HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2017-06-13The 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 13, 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 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.
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. Town Clerk Williamson.
Prepared 06/02/17
* Revised 06/08/17
**Revised 06/12/17
***Items added at meeting
**
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
2. CHANGE IN LOCATION OF A TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE FILED BY THE
BARREL LLC DBA THE BARREL, 251 MORAINE AVENUE, ESTES PARK, CO.
Town Clerk Williamson.
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. Planner Gonzales.
Preliminary Condominium Map.
Preliminary Planned Unit Development.
Final Planned Unit Development.
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.
B. ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER FEE WAIVER REQUEST. Director
Hunt.
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. Director Hunt.
4.ACTION ITEMS:
1.WAIVE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL ON PRPA WINDY GAP WATER RIGHTS.
Attorney White, Director Bergsten & Superintendent Eshelman.
2. ORDINANCE #18-17 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
TITLE 13 TO ADDRESS UTILITY DIRECTOR POWERS IN ESTABLISHING
POLICY. Attorney White & Director Bergsten.
3.RESOLUTION #17-17 SIDEWALK SALE DURING FARMERS MARKETS. Director
Hinkle.
4. FAMILY ADVISORY BOARD FOCUS AREA. Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek.
5. REQUEST TO FILL VACANT POSITIONS ON THE FAMILY ADVISORY BOARD.
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek.
6. INVITATION FOR ESTES PARK TO JOIN MOUNTAIN PACT NATIONAL
MONUMENTS LETTER. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek.
7.2017 SHUTTLE SERVICES CONTRACT WITH MCDONALD TRANSIT
ASSOCIATES INC. Item added to agenda at meeting.
5. ADJOURN.
*
***
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 23, 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 23rd day of May, 2017.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Rex Walker
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the
Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Walker/Norris) to amend the Agenda and hear Action
Item #2 after the Consent Agenda, and it passed with Trustees Nelson and Holcomb
voting “No”.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Pat Newsom/Town citizen invited the Board and the citizens of Estes Park to join the
Memorial Day celebration at the Estes Park Memorial Gardens to honor those that have
served our country.
Jean McGuire/Visit Estes Park employee commented the statements regarding the
working environment at the district made by Michele Hiland during the April 25, 2017
meeting were inaccurate, as well as the statements made about Elizabeth Fogarty.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
The Board thanked staff for their efforts during the previous week’s snow storm and
recognized the Light and Power crew for the long hours to restore power to all customers.
Trustee Holcomb stated the Transportation Advisory Board discussed the parking
strategy at their recent meeting. The Board would receive public input on the strategy at
upcoming public meetings and at the Farmers Market this summer.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig informed the community that Light and Power has developed a
tree replacement program for citizens that must remove trees from their property because
the tree interferes with the power lines. She presented Town Administrator Lancaster
with a Years of Service pin in honor of his five years with the Town.
Mayor Jirsa encouraged citizens to complete the parking survey to help the Town develop
the Downtown Plan.
Trustee Walker stated the Community Development and Community Services Committee
meeting on May 25, 2017 has been cancelled. He reminded the community the high
school graduation would take place during the weekend.
Trustee Norris stated the Family Advisory Board would meet June 1, 2017. The Estes
Valley Planning Commission has rescheduled the May 19, 2017 special meeting to June DRAFT3
Board of Trustees – May 23, 2017 – Page 2
30, 2017. At the Commission’s May 16, 2017 meeting, they discussed recommended
code changes, including a height increase to 38 feet in the RM – Residential Multi-Family
zoning district with 50% of the units dedicated to workforce housing.
Trustee Martchink commented the Parks Advisory Board meeting was cancelled last
week due to the weather.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
None.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated May 9, 2017 and Town Board Study Session dated
May 9, 2017.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes.
1. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee Minutes dated May
11, 2017.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated April 19, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated April 21, 2017 (acknowledgement only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated April 18, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
7. Utility Box Art Approval.
8. Resolution #14-17 Setting the Public Hearing date of June 13, 2017 for a New
Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License filed by Mise En Place Consulting LLC dba
Seasoned-An American Bistro, 205 Park Lane, Estes Park, CO 80517.
9. Resolution #15-17 Setting the Public Hearing date of June 13, 2017 for a
Change in Location of a Tavern Liquor License filed by The Barrel LLC dba The
Barrel, 251 Moraine Ave, Estes Park, CO 80517.
10. Intent to Annex Resolution #16-17 Raven Rock Addition, Public Hearing date
scheduled June 27, 2017.
Trustee Nelson requested Item 1 be removed and discussed as an Action Item. It
was moved and seconded (Walker/Holcomb) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items 2-10, and it passed unanimously.
Item 1 – Town Board Minutes dated May 9, 2017 and Town Board Study Session
dated May 9, 2017. Trustee Nelson stated the study session minutes did not reflect
his comments accurately. He requested the minutes be revised to state the Town
Board agenda items should give priority to guests as to placement on the Town Board
agendas. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Walker) to approve the Consent
Agenda Item 1, and it passed unanimously.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, VIEW @ 242; METES & BOUNDS
PARCEL, 242 VIRGINIA DRIVE. Item withdrawn by applicant.
DRAFT4
Board of Trustees – May 23, 2017 – Page 3
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Walker) to approve the Planning
Commission Consent Agenda, and it passed unanimously.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #12-17 AMENDMENTS TO THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL
RESIDENTIAL CODE LOCAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO DWELLINGS,
VACATION HOMES AND SMALL HOTELS. Chief Building Official Birchfield
stated the Town did not adopt the 1964 Building Codes which contained the first
requirement for egress. The Town did adopt the 1967 Building Codes in March
of 1968; therefore, staff recommended for dwellings constructed after December
31, 1968, window wells shall comply with the code in effect at the time the well
was required. For dwellings constructed prior to January 1, 1969, the minimum
requirements for window wells shall be at the discretion of the Building Official.
Lindsey Lamson/County resident stated the new language does provide flexibility
for buildings built prior to 1964. The revised proposal provides a balanced
approach to the issue.
Frank Theis/Town citizen stated staff met with him and discussed the need to
address the square footage limitation and agreed to increase the square footage
from 1800 to 2200. He thanked staff for their consideration.
Trustee Martchink recommended the new verbiage added to R327.2.6
Emergency escape and rescue openings be removed and edit the remaining
language to state compliance with the code in effect at the time of the initial
survey.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve Ordinance #12-17
with the update to R327.18 Private Septic Systems should be numbered
R327.20 and report back to the Board by the end of the year on the survey
process, and it passed with Mayor Pro Tem Koenig voting “No”. After the vote,
Trustee Martchink requested his vote be reflected as a “No” vote because the
motion did not contain the changes he requested to R327.2.6.
2. VETERANS MONUMENT PARK APPLICATION.
Carey Stevanus/Estes Park Veteran Monument Committee provided an
overview of the proposed Veterans Monument Park, which would represent all
branches of the armed services in recognition of those that have served our
country. The Committee has worked closely with Brian Berg/Parks Supervisor
to identify the location just west of the Visitor Center in the area currently
occupied by a picnic shelter. Thorp Associates and Van Horn Engineering have
provided the design and survey work at no cost to the project. The design was
reviewed and would include large stones, flagstone work, plantings around the
monument and a bronze eagle. The site would be accessible and contain subtle
lighting. The Committee would like to have the park completed by Veterans day;
however, the completion date would be dependent on fundraising by the
Committee. The Parks Advisory Committee reviewed the Arts in Public Places
application and approved the bronze eagle and the naming of the park. The
Committee has met with the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado and
they would act as the fiscal agent for the Committee. They have posted the
project on the Coloradogives.org website for individuals to submit donations.
The current fundraising goal has been estimated at $100,000. It was moved
and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve the construction of the pocket-
park honoring Armed Services veterans and naming of said “Veterans
Monument Park”, and it passed unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE #14-17 AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL
CODE TITLE 7 - ANIMALS. Chief Kufeld presented the proposed changes to
the Title 7 – Animals to address needed changes to the Wildlife Protection
Ordinance to provide additional clarity, to provide a review of the Ordinance as
requested by the Board upon its adoption, and to delete outdated, unclear and DRAFT5
Board of Trustees – May 23, 2017 – Page 4
no longer needed sections in the Title. The recommended changes were a
collaboration of the Police Administrative staff, Municipal Court Judge Brown,
Town Attorney White and community members. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Walker) to approve Ordinance #14-17, and it passed unanimously.
4. ORDINANCE #15-17 AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL
CODE §9.08 OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE, ORDER AND SAFETY
& §9.12 VENDORS, PEDDLERS AND SOLICITORS. Attorney White reviewed
the proposed amendments that would address the decisions by the United States
Supreme Court and District Court decisions that address the ability of
governmental entities, including the Town, to restrict the ability of individuals to
solicit donations such as panhandling. The changes would update the Town’s
regulations to current legal standards and provide for more effective regulation
of the prohibited conduct by the Estes Park Police and Town staff. It was moved
and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve Ordinance #15-17, and it passed
unanimously.
5. INTENT TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF PARCEL #25302-
13-961. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek stated the Town owns the 0.05
acre lot that was originally part of the 179 Stanley Circle Drive property. After
1938, the Federal Government acquired a rectangular piece of property that
divided this lot and resulted in the small parcel. The Town has no current use for
this property and does not foresee any future use. Kingswood Homes has
expressed interest in purchasing this parcel to aid in the construction of a
workforce housing project on an adjoining property. The parcel has been valued
at $1,000 based on sales of similarly sized and vacant land in the last 12 months.
Staff requested the Board authorize staff to enter into contract negotiations for
the sale of the property to Kingswood Homes. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Koenig) to authorize staff to negotiate the sale of Parcel #25302-
13-961 to Kingswood Homes, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFT6
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado May 23, 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 23rd day of May, 2017.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Town Attorney White, Directors Hudson, Hinkle
and Muhonen and Recording Secretary Beers
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 4:32 p.m.
DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF FISH HATCHERY RFP.
Manager Landkamer presented the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the development of
workforce housing at the Fish Hatchery property. He stated the property is
approximately 75 acres located at the end of Fish Hatchery Road and zoned A1 low
intensity accommodations. A housing study was conducted in January 2016 which
demonstrated a workforce housing shortage. He added the project would not be
seasonal or low income housing and reviewed the following highlights/discussion points
of the RFP:
Importance of a Collaborative Community Effort (CCE).
Rezoning of the property to RM residential multi-family or mixed use
development to maximize density.
RFP would go out this week.
Exclusive right to negotiate contract with the developer.
The addition of a Project Manager would be beneficial at the early stages of the
Fish Hatchery project.
Manager Landkamer stated the proposed Estes Valley Development Code revisions
would benefit the project. He added staff would pursue GOCO funding for the Fall River
Trail which would connect to housing for accessibility to downtown. The Nature
Conservancy and Estes Valley Land Trust would be interested in purchasing property.
Town Administrator Lancaster stated the Hydroplant Museum land would be kept and
integrated into the development of the parcel as an amenity of the project. This diverse
project would require a collaborative environment to be successful.
Board discussion followed and has been summarized: the importance of establishing
roles for who is providing input and who is taking action; what has and has not worked
in other cities; deed restrictions for workforce housing; maintaining communication with
the public in an effort to keep the community informed; is it possible to provide water tap
fees to collect funding or seed money to apply towards future projects.
REVIEW SERVICE PROPOSAL LIST FOR 2017 BUGET.
Town Administrator Lancaster stated two items were added to the amendments of the
budget, including settlement costs to free up the Senior Planner position and ongoing
monitoring for landfill. Contributions for the childcare needs assessment was added as
an option for the Board to recommend. The additional Facilities position can be added
as a contracted position and the funding for the Development Engineer who would start
in August 2017 were discussed. The Police Department awards banquet was removed
in 2017 and has been added for reconsideration. Staff has identified a grant opportunity
7
Town Board Study Session – May 23, 2017 – Page 2
for an electric trolley with zero emissions. Discussion continued regarding the possibility
of utilizing remaining parking garage funds for the Town match in purchasing the trolley.
PERA liability remains unknown and can potentially be less than budgeted, staff would
have more information at the end of June 2017.
KEY OUTCOME DISCUSSION – PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT.
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek stated the Board requested a deeper dive into
the key outcome areas to include police services and environmental quality. Chief
Kufeld stated the department has prioritized additional budget items based on needs.
The Board discussed removing the Gun Club community service grant in the amount of
$500. He added the Board would participate as a partner in the County’s regional
wasteshed planning.
KEY OUTCOME DISCUSSION – OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY SERVICE. Assistant
Town Administrator Machalek presented a spreadsheet with input from the Housing
Authority on Implantation Strategies and requested Board input. The Strategic Plan has
allowed the Town Board to state what items and areas the Town is pursuing. Staff can
work with other organizations to initiate conversation and input to broaden categories.
He stated the EDC childcare needs assessment would finalize dates for the RFP in May
and would be submitted by the end of the month. There would be information provided
by the Boys and Girls Club of Larimer County at the Study Session in July.
Board discussion followed regarding implementation strategies and has been
summarized: there is a need for an entity who is specialized to take the lead on specific
projects; change the spreadsheet column name from “Town Lead” to a term that does
not imply Town commitment; involve other organizations in discussions for input; it is
essential to clarify roles; include employers to allow a cooperative solution; and provide
a statement to establish the role on certain projects and the commitment of the Town.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Mayor Pro-Tem Koenig welcomed Chief Kufeld to discuss City of Peace recognition.
Chief Kufeld stated although there are positive reasons to become a City of Peace, the
Town does not fit in that category of a city that has gone through a violent war or
disaster. The Board agreed the Town would not pursue becoming a City of Peace.
Mayor Jirsa received a suggestion from a citizen to allow businesses in Town to have a
table to promote their business during the duration of the Farmers Market.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Administrator Lancaster requested the draft Stormwater Master Plan, be presented at a
future Study Session meeting.
Board discussion for guidelines on public comment are summarized: currently there is
no way to manage public comment and topics discussed; it is a policy that is difficult to
enforce; the Board would be interested in hearing the level of success that Larimer
County has had with their policy; public comment is a sounding board for community
issues; put a policy in place that would address time; Board members can call a point of
order at their discretion; enforcing the 3 minute rule; and having a policy in place can be
a benefit to rely on.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:37 p.m.
Bunny Victoria Beers, Recording Secretary
8
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting
April 11, 2017 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Wayne Newsom, Vice-Chair John Lynch, Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau,
Rex Poggenpohl
Attending: Members Newsom, Lynch, Moreau, and Poggenpohl
Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Audem
Gonzales, Planner Carrie McCool, Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Member Smith
Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were three people in
attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
Director Hunt introduced Planner I Robin Becker. Ms. Becker recently moved to Estes Park
from Iowa. She also spent time as a planner in New Zealand.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes dated March 7, 2017. Member Lynch asked for a correction on the
preferred access to the proposed Dollar General Store from Stanley Avenue instead of
Highway 7.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Lynch) to approve the minutes as corrected
and the motion passed 4-0 with one absent.
3. PORTION OF LOT 121, AL FRESCO PLACE; 425 CHAPIN LANE; URQUHART
REIDENCE
Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. The property owner, Joseph Urquhart, requests
a variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2 which requires a
25-foot setback for buildings/structures in the E-1–Estate zone district. The requested
variance is 12.5 feet. Planner McCool stated the southern property boundary abuts
Highway 34 bypass. Existing dwelling is built within the current setbacks. Planner McCool
stated the application was routed to all affected agencies. A legal notice was published in
the local newspaper and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners.
