HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2018-04-10The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable
services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while
being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town
services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons
with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
AGENDA
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
AGENDA APPROVAL.
Ordinance to Amend Liquor License Restriction Near Schools - Postponed.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Town Administrator Policy Governance Report, Policies 3.3 and 3.7.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Town Board Minutes dated March 27, 2018.
2.Bills.
3.Committee Minutes – None.
4.Family Advisory Board Minutes dated March 1, 2018 (acknowledgement only).
5.Estes Park Board of Adjustments Minutes dated March 6, 2018 (acknowledgement
only).
6.Events Complex Arenas 1-3 Footing Renovation, Left Hand Excavating,
$124,991.50 - Budgeted.
7.Town Administrator Policy Governance Report Acceptance.
Prepared 04/10/2018
1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. FINAL TOWNHOME PLAT, RAVEN ROCK TOWNHOMES, PROMONTORY
DRIVE AT MARYS LAKE ROAD, JAMES R. MACKEY AND SUSAN M.
MACKEY. Request continuance to May 8, 2018.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
A. AMENDED PUD, AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DP 2017-09, AND
PRELIMINARY CONDO MAP, FALL RIVER VILLAGE II, 200 BLOCK OF
SUNNY ACRES COURT. Planner Becker.
B. ORDINANCE #05-18 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE ADDING SCHOOLS TO CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, MODIFYING “SCHOOL” DEFINITIONS,
AND ADJUSTING PROCEDURES FOR SCHOOL REVIEWS. Director Hunt.
C. ORDINANCE #06-18 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE CHAPTER 6 ADDING PROVISIONS FOR EXTENSION, EXPANSION,
OR ENLARGEMENT OF NON-CONFORMING USES. Planner Woeber.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH PLATTE RIVER POWER
AUTHORITY FOR FIBER CONSTRUCTION TO GLEN HAVEN. Director Bergsten.
2. FEE WAIVER REQUEST – GRAY HAWK COURT/CRABAPPLE LANE, HABITAT
FOR HUMANITY OF THE SAINT VRAIN VALLEY INC. Director Hunt.
3. FEE WAIVER REQUEST – 260 STANLEY AVENUE, KINGSWOOD HOMES.
Director Hunt.
4. ORDINANCE #07-18 AMENDING THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 5.20 BUSINESS LICENSES. Town Attorney White.
4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
For discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not involving:
any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session;
any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office
of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of
matters personal to particular employees – Town Administrator Annual Review.
5. ADJOURN.
2
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
970.577.3705
flancaster@estes.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 10th, 2017
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS
(ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT POLICIES 3.3 AND 3.7)
Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide
information to the Board. In April of each year the Town Administrator is to report on
Policies 3.3 and 3.7.
Policy 3.3 states: “With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities
with a fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or
fiscal integrity of Town government.“
Policy 3.7 states: “The Town Administrator shall have an Emergency Preparedness
Process in place for coordination of all emergency management partners – Federal,
State, and local governments, voluntary disaster relief organizations, and the private
sector to meet basic human needs and restore essential government services following a
disaster. “
This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions
have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this
date.
________________________
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
3
3.3.1. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which deviates from
statutory requirements.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that our budgeting practices and policies
comply with all State statutory requirements that are applicable to statutory Colorado
towns.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
There are no deviations in our practices and policies in violation of State Statutes. The
2018 Town budget was submitted to the State of Colorado on time as required by statute
in December of 2017 following Town Board approval.
Evidence:
1. The annual independent audit
2. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
3. All policies are reviewed for compliance with State Statutes by the Town
Attorney.
4. State Department of Local Government has not issued any non-compliance
notifications to the Town of Estes Park regarding our budgetary obligations under
statute.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.2. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which deviates
materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among competing
budgetary needs.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the annual budget, as adopted by the
Board of Trustees, is the officially adopted priorities of the Board. This includes any
budget amendments approved by the Town Board throughout the year and any specific
spending authorizations approved by the Town Board. I interpret “materially deviate” to
mean any change in spending priority that results in diverting resources away from any
Board objective, goal or outcome substantial enough to contribute to not achieving the
objective, goal or outcome. I do not interpret minor deviations resulting from changing
circumstances, community demands and unforeseen circumstances outside of the Town’s
control, as material deviations.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
Budget spending does not materially deviate from the levels approved in the adopted
budget.
Evidence:
1. The adopted budget was prepared based on the Board stated priorities.
2. There have been no substantial budget changes presented to the Board for review
and approval as of this date, other than roll over of 2017 project funds.
3. HTE Budget reports for each department are available on a regular basis or as
requested.
4
Report: I report compliance
3.3.3. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which contains
inadequate information to enable credible projection of revenues and
expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow and
subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning assumptions.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean the budget, as recommended by the Town
Administrator, must be based on credible data and the best available information
concerning the local economy and other factors that may impact our revenues and
expenses. In addition, the budget is to be structured to separate capital expenditures
from operational costs. All revenue projects will be conservative and it is more critical not
to overestimate revenues vs underestimating revenues.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. Revenue projections are clear and deviations between projected and actual
revenues are within a 5-10%, barring any catastrophic events.
2. Actual revenue received and reported to date is not less than projected.
3. The Budget presented to the Board for adoption is in a format the separates
revenues, expenses and capital expenditures.
4. Any assumptions used in preparing the budget are clearly articulated to the Board
during budget review sessions.
Evidence:
1. Currently, Jan 2018 sales tax revenue collections to date are 30.14% higher than
in 2017 and 27% higher than budgeted. A significant portion of these collections
were for delinquent returns. Backing out the paid delinquent returns we are still
approximately 15% higher than in 2017 and higher than budgeted. This only
includes the Jan 18 returns due Feb 20, 2018 and remitted to the Town in
March. The Feb 18 returns due March 20, 2018 are expected to be received
around April 10th.
2. The current budget and proposed budget are both presented in the format that
separates revenues, expenses and capital.
3. Assumptions leading to the projects were discussed with the Board during budget
review sessions.
Report: I report compliance.
3.3.4. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which plans the
expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively
projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the proposed budget must be balanced.
5
This includes expenditures for the year not exceeding the revenues received from all
sources. Exceptions are Board approved use of fund balances, and use of funds that have
been accumulated over a period of time, with the approval of the Board, with the intent of
saving funds to pay for a specific project or capital expense.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The proposed budget meets the above criteria and year end expenses do not exceed
year end revenues, inclusive of any board approve spending of fund balance or specific
reserve funds.
Evidence:
1. The adopted budget and the CAFR document provide independent evidence that I
have not allowed budgeting which plans the expenditure in any fiscal year of more
funds than are conservatively projected to be received in that period, or which are
otherwise available.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.5. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which reduces fund
balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that established by the
Board of Trustees.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I the audited year end unrestricted fund
balance in the General Fund does not drop below 20% unless otherwise authorized by the
Board. If the Board approves and adopts a budget that plans for reducing the fund
balance below the 20% level, I interpret this as being authorized by the Board.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. The final CAFR indicates that a General Fund fund balance of 20% or greater, or
as otherwise approved by the Town Board.
2. The proposed budget anticipates end of year fund balance in the General Fund of
20% or greater unless otherwise approved by the Town Board.
Evidence:
1. Town financial reports.
2. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
3. The estimate for the final 2017 fund balance (fund balance ratio of approximately
15% of 2017 General Fund expenditures) The general fund balance as of the date
of this report is 25% and is in compliance with Board policy.
6
4. Report: I am reporting technical non-compliance.
The General Fund has grant receivables estimated at $4,540,000 of which $3,038,398
is for the Fish Creek project. Because most of this was not actually collected by Feb
28, 2018, the Town cannot recognize grant revenue for these receivables for the
fiscal year 2017 and cannot include the revenues in the upcoming CAFR and will
result in a CAFR reported fund balance of 15%. This is a requirement of GASB
accounting rules. We had fully expected to have this revenue in hand by February
28th. It’s important to note these are reimbursements from FHWA and there is no
question that the reimbursements will be received. It is just a matter of timing when
the reimbursement will go to Larimer County and then be forwarded on to the
Town.
Staff first became aware of this on March 2nd when the payment was not received,.
On March 5, 2018, the Town received a grant payment from Larimer County of
$2,037,892. If this payment would have been received 5 days earlier, the Town could
have recognized this grant receivable as revenue and the ending 2017 General Fund
fund balance ratio would have been 25%. The non-compliance is due to this one-
week timing difference.
The current fund balance as of the date of this report is 25% and is in compliance
with Board policy.
3.3.6. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Fails to
maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to significant
shortfalls within the Town’s budget.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I must prepare the budget, maintain a
cash reserve ratio as specified in Policy 670.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. The Town Board has adopted and approved a Formal Budget Contingency plan
2. The current cash reserve ratio is 2.0 or greater
Evidence:
1. The current cash reserve ratio is in compliance with Policy 670
2. Cash ratio reserve reports as supplied to the Board on a monthly basis
Report: I report compliance
3.3.7. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
provide for an annual audit.
7
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I must ensure that the Town completes
an independent audit annually. Further, that there are no comments in the annual audit
that raise the question of insufficient controls.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The audit is complete and presented to the Town Board.
Evidence:
1. The 2016 Audit has been completed and the CAFR prepared and submitted to
the State of Colorado.
2. The internal controls are sufficient to properly account for the financial activity of
the Town. The 2016 audit had included a few comments related to controls but
none required the auditors to modify their opinion. The most significant
comment is related to one invoice for $3,220.53 that had been included as grant
eligible when it was later discovered it was not grant eligible. This was caught by
staff during regular grant review and brought to the auditor’s attention. Staff have
been working to address the comments made but due to staff turnover, some of
the minor comments may continue into 2017.
3. Work will begin on the 2017 audit shortly
Report: I report compliance
3.3.8. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the current
or future bond ratings of the Town.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot take any action that will result
any negative impact on the Town’s bond rating. This includes, maintaining adequate fund
balances as required in 3.3.5 and maintaining adequate bond coverage ratios for all
revenue bonds associated with the Town’s enterprise funds.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. I am only in partial compliance with 3.3.5
2. Required bond coverage ratios are met.
Evidence:
1. The estimate is $3,005,617 for the final 2017 fund balance (fund balance ratio of
approximately 15% of 2017 General Fund expenditures) The general fund balance
as of the date of this report is 25% and is in compliance with Board policy. (see
explanation in 3.3.5 above)
2. The required Bond coverage ratio for L&P is 125% and for Water is 110%. Our
current coverage for the L&P Bonds exceeds both of these ratios.
Report: I report partial compliance
8
3.3.9. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which results in new
positions to staffing levels without specific approval of the Board of Town
Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve positions funded by
grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in addition
to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing
budgeted funds are allocated.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot allow any new positions or
expansion of any part-time positions to be advertised or filled without prior Board
approval. I may allow the reduction in staffing without Board approval and any positions
or partial positions funded by grants or any temporary positions for which existing
budgeted funds are allocated may be filled without prior approval of the Board.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
No new positions or expansion of positions are approved and hired without approval of
the board, with the exceptions noted above.
Evidence:
1. All positions are indicated in the adopted and proposed budgets and no
unapproved positions are shown.
Report: I report compliance
The Town Administrator shall have an Emergency Preparedness Process
in place for coordination of all emergency management partners –
Federal, State, and local governments, voluntary disaster relief
organizations, and the private sector to meet basic human needs and
restore essential government services following a disaster.
3.7.1 The Town Administrator shall be responsible for the assigned
responsibilities identified in the Town of Estes Park Emergency
Operations Plan
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the Town has adopted and kept current
an Emergency Operations Plan that covers multiple possible emergency situations and
outlines the roles and responsibilities of Town staff during an emergency. These roles are
congruent with the standards of the National Incident Management System process or
NIMS. Key staff has all had basic NIMS training.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. The Town has a current up to date Emergency Operations Plan
2. Key staff are NIMS 100 trained.
Evidence:
9
1. The Town has a current Emergency Operations Plan
2. All key staff have completed NIMS 100 training.
Report: I report compliance
.
3.7.2 The Town Administrator shall not fail to have a business continuity plan
for the Town.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the Town has adopted a business
continuity plan for the Town operations
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. The Town has a business continuity plan.
Evidence:
1. The existence of the Town Business Continuity Plan
Report: I report compliance
.
3.7.3 In the event of an emergency, the Town Administrator shall not fail to
take appropriate action immediately to ensure the safety of the public
and public and private assets, including authorizing specific actions by
Town staff and declaring an emergency on behalf of the Board of Town
Trustees
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that in the event of an emergency, I have
taken appropriate steps to respond to the emergency, as outlined in, but limited to, those
responsibilities in the Town Emergency Operations Plan.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. During an emergency, I ensure that we follow the Emergency Operations Plan and
standard NIMS procedures in implementing our response.
2. Recovery efforts are in compliance with all state and federal requirements for aid
and reimbursements.
Evidence:
1. Thankfully, we have had no emergency situations at a level requiring
implementation of the NIMS or the EOC, therefore there is no evidence for this
reporting period.
Report: I report compliance
.
10
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 27, 2018
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 27th day March, 2018.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Rex Walker
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Mayor Jirsa called the regular 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 (Nelson/Walker)to approve the Agenda,and it passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Dick Spellman/Town citizen stated Larimer County Commissioner Tom Donnelly would
discuss Comprehensive Plans at his monthly meeting on April 11, 2018. He encouraged
the Town Board and staff to attend the meeting to learn more about the process because
of the need to revise the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS
Mayor Jirsa reminded and encouraged all Town citizens to vote their mail ballots for the
Regular Municipal Election on April 3, 2018.
Trustee Norris reminded the public of the upcoming Family Advisory Board meeting on
April 5, 2018. The Mayor and Board would proclaim the April as the Month of the Young
Child at an event sponsored by EVICS on April 7, 2018. The Estes Valley Planning
Commission held their month meeting on March 20, 2018. He noted staff has begun to
implement additional public outreach for code changes and land use applications.
Trustee Walker commended the Park R-3 School District for their handling of the recent
school walkout related to gun violence.
Trustee Holcomb stated Visit Estes Park would meet on March 18, 2018.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
The Brodie Avenue improvement project would be delay because the Safe Routes to
School grant funds would not be received until June. The terms of the grant do not allow
the Town to seek bids until after the grant has been signed and received. This would
push the project timeline to the beginning of school in the fall of 2018. Staff recommended
delaying the project until the summer of 2019 to avoid conflicts and interruptions with the
flow of traffic to the schools.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated March 13, 2018 and Study Session dated March 13,
2018.DRAFTTemTem
at at 7:007:0 p.mp.and all desall des
/Walker/Walke ))to approve pprove the
stated Larimer County Cstated Larimer Cou
PlansPlans at his monthly meetiat his monthly me
aff to attend the meeting taff to attend the meeting t
e the Estes Valley CompreEstes Valley Compre
D COMMENTSD COMMENT
DRreminded and encouragereminded and encourage
nicipal Election on Aprilnicipal Election on
minded the pminded the
Mayor aMayor a
nsns
Board of Trustees –March 27, 2018 –Page 2
2. Bills.
3.Committee Minutes –None.
4. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated February 15, 2018 (acknowledgement only).
5. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated February 21, 2018
(acknowledgement only).
6.Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated January 16, 2018 and February
20, 2018 (acknowledgement only).
7. July 4, 2018 Fireworks Agreement, Tri-State Fireworks, Inc., $35,000, Budgeted.
8. Mobile Stage Purchase, Stageline Mobile Stages, $142,040, Budgeted.
9. Extension of Agreement to Operate Water System with Prospect Mountain Water
Company Inc.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Walker)to approve the Consent Agenda,
and it passed unanimously.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. AMENDED PUD, AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DP 2017-09, AND
AMENDED PRELIMINARY CONDO MAP,Fall River Village II, 200 Block
of Sunny Acres Court. Requested continuance to April 10, 2018.
B. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL TOWNHOME PLAT,Stanley Avenue
Townhomes, 260 Stanley Avenue, Michael R. & Cynthia A.
Kingswood/Owners. Requested continuance to May 8, 2018.
C. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #7,The Meadow Condominiums,
2746 & 2752 Kiowa Trail, Marys Meadow Development, LLC/Owner.
D. AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #1,Stone Bridge
Estates, 1147 Fish Creek Road, N.C. Wilson, LLC/Owner.
E. AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #11,Stone Bridge
Estates, 1145 Fish Creek Road, Kingswood Homes Inc./Owner.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris)to approve the Planning
Commission Consent Agenda, and it passed unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
A. APPEAL, GRAND ESTATES APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN,
FNPKROPP REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC.Director Hunt reviewed
the appeal of Estes Valley Planning Commission decision to deny
Development Plan 2017-10 during their February 20, 2018 because of the
potential significant traffic and parking risks associated with the development,
concerns of the neighbors, and establishing a precedent with unknown
consequences. The plan would develop 16 units on a .95-acre lot zoned RM,
Residential Multi-Family. The developer would utilize the density bonus in
the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to build eight market rate units
and eight workforce housing units. The plan provides for 36 parking space,
meeting the code requirement. Staff would recommend “No Parking” signs
be erected in the 500 block of Grand Estates to prevent on-street parking
along the narrow roadway. The developer has requested a minor
modification to reduce setbacks from 10 feet to 7.5 feet. He addressed the
density concern raised by the neighbors stating the proposed development
would be less dense than the neighboring condominium development.
Director Hunt stated a density bonus through the EVDC would be an incentive
and not a waiver per Section 11 of the code. No variances were granted for DRDRRAFTVELOPMENT PLAN DP VELOPMENT PLAN DP FTNDO MAPNDO MAP,,Fall River VilFalFTestedcontinuance to Apricontinuan
FINAL TOWNHOME PFINAL TOWNHOME
AFAFStanley Avenue, nley Avenue, Mich
R.Requestesteded continuancecontinuance
RATAL CONDOMINIU
RARA2 Kiowa Trai ys M
DRSUPPLEMENTAL
DRDRates, 1147 Fish Cr
DRAMENDED SUPPLEMDDEstate5Fis
moved andmoved and
on Coon Co
Board of Trustees –March 27, 2018 –Page 3
the project with the exception of the minor modification. The subdivision of
the property would allow the developer to obtain a residential loan rather than
a commercial loan for the development of the property and reduce the cost to
develop the additional workforce housing units. The subdivision would be a
discretionary matter for the Town Board. He noted every other element of
the Development Plan has met the standards of the EVDC.
Fred Kropp/Developer stated the project was proposed because he saw a
need for workforce housing in the valley. He currently houses seasonal staff
and traveling nurses at his accommodations. The lease agreements for each
unit would outline two parking spaces per unit. He stated the property would
be subdivided into four lots for financial reasons in order to develop the
property.
Those speaking against the appeal included Carol Prince/Town citizen, Trish
Kuschel/Town citizen, Jane Rutledge/Town citizen, Gordon Slack/Town
ciltizen, Melody Harwood/Town citizen, Johanna Darden/Town citizen, and
Larry Seckman/Town citizen. Comments were heard on the impact to the
safety of the current residents, the decrease in quality of life, and the negative
impact on property values. Concern was raised on the confusing and
incomplete code language for workforce housing in the EVDC. The code
issues should be addressed before moving forward with a development.
Those speaking also stated concern with the lack of parking for the project,
drainage on to neighboring properties, and the lack of control for the
workforce housing units.
Naomi Hawf/Estes Park Housing Authority Executive Director stated support
for the project and the additional workforce housing units it would provide the
community.
Greg Coffman/Attorney representing the applicant stated the motion to deny
the development did not outline any code deficiencies, rather the denial
outlined concerns related to parking and public opposition. The parking
provided in the plan meets the minimum requirements of the EVDC. He
stated a majority of the individuals living in workforce housing do not have
cars and utilize bikes and public transportation. The development provides
convenient access to a bike trail and public transportation.
