HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2017-10-12The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable
services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while
being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town
services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons
with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, October 10, 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 September 26, 2017.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes - None.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated September 12, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
5. Family Advisory Board Minutes dated August 3, 2017. Item removed.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities).
Prepared 09/29/17
*Revised 10/06/17
*
1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
1. ESTES PARK HIGH SCHOOL MONTE VERDE SCIENCE EXCHANGE.
2. ESTES PARK R-3 SCHOOL DISTRICT MIL LEVY PRESENTATION.
Superintendent Sheldon Rosenkrance.
3. UPDATE FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Executive
Director Nicholas.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT, – BLACK CANYON INN
TOWNHOMES, 800 MACGREGOR AVENUE, SLOAN INVESTMENTS, LLC.
Planner McCool.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #24-17 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
§8.06 NOISE. Attorney White.
2. ORDINANCE #25-17 CONTRACT APPROVING SALE OF PARCEL #25302-13-961.
Item removed.
3. LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT INTERVIEW PROCESS. Town Board.
6. ADJOURN.
*
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 26, 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 26th day of September, 2017.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Rex Walker
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary
Absent: Trustee Patrick Martchink
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 (Holcomb/Nelson) to approve the Agenda, and it
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Ken Arnold/Town citizen presented a petition completed by Visit Estes Park/Local
Marketing District (VEP/LMD) stakeholders. The petition was conducted door-to-door
and online asking stakeholders to sign in support of the current VEP Board, CEO, their
strategies, and outcomes.
Michelle Hiland/Town citizen expressed her concerns of the Town’s focus on workforce
and affordable housing. She explained many of her acquaintances have left Estes Park
due to tourism, congestion, lack of job advancement, job stress, lack of peers in the
population, and stability.
Art Messal/Town citizen voiced the VEP stakeholders should include the entire
community, not just business owners. Additionally, he spoke in support of the comments
from Michelle Hiland.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris attended the VEP Board meeting held September 20, 2017 on Trustee
Walker’s behalf. The Operating Plan was approved and they requested feedback from
the Town Board. He also attended the September 19, 2017 Estes Valley Planning
Commission meeting, where newly appointed Board Member Doyle Baker was
welcomed. EVPC discussed the Comprehensive Plan status in conjunction with code
amendments, reviewed three large vacation home registrations, and recommended
approval of the Special Review Development Plan for the Estes Park Baptist Church.
Trustee Walker made note that the Women’s Pro Rodeo Association awarded one of
the highest honors to the Rooftop Rodeo, to be announced at a later date. He remarked
that Rooftop appeared on the front cover of Pro Rodeo Sports News Magazine.
Mayor Jirsa revealed that the State Office of Economic Development at the State
informed the Town the Northern Colorado Regional Tourism Act would receive the first
sales tax increment of approximately $100,000. Payment timing and process would be
determined. DRAFT
Board of Trustees – September 26, 2017 – Page 2
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig congratulated Trustee Nelson on being inducted to the Cornell
College Athletic Hall of Fame for football and wrestling.
Trustee Nelson stated the Open Lands Advisory Board meeting on September 28, 2017
was cancelled. He mentioned the second public meeting of the Downtown Plan would
be held on September 28, 2017, and encouraged citizens to look at the draft, available
on the Town’s website.
Trustee Holcomb also mentioned interest in the Downtown Plan meeting. The
Transportation Advisory Board met on September 20, 2017, and discussed the Estes
Park Shuttle season report.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Town Administrator Lancaster provided a Board Policy Governance Compliance Report
on Policy 3.8. He reported compliance on all requirements with the exception of section
3.8.3, and cited the inability of The Town, at this time, to offer spousal insurance; a
deviation from the market.
Potential future Study Session items were put forward. The Broadband Update for
October 10, 2017, and a progress update on Estes Valley Development Code by
Director Hunt for November 14, 2017. Hunt’s update would also be delivered to the
Larimer County Commissioners.
