HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-08-09The 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, August 9, 2016
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
*Policy Governance Report
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated July 26, 2016 and Town Board Study Sessions July 26
and 28, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development/Community Services Committee, July 28, 2016.
Prepared 7/29/16
*Revised:08/09/16
1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated July 12, 2016. (acknowledgement
only)
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1.TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK INN LLC DBA
ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK INN TO BLOOMBERRIES BOX CART LLC, DBA
BLOOMBERRIES BOX CART, 1209 MANFORD AVENUE, OPTIONAL PREMISE
LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. RESOLUTION #13-16 SUPPORTING THE LARIMER COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH
INITIATIVE. Peggy Reeves.
2. ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER FEE WAIVER REQUEST. Director Hunt.
3. PUBLIC HEARING - MOUNTAIN MEADOW ANNEXATION. Planner Gonzales.
Resolution #14-16.
Ordinance #20-16.
Annexation Agreement.
4.ADJOURN.
2
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
970.577.3705
flancaster@estes.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 8th, 2016
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS
(QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORT POLICY 3.3)
Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide information to the
Board. Policy 3.3, Financial Planning and Budgeting, Policy 3.12, General Town Administrator
– Internal Operating Procedures and 3.13 – Town Organizational Plan, are all scheduled for
reporting to the Board in July.
Policy 3.3 states: “With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities with a
fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or fiscal integrity
of Town government.”
Policy 3.12 states: “With respect to internal operating procedures, the Town
Administrator will ensure that the Town has internal procedures to promote effective and
efficient Town operations.”
Policy 3.13 states: “With respect to internal organizational structure of the Town, the
Town Administrator will maintain a current organizational plan (organizational chart) of
the Town, in a graphical format including through the division level. The Town
Administrator will update the plan annually. The current plan shall be included in the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report each year, and presented to the Board of
Trustees at the first regular meeting following the certification of the results of each
biennial election.”
This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions have not
occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this date.
________________________
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
3
3.3.1. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Deviates from
statutory requirements.
REPORT: The current budget and any proposed budget revisions have all been
prepared in compliance with applicable statutory requirements. I am
therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.2. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Deviates
materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among competing
budgetary needs.
REPORT: The current budget and any proposed budget revisions have all been
prepared in following the Board stated priorities expressed during the
budget adoption process. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.3. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which contains
inadequate information to enable credible projection of revenues and
expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow and
subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning assumptions.
REPORT: The current budget was prepared with adequate information as
requested by the Board of Trustees. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.4. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which plans the
expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively
projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available.
REPORT: The current budget for all town funds do not contain any plans for
expenditures in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively projected to
be received in that period, or which are otherwise available. However it is
important to note that, although approved through the budget process, the
current budget plans for expenditures that exceed this year’s revenue and the use
of fund balance reserves. This path is not sustainable. The budget for 2017
General Fund will be prepared with the intention of expenditures not exceeding
expected revenues. I therefore report compliance, with caution.
3.3.5. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which reduces fund
balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that established by the
Board of Trustees.
REPORT: There needs to be some discussion with the Board to better define
exactly how the fund balance is calculated and for which funds this is applicable. I
would like to have these discussion and better define this policy prior to my next
report, if possible.
4
Traditionally, the definition of Fund Balance has been:
Specific to the General Fund
Includes one time capital expenditures in the denominator.
Includes all unreserved and unassigned fund balance, including the TABOR
reserve.
Excludes any reserved or assigned future fund balance usage, including fund
balance usage for the upcoming adopted budget.
Is specific to the audited end of year fund balance as of December 31st
Based on these current criteria, the audited fund balance for the General Fund as
of December 31st, 2015 was 21%
I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.6. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Fails to
maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to significant
shortfalls within the Town’s budget.
REPORT: The current budget includes appropriate contingency funding, including
the required TABOR reserves. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.7. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
provide for an annual audit.
REPORT: The 2015 audit and CAFR was not completed at the end of July due to
the Auditor not completing the documents. We have been granted an extension
to the submission deadline by the State. The audit is on track to be completed,
albeit late. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.3.8. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the current or
future bond ratings of the Town.
REPORT: Nothing in the current budget as adopted fails to protect the integrity of
the current or future bond ratings of the Town. I am therefore reporting
compliance.
3.3.9. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which results in new
positions to staffing levels without specific approval of the Board of Town
Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve positions funded by
grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in addition
to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing
budgeted funds are allocated.
REPORT: No new positions or additions to the staffing document have been
added without specific approval of the Board of Trustees other than temporary
positions or those grant positions that are 100% grant funded, as allowed by
5
adopted policy. I am therefore reporting compliance.
3.12 With respect to internal operating procedures, the Town
Administrator will ensure that the Town has internal procedures to promote
effective and efficient Town operations.
REPORT: We are continuing to update the internal procedures for the Town. All
personnel policies have been updated and adopted over the last year. Several of
the finance policies have been updated and adopted and others are under review.
I am therefore reporting compliance at this time.
3.13 With respect to internal organizational structure of the Town, the
Town Administrator will maintain a current organizational plan
(organizational chart) of the Town, in a graphical format including through
the division level. The Town Administrator will update the plan annually.
The current plan shall be included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report each year, and presented to the Board of Trustees at the first regular
meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial election.
REPORT: The current operational plan is attached to this report. I missed the
deadline that the operational plan was to be presented to the Board at the first
meeting following the biennial election. This slipped through the cracks and went
unnoticed by myself and by staff. I am therefore reporting non-compliance.
6
January 1, 2016 Organizational Plan CITIZENSMAYOR AND TRUSTEESMunicipal JudgeTown AttorneyUtilities PoliceFinance Community Services Light &Power Water IT Planning Building Town Clerk HR Engineering Parks Streets Facilities Fleet Asst. Town Administrator Public Information Town AdministratorCommunity Development Administrative ServicesPublic WorksCulturalServices Museum Senior Services Fairgrounds and Events Visitor Services Risk Management7
8
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 26, 2016
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 July 2016.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Walker
Also Present: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the
Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Boys and Girls Club representatives invited the Board and the community to the
upcoming performance of “The Hysterical History of the Trojan War” performed by the
children on July 28th and 29th at the Estes Park Elementary School.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen advocated the Town not turnover the Senior Center to
the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated the applications for the Community Service grants are
available.
Trustee Walker extended his appreciation for the Transportation Advisory Board’s
recommendation to complete the final paving surface on Dry Gulch after the second
phase has been completed. The new roadway continues to see heavy equipment traffic
which would have negatively impacted the new roadway.
Trustee Norris reviewed the items considered by the Estes Valley Planning Commission
at their recent meeting, including the Location and Extent Review for the Community
Center. He has received extensive input from the senior population as it relates to the
Senior Center facilities at the new Community Center. The main concerns raised are in
9
Board of Trustees – July 26, 2016 – Page 2
relation to the loss of the kitchen, social services and educational programs; concern
with the EVRPD’s lack of a mission to provide social services; and the suggestion to
keep the current center open to provide the meals and social services and move the
recreational aspect of the center to the Community Center.
Trustee Martchink commented the Rocky Mountain Half Marathon would take place July
27th with 2,000 registered for the event. The next Parks Advisory Board meeting would
take place on August 19, 2016.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
The hydrology study presentation scheduled for August 23, 2016 has been rescheduled
for October 25th to allow for the peer reviews to be completed prior to the meeting.
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek introduced the new Community Development
Director Randy Hunt who began work on July 19, 2016.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated July 12, 2016 and Town Board Study Session July
12, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated June 15, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
4. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated June 17, 2016 (acknowledgement only).
5. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated June 21, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (outside entities):
1. ESTES VALLEY PARTNERS FOR COMMERCE (EVPC) QUARTERLY
REPORT. Kent Smith/EVPC Vice President provided a quarterly report stating
the organization has completed its strategic plan. A new business packet has
been completed and would be delivered to the Town, Library and the Economic
Development Council for distribution to new businesses. EVPC would take
over the ribbon cuttings for new businesses in conjunction with the Mayor’s
support. The “Explore Your Store” event continues to be a success in engaging
the local retail community. He invited the Trustees to EVPC’s annual dinner in
October.
10
Board of Trustees – July 26, 2016 – Page 3
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or
staff for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. SPECIAL REVIEW 2016-01 - LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS.
Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Planner Gonzales reviewed the
application for the approval of a three-phased Special Review Development
Plan to accommodate a 750-person occupancy Chuck Wagon Dinner and
Live Entertainment facility on an approximately 5-acre site located at 1665
Hwy 66. The property currently operates as the Elk Meadow Campground
RV Resort and the new development would be located on the overflow
parking area with an approximately 18,000 sq. ft. building and 192 parking
spaces. The application also includes the widening of Mill Drive, installation
of a right turn lane on Hwy 66, new landscaping installed and a loading area
for the building within the 110-foot setback from the street center line. The
proposal calls for a 61.6-foot setback from the street center line which would
require a variance. The proposed development would encroach into a 50-
foot wetland setback by no more than 5-feet, a minor modification to be
approved at staff level. The applicant has proposed measures to address
and mitigate potential impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and
services, and the environment, including items such as locating the
entrance off of Mill Drive to facilitate traffic congestion on Hwy 66, hiring off-
duty traffic control officer during peak traffic periods, utilizing the shuttle
system, propose using tour buses to transport guests to the event facility,
limited employee housing on-site, proposed limited hours of operation
during the summer months, and improved view shed for homes along Mills
Drive with a tree lined drive and buried electrical line to improve the overall
appearance of the property. Staff found the development complies with the
standards in the Estes Valley Development Code; is consistent with the
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; expands tourism and arts industry; and
redevelops a currently underutilized site and increase commercial sales tax
revenue for the Town. The project would increase trip generation on Hwy
66 and Mills Drive and proposed mitigation efforts were denied by CDOT.
Potential increase incidences with wildlife, especially bears, are created with
the first phase of the project, a temporary tent facility. Rocky Mountain
National Park has expressed concern with noise impacting their employee
housing, bear activity, increased traffic on Mills Drive, and light pollution.
The Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the
Special Review at their May 17, 2016 meeting.
Trustee comments were heard and have been summarized: questioned the
impact to driveways along Mills Drive; could the property owner continue the
use of the temporary tent for the facility if the building is not constructed;
why was Mills Drive preferred over the use of the current Elk Meadow RV
entrance; questioned why the property was not rezoned commercial in 2008
11
Board of Trustees – July 26, 2016 – Page 4
rather than A-Accommodations; and questioned how the properties to the
west of Mills Drive were developed so close to the property line.
Staff has identified one driveway that would be impacted with the new
widening of Mills Drive. Any changes to the proposed phasing of the
development would come back for the Board’s consideration. The
Comprehensive Plan would not allow a rezoning of the property to
commercial zoning and proposed use is an allowed principle use in the A-
Accommodation zoning through a Special Review.
