HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2019-10-22The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services
for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards
of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services,
programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities.
Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Bills.
2. Town Board Minutes dated October 8, 2019, Town Board Study Session Minutes
dated October 8, 2019 and Special Joint Meeting with Larimer County Commissioners
Minutes dated September 30, 2019.
3. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes and Study Session Minutes dated
September 17, 2019 (acknowledgment only).
4. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated September 19, 2019 (acknowledgement only).
5. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated September 18, 2019 (acknowledgement
only).
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. ORDINANCE 16-19 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE §5.1.B.VACATION HOME TO REVISE DEADLINE FOR (“CAP”)
NUMBER OF VACATION HOMES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
Planner Hardin.
To postpone indefinitely.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEW COMMITTEE
APPOINTMENT. Town Clerk Williamson.
Prepared 10-13-2019
*Revised 10-18-2019
*
1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
REPORTS & DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR THE PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAPS, THE
DIVIDE CONDOMINIUMS AT WILDFIRE, AND THE MEADOW CONDOMINIUMS AT
WILDFIRE, WILDFIRE ROAD, WESTOVER CONSTRUCTION, INC., RDA
ASSOCIATES LLC, APPLICANTS. Town Attorney Kramer.
Presented at the October 8, 2019 meeting with the condition the Town Attorney and
Attorney for the Applicant reach consensus regarding the Restrictive Covenant and
Agreement no later than October 22, 2019.
2. LAND USE IGA OPTIONS. Director Hunt.
ADJOURN.
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 8, 2019
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 8th day of October, 2019.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Ron Norris, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Eric Blackhurst
Marie Cenac
Patrick Martchink
Ken Zornes
Also Present: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator
Dan Kramer, Town Attorney
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary
Absent: Trustee Carlie Bangs
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the
Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Zornes) to approve the Agenda with Consent
Agenda Item 6 moved to Action Item 5, and it passed unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Ron Wilcocks/County citizen spoke regarding paid parking in Estes Park stating there
have been to many unanswered questions, the change would affect the character of the
town, and key stakeholders have not been consulted.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS
Trustee Blackhurst spoke in response to Ron Wilcocks’ comments and directed citizens
to visit the Town website for information regarding parking.
Mayor Pro Tem Norris attended the Colorado Municipal League Regional meeting with
Trustee Cenac and stated the Colorado Department of Local Affairs has opened the
Colorado Resiliency Office which helps municipalities plan for extreme weather. Many
communities are dealing with significant growth issues, infrastructure, and stormwater.
Trustee Cenac added the Regional meeting provided insight on the challenges other
municipalities have encountered in regard to water rights.
Trustee Martchink recognized Supervisors Berg and Kearney for their life saving efforts
over the summer and fall and congratulated Parks Division staff on accomplishments with
America in Bloom.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Town Administrator Machalek seconded Trustee Martchink’s sentiments. Supervisor
Berg announced the Town of Estes Park won the America in Bloom in the Town’s
population category.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Bills.
2. Town Board Minutes dated September 24, 2019 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated September 24, 2019.
3. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated June 4, 2019 (acknowledgment
only).DRAFTd all d all desiring to do sdesiring
s) to approve the Agento approve
and it passed unanimouspassed u
ke regarding paigarding paid parkingd parking
d questions, the cns, the change whange w
ave not been consulted.ave not been consul
ENTS ENTS Rpoke in response to ke in response to Ron WRon W
ebsite foor information regar information rega
em Norris attended the Coem Norris attended the C
nac and stated the Colonac and stated the Colo
siliency Office whichsiliency Office wh
e dealing with se dealing with s
d thed the
3
Board of Trustees – October 8, 2019 – Page 2
4. Resolution 30-19 Acceptance to include the Town of Wellington to the
Intergovernmental Agreement for Solid Waste Programming and Infrastructure
Improvements.
5. Resolution 31-19 Support of the 2020 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Recreational
Trail Program Grant Application for Fall River Trail Project.
6. MOVED TO ACTION ITEM 5. Resolution 32-19 Support of the Great Outdoors
Colorado Grant Application for Big Thompson River Recreational Area Picnic
Shelter.
7. Contract for Conference Center Porte Cochere Repair with Saunders/Heath
Construction, LLC for $99,552.00 Budgeted.
8. Contract for 2019 Moraine Restroom Remodel with G2 Construction, LLC for
$126,030.00 Budgeted.
9. Reappointments to the Estes Valley Public Library District Board of Trustees:
x John Krueger for a 4-year term beginning January 1, 2020 and expiring
December 31, 2023.
x Kay Weston for a 4-year term beginning January 1, 2020 and expiring
December 31, 2023.
It was moved and seconded (Zornes/Norris) to approve the Consent Agenda, and
it passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, THE DIVIDE CONDOMINIUMS AT
WILDFIRE, WILDFIRE ROAD, WESTOVER CONSTRUCTION, INC., RDA
ASSOCIATES LLC, APPLICANTS. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing
and Planner Woeber presented the preliminary condominium map for the
Divide Condominiums at Wildfire. A component of the Wildfire Homes project,
the Divide would consist of two condominium buildings with eight workforce
qualifying units per building for a total of 16 units. The drafted Restrictive
Covenant and Agreement has been reviewed by staff and Town Attorney
Kramer suggested the use of a Second Deed of Trust to ensure workforce
housing remains workforce housing long term, and the Town would receive
notice of transfers in ownership. Town Attorney Kramer stated a Second Deed
of Trust was a common instrument included in Restrictive Covenants.
The applicants expressed concerns with the recommended Second Deed of
Trust, specifically, workforce housing requirements as stated in the Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC) §11.4 Attainable/Workforce Housing
Density Bonus, increased administration for the Town, Developer, and buyers,
adverse impacts on consumer financing, and unintended consequences in
cases of foreclosures. The applicant requested the Board approve the
Condominium Map without the use of a Secondary Deed of Trust.
The Board discussed how residents’ workforce eligibility is determined,
optional mechanisms which could be used in place of a Secondary Deed of
Trust, administrative workload should a Secondary Deed of Trust be used, if
a Secondary Deed of Trust would affect the projects continuation, and the
workforce housing requirements as stated in the EVDC. Mayor Jirsa closed
the public hearing.
Substitute Motion: It was moved and seconded (Cenac/Martchink)to
continue the Preliminary Condominium Map for the Divide
Condominiums at Wildfire to October 22, 2019, and it failed with Mayor
Jirsa and Trustees Blackhurst, Martchink, and Norris voting “no”. DRAFTuary 1, uary 1
approve the Consent Approve the Cons
reviewed by Planniwed by Pla ng Co
wn Board Final Action. wn Board Final Act
DOMINIUM MAP,IUM MAP, THE THE RAFIRE ROAD, WESTFIRE ROAD, WESTOVEE
RALLC, APPLICANTS.LLC, APPLICANTS May
RAWoeber presented the pWoeber presented the
dominiums at Wildfire. A ominiums at Wildfire. A
de would consist of two culd consist of two c
ying units per building foying units per build
venant and Agreement hvenant and Agreement
Kramer suggested the usKramer suggested the us
ousing remains workfousing remains wo
e of transfers in e of transfers in
t was a comt was a com
4
Board of Trustees – October 8, 2019 – Page 3
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Zornes)to approve the
Preliminary Condominium Map for the Divide Condominiums at Wildfire,
Wildfire Road with the condition the Town Attorney and Attorney for the
Applicant reach consensus regarding the Restrictive Covenant and
Agreement no later than October 22, 2019, and it passed with Trustee
Cenac voting “no”.
B. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, THE MEADOW CONDOMINIUMS AT
WILDFIRE, WILDFIRE ROAD, WESTOVER CONSTRUCTION, INC., RDA
ASSOCIATES LLC, APPLICANTS. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing
and Planner Woeber presented the preliminary condominium map for the
Meadow Condominiums at Wildfire. A component of the Wildfire Homes
project, the Meadow would consist of nine condominum buildings with eight
workforce qualifying units per building for a total of 72 units. Following the
discussion of Planning Commission Action Item A, Mayor Jirsa closed the
public hearing and it was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Norris) approve
the Preliminary Condominium Map for the Meadow Condominiums at
Wildfire, Wildfire Road with the condition the Town Attorney and
Attorney for the Applicant reach consensus regarding the Restrictive
Covenant and Agreement no later than October 22, 2019, and it passed
with Trustee Cenac voting “no”.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. RESOLUTION 33-19 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION REPAYMENT CONTRACT
FOR THE DELIVERY OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER.
Superintendent Eshelman presented Resolution 33-19 to approve the repayment
contract between the Town and the Bureau of Reclamation. The repayment
contract was enacted as part of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project and was
renewed in 1994 and expires November 23, 2019. Staff recommends the approval
of the contract which would provide 500 acre-feet of water to the Estes Valley.
Trustees discussed the current market value of water and it was moved and
seconded (Norris/Cenac) to approve Resolution 33-19, and it passed
unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION 34-19 SUPPORTING LARIMER COUNTY SALES TAX BALLOT
ISSUE 1A. Town Administrator Machalek presented Resolution 34-19 supporting
Larimer County Sales Tax Ballot Issue 1A. The County Commissioners have
placed a countywide 0.5% sales tax on the ballot for the November 5, 2019
coordinated election to address regional transportation and public facility needs.
Linda Hoffman/Fort Collins citizen spoke in favor of the resolution and sighted the
efforts Larimer County has made as a regional collaborative group.
John Meissner/Town citizen requested Linda Hoffman address cons as stated in
the 2019 Ballot Information Booklet, specifically undesignated funds, and 20 year
projections.
Linda Hoffman responded stating funds could be redistributed as a ballot issue
following recommendation of the Policy Council and additional funding sources
such as grants would be pursued. More information could be found in County
Resolution No. 08272019R008.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Cenac) to approve Resolution 34-19, and
it passed unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE 26-19 APPROVING THE GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
ESTES PARK R-3 SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE CAREER AND TECHNICAL
EDUCATION (CTE) BUILDING. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing and Town
Administrator Machalek presented Ordinance 26-19 approving the ground lease
agreement with Estes Park R-3 School District. The District has proposed the
construction of a 6,480 square foot CTE building with an attached 1,509 square
dodo
the Tothe T
s regardings rega
ctober 22, 2019,ctober 22
RECLAMATION REPAYLAMATION
AFMUNICIPAL AND INDAL A
AFented Resoluented Re tion 33-19 toon 33-1
and the Bureau of Rend the Bureau of Re
part of the f the Colorado-BigColorado-Bi
xpires November 23,pires November 23, 20192019
woulwould provide 500 acred provide 500
d the current mad the curren rket varket
orris/Cenac) ris/Cenac) to approveto approve
UTION 34-19 SUPPORTIUTION 34-19 SUPPO
DRE 1A.E 1A. Town Administrato Town AdministratoDer County Sales Tax er County Sales
a countywide 0.5a countywide 0
d election tod election to
FoFo
5
Board of Trustees – October 8, 2019 – Page 4
foot greenhouse on Town-owned land. The construction and siting of this facility
was included in the Stanley Park Master Plan and staff recommends approval of
the ordinance. Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing and it was moved and
seconded (Cenac/Martchink) to approve Ordinance 26-19, and it passed
unanimously.
4. ORDINANCE 28-19 APPROVING THE GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT AND
RESOLUTION 35-19 APPROVING THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH
DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK INN, INC. FOR THE
ESTES PARK CONFERENCE CENTER. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing
and Town Administrator Machalek presented Ordinance 28-19 approving the
ground lease and Resolution 35-19 approving the concession agreement for the
Estes Park Conference Center. The Conference Center was constructed through
the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, and under the original ground lease, the
conference center would become the property of the landlord upon the ground
lease expiration of November 14, 2019. Negotiations have been conducted to
enter into a new ground lease and concession agreement which would transfer all
costs of operation, maintenance, and capital improvements of the Conference
Center to DNC Parks and continue the relationship between the Town and DNC
Parks. Trustees discussed marketing and usage of the Conference Center,
responsibility to repair the porte cochere, and the Town’s interest in retaining
ownership.
John Meissner/Town citizen stated the public raised concerns with the Estes Park
Conference Center, not the Town Board.
Mayor Jirsa responded stating concerns were also raised as a result of discussions
with DNC Parks and it was determined continuing the agreement would be
beneficial to both parties.