Planner McCool stated the applicant would like to add living space and an accessory
kitchen above the proposed garage to accommodate and care for aging parents that have
moved in with the owners. She stated there have been some recent amendments to the
9
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
April 11, 2017
Estes Valley Development Code regarding accessory kitchens. The proposed revisions,
which remove certain unenforceable and/or irrelevant provisions, were approved by the
Town Board, and will be heard by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners on
April 24, 2017.
Staff Findings
Please refer to the staff report for staff findings.
Staff and Member Discussion
There was brief discussion about the roofline, Highway 34 right-of-way, existing fence
line, and several existing structures that are outside the current setback. Member Moreau
stated the right-of-way is more than enough for a future expansion of the Highway 34
bypass.
Public Comment
Joe Urquhart/property owner stated the lower level is a small storage and crawl space.
The existing home is somewhat screened by some trees. He is planning to add additional
trees to create more buffer.
Staff and Member Discussion
Director Hunt clarified with the members that Board of Adjustment decisions are on a
case-by-case determination, and the decisions made by the Board are not legally bound
to set precedents.
Member Moreau stated any time there is an opportunity to afford relief to employees in
the Estes Valley in regards to affordable housing, every effort should be made to do so.
Condition of Approval
1. Prior to building permit issuance, a Street Frontage Buffer Plan that is consistent
with Section 7.5 – Landscaping and buffer requirements of the EVDC shall be
approved by Community Development Department staff.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Lynch) to approve the requested variance
according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings and conditions
recommended by staff and the motion passed 3-1 with Member Newsom voting
against.
4. REPORTS
A. Director Hunt reported the Planning Commission will be discussing building height in the
RM-Multi-Family Residential zone district on Tuesday, April 18, 2017. The meeting will
be held in Room 202, with discussion on this item beginning about noon. If needed, the
Board of Adjustment may want to have a study session regarding building height.
Board members are welcome to provide comments regarding the proposal. Director
Hunt stated the initial proposal was a height limit of 45 feet, but this has since been
lowered to 40 feet, which, in nearly all cases would be a three-story building. Although
this current amendment is confined to the RM zone district, there could be a future
10
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
April 11, 2017
need to review the height limit in the CD zone district to allow for redevelopment. The
Downtown Plan and the Steering Committee will be sharing their thoughts regarding
this.
B. Director Hunt reported public meetings will be occurring regarding the Downtown Plan,
with the goal to have a design by the end of 2017.
There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:48 a.m.
___________________________________
Wayne Newsom, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
11
12
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 1
April 13, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Don Darling, Vice‐Chair Joe Calvin, Members Brad Klein, John Spooner,
Tony Schiaffo
Attending: Chair Darling, Vice‐Chair Calvin, Members Spooner, Klein, & Schiaffo
Also Attending: Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield, Community Development Director
Randy Hunt, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Plans Examiner Charlie Phillips,
Building Permit Technician Jacki Wiedow, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: None
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
Chair Darling called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Each Board member introduced himself and
provided their area of expertise.
CONSENT AGENDA
Minutes from March 2, 2017 Board of Appeals meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Spooner/Klein) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion
passed 5‐0.
PURPOSE OF MEETING
The Board of Appeals meets as needed regarding matters of the Town of Estes Park’s Division of
Building Safety. They assisted with the adoption of the 2015 International Building Codes, and local
amendments to those codes.
INSURANCE SERVICE OFFICE (ISO) EVALUATION OF THE DIVISION OF BUILDING SAFETY
CBO Birchfield reviewed the evaluation from the Insurance Service Office, which is a national auditing
service of building departments. The rating is called the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule
(BCEGS). The BCEGS program audits various areas of building departments, including but not limited
to: staff training, staff qualifications, community outreach, building code enforcement, etc. The
various areas are compared to other area municipalities, the state, and national results. The lower the
BCEGS rating, the higher the rating. CBO Birchfield stated about 100 hours of staff time is spent
preparing for the audit. The Town was first evaluated in 1999, and a rating of 6 for both residential
and commercial was awarded. Over the years, the ratings have improved, and in 2016 our commercial
rating became a two, while residential remained a three, because we do not require sprinkler systems
in residential buildings. CBO Birchfield explained that insurance companies may use those ratings to
determine property insurance premiums. This report will be posted on the Town website.
Chair Darling stated he appreciated the training the Town provided for the Board of Appeals members
at the Colorado ICC Educational Institute.
13
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 2
April 13, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELATING TO VACATION HOMES
CBO Birchfield reviewed the flow chart that was presented at the March meeting. There is one chart
for existing buildings and another for new buildings. For vacation homes with occupancies of nine or
more, applicants must have had their application for 8 and under submitted before April 1, 2017 to be
“grandfathered” in. The vacation homes in this category will be regulated by the International
Residential Code (IRC). Those vacation homes with occupancies of more than eight who did not
submit their application for eight or less will be regulated under the International Building Code (IBC).
Sprinkling and ADA requirements will be in effect for those structures. For new construction, vacation
homes for occupancies of nine and more will be required to be sprinkled when the square footage of
the structure (excluding the garage) is more than 1800 square feet. The use as a vacation home is
what will drive the sprinkler requirement. The use as a single‐family dwelling will not require
sprinklers.
HANDOUTS FOR VACATION HOME LIFE‐SAFETY SURVEYS
CBO Birchfield stated Inspector Traufield has been working on information regarding the Life‐Safety
Surveys, and it should be ready to present at the May Board of Appeals meeting. The Fire District is in
support of the proposed changes to the building codes. The proposed amendments will be going to
the Town Board the last meeting in April.
REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST FOR PROJECTS BUILDING UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL
RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC)
CBO Birchfield stated the proposed submittal checklist has been reduced from the information
required on the previous checklist.
Plans Examiner Charlie Phillips presented the proposed checklist. The goal is to have everything on the
checklist that is needed for review and approval of a building permit application.
Member Spooner asked about how to make revisions to plans of issued permits, as there can be issues
with revisions when storing only digital copies. The Division of Building Safety desires to have a set of
As‐Builts for each project to keep in our files. It is difficult to determine what was actually built when
there are multiple changes in the field after the permit is issued. Staff will review the red‐line process
to determine where it can be fine‐tuned.
Following brief discussion, it was determined any Hazard Zones could be moved to the site plan,
rather than as an overlay on the building plans.
There was discussion about Ultimate Wind Speeds. Non‐local engineers need to know how our wind
speeds are determined so trusses can be designed to the appropriate requirements.
14
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 3
April 13, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
There was brief discussion as to how to handle situations where plans from one designer want to be
changed by a different designer. There was general consensus that any changes would be ethical only
if the second designer had the permission of the first designer.
Member Spooner requested Section III. J. say “landscape” retaining walls…
There was discussion regarding approval of truss plans, as they are often submitted after the original
plans. CBO Birchfield stated the “shop drawing stamp” would be acceptable for the building designer
to stamp on the truss plans.
Mr. Phillips stated there will be another checklist specifically for residential decks.
Chair Darling stated elevation details are important, as often the HOAs want to see them. If the
proposed building height is near the 30‐foot limit, the Board of Adjustment may need to see them, if a
variance is proposed.
Mr. Phillips stated that regarding fire resistive construction and venting, the breakdown of the venting
should be shown on the plans so the builder and inspector will know how it’s designed. There was
brief discussion and disagreement, and it was determined a note on the checklist about the
requirement would be sufficient.
Additional comments included but were not limited to: the building pages on the town website need
to be updated with accurate information;
Public Comment
None.
Member Comments
Member Schiaffo stated there needed to be a few minor changes, but he was pleased with it overall.
The April Board of Appeals meeting will be held Thursday, May 4, 2017 from 4‐6 p.m.
There being no additional business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:08 p.m.
___________________________________
Don Darling, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
15
RESOLUTION #18-17
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
That the filing date of the application for a Change of Location for a TAVERN Liquor
License, filed by PARK THEATER MALL LLC dba Historic Park Theater & Cafe, from 130-
132 Moraine Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado, to 116 E. Elkhorn 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, June 27, 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
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: June 13, 2017
RE: Liquor Licensing: New Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License Application for
Mise En Place Consulting LLC dba Seasoned – An American Bistro, 205
Park Lane, Estes Park, Colorado
Objective:
Approval of a new Hotel & Restaurant liquor license located at 205 Park Lane, Estes
Park, Colorado. Application filed Mise En Place Consulting LLC dba Seasoned – An
American Bistro.
Present Situation:
An application for a new Hotel & Restaurant liquor license was received by the Town
Clerk’s office on May 12, 2017. All necessary paperwork and fees were submitted;
please see the attached Procedure for Hearing on Application – New Liquor License for
additional information. The applicant is aware of the Town Board’s Training for
Intervention Procedures (TIPS) requirement and has scheduled training. The applicant
has also provided the Town with a copy of their liquor policies.
Proposal:
To present the application for the Town Board’s review and consideration for a new
Hotel & Restaurant liquor license.
Advantages:
Approval of the license provides the business owner with the opportunity to operate a
liquor-licensed establishment in the Town of Estes Park.
Disadvantages:
The owner is denied a business opportunity to serve alcohol to patrons.
Action Recommended:
Approval of the application for a new Hotel & Restaurant liquor license.
Budget:
The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a new Hotel & Restaurant Liquor license is
$1319. The fee covers the administrative costs related to processing the application,
17
background checks, and business licensing. In addition, the annual renewal fee
payable to the Town of Estes Park for a Hotel & Restaurant Liquor license is $869.
Level of Public Interest
Low
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 new Hotel & Restaurant liquor license
filed by Mise En Place Consulting LLC dba Seasoned – An American Bistro be
approved/denied.
Attachments:
Procedure for Hearing
Application
Diagram of Liquor Premises
Individual History
Police Report
18
July 2002
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION
NEW LIQUOR LICENSE
1.MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on the application of Mise En
Place Consulting LLC dba Seasoned – An American Bistro for a new Hotel and
Restaurant Liquor License located at 205 Park Lane, 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 12, 2017.
At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on May 23, 2017, the public hearing was
set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 13, 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 May 26, 2017 .
The premises was posted on May 25, 2017 .
19
There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant.
Status of T.I.P.S. Training:
Unscheduled Scheduled * X Completed
There is a map indicating all liquor outlets presently in the Town of Estes Park
available upon request.
3. APPLICANT.
The applicants will be allowed to state their case and present any evidence they
wish to support the application.
4. OPPONENTS.
The opponents will be given an opportunity to state their case and present any
evidence in opposition to the application.
The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal limited to the evidence presented by the
opponents. No new evidence may be submitted.
5. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the application and, if so, to read all communication.
Indicate that all evidence presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any questions of any person speaking at
any time during the course of this hearing.
Declare the public hearing closed.
6. SUGGESTED MOTION:
Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the
neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and
that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor
license.
Motion. Based upon the above findings, I move that this license be granted/denied.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: June 13, 2017
RE: Liquor Licensing: Change of Location of a Tavern Liquor License
Application for The Barrel LLC dba The Barrel, 251 Moraine Avenue,
Estes Park, Colorado
Objective:
Approval of a Change of Location for a Tavern liquor license currently located at 116 E.
Elkhorn Avenue to 251 Moraine Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado. Application filed by The
Barrel LLC dba The Barrel.
Present Situation:
An application for a Change in Location of a Tavern liquor license was received by the
Town Clerk’s office on May 12, 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.
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.
31
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 The Barrel LLC dba The Barrel be approved/denied.
Attachments:
Procedure for Hearing
Application
Diagram of Liquor Premises
Temporary Use Approval
32
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 The Barrel
LLC dba The Barrel for a Change of Location of an existing Tavern Liquor
License located at 116 E. Elkhorn Avenue to 251 Moraine 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 12, 2017.
At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on May 23, 2017, the public hearing was
set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 13, 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 May 26, 2017 .
33
The premises was posted on May 25, 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.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
May 30, 2017
The Barrel LLC
Attn: Ingrid Bush
762 W. Eisenhower Blvd
Loveland CO 80537
RE: Temporary Use Permit for Outdoor Beer Garden:
Dear Ingrid,
The above-reference 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 15th 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 11:00 am -11:00 pm daily. Hours of operation
do not include staff bar preparation/closing time. Bar preparation/closing time may
occur outside of approved hours of operation.
5. No portion of the bar operations may take place inside the existing building. A
building permit is required for permanent business in the existing building.
6. 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
41
42
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Audem Gonzales, Planner II
Date: June 13, 2017
RE: Fall River Village II – Preliminary Condominium Map, Preliminary Planned
Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, 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.
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing to consider a Preliminary Condominium Map, Preliminary and
Final Planned Unit Development, and Rezoning application for compliance with the
Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
The project area is located between Elkhorn Avenue and Wonderview Avenue just east
of Farview Drive. The property is currently zoned CO-Outlying Commercial and RM-
Multi-Family. The area is approximately 8 acres in size. The CO portion of the site
contains a PUD-Planned Unit Development overlay (Fall River Village PUD).
The western portion of the site is undeveloped and currently platted with seven single
family lots. The eastern portion is built out with three duplexes. The area is accessed via
Sunny Acres Court (private drive).
The southern portion of the overall development is located on a separate lot and
includes several condo units and accommodation units called Fall River Village. The
southern portion of the development is not part of any of these applications. It is just
mentioned for reference.
Proposal:
The proposal entails re-zoning the eastern portion of the site from RM to CO in order to
make it eligible to be included into the PUD. There is an Amended Plat application
running concurrently with this project that will 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
43
proposed with this project. Coupled with the existing three duplexes, the site will entail
18 accommodations units total.
There are six applications associated with this project. The Town Board is the final
decision-making body for the Rezoning, Preliminary Condominium Map, and
Preliminary and Final PUD.
Through the PUD process, waivers and modifications to Code standards may be
approved if the proposal incorporates creative site design or is an improvement over the
existing site. Improvements include but are not limited to open space, access,
environmental protection, tree/vegetation preservation, efficient provision of streets,
roads and other utilities and services, or choice of living and housing environments.
The requested waivers include:
1. Floor Area Ratio. FAR for the CO – Outlying Commercial is required to be no
more than 25%. The proposal calls for 29.7%. The property is being
developed as an accommodations property. There is no max FAR required in
A-Accommodations zone districts. Staff will be recommending a Code
amendment in the near future to eliminate FAR requirements altogether.
2. Minimum Curve Radii. The internal drive is required to be built to street
standards with a minimum centerline radii of 100-feet. The proposal entails a
50-foot radii on one section of the drive to allow units to fit appropriately on
the site. Fire District standards will be met.
3. Building Height. The Community Hall is proposed to be built 8-feet higher
than what is permitted at this location. Although this portion of the site is
steep, existing conditions require the building to be elevated in order to meet
grade requirements for the drive.
4. Driveway Grade. EVDC requires no more than a 9% grade for non-residential
uses. This proposal provides a grade of 12% for the second point of access
along the west portion of the site. This asphalt drive will be used as an
emergency route and not for the general public. Residential drives have a
max grade requirement of 12%.
5. Setbacks. The eastern portion of the site (currently Lot 5A, Sunny Acres) has
an existing setback of 10 feet from the north and east property line. Three
duplexes exist at this location and were built outside of the current 10 foot
setback. The property is currently zoned RM. With rezoning this section of the
project area to CO, the setback will increase to 25 feet. The applicant is
asking for a setback waiver to maintain the 10 foot setback at this location.
6. Type A Loading. The private community center is required to have a loading
area due to its use type and size. A waiver is being requested to not provide a
loading area. The applicant stated the size and use of the building will not
require large trucks to service the property. Also, the location of the parking
area due to the steep slopes to the south do not allow for a Type A Loading
Area. The applicant is proposing allowing small trucks to utilize a standard
size parking stall for loading.