Town Administrator Lancaster shared a plaque provided by the Scottish Highland
Festival thanking the Town for its support of the festival.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated September 12, 2017 and Town Board Study
Session dated September 12, 2017 and Town Board and County
Commissioners Joint Study Session dated September 15, 2017.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes – None.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated July 11, 2017
(acknowledgment only).
5. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated August 15, 2017
(acknowledgement only).
6. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated August 17, 2017 (acknowledgement
only).
7. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated July 19, 2017 and August 16,
2017 (acknowledgement only).
8. Acceptance of Town Administrator Policy Governance Compliance Report.
Trustee Holcomb requested Item 1 be removed and discussed. It was moved and
seconded (Walker/Holcomb) to approve the Consent Agenda Items 2-8, and it
passed unanimously.
Item 1 - Town Board Minutes dated September 12, 2017 and Town Board Study
Session dated September 12, 2017 and Town Board and County Commissioners
Joint Study Session dated September 15, 2017. Trustee Holcomb sought to change
his vote on the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Estes Park LMD between the
Town of Estes Park and Larimer County Restating and Amending the Initial 2008
Intergovernmental Agreement, and he was advised by Attorney White he could not DRAFT
Board of Trustees – September 26, 2017 – Page 3
change his vote at this meeting. It was moved and seconded (Walker/Koenig) to
approve the Consent Agenda Item 1, and it passed unanimously.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities)
1. ROCKY MOUNTAIN PERFORMING ARTS CENTER UPDATE. Albert
Milano/Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center
reported on the intended use of the FOSH Funds provided to Estes Performance
Inc (EPIC) by the Board of Trustees. The objectives of the planned construction
were defined as sensitivity to the community of Estes Park and its needs within
its financial capabilities. Performing arts stakeholders, Estes Valley residents,
local business owners, and Bronfenbrenner Consulting Group supplied input
Director Milano and the EPIC Board of Directors used in a revised mission and
design of the performing arts center to meet the community’s vision. The
fluctuating population of Estes Park, between small town and large tourist
destination, produced interest in flexible seating. Flexible seating would allow a
range from 300-600 seats. Director Milano elaborated that the design allowed
adaptability of events, and audience size while being cost effective. It allowed for
potential revenue with alternate programming. The building process was
conceived in stages outlined by Director Milano with final costs not yet
determined. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig sought clarification of the layout, and
Trustees Nelson and Norris reflected positively on the report.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #6, THE MEADOW
CONDOMINIUMS, 2746 & 2752 KIOWA TRAIL; MARYS MEADOW
DEVELOPMENT, LLC/OWNER. Planner Becker.
B. SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT – ESTES PARK RESORT; LOT 1, LAKE
ESTES 2ND ADDITION, 1700 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE. Item Continued to
October 24, 2017.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve the Planning
Commission Consent Agenda, and it passed with unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
A. ORDINANCE #21-17 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF THE
“COMDEV RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST” – FORMERLY THE
“PREFERRED PLANTING LIST”. Mayor Jirsa opened the Public Hearing.
Director Hunt stated that two pages were added to the updated plant list. After
being continued previously, fire safety guidelines were included. Estes Valley
Protection District and Chief Wolf were consulted and recommended two
additional documents be added to the plant list, the Fire-Resistant
Landscaping handout and FireWise Plant Materials handout of Colorado
State University Cooperative Extension. Director Hunt recommended
approval of the updated plant list. It was moved and seconded
(Koenig/Holcomb) to approve Ordinance #21-17, and it passed
unanimously.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. RESOLUTION #24-17 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2017. Mayor Jirsa opened the Public Hearing. Director Hudson presented
Resolution #24-17 along with schedules laying out the purposed budget
amendments. This resolution was pulled at the previous Town Board meeting
due to revisions to the Fish Creek reconstruction project, with budgeting for DRAFT
Board of Trustees – September 26, 2017 – Page 4
additional grant revenues and additional project costs. The resolution has been
revised to consider minor changes in accordance within the formal budget.