Troy Krenning/Attorney for the applicant commented the use has occurred
under a temporary use in 2016 since May with an average of 50 guests per
night mostly from the existing campground guests. The applicant would
mitigate the traffic and parking to its ability as the facility grows. The
property has on average four to five bear sightings per season due to the
proximity to the Park and the current campground use. The proposed solid
brick structure with trash receptacles should address any issues related to
concerns with increase bear activity. He confirmed that one dwelling unit
would be impacted by the widening of Mills Drive. The applicant would
entertain discussions with staff on the development requirements to address
the impact to the homeowner. The applicant would also entertain an egress
located farther to the south on Mills Drive to address the headlight concerns
by neighbors. The applicant’s concerns with moving the entrance to the
current Elk Meadow entrance include the negative impact to the
campground, leads to additional impacts to traffic on Hwy 66, and the
possible division of the property in the future and a need for a separate
entrance at such point in time when this would occur.
Attorney White provided a legal opinion that Mills Drive is a private road
located on private property used as a public roadway for a number of years,
and may be used as access by the public for the proposed use on the
property. He stated Section 4.4.1.b – Permitted Uses – Non Residential
Zoning District provides that an Entertainment Event, Major would be a
permitted use in the A-Accommodation zoning district. The Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) does allow this use on the property through the
review process. He further stated staff’s classification of the proposed use
as an Entertainment Event, Major is supported by the applicable provisions
of the EVDC. The Spur 66 planning area was incorporated into the Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan. Numerous court cases have found
Comprehensive Plans to be regulatory in nature and are advisory, and
therefore, hold no legal requirements. The EVCD contains the standards
and regulations for land use within the Estes Valley.
Those speaking in opposition to the application included Jeff Noyes/County
resident, Jay Vetter/County resident, Jeremy Vetter/County resident,
Corriane Thomas/County resident, Sherrie Duris/County resident, Art
12
Board of Trustees – July 26, 2016 – Page 5
Messal/Town citizen, Michelle Hiland/Town citizen, Alex Hodges/Town
citizen, Johanna Darden/Town citizen, Michael Bilos/County resident, and
Michael Egan/County resident. Comments have been summarized: good
project wrong location, would impact the residents of Mills Drive negatively;
the increase of Mills Drive would leave one property owner with no parking
for their home; mitigate the impact to the residents of Mills Drive by using
the current entrance to the RV resort; the 2008 rezoning provided for the
Chuck Wagon as an accessory use and not a principle use; the project
should never have moved forward by staff; the zoning code does not allow a
stand-alone commercial use in the A-Accommodation zoning district; the
project does not provide a buffer as required by the EVDC; the project
would increase bear and guest interactions to the determent of the bears;
expressed concern with increased runoff to the wetlands and pond and the
effects of the pollutants on the wildlife; concern with the decrease setback to
the wetlands, the corner of Mills Drive and Hwy 66 is already congested and
a safety concern; the project violates the zoning code and contradicts the
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; the project does not fit with
Entertainment Event, Major definition in the EVDC; requested a sidewalk be
required along Mills Drive if the project moves forward as many walk from
the Park housing area to the Rock Inn; ownership of Mills Drive should be
established prior to the project moving forward; future purchase of the Lazy
B property would require a rezoning of the property to commercial which is
not supported by the Comprehensive Plan; and the property should be used
for additional housing for the community.
Those speaking in favor of the application included Joe Adair/County
resident, Elizabeth Fogarty/Visit Estes Park, Charley Dickey/Town citizen,
Thomas Beck/County resident, and Jon Nicholas/Town citizen. Comments
have been summarized: The Lazy B and Estes Park have been
synonymous in the past; there are a number of accommodations and
businesses on Hwy 66 and one more would not be significant; bears and
wildlife are a part of the landscape and are not attracted to this one
business; all research has shown that a Chuck Wagon dinner theater would
be a good product to add to the Estes valley; the project has been mitigated
by the applicant to their fullest ability; and projects brought forward by
developers should not be turned down due to contradictory codes as the
applicant has followed the recommendations of staff. The Town should
consider a form based code rather than a use based code moving forward.
Trustee Martchink commented the Development Code use classification
used for this project by staff does not fit after his reading of the Code. He
stated if the EVDC contains contradictory language it would be preference
to use the more stringent code or interpretation. The proposed project
would be a continuous use, and therefore, does not meet the use
classification for Entertainment Event, Major. Planner Gonzales noted the
proposed use would be limited to two hours per day during the summer
13
Board of Trustees – July 26, 2016 – Page 6
months. Staff did not interpret the use as continuous and found it similar to
a movie theater which falls under the same use classification.
Trustee Norris stated the proposed application has not mitigated the
concerns to the full extent possible and the application does not comply with
the EVDC. The code dictates that any inconsistencies or conflicts in the
code with one another would require the more restrictive provision to
govern.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated she supports the application, personal
property rights and respects the opinion of Attorney White. She requested
the applicants work with the neighbors to slide the building in an effort to
mitigate the neighbor issues related to lights and parking.
Trustee Holcomb commented he supported the application, stating the
project would be good for the Town.
Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded
(Martchink/Norris) to deny the Special Review 2016-01 Lazy B Ranch &
Wranglers, and it failed with Trustees Martchink and Norris voting “Yes”
and Trustee Walker abstaining.
It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Holcomb) to find the application
meets the review criteria and to approve the Special Review 2016-01
Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers with the conditions of approval and
compliance with affected agency emails and memos as outlined in the
staff report, and it passed with Trustees Martchink and Norris voting “No”
and Trustee Walker abstaining.
B. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY & SALUD CLINIC. Planner McCool.
Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, The Neighborhood Subdivision, 995 Dry Gulch Road &
1950 Red Tail Hawk Drive.
1. SUBDIVISION. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Planner McCool
reviewed the application to combine a portion of Lot 1 to Lot 2 (proposed
Lot 2A), then subdivide the remainder of Lot 1 into two residential lots
(proposed Lots 1A & 1B) to build two affordable single-family residences
and a 29-space parking lot to meet the increased needs of the Salud
Clinic as they expand their services to the community. The request
includes the rezoning of the newly created Lot 1 from O-Office to R-1
Single Family Residential to allow for the affordable housing units. Staff
found the application to comply with the EVDC and conform to the
housing policies of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan by promoting a
balance of housing opportunities within the community. The Estes
Valley Planning Commission recommended approval of the Minor
Subdivision and denial of the rezoning request. No action was taken on
14
Board of Trustees – July 26, 2016 – Page 7
the proposed Development Plan. If the Board approves the rezoning
request, the approval should be contingent upon the approval of the
Development Plan by the Planning Commission as they are the
decision-making body for development plans. The plan has received
opposition from the surrounding neighborhood.
Amy Plummer/Van Horn Engineering stated the project has complied
with all items of concern from Public Works and the Utilities
departments. The EVDC encourages shared driveways and a driveway
maintenance agreement has been drafted. The area is a high density
housing area that includes affordable housing. The development
complies with the slope requirement as outlined in the EVDC. The two
housing units would make an impact for the two families that have been
identified by Habitat for Humanity. The proposed development would be
low intensity in use compared to a large office building that could be
placed on the lot under the current zoning.
Mark Wandas/Habitat for Humanity and Joe Adair/Habitat for Humanity
stated the organization would build two homes for families living and
working in the Estes Park area. The Kuntz Habitat homes were built by
Steve Murphree a local contractor with high quality materials and the
intent would be to provide the same level of homes on the new site.
This project would help address the lack of workforce housing in the
Estes area.
Those speaking in opposition of the application included Dena
Sohocki/Town citizen, Sue Hansen/Town citizen, Bruce Brackman/Town
citizen, Dennis Berg/Town citizen, Corinne Dyer/Town citizen, Art
Messal/Town citizen, Michelle Hiland/Town citizen, Jerry James/Town
citizen, JaAnn Baxter/Town citizen, and Dennis Sohocki/Town citizen.
The opposition stated concerns with the reduction in property values, a
Brownfield site with underground tanks, drainage, lot size, shared
driveway, low quality of building materials used by Habitat for Humanity
and the use of carports rather than garages, safety of residents and
children on the small lot, lack of adequate parking in the surrounding
neighborhood, visual appearance of low income housing development
and lighting impacts from the new parking lot. A petition of the
immediate neighborhoods was presented that are against the rezoning
of the property. Habitat for Humanity should renovate existing homes to
improve a neighborhood. Habitat neighborhoods are not well maintained
and this should be the focus of the organization.
Those speaking in support of the application included Judy
Nystrom/Habitat for Humanity, Thomas Beck/County citizen, and Eric
Blackhurst/Housing Authority Board member. The contaminated soil on
the lower lot was removed from the property on Lot 1 and Lot 2 prior to
15
Board of Trustees – July 26, 2016 – Page 8
the development of Salud, therefore, the Brownfield site has been
mitigated; the slope of the property conforms to the slope requirements
in the EVDC and the slope is similar to the Vista Ridge development; the
project would provide much needed workforce housing; the Salud
parking lot lighting would be down casted; the shared entrance moves
the entrance away from the intersection making the entrance safer; the
Housing Authority supports the project that would be built under the
2015 building code standards; the property was donated to Habitat for
Humanity to assist the organization in providing affordable homes to
their clients; the organization does not have funds to purchase existing
homes and renovate them; the number of cars parked and other
recreational vehicles has been addressed in the covenants for the
property; and Habitat for Humanity has learned lessons with each of its
projects and admits the first project on Halbach Lane could have been
done better.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to continue the meeting
past 10:00 p.m. and complete the agenda, and it passed unanimously.
Board comments were heard and summarized: Would encourage
Habitat for Humanity to build the new houses to the same or better
standard than those on Kuntz Lane; the rezoning would limit the property
development to residential housing rather than a potential large office
building; Trustee Norris was a member of the team that completed the
clean-up of the Brownfield site, and he would not have concerns as the
lower portion that may contain storage tanks would be paved over; it
should be confirmed the tanks have been addressed and that families
would not be living above the tanks; and confident Habitat for Humanity
would build the homes to the same standard as others in the area.
Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded
(Walker/Norris) to find the application meets the review criteria and
to approve the subdivision with the conditions of approval as
outlined in the staff report, and it passed with Trustee Holcomb
abstaining.
2. ORDINANCE #18-16 – REZONING. Planner McCool reviewed the
rezoning proposed for Lots 1A & 1B from O-Office to R-1-Residential per
the proposed Development Plan under the subdivision item above. It
was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to approve Ordinance #18-
16 contingent upon the approval of the Development Plan by the
Estes Valley Planning Commission, and it passed with Trustee
Holcomb abstaining.
3. FEE WAIVER REQUEST. Director Hunt presented a request to waive
development application fees only, not building permit fees for the
16
Board of Trustees – July 26, 2016 – Page 9
development of the two Habitat for Humanity homes and the Salud
parking lot. More specifically the request would waive fees for the pre-
application meeting, development plan, preliminary plat and final plat for
a total of $9,100. Staff found the proposal to comply with the Town’s
Fee Waiver policy because the development would provide low-income
health and human services and low-income housing. The item was
presented to the Community Development / Community Services
Committee and forwarded to the Board with no recommendation.
Trustee Walker agreed the waiver of fees for the project would be
appropriate; however, the Town cannot continue to waive fees.
Trustee Martchink questioned if the project would move forward without
the fee waiver. Mark Wandas/Habitat for Humanity stated the project
would move forward. The organization looks for support and donations
wherever possible from the local community.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Norris) to approve the fee
waiver request in the amount of $9,100, and it passed unanimously.
C. ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER. Metes and Bounds, 650
Community Drive.
1. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing.