Town Board comments and questions were heard and summarized: the
project meets the EVDC; the density of the development would be similar to
the surrounding neighborhood and would provide needed workforce housing;
parking concerns would be addressed by marking and assigning parking; “No
Parking” signs would be placed on Grand Estates to address concerns raised
by the neighbors; during construction “No Parking”signs would be placed and
additional police patrols would occur; the covenants would not allow vacation
home rentals for all 16 units; questioned if the landscaping islands could be
waived by the Board to provide additional parking spaces for the
development; concern raised with fire apparatus access to the property; the
Board should place a priority on monitoring the roadway and a priority to
improve the roadway; and the Town has adopted the EVDC, the rule of law,
outlining what can be done by the developer.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Jirsa) to approve the Grand
Estates Apartments Development Plan (DP 2017-10), along with the
associated minor modification request for reduced side setbacks, on
appeal from the Planning Commission’s denial of same on February 20,
2018, finding that the Development Plan meets the Estes Valley
Development Code’s requirements for approval per EVDC Chapter 3
(Review Procedures and Standards), and it was passed with Trustee
Walker recusing himself due to ex parte communication on the project.DRAFTarar
heard oheard
quality of lifequality
raised on the raised o
housing in the housing in the EVDC
moving forward with a demoving forward with
with the lack of parking fwith the lack of parking
perties, and the perties, and th lack ofof
ousing Authority Executivousing Authority Exec
dditional workforce housintional workforce housin
Attorney representing the Attorney representing
ment did not outline any ment did not outline an
oncerns related to parkinncerns related to parkin
d in the plan meets the he plan meets the
d a majority of the individd a majority of the
rs and utilize bikes and prs and utilize bikes and
convenient access to a biconvenient access to a bi
wn Bwn Board oa commecomm
ct meets the ct meets the
oundingounding
ncnc
Board of Trustees –March 27, 2018 –Page 4
B. GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS MINOR SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY
AND FINAL PLAT,507 Grand Estates Drive, FNPKOPP Real Estate
Investments, LLC. Planner Woeber reviewed the application stating the
current .95-acre lot would be divided into four lots. Utility and drainage
easements are proposed to be reconfigured and dedicated with the plat.
Cross-access easements are indicated for shared parking across all four lots.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen questioned if the 15-foot spaces between
buildings would be grass or concrete, and would the open space be paved
over space or designated space for landscaping. She encouraged the
developer to utilize all 16 units as workforce housing with individuals working
40 hours per week.
Planner Woeber stated the open space would include all non-developed
areas. The areas between the buildings has been proposed as natural area
and not concrete.
It was moved and seconded (Martchink/Norris)to approve Grand Estates
Apartments Minor Subdivision, Preliminary Plat and Final Plat, 507
Grand Estates Drive, and revise the General Note 4 to read: Lots 1 thru
4 are subject to cross parking/access and drainage easements for the
subdivision,and it passed with Trustee Walker recusing himself due to ex
parte communication on the project.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ESTES VALLEY FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT REGARDING IMPACT FEES.Town Administrator
Lancaster stated the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and the
Estes Valley Fire Protection District would allow the Town to collect the District’s
newly adopted impact fees during the normal development process. The fees
collected would be remitted to the District. This process would allow the
customer to pay all associated development fees in one transaction. The
agreement outlines the Town’s ability to collect up to a 5% administrative fee to
recover staff cost. It was moved and seconded (Walker/Holcomb)to approve
the Intergovernmental Agreement with the Estes Valley Fire Protection
District regarding Impact Fees, and it passed unanimously.
Mayor Jirsa called a break at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
2. RESOLUTION #07-18 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS TO
THE 2018 BUDGET.Director Hudson presented the Resolution to reapproriate
2017 funds to the 2018 budget to complete purchases, contracts or projects in
progress but not completed by the end of the fiscal year in 2017. The project
balances were not committed to a purchase order or contract by the end of the
year. Some projects had grants associated with the project which require
rollovers into the 2018 budget to pay for project costs. It was moved and
seconded (Holcomb/Martchink)to approve Resolution #07-18,and it passed
unanimously.
3. POLICY 901 –UTILITY FEE WAIVERS.Utilities Coord. Rusch reviewed the
proposed policy to standardized the method used for water tap and electric
connection fee waiver requests. The policy outlines no fee waiver requests for
utilities would be considered by staff or the Town Board. Utility fee subsidies
could be considered by the Town Board for eligible projects for workforce
housing, childcare facilities, or facilities for organizations providing low-income
health and human services.
Board discussion followed and concerns raised on the need for the policy and
the specificity outlined for the subsidies because the needs could change in the
future; all requests should be considered by the Town Board and provide the
Board the authority to waive fees through the General Fund at the Board’sDRAFTo appro app
y Plat andy Plat
ral Note 4 to rearal Note 4
and drainage easemeand drainage e
ee Walker recusing himseee Walker recusing h
GREEMENT WITH THE GREEMENT WITH T
AFREGARDING IMPACT FGARDING IMPACT FAFergovernmental Agreemernmental Agreem
ection District would allowection District would allow
act fees during the normaact fees during the
be remitted to be remitted the Disthe D
pay all associated develay all associated devel
outlines the Town’s abilitynes the Town’s ability
taff cost. taff cos IIt was t was moved a
ntergovernmental Agreentergovernmental Agr
trict regarding Impact Ftrict regarding Impact F
Jirsa called a breJirsa called a br
ON #0ON #0DDD
Board of Trustees –March 27, 2018 –Page 5
discretion; and a review of Section 3.a. of the policy to waive fees should be
reviewed.
The Board requested the policy be redrafted to address the concerns raised by
the Board.
4. MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE APPOINTMENT.The Town was informed earlier
in the year of Municipal Judge Brown’s retirement after 24 years of service. The
Town issued an RFP for contract services at the end of January and received 19
applications. Staff and Attorney White reviewed the applications and narrowed
the candidates to three which were interviewed on March 14, 2018. The
interview team of Mayor Jirsa, Trustee Holcomb and Trustee Walker stated all
three candidates were highly professional, qualified and able to perform the
position. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded
(Walker/Holcomb)to approve the recommendation of the appointment of
David Thrower as the Municipal Court Judge and Teresa Ablao as the
Assistant Municipal Court Judge to the newly seated Board on April 24,
2018, and it passed unanimously.
5. ORDINANCE #04-18 AMEND ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
2.08.010 COMMITTEES TO SUNSET THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT/COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE AND THE PUBLIC
SAFETY/UTILITIES/PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE.Town Board Policy 102 –
Town Committees set a sunset review schedule for all non-statutorily required
Town Committees every five years. The Community Development/Community
Services and Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee are scheduled
for a sunset review in March. In 2017 the Board revised the procedures for the
Committee agendas which limited the items to come forward, and therefore, a
number of the Committee meetings have been cancelled in the past year. Staff
recommended the sunset of both Committees with the approval of Ordinance
#04-18. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Walker)to approve
Ordinance #04-18, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 9:48 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
tete
MUNICIPAL COMUNICIPTNSET THE CNSET THE
FTS COMMITTEE AND THS COMMITTEE AN
FTCOMMITTEE.COMMITTE Town Boarn Boa
FTw schw schedule for all nonedule for -stst
s. The Community Develhe Commun
ies and Public Works Comies and Public W
In 2017 the Board reviseIn 2017 the Board rev
limited the items to commited the items to com
e meetings have been caings have been ca
nset of both Committeesnset of both Committees
moved and secondedmoved and seco
1818, and , and it passed unanimot passed unani
or Jiror Jirsa adjourned the meesa adjourned
12
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 1, 2018
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Family Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Room 203 of the Estes Park Town Hall on
the 1st day of March, 2018.
Present: Laurie Dale Marshall
Karen Randinitis
Nancy Almond
Courtney Hill
Bin Greer
Jodi Roman
Marion Stallworth
Susan Strom
Also Ron Norris, Town Board Liaison
Present: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Absent: Maria Jimenez
John Bryant
Rachel Balduzzi
Chair Greer called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Member Jodi Roman, as a public citizen, commented that the new Estes Valley
Community Center fees are too high for some families. She feels it necessary to get
something in place that allows for reduced fees for families that need them. Member
Marshall stated this is in process, with the development of a Foundation offering
scholarships. She also clarified that some aspects of the center are free (walking tracks,
lower area, etc.). The fees in place are needed for cost recovery. Assistant Town
Administrator Machalek will contact the Recreation District and bring information on
available resources to the next regular meeting.
Member Marshall reported that three members of the FAB are participating in the
League of Women Voters Child Care forum.
13
Family Advisory Board – March 1, 2018 – Page 2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved and seconded (Almond/Marshall) to approve the February 1, 2018
meeting minutes with the amendment recognizing the attendance of Member Stallworth
and the motion passed unanimously.
TRUSTEE LIAISON REPORT
Trustee Norris reported that the Town Board decision regarding use of 220 4th Street
(previously the Senior Center) was made after an extensive review of the proposals and
a deep dive into potential legal ramifications, etc. It was determined the risk was too
high to award use of this property as a childcare center. He further stated that there are
a number of other things that the Town can consider moving forward to catalyze
childcare in the Estes Valley (utilize town property, reduce code restrictions, etc.).
Norris briefly discussed the Workforce Housing project stating that the project is moving
forward. This location will be a mix of multi-family and residential homes. An Exclusive
Right to Negotiate contract has been executed with AmericaWest. Further actions are a
few months out and an update will likely not be publicized until Q3 or Q4. For this
project, the consultant has taken childcare into consideration. Developers are taking
note to capture childcare needs as best they can. Although there is no requirement, a
childcare facility will be very much encouraged. The Dry Gulch Workforce Housing
project will likely be pursued prior to Fish Hatchery due to the smaller size.
Member Almond asked if workforce housing is the same as affordable housing mixed
with attainable. Norris stated that is not how workforce housing is being established.
Almond requested a definition of workforce housing, attainable housing and affordable
housing. Machalek will gather land use code information for distribution to the board.
Member Randinitis asked if the FAB has the ability to recommend childcare be required
for large development projects. Norris stated that, as a recommending board, it would
be an appropriate request. He suggested the board explore modifications to existing
procurement methods & policies to list this requirement. Norris will help in the
development of this proposal.
Member Almond questioned why the Town would even consider additional housing with
no childcare and asked about mandating that childcare be part of all future workforce
housing projects as additional housing without childcare would only exacerbate the
14
Family Advisory Board – March 1, 2018 – Page 3
childcare problem. Member Hill clarified that the addition of childcare with this type of
housing would undoubtedly increase the cost of the housing.
Machalek explained that under current regulations, the Town would only be able to
mandate childcare for projects built on Town-owned property. Member Almond stated
that if it’s Town property, the Town should open the childcare center and pay for it.
It was stated that Breckenridge has made significant headway in this area. Chair Greer
stated that Breckenridge is not comparable to Estes Park. Local opportunities to hear
presentations from other communities who have been working to address this problem
would be beneficial for the community. Machalek has seen the Town of Breckenridge’s
presentation on how they have begun to address the childcare problem and feels it
should be viewed with other childcare groups (EDC, EVICS, FAB, Housing Authority,
School, Town Board, Families for Estes, etc.). This would likely not take place until Q3
and would require 25 to 50 attendees. If other agencies are interested and the FAB
wants to bring the presentation to Town, Machalek will reach out to Breckenridge.
With ten Trustee candidates on the ballot, Norris encouraged members to individually
advocate for the individual they feel is best for the position. There are several candidate
forums with question and answer sessions. Norris also stated that members are
welcome to come to the upcoming Town Board meetings to state opinion of what you
want to see in the new candidates.
OVERVIEW OF CHILDCARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Member Almond distributed copies of the Executive Summary for the Childcare Needs
Assessment to members, with Machalek offering to print copies of the full assessment
for any member who might want one.
Almond wanted to discuss a few highlights that stood out for her. Additional information
can be found on EDC website. Almond stated that of the 363 parents of children under
13, 50 responded in Spanish. She feels this was an excellent response rate, but that the
Hispanic community was under-represented.
Related to the section on parent preferences, Almond stated that the factor shown most
important when selecting a childcare provider is trust. Almond found it interesting that
this factor came in as a higher priority than availability or cost and was expecting
something different.
15
Family Advisory Board – March 1, 2018 – Page 4
The assessment also showed that 70% of parents indicated that if they could change
something about their childcare option, they would. A variety of reasons were listed with
hours of childcare operations and weekend care being two major issues. With some
obvious overlap in reporting, the assessment also indicated that 60% were satisfied.
Chair Greer stated that this does not highlight the fact that many parents are required to
work long hours due to cost of housing and childcare. This is systemic issue and is
significantly contributing to the childcare issue. Later hours and weekend availability
would not be such a large problem if the root of the problem was corrected.
Almond described the existing state of childcare in Estes Park, indicating that the data
reflects there are 104 slots for children in licensed full-day care consisting of two
childcare centers and six home providers. At this time it shows there are 12 children on
a wait list, all of which are infants and toddlers under age 2 ½. Almond stated that
although this was the data captured in the study, she believes that there are more
children that are not represented.
Member Marshall impressed upon the group the importance of brain development in the
early years. Schools are seeing the impacts of high stress lives. Kids do not just
develop themselves. It is imperative that they receive quality care and an incredible
amount of research supports this statement. Marshall also indicated that on April 18 at
6:00 pm, there will be a Brain Architecture Game at the Library. Norris suggested the
Trustees be invited for fun and additional insight.
The assessment also indicates that absenteeism due to childcare issues has some
impact on 85% of employers and, for 60% of employers causes a loss of employee.
Future hiring is dependent on childcare. Based on the hospitals projections, 90 babies
will be born in Estes Park in 2018 and another 90 in 2019.
There are several recommendations stemming from the assessment that the FAB
should review and consider. Norris reminded members that not all the
recommendations are actionable.
There will be a Childcare Services Steering Committee created with a variety of
individuals. Town Board Trustee Patrick Martchink has already volunteered to be a
member of the steering committee. When making recommendations, Member Roman
16
Family Advisory Board – March 1, 2018 – Page 5
highlighted three major childcare concerns the committee needs to keep in mind –
infant/toddler care, better hours, and affordability.
Member Stallworth stressed the importance of the committee to determine what the
high priority action items are so that appropriate leaders can be appointed.
SUMMARY OF FEB. 13, 2018 TOWN BOARD MEETING
Machalek summarized the Town Board’s decision to select Museum Storage as the use
for 220 4th Street (former Senior Center). He also indicated that the Town will be looking
at potential code changes to catalyze childcare.
Chair Greer asked if all data was considered and mulled over prior to a decision when in
the Executive Session. Norris indicated there was considerable review of all the
information. Greer commented that it is difficult to know how decisions are reached
when the Executive Session is not open to the public.
Although unable to discuss the specifics coming out of the Executive Sessions, Norris
reiterated that the Trustees thoroughly reviewed and researched information on behalf
of all parties. Member Almond stated she never got an answer why one Trustee
‘respectfully disagreed’ with the determination yet the same decision was made. Norris
stated that, with regard to mitigating risks, all Trustees came to the same conclusion.
Almond stated the Town should send a positive message for childcare and provide
better communication about the Museum storage use and how it was deemed to fit the
deed restriction
DISCUSSION OF APPLICABLE POLICIES & DOCUMENTS
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek reviewed highlights of Town of Estes Park
Policy 102 – Town Committees. The primary focus was on page 4 of this policy wherein
it provides definition of the role of an advisory board. He also answered a question that
came up at the February FAB meeting by clarifying that the FAB, as a Town Advisory
Board, cannot endorse candidates. This does not impact what each member does as an
individual, as long as opinions or statements are not represented as those of the Town
or the FAB.
17
Family Advisory Board – March 1, 2018 – Page 6
OTHER BUSINESS
Member Stallworth notified the FAB that when her term expires in April, she will not
reapply due to her work schedule. Member Roman expressed her intent to reapply and
it was reported that Member Balduzzi has expressed that intent as well.
With no other business to discuss, Chair Greer adjourned the meeting at 5:23 p.m.
18
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
March 6, 2018 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Wayne Newsom, Vice-Chair John Lynch, Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau,
Rex Poggenpohl
Attending: Members Newsom, Lynch, Smith, Moreau, and Poggenpohl
Also Attend ing: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner I Robin Becker,
Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: None
Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were six people in
attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff.
1. AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Poggehpohl/Smith) to approved the agenda as
presented and the motion passed unanimously.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes dated December 5, 2017
Approval of minutes dated November 7, 2017
It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Smith) to approve the minutes for December 5
and November 7 as presented and both motions passed unanimously.
4. 3265 Eiger Trail, Lot 8, Block 3, Windcliff Estates 5th
Planner Becker reviewed the staff report. The variance request is to allow a 2-foot
setback in lieu of the 25-foot required setback in the E-1 (Estate 1) zone district. The E-1
district required 25-foot setbacks on all sides. The applicant desires allow and existing
building to remain and adjust an existing setback to allow for further addition.
Planner Becker reviewed the staff findings. The application was routed to affected
agencies. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper and adjacent property
owners were notified by mail. There were no public comments received. Staff
recommends approval of the variance with no conditions.
Staff and Member Discussion
There was brief discussion regarding the lot size and the result of the variance, and the
history of zoning in Windcliff Estates. It was noted that the Setback is on the East side of
property.
19
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
March 6, 2018
Lonnie Sheldon from Van Horn Engineering was available for questions.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Popggenpohl) to approve the requested
variance, adding the East Setback to the description, with findings recommended
by staff, and the motion passed unanimously.
5. 351 Prospector Drive, Lot 34, Black Canyon Hills Addition
Planner Becker reviewed the staff report. The variance request is to allow a 9.2-foot
setback on the north side of property and an 18.7-foot setback on the south side of
property in lieu of the 25-foot required setback in the E-1 zone district. The E-1 district
required 25-foot setbacks on all sides. The applicant desires allow and existing building to
remain and adjust an existing setback to allow for further addition.
Planner Becker reviewed the staff findings. The application was routed to affected
agencies. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper and adjacent property
owners were notified by mail. There was one public comment received regarding the
distance of new deck in relation to his property.
Applicant David Margheim was available for questions.
Board recommends approval with the condition of redesigning the deck on the north side
so it does not encroach into the neighbor’s property.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Poggenpohl) to approve the variance from the
EVDC approving 18.7 foot set back variance on the south side of property and 13.7
foot setback variance on the north side of property and construct the deck to
remain parallel to the property line and the motion passed unanimously.
6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2018
Board nominated Rex Poggenpohl as Chairman. It was moved and seconded
(Smith/Lynch). Board nominated Jeff Moreau as Vice Chair. It was moved and
seconded (Smith/Newsom). Both motions passed unanimously.
7. REPORTS
1. Director Hunt reported that there is an active interview process for Planner II position,
beginning March 15
2. Director Hunt noted that there is hope of a Comprehensive Plan update. The Board of
Adjustment may be asked for advice and counsel. Members Poggenpohl and Moreau
volunteered to help.
3. Board member Smith requested the addition of the legal notices to packets.
4. Director Hunt mentioned that there is a Code Amendment working its way to the
Planning Commission to expand the perimeter of neighbor notifications and signage at
project sites.
20
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
March 6, 2018
There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:43 a.m.
___________________________________
Rex Poggenpohl, Chair
__________________________________
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
21
22
COMMUNITY SERVICES Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Rob Hinkle, Community Services Director
Date: April 10, 2018
RE: Events Division - Events Complex Arenas 1-3 Footing Renovation
Objective:
To approve the budgeted renovation of arenas 1-3 for the Events Division of the
Community Services Department.
Present Situation:
Arenas 1-3 were damaged last year by a heavy wind storm. Renovation will include
work on the drainage, grading and footing depth. The current footing depth varies from
1-3 inches and needs to be a consistent 3 inches. An invitation for bids for this project
closed on March 28, 2018. We received two bids for the Footing Renovation.