7. Accessory Building Size. Staff has requested this waiver as this specific
provision in Code is found to be unnecessary and not aligned with how
previous projects were processed. Nonresidential detached accessory 44
buildings (community halls, banquet halls, meeting space) located in
nonresidential zone districts should be allowed to be over 1,000 square feet in
size. This section will also be proposed for future elimination from our Code.
Planning Commission has reviewed all the necessary waivers and recommended
approval to Town Board. The site is proposing to protect natural open space
above what is required for the entire PUD site. This development aims at
providing new accommodations units in close proximity to Downtown and
encourages walkability with multiple sidewalks/paths. The Comprehensive Plan
encourages denser development in close proximity to Downtown.
Advantages:
• Develops an underutilized property close to Downtown
• Provides a walkable site with links to a larger pedestrian network
• Provides more accommodation units in close proximity to Downtown
Disadvantages:
• None recognized
Action Recommended:
Planning Commission voted and recommended approval of the Rezoning, Preliminary
Condominium Map, and Preliminary PUD applications on May 16, 2017. The Final PUD
is only required to go before the Town Board and not Planning Commission.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Medium: The Comm. Dev. Dept. has received several written public comments for this
project. Concerns from surrounding neighbors include but are not limited to:
1. Community Hall roof top deck and potential noise.
2. Reflective nature of metal building materials.
3. Community Hall parking quantities and whether or not events will be public or
private.
Sample Motions:
1. I move for the approval of the Fall River Village II Preliminary Condominium
Map.
2. I move for the approval of the Fall River Village II Preliminary PUD.
3. I move for the approval of the Fall River Village II Final PUD.
45
4. I move for the approval of the Lot 5A of the Amended Plat of Lot 5, Sunny Acres
Addition Rezoning (Ordinance #16-17).
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
General Site Plan
Full Application: www.estes.org/currentapplications
Ordinance #16-17
46
47
48
ORDINANCE NO. 16-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
TO REZONE LOT 5A, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 5, SUNNY ACRES ADDITION
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended
approval of an Official Zoning Map amendment to rezone Lot 5A, Amended Plat of Lot 5, Sunny
Acres Addition, addressed 260-267 Sunny Acres Court, from RM–Multifamily Residential to CO-
Commercial Outlying.
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds that this Official Zoning
Map amendment complies with the Standards for Review established in Section 3.3.D of the
Estes Valley Development Code and it is best interest of the Town that the recommended zoning
amendment be granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The zoning of Lot 5A, Amended Plat of Lot 5, Sunny Acres Addition, addressed 260-
267 Sunny Acres Court, shall be changed from RM–Multifamily Residential to CO-Commercial
Outlying.
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 13th DAY OF JUNE, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________________
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting
of the Board of Trustees on the 13th day of June, 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
49
50
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: June 13, 2017
RE: Fee Waiver Request: Estes Valley Community Center; 650 Community
Drive
Objective:
Determine if the fee waiver request complies with Town Board’s adopted fee waiver
policy and take action on the request.
Present Situation:
The Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) was granted approval of three
development applications for the proposed Estes Valley Community Center a minor
subdivision plat application, a location and extent development plan application, and a
variance application. On August 23, 2016, the Board of Trustees waived $87,784 in
Community Development Fees (Planning review, Building permit, and Building Plan
Review). Additionally, a building permit was issued on December 30, 2016. All
outsourced building plan review fees have been paid in full.
The EVRPD is requesting a waiver of applicable building permit/review fees associated
with the upcoming request for a supplemental building permit to address a “Level I
Alternation” for the project. The scope includes rehabilitation of the exterior of the
existing aquatics building with a total construction cost of $935,000.
The Town Board has adopted a fee waiver policy to support essential community needs
through consideration of waiving in-house fees assessed by the Community
Development Department. The policy states in part that public funded government
construction may be exempted from building permit fees, development review fees, and
sign code fees. It also states that the decision-making body (Town Board) will hear the
fee waiver request over $3,000 and may choose to waive fees based on the merits of
the request. The community center project is a publically funded government
construction project. For the exact policy language refer to the attached policy.
Proposal:
The attached letter from the EVRPD dated March 15, 2017, further describes the
request.
51
Requested fee waiver total is $7,950 if all Building Permit and Plan Review fees are
waived. These fees are intended to cover in-house expenses associated with the review
of the community center construction plans and in-progress inspection of construction
for compliance with the Town’s adopted building codes.
Typically, Community Development does not make recommendations regarding fee
waiver requests. However, this requested waiver stems from an additional one million
dollar improvement to a publically funded government construction project which will
result in an upgraded exterior for the existing aquatics center. As such, Community
Development recommends approval of a full fee waiver.
The following table estimates the fiscal impact of a FULL building fee waiver to address
the supplemental building permit for the “Level I Alternation:”
Building Division Fees
Building Permit Fees*$5,300.00
Plan Review Fees $2,650.00
TOTAL $7,950.00
*The building permit fees are based on total construction costs of $935,000.00.
Staff estimates that waiving ALL fees will reduce 2017 Budget estimated total revenues
as follows:
• Building Safety div. (2300 series): 2.04% ($7,950 / $389,210)
Please note that at this time no other fees have been requested for waiver in connection
with the Community Center project – e.g., waivers have not been requested for water
tap fees, outsourced reviews or other utility fee costs, etc.
Advantages:
• Aligns with Town Board’s policy of supporting essential community needs through
consideration of waiving in-house fees assessed by the Community Development
Department.
• Waiving fees will enable critical funding and timelines for the project to be realized.
Disadvantages:
• Approval of the request would reduce the ability to recover expenses associated with
the Community Development Department’s building permitting and inspection
functions; however, the rehabilitation of the exterior of the existing aquatics building
would advance adopted Community-Wide Policies set forth in the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan relating to community design.
• Approval of the request would impact the ability of the Building Division to meet the
cost recovery goals established by Town Board; however, the Community Center
52
project will serve the public interest by providing a well designed, year-round central
gathering place for community members of all ages and interests.
Action Recommended:
Because the requested fee waiver is greater than $3,000, Town Board is the decision-
making body for this request. Community Development recommends approval of the
Estes Valley Recreation and Park District supplemental building permit and plan review
fee waiver request.
Budget:
General Fund: 101-2300-322.10-00 Licenses and Permits – Building
Approximately $7,950 in reduced revenue.
Level of Public Interest
High – Community Center
Low – Fee Waiver Request
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District
supplemental building permit and plan review fee waiver request.
Attachments:
• Written request from the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District
53
54
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: June 13, 2017
RE: 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.
Objective:
Review and recommend approval of amendments to the Estes Valley Development
Code (EVDC) regarding maximum building height standards, building design, special-
review criteria, number of single-family principal structures per lot, and parks and
recreation facilities.
Present Situation:
Building Height: Changing maximum building height and the way heights are measured
are key elements in increasing the supply of housing in the Estes Valley, especially
workforce housing. These matters are also key to removing barriers to developing more
housing supply, including barriers to redevelopment of properties that aren’t in their
highest and best use.
These amendments are generally referenced in the multi-year task list to completely
reform the Estes Valley Development Code, approved May 9, 2017 by vote of the Town
Board of Trustees. The current Code regulations on building height have been identified
by staff, elected and appointed officials, and other stakeholders as impediments to
economic development and quality of life in the Estes Valley.
Special Review Criteria: Our current Special Review process and decision-making
criteria are flawed. Essentially, the only criterion is mitigation of negative consequences
“to the maximum extent feasible.” That is a difficult criterion to administer and has been
subject to widely varying interpretation over time.
We also have a one-size-fits-all approach to Special Reviews, which processes a minor
use such as a home-based child care for a few children in the same way as a major use
such as vehicle sales and rental establishments. At the least, dividing those into “major”
and “minor” categories (as the amendment does) seems appropriate.
55
One Single-Family Structure Per Lot: For the past 17 years (since EVDC was adopted
in 2000), staff has assumed the current language in Sec. 4.3.C.3 meant that only one
single-family structure was allowed per each single-family residential parcel or lot. The
problem is that this section actually says “…only one (1) principal use shall be permitted
per lot…” The terms “structure” and “use” are very different in planning and code
interpretation. The problem in this case is that prior staff’s conclusion was in line with
good planning practice, but the literal code language did not support that conclusion.
This amendment repairs that 2000 code-language error, and makes the section say
what others have always thought it said.
Parks and Recreation Facilities: Current code specifies that parks and recreation
facilities be “noncommercial”. That does not align with actual practice for many years in
public parks, where allowing commercial operations have been the norm (our Farmer’s
Market in Bond Park is one of many examples).
Current Code also excludes private recreation facilities under this category. Private
recreation is a valid and likely growing need, and a popular option, in the Estes Valley.
Except in rather specific categories (e.g., miniature golf) that are called out elsewhere in
Code, there are no provisions for such venues. The amendment would allow for a wider
variety of public and non-public recreational and park operations. Current intensity
controls (e.g., parking-lot size, buffering) would not be changed by this amendment.
Proposals:
Measuring Building Height (Exhibit A):
This ordinance (one of three on the overall building-heights subject this evening)
addresses the way building height is measured in the Estes Valley Development Code.
It applies in all zoning districts.
Current EVDC standards for building height are an odd mix of simplicity and complexity.
The simplicity lies in the fact that buildings in all zoning districts have the same
maximum height: 30 feet. This puts a single-family house under the same standard as a
downtown commercial building. This is unusual and would not be in accord with typical
urban form expectations. However, simplicity has its own merits.
The complexity lies in the fact that “30 feet” can actually go up to “40 feet” on sloped lots
(the great majority in Estes Valley). It is extraordinarily difficult to define the maximum
building height under the required algebraic formula in EVDC §1.9.E.2. The only safe
assumption is that a building’s maximum height might be as low as 30 feet, as high as
40 feet, or somewhere in between. The use of this formula since around 2001 has
resulted in some idiosyncratic building heights in our community.
Another concern about building-height measurement is that the base reference is
“original grade”. This term is not defined in EVDC. The Code does define “existing or
natural grade” as follows: “…the surface of the ground or pavement at a stated location
as it exists prior to development or disturbance.” (EVDC §13.3.113) Possibly “original
grade” was intended to mean the same thing, but that is an assumption. In any case, we
have a definition that is either non-existent or defective, inasmuch as “prior to 56
development or disturbance” is a meaningless concept. “Disturbance” of the earth’s
surface takes place every day and every hour. “Development” is a little easier to define;
however, no one has records showing grade elevations in the Estes Valley prior to
development. This concept may have been well-intended, but does not work in any
practical context.
The proposed EVDC amendment in Exhibit A would simplify calculation of height by
using a simpler method to determine elevation at base, a simpler method to determine
height, and a simple vertical connection between the two. Specifically:
• Base Plane: A horizontal plane at the mean average elevation between a
building’s lowest-elevation and highest-elevation point along the foundation or
outer walls at finished grade (“finished grade” is discussed below)
• Height Plane: Also a horizontal plane based on mean average; in this case,
between the lowest edge of a roof (e.g., the lowest eave) and the highest point
(e.g., highest ridge of a gabled or hipped roof), not counting minor taller features
such as chimneys
• Height measurement: A vertical plumb line connecting the base plane and height
plane.
Instead of the ambiguous “original” or “natural” grade, the base plane is now measured
at finished grade. This is the ground surface after cutting and/or filling are finished,
according to a slightly modified definition in current code.
Concerns have been expressed about measuring from finished grade - specifically,
whether a developer could pile up a massive amount of fill in order to put an XX-foot
building on top of an artificial hill. This is not a concern in reality, as another EVDC
section puts limits on that activity. Sec. 7.2.B.2 reads:
Limits on Changing Natural Grade.
The original, natural grade of a lot shall not be raised or lowered more than ten (10) feet
at any point for construction of any structure or improvement, except:
a. For foundation walls incorporated into the principal structure to allow for walk-out
basements; or
b. The site's original grade may be raised or lowered a maximum of twelve (12) feet
if a retaining wall or terracing is used to reduce the steepness of manmade slopes,
provided that the retaining wall or terracing comply with the requirements set forth in
this Section.
Staff believe the above section needs work for other reasons, but the basic principle is
sound and should remain applicable.
Regardless of any zoning district’s specific building-height maximum – 30 feet, 38 feet,
or some other number -- changing our calculation of base and height is needed. It is
requested that our governing bodies vote favorably on this amendment before
addressing specific numerical height limits, so that we will have a common dialog and
vocabulary. That is why the amendment is the first of three in sequence.
57
Maximum Multi-Family Building Height in RM (Multi-Family) Zoning District (Exhibit BA
[or] Exhibit BB):
Two options are offered on how multi-family building height might be increased in RM
District. The reason is that staff had recommended -and still recommends – Exhibit BA,
whereas the Planning Commission has voted to recommend Exhibit BB.
Elements Common to both Exhibits BA and BB:
A few common elements between both options are noted here:
• Both options set the same height limit in RM: namely 38 feet. This figure will
easily allow a three-story building with potential for variation in roof style.
o When this discussion began in February, staff proposed a new RM
maximum height at 45 feet. This is a rather typical number in multi-family
zoning districts. After several ratchet steps downward, the current
maximum height is recommended at 38 feet. The reasons are purely
pragmatic. Our goal is to allow a three-story building, all stories fully above
grade, with potential for different roof styles above the 3rd story. This can
be done in 38 feet under nearly all typical multi-story design choices.
o Fears were expressed that a four-story building could result from
increasing height limits. It is unlikely that a four-story building will be done
under this regulation. There is a possibility that a partially buried first floor
could result in four floors total, but that is not a popular style and is difficult
to build, especially where bedrock is near the surface (i.e., most of Estes
Valley).
o Additionally, the Building Codes require considerably greater expense to
design and build four-floor buildings. Some reasons include greater ADA
requirements (e.g., elevators) and more elaborate and expensive sprinkler
requirements.
• Both alternatives specify that the 38-foot limit is available only to true multi-unit
buildings, which by existing EVDC definition means buildings with three (3) or
more dwelling units in a single structure. The Dimensional alternative (Exhibit
BA) specifies that all other principal buildings in RM – in practice, single-family
houses – remain limited to 30 feet. Concerns have been expressed that the
Valley should not see a proliferation of 38-foot single-family houses. (Single-
family dwellings are allowed by right throughout the RM District.)
• Part of Footnote (4) is to be struck out in both versions. This footnote deals with
maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR). This is an old-fashioned concept
that appears numerous times in our Code. Staff’s goal is eventually to do away
with FAR altogether, as it serves no useful purpose and merely adds complexity
and contradiction to development standards. We are striking it in this amendment
because, if left in place, in many cases it would prohibit three-story buildings in
RM zoning, rendering the change in height meaningless.
58
• The lot coverage figure has been increased from maximum 50 percent to
maximum 65 percent. “Lot coverage” essentially means the percentage of the lot
area that is covered up by impervious surface. The 65 percent value is a
common one in other communities’ multi-family development lot-coverage
standards; our current 50 percent value is decidedly uncommon. We are also
advised this was the lot-coverage figure in the Development Code that we had
before the EVDC became effective in 2000. This increase is appropriate when
coupled with the height change, due in part to increased parking-lot coverage.
(Staff has experienced considerable acid reflux over the current EVDC definition
of “lot coverage”, but that repair will be for another day; the definition is bad but
not ruinous.)
Exhibit BA (Dimensional Standard Alternative):
Under this option, maximum building height for multi-family buildings in the RM District
would increase upward to 38 feet from the present 30 feet.
That’s it. Pretty simple.
The question has been raised: Is this sufficient to ensure that new housing units added
to our inventory will go to workforce housing – an acknowledged and recognized need
in the Valley?