Planner McCool reviewed the application to approve the subdivision of a
metes and bounds property currently owned by the Estes Park School
District R-3 into two lots; Lot 1 would accommodate the existing school
buildings on 37.86 acres, and Lot 2 would accommodate a new
community center with associated parking, landscaping, detention, and
internal walkways on 6.49 acres. Lot 1 is owned by the School District
and is not subject to review by the Planning Commission and/or the
Town Board of Trustees. The applicant also seeks a 1’ 0 3/8” deviation
from the 30-foot maximum building height in the Outlying Commercial
zone district, to accommodate a defined main entry to the community
center building. The variance requests would be reviewed by the Board
of Adjustment following all other land use approvals. A condition of
approval would require a sidewalk along the south side of Manford Drive
from the intersection of Community Drive and Manford Drive on the west
to the intersection of Community Drive and Manford Drive on the east
rather than an internal walkway. The requirement would provide safe
access by school children to the school campus.
Tom Carasello/Executive Director Estes Valley Recreation and Park
District stated the new sidewalk has been added to the development
along with the internal sidewalk at a cost of $20,000.
17
Board of Trustees – July 26, 2016 – Page 10
Art Messal/Town citizen would support the project and the application.
Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded
(Koenig/Nelson) to find the application meets the review criteria and
approve the Minor Subdivision Plat for the Estes Valley Community
Center, Metes and Bounds, 650 Community Drive with the findings
and conditions recommended by the Estes Valley Planning
Commission and outlined in the staff report, and it passed
unanimously.
4. FEE WAIVER REQUEST. Director Hunt presented a request to waive
development application fees, building permit fees and plan review fees
for the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Community Center at
an approximate cost of $137,000. The Town’s Fee Waiver Policy states
in part that a public funded government construction may be exempted
from building permit fees, development review fees and sign code fees.
The item was presented to the Community Development / Community
Services Committee and forwarded to the Board with no
recommendation. A significant portion of the requested waiver would be
for building permit fees of approximately $133,000. Staff would
recommend maintaining approximately 20% of the building permit fees
and no waiver of the plan review fee as the division intends to outsource
plan review to Colorado Code Consulting due to workload. The partial
fee would cover the general administrative costs associated with the
project.
Board comments were heard and summarized: EVRPD is a separate
taxing district with revenues to cover the cost of the fees; the fee waivers
would allow the District to use the funds for the project that has already
experienced financial concerns; and could direct the District to use the
fee waiver funds for the Senior Center portion of the building. After
further discussion it was recommended the Board consider continuing
the fee waiver until the Intergovernmental Agreement has been
completed.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Norris/Nelson) to
continue the item to the August 9, 2016 meeting, and it passed
unanimously.
Mayor Jirsa called a break at 10:50 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #19-16 ELECTRIC RATE INCREASE 2016 – 2019. Mayor Jirsa
opened the public hearing. Shawn Koorn/HDR Engineering provided an
overview of the 2016 electric rate study which reviewed revenue requirements,
18
Board of Trustees – July 26, 2016 – Page 11
cost of service and rate design. Director Bergsten provided a presentation
outlining how the rate study ensures continued high-quality utility services and
plans for future upgrades through capital improvement projects. Both
presentations were presented to the Town Board at their June 28, 2016
meeting and recorded in the minutes of the meeting.
Hearing no public comment Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was
moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve Ordinance #19-16 with
new electric rates effective September 1, 2016, and it passed unanimously.
2. ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT OCCUPANCY LIMIT FOR VACATION
HOMES IN TOWN LIMITS. Trustee Walker stated he requested the item be
added to the agenda and did not intend to obstruct the efforts of the Vacation
Home Task Force reviewing the occupancy limits. The moratorium instructed
staff to not enforce the occupancy limit of two per bedroom plus two with a limit
not to exceed eight. He outlined three issues, including the character of
neighborhoods, the right of neighbors to not be in a party zone, and the right of
a vacation rental owner to use their property in a manner that aids the economy
of Estes Park. The sheer number of small and medium vacation rentals
surrounding residences has become significant and has impacted the
neighborhoods the citizens of Estes Park live in. The Town’s vision does not
support enhancing its position as a destination resort but rather to enhance its
position as a premier mountain community. The issues require a delicate
balance to be struck to ensure everyone’s property rights are addressed. He
suggested the moratorium be amended to enforce the two per bedroom plus
two within town limits, i.e. a 5-bedroom house would be limited to 12 guests.
He encouraged the Town to develop a 24-hour reporting system to address
complaints and fines imposed for multiple infractions.
Those speaking in opposition to the proposed change to the moratorium
included Millicent Cozzie/Town citizen, Ed Petersen/Town citizen, Bettye
Petersen/Town citizen, Judy Anderson/County resident and Dick
Speilman/Town citizen. Members of the Task Force requested the Board allow
the moratorium to remain in place until the Task Force has completed its work
and established regulations for the Board’s consideration. They would support
a two per bedroom plus two approach. Enforcement of the limits needs to be in
place to address the restrictions. The larger issues are related to an
inadequate noise ordinance. The larger homes are not the problem; it’s the
homes being used as party houses. Removing the moratorium and restricting
homes to eight would be difficult at this point in time as reservations have been
made and would have to be cancelled causing bad press for the Town. The
Town should consider providing a 24/7 complaint line such as the one by
iCompass to address complaints.
Kaylyn Kruger/Town citizen and EALA member stated a survey of the EALA
membership was completed to determine the impact of vacation homes on
19
Board of Trustees – July 26, 2016 – Page 12
workforce housing. The survey found vacation homes do not appear to impact
the homes available for rent. The EALA membership supports short term
rentals in Estes Park.
Art Messal/Town citizen reaffirmed his position that vacation homes should not
be allowed and commercial business should not be allowed in a residential
neighborhood.
Trustee Norris commented on his visits to a number of the neighborhoods that
are no longer residential neighborhoods due to the number of vacation rentals.
He stated a balance of rights of the property owner to rent their home and the
neighbors living full time in the community need to be addressed. The vacation
home owners need to be responsible for the rentals of their property. Three
main issues need to be addressed: good reporting system, establishing fines,
and good communication to the residents and renters by the vacation home
owner.
After further discussion by the Board, it was moved and seconded
(Walker/Jirsa) to clarify the Town of Estes Park’s temporary enforcement
moratorium dated February 24, 2016 to include enforcement of the portion
of the code that limits occupancy to two individuals per bedroom plus
two within the Town limits, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 12:25 a.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
20
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado July 26, 2016
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 26th day of July, 2016.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending: All
Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Town Attorney
White, and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: Town Administrator Lancaster
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:38 p.m.
SCIENTIFIC & CULTURAL FACILITIES DISTRICT UPDATE.
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek provided an overview of the Scientific and
Cultural Facilities District (SCFD), a special statutory district, provided for in the
Colorado Revised Statute. A SCFD may levy and collect a uniform sales tax throughout
its boundaries for the purpose of funding scientific and cultural nonprofits and/or
agencies of local government. A district in Denver currently exists. A county-wide
volunteer effort has been working for over a year to form a Larimer County Scientific
and Cultural Facilities District and place the issue on the November 2016 General
Election ballot. Over 11,000 signatures have been collected by the group and
submitted to the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder on July 20, 2016.
The proposed district would levy a tenth-of-a-percent sales tax that would sunset in ten
years. The tax collected in the first year throughout the district boundary (Larimer
County) has been estimated at $6.6 million. To be eligible to receive funds from the
district an organization must meet all of the following criteria: be a 501(c)(3) or an
agency of the government for specific art or cultural benefits listed in the statute, have
its principle office located within the district, conduct a majority of its activities within the
State of Colorado, and offer activities that benefit its residents.
The distribution of the funds would be made by a Board of Directors appointed by the
Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. No more than 7% of the funds would
be set aside for administrative costs and the remaining funds would be distributed to
21
Town Board Study Session – July 26, 2016 – Page 2
two funds: Sustainability Fund and the Innovation Fund, each having their own criteria
for eligibility and funding. Examples of eligible organizations in Estes Park would
include the Estes Park Museum, the Art Center, the Cultural Arts Council, the Oratorio
Society, and the Fine Arts Guild of the Rockies. Other entities such as the Estes Arts
District may become eligible as they meet the criteria for the funding, i.e. years in
operation. Funding exclusions would include items such as capital projects, library,
educational institutions, radio and television broadcasting station or network, cable
communications system, newspaper or magazine, or any organization engaged solely
in the acquisition or physical restoration of historic buildings, structures or sites.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Holcomb questioned if the Town was addressing the blinking open signs. The
Town addresses these types of items upon complaint.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig commented the pavilion was built with the intent that it be used
during the winter months for indoor activities. She suggested the Town could
investigate options for providing a walking track, indoor hockey, soccer or volleyball with
projected courts rather than physical striping. Staff would review the use of the building
and prepare a memo for the Board.
Trustee Martchink thanked Light & Power for their time during a recent ride along.
The hydrology study would be moved to the second meeting in October in order to allow
efficient time to complete the second peer review.
The Town ended its relationship with the initial company, Logan Simpson, for the
Downtown Neighborhood Plan. Staff has been working with the second company,
Winter and Company, identified through the RFP process to establish a scope of work
and price. Winter has provided a cost of $264,000, which is an increase of $74,000
over the grant funding secured for the project. The cost increase over their initial RFP
response includes funds for public engagement, $55,000 for report writing and $20,000
to include a local contractor at staff’s request. The additional cost could be funded
through the General Fund or the scope of the project could be reduced. As another
alternative, the Town could move forward with the third choice from the RFP to establish
a scope of work and cost.
Discussion followed and has been summarized: Logan Simpson was selected over
Winter because of the level of public engagement and the use of Steve Lane, a local
consultant; the Trustees stated concern with the increase cost by Winter from their
original RFP response; staff confirmed there are a number of areas Walker can cut back
on such as further analysis of the current conditions; Trustees confirmed support for
Winter if the scope would not be cut back; and staff would bring forward a contract for
the Board’s consideration with Winter for $190,000 and an additional $20,000 for the
inclusion of the local consultant.
22
Town Board Study Session – July 26, 2016 – Page 3
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Trustee Martchink requested the Board have a discussion on marijuana as a revenue
source. He also stated paid parking lots could generate revenue for future parking
structures. An agenda item would be added to the August 23rd Study Session to
discuss potential revenue generators and the draft Intergovernmental Agreement with
the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District. Staff would present the pros and cons
experienced by other municipalities relates to marijuana dispensaries in their
communities.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:22 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
23
24
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado July 28, 2016
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 28th day of July, 2016.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending: All
Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Town Attorney
White, Director Muhonen, Consultant McFarland, and Town
Clerk Williamson
Absent: Town Administrator Lancaster
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 11:33 a.m.
CM/GC PROJECT DELIVER – TRANSIT FACILITY PARKING GARAGE.
Director Muhonen stated the Town has received the necessary clearance as of this
week to move the parking garage from the Visitor Center north parking lot to the parking
lot area to the south of the Center. With the delay in the project, staff has been working
to identify a method for building the facility by Memorial Day 2017 and delivery the
project within the $4 million available funds. The Town may be subject to losing a
portion of the funds (FASTER funds of $400,000) if the project does not continue to
move forward to construction. Staff proposed a change in the procurement process
through a method called Construction Management/General Contractor (CM/GC). The
process would commit a contractor to the project and determine if the Town has enough
funds to build the facility in advance.