Proposal:
The most qualified bid is from Left Hand Excavating for $124,991.50. This is in the
Capital Projects budget for 2018.
Advantages:
● The footing renovation is needed before the horse show season starts this
summer for the safety of the horses and riders.
● This will also help improve the drainage of the arenas, allowing shows to
continue through inclement weather.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Town Board approval of the agreement for the renovation of Arenas 1-3 by Left Hand
Excavating.
Finance/Resource Impact:
The budgeted amount is $125,000, Account 101-5500-455-32-22
23
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of the agreement for the renovation of Arenas 1-3 by Left
Hand Excavating.
Attachments:
Construction Agreement
24
TOWN OF ESTES
PARK CONSTRUCTION
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is effective as of the _____________, 2018 by and between the Town of
Estes Park, a body corporate and politic, P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado,
80517, (hereinafter called OWNER) and Left Hand Excavating (hereinafter called CONTRACTOR).
OWNER and CONTRACTOR, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as
follows:
Article 1. WORK
CONTRACTOR shall complete all Work as specified or indicated in the Contract Documents. The
Work is generally described as follows:
Estes Park Events Complex Arena
Full Footing renovation of Arenas 1-3 (570x270)
Current average footing depth of approximately 3 inches to base
and low areas with a depth of 1 inch.
Currently the Arena slopes South to the Northeast
Contract Description:
The proposed work for the renovation are to include:
Base Bid
Estes Park Events Complex Arena Footing Renovation
Design a renovation plan that includes:
Drainage and Grading Plan
Footing Depth of at least 3 inches (rock free)
Use of existing materials and/or new materials
Will be suitable for various events including, but not limited to:
-Horse Shows on the Flat
-Hunter/Jumper Events
-Dressage
Construct renovation plan
25
Article 2. CONTRACT TIME
Prompt completion of the work is essential to the Owner. Time is of material importance in all respects
regarding the Work. Contractor shall carry out construction of the project with all due diligence.
Completion of the Work shall be achieved not later than 30 business days from the date of the Notice to
Proceed. The Work must be finally completed by June 15, 2018, and ready for final payment in
accordance with the General Conditions subject to applicable laws regarding final payment.
The date of beginning and the time for completion of the Work are essential conditions of the Contract
Documents. The contractor will proceed with the Work at such rate of progress to insure full completion
within the Contract Time.
Article 3. CONTRACTOR PRICE
OWNER shall pay the CONTRACTOR for completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract
Documents in current funds in the amount stated in the CONTRACTOR’s Bid (Estimate) dated March
28, 2018, and modified by all approved change orders.
Article 4. TAXES
This Project is tax exempt. The Contractor and any Subcontractor shall exclude all sales and use taxes
administered by the State of Colorado from the bid amount submitted arising out of such purchase, if
any, by the Contractor and any Subcontractor of any tangible personal property to be built into the Work
by the Owner. (CRS Title 39, Page 547, #39-26-708). The purchase or rental of equipment,
supplies, and other materials by the contractor is taxable.
Article 5. FINAL PAYMENT
Upon final completion and acceptance of the Work in accordance with the General Conditions, OWNER
shall pay the CONTRACTOR the Contract Price.
Article 6. INTEREST
All moneys not paid when due shall bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum.
Article 7. CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIONS
In order to induce OWNER to enter into this Agreement, CONTRACTOR makes the following
representations:
26
7.1 CONTRACTOR has examined and carefully studied the Contract Documents (including any
Addenda(s)) and the other related data identified in the Bidding Documents including "technical
data".
7.2 CONTRACTOR has reviewed the site and become familiar with and is satisfied as to the
general, local and site conditions that may affect cost, progress, performance or furnishing the
Work.
7.3 CONTRACTOR acknowledges it knows, understands, and accepts all plans, specifications, and
design intent of the Work.
7.4 CONTRACTOR acknowledges it has met with the Project Manager and has been in
correspondence with the Project Manager and has sought and received clarification of all issues
concerning construction and design.
7.5 CONTRACTOR assumes full responsibility and obligation for high quality workmanship and
timely completion of this project.
7.6 CONTRACTOR understands that it may make on-site layout and grading and construction
modifications to achieve the desired intent. Such modifications/grading changes and layout cost
are already included in the Contract Documents.
7.7 CONTRACTOR understands and acknowledges that this Agreement is a performance based
Agreement with a maximum amount of $124,250.00 that shall not be exceeded or increased,
except for contract changes allowed and agreed to by approved change order.
7.8 CONTRACTOR will work cooperatively with the PROJECT MANAGER to mutually achieve a
final product acceptable to OWNER.
7.9 CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the OWNER from all damages, claims,
and judgements whatsoever (including costs, legal fees, and expenses incurred by the OWNER
related to such damages or claims) to the OWNER or claimed by third parties against the
OWNER to the extent of CONTRACTOR’S negligent performance or any of the requirements,
provisions, or services furnished under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall not be obligated
to indemnify, save and hold harmless OWNER for that portion of any claims to the extent
resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of the OWNER. Neither party shall be liable
for any incidental, indirect, special, punitive or consequential damages (including without
limitation any damages relating to the lost profits, revenue or loss of use) arising in connection
with this Agreement.
7.10 CONTRACTOR has obtained and carefully studied (or assumes responsibility for obtaining
and carefully studying) all examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies
which pertain to the subsurface or physical conditions at or contiguous to the site or otherwise
27
may affect the cost, progress, performance or furnishing of the Work as CONTRACTOR
considers necessary for the performance of furnishing the Work at the Contract Price, within
the Contract Time and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract
Documents; and no additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies
or similar information or data are or will be required by the CONTRACTOR for such purposes.
7.11 CONTRACTOR has reviewed and checked all information and data shown or indicated on the
Contract Documents with respect to existing underground facilities at or contiguous to the site
and assumes responsibility for the accurate location of said underground facilities. No
additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies or similar
information or data in respect of said underground facilities are or will be required by
CONTRACTOR in order to perform and furnish the Work at the Contract Price, within the
Contract Time and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract
Documents, including specifically the provisions of the General Conditions.
7.12 CONTRACTOR has correlated the results of all such observations, examinations,
investigations, tests, reports, and data with the terms and conditions of the Contract
Documents.
7.13 CONTRACTOR has given PROJECT MANAGER written notice of all conflicts, errors,
or discrepancies that he has discovered in the Contract Documents and the written
resolution thereof by PROJECT MANAGER is acceptable to CONTRACTOR.
7.14 The person executing this Contract for CONTRACTOR has full authority to bind the
CONTRACTOR to all the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents.
Article 8. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
The Contract Documents which comprise the entire agreement between OWNER and CONTRACTOR
concerning the Work, may consist of all, or some, of the following:
8.1 This Agreement
8.2 Exhibits to this Agreement. (none given)
8.3 Notice to Proceed.
8.4 All written specifications.
8.5 General Conditions.
8.6 Contractor’s Bid. (Bid Proposal dated 3-28-2018)
There are no Contract Documents other than those listed above. The Contract Documents may
only be amended, modified, or supplemented as provided in the General Conditions.
In case of conflicting provisions, requirements or discrepancies the order of application of the Contract
Documents is as follows:
28
1. Change Orders
2. This Agreement
3. Addenda
4. Drawings
5. General Conditions
Article 9. MISCELLANEOUS
9.1 Reference to the General Conditions shall include modification thereto by any Supplementary
Conditions issued.
9.2 No assignments by a party hereto of any rights under or interests in the Contract Documents will
be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the party sought to be bound;
and, specifically but without limitation, moneys that may become due and moneys that are due
may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction
may be limited by law), and unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an
assignment no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility
under the Contract Documents.
9.3 Except for the intended beneficiaries of any Payment Bond executed in conjunction with this
Agreement, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits by virtue
of this Agreement to anyone other than OWNER and CONTRACTOR, and all duties and
responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement will be for the sale and exclusive benefit
of OWNER and CONTRACTOR and not for the benefit of any other party.
9.4 OWNER and CONTRACTOR each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal
representatives to the other party hereto, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives
in respect to all covenants, agreements and obligations contained in the Contract Documents.
9.5 In the event of default of any of the provisions of this Agreement by either party which shall
require the party not in default to commence legal actions against the defaulting party, the
defaulting party shall be liable to the non-defaulting party for the non-defaulting party's
reasonable attorney fees and costs, including fees of experts, incurred because of the default.
Additionally, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify the OWNER for legal expenses and costs
incurred by the OWNER by reason of claims filed by suppliers, subcontractors or other parties,
against the retainage held by the OWNER where the OWNER has paid such sums to the
CONTRACTOR.
9.6 The OWNER has appropriated sufficient funds to pay the contract price.
29
9.7 Any provisions or part of the Contract Documents held to be void or unenforceable under any
Law or Regulations shall be deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions shall continue to be
valid and binding upon OWNER and CONTRACTOR, who agree that the Contract Documents
shall be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and enforceable
provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision.
30
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, OWNER and CONTRACTOR have signed this Agreement.
This Agreement will be effective as provided on the first page hereof.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK CONTRACTOR.
By: _
Todd Jirsa
By: _
Title: _
Mayor
Title: _
Address for giving notices: Address for giving notices:
Attn: Town Administrator Left Hand Excavating
170 MacGregor Avenue 3756 Eureka Way
P. O. Box 1200 Frederick, CO 80516
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
31
Town of Estes Park
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: The Contract Documents are the General Conditions, Bid
Proposal, Notice of Award, Contract Agreement, Notice to Proceed and Change Orders, all of which
contain the provisions required for the construction of the Project.
2. CONTRACTOR: The entity with whom the Owner has entered into the Contract, acting directly
or through lawful agents or employees, primarily liable for the performance of the Work.
OWNER: The Owner, The Town of Estes Park, CO.
Deliver all papers required to:
Rob Hinkle, Project Manager
170 MacGregor Avenue
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: (970) 577-3901 / Fax: (970) 586-6909
Email: rhinkle@estes.org
3. WORK: The furnishing of all labor, materials, equipment, and other incidentals necessary and
convenient to the successful completion of the Project. Work also includes the execution of all duties
and obligations imposed by the Contract Documents and the entire completed construction of the various
separate and identifiable parts thereof, required to be furnished under the Contract Documents.
CONTRACTOR
4. The Contractor warrants to the Owner that all materials and equipment incorporated in the Work
will be new unless otherwise specified, and that all Work will be of good quality, free from faults and
defects and in conformance with the Contract Documents and to the satisfaction of the Owner, for one
(1) full year starting from the time of final project acceptance.
5. The Contractor shall be required to remove all debris and excess material generated by the Work.
The final cleanup shall be to the satisfaction of the Owner. The Contractor shall be responsible for
disposal of all debris and excess material to a site furnished by the Contractor and in a sanitary and
environmentally safe manner.
SUPERVISION
32
6. The Contractor will supervise and direct the Work. He will be solely responsible for the means,
methods, techniques, sequences and procedures of construction. The supervisor shall be present on the
33
site at all times as required to perform adequate supervision and coordination of the Work.
PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY
7. The Contractor will be responsible for initiating, maintaining, and supervising all safety
precautions and programs in connection with the Work. They will take all necessary precautions for the
safety of, and will provide the necessary protection to prevent damage, injury or loss to all employees on
the Work and the public who may be affected thereby, all the Work and all the materials or equipment to
be incorporated therein, whether in storage on or off the site, and other property at the site or adjacent
thereto, including pedestrian and vehicular traffic, trees, shrubs, lawns, fences, walks, pavements,
roadways, structures and utilities, shown nor not shown on the plans which are not designated for
removal, relocation or replacement in the course of construction.
8. The Contractor shall provide, erect and maintain all necessary watchmen, flag men, signing,
traffic devices, barricades and sanitary facilities, as required by the conditions and progress of the Work
and all other necessary safeguards for safety and protection, as set forth by the United States Department
of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The Contractor will notify owners and users
of adjacent utilities when prosecution of the Work may affect them. The Contractor shall keep adjacent
highways, streets and private access open to traffic and free of dirt and litter resulting from handling
operations.
SUBCONTRACTS
9. The Contractor may utilize the services of subcontractors on those parts of the Work which,
under normal contracting practices, are performed by specialty subcontractors. If the Contractor
subcontracts the Work, the Owner has the right to review and approve the subcontractor.
10. The Contractor shall be fully responsible to the Owner for the acts and omissions of his
subcontractors, and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by them, as he is for the acts and
omissions of persons directly employed by him. Inconveniences and scheduling delays caused by one
subcontractor on another shall be the responsibility of the General Contractor and not reflect additions to
the contract time.
PERMITS AND LICENSES
11. The contractor shall acquire a Town Business License prior to Notice to Proceed.
TAXES
12. This Project is tax exempt. The Contractor and any Subcontractor shall exclude all sales and use
taxes administered by the State of Colorado from the bid amount submitted arising out of such purchase,
if any, by the Contractor and any Subcontractor of any tangible property to be built into the Work.
34
The purchase or rental of equipment, supplies, and other materials by the contractor is taxable.
CHANGES IN THE WORK
13. The Owner may at any time, as the need arises, order changes within the scope of the Work. If
such changes increase or decrease the amount due under the Contract Documents, or in the time required
for performance of the Work, an equitable adjustment shall be authorized by Change Order. All Change
Orders shall be in writing, executed by the parties and contain the amount of the adjustment in the
contract price or the time required for performance of the Work.
14. All change orders shall be initiated by the Contractor and shall be accompanied by sufficient
documentation to enable the Owner to determine the scope of the changes with regard to the change in
the work, the amount of work required and any necessary change in the completion schedule of the
project. No change orders shall be effective, and no work shall proceed, until such time as it has been
approved and signed by the Owner.
SEMI-FINAL INSPECTION
15. Upon preparation by the Contractor of the final payment request, the Contractor shall advise
the Owner in writing that the Work is substantially complete and request a semi-final inspection be
made in preparation for final acceptance by the Owner. The Owner, upon receipt of written request for
semi-final inspection, shall schedule a Final Walk-through and produce a Punch List of outstanding
items. A written list advising them of any deficiencies, corrective measures or cleanup that they must
complete prior to preparation of the final payment request and final acceptance. (After which time the
warranty may begin.)
FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST, ACCEPTANCE AND RELEASE
16. Upon Completion of the Work the Contractor within ten (10) calendar days thereafter shall: A.
A. Prepare a final payment request, for Owner's approval, showing the total value of the Work
completed in accordance with the Contract Documents and as modified by any Change Orders, less the
value of the following:
(1) Partial payments previously made by the Owner to the Contractor.
(2) Retention of any claims, on file with the Owner, against the Contractor.
(3) Estimated costs completing any incomplete or unsatisfactory items of the Work.
(4) Payments advanced by the Owner, to subcontractors, material and equipment suppliers, or
others, which are known by the Contractor to have been made but not previously accounted for.
35
B. Contractor shall submit in duplicate a signed and notarized affidavit to Owner stating that all
subcontractors, vendors, persons, or firms who have furnished labor or materials for the Work have
been fully paid or satisfactorily secured and that all taxes, if any, have been paid.
C. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event Owner incurs any costs or legal fees related to the
final settlement or payment thereof, or litigation of claims, then all such costs, expenses, expert and
attorney fees shall be withheld from the final payment due the Contractor by Owner and retained by
Owner for reimbursement of same.
D. The Owner shall advise the Contractor by Written Notice that:
(1) The Work has been inspected and accepted by them under the conditions of the Contract
Documents.
(2) The Work, effective the date of the Notice, is placed under Warranty, at the Contractor's
expense for a period of one year, or such other period as called for in the Special Conditions.
(3) Final payment to the Contractor shall be subject to the provisions of Section 38-26-107,
C.R.S., including allowance of the time necessary to publish the Notice of Final Settlement and retention
of funds necessary to insure the payment of all claims made under the provisions of said Section.
17. Upon submitting the final payment request, the Contractor by such act, indemnifies and saves the
Owner and his agents harmless from all claims growing out of the lawful demands of subcontractors,
laborers, workmen, mechanics, material men and furnishers of machinery and parts thereof, equipment,
tools and all supplies incurred in the furtherance of the performance of the Work. The Contractor shall,
at the Owner's request, furnish satisfactory evidence that all obligations of the nature designated above
have been paid, discharged or waived. If the Contractor fails to do so, the Owner may, after having
notified the Contractor, either pay unpaid bills or withhold from the Contractor's unpaid compensation a
sum of money deemed reasonably sufficient to pay any and all such lawful claims until satisfactory
evidence is furnished that all liabilities have been fully discharged, in accordance with the terms of the
Contract Documents, but in no event shall the provisions of this sentence be construed to impose any
obligations upon the Owner to either the Contractor, his Surety, or any third party. In paying any unpaid
bills of the Contractor, any payment so made by the Owner shall be considered as a payment made under
the Contract Documents by the Owner to the Contractor, and the Owner shall not be liable to the
Contractor for any such payment made in good faith.
18. The acceptance by the Contractor of final payment shall be and shall operate as a release to the
Owner of all claims and all liability to the Contractor for all payment claims in stated amounts as may be
specifically excepted by the Contractor for all things done or furnished in connection with this Work.
Any payment, however, final or otherwise, shall not release the Contractor or his sureties from the
Warranty Period or any other obligations under the Contract Documents or the Performance and
Payment Bond.
36
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
19. Existing conditions including, but not limited to, soil boring data and any underground utilities
shown on the plans and/or referred to in the specifications are indicative and are for informational
purposes only. It shall be the Contractor's obligations to verify and augment such information and data
to fully satisfy themselves as to the conditions under which the work will be done. The Contractor shall
maintain in operating condition all active utilities encountered in this construction. He shall contact all
public utilities and all pertinent contractors involved and have their representative locate their pipes,
conduits, cables, or other facilities before construction is started. The Owner does not assume
responsibility for location or disturbance of utilities or other existing subsurface features or conditions
encountered on this project.
20. Plan dimensions shall be taken as correct but shall be checked by the Contractor before starting
constructions. Any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the plans, specifications, or physical layout
shall be brought to the attention of the Owner, and their decision thereon shall be final.
CONTRACTOR'S WORKING CONDITIONS
21. SUPERINTENDENCE: The Contractor shall give his personal superintendence to the work or
have at the site of the work at all times a competent foreman, superintendent, or other representative
satisfactory to the Owner and having authority to act for the Contractor. All directions given to him
shall be as binding as if delivered to the Contractor.
22. USE OF THE JOB SITE AND PRIVATE LAND: The Contractor shall confine his equipment,
apparatus, the storage of materials and operations of their workpeople to the limits of the Right of Way,
or as indicated by law, ordinances, permits or directions of the Owner and shall not encumber the
premises with his materials. The Contractor shall not use any vacant lot or private land as a plant site,
parking area, depository for materials, or as a spoil site without the written authorization of the property
owner (or his agent), a copy of which authorization shall be filed with the Owner.
23. PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC, WORKS, AND PROPERTY: The Contractor shall provide
and maintain all necessary barricades, lights and warning signs and take all necessary precautions for the
protection of the public. They shall continuously maintain adequate protection of all work from damage,
and shall take all reasonable precautions to protect Owner's property from injury or loss arising in
connection with the Work. Contractor shall correct any damage, injury or loss to its work and to the
property of the Owner, except such as may be due to or caused by agents or employees of the Owner.
24. The Contractor shall shore up, brace, underpin, secure and protect as may be necessary, all
excavation, and other lands adjacent to, adjoining, and in the vicinity of the site, which may be in any
way affected by the excavations or other operations connected with the construction of the
37
improvements embraced in this Contract. The Contractor shall be responsible for the giving of any and
all required notices to any adjoining or related subcontractors or neighboring property owners before
the commencement of work.