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Zornes) to approve Ordinance 28-19
and Resolution 35-19, and it passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION 32-19 SUPPORT OF THE GREAT OUTDOORS COLORADO
GRANT APPLICATION FOR BIG THOMPSON RIVER RECREATIONAL AREA
PICNIC SHELTER. Supervisor Berg presented Resolution 32-19 supporting the
Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) Grant application for the Big Thompson River
Recreational Area Picnic Shelter. He stated following previous grant applications
for this project, which were not successful, staff reevaluated their application with
GOCO representatives and determined further public outreach would be
beneficial. It was moved and seconded (Martchink/Cenac) to approve and
Resolution 32-19, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Kimberly Disney, Recording SecretaryDRAFT ww
ementsement
between thebetwe
ge of the Confege of the
d the Town’sd the Town’s interest in
publicpublic raised concerns wit raised concerns wit
ard.
oncerns were oncerns w also raised also rais
s determined continuingdetermined continuing
econdedeconded (Blackhurst/Zor (Blackhurs
5-19,5-19, and it passed unani and it passed una
N 32-19 SUPPORT OF -19 SUPPORT OF DRPPLICATION FOPPLICATION FOR BIG T
DRSHELTER.SHELTER. Supervisor B Superviso
DRt Outdoors Colorado (GOt Outdoors Colorado (GO
eational Area Picnic Sheational Area Picni
project, which werproject, which w
presentativepresentative
was was mm
1919
6
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado October 8, 2019
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the
Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of October 2019.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Norris, Trustees Bangs,
Blackhurst, Cenac, Martchink, and Zornes
Attending: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Norris, Trustees Blackhurst,
Cenac, Martchink, and Zornes
Also Attending: Town Administrator Machalek, Town Attorney Kramer, Town
Clerk Williamson and Recording Secretary Beers
Absent:Trustee Bangs
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m.
DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN PHASE I RESULTS AND PHASE II
IMPLEMENTATION. Staff presented the results from Phase I of the Plan which
included full implementation in 2019. At the September 24, 2019 study session the
Board requested: Colorado peer pricing overview, parking management and
infrastructure triggers, and points of information related to sales tax revenue, traffic
counts, overall parking supply and parking utilization (2005, 2013 and 2018). Staff
requested direction from the Board on whether the current parking experience, as
illuminated by Phase I implementation results supports the Town’s mission to provide
high-quality, reliable services for the benefit of citizens, guests and employees. Options
provided by staff included: no change, Phase II implementation of seasonal paid
parking, or additional options provided by the Board. Estes Valley Steering Committee
member Captain Rose provided an overview of his participation on the committee. He
stated coordination between Parking and Transit and the Police Department have been
positive. Transportation Advisory Board members Tom Street and Chair Belle Morris
stated their support for the implementation of Phase II. Manager Solesbee reviewed
data collected in 2019 and stated the main objective of Phase II would be
implementation of the Board-approved Downtown Parking Management Plan (DPMP).
Phase II recommendations would be implementation of paid parking for 35% of
available spaces downtown, remaining downtown core parking would remain free.
Jessica Hernandez, Apex Design Group reviewed the data and provided analysis of the
data collected. Board comments have been summarized: the Board questioned whether
manual data was collected and what the margin of error was for manual collection; the
Board questioned the attendance during the month of June reporting high for the Event
Center parking lot; how does the Town increase utilization of the parking garage and
Events Center parking; whether an increase in shuttle frequency at the parking garage
would increase utilization; motivation to park outside of the downtown area must be
convenient and questioned how paid parking implementation occurs based on 85% use
capacity data. The Board requested staff research paid parking implementation
benefits and parking time reductions, which methods can increase parking use at
currently existing parking locations and shuttle frequency increases at the Event Center
and parking garage.
REVIEW OF BOARD COMPENSATION FOR 2020. Town Clerk Williamson stated
Board compensation is reviewed prior to each Municipal Election year as requested by
the Town Board since 2012. The last review was conducted in December 2017 with the
Board approving an increase in Board salaries for members newly elected in 2018:
Mayor - $11,000, Mayor Pro Tem - $9,000, and $8,000 for Trustees. Staff reviewed the
salaries for Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Trustees for the communities reviewed in past
years and in 2019 found current salaries are within the average salaries. The Town’s DRAFT7
Town Board Study Session – October 8, 2019 – Page 2
current salaries rank in the midpoint for all positions. The midpoint has been the
compensation policy for Town employees since 2013. Additionally, staff reviewed the
Board salaries versus health insurance premiums for 2019 and the proposed premiums
for 2020 and fund the premiums are well within the bi-weekly salary ranges if a Board
member were to select full coverage options. Staff recommended maintaining the
current Board salaries which are within the mid-range of other municipalities and
requested Board input. The Board requested staff consider the housing market and cost
of living increases compared to other municipalities, time taken away from members
occupations, and the Denver Consumer Price Index (DCPI) and provide feedback.
Trustee Martchink recommended a review of an increase in Board salaries for members
newly elected in 2020 at: Mayor - $15,000, Mayor Pro Tem - $12,500, and $10,000 for
Trustees. Staff would research the benefits package and cost savings for individuals
serving on the Board along with the area medium income charts. Staff would bring
forward a proposal at an upcoming Town Board meeting.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Town Clerk Williamson requested and Board consensus was to hold a special study
session with the Board and Director Hunt to discuss the IGA regarding Land Use on
October 29, 2019. Additionally, Town Clerk Williamson stated for consistency Trustee
Chats would be held on the third Thursday of each month. This will avoid confusion for
the public and outline a consistent schedule for Board participation.
The Mayor stated there have been ongoing conversations regarding participation in the
Northern Colorado Regional Tourism Authority (RTA) or the potential formation of an
Estes Park RTA. He stated more information would be provided to the Board when it is
available.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
The Board agreed to discuss the Land Use IGA options and Parking update continued
to October 22, 2019. The Visit Estes Park Operating Plan would be reviewed on
November 12, 2019 regular meeting. Items moved to approved – unscheduled were
transit philosophy discussion (Brown Route) and reversing the decriminalization of the
municipal code.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:53 p.m.
Bunny Victoria Beers, Recording Secretary DRAFT8
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado September 30, 2019
Minutes of a Joint meeting of the ESTES PARK TOWN BOARD AND
LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Board Room in said
Town of Estes Park on the 30th day of September 2019.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Norris, Trustees Bangs,
Blackhurst, Cenac, Martchink, and Zornes
County Commission: Chair Donnelly, Commissioners Johnson and Kefalas
Also Attending: Town Administrator Machalek, County Manager Hoffman,
Attorney Kramer, Community Development Director Hunt,
County Planning Director Ellis and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent:Trustee Bangs
Meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Mayor Jirsa. Introductions were conducted
for both elected bodies and Town and County staff.
Director Hunt provided a review of the outcomes from the last meeting and the
responses from the online questionnaire. He stated the questionnaire provided
significant input and comments with three overall points: transparency in process and
decision making; necessity for communication between the Town and County; and
community character; i.e. natural resources, open space, wildlife, views, economic
health, diversity, etc. Those responding also desired a unified Comprehensive Plan for
the entire valley and a unified planning area in which a joint Planning Commission
makes decisions and/or recommendations. There were also calls for continuity of
zoning and land use regulations, and purposeful location of uses in the different zoning
districts. Comments received since September included fixing only those elements in
the current Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) rather than starting with a new IGA; the
Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) has a roll in the Comprehensive Plan; and a
sense the process has been rushed.
Director Ellis provided an overview of the objectives for the Town and County IGA which
included a shared future vision – long range Comprehensive Plan for the valley, allow
community and stakeholder input, detail roles and responsibilities, consistently
administer regulations in the Estes Valley planning area, and concentrate town-level
development in certain areas and define rural. Two draft IGA options were presented:
Option A would extend the current IGA for an additional year, and Option B would
provide a renewed cooperative planning IGA. Option A would provide additional time to
discuss a new IGA; however, it would not allow an immediate discussion on the current
challenges. It would address the need for the County to process land use applications
in the unincorporated area of the valley. Option B provides a framework for how the
Town and County would work together on a shared Comprehensive Plan, maintains a
joint planning area, carries forward the land use zoning designations with the use of two
separate land use codes, lays out the roles of staff, defines the development review
approval with Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment, annexation would needs
more discussion with a discussion on where the Town boundary exists versus the rural
unincorporated Larimer County, and outlines a transitional EVPC and Estes Valley
Board of Adjustment (EVBOA). An overlay district would be adopted with the current
zoning districts, development standards, and any other items unique to the community
such as steep slope, wildlife corridors, view corridors, etc. She stated having an IGA in
place prior to the development of a new Comprehensive Plan would provide clarity and
continuity with the changes on the elected boards. DRAFT9
Joint Town Board County Commission Meeting – September 30, 2019 – Page 2
Bob Leavitt/EVPC Chair provided a summary of the resolution in support of a joint
planning area passed by the EVPC. The resolution states the Estes valley in one
integrated community which shares roads, schools, land use, etc. The EVPC stated in
the resolution the need for a closely coordinated land use planning for the entire valley.
The Comprehensive Plan would be implemented through a Development Code which
would become problematic with an overlay and two diverging codes. He stated the joint
planning area has worked well over the past 20 years. He suggested there could be an
Option C maintaining the planning area and fixing the issues which need to be
addressed.
Those in favor of a joint land use IGA and Option A: Johanna Darden/Town citizen, Seth
Hanson/local developer, David Yale/County citizen and Windcliff Architectural
Committee Chair, Doug Sacarto/County citizen, Vicky Henry/County citizen, Frank
Theis/County resident and EVPC Commissioner, Dick Spielman/Town citizen, and Dave
Converse/County citizen and EVPC Commissioner. Comments have been
summarized: The Estes valley citizens consider the area one community; completion of
the new Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan should take place prior to considering
changes to the land use IGA; the realtor community would not favor two separate
development codes for the Estes valley; a need for clarity as soon as possible for
developers; need for a unified approach to land use development for the valley; strongly
encouraged the elected bodies to keep the established EVPC and EVBOA; no change
should occur until after the upcoming elections in April and November of 2020 as a
number of the Board member and Commissioners are term limited or may not be re-
elected; and land use decisions in the small geographic area are impactful to the entire
valley and should be integrated.
John Meissener/Town citizen stated support for Option B and the need for those outside
the Town to have a vote on issues impacting the entire valley.
Rex Poggenpohl/County citizen stated more developable land lies within the County
with half the residents living within the County. The elected official should take a long-
term view when considering land use.
The elected officials and staff discussed the impacts of an overlay, the use of separate
codes, the legality of utilizing one code for the overlay, and the mechanics of land use
and application process for properties within the overlay.
Comments were heard from the Town Board and County Commissioners and have
been summarized: Commissioner Johnson stated he does not support either Option A
or Option B; however, the joint agreement allows for a high level of collaboration with
the use of a joint planning area, code and commission. He suggested proceeding with
Option B and continue utilizing the joint planning area, code and commission with
county staff completing the review of applications in the unincorporated area. Trustee
Norris stated he favored a joint planning area and a joint Comprehensive Plan. The
overlay option retains most of the common code features which are valuable. He would
support working through Option B with Option A as a fall back. Trustee Blackhurst
would support Option A with an exception it be extended for three or four years to allow
the Comprehensive Plan to be completed. He would only support Option B if there was
a unified Development Code. Trustee Zornes stated Option A would push off the
decision and Option B requires improvement. The citizens have provided input and
would like to maintain the joint EVPC, EVBOA and Development Code. Commissioner
Kefalas would support the continued development of Option B in a way which respects
the values of the community to include a joint planning area, joint planning commission
and serves to complete the Comprehensive Plan. Trustee Cenac stated there needs to
be a joint Comprehensive Plan; however, she would support a separate Planning
Commission and Board of Adjustment. She stated support for Option B. Trustee
Martchink stated support for Option B and would only support Option A as a fall back
plan. The IGA should not be allowed to expire without a new plan in place. He
supports a joint Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Donnelly stated he would not DRAFT10
Joint Town Board County Commission Meeting – September 30, 2019 – Page 3
support Option A for a one year extension and the completion of the Comprehensive
Plan. Option B would need to address issues such as an annexation policy. He
supports the County completing reviews within the unincorporated planning area.
Mayor Jirsa stated support of Option B with a cooperative approach and acknowledges
the difference within the valley.
Director Ellis stated the next steps would include further drafting of Option B with
variations on how to address joint boards, planning area and code. Staff would develop
a matrix to outline the differences and similarities of the variations. Director Hunt
requested several study sessions with the Board to discuss clarifications of Option B
prior to November’s meeting.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 8:07 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
DRAFT11
12
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 17, 2019
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Steve
Murphree, Frank Theis, Nick Smith, Dave Converse
Attending: Chair Leavitt, Vice-Chair White, Commissioners Murphree, Theis,
Smith
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Recording
Secretary Karin Swanund, Town Board Liasion Ron Norris, Town
Attorney Dan Kramer, Larimer County EngineerTraci Shambo,
Absent: Converse
OPEN MEETING
Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were approximately 15 people
in attendance.