Ken Atkins/US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration presented
an overview of the CM/GC process in which an integrated team of Construction
Management members apply their skills in the planning, preconstruction, and
construction of the project to bring forward a well-constructed project within or under
budget. The Town would hire its own team and have a direct contract with the
construction company. The contractor works as the technical advisor and an
independent cost estimator provides independent bids for the project. The method
brings forward innovation, reduction in risk, aggressive delivery, cost management,
team selection by the Town, constructability, streamlined plans, quality, early work
25
Town Board Study Session – June 28, 2016 – Page 2
packages and flexibility. The Town, designer, and construction management work
collaboratively to develop the project scope, optimize the design, improve quality, and
manage costs to deliver projects early and under budget. CM/GC provides for a high
percentage of local contractors used on projects because the owner determines the
vendors used for the project. This method has a proven track history of reducing costs
and is currently used by 17 Department of Transportations across the U.S., including
Colorado. The process has been used successfully in the vertical industry and has
gained recent clearance and federal approval for roadway construction. The low bid has
proven to increase cost with overruns and change orders because the contractor takes
on all the risk.
Attorney White stated there are legal restrictions on the use of this type of construction
for entities such as Special District; however, as a statutory town there are no
requirements to bid projects. The requirement to bid projects has been outlined in the
Board approved policies. Staff would request the Board allow the use of CM/GC and
waiving its policy for the construction of the parking garage.
Board discussion followed on the use of the process and found the following: the project
allows for local contractors to bid on larger projects as they can be broken into smaller
portions for the locals; the contractor can be locked into the project upfront; and some
concern was raised over the level of staff time the method would require. Staff stated
Ginny McFarland, consultant, would be hired to lead the team and provide day-to-day
oversight. She has completed two CM/GC projects previously and the Town would hire
a contractor that has completed CM/GC projects.
The Board consensus was to move forward with the CM/GC process for the parking
garage project. Staff would prepare an RFP, receive responses, and come forward to
the Board for approval of the process and the contract.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 1:00 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
26
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 28, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the
28th day of July, 2016.
Committee: Chair Walker, Trustees Holcomb and Norris
Attending: Chair Walker, Trustees Holcomb and Norris
Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Directors Hinkle,
Hunt, and Fortini, Managers Lynch and Salerno,
Coordinators Benes and Johnson Code Compliance Officer
Hardin and Recording Secretary Doering
Absent: Town Administrator Frank Lancaster
Chair Walker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None
CULTURAL SERVICES.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Museum Quarterly Report – Director Fortini reviewed the 2nd quarter highlights,
including the transferring of the Estes Park Public Library’s local history archive to
the museum and the new “Drawn to Black Canyon” exhibit, a collaboration with the
MacGregor Ranch. Visitation to the museum and MacGregor Ranch has improved
due to the exhibit. Current staffing levels have required staff to reprioritize workloads
and may lead to a reduction in temporary exhibits that can be produced which draw
in visitors. The films shown at the museum have received positive feedback,
therefore staff will begin rotating them more frequently.
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – The Committee questioned the 2017
planning and budgeting needs and concerns for the museum. Staff stated the
design work for the research facility continues to be the top priority and has required
significant staff time. The public kickoff to raise funds for the project would begin in
September 2016. The Friends of the Museum intend to raise $1.7 million, with
$250,000 already secured, and fund the project with $700,000 in grant funding. The
new facility would house the current collection with the possibility of expanding later
for future collections. Assistant Town Administrator Machelek proposed staff
complete a report to be presented to the Committee at the September meeting to
provide an update on the plans and the fundraising efforts. Plans for renovating the
current museum building are scheduled to be complete by November 1st and a
27
Community Development / Community Services – July 28, 2016 – Page 2
Request for Bid issued. Staff estimates the project would begin by December 2016
or January 2017. Staff does not intend to ask for an additional curator in the 2017
budget and would explore other options
COMMUNITY SERVICES.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Visitor Center Quarterly Report – Manager Salerno stated the 2016 season has
been the 2nd busiest quarter for the Visitor Center. Retail sales have increased.
Currently the Center has 64 hardworking Ambassador volunteers that help run the
facility. Staff stated the need to expand the Ambassador program through the
October season.
Verbal Updates - During this season staff has worked to address issues concerning
parking and guests walking on the golf course. Shuttle areas at the Visitor Center
have been signed and painted as no parking areas which has improved the parking
issues.
Event Report – Coordinators Johnson and Benes reported on events held in June
and July and reported on the upcoming events.
Verbal Updates - The Committee questioned the possibility of including more help
from school children with the events and suggested a meeting with the school staff
to discuss the options further. Coordinator Johnson stated she has received
feedback on other options for staffing support with regard to promotions and publicity
and would explore all viable options. Staff commented on the use of the silo meeting
space stating the space was utilized 30 times in the last 3 months. The Hunter
Jumper event had a record number of horses and stalls used during their event
Director Hinkle stated staff continues to work on a standardized contract for all
events held at the Event Complex. Staff has reviewed the current price structure for
the permitting process and may bring forward a new fee schedule for consideration.
He stated the ticket price was increased for the rodeo this year in lieu of collecting
fees for parking.
Sales and Marketing Report – Manager Lynch reported 31 contracts and $51,530 in
rental fee revenue have been secured compared to 18 signed contracts and $22,625
in rental fee revenue for the same period last year. At the end of 2015 there were 30
contracts with a total amount of $60,120 in rental revenue.
Verbal updates - Manager Lynch stated she has been promoting the silo meeting
space as many people are unaware of its availability as a meeting space. She
would attend the IMAX tradeshow with Destination Colorado to promote the Event
Complex to the international travel and group sales. Manager Lynch reported
bookings are challenging on the off season because of the lack of accommodations
near the facility, the need for higher quality food, and improved sound system in the
Event Center. The new concessionaire has received positive feedback and the use
of outside approved caters has aided in addressing some of the concerns. A sound
28
Community Development / Community Services – July 28, 2016 – Page 3
consultant has reviewed the system and made improvements to resolve
approximately 80% of the issues.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Verbal updates - Director Hunt reported the department continues its efforts to hire
an additional planner. Staff has been addressing issues with the staff at the Stanley
Hotel related to the tent on the property. Code Compliance has been addressing the
flashing “Open” signs at businesses, stating the issue most likely occurs when an
employee of the business turns the sign on and off and is not being done
deliberately.
VHR Enforcement - The Committee asked for clarification on how violations and
complaints related to vacation homes are handled. Code Compliance Officer Hardin
stated complaint calls have been made to 911 or to the Larimer County Sheriff’s
department. The calls are not tagged as a vacation home rental, and getting this
information is difficult from either department, as the calls are classified as
miscellaneous. Types of calls are in reference to noise, vehicles and trespassing.
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek replied the Vacation Home Task Force has
reviewed enforcement options and one recommendation may be to purchase the
iCompass solution, which would provide 24/7 code compliance hotline. He
recommended a presentation on the solution at a public meeting.
Verbal Update - Assistant Town Administrator Machalek provided an update on the
Community Center and the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Estes
Valley Recreation and Park District, with a final document available for the Board’s
review by mid to last August. The Committee questioned allowing ADU’s during the
Hwy 34 road construction. Staff has reviewed options related to ADU use and
continues to develop code amendments to address the issue.
There being no further business, Chair Walker adjourned the meeting at 9:27 a.m.
Tami Doering, Recording Secretary
29
30
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
July 12, 2016 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau, John
Lynch, one vacant position (County)
Attending: Members Lynch, Moreau, and Smith
Also Attending: Planner Audem Gonzales, Planner Carrie McCool, Recording Secretary
Thompson
Absent: Member Newsom
Member Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were five 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. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes dated June 7, 2016.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to continue the Consent Agenda to the
next Board of Adjustment meeting due to lack of a quorum (Moreau abstaining) and
the motion passed 3-0.
3. LOT 24, SUNNY ACRES ADDITION, 553 W. Elkhorn Avenue, Maxwell Inn
Variance Requests
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicants, Peter and
Dana Maxwell, owners of Maxwell Inn, requested variances from EVDC Section
4.4, Table 4-5, Footnote 6, which requires a 25-foot setback in the A–
Accommodations zone district when the property abuts a residential zone district
boundary. The request is to allow an 18.5 foot setback. The second variance is to
EVDC Section 4.4, Table 4-5, Density and Dimensional Standards for the
Nonresidential Zone Districts which requires maximum lot coverage of 50% for A–
Accommodations zone districts. The request is to allow impervious lot coverage of
62.7%. Planner Gonzales explained the purpose of the variance is to allow
construction of a 4-unit structure on the site, which currently contains 17 units. The
31
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
July 12, 2016
site is within the Town limits. Proposed construction includes one existing unit to
be converted to a laundry facility and accessible bathroom. A separate structure
would contain four units, bringing the total number of units to 20, which is the
maximum density allowed for this property. The subject property is currently
grandfathered in with 62.2% impervious lot coverage and the applicant would like
to increase that by 0.5%. Planner Gonzales stated the proposed new building
would be on the east portion of the site, and approximately 67 square feet of this
building would encroach into the setback.
Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to all affected agencies.
Notices were mailed to adjacent property owners and a legal notice was published
in the local newspaper. No significant comments were received by affected
agencies, and no written public comments were received from the public.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
Setback: The existing accommodations building was constructed in 1946 in the
middle of the property. Additional development space is limited. Existing parking
areas further limit the available space to develop. The site has many existing
constraints that limit the location for further development. The variance request
would relieve practical difficulties associated with developing on an existing site.
Lot Coverage: The existing impervious lot coverage is 62.2%. The Estes Valley
Development Code required a maximum of 50% impervious coverage. The
applicant has proposed a plan that removes 1,407 square feet of impervious
coverage by altering the parking area but keeping the appropriate amount of
parking spaces. The new 4-unit accommodations building along with new concrete
walks add 1,590 square feet of impervious coverage to the site. The actual gain in
impervious coverage as proposed is 0.5%. Staff feels this project meets the intent
of Code and the applicant has made an effort to reduce the legal non-conforming
lot coverage percentage while trying to obtain the permitted amount of
accommodations units.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Setback: Only 17 of the 20 units in the main building are being used for
occupancy. The remaining 3 units were repurposed in 2013 but are very small
and are located underground with little daylight. The applicant has proposed to
build a separate 4-unit structure to offer modernized hotel rooms for guests. Of
the existing 17 units, one unit is proposed to be converted into a guest
laundry/bathroom, bringing the total number of units on-site up to 20. Staff feels
that full utilization of the allowed density is the most practical use of the site.
32
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
July 12, 2016
Lot Coverage: The property is grandfathered in with 62.2% impervious lot
coverage. The applicant has made an aggressive effort to reduce impervious
coverage while incorporating the new ~1,100 square foot building. The gain in
impervious coverage is 0.5%.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Setback: The variance request would make the new side setback 18.5 feet in
lieu of the 25-feet required. This calculates out to be a 26% variance. The
threshold for a Board of Adjustment Variance versus a Planning Commission
Minor Modification is any request over 25%. Staff does not feel this request is
substantial, with approximately 67 square feet of the building to be located
within the setback.