Staff would respond that this approach is less targeted than the incentive option (Exhibit
BB), which would be aimed at requiring a workforce- or income-qualification test for
occupancy of the new units. However, we believe Exhibit BA is viable for two other
reasons:
(a) Exhibit BB is more complicated. Our community – specifically through our
elected officials – have expressed an interest in simplifying and shortening
the Development Code. While this goal isn’t intended to override all other
considerations, it is important to think carefully about whether adding
complexity supports a different goal enough to justify an override.
(b) Exhibit BB would probably mean that a higher proportion of new units will be
in the workforce category, but will also probably mean fewer units overall, due
to the complexity of qualifying. A higher proportion of a smaller base number
may be a net increase or a net decrease. It is impossible to tell without data
gathering and analysis.
Those are the reasons staff continues to recommend Exhibit BA.
Exhibit BB (Incentive-Based Alternative):
This alternative would utilize the existing criteria for attainable and/or workforce housing
as the basis for allowing multi-family buildings up to 38 feet in height. Incentives would
specify restricting occupancy to households for whom at least one family member is
employed within the Estes Park R-3 School District boundaries.
59
The language in this option for the income or workforce qualification is almost exactly
the same as current EVDC language in Chapter 11 for residential-development density
bonus. Exhibit BB places height incentives in Chapter 4 instead of Chapter 11 of EVDC,
which is more acceptable legally if incentives apply just to RM (Chapter 11 deals with
types of development rather than zoning districts).
As with the density bonus already available under this section, a project’s units would
undergo annual review and approval to determine that occupants can and do meet the
incentive requirements. At least 50 percent of all units’ occupants will have to meet the
target(s) in order to remain in compliance.
The specific mechanism for this annual review, and the mechanism for initial
qualification at the plan-review stage, is still being considered among Town staff and the
Housing Authority. It is too early to say how this process would work. That aspect
should not be of concern. The staff will find a way to make it work if an incentive-based
amendment is adopted.
The Planning Commission considered both options, and after considerable discussion,
voted (6-1) to recommend that Exhibit BB be adopted. As staff understands, their
reasoning (summarized) was that increasing building height in the RM District was only
acceptable insofar as it is directly targeted to creating additional workforce housing.
Exhibit BB would do that, while also allowing an income-based qualifier. (Including
income as well as workforce in the incentive is necessary for a developer to qualify for
Federal aid, as the Federal requirements consider a workforce-only qualifier to be
discriminatory.)
Multi-Family Building Design (Exhibit C):
The design qualifications are basic and largely speak for themselves. Many of the
requirements are good design practice, and most architecturally-designed and/or
standardized multi-family plan sets can easily incorporate these features.
The Exhibit C amendment has been included in this package at the direction of the
Planning Commission. Concerns have been expressed that the intrusive aspects of
allowing taller buildings in RM should be offset by better design for such projects.
Probably the most significant design element in Exhibit C is the third-story stepback
requirement. This section states that, for stories that rise about 30 feet, the outer wall of
any side that faces a public space (street, park, etc.) will have to be “stepped back” from
the stories below by at least 10 feet.
This measure is intended to reduce the impact on the streetscape of taller buildings that
overshadow the spaces at ground level, and allow more looks at the sky and mountains.
Getting good looks is a prerequisite to scoring in basketball. It may be equally or more
important in yielding a satisfactory visual and aesthetic experience for Estes Valley
visitors and residents.
An additional benefit of the stepback is allowing more sunlight to reach floor level
around the edge of a taller building. Sunlight is a valued Colorado matter (although not
necessarily on a basketball court.) 60
It should be noted that adoption of Exhibit C does move in an opposite direction from
simplifying and shortening our Code.
Special-Review Criteria (Exhibit D):
This text amendment is a follow-up to Planning Commission and Town Board’s direction
to amend the Special Review process for Special Review Uses to make the review
process and review criteria more clear.
Throughout 2016, a high profiled application for Special Review was reviewed by both
Planning Commission and Town Board. Both PC and TB continued this item for further
review based off the vague criteria currently found in Code, “mitigate to the maximum
extend feasible, potential adverse impacts”. This statement in Code allowed for any and
all potential impacts to be explored by the reviewing Board, staff and the public. This
essentially prolonged the process due to new potential impacts being introduced at
every public hearing. Although each potential impact was important to discuss, the
process would have been a lot shorter if the impacts were all introduced at the first
public hearing.
The application opened up a great discussion on Special Review and what information
should be required during review. After this project was denied staff met with Planning
Commission during Study Sessions to fine tune a new Special Review process. The
main outcomes of those Study Sessions are listed in the Code Amendment Objectives
of this staff report.
This Code Amendment is a culmination of PC Study Session discussions and Staff’s
interpretation of PC, TB, and BOCC goals for amendment. Staff’s understanding is that
the Planning Commission wanted a set list of standards/criteria the applicant was
responsible for addressing with submittal of the application so the commission could
make a more informed decision. Staff’s understanding is that Town Board wanted a
more defined process for Special Review to allow citizens, developers and staff to
understand more easily. This includes creating an S1 and S2 process, both requiring
applicant narratives addressing new review criteria and each with their own
review/approval process. The BOCC and County Attorney’s office wished to be sure
EVDC was aligned with proper legal criteria and procedures for quasi-judicial reviews
and approvals.
One element of the Planning Commission Study Sessions staff did not include in this
proposed Code Amendment is fine tuning the review criteria even more in Chapter 5. It
was proposed that staff would add Use specific criteria to Chapter 5 of the EVDC for
every Special Review Use (i.e. Religious Assemblies on Arterials would require S1
review while Religious Assemblies on Local Streets would require S2 review). While a
great idea, these additional criteria would substantially increase the EVDC in regards to
words and complexity. This directly goes against Town Board’s goal of making the Code
simpler by fundamentally reducing the number and complexity of regulations. Staff is
not proposing adding additional regulations in Chapter 5, Use Regulations of the EVDC
and will address site specific concerns/issues through the S1 or S2 process.
61
S1 Uses could in principle go to either Planning Commission alone, or the governing
body alone. Either option in Code would save approximately one month in the review
timeline at minimum, resulting in a smoother and more streamlined process for lower-
impact Special Review proposals. Staff recommends the judicial governing body
approve S1 Reviews, because under quasi-judicial procedures, the Planning
Commission cannot give final approval to quasi-judicial proposals, except under
specific, narrowly defined criteria. This would prevent Planning Commission final
determination on matters such as compatibility, harmony, and similar discretionary
criteria. Planning Commission would retain recommending capability on such matters
under S2 Review procedures.
The amendment is intended to align with the successful approach Larimer County has
had in place for their Special Reviews.
One Single-Family Principal Structure Per Lot (Exhibit E):
This text amendment is in response to a growing need for a clearer and succinct
definition of how many structures are allowed per lot in residential zoning districts. Both
public and private entities have become confused with section 4.3.C.3 of EVDC
because it does not align with Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards
Residential Zoning Districts. This table provides information on what is permitted in
each zoning district, minimum lot standards and property setbacks.
For example, if an individual is looking to develop in the Zoning District E-Estate they
are allowed to have up to two units per acre. Table 4-2 uses the term unit not the term
uses per acre. This causes confusion when looking into §4.3.C.3 which states that only
one principal use shall be permitted per lot or development parcel. Unit implies structure
which causes confusion. Multiple structures may fall under the category of one principal
use. For example single family use may include multiple principle structures under our
current wording. This could cause foreseeable problems in residential zoning districts
wishing for single family homes and instead resulting in multiple structures on lots.
In longstanding planning and zoning practice across the U.S., these types of density
and dimensional tables would align and support each other. It is unknown how this
disconnect occurred but it would be beneficial to all in the community to correct this
hiccup in the code.
This misinterpretation of the Code also causes confusion with Public Utilities. Currently
the Town of Estes Park Water Division’s design standards, signed and approved by the
Town Administrator, allow only one water tap per single family residential lot regardless
of lot size. If a lot is allowed to have multiple structures per lot this can cause
considerable conflict between The Community Development Department, Building and
Public Utilities.
It is staff’s recommendation that striking the word use and replacing it with structure
would allow for a zoning code that supports, aligns and is easy to understand to all.
Parks and Recreation Facilities (Exhibit F):
This text amendment is in response for a need to provide a clearer definition for Park
and Recreation Facilities in the EVDC. The definition currently for Park and Recreation
Facilities is defined as; Noncommercial parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and 62
open spaces. This classification includes public parks, cemeteries, public squares,
plazas, ballfields, public recreation areas, nonprofit botanical gardens and nature
preserves.
This definition is also confusing and problematic because it implies there are
commercial parks to be accounted for in the EVDC area. There are no designated
“commercial parks” in the EVDC jurisdiction. This term is outdated and unnecessary for
the needs of a Park and Recreation Facilities definition. It is unknown how this definition
was created but it would be beneficial to all in the community to correct this problem in
the Code.
A strict interpretation of the current definition would preclude typical contemporary park
activities that are normal and expected such as picnic shelter rentals and concessions.
The recommended change will rectify this problem.
Commercial recreation areas are also a viable option in the Estes Valley. We have a
number of them in existence already. It is not clear how they came to exist, but at least
some probably date from before EVDC was adopted in 2000. Their existence in our
location and within our economy does not seem problematic. It can be argued that we
need more of them.
Advantages:
• These amendments are identified as needed in, and is in accord with, the “Master
List of Proposed Amendments to EVDC”, approved in May 2017.
• Building Height Measurement: Simplifying measurement of building height is a move
toward simplicity and transparency in our Development Code and our administrative
and enforcement thereof.
• Multi-Family Building Height in the RM District: The amendment (either exhibit) is
intended to increase the supply of housing in the Estes Valley, especially attainable
and workforce housing. That is an identified community need.
• Building Heights generally (Exhibits A through C): Increasing building height and
providing for higher-quality building design are a preferred alternative to
horizontal sprawl development.
• Special Review Criteria: The amendment in Exhibit D provides for: (a) a
simplified process (one body review, rather than two) for uncomplicated types of
special-review applications; and also brings EVDC in line with legal
interpretations regarding appropriate quasi-judicial decision-making.
• One Single-Family Principal Structure Per Lot: This code amendment (Exhibit E)
corrects defective language in the EVDC.
• Parks and Recreation Facilities: The amendment (Exhibit F) accords with current
parks and recreation programming and practice, and adds to the variety of uses
and activities potentially available in public and private parks and recreational
venues.
Disadvantages: 63
• Building Heights generally: Staff is aware of concerns that changing building height
measurement could result in taller buildings, especially by switching to finished
grade and by averaging the roof-pitch measurement instead of using the highest
point on the roof.
• Building Heights and workforce housing generally: Concerns have been expressed
regarding changing the character of Estes Valley, by allowing taller buildings;
interrupting views of mountains and other scenery; increasing the number of people
present in the Valley, including “different social groups”; and other fears.
• Change itself is viewed as disturbing by some.
• Special Review Criteria: No disadvantages have been identified in connection with
this amendment.
• One Single-Family Principal Structure Per Lot: Although the amendment confirms
what previous staff understood to be the proper interpretation of Code for the past
16 years or so, since approx. January 2017 staff has interpreted Code to allow more
than one single-family house on density-compliant (i.e., large-acreage) lots. It could
be argued that the current amendment in Exhibit E therefore removes a privilege
that was unintended by Code.
• Parks and Recreation Facilities: No disadvantages have been identified in
connection with this amendment.
Action Recommended:
Both Planning Commission and staff recommend Exhibits A, C, D, E, and F be adopted
as drafted. Planning Commission’s votes to recommend favorably were taken on May
16, 2017 on each Exhibit separately. All votes were 7 in favor, none opposed.
Planning Commission voted on May 16 to recommend adoption of the RM building-
height amendment in Exhibit BB (incentives). The vote was 6 in favor, 1 opposed.
All amendments are on the Board of County Commissioners’ agenda for Monday, June
19, 2017.
Budget:
n/a
Level of Public Interest
Building Heights: Low-to-medium on measurement of building heights; high interest in
overall building-height matters and in workforce housing matters. Medium interest in
building-design issues.
Special Review Criteria: Low.
One Single-Family Principal Structure Per Lot: Low overall. A few affected property
owners seem very interested.
Parks and Recreation Facilities: Low. 64
Sample Motion:
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve/deny Ordinance #17-17, amending
the Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibits A, BA [or] BB, C, D, E, and F,
finding that the amendment is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section
3.3 of the Estes Valley Development Code.
Attachments:
1.Ordinance No. 17-17: An Ordinance Amending 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) District, Special
Review Criteria, One Single-Family Principal Structure Per Lot, and Parks and
Recreation Facilities.
2.Exhibit A: [Ch. 1: Measurement; Ch. 13: Definitions]
3.Exhibit BA: [Dimensional Standard Alternative]
4.Exhibit BB: [Incentive-Based Alternative]
5.Exhibit C: [Ch. 4: Design Standards for RM Multi-Family buildings]
6.Building Height Graphic Representation
7.Public Comment on Building Heights to date: May 12, 2017 [no additional written
comment received as of June 8, 2017]
8.Exhibit D: Special Review
9.Exhibit E: One Single-Family Principal Structure Per Lot
10. Exhibit F: Parks and Recreation Facilities
65
ORDINANCE NO. 17-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 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) DISTRICT, SPECIAL REVIEW CRITERIA, ONE SINGLE-FAMILY
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE PER LOT, AND PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES.
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2017, the Estes Valley Planning Commission conducted
public hearings on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code,
Sections 1.9.E (Height Measurement); Sections 4.3.C.4 and 4.3.D.4 (Building Height and
Development Standards, RM (Multi-Family) Zoning District); Section 4.3.D.5 (Building
Design); Sections 3.2, 3.5, 4.3 and 13.3 (Special Review); Section 4.3.D.3 (Maximum
Number of Principal Use Permitted Per Lot); and Section 13.2.C.34 (Parks and
Recreation Facilities); 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 amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text
amendments comply with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review and determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the
amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, as set forth on Exhibits A through
F, be approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth
on Exhibits A through F, 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 Exhibits a through F.
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.
66
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2017, and
published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on
the day of , 2017.
Town Clerk
67
EXHIBIT A
[Ch. 1: Measurement; Ch. 13: Definitions]
BoCC: June 19, 2017
§ 1.9 - Rules of Measurement
E. Height.
1. Measurement of Maximum Building Height. Height shall be established by means the
vertical distance measured from the mean average elevation of the finished grade ((lowest
point elevation + highest point elevation) / 2):
(1) To the highest point of the roof surface, excluding parapet, if a flat roof;
(2) To the deck line of a mansard roof; or
(3) To the mean height level between the lowest eave and highest ridge for a gable, hip
or gambrel roof.
2. Line of Measurement. Height shall be measured along a vertical (plumb) line connecting
the horizontal plane of roof height measurement to the horizontal plane of finished grade,
as specified herein.
a plane measured vertically above the existing natural terrain elevation prior to grading.
Height shall be measured as the vertical distance in feet from the original natural terrain
within the building footprint to the highest point of the finished roof situated directly above
the point of measurement. Small areas of rugged terrain inconsistent with this plane shall
not increase or reduce building height. "Small areas" are those features with a maximum
width of twenty-five (25) feet. See Figure 1-3.
68
2. Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes. The maximum height of
buildings on slopes may be adjusted up to a maximum of forty (40) feet using the following
calculation (see Figure 1-4). This adjustment requires submittal of a site plan containing the
following information: building elevations, roof design, finished floor elevation, and grading
plan with existing and proposed contours.
Mb=30+[.50(a-b)] where:
Mb=Maximum height in feet at any given point above original grade
a=Elevation at highest point of natural grade of proposed building location
b=Elevation at any given point
69
3. Exemptions from Height Standards. The following features shall be exempt from
maximum building height:
a. Residential cChimneys to the extent required by the Uniform applicable Building
Code(s); and
b. Skylights, parapet walls, cornices without windows, communications antennas,
Micro Wind Energy Conversion System (MWECS); and
bc. Wireless telecommunications facilities and structures, but only to the extent
allowed by the specific provisions set forth in Use Tables 4-1 and 4-4 in Chapter 4 and
in §5.1.T of this Code.