25. REMOVAL OF DEBRIS, CLEANING: The Contractor shall, periodically or as directed
during the progress of the work, remove and legally dispose of all surplus excavated material and debris
to a site of their choice, and at their expense, and keep the project area and public rights-of-way clear.
Upon completion of the work, they shall remove all temporary construction facilities, debris and
unused materials provided for the work, and put both the site of the work and the public rights of way
in a neat and clean condition. Any waste blown away by the wind will also be the contractor’s
responsibility.
INSURANCE
26. Contractor shall procure and maintain and shall cause any subcontractor of the Contractor to
procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be
procured and maintained with forms and insurers acceptable to Owner. All coverages shall be
continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the
Contractor
pursuant to the Contract Documents. In the case of any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive
dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage.
A. Workmen's Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any
employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract. Evidence of qualified self-insured
status may be substituted for the Workmen's Compensation requirements of this paragraph.
B. General and Automotive Liability insurance with minimum amounts of One Million Dollars
($1,000,000) each occurrence. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy
shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations),
personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent
contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall include coverage for explosion,
collapse, and underground hazards. The policy shall contain a severability of interest provision.
C. The policy required by Paragraph B above shall be endorsed to include Owner and Owner’s
officers and employees as additional insured to the extent of Contractor’s indemnity obligations in the
Agreement. Every policy required above shall be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by
Owner, its officers, or its employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of Owner,
shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Contractor. The Contractor shall be
solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above.
D. The certificate of insurance provided by Owner shall be completed by the Contractor's insurance
agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits are in
full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by Owner prior to commencement of the
Contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall
provide that the coverages afforded under the policies. Contractor shall provide 30 days' prior written
38
notice to Owner of any cancellation, non-renewal or material change in insurance required by the
Agreement.
E. Failure on the part of the Contractor to procure or maintain policies providing the required
coverages, condition, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which
Owner may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion, Owner may procure or renew any
such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection
therewith, and all monies so paid by Owner shall be repaid by Contractor to Owner upon demand, or
Owner may offset the cost of the premiums against any monies due to Contractor from Owner.
F. Owner reserves the right to request and receive a redacted copy of any policy and any
endorsement thereto.
G. The parties hereto understand and agree that Owner is relying on, and does not waive or intend to
waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations or any other rights, immunities, and
protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., 1973 as
from time to time amended, or otherwise available to Owner, its officers, or its employees.
39
40
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt
Date: April 10, 2018
RE: FINAL TOWNHOME PLAT, RAVEN ROCK TOWNHOMES,
PROMONTORY DRIVE AT MARYS LAKE ROAD, JAMES R. MACKEY
AND SUSAN M. MACKEY.
Staff is requesting that this item be continued to the May 8, 2018 Town Board meeting
date.
41
42
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Robin Becker, Planner I
Date: April 10th, 2018
RE: AMENDED PUD AND AMENDED PRELIMINARY CONDO MAP FALL
RIVER VILLAGE II, 200 BLOCK OF SUNNY ACRES COURT; FALL
RIVER VILLAGE,LLC METROPIA MANAGEMENT/OWNER/APPLICANT.
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing and make a determination regarding an Amended Preliminary
Condo map and Amended Final PUD for compliance with the Estes Valley Development
Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
The project area is located at the south corner of highway 34 bypass off of Far View
Drive on Sunny Acres Court just north and above Performance Park and Fall River
Village. The property is zoned RM Residential Multifamily. The area is approximately
8.2 acres in size and is developed with residential uses.
The project is a multi-family mixed use development whose primary purpose is to
redevelop Lots 1-7 of Fall River Village P.U.D and Lot 5A of the amended Plat of Sunny
Acres Addition as a single lot with two duplexs, two triplexs, an 8-plex and a Community
Building. Former Lot 5A currently has six units. This project was recently approved in
the spring of 2017 for three duplexs, two triplexs, and a community building in addition
to the six units on former Lot 5A. The amended Fall River Village II Development Plan
was approved in May 16th 2017.
Proposal:
This application is requesting a new waiver to density. This request is to take a
previously approved two –three bedroom rental duplex unit and approve it as one
bedroom-eight unit building. This is due to the increasing need for one bedroom units in
the area and the need currently not being met with the previously approved units. See
page four of statement of intent for further information.
This project is part of the Fall River Village PUD which dedicates open space through
Outlot B. This proposed PUD adds to the open space with 20% of the lot remaining in
undistributed areas. Currently the lot has single access that is off of Far View Drive
through Sunny Acres Ct. Secondary access will be enhanced for emergency purposes
43
by reconnecting the development with the lower Fall River Village. These elements will
not be altered by the proposed changes in the amendment.
The Modification will also not change the approved status of waivers authorized
previously, see page 3-4 #1-7.
This action item is for the Amended Preliminary Condo map and Amended Final PUD.
Advantages:
Creates residential housing stock within the Town of Estes Park
Disadvantages:
None identified
Action Recommended:
Planning Commission voted and recommended approval seven to zero (unanimously)
of the Fall River Village II PUD (Planned Unit Development) and Preliminary Condo
Map application on January 16th, 2018. PC recommended no conditions of approval.
Staff also recommends approval of the Amended Fall River Village II PUD and
Amended Preliminary Condo Map.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low: The Comm. Dev. Dept. has not received any written public comments to date.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of the Amended Fall River Village II PUD and Amended
Preliminary Condo Map.
Attachments:
Amended Final PUD
Amended Preliminary Condo Map
Full Application: www.estes.org/currentapplications
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: April 10, 2018
RE: Ordinance No. 05-18: Amending the Estes Valley Development Code
Adding Schools to Certain Residential and Non-Residential Zoning Districts, Modifying
“School” Definitions, and Adjusting Procedures for School Reviews
Objective:
Review and approve proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC).
Specifically, amend EVDC to accomplish the following):
To add “Public Schools” and “Non-Public Schools” as uses permitted in most
zoning districts under specified circumstances, whereas currently “Schools” are
permitted in only four zoning districts;
To clarify definitions of various types of schools (public and non-public), and
To adjust procedures for reviewing public school development by removing
language contrary to Colorado Revised Statutes.
Present Situation:
The EVDC since adoption in 2000 has not listed “Schools” as permitted uses in most
residential zoning districts in the Estes Valley. “Schools are allowed under S2 Special
Review approval in the R-2 and RM Zoning Districts. In non-residential districts,
“Schools” are allowed as permitted uses by right in the A (Accommodations) and CO
(Outlying Commercial) Zoning Districts.
This amendment was brought forward out of a discussion with Eagle Rock School,
which has operated in the northeast part of the Estes Valley Planning Area east of Dry
Gulch Road since the mid-1990s, before the EVDC was adopted. Eagle Rock staff
approached Planning staff in late 2017 about a potential expansion project, to include
employee housing and other facilities on their current campus.
In discussion, all parties realized the unfortunate fact that Eagle Rock was made a non-
conforming use when the EVDC was adopted. Eagle Rock is located in the RE-1 Zoning
District, a large-lot (10 acres minimum) district that has few allowable uses other than
53
single family detached houses. It is unknown exactly how or why this circumstance
came about in the 2000 EVDC. In any case, Eagle Rock was unaware of the 2000
zoning change and was caught unawares in 2017 by the fact that Code did not allow
their plans.
In looking into various alternatives, it was soon realized that a Code amendment
provided the best alternative to resolving Eagle Rock’s concerns. Zoning Map
amendment alternatives such as rezoning to A or CO would have worked in the
immediate circumstances; however, that would have introduced a spot zoning district in
this location, with unclear consequences for the property itself if Eagle Rock ever moved
out as well as for nearby properties.
Staff reviewed the possibility of a Code amendment with Eagle Rock that would have
allowed schools as a Special Review in all residential zoning districts, including RE-1;
essentially, this would expand the R-2 and RM provisions to all other residential
districts. Appropriate adjustments were also identified and recommended for non-
residential districts. Eagle Rock School, in expectation that the Special Review
capability could be expanded to RE-1, has already applied for a Special Review
approval so their project can remain on schedule if the amendment is approved.
Staff is utilizing this amendment opportunity to clear up several other problems with the
Schools regulations in EVDC. The existing Code has somewhat muddled definitions for
the term “Schools”. Currently there’s ambiguity among public schools, non-public
schools, and certain types of child-care facilities that may also provide education in the
K-3 categories. This amendment will make a distinction between public and non-public
school regulations in order to parallel and not conflict with Colorado law on types of
schools.
Along the same lines, existing EVDC requires that public schools go through a Location
and Extent Review (Sec. 3.13). The Location and Extent Review is applicable to many
publicly owned developments – e.g., the Estes Valley Community Center underwent a
Location and Extent Review approval in 2016. However, Colorado Revised Statutes
(C.R.S. Sec. 22-32-124) does not provide for local government to regulate public school
siting and development in this fashion; that capability is given to the Board of Education
and not the Town or County.
Proposal:
The attached Exhibit A [Aquamarine] is aimed at rectifying these concerns in general.
The amendment does provide an avenue to approval for Eagle Rock School in
particular. However, it needs to be noted that the amendment stands on its own merits
and is not being recommended only to address one specific institution or property.
Specifically, the amendment does the following:
It provides that non-public schools may be approved in all eight (8) Estes Valley
residential zoning districts by S2 Special Review (S2 is the two-stage review by
Planning Commission, then the governing body);
54
It expands the S2 Special Review capability for non-public schools to several
additional non-residential districts – all except CD (Downtown Commercial);
It rectifies a longstanding mistake in the EVDC that required public schools be
reviewed and approved by the Town or County through the Location and Extent
Review procedure (the amendment follows state law and put this review in the
hands of the Board of Education);
It clarifies various definitions, primarily those for “School, Public” and “School,
Non-Public”.
A full explication of the proposed amendment and the reasons for it are provided in the
accompanying Planning Commission Staff Report for April 10; to avoid redundancy,
they will not be repeated here (see attachment 3).
Advantages:
Supports the concept of neighborhood schools in residential settings, through a
Special Review process – a best practice in education and in planning and
zoning.
Provides an avenue (possibly one of several) for Eagle Rock School to become
legally conforming in their current location.
Clears up an error in EVDC regarding local-government authority over public-
school siting and development.
Clarifies EVDC definitions for schools.
Disadvantages:
Some Planning Commission discussion (March 20) has indicated preference to
provide an avenue forward for Eagle Rock School, but not allow schools in other
single-family residential neighborhoods.
Action Recommended:
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment as draft in Exhibit A
[Aquamarine].
At this writing (April 4), the Planning Commission’s recommendation is unknown, as
they will not make a determination until their special meeting on April 10, several hours
before Town Board. An update this evening on Planning Commission action will come
from staff, the Town Board Liaison, and/or other others as appropriate.
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Low.
55
Sample Motion:
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve the Estes Valley Development Code
amendment as stated in Ordinance No. 05-18, including findings as identified in the
Ordinance.
I move that the Town Board of Trustees deny the Estes Valley Development Code
amendment as stated in Ordinance No. 05-18, finding that… [state findings for denial]
I move that the Town Board of Trustees continue the Estes Valley Development Code
amendment as stated in Ordinance No. 05-18 to [date certain], in order that… [state
direction to staff pursuant to continuance]
Attachments:
1.Ordinance No. 05-18: Amending the Estes Valley Development Code Adding
Schools to Certain Residential and Non-Residential Zoning Districts, Modifying
“School” Definitions, and Adjusting Procedures for School Reviews
2.Exhibit A [Aquamarine], dated April 10, 2018
3.Planning Commission staff report on Schools amendment, dated April 10, 2018
[staff report text only]
4.“School Siting: Location Affects the Potential to Walk or Bike” (2011), from the
Safe Routes to School National Partnership.
5.“Planning for Schools and Liveable Communities: The Oregon School Siting
Handbook” (2005), from the Oregon Transportation & Growth Management
Program. Link
56
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18
AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE ADDING SCHOOLS TO
CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS,
MODIFYING “SCHOOL” DEFINITIONS, AND ADJUSTING PROCEDURES FOR
SCHOOL REVIEWS
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the Estes Valley Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, ADDING
SCHOOLS TO CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS,
MODIFYING “SCHOOL” DEFINITIONS, AND ADJUSTING PROCEDURES FOR SCHOOL
REVIEWS; and found that the text amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2018, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to
recommend the approval of the text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text amendment
complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review
and has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendment to the Estes
Valley Development Code, as set forth on Exhibit A [Aquamarine], be approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code is set forth on Exhibit
A [Aquamarine], 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 [Aquamarine].
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 10th day of April, 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the 10th day of April, 2018 and published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the 27th day of April, 2018, all as required by
the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
EXHIBIT A [Aquamarine]
Town Board: April 10, 2018
(Existing, Excerpt) B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts
RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Additional Regulations
Schools __ __ __ __ __ __ S2 S2 §3.13 Location & Extent Review
(Proposed, Excerpt) B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts
RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Additional Regulations
Public Schools P P P P P P P P Any Public School shall comply with
all applicable requirements per
Colorado Revised Statutes.
Non-Public
Schools
S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2
(Existing, Excerpt) B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts
A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Additional Regulations
Schools P __ __ P __ __ __ §3.13 Location & Extent Review
(Proposed, Excerpt) B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts
A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Additional Regulations
Public Schools P P P P P P P Any Public School shall comply with
all applicable requirements per
Colorado Revised Statutes.
Non-Public
Schools
S2 S2 __ S2 S2 S2 S2
CHAPTER 3, REVIEW PROCEDURES AND
STANDARDS
§3.5 SPECIAL REVIEW USES
B. Standards for Review. All applications for a special review use shall demonstrate compliance
with all applicable criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 5, "Use Regulations," of this Code.
Applications for S1 or S2 Special Review shall provide a narrative that describes how the
proposed use fulfills the applicable requirements and standards for the use. In order to minimi ze
adverse impacts of the proposed use, an approval of Special Review Use may be conditioned
based upon information provided in the narrative and staff findings.
For purposes of the Special Review, the narrative shall describe the following, as applicable:
1. The proposed use and its operations;
2. Traffic generation including a Traffic Impact Study if determined necessary by the Decision-
Making Body;
3. Existing zoning compatibility;
4. Location of parking and loading, including size, location, screening, drainage, landscaping, and
surfacing;
5. Effect on off-site parking;
6. Street access points, including size, number, location and/or design;
7. Hours of operation, including when ce rtain activities are proposed to occur;
8. Exterior lighting;
9. Effects on air and water quality;
10. Environmental effects which may disturb neighboring property owners such as;
a. Glare. This may be described in terms of location, design, intensity and shielding;
b. Noise; and
c. Dust;
11. Height, size, setback, and location of buildings and activities;
12. Any diking, berms, screening or landscaping, and standards for their installation and
maintenance; and
13. Other resources. This description shall include information on protection and preservation of
existing trees, vegetation, water resources, habitat areas, drainage areas, historic resources,
cultural resources, or other significant natural resources.
CHAPTER 13. DEFINITIONS
§ 13.2 - USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS
AND EXAMPLES
C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples.
42. Schools.
a. General Definitions:
School: Any building or part thereof used for instructional purposes to
provide elementary, secondary, post-secondary or vocational education.
Public School: Any elementary or secondary school under the
jurisdiction of a public school district or local board of education, organized
under the laws of the State of Colorado. Public Schools may include charter
schools and institute charter schools, as defined by the Colorado Department
of Education.
Non-Public School: Any elementary or secondary school not under the
jurisdiction of a public school distric t or local board of education. Parochial
Schools are Non-Public Schools.
b. Examples: This use classification includes:
(1) Public or private Educational institutions at the primary,
elementary, middle, junior or high school level. Examples include
public and private daytime schools, boarding schools and military
academies.
(2) Colleges and other institutions of higher learning that
offer courses of general or specialized study leading to a degree.
Examples include universities, liberal arts colleges, community
colleges, and nursing and medical schools not accessory to a hospital
and seminaries. Accessory uses may include offices, housing for
students, food service, laboratories, health and sports facilities,
theaters, meeting areas, parking, maintenance facilities and support
commercial.
(3 2) Business, vocation and trade schools (at the secondary or
higher education levels).
c. Exceptions: This use classification does not include preschools,
which are classified as "Day Care Centers."
§ 3.13 - Public Facility/Use Location and Extent Review
C. Procedure for Location and Extent Review.
1. Public Schools.
a. Prior to acquiring land or contracting for the purchase of land for a
school site, the board of education shall consult with and advise the Estes Valley
Planning Commission, in writing.
b. Prior to construction of any structure or building, the board of
education shall submit a d evelopment plan for review and comment to the EVPC.
c. The EVPC may request a public hearing before the board of
education on the proposed site location or development plan. If the EVPC
requests a hearing, the board of education shall promptly schedule the hearing,
publish at least one (1) notice in advance of the hearing, and provide written
notice of the hearing to the EVPC.
d. The EVPC shall consider all information presented at the public
hearing. If no hearing is requested, the EVPC shall consider all information
provided by the board of education, and shall convey its findings and
recommendations to the board of education.
e. Failure of the EVPC to act within thirty (30) days after the date of
official submission of the proposal or development plan sha ll be deemed an
approval, unless a longer period for review is granted by the board of education.
f. The authority to make final determinations as to the location of
public schools and the authority to erect buildings and structures shall remain with
the board of education.
2. All Other 1. Public Uses.
a. A proposed development plan shall be submitted to the EVPC for
approval, pursuant to the development plan approval process set forth
in §3.8 of this Chapter, prior to the construction or authorization of any
public use that is subject to location and extent review.
b. Failure of the EVPC to act within thirty (30) days after the date of
official submission of the development plan shall be deemed an approval, unless
a longer period is granted by the submitting board, body or official.
c. If the EVPC disapproves the development plan , it shall
communicate its reasons to the Board of County Commissioners or Board of
Trustees, depending on the location of the proposed project. The respective
Board is authorized to overrule such disapproval by a majority vote of its entire
membership. Upon overruling, the Board may proceed with construction or
authorization of the project, as applicable.
d. If the project is not required to be authorized or financed by the
Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees, or other County or Town
official or board, the EVPC's disapproval may be overruled by the body or official
having jurisdiction over the authorization and financing of the project. A vote to
overrule by such body shall be by a majority vote of its entire membership. In the
case of a utility owned by an entity other than a political subdivision, the EVPC's
disapproval may be overruled by the Public Utilities Commission by not less than a
majority of its entire membership.
Memo
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Estes Valley Planning Commission
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Jeff Woeber, Senior Planner
Date: April 10, 2018
RE: Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code: Adding Schools
to Certain Residential and Non-Residential Zoning Districts,
Modifying “School” Definitions, and Adjusting Procedures for
School Reviews
Planning Commission Objective:
Review and provide a recommendation for a proposed text amendment to the Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC):
To add “Public Schools” and “Non-Public Schools” as uses permitted in most
zoning districts under specified circumstances, whereas currently “Schools” are
permitted in only four zoning districts;
To clarify definitions of various types of schools (public and non-public), and
To adjust procedures for reviewing public school development by removing
language contrary to Colorado Revised Statutes.
UPDATE:
Planning Commission Continuance (April 10 meeting):
On March 20, 2018, the Planning Commission continued this amendment to your April
10, 2018 special meeting. The vote to continue this amendment was accompanied by
the Commission’s request that a separate amendment to EVDC be prepared. The
separate amendment could provide an alternative path forward for Eagle Rock School,
by allowing a one-time expansion of a non-conforming use – e.g., to allow new buildings
to be placed on a non-conforming-use property. That separate use is the subject of
another staff report and hearing on today’s agenda.
Staff continues to propose that the Schools amendment language under consideration
since February has merit, and we continue to recommend the amendments be
approved. The amendment does provide an alternative route to approval for Eagle Rock
Schools, but the amendment’s purpose and benefits go beyond those of one institution.