Director Hudson explained the updates related to Fish Creek, Larimer County
Open Space Fund, Moraine Avenue Bridge, and the Utility System Master Plan.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve Resolution #24-17,
and it passed unanimously.
2. CONSIDERATION OF CURRENT APPOINTMENTS TO THE LOCAL
MARKETING DISTRICT. On September 26, 2017 The Larimer County Board of
Commissioners approved, by a vote of 3-0, to remove Steve Kruger and Lindsay
Lamson from the LMD Board. Attorney White stated that Section 5.14 of the
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for the Estes Park LMD between the Town
and Larimer County approved on September 19, 2017, provides that six County
Commissioners and Trustees may remove any member of the LMD Board with or
without cause. In order to move forward with the removal of Steve Kruger and
Lindsay Lamson, three Trustees would need to approve their removal. He
clarified that the Colorado State Statute allows a LMD to be formed by two
governmental entities pursuant to an IGA. A separate section of the statute
applies to LMDs formed by single entities. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated the
importance of following the language and process the County Commissioners
used in voting to remove Directors Kruger and Lamson. Town Administrator
Lancaster provided the language the County used to vote 3 to 0 for removal of
Directors Kreuger and Lamson.
Paula Scheil/Town citizen cautioned the Board not to make the same mistake as
the County Commissioners, who acted too quickly. She questioned the interest
and awareness of the Commissioners with the LMD and its stakeholders. She
cited the VEP petition, which displayed the stakeholder and business owner
support of Board Members Lamson and Kruger.
Scott Webermeier/Town citizen detailed the historical creation of a marketing
district in the Town. He saw the beauty of the LMD as separated from political
circumstance, that the LMD has grown and manifested its interests. He
suggested that there are merits to allowing the Marketing District to operate as
independently as appropriate, and proposed that supporting the Commissioners
actions would not be wise to the local circumstance.
Art Messal/Town citizen argued that lodging has an iron grip on the community
and that it is time for a major change.
Catherine Tallerico/VEP Attorney highlighted two items from the restated IGA,
first the lost majority in voting with two separate boards meeting and taking
action. Second, the fundamental fairness by removing LMD board members. She
referenced section 208 of Colorado State Statute that required due process in
the removal of a board member and questioned why fundamental fairness would
not apply to each board member. She suggested that no removal action be
taken.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig commented that based upon review of the stakeholders’
comments in the filed Petition, she would not support removal of Directors Kruger
and Lamson. , Trustees Holcomb and Norris voiced concern regarding the
limitations of rights of the LMD Board members, the need to follow due process
in removals, the ability of the LMD Board to take action without a quorum, the
appointment process in accordance with Town Board Governance Policies
should the removal occur, and required additional clarification on the removal
process for directors in the State Statute. Mayor Jirsa and Trustees Nelson and
Walker stated their support of the removal of the two LMD board members and
explained that only a fraction of businesses were petitioned, the removal does
not disassemble the LMD as a whole, and removal would benefit the LMD Board
and community.
DRAFT
Board of Trustees – September 26, 2017 – Page 5
After further discussion, a vote was called by Mayor Jirsa on the removal of
Directors Steve Kruger and Lindsay Lamson from the Estes Park Local
Marketing District Board of Directors effective immediately. Attorney White
stated that individual Trustees would be voting “Yes” for removal of the two
Directors, and “No” for not removing the two Directors. Mayor Jirsa, and
Trustees Nelson and Walker voting “Yes”. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustees
Holcomb and Norris voting “No”.
Following the vote, the Board of Trustees discussed the process by which new
appointments would be made, to allow the LMD Board to maintain a quorum.
