respect and support the Town Administrator’s choices. The Board will not allow the impression that
the Town Administrator has violated policy when the Town Administrator supports an existing
policy.
2.1.5 No individual member of the Board of Trustees has authority over the Town Administrator.
Information may be requested by individual Board members, but if such request, in the Town
Administrator’s judgment, requires a material amount of resources or is detrimental to other
necessities, the Town Administrator may ask for majority Board action on such a request.
2.1.6 It is understood that at times it may be in the best interest of the Town to waive or grant
exceptions to adopted Board policy. The Town Administrator shall request Board approval for any
policy waiver or exception prior to its implementation.
2.1.7 Should the Town Administrator deem it necessary to, or inadvertently, violate a Board policy,
he or she shall promptly inform the Board of Trustees. Informing is simply to guarantee no
violation may be intentionally kept from the Board, not to request approval. Board response, either
approving or disapproving, does not exempt the Town Administrator from subsequent Board
judgment of the action.
2
2.1.8 The following decisions shall be the responsibility of the Board of Trustees.
Implementation and subsidiary decision making for all other items is delegated to the Town
Administrator.
1. Establishment and approval of all Utility Rates
2. Establishment and approval of Community Development Fees
3. Establishment of purchasing approval limitations contained in the Town Procurement Policy.
4. Approval of any increase to staffing levels The Town Administrator may approve positions
funded by grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in addition to the grant
funds and any temporary positions for which existing budgeted funds are allocated.
5. All changes to the adopted Town Budget
6. Any sale, purchase or lease of real property
7. Any changes to employee benefits
8. Any issue that, in the opinion of the majority of the Board of Trustees, concerns a substantial
policy determination and/or is of a controversial nature with the public that warrants Board
involvement.
9. Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements, subject to the provisions of the Town Procurement
Policy.
10. Approval of any substantive change to the scope, design, development or construction of any
capital project.