HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2017-06-27The 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, June 27, 2017
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated June 13, 2017 and Town Board Study Session dated
June 13, 2017.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes.
A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee Minutes dated, June 8,
2017.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated May 17, 2017 (acknowledgement
only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated June 1, 2017 (acknowledgement only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated May 19, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
7. Parking Structure Utility Box Art Application Approval.
8. Resolution #19-17 Setting the Public Hearing date of July 11, 2017 for a New
Liquor License filed by Park Theater Mall LLC dba Historic Park Theater & Café,
130-132 Moraine Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517.
Prepared 06/15/17
*Revised 06/22/17
**Revised 06/27/17
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
9. Resolution #20-17 Adopting the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Standards for Procurement, Bidding and Contract Awards for USDA Grant Funded
Rural Water Projects.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. CHANGE IN LOCATION OF A TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE FILED BY PARK
THEATER MALL LLC DBA HISTORIC PARK THEATER & CAFÉ, FROM 130-132
MORAINE AVENUE, ESTES PARK, CO 80517 TO 116 E. ELKHORN AVENUE,
ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Town Clerk Williamson.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. RESOLUTION #21-17 & ORDINANCE #19-17 RAVEN ROCK ADDITION
ANNEXATION. Director Hunt.
B. ORDINANCE #20-17 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE
RM (MULTI-FAMILY) ZONING DISTRICT. Director Hunt.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD INTERVIEW COMMITTEE
APPOINTMENT. Town Clerk Williamson.
5. ADJOURN.
*
**
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 13, 2017
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 13th day of June, 2017.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Rex Walker
Also Present: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the
Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek requested the addition of the shuttle services
contract with McDonald Transit to the action item agenda. It was moved and seconded
(Walker/Koenig) to amend the Agenda to add the 2017 Shuttle Services Contract
with McDonald Transit Associates Inc. to the Action Item agenda, and it passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Barbara MacAlpine/Town citizen requested the Town Board discuss and consider joining
the bipartisan US Climate Alliance of states and cities that support the International Paris
Agreement.
Tom Street/County citizen commented the Town and Platte River Power Authority should
set specific percentage targets and dates regarding the amount of electricity to be
powered by renewable energy.
Pat Newsom/Town citizen stated Historic the Stanley Home Foundation would purchase
the Stanley home at 415 Wonderview in 2018 to develop the home into a cultural center
for local history educations. She further stated the property and surrounding properties
in the area are zoned E or E-1 Estate, which would not permit this type of commercial
venture.
Charley Dickey/Visit Estes Park (VEP) Board member read portions of a letter he entered
into the record regarding the shortcomings of the tax-payer funded organization. He
commented issues include by are not limited to lost or unavailable audio recordings from
meetings, bylaws and IGAs ignored, public input stifled, relationship with the paper
compromised, transparency of the organization, and board minutes have been edited.
The VEP Board and staff consists of three Estes Area Lodging Association (EALA)
members and the husband of an EALA Board member. He encouraged the Town Board
and Larimer County Commissioners to invoke their right under state statue to remove
members or the board for neglect or misconduct.
Lindsay Lamson/Visit Estes Park Board member stated VEP has been an outstanding
success. The Board and staff of VEP are committed to the Mission of fair and honest
activities to promote the community and improve the economic vitality of Estes Park.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS DRAFT3
Board of Trustees – June 13, 2017 – Page 2
Trustee Holcomb stated the Transportation Advisory Board has begun their outreach plan
to gain public input on a parking survey.
Trustee Walker reminded the community the Rooftop Rodeo would begin in three weeks.
Trustee Norris stated the Estes Valley Planning Commission would meet June 20, 2017.
The first meeting of the Family Advisory Board was held on June 1, 2017.
Trustee Martchink informed the public the Parks Advisory Board has moved their
meetings to the third Thursday of the month at the Event Center.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
None.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated May 23, 2017 and Town Board Study Session
dated May 23, 2017.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes – None.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated April 11, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
5. Board of Appeals Minutes dated April 13, 2017 (acknowledgement only).
6. Resolution #18-17 Setting the Public Hearing date of June 27, 2017 for a
Change in Location of a Tavern Liquor License filed by Park Theater Mall LLC
dba Historic Park Theater & Café, from 130-132 Moraine Avenue, Estes Park,
CO 80517 to 116 E. Elkhorn Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Walker) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS.
1. NEW HOTEL & RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE FILED BY MISE EN PLACE
CONSULTING LLC DBA SEASONED-AN AMERICAN BISTRO, 205 PARK
LANE, ESTES PARK, CO. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Town Clerk
Williamson reviewed the application for the new Hotel and Restaurant liquor
license, stating all paperwork and fees have been submitted. Robert and Joanne
Corey/owners have completed TIPS training. The Mayor closed the public
hearing. It was moved and seconded (Walker/Norris) to approve the Hotel &
Restaurant Liquor License Application for Mise En Place Consulting LLC
dba Seasoned - An American Bistro, 205 Park Lane, and it passed
unanimously.
2. CHANGE IN LOCATION OF A TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE FILED BY THE
BARREL LLC DBA THE BARREL, 251 MORAINE AVENUE, ESTES PARK,
CO. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed
the application to change the location of the current tavern liquor license, stating
all paperwork and fees have been submitted. Ingrid Bush/Applicant stated the
tavern would move in an effort to develop a year-round facility with the renovation
of the current building and a covered rooftop patio within five years. She stated
the move was unexpected and happened quickly, therefore, there has been no
outreach with the neighboring properties. The business would end live music by
8:30 pm and would close no later than 11:00 pm.
Those speaking in opposition of the change of location included Larry
Emsing/Town citizen, Jennifer Wood/Town citizen, and Mike Limley/Town DRAFT4
Board of Trustees – June 13, 2017 – Page 3
citizen. Comments included concerns with the type of business that would be
located adjacent to a residential neighborhood; there are a number of other liquor
establishments in the area already; concern with neighborhood kids walking past
the establishment; concerned with the noise from the bar and the music;
questioned the approval of the temporary use permit and location of the stage;
concerned with the trash and parking; and the lack of neighborhood input on the
process.
Those speaking in favor of the application included Charley Dickey/Town citizen,
Greg Rosener/Town citizen and Jon Nicholas/Town citizen. The business has
been a successful addition to the downtown and has been respectful of the other
surrounding businesses in the neighborhood. The business has been family
friendly. The Town has a noise ordinance to address noise concerns, and is an
existing problem for the neighboring residential properties abutting the downtown
district.
The Mayor closed the public hearing. After further discussion, it was moved and
seconded (Holcomb/Jirsa) to approve the Change of Location of the Tavern
liquor license filed by The Barrel LLC dba The Barrel to 251 Moraine
Avenue, and it passed unanimously.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. FALL RIVER VILLAGE II; LOTS 1-7 AND OUTLOT A, FALL RIVER
VILLAGE AND LOT 5A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 5, SUNNY
ACRES ADDITION; 511 W ELKHORN AVENUE; FALL RIVER VILLAGE,
LLC/OWNER. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Planner Gonzales
stated the applicant has requested approval for a Preliminary Condominium
Map, Preliminary Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit
Development, and Ordinance #16-17 Rezoning of Lot 5A of the Amended
Plat of Lot 5, Sunny Acres Addition, from RM-Residential Multi-Family to CO-
Commercial Outlying. The application entails rezoning the eastern portion
of the site from RM to CO in order to make it eligible to be included as part
of the current PUD established on the western portion of the lot. An Amended
Plat application is running concurrently with this project that would combine
the eastern portion of the site with the western portion of the site resulting in
one legal lot. The undeveloped section of the site is proposed to be
developed with three duplexes, two triplexes, and a private community hall.
Twelve new accommodations units are proposed with the project. As a PUD
development waivers and modifications to the Development Code standards
may be requested to improve the overall development. The following
waivers have been requested with this development: increase to the floor
area ratio from 25% to 30%, a decrease of the minimum curve radii from
100-feet to 50-feet, increase in building height for the community hall of eight
feet, driveway grade of 12%, setback waiver of ten feet, waiver to the loading
area for the community hall, and waiver to accessory building size. All
waivers were reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission and
recommended to the Town Board. The community hall would be used by
the property owners for activities such as small weddings.
Paul Pewterbaugh/Property owner and developer stated the units would be
a resort with VRBO nightly rentals. He confirmed the intent of the community
hall would be for internal meeting space. Guests staying on the property can
utilize the trail to walk into town and take advantage of restaurants, shops,
etc. He stated the buildout would begin as soon as possible and be ready
for the 2018 season. He has reached out to the neighbors to try and address
concerns.
DRAFT5
Board of Trustees – June 13, 2017 – Page 4
Vic Hanick/Town citizen commented the Mountain Gate Condominium
Association’s concerns are in relation to the amplified noise the rooftop area
on the community hall may cause for the surrounding neighborhood.
Greg Rosener/Town citizen stated the project would be an excellent addition
to the Town and would revitalize the property. He recommended approval
of the project.
Steve Lane/Architect for the project stated the project would benefit the
community by developing a buffer between the residential and commercial
downtown areas and act as a transition zone.
Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. Attorney White read the ordinance
into the record. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve
Ordinance #16-17 to rezone Lot 5A of the Amended Plat of Lot 5, Sunny
Acres Addition from RM Residential Multi-Family to CO Commercial
Outlying, and it passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve the Fall River
Village II Preliminary Condominium Map, the Fall River Village II
Preliminary PUD and the Fall River Village II Final PUD, and it passed
unanimously.
B. ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER FEE WAIVER REQUEST. The
Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) was granted a fee waiver
of $87,784 in Community Development fees for planning review, building
permit and building plan review at the August 23, 2016 Town Board meeting.
EVRPD has requested an additional fee waiver for applicable building
permit/review fees associated with a supplemental building permit to
address a Level 1 Alteration for the project to rehabilitate the exterior of the
existing aquatic building with a total construction cost of $935,000. The
requested fee waiver would total $7,950 for the building permit and review
fees.
It was moved and seconded (Walker/Holcomb) to deny the Estes Valley
Recreation and Park District supplemental building permit and plan
review fee waiver request in the amount of $7,950, and it failed with
Mayor Jirsa, Trustees Martchink, Nelson and Norris voting “No”.
It was moved and seconded (Martchink/Norris) to approve the Estes
Valley Recreation and Park District supplemental building permit and
plan review fee waiver request in the amount of $7,950, and it passed
with Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb and Walker voting “No”.
C. ORDINANCE #17-17 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MEASURING BUILDING HEIGHT,
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE RM (MULTI-FAMILY) ZONING
DISTRICT, BUILDING DESIGN IN THE RM (MULTI-FAMILY), SPECIAL
REVIEW CRITERIA, ONE SINGLE-FAMILY PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE
PER LOT, AND PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES. Mayor Jirsa
opened the public hearing. Director Hunt reviewed several proposed
amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Exhibit A
would simplify the measurement of the height of a building and define it as a
vertical plumb line connecting the base plane and height plane. Exhibit BA
and BB address the maximum building height in RM Residential Multi-Family
zoning districts. Both amendments would set the height limit in RM at 38 feet
to allow for three-story buildings with the potential for variation in roof style;
require a true multi-unit building with three or more dwelling units in a single
structure; both remove the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which
would prohibit three-story buildings; and the lot coverage figure has been
increased from a maximum of 50% to 65%. Exhibit BA, supported by staff,
would simply allow for a higher maximum building height. Exhibit BB DRAFT6
Board of Trustees – June 13, 2017 – Page 5
(incentive based alternative), supported by the Estes Valley Planning
Commission, would require workforce or income qualification test for
occupancy of the new units. The incentives would restrict occupancy to
households for whom at least one family member would be employed within
the Estes Park R-3 School District boundaries. Exhibit C would address
design standards for multi-family buildings. The most significant design
element would be the requirement of a third-story stepback of ten feet for
any side facing a public space. Exhibit D would update the Special Review
process in the EVDC and align it with the Larimer County Special Review
process that has been successfully implemented. Exhibit E proposes text
amendments that would clearly state one structure would be allowed on a
single-family lot. Exhibit F would update the code to provide a clear definition
of Park and Recreation Facilities by removing the designation of commercial
parks.
Board comments have been summarized: requested staff develop an
exception for A-frame homes as it relates to height calculations; Exhibit BB
would require 50% of the units to be workforce housing; questioned if the
height of a building could be 38 feet if the structure does not include
workforce housing; and the stepback requirement in Exhibit C would reduce
the size and quality of the third-floor unit and reduce the functionality of the
space.
Eric Blackhurst/Estes Park Housing Authority Chair requested the Board
review the proposed Exhibit BB revisions. As currently proposed, it would
limit the Housing Authority to only two-story development because of the 150
AMI requirement for the third-story. The Low Income Housing Tax Credits
and Colorado Division of Housing funding mechanisms require a 60% AMI
or below. This would disqualify the Housing Authority from building three-
story units in the future. He encouraged the Board to consider a two-prong
approach to the incentives to allow other financing to be considered in the
future. He also encouraged the Board to eliminate Exhibit C and the
stepback provision.
Greg Rosener/Economic Development Corporation (EDC) Code
Amendment Subcommittee Chair commented the proposed changes to the
measurement of height would provide a clear mechanism in determining
height. He stated the removal of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would assist in the
development of workforce housing. The EDC would support the proposed
changes to the Special Review and Exhibit BA to provide a wider opportunity
for development.
Lindsay Lamson/County citizen encouraged the Board to approve Exhibit BA
because it would provide a simpler approach, and to disapprove Exhibit C.
He stated a simpler code would encourage builders to develop workforce
housing.
Jon Nicholas/EDC stated the proposed changes are a top priority of the EDC
in improving the economic stability of the community. He commented the
RM zoning district accounts for approximately 1.5% of the total property in
the Estes valley.
Steve Lane/Architect commented the third-floor stepback should be
removed from the proposed Exhibit C.
Additional Board comments have been summarized: Trustee Norris would
support Exhibit BB with clarification on the proposed amendments to
address the Housing Authority’s concerns; Mayor Pro Tem Koenig
supported BA because it does not exempt affordable and workforce housing
options, and the Board can incentive workforce housing in the future; Trustee
Nelson would support Exhibit BA to provide all types of housing and not
restrict the Development Code; Trustee Martchink would support Exhibit BA; DRAFT7
Board of Trustees – June 13, 2017 – Page 6
Trustee Holcomb would support BB to restrict the height increase to
affordable housing and not allow development of 38 feet and eliminate views
from all properties; Trustee Walker supported the rewording of Exhibit BB to
address the concerns raised and have it presented at the next Town Board
meeting for consideration; and Mayor Jirsa supported a revised Exhibit BB.
Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded
(Koenig/Nelson) to approve Ordinance #17-17 to amend the Estes Valley
Development Code as stated in Exhibit A, BA, D, E and F, the motion did
not move forward because a substitute motion was proposed.
A substitute motion was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to
approve Ordinance #17-17 to amend the Estes Valley Development
Code as stated in Exhibit A, D, E and F, with a continuation of Exhibit
BB to the next Town Board meeting, and it passed with Mayor Pro Tem
Koenig and Trustee Nelson voting “No”.
It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Holcomb) to continue the meeting past 10:00 pm to
complete the agenda items, and it passed unanimously.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. WAIVE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL ON PRPA WINDY GAP WATER RIGHTS.
Attorney White stated Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) member
communities, Fort Collins, Loveland and Estes Park, assigned a total of 160 units
from the Windy Gap Project to PRPA, 40 of which were Town owned. The 1994
agreement stated the Town would have the first right of refusal in the event PRPA
would reuse, transfer, lease or sale any portion of the allotment. PRPA has
proposed the sale of 23 units of Windy Gap Water to various third parties. The
Town’s first right of refusal would be for 25% of each of the proposed sales.
Based on population projections and Master Plan demand forecasting, staff has
stated the Town would not need additional Windy Gap Water to fulfill its
obligations to provide raw water. Additionally, the Town would not be in the
financial situation to exercise the Town’s rights to purchase the units.
Jason Frisbie/PRPA CEO stated the sale of Windy Gap water would pay for the
firming project and provide more water on an annual basis to PRPA to generate
electricity. Once the reservoir has been completed PRPA would not need to
purchase additional water to produce needed electricity.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Nelson) to waive the right of first refusal
for the 23 units of Windy Gap Water to be transferred by PRPA, and it passed
unanimously.
Mayor Jirsa called a 10 minute break at 10:10 pm and reconvened the meeting
at 10:20 pm.
2. ORDINANCE #18-17 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL
CODE TITLE 13 TO ADDRESS UTILITY DIRECTOR POWERS IN
ESTABLISHING POLICY. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Attorney
White stated the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code would allow the
Utilities Director the ability to promulgate administrative regulations for both the
Light and Power and Water departments. These changes would further allow
Light and Power to address legislation passed by the Colorado legislature which
allows installation of small wireless service infrastructure on Town owed utility
infrastructure. Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. Attorney White read the
Ordinance into the record. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to
approve Ordinance 18-17, and it passed unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION #17-17 SIDEWALK SALE DURING FARMERS MARKETS.