Lot Coverage: The actual increase in impervious coverage from existing
conditions is 0.5%. The applicant has proposed a two-story building to minimize
the footprint of development on the site. The new plan improves the existing
conditions by removing a significant amount of paving from the front setback.
The proposed 62.7% impervious lot coverage is a 12.7% deviation from Code,
which would require a Planning Commission Minor Modification or a Board of
Adjustment Variance. Staff feels this request is minor.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance:
Setback: The property to the east consists of residential condominiums that
were constructed in the 1990’s/2000. The driveway for the condominiums
abutting the Maxwell Inn property is located on the western edge, serving as a
buffer between the proposed accommodations building and the condos. The
condos are situated 30-40 feet from the west property line. With the Maxwell
Inn’s proposed new side setback of 18.5-feet, the condos would roughly be 48-
58 feet from the new building. The approved development plan for the Maxwell
Inn has required a district landscape buffer between the properties. The
applicant has proposed to concentrate the plantings east of the proposed
building to further buffer the use. Staff does not feel the essential character of
the neighborhood would be altered or suffer detriment as a result of the
variance.
Lot Coverage: Again, the property has been operating with 62.2% impervious
lot coverage for several years. A 0.5% increase would not substantially alter the
neighborhood in any way. Drainage and runoff would not be affected. The
approved development plan and drainage study have concluded there is very
little to no impact on drainage on the site.
33
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4
July 12, 2016
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer;
Setback and Lot Coverage: Approval would have no effect on public services
such as water and sewer. All public service locations were approved with the
development plan.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Setback and Lot Coverage: The applicant purchased the property in 2013 and
decided to eliminate three (3) of the existing units due to their poor quality.
During the design and planning process of the new building, setback
regulations were in effect. The applicant has decided this plan is the best
approach to restoring the three (3) units.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance;
Setback: The applicant has stated that it is impossible to create additional units
within the footprint of the existing building. The west side of the existing building
was analyzed and found not to be a practical location due to the creation of
conflicts with the caretaker’s unit, access would be cut off from other hotel
support areas, and there would be no direct access to parking. Also, including a
handicap unit at this location was found to be infeasible. A variance would be
the only process to achieve the proposal.
Lot Coverage: The increase of impervious coverage of 0.5%. An additional
reduction of 0.5% of impervious coverage could be explored. The applicant has
already reduced 1,407 square feet of impervious coverage on the site by
reconfiguring the parking area. The applicant has stated it is not possible to
further remove impervious coverage without sacrificing the area needed to
meet parking and drive standards, and to allow for emergency vehicle access
through the property.
3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting
the Applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make
reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions
or situations.
Setback and Lot Coverage: The conditions of this application are not general.
They are specific to this property, size and orientation.
4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or
proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the
number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable
zone district regulations.
Setback and Lot Coverage: No reduction in lot size or increase in number of
lots is proposed by these variance requests.
34
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5
July 12, 2016
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that
will afford relief.
Setback: Multiple factors influenced the layout proposed, including maintaining
parking spaces, replacing impervious coverage, pulling parking and paving out
of the front setback to the degree possible, maintaining clearances for
emergency vehicles, and minimizing the amount of variance necessary. The
level of variance requested is approximately 67 square feet, which staff finds to
be very minimal.
Lot Coverage: Again, staff finds a 12.7% deviation from Code to be a very
minimal request. A variance would represent the least deviation from Code that
will afford relief.
6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not
permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this
Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought.
Setback and Lot Coverage: The variance does not propose a non-permitted or
prohibited use.
7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its
independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified.
Setback and Lot Coverage: Staff recommends no conditions of approval
Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance request with
no recommended conditions. A survey has been completed. A staff-level
development plan was approved by staff to build the proposed structure at the site.
Member and Staff Discussion
Member Smith inquired about the parking requirement.
Public Comment
Joe Coop/applicant representative stated 25 parking spaces are proposed (two of
those will be inside a garage). The requirement is for 20 spaces. He stated parking
spaces are triggered by square footage.
Pete Maxwell/applicant was present and available for questions.
Member and Staff Discussion
Member Moreau recommended a setback certificate be submitted to the
Community Development Department as a condition of approval.
Condition of Approval
35
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6
July 12, 2016
1. Prior to pouring foundation, a setback certificate prepared by a registered land
surveyor shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the variance with the
findings and conditions presented and the motion passed 3-0 with one
absent and one vacancy.
A recess was called at 9:23 a.m., as Planner McCool was delayed due to traffic
conditions. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 a.m.
4. LOT 9, BLOCK 3, AMENDED WINDCLIFF ESTATES, 5TH FILING; 3323 Eiger
Trail; Newberg Residence Variance Requests
Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. The applicants are Andrew and Stephanie
Newberg. She stated there are three requests from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2,
which requires 25-foot setbacks from all property lines and a maximum height of 40
feet in the E-1–Estate zone district. The requests are to allow: (1) a seven (7) foot
setback from the east property line; (2) a 14 foot rear setback; and (3) a 2.2-foot height
variance over the 30-foot maximum.
Planner McCool stated the subject property is located in the Windcliff Estates
Subdivision, which has a mixture of lot sizes and configurations, steep topography and
lush vegetation. The typical lot in Windcliff is undersized for the zone district and has
an average slope of approximately 40%. Planner McCool stated the subject lot is long,
narrow, and undersized for lots in the E-1 zone district, where one acre is the
minimum lot size. This particular lot is 0.37 acres. The size of the lot makes it very
difficult to conform to the front and rear setback requirements. Planner McCool stated
the actual buildable area is 23 feet wide, with an average slope of 54%.
Planner McCool stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and notices
were mailed to adjacent property owners. A legal notice was published in the local
newspaper. No comments from the public were received. Larimer County Engineering
staff sent comments dated June 21, 2016.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
Staff found the lot is narrow and the steep slope, along with heavy vegetation,
presents challenges when planning the site layout. The lot is undersized for the
zone district at 0.37 acres. The average slope of the lot is 54%.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
36
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7
July 12, 2016
Staff found due to the steep slope, lot configuration, and limited buildable area,
a variance would most likely be required to build any single-family residence.
Applicant’s design minimizes the amount of the variances required.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff found the request is not substantial, given the physical constraints of this
lot.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance:
Staff found the design of the proposed single-family dwelling seeks to match
the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The preservation of trees on the
lot will minimize visual impact from development of this site.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer;
Staff found the requested variances would not adversely affect public service
delivery. Larimer County Engineering provided comments as follows:
Grading for Infrastructure Right-of-Way Encroachment: The Larimer County
Engineer raised concerns regarding the encroachment of grading and
infrastructure in the Eiger Trail right-of-way and required the grading design be
revised so contours tie in within the property boundary. The applicant revised
the retaining walls and grading around the proposed house to stay out of the
Eiger Trail right-of-way. The proposed driveway enters from Eiger Trail, and
grading will be required within the right-of-way and the turnaround grading will
enter the right-of-way. While the applicant proposes grading for the
aforementioned items to be kept to a minimum to obtain safe grades and
slopes, the county’s comments regarding the requirement that grading for
infrastructure shall not encroach into the road right-of-way must be adhered to.
Turnaround and Parking with the Eiger Trail Right-of-Way: The Larimer County
Engineer requested confirmation that the orientation of the proposed garage is
such that the vehicles will be parked outside of the road right-of-way limits, with
space on the property to maneuver vehicles to exit onto Eiger Trail in a forward
manner. The applicant’s plan is to park inside the garage and on the west side
of the turnaround, as there is not 20 feet of space from the garage doors to the
right-of-way line. The applicant asserts the current drive and parking design
presents the most feasible design for this lot regarding access and parking, and
if the proposed dwelling is moved further west, a greater rear setback variance
would be required using more fill and higher retaining walls.
Historic Drainage Patterns: The Larimer County Engineer assumes any
improvements on the site would not adversely impact the drainage patterns or
create erosion problems in the area. A drainage plan will be required of the
applicant, to be reviewed and approved by the County Engineering Department.
Any disturbance of the site should be re-established to be equal to or better
37
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 8
July 12, 2016
than the preconstruction condition, and a native dry land see mix shall be used.
The applicant confirmed the flow pattern will be maintained and directed around
the proposed house. Erosion control and re-vegetation notes have been added
to the site plan. Staff found all comments from the County Engineering
Department shall be adequately addressed prior to issuance of a building
permit.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff was not provided information as to what knowledge the applicant had of
these requirements at the time of purchase. However, given that multiple
homes have been built on surrounding properties, the owner must have
purchased the lot under the assumption they would have reasonable use of the
property per the E-1 zone district, which allows a single-family residence.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance;
Staff found the applicant has proposed the solution with the least impact to the
site by minimizing grading and disturbance of vegetation on a steep slope. Staff
found the applicant’s proposal could not be accommodated through any other
method except a variance.
3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting
the Applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make
reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions
or situations.
Staff finds the applicant’s request for a variance is due to the unique topographical
challenges combined with the narrow width and size of the lot. Staff found these
circumstances are unique to the applicant’s proposal, and are not so general or
recurrent in nature as to make it reasonable for the regulation to be changed to
accommodate similar circumstances.
4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or
proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the
number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable
zone district regulations.
Staff found the variance requests will not result in a reduction in the size of lots
contained in an existing or proposed subdivision.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that
will afford relief.
Staff found the proposed site design was the least deviation from the regulations
necessary to achieve reasonable use of the property as compared to other
variances and residences throughout the subdivision.
38
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 9
July 12, 2016
6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not
permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this
Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought.
Staff found the variances requested will not permit a use prohibited or not
expressly permitted in the E-1 zone district.
7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its
independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified.
Staff has provided recommended conditions of approval for the Board’s
consideration relating to the County Engineering Department comments to be
addressed. The Board is welcome to set forth conditions of approval to address
any concerns that arise during the public hearing.
Staff and Member Discussion
There was brief discussion regarding the Windcliff HOA approval. The approval letter
was shown on the screen.
Public Comment
Celine LeBeau/applicant representative stated the highest retaining wall would be
eight feet high and located at the driveway turnaround.
.
Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering stated no infrastructure or hard features are
proposed to be placed in the Eiger Trail right-of-way; however, there will be grading in
the right-of-way. Excavators will need to fill from the edge of the existing road to the
driveway in order to lessen the slope from the road to the garage. Mr. Sheldon stated
they could not comply with the literal interpretation of the County’s comment.
Planner McCool stated she understood Mr. Sheldon’s concern regarding the County’s
comments. The Board of Adjustment does not have the authority to waive the
County’s requests.
Conditions of Approval
1. Prior to building permit issuance, applicant shall secure an access permit from the
Larimer County Engineering Access Coordinator. This condition shall replace
Larimer County’s first comment in the email dated June 21, 2016.
2. Prior to building permit issuance, applicant shall adequately address comments #2
and #3 from the Larimer County Engineering Department email dated June 21,
2016.
39
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 10
July 12, 2016
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the three variance
requests with the findings and conditions as amended by staff and the motion
passed 3-0 with one absent and one vacancy.