APPROVAL OF AGEND A
It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to amend the agenda adding an
item to revise and revote on the Estes Valley Planning Commission
Resolution on the Joint Planning Area from February 19, 2019, and the
motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Study Session Minutes dated August 20, 2019
2. Meeting Minutes dated August 20, 2019
It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda
as presented and the motion passed 5-0.
ACTION ITEMS
1. LOCATION AND EXTENT REVIEW: CDOT VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY,
475 ELM ROAD
Senior Planner Woeber reviewed the project stating that the existing facilities are
planned to be removed. New improvements involve construction of a 6000
square-foot, 5-bay, vehicle storage facility with associated office space.
Site access, via Elm Road, is to be reconfigured and improved. The property is
owned by Larimer County and is leased to CDOT. The county will sell the 5-acre
property to the State upon the approval of this proposal. The EVPC was asked
13
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 17, 2019
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
to extend the application through October 31, 2019, instead of the standard 30
day time period, as a condition of approval.
Applicant Discussion:
Erin Lucero, lead architect, gave a brief presentation on the proposed CDOT site
showing the floor plan and building design, drainage and accessibility. The
design and refiguring of Range View has been done by Larimer County Road
and Bridge and is being reviewed by county engineers. Roads do not go through
the Board of County Commissioners.
Public Comment:
Carol Zahourek, town citizen, expressed concerns, with the 17% road grade and
the location and specs of the detention pond.
Max Burkhalter, town citizen and Range View Road caretaker, noted that the
road grade per county standards are not compliant, and road grade changes into
business driveways.
Becky Glowacki, town citizen, has concerns with losing egress, viewshed, noise
and light pollution, snow removal and cost to taxpayers.
Bill Brown, town citizen, wants a safe and compliant Elm Road and noted the
amount of traffic the road carries, and other road concerns.
Response:
David Wolff, Fire Chief, has looked at the plans and the concerns have been
addressed. The improved surface offsets the steep grade. The Fire Marshall will
be submitting his formal comments and approval to Director Hunt.
Erin Lucero noted that CDOT completed a historic drainage report, the pond has
a culvert so water will not go into the road, the addition of asphalt will help
drainage. CDOT has looked and will continue to look, for more appropriate sites.
Traci Shambo, Larimer County Engineering, explained the multi-stage design
and described the details of the detention pond design and the thorough planning
that has gone into it.
Todd Jurgens, Larimer County Road and Bridge Director, stated this is an
existing piece of County right-of-way. Larimer Couty will provide maintenance of
a 24 foot wide paved Elm Road road up to the intersection of Range View Road.
The current intersection at Kenwood Lane is not standard. The newly designed
Range View will be less of a grade than what it currently is in some locations.
CDOT has offered to pave the realignment of Range View, with the approval of
the local property owners. These plans have been reviewed and approved at the
staff level by the County engineering department. Design, construction and
management are being done by Larimer County and paid for by CDOT.
14
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 17, 2019
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commissioner comments:
The Planning Commission only has purvue over the building plan, not the roads.
Public concerns can be addressed to Director Todd Jurgens. There are pros and
cons to the road improvement, with a chain of responsibility for decisions being
made.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/White) to APPROVE CDOT’s application
for a Location an Extent review, for the CDOT Vehicle Storage/Office Facility
at 475 Elm Road, with staff findings and the condition of approval
recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-0.
2. MINOR SUBDIVISION: THUNDER VIEW, 1573 DRY GULCH ROAD
In the absence of Planner Hardin, Director Hunt presented the minor subdivision
proposal. The applicant would like to subdivide the lot into four 2.5 acre lots, as
is allowed by code. One lot currently has a single-family home, the additional
three lots would be available for development of one single-family home each,
with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres and 50’ setbacks on all sides and from
designated wetlands. A condition of approval is that within 90 days following
recordation of the Final Plat, a 50-foot from centerline right-of-way will be
dedicated along the eastern boundary of the parent property bordering Dry Gulch
Road.
Applicant comment: Mark Theiss, owner, stated that there was a wetland study
done and this is dedicated on the final plat. The septic tank will be pumped and
crushed in place.
It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to APPROVE the Thunder View
Subdivision Preliminary Plat according to findings of fact and including
findings and conditions recommended by Staff. The motion passed 5-0.
3. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT PLANNING AREA
A revised and reapproved resolution containing new opening and closing
paragraphs (attached) to be read at the Town Board meeting on September 24.
It was moved and seconded (Theis/White) to revise and reapprove the
Resolution in Support of the Joint Planning Area. The motion passed 5-0.
REPORTS
• The Planner II position has not yet been filled, but we are getting closer.
• Project updates:
o Wind River apartments: work is still ongoing by CDOT. No building
permits have been applied for.
15
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 17, 2019
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
o Raven Rock: Grading from the Estes Park Chalet is being moved to the
Raven Rock development area. A phasing plan has been submitted to
allow this. Water, sewer and road base are being reviewed by the building
department.
o Stanley Hotel: a Development Plan submittal is expected by the end of
October. Additional parking construction will begin soon. The Carriage
House is to be moved 12 feet to the north to attach to the Art Center. The
State Historical Foundation will review these plans.
o Elkhorn Lodge: plans should be forthcoming with
restaurant/retail/accommodations. A pre-app meeting has been held.
ADJOURN
There being no further business Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
_________________________________
Bob Leavitt, Chair
_________________________________
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
16
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 17, 2019
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Resolution In Support of the Joint Planning Area
Below is a resolution in support of the Joint Planning Area, which was approved
unanimously at the EVPC meeting on February 19, 2019, and revised and reapproved
on September 17, 2019.
We the Estes Valley Planning Commission strongly support the Estes Valley Joint
Planning Area (JPA) and the related Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). Our support
is based on the following:
● First and foremost, the Estes Valley is one integrated community. In terms of
common community interests and concerns, there are no boundaries between
the Town and County in the Estes Valley.
● The Estes Valley is unique in that it is landlocked and nearly all of the land is
developed. The size of the Estes Valley is not large. Thus, land use planning
throughout the Estes Valley is of concern to a wide range of Town and County
residents.
● It makes complete sense that land use planning in such a confined geographic
area be handled on a coordinated basis. This is why the JPA was implemented
more than 20 years ago.
● The Estes Valley Planning Commission is much better equipped to address land
use issues in the Estes Valley than the Larimer County Planning Commission
due to our knowledge and experience with local land use issues. Our focus is on
the Estes Valley. The Larimer County Planning Commission is focused on the
entire county and in particular on the front range communities and their issues.
● A primary goal of the new Comprehensive Plan is to create a shared vision for
the future of the Estes Valley. This can only be done if there is one
Comprehensive Plan for the entire Estes Valley, and this can only be done if the
JPA is retained.
● The Comprehensive Plan is much more than a guide for land use planning. It
encompasses transportation, parking, downtown planning, trails, utilities, water
use, flood control and mitigation, fire mitigation, and more. These topics are by
definition valley-wide as is land use planning.
● Residents of the county portion of the Estes Valley may have a more difficult time
getting their concerns addressed by their county representatives (the Larimer
County Planning Department, Larimer County Planning Commission, and the
County Commissioners). These County officials have busy schedules and may at
times have more pressing issues to address than the concerns of Estes Valley
residents. All this activity will take place in Fort Collins rather than Estes Park,
unless special meetings are held in Estes Park. 17
•IftheJPAisdissolvedthecountyportionoftheEstesValleywillcomeundertheCounty’sComprehensivePlanandDevelopmentCode.ZoninginthecountyportionofthevalleywillhavetoberedonesincetheCountydoesnothavethesamezoningdistrictsaswehaveintheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode.Protectionsprovidedtoresidentsbycurrentzoningdesignationsanddevelopmentcodewillnotnecessarilybeavailableafterthisrezoning.Someneighborhoods,suchasCarriageHills,willbedividedwithoneportionunderTownzoninganddevelopmentcodesandanotherportionundercounty zoninganddevelopmentcodes.Thiswillcreatealotofconfusion.•DissolvingtheJPAwillincreasethedissentionanddisunityintheEstesValley.RetainingtheJPAtogetherwithanewvalley-wideComprehensivePlanwillincreasecooperation,collaboration,andconsensusintheEstesValley.•DissolvingtheJPAwillaccentuatethelackofrepresentationthatresidentsexperiencewhendevelopmentprojectsarebroughtforward.Therewillbenovalley-wideforumlikethePlanningCommissionwherecitizen’sviewscanbeheard.•TheexistenceoftheJPAandIGAallowustodrawontheknowledgeandexperienceofCountyplanningstaffaswedevelopourownuniquesolutionstoEstesValleylanduseissues.GiventhepotentialnegativeconsequencesofdissolvingtheJPAandthelikelihoodofadditionalunintendedconsequences,andthelackofcompellingreasonsfordissolvingtheJPA,theresponsiblecourseofactionistoretaintheJPAandfixexistingproceduralproblemsbyrevisingtheIGA.GiventhecriticalimportancethattheJPAhasplayedinEstesValleyplanning,nogoverningbodyshouldproposetodissolvetheJPAunlessithasidentifiedandprovidedtherationaleforanalternativethatcanworkaswellorbetterthanaJPA.EstesValleyPlanningCommissionFebruary19,2019RevisedSeptember17,2019x7J-/_itBobLeavitt,EVPCChafr18
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado September 17, 2019
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION of the Estes Valley, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held in Room 202-203 Town Hall.
Commission: Chair Leavitt, Vice-Chair White, Commissioners, Murphree, Smith, Theis,
Converse
Attending: Leavitt, Theis, Murphree, Smith, White
Also Attending: Town Board Liaison Norris, Director Hunt, Planning Technician Kreycik,
Senior Planner Woeber, Recording Secretary Swanlund, Town Attorney
Kramer
Absent: Converse
Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m
There were no people in attendance. This study session was recorded and can be viewed on the
Town of Estes Park YouTube channel.
CDOT Vehicle Storage:
Planner Woeber spoke on the Location and Extent review for the CDOT vehicle storage facilities.
The current facility is outdated and rundown. This will be a rebuild and upgrade. The property is
owned by Larimer County and leased to CDOT. A 6,000 square foot, 5 bay facility is being proposed.
Realignment of a portion of Range View Road is necessary, which is not a part of the Location and
Extent review. That review will be done by Larimer County Engineering.
THUNDER VIEW Minor Subdivision:
Director Hunt reviewed the minor subdivision. This was a rezoning from March of this year. The
proposal is to divide the property into four 2.5 acre lots. The plat conforms to the EVDC, and all
affected agencies have reviewed and approved the plat. This will continue on to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval. County engineering staff has requested an additional right of way,
which would reduce two of the lots to 2.4 acres. A solution has been proposed to have a separate
ROW easement 90 days after the recordation on the eastern boundary of the parent property
bordering Dry Gulch. Opponents of this project do have the opportunity to object to this solution.
Considerable discussion was had on whether this is a proper planning approach to correct the non-
conformity of the ROW dedication. Staff and the Planning Commission will accept this solution, but a
code amendment to fix this defect is in the works.
CODE AMENDMENTS:
Director Hunt spoke on the Downtown Building Height concept taken from the Downtown Plan. The
reference map is only for guidance. An overlay zone concept and a step-back proposal are the two
main mechanisms to focus on. There is no mandatory redevelopment attached to this. Leavitt would
like an architectural review component added. Norris suggested finding photos of town where the
step-backs have worked and use them for reference. A November Study Session review is planned.
Planning Technician Kreycik discussed the code amendment pertaining to amending review
standards for commercial developments undergoing Change of Use, affecting Table 3.3 of the 7 19
Planning Commission Study Session September 17, 2019 –Page 2
Development Code. This will require properties undergoing a change in use to submit a development
plan application if the change in use increases the intensity of the land use. The review would ensure
that the change is compatible with surrounding uses. Questions about what constitutes a change of
use should be expected.
Kreycik explained the regulations on Distributed Wind Energy and Conservation Systems. The code
amendment would change definitions of micro and small wind energy conversion systems to reflect
industry trends. The review will be changed from a Conditional Use Permit to an S1 Special Review.
Eliminating red tape and aligning with wind zoning ordinances current best practices is important.
Chair Leavitt suggested deferring this amendment for the time being. Board member Norris
commented on previous wind turbine legislation conversations that garnered a lot of public
controversies. This will be a hot-button issue. It was suggested to get pubic input on this subject for
new Comprehensive Plan. The regulation of distributed wind should be addressed within the
Comprehensive Plan process if sustainability and community resiliency are identified goals of the
Comp Plan process.