Options included following appointment policy and procedure at an expedited
rate, the appointment of board members immediately, and the interim
appointment of Trustees to the LMD with a definitive date to make new
appointments. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to proceed with
the candidate selection process as defined in the Governance Policy, and it
passed with Mayor Jirsa and Trustee Walker voting “No”.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to approve the appointment of
Trustees Norris and Walker to the Interview Committee for the Local
Marketing District. A substitute motion was presented.
Substitution Motion #1. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to
approve the appointment of Trustees Holcomb and Walker to the Interview
Committee for the Local Marketing District, and it failed with Mayor Jirsa, and
Trustees Nelson and Walker voting “No”. A second substitute motion was
presented.
Substitution Motion #2. It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Jirsa) to approve
the appointment of Mayor Jirsa and Trustee Norris to the Interview
Committee for the Local Marketing District, and it passed with Trustee
Holcomb voting “No”.
5. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. BRODIE ROAD DESIGN. Engineer Stallworth presented a report on the
progress of the Brodie Road Design project, and proposed the improvements be
a component of the 2018 STIP program. The project would consist of a
pedestrian path connecting the Community Drive path with the Fish Creek Road
path, road improvements due to the low Pavement Condition Index (PIC), and
rectifying on street parking. The timeline for construction would be the 2018
summer break, with the expectation of receiving bids in March 2018. The budget
of the project was outlined, with the potential of receiving the Colorado Safe
Routes to School Grant. Trustees sought clarification on the causes of the poor
road PIC, the effect of the project on the surrounding areas, and the work of
road patching done this year.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary DRAFT
4
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 12, 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, Smith and Poggenpohl
Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Robin Becker,
Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Member Moreau
Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There w ere 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.
1. AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Lynch) to approved the agenda as
presented and the motion passed 4-0 with one absent.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes dated July 11, 2017
It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Smith) to approve the minutes as
corrected and the motion passed 4-0 with one absent. Member Smith was
incorrectly left off the attendance list.
4. LOT 31, BLOCK 1, FALL RIVER ESTATES AMENDED PLAT; TBD CRESTVIEW
COURT; LIENEMANN PROPERTY
Planner Becker reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Delmar Lienemann, requested a
variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2 which requires 25-
foot setbacks in the E-1–Estate zone district. The proposed single-family dwelling would
extend 12 feet into the setback. This would include the west-facing decks and eaves.
Planner Becker stated the application was routed to affected agencies, a legal notice was
published in the local newspaper, and adjacent property owners were notified.
Public comments were received from one adjacent homeowner, Rocky Mountain National
Park, and the Fall River Estates HOA.
Planner Becker stated the staff findings could be read in the staff report.
5
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
September 12, 2017
Board and Staff Discussion
There was brief discussion regarding the slope of the utility easement and the proposed
building site, and the ability to shift the home to the east to avoid the variance request. It
was stated that financial hardship cannot be considered by the Board.
Public Comment
Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated all issues with the Public Works and
Water Departments have been addressed and cleared. He stated the proposed dwelling
would be approximately 30 feet high, and would be directly north of the existing
condominiums. The main hardship is for the driveway, which can be built with a 12%
grade rather than a 14% grade if the home were built within the setbacks. All site
disturbance would be on the owner’s property. The proposed dwelling would be 65 feet
from the nearest condo. Fire Wise standards would be adhered to. The decks and
overhanging roofs would project into the setback, but the exterior walls of the home would
be within the setback.
Larry Gamble/Rocky Mountain National Park stated the disturbance would be very close
to the Park, and thought there were other options for the site. The Park is willing to
cooperate with the adjacent property owners.
Caltha Crow/town resident and adjacent property owner was opposed to the request and
was concerned about her view corridors.
Charles Allison/town resident and adjacent property owner recommended shifting the
house east and building a retaining wall for the driveway. He referred to a historical
drawing of a master plan of the area (Community Development is unaware of this plan).
Tim Haight/town resident stated staff comments regarding views were assumed without
contacting any of the adjacent property owners, and he disagreed with those comments.
He was opposed to the setback variance request.
Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative had a brief rebuttal regarding the location of the
proposed dwelling.