Director Hinkle stated a survey of downtown businesses was conducted to
determine interest in participating in sidewalk sales during the Farmer’s Market. DRAFT8
Board of Trustees – June 13, 2017 – Page 7
The response yielded a positive result. The Resolution would allow outdoor sales
on Thursdays from June 15, 2017 through September 28, 2017 from 8:00 am to
1:00 pm. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve
Resolution 17-17, and it passed unanimously.
4. FAMILY ADVISORY BOARD (FAB) FOCUS AREA. Assistant Town
Administrator Machalek stated the FAB bylaws require the FAB to select no more
than three focus areas to work on each year, and must submit the focus areas to
the Town Board for approval. For 2017, the FAB unanimously selected the
following focus area: “To identify gaps in support services available to families in
the Estes Valley”. The focus area would develop the foundational work required
before any other policies or recommendations can be developed. It was moved
and seconded (Martchink/Norris) to approve the Family Advisory Board’s
recommended focus area for 2017, and it passed unanimously.
5. REQUEST TO FILL VACANT POSITIONS ON THE FAMILY ADVISORY
BOARD (FAB). The FAB bylaws provide for a FAB to consist of no fewer than
10 and no more the 15 members. The Town Board appointed 12 members to
the FAB in April 2017. Since these appointments one member has resigned
because they no longer live within the district. The FAB unanimously voted to
request two positions be filled on the Board, bringing the total members to 13.
The additional members would provide different perspectives on the issues
facing families throughout the Estes Valley. It was moved and seconded
(Martchink/Norris) to approve the process to fill two vacant positions on the
Family Advisory Board and appoint Trustee Norris and Trustee Martchink
as the interview team, and it passed unanimously.
6. INVITATION FOR ESTES PARK TO JOIN MOUNTAIN PACT NATIONAL
MONUMENTS LETTER. The Town has received a request from the Mountain
Pact, a consortium of western mountain communities that serve as a shared
voice on federal policy related to climate, public lands, and outdoor recreation, to
sign a letter to the Department of Interior requesting the current National
Monument designation be maintained and protected with the current boundaries.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Martchink) to approve the Town join the
Mountain Pact reconsideration of designation for National Monuments in
the west, and the motion failed with Mayor Jirsa, Trustees Holcomb, Nelson and
Walker voting “No”.
7. 2017 SHUTTLE SERVICES CONTRACT WITH MCDONALD TRANSIT
ASSOCIATES, INC. Shuttle Coordinator Wells presented the 2017 contract for
shuttle services with McDonald Transit. The service contract would be a
continuation of the five-year contract between Rocky Mountain National Park
with McDonald Transit Associates, Inc. The hourly service rate for 2017 would
remain at the 2016 rate of $56.48 and include routine maintenance, shuttle
drivers, insurance and fuel costs up to $2.50 a gallon for the six full-service
routes. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to approve the 2017
Shuttle Services Contract with McDonald Transit Associates, Inc., and it
passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFT9
10
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado June 13, 2017
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the
Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 13th day of June, 2017.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending: All
Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Town Attorney
White, Manager Wells, and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: Town Administrator Lancaster
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.
KEY OUTCOME DISCUSSION – GOVERNMENTAL SERVICE & INTERNAL
SUPPORT. The Board discussed the value of the biennial citizen survey and if the
survey results are utilized by the staff. The survey has been used by staff to identify
areas that need to be addressed, such as economic development, and provides staff
with a mechanism to evaluate Town programs and services.
Ongoing discussion with intergovernmental districts and agencies has been beneficial in
addressing responsibilities of each entity. Staff continues to develop these
relationships.
The Board discussed the statement “…adequate funding for staffing needed…”. Staff
tends to be reluctant to bring forward requests for additional staff to complete the
current level of services. Mayor Jirsa stated the Board needs to address an overall
philosophy on the financing of projects, such as stormwater master plan, a new Urban
Renewal Authority, downtown vision, broadband, flood mitigation, road repairs and
workforce housing to name a few. Staff stated a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has
been developed by staff and would be presented at the upcoming Strategic Plan
meeting in July. Board comments followed on the need to develop criteria to assess
priorities; a discussion on all financing options available to the Board; and the possibility
of including an ongoing list of projects in the Town’s Strategic Plan or an appendix to
the plan.
Mayor Jirsa stated the Board should discuss the philosophy on supporting causes and
how involved the Town should be in issues that do not directly impact the Town. The
Board suggested a policy be developed to outline the Town would support issues that
directly impact the local government.
DISCUSSION OF RURAL TRANIST AUTHORITY (RTA)
Manager Wells provided an overview of the formation of an RTA to provide year-round
transit service within the Estes Valley and connect the transportation system to
neighboring communities, such as RTD in Lyons and COLT in Loveland. The Town
could obtain funding through Federal Transportation Authority (FTA) 5311 grants for up
to 50% for new service and match the other 50% through sales tax, guest related
revenues, passenger fares, other grant funding, sponsorship program or donations.
The Town would be required to provide ADA services to the same service area with the
same operating hours as the fixed routes if awarded the FTA grant funds. The grant
would require the Town to offer a minimum of three days per week service year-round.
Establishment of an RTA would require the support of the Town Board, Larimer County 11
Town Board Study Session – June 13, 2017 – Page 2
Commissioners, and individuals living within the boundaries of the RTA. The state
statutes allow for the formation of an RTA similar to a Special District through a vote at
a general or coordinated election in November. The Town’s year-round transit survey
conducted in 2016 yielded a positive result for the inclusion of year-round transportation
within the Estes valley. The adoption of an RTA could eventually reduce the Town’s
transit expenses, if not eliminate them from the budget. The service could provide
access to Estes Park for employees living in the Front Range communities, reducing
their commuting expenses.
Board discussion followed on the need to provide service to the Fish Hatchery property
if workforce housing would be developed in the future; the Board needs to understand
the pros and cons the other RTAs have experienced; corporate funding and support
from the local business community would be needed; and the demand needs to be
determined and what riders would be willing to pay for the service. The Board
consensus was to complete a large-scale survey to identify the market, gather
additional information from other communities, survey larger employers to determine
interest and willingness to contribute, and add the item to the strategic planning
discussion in July.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS
Trustee Martchink stated concern with the collection of sales tax by vendors at special
events in town. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek commented staff held a
meeting to discuss how to address the issue and the need to develop a policy.
The Town has been contacted by an immigration group that would like to have a
discussion with a couple of the Board members, Chief Kufeld and Administrator
Lancaster. After further discussion, the Board agreed the Mayor would represent the
Board at the meeting.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS
The Board discussed the option to provide vacation home registrations for vacant land.
Director Hunt stated the Development Code would have to be amended to allow a
provisional registration to be issued. Other items that would need to be addressed
would include the need for future inspection and consideration of a time limit. The
Board consensus was not to address the issue further as it was not a priority at this
time.
The Board discussed the need to update the Development Code and the Building Code
to facilitate redevelopment, and to allow building inspections by a third party. Director
Hunt stated there are models developed for third party building inspections and
redevelopment, and suggested he bring examples forward for the Board’s review.
Board comments included the need to establish best practices from other communities
on redevelopment issues; suggested a separate redevelopment code be developed as
the current code addresses new development; and concerned with third party
inspections and the need to ensure Community Development funding remains
sustainable.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:33 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
12
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 8, 2017
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY, UTILITIES &
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes
Park on the 8th day of June 2017.
Committee: Chair Koenig, Trustees Martchink and Nelson
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Police Chief Kufeld, Directors Bergsten and
Muhonen and Recording Secretary Beers
Absent: None
Chair Koenig called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Reports
1. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions: Chief Kufeld introduced Becky Weller
a dispatcher hired April 2017, and stated an additional dispatcher position
remains vacant. Officers Chad Edwards and Marija Jonoska were also
introduced.
UTILITIES
Sale of PRPA Windy Gap Water Rights.
Staff proposed the Town waive right of first refusal to Platte River Power Authority’s
(PRPA) Windy Gap Water rights. Windy Gap Water replaces lost/used water. Director
Bergsten stated the Town does not have any need for additional Windy Gap Water. He
added the Town owns sufficient water rights to supply drinking water for the maximum
project buildout. Waiving the right of first refusal would allow PRPA to increase the
reliable supply of cooling water to PRPA’s electric generation facilities. The Committee
recommended the waiver of the Windy Gap water rights be included as an Action
Item at the June 13, 2017 Town Board meeting.
Reports
1. Modification of Municipal Code: A State Bill passed requiring electric utilities to
allow installation of small cellular equipment on utility poles. The statute gives
cellular providers the right to use utility facilities subject to the municipality’s
regulations. Town Attorney Greg White and PRPA Attorney Ken Fellman have
recommended changes to the Municipal Code allowing the department Director
the power and authority to adopt and promulgate administrative regulations. The
item would be further discussed as an Action Item at the June 13, 2017 meeting.
2. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions: Director Bergsten stated staff
continues to fill two vacancies in the department.
MISCELLANEOUS
Town Administrator Lancaster stated the Board would discuss an item for approval at a
future meeting to allow sidewalk sales during the Farmers Market. The change would DRAFT13
Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee – June 8, 2017 – Page 2
allow outdoor sales in downtown areas with scheduled Town events taking priority. A
permitting option was discussed which may be revoked if the Town receives complaints.
There being no further business, Chair Koenig adjourned the meeting at 8:33 a.m.
Bunny Victoria Beers, Recording Secretary DRAFT14
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 17, 2017
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 203 of Town Hall on the 17th
day of May, 2017.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Tom Street
Gordon Slack
Stan Black
Ken Zornes
Amy Hamrick
Belle Morris
Also Present: Bob Holcomb, Town Board Liaison
Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
Larry Gamble, Rocky Mountain National Park
Tom Dougherty, Downtown Plan Steering Committee
Absent: Ann Finley
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:02 p.m.
It was moved and seconded (Slack/Street) to approve the April meeting minutes with
corrections and the motion passed unanimously.
SHUTTLE UPDATE, Sandy Osterman
Green route will start at noon at the Estes Park fairgrounds. This is estimated to be a 15-
minute route. Routes will run June 24 – September 10. Special weekends include the
following: Scottish Festival, Autumn Gold, July 4th, Elk Fest, Fall Back Beer Festival, & Catch
the Glow.
PROJECT UPDATES, Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Trolley: Public Works met with Town officials to receive approval for submitting a grant
application to replace the current Gold Route trolley with an electric trolley. The
application will be due in June. Further budget talks will take place to see where the local
share funds would come from if the Town’s grant application is accepted.
15
Transportation Advisory Board – May 17, 2017 – Page 2
Transit Facility Parking Structure: The construction crew poured the last ground level
interior slab as of mid-May. This project is on schedule and set for substantial completion
by June 30th with full completion by July 14th. The western stairs are being painted. Pulled
temporary stairs and will start erecting permanent western stairs next week. East stairs are
still in fabrication. After Memorial Day, the construction crew will begin stair erection on
the east side.
DMS Signs: Public Works received approval from the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) to enter into an installation contract. If all proceeds as planned,
officials hope to have the signs installed and running on June 30th.
Moraine Avenue Bridge Replacement: Public Works to put 60% design plans on website
for citizens to review. The project team would continue their work on hydraulics to meet
the final design submittal of June 28th. The TAB and Director Muhonen engaged in a
detailed discussion on the detour route and its efficiency due to traffic concerns.
DOWNTOWN PLAN PARKING – COMMUNITY OUTREACH, Greg Muhonen, Director of
Public Works, & Chair Campbell
TAB began discussing the downtown parking plan outreach. They restated the goals of
this initiative which are to educate the public on more transportation options and make
downtown more attractive/inviting while also reducing pollution and congestion. TAB
members discussed holding information meetings around Town to promote public
involvement in the downtown parking plans. Ideally, groups would be 10-15 people to
facilitate an intimate setting in which citizens can openly give their input and bring ideas
to Town officials. Plans were set up to hold meetings hosted by TAB members Amy
Hamrick, Belle Morris, Ken Zornes, and Stan Black. Dates and details are TBD. There would
also be downtown parking outreach at the Farmer’s Market. TAB recruited members to be
a presence at these weekly events while discussing handouts such as a business card that
directs citizens to the websites, parking map, etc. Director Muhonen suggested that the
TAB continue holding meetings and staying engaged in the community conversations
until November 2017. TAB emphasized the importance of the downtown parking plan
being a representation of the community’s desires.
16
Transportation Advisory Board – May 17, 2017 – Page 3
OTHER BUSINESS
Member Slack suggested putting a static sign on US 36 to inform visitors of the Event
Center. Currently, signs are set up seasonally to signal towards that area. This sparked the
wayfinding signage discussion that the TAB has touched on previously. The TAB briefly
held discussion about costs associated with this and the possibility of a year-round sign
with hopes of increasing business to the Event Center.
With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 1:46 p.m.
17
18
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 1, 2017
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Executive Board Room of the Estes Park Events
Center on the 1st day of June, 2017.
Present: Dewain Lockwood
Vicki Papineau
Ronna Boles
Carlie Bangs
Terry Rustin (via phone)
Celine Lebeau
Also
Present: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor
Kevin McEachern, Operations Manager
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Randy Hunt, Director of Community Development
Absent: Merle Moore
Scott Miller, Student Advisor
Cydney Springer, Estes Arts District
Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comment.
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded (Lockwood/Bangs) to approve the April meeting minutes and the
motion passed unanimously.
RECOMMENDED PLANT LISTING – EVDC AMENDMENT
Randy Hunt, Director of Community Development, discussed the proposed amendments to
the Estes Valley Development Code related to the Preferred Plant Listing. Moving forward,
the Community Development Department would allow administrative approval as the plant
listing requires changes. The new process would allow changes to take place without going
through the lengthy process of being presented to and approved by the Community
Development/Community Services (CDCS) committee as well as the Town Board which
could take two to three months.
19
Parks Advisory Board – June 1, 2017 – Page 2
Member Boles suggested to Director Hunt that the language within the code be modified for a
more clear understanding by the average citizen. Member Papineau suggested correcting
inaccurate verbiage contained in the code related to the review standards for the vegetation
being introduced into any wildlife habitat area.
Director Hunt stated there would be future meetings with Larimer County regarding the
wildlife areas. At that time all pertinent development code language would be revisited and
modified as necessary.
AIPP: MUSEUM TEMPORARY SIDEWALK ART PROPOSAL
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator (ATA), presented the proposal for the
Museum’s request to apply temporary sidewalk art throughout 2017 in various locations. The
art medium being used would be temporary spray chalk. Various historic quotes were
provided as a sampling of what would be applied to the sidewalks. The application method
would be utilizing Mylar stencils for maximum clarity, measuring no larger than 20” x 30”.
When space allows the Museum logo will accompany the quotes.
Member Boles suggested the application name, “Non-Permanent Sidewalk/Street/Parking
Lot/Trail Art Application” be made more clear or be separated into different ordinances to
allow individual artists to understand which board, whether Parks Advisory Board or
Transportation Advisory Board will need to approve or deny the application. ATA Machalek
will return to the board with appropriate modifications to the application for approval by the
PAB.
Quality Control is a critical component of temporary markings. Derek Fortini, Museum
Director, and Alicia Rochambeau, Museum Curator of Education, will monitor the art to
ensure continued legibility. Once art becomes illegible, the Museum will be required to
remove or replace the art within 24 hours. It was determined this would be a condition of the
art approval.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the historic quotes selected for temporary
sidewalk art, with conditions (Boles/Bangs). All members were in favor.
OTHER BUSINESS
With no other business to discuss, Chair Lebeau adjourned the meeting at 9:26 a.m. 20
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 16, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
1
Commission: Chair Michael Moon, Vice-Chair Russ Schneider, Commissioners Betty Hull, Doug
Klink, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Bob Leavitt
Attending: Chair Moon, Commissioners Schneider, Hull, Klink, Murphree, White, and
Leavitt
Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Audem Gonzales,
Planner Carrie McCool, Planner Robin Becker, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris,
Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen
Thompson
Absent: None
Chair Moon called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. He explained the purposed of the Planning
Commission. The meeting began late due to extended discussion during the study session. There were
four people in attendance.
There was a brief discussion regarding workforce housing. Comments included but were not limited
to: we need to have a process, height measurement is important; height and workforce housing are
two separate issues; workforce housing needs to be defined; desire to know what the overall housing
strategy is before making a decision.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to approve the agenda, with the revision of
moving the proposed EVDC amendment regarding building height calculation before the
proposed amendment regarding building height in the RM zone district and the motion passed
7-0.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Pat Newsom/town resident commented on two ways the Estes Park real estate market is
bolstered, which she shared after listening to the discussion in the study session.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes, April 18, 2017 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the
motion passed 7-0.