PUD’s/Vacation Homes:
Director Hunt spoke on the subject of whether or not the Vacation Home cap in residential districts
should be counted in PUD’s. Vacation Homes are defined as accommodations in code; therefore,
PUD approval would allow for approval of vacation homes without falling under the 588 cap. It would
have to be written into the PUD proposal or a code change disallowing it. Leavitt suggested giving
the BOCC a review of this discussion.
531 S St Vrain Avenue-site of EP Shuttle
The property at 531 S St Vrain is one lot, and there are two uses on this lot. This will complicate the
Temporary Use with the Estes Park Shuttle. It has been requested of the owner of the lot to make it
look nicer and install a fence on the south side while this gets sorted out.
Ayres parking study:
Planner Woeber discussed the Ayres Associates report on multi-family parking demand rates. The
recommendation Ayres came up with is 87 spaces per dwelling. This is lower than the current ITE
rate that has been used for recent developments. The Pubic W orks Director is reviewing this report.
IGA Update:
Director Hunt discussed the just-released press release stating that there is a new online
questionnaire with two options. There will be a meeting on September 30 that could include a vote on
the future of the IGA. Chair Leavitt would like the problems clearly defined, fix the issues and keep
the joint planning area. When asked for the pro/con memo, Hunt agreed to distribute it with two
caveats: the county has not signed off on the document and “we don’t have to wait for something to
break to make it better”; we can improve things without them being broken. Not all elected officials
are aligned, and they should put their thoughts on record. It was requested that the memo be shared
with the Town Board before their September 24 meeting. The PC should prepare an updated
statement of the one written in February.
Project Updates:
Will be reviewed in the regular meeting due to time constraints.
8 20
Planning Commission Study Session September 17, 2019– Page 3
Questions/Future Items
Meeting times
Amended Plat Code Amendment
Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
_____________________________________
Bob Leavitt, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
9 21
22
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 18, 2019
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 202 of Town Hall on
the 18th day of September, 2019.
Present: Gordon Slack
Belle Morris
Janice Crow
Stan Black
Linda Hanick
Tom Street
Also Present: Trustee Carlie Bangs, Town Board Liaison
Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
Vanessa Solesbee, Parking & Transit Manager
David Hook, Engineering Manager
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Admin. Assistant
Elias Wilson, Public Works Admin. Assistant
Absent: Ann Finley
Ron Wilcocks
Scott Moulton
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:03 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Four members of the public were in attendance: Tom Hannah, Pat Newsome, John
Long, Ted Williams
Tom Hannah, Estes Park resident and business owner, was in attendance and shared
being that he feels the Downtown Estes Loop is a good idea with his only opposition
due to the impact to Riverside Park near the winery. It currently provides a lot of shade.
John Long, retired Executive Director of Bike Houston advocacy group joined the TAB
on the recent bike ride around Estes Park. Long praised the Town of Estes Park for the
design and construction on 4th Street using the complete streets principals. He believes
this is a good example for future street rehab within the Town. John and the other riders
went to the area between 36 Hwy & 7 Hwy near the schools and Estes Valley
Community Center. At the 7 Hwy crossings John and others on the bike ride witnessed
pedestrians attempting to cross the road at the crosswalk. Even with the rapid flashing
beacons many individuals appeared to run for their lives. Many cars at this intersection
did not yield until the pedestrian stepped out into the crosswalk. There clearly needs to
be additional measures taken to increase the safety of pedestrians and bikers.
Trustee Bangs asked what statistical data would be needed to help determine how to
increase pedestrian and biker safety. Manager Hook commented that this might be a
situation where there is a need for increased driver education. Member Crow
questioned whether the law applied to pedestrians who were in the crosswalk or those
waiting to cross. Crow asked if a change to the law would be required. Chair Morris
shared that an individual’s line of sight narrows dramatically at speeds of 35-40 mph.
Part of the issue at this particular intersection may be that drivers do not see the
crossing beacons because they are perhaps out of their line of sight.
Pat Newsome, a long-time resident of Estes Park for over 40 years, and property owner
for 50 years, was in attendance and shared her negative feelings towards the
Downtown Estes Loop project. She shared that while she welcomes newcomers to
Estes Park, many people see the town as a place that needs improvement. Newsome
commented that she has never heard of, nor met anyone living in Estes Park that
23
Transportation Advisory Board – September 18, 2019 – Page 2
supports the Loop project. Newsome commented that Baldwin Park is filled with
children playing throughout the Spring, Summer, and Fall and the Loop would take
away this space. Newsome advocated that Estes Park needs to stay beautiful and
maintain its open spaces because it is the reason that people come to visit. She
communicated that the basis of the Loop is to get visitors into Rocky Mountain National
Park (RMNP) more efficiently even though RMNP doesn’t want more visitors.
Newsome also wanted to share her displeasure with the planned roundabout at
MacGregor Ave. & US 34. She believes the problem with the motor vehicle accidents
could be addressed by installing reduce speed signs rather than a roundabout. She
concluded by stating that these major changes are ruining Estes Park.
Ted Williams and his wife are business owners in Downtown Estes Park. Williams
attended all of the recent parking meetings hosted by Parking & Transit Manager
Vanessa Solesbee. Solesbee invited Williams to come to TAB to present his thoughts
about the importance of parking to business. Representing the Estes Park Chamber of
Commerce, Williams distributed a handout which highlighted the Downtown Commercial
District intent and the desire for a public/private partnership to come up with a parking
solution in the downtown core.
Member Slack asked Williams for specific recommendations regarding the number of
spaces needed in downtown and where these spaces should be placed. Williams did
not have an exact number. Slack expressed that the TAB is very open to suggestions
and that there is no argument that Estes Park needs more parking spaces. TAB is
struggling to find answers and perhaps a needs assessment for parking would be
helpful. Williams shared that businesses feel like the Town Trustees ask what
businesses need and when they express the need for more parking, they’re told that
they won’t get more parking.
Member Crow asked Williams for options that the TAB could consider for the benefit of
downtown business owners. Williams suggested that we look at the ratio of cars to
businesses to help make a determination of parking needs. Member Street explained
the need for optimization of the parking structure and that the structure is the downtown
parking option. Trustee Liaison Bangs invited Williams for a discussion to gain further
understanding of the issues and how the Town can help.
Chair Morris requested approval by the TAB to request a youth from the organization
Youth in Action, attend TAB as a non-voting member. A motion was made and
seconded (Slack/Crow) to approve adding a non-voting Youth in Action Participant to
the TAB and all were in favor. Chair Morris will be responsible for selecting the young
member.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
It was moved and seconded (Slack/Black) to approve the August meeting minutes and all
were in favor.
PROJECT UPDATES (V. Solesbee – Parking & Transit Manager)
Bustang Update: Manager Solesbee provided an update on the ridership for Bustang. The
ridership numbers this month started strong, then dipped, returning strong this past
weekend. CDOT considers the pilot program a success. Bustang is offering kids under 11
a free ride.
Parking: As of last week, 4% more citations were written in 2019 then were written in 2018.
No inclusion of voided tickets or warnings.
PAID PARKING ANALYSIS (V. Solesbee – Parking & Transit Manager)
Manager Solesbee will be attending the Town Board Study Session October 8, 2019 to
provide data from the 2019 season and begin discussions for Phase II of the Downtown
Parking Management Plan (DPMP). Solesbee requested the TAB to attend the study
session on October 8th. Director Muhonen explained to the TAB how Phase II fits within
the budget process.
24
Transportation Advisory Board – September 18, 2019 – Page 3
Manager Solesbee provided to the TAB, a revenue analysis on the expansion of paid
parking and stated the importance of being honest with ourselves on cost. This analysis
was produced in response to the research that has been conducted on parking is Estes
Park. Solesbee presented a progressive pricing model for paid parking.
Member Slack stated that the goal is not to make a bunch of money, just to modify
behavior. Member Black asked Solesbee if the technology will have ability for market
pricing. Solesbee replied that Scenario E offered this option. A modified dynamic pricing
system would impact tourists more than a progressive system but a progressive system
would impact residents more. Solesbee stated that Scenario E is her preferred option.
Member Slack commented that starting simple and communicating scenario A or B makes
the most sense. Muhonen shared that the existing signs and time limits stay in place (great
simplicity, higher risk of citation, etc.) and that scenarios C and D reduce the citation
component because they are able to pay for as long as they decide to stay. Muhonen
emphasized the convenience for user but stated that there needs to be turnover.
Member Street questioned what percentage of lots would be paid. Solesbee replied that
Phase II would implement 30% of downtown parking to be paid in 2020. Street responded
that if not all parking is paid there will still be congestion issues with people waiting in the
free lots. He commented that all downtown parking needs to be paid. Member Black stated
his agreement with Street that this may contradict the goal. If we don’t do it all at once, we
will be unable to gather accurate data at the end of Phase II. Solesbee replied that the
downtown business community holds various viewpoints on the implementation of paid
parking. There are currently 1,200 parking spaces in the core. Solesbee mentioned the
importance of implementation along with education while remaining sensitive to the
amount of change. Solesbee is also identifying employee areas and exploring both paid
and unpaid permit possibilities. TAB needs to review additional data before making
assumptions and implementing solutions. Solesbee adopted a conservative estimate of
$200,000 in startup costs projecting that, in the first year, all scenarios lose money and
make a profit in the following year.
Member Black questioned the basis for assuming an increase in revenue. Solesbee added
this to the list of considerations. Black also questioned the 2024 revenue and cost.
Solesbee will compile and present further information on this subject. A four-month season
will be used moving forward. Black expressed concern that the projections for the month
of May are equal to that of June. The counts for May and September are too high.
Solesbee suggested lowering or discounting the price of parking in May. Black questioned
the assumption of increased revenue and on the basis for the assumption. Solesbee will
take a closer look at this assumption.
Discussions continued regarding treatment of residents versus visitors. Black suggested
the TAB create more opportunities for residents to shop downtown rather than feel the
need to travel. He advocates for free parking for residents (1-hr) since there was a
commitment to the residents for different treatment. Hanick agreed that parking isn’t a
primary issue with residents coming downtown, it’s the traffic. Hanick commented that she
will shop in town regardless, but will not spend 4 hours shopping.
A motion was made and seconded (Slack/Street) for residents to have 15 minutes free. A
second motion was made by Member Black to increase this time allowance to 30 minutes
and Member Crow seconded. Member Slack withdrew his previous motion. The vote was
4 to 2 vote in favor of 30 minute free parking for residents.
A motion was made and seconded (Street/Hanick) that a letter be written to the Town
Board by 11/1/2019 recommending Scenarios D or E with a price point that is selected
and established by the Town Board. The vote was 5 to 1 in favor of this letter.
Manager Solesbee suggested that TAB could benefit from meeting with the Shuttle
Committee at the regularly scheduled December meeting.
Morris asked when a work session could be set up with Ted Williams. Trustee Bangs
agreed to reach out to Williams to further discuss the parking issues in downtown. Member
25
Transportation Advisory Board – September 18, 2019 – Page 4
Black stated that the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors should be included in the
meeting.
PROJECT UPDATES (G. Muhonen – Public Works Director)
Muhonen attended an all-day meeting with Larimer County area traffic engineers. The
relevant topics included bike lane markings and symbols. A poll was taken from the
different engineers in attendance on policies and justifications. Boulder now mandates the
use of green backgrounds for all bike symbols and requires them in conflict zones between
cars and bikes. Fort Collins has decided to stick with the typical white on black colors and
don’t want green backgrounds except for bike/car conflict zones. Greely is increasing the
6 inch lane line to 8 inches. Boulder has done accident research and analysis in regards
to bike lanes and found that green backgrounds reduce the number of biking accidents
and deaths. CDOT is now requiring 6 inch lane lines and will be implementing this on edge
lanes only.
Special events in Estes Park have been handled informally regarding traffic control. There
is a proposal for closing US 36 for a Vintage Car Race Rally, which has introduced
questions about special event traffic control. Universally, all applicants for events that
impact traffic, whether pedestrian or vehicular, must submit a traffic control plan.
PROJECT UPDATES (D. Hook – Engineering Manager)
US 36 & Community Drive Roundabout: A public meeting for the US 36 & Community
Drive Roundabout project on Aug. 29 at the Estes Park Museum. The feedback received
was mixed, with the majority being opposed to the roundabout.
Brodie Avenue Improvements: Work continues to progress with curb and gutter
beginning to be replaced. The work underground is complete and all work occurring is
now above ground.
Co-Chair Street commented that the ‘Trail Closed’ sign is still up but the bike lane is
open for use. Manager Hook will follow up on the signage.