§ 13.3 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES
114. Grade, Finished shall mean the final elevation and contour of the ground level after
topsoil has been applied to graded slopes, as measured six (6) feet from the exterior walls
of the structureafter cutting or filling / compacting and conforming to the proposed design.
70
EXHIBIT BA
[Dimensional Standard Alternative]
BoCC: June 19, 2017
Estes Valley Development Code
CHAPTER 4. ZONING DISTRICTS
Section 4.3.C.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
Multi-
family
dwelling
structure:
38
All other
principal
buildings:
30
20 [5]
(4) All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a
single lot, shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30 and a
maximum lot coverage of sixty five percent (65%). 50%. (Ord. 25-07 §1)
(8) See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an increase in the addresses
measurement of maximum height of buildings on slopes.
71
EXHIBIT BB:
[Incentive-Based Alternative]
BoCC: June 19, 2017
§ 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts
D. Additional Zoning District Standards.
5. Incentives for Workforce Housing 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 for
persons working in the Estes Valley and their household members, 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 as defined herein that are
located in the RM Zoning District are eligible for workforce housing height
bonus set forth in this this Section.
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 sixty
one hundred and fifty percent (60%150%) of the Larimer County
Area Median Income or below, adjusted for household size,
confirmed by the Estes Park Housing Authority.
b. To qualify as attainable units, housing costs (i.e., rent and utility
expenses) must not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the
maximum income for an imputed household size based on sixty
one hundred and fifty percent (60%150%) of the Larimer County
Area Median Income, confirmed by the Estes Park Housing
Authority. The imputed household size is equal to one and one-
half (1.5) times the number of bedrooms in the unit. For
example, rent on a two-bedroom unit would be equal to thirty
percent (30%) of the monthly income limit of a three-person
family; for a three-bedroom unit the rent should not exceed thirty
percent (30%) of the monthly income of a four-and-one-half-
person family - the midpoint of the range of a four- and five-
person family.
72
c. If the property owner does not pay all utility expenses, then a
utility allowance, computed by the Estes Park Housing
Authority, must be subtracted from the housing cost to
determine the maximum rent. (Ord 2-02 #9)
2. Owner-Occupied Attainable Housing Units.
a. Housing units that are attainable to households earning eighty
one hundred and fifty percent (80%150%) of the Larimer
County Area Median Income or below, adjusted for household
size, confirmed by the Estes Park Housing Authority.
b. To qualify as attainable units, housing costs must not exceed
forty percent (40%) of the eightyone-hundred-fifty-percent
Larimer County Area Median Income, adjusted for household
size, confirmed by the Estes Park Housing Authority. (Ord.
2-02 #9)
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. “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.
f. Maximum Permitted Height Bonus. Subject to the standards and review
criteria set forth in this Code, classification of fifty percent (50%) or more
of dwelling units in an eligible multi-family dwelling building as either
workforce housing units or attainable housing units, or both, 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.
g. 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.
h. Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Workforce or attainable housing units
designated in connection with this height incentive shall not be rented,
leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days (see §5.1.B).
i. Deed Restriction Required. Workforce or attainable housing units
developed pursuant to this Section shall be deed-restricted to assure the
73
availability of the units for sale or rent to persons meeting the workforce or
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 Attorney.
§ 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
74
(4) All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall
also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30 and a maximum lot coverage of sixty
five percent (65%).50%.
(8) See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an increase in the addresses measurement of maximum
height of buildings on slopes.
(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 of this Code.
75
EXHIBIT C
[Ch. 4: Design Standards for Multi-Family buildings]
BoCC: June 19, 2017
§ 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts
D. Additional Zoning District Standards.
5. Multi-family Residential Development Standards
Site Design
a. The minimum separation between multi-family buildings, including
accessory buildings, on the same lot or parcel is fifteen (15) feet.
b. Individual buildings within a multi-family development shall be
oriented to the following:
i. Common open space, such as interior courtyards or on-site
natural areas or features;
ii. Perimeter streets;
iii. Other residential buildings; or
iv. Through-access drives.
c. Buildings shall be oriented or arranged in a manner to enclose
common open spaces such as gardens, courtyards, recreation or
play areas, that shall contain a minimum of three of these features:
i. Seasonable planting areas;
ii. Trees;
iii. Pedestrian-scaled lighting;
iv. Gazebos or other decorative shelters;
v. Seating;
vi. Play structures for children, or
vii. Natural features or areas.
Building Design
a. Floors rising above thirty (30’) in height shall be stepped back ten
(10) 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. A
maximum of sixty (60) percent of the overall façade width may
encroach in this “stepback”.
a. The maximum length of any multi-family building shall be 200 feet
or six townhomes units, whichever is less.
b. Multi-family buildings with a façade length of greater than thirty
(30) linear feet shall incorporate a variety of different wall planes
76
and roof planes and shall feature a minimum of two of the following
design elements in the design of the front façade:
i. Bay windows;
ii. Covered porches or balconies;
iii. Structural offsets of a minimum of four feet from the
principal plane of the façade;
iv. Accent materials such as brick, stone, or stucco with
banding highlights; or
v. Window grills and shutters.
c. Side and rear facades should maintain the architectural design,
articulation, level of detail, and materials consistent with the front
facade.
d. Second and third floor massing and articulation shall relate to
ground floor.
e. At least fifty (50) percent of all ground-floor units shall be provided
with a minimum 6’ x 10’ patio directly accessible from the unit. At
least fifty (50) percent of all units above ground-floor level shall be
provided with a minimum 4’ x 10’ balcony directly accessible from
the unit.
f. Rear-loaded units shall be the first choice when facing public
streets while front-loaded units should be used when development
faces a side or rear property line.
g. Windows and garage doors should be "punched" in from the
exterior building wall or should be defined by well-designed trim.
The trim material should contrast with wall materials.
77
78
79
80
81
Fwd: NEWSOM - my (and others) thoughts
1 message
Michael <mgmoon@aol.com>
-ro: Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org >
FYI, I think this is better through you. Mike
EDC Childcare Services Committee:
Let's go make something wonderful happen for the kids of the Estes Valley!
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: ‹newsom@frii.com >
Date: April 5, 2017 at 2:14:39 PM MDT
To: <mgmoon@aol.com >
Cc: <newsom@frii.com>
Subject: NEWSOM - my (and others) thoughts
Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 2:43 PM
Michael, will you please distribute this to your Commission members. Thank you very
much! pfn
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
At the last Work Study of your Commission, I remember you saying, Michael, "Everyone says Estes
Park is unique and quaint...what does unique and quaint mean with regards to Estes Park?"...
I come in contact with many people in different places through a week's time,... always asking where
they are from, have they been here before — and if so, how many times with the replies from "first
time" to a "life time". After they say they love it here, their reply is (truly), "it's so unique and
quaint." Asking further, their answers are varied but always come to the point ...no matter where you
are in the area, you can always see over the roof tops and get a great view of the (usually snow-
capped) mountains, the trees and the skies. They remark that nowhere else does one have the
opportunity to take in nature as in this place...after you come over Park Hill or around the curve on
Hwy 34, there is this unique and incredibly beautiful place...and they stress, "Don't ever let it
change!" ...Many mentioned that in just driving around the area, they feel the openness of the
neighborhoods, the difference in the fact there are no "tract homes" and there is so much open area
and houses are not "jammed up together".
When I ask about the quaintness of the community, many times the response is the same, "...every
store has its own identification and decor, window displays, benches to sit/wait! In a lot of the
mountain towns...the store fronts are all the same and is difficult to tell one from another. It's just fun
to walk the street and see the individuality and decide which one to go in to! I love it here." (Heard
these very exact words four times last week from teenagers, grandparents, foreigners, and Valley
people in one day!)
So, thinking about issues that are coming before you... DO NOT GIVE A VARIENCE TO MORE
THAN 30 FEET HEIGHT!!! One cannot see over a three story building no matter where it is. If the
one-story shops downtown need extra space, they could make another story addition, but not two!!
Also, regarding the Affordable workforce housing, I think this is a joke and just a way to increase the
population...which do we really need, or WANT? Everyone says, "We need more young families with
kids for the schools." ...but, what are they going to do for a living? I strongly suggest you do not
change the zoning allowing more density!!! I have many thoughts to express but one of the main
ones...the Avalanche Survey says we will need between 1,200 -- 1,400 housing units in five years. I
82
laugh to myself... if at least one person is to be contributing to the community by working, where are
1,200 — 1,400 people going to get a job!! Also, each housing unit will not be limited to one person so
think of the increase of population and the density of the area. I don't believe in the survey that was
done from an outside source and perhaps ones doing so have not even been in the town. To change
the zoning of single family dwellings will be the death of the unique and quaintness of this place many
have called home for years!!! (I have many other thoughts on (not only) this issue as do others I talk
with.)
Seems many of those sitting on Boards, etc. say they were elected to do what the people want — but
you know what? ...many DO NOT LISTEN TO WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT.
Thanks for listening to me!
Patricia F. Newsom
450 West Wonderview Ave
Phone: 970.586.4425 (office) — 970-586-6645 (home)
E-mail: Newsom@Frii.com
83
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>
Please forward to all Planning Commissioners
1 message
Richard <rewood333@gmail.com>Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:47 PM
To: planning@estes.org
Re: building height & density issues.
I urge the planners to reject raising the height of new construction as it is now before the board.
I came from the Denver neighborhood of Cherry Creek Northi, and what was once a vibrant and livable area
is now suffering from the kinds of results that occur when you increase building height, reduce parking space
requirements, and
increase density per acre.
Allowing these kinds of things in or adjacent to existing lowdensity neighborhoods just ends up hurting those
neighborhoods — bad for traffic, for one thing. Save the greater density projects for downtown areas mostly near
existing commercial and multifamily
structures.
Richard Wood
84
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>
Building Height
1 message
Barb Davis <bdawgwrangler@gmail.com>Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 3:22 PM
To: planning@estes.org
Cc: Wayne Newsom <newsom@frii.com>, Pat Newsom <rcedeux@q.com>, Ed Hayek ~ Estes Park
<arrivafor2@msn.com>, Ed & Marlene Hayek ~Estes Park <marhayek@msn.com>
EVERYONE ~ As most of you know, the majority of us living in Estes, bought property here because we loved
the small town atmosphere ~ Raising the building height past the 30’ mark will seriously mar our beautiful
views of not only our town but of the mountains that we love ~ Not sure where the idea of making our town into
a “Vail” came from but that’s not the look that most of us support ~ Bigger is not always better ! ! !
Leave the Town of Estes Park alone ~ our businesses can only handle so many tourists ~ be happy with what
we have and preserve it for future generations ~ Barb Davis
85
86
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>
Building Height
1 message
Robert Sweeney <SweenBean@outlook.com> Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:54 PM
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Dear Planning Commission -
I'm writing to encourage you to keep the building height-limit low. Raising it from 30' to 40' or even
45' will inevitably obstruct our views and detract from the natural beauty of the Estes Valley. In my
opinion, the likely impact is obvious. But practicalities can obscure even the most important and
obvious things, and lead to a succession of steps that have an impact no one intends.
Our family moved to Estes Park from Austin, Texas; and I well remember the Austin City Council
discussing height limits and deciding to maintain the open character of downtown Austin by
creating "view corridors" around which the business district could construct high rises. Well,
construct they did, and the character of downtown Austin is now completely dominated by high
rises. Here and there, pedestrians can peek through a view corridor to espy the capitol building,
but that's about it. The council should have known that the game was lost once it conceded the
concept of "view corridors."
I think the same principle applies here - even more so in my opinion because what is at stake is
the beauty of the Estes Valley. Though a 33% or 50% increase in building height may seem small
measured out in feet, the visual impact would be large.
Consider for example the the parking garage the town is now building. Even though it occupies
only a small portion of the foreground as you drive into town on Highway 36 or Highway 7, it is so
out of character with its surroundings that it dominates the impression you get as you approach
our downtown. This is a an instance, I think, of letting stop-gap practicalities override aesthetics.
The pressure to raise height limits for residential housing is another instance. For most visitors,
and for us who live here too, our town is the prelude to Rocky Mountain National Park, and the
Estes Valley is one of the most beautiful mountain valleys in the world. Preserving this beauty
should be the Planning Commission's overriding concern.
Raising height limits will detract from the beauty and openness of our mountain home. I oppose it.
Thank you,
Bob Sweeney
512.965.1867 cell
970.586.3610 home
2661 Eagle Rock Drive, Estes Park, CO 80517
SweenBean@outlook.com
87
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>
against raising building height and allowing taller buildings in Estes Valley
2 messages
hillerson@beyondbb.com <hillerson@beyondbb.com>Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:04 PM
To: planning@estes.org
To members of the Planning Commission:
Changing the building height allowance from 30 to 40 or even 45 feet is of great concern; I am definitely against such a
change. I have been a resident of the Estes Valley for 15 years and have always appreciated that everyone "has a
view." Estes Park has the small town feel because there aren't large, tall buildings.
We recently drove by Vail on the Interstate and were dismayed to see how many tall buildings have been built and are
being built. It looks like a big city skyline now and buildings are competing for views. Estes Park should keep the
current height restriction so everyone continues to have a view.
The new parking garage really drives home that point it borders on being too high and a detraction to the view as
people drive into town.
Do NOT change the height restriction of buildings nor dwellings in the Estes Valley. Remain a mountain town that
appreciates its location and desires to keep the beauty of the mountains visible to all!
Thank you,
Carol Hillerson
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:32 AM
To: hillerson@beyondbb.com
Cc: Planning commdev <planning@estes.org>
Carol,
Thank you for your comment. I will give it to the Planning Commissioners at their Study Session today. Notebooks were
distributed last Thursday.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Karen Thompson
Executive Assistant
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
Phone: 9705773721
Fax: 9705860249
kthompson@estes.org
[Quoted text hidden]
88
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>
Against increasing building height
2 messages
Mark Igel <markigel@gmail.com>Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 7:55 AM
To: planning@estes.org
Chairman Moon,
Please register my opinion against the proposed increase in building height as a general rule for any zoning district in our
community.
I would support a case by case evaluation and potential variances to encourage our community's pursuit of workforce
housing, but I would emphatically oppose a general increase of this important guideline in our community.
Every day I am startled by the (negative) impression that the parking garage makes on me. It seems so out of character
for what makes Estes Park special. That garage is a good example of how quickly we could transform this community
into an industrial machine that moves, stores and services visitors with efficient ease! But, is that what we want?
Please, reject this proposal and focus on a bigger picture of preserving what is so special about Estes Park, that no
money can buy! I have been impressed with the Planning Commission taking thoughtful procommunity positions, and
look forward to your commission standing up to what is assuredly going to be a lot of pressure from the contingent of
"forward thinking planners and developers".
I'm sorry I can not appear in person to make these comments at the Tuesday meeting. I trust that you will share my
sentiment with your peers and anywhere they may be considered to weigh in against the height increase.
Thank you for considering this, and for each of your service to our community.
Mark Igel
Stanley Circle Drive
Estes Park
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:34 AM
To: Mark Igel <markigel@gmail.com>
Cc: Planning commdev <planning@estes.org>
Mark
Thank you for your comment. I will give it to the Planning Commissioners at their Study Session today. Notebooks
were distributed last Thursday.
Karen Thompson
Executive Assistant
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
Phone: 9705773721
Fax: 9705860249
kthompson@estes.org
[Quoted text hidden]89
Van Horn Engineering's bullet thoughts for Planning Commission Study Session on Building Height:
• Current height regulation is not broken. We train interns in less than a half hour to calculate
height based on existing contours and a set of plans and have never had huge difficulty with that
current regulation.