4. FALL RIVER VILLAGE II, LOTS 5A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 5, SUNNY ACRES ADDITION
A. Development Plan 2017-02
B. Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) 2017-01
C. Rezoning Request for Lot 5A; RM-Multi-Family Residential to CO-Commercial Outlying
D. Preliminary Condominium Map
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The project is currently zoned CO–Commercial
Outlying on the west side and includes a PUD overlay. The eastern portion is RM–Residential
Multi-Family and developed with three duplexes. There is a rezoning request for the RM portion
to be rezoned to CO to encompass the entire property into the PUD. The proposed Development
Plan is to develop the existing vacant land with three duplexes, two triplexes, and a private
community hall. When the existing three duplexes are combined into the PUD overlay, a total of
18 accommodations units will be available. There is also an amended plat application that is being
reviewed at staff-level. Planner Gonzales stated the applicant met all the requirements in the
review criteria; however, they requested several waivers, which are listed in the staff report.
Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to affected agencies, and no significant
concerns were noted. Adjacent property owners were notified by mail, and a legal notice was
published in the local newspaper. 21
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 16, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was brief discussion about the topography and parking spaces, and the proposed
community hall.
Public Comment
Paul Pewterbaugh/owner stated the reason for the community center is to meet unmet demand
for group gatherings (family reunions, business gatherings, weddings, special events, etc). It is
meant to be a feature to bring up the quality of the entire facility. The community building will be
acoustically fortified to keep the sound inside the building. The rooftop deck has an enclosed wall
on the north side to keep noise to a minimum.
Steve Lane/project architect stated all the new buildings will be in line with the other duplexes
and triplexes (modern mountain architecture).
There was additional discussion between the owner and the Commissioners about the
development in general, including but not limited to: fencing, trails, emergency exit, occupancy
load of community hall (approximately 100), catering kitchen, loading area, access for adjacent
residential lots, community hall roof material (matte rust). Mr. Lane stated he is involved with the
Downtown Plan, and this type of development is exactly what the plan is envisioning.
Pat Newsom/town resident stated she lives nearby and provided a brief history of the project
area. She was supportive of the community building, except for the roof line.
Julia Daley/local resident was supportive of the development, and stated the property owner has
a vision for making the west end of Elkhorn Avenue a better place.
Greg Rosener/local resident was supportive of the project.
Public comment closed.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Murphree) to approve the Fall River Village II Development
Plan according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings and conditions
recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (White/Schneider) to recommend approval to Town Board for the
Fall River Village II Preliminary Condominium Map, Preliminary Planned Unit Development, and
Rezoning according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings recommended by
staff and the motion passed unanimously.
5. AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELPOMENT CODE REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHT
CALCULATION FORMULA FOR ALL ZONE DISTIRCTS
Director Hunt reviewed the staff report, stating the formula to calculate the building height on a
sloped lot is complex and difficult to calculate. The proposed amendment would make the
calculation very simple and easy to describe. It involved taking the average of the high and low
points of the roof to create a horizontal plane. The same would be done for the finished floor
elevation. A vertical line would be drawn between the two, which would be the determined
building height. The proposed amendment would also revise the definition of “Grade, Finished”.
Public Comment
James Poppitz/town resident stated a clarified calculation will be appreciated. He attended the
Housing Meeting the previous night, and was supportive of a higher height limit and three-story
buildings in order to address local housing needs.
Greg Rosener/town resident spoke on behalf the Economic Development Corporation and
supported the change in the way height is calculated. 22
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 16, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
3
Steve Lane/local architect supported the proposed amendment, stating it would benefit
development on the Estes Valley’s steep slopes.
Diane Muno/representative of Economic Development Corporation stated the Commissioners
have been very thoughtful in their discussions today and she appreciates that. Many businesses,
large and small, participated in the housing forum last night, and supported the proposed
amendment.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was brief discussion regarding the current allowance of a maximum of 10% height
adjustment by staff. With the proposed amendment, that administrative provision would be
removed. Director Hunt stated he would bring forth a code amendment that would remove staff’s
ability to authorize an administrative adjustment up to 10% in the current height limitation. As
Community Development Director, he would not be approving any of those administrative
adjustments. Height variance requests would go through the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Leavitt) to recommend approval to the Town Board of
Trustees and the County Board of Commissioners the amendment to the EVDC as stated in
Exhibit A, finding that the amendment is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with
Section 3.3 of the Development Code and the motion passed unanimously.
6. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVLEPOMENT CODE REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHT IN
THE RM–RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY ZONE DISTRICT
Director Hunt reviewed the staff report and Exhibit B1. He stated the primary goal is to have the
ability to construct a three-story building and accommodate a variety of roof styles in the RM
zone district. The proposed amendment would set the height limit in the RM zone district at 38
feet, allowed only for multi-family dwellings (three or more units in a single structure). He
explained the reason behind the proposed removal of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the near future. In
many cases, FAR would prohibit three-story buildings in the RM zone district, which would defeat
the purpose of increasing the height limit. Director Hunt stated the existing lot coverage
maximum of 50% would be increased to 65%, which is a common percentage across the country.
Director Hunt reviewed Exhibit B2, which adds an incentive-based alternative for developers of
workforce housing in multi-family buildings. If 50% of the units’ occupants meet the criteria for
workforce housing, a density bonus would be available.
Director Hunt stated the Town Board has directed him to simplify the EVDC. It is hard to
determine if we would get more or less workforce housing projects with either of these exhibits.
Staff prefers simple, clear, and consistent code language. The community has a need for housing.
The town can either grow up or out, and growing out is limited. He was supportive of three-story
buildings in the RM zone district.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner White stated she visited the undeveloped sites in RM zone districts, and was
supportive of the height increase. Commissioner Hull stated there were several three-story
condominium complexes in the Estes Valley. She thought developers could build the same
buildings within the existing 30-foot height limit and 10% administrative allowance.
Rita Kurelja/EPHA director stated multi-family housing that is federally funded and administered
by the Housing Authority cannot limit housing to workforce. The majority of the residents at
Falcon Ridge work in the Estes Valley (41 out of 48 units). A density bonus would be allowed if
they met the workforce criteria or the criteria for affordable housing. Additional discussion
occurred with Ms. Kurelja regarding the housing situation, density bonus, and providing housing 23
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 16, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4
for the working class. Developers could utilize the density bonus if they met the workforce criteria
or the income-qualifying criteria.
Public Comment
Greg Rosener/town resident was supportive of the 38-foot height limit. The density bonus (up to
16 units per acre) is directly tied to workforce or income-qualifying housing.
Judy Nystrom/town resident recently spoke with a developer interested in building workforce
housing. She was supportive of the 38-foot height limit, stating some of the height can be hidden
by our topography.
Jon Nicholas/president of EDC supported any efforts to provide workforce housing. The developer
should have the flexibility to offer all types of housing (workforce, attainable, etc.).
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was brief discussion regarding the density bonus. Staff met with several developers who
were interested in housing projects if three-stories were allowed, as that would make it more
economically feasible. The goal is to incentivize workforce housing, not new condominium
developments for retirees. Planner Gonzales stated developers he has talked to are looking for
workforce housing more than attainable housing. 16 units per acre seems to be the minimum
density developers are looking for when determining economic feasibility. The majority of
inquiring developers could not get the desired density without adding a third floor. Impervious
lot coverage is also a large concern.
Director Hunt stated he could create an Exhibit B3, which would be a combination of B1 and B2.
Revisions could be made to Chapters 4 and 11. There was additional discussion as to how the
code language proposed in an Exhibit B3 would read. There was general consensus to provide
developers with incentives if building workforce housing. The Commission was not in favor of
allowing the higher density for units that would be marketed to retirees or used for vacation
rentals.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Murphree) to recommend approval to the Town Board of
Trustees and County Board of Commissioners an amendment to the EVDC as stated in Exhibit
B2 with the addition, in order to avoid conflicts that would be detrimental to the utilization of
that exhibit, of incorporating the density language from Exhibit B1, finding that the amendment
is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code, and
the motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Hull voting against.
7. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING DESIGN STANDARDS IN
RM–RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY ZONE DISTRICT
Director Hunt reviewed the staff report, stating Exhibit C deals with design standards for buildings
with floors above thirty (30) feet in height in the RM zone district. The principal design standard
proposed is the step-back feature, which requires floors above 30 feet to be stepped back ten
horizontal feet from the building’s foundation or vertical wall at grade for building elevations that
are adjacent to a dedicated public street, dedicated public trail, or dedicated public open space.
In exchange for the increased height, we would preserve some of the ability to see the natural
landscape and have more sunlight at the street level.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Director Hunt stated the step-back requirement may involve a reduction in one unit. As we
continue Comprehensive Plan discussions, the step-back feature may be applicable in other areas
as well, and not limited to just the RM zone district. Chair Moon was supportive of the provision
to incorporate a variety of façades. Director Hunt gave credit to the City of Laramie and Planner
Carrie McCool for the proposed code language. 24
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 16, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
5
Public Comment
None.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Murphree) to that the Town Board of Trustees and the
County Board of Commissioners approve amending the Estes Valley Development Code as
stated in Exhibit C, finding that the amendment is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and
with Section 3.3 of the Development Code and the motion passed unanimously.
8. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING SPECIAL REVIEW
CRITERIA AND TO CATEGORIZE SPECIAL REVIEW PROJECTS ACCORDING TO INTENSITY
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The objectives of the proposed code amendment are
listed in the staff report. In 2016, a high-profile Special Review brought to light the impacts of “to
the maximum extent feasible.” The proposed amendment is the culmination of several study
session discussions and a joint meeting with Town Board and County Commission. The proposed
amendment would classify Special Reviews by type. The decision-making body could be different,
depending on the intensity of the development. Language in the Standards for Review was
clarified, a list of specific review criteria will be addressed by the applicant, and the review and
approval processes were shortened for many Special Review uses.
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was brief discussion regarding some changes to the proposed amendment. There was
general consensus to make the following changes:
x Residential Family Home Daycare, Large – changed from S1 to S2;
x Non-Residential Family Home Daycare, Large – changed from S1 to S2 in the A-1 zone
district
x Remove Section 3.5.B.4 – “Neighborhood compatibility”
x Remove Section 3.5.B.9 – “Noxious odors”
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to that the Town Board of Trustees and the County
Board of Commissioners approve amending the Estes Valley Development Code as stated in
Exhibit A and with the changes mentioned above, finding that the amendment is in accord with
the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code and the motion passed
unanimously.
9. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED PER LOT OF DEVELOPMENT
Planner Becker reviewed the staff report. The objective of the proposed code amendment would
eliminate the word ‘uses’ and replace it with ‘structures’, as legally allowable structures in the
EVDC; provide a clear interpretation of what is allowed in residential zone districts in regard to
how many dwellings can be allowed on one lot; and align the EVDC with the Water Division
Standards to avoid conflicting departmental allowances.
Public Comment
None.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Hull) to that the Town Board of Trustees and the County
Board of Commissioners approve amending the Estes Valley Development Code as stated in
Exhibit A, finding that the amendment is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with
Section 3.3 of the Development Code and the motion passed unanimously.
25
RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 16, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
6
10. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING REMOVAL OF
PROVISION THAT CURRENTLY PROHIBITS NON-COMMERCIAL USE IN PARKS AND RECREATION
FACILITIES
Planner Becker reviewed the staff report. The objective of this proposed code amendment is to
eliminate the word ‘Noncommercial’ in the definition of Park and Recreation Facilities (Section
13.2.C.34); and provide a clear interpretation of what is allowed. Planner Becker stated the
definition is particularly confusing and problematic because it implies there are commercial parks
to be accounted for in the EVDC area. There are no designated commercial parts in the EVDC
area.
Public Comment
None.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Klink) to that the Town Board of Trustees and the
County Board of Commissioners approve amending the Estes Valley Development Code as
stated in Exhibit A, finding that the amendment is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and
with Section 3.3 of the Development Code and the motion passed unanimously.
11. REPORTS
A. Chair Moon reported the rescheduled date for the Large Vacation Home Review meeting
will be Friday, June 30, 2017. The meeting will begin at 1 p.m. in the Town Hall Board
Room.
B. Director Hunt reminded all Planning Commissioners to respond to the Downtown Plan
Survey.
C. Director Hunt stated the View @ 242 Preliminary Condominium Map was continued to the
May Town Board Meeting, not “approved” as listed on today’s agenda.
D. Director Hunt reported receiving permission to begin the hiring process for a Senior
Planner.
There being no further business, Chair Moon adjourned the meeting at 4:07 p.m.
_________________________________
Michael Moon, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
26
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
Date:June 27, 2017
RE:Parking Garage Utility Box Art Approval
Objective:
The purpose of this vinyl wrap proposal is to beautify the new electrical transformer and
educate visitors with images of historic road trips to Estes Park.
Present Situation:
A new, large electrical transformer was installed at the parking garage in the highly
visible pedestrian plaza between the structure and the Big Thompson River.
Proposal:
The Estes Park Museum, Parks Advisory Board, Light & Power Division, and Public
Works Department collaborated to propose the attached five historic images be applied
to the four sides and top of the transformer.
Advantages:
Beautification of the plain-colored, utilitarian cabinets at the parking garage.
Historic images show the rich history of visitors taking road trips to visit Estes
Park over the past 100 years.
Disadvantages:
If the vinyl wraps are damaged, contractor assistance and cost is needed for the
replacement.
Action Recommended:
Staff and PAB recommend the Town Board approve the presented art.
Budget:
The Public Works Department will use funds budgeted for the project construction to
pay the $1,186.90 cost of this art. The funding is associated to project code CVBPRK
and is coming from account 204-5400-544.35-52.
Level of Public Interest
A low amount of public interest is expected.27
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the presented art to be applied to designated utility
boxes.
Attachments:
Mockup layout of proposed vinyl wrap art installation
28
Front
Estes Park / Parking Structure
Back 29
West Side
Estes Park / Parking Structure
East Side 30
Top
Estes Park / Parking Structure
Text & Plaques 31
Labels
Estes Park / Parking Structure
32
RESOLUTION #19-17
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
That the filing date of the application for a New Lodging & Entertainment Liquor
License, filed by Park Theater Mall LLC dba Historic Park Theatre & Cafe 130 & 132 Moraine
Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado, is May 24, 2017.
It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board
Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, July 11, 2017, at 7:00
P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and hearing
shall be the area included within a radius of 3.15 miles, as measured from the center of the
applicant's property.
DATED this day of
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
33
34
Utilities Department Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director and Linda Swoboda, Utilities Project
Manager
Date: June 20, 2017
RE: Resolution #20-17 Adopting the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Standards for Procurement, Bidding and Contract Awards for
USDA Grant Funded Rural Water Projects.
Objective:
Adoption of the standards for Procurement, bidding and contract awards, USDA Rural
Development, CO RD Guide 10.
Present Situation:
The Town has applied for a loan(s) and/or grant(s) to be made by USDA, rural
development for construction of water project facilities to be owned and operated by the
Town. Both Duane Hudson, Finance Director and Linda Swoboda, Utilities Project
Manager have reviewed the USDA procurement procedures and find no significant
impacts to the Town’s procurement procedures.
Proposal:
Adoption of the standards by USDA will comply with the loan/grant agreement
requirements.
Advantages:
Complete the process to obtain the loan/grant.
Disadvantages:
Non-compliance could result in loan/grant refusal.
Action Recommended:
Approval to adopt the USDA procurement standards.
Budget:
NA
Level of Public Interest
Low, immediate group impacted is the PEMPCO water project. 35
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of this Resolution #20-17.
Attachments:
•Resolution #20-17
•Guide 10 REF-Title 7 Code Fed Regs, Sec 1942.18(J)-(K)
36
RESOLUTION NO. 20-17
RESOLUTION OF GOVERNING BODY ADOPTING AND PROVIDING FOR
STANDARDS FOR PROCUREMENT, BIDDING AND CONTRACT AWARDS
WHEREAS, The Town of Estes Park, of Larimer County, Colorado has applied for a
loan and/or grant to be made or insured by the United States of America acting through
USDA, Rural Development (herein called the Government) for the construction of
facilities to be owned and operated by The Town of Estes Park and the Government’s
regulations require that the Town of Estes Park adopt standards (a) relating to the
conduct of its officers, employees, and agents in contracting and in expending loan
and/or grant funds, and (b) establishing procurement and contracting procedures;
Now, Therefore Be It Resolved That the Town of Estes Park of Larimer County,
Colorado does hereby adopt the standards of conduct and procurement procedures set
forth in those regulations of USDA, Rural Development appearing in Title 7, Code of
Federal Regulations, Section 1942.18 (J) Thru (K), provided however that in those
instances where funds derived from loans made or insured by, or grants made by, the
Government are not involved, prior consent or approval of the Government as provided
in such regulations shall not be required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO that:
This resolution is adopted for the specific purpose of the USDA, Rural Water
development projects, this 27th day of June, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
___________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Town Clerk
37
Title 7: Agriculture
PART 1942—ASSOCIATIONS
Subpart A—Community Facility Loans
§1942.18 Community facilities—Planning, bidding, contracting, constructing.
(a) General. This section is specifically designed for use by owners including the professional or
technical consultants and/or agents who provide assistance and services such as architectural,
engineering, inspection, financial, legal or other services related to planning, bidding, contracting, and
constructing community facilities. These procedures do not relieve the owner of the contractual
obligations that arise from the procurement of these services. For this section, an owner is defined as an
applicant, borrower, or grantee.