5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Secretary Thompson stated Member Darling (Chair & County Representative) was
no longer a member of the Board of Adjustment, as he had moved outside the
Estes Valley Development Code area. Therefore, a new chair needed to be elected
for the remainder of 2016.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to elect John Lynch to serve as
Chair of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment through the end of 2016 and
the motion passed 3-0 with one absent and one vacancy.
6. REPORTS
1. Secretary Thompson reported Randy Hunt has accepted the position as the
Community Development Director. Mr. Hunt will be moving to Estes Park from
Laramie, Wyoming. His first day will be July 19, 2016.
There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:02
a.m.
___________________________________
John Lynch, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
40
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson
Date: August 4, 2016
RE: Liquor Licensing: Transfer of Ownership from Rocky Mountain Park Inn
LLC, dba Rocky Mountain Park Inn, to Bloomberries Box Cart, LLC, dba
Bloomberries Box Cart, 1209 Manford Avenue Events Center and
Pavilion, Optional Premise Liquor License.
Objective:
Transfer an existing Optional Premise Liquor License located at 1209 Manford Avenue
to the applicant, Bloomberries Box Cart, LLC.
Present Situation:
An Optional Premise Liquor License is currently held at 1209 Manford Avenue by Rocky
Mountain Park Inn LLC. The Town issued an RFP earlier this year for the concessions
at the Town owned Event Complex, including liquor sales. Bloomberries Box Cart was
awarded the contract. This action requires the transfer of the liquor license from the
current concessionaire.
The applicant is requesting a transfer of the license and submitted a complete
application to the Town Clerk’s office on July 6, 2016. A temporary permit was issued
on July 7, 2016. The temporary permit authorizes the transferee to continue the sale of
alcohol beverages as permitted under the permanent license while the application to
transfer ownership of the license is pending.
The applicant has submitted all necessary paperwork and fees and is TIPS trained.
Proposal:
Town Board review and consider the application to transfer the existing license to
Bloomberries Box Cart, LLC dba Bloomberries Box Cart.
Advantages:
The transfer of the license provides the business owner with the opportunity to continue
operating an existing, liquor-licensed establishment without an interruption of service to
its clientele.
Disadvantages:
The business owner is denied the opportunity to continue operating an existing liquor-
licensed business during the licensing process.
Town Clerk’s Office Memo
41
Action Recommended:
Approval to transfer the current Optional Premise License to Bloomberries Box Cart,
LLC.
Budget:
The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for an Optional Premise Liquor License transfer
is $1319. The fee covers the administrative costs related to processing the application,
background checks, and business licensing. In addition, the renewal fee payable to the
Town for an Optional Premise Liquor License is $869 per year.
Level of Public Interest:
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Transfer Application for an Optional Premise Liquor License
filed by Bloomberries Box Cart, LLC, dba Bloomberries Box Cart.
Attachments
Procedure
42
PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE
TOWN CLERK.
Will present the application and confirm the following:
The application was filed July 6, 2016 .
The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs.
The applicant is filing as a LLC .
There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicants.
Status of T.I.P.S. Training:
Unscheduled X Completed Pending Confirmation
MOTION:
I move the Transfer Application filed by Bloomberries Box Cart, LLC doing business as
Bloomberries Box Cart for an Optional Premise License be approved/denied.
43
44
The Issue
One in four people in
Larimer County suffer
from a mental health
and/or substance
abuse issue.
45
Key Findings
Behavioral health
disorders, including mental
illness and substance
abuse, are serious
chronic issues in
our communities.
46
New
24/7
Behavioral
Health
Services
Center
The Solution
Build a public treatment center
that provides high-quality detox,
mental health and substance
abuse treatment.
47
Invest in Our Community
Vote YES on the
Mental Health,
Detox/Substance Abuse
Facility and Services issue.
The cost is only 25 cents
on every $100 spent.
48
www.larimerbehavioralhealth.com
49
50
51
52
Recommendations for Critical Behavioral Health Services in Larimer County
Estimates of Services to be Provided
April 2016
Paid for With Projected Budget, in 24/7 Behavioral Services Facility:
1)Thorough Assessments: 7,600 assessments
Clinically strong, evidence‐based, assess both mental illness and substance use disorder
Provided by psychiatrists, licensed therapists, CACs with differential diagnosis expertise
2)Acute Treatment Unit: 12 Beds, 990 admissions, average LOS 5 days
Acute mental illness stabilization when hospitalization not required; more than crisis stabilization
center but less than inpatient hospitalization
3)Medically Monitored Withdrawal Management (f/k/a detox):
12 beds, 820 admissions, average LOS 5 days
Includes adequate medical staff to be able to administer person’s personal meds, meds for initial
withdrawal if needed, and start medication‐assisted treatment for opioid withdrawal
4)Short Term Intensive Residential (SIR): 11 beds, 300 admissions, average LOS 12 days
Short term intensive treatment for substance use disorder
5)Client Assistance For Treatment Costs: Assist 1,600 individuals
Flexible funding to assist with medications, transportation, deductibles/co‐pays, etc.
Paid for With Projected Budget, in the COMMUNITY:
6)Moderately Intensive to Intensive Care Coordination: 250 caseload
Provides higher level care coordination for those with most complex needs, more significant behavioral
health disease
7)Supportive Services for those in Permanent Supportive Housing: 100 caseload
Provides behavioral supportive services for those whose level of functional impairment are appropriate
for permanent supportive housing
Partially Supported With Projected Budget, in the COMMUNITY:
8)24/7 Certified Addictions Counselors (CACs) (only) for Long Term Low Intensity Residential Care (LIR):
52 beds, 190 admissions, average LOS 90 days
While other organizations would provide the LIR, projected funding would cover the cost of CACs 24/7
9)Client Assistance Funds (see above) to provide limited help with Intensive Outpatient and Outpatient
Services. IOP: average LOS 30 visits; 1089 admissions total capacity needed.
OP: average LOS 10 visits; 3800 admissions total capacity needed.
The project would encourage existing providers to expand IOP and OP services for substance use
disorders. While insurance is anticipated to pay for most of the cost of IOP and OP, some of the client
assistance funds, above, are anticipated to be needed to assist with deductibles/copays for IOP and OP
services for substance use disorders.
53
54
Recommendations
for
the
Development
of
Critical
Behavioral
Health
Services
in
Larimer
County
Executive
Summary
Community Mental Health and Substance Abuse
Partnership of Larimer County
An Unincorporated Non-Profit Association
March 31, 2016
55
1
Community Mental Health and Substance Abuse
Partnership of Larimer County
An Unincorporated Non-Profit Association
Executive Summary
Recommendations
for
the
Development
of
Critical
Behavioral
Health
Services
in
Larimer
County
February 23, 2016
Introduction
While many quality behavioral health treatment and support services are being provided in
Larimer County, the current continuum of services being offered is not sufficient to meet the
needs of the many people who have mental illnesses and/or substance use disorders. As a result
these people often simply can’t get the level of care that they need to address their illness.
Awareness of the gaps in behavioral health services has been growing over time to the point that
several major community organizations have mentioned the need for an improved behavioral
healthcare system in their strategic planning, including Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins,
and the Health District of Northern Larimer County. The Community Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Partnership of Larimer County, a collaborative effort between over twenty
organizations, consumer and family advocates, and treatment and service providers, established
creating a plan for the expansion of critical behavioral health services as its highest priority in
2015. This document is the result of this priority area and the work of a sub-group of Partnership
Members known as the “Plan Guidance Team” and is intended to inform the planning process.
To aid in data collection, analysis and development of recommendations, the Partnership
engaged the services of the NIATx group, a multidisciplinary team of consultants with a unique
blend of expertise in public policy, agency management, and systems engineering that has
worked with 1000+ treatment providers and 50+ state and county governments.
The purpose of this document is to help citizens and service providers understand existing
challenges, garner commitment to making changes and improvements, and stimulate significant
development and expansion of critical behavioral health services in Larimer County. The
ultimate goal is to guarantee Larimer County’s capacity to meet the growing behavioral health
needs of its citizens. This document seeks to accomplish the following:
1. Delineate what is needed for a more complete continuum of care capable of providing
adequate levels of affordable care for those with behavioral health needs (focusing on the
best evidence, high quality, and access to care), understand what actually exists in our
community, and determine the gaps; and
56
2. Determine a cost estimate for filling the gaps, potential revenue sources, and the
remaining need for funding.
The Need
Behavioral health disorders, including mental illness and substance use disorders are serious,
chronic health issues that can be potentially life-threatening, similar to other chronic health
disorders such as diabetes and heart disease. These disorders of the brain are common and can
affect anyone at any age or socioeconomic status. It is estimated that there are approximately
44,300 adults who have mental illness and 31,000 who are dependent on alcohol or drugs living
in Larimer County, although many have both disorders and the impact of the disorders varies.
Behavioral health disorders are treatable and treatment effectiveness is improving. However, the
majority of those with these disorders never receive the treatment they need to help restore their
functioning. Though these conditions are treatable health disorders, consumers and families
regularly report great difficulty in getting access to the recommended range of services - a
situation that is quite different than access to care for other chronic illnesses such as heart disease
and diabetes.
Lack of treatment is particularly true for those with substance use disorders (thus this study
focused heavily on estimating unmet need for these disorders). NIATx estimated that of the
approximately 31,000 people meeting the criteria for needing treatment for substance use
disorders, only 2,800 people actually receive that care each year in Larimer County, leaving over
28,000 people needing but not receiving treatment annually. Of those 28,000, it is estimated that
approximately 1,400 actually want or would seek treatment but do not receive that treatment.
Providing an improved continuum of care for the 4,200 people needing and seeking treatment
(2,800 who currently seek treatment and an additional 1,400 who need but don’t receive that
treatment) is critical to their recovery.
When people with behavioral health disorders do not receive appropriate, timely, or adequate
treatment the result is often greater suffering from symptoms, poor quality of life, reduced ability
to function and use of more intensive and higher cost levels of treatment. People with behavioral
health disorders are also at risk for unstable employment, poverty, chronic health conditions,
early death, and suicide. Many people who don’t get the right treatment enter a cycle of repeated
use of the highest cost services in our community such as emergency departments, law
enforcement or criminal justice, including jail.
While many quality services are being provided here, the key finding of this investigation is that Larimer
County does not have a continuum of behavioral health treatment and support services that is sufficient
to meet the needs of the many people with mental illnesses and/or substance use disorders. As a result,
these people often simply can’t get the level of care that they need to address their illness.
Recommended Solutions to Meet the Need
Specifically, this planning process recommended that four key levels of care and a range of support services be
added or expanded in order to provide adequate standards of care in Larimer County.
•A full complement of Withdrawal Management (Drug/Alcohol Detoxification) services;
•Residential Treatment for Substance Use Disorders (SUDs);
•Acute Treatment Unit (ATU) for just-under-hospitalization level of care;
•Intensive Outpatient Treatment Services (IOP); and
•Support Services (moderately intensive to intensive care coordination, medications, support services for
those living in Permanent Supportive Housing, assessment, and client assistance funds).
The study also recommended that many of these services be provided in a 24-7 Services Center providing a
new state-of-the-art model of care and enabling more seamless transitions between levels of care. Part of the
new model would include a more thorough, formal, patient-centered assessment process in order to better
guide transitions into and between the levels of care.