• We have not studied the new regulation related to finish grade but we fear that using a
proposed finish grade puts a lot of control into the developer and a proposed condition that will
have an impact on other long-term historic neighbors view corridors.
• The existing regulation doesn't allow enough height for three level buildings unless they are
lowered into the ground. Which probably was intentional from the start (2000 Code).
• If you add a third level in the buildings (more units on the site) you will add to the parking
requirement which will add impervious coverage which will increase the stormwater quality and
the stormwater volume requirements for detention which will take up more room on site.
• There is a classic example of landscaping requiring trees and fire mitigation requiring a removal
of trees. It all has to work together. Many small lots are not viable for increased units.
•
r •
VHE could work up some examples of this to help understand the impact graphically.
/• We are not experts on the economic benefits of affordable housing. We have not studied the
difference between attainable housing and affordable housing.
Z
•
This is just a surveying/engineering perspective from working with the code (since 2000).
• Simple solution might be to go with 35 feet as a base height instead of 30 and keep the sliding
scale?
• Would need to clarify the difference between original grade and historic grade.
• The snowball effect and the need to change multiple future parameters is a concern.
• With the 2000 code adoption, impervious coverage allotments were drastically reduced. This
could be the biggest challenge.
• Smaller units require less parking requirements however the marketability of smaller units is a
question.
• Realization that going to the Board of Adjustment for a variance is expensive and we know
firsthand that should be the first step not a conditional approval item.
• Realization that the requirements for a Preliminary Plat or Development Plan submittal are
extensive and expensive. Reining those back could be beneficial for developers before approval
is given... they would have less investment. Better now that no water and sewer profiles are
required until Construction Plans.
• Realization and appreciation for the planning process basics... if you change a large parameter
like density that the possible trickle-down effect is also large.
90
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>
Fesearch on Expanding Height Limit
1 message
jbhull@aol.com <jbhull@aol.com>Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:40 AM
To: bob@bobleavitt.com, rhunt@estes.org, kthompson@estes.org, russestesplanningcommission@gmail.com,
jbhull@aol.com, sdwtulok@aol.com, mgmoon@aol.com, dougklink@gmail.com, steve@estesvalley.net,
ronaldfnorris@gmail.com
Hello All,
I understand we will be hearing new proposed code language on raising the height limit
throughout the Valley to 38 feet with no 10% increase granted by staff.
I'm still against this right now with the 30 foot limit, staff can grant a %10 increase to make the
limit 33 feet. I still do not believe there's anything a developer can accomplish in a 3 story building
at 38 feet that cannot be accomplished in a 3 story building at 33 feet.
I decided to make a quick tour around Estes Park to look at existing 3 story buildings that fit the
present height limitation. I learned a great deal and invite you to do site visits to the addresses I'll
list below: First, I had to ignore commercial buildings, such as motels, all the way from what used
to be the Holiday Inn and the Alpenzel. Then I divided the 3 story buildings I saw into private
dwellings and condo complexes.
The private dwellings are all over on my own roadStonegate there's 1710; then on Devil's
Gulch, my quick drive by exposed three 1882, 1527; and also 567 Little Beaver Drive off Dry
Gulch. Then, take a look at Charles Heights and Hallet Heights, and Coyote Run in the Reserve.
Lastly, 2231 Arapahoe. I know there are a ton more.
But, I knew we'd be most interested in the condo complexes Wow! I saw a bunch and this was
a pretty fast tour.
1) Grand Estates Timbers of Estes off Highway 38 1235 & 1237
2) North Lake Condos across from Ace Hardware this was the ONLY one that wasn't particularly
attractive and had a flat roof
3) Mountain Creek Condos in front of and to the left of the Stanley Hotel
4) Of course, the Aspire Residences in front of and to the right of the Stanley Hotel
5) On Graves Avenue 3 apartment buildings2 green and 1 grey
6) 600 Moccasin Drive 3 buildings
7) Peaks Condos at 200 Riverside and 160 Riverside
8) Riverside Condos
9) The Condos immediately to the right of Mary's Lake Lodge.
My point is that if these attractive condo complexes fit the present height limitation of 30 feet +
%10= 33 feet, why can't new ones fit as well?? Many of these are built on hillsides, which seems
to be what probably will be available for new development as well.
Betty
91
92
93
EXHIBIT D
[June 13, 2017 – Special Review, Town Board]
§ 3.2 – STANDARD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE
F. Summary Table—Standard Development Review Process by Application Type.
Step 1
Pre-Application
Conference
Step 2
Application/
Completeness
Certification
Step 3
Staff Review
& Report
Step 4
EVPC
Action
Step 5
Board
Action
Code Amendments-
Text/Map M A A A A
Preliminary Subdivision M A A A A
Final Subdivision V A A N/A A
PUD-Preliminary Plan M A A A A
PUD-Final Plan V A A N/A A
Special Review Uses
S1
M A A A A
Special Review Use
S2
M A A A A
Variances (Ord. 18-01 #5) M A A N/A BOA
Minor Modifications V A A-SR A-SR N/A
Development Plan
Review M A A-SR A-SR APP
Use Classification (Ord. 8-
05 #1) V A A N/A APP
94
Separate Lot
Determinations (Ord. 8-
05 #1)
V A A N/A APP
Temporary Use Permits V A A N/A N/A
Minor Subdivision(Ord.
18-01 #5) M A A A A
Location and Extent
Review (Ord. 21-10 §1) M A A A APP
Conditional Use Permit
(Ord. 21-10 §1) M A A A APP
Annexations (Ord. 18-01
#5) M A A N/A A
"V" = Voluntary "M" = Mandatory "A" = Applicable "N/A" = Not Applicable
"APP" = Appeals "BOA" = Board of Adjustment "SR" = Special Requirements (Refer to Text)
95
§ 3.5 – SPECIAL REVIEW USES
A. Procedures for Approval of Special Review Uses. Applications for approval of a special
review use shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in §3.2 of this
Chapter. Uses that require a Special Review and are subject to the regulations of this section are
stated in the use tables Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts and Table 4-4:
Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Special Review Uses shall be reviewed through an S1 or S2 procedure. Those uses that have a
wider public interest or impact shall be reviewed through the S2 procedure. Both review
procedures provide an opportunity to allow the use when there are minimal impacts, to allow the
use but impose mitigation measure to address identified concerns, or to deny the use if findings
establish that concerns cannot be resolved.
Approval of a Special Review Use shall not constitute a change in the base zoning district and
shall be granted only for the specific use approved at the specific site. Approval is subject to such
modifications, conditions, and restrictions as may be deemed appropriate by the Decision Making
Body.
B. Standards for Review. All applications for a special review use shall demonstrate compliance
with all applicable criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 5, "Use Regulations," of this Code.
and the following requirement:
The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent
feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services,
and the environment.
Applications for S1 or S2 Special Review shall provide a narrative that describes how the
proposed use fulfills the applicable requirements and standards for the use. In order to minimize
adverse impacts of the proposed use, an approval of Special Review Use may be conditioned
based upon information provided in the narrative and staff findings.
For purposes of the Special Review, the narrative shall describe the following, as applicable:
1. The proposed use and its operations;
2. Traffic generation;
3. Existing zoning compatibility;
4. Location of parking and loading, including size, location, screening, drainage, landscaping,
and surfacing;
5. Effect on off-site parking;
6. Street access points, including size, number, location and/or design;
7. Hours of operation, including when certain activities are proposed to occur;
8. Exterior lighting;
9. Effects on air and water quality;
10. Environmental effects which may disturb neighboring property owners such as;
a. Glare. This may be described in terms of location, design, intensity and shielding;
b. Noise; and
c. Dust;
11. Height, size, setback, and location of buildings and activities;
96
12. Any diking, berms, screening or landscaping, and standards for their installation and
maintenance; and
13. Other resources. This description shall include information on protection and preservation of
existing trees, vegetation, water resources, habitat areas, drainage areas, historic resources,
cultural resources, or other significant natural resources.
C. Lapse.
1. Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit or commence operation with regard
to the special review use approval within three (3) years of the approval of special
review shall automatically render the decision null and void., unless a longer period is
approved by the decision-making body as a condition of approval.
2. If a legally established special review use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of
three (3) consecutive years or more, then the decision originally approving such special
review use shall automatically lapse and be null and void., unless a longer period is
approved by the decision-making body as a condition of approval.
3. Prior to the end of the three-year lapse period set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the
owner or authorized agent of the property receiving special review use approval may
seek an extension of the three-year lapse period for an additional two (2) years by
petitioning either the Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners for an
extension of two (2) years. Said petition shall be filed prior to the expiration of the three-
year lapse period and shall set forth reasons why the project will be commenced within
the requested two-year period. The decision on any extension shall be at the sole
discretion of the Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners. No
additional extension of the additional two-year lapse period shall be granted, except in
connection with a new Special Review application and review.
(Ord. 07-14 §2)
(Ord. 07-14 §2, 2/25/14)
97
§ 3.8 – DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
A. Purpose. The purpose of the development plan review process is to ensure compliance with the zoning
standards and provisions of this Code, while encouraging quality development in the Estes Valley
reflective of the goals, policies and objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Applicability. All development set forth in Table 3-3 below shall be required to submit a development
plan for review pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this Section. See also §7.1.B,
which requires development plans for all new development on land with slopes steeper than thirty
percent (30%) or on land containing ridgeline protection areas. No development, excavation, site
preparation or construction activity, including tree/vegetation removal or grading, shall occur on
property subject to this Section until a development plan has been approved.
Table 3-3
Development Plan Review Requirements
Determining Factor Staff Review [1] EVPC Review
All Nonresidential Development, Except Accommodations Development, in any Zoning District (Ord.
8-05 #1)
Number of Parking Spaces 10 - 20 21 or more
Construction of Gross Floor Area 2,000 - 10,000 sq. ft. More than 10,000 sq. ft.
(Ord. 8-05 #1)
Major alterations that also entail alteration to the
number of parking spaces, the configuration of
parking, ingress, egress, water, sewer, drainage
or lighting on the premises (Ord. 8-05 #1)
2,000 - 10,000 sq. ft. More than 10,000 sq. ft.
(Ord. 8-05 #1)
All Residential or Accommodations Development (Ord. 8-05 #1)
Number of New Dwellings, Guest Units and/or RV
pad/campsites (Ord. 8-05 #1) 3 - 10 11 or more
Major alterations that also entail alteration to the
number of parking spaces, the configuration of
parking, ingress, egress, water, sewer, drainage
or lighting on the premises (Ord 18-01 #7; Ord. 8-
05 #1)
3-10 dwellings, guest
units and/or RV
pad/campsites (Ord. 8-
05 #1)
11 or more dwellings,
guest units and/or RV
pad/campsites (Ord. 8-05
#1)
Note to Table 3-3:
[1] All Special Review Uses shall be subject to Planning Commission and Board review and approval of
development plans.
98
(Ord. 8-05 #1)
(Ord. 18-01 #6, 7; Ord. 8-05 #1)
C. Development Plan Approval Procedures. Applications for development plan and Special Review
development plan approval shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in §3.2 of
this Chapter, except for the following modifications:
Step 3: Staff Review and Report. 1. All development plans subject to staff review shall be reviewed
by Staff, who shall take final action by either approving, approving with conditions or denying the
application. Staff action on a development plan shall not be final and appealable until the
Applicant complies with or accepts all conditions of approval.
Step 4: EVPC Review and Action. 2. All development plans subject to EVPC review, as shown in
Table 3-3 above, shall be reviewed by the EVPC, who shall take final action by either approving,
approving with conditions or denying the application.
D. Standards for Review. The Staff and EVPC recommending and decision-making entities shall review
development plan applications and all submitted plans and reports, and evaluate them according to
the following standards:
1. The development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in this Code; and
2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan and any other relevant land use, parks and trails, capital improvement and other similar
plans.
99
§ 4.3 – RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-1
Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts
Use Classification Specific Use
Zoning Districts
Additional
Regulations (Apply
in All Districts
Unless Otherwise
Stated)
"P" = Permitted by Right
"S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review
"—" = Prohibited
RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-
1 R-2 RM
RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS
Household Living
Single-family
dwelling P P P P P P P P
In R-1, §4.3.D.4
applies (Ord. 18-01
§13)
Two-family
dwelling — — — — — — P P (Ord. 15-11 §1)
Multi-family
dwelling — — — — — — — P §5.1K (Ord. 02-10
§1)
Mobile home
park — — — — — — — S §5.1I
Group Living Facility,
Large
Senior care
facility — — — — — S2 S2 S2 §5.1I
Large group
living facilities — — — — — S2 S2 S2 §5.1I
Group Living Facility,
Small P P P P P P P P
INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC AND PUBLIC USES
Day Care Center (Ord.
6-06 §1) S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1F
100
Use Classification Specific Use RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-
1 R-2 RM
Additional
Regulations (Apply
in All Districts
Unless Otherwise
Stated)
Family Home Day
Care, Large (Ord. 6-06
§1)
S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2
§5.1F; As accessory
to a principal
residential use only
Government Facilities
Public Safety
Facilities P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location &
Extent Review
Trail/Trail
Head P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location &
Extent Review
Utility, Major — — — — — — — — §3.13, Location &
Extent Review
Utility, Minor P P P P P P P P
§3.13, Location &
Extent Review; Use
shall not include
office, repair,
storage or
production
facilities
All other
Government
Facilities
P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location &
Extent Review
Hospital — — — — — — — S2
Park and Recreation
Facilities P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location &
Extent Review
Park and Ride
Facilities — — — — — P P P
Religious Assembly — — — — — — S2 S2 §5.1.O (Ord. 19-11
§1)
101
Use Classification Specific Use RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-
1 R-2 RM
Additional
Regulations (Apply
in All Districts
Unless Otherwise
Stated)
Schools — — — — — — S2 S2
§3.13, Location &
Extent Review
(Ord. 19-11 §1)
Senior Institutional
Living
Continuing
Care
Retirement
Facility
— — — — S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1I
Congregate
Housing — — — — S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1.I
Skilled Nursing
Facility — — — — — — — S2 §5.1.I
Transportation
Facility Without
Repairs
— — — — — P P P §3.13, Location &
Extent Review
ACCOMMODATION USES
Low-Intensity
Accommodations
Bed and
Breakfast Inn — — — — — — S1 P §5.1B
Vacation
Home P P P P P P P P §5.1B (Ord. 02-10
§1)
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USES
Wireless
Telecommunication
Facilities
Attached and
concealed
(stealth)
antennas
P P P P P P P P §5.1T
Antenna
towers,
microcells
P/S1 P/S1 P/S1 P/S1 — — P/S1 P/S1 §5.1T
102
RECREATION USES
Golf Course P S2 S2 S2 — — — — §5.1C
ACCESSORY USES: SEE §5.2 "ACCESSORY USES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES."
TEMPORARY USES; SEE §5.2, "TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES."