(b) Technical services. Owners are responsible for providing the engineering or architectural
services necessary for planning, designing, bidding, contracting, inspecting, and constructing their
facilities. Services may be provided by the owner's “in house” engineer or architect or through contract,
subject to Rural Development concurrence. Architects and engineers must be licensed in the State where
the facility is to be constructed.
COPIED FROM (J) TO (K) per Allison’s email dated 5-26-2017 – below:
(j) Owner's procurement regulations. Owner's procurement regulations must comply with the
following standards:
(1) Code of conduct. Owners shall maintain a written code or standards of conduct which shall
govern the performance of their officers, employees or agents engaged in the award and administration of
contracts supported by Rural Development funds. No employee, officer or agent of the owner shall
participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by Rural Development funds
if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved. Examples of such conflicts would arise when:
the employee, officer or agent; any member of their immediate family; their partner; or an organization
which employs, or is about to employ, any of the above; has a financial or other interest in the firm
selected for the award.
(i) The owner's officers, employees or agents shall neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors or
anything of monetary value from contractors, potential contractors, or parties of subagreements.
(ii) To the extent permitted by State or local law or regulations, the owner's standards of conduct
shall provide for penalties, sanctions, or other disciplinary actions for violations of such standards by the
owner's officers, employees, agents, or by contractors or their agents.
(2) Maximum open and free competition. All procurement transactions, regardless of whether by
sealed bids or by negotiation and without regard to dollar value, shall be conducted in a manner that
provides maximum open and free competition. Procurement procedures shall not restrict or eliminate
competition. Examples of what are considered to be restrictive of competition include, but are not limited
to: Placing unreasonable requirements on firms in order for them to qualify to do business;
noncompetitive practices between firms; organizational conflicts of interest; and unnecessary experience
and bonding requirements. In specifying material(s), the owner and its consultant will consider all
materials normally suitable for the project commensurate with sound engineering practices and project
requirements. For a water or waste disposal facility, Rural Development shall consider fully any
38
recommendation made by the loan applicant or borrower concerning the technical design and choice of
materials to be used for such a facility. If Rural Development determines that a design or material, other
than those that were recommended should be considered by including them in the procurement process
as an acceptable design or material in the water or waste disposal facility, Rural Development shall
provide such applicant or borrower with a comprehensive justification for such a determination. The
justification will be documented in writing.
(3) Owner's review. Proposed procurement actions shall be reviewed by the owner's officials to
avoid the purchase of unnecessary or duplicate items. Consideration should be given to consolidation or
separation of procurement items to obtain a more economical purchase. Where appropriate, an analysis
shall be made of lease versus purchase alternatives, and any other appropriate analysis to determine
which approach would be the most economical. To foster greater economy and efficiency, owners are
encouraged to enter into State and local intergovernmental agreements for procurement or use of
common goods and services.
(4) Solicitation of offers, whether by competitive sealed bids or competitive negotiation, shall:
(i) Incorporate a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements for the material,
product, or service to be procured. The description shall not, in competitive procurements, contain
features which unduly restrict competition. The description may include a statement of the qualitative
nature of the material, product or service to be procured, and when necessary shall set forth those
minimum essential characteristics and standards to which it must conform if it is to satisfy its intended
use. Detailed product specifications should be avoided if at all possible. When it is impractical or
uneconomical to make a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements, a “brand name or
equal” description may be used to define the performance or other salient requirements of a procurement.
The specific features of the named brands which must be met by offerors shall be clearly stated.
(ii) Clearly specify all requirements which offerors must fulfill and all other factors to be used in
evaluating bids or proposals.
(5) Small, minority, and women's businesses and labor surplus area firms. (i) affirmative steps
should be taken to assure that small and minority businesses are utilized when possible as sources of
supplies, equipment, construction and services. Affirmative steps shall include the following:
(A) Include qualified small and minority businesses on solicitation lists.
(B) Assure that small and minority businesses are solicited whenever they are potential sources.
(C) When economically feasible, divide total requirements into smaller tasks or quantities so as to
permit maximum small and minority business participation.
(D) Where the requirement permits, establish delivery schedules which will encourage participation
by small and minority businesses.
(E) Use the services and assistance of the Small Business Administration and the Office of Minority
Business Enterprise of the Department of Commerce.
(F) If any subcontracts are to be let, require the prime contractor to take the affirmative steps in
paragraphs (j)(5)(i) (A) through (E) of this section.
(ii) Owners shall take similar appropriate affirmative action in support of women's businesses.
(iii) Owners are encouraged to procure goods and services from labor surplus areas.
39
(iv) Owners shall submit a written statement or other evidence to Rural Development of the steps
taken to comply with paragraphs (j)(5)(i) (A) through (F), (j)(5)(ii), and (j)(5)(iii) of this section.
(6) Contract pricing. Cost plus a percentage of cost method of contracting shall not be used.
(7) Unacceptable bidders. The following will not be allowed to bid on, or negotiate for, a contract or
subcontract related to the construction of the project:
(i) An engineer or architect as an individual or firm who has prepared plans and specifications or
who will be responsible for monitoring the construction;
(ii) Any firm or corporation in which the owner's architect or engineer is an officer, employee, or
holds or controls a substantial interest;
(iii) The governing body's officers, employees, or agents;
(iv) Any member of the immediate family or partners in paragraphs (j)(7)(i), (j)(7)(ii), or (j)(7)(iii) of
this section; or
(v) An organization which employs, or is about to employ, any person in paragraph (j)(7)(i), (j)(7)(ii),
(j)(7)(iii) or (j)(7)(iv) of this section.
(8) Contract award. Contracts shall be made only with responsible parties possessing the potential
ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of a proposed procurement. Consideration
shall include but not be limited to matters such as integrity, record of past performance, financial and
technical resources, and accessibility to other necessary resources. Contracts shall not be made with
parties who are suspended or debarred.
(k) Procurement methods. Procurement shall be made by one of the following methods: small
purchase procedures; competitive sealed bids (formal advertising); competitive negotiation; or
noncompetitive negotiation. Competitive sealed bids (formal advertising) is the preferred procurement
method for construction contracts.
(1) Small purchase procedures. Small purchase procedures are those relatively simple and informal
procurement methods for securing services, supplies or other property, costing in the aggregate not more
than the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. If small purchase procedures are used for a procurement,
written price or rate quotations shall be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.
(2) Competitive sealed bids. In competitive sealed bids (formal advertising), sealed bids are publicly
solicited and a firm-fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder
whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is lowest, price
and other factors considered. When using this method the following shall apply:
(i) At a sufficient time prior to the date set for opening of bids, bids shall be solicited from an
adequate number of qualified sources. In addition, the invitation shall be publicly advertised.
(ii) The invitation for bids, including specifications and perinent attachments, shall clearly define the
items or services needed in order for the bidders to properly respond to the invitation under paragraph
(j)(4) of this section.
(iii) All bids shall be opened publicly at the time and place stated in the invitation for bids.
40
(iv) A firm-fixed-price contract award shall be made by written notice to that responsible bidder
whose bid, conforming to the invitation for bids, is lowest. When specified in the bidding documents,
factors such as discounts and transportation costs shall be considered in determining which bid is lowest.
(v) Any or all bids may be rejected by the owner when it is in their best interest.
(3) Competitive negotiation. In competitive negotiations, proposals are requested from a number of
sources and the Request for Proposal is publicized. Negotiations are normally conducted with more than
one of the sources submitting offers. Competitive negotiation may be used if conditions are not
appropriate for the use of formal advertising and where discussions and bargaining with a view to
reaching agreement on the technical quality, price, other terms of the proposed contract and
specifications may be necessary. If competitive negotiation is used for a procurement, the following
requirements shall apply:
(i) Proposals shall be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources to permit reasonable
competition consistent with the nature and requirements of the procurement. The Request for Proposal
shall be publicized and reasonable requests by other sources to compete shall be honored to the
maximum extent practicable.
(ii) The Request for Proposal shall identify all significant evaluation factors, including price or cost
where required, and their relative importance.
(iii) The owner shall provide mechanisms for technical evaluation of the proposals received,
determination of responsible offerors for the purpose of written or oral discussions, and selection for
contract award.
(iv) Award may be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal will be most advantageous to the
owner, price and other factors considered. Unsuccessful offerors should be promptly notified.
(v) Owners may utilize competitive negotiation procedures for procurement of
architectural/engineering and other professional services, whereby competitors' qualifications are
evaluated and the most qualified competitor is selected, subject to negotiations of fair and reasonable
compensation.
(4) Noncompetitive negotiation. Noncompetitive negotiation is procurement through solicitation of a
proposal from only one source, or after solicitation of a number of sources competition is determined
inadequate. Noncompetitive negotiation may be used when the award of a contract is not feasible under
small purchase, competitive sealed bids (formal advertising) or competitive negotiation procedures.
Circumstances under which a contract may be awarded by noncompetitive negotiations are limited to the
following:
(i) The item is available only from a single source; or
(ii) There exists a public exigency or emergency and the urgency for the requirement will not permit
a delay incident to competitive solicitation; or
(iii) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate; or
(iv) No acceptable bids have been received after formal advertising; or
(v) The procurement of architectural/engineering and other professional services.
(vi) The aggregate amount does not exceed $50,000.
41
(5) Additional procurement methods. Additional innovative procurement methods may be used by
the owner with prior written approval of the Rural Development National Office.
(l) Alternate contracting methods. The services of the consulting engineer or architect and the
general construction contractor shall normally be procured from unrelated sources in accordance with
paragraph (j)(7) of this section. Alternate contracting methods which combine or rearrange design,
inspection or construction services (such as design/build or construction management/constructor) may
be used with Rural Development written approval.
(1) The owner will request Rural Development approval by providing the following information to the
State Office for review and approval by the State Architect:
(i) The owner's written request to use an unconventional contracting method with a description of the
proposed method.
(ii) A proposed scope of work describing in clear, concise terms the technical requirements for the
contract. This would include a nontechnical statement summarizing the work to be performed by the
contractor, the expected results, the sequence in which the work is to be performed, and a proposed
construction schedule.
(iii) A proposed firm-fixed-price contract for the entire project which provides that the contractor shall
be responsible for any extra cost which may result from errors or omissions in the services provided
under the contract and compliance with all Federal, State, and local requirements effective on the
contract execution date.
(iv) An evaluation of the contractor's performance on previous similar projects in which the
contractor acted in a similar capacity.
(v) A detailed listing and cost estimate of equipment and supplies not included in the construction
contract but which are necessary to properly operate the facility.
(vi) Evidence that a qualified construction inspector who is independent of the contractor has or will
be hired.
(vii) Preliminary plans and outline specifications. However, final plans and specifications must be
completed and reviewed by Rural Development prior to the start of construction.
(viii) The owner's attorney's opinion and comments regarding the legal adequacy of the proposed
contract documents and evidence that the owner has the legal authority to enter into and fulfill the
contract.
(2) The State Office may approve design/build or construction management/constructor projects if
the contract amount is equal to or less than $250,000.
(3) If the contract amount exceeds $250,000, National Office prior concurrence must be obtained in
accordance with §1942.9(b) of this subpart. Additional information, such as plans and specifications, may
be requested by the National Office.
(4) The Design/Build method of construction is one in which the architectural and engineering
services, normally provided by an independent consultant to the owner, are combined with those of the
General Contractor under a single source contract. These services are commonly provided by a
Design/Build firm, a joint venture between an architectural firm and a construction firm, or a company
providing pre-engineered buildings and design services.
42
(5) The Construction Management/constructor (CMc), acts in the capacity of a General Contractor
and is actually responsible for the construction. This type of construction management is also referred to
as Construction Manager “At Risk.” The construction contract is between the owner and the CMc. The
CMc, in turn, may subcontract for some or all of the work.
(6) The National Office may approve other alternative contact methods, such as Construction
Management/advisor (CMa), with a recommendation from the State Office. The recommendation shall
indicate the circumstances which prove this method advantageous to the applicant and the Government.
A CMa acts in an advisory capacity to the owner, and the actual contract for construction is between the
owner and a prime contractor or multiple prime contractors. When a contract for an architect and a CMa
are being provided, it is important to make sure that separate professionals are not being paid to provide
similar services. Further, paragraph (e)(3) of this section discourages separate contracts for construction.
(7) All alternate contracting method projects must comply with the requirements for “maximum open
and free competition” in paragraph (j)(2) of this section. Choosing an alternate contracting method is not a
way to avoid competition. Further information on procurement methods, which must be followed, is
provided in paragraph (k) of this section.
(m) Contracts awarded prior to preapplications. – this next section not part of the adopted procedure
area.
43
44
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: June 27, 2017
RE: Liquor Licensing: Change of Location of a Tavern Liquor License
Application for Park Theater Mall LLC dba Historic Park Theatre and Cafe,
116 E. Elkhorn Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado
Objective:
Approval of a Change of Location for a Tavern liquor license currently located at 130 &
132 Moraine Avenue, to 116 E. Elkhorn Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado. Application filed
by Park Theater Mall LLC dba Historic Park Theatre and Cafe.
Present Situation:
An application for a Change in Location of a Tavern liquor license was received by the
Town Clerk’s office on May 24, 2017. All necessary paperwork and fees were
submitted; please see the attached Procedure for Hearing on Application – Change of
Location of a Tavern Liquor License for additional information. A Temporary Use Permit
application was submitted to Community Development and approved for the outdoor
beer garden at this location. The applicant previously completed Training for
Intervention Procedures (TIPS) with the establishment of the original liquor license.
The applicant has also requested a change in trade name with their application from the
Historic Park Theatre and Café to The Slab. The change would take affect with the
approval of the application.
Proposal:
To present the application for the Town Board’s review and consideration for the
Change of Location of a Tavern liquor license.
Advantages:
Approval of the license provides the business owner with the opportunity to continue to
operate a liquor-licensed establishment in the Town of Estes Park.
Disadvantages:
The owner is denied a business opportunity to serve alcohol to patrons.
Action Recommended:
Approval of the application for a Change in Location of the Tavern liquor license.
45
Budget:
The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a Change in Location of the Tavern liquor
license is $750. The fee covers the administrative costs related to processing the
application.
Level of Public Interest
Moderate
Sample Motion:
The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood
are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of
the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor license. Based upon
these findings, I move that the application for a Change of Location of the Tavern liquor
license filed by Park Theater Mall LLC dba Historic Park Theatre and Cafe be
approved/denied.
Attachments:
Procedure for Hearing
Application
Diagram of Liquor Premises
Temporary Use Approval
46
July 2002
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION
CHANGE OF LOCATION OF A TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE
1. MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on the application of Park
Theater Mall LLC dba Historic Park Theatre and Cafe for a Change of Location
of an existing Tavern Liquor License located at 130 & 132 Moraine Avenue to 116
E. Elkhorn Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the facts and evidence
determined as a result of its investigation, as well as any other facts, the reasonable
requirements of the neighborhood for the type of license for which application has
been made, the desires of the adult inhabitants, the number, type and availability of
liquor outlets located in or near the neighborhood under consideration, and any other
pertinent matters affecting the qualifications of the applicant for the conduct of the type
of business proposed.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
2. TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following:
The application was filed May 24, 2017.
At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on June 13, 2017, the public hearing was
set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 27, 2017.
The neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing
were established to be 3.15 miles.
The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs.
The applicant is filing as a Limited Liability Company.
The property is zoned CD – Commercial Downtown which allows this
type of business as a permitted use.
The notice of hearing was published on June 16, 2017 .
47
The premises was posted on June 16, 2017 .
There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant.
Status of T.I.P.S. Training:
Unscheduled Scheduled * X Completed
There is a map indicating all liquor outlets presently in the Town of Estes Park
available upon request.
3. APPLICANT.
The applicants will be allowed to state their case and present any evidence they
wish to support the application.
4. OPPONENTS.
The opponents will be given an opportunity to state their case and present any
evidence in opposition to the application.
The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal limited to the evidence presented by the
opponents. No new evidence may be submitted.
5. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the application and, if so, to read all communication.
Indicate that all evidence presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any questions of any person speaking at
any time during the course of this hearing.
Declare the public hearing closed.
6. SUGGESTED MOTION:
Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the
neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and
that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor
license.
Motion. Based upon the above findings, I move that this Change of Location for a Tavern
Liquor License be granted/denied.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
May 30, 2017
The Slab
Attn: Park Theatre Mall LLC
P.O. Box 3052
Estes Park CO 80517
RE: Temporary Use Permit for Outdoor Beer Garden
Parcel ID: 3525120017
Dear Applicant,
The above-referenced application has been approved with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the submitted application, including the submitted site plan.
2. Contact Code Compliance with any sign permit questions. This TUP application does not
approve any proposed signage. Signs are approved through the Code Compliance
division.
3. This permit is valid June 1st 2017 to November 30th 2017. The Town reserves the right
to revoke the temporary use permit if any condition of approval is violated.
4. Hours of operation are to be between 9:00 am -12:00 am (Midnight) daily. Hours of
operation do not include staff food and bar preparation/closing time. Food and bar
preparation/closing time may occur outside of approved hours of operation.