57
Specific recommendations to create and support adequate services in each of these areas include:
1. Expand treatment capacity to accommodate the estimated need for services for up to 4,700
adults. This includes an estimated 2,800 people currently receiving some level of treatment,
plus an additional 1,400 adults estimated to need and seek treatment in Larimer County but
who are currently unable to receive that treatment, plus an allowance of 500 people for
anticipated growth. The total annual utilization of all services included in the recommended
model is estimated at approximately 12,000 admissions (defined broadly).
2. Create a more complete continuum of care and the ability to place patients into
appropriate levels of care based on assessment and re-assessment. Provide most
services in one facility, with specific services supported and provided in the community.
3. Create a medically monitored Withdrawal Management Center (Drug/Alcohol
Detoxification) in Larimer County with 12 beds and the capacity for up to 822 ASAM
level 3.7 admissions in order to support detoxification from alcohol or drugs and transition
individuals into treatment. Two additional levels of withdrawal management services would
be available in the community (but are not included in the funding recommendations
included in this document): Ambulatory (ASAM level 2.0) managed on an outpatient basis,
and Intensive Inpatient (ASAM level 4.0) provided in a hospital setting.
4. Create or support several levels of residential care to support up to 500 short-term and
long-term supported residential admissions as follows:
•Create Short-Term Intensive Residential Treatment (IRT) designed to provide a safe
therapeutic environment where clinical services and medications are available to treat
patients who are medically stable and withdrawn from substances. Capacity: 11 beds,
average length of stay (ALOS) of 12 days, and 305 admissions.
•Support Low Intensity Residential (LIR) services designed to build and reinforce a
stable routine in a safe and supportive context for residents who lack a stable living
environment. Capacity: 52 beds (in the community, not part of facility), ALOS of 90 days,
and 190 admissions.
•Encourage the development of independent, voluntary sober housing, like “Oxford
Houses” in the community to provide safe and supportive living environments for those
who choose and can pay for this type of residence. No external financing is
recommended for this type of housing.
5. Encourage the development of community capacity for Intensive Outpatient Services
(IOP) for individuals who require a more structured substance use disorder outpatient
treatment experience than traditional outpatient treatment. Capacity: 1,089 IOP admissions,
an average of 30 visits per admission, and an average daily census of 50. (Note: Since health
insurance is likely to cover these services, the only amount included in the budget
recommendations in this document is client assistance for up to 218 uninsured or
underinsured individuals.)
58
6. Encourage the development of community capacity for Outpatient (OP) Substance Use
Disorder Treatment to provide up to 3,800 admissions, with 30 FTE providing 10 sessions
per admission for people who can benefit from outpatient treatment. (Note: Since health
insurance is likely to cover these services, the only amount included in budget
recommendations is client assistance for up to 780 uninsured or underinsured people.)
7. Create an Acute Treatment Unit in Larimer County to provide short-term crisis
stabilization for individuals whose symptoms and treatment can be managed in non-hospital
settings. Capacity: 12 beds, ALOS of 5 days and capacity to provide up to 986 admissions.
8. Provide specific behavioral health support services to include:
•Moderately intensive to intensive care coordination for up to 250 clients;
•Client assistance fund to help cover needs such as transportation, co-pays (including IOP
and OP), medications, and personal emergencies for up to an estimated 1,620 clients;
•Approximately 7,650 patient centered, intensive assessments to ensure placement in
appropriate levels of care; and
•Support services in Permanent Supportive Housing for up to 100 clients with chronic
health conditions who lack family/social supports, and are disconnected from
employment and other community functions. (Housing to be provided by other sources.)
Financial Resources Needed to Provide These Services
After NIATx completed a preliminary report with a first round of cost, revenue and facilities
estimations, local experts in behavioral health, budgeting and facilities amended these figures to
represent local circumstances and input. The annual costs to provide these services have been
estimated at $15.77 million. Available revenues from client fees and insurance are estimated at
approximately $4 million. The remaining need for funding is estimated at $11.77 million.
Projected
Overall
Operating
Budget
Personnel $8.58 million
Client Assistance $2.40 million
Operational (operational costs,
maintenance, equipment, contracted
services, etc.)
$4.79 million
TOTAL: $15.77 million
Less Revenues $ 4.00 million
Needed Annual Funding: $11.77 million
Facilities Needed and Associated Costs
Estimates for facility space and costs are currently estimated based on providing most services in
one facility. Based on current estimates, a 51,000 square foot facility would be required to
provide these services. The total facility and land costs are estimated at $20.42 million. Facility
costs have not been estimated for Low Intensity Residential services.
Benefits and Value to the Community
59
There is ample evidence to demonstrate significant value and benefits of behavioral health
disorder treatment. Patients and families benefit from increased health, well-being and ability to
function in their family, work, community and society (similar benefits as those seen for
managing symptoms of diabetes or hypertension). Communities realize reductions in related
costs. Additionally, the National Institute of Health estimates that every dollar spent on addiction
treatment yields a return of between $4 and $7 in reduced drug-related crime, criminal justice
costs, and theft. When healthcare related savings are included, total savings can exceed costs by
a ratio of 12 to 1.
Summary, Estimated Increased Capacity for Critical Services
To Be Developed Under Proposed Budget
Capacity
Utilization
Assessments 7,655 assessments
Acute Treatment Unit (ATU) 12 beds 986 admissions
Withdrawal Management (medically monitored detox) 12 beds 822 admissions
Short-term Intensive Residential Treatment (IRT) for Substance
Use Disorders (SUD’s)
11 beds 305 admissions
Low-intensity Residential (LIR) for SUD’s (funding for staff, not
facility; beds to be outside of facility)
52 beds 191 admissions
Client Assistance (transportation, medication, co-pays, etc.)
Includes client assistance for IOP and OP for un- & under-insured
1,620 clients
Care Coordination (moderately intensive to intensive) 250 clients
Support Services (for those in Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)) 100 clients
TOTAL 11,929
Additional Capacity Needed and to Be Encouraged (Insurance Coverage Available)
Intensive Outpatient (IOP)
Treatment for SUD’s
1,089 (capacity needed; 220 clients included in client assistance, above)
Outpatient (OP) for SUD’s 3,800 (capacity needed; 780 clients included in client assistance, above)
TOTAL 4,889
For more information contact:
Lin Wilder
Community Mental Health and Substance Abuse Partnership of Larimer County
lwilder@healthdistrict.org
60
RESOLUTION #13-16
SUPPORTING THE MENTAL HEALTH, DETOX/SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY
AND SERVICES BALLOT ISSUE.
WHEREAS, Mental illness and substance use disorders are serious health issues
for 1 in 4 people in Larimer County; and
WHEREAS, Mental illness and substance use disorders are treatable health
conditions; and
WHEREAS, Too often people in crisis end up at an emergency room, in jail, or are
taken to Greeley’s detox facility. Our communities need a public facility in Larimer County
and a public community-based mental illness and behavioral health treatment center that
will provide a continuum of high-quality care for detox, mental health and substance
abuse treatment and services which will be less costly than jails, emergency rooms, and
travel out of Larimer County; and
WHEREAS, The estimated number of Larimer County adults who suffer with
mental illness is 44,300 and the estimated number of Larimer County adults who are drug-
or alcohol dependent is 31,000; and
WHEREAS, The number of adults in Larimer who receive treatment annually is
2,800 and the number of adults the proposed facility would accommodate annually is
4,700; and
WHEREAS, The estimated yearly admissions in the 12-bed acute treatment unit
would be 990 patients, estimated annual admissions to the medically monitored
withdrawal management or detox wing, with a medical staff to administer medications to
aid withdrawal would be 820 patients, and, estimated admissions each year for short-
term intensive residential treatment would be 300 patients
WHEREAS, The expected cost for land and construction of a 51,000-square-foot facility
is $20.42 million and anticipated annual operating costs of $11.77 million (operating cost
of $15.77 million minus revenue = $11.77 million). The cost to the public is a sales tax of
25₵ cents on $100 spent for a new behavioral health facility. Larimer County taxes are
expected to increase by $16,500,000.00 dollars in 2017, and by whatever additional
amount is raised annually thereafter for 25 years; and
WHEREAS, This facility will fill gaps in care in our communities. Because this proposal
aims to ensure people have access to the help they need through a continuum of care in
their community and that treatment is an investment in the health and well-being of our
communities; and
61
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK do hereby support the county-wide sales and use tax of 25₵
on $100 dollars, beginning January 1, 2017, to build, improve, maintain, and operate a
treatment and detox facility for mental health, alcohol and drug abuse, and associated
support services in connection with this facility.
DATED this day of , 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
62
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Carrie McCool, Planning Consultant
Date: August 9, 2016
RE: Estes Valley Community Center Fee Waiver Request
(Continued from July 26, 2016)
[NOTE: Italics signify new sentences added since the July 26 Town Board
Memorandum on this topic.]
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) has submitted 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 July 19, 2016, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
approved the development plan and forwarded a recommendation to Town Board to
approve the minor subdivision plat. The variance is scheduled for Board of Adjustment
review on August 2, 2016. Staff anticipates that a building permit application will be
submitted within the next few weeks. The height variance was approved by the Board of
Adjustment on August 2, 2016, with no conditions.
The EVRPD is requesting a waiver of the development application fees, building permit,
and plan review fees. Requested fee waivers total approximately $137,000, if all
Community Development fees (Planning review, Building permit, and Building Plan
Review) are waived.
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
Community Development Memo
63
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Estes Valley Community Center Fee Waiver Request
fee waiver request 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.
The Community Development/Community Services Committee reviewed the fee waiver
request at the June 16, 2016 meeting and forwarded the request for Town Board
consideration and action.
Proposal:
The attached letter from the EVRPD dated May 27, 2016, further describes the request.
The bulk of the requested fee waiver, approximately $133,000, is for building permit
fees. These fees are intended to cover direct expenses associated with 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 is significant enough that Chief
Building Official (CBO) Birchfield recommended Town Board approve a partial rather
than full fee waiver. The Division’s ability to provide plan review and inspection services
for the Community Center project within the approved departmental budget will be
compromised with a full fee waiver request. Another option to address the CBOs
concern is a budget revision to account for the reduced revenue and increased
expenses.
The CBO recommended that twenty percent (20%) of the building permit fee,
approximately $16,817, be retained. This is intended to cover the Building Division’s
general administrative costs associated with the Community Center project. The CBO
recommended no waiver of the plan review fee as the CBO intends to outsource plan
review to Colorado Code Consulting (CCC) for workload reasons.
The following table (Table 1) estimates the fiscal impact of a FULL planning and
building fee waiver:
Planning Division Fees Fee Amount
Location and Extent Development Plan $2,000.00
Minor Subdivision Plat $1,200.00
Variance $500.00
Subtotal $3,700.00
Building Division Fees
Building Permit Fees*$84,083.75
Plan Review Fees**$49,000.00
Subtotal $133,083.75
TOTAL $136,783.75
*The building permit fees are based on total construction costs of $22,500,000.
**Plan review fees are estimates that depend on the quality of submittals and the number of reviews
required. They could range anywhere from $19,000.00 - $49,000.00.
64
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Estes Valley Community Center Fee Waiver Request
The following table (Table 2) estimates the fiscal impact of a PARTIAL planning and
building fee waiver, following the Building Official’s suggestions outlined above:
Planning Division Fees Fee Amount
Location and Extent Development Plan $2,000.00
Minor Subdivision Plat $1,200.00
Variance $500.00
Subtotal $3,700.00
Building Division Fees
Building Permit Fees*$67,267.00
Plan Review Fees**$0.00
Subtotal $67,267.00
TOTAL $70,967.00
*The building permit fees are based on total construction costs of $22,500,000.