Fall River Trail: Hook informed the TAB that both the Fall River Trail grant applications
were denied. One was submitted to Great Outdoor Colorado (GOCO) and the other for
the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP). Hook stated the grants were denied due to
the fact that other submitted projects were focused on finishing connections, whereas
the application submitted by Estes Park was asking for was a middle section of a trail to
be completed. Muhonen commented that the Estes Park application also did not identify
how RMNP would be tied into the trail plan.
The pavement markings have been completed on both the 4th Street and Elkhorn
Avenue projects. The Downtown Wayfinding, Cleave Street project, and Graves Avenue
design are pending.
TAB 2020 PRIORITIES:
Chair Morris distributed the updated TAB Priority Matrix for review. No additional time was
available to discuss the matrix but will be discussed at the next regularly scheduled
meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
With no other business to discuss, Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 2:38 p.m.
Recording Secretary
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Department
26
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Applicable items include: Rate Hearings, Code Adoption, Budget Adoption
1. MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on PLANNING
COMMISSION ACTION ITEM 1.A. ORDINANCE 16-19 AMENDMENT TO THE
ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE §5.1.B.VACATION HOME TO
REVISE DEADLINE FOR (“CAP”) NUMBER OF VACATION HOMES IN
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
2. SUGGESTED MOTION.
I move to table Ordinance 16-19.
4. VOTE ON THE MOTION.
Vote on the motion or consideration of another action.
27
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Linda Hardin, Planner I
Date: October 22, 2019
RE: Ordinance 16-19 Amendment To The Estes Valley Development Code
§5.1.B. Vacation Home to Revise Deadline for (“Cap”) Number of Vacation
Homes in Residential Zoning Districts
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Review and amend the Estes Valley Development Code to reflect the deadline of June
30 of each year for “cap” review and action.
Present Situation:
UPDATE for October 22, 2019:
Community Development was advised on June 28, 2019, when this ordinance first
came to the Town Board of Trustees, that the Town Clerk intends to change the
renewal deadlines for business licenses and vacation home registrations to January 31st
of each year. If this ordinance is passed, there is no longer a need to adjust the cap
review date, as the current annual review in April will allow adequate time to process
and examine previous years’ registrations and current trends for renewals and new
registrations.
The Estes Valley Development Code, §5.1.B.1.a.(6), current states that the cap be
reviewed by the Planning Commission and governing Boards “in or near the month of
April”. It was determined that this time frame for review was not practical. Vacation
home registration renewals are not due until March 31st of each year. Trying to collect
accurate current data had proven to be difficult and somewhat impossible for review by
the Boards in April. Finalizing renewals can overlap into April which is cause for reports
to be late to the Boards under the current code. The code states “near” the month of
April, which is suggestive and allows for the delays without violating the code. But, the
intent was to have a time by which the Boards can expect to resolve the review and
determine if a change is necessary.
28
The Planning Commission heard this amendment at their June 18, 2019 meeting a
voted unanimously with a 6-0 vote to recommend changing the review date in the EVDC
to June 30 of each year.
Proposal:
To revise the date of review by the Planning Commission and Governing Boards to a
hard deadline of June 30 of each year. (Noe n/a; indefinitely tabling the ordinance will
allow the annual review cycle to remain in or near April.)
Advantages:
Adjusting the cap review date allows a more accurate compliance schedule with
the code requirement. (Now n/a)
Disadvantages:
None identified at this time.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends that the Estes Park Board of Trustees table Ordinance No. 16-19,
thus not changing the review date.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Although vacation homes in general have in the past been an issue of high public
interest, this specific issue has not received any public input.
Sample Motion:
I move to table Ordinance 16-19.
Attachments:
Ordinance 16-19
Exhibit A
29
ORDINANCE NO. 16-19
AN ORDINANCE TO AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
§5.1.B.VACATION HOME TO REVISE DEADLINE FOR (“CAP”) NUMBER OF
VACATION HOMES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2019 the Estes Valley Planning Commission conducted
public hearings on proposed text amendments to the Estes Park Valley Development Code,
Chapter 5 – Use Regulations; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2019 the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the text amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text
amendment complies with requirements of Colorado Statutes Revised, and has determined
that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendment to the Estes Valley Development
Code, as set forth on Exhibit A be approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code is set forth on
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully
set forth on Exhibit A.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this ____ day of _______________, 20XX.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
30
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the day of , 20XX and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of
, 20XX, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
31
EXHIBIT A
[CHAPTER 5 – USE REGULATIONS, §5.1.b.1.A.(6)]
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees: October 22, 2019
B. Vacation Home.
1. All vacation homes shall be subject to the following:
a. Annual Operating Registration.
(6) Effective December 16, 2016, vacation home operating registrations in
residential zoning districts (designated herein as zoning districts E, E-1, R, R-
1, R-2, RE, RE-1, and RM) shall be held at a maximum total ("cap") of 588
registrations in effect at any given time. This cap shall be reviewed annually
by the Planning Commission and governing Boards, in or near the month of
April beginning in or near April 2017no later than June 30 of every year.
Applications received at any time such that their approval would cause the cap
to be exceeded shall be held and kept on file in the order they are received
and deemed complete by the Town Clerk's Office. Registrations held on such
list shall be issued during the calendar year as operating registrations may
become available.
32
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: October 22, 2019
RE: Estes Valley Planning Commission Interview Committee Appointment.
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER Appointment
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
To appoint Town Board members to the interview committee for the open position on the
Estes Valley Planning Commission.
Present Situation:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission is currently made up of seven volunteer
community members with three appointed by the Town and three appointed by the
County. The commission currently has one vacancy, the Town Clerk’s office has posted
the position and has received one application as of the date of this memo.
Proposal:
Per Policy 101 Section 6, all applicants for Town Committees/Boards are to be
interviewed by the Town Board, or its designee. Any designee will be appointed by the
Town Board.
Advantages:
To move the process forward and allow interviews to be conducted of interested
applicants.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
To appoint two Trustees to the interview panel for the Estes Valley Planning Commission
opening.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None.
33
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Trustees __________ and ___________ to
the Estes Valley Planning Commission interview panel.
Attachments:
None
34
TOWN ATTORNEY Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
From: Town Attorney Kramer
Date: October 22, 2019
RE: Restrictive Covenant for the Preliminary Condominium Maps, the Divide
Condominiums at Wildfire, and the Meadow Condominiums at Wildfire,
Wildfire Road, Westover Construction, Inc., RDA Associates LLC,
Applicants
Objective:
Report on the status of the Wildfire workforce housing restrictive covenants.
Present Situation:
On October 8, the Town Board approved preliminary condominium maps for the Wildfire
project, on the condition that attorneys for the Town and the developer agree to
restrictive covenants by October 22. The attorneys for the Town and the Developer
have reached a compromise on the covenant language.
Proposal:
The covenants have been modified from those presented on October 8, in the following
ways:
A deed of trust requirement has been omitted.
Strongly worded warnings have been added to the beginning of the covenant.
Deeds for the workforce units will be required to reference the covenants.
Contracts for purchase and sale of the workforce units will be required to
reference the covenants.
Failure to comply with the covenants will result in liquidated damages in the
amount of $25,000 per year.
Failure to comply with the covenants can explicitly result in a court injunction
requiring the sale of the home, and the Town would be able to recoup fees,
costs, and damages from the seller’s proceeds.
Advantages:
These provisions are designed to warn parties to future transactions and make it
disadvantageous to allow occupancy by unqualified residents. Buyers will be better
incentivized to contact the Town before a sale.
Disadvantages:
Does not include a second deed of trust, a mechanism designed to provide notice to the
municipality at time of transfer. The warnings now included could still be disregarded
and the Town could potentially be unaware of a sale until after it occurs.
35
Action Recommended:
No action necessary.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None at this time.
Level of Public Interest
The overall project is of relatively high interest for the Town.
Attachments:
Restrictive Covenant and Agreement
36
DMWEST 38149972v1
WARNING TO HOMEBUYER: YOU, OR A RESIDENT OR TENANT OF THIS
PROPERTY, MUST BE EMPLOYED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ESTES
PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT R-3 TO BE QUALIFIED TO OWN THIS PROPERTY. YOU
MAY BE FORCED TO SELL THIS PROPERTY IF YOU ARE NO LONGER QUALIFIED
FOR ESTES PARK WORKFORCE HOUSING. ONLY A QUALIFIED WORKFORCE
HOUSEHOLD CAN OCCUPY THIS HOME. YOU MUST CERTIFY YOUR
ELIGIBILITY UNDER SPECIFIC PROCEDURES DESCRIBED HEREIN TO AVOID
CONSIDERABLE FEES AND DAMAGES. CONTACT THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK
FOR MORE INFORMATION AT LEAST 45 DAYS BEFORE YOU CLOSE ON THIS
HOME.
WARNING TO HOMESELLER: YOU MAY BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR
BREACH OF THIS COVENANT IF YOU ALLOW THE SALE OF THIS HOME
WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE SPECIFIC PROCEDURES DESCRIBED HEREIN TO
ENSURE THAT THIS HOME WILL BE SOLD TO OR OCCUPIED BY A QUALIFIED
WORKFORCE HOUSEHOLD.
NOTICE TO TITLE COMPANIES: TRANSFERS OF THIS PROPERTY CANNOT
OCCUR WITHOUT DELIVERY OF AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COVENANT BY
THE GRANTEE ACCEPTED BY THE TOWN UNDER SECTION 7.3 HEREIN AND, IF
NOT, YOU MAY BE LIABLE TO YOUR INSURED.
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND AGREEMENT
THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) dated as of
___________________, 20_ (the “Effective Date”) is entered into by and between
_______________________________ (the “Owner”) and the Town of Estes Park (the “Town”),
a Colorado Municipal Corporation, on the Effective Date stated herein.
RECITALS
Section 11.4.C. of the Estes Valley Development Code (“EVDC”) provides that a property
owner may receive a density bonus with respect to “workforce” housing. The Owner has obtained
approval from the Town for the development of __________ multi-family structures consisting of
______ Residential Units as set forth in the Development Plan for [The Meadows
Condominiums][The Divide Condominiums].1 Such approval includes the density bonus which
requires that the Residential Units be subject to the restrictive covenants set forth in this Agreement
to assure occupancy of the Residential Units qualifies them as workforce housing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals, and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereby declare that the Property (as hereinafter defined) shall be held, sold, occupied and conveyed
subject to the following covenants, restrictions, and conditions, all of which shall be covenants
1 NOTE TO DRAFT; This Agreement will be replicated for each of the 2 projects, as applicable. All units within
Meadow and Divide Condominium projects will be identified as the “Property” subject to this covenant.
37
2
running with the land and which covenants, restrictions, and conditions shall be binding on all
parties having any right, title, or interest in the Property, or any part thereof.
Definitions.
“Acknowledgement of Covenant” is defined in Section 7.3 of this
Agreement and means an acknowledgement in the form promulgated or otherwise
approved by the Town, in which the buyer or grantee acknowledges the Occupancy
Requirements and agrees to comply with the terms, conditions and covenants of this
Agreement.
“Change of Status” means the Qualified Workforce Occupant no longer
meets the requirement set forth in Section 6.1(a) of this Agreement.
“Occupancy Certification” means a certification in the form approved by
the Town to be executed by the person(s) executing a Rental Agreement as occupants. The
form attached hereto as Exhibit B is the first version so approved, and is subject to update
by the Town.
“Occupancy Limit” means one plus two times the number of bedrooms in
the Residential Unit.
“Occupancy Requirements” is defined in Section 6.1.
“Owner” means ________________________ and any subsequent
transferee, assignee, or successor in title to the Property or any portion thereof, including
any Residential Unit.
“Property” means the real property described in Exhibit A.
“Qualified Workforce Household” is defined in Section 6.1(a).
“Rental Agreement” is defined in Section 6.4.
“Residential Unit” means a residential unit located on the Property.
“Workforce Housing Unit” means a Residential Unit, the occupancy of
which is restricted to a Qualified Workforce Household.
“Term” is defined in Section 5.1.
Other definitions may appear in the Agreement.
Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to enforce the restrictions in the EVDC
in effect as of the Effective Date that apply to the Property in connection with the grant of the
density bonus for workforce housing.
Recording and Filing; Covenants to Run with the Land.