5. No portion of the bar and food operations may take place beyond the existing site.
6. Food and drink preparation and serving shall comply with Larimer County Health
Department requirements.
7. The temporary use shall comply with all municipal noise ordinance regulations.
8. All refuse located outside an enclosed structure shall be deposited in Wildlife Resistant
Containers. This requirement shall not apply to containers 95-gallons or less which are
emptied by 10pm each day or under contract for removal overnight.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this approval, please feel free to contact me
at 970-577-3720.
Thanks,
Robin Becker
Planner I
56
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Carrie McCool, Planning Consultant
Date: June 27, 2017
RE: Annexation Proposal – Raven Rock Addition
(Resolution #21-17 and Ordinance #19-17)
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing, review, and decide on an Annexation application for
compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Colorado Revised
Statutes (C.R.S.).
Present Situation:
The subject property is 10.90 acres of vacant land that is zoned A-Accommodations. It
is located on the east side of the Promontory Drive and Mary’s Lake Road intersection,
adjacent to Arapaho Meadows which is inside Town limits. The applicant proposes to
maintain the property’s A-Accommodations zoning, upon annexation. This zoning
allows a wide variety of accommodation uses, including relatively higher-intensity
accommodations.
The annexor will develop and install all on-site and off-site infrastructure facilities
necessary to serve the property with water, wastewater, stormwater facilities and other
municipal services as all utilities currently surround the property. Mary’s Lake Road
defines the western boundary of the property wherein the annexor is required to
subdivide the property and dedicate additional right-of-way for Mary’s Lake Road build
out of seventy (70) feet from its current boundaries prior to or concurrent with the
submittal of a Development Plan.
Proposal:
The annexation request proposed to incorporate the 10.90-acre property into Town
Limits.
Advantages:
1. This request compiles with Eligibility for Annexation Standards set forth in C.R.S. 31-
12-104;
2. This request complies with Limitations Standards set forth in C.R.S. 31-12-105; and
3. An annexation election is not required under C.R.S. 31-12-107(2).
Disadvantages: None. 57
Action Recommended:
Planning Staff is recommending approval of the Raven Rock Addition Annexation
application with the following condition:
• Prior to recordation of the Annexation Map and certified copy of the Annexation
Ordinance, the Annexation Agreement shall be signed and executed pursuant to
Town procedures.
Budget: None.
Level of Public Interest:
Low: There has been no written public comment received as of June 16, 2017. Any
comments received after this date shall be placed on the applications page of the Town
website at www.estes.org/currentapplications
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/approve with conditions/deny Resolution #21-17 and Ordinance #19-
17.
Attachments:
• Resolution #21-17
• Ordinance #19-17
• Annexation Agreement
• Application www.estes.org/currentapplications
58
RESOLUTION NO. 21-17
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with
Section 31-12-110, C.R.S., hereby finds that with regard to the proposed annexation of the
following described area, that the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12-
104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., have been met; that an election is not required under Section
31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms and conditions are to be imposed on the
annexation. The area eligible for annexation known as “RAVEN ROCK ADDITION” to the
Town of Estes Park is as follows:
Containing Acres: 10.90
A PORTION OF LOT 7, SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST
OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CE 1/16TH OF SAID
SECTION 2 MONUMENTED BY A 3 1/4" USBLM BRASS CAP ON A 2 1/4" PIPE
AND CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF SAID LOT 7
TO BEAR S86°06'01"E, MONUMENTED ON THE EAST SIDE BY THE SAID CE
1/16TH AND ON THE WEST SIDE BY THE C 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 2
MONUMENTED BY A 3 1/4" USBLM BRASS CAP ON A 2 1/4" PIPE, WITH ALL
BEARINGS HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE N86°06'01"W 307.68' TO
THE EAST BOUNDARY OF MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION; THENCE
N30°25'38"W 616.51'; THENCE N35°59'44"W 474.60' TO THE NORTH CORNER
OF MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION; THENCE DEPARTING THE EAST
BOUNDARY OF MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION N24°56'22"E 5.81' ALONG THE
EAST BOUNDARY OF LOT 1, MARY'S LAKE ESTATES; THENCE N22°55'03"E
29.20' TO THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF LOT 1, MARY'S LAKE ESTATES;
THENCE DEPARTING THE EAST BOUNDARY OF LOT 1, MARY'S LAKE
ESTATES S36°01'01"E 39.70' ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LAND
OWNED BY THE U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION; THENCE S80°14'21"E
866.75' TO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF ARAPAHO MEADOWS SUBDIVISION;
THENCE S00°29'26"E 789.65' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, CONTAINING 10.90 ACRES.
59
DATED this day of , 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
60
ORDINANCE NO. 19-17
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION
OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO,
TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS
RAVEN ROCK ADDITION
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1. That a Petition for Annexation, together with four (4) copies of the
annexation map of said area as required by law, was filed with the Board of Trustees on
the 28th day of April, 2017 by the landowners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area
and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys of
the area hereinafter described. The Board, by Resolution at its regular meeting on the 23rd
day of May, 2017, accepted said Petition and found and determined that the provisions of
Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S., were met; and the Board further determined that the Town
Board should consider the annexation map on Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Municipal Building for the purposes of determining that the proposed annexation complies
with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and is
considered eligible for annexation.
Section 2. That the Notice of said hearing was given and published as provided in
Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S.
Section 3. That the hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-12-
109, C.R.S., on the 23rd day of May, 2017.
Section 4. That following said hearing, the Board of Trustees adopted a Resolution
determining that the proposed annexation met the requirements of the applicable parts of
Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; that an election was not required under
Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms or conditions are to be imposed
upon said annexation.
Section 5. That the annexation of the following described area designated as
RAVEN ROCK ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, is hereby approved:
Containing Acres: 10.90
A PORTION OF LOT 7, SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST
OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CE 1/16TH OF SAID
SECTION 2 MONUMENTED BY A 3 1/4" USBLM BRASS CAP ON A 2 1/4"
PIPE AND CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF SAID
61
LOT 7 TO BEAR S86°06'01"E, MONUMENTED ON THE EAST SIDE BY THE
SAID CE 1/16TH AND ON THE WEST SIDE BY THE C 1/4 OF SAID SECTION
2 MONUMENTED BY A 3 1/4" USBLM BRASS CAP ON A 2 1/4" PIPE, WITH
ALL BEARINGS HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE N86°06'01"W 307.68'
TO THE EAST BOUNDARY OF MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION; THENCE
N30°25'38"W 616.51'; THENCE N35°59'44"W 474.60' TO THE NORTH
CORNER OF MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION; THENCE DEPARTING THE EAST
BOUNDARY OF MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION N24°56'22"E 5.81' ALONG THE
EAST BOUNDARY OF LOT 1, MARY'S LAKE ESTATES; THENCE N22°55'03"E
29.20' TO THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF LOT 1, MARY'S LAKE ESTATES;
THENCE DEPARTING THE EAST BOUNDARY OF LOT 1, MARY'S LAKE
ESTATES S36°01'01"E 39.70' ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF
LAND OWNED BY THE U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION; THENCE
S80°14'21"E 866.75' TO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF ARAPAHO MEADOWS
SUBDIVISION; THENCE S00°29'26"E 789.65' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, CONTAINING 10.90 ACRES.
Section 6. The Town of Estes Park, Colorado, hereby consents, pursuant to
Section 37-45-136(3.6) C.R.S., to the inclusion of lands described above into the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal SubDistrict, Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District.
Section 7. 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 , 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
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 of , 2017 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of
, 2017, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
62
DRAFT Execution Copy
ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into this ____ day of _________, 2017, by and
between James R. Mackey and Susan M. Mackey, hereinafter referred to as (“Owner”); and the
Town of Estes Park, a Municipal Corporation in the State of Colorado, hereinafter referred to as
(the “Town”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Owner desires to annex to the Town the property more particularly
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“the Property”);
and
WHEREAS, the Owner has executed a petition to annex the Property; and
WHEREAS, it is to the mutual benefit of the parties to enter into this Annexation
Agreement (this “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that upon annexation, the Property will be subject to
all ordinances, resolutions and other regulations of the Town, as they may be amended from
time to time.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE PREMISES AND THE
COVENANTS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS
FOLLOWS:
1.The Owner shall be required to subdivide the property and dedicate additional
right-of-way for County Road 67 (AKA Mary’s Lake Road) build out of seventy
(70) feet from its current boundaries to the Town of Estes Park prior to or
concurrent with the submittal of a Development Plan.
2.Annexation shall be contingent upon the incorporation with the Upper Thompson
Sanitation District for sewer servicing.
3.The Owner shall dedicate necessary land area for utilities as required by the
63
DRAFT Execution Copy
Town of Estes Park Light and Power District to accommodate the
undergrounding of overhead power lines prior to or concurrent with the submittal
of a Subdivision Plat.
4.The Owner shall be responsible for all utility extensions and public improvements
associated with future development of the Property.
5.Nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute or be interpreted as a repeal
of the Town’s ordinances, resolutions, or policies or as a waiver of the Town’s
legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health,
safety, and welfare of the Town and its inhabitants; nor shall this Agreement
prohibit the enactment or increase by the Town of any tax or fee as authorized by
law.
6.In the event of a material breach of any provision of this Agreement, the non-
breaching party may ask a court of competent jurisdiction to enter a writ of
mandamus, temporary or permanent restraining orders, temporary or permanent
injunctions, or orders of specific performance, to compel the breaching party to
perform its duties under this Agreement.
7.The parties agree that they will cooperate with one another in accomplishing the
terms, conditions, and provisions of the Agreement, and will execute such
additional documents as necessary to effectuate the same.
8.This Agreement and all amendments shall be recorded with the Clerk and
Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado, and shall be a covenant running with the
land, and shall be binding upon all persons or entities having an interest in the
Property.
9.This Agreement embodies the entire agreement of the parties. There are no
promises, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained herein;
and this Agreement supersedes all previous communications, representations, or
agreements, either verbal or written, between the parties. This Agreement may
be amended by the Town and the Owner. Such amendments shall be in writing.
64
DRAFT Execution Copy
10.As used in this Agreement, the term “Owner” shall include any transferees,
successors, or assigns of the Owner, and all such parties shall have the right to
enforce this Agreement, and shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement, as if
they were the original parties thereto.
11.As used in this Agreement, unless otherwise specifically provided herein, any
reference to any provision of any Town ordinance, resolution, or policy is
intended to refer to any subsequent amendments or revisions to such ordinance,
resolution, or policy, and the parties agree that such amendments or revisions
shall be binding upon Owner, and the Property, subject to any applicable
provisions for valid, pre-existing non-conforming uses.
12.The Owner acknowledges that the annexation of the Property is subject to the
legislative discretion of the Board of Trustees of the Town. No assurances of
annexation have been made or relied upon by the Owner. In the event that, in the
exercise of its legislative discretion, the annexation of the Property is not
approved, this Agreement shall be null and void and of no further force and
effect.
13.This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, and
venue shall be in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
14.Notices. Written notices shall be directed as follows and shall be deemed
received when hand-delivered or emailed, or three days after being sent by
regular first class mail:
To the Owner: To the Town:
James and Susan Mackey Town of Estes Park
11 Norman Place Attn: Town Administrator
Greenville, SC 29615 P O Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park, CO 80517
15.In the event it becomes necessary for either party to bring any action to enforce any
provision of this Agreement or to recover any damages from the other party as a result
of the breach of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, defective work, and the
65
party that prevails in such litigation, the other party shall pay the prevailing party its
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as determined by the court.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Town Clerk
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
The above and foregoing was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ______________,
2017 by as Mayor of the Town of Estes Park.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires: ______________.
________________________________
Notary Public
66
PROPERTY OWNER
_______________________________
By: James R. Mackey
_______________________________
By: Susan M. Mackey
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
The above and foregoing was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ______________,
2017, by James and Susan Mackey as Owner of the Property.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires: _______________________________.
_______________________________
Notary Public
67
68
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: June 27, 2017
RE: ORDINANCE #20-17: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES
VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE
RM (MULTI-FAMILY) ZONING DISTRICT.
Objective:
Review and recommend approval of amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC) regarding maximum building height for multi-family buildings in the RM (Multi-
Family Residential) Zoning District.
Present Situation:
Please refer to June 13, 2017 Town Board staff memo on Ordinance No. 17-17 for full
background on the history and rationale for this amendment. This memo will be focused
on changes since the June 13 review.
This item was on the Board of Larimer County Commissioners’ June 19 agenda for
action, but staff requested and the Commission agreed to continue the amendment until
their July 10 meeting.
Proposals:
At the June 13 Town Board meeting, this item was separated from the remainder of
Ord. No. 17-17 and continued for two weeks. The Board’s specific direction to staff on
June 13 was to work with the Estes Park Housing Authority to ensure their concerns, as
expressed during the ordinance’s public comment period, were addressed.
The attached Exhibit BC achieves this goal. It has been reviewed by the EPHA and the
approach in this new draft Exhibit removes concerns about potentially jeopardizing
possible Federal funding for the EPHA.
The new language is not very different from the old Exhibit BB you saw on June 13,
except that there are now two entirely separate sections dealing with height incentives
in RM. Section 4.3.D.5 provides for an incentive for attainable housing, and Section
4.3.D.6 provides the same incentive for workforce housing. Both “attainable” and
“workforce” are defined as stated in the sections.
They key changes that fix the EPHA’s concerns are this separation into two different
sections, and also the specific language in subsection b (Eligibility) of each new section.
69
The last sentences in each Eligibility subsection mirrors each other. Both basically state
that a developer can’t mix and match units in the same building for “attainable” and
“workforce” qualifications. Each building that gets a height bonus has to pick either
attainable or workforce, but not both.
This doesn’t mean that attainable units can’t be used by households in the workforce, or
vice-versa. Overlap between attainable households and workforce households in Estes
Valley is over 80 percent. But the amendment does mean that an attainable-qualified
project with Federal funding cannot officially be restricted to workforce status. Doing so
for a project means that Federal funding is at risk.
The attached Exhibit BC is the only way, to staff’s knowledge, to fix the problem
identified by the Housing Authority on June 13, assuming an incentive-based approach
is desired.
Advantages:
• Multi-Family Building Height in the RM District: The amendment is intended to
increase the supply of housing in the Estes Valley, especially attainable and
workforce housing. That is an identified community need.
Disadvantages:
• The change would put the attainable bonus and workforce bonus on an equally
competitive basis. Concerns have been expressed that this could reduce the amount
of new RM housing specifically targeted to workforce.
Action Recommended:
Adoption of Exhibit BC as presented.
Budget:
n/a
Level of Public Interest
High: Maximum building heights in Estes Valley has been a longstanding item of
interest.
Sample Motion:
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve Ordinance No. 20-17, amending the
Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibits BC, finding that the amendment is
in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 20-17
2. Exhibit BC: [Incentive-Based Alternative]
3. Partial Transcript of May 16, 2017 Planning Commission meeting
4. Partial Transcript of June 20, 2017 Planning Commission meeting
70
ORDINANCE NO. 20-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
REGARDING MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE RM (MULTI-FAMILY) ZONING
DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission conducted
public hearings on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code,
Sections 4.3.C and 4.3.D (Building Height and Development Standards, RM (Multi-Family)
Zoning District); and found that the text amendments comply with Estes Valley Development
Code §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2017, 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 BC, be approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code is set forth on
Exhibit BC, 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 BC.
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
_______, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
___________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Town Clerk
71
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2017 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the ________ day
of , 2017, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
72
EXHIBIT BC:
[Incentive-Based Alternative Edited per TB direction]
TB: June 27, 2017
§ 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts
D. Additional Zoning District Standards.
5.Incentives for Attainable Housing Units in the RM District:
Building Height
a. Purpose. This Section is intended to create an incentive to provide
attainable housing in the RM (Multi-Family Residential) Zoning District by
allowing an increase in the maximum building height (Table 4-2) for multi-
family buildings in the RM District.
b.Eligibility. All multi-family dwelling buildings incorporating attainable
housing units as defined herein that are located in the RM Zoning District
are eligible for the height bonus set forth in this Section. Any multi-family
dwelling building that incorporates workforce housing units as defined in
Sec. 4.3.D.6 herein, and thus is given the height incentives provided in
that Section, shall not be eligible for the attainability height incentives in
Sec. 4.3.D.5 of this Code.
c."Attainable" Defined. For purposes of this Code and Chapter, "attainable
housing units" shall mean the following:
1. Renter-Occupied Attainable Housing Units.
a.Housing units that are attainable to households earning less
than one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the Larimer
County Area Median Income or below, adjusted for household
size.
b.[Reserved]
c.[Reserved]
2.Owner-Occupied Attainable Housing Units.
a.Housing units that are attainable to households earning less than
one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the Larimer County Area
Median Income or below, adjusted for household size.