Our reasons are as follows:
63
APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC
(WRITTEN APRIL 5, 2018)
The primary reason is that properly planned schools have a place in residential
neighborhoods. This is a best practice in education and a best practice in
planning. This proposed amendment would allow non-public schools by Special
Review. This is the typical zoning approach to siting neighborhood schools in
much of the United States.
(Under Colorado law, public schools have to be sited and developed under sole
authority of the Board of Education. The current Code requires an invalid
mechanism for public-school siting; this error is fixed in the amendment.)
Accompanying this staff report are two documents in support of the
neighborhood-schools approach. One document is “School Siting: Location
Affects the Potential to Walk or Bike” (2011), from the Safe Routes to School
National Partnership, a public/private partnership that works with Federal DOT
and various state and local entities to ensure that schools are planned with
location accessibility in mind, among other matters. (The Town of Estes Park will
begin a grant-funded Safe Routes to School project soon to improve non-
motorized access to the public-school campus on Brodie Ave.)
The other document, while longer, speaks directly to locating schools in
residential neighborhoods. This is “Planning for Schools and Liveable
Communities: The Oregon School Siting Handbook” (2005) from the Oregon
Transportation & Growth Management Program (a multi-agency state program).
At 44 pages this document is a bit lengthy for a staff report, but it contains much
useful and valuable information. The report is especially aimed at public school
location, but the recommendation applies equally well to non-public schools.
We would direct your attention to p. 37 in the PDF file (numbered p. 31 in the
text), which states:
“Schools are usually treated as conditional uses in residential districts.
Conditional uses require the applicant (in this instance, the school district)
to apply for a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit
application usually requires the school district to conduct a traffic impact
study and other analyses.”
(“Conditional Use” is a standard planning term for what our Code calls “Special
Review”.)
Note the Handbook’s specific recommendation for a traffic study. EVDC already
provides for this in Special Reviews: see §3.5.B.2.
64
APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC
(WRITTEN APRIL 5, 2018)
On Mar. 20, the PC suggested that more specific review criteria, such as those in
EVDC Sec. 5.1, are needed in order to classify schools as a Special Review.
Two things should be noted:
(a) Not all uses in Sec. 5.1 are Special Reviews – some are permitted by-right;
thus, Sec. 5.1 should not be viewed as a “Special Review criteria” list.
(b) More to the point, a sizeable number of Special Reviews uses are not
specified in Sec. 5.1, but are left to the generalized (but still detailed) review
criteria in Sec. 3.5.B. Those have served us reasonably well over many
Special Reviews in the Estes Valley.
Staff would not oppose adding several specific criteria for schools in Sec. 5.1 (the
Oregon document provides some useful approaches), but it is not critical to the
SR process, as Sec. 3.5.B already contains the requisite authority. Ideally,
adding school-specific criteria would be part of a larger task to include other
specific uses in Sec. 5.1 that aren’t there now, such as larger churches, event
centers, and the like.
The Schools amendment may be of more utility to Eagle Rock School than the
non-conforming uses amendment, as the latter would only be useful for a one-
time expansion. After that one-time use, a permanent Code change, like this
Schools amendment or another zoning-regulation change (e.g., rezoning), would
be needed. We hope and expect to know Eagle Rock’s position on this aspect by
the time of the April 10 meeting; it is hoped they will be present.
The Schools amendment deal with other school-related errors in current EVDC
besides the residential-districts matter. For example, our current EVDC requires
a new public school or a change to an existing public school to go through a
Location and Extent Review. That process is suitable for other public facilities,
but Colorado Revised Statutes do not allow the Review for public schools. That
section is to be removed from EVDC. Another fix in the amendment would clarify
the definitions of public and non-public schools.
Practically, it is unlikely that Estes Valley will see many new non-public or public
schools, as our population is not growing rapidly, especially in the demographic
categories that would lead to school growth. It is possible that could change,
however; possibly involving populations who are not here now. For example, as
far as staff knows, no one predicted Eagle Rock School might happen before
they began exploring opportunities here. The point is that long odds of something
happening is no reason to avoid preparing for the possibility.
65
APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC
(WRITTEN APRIL 5, 2018)
Last but not least: Staff would strongly disagree with some of the
characterizations made on March 20 that locating schools in residential areas
“takes away rights” of residents or is “pushing” an undesirable land use into a
wrong location. For one thing, the Special Review process in EVDC is specifically
designed to take into account the views of citizens. Every Special Review has at
least one - often multiple - public hearings, with (nowadays) posted signage and
mailed notice to neighbors.
More fundamentally: For many decades now, the concept of the neighborhood
school has been tested and found desirable in America. This principle is clearly
stated in the Oregon handbook, the SRTS document, and other easily found
source materials. It also matches public expectations. Among the first question
parents of school-age children ask when house-hunting is, “What are the schools
here like?” There is more than sufficient validated research showing that
neighborhood schools are seen as anchors for stable neighborhoods and
communities. Staff has not yet seen a single study that found a properly planned
neighborhood school damages the neighborhood.
To be sure, schools have to be sited carefully within such neighborhood settings.
For example, there’s evidence that putting a school next to a neighborhood
convenience store can create problems for both establishments. (A visit to the
store’s candy aisle at 2:45 pm will be enough evidence for any parent or
guardian, assuming the adult survives the experience.) Site-specific concerns
like this are easily addressed through the Special Review process.
Issues around providing for families in Estes Valley are already severe and are
damaging our economic growth. The absence of family-friendly policies carries a
large social cost, here or anywhere. Adoption of a benign code amendment to
provide for families in a family-appropriate setting is one way to help counter this
image. Even if the amendment is seldom or never invoked, the message is
appropriate.
PREVIOUS UPDATES:
Planning Commission Continuance (March 20 Meeting):
This Code Amendment was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their February 20,
2018 meeting. The Code Amendment was continued to the March 20, 2018 Planning
Commission meeting, at staff’s request. It was brought to staff’s attention that there
were potential issues regarding allowing schools in certain areas, due to Colorado liquor
licensing laws. Statutory requirements mandate a 500-foot separation distance
between a licensed liquor establishment and a school. This could present particular
problems near downtown, where residential areas adjoin many alcohol-service
establishments. Staff is now not proposing allowing any non-public school use in the
CD, Downtown Commercial Zoning District. The Town is also exploring eliminating the
66
APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC
(WRITTEN APRIL 5, 2018)
500-foot separation distance requirement partially or entirely, within Estes Park Town
limits.
Staff is also adding “Parochial Schools,” to be included within the “Non-Public Schools”
use, to be consistent with school categories described in statutes. See attached
Exhibit A [Aquamarine].
Code Amendment Objective:
To have the uses, “Public Schools” and “Non-Public Schools” be allowable, under
specified criteria, in all zoning districts within the EVDC Boundary other than CD,
Downtown Commercial. Establishing a Public School would be subject to meeting State
Statutory requirements. A Non-Public School would require review and approval of an
S2 Special Review.
The EVDC Chapter 4. Zoning Districts, Section 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts, B.
Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts, would be amended so that
“Public Schools” and “Non-Public Schools” would be allowed in all residential zoning
districts (RE-1, RE, E-1, E, R, R-1, R-2, and RM.) Currently “Schools” are allowed
through approval of both an “S2” Special Review and a “Location and Extent Review,”
only in R-2 and RM Zoning Districts.
The EVDC Chapter 4. Zoning Districts, Section 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts, B.
Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts, would be amended so that
“Public Schools” and “Non-Public Schools” would be allowed in the following
nonresidential zoning districts (A, A-1, CO, O, CH, and I-1.) Currently “Schools” are
allowed through approval of a “Location and Extent Review,” only in A and CO Zoning
Districts. (Note: The previous staff report for this Code Amendment included the CD
Zoning District. CD is no longer included.)
The EVDC Chapter 13. Definitions, Section 13.2 Use Classification/Specific Use
Definitions and Examples, C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples,
would be amended to clarify and define “Public Schools” and “Non-Public Schools,” and
also keep that Section’s existing examples of Schools.
The EVDC Chapter 3. Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.3 Public
Facility/Use Location and Extent Review, C. Procedure for Location and Extent Review,
1. Public Schools, a. through f., would no longer be applicable and would be deleted, as
they conflict with Colorado Statutes.
Exhibit A [Aquamarine] is attached, detailing the specific amendments.
Staff recommends the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommend approval of the
language in Exhibit A [Aquamarine] to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of
County Commissioners.
Background, Discussion:
67
APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC
(WRITTEN APRIL 5, 2018)
The Eagle Rock School was established in 1993, in unincorporated Larimer County.
This is a 501(c)3, nonprofit school, with an enrollment of 72 students, geared towards
“adolescents who are not thriving in their current situations.” This was well before the
EVDC was adopted, and the current boundary established. The Eagle Rock site,
located in a rural setting approximately 1.75 miles northeast of the intersection of
Highway 34 and Dry Gulch Road, was within Larimer County “Estate” zoning when
originally established. Upon adoption of the EVDC in 2000, the Eagle Rock School site
was rezoned to RE-1, Rural Estate, which does not allow for Schools. Since that time,
there has been some minor development of the facilities, but no major expansion
projects. The nonconforming School use would not be able to undergo any expansion
of their facilities based on the EVDC, Section 6.3 C., which does not allow a
nonconforming use to be extended.
Eagle Rock School recently discussed the proposed expansion of their facilities with
staff, and it was recommended that they apply to add the “Schools” use to the RE-1
Zoning District. Discussion among staff and the Town Attorney has led to this being
broadened to allowing Schools in most zoning districts within the EVDC. Staff notes: If
this code amendment is approved, Eagle Rock School would need to go through a
Special Review process for their proposed expansion. Eagle Rock School has begun
this Special Review process.
The “Schools” use has been broken down into two separate uses by staff: “Public
Schools” and “Non-Public Schools.” This distinction is made within Colorado Revised
Statutes, Section 22-1-101. The Colorado Department of Education and State Board of
Education refer to these two categories as well.
Public Schools, currently an undefined term in the EVDC, are proposed to be defined,
within Chapter 13. Definitions, Section 13.2, Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions
and Examples, as follows:
“Public School: Any school under the jurisdiction of a public school district and
local board of education, organized under the laws of the State of
Colorado. Public Schools may include charter schools and institute charter
schools, as defined by the Colorado Department of Education.”
With this code amendment, the EVDC would allow Public Schools in any zoning
district. Schools are a commonly allowed use in residentially-zoned areas in most
places. The EVDC would require, “Any Public School shall comply with all applicable
requirements per Colorado Revised Statutes.” This code amendment would eliminate
the Special Review and the Location and Extent Review requirements currently in the
EVDC for Schools. These cannot apply, according to legal advice.
Section 22-32-124 of the Colorado Revised Statutes limits the ability of a Town or
County to subject school districts to zoning and land use review. In establishing a new
public school, the Board of Education of the local school district must consult with, and
advise in writing the Planning Commission in order that a proposed site shall conform
68
APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC
(WRITTEN APRIL 5, 2018)
to the adopted plan of the community insofar as is feasible. The Board of Education
shall submit a Site Development Plan to the Planning Commission for review and
comment prior to construction. The Planning Commission may request a hearing in
front of the Board of Education. In spite of this provision for a hearing, that procedure
shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Board of Education to finally
determine the location of public schools in the school district and construction of
necessary buildings and structures.
Essentially, the Code Amendment proposes that any School not meeting the definition
of a Public School is a “Non-Public School.” A Non-Public School would be allowable
in any zoning district except CD, Downtown Commercial, but only upon approval of an
“S2” Special Review, which requires a Planning Commission and Board action (Town
Board or County Commissioners). Staff emphasizes that although it would be a use
allowed in any zoning district, a site-specific review requiring public notice and a public
hearing would be required to establish a Non-Public School in any given location.
After discussion with the Town Attorney, staff has included “Parochial Schools” in the
“Non-Public Schools” definition.
The amendment to the Code that staff proposes adding is on the attached Exhibit A
[Aquamarine].
Staff Findings:
The text amendments comply with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for
Review).
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review
“All rezoning and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:”
1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas
affected;”
Staff Finding:
The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected,
which is to allow existing Schools that are nonconforming uses to be brought into
zoning compliance, as well as provide more options for Schools to locate in the
Estes Valley.
2. “The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would
allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in
the Estes Valley:”
Staff Finding:
The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan has little discussion of school siting or
planning. Chapter One of the Plan, “The Planning Process,” lists “Local Trends,”
one of which is that “Schools will face increasing enrollment due to more families
moving into the area.” The “Implication for Estes Park” due to that trend, according
69
APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC
(WRITTEN APRIL 5, 2018)
to the Plan, is “The school district and community need to consider options to reduce
overcrowding.”
The proposed text amendment is generally compatible and consistent with the
policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, with staff noting the absence of any
policies or intent within the Plan that address the siting or zoning for schools.
3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to
provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the
application were approved.”
Staff Finding:
Town, County or other relevant service providers would not be significantly
impacted regarding their respective services and facilities, if this Code Amendment
is approved.
Advantages:
Supports the concept of neighborhood schools in residential settings, through a
Special Review process – a best practice in education and in planning and
zoning.
Provides an avenue (possibly one of several) for Eagle Rock School to become
legally conforming in their current location.
Clears up an error in EVDC regarding local-government authority over public-
school siting and development.
Clarifies EVDC definitions for schools.
Disadvantages:
Some Planning Commission discussion (March 20) has indicated preference to
provide an avenue forward for Eagle Rock School, but not allow schools in other
single-family residential neighborhoods.
Action Recommended:
Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation to the
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners
for a final decision to approve.
Level of Public Interest
Low. Little input or public comment has been received. The Town of Estes Park Public
Works Department did comment that any proposed school must be served by adequate
transportation facilities.
Sample Motion:
APPROVAL
70
APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC
(WRITTEN APRIL 5, 2018)
I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of
Larimer County Commissioners APPROVE the text amendment to the Estes Valley
Development Code as presented in Exhibit A [Aquamarine] as recommended by staff,
with findings as recommended by staff.
CONTINUANCE
I move to CONTINUE this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning
Commission meeting because…. (state reason(s) for continuance).
DENIAL
I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of
Larimer County Commissioners DENY the text amendment to the Estes Valley
Development Code as presented in Exhibit A [Aquamarine], finding that . . . (state
reasons for denial).
Exhibits:
1. Exhibit A [Aquamarine]: Estes Valley Development Code (reformatted, but
content unchanged from “Exhibit Green” in March 20 PC packet):
o Chapter 4. Zoning Districts, Section 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts, B. Table
4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts
o Chapter 4. Zoning Districts, Section 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts, B.
Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts
o Chapter 3. Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.3 Public Facility/Use
Location and Extent Review, C. Procedure for Location and Extent Review, 1.
Public Schools, a. through f.
o Chapter 13. Definitions, Section 13.2 Use Classification/Specific Use
Definitions and Examples, C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and
Example
2. “School Siting: Location Affects the Potential to Walk or Bike” (2011), from the
Safe Routes to School National Partnership.
3. “Planning for Schools and Liveable Communities: The Oregon School Siting
Handbook” (2005), from the Oregon Transportation & Growth Management
Program.
71
School Siting
LOCATION AFFECTS THE POTENTIAL TO WALK OR BIKE
SubscribeMediaPartnerDonate
search our site
State
STATE NETWORK PROJECT
STATE POLICIES: BEST PRACTICES
Safe Routes to School State Programs
Complete Streets
TrafÐc Safety Training: Walking and Bicycling Programs
Fine-Based Mechanisms
Shared Use of School and Community Facilities
Legislation
Lower-Income Communities
Personal Safety
School Bus Funding: Cuts and Hazard/Courtesy Busing
School Siting
Strategic Highway Safety Plan
Wellness Policies
72
73
74
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
Date: April 10, 2018
RE: Ordinance #06-18: Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code Chapter
6 Adding Provisions for Extension, Expansion or Enlargement of Nonconforming
Uses
Objective:
Review and decide on a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC), to add a Section with provisions for “Extension, Expansion, or Enlargement of a
Nonconforming Use.”
Staff recommends approval of the language in Exhibit Red to the Town Board of Trustees and
the Board of County Commissioners.
Present Situation:
This code amendment was initiated by the Estes Valley Planning Commission at their March 20,
2018 meeting, when another code amendment involving adding the “schools” use to various
zoning districts was reviewed. At that time, along with continuing the “schools” code
amendment, the Planning Commission asked staff to explore adding a section that was similar
to a section in the Larimer County Code, which has provisions for extension, expansion, or
enlargement of a nonconforming use (Larimer County Code, Chapter 4.8 Nonconformities,
Section 4.8.1 through 4.8.21). This is a proposal to add a similar section to the EVDC, Chapter
6. Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Lots.
For reference, the existing definitions relevant to this amendment are below, from the EVDC,
Chapter 13 Definitions, Section 13.3, Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases:
161. Nonconforming Building or Structure shall mean a building or structure, not
including signs, that was legally established prior to the effective date of this Code but
that does not comply with the dimensional standards that apply within the zoning
district in which the building or structure is located.
162. Nonconforming Lot shall mean a lot that was legally established prior to the
effective date of this Code but that does not comply with the dimensional standards
that apply within the zoning district in which the lot is located.
163. Nonconforming Uses shall mean a use that was legally established prior to the
effective date of this Code but that no longer complies with the use regulations that
apply within the zoning district in which the use is located.
Staff notes: The “effective date of this Code” is February 1, 2000.
75
The Planning Commission is scheduled to review this proposed code amendment, as well as the
“schools” code amendment, at a special meeting at 11:30 a.m. on April 10, 2018. For that reason, staff
does not have a recommendation from the Planning Commission for this staff report.
The Board of Larimer County Commissioners is scheduled to review, and may take action on this code
amendment on April 23, 2018.
Proposal:
This code amendment would add Section 6.9, Extension, Expansion, or Enlargement of a Use
to the EVCD, Chapter 6, Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Lots. See attached, Exhibit Red.
Advantages:
Complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.
Provides a tool for the public, elected officials, and staff to better deal with nonconforming
uses.
Disadvantages:
Adds slightly to Code length and complexity.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve Ordinance No. 06-18, amending the Estes
Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibit Red, finding that the amendment is in accord with
the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 06-18
2. Exhibit Red – Chapter 6. Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Lots, Section 6.9
Extension, Expansion, or Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use
76
ORDINANCE NO. 06-18
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
CHAPTER 6 ADDING PROVISIONS FOR EXTENSION, EXPANSION, OR
ENLARGEMENT OF NONCONFORMING USES
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2018, the Estes Valley Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code
Chapter 6. Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Lots, and found that the text amendment
complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for
Review; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2018, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text
amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review and has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that
the amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, as set forth on Exhibit Red, be
approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code is set forth
on Exhibit Red, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully
set forth on Exhibit Red.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by The Board of Trustees of The Town of Estes Park,
Colorado, This day of _______, 2018.
77
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting
of the Board of Trustees on the ________ day of _______________, 2018 and
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on
the ________ day of ____________, 2018, all as required by the Statutes of the State
of Colorado.
Town Clerk
78
EXHIBIT RED
CHAPTER 6. NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES
AND LOTS
§ 6.1 - APPLICABILITY
A. General. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to uses, structures (except signs) and lots
that were legally existing as of the effective date of this Code, February 1, 2000, but that become
nonconforming as the result of the application of this Code to them or from reclassification of the
property under any subsequent amendments to this Code.
B. Signs. For provisions applicable to nonconforming signs, see Chapter 8.
§ 6.2 - PURPOSE
It is the general policy under this Code to allow nonconforming uses, structures or lots to continue
to exist and to be put to productive use. The limitations of this Chapter are intended to recognize
the interests of property owners in continuing to use their property but to reasonably control
expansions, reestablishment of discontinued uses and the reestablishment of nonconforming
buildings and structures that have been substantially destroyed.
§ 6.3 - CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING USES OR
STRUCTURES
A. Authority to Continue. Nonconformities shall be allowed to continue in accordance with the
requirements of this Chapter.