103
§ 4.4 – NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-4
Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Use Classification Specific Use
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts
Unless Otherwise
Stated)
"P" = Permitted by Right
"S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special
Review
"—" = Prohibited
A A-
1 CD CO O CH I-1
RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS
Household
Living(Ord. 15-11
§1)
Single-family dwelling P P P — P — —
•In CD, such use
shall not be
located on the
ground floor of a
building having
frontage on
Elkhorn Avenue
•In O, such use
shall not be
located on the
ground floor of a
building
Two-family dwelling P P P — — — —
In CD, such use
shall not be
located on the
ground floor of a
building having
frontage on
Elkhorn Avenue
Multi-family dwelling P P P — — — —
In A-1, no more
than 4 dwelling
units per multi-
family structure
In CD, such use
shall not be
104
located on the
ground floor of a
building having
frontage on
Elkhorn Avenue
Mobile home park — — — S2 — — — §5.1.K
Use Classification Specific Use A A-
1 CD CO O CH I-1
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
Group Living
Facility, Large Treatment Facility P — — P — — — §5.1.I
Group Living
Facility, Small P P P P — — —
§5.1.I
In CD, such use
shall not be
located on the
ground floor of a
building having
frontage on
Elkhorn Avenue
INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC & PUBLIC USES
Civic, Social, or
Fraternal
Membership Clubs,
Lodges, or
Associations
P — — P — — — (Ord 19-11 §1)
Cultural Institutions P P P P — —
Day Care
Center(Ord. 6-06
§1)
P S2 S1 P P P P
105
Use Classification Specific Use A A-
1 CD CO O CH I-1
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
Emergency Health
Care — — S1 P S1 S1 S1
§5.1.H
In CD, such use
shall not be
located on
Elkhorn Avenue
Family Home Day
Care, Large (Ord. 6-
06 §1)
P S2 S1 — — — —
§5.1.F
§5.2.B.2.d Home
Occupation
As accessory to a
principal
residential use
only
Government
Facilities
Public Safety Facilities P P P P P P P
In CD, such use
shall not be
located on
Elkhorn Avenue;
§3, 13, Location &
Extent Review
Trail/Trail Head P P P P P P P §3.13, Location &
Extent Review
Utility, Major — — — S1 — S1 S1
§5.1.L; All
structures shall be
located at least
200 feet away
from a residential
zone district
boundary;
§3.13, Location &
Extent Review
Utility, Minor P P P P P P P §3.13, Location &
Extent Review
106
All Other Government
Facilities P P P P P P P §3.13, Location &
Extent Review
Use Classification Specific Use A A-
1 CD CO O CH I-1
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
Government Offices P P P P P P P §3.13, Location &
Extent Review
Maintenance and
Service Facilities — — — — — P P §5.1.L
Park and Recreation
Facilities P P P P P — — §3.13, Location &
Extent Review
Park and Ride
Facilities P P P P P P P §3.13, Location &
Extent Review
Religious Assembly
(Ord. 19-11 §1) P — — P — — — §5.1.O
Schools(Ord 19-11
§1) P — — P — — — §3.13, Location &
Extent Review
Senior Institutional
Living
Continuing care
retirement facility — — — S1 — — — §5.1.I
Congregate housing — — — S1 — — — §5.1.I
Skilled nursing facility — — — — — — §5.1.I
Transportation
Facility Without
Repairs
— — P P P — — §3.13, Location &
Extent Review
107
Use Classification Specific Use A A-
1 CD CO O CH I-1
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
ACCOMMODATION USES
Low-Intensity
Accom-
modations
Bed and breakfast inns P P P — — — —
§5.1.B. In CD,
such use shall not
be located on the
ground floor of a
building fronting
on Elkhorn
Avenue
Hotel, Small — P P — — — —
In CD, such use
shall not be
located on the
ground floor of a
building fronting
on Elkhorn
Avenue.
Vacation Home — P P — — — —
§5.1.B. In CD,
such use shall not
be located on the
ground floor of a
building fronting
on Elkhorn
Avenue. (Ord. 02-
10 §1)
Resort lodge/cabins, low-
intensity — P — — — — — (Ord. 19-10 §1)
108
Use Classification Specific Use A A-
1 CD CO O CH I-1
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
High-Intensity
Accommodations
Hostel P — P — — — —
In CD, such use
shall not be
located on the
ground floor of a
building fronting
on Elkhorn
Avenue.
Hotel/Motel P — P — — — —
§5.1.J. In CD, such
use shall not be
located on the
ground floor of a
building fronting
on Elkhorn
Avenue.
Recreational vehicle
park/ campground S2 — — — — — — §7.15
Resort lodge/cabins P — — — — — — §5.1.P
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USES
Adult Businesses — — — — — — S1 §5.1.A
Animal
Sales/Services
Animal Boarding — — — — — P P
Animal Grooming — — P P — — —
In CD, such use:
• Permitted as
an accessory use
only;
• Shall not
exceed two (2)
animals at any
time; and
• Shall not
include animal
109
boarding at any
time.
(Ord. 06-15, § 1,
Exh. A)
Animal Hospital — — — P — — P
Animal Retail Sales — — — P — — —
Animal Shows/Sales — — — P — P P §5.1.L
Veterinary Office — — — P — — —
Use Classification Specific Use A A-
1 CD CO O CH I-1
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
Artist Studio P P P P P P P
Bank or Other
Financial Institution — — P P P — —
In CD, no drive-
through service
shall have access
from Elkhorn
Avenue
Building Materials/
Services — — — P — P P §5.1.L
Business Services — — P P P P —
Catering Service — — — P — P P
Commercial
Laundry — — — — — P P
Construction
Storage Yard — — — — — P P §5.1.D; §5.1.L
110
Use Classification Specific Use A A-
1 CD CO O CH I-1
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
Eating/Drinking
Establishments
Bar/tavern P — P P — P P §5.1.G
Brewpub P — P P P — P
§5.1.G
In the A district:
• Permitted as
accessory to an
accommodations
use only (Ord. 13-
14 §1)
Microbrewery/ micro-
distillery/ microwinery P — P P P — P
§5.1.G
In the A district:
• Permitted as
accessory to an
accommodations
use only (Ord. 13-
14 §1)
Restaurant P — P P P P P §5.1.G
Tasting/tap room P — P P P — P
§5.1.G
In the A district:
• Permitted as
accessory to an
accommodations
use only (Ord. 13-
14 §1)
With outdoor seating or
food service P — P P P P P §5.1.G and
§5.1.M
With drive-through
service — — — P — P P §5.1.G
111
Use Classification Specific Use A A-
1 CD CO O CH I-1
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
Food/Beverage
Sales
Convenience stores — — P P — P P
§5.1.E
In CD, no drive-
through service
shall have access
from Elkhorn
Avenue
Convenience store with
fuel sales — — — P — S1 S1 §5.1.E and §5.1.Q
Convenience store with
outdoor seating or food
service
— — P P — P P
§5.1.E and §5.1.M
In CD, no drive-
through service
shall have access
from Elkhorn
Avenue
Grocery store — — — P — — — §5.1.L
Liquor store — — P P — — —
In CD, no drive-
through service
shall have access
from Elkhorn
Avenue
All other — — P P — — —
In CD, no drive-
through service
shall have access
from Elkhorn
Avenue
Funeral or
Interment Services — — — P — P P
Laboratory — — P P P P P In CD, such use
shall not be
112
located on
Elkhorn Avenue
Use Classification Specific Use A A-
1 CD CO O CH I-1
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
Maintenance/
Repair Service — — — P — P P §5.1.L
Office — — P P P — —
Outdoor Sales — — — S1 — P P §§5.1.L and 7.13
(Ord. 10-00 §2)
Personal Services P — P P P P P
In the A district:
•Permitted as
accessory to an
accommodations
use only; and
•Use shall be
located within the
same structure as
a permitted
accommodations
use.
Plant Nurseries — — — P — P P §5.1.L
Retail
Establishments
Retail establishments,
large — — S1 P — — —
§5.1.L; In CD, no
drive-through
service shall have
access from
Elkhorn Avenue
113
Use Classification Specific Use A A-
1 CD CO O CH I-1
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
All other retail — — P P — P P
§5.1.L;
In the CH and I-1
districts: •Limited
to sales of
products
manufactured or
produced on the
subject premises;
and
•No more than
15% of the
principal
building(s)' gross
floor area shall be
devoted to retail
sales.
In CD, no drive-
through service
shall have access
from Elkhorn
Avenue
Self-Service Mini-
Storage — — — — — P/S1 P/S1
If such use
contains more
than 20,000 sq. ft.
of gross floor
area, it shall be
subject to Special
Review
114
Use Classification Specific Use A A-
1 CD CO O CH I-1
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
Vehicle Services,
Limited
Car wash — — — P — P P §5.1.Q
Quick lubrication services — — — P — P P §5.1.Q
Service station — — — P — P P §5.1.Q; §5.1.L
Vehicle/ Equipment
Sales & Services
Automobile rentals P — — P — P —
In A, only as part
of a hotel or
motel use
Commercial parking
facility — — P P P — —
In CD, such use
shall not be
permitted to
locate on Elkhorn
Avenue
Limited equipment
rentals — — — P — P P §5.1.R
Vehicle/ equipment
repair — — — P — P P §5.1.L
Vehicle/ equipment sales
and rentals — — — S1 — S1 S1 §5.1.R; §5.1.L
Vehicle storage — — — — — P S1 §5.1.L
115
Use Classification Specific Use A A-
1 CD CO O CH I-1
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
Wireless
Telecommunication
Facilities
Attached & concealed
(stealth) antennas P P P P P P P
§5.1.T
The antenna shall
be sited so that it
does not rise
more than 10 feet
above the height
of the structure to
which it is
attached
Antenna towers,
temporary P P P P P P P
§5.1.T
Antenna tower
height shall not
exceed 30 feet.
Antenna towers,
microcells
P/
S1 — P/
S1
P/
S1
P/
S1
P/
S1
P/
S1 §5.1.T
Antenna towers, other P P P P/S1 P/S1 P/S1 P/S1
§5.1.T
in the A, A-1, and
CD districts,
antenna tower
height shall not
exceed 30 feet
and antenna
towers shall only
be sited at public
utility substations
or in high-tension
power line
easements
116
Use Classification Specific Use A A-
1 CD CO O CH I-1
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
RECREATION USES
Commercial
Recreation or
Entertainment
Establishments,
Indoor
Limited — — P P — — — §5.1.C
All other — — — P — P P §5.1.C
Commercial
Recreation or
Entertainment
Establishments,
Outdoor
Amusement parks — — — S2 — — — §5.1.C
Miniature golf — — — S1 — — — §5.1.C
Riding academies, livery
stables, roping or
equestrian arenas
S2 — — S2 — — — §5.1.C
All other — — — S2 — — — §5.1.C
Entertainment
Event, Major
Indoor Facility S2 — S2 S1 — — — §5.1.C
Outdoor Facility — — — S1 — — — §5.1.C
Private-
Membership
Recreational
Facility or Club
P — — P — — —
117
Use Classification Specific Use A A-
1 CD CO O CH I-1
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
INDUSTRIAL USES
Industry
Brewery/distillery/winery — — — — — S1 P §5.1.L (Ord. 13-14
§1)
Custom — — — — — P P §5.1.L
General — — — — — — P §5.1.L
Industrial services — — — — — P §5.1.L
Limited — — — — — P/S1 P
§5.1.L;
• In CH, uses
containing more
than 15,000
square feet of
gross floor area
shall be subject to
special review
Research & development — — — P P P P
Gravel Mining — — — — — — P
Recycling Facility — — — — — S1 P §5.1.L
Warehousing and
Storage
Bulk Storage — — — — — — P §5.1.L; §5.1.S
General — — — — — — P §5.1.L; §5.1.S
Limited — — — S1 — P/S1 P
§5.1.L; §5.1.S
• In CO, not
permitted on lots
abutting an
arterial street or
highway
• In CH, uses
118
containing more
than 15,000
square feet of
gross floor area
shall be subject to
special review
Use Classification Specific Use A A-
1 CD CO O CH I-1
Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
Wholesale Sales &
Distribution
Small scale — — — P — P P §5.1.S
All other wholesale sales/
distribution — — — — — S1 P §5.1.S
OTHER SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED USES SEE §5.1.N, "PROHIBITED USES."
ACCESSORY USES SEE §5.2, "ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES."
TEMPORARY USES SEE §5.3, "TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES."
§ 13.3 – DEFINTIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Code, shall have the meanings ascribed to them
in this Section:
222. Special Review Use shall mean a use permitted in a zoning district subject to discretionary review
and approval by the EVPC Decision Making Body. There are two types of Special Review Uses,
S1 and S2. S1 applications are reviewed and approved by the judicial body. Planning Commission
reviews and provides a recommendation for S2 applications. S2 applications are reviewed and
approved by the judicial body. Special review uses are typically uses that may have unique or
widely varying operating characteristics, may have potential operational or other land use impacts
on adjacent properties, or may have unusual site development demands.
119
EXHIBIT A
[June 13, 2017- Principal Structure, Town Board]
CHAPTER 4. ZONING DISTRICTS
§4.3.C.3
C. Density/Dimensional Standards.
1.Density Calculation. (See also Chapter 1, §1.9.C.)
a. Net land area. Net land area shall be determined by subtracting from the
gross land area the following:
(1) Eighty percent (80%) of lands located in the 100-year floodplain;
(2) Eighty percent (80%) of lands located above the elevation serviceable by
the Town of Estes Park water system;
(3) All lands within private streets or dedicated public rights-of-way; and
(4) All lands subject to a ground lease that, because of the lease terms, would
not be available for development of the proposed land use(s) on the subject
property.
b. Net density. Net density shall be calculated by dividing the net land area by
the minimum lot area or land area required for each unit.
c. When applying a density standard to a parcel's net land area, all resulting
fractions shall be rounded down to the next lower whole number.
d. The number of dwelling or accommodations units allowed on a site is based
on the presumption that all other applicable standards shall be met. The
maximum density established for a zoning district (See Table 4-2 below) is not a
guarantee that such densities may be obtained, nor a valid justification for
varying other dimensional or development standards.
2. Table of Density and Dimensional Standards by Zoning District.
Table 4-2 below lists the density and dimensional standards that apply within the
residential zoning districts. These are "base" standards and are not guarantees that
stated minimums or maximums can be achieved on every site. Other regulations of this
Code or site-specific conditions may further limit development on a specific site.
3. Maximum Number of Principal Uses Structures Permitted Per Lot or Development
Parcel.
Except in the RM zoning district, only one (1) principal use structure shall be permitted
per lot or development parcel.
120
EXHIBIT F
[June 13, 2017 – Town Board]
CHAPTER 13. DEFINITIONS
§13.2.C.34
34. Park and Recreation Facilities. Noncommercial Pparks, playgrounds, recreation facilities
and open spaces. This classification includes public parks, cemeteries, public squares, plazas,
playgrounds, ballfields, public recreation areas, nonprofit botanical gardens and nature preserves.
Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use.
121
122
TOWN ATTORNEY Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director
Date: June 8, 2017
RE: Waiver of Right of First Refusal on PRPA Windy Gap Water Rights
Objective:
Review and, if appropriate, waive the Town’s Right of First Refusal for transfer of 23
units of Windy Gap water by Platte River Power Authority (PRPA).
Present Situation:
In July, 1994, Fort Collins, Loveland and Estes Park assigned a total of 160 units from
the Windy Gap Project (Windy Gap Water) to PRPA (80 units from Fort Collins and 40
units each from Loveland and Estes Park). Each of the Assignment Agreements
included the following language:
“If Platte River shall ever offer the right to the use of any such waters, through
development of reuse potential, transfer, lease or sale of any portion of the
allotment, or otherwise, to any other person or entity, it shall first offer the use
thereof, to the Municipality on substantially similar terms and conditions as those
at which such right of use is offered to such other person or entity.”
PRPA has proposed to sell 23 units of Windy Gap Water to various third parties. Prior
to closing of the sale of the 23 units, PRPA has requested that Fort Collins, Loveland,
and Estes Park each waive their right of first refusal. The Town’s right of first refusal
would be for 25% of each of the proposed sales. One unit of Windy Gap Water is
equivalent to 100 acre feet of water. The Town’s current allotment of Windy Gap Water
is 3 units (300 acre feet of water).
Proposal:
The waiver of the Town’s right of first refusal for the Windy Gap Water would allow
PRPA to move forward with the sale of its Windy Gap Water to third parties.