73
b. [Reserved]
d. Larimer County Area Median Income, Defined. The Larimer County
Area Median Income is the current applicable area median income for
Larimer County published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
e. Maximum Permitted Height Bonus. Subject to the standards and review
criteria set forth in this Code, designation of one hundred percent (100%)
of dwelling units in an eligible multi-family dwelling building as attainable
housing units shall make such building eligible for a maximum building
height of thirty-eight (38) feet, subject to the Rules of Measurement in
Sec. 1.9 of this Code.
f. Public Sewers and Water Required. All multi-family buildings in the RM
Zoning District qualifying for this height incentive shall be served by public
sewer service and public water service.
g. Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Attainable housing units designated in
compliance with this height incentive shall not be rented, leased or occupied
for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days (see §5.1.B).
h. Deed Restriction Required. Attainable housing units designated pursuant
to this Section shall be deed-restricted to assure the availability of the units
for sale or rent to persons meeting the attainability guidelines and definitions
set forth in this Section and Code, for a period of time no less than fifty (50)
years. The mechanism used to restrict the unit shall be approved by the
Town or County.
6. Incentives for Workforce Housing Units in the RM District: Building
Height
a. Purpose. This Section is intended to create an incentive to
provide workforce housing in the RM (Multi-Family Residential)
Zoning District by allowing an increase in the maximum building
height (Table 4-2) for multi-family buildings in the RM District.
b. Eligibility. All multi-family dwelling buildings incorporating
workforce housing units as defined herein that are located in the
RM Zoning District are eligible for the height bonus set forth in
this Section. Any multi-family dwelling building that incorporates
attainable housing units as defined in Sec. 4.3.D.5 herein, and
thus is given the height incentives provided in that Section, shall
not be eligible for the workforce height incentives in Sec.
4.3.D.6 of this Code.
74
c. "Workforce Housing Unit” Defined. For purposes of this
Section and Code, "workforce housing unit" shall mean a
housing unit in which at least one household member is
employed within the Estes Park School District R-3 Boundaries.
d. Maximum Permitted Height Bonus. Subject to the standards
and review criteria set forth in this Code, designation of one
hundred percent (100%) of dwelling units in an eligible multi-
family dwelling building as workforce housing units shall make
such building eligible for a maximum building height of thirty-
eight (38) feet, subject to the Rules of Measurement in Sec. 1.9
of this Code.
e. Public Sewers and Water Required. All multi-family buildings
in the RM Zoning District qualifying for this height incentive shall
be served by public sewer service and public water service.
f. Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Workforce housing units
designated in compliance with this height incentive shall not be
rented, leased or occupied for tenancies of less than thirty (30)
days (see §5.1.B).
g. Deed Restriction Required. Workforce housing units designated
pursuant to this Section shall be deed-restricted to assure the
availability of the units for sale or rent to persons meeting the
workforce guidelines and definitions set forth in this Section and
Code, for a period of time no less than fifty (50) years. The
mechanism used to restrict the unit shall be approved by the Town
or County.
§ 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts
C. Density/Dimensional Standards.
4. Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning
Districts.
Table 4-2
Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts
75
Zoning
District
Max. Net
Density
(units/acre)
Minimum Lot
Standards [1] [4]
(Ord. 25-07 §1)
Minimum
Building/Structure
Property Line
Setbacks [2] [7] (Ord.
25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11
§1)
Max.
Building
Height (ft.)
[8]
Min.
Building
Width (ft.)
Area
(sq ft.)
Width
(ft.)
Front
(ft.)
Side
(ft.)
Rear
(ft.)
RM
(Ord.
18-01
§14)
Residential
Uses: Max =
8 and Min =
3
Senior
Institutional
Living Uses:
Max = 24
40,000,
5,400 sq.
ft./unit [6]
(Ord. 25-07
§1; Ord. 15-
11 §1)
Senior
Institutional
Living Uses:
½ Ac.
60;
Lots
Greater
than
100,000
sq. ft.:
200
25-
arterials;
15-other
streets
10
(Ord.
15-11
§1)
10 30 [9] 20 [5]
Notes to Table 4-2
(4) All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall
also be subject to a maximum lot coverage of sixty five percent (65%).
(8) See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which addresses measurement of maximum height of buildings.
(9) Maximum height for multi-family buildings in the RM Zoning District shall be thirty-eight (38)
feet, for developments that comply with the provisions of Sec. 4.3.D.5 (Attainable Housing
Incentive) or Sec. 4.3.D.6 (Workforce Housing Incentive) of this Code.
76
May 16, 2017 Planning Commission meeting video/audio transcript [partial]
MM = Mike Moon (chair)
BL = Bob Leavitt
DK = Doug Klink
RK = Rita Kurelja (Estes Park Housing Authority)
BH = Betty Hull
RH = Randy Hunt (Community Development Director)
SW = Sharry White
SM = Steve Murphree
[1:40 mark]
MM: “All right, so the question if – there was never an intent on the bonus part to
be – to remove the affordable part. I wanted it to be equivalent to what we had with the
density bonus. However, it looks like what we’ve done is simply pushed it totally to the
workforce without that other aspect that is in the density bonus.”
BL: “You mean the income portion?”
MM: “Yeah.”
DK: “Well, no. That was actually very intentional. We talked about the fact that
we didn’t want to be providing affordable housing for people working in Loveland,
instead of people living here, and we didn’t want to be providing affordable housing for
retirees who wanted to live in Estes Park instead of somewhere else, but they couldn’t
afford it. Because I’d really like to live on the coast of California, but I just can’t do it.
And that’s just the reality everybody faces, whatever their income level. So, I mean, I
think that was a very deliberate thing that we did. But I don’t want to see it in some way
decrease the ability for people [unclear] workforce.”
MM: “The intent was to be able to take care of the individuals, provide housing
for the individuals we’re dependent on for our restaurant, retail, and lodging facilities.”
RK: “If I may – the Housing Authority, across the board in every one of our
properties, whether it’s Federally funded or not, we have a preference system whereby
somebody who lives and/or works here, gets preference already. So – but we are not
allowed to discriminate. So it’s the elderly and disabled that the Federal dollars are
attached to.”
RK: “Now, with all of that being said, the option that doesn’t utilize the workforce
piece would work for both.”
BL: “Except that I wonder how many members of the workforce will be able to
afford these, given what the developers put out.”
DK: “There’s no incentive. That’s the part that I – we lose all incentive for the
developer to use that height bonus to provide workforce housing. If I was a developer,
I’d just want to build something… I could get more money.”
77
BL: “Exactly.”
BH: “Which is what you’ve been up against for years.”
[1:54 mark]
MM: “Maybe we just need to bring the verbiage over from the density bonus and
bring it into this.” [Exhibit B-2]
RH: “If I understand the question right – if we were to bring over into Chapter 4
the same income capability, and make it parallel to what we have in Chapter 11, then
we would have parallel language, and I believe that would be possible to do both
without the conundrum that Rita mentioned.”
MM: “The idea is – I think, amongst everyone I’ve chatted with – is that we want
to incentivize workforce affordable housing for the community, not incentivize
condominium development that‘s going to be for developers to sell.”
MM: “I’d like to break this conundrum. Are we able to offer a B-3?”
RH: “Yes.”
MM: “Which would simply be the language from the height – or, excuse me, the
density bonus brought over and included in the height bonus?”
RH: “Yes. I looked at that yesterday, or a few days ago, after we became aware
of the issue, fully aware, and looking at it again this morning. And bringing the language
over, I believe would accomplish that. I can’t promise to you that we may not need to
tweak those, because we can always find ourselves – “
MM: “We have language that we know exists in the density bonus that
supposedly works, and it’s been there for a while. We’ve at least tried it.”
RH: “Yes.”
MM: “If it moved over word for word into this, instead of what we just specifically
have for workforce, then we’d have a third option.”
SW: “Are you saying move it over into a B-2?”
MM: “A B-3.”
SW: “I know, a B-3.”
RH: “It would be copied over from Chapter 11 – “
MM: “It simply increases the workforce and adds the affordable, the way – so, the
two bonuses are exactly the same criteria. And they both incentivize what we’re trying to
accomplish, and they both impact significantly the financial impact for the developer.
They incentivize the developer to do what we wish the developer to do.”
SM: “Let me ask you another question. If you did bring over the language to B-3,
and tweaked it as you say, can you guarantee us that you won’t tweak it to the point
where you would lose some of its original intent?”
78
RH: “I only say that – I would say that about any Code amendment we do on the
fly, because it always makes me a little nervous – “
SM: “I can imagine.”
RH: “I think Mr. White would agree that it’s a little risky.”
SM: “But you would try to preserve – “
RH: “I think we would have a relatively lower risk of having to do that, because
we already have the language in Chapter 11, and that’s gone through prior review. But
in case I’m wrong, I will be glad to be corrected.”
DK: “We’re making a recommendation. We’re not actually enacting something.
So, you know – can always go to the Town Board and say, ‘Wait, this didn’t turn out the
way we – ‘ But, I mean, it’s something that we need to move forward on. So, I would be
in favor of, you know, a B-3 option, and trusting that Randy and his eloquence, and,
thank God, injecting a little humor into the staff reports…”
MM: “May I hear a motion on that?”
BH: “Well, let me ask – so, B-3 – “
MM: “Yes ma’am.”
BH: “ – is density and height. Height has to be in there – “
MM: “No. It’s – density already exists.”
BH: “Exactly.”
MM: “So, what we’re taking is, we’re taking the language associated with
workforce and affordable aspect from that section, and moving it over into this section.
Instead of just workforce, it would be workforce and affordable.”
DK: “But it is directly related to height.”
MM: “Well, yes. It’s tied to both. I mean, the individual who wants to do this is
going to go after height bonus and density bonus.”
SM: “But they will remain bonuses, regardless.”
RH: “Yeah, that part, I can assure you, if we put it – in Section D.5, I think it is –
the same section where we have the workforce language right now, and bring it straight
over from Chapter 11, that will apply directly to a height bonus in the same way it does
density.”
DK: “OK, then, I’d make the motion. I move to recommend that the Town Board
of Trustees and the County Commissioners approve amending the Estes Valley
Development Code as stated in Exhibit B-2, with the addition, in order to avoid conflicts
that would be detrimental to the utilization of that exhibit, incorporation of the density
language to avoid any conflicts.”
SM: “Second.”
MM: “May we have a vote.”
[Vote: 6 in favor, 1 opposed]
MM: “And the motion passes. So, we have a modified – we have a B-3, modified
B-2.”
[2:06 mark]
79
(Prepared by Randy Hunt, AICP, Estes Park Community Development Director, on
June 21, 2017)
80
June 20, 2017 Planning Commission meeting video/audio transcript [partial]
RH – Randy Hunt (Community Development Director)
BL – Bob Leavitt
DK – Doug Klink
SW – Sharry White
MM – Mike Moon (chair)
BH – Betty Hull
RN – Ron Norris (Town Board liaison)
GW – Greg White (Town Attorney)
[1:18 mark]
RH: The third item (on Town Board’s June 13th agenda) has to do with building height in
RM at 38 feet, and those two choices – you remember we had the plain old increase
to 38 – not any qualifications, really – and then the incentive, which began before
your meeting last time as a workforce incentive, and then (unclear) your discussion
with Housing Authority and others during the meeting, became an attainability and/or
workforce incentive. So, at the Town Board meeting last week, the Housing Authority
was back in attendance. The staff, I think, gave it our best shot in preparing the
amendment before Town Board, and basically copied things as they were in Chapter
11 in the density exhibit. But that proved to be problematic according to the Housing
Authority, which, if I understood correctly, in a nutshell said that you could qualify for
a workforce incentive in the same building, or with the same set of units in a building,
as with the attainability – then the Federal government would not provide incentives.
I got lost somewhere on the Federal bureaucracy trying to understand that, but I
don’t have any doubt that the Housing Authority does this for a living and knows their
stuff. What the Town Board did was continue that [unclear] their meeting this coming
Tuesday. Yesterday the County Board of Commissioners took the same route and
continued it to their July 10th meeting, so as to allow the changes suggested
(unclear) going through. So, I have provided some new language to the Housing
Authority and Mr. White. They’re reviewing that, I think, in the next day or two. Our
deadline to get it on the Town Board, or to the Town Board packet – to the Town
Clerk – is Thursday at 5. So we should have some guidance on that before then.
BL: So, Randy, can you at that time or before that time, can you send us an email
saying here’s the status; we have this resolved, the issue is resolved, that we’re
going to take to the Board – or no, it’s not resolved, and we still have some issues
potentially to continue?
RH: Sure. What I’ll be glad to do is Thursday, at the same time I send it to the Town
Clerk, once approved and we’re comfortable with language, I’ll forward that new
draft to you all, and it will be the same thing the Town Board gets, and the same
thing the County gets in July.
81
DK: Maybe I missed something, but I didn’t come away from our last meeting feeling
like the language the Housing Authority wanted to add was ‘plus attainable’. I mean,
we were really specific about the fact that it was workforce only, and there was
some, it seemed to me, glitch that had to be fixed in order to make it acceptable. But
I never would have voted “yes’ for it if I thought it was going to be for attainable as
well.
BL: Exactly
SW: Nor would I.
BL: I think, coming out of that last meeting, it was clear there was an issue. And my
assumption was, they were going to resolve it --
SW: Mm-hmm.
BL: -- for workforce housing, before it was brought up at the Board meeting, or it would
have been continued and never even discussed. Because it was a poison pill for that
option. It was never going to work.
DK: Is that what I’m hearing you say? That the direction we’re going is that it’s going to
have to be workforce and attainable in order to --
RH: No. I probably didn’t state it very well. What I have done in this draft – and we want
to make sure it’s acceptable up and down the line for Housing Authority and other
purposes and so on – is – basically I took the Chapter 11 material and split it into
two entirely different subsections for RM district, both of which -- either of which --
would allow one to go to 38 feet. One option would allow that if it’s workforce
designation, and that’s pretty close to the original amendment, that you all saw in
your packets before your meeting in May. There’s another option, that you haven’t
seen separated out this way, that says you could attain the same option – the same
38 feet – if you aim your project, or your building project, at attainability. So it treats
them as entirely separate matters. Does that help?
DK: Well, basically it gives the same 38 foot option for attainable that it gives for
workforce.
RH: (Nods)
MM: And in our minutes on page 5, it says Rita stated (unclear) multi-family housing
that is Federally funded and administered by the Housing Authority cannot limit
housing to workforce.
RH: So, with these separate sections of the amendment, the developer came in, let’s
say, sits down with the staff, we would immediately tell them, if they want to do a 38-
foot building in RM, you have to pick. Is your building going to be attainable
housing? If it is, you take advantage of that option. If you want your building to be
82
workforce housing, you can take that option, and you’d be eligible. But you can’t mix
and match those units within the same building.
MM: You know, what’s interesting about this discussion is that so far, at least from what
I understand, we’ve come close to failing miserably with housing being affordable,
even for these workers. I mean, you see it on social media every day about – I can’t
afford the apartments that the Housing Authority has – I can’t afford what they’re
charging, da-da, da-da, da-da. And they’re Federally funded, right? So, the real
question on our solving our workforce housing issue is whether or not there are
private investment opportunities that can see that from a real-estate investment trust
perspective, or whatever financing, that is looking for long-term consistent return on
investment, but is… I mean, the rest of this stuff on Federal funding seems to be so
convoluted and so much over the top with paperwork and everything and
administrative crap and everything, that you’ve got to ask yourself, how are we going
to solve our workforce housing here in Estes Park? You know, and if we’re going to
sit here and dilute what we intended to be administered because of the Federally
funded staff, which isn’t doing us any good anyway, then – I’m kind of at a loss of
why I care about whether or not the Federal funding is there or not.
SW: Well, and I guess that also begs the question – does anyone want, really want to
solve that problem? Or just want to build more retirement homes, second homes,
whatever.
MM: The frustration here is that we were trying to be very, very clear and very specific
about why the increase in height was acceptable to this community, to us as
individuals on the Commission, and to the community. And now we’re going to sit
here and water it down. I keep coming back, Ron, to the comment that I can – I can
play the comment back -- during the vacation rental thing, with you standing up here
and talking about making sausage, okay. I don’t want to make sausage out of this
workforce housing thing. I want a solution. And if – the frustration is that then it goes
to the Town Board and it comes out with the things that we’ve spent a good deal of
time working on and trying to put together a consistent plan to make sense for this
community, and it gets overridden in one evening. Sorry.
SW: Ron, maybe I’d like to ask, did you, as a Town Board member, through that
presentation – was the message -- what Mike was saying, that we were trying to do -
- clear to the Town Board, do you think?
BH: Did it come across as workforce?
SW: How did it come across?
RN: Most of our discussion has been specifically about workforce housing. What we
understood in that last meeting – what I and the other people on the Board
understood at the last meeting, was, if we work our Code so that this height increase
applies to either of these two options – attainable housing or workforce housing – it
83
still gives the Housing Authority the opportunity to get funding for that type of
housing, while at the same time we can go to private developers and give them an
incentive to build the workforce housing. I need to see the final wording to see if that
makes sense.
DK: But the fear is that, if those two are equal, that the Federal incentives and
everything else will utilize the limited property that we have left to build this kind of
housing…
BH: Right.
DK: …and attainable will be more attractive than workforce, and we’re right back to
where we started, if not worse. I think the moral of the story, guys, is we screwed up.