B. Repairs and Maintenance. Repairs and normal maintenance required to keep
nonconforming uses and structures in a safe condition shall be permitted, provided that no
alterations shall be made except those allowed by this Chapter or required by law or ordinance.
C. Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Uses and Structures.
1. Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Uses Prohibited. Subject to the provisions of this
Chapter, except as allowed in §6.4 and §6.9 below, a nonconforming use shall not be altered or
extended. The extension of a nonconforming use to a portion of a structure which was built for
the nonconforming use at the time of adoption of this Code is not an extension of a
nonconforming use.
(Ord. 21-11 §1)
2. Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Structures Limited. Except as allowed in §3.6.C
of this Code, a structure conforming as to use, but nonconforming as to height, setback or
coverage, may be altered or extended, provided that the alteration or extension does not result in
a new violation of this Code or increase the degree or extent of the existing nonconformity.
(See §3.6, Variances; a variance may be sought to permit alterations or extensions to a
nonconforming structure not otherwise allowed by this Chapter.) (Ord. 21-11 §1)
79
D. Nonconforming as to Parking.
1. Nonconformity as to off-street parking or loading shall not subject the use to the conditions of
this Chapter.
2. A use that is nonconforming as to off-street parking or loading shall not be changed to another
use requiring more off-street parking or loading unless the additional required parking or loading
is provided.
3. The Board of Adjustment may permit a nonconforming use to provide required off-street
parking or loading on a lot other than the lot on which the use is located.
(Ord. 21-11 §1, 12/20/11)
§ 6.4 - CHANGE OF NONCONFORMING USE
A. If a nonconforming use is changed, it shall be changed to a use conforming to the regulations
of the zoning district and, after the change, it shall not be changed back again to a
nonconforming use.
(Ord. 21-11 §1)
B. A nonconforming use may be changed to a conforming use in phases over time, provided that
such phasing is in accordance with a development plan approved pursuant to the procedures set
forth in §3.8 of this Code.
(Ord. 21-11 §1)
C. A nonconforming accessory dwelling unit may be altered, provided that the alteration does not
enlarge or move the accessory dwelling unit. See §13.3.13, Alter or Alteration.
(Ord. 21-11 §1)
(Ord. 21-11 §1, 12/20/11)
§ 6.5 - DISCONTINUANCE OF NONCONFORMING USE
If a nonconforming use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of twelve (12) consecutive
months, further use of the property or structure shall be for a conforming use and its
nonconforming status shall terminate.
§ 6.6 - DAMAGE TO OR DESTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING A
NONCONFORMING USE
If a nonconforming structure or a structure containing a nonconforming use is damaged or
destroyed by fire, flood, wind, explosion or act of God, the nonconforming structure or use may
continue, but restoration shall be started within one (1) year of such calamity and shall be
completed within three (3) years of initiating restoration.
80
§ 6.7 - ZONING DISTRICT CHANGES
Whenever the boundaries of a zoning district shall be changed so as to transfer an area from one
(1) district to another district of a different classification, this Chapter shall apply to any
nonconforming uses existing therein.
§ 6.8 - USES ALLOWED ON NONCONFORMING LOTS
A. Nonconforming Lots in Residential Zoning Districts. In all residential zoning districts, a lot
that is nonconforming as to area or dimension as of the effective date of this Code may be
occupied by a single-family detached residential use, subject to all other applicable zoning district
and development standards unless a variance is granted by the Board of Adjustment.
B. Nonconforming Lots in Nonresidential Zoning Districts. In all nonresidential zoning
districts, a lot that is nonconforming as to area or dimension as of the effective date of this Code
may be occupied by any use permitted by right in the zoning district, provided that a by-right
accommodations use shall not be developed on a lot with an area less than:
1. Forty thousand (40,000) square feet in the A zoning district, or
2. Fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in the A-1 zoning district.
Such uses shall be subject to all other applicable zoning district and development standards
unless a variance is granted by the Board of Adjustment.
(Ord. 18-02 §1, 12/10/02)
§ 6.9 - EXTENSION, EXPANSION, OR ENLARGEMENT OF A USE
A. Extension, expansion, or enlargement of a use.
1. Except as otherwise specified in this code, a nonconforming use, a building or structure that
contains a nonconforming use, or a nonconforming building or structure as defined herein, cannot
be extended, expanded, or enlarged without the approval through the process found in
Subsection 6.9 B of the EVDC.
2. When a building is nonconforming only as to a required setback, it may be extended,
expanded or enlarged as long as the following conditions are met:
a. The proposed addition is not more than 50 percent of the square footage of the original
building and is not more than 2,000 square feet;
b. The proposed addition is outside the required setback; and
c. No portion of the original building or the proposed addition is within the future right-of-way
identified by the Larimer County Functional Road Classification or the Colorado Department of
Transportation.
B. Process.
1. Any request to extend, expand, or enlarge a nonconforming use, building or structure requires
a pre-application conference consistent with requirements in Section 3.2 A of the EVDC.
2. Review of the request commences when a complete application is submitted.
81
3. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Community Development Director will refer the
applicable application materials to all appropriate departments and agencies and mail written
notice of the application to property owners in the vicinity of the proposal per the General Notice
Provisions, Section 3.15 of the EVDC.
4. Neighbor notification and comment.
a. Written notice of the proposal shall be mailed to neighbors per the General Notice Provisions,
Section 3.15 of the EVDC.
b. The notice shall provide 14 days for neighbors to respond with any questions or concerns.
Comments shall be provided to the planning department.
c. The planning department shall provide the applicant with a copy of any comments received.
6. Administrative determination. Within five working days following receipt of comments, the
Community Development Director shall provide a written determination stating that the request to
extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure:
a. Is approved, and complies with this code and any other approvals imposed by the governing
body or the board of adjustment; or
b. Requires modifications, based upon the referral review; or
c. Is denied based upon an inability to comply with this code, including the review criteria
contained herein, and any other approvals or conditions of approval imposed by the governing
body or the Board of Adjustment.
7. The decision of the Community Development Director may be appealed in writing to the
governing body, pursuant to Subsection 12.1 C. of the EVDC.
8. Upon the determination of the Community Development Director that the application:
a. Requires modifications, the applicant shall be required to make a revised submittal, for a
subsequent review, that addresses the referral or other comments. Prior to the revised submittal
the applicant may request a meeting to discuss the referral or other comments; or
b. If approved, the applicant shall provide final versions of the site plan and supporting
documents for approval by the Community Development Director.
C. Review criteria for requests to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a
nonconforming use, building or structure.
To approve a request to extend, expand, or enlarge a nonconforming use, building or structure,
the Community Development Director shall consider the following criteria and find that each has
been met or determined to be inapplicable:
1. The extended, expanded, enlarged or changed use, building or structure is not more than 50
percent larger or more intense than the initial use, building or structure as measured by
indoor area and/or outdoor use area or as measured by other means deemed applicable by
the Community Development Director;
2. The request to extend, expand, or enlarge a nonconforming use, building or structure complies
with all applicable requirements of this Code and any applicable supplementary regulations;
3. The request to extend, expand or enlarge a nonconforming use, building or structure complies
with all conditions of approval imposed by the governing body or board of adjustment under
another approval process authorized by this code;
82
4. The proposed use will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the
vicinity of the subject property.
D. Number of approvals.
Only one request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use,
building or structure shall be granted per nonconformity. Additional expansions or changes in
character shall be accomplished by following the appropriate procedure to make the use, building
or structure conforming, pursuant to the EVDC.
E. Additional approval requirements.
Approval of a request for an extension, expansion, enlargement or change of character of a
nonconforming use, building or structure shall not relieve the applicant from complying with the
building codes as adopted by the jurisdictional authority or the building permit submittal
requirements.
F. Minor deviations.
Technical, engineering or other considerations may necessitate minor deviations from the
approved plans. The Community Development Director may approve minor deviations, in writing,
provided they comply with this code and the intent of the original approval.
G. Amendments.
Changes to the approval that the Community Development Director determines not to be minor
deviations shall require approval through the applicable process as described in this code. If the
amendments are not minor deviations, a new application shall be required and it shall receive full
review under the approval processes appropriate to the use as described in this code.
H. Vesting.
An approved request for an extension, expansion, enlargement or change of character of a
nonconforming use, building or structure shall not create a vested right. Approved plans shall be
effective for two years. If the use has not commenced and/or a building permit and/or development
construction permit are not issued within two years of the approval, the approved plan shall
automatically expire.
83
84
LIGHT & POWER DIVISION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Utilities Director Bergsten
Superintendent Lockhart
Date: April 10, 2018
RE: Memorandum of Understanding with Platte River Power Authority for Fiber
Construction to Glen Haven
Objective:
Obtain approval of the Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU). The MOU outlines an arrangement for the Town’s Light and
Power Division to construct a fiber optic route between the Municipal Building and Glen
Haven for Platte River Power Authority.
Present Situation:
PRPA is constructing a redundant fiber optic route between Loveland and Estes Park.
The segment between Drake and Glen Haven was completed in 2016 in conjunction
with the CR 43 flood recovery construction. The segment from the Estes Park
Municipal Building and Glen Haven has not been built.
Proposal:
Light and Power has proposed constructing the Estes-Glen Haven segment for PRPA
using a product, Dura-Line FuturePath® Figure-8, which lowers the cost of installing
additional fiber optics at a future date. Light and Power will absorb the cost of the
FuturePath® Figure-8. This product is being installed along Highway 34 from Mall Road
to the end of the Light and Power service area.
Advantages:
Lower future smart grid and broadband construction costs;
Develop staff skills in the means and methods of fiber optic construction;
This will result in high quality workmanship because our staff takes pride in the final
product and they know they’ll be the ones maintaining it;
Self-performance of this work allows us to perform visual inspection of the existing
electric system.
Disadvantages:
This adds to an already busy construction schedule; however, temporary staff is
being hired to help with this project.
85
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the approval of the MOU.
Budget:
$60,000, FuturePath® Figure-8, 502-7001-580.35-66 FIBER OPTIC INSTALL;
Construction expenses of $649,000 will be paid by PRPA.
Level of Public Interest:
Medium. There are some members of the public who recognize smart grid fiber and
PRPA’s fiber can be used for modern high-speed broadband service.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the PRPA MOU.
Attachments:
PRPA MOU
FuturePath® figure-8
Highway 34 FuturePath® construction during closure
Highway 34 FuturePath® splicing Highway 34 FuturePath® competed enclosure
86
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
GLEN HAVEN TO ESTES PARK LONG-HAUL FIBER PROJECT
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made and entered into ______________ , by and
between PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado (“Platte
River”), and the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO (“Estes Park”), hereinafter referred to as the
“Parties.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Platte River maintains a regional fiber optic network in and around the municipalities of Estes
Park, Loveland, Longmont and Fort Collins, Colorado for the purpose of ensuring high quality, reliable
communications critical to real-time operation of its electric system; and
WHEREAS, Estes Park desires to plan for the provision of future smart grid functions to its customers within
its electric service territory; and
WHEREAS, to further its smart grid initiative, Estes Park desires to construct a fiber pathway which will
allow for the installation of multiple fiber optic cables between Estes Park and Glen Haven, Colorado, which
pathway is within the electric service territory of Estes Park (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, Platte River desires to install a redundant fiber route between Loveland and Estes Park to
ensure the reliability of its electric communication system (the “Long-Haul”); and
WHEREAS, the Long-Haul portion of fiber between Glen Haven and Estes Park may be installed within the
Project; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this MOU is to set forth the terms upon which the Parties will jointly pursue
completion of the Project.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Parties hereby agree as
follows:
UNDERSTANDING
1.CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS. The parties hereto agree to negotiate in good faith to execute a
contract whereby Estes Park will provide construction services to Platte River for its portion of the
Project. The parties will work together as expeditiously as possible to ensure that a contract is executed
no later than June 1, 2018. Platte River shall draft the contract which shall include the following key
provisions:
a.Technical Specifications. Estes Park shall provide the technical specifications for the
Project which shall be reviewed and modified as necessary by Platte River. Upon the
approval of the technical specifications by Platte River, the specifications shall be
incorporated into the contract.
b.Cost Allocation. The contract shall include a breakdown of the cost allocation between the
parties for the Project. Platte River shall pay for that portion of the Project which includes
installation of a 144-strand cable of fiber and associated vaults located within the pathway.
Platte River shall also pay for its proportionate share of labor, equipment and materials
associated with construction and installation of the Project.
c.Payment Schedule. The contract shall include a payment schedule for amounts due to Estes
Park. Upon execution of this MOU, Platte River shall pay Estes Park the amount of
$298,302.00 for materials, equipment and a portion of the estimated labor costs associated
with Platte River’s portion of the Project as set forth in Paragraph 2 below.
87
The schedule of payments for the remaining amounts due shall be set forth in the contract.
Platte River shall retain a minimum of 5% of the total contract amount until final
acceptance of the work. Platte River’s total estimated project cost is $649,000.00 as
follows:
The cost estimate breakdown:
Note: Contracted work includes blasting, fiber install, and boring allowances totaling
$118,000, thus the contingency value is $52,698. The Equipment total above includes
mileage and vehicle charges as listed in the detail cost estimate set forth in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
d.Pole Attachment/Easement Rights. Estes Park shall grant to Platte River the perpetual right
to occupy the pathway for the maintenance and operation of its Long-Haul fiber and
associated vaults between Glen Haven and Estes Park. This permission shall be conveyed
by a separate License or Pole Attachment Agreement.
e.Construction. Estes Park shall procure and provide all material, labor, equipment, permits,
project management and construction administration for the installation and completion of
the Project. The existing electric path shall be utilized as much as possible to minimize
costs. For underground, all extra conduit space will be utilized that is currently available.
For overhead, existing poles will be used as much as possible. Areas that need additional
support will be identified and an estimate of cost will be made accordingly. For
underground, this includes additional trenching, boring, or blasting work needed. For
overhead, this would include any additional installation of poles. Estes Park shall acquire
all permits for any road crossings or right-of-way work areas as necessary from CDOT,
Larimer County, or the Town of Estes Park. The Project shall be completed before
December 18, 2018, weather permitting.
f.Fiber Specifications. All materials supplied, and installation practices performed by Estes
Park or it subcontractors shall comply with Platte River’s fiber installation practices, and
product performance specifications set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
g.Warranty. Estes Park shall provide a one-year warranty which shall require that the work
contracted will be as specified and will be free from defects in design, workmanship and
materials. If within the warranty period the work fails to meet the provisions of the
Labor $ 270,000
Material $ 125,852
Equipment $ 82,450
Contracted work/Contingency $ 170,698
Estimated Total $ 649,000
88
warranty, Estes Park shall promptly correct any defects, by adjustment, repair or
replacement of all defective parts or materials at no cost to Platte River.
h.Maintenance. Estes Park shall at all times own and maintain the attachment (excluding
Platte River’s 144 fiber strand cable and associated vaults). The pathway shall be
maintained, repaired and replaced by Estes Park in such a manner to enable Platte River to
exercise the full use and benefit of its Long-Haul fiber and to fulfill Platte River’s own
telecommunications service and other requirements.
i.Coordination. Throughout the construction of the Project, the parties shall consult with
each other on a frequency to be agreed upon for the purpose of resolving any issues that
may arise during construction.
2.NOTICE TO PROCEED
a.Execution of this MOU by the Parties shall constitute a Notice to Proceed, authorizing
Estes Park to begin procurement of Project materials and equipment and to perform
Project preconstruction services subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. Upon
execution of this MOU, Platte River shall pay Estes Park the sum of Two Hundred
Ninety-Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Two Dollars ($298,302.00). This amount
shall include the following costs associated with Platte River’s portion of the Project:
Materials $125,852.00 (100% of Platte River’s estimated cost)
Equipment $82,450.00 (100% of Platte River’s estimated cost)
Labor $90,000.00 (1/3 of Platte River’s estimated cost)
$298,302.00
b.The Parties agree to execute the Project contract referred to herein, to provide for all
terms and conditions to which the construction, delivery and maintenance of the Project
shall be subject.
3.TERM. The Term of this MOU shall be from the date first above written through the execution date of
the Project contract referred to herein.
Total
89
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this MOU to be executed the day and year first
above written.
PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY:
By: __________________________
Title: __________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Deputy General Counsel
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
By: __________________________
Title: __________________________
ATTEST:
__________________________
Town Clerk
90
Exhibit A
Detailed Cost Estimate
Item Item #Unit Cost Quantity Total
Estimated Labor estimated labor $60.00 4,500.00 $270,000.00
Mileage EL-MILEAGE $0.80 1,500.00 $1,200.00
UG 12.7mm x 10mm MicroDuct EL-SMRT-GRD-02 $0.00 15,000.00 $3,900.00
MICRO FIBER OPTIC CABLE EL-208-15-30 $1.38 60,000.00 $82,800.00
PENCELL VAULT EL-900-55-20 $1,381.90 15.00 $22,113.00
BORING EL-MAT-116 $40.00 1,200.00 $48,000.00
POLE 45' CL2 EL-675-90-9 $1,004.95 15.00 $15,074.25
CROSSARM 8' FIBERGLASS EL-675-90-30 $130.99 15.00 $1,964.85
Backbone Fiber Systems, LLC EL-0005 $50,000.00
Badger Blasting EL-0001 $20,000.00
Vehicle Charges EL-VEHCHRG $32.50 2,500.00 $81,250.00
Subtotal $596,302.10
Contingency $52,697.90
Total $649,000.00
91
Exhibit B
Platte River Power Authority
Fiber Specifications
Span Requirements:
Span documentation will be performed using the two following methods: Optical Time Domain
Reflectometer (OTDR) and insertion loss (stabilized light source and power meter) measurement
in each direction at 1310 and 1550 run wavelengths.
(1)Maximum dB/km loss must not exceed 0.25 db/km at 1550 nm and 0.35 at 1310 nm.
(2)Typical span scenario 30.0 dB = 120 km X 0.25 dB/km.
(3)The splice loss will average 0.10 dB. Splices shall be measured using bi -directional
methods to average absolute splice loss. In no case shall a fiber show a single event
discontinuity greater than 0.5 dB. Discontinuities (known as steps, splices, or
attenuation non-uniformities) shall be measured with an OTDR to determine the loss
of the localized attenuation. For fusion splices, the loss or gain of each point
discontinuity shall not exceed -0.04 dB or +0.08 dB.
(4)All fiber splices will be fiber-to-fiber fusion type.
(5)Cable and pigtails will be fusion spliced.
(6)Test data including OTDR hard copies and electronic data will be retained by Platte
River Power Authority’s System Maintenance Manager.
Key Optical Performance Characteristics For Single-Mode Optical Cables:
Attenuation Single-Mode Non-Shifted:
1)The attenuation must not exceed 0.25 dB/km when measured at a wavelength of
1.55 microns (1550 nm) using the two-point measurement.
2)The attenuation must not exceed 0.35 dB /km when measured at a wavelength
of 1.30 microns (1310 nm) using the two point measurement.
Attenuation Versus Wavelength Single-Mode:
The attenuation for the wavelength region from 1525 nm to 1575 nm must not exceed
the attenuation at 1550 nm by more than 0.05 dB/km.
Chromatic Dispersion Non-Dispersion Shifted (ps/nm-km):
For conventional single-mode fibers, the zero dispersion wavelength must be 1301.5 to
1321.5 run. The maximum dispersion slope (SoMAX) must be no greater than 0.092
ps/(km-nm2). The nominal zero dispersion wavelength must be near 1310 nm zero
dispersion range. The dispersion between 1530 and 1570 nm must be less than or equal
to 18 ps/(nm-km).
92
Cutoff Wavelength
The cutoff wavelength of cabled fiber must be less than 1260 nm.
Core Diameter:
The core diameter must be typically 8.7 ± 1.3 um.
Temperature:
Operating Temperature Range -40 C to +70 C (40 F to 158 F).