It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Lynch) to deny the variance request on the
basis the dwelling could be built to comply with the setback requirements and the
motion passed unanimously.
5. REPORTS
A. Member Poggenpohl stated there are occasional repeated requests for variances on
undersized lots for the zone district. He worked with Planner Gonzales to come up with
statistics showing almost 25% of the lots in the Estes Valley are nonconforming
regarding lot size for their specific zone district, although many of the lots are very
close to being conforming. He recommended working on making a change so the
property owners of the nonconforming lots would not need to come to the Board of
Adjustment to use their lot as zoned, without a variance. An amendment to the Estes
Valley Development Code would be required to resolve the issue, and the Board of
6
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
September 12, 2017
Adjustment could make a recommendation to the Planning Commission to pursue the
code amendment. Director Hunt would be supportive of an amendment after
considering the unintended consequences. There was brief discussion as to the details
of a draft amendment, and noting that the Planning Commission and Town Board may
be unaware of the issue that the Board of Adjustment deals with on a regular basis.
B. Director Hunt reported Monday, September 18, 2017 a meeting with the Town Trustees
and County Commissioners will be held to outline the master list of EVDC changes. He
encouraged the Board to either attend the meeting or watch it online.
There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m.
___________________________________
Wayne Newsom, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
7
8
1
PROCEDURE FOR LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING
Applicable items include: Annexation, Amended Plats, Boundary Line Adjustments, Development
Plans, Rezoning, Special Review, Subdivision
1. MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on Townhome Subdivision
Final Plat, - Black Canyon Inn Townhomes, 800 MacGregor Avenue, Sloan
Investments, LLC.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information
presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, from the
Applicant, public comment, and written comments received on the
application.
Has any Trustee had any ex-parte communications concerning this
application(s) which are not part of the Board packet.
Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public
hearing which may be responded to at that time.
Mayor declares the Public Hearing open.
2. STAFF REPORT.
Review the staff report.
Review any conditions for approval not in the staff report.
3. APPLICANT.
The applicant makes their presentation.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT.
Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the
application. All individuals must state their name and address for the record.
Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per
person.
5. REBUTTAL.
9
2
The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal that is limited to or in response to
statements or questions made after their presentation. No new matters may
be submitted.
6. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the application which are not in the Board packet.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the
application.
Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications
presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Declare the public hearing closed.
Request Town Attorney read the Ordinance if applicable to the application.
Request Board consider a motion.
7. SUGGESTED MOTION.
Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report.
8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
Discussion by the Board on the motion.
9. VOTE ON THE MOTION.
Vote on the motion or consideration of another action.
10
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Carrie McCool, Planning Consultant
Date: October 10, 2017
RE: FINAL PLAT; BLACK CANYON INN TOWNHOMES; 800 MACGREGOR
AVENUE; SLOAN INVESTMENTS, LLC
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing to consider a Final Plat for compliance with the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
The Black Canyon Inn Master Plan Development Plan was approved in 2009 for a mix
of multi-family, duplex and single family accommodation units. The lower portion of the
Black Canyon Inn property consists of a mix of accommodation and residential units, a
restaurant, employees units, pool, an outdoor pavilion, and office; all of which have
been built, are currently in operation and are in condominium ownership. The 4.047-
acre subject property is vacant land with access provided via a private internal drive off
of MacGregor Avenue.
On April 26, 2016, the applicant was granted approval of a Minor Subdivision Plat that
separated the upper (vacant) land of the Black Canyon Inn property from the developed
condominium area and a Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat applicable only to the
newly created vacant lot to accommodate the construction of townhome units with
associated parking and entry walkways. On March 15, 2016, the Planning Commission
approved an Amended Development Plan to convert the upper portion of the site to a
townhome subdivision to decrease the density from 19 to 17 units and construct an
overflow employee lot on the lower portion of the site. Enhancements to the site
included the construction of an 8-foot public sidewalk along MacGregor Avenue, 5-foot
all-weather surface walkway (compacted base course) along the internal street and an
emergency access easement of the Overlook Condominiums to the south to ensure
adequate fire protection.