We should never have said, “We’ll approve it – you go off and figure out the
language.” We should never do that again. We should say, “Come on back next
month,” regardless of what they’re writing.
BL: That’s one reason why I want Randy to bring back to us what the -- very clear
language -- what this means, in terms of workforce housing for the community
before it goes to the Board so we know what we’re getting into here.
MM: Yeah, but it’s already past us.
BL: But we can testify – we can testify if there’s…
RN: Several things we can do here. Let me give you a suggestion. The thing we’re
talking about is unanticipated consequences.
SW: Yes, exactly.
RN: And I’m not sure that I understand all the consequences of whatever the new
wording will be. And if we’re not comfortable with our understanding of those
consequences, I think at the request of the Planning Commission, you can make
that request to staff, to hold off until we get your concerns about unanticipated
consequences either resolved or articulated better, so we bring your message to the
Board.
BH: Yes, please.
RN: And the, that can be up to staff whether collectively, you and staff feel ready to
bring that to the Board at our next meeting, or if we need another two weeks, to give
you time to debate ensuing language as a Commission. Could also have a special
meeting, to just discuss that. So -- Randy, does that make sense to you?
RH: (Nods)
DK: Randy, I don’t blame you. You know, I think that I speak for everybody here,
though, that that was never what we thought.
BH: That’s right.
84
DK: We needed to resolve this. Or I think you would have seen an almost unanimous
vote, if not unanimous vote, against raising the height.
RH: If I misunderstood, I apologize. But that was my understanding of what you voted
on.
DK: And that was that what we wanted was workforce housing only.
RH: No.
BL: [unclear] surprising.
DK: You missed – come on, Randy! Jesus. We stated it categorically. Let’s go back to
the recording. It was absolutely clear. It was talked about multiple times. It was
workforce only, and that’s what we were looking for. Okay, I changed my mind. This
does sit on your shoulders.
RH: I’ll review the audio. That’s still not my understanding.
BH: Okay, that’s fair. That’s fair. See what the audio says.
BL: The issues that the Housing Authority brought up were things that needed to be
addressed right then – it was clear to me that that was part of your process. I was
really surprised that Jon Nicholas and Rita were opposed – like, hey, wait, this was
all supposed to be worked out before we go to, you know, to the Town Board. So we
don’t have one option that has a lot of baggage on it. And the other option, which is,
just ignore all this – you know, make it simple, like you said, your other option, and
that one’s obviously preferred. It didn’t look like it was ready for prime time.
RN: Just as a general thought – if we’re not sure we’ve taken the time to do this right
and meet your intent, we need to take the time to do it right.
BH: Yes.
RN: And also, just to frame the question a little bit more – I think we’re asking to what
extent, if any, will attainable housing and workforce housing be competing with one
another for funds and for development time [unclear].
MM: Actually, it’s development real estate.
RN: Yeah, and real estate. So, if you frame it that way, you can help us see what the
consequences are, of whatever the latest language is, and help us stay on the right
track, because the Town Board’s focus really is workforce housing.
BH: Can we table this until we can --
GW: No.
BH: No?
GW: It’s on the Town Board’s – the Town Board will act on it.
85
SW: Can they continue it?
GW: You can request, if you want to, through Ron or the Planning Commission
chairman, that it be tabled for whatever reasons you have.
RN: This would not be the first time that staff has requested a continuance of something
like this, so I would say after collectively you look at where you are, if you want a
couple more weeks…
MM: Yeah. If we don’t see it until Thursday, and it has to get posted Thursday, it’s
already a done deal. So if it doesn’t get continued, and -- you know. We need to see
something before we can make the decision on it.
BL: The things that the Housing Authority has to input on this -- I don’t think we fully
understand the differences yet. I mean, it’s been explained a little bit, and I don’t
know that I completely understand.
GW: I can explain very simply. Here’s where the confusion starts. The Housing
Authority cannot do workforce housing. It can’t. That’s discriminatory under the --
using Federal funds. So, the height limitation, the height bonus, couldn’t be used by
the Housing Authority if it was limited to workforce housing. They can’t do workforce
housing. I don’t think people understand that that’s discriminatory under the Federal
law. You can’t have pure workforce housing. There’s where the confusion – when
Rita said, we have a problem, that’s what she was referring to. Now, was that
communicated to the Planning Commission? I was here. No, I don’t think you
understood that.
BH: No, we didn’t.
GW: And so, what you’re talking about now, the fact that the workforce housing, in the
Planning Commission’s mind, is totally related to available developable property,
was also not articulated by this Planning Commission in these meetings either. And
therefore, it doesn’t go to the Town Board. So you have a lack of communication by
the Planning Commission on exactly why you were recommending. There was no
discussion of that in the meetings that I attended. So that was not communicated to
the Town Board. And if in fact that was the reason for you wanting workforce
housing, then that should have been communicated. Now, if that’s your reason, you
certainly can communicate that to the Town Board, either through Ron or through
the Chairman.
[1:35 mark]
(Prepared by Randy Hunt, AICP, Estes Park Community Development Director, on
June 21, 2017)
86
Jackie Williamson <jwilliam son@estes.org>
code change
1 mes s age
Rita Kurelja <rk urelja@est es.org>Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 1:23 PM
To: Frank Lancas t er <flancas ter@estes .org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt @est es .org>, Jack ie Williamson <jwilliams on@est es .org>
Good afternoon
I inadv ertently f ailed to inc lude you all on t he email I have s ent to all Trustees . The language below is what I sent :
Good afternoon
I am writing on behalf of the Estes Park Hous ing Authorit y regarding the proposed height inc reas e for RM z oning. We
feel v ery s trongly that the code c hange inc lude both work forc e and affordable/attainable hous ing. When approximat ely
90% of our housing unit s (affordable) are oc c upied by members of t he local workforce it is import ant that we cont inue t o
include ac cess to federal and state funds that allow projects such as Falcon Ridge to be built . Limiting the height
increase s olely to project s f or middle income workers would ex c lude an important part of our work forc e f rom future
projects .
We f ully unders tand the need for workforce housing and we ourselves are work ing towards a work forc e projec t. BOTH
types of housing are needed and play an important role in our communit y.
I urge y ou to v ote in fav or of the propos ed c ode amendment coming bef ore you on J une 27th.
Res pec tf ully,
Rita Kurelja
Ex ec utiv e Direc tor
Es t es Park Hous ing Authority
rkurelja@es tes.org
www.estes housing.org
9705773733
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Development Code Change
7 mes s ages
Kirby Hazel ton <k irby.haz elton@gmail.com>Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:13 PM
To: Ward Nelson <wnels on@es t es.org>
Cc: Frank Lanc as ter <f lanc as ter@es t es.org>, rhunt@estes .org, Town Clerk <t ownc lerk@es tes .org>
Hello Trustee Nelson,
I probably can't g et away with identifying this way for much longer, but as a 'young er' member of the community, I
have many social and professional acquaintances who strug gle with both work force and affordable housing . In fact,
90% of our current affordable housing units are occupied by residents who are in the Estes Valley workforce. These are
people with a passion for Estes Park, a passion for their growing families, and a passion for a future in this community.
Most, if not all, of them dream of living, working, and playing (long ‐term) in the Estes Valley but are deterred by
finding a place now to call home. These are people who are investing in Estes Park and I hope we can continue to take
progressive steps toward including them our community's future.
For these reasons and more, I ask you to approve the proposed heig ht increase for RM zoning , and that the code change
include both workforce and affordable housing. Federal low income housing tax credits (LHIT C) can be used by both
Estes Park Housing Authority AND private developers ‐ which allows for multiple segments of our community to be
addressed ‐ so it is important that we continue to include access to these funds. L imiting the heig ht increase solely to
projects for middle income work ers would exclude an important part of our workforce from future projects.
I appreciate your consideration to this matter and your continued service to our community!
Best,
Kirby
Kirby Hazelton
Owner, Hazelton Consulting
President, Est es Valley Partners for Commerc e
Board Member, Es tes Park Nonprofit Res ourc e Center
As s ist ant Coach, E stes Park High School Women's Soccer
k irby.haz elt on@gmail.com
Kirby Hazel ton <k irby.haz elton@gmail.com>Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:14 PM
To: Cody Walker <cwalk er@es tes .org>
Cc: Frank Lanc as ter <f lanc as ter@es t es.org>, rhunt@estes .org, Town Clerk <t ownc lerk@es tes .org>
Hello Trus t ee Walker,
I probably c an't get away with identify ing this way for much longer, but as a 'y ounger' member of the c ommunity, I hav e
many social and prof essional acquaint ances who s t ruggle wit h both workforce and affordable hous ing. In fact , 90% of
our c urrent aff ordable housing unit s are oc c upied by res idents who are in the Es tes Valley workforce. Thes e are people
with a pas sion f or Es tes Park , a passion for their growing families , and a passion f or a future in this c ommunity. Most, if
not all, of them dream of living, working, and play ing (longterm) in the Es tes Valley but are deterred by finding a
plac e now to c all home. Thes e are people who are inves ting in Es t es Park and I hope we c an c ontinue to take
progressiv e s t eps toward including them our community 's future.
For these reas ons and more, I as k you to approve the propos ed height increas e f or RM zoning, and that t he c ode
c hange inc lude both work forc e and aff ordable housing. Federal low inc ome hous ing tax credit s (LHITC) can be us ed by
both Es tes Park Housing Authority AND privat e dev elopers whic h allows for multiple segments of our c ommunity to be
addres s ed so it is important that we continue t o include ac c ess to thes e funds. Limiting the height inc rease solely to
projects for middle income work ers would exc lude an import ant part of our workf orc e from future projec ts .
I apprec iate your c ons ideration to this matter and y our c ontinued s erv ice to our community !
Bes t,
Kirby
Kirby Hazelton
Owner, Hazelton Consulting
President, Est es Valley Partners for Commerc e
Board Member, Es tes Park Nonprofit Res ourc e Center
As s ist ant Coach, E stes Park High School Women's Soccer
k irby.haz elt on@gmail.com
Kirby Hazel ton <k irby.haz elton@gmail.com>Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:14 PM
To: wk oenig@estes .org
Cc: Frank Lanc as ter <f lanc as ter@es t es.org>, rhunt@estes .org, Town Clerk <t ownc lerk@es tes .org>
Mayor Pro T em Koenig ,
I probably c an't get away with identify ing this way for much longer, but as a 'y ounger' member of the c ommunity, I hav e
many social and prof essional acquaint ances who s t ruggle wit h both workforce and affordable hous ing. In fact , 90% of
our c urrent aff ordable housing unit s are oc c upied by res idents who are in the Es tes Valley workforce. Thes e are people
with a pas sion f or Es tes Park , a passion for their growing families , and a passion f or a future in this c ommunity. Most, if
not all, of them dream of living, working, and play ing (longterm) in the Es tes Valley but are deterred by finding a
plac e now to c all home. Thes e are people who are inves ting in Es t es Park and I hope we c an c ontinue to take
progressiv e s t eps toward including them our community 's future.
For these reas ons and more, I as k you to approve the propos ed height increas e f or RM zoning, and that t he c ode
c hange inc lude both work forc e and aff ordable housing. Federal low inc ome hous ing tax credit s (LHITC) can be us ed by
both Es tes Park Housing Authority AND privat e dev elopers whic h allows for multiple segments of our c ommunity to be
addres s ed so it is important that we continue t o include ac c ess to thes e funds. Limiting the height inc rease solely to
projects for middle income work ers would exc lude an import ant part of our workf orc e from future projec ts .
I apprec iate your c ons ideration to this matter and y our c ontinued s erv ice to our community !
Bes t,
Kirby
Kirby Hazelton
Owner, Hazelton Consulting
President, Est es Valley Partners for Commerc e
Board Member, Es tes Park Nonprofit Res ourc e Center
As s ist ant Coach, E stes Park High School Women's Soccer
k irby.haz elt on@gmail.com
Kirby Hazel ton <k irby.haz elton@gmail.com>Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:15 PM
To: tjirs a@es tes.org
Cc: Frank Lanc as ter <f lanc as ter@es t es.org>, Town Clerk <townclerk @estes .org>, rhunt@es tes.org
Mayor Jirsa,
I probably c an't get away with identify ing this way for much longer, but as a 'y ounger' member of the c ommunity, I hav e
many social and prof essional acquaint ances who s t ruggle wit h both workforce and affordable hous ing. In fact , 90% of
our c urrent aff ordable housing unit s are oc c upied by res idents who are in the Es tes Valley workforce. Thes e are people
with a pas sion f or Es tes Park , a passion for their growing families , and a passion f or a future in this c ommunity. Most, if
not all, of them dream of living, working, and play ing (longterm) in the Es tes Valley but are deterred by finding a
plac e now to c all home. Thes e are people who are inves ting in Es t es Park and I hope we c an c ontinue to take
progressiv e s t eps toward including them our community 's future.
For these reas ons and more, I as k you to approve the propos ed height increas e f or RM zoning, and that t he c ode
c hange inc lude both work forc e and aff ordable housing. Federal low inc ome hous ing tax credit s (LHITC) can be us ed by
both Es tes Park Housing Authority AND privat e dev elopers whic h allows for multiple segments of our c ommunity to be
addres s ed so it is important that we continue t o include ac c ess to thes e funds. Limiting the height inc rease solely to
projects for middle income work ers would exc lude an import ant part of our workf orc e from future projec ts .
I apprec iate your c ons ideration to this matter and y our c ontinued s erv ice to our community !
Bes t,
Kirby
Kirby Hazelton
Owner, Hazelton Consulting
President, Est es Valley Partners for Commerc e
Board Member, Es tes Park Nonprofit Res ourc e Center
As s ist ant Coach, E stes Park High School Women's Soccer
k irby.haz elt on@gmail.com
Kirby Hazel ton <k irby.haz elton@gmail.com>Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:15 PM
To: Rnorris <rnorris@es tes.org>
Cc: Frank Lanc as ter <f lanc as ter@es t es.org>, Town Clerk <townclerk @estes .org>, rhunt@es tes.org
Trustee Norris,
I probably c an't get away with identify ing this way for much longer, but as a 'y ounger' member of the c ommunity, I hav e
many social and prof essional acquaint ances who s t ruggle wit h both workforce and affordable hous ing. In fact , 90% of
our c urrent aff ordable housing unit s are oc c upied by res idents who are in the Es tes Valley workforce. Thes e are people
with a pas sion f or Es tes Park , a passion for their growing families , and a passion f or a future in this c ommunity. Most, if
not all, of them dream of living, working, and play ing (longterm) in the Es tes Valley but are deterred by finding a
plac e now to c all home. Thes e are people who are inves ting in Es t es Park and I hope we c an c ontinue to take
progressiv e s t eps toward including them our community 's future.
For these reas ons and more, I as k you to approve the propos ed height increas e f or RM zoning, and that t he c ode
c hange inc lude both work forc e and aff ordable housing. Federal low inc ome hous ing tax credit s (LHITC) can be us ed by
both Es tes Park Housing Authority AND privat e dev elopers whic h allows for multiple segments of our c ommunity to be
addres s ed so it is important that we continue t o include ac c ess to thes e funds. Limiting the height inc rease solely to
projects for middle income work ers would exc lude an import ant part of our workf orc e from future projec ts .
I apprec iate your c ons ideration to this matter and y our c ontinued s erv ice to our community !
Bes t,
Kirby
Kirby Hazelton
Owner, Hazelton Consulting
President, Est es Valley Partners for Commerc e
Board Member, Es tes Park Nonprofit Res ourc e Center
As s ist ant Coach, E stes Park High School Women's Soccer
k irby.haz elt on@gmail.com
Kirby Hazel ton <k irby.haz elton@gmail.com>Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:16 PM
To: Patrick Martc hink <pmartc hink @estes .org>
Cc: Frank Lanc as ter <f lanc as ter@es t es.org>, rhunt@estes .org, Town Clerk <t ownc lerk@es tes .org>
Hello Trustee Martchink,
I probably c an't get away with identify ing this way for much longer, but as a 'y ounger' member of the c ommunity, I hav e
many social and prof essional acquaint ances who s t ruggle wit h both workforce and affordable hous ing. In fact , 90% of
our c urrent aff ordable housing unit s are oc c upied by res idents who are in the Es tes Valley workforce. Thes e are people
with a pas sion f or Es tes Park , a passion for their growing families , and a passion f or a future in this c ommunity. Most, if
not all, of them dream of living, working, and play ing (longterm) in the Es tes Valley but are deterred by finding a
plac e now to c all home. Thes e are people who are inves ting in Es t es Park and I hope we c an c ontinue to take
progressiv e s t eps toward including them our community 's future.
For these reas ons and more, I as k you to approve the propos ed height increas e f or RM zoning, and that t he c ode
c hange inc lude both work forc e and aff ordable housing. Federal low inc ome hous ing tax credit s (LHITC) can be us ed by
both Es tes Park Housing Authority AND privat e dev elopers whic h allows for multiple segments of our c ommunity to be
addres s ed so it is important that we continue t o include ac c ess to thes e funds. Limiting the height inc rease solely to
projects for middle income work ers would exc lude an import ant part of our workf orc e from future projec ts .