Cable Installation Requirements:
Construction:
Cable will be constructed in accordance with sound commercial practices. The National
Electric Safety Code shall be followed in every case except where local regulations are
more stringent, in which case local regulations shall govern.
93
94
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: April 10, 2018
RE: Fee Waiver Request – Gray Hawk Ct./Crabapple Ln. (Habitat for
Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley Inc.): Plan Review and Building Permit
Fees - $6,950.00
Objective:
Request by owner to waive Building division fees, in order to facilitate housing attainability
through cost reduction. Total permit and plan review fees amount is preliminarily estimated at
$6316.05 (see attachments). Staff suggests a target fee-waiver amount at $6950.
Staff recommends approval of the waiver for $6,950.00.
Present Situation:
The fee waiver request is made by Habitat for Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley Inc, owner and
developer of the property. (The Estes Valley Habitat for Humanity has affiliated with the St.
Vrain Valley Habitat for Humanity in Longmont.)
The subject properties are located adjacent to the northeast corner of Gray Hawk Court and
Crabapple Lane, north of the Vista Ridge development and west of the Salud Clinic, inside
Town boundaries. This property and home project went through a rezoning and development-
plan approval process approx. 1.5 years ago. Habitat is now approaching construction season
and wishes to resolve the matter of fees before completing the building-permit application
procedures.
As some of the elements above are still in progress, building permits have not yet been
obtained; therefore, building permit fees are only an estimate at this time.
Proposal:
The request would allow for waiver of the plan review and building permit fees for two new
single-family detached houses on the two subject lots. If this waiver request is approved, any
cost in connection with Building division fees would be zeroed out, up to the amount of the
waiver (except the County tax, which cannot be waived by the Town.)
Attachment 2 consist of a series of emails between Habitat and the Building division regarding
estimated fees. Mr. John Lovell, Director of Development for Habitat, has provided square
95
footage for a preliminary valuation estimate. Building division has not yet made a final cost, as
plans have not yet been submitted, but the final figures are likely to be close to the estimate.
Staff would suggest that if the fees are waived, we go with the estimate of $6316.05, and add
another 10 percent on top of that, just in case. This would yield a fee waiver of $6950.00 in
round numbers.
Staff is reluctant to waive fees unless a clear need is present. In this case, however, the project
is aimed at providing two new units of housing, under an already approved development plan, in
a category the Town and community have identified as a high priority. The request also
complies with specific language in Policy 402 (attached) which provides for fee waivers in
workforce/attainable housing projects.
Staff supports this fee waiver as proposed.
We would note that more fee waivers may be forthcoming for other workforce/attainable housing
projects. Some or all of these may be quite worthwhile projects; however, it will be important to
keep an eye on revenue/expenditure ratios in the Community Development Dept. budget and
make any adjustments needed. All present-day CD funds are from the General Fund, whether
revenues or expenditures.
Advantages:
Would assist in providing workforce/attainable housing in Estes Valley, per Town Board
adopted Strategic Goals.
Fits criteria for fee waiver in adopted Policy 402.
Disadvantages:
Not necessarily a disadvantage, but caution is appropriate when removing a revenue
source from the Town budget.
Action Recommended:
Staff supports the request as presented.
Finance/Resource Impact:
101-2300-322.10-00: Waiver = not-to-exceed $6,950.00 [exact amount TBD upon future permit
review].
Level of Public Interest
Low on this specific request; medium-to-high on the topic of attainable/workforce housing
overall.
Attachments:
1. Letter from Habitat for Humanity of St. Vrain Valley Inc., dated April 2, 2018.
2. Email series: “Permit Fees” (dated March 28, 2018)
3. Policy 402 – Fee Waiver (Community Development).
96
P.O.Box2745HabitatEstesPark,CO80517-2745forHumanity®Phone:970-586-8301oftheEstesValleyApril2,2018EstesParkBoardofTrustees170MacGregorAvenueEstesPark,CO$0517DearMembersoftheBoardofTrustees;WearewritingtoyoutodaytorequestyoursupportforfeewaiversforourupcomingprojectonGrayHawkCourtinEstesPark.HabitatforHumanityoftheEstesValleyprovidesaffordablehomeownershipopportunitiestothoseat60%AMIorbelow.Applicantsareselectedafteralengthyscreeningprocessthatinvolvesdemonstrationofneed,abilitytorepayanaffordablemortgage,andwillingnesstopartner.Onceselectedapplicantsputinaminimumof250hoursofsweatequitytobuildtheirhomeandcompleteclassestopreparethemforhomeownership.Whenthehomeiscompletetheycloseonthehomeandpaybackano-profit,affordablemortgagethatHabitatusestobuildthenexthouse.Habitatwillbuildtwohousesatthissite.Thefirsthomewillbestartedthissummer.OneapplicanthasbeenselectedwhocurrentlylivesandworksinEstesParkinaSupervisorycapacityattheEstesParkMedicalCenter.ThispersonhaslivedinEstesParkforthepast10years.Thefirstmortgageforourhomewillbeapproximately$200,000andwillhaveadeedrestrictiononitthatwillmeetyourmostrecentdensitybonusrequirementsof50years.Wehaveincludedahousedesignrendering.Wewillworkwithourarchitecttodeterminecolorschemesandfeaturesthatseektoblendthishousewithotherhomedesignsinthearea.WelookforiardtoservingtheEstesParkcommunityandappreciateyourconsiderationofthisrequest.Thankyou!Sincerely,/DavidCEmerson•E-xeutiveDirectorAttachmentBuildingStrength.,StctbilitvandSef—RelianceThroughShelter97
r/198
Re: Permit Fees
Inbox
Jacki Wiedow
10:21 AM (22 hours ago)
to John, me
Your welcome John!
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:30 AM, John Lovell <jlovell@stvrainhabitat.org> wrote:
Thank you for the speedy response Jacki!
John Lovell
Director of Development
Habitat for Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley
Office: 303-682-2485 x101
Cell: 303-709-2810
This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information, and is intended for the
person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is prohibited.
From: Jacki Wiedow [mailto:jwiedow@estes.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 9:16 AM
To: John Lovell <jlovell@stvrainhabitat.org>
Cc: rhunt@estes.org
Subject: Re: Permit Fees
Hi John,
The valuation for the 1st unit is $342,375 according to the square footage calculation. The
Building Division fees and Larimer County Tax are as follows:
Building Permit Fee $2,354.55
Plan Review Fee $1,177.28
County Tax $941.53
Total $4,473.36
The valuation for the 2nd unit is $253,759 according to the square footage calculation. The
Building Division fees and Larimer County Tax are as follows:
Building Permit Fee $1,856.15
Plan Review Fee $928.07
County Tax $697.84
Total $3,482.06
John, if you need further assistance please contact me anytime.
99
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 8:48 AM, John Lovell <jlovell@stvrainhabitat.org> wrote:
Hi Jackie – Habitat for Humanity is going to be seeking fee waivers from the town board on April
10th for the two units we will be building at the corner of Gray Hawk Circle and Crabapple Lane.
Both of these units will be workforce/affordable single family homes for families earning between
30% – 60% of the Area Median Income for Larimer County.
The first unit has the following dimensions:
House: 1495 Square feet
Garage: 400 Square feet
Deck: 128 Square feet
The second unit has the following dimensions:
House: 1056 Square feet
Garage: 400 Square feet
Deck: 242 Square feet
I would appreciate an estimate of the fees that can be waived for each of these units so that I
can provide this information to the town board. Thank you so much for your help on this.
John Lovell
Director of Development
Habitat for Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley
Office: 303-682-2485 x101
Cell: 303-709-2810
This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information, and is intended for the
person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is prohibited.
Jacki Wiedow
Senior Permit Technician
Building Division
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
970-577-3726
100
101
102
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: April 10, 2018
RE: Fee Waiver Request – 260 Stanley Avenue (Kingswood Homes): Plan
Review and Building Permit Fees - $4,125.00
Objective:
Request by contractor/owner to waive Building division fees, in order to facilitate
housing attainability through cost reduction. Total permit and plan review fees amount is
preliminarily estimated at $3750 (see attachments 1 and 2). Staff suggests a target fee-
waiver amount at $4125.
Present Situation:
The fee waiver request is made by contractor Mike Kingswood (Kingswood Homes). Mr.
Kingswood is also a co-owner of the property with Cynthia Kingswood. This property is
the subject of several recently completed or still-underway development approvals,
including rezoning to RM (Multi-Family Residential), platting/replatting the property,
development plan, and transfer of a small piece of Town-owned property to the
Kingswoods to complete the project. The anticipated outcome is construction of seven
(7) new workforce/attainable housing units.
As some of the elements above are still in progress, building permits have not yet been
obtained; therefore, building permit fees are only an estimate at this time.
Proposal:
The request would allow for waiver of the plan review and building permit fees. If
approved by Town Board on April 10, any cost already paid by the contractor/owner in
connection with Building division fees would be reimbursed (except the County tax,
which cannot be waived by the Town.) Any future cost would not be charged if the
waiver is approved, up to the amount of the waiver.
Attachment 2 consist of a series of emails between Mr. Kingswood and the Building
division regarding estimated fee costs. Mr. Kingswood believes the $209/sq.ft. fee
estimate for the new units is somewhat high; Building division has not yet made a final
estimate.
103
Staff would suggest that if the fees are waived, we go with the (possibly high) estimate
of $3750, and add another 10 percent on top of that, just in case. This would yield a fee
waiver of $4125.
Staff is reluctant to waive fees unless a clear need is present. In this case, however, the
project is aimed at providing 7 new units of housing in a category the Town and
community have identified as a high priority. The request also complies with specific
language in Policy 402 (attached) which provides for fee waivers in workforce/attainable
housing projects.
Staff supports this fee waiver as proposed.
We would note that more fee waivers may be forthcoming for other workforce/attainable
housing projects. Some or all of these may be quite worthwhile projects; however, it will
be important to keep an eye on revenue/expenditure ratios in the Community
Development Dept. budget and make any adjustments needed. All present-day CD
funds are from the General Fund, whether revenues or expenditures.
Advantages:
Would assist in providing workforce/attainable housing in Estes Valley, per Town
Board adopted Strategic Goals.
Fits criteria for fee waiver in adopted Policy 402.
Disadvantages:
Not necessarily a disadvantage, but caution is appropriate when removing a
revenue source from the Town budget.
Action Recommended:
Staff supports the request as presented.
Finance/Resource Impact:
101-2300-322.10-00: Refund = $4,125.00 [exact amount TBD upon future permit
review].
Level of Public Interest
Low on this specific request; medium-to-high on the topic of attainable/workforce
housing overall.
Attachments:
1. Email string dated Jan 11, 2018 referencing the fee waiver request
2. Email series: “Permit Fees” (dated March 16, 2018)
3. Policy 402 – Fee Waiver (Community Development).
104
105
3/16/2018
Jacki Wiedow <jwiedow@estes.org>
permit fees
13 messages
Mike Kingswood <mike@homesbykingswood.com>Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:39 AM
To: Jacki Wiedow <jwiedow@estes.org>
Cc: James Day <commercialdevelopment@gmail.com>
Jacki,
For my upcoming 7 units at 260 stanley avenue, can you help me understand what permitting costs will be excluding
electric and water fees.
What info do you need to calc the fees?
Thanks,
Mike
Jacki Wiedow <jwiedow@estes.org>Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:47 AM
To: Mike Kingswood <mike@homesbykingswood.com>
Hi Mike
I would need the square footage for each unit. Also provide a valuation as well.
[Quoted text hidden]
--
Jacki Wiedow
Senior Permit Technician
Building Division
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
970-577-3726
Mike Kingswood <mike@homesbykingswood.com>Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:51 AM
To: Jacki Wiedow <jwiedow@estes.org>
Being individual attached town homes , is there a separate permit for each unit or each building ?
Sent from my iPhone
[Quoted text hidden]
Jacki Wiedow <jwiedow@estes.org>Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:55 AM
To: Mike Kingswood <mike@homesbykingswood.com>
Yes Mike, there would be a separate permit for each unit.
[Quoted text hidden]
Mike Kingswood <mike@homesbykingswood.com>Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:24 AM
To: Jacki Wiedow <jwiedow@estes.org>
But a master plan can be created so only 1 review cost for each ?
Sent from my iPhone
[Quoted text hidden]
Jacki Wiedow <jwiedow@estes.org>Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:55 AM
To: Mike Kingswood <mike@homesbykingswood.com>
106
3/16/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - permit fees
Mike
A Master Plan is charged the full Plan Review fee. The next permits, if absolutely identical would be charged 1/4 of the
Plan Review fee. All other fees would apply.
I hope this answered your question.....if not let me know.
[Quoted text hidden]
Mike Kingswood <mike@homesbykingswood.com>Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:56 AM
To: Jacki Wiedow <jwiedow@estes.org>
I have a 4- plex with each unit the same except 2 are mirror image . All part of 1 building .Each unit has 1100sf finished ,
252 sf garage, 176 sf unfin.storage, 128 sf deck. valuation for construction is 150k /each unit.
From that can you give me approx. permit cost ?
[Quoted text hidden]
Jacki Wiedow <jwiedow@estes.org>Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:36 PM
To: Mike Kingswood <mike@homesbykingswood.com>
Hi Mike
This is an estimate based on a valuation of $261,668 (we use square footage calculations on new builds) $3570 in fees
for our Division only and again a rough estimate.
[Quoted text hidden]
Mike Kingswood <mike@homesbykingswood.com>Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:02 PM
To: Jacki Wiedow <jwiedow@estes.org>
Thanks Jacki ! Would you look into that valuation some more ...if thats for each unit , that seems way high with this being
multi family and budget build stuff. I have built 2 duplexes this year that were coming in at 150/sf (finished areas) with
attached 1 car garages ... very similar to this. With a 4 plex the build amount goes down quite a bit.
When it comes time for permit, if I take my total build cost for entire building and divide by 4 will that number be used as
valuation?
Thanks again,
mike
[Quoted text hidden]
Jacki Wiedow <jwiedow@estes.org>Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM
To: Mike Kingswood <mike@homesbykingswood.com>
Hi Mike
We use square footage amounts for new builds. $209 is the charge per sq. ft. for new homes.
[Quoted text hidden]
Mike Kingswood <mike@homesbykingswood.com>Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:17 PM
To: Jacki Wiedow <jwiedow@estes.org>
how do I contest that? I am building alot of homes for 180... AND LESS
[Quoted text hidden]
Jacki Wiedow <jwiedow@estes.org>Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:23 PM
To: Mike Kingswood <mike@homesbykingswood.com>
Hi Mike
You can come in at the end of a project with ALL receipts that show the amount, and we can do an audit. This is the
amount used for everybody to determine valuation.
[Quoted text hidden]
107
3/16/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - permit fees
Mike Kingswood <mike@homesbykingswood.com>Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:32 PM
To: Jacki Wiedow <jwiedow@estes.org>
Ok , But surely there is cost differences between multi family and single...
[Quoted text hidden]
108
109
110
TOWN ATTORNEY Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: April 10, 2018
RE: Ordinance No.07-18 Amending Chapter 5.20 of Estes Park Municipal
Code Relating to Business Licenses
Objective:
Review, and if appropriate, adopt Ordinance No. 07-18 which amends Chapter 5.20
Business Licenses of the Municipal Code.
Present Situation:
The Town’s Business License Ordinance, Chapter 5.20 of the Municipal Code, needs to
be amended to address and clarify issues with regard to the types of businesses,
occupations, and professions which are required to obtain and maintain a business
license, differentiate between certain types of business licenses, adjust the fees for
business licenses, and address administration of business licenses. The amendments
to Chapter 5.20 of the Municipal Code set forth in Ordinance 07-18 address the
following:
Updates the definitions to clarify the definitions of individual accommodation
units, vacation homes, bed and breakfast inns, mobile food vending, and
individual service contracting.
Clarify that individual accommodation units, i.e. condos, which are individually
owned and operated as vacation homes, are required to obtain an individual
business license.
Establish the fee for all businesses which provide accommodations including
vacation homes, bed and breakfast inns, individual accommodation units at $200
plus $50 per each bedroom.
Establishes the fee of $25 for an outdoor mobile food vendor license and
individual service contractor license.
Clarifies that all businesses required to have a sales tax license in Colorado shall
provide a copy of the current sales tax license at the time of obtaining a business
license.
Provides exceptions to certain categories to obtain and maintain a business
license including businesses, professions, or occupations, operating solely in
property owned by the Town, the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District, the
Park School District; professional performing artists; and any organization/entity
having tax exempt status.
111
The Town Staff is recommending approval of Ordinance 07-18 which amends Chapter
5.20 of the Municipal Code.
Advantages:
Updates and clarifies the requirements for business, professions, and occupations to
obtain and maintain a business license, adds and amends business license fees, and
provides exemptions for certain categories of businesses.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Adoption of Ordinance 07-18.
Budget:
It is anticipated that revenues from business licenses will increase if Ordinance 07-18 is
adopted.
Level of Public Interest
Medium.
Sample Motion:
I move to adopt/not adopt Ordinance 07-18 Amending Chapter 5.20 to Estes Park
Municipal Code relating to Business Licenses.
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 07-18.
112
ORDINANCE NO. 07-18
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5.20 BUSINESS LICENSES
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, Chapter 5.20 of the Municipal Code sets forth the requirements for
each business, profession or occupation within the Town to obtain and maintain a
business license; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend Chapter 5.20 to provide for new categories
of business licenses, clarify the requirements for individual accommodation units to
obtain a business license, amend the amount of business license fees, and provide
exceptions to the terms and conditions of Chapter 5.20 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has reviewed the amendments to Chapter
5.20 and determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to approve the
amendment of Chapter 5.20 of the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. Chapter 5.20 of the Municipal Code, as more fully set forth on Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby amended in its entirety.
WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Board of Trustees an emergency exists in order for
the Town to immediately issue business licenses pursuant to the newly amended
provisions of Chapter 5.20 of the Municipal Code, and therefore this Ordinance shall
take effect and be in force immediately after its passage, adoption, and signature of the
Mayor or the Mayor Pro Tem.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this _________ day of _______________, 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
113
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the ________day of _____________, 2018 and published in a
newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the
day of __________________, 2018.
Town Clerk
114
EXHIBIT A
FINAL
04/02/2018
Chapter 5.20 ‐ Business Licenses
5.20.010 ‐ Business license.
(a) Each business, profession or occupation within the Town, which business, profession or occupation
consists of the selling of goods, wares, merchandise or service; the performing or rendering of
service for charge; the leasing, renting or furnishing of an accommodation units or vacation home;
and the carrying on or engaging in any nonresidential business shall obtain and maintain a business
license. Each business, profession or occupation conducted at a separate physical location,
regardless of ownership, shall obtain and maintain a separate business license.
(b) Each individual accommodation unit or vacation home which is separately owned, including but not
limited to a condominium unit, shall obtain and maintain a business license for the individual unit as
provided in Section 5.20.030. An entity or company managing one (1) or more individual
accommodation units or vacation homes, shall obtain and maintain a business license for the
management business separate from the business license of the owner of the individual
accommodation unit or vacation home.
(Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 18-93 §2, 1993; Ord. 20-01 §1, 2001;
Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004; Ord. 19-07 §1, 2007; Ord. 28-07 §1, 2007; Ord. 02-09 §§1, 2, 2009)
(Ord. No. 01-16 , § 1, 1-26-2016)
5.20.020 ‐ Definitions.
In this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:
Accommodation means the rental, leasing or occupancy of an accommodation site,
accommodation unit, individual accommodation unit, vacation home or bed and breakfast inn for a
term total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days.
Accommodation site means one (1) individual parcel of real property consisting of twoone (21)
or more accommodations units that are under all owned and managed by one person or entity.
management control of a representative, entity or agency for rental purposes.