The subject property is zoned A – Accommodations. The site borders similar
accommodation uses along the south (Overlook Condominiums), and single and multi-
family uses to the east.
11
Proposal:
The applicant, Sloan Investments, LLC, request is to plat 4.047 acres into seventeen
(17) residential lots and one outlot to accommodate a mix of two-family and single-
family units with associated parking and entry walkways. The A-Accommodations
zoning permits multifamily development at duplex or townhouse densities but also
permits single-family development.
The existing slopes and natural features (e.g., rock outcroppings) presented challenges
when designing the final lot layout and public facilities (e.g., water, sewer, electric,
access easement dedication and vacation). Although the proposed lot configuration
and building envelops substantially conform to the Estes Valley Subdivision Design
Standards in terms of lot sizes and overall lot coverage, it deviates slightly (less than ten
percent) from the approved Amended Development Plan. As such, staff recommends
that the Development Plan be updated to reflect the minor changes to ensure the
efficient review and approval of all future building permit applications. All of the acreage
not included within individual lots have been included in an outlot. The 2.993-acre outlot
will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and includes facilities
such as stormwater facilities, parking areas, private streets, open space and areas of no
disturbance.
Public facilities to serve the proposed residential lots required the dedication and
vacation of numerous utility easements. The final plat was referred to all town
departments and utility providers. After three formal referrals, all town departments and
outside utility providers approved the proposed public facilities design including the
proposed dedication and vacation of utility easements as depicted on the final plat.
The existing drive accessing the property will be upgraded to meet minimum width
standards as set forth by the Estes Valley Development Code. The 24-foot emergency
access easement of the Overlook Condominiums to the south is accurately depicted on
the final plat to ensure adequate fire protection.
Advantages:
Complies with standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code; and
Is consistent with a number of key goals included in the Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan, including Community-Wide Policies that address issues such as scenic and
environmental quality and community design.
Disadvantages:
None identified
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat application with the following condition:
1) Prior to recordation of the final plat, the Black Canyon Inn Development Plan
shall be updated to reflect the revised lot sizes and maximum individual and
overall lot coverage as depicted on the final plat.
12
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low: The Community Development Department has not received any written public
comments to date.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of the Black Canyon Inn Final Townhome Plat with the
following condition:
Attachments:
Black Canyon Inn Final Townhome Plat dated October 4, 2017
Full Application: www.estes.org/currentapplications
Black Canyon – limits of disturbance
13
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Applicable items include: Rate Hearings, Code Adoption, Budget Adoption
1. MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on Ordinance #24-17
Amendment to Section 8.06.030 Maximum Permissible Noise Levels in the
Municipal Code.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information
presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, public comment,
and written comments received on the application.
Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public
hearing which may be responded to at that time.
Mayor declares the Public Hearing open.
2. STAFF REPORT.
Review the staff report.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT.
Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the
Ordinance. All individuals must state their name and address for the record.
Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per
person.
4. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the Ordinance which are not in the Board packet.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the
Ordinance.
Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications
presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Declare the public hearing closed.
Request Town Attorney read the Ordinance if applicable.
Request Board consider a motion.
17
7. SUGGESTED MOTION.
Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report.
8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
Discussion by the Board on the motion.
9. VOTE ON THE MOTION.
Vote on the motion or consideration of another action.