I apprec iate your c ons ideration to this matter and y our c ontinued s erv ice to our community !
Bes t,
Kirby
Kirby Hazelton
Owner, Hazelton Consulting
President, Est es Valley Partners for Commerc e
Board Member, Es tes Park Nonprofit Res ourc e Center
As s ist ant Coach, E stes Park High School Women's Soccer
k irby.haz elt on@gmail.com
Kirby Hazel ton <k irby.haz elton@gmail.com>Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:17 PM
To: Bob Holc omb <bholcomb@est es .org>
Cc: Frank Lanc as ter <f lanc as ter@es t es.org>, rhunt@estes .org, Town Clerk <t ownc lerk@es tes .org>
Hello Trustee H olcomb,
I probably c an't get away with identify ing this way for much longer, but as a 'y ounger' member of the c ommunity, I hav e
many social and prof essional acquaint ances who s t ruggle wit h both workforce and affordable hous ing. In fact , 90% of
our c urrent aff ordable housing unit s are oc c upied by res idents who are in the Es tes Valley workforce. Thes e are people
with a pas sion f or Es tes Park , a passion for their growing families , and a passion f or a future in this c ommunity. Most, if
not all, of them dream of living, working, and play ing (longterm) in the Es tes Valley but are deterred by finding a
plac e now to c all home. Thes e are people who are inves ting in Es t es Park and I hope we c an c ontinue to take
progressiv e s t eps toward including them our community 's future.
For these reas ons and more, I as k you to approve the propos ed height increas e f or RM zoning, and that t he c ode
c hange inc lude both work forc e and aff ordable housing. Federal low inc ome hous ing tax credit s (LHITC) can be us ed by
both Es tes Park Housing Authority AND privat e dev elopers whic h allows for multiple segments of our c ommunity to be
addres s ed so it is important that we continue t o include ac c ess to thes e funds. Limiting the height inc rease solely to
projects for middle income work ers would exc lude an import ant part of our workf orc e from future projec ts .
I apprec iate your c ons ideration to this matter and y our c ontinued s erv ice to our community !
Bes t,
Kirby
Kirby Hazelton
Owner, Hazelton Consulting
President, Est es Valley Partners for Commerc e
Board Member, Es tes Park Nonprofit Res ourc e Center
As s ist ant Coach, E stes Park High School Women's Soccer
k irby.haz elt on@gmail.com
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Re: Work Force Housing and Development Code Changes
1 mes s age
DIANE MUNO <dianemuno@ms n.com>Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:58 PM
To: "tjirsa@es tes .org" <tjirs a@es t es.org>, "wk oenig@es tes .org" <wk oenig@estes .org>, "bholcomb@es t es.org"
<bholcomb@est es.org>, "pmartchink@es tes.org" <pmartchink@es tes.org>, "wnels on@estes .org" <wnels on@estes .org>,
"rnorris @est es.org" <rnorris@es tes .org>, "cwalk er@es tes .org" <c walker@estes .org>
Cc: Frank Lanc as ter <f lanc as ter@es t es.org>, "rhunt @est es.org" <rhunt@es tes.org>, "townc lerk @estes .org"
<townc lerk @es t es.org>
Dear Mayor Jirsa and Town of Estes Park Trustees:
As a small business owner in Estes Park with 12 year round staff and an addi onal 6 seasonal employees who live in
the Estes Valley, housing con nues to complicate hiring for both groups.
Due to the seasonality of foot traffic our business must earn 75‐80% of our income in 4 months, yet, we need to
employ people year round to have competent, qualified and well trained staff to deliver the best guest experience,
even during the busiest of days of summer. Our seasonality does not allow for salary ranges to afford housing at the
rental prices owners can demand. The very limited availability of units in the affordable range means you have to be
"lucky" to find a year round home. Seasonal workers must "hope" they know someone who can give them a room to
stay in for the summer. This is the theme year in and year out. The last two years we have seen our applicants living
in camp grounds with limited shower and laundry access. This is not an ideal arrangement for someone who
is expected to always have a smile on their face and cater to guests with excellent service required.
Please do not fail to take this opportunity to move in the direc on of suppor ng the work force by providing op ons
to improve their living condi ons thereby allowing them the dignity to have a lifestyle conducive to contribu ng to
our community.
I ask that the Town Board support the proposed height increase for RM zoning, and that the code change include
both workforce and affordable housing. When over 90 percent of affordable housing units include members of our
local workforce, it is important that we con nue to include access to federal and state funds that allow projects such
as Falcon Ridge to happen. Limi ng the height increase solely to projects for middle income workers would exclude
an important part of our workforce from future projects.
Thank you for your considera on.
Very truly yours,
Diane Muno
Chair, EDC Work Force Housing Committee
The Christmas Shoppe
The Spruce House
THEWHITE ORCHID
The White Orchid Bridal
liz & jo's
The Vegetable Peddler
"Crea��ng memories and tradi��ons for your family and future"
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Fwd: Tiny Homes offer an alternative to raising height limits
1 mes s age
Rnorris <rnorris @es t es.org>Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:40 AM
To: townclerk @estes .org
Cc: Linda Norris <ltnorris @gmail.com>
Please forward to the other Trustees , for info. My opinion: regardles s of height changes or any other inc entives we may
offer, we need t o bec ome more familiar with t he pros and c ons of t his ty pe of option.
Thank s,
Ron
Begin forwarded mes s age:
From: Karen Thompson <k thompson@estes .org>
Date: J une 26, 2017 at 8:15:36 AM MDT
To: Betty Hull <jbhull@aol.com>, Rus s Schneider <russest esplanningc ommis s ion@gmail.c om>, Douglas
Klink <dougk link@gmail.c om>, Bob Leavitt <leav503@gmail.c om>, Sharry White
<bs harry whit e@gmail.c om>, Mic hael Moon <mgmoon@aol.c om>, Stev e Murphree
<s t eve@es tesv alley.net>, Mic hael Whitley <mwhitley@larimer.org>, Ron Norris <rnorris @estes .org>,
Randy Hunt <rhunt@es tes .org>, Linda Hardin <lhardin@est es.org>, Audem Gonzales
<agonz ales @estes .org>, Robin Becker <rbecker@est es.org>
Subject: Fwd: Tiny Hom es offer an alternative to raising height l im its
Please s ee Carol Hillers on's comment on tiny homes .
Karen Thompson
Exec utiv e Assistant
Communit y Development Department
Town of Est es Park
Phone: 9705773721
Fax : 9705860249
k t homps on@es tes.org
Forwarded message
From: <hillerson@bey ondbb.c om>
Dat e: Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 6:25 AM
Subject: Tiny Homes offer an alternative to raising height limits
To: planning@estes .org
Planning Commission members:
I understand the idea of tiny homes has been raised locally. There are towns in Colorado currently going
ahead with that idea. It's a great solution for building w orkforce and attainable housing with no 3story
buildings blocking views nor taking up a very large footprint for a building and parking. Tiny homes offer
the addition of a new neighborhood with nic ely landscaped individual units on permanent foundations that
blend into surrounding area.
I recently visited my sister in Buena Vista, CO. BV is suffering from same growing pains as Estes Park.
They are follow ing closely the actions taken by Salida, CO, to offer tiny homes (Sprout Tiny Homes is
based in La Junta, Colorado) as affordable workforce housing as well as additional rental units. BV and
Salida are popular destinations in all s easons but especially summer when 52 rafting companies take
hundreds of people on the Arkansas River. Fishing, skiing (Monarch), snowmobiling, ATVs, hiking, etc,
keep that area busy all year round. And they are further from the Front Range than we are. Walsenburg
and other CO towns are also getting on board with this idea.
See this article in the Denv er Post:
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/16/salidacommunitytinyhomeshousingcrunch/
Tiny Home Industry Association: http://tiny homeindustryassociation.org/
The tiny homes w ill be on permanent foundations and include a community center with a catering kitchen,
fitness center, community garden, storage units, 5 acres of parks and trails. My sister has talked with the
Sprout Tiny Homes office in La Junta and suggested day care in the community center or an additional
facility. They are excited about that idea as well.
Height limits can remain unc hanged; changing to three stories might not be the end. Soon someone will
want four or more.
Estes Park can also be a leader in this solution to a statewide problem!
Thank you for your consideration.
Carol Hillerson
EXHIBIT BC-a:
[Incentive-Based Alternative – Workforce Only]
TB: June 27, 2017
§ 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts
D. Additional Zoning District Standards.
5. Incentives for Attainable Housing Units in the RM District:
Building Height
a. Purpose. This Section is intended to create an incentive to provide attainable
housing in the RM (Multi-Family Residential) Zoning District by allowing an
increase in the maximum building height (Table 4 -2) for multi-family buildings
in the RM District.
b. Eligibility. All multi-family dwelling buildings incorporating attainable housing
units as defined herein that are located in the RM Zoning District are eligible
for the height bonus set for th in this Section. Any multi-family dwelling
building that incorporates workforce housing units as defined in Sec. 4.3.D.6
herein, and thus is given the height incentives provided in that Section, shall
not be eligible for the attainability height incentives in Sec. 4.3.D.5 of this
Code.
c. "Attainable" Defined. For purposes of this Code and Chapter, "attainable
housing units" shall mean the following:
1. Renter-Occupied Attainable Housing Units.
a. Housing units that are attainable to households earning less than one
hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income
or below, adjusted for household size.
b. [Reserved]
c. [Reserved]
2. Owner-Occupied Attainable Housing Units.
a. Housing units that are attainable to households earning less than one
hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income
or below, adjusted for household size.
b. [Reserved]
d. Larimer County Area Median Income, Defined. The Larimer County Area
Median Income is the current applicable area median income for Larimer
County published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
e. Maximum Permitted Height Bonus. Subject to the standards and review
criteria set forth in this Code , designation of one hundred percent (100%) of
dwelling units in a n eligible multi-family dwelling building as attainable
housing units shall make such building eligible for a maximum building height
of thirty-eight (38) feet, subject to the Rules of Measurement in Sec. 1.9 of
this Code.
f. Public Sewers and Water Required. All multi-family buildings in the RM
Zoning District qualifying for this height incentive shall be served by public
sewer service and public water service.
g. Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Attainable housing units designated in
compliance with this height incentive shall not be rented, leased or occupied
for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days (see §5.1.B).
h. Deed Restriction Required. Attainable housing units designated pursuant to
this Section shall be deed -restricted to assure the availability of the unit s for
sale or rent to persons meeting the attainability guidelines and definitions set
forth in this Section and Code , for a period of time no less than fifty (50)
years. The mechanism used to restrict the unit shall be approved by the
Town or County.
6. Incentives for Workforce Housing Units in the RM District: Building
Height
a. Purpose. This Section is intended to create an incentive to
provide workforce housing in the RM (Multi -Family Residential)
Zoning District by allowing an increase in the maximum building
height (Table 4-2) for multi-family buildings in the RM District.
b. Eligibility. All multi-family dwelling buildings incorporating
workforce housing units as defined herein that are located in the
RM Zoning District are eligible for the height bonus set forth in
this Section. Any multi-family dwelling building that incorporates
attainable housing units as defin ed in Sec. 4.3.D.5 herein, and
thus is given the height incentives provided in that Section, shall
not be eligible for the workforce height incentives in Sec.
4.3.D.6 of this Code.
c. "Workforce Housing Unit” Defined. For purposes of this
Section and Code, "workforce housing unit" shall mean a
housing unit in which at least one household member is
employed within the Estes Park School District R -3 Boundaries.
d. Maximum Permitted Height Bonus. Subject to the standards
and review criteria set forth in this Code, designation of one
hundred percent (100%) of dwelling units in an eligible multi -
family dwelling building as workforce housing units shall make
such building eligible for a maximum building height of thirty-
eight (38) feet, subject to the Rules of Measurement in Sec. 1.9
of this Code.
e. Public Sewers and Water Required. All multi-family buildings
in the RM Zoning District qualifying for this height incentive shall
be served by public sewer service and public water service.
f. Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Workforce housing units
designated in compliance with this height incentive shall not be
rented, leased or occupied for tenancies of less than thirty (30)
days (see §5.1.B).
g. Deed Restriction Required. Workforce housing units designated
pursuant to this Section shall be deed -restricted to assure the
availability of the units for sale or rent to persons meeting the
workforce guidelines and definitions set forth in this Section and
Code, for a period of time no less than fifty (50) years. The
mechanism used to restrict the unit shall be approved by the Town
or County.
§ 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts
C. Density/Dimensional Standards.
4. Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning
Districts.
Table 4-2
Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts
Zoning
District
Max. Net
Density
(units/acre)
Minimum Lot
Standards [1] [4]
(Ord. 25-07 §1)
Minimum
Building/Structure
Property Line
Setbacks [2] [7] (Ord.
25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11
§1)
Max.
Building
Height (ft.)
[8]
Min.
Building
Width (ft.)
Area
(sq ft.)
Width
(ft.)
Front
(ft.)
Side
(ft.)
Rear
(ft.)
RM
(Ord.
18-01
§14)
Residential
Uses: Max =
8 and Min =
3
Senior
Institutional
Living Uses:
Max = 24
40,000,
5,400 sq.
ft./unit [6]
(Ord. 25-07
§1; Ord. 15-
11 §1)
Senior
Institutional
Living Uses:
½ Ac.
60;
Lots
Greater
than
100,000
sq. ft.:
200
25-
arterials;
15-other
streets
10
(Ord.
15-11
§1)
10 30 [9] 20 [5]
Notes to Table 4-2
(4) All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall
also be subject to a maximum lot coverage of sixty five percent (65%).
(8) See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which addresses measurement of maximum height of buildings.
(9) Maximum height for multi -family buildings in the RM Zoning District shall be thirty-eight (38)
feet, for developments that comply with the provisions of Sec. 4.3.D.5 (Attainable Housing
Incentive) or Sec. 4.3.D.6 (Workforce Housing Incentive) of this Code.
Transportation Advisory Board Interview Committee Appointments
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: June 27, 2017
RE: Interview Committee for the Transportation Advisory Board
Objective:
To appoint Town Board members to the interview committee for the one position open on the
Transportation Advisory Board.
Present Situation:
The Transportation Advisory Board is currently made up of nine volunteer community members.
The Board received a resignation from Gregg Rounds on June 25, 2017. His term is due to
expire on March 31, 2018. The Town Clerk’s office would post the position starting Friday, June
30, 2017 through July 17, 2017. The intent is to hold interviews as soon as possible to fill the
open position. This would allow the TAB to continue their work on the parking master plan with a
full board.
Proposal:
Per Policy 101 Section 6 states all applicants for Town Committees/Boards are to be interviewed
by the Town Board, or its designee. Any designee will be appointed by the Town Board. The
Clerk’s office requests the Town Board appoint two members to an interview team per policy.
Advantages:
To move the process forward and allow interviews to be conducted of interested applicants.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
To appoint two Trustees to the interview panel for the Transportation Advisory Board openings.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest.
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Trustees __________ and ___________ to the
Transportation Advisory Board interview panel.
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
To: Estes Park Mayor Todd Jirsa and the Town Trustees
Larimer County Commissioners
Good evening:
I’m sending this letter in support of Visit Estes Park and the work that organization and its board are
doing for the benefit of our entire community.
As one of the original members of the board of Visit Estes Park and one of the past board chairs, I have
been disheartened by the recent public attacks of that organization, its staff, and its board. I am hopeful
that moving forward we can reduce this unnecessary drain on VEP’s staff and financial resources and re-
dedicate those resources where they will do the greatest good. As a resident, I need that to happen.
You are a body of elected officials who have chosen to accept the tremendous responsibilities of public
leadership. I’m sure you are keenly aware of the amazing and often thankless work done by your staff
for the benefit of the greater community. Many of the benefits I enjoy as a resident of this valley are the
result of visionary leaders such as you and your teams taking the long-view. Thank you for that.
Sometimes the long view is unpopular – the beauty of our governing system is that it allows for our
voices to be heard. So I will ask that you hear this:
Since its origins, the staff and board of Visit Estes Park have been committed to the long view.
As the organization has grown and matured, its staff and board leadership have consistently
maintained this outlook.
It has remained committed to the health and welfare of the entire valley, not just the businesses
that generate the tax revenues.
It has remained committed to transparency and its guiding principles.
VEP has stayed committed to its operating plan – a plan that prioritizes the needs of the
destination and allocates its limited resources to those priorities. That plan necessitates
accountability and strategic planning.
VEP relies on data and industry best-practices to guide its decision-making, and works diligently
to keep the needs of the GREATER community as priority while not being drawn off course by
the needs or agendas of a few individuals.
VEP is often lifted up within the industry as an example of what a destination marketing
organization SHOULD be.
As you know, last year VEP was recognized with the Colorado Tourism Office’s Best Marketing
Campaign Award.
As a resident of this valley and an employee who relies on a healthy economy for my livelihood, I ask
each of you as a leader to carefully listen to the voices in support of Visit Estes Park, and consider your
Visit Estes Park board appointments with the long view and health of our community in mind.
Thank you for your time, attention, and support.
Sincerely,
Bill Almond
551 Pawnee Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517