38
3
Recording, Covenants Run with the Land. This Agreement shall be placed
of record in the real property records of Larimer County, Colorado, being the county in
which the Property is located and except as otherwise provided herein, the covenants
contained herein shall run with the land and shall bind, and the benefits shall inure to,
respectively, the Owner and its successors and assigns, and the Town and its successors
and assigns, and all subsequent owners of the Property or any interest therein during the
Term. The Property and each Residential Unit shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated,
encumbered, leased, rented and occupied subject to the covenants, restrictions and
limitations set forth herein, which are intended to constitute both equitable servitudes and
covenants running with the land. Any buyer or transferee of a Residential Unit or any
portion thereof, by acceptance of a deed therefore, or by the signing of a contract or
purchase agreement to purchase the same, shall, by acceptance of such deed or by the
signing of such contract or agreement, be deemed to have consented to and accepted the
covenants, conditions, restrictions and limitations set forth herein, whether or not there is
any express reference to this Agreement in such deed or contract.
Satisfaction of Requirements. The Owner agrees that any and all
requirements of the laws of the State of Colorado to be satisfied in order for the provisions
of this Agreement to constitute restrictive covenants running with the land shall be deemed
to be satisfied in full, and that any requirements of privity of estate are intended to be
satisfied, or in the alternate that an equitable servitude has been created to ensure that these
restrictions run with the land. During the Term, each and every contract, deed or other
instrument hereafter executed conveying the Property or portion thereof shall expressly
provide that such conveyance is subject to this Agreement, provided, however, the
covenants contained herein shall survive and be effective as to successors and assigns of
all or any portion of the Property, regardless of whether such contract, deed or other
instrument hereafter executed conveying the Property or portion thereof provides that such
conveyance is subject to this Agreement.
Each purchase and sale contract executed by Owner as an agreement to
convey title to the Property or any portion thereof shall include the following (or
substantially similar) provisions: (i) the bolded notices set forth in the heading of the first
page of this Agreement, (ii) an express statement that such purchase and sale contract and
the resulting conveyance are subject to this Restrictive Covenant and Agreement and (iii)
the closing conditions, procedures, and requirements set forth in Section 7.3 herein.
Each deed executed to convey title to the Property or any portion thereof
shall include the following (or substantially similar) provision:
“SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, RESTRICTIONS, AND COVENANTS FOUND
IN THAT CERTAIN WORKFORCE HOUSING RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
AND AGREEMENT, RECORDED ON [_______], UNDER RECEPTION NO.
[__________] IN THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF LARIMER COUNTY,
COLORADO.”
Representations, Covenants and Warranties of the Owner. On the Effective Date,
the Owner covenants, represents and warrants as follows:
39
4
Organization. The Owner is duly organized under the laws of the State of
Colorado, and is qualified to transact business under the laws of the State.
Good Title. The Owner has good and marketable title to the Property.
Consistency Requirement. The Owner has not and will not execute any
other agreement with provisions contradictory to, or in opposition to, the provisions hereof,
and in any event, the requirements of this Agreement are paramount and controlling as to
the rights and obligations herein set forth and supersede any other provisions in conflict
herewith.
Required Consents. The Owner will obtain the written consent of any prior
recorded lienholder on the Property to this Agreement prior to the first application for any
development permit (i.e. grading or building) for the Property. The Owner will not allow
mechanic’s liens having senior priority to this Agreement to be recorded against the
Property and continue for a period of 45 days without release by the lien claimant or
removal by bond.
Term of Agreement.
Term. In accordance with the requirements of the EVDC, this Agreement
shall remain in effect for each Residential Unit on the Property for a period of fifty (50)
years from the Effective Date (the “Term”).
Termination. Upon expiration of the Term, this Agreement and each of its
provisions shall terminate without further action by the parties. On and after expiration of
the Term, upon the written request of any current owner of the Property, the Town shall
promptly execute and deliver to such owner a statement of termination of this Agreement
in recordable form which may recorded by such owner, but the Agreement shall terminate
whether or not any such statement is recorded.
Restrictions on Use and Occupancy.
Restriction on Occupancy. Each occupied Residential Unit shall be
occupied as a Workforce Housing Unit (the “Occupancy Requirements”).
Qualified Workforce Household Definition. A “Qualified Workforce
Household” means the occupants of a Residential Unit that are either (i) members of a
family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption, or (ii) unrelated individuals living
together whose number does not exceed the Occupancy Limit, in each case who occupy
the Residential Unit; where all occupants have common access to and common use of all
living and eating areas and all facilities for the preparation and serving of food within the
Residential Unit; and where at least one adult (eighteen years old or older) who occupies
the Residential Unit as his or her principal residence is employed (or self-employed) for an
average of at least thirty hours per week on an annual basis within the boundaries of the
Estes Park School District R-3 (such employed occupant is referred to as a “Qualified
Workforce Occupant”).
40
5
Transition Rules:
A person age 65 years or older who was a Qualified Workforce
Occupant while occupying the Residential Unit for at least seven (7) consecutive
years ending on the date such person attained the age of 65 years shall continue to
be regarded as a Qualified Workforce Occupant and, in the event of the death of
such person, his or her spouse will be considered a Qualified Workforce Occupant,
for so long as he or she continuously occupies the Residential Unit as his or her
primary residence.
If, after the occupancy of the Residential Unit has commenced by
the members of a Qualified Workforce Household, the status of a Qualified
Workforce Occupant changes so that such person is no longer considered to be a
Qualified Workforce Occupant, such person and the other persons occupying the
Residential Unit shall continue to be considered to constitute a Qualified Workforce
Household until termination of the Rental Agreement, if any, or for one year from
the date of the Change of Status of the Qualified Workforce Occupant, whichever
occurs first, unless a longer period of occupancy is authorized in writing by the
Town due to extraordinary circumstances as described in Section 6.5 or another
member of the Qualified Workforce Household becomes a Qualified Workforce
Occupant within such time.
Restrictions on Short Term or Vacation Rental. Each Residential Unit shall
not be rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days.
Maintenance. The Owner shall maintain the Residential Unit in a safe and
habitable condition, except for normal wear and tear, and in material compliance with all
applicable laws, ordinances, homeowner covenants or rules and regulations of any
governmental authority with jurisdiction over matters concerning the condition of the
Residential Unit.
Rental Agreements. In the event a Residential Unit is rented, leased or
licensed by the Owner, and the Owner does not then occupy the Residential Unit as part of
a Qualified Workforce Household, such Residential Unit shall be rented to occupants
pursuant to a written rental agreement (a “Rental Agreement”) that provides a rental term
of at least six months and not more than one year (except that a Rental Agreement may
provide that its term ends on the last day of the month that includes the one-year
anniversary of the commencement of the Rental Agreement) and which requires the
occupants to constitute a Qualified Workforce Household on the date of execution of the
Rental Agreement and during the term of the Rental Agreement. The form of Rental
Agreement to be utilized by the Owner shall provide for termination of the Rental
Agreement and the consent by the occupants for immediate commencement of eviction
proceedings as a result of any knowing material misrepresentation with respect to the
Occupancy Requirements made by the person or persons executing the Rental Agreement.
Each Rental Agreement shall prohibit occupancy or use of the Residential Unit as a short
term or vacation rental as defined in the EVDC or the Town’s Municipal Code including
amendments thereto. Each Rental Agreement shall prohibit assignment or subleasing
41
6
without the consent of the Owner which consent must be denied unless after the assignment
or sublease, the occupants will constitute a Qualified Workforce Household. Nothing
contained in this agreement shall prohibit the Owner from entering into one or more master
leases of Residential Units with terms in excess of one year provided that each Rental
Agreement entered into pursuant to the master lease satisfies the requirements of this
Agreement.
Relief from Extraordinary Circumstances. The Town may grant an
exception or waiver from the requirements of this Section 6 based upon the written request
of the Owner. Such exception or waiver may be granted by the Town only upon a finding
that: (i) the circumstances justifying the granting of the exception or waiver are unique or
outside of the control of the Qualified Workforce Occupant, and may include involuntary
loss of job, injury, physical disability, or trauma; (ii) a strict application of this Section 6
would result in an extraordinary hardship; and (iii) the exception or waiver is consistent
with the intent and purpose of this Agreement. No exception or waiver shall be granted by
the Town if its effect would be to nullify the intent and purpose of this Agreement. In
granting an exception or waiver of the provisions of this Section 6, the Town may impose
specific conditions of approval, and shall fix the duration of the term of such exception or
waiver.
Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement.
Annual Verification and Certification Requirement. The Owner shall be
responsible for taking reasonable steps to verify that Qualified Workforce Households
occupy the occupied Residential Unit(s) owned by the Owner in accordance with this
Agreement and shall certify to the Town, upon request, on or before January 31st of each
calendar year that to the best of the Owner’s knowledge, all occupied Residential Units
owned by Owner are occupied in compliance with this Agreement or if not so occupied,
the certification shall describe the steps the Owner is taking to remedy the noncompliance.
All certifications required by this Section shall be in the form and contain all
documentation reasonably required by the Town.
Certification related to Rental Agreements. Each person executing a Rental
Agreement as a non-Owner occupant shall also execute an Occupancy Certification at the
time of execution of the Rental Agreement and each renewal thereof to ensure compliance
with this Agreement. The Owner will deliver to the Town the executed Rental Agreement
and Occupancy Certification as soon as practicable, but in any event within five business
days, which may be done electronically as a facsimile or an image attached to an email. If
the Town determines on the basis of reasonable evidence that (i) any statement on an
Occupancy Certification is substantially untrue and, as a result, the occupants do not meet
the Occupancy Requirements, or (ii) the occupant is not eligible for continuing occupancy
under the transition rules in Section 6.1(b) or for an exception or waiver under Section 6.5,
the Town may notify the Owner within five business days after its receipt of the Rental
Agreement and Occupancy Certifications and the Rental Agreement shall terminate.
Acknowledgement of Covenant upon Transfer. Owner shall notify the
Town in writing of Owner’s interest in selling or transferring any Residential Unit at least
42
7
45 days before the Owner’s desired closing date. Owner’s notice to the Town shall also
include either: (a) a certification by the buyer, in substantially the form required under
Section 7.1, that the Residential Unit will be occupied by a Qualified Workforce
Household; or (b) an Occupancy Certification and Rental Agreement executed by the
current or planned tenant of the Residential Unit. In addition, Owner’s notice shall further
include a signed and notarized acknowledgement of this covenant, in a recordable form
promulgated by or otherwise approved by the Town (the “Acknowledgement of
Covenant”), in which the buyer or grantee acknowledges the Occupancy Requirements and
agrees to comply with the terms, conditions and covenants of this Agreement. Within 15
days after receipt of Owner’s notice, together with the certifications and Acknowledgement
of Covenant referenced above, the Town will either: (i) verify compliance with this
Agreement and accept the Acknowledgement of Covenant in writing, or (ii) deliver a
written notice to Owner that verification and acceptance cannot be issued and stating the
reason(s) therefore. No transfer of a Residential Unit may occur until the Town verifies
compliance with this Agreement, accepts the Acknowledgement of Covenant in writing,
and delivers the executed and notarized Acknowledgement of Covenant for recording. The
Town may grant an exception or waiver from the requirements of this Section in
accordance with the principles of Section 6.5, and such exception or waiver will be in
written recordable form and will reference the recording information of this Agreement.
Further Actions. In addition to its specific agreements and undertakings in
this Agreement, the Owner shall take or cause to be taken all other and further actions
reasonably required by the Town in order to confirm satisfaction of the Occupancy
Requirements.
Rules, Regulations, Standards, and Fees. Upon not less than 30 days prior
written notice to the Owner, the Town shall have the authority to promulgate and adopt
such reasonable rules, regulations, standards, and fees as it may deem appropriate, from
time to time, for the purpose of carrying out its obligations and responsibilities described
herein.
Delegation of Owner Verification. The Owner, and any successors thereto,
may use the services of a property manager or other agent (i.e., an accountant, attorney,
etc.) to assist it in meeting its verification obligations hereunder.
Transfer of Town Administration. The Town will maintain its authority to
contract with or use a third party to assist or manage the Town’s role in the verification and
administration of the occupancy of the Residential Units and the terms of this Agreement.
Enforcement. The Owner hereby grants and assigns to the Town the right
to review the Rental Agreements and enforce compliance with this Agreement.
Compliance may be enforced by the Town by any lawful means, including legal and
equitable relief and including, without limitation, specific performance. The Town is
entitled to an injunction to enforce this Agreement, including a mandatory injunction
requiring the Owner to forthwith sell the Residential Unit so that the Residential Unit will
become occupied by a Qualified Workforce Household, without need to deposit a security
with the court. Any equitable relief may be sought singly or in combination with such legal
43
8
remedies as the Town may be entitled to under either this Agreement or the laws of the
State of Colorado, including liquidated damages as described in Section 7.10 below.
Remedies; Attorney Fees. In the event the Town commences litigation with
respect to any or all provisions of this Agreement, the party that substantially prevails on
the merits shall be awarded reasonable court costs and attorney's fees, including but not
limited to the value of the Town Attorney’s Office’s time spent on such matter at the rates
generally charged for similar services by private practitioners within the Town.