18
TOWN ATTORNEY Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
CC: Frank Lancaster
Jackie Williamson
Wes Kufeld
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: October 10, 2017
RE: Town Noise Ordinance
At its regular meeting of September 12, 2017, the Board of Trustees continued the
hearing on the consideration of amending the current noise ordinance to comply with
the requirements of the State statute. The purpose of the continuance was to provide
adequate time to review other communities’ noise ordinances to determine how those
ordinances comply with the State statute and/or regulate noise within the respective
communities. I have reviewed noise ordinances from the following communities:
Steamboat Springs
Fort Collins
Loveland
Longmont
Greeley
Johnstown
Windsor
Breckenridge
Lafayette
The ordinances range from complex for Greeley and Fort Collins to Windsor’s one
sentence ordinance that reads as follows:
“Section 10-6-10.- Noise, unreasonable. No person shall make, continue or
cause to be made or continued any unreasonable noise; and no person shall
knowingly permit such noise upon any premises owned or possessed by such
person or under such person’s control. For purposes of this Section, members of
the police department are empowered to make a prima facie determination as to
whether a noise is unreasonable.”
None of the reviewed ordinances complied with the provisions of the State statute. All
of the reviewed ordinances, except for Windsor and Johnstown, contained decibel
regulations for noise.
19
The ordinances which use decibel standards for noise partially comply with the State
standard on decibel readings. However, all of these ordinances expanded the time
restrictions in the State statute and provided numerous exceptions for such activities as
construction, the use of power tools and lawn equipment in residential areas,
snowblowers, bells, and emergency. These exemptions are not allowed under the
State statute. As stated above, none of the ordinances complied with the restrictions in
the State statute.
After review of the Lafayette ordinance, I contacted Bill Hayashi of the firm of
Williamson & Hayashi, LLC. This law firm has served as special counsel to the Town
for litigation, and currently is the City Attorney for Lafayette, Golden, Sheridan, and
Federal Heights. Mr. Hayashi recently completed an extensive review of noise
ordinances for the City of Golden. In that review, Mr. Hayashi reviewed numerous
municipalities noise ordinances including whether they had decibel based standards.
Also, the City of Golden hired a consultant to guide the City of Golden in dealing with
noise problems in the City. Based on that conversation, Mr. Hayashi shared with me
the findings of his comprehensive review of noise ordinances.
Those municipal ordinances which contained decibel based restrictions, generally follow
the restrictions in the State statute. However, based upon review of those ordinances
and the opinion of Golden’s consultant, he determined that the decibel sound levels
meeting the State statute for residential and commercial districts are lower than or equal
to that of conversational speech.
In reviewing decibel based noise ordinances, he determined that decibel based noise
ordinances are not enforceable. He also could find no municipal prosecutor that had
ever prosecuted any violation based upon decibel based restrictions. He recommended
that the City of Golden continue to address its noise complaints through the adoption of
a reasonable standard noise ordinance. He also recommended that the City of Golden
deal with its noise concerns of establishments holding liquor licenses through its
granting and/or renewal of liquor licenses issued to those establishments. He
recommended that the City of Golden continue its practice of dealing with motor vehicle,
motorcycle and jake brake noise through the Model Traffic Code. He stated that the
City of Golden’s Police Department had received specific training in the identification of
modified mufflers to determine if mufflers had been altered through visual inspection of
the vehicles.
After reviewing all of the various municipal ordinances, and after talking to Mr. Hayashi,
I make the following recommendations to the Town Board for dealing with noise
complaints:
1. Draft a new noise ordinance which does not contain any decibel based
restrictions.
2. The new noise ordinance shall contain the wording that it is unlawful for any
person to make, cause be made, or to prevent any unreasonable noise upon any
property. The determination of unreasonable noise shall consider factors
including, but not limited to, time of day, size of any gathering of persons creating
or contributing to the noise, present or absence of sound amplification
20
equipment, or any other factors tending to show the magnitude and disruptive
effect of the noise. The ordinance may also address exempt activities.
3. Deal with noise from vehicles due to alteration of mufflers and or jake brakes
through the Model Traffic Code.
Use the provisions of the liquor code to establish conditions for amplified noise from
establishments having liquor licenses as a condition for the approval and/or renewal of
the liquor license.