Accommodation unit means any room, mobile home, recreational vehicle, camp site, or other
area in a visitor-serving facility that provides temporary lodging, such as any hotel, motel, guest
house, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park or campground, or any
such similar place, to any person whom, for a consideration, uses, possesses, or has the right to use
or possess such room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site or other area for a total
continuous duration term of less than thirty (30) days.
Bed and breakfast inn means a detached single-family residential dwelling unit that is rented,
leased or occupied for accommodations purposes accommodation thatand is operator-occupied on a
fulltime basisor an on-site manager resides on the premises during the accommodation use..
Building contractor means a business, profession or occupation whose primary business is the
physical construction of structures and their appurtenances, including but not limited to:
Acoustical contractor;
Air conditioning contractor;
115
Asphalt contractor;
Cabinets and cabinet makers;
Carpenter;
Caulking contractor;
Ceiling contractor;
Concrete contractor;
Counter tops contractor;
Demolition contractor;
Drilling and boring contractor;
Drywall contractor;
Electrical contractor;
Excavating contractor;
Fire system installation contractor;
Framing contractor;
General contractor;
Heating/mechanical contractor;
Home building;
Home improvement contractor;
House mover contractor;
Insulation contractor;
Landscape contractor;
Mason contractor;
Painting contractor;
Patio, deck, porch, building/enclosure contractor;
116
Paving contractor;
Plumbing contractor;
Remodeling and repairing contractor;
Road building contractor;
Roofing contractor;
Septic tanks and systems contractor;
Siding contractor;
Sprinkler system contractor;
Swimming pool contractor;
Tile/ceramic contractor; and waterproofing contractor.
General business means the carrying on or engaging in any business, profession or occupation
within the Town, which business, profession or occupation consists of the selling of goods, wares,
merchandise or services or the performing or rendering of service for charge; except the carrying on
or engaging in an accommodation, building contractor, or home business, outdoor mobile food
vending or individual service contracting. .
Home business means a business, profession or occupation conducted within or from a
dwelling by a resident as an accessory use to the residential use of the dwelling, but it does not
include a building contractor or accommodation.
Individual Accommodation Unit means any separately owned accommodation, such as a
condominium unit, which is rented, leased or occupied for a term of less than thirty (30) days and is
not a vacation home.
Individual Service Contractor means an individual who offers services as an independent
contractor, who is not an employee of the business or site where the services are provided; and the
individual services are provided on a sporadic basis for less than ninety business days in a calendar
year. Individual Service Contractors include but are not limited to masseuses, fitness instructors,
art/music teachers, physical therapists or lecturers.
Nonresident business means a business, profession or occupation whose business premises is
located outside the corporate limits of the Town but is otherwise subject to the terms of this Chapter.
Outdoor Mobile Food Vending means a business conducted from a licensed vehicle which sells
food and beverages to the public.
Owner means the person owning any business, profession, occupation or accommodation. unit.
In the event that the owner is a nonresident or cannot be located by the Town, the operator,
manager or lessee of any such business, profession or occupation shall be deemed an owner for all
purposes of this Chapter.
Vacation home means a single-family residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased or occupied
for accommodations purposes for compensation for terms of less than thirty (30) days.
117
(Ord. 1-91 §1 (part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 18-93 §1, 1993; Ord. 11-94 §1, 1994,
Ord. 15-97, 1997; Ord. 20-98 §1, 1998; Ord. 20-01 §2, 2001; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004; Ord. 19-07 §1,
2007; Ord. 02-09 §§3, 4, 2009; Ord. 02-10 §1, 2010)
(Ord. No. 01-16 , § 1, 1-26-2016)
5.20.030 ‐ Amount of license fee.
The business license fee is set forth as follows:
(1) General business license: two hundred dollars ($200.00) per year.
(2) Accommodations license as follows: each individual accommodation site shall pay a business
license fee based upon the number of units on the individual accommodation site. five (5) units
or less, one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per year; six (6) to twenty (20) units, two hundred
sixty dollars ($260.00) per year; twenty-one (21) units or more, three hundred seventy-five
dollars ($375.00) per year. Each individual accommodation site shall pay a business license fee
based upon the number of units on the individual accommodation site.
(3) Building contractor's license: two hundred dollars ($200.00) per year.
(4) Home business license: one hundred dollars ($100.00) per year.
(5) Individual accommodation unit : Any individual accommodation unit, including but not limited to
a condominium unit, which is not part of an accommodation site, shall pay a business license
fee of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00200.00) per year, plus fifty dollars ($50.00) for each
bedroom.
.
(6) Vacation home: two hundred dollars ($200.00) base fee per year; plus fifty dollars ($50.00) for
each bedroom.
(7) Bed and Breakfast Inn License: two hundred dollars ($200.00) base fee per year; plus fifty
dollars ($50.00) for each bedroom.
(8) Outdoor Mobile Food Vendor License: ______________ dollars ($_25_____) per year;
(9) Individual Service Contractor License: _______________ dollars ($_25________) per year
(Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 18-93 §3, 1993; Ord. 11-94 §2, 1994;
Ord. 20-98 §3, 1998; Ord. 21-98 §1, 1998; Ord. 20-01 §3, 2001; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004; Ord. 19-07
§1, 2007; Ord. 02-09 §5, 2009)
(Ord. No. 01-16 , § 1, 1-26-2016)
5.20.040 ‐ Business license requirements.
Every person who is the owner of any business, profession, occupation or, accommodation unit or
vacation home, including owners of multiple businesses at separate physical locations, shall obtain a
business license from the Town as follows:
(1) A business license shall be obtained prior to engaging in any business, profession, occupation
or, accommodation or vacation home within the Town.
(2) The owner shall complete all forms and provide all information required by the Town Clerk for
obtaining a business license.
(3) The owner, if required, shall complete an Affidavit of Lawful Presence and present valid
identification required by Section 24-76.5-101, et seq., C.R.S., or any regulation of the State
promulgated thereto.
118
(4) The owner shall complete and/or provide all documentation and information required by the
State and/or the United States for the issuance of a business license.
(5) If the business is required to have a sales tax license by Colorado Law, the owner shall provide
a copy of a current Colorado sales tax license.
(Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004; Ord. 19-07 §1, 2007;
Ord. 28-07 §2, 2007; Ord. 02-09 §6, 2009)
(Ord. No. 01-16 , § 1, 1-26-2016)
5.20.050 ‐ Form of license; transfers.
Each business license shall be numbered and shall show the name and place of the business of the
licensee and shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the business premises for which it is issued. This
license may be transferable to any new owner of the business so long as the business remains at the
same premises.
(Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 18-93 §4, 1993; Ord. 15-97, 1997;
Ord. 20-01 §4, 2001; Ord. 19-07 §1, 2007; Ord. 02-09 §7, 2009)
(Ord. No. 01-16 , § 1, 1-26-2016)
5.20.060 ‐ Payment of license fee.
The owner of each business, profession, occupation or, accommodation unit or vacation home
subject to the provisions of this Chapter shall pay the business license fee for each calendar year in which
the owner engages in any business, profession, occupation or, accommodation or vacation home within
the Town as follows:
(1) Full payment is required on or before March 31 of each calendar year.
(2) Any new business, profession, occupation or, accommodation or vacation home which begins
its business on or after January 1 and on or before June 30 shall pay the full amount of the
business license fee. Any new business, profession, occupation or accommodation which
begins its business on or after July 1 and on or before September 30 shall pay one-half (½) of
the business license fee. Any new business, profession, occupation or accommodation which
begins its business on or after October 1 and on or before December 31 shall pay one-fourth
(¼) of the business license fee. All business license fees subject to this Subsection (2) shall be
due and payable upon submittal of an application to the Town Clerk's office.
(3) In the event any existing business license is not renewed in the subsequent calendar year on
or before March 31, the business license shall be deemed to have lapsed. A new business
license fee in full must be paid by the owner. There shall be no proration of this business license
fee.
(4) In the event that a nonsufficient funds (NSF) check is received, a twenty-dollar ($20.00) fee will
be added to the account.
(Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 18-93 §5, 1993; Ord. 15-97, 1997;
Ord. 20-01 §5, 2001; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004; Ord. 19-07 §1, 2007; Ord. 28-07 §3, 2007; Ord. 02-09
§8, 2009)
(Ord. No. 01-16 , § 1, 1-26-2016)
119
5.20.070 ‐ Violation.
It shall be a violation of this Chapter for an owner of a business, profession, occupation or,
accommodation or vacation home to fail to obtain and maintain the business license; refuse to make
payment to the Town of the business license fee; or fail to complete the application process.
(Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004; Ord. 19-07 §1, 2007;
Ord. 28-07 §4, 2007; Ord. 02-09 §9, 2009)
(Ord. No. 01-16 , § 1, 1-26-2016)
5.20.080 ‐ Revocation of license.
The Town shall give written notice to the owner of any business, profession, occupation or ,
accommodation , or vacation home who has failed to pay the fee in accordance with Section 5.20.060. If
the business license fee is not paid in full within twenty (20) days of the date of the notice, the Town shall
revoke the business license. Upon revocation of the business license, the owner's right and privilege to
conduct the business, profession, occupation or accommodation or vacation home within the Town is
terminated.
(Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004; Ord. 19-07 §5, 2007;
Ord. 28-07 §5, 2007; Ord. 02-09 §10, 2009)
(Ord. No. 01-16 , § 1, 1-26-2016)
5.20.085 ‐ Termination of right to conduct business.
Upon revocation of a business license or failure to obtain and maintain a business license, the
owner's right and privilege to conduct its business, profession, occupation, or accommodation or
vacation home within the Town is terminated. Following termination, the Town may seek injunctive relief
in the District Court to enjoin the owner of any business, profession, occupation or, accommodation or
vacation home within the Town from conducting said business, profession, occupation or accommodation
within the Town.
(Ord. 28-07 §6, 2007; Ord. 02-09 §11, 2009)
(Ord. No. 01-16 , § 1, 1-26-2016)
5.20.090 ‐ Inspections.
The Town shall be entitled at any time, upon reasonable notice to the owner of any business,
profession, occupation or accommodation, to inspect the premises occupied by the business, profession,
occupation or accommodation for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the terms and conditions of
this Chapter. In the event that such inspection reveals that the business license fee charged to the
business, profession, occupation or accommodation is in fact erroneous, an adjustment shall be made by
the Town of the license fee.
(Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 4-04 §1, 2004)
(Ord. No. 01-16 , § 1, 1-26-2016)
5.20.100 ‐ Chapter exceptions.
The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to the following:
120
(1) Any business, profession or occupation licensed under any other Town ordinance and paying a
license fee to engage in such business, profession or occupation, other than sales tax licenses,
nor to any business, profession or occupation paying another business license fee or tax to the
Town.
(2) Any business, profession or occupation which consists solely of delivering goods at wholesale
to other businesses, professions or occupations within the Town.
(3) Any business, profession or occupation solely conducted on property owned by the Town.
,Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District or Park R-3 School District.
(4) Professional performing artists performing within the town, including, but not limited to
musicians, bands, orchestras, comedians, actors and lecturers.
(5) Any organization or entity that is formally recognized by the United States Internal Revenue
Service, as having tax-exempt status
(Ord. 1-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 19-91 §1(part), 1991; Ord. 15-97, 1997; Ord. 02-09 §12, 2009)
(Ord. No. 01-16 , § 1, 1-26-2016)
5.20.110 ‐ Vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns.
This Section shall apply to vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns.
(1) Restrictions on rentals. The rental, leasing or occupancy of all vacation homes and bed and
breakfast inns subject to this Section shall be restricted as follows:
a. Compliance with the applicable regulations found in the Estes Valley Development Code is
required.
b. The application for a business license for any vacation home or bed and breakfast inns
shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be
contacted by the Town with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The
person set forth on the application shall be the representative of the owner for all purposes
with regard to the issuance of the business license, the operation of the vacation home or
bed and breakfast inn and revocation of the business license pursuant to the terms and
conditions of this Section.
(2) Violation. It is a violation of this Section for any owner, representative, guest and/or occupant of
a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn to be convicted, including a plea of no contest, of a
violation of Section 9.08.010 (Disturbing the Peace) of this Code; to fail to collect and remit all
required sales tax to the State due and owing for the leasing, rental or occupation of a vacation
home or bed and breakfast inn; to violate any provisions of this Section; and/or to fail to acquire
and pay for a business license. For the purpose of this Section, only violations of Section
9.08.010 of this Code which occur on the premises of the vacation home or bed and breakfast
inn and while a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn is being occupied as a vacation home
or bed and breakfast inn shall be a violation of this Section.
(3) Revocation of license. The Town may revoke the business license of any vacation home or
bed and breakfast inn for violation of the provisions of this Section as follows:
a. The Town Clerk, upon the receipt and verification of any violation of this Section, shall give
written notice to the owner or representative that a violation has occurred.
b. Upon the receipt and verification of any subsequent violation of the terms and conditions of
this Section, within two (2) years of the date of the written warning set forth in Subsection a
above, the Town Clerk may revoke the business license by giving written notice to the
121
owner or representative of the revocation of the license. Said revocation shall be for one
(1) year from the date of the notice.
c. Upon the receipt and verification of any subsequent violation of the terms and conditions of
this Section within two (2) years after reinstatement, the Town Clerk shall revoke the
business license by giving written notice to the owner or representative of the revocation of
the business license. Said revocation shall be for two (2) years from the date of the notice.
Upon revocation of the business license, the owner's right to operate a vacation home or
bed and breakfast inn on the property shall terminate.
(4) Appeal. Any owner or representative who wishes to contest the written warning or the
revocation of a business license shall be entitled to request a hearing before the Town Clerk by
written notice delivered in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Town
Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the date of the warning or revocation. The Town Clerk shall hold
a hearing on the appeal and determine whether or not a violation of the provisions of this
Section has occurred. The owner shall be entitled to present any evidence of compliance with
the terms and conditions of this Section at said hearing. The decision of the Town Clerk as to
whether or not the violation occurred shall be final and not subject to further appeal.
(Ord. 4-04 §3, 2004; Ord. 02-10 §1, 2010)
(Ord. No. 01-16 , § 1, 1-26-2016)
122
Business License Fee Short Term Vendor Home Occupation Late Fee Population
Aurora 39.25
Basalt 35
Blackhawk 50
Blue River 50 -25
Buena Vista 20
________________
2600
Brookside 25
--____________
Cherry Hills Village 25
_________--
6000
Crestone 40 25 150
Florence 50 -____________
Fountain 50 28,000
Foxfield -50 -
___________________
Grand Lake ----165 82.5
Hayden 25
Leadville -—--50 -,10 2600
Milliken 20 --_____________6000
Moffit 25
Mt.Crested Butte 100
______
900
Monument 75 —6000
30 700
Palisade 50 --25
Red Cliff 120 15 36
Severance 25 -
Silt 50 -
__________
Snowmass Village 85 -15 50
---
South Fork 20.5 -
Wheat Ridge 20 -
4/10/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - Zoning regarding schools near liquor establishments - from Johanna Darden
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=LcPASTiusm8.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=162ad4097197889c&siml=16241eba3eee078c&siml=16
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Zoning regarding schools near liquor establishments - from Johanna Darden
3 messages
Bill J. Darden <bdarden@uchicago.edu>Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:39 PM
To: "bhull@estes.org" <bhull@estes.org>, "bleavitt@estes.org" <bleavitt@estes.org>, "dbaker@estes.org"
<dbaker@estes.org>, "rfoster@estes.org" <rfoster@estes.org>, "rschneider@estes.org" <rschneider@estes.org>,
"swhite@estes.org" <swhite@estes.org>, "smurphree@estes.org" <smurphree@estes.org>
Cc: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>
Dear Estes Valley Planning Commissioners,
I understand that Eagle Rock School would like to be allowed to build housing for their staff that
would be in an area not currently zoned for such purpose. I understand that you are considering
passing legislation which would allow schools to be built in all zoned locations in the Estes Valley.
I also understand that you will consider removing the distance between schools and venues that
serve alcohol (restaurants, bars, etc.).
I believe Eagle Rock School could be allowed to build housing at their existing property. This could
be done as a special case. I do not believe there should be an overall change in zoning to allow
schools to be built anywhere in the Estes Valley.
What were the reasons the development code restricted establishments that serve alcohol to be
the distance from schools that now exist? Are these reasons no longer pertinent, and would
children be protected from possible harm if the restriction was removed? We say that we are a
family friendly community. There has been a huge increase in the number of establishments
obtaining liquor licenses and the number of events asking for permission to serve alcohol.
Excessive alcohol consumption causing drunkenness has always been a problem, and removing
restrictions on where and when alcohol can be served or brewed does not make one believe we
care about our children or citizens for that matter. Substance abuse is a problem in our
community. It affects drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. I have no objection to people who drink
reasonably
and who are in control of their emotions and ability to drive. I do object to the increase of
establishments requesting liquor licenses and requests to serve alcohol at events.
Please discuss the reasons for the distance between schools and alcohol establishments today
and show why there be no need in future for this restriction to exist.
Sincerely,
Johanna Darden, Year-Round Resident of Estes Park
501 Mac Gregor Avenue
Bill J. Darden <bdarden@uchicago.edu>Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 12:38 PM
To: "bhull@estes.org" <bhull@estes.org>, "bleavitt@estes.org" <bleavitt@estes.org>, "dbaker@estes.org"
<dbaker@estes.org>, "rfoster@estes.org" <rfoster@estes.org>, "rschneider@estes.org" <rschneider@estes.org>,
"swhite@estes.org" <swhite@estes.org>, "smurphree@estes.org" <smurphree@estes.org>
Cc: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>
April 9, 2018
4/10/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - Zoning regarding schools near liquor establishments - from Johanna Darden
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=54517dd595&jsver=LcPASTiusm8.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=162ad4097197889c&siml=16241eba3eee078c&siml=16
To: Estes Valley Planning Commission
From: Johanna Darden, 501 Mac Gregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517
I attended your last meeting where the need of Eagle Rock School to build housing for their staff
was considered. It was included with the desire to allow schools in all zoned areas and to do away
with the restriction of a 500 foot distance between establishments that sold liquor and schools. At
that meeting I asked that you find a way for Eagle Rock School to be able to build housing for staff,
but to oppose the zoning which would have allowed schools in all zoned areas and to oppose
doing away with the distance restriction of alcohol near schools. I was pleased to see that you,
working with Larimer County, have found a way to include a law which would allow Eagle Rock
School to build their housing under a special situation. I am proud that you listened to me and
others and you as well about the problems that would occur if you had approved what was
requested. I ask that you approve the building of special housing for Eagle Rock School.
Below is my letter from the previous meeting so you will know why I objected to approval
previously.
From: Bill J. Darden
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 11:39:41 PM
To: bhull@estes.org; bleavitt@estes.org; dbaker@estes.org; rfoster@estes.org; rschneider@estes.org;
swhite@estes.org; smurphree@estes.org
Cc: townclerk@estes.org
Subject: Zoning regarding schools near liquor establishments - from Johanna Darden
[Quoted text hidden]
Bill J. Darden <bdarden@uchicago.edu>Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 7:51 PM
To: "bhull@estes.org" <bhull@estes.org>, "bleavitt@estes.org" <bleavitt@estes.org>, "dbaker@estes.org"
<dbaker@estes.org>, "rfoster@estes.org" <rfoster@estes.org>, "rschneider@estes.org" <rschneider@estes.org>,
"swhite@estes.org" <swhite@estes.org>, "smurphree@estes.org" <smurphree@estes.org>
Cc: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>
April 9, 2018
Dear Larimer County Commissioners,
At your meeting tomorrow (April 10,2018) please approve the action item to allow Eagle Rock
School to build housing for their staff under a special situation at their school property.
Please do not approve the action item carried over from your previous regular meeting requesting
to allow all schools (public and non-public) in all zoning districts, and the request to remove the
500 foot distance between schools and establishments that serve alcohol.
Sincerely,
Johanna Darden, Year-Round Resident of Estes Park
501 Mac Gregor Avenue