Liquidated Damages. In the event the Town commences litigation with
respect to any or all provisions of this Agreement and is the prevailing party, the Town will
be entitled to and shall be awarded an administrative fee in the amount of $25,000/year
(prorated for each day of a year) commencing as of date of the Town’s written notice of
violation of this Agreement, as liquidated damages and not as a penalty, to cover the non-
legal costs of the Town in enforcing this Agreement. The parties agree that, under all of
the circumstances, this basis and the amount set for liquidated damages is a reasonable and
equitable estimate of all the Town’s actual damages in enforcing this Agreement. The
Town expends considerable additional personnel effort in administrating the Agreement or
portions of it when the Owner does not comply, and such efforts and the costs thereof are
impossible to accurately compute. Furthermore, the Town and its citizens incur negative
social and economic impacts when this Agreement is breached. In addition, some, if not
all, citizens of Estes Park lose confidence in their government as a result of public programs
not accomplishing their intended purpose, and the impact and damages, certainly serious
in monetary as well as other terms, are impossible to measure. The amount stated above
shall be adjusted annually from the date of this Agreement, proportionately to changes in
the applicable consumer price index released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics or a
successor agency.
Fees and Damages Deductible from Sale Proceeds. In the event that the
Town secures an injunction requiring Owner to sell the Residential Unit to a Qualified
Workforce Household and the Town is awarded attorneys’ fees, costs, and/or liquidated
damages as described above, or any other fees, costs, or damages, then the Town, in
addition to being entitled to recover the awarded amounts in any other manner permitted
in law or equity, shall be entitled to an injunction requiring the Owner to assign such
awarded amounts to the Town from the proceeds accruing to the Owner from the Owner’s
sale of the Residential Unit.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Notices. Any notice, consent, approval, or request that is required to be
given hereunder shall be given by mailing the same, certified mail, return receipt requested,
properly addressed and with postage fully prepaid as follows:
OWNER:
44
9
And as subsequently shown on the Acceptance of Covenant
recorded with each subsequent transfer of a Residential Unit.
THE TOWN: Town of Estes Park
Attn: Community Development Director
P O Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Severability. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement and any
other related document shall be interpreted in such manner as to be valid under applicable
law. If any provision of this Agreement shall be invalid or prohibited under said applicable
law, such provisions shall be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or prohibition
without invalidating the remaining provisions of this Agreement.
Governing Law and Jurisdiction. This Agreement and each and every
related document are to be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of Colorado; provided, however, this section will not limit the covenant to comply with a
applicable federal, state, and Town laws, rules, statutes, ordinances, and regulations, as
now existing or hereafter amended. Any legal action to enforce the terms of this Agreement
shall be brought in the appropriate court of Larimer County, State of Colorado.
Binding Agreement. The provisions and covenants contained herein shall
inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the Owner and
the Town.
Amendment. Any modifications of this Agreement shall be effective only
when made by a duly executed instrument by the Owner (or its successor) and the Town.
Recordation. Upon execution, this Agreement and any amendment shall be
recorded in the real property records of Larimer County, State of Colorado.
Entire Agreement. This Agreement including the recitals and the exhibits
and attachments constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to
the matters set forth herein. Captions are intended for convenience of reference and shall
not be considered a part of this Agreement.
No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for
the sole protection and benefit of the Town and the Owner. Except as otherwise
specifically provided for herein, no other person, persons, entity or entities, including
without limitation the occupants of a Residential Unit, shall have any right of action with
respect to this Agreement or right to claim any right or benefit from the terms provided in
this Agreement or be deemed a third party beneficiary of this Agreement.
Non-Liability. The Town and its respective employees, members, officers
and agents shall not be liable to any Owner or third party by virtue of the exercise of their
rights or the performance of their obligations under this Agreement. The Town is relying
on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Agreement, the monetary
limitations or any other rights, immunities or protections afforded by the Colorado
45
10
Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, et seq. C.R.S., as it may be amended, or
any other limitation, right, immunity or protection otherwise available to the Town.
[Signatures appear on following page.]
46
11
OWNER:
_____________________________________________________________________
By: _____________________________
__________________, its __________
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______ day of _______, 20___, by ____________
______________________.
Witness my hand and official seal.
____________________________
Notary Public
TOWN OF ESTES PARK: Approved as to form:
By: _______________________________ _________________________________
Mayor Town Attorney
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______ day of _______, 20___, by
___________________ as ________________________ of the Town of Estes Park.
Witness my hand and official seal.
____________________________
Notary Public
47
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
(Legal Description of the Property)
48
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
FORM OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATION
The undersigned (“Applicant”) is making or has made an application to
________________ (the “Owner Representative”) to buy or rent workforce housing unit [____]
(the “Unit”) of the multifamily community known as [The Meadows Condominiums][The
Divide Condominiums], Estes Park, Colorado.
Occupancy of the Unit is limited to persons who comprise a Qualified Workforce
Household as specified in Section 2 below.
Applicant hereby states and affirms to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado under penalties
of perjury that on the date of this Occupancy Certification each of the following is true and
accurate:
1. All of the persons who will occupy the Unit at any time during the term of the lease
of the Unit are listed below (the “Occupants”). All of the Occupants are either (i) members of a
family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption, or (ii) unrelated individuals living together
whose number does not exceed 3 in the case of a one bedroom Unit, 5 in the case of a two bedroom
unit, or 7 in the case of a three bedroom Unit.
List of Occupants:
_________________________________ _________________________________
_________________________________ _________________________________
_________________________________ _________________________________
_________________________________ _________________________________
The Occupants are / are not members of a family unit related by blood, marriage or
adoption.
_______________________________ (name of the Qualified Workforce
Occupant) is eighteen years old or older, will occupy the Unit as his or her principal residence and
is currently employed (or self-employed) and on the date occupancy is commenced for the Unit
will be employed (or self-employed) for an average of at least thirty hours per week on an annual
basis within the boundaries of the Estes Park School District R-3 as depicted on the attached map
of that district.
During the term of the Rental Agreement of the Unit, Applicant will notify the
Owner Representative in writing no later than seven days after any of the statements made in this
Occupancy Certification are not true and accurate (“Change of Status”).2
2 Note that Change of Status will not prohibit the Occupants from continuing to occupy the Unit until the termination
of the Rental Agreement or one year from the Change of Status of the Qualified Workforce Occupant, whichever
49
Exhibit B
Dated ____________________________, 20__.
________________________________________
Occupant Signature
________________________________________
Occupant Name (print)
________________________________________
________________________________________
Occupant Address
________________________________________
Occupant phone number
________________________________________
Occupant date of birth (month, day and year)
occurs first, but may prevent the Rental Agreement of the Unit from being renewed or extended. A Change of Status
does not occur if the Workforce Housing Occupant subsequently attains the age of 65 years and has fully satisfied the
requirements of Section 6.1(b) of the Restrictive Covenant applicable to the Unit.
50
Map of Estes Park School District R-3
Map of Estes Park School District R-3
(attached)
51
52
To: Mayor Jirsa and Town Trustees
From: Wildfire Homes, Inc. (Allnutts and Westovers)
Dear Mayor Jirsa and Town Trustees
We want to begin by thanking you for your support of the Wildfire project. Over these many months it
has been encouraging and gratifying to enjoy the support of the project by so many. Our goal all along
has been to work collaboratively with all stakeholders. The Town staff in each department has held a
balance of following codes and guidelines while at the same time assisting us through this arduous
process.
It was not our desire to come before you on October 8th to argue publicly regarding the covenant issues
for the workforce units. These units have been the centerpiece of the project from the very beginning.
We were in complete agreement that steps and processes needed to be put in place to protect the units
as workforce far into the future. We could not agree on the best way to do that while keeping the path
as clear as possible for potential workforce buyers. Though financing is not the board’s concern, policies
set by the board can influence how lenders view potential buyers of these properties. Thus many
buyers could be subjected to higher interest rates, higher down payment requirements or be eliminated
all together, which doesn’t further workforce housing goals. Thank you for listening to our concerns.
We believe we were able to come to agreement on the covenant as a result of your guidance.
What this situation has highlighted is the need to have systems in place that will only not guide future
developments, but will guide the compliance process moving forward. We look forward with you and
Town staff as we now move to make the project a reality.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Rick and Susan Allnutt
Mark and Melissa Westover
53
54
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: Oct. 22, 2019
RE: Land Use IGA Options
Objective:
Review and further refine option(s) for the IGA, in advance of the Nov. 14 joint
meeting with the Board of County Commissioners (BCC).
Present Situation:
On Sep. 30, our joint Town Board / County Commissioners meeting provided discussion
and direction toward a narrowed set of options for the new IGA. Essentially, discussion
centered around three variations, as follows:
Option B as presented, with further work to fill in or clarify certain sections, such
as annexation.
Option C (staff’s term), which involves keeping the structure of Option B, but with
several of B’s Town/County separations reconfigured to joint jurisdiction; these
include a joint Comprehensive Plan, a joint Planning Commission and Board of
Adjustment, and/or a joint Development Code.
Option A (extend current IGA for one year, except with separate Town and
County staff processing). This was discussed as a “fallback” possibility at most; it
did not appear to generate any affirmative support.
Proposal:
County and Town staff have worked together to create a matrix for consideration of the
two primary options – Options B and C. In the attached matrix, these are called out as
“Option B” (this is the September 30 version) and “Option C” to reflect the Sep. 30
discussion regarding several joint elements.
I would like to stress that: (a) Town staff appreciates the County’s input, which is
reflected in the matrix; but (b) the matrix included in this packet is the responsibility of
Town staff.
The matrix has not yet been turned into draft IGA language, except to the extent the
original Option B was already drafted as you saw it on Sep. 30. Staff asks that Town
Board come up with a direction forward on either Option B, Option C, or an option that
has elements of both, on Oct. 22. It’s expected that one more Town Board review -
55
either Study Session or a discussion item on the regular agenda – will be needed to
review proposed IGA draft language.
For the County’s part, the Board of County Commissioners have held one follow-up
work session since Sep. 30. This was a joint work session between BCC and the
Larimer County Planning Commission on Oct. 9. Our Town staff’s understanding is that
further discussion took place, but no additional consensus has been reached. One
purpose of the work session was so that County PC would have a sense of what their
role might be in the future. Town staff understands that additional work session
discussion may be taking place at the County between now and Nov. 14, but no timeline
is known right now.
Staff will review the matrix with Town Board on Oct. 22. At the end we will ask that you
come up with a direction for us. E will proceed to create draft IGA language from that.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends an option that has elements of both B and C, as follows:
The Nov. 14 adoption date should remain our goal for a fully realized IGA, except
that the annexation policy may need a few additional months to be fully
discussed and agreed upon.
A joint Comprehensive Plan between Town and County is the best use of
resources, is the best way to reflect input form a wide cross-section of
stakeholders, and is also a practical way to share costs for much work that would
have to be done twice if separate plans were to be prepared and adopted. This
joint Comp Plan approach would need resources from both Town and County.
(The County would otherwise be committing resources for a different Comp Plan
for unincorporated Estes Valley in any case.)
We would be best served by separate Development Codes, adopted separately,
but similar to each other (e.g., the same zoning districts) for the near future.
Beyond the near future – i.e., when a new Comp Plan is adopted – Development
Code(s) will need to change to implement the Plan, whether Code(s) are joint or
separate.
Staff sees more difficulties than advantages to a joint Planning Commission (PC)
that must deal with different staffs and different Codes. Truthfully, the burden
here is much greater on the County staff than any others, but none of the tasks
under different staff and Codes would be easy. Practicality should never be the
only criterion to determine policy, but it is never irrelevant either.
The same argument applies to Board of Adjustment.
The discussion on Sep. 30 regarding a temporary transitional role for the joint PC
and joint BoA still have merit, with the qualifications discussed then.
Staff also continues to see merit in a role for the joint PC in the Comprehensive
Planning process - as an advisory body, not as a Planning Commission per se.
County staff has requested the possibility of added time beyond the Jan. 1 target for
Town staff to continue administrative and processing tasks as they are under the
current IGA – perhaps through March 31. Town staff has no objection to this, provided
that: (a) the arrangement is spelled out in the IGA; (b) it is time-limited to expire on a
56
date certain; and (c) adequate compensation from County to Town is negotiated and
agreed upon in advance.
Advantages:
Moves the IGA forward in a firm direction;
Gives a clear timeline toward the expected Nov. 14 adoption of the new IGA;
Ends uncertainty and resolves complexity in the planning relationship between
Town and unincorporated County, and establishes a clear direction for the
Comprehensive Plan, Codes, Planning Commissions and Boards of Adjustment,
and respective staffs.