Attachments:
Ordinance 24-17
21
ORDINANCE NO. 24-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8.06.030 MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE
NOISE LEVELS IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, Section 8.06.030 states the maximum permissible noise levels
within the Town; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to change the maximum permissible noise levels to
be in compliance with the State statute; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined it is in the best interest of the
Town to amend Section 8.06.030 of the Municipal Code relating to maximum
permissible noise levels.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. Section 8.06.030 Maximum Permissible Noise Levels of the Municipal Code is
amended as follows:
8.06.030 Maximum permissible noise levels.
A noise measured or registered by a sound level meter from any source at a level which is
in excess of the following noise levels measured at a distance of twenty-five (25) feet from
any property line and made when the wind velocity at the time and place of such
measurement is not more than five (5) miles per hour is hereby declared to be a
unreasonable noise and is unlawful:
Zoning Districts 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. to
Estes Valley Development Code next 7:00 p.m. next 7:00 a.m.
Residential 55 db(A) 50 db(A)
RE-1, RE, E-1, E,
R, R-1, R-2, RM
Commercial 60 db(A) 55 db(A)
A, A-1, CD, CO, O
Light Industrial 70 db(A) 65 db(A)
CH
Industrial 80 db(A) 75 db(A)
I
42
22
In the hours between 7:00 a.m. and the next 7:00 p.m., the noise levels permitted in this
Section may be increased by ten db(A) for a period not to exceed fifteen minutes in any
one-hour period.
2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado
this _________ day of _______________, 2017.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
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
43
23
24
TOWN BOARD MEETING
October 10, 2017
Action Item #3 Local Marketing District
Interview Process.
There is no memo for this item.
25
To Mayor Jirsa, Town Trustees, and City Staff;
Thank you for examining the Colorado Noise Ordinance and various Colorado city noise
ordinances.
Below are comments on the summary presented by Town Attorney White. Three terms are
used consistently in documents about a noise ordinance. A common understanding of these
terms, developed from a variety of reference sources, provides a foundation for discussion and
appears to be key in developing a noise ordinance.
Noise: Noise is an unwanted sound judged to be unpleasant, loud, shrill, or disruptive to
hearing by individual/s. The difference between noise and sound arises when the brain
receives and perceives a sound. Unwelcome noise is considered a significant contributor to
environmental pollution.
Ordinance: An ordinance is a regulation that usually provides a uniform code for the safety and
well‐being of a community.
Unreasonable: This term is often arbitrary and open to interpretation. Synonyms include
“unwarranted, unnecessary, unjust, and unfair.”
At the end of the summary are these recommendations. Comments on the recommendations
are highlighted in yellow and underlined.
1. Draft a new noise ordinance which does not contain any decibel based restrictions. Consider
this adjustment: Draft a new noise ordinance that is not centered on decibel based
restrictions.
2. The new noise ordinance shall contain the wording that it is unlawful for any person to
make, cause be made, or to prevent any unreasonable noise upon any property. The
determination of unreasonable noise shall consider factors including, but not limited to, time of
day, size of any gathering of person creating or contributing to the noise, present or absence of
sound amplification equipment, intermittent beat frequency or shrillness, disruption to the
natural setting, or any other factors tending to show the magnitude and disruptive effect of the
noise. Unreasonable noise is further defined as noise produced on one property that is often
heard on another property and deemed by the owner of the second property to be unwanted,
unpleasant, and a pollutant to their environment. The ordinance may also address exempt
activities.
3. Deal with noise from vehicles due to alternation of mufflers and or jake brakes through the
Model Traffic Code.
As I stated in a previous communication, I appreciate the efforts of the Mayor, Trustees, and
city employees to adhere to the Estes Park mission ”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 Mission matches with Colorado Legislative Declaration 25‐12‐101
which says “The general assembly finds and declares that noise is a major source of
environmental pollution which represents a threat to the serenity and quality of life in the state
of Colorado. Excess noise often has an adverse physiological and psychological effect on human
beings, thus contributing to an economic loss to the community.”
Jack and Sharon Knudson
154 Davis St., Estes Park, CO