Advantages:
Based on population projections and Master Plan demand forecasting, it is Staff’s
opinion that the Town does not need any more Windy Gap Water in order to fulfill its
123
obligation to provide necessary raw water for use within the Town’s municipal water
system at the present time or in the future.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Board approval of the waiver of the right of first refusal for the 23 units of Windy Gap
Water to be transferred by PRPA.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the waiver by the Town of Estes Park for the transfer of 23
units of Windy Gap Water by Platte River Power Authority to third parties.
Attachments:
Letter from PRPA regarding Sale of Windy Gap Units.
124
May 4, 2017
sent via email
Town of Estes Park
C/O Administrator Lancaster
PO Box 1200
170 MacGregor Ave
Estes Park, CO 80517
ceshelman@estes.org
Re: Sale of Windy Gap Units
Mr. Lancaster,
As you know, Platte River Power Authority (“Platte River”) has received offers to purchase a total of 23
units of Windy Gap Water in response to its October 19, 2016 request for proposals. Platte River has
determined that these units are no longer required for the reliable operation of its generation facilities, and
the Platte River Board of Directors has approved the sale of these units to facilitate necessary
improvements. The terms of these offers are confidential and subject to ongoing negotiations, but the
offers do reflect current market pricing for Windy Gap units. In addition to cash consideration, these offers
also include the transfer of storage allocation in the Windy Gap Firming Project to Platte River and/or a
guaranteed quantity of Colorado-Big Thompson rental water available to Platte River.
The units subject to these offers were originally assigned to Platte River by Fort Collins, Loveland and
Estes Park under agreements which retained a right of first refusal should these units be offered for sale
in the future (on substantially similar terms and conditions as offered to another entity). Based on our
discussions with staff, we understand that Estes Park is not interested in purchasing any Windy Gap units
from Platte River at this time and does not object to this proposed sale.
Because a refusal or waiver of the member cities rights of first refusal, if any, is a condition precedent to
the sale of these units, we wanted to document Estes Park’s position for our files, as we have done with
the other Platte River member communities.
If you would please sign this letter to confirm that Estes Park is not interested in the purchase of these
units and return to me at your earliest convenience, I would greatly appreciate it.
125
Thank you,
Heather Banks
Heather Banks
Fuels and Water Manager
Platte River Power Authority
Acknowledgement
I have reviewed the above correspondence, and hereby confirm that the Town of Estes Park does not
desire to purchase any of the 23 units of Windy Gap water subject to the pending sale by Platte River
(which would include providing Platte River with additional storage in the Windy Gap Firming Project
and/or supplemental C-BT rental water), and does not object to Platte River’s sale of those units.
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
By:________________________________
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
126
TOWN ATTORNEY Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director
Date: June 8, 2017
RE: Ordinance No. 18-17 Amendment to Chapter 13 of the Estes Park
Municipal Code
Objective:
Review, and if appropriate, amend Chapter 13 of the Estes Park Municipal Code
pertaining to the promulgation of rules and regulations for the Town’s Light & Power and
Water Departments.
Present Situation:
Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code currently does not address the promulgation of
administrative regulations for the Light & Power and Water Departments. In order for
efficient functioning of both Departments, it is necessary to allow the Director of the
Departments (currently the Utilities Director) to adopt and promulgate administrative
regulations. This will also allow the Light and Power Department to address the
legislation passed by the Colorado Legislature which allows installation of small wireless
service infrastructure on the Town’s light and power facilities.
Proposal:
The amendments will allow the Utilities Director to adopt administrative rules and
regulations for the Light & Power and Water Departments.
Advantages:
Currently there is no specific authority for the Utilities Director to adopt and promulgate
administrative regulations for the Light & Power and Water Departments. Adoption of
Ordinance No. 18 -17 will allow the Utilities Director to adopt administrative regulations
allowing for more efficient operation of both the Light & Power and Water Departments.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Board approval of Ordinance No. 18 -17 which amends Chapter 13 of the Municipal
Code. 127
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to adopt/deny Ordinance No. 18 -17 which amends Chapter 13 of the Municipal
Code.
Attachments:
None.
128
ORDINANCE NO. 18 -17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 13.04.020 AND 13.08.010 OF THE TOWN
OF ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE THE SAME PERTAINING TO LIGHT AND
POWER RULES AND REGULATIONS AND ADDING SECTION 13.20.020
PERTAINING TO RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE WATER DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, Chapter 13 of the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code regulates the
Estes Park Light and Power and Water Departments; and
WHEREAS, Sections 13.04.020 and 13.08.010 of the Town of Estes Park
Municipal Code shall be amended in order to allow efficient administration of the Light
and Power Department; and
WHEREAS, Section 13.20.020 shall be added in order to allow efficient
administration of the Water Department; and
WHEREAS, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this
reference, are the amendments to Chapter 13 of the Town of Estes Park Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has reviewed the proposed amendments to
Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code and determined that the amendments are appropriate
and beneficial to the Town of Estes Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Chapter 13 of the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code is hereby amended
as more fully set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
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.
129
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2017, and
published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on
the day of , 2017.
Town Clerk
130
EXHIBIT A
13.04.020 – Director; powers.
The Light and Power Department Director shall have the immediate control and
management of all things pertaining to the Light and Power Department, and shall perform all
acts that may be necessary for the prudent, efficient and economical management and
protection of the light and power system, including the power and authority to adopt and
promulgate administrative regulations.
13.08.010 – General – Addition of new subsection (d)
(d) Attachment by third parties to facilities owned by the Town for light and power
services shall be subject to the rules and to the requirements set forth in Town ordinances
relating to wireless communication facilities and/or any rules and regulations that may be
promulgated by the Department.
13.20.020 – Director; powers.
The Water Department Director shall have the immediate control and management of all
things pertaining to the Water Department, and shall perform all acts that may be necessary for
the prudent, efficient and economical management and protection of the municipal water
system, including the power and authority to adopt and promulgate administrative regulations.
131
132
COMMUNITY SERVICES Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Rob Hinkle, Director of Community Services
Date: June 13, 2017
RE: Resolution #17-17 Sidewalk Sale During Farmers Markets
Objective:
To approve the Resolution to allow a variance of Ordinance 15-91 and Municipal Code
17.66.170 for the “Farmers Market Sidewalk Sales” to operate every Thursday from
June 15th, 2017 through September 28th, 2017 (8:00am -1:00pm).
Present Situation:
Due to Ordinance 15-91 pertaining to “containment within the CD District, and
subsequent adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code (Chapter 4, Zoning
Districts, Section 4, specifically Paragraph D.1a. Outdoor Sales, Use, Storage and
Activity in the CD Zoning District, Number (3) Exceptions), it is necessary for the Town
Board to approve a variance to allow this to occur.
Proposal:
A majority of downtown merchants have expressed interest in having a sidewalk sale
during the Farmers Market every Thursday from June 15th, 2017 through September
28th, 2017 (8:00am – 1:00pm). Merchants would be allowed to expand their business
onto the sidewalk without impeding pedestrian traffic.
Due to Ordinance 15-91 pertaining to “containment within the CD District, and
subsequent adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code (Chapter 4, Zoning
Districts, Section 4, specifically Paragraph D.1a. Outdoor Sales, Use, Storage and
Activity in the CD Zoning District, Number (3) Exceptions), it is necessary for the Town
Board to approve a variance to allow this to occur.
Sandwich boards are prohibited in the Estes Park Municipal Code (17.66.170
Community special events signs and Stanley Park special events signs). It is necessary
for the Town Board to approve a variance to allow this to occur.
Attached is Ordinance 15-91, Municipal Code 17.66.170 and the proposed resolution.
Advantages:
Draw people attending the Farmers Market to other merchants through Town. 133
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Approve the proposed Resolution #17-17.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Medium interest as outlined in the survey of merchant’s downtown.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of proposed Resolution #17-17 to allow a variance of
Ordinance 15-91 and Municipal Code 17.66.170 for the Farmers Market Sidewalk Sale
to be held every Thursday from June 15th, 2017 through September 28th, 2017.
Attachments:
Ordinance 15-91
Municipal Code 17.66.170
Survey of Downtown Merchants
Proposed Resolution #17-17
134
135
136
Survey of Merchants for Famers Market Sidewalk Sale
Completed by Charlie Dickey
YES NO NO OPINION Total Responses
Grand Totals 49 19 21 89
Percentage 55.10%21.30%23.60%
Northwest Stores 12 3 3
Southwest Stores 17 2 1
Northeast Stores 5 6 8
Southeast Stores 15 8 9
137
RESOLUTION NO. 17-17
WHEREAS, on November 3, 1999, the Board of Trustees adopted the Estes Valley
Development Code (Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, Section 4, specifically paragraph D.1.a
Outdoor Sales, Use, Storage and Activity in the CD Zoning District, Number (3)
Exceptions).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
That the following guidelines shall be adopted for the "Farmers Market Sidewalk
Sale" being organized by the Community Services Department, scheduled every
Thursday from June 15th, 2017 and September 28th, 2017:
1. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
2. This is available to all Estes Park businesses.
3. This will be held rain or shine.
4. Business will be allowed to sell merchandise in front of their stores only
during the hours specified above.
5. Sidewalk displays, including signage, shall provide a minimum clearance
of four feet for pedestrian walkways and handicapped accessibility.
Displays and/or merchandise will not be allowed in any street.
6. Sandwich board signs and other temporary signage are allowed.
7. Each participating business must possess a current Town Business
license.
DATED this ______day of______, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
138
ADMINISTRATION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Date: June 13, 2017
RE: Family Advisory Board Focus Area
Objective:
Obtain Town Board approval of the focus area selected by the Family Advisory Board.
Present Situation:
The bylaws for the Family Advisory Board (FAB) require the group to select no more
than three (3) focus areas to work on each year. These focus areas must be submitted
to Town Board for review and approval. For 2017, the FAB has selected only one (1)
focus area.
Proposal:
The FAB has voted unanimously to select the following focus area for 2017: “To identify
gaps in support services available to families in the Estes Valley”. The FAB believes
that this is the foundational work required before any other policies or recommendations
can be developed. This focus area is in line with the expectation set forth in the FAB’s
bylaws for the group to research and summarize factual data on issues of importance to
families in the Estes Valley (FAB Bylaws I.A).
Advantages:
•Focuses the Family Advisory Board’s work on a specific area that is consistent
with the group’s bylaws and role.
•Provides a strong foundation for later discussions on actions the Town can take
to address issues of importance to families in the Estes Valley.
Disadvantages:
•Some people might misconstrue the FAB’s work as a commitment from the Town
to filling any/all of the identified gaps in family support services. However, the
FAB is clear that this is not the intent of the process. While there may be some
identified gaps where the Town could play a role, the discussion of the Town’s
involvement will be separate from this identification process.
139
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the Family Advisory Board’s focus area for 2017.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Medium
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the Family Advisory Board’s recommended focus
area for 2017.
Attachments:
N/A
140
ADMINISTRATION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Date: June 13, 2017
RE: Request to Fill Vacant Positions on the Family Advisory Board
Objective:
Obtain approval to open the process to fill two vacant positions on the Family Advisory
Board (FAB) and appoint an interview team.
Present Situation:
The bylaws for the FAB provide that the group shall consist of no fewer than ten (10)
and no more than fifteen (15) members. The Town Board appointed twelve (12)
members to the FAB in April of 2017. The FAB is currently comprised of eleven (11)
members (one member left to pursue an out-of-town job opportunity).
Proposal:
At its June 1st meeting, the FAB unanimously voted to request that the Town Board
open the process to fill two vacant positions on the FAB. If two vacant positions were
filled, it would bring the total group membership to thirteen (13). The FAB would like to
add these two additional members to gain additional/different perspective on the issues
facing families throughout the Estes Valley.
Advantages:
• Provides more viewpoints on issues facing families in the Estes Valley.
• Adds to the working capacity of the FAB.
Disadvantages:
• Adding more people to any group makes coordination and communication
slightly more difficult. However, the FAB and staff believe that the additional
viewpoints will be worth the small increase in coordination/communication
difficulty.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the Town Board open the process to fill two vacant positions on the
FAB and appoint an interview team.
141
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Medium
Sample Motion:
I move to open/not open the process to fill two vacant positions on the Family Advisory
Board and appoint Trustee 1 and Trustee 2 as the interview team.
Attachments:
N/A
142
ADMINISTRATION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: 6/13/2017
RE: Invitation for Estes Park to Join Mountain Pact National Monuments Letter
Objective:
To determine if the Board desires to sign on to the letter to the Department of Interior,
being proposed by the Mountain Pact, requesting that current National Monument
designations be left as they are.
Present Situation:
The Mountain Pact is a consortium of western mountain communities that serves as a
shared voice on federal policy related to climate, public lands and outdoor recreation.
On April 26, President Trump issued an executive order instructing Interior Secretary
Zinke to review all national monuments or expansions over 100,000 acres that have
been designated since 1996 to ensure that they fall under the size limits designated by
the law, as well as to review any monuments or expansions under 100,000 or
expansions under 100,000 acres that Secretary Zinke determines were made without
adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders. This puts 27
national monuments under review, with the potential for all 54 national monuments
designated since January 1, 1996 under review. The Mountain Pact has invited the
Town of Estes Park to join in on the letter to Secretary Zinke asking the Department of
Interior to leave all national monument designations as they are. A majority of the
Board of Trustees expressed support for bringing this forward for discussion by the
Board.
Proposal (including budget if applicable):
None – for discussion and direction only
Advantages:
•Cooperation with other communities
•Voice concern with this an any potential future actions that may impact the
viability of public lands in the west.
143
Disadvantages:
The Town of Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park are not directly affected by
this proposal or any potential action that comes from the review.
Requested Action and Sample Motion:
I move to join the letter from the Mountain Pact regarding reconsideration of designation
for National Monuments in the west. (No motion is needed for the Board not to take
action on the letter)
Level of Public Interest
Moderate
144
[Date]
Monument Review, MS-1530
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
RE: Executive Order 13792
Dear Secretary Zinke,
As a network of outdoor recreation-based mountain towns and chambers of commerce in world-class
tourism destinations, we recognize the importance of continued protection of national public lands. We
strongly urge the Department of the Interior to maintain the protection and current boundaries of all
existing national monuments as they are.
Our communities represent approximately [insert after signatures collected] permanent residents and
[insert after signatures collected] visitors. Our economies and public lands are inextricably linked.
National public lands play a critical role in supporting our rural jobs and local economies; studies have
found that rural counties that are close to a larger amount of protected public lands outcompete rural
counties close to less public lands in several key economic factors.1 Proximity to national public lands
allows our communities a competitive advantage when attracting businesses, families, and employees.
This largely depends upon maintaining protections for public lands now and in perpetuity – any decision
to undermine current national monument designations undermines protections for public lands and our
economies.
National public lands are an integral part of the fabric of western communities and driver of local
economies. Through tools such as the Antiquities Act, the federal government can act to protect and
enhance the American public land system, but they cannot reduce or rescind monument status from a
monument that was not improperly designated.2 Nearly all Americans recognize the importance of public
lands and our current public lands system. A recent poll found that 80% of voters are in support of
keeping current national monument designations in place, and 94% of voters support improving and
repairing infrastructure in National Parks and other protected lands.3
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important matter and hope that you will take our
communities into consideration when reviewing national monument designations.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
[list of local government signatories]
1Headwaters Economics // https://headwaterseconomics.org/public-lands/federal-lands-performance/
2Roberto Iraola, “Proclamations, National Monuments, and the Scope of Judicial Review Under the Antiquities Act,” 2004, Available at:
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1135&context=wmelpr
32017 Conservation in the West Poll // https://www.coloradocollege.edu/stateoftherockies/conservationinthewest/
145
146