Disadvantages:
Neither a pure separation nor a pure joint arrangement is reached, which some
may feel is preferable.
Action Recommended:
This is a discussion item only at this time. Staff would appreciate additional direction on
the options presented.
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A at this time.
Level of Public Interest:
High.
Attachments:
1. Estes Valley IGA Comparisons – Oct. 17, 2019 (matrix)
57
Estes Valley IGA Comparisons – Oct. 17, 2019 [Town of Estes Park: Randy Hunt] Issue Current IGA (old language) Option B (New language and suggested alternatives) Analysis Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (EVCP) Whereas statements #1 & 2 (p. 1) reference the adopted plan and its “future uniform land use classification system” adopted by Town Planning Commission and County Planning Commission in 1999 before the IGA. Option B: Sec. 2 (p. 4) proposes that parties will coordinate to prepare a plan for the Planning Area and notes that the plan will include a boundary to delineate areas of the Estes Valley that are suitable for annexation to the Town (e.g., a town growth boundary) as well as what should remain rural. The Town and County see value in continuing to have a plan that covers the Planning Area, not just the area within Town limits. This joint plan approach is consistent with community input and would carry forward valid aspects of the current EVCP. Updating the plan would allow the community to address new circumstances and changes in the Estes Valley and better define town‐level development areas versus rural or conservation areas. Cost sharing is a topic for further discussion. Estes Valley Planning Area boundary (Planning Area) Whereas statement #1 (p. 1) notes that as mapped currently, the Planning Area includes the Town and Unincorporated Valley. Section II (p. 2) and Exhibit A also serves as the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) boundary. Option B: Sec. 1 Definitions, and Sec. 2 Adoption of New Plans and Regulations notes the Estes Valley Planning Area is maintained for planning purposes. Until further planning is done, staff does not recommend changing the existing Planning Area boundary. The boundary may be modified during the EVCP update after further analysis. Development Regulations: Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) or Town and County codes Whereas statement #4 & 6 address administration of the EVDC within the Planning Area. Option B: Secs. 2 and 3 reference regulations and fees, noting that Town and County will each have land use and zoning designations, and the County will prepare supplementation regulations to the County Land Use Code carrying forward certain provisions from the EVDC. Option B as presented: Two separate Codes, but with Option B proposed carrying forward relevant provisions from the current EVDC into codes for the respective jurisdictions, which is a more typical approach in Town/County agreements even with a joint comprehensive plan. Two separate codes would have relatively small impacts on Town administration, but somewhat greater impacts for County staff. 9/30 Alternative: Maintaining and administering one EVDC with two separate sets of staff may create logistical challenges in terms of staffing and coordinating for both Town and County. It could lead to decisions that are arbitrary and capricious over time. It is also likely the current code will need to be updated after the joint comprehensive plan is completed, which would need to be a joint effort by County and Town under this scenario. Administering a second code in the County will create additional costs for planning 58
Issue Current IGA (old language) Option B (New language and suggested alternatives) Analysis substantial similarity, would be adopted by Town and County; the County code would be an overlay for unincorporated area. Option C ‐ Alternative suggested on 9/30: Include an option to maintain the Estes Valley Development Code – one code administered by the Town and County. coordination, administrative services, business systems, and code compliance staffing. This burden will fall more on County staff, but Town staff will be impacted as well. Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) or Town and County commissions Whereas statement #3 established EVPC in 1997. Section III (p. 2). EVPC has duties of Town planning commissions, for the comp plan, and duties pursuant to provisions of the EVDC (meaning final approval for some types of development review, including development plans, minor modifications, L&E, and Conditional Use Permit). Membership of 3 Town members and 4 County members. Section VIII. All land use decisions of EVPC are advisory only unless specifically addressed in the EVDC (First Amendment). Option B: Sec. 5 Development Review Approvals, and 5A attachment address some options for the Planning Commission – as a joint EVPC or two separate commissions for Town and County, and transitional duties. Option C ‐ Alternative suggested on 9/30: Include an option to maintain the EVPC, including reconsidering the 4‐3 composition based on population. Option B suggested options to serve the Planning Commission either as a joint commission or two independent commissions. For Town Planning staff, the impacts are not different with either model from the current IGA. For County Planning staff, the EVPC is an atypical approach with other jurisdictions in the County. There will be some logistical details and added costs to the County if we carry forward with one Planning Commission for the Estes Valley. One EVPC means two Planning Commission in the County where County staff would have more time and duties. County attorneys recommend reconsidering the final decision‐making authority (or Town representation of the commission) so they are not in the position of defending decisions in the unincorporated area. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment (EVBOA) or Town and County Boards of Adjustment Section IV. (p. 3), EVBOA has duties of County pursuant to provision of EVDC; hears all variance requests. Membership of 3 members of the Town and 2 in the County. Option B: Sec. 5 and 5A attachment. Address several options to maintain the Board or have the Larimer County BOA provide this service. The Town and County are prepared to serve the Board of Adjustment either as a joint or two independent boards. As with the Planning Commission, Town staff and resource differences would not be significant. The County would see added responsibilities with one Board of Adjustment for the Estes Valley. County staff (incl. administrative, planning, and attorneys) would dedicate more time and duties to the joint 59
Issue Current IGA (old language) Option B (New language and suggested alternatives) Analysis Option C ‐ Alternative suggested: Include an option to maintain the EVBOA. board in addition to the existing County Board of Adjustment. The same comment above applies regarding attorney defense of decisions by an Estes Valley board. Annexation Section V. (p. 4), Town considers annexation for certain development types. Town also agrees to annex County roads and rights‐of‐way. County agrees to a binding annexation agreement as a condition of approval. Sec. VI. “At sole legislative discretion of Board of Trustees of the Town.” If Town decides not to annex, it shall continue through the EVPC and BCC.” Option B: Sec. 6 Annexation is a placeholder for the topic of annexation and roughly carries forward existing annexation provisions. Option C ‐ Alternative suggested: Make the annexation policy more consistent with other Town/County agreements in Larimer County, specifying where the Town agrees to annex properties where eligible. Town and County staff agree that future town‐level development should occur in Town limits rather than in the County. A sound annexation strategy helps implement a thoughtful and clear comprehensive plan and specific locations for town annexation in the Estes Valley – and where annexation should not occur. Municipalities annex properties when they deliberately identify areas where orderly growth can occur with centralized, efficient services that are equitable distributed and paid for. Arbitrary annexations and enclaves can create confusion around boundaries and representation and may lead to inefficient service delivery. Annexation policy and costs and benefits is a topic that needs further discussion and articulation in the IGA. Development compliance and Staffing (See comparative staffing table on page 5.) Sec. VI Development Compliance with Other Town and County Requirements address the respective roles of the Town and County staff. Sec. IX (p. 7) – Town and County cooperate Option B: Sec. 4. Parties’ Roles in Development Review, Compliance provides guidance on development review staffing roles and other department roles. The big change is that County planning staff will conduct development review for the unincorporated Estes Valley rather than Town planning staff. The staffing table in the draft Option B IGA needs further clarification regarding planning review roles – for the County especially. It may change depending on which alternatives get selected regarding the code(s) and commission and board(s). No modifications were directly suggested, but the increased role with EVPC, EVBOA, and administering the EVDC will likely result in added County staffing from different departments. Fees and Costs (Agreed to in IGA) Sec. VII (p. 88) County’s capital expansion fees in unincorporated areas. Not the regional park fee. Separate land use application fees – Town collects and keeps. Costs: Town provides personnel and County pays $30,000 plus annual CPI to Town and pays for half of Host Compliance Option B: The change would be that the County would resume collecting its own development fees, and there would be no exchange of funds to pay for planning staffing services. Over the years, the County payment to the Town for staffing has increased modestly from the original $30,000. In 2019, the County paid the Town $46,100 for staffing and $17,000 for half of the cost of the Host Compliance contract. For the Town, as noted, the reduced demand for County services would translate into addressing deferred needs supporting Town Strategic Goals, as provided in the recommended Town budget materials. 60
Issue Current IGA (old language) Option B (New language and suggested alternatives) Analysis contract. The Town keeps development fee revenue from unincorporated area applications Term Review and Transition Sec. X.D ‐ 10 years. Extended in First Amendment for another ten years to Feb. 2020. The original agreement included a one‐year transition period where County staff assisted with research and attended Town meetings. Option B: Sec. 12 ‐ Suggested new to be five years. Option C ‐ Alternative suggested by County staff: Start on April 1, 2020 and propose a transitional period through the end of 2020 where Town staff will help with research. The term of the agreement is a policy decision. The timing is flexible, and we may need to amend a new IGA after EVCP is updated. The County staff has requested a later start date and a transitional period as noted in the “alternative” to the left. Town staff has no objection in principle to this modest extension, provided appropriate compensation is negotiated to both parties’ satisfaction. 61
Estes Valley Staffing Responsibilities and Decision Making (Development Compliance) CURRENT IGA NEW IGA Activity Town of Estes Unincorporated Estes Valley Town of Estes Unincorporated Estes Valley LONG RANGE PLANNING EV Plan updates Town Community Development Department (CDD)) staff prepares, and Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) decides on plan Town CDD staff prepares (with support from County), and Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) decides on plan Town CDD staff partner with County staff to prepare plan, and Town Planning Commission and Town Trustees decide for area in Town and recommend for area in County; OR, jointly adopt the plan for the whole valley. County CDD staff partner with Town staff to prepare plan; County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners (BCC) decide for area in County and may recommend for area in Town; OR, jointly adopt plan for whole valley. EV Code Changes Town CDD staff prepares, and Town Trustees and Board of County Commissioners (BCC) decide on plan Town CDD staff prepares (with support from County), and Town Trustees and BCC decide on plan If EVDC ‐ Town CDD staff prepares (with input from County), and Town Trustees and BCC decide for all code changes, irrespective of jurisdiction If in Town Code ‐ Town CDD staff prepares, and Town Trustees decide for area in Town (with recommendations from County optional) If EVDC ‐ County CDD staff prepares (within input from Town), and Town Trustees and BCC decide for all code changes, irrespective of jurisdiction If in County Code ‐ County CDD staff prepares, and BCC decides for area in County (with recommendations from Town optional) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Land Use Applications Estes Valley Development Code (Town CDD) Estes Valley Development Code (Town CDD) Town of Estes Development Code (Town CDD) Larimer County Land Use Code Supplemental Standards (County planning) Code Compliance Town Code Compliance Town Code Compliance Town Code Compliance County Code Compliance Vacation Rentals Approved by Town (with cap) Approved by Town (with cap) Approved by Town (Town Maintains its share of current rental cap) Approved VRs roll into County program (County maintains current rental cap in the unincorporated area) 62
CURRENT IGA NEW IGA Activity Town of Estes Unincorporated Estes Valley Town of Estes Unincorporated Estes Valley Floodplain Regulations Town floodplain regulations (Town CDD) County floodplain regulations (County Engineering) Town floodplain regulations (Town CDD) County floodplain regulations (County Engineering) Sign Regulations Town sign regulations (Town CDD) County sign regulations (County planning) Town sign regulations (Town CDD) County sign regulations (County planning) Building Permits Town Building Code (Town Building Official) County Building Code, permit, and inspection programs (County Building Official) Town Building Code (Town Building Official) County Building Code, permit, and inspection programs (County Building Official) Streets and Roads Street standards (Town Engineer) (corresponds to Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards) Larimer County Rural Area Street Standards. County road construction, safety, and maintenance (County Engineer) Street standards (Town Engineer) (MAY correspond to Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – needs discussion with Town Engineering) Larimer County Rural Area Street Standards. County road construction, safety, and maintenance (County Engineer) Drainage Drainage standards (Town Engineer) Drainage standards (County Engineer) Drainage standards (Town Engineer) Drainage standards (County Engineer) Wildfire Construction Wildfire Construction standards in Larimer County’s building code (Town Building Official) Wildfire Construction standards in Larimer County’s building code (County Building Official) Wildfire Construction standards in Town’s building code (Town Building Official) Wildfire Construction standards in Larimer County’s building code (County Building Official) Attorney Town Attorney is primary advisor to CDD staff and EVPC County attorney is primary advisor to CDD staff on matters that may relate to County issues and may attend EVPC meetings as necessary and institutes and maintains all legal actions in the unincorporated area. Town Attorney is primary advisor to CDD staff and boards County attorney is primary advisor to County staff and boards Public Health and Safety County Health Department (Note: Current IGA says “Town”, but Town has no Health Dept.) County Health Department County Health Department County Health Department = County responsibility 63