**Plan review fees are estimates that depend on the quality of submittals and the number of reviews
required. They could range anywhere from $19,000.00 - $49,000.00.
Staff estimates that waiving ALL fees (Table 1) will reduce 2016 Budget estimated total
revenues as follows:
Planning div. (1600 series): 1.0% ($3,700 / $374,096)
Building Safety div. (2300 series): 34.2% ($133,084 / $389,210)
Staff estimates that PARTIALLY waiving fees (Table 2) will reduce 2016 Budget
estimated total revenues as follows:
Planning div. (1600 series): 1.0% ($3,700 / $374,096)
Building Safety div. (2300 series): 17.3% ($67,267 / $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., waiver have not been requested for water tap
fees 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 reduce project costs for a community project that has a very tight
budget. If fees are not waived, the EVRPD may need to further reduce the size or
scope of the project.
Disadvantages:
The fee waiver policy applies to waiver of in-house fees, not direct expenses
incurred in outsourcing. The Town has incurred and will continue to incur direct
expenses associate with outsourcing for this project. Community Development
outsourced development application review to McCool Development Solutions due
the applicants’ construction schedule and a staff (Planner) vacancy. The Building
Division intends to outsource the building plan review for workload reasons.
However, this policy is about seven months overdue for review and possible revision
65
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Estes Valley Community Center Fee Waiver Request
and the policy was adopted prior to the department outsourcing a fairly significant
amount of work.
Approval of the request would reduce the ability to recover expenses associated with
the Community Development Department’s development review, building permitting
and inspection functions.
Approval of the request would impact the ability of the department to meet the cost
recovery goals established by Town Board.
Level of Public Interest
High – Community Center
Low – Fee Waiver Request
Action Recommended:
On June 21, 2016, the Community Development/Community Services Committee heard
the staff report and forwarded the request to Town Board for consideration and action.
The committee made no recommendation to approve or deny the request. Because the
requested fee waiver is greater than $3,000, Town Board is the decision-making body
for this request.
Budget:
General Fund: 101-1600-341.30-00 Charges for Services – Application Fees-Inside
$3,700 in reduced revenue
General Fund: 101-1600.423.22-13 Contract/Skilled Services
Estimated at $6,000 in outsourced development review services (budgeted)
General Fund: 101-2300-322.10-00 Licenses and Permits – Building
Approximately $133,000 in reduced revenue
General Fund: 101-2300.423.22-13 Contract/Skilled Services
Roughly estimated at $50,000 in outsourced building services (unbudgeted)
Sample Motion:
a. I move to approve the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District fee waiver request.
b. I move to approve the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District fee waiver request,
provided that Building Plan Review Fees are not waived and that Building Permit Fees
are waived in an amount no more than eighty (80) percent of the final Building Permit
Fee total.
c. I move to deny the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District fee waiver request.
Attachments:
1. Written request from the applicant
2. Community Development Fee Waiver Policy
66
67
68
69
70
To:Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Audem Gonzales, Planner I
Date:August 9, 2016
RE: Annexation Proposal – Mountain Meadow Subdivision
(Resolution #14-16, Ordinance #20-16 and Annexation Agreement
between TOEP and The Sanctuary, LLC)
______________________________________________________________________
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing to consider an Annexation application for compliance with the
Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.).
Present Situation:
The property is approximately 6.17 acres in size and is zoned A1-Accommodations. The
Board of County Commissioners conditionally approved the Mountain Meadow
Subdivision Final Plat on May 16, 2016 with the condition that the subdivision is
successfully annexed within 3 months of Final Plat approval. Per the Intergovernmental
Agreement with Larimer County, the Town agrees to consider annexation of all
subdivisions of five (5) or more lots for residential use within the unincorporated portion
of the Planning Area.
The property borders Town limits on the north and on the west. Directly southeast and
south are other County properties.
Proposal:
The annexation request includes approximately 6.17 acres of land zoned A-1
Accommodations within the unincorporated Estes Valley. The conditionally approved
Final Plat consists of a 15 lot single-family home subdivision located off Fish Hatchery
Road. The subdivision shall retain the A-1 zone district classification.
The Annexation Agreement between the Town and The Sanctuary, LLC (Mark Theiss)
requires the land owner to have the improvements listed in Phase 1 installed and
accepted by the Town and/or guaranteed prior to the application for any building permit
on any of the Phase 1 lots. This course of action is not customary with subdivision and
annexation proposals. Typically, the improvements are guaranteed prior to the approval
of the plat or annexation, or installed, inspected and approved prior to plat recordation
71
and annexation. Annexation agreements allow the Town to modify the EVDC and offer
flexibility to developers in specific circumstances.
Advantages:
1.This request complies with Eligibility for Annexation standards set forth in C.R.S.
31-12-104;
2.This request complies with Limitations standards set forth in C.R.S. 31-12-105;
3.An annexation election is not required under C.R.S. 31-12-107(2).
4.Increases property tax and potential commercial tax revenue to the Town
5.Re-develops an underutilized property within the Estes Valley
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Planning Staff is recommending Approval of the Mountain Meadow Subdivision
Annexation application.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest:
Low: There has been no written public comment received as of August 4, 2016. Any
comments received after this date shall be placed on the applications page of the Town
website at www.estes.org/currentapplications
Sample Motions:
Below are the Town Board’s options related to the Annexation application:
1.I find that the application meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVE Resolution
#14-16, Ordinance #20-16, and the Annexation Agreement with the following
conditions:
2.I find that the application meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVE Resolution
#14-16, Ordinance #20-16, and the Annexation Agreement with no conditions;
3.I find that the application does not meet the review criteria, and move to DENY
Resolution #14-16, Ordinance #20-16, and the Annexation Agreement;
72
4.I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the application
and move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to provide adequate time to review additional
materials.
Attachments:
Resolution #14-16
Ordinance #20-16
Annexation Agreement
Application www.estes.org/currentapplications
73
74
RESOLUTION NO. 14-16
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with
Section 31-12-110, C.R.S., hereby finds that with regard to the proposed annexation of the
following described area, that the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12-
104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., have been met; that an election is not required under Section
31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms and conditions are to be imposed on
the annexation. The area eligible for annexation known as MOUNTAIN MEADOWS
ADDITION” to the Town of Estes Park is as follows:
Containing Acres.6.17
Former Parcel A - That portion of the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 16, Township
5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th p.m., which lies South of the county road as
now constructed, more particulary descrived as follows: beginning at a point on
the line btween the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ and the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of said Section
16, which point is 50 feet East of the Southwest corner of the NE ¼ of the SE ¼;
thence along said line to the center of the county road as now constructed,
thence in a northwesterly deirection along the center line of said county road to a
point North 0 degrees 10 minutes West of the point of beginning, thence South 0
degrees 10 minutes east to the point of beginning. County of Larimer, State of
Colorado.
Former Parcel B - That portion of the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 16, Township
5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th p.m., which is more particularly described as
follows: beginning at the NW corner of the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of said section 16;
thence e 510.4 feet; thence s 350 feet; thence west 510.4 feet; thence n 350 feet
to the point of beginning, together with the improvements theron, County of
Larimer, State of Colorado.
75
DATED this day of , 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
76
ORDINANCE NO. 20-16
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION
OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO,
TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS
MOUNTAIN MEADOW ADDITION
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1. That a Petition for Annexation, together with four (4) copies of the plat of
said area as required by law, was filed with the Board of Trustees on the 25th day of
March, 2016 by the landowners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area and owning
one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys of the area
hereinafter described. The Board, by Resolution at its regular meeting on the 26th day of
April, 2016, accepted said Petition and found and determined that the provisions of
Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S., were met; and the Board further determined that the Town
Board should consider the annexation plat on Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Municipal Building for the purposes of determining that the proposed annexation complies
with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and is
considered eligible for annexation.
Section 2. That the Notice of said hearing was given and published as provided in
Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S.
Section 3. That the hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-12-
109, C.R.S., on the 9th day of August, 2016.
Section 4. That following said hearing, the Board of Trustees adopted a Resolution
determining that the proposed annexation met the requirements of the applicable parts of
Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; that an election was not required under
Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms or conditions are to be imposed
upon said annexation.
Section 5. That the annexation of the following described area designated as
MOUNTAIN MEADOW ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, is hereby
approved:
Containing Acres.6.17
Former Parcel A - That portion of the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 16, Township
5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th p.m., which lies South of the county road as
now constructed, more particulary descrived as follows: beginning at a point on
the line btween the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ and the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of said Section
16, which point is 50 feet East of the Southwest corner of the NE ¼ of the SE ¼;
77
thence along said line to the center of the county road as now constructed,
thence in a northwesterly deirection along the center line of said county road to a
point North 0 degrees 10 minutes West of the point of beginning, thence South 0
degrees 10 minutes east to the point of beginning. County of Larimer, State of
Colorado.
Former Parcel B - That portion of the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 16, Township
5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th p.m., which is more particularly described as
follows: beginning at the NW corner of the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of said section 16;
thence e 510.4 feet; thence s 350 feet; thence west 510.4 feet; thence n 350 feet
to the point of beginning, together with the improvements theron, County of
Larimer, State of Colorado.
Section 6. The Town of Estes Park, Colorado, hereby consents, pursuant to
Section 37-45-136(3.6) C.R.S., to the inclusion of lands described above into the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal SubDistrict, Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular
meeting of the Board of Trustees on the of , 2016 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of
, 2016, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
78
ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into this ____ day of _________, 2016, by and
between The Sanctuary, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, hereinafter referred to as
(“Owner”); and the Town of Estes Park, a Municipal Corporation in the State of Colorado,
hereinafter referred to as (the “ Town”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Owner desires to annex to the Town the property more particularly
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“the Property”);
and
WHEREAS, the Owner has executed a petition to annex the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Owner received approval of the subdivision of the Property known as
the Mountain Meadow Subdivision contingent on annexation of the Property to the Town. A
copy of the Mountain Meadow Subdivision Plat is attached hereto as Exhibit B (the “Subdivision
Plat”), and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Owner desires to phase development of the Property including phasing
of required public improvements and/or guarantee of public improvements for the Property as
required by Section 10.5 K. of the Estes Valley Development Code (the “EVDC”); and
WHEREAS, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference is the
Phasing Plan for development of the Property; and
WHEREAS, it is to the mutual benefit of the parties to enter into this Annexation
Agreement (this “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that upon annexation, the Property will be subject to
all ordinances, resolutions and other regulations of the Town, as they may be amended from
time to time.
79
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE PREMISES AND THE
COVENANTS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS
FOLLOWS:
1.Mountain Meadow Subdivision subdivides the Property into fifteen single family
residential lots. Lots 1, 10, 11, 12 and 15 of Mountain Meadow Subdivision shall be developed
pursuant to Phase I of the Phasing Plan and Lots 2 – 9, 13 and 14 of Mountain Meadow
Subdivision shall be developed pursuant to Phase II of the Phasing Plan. The conditions for
phased development of the Mountain Meadow Subdivision are as follows:
a.Phase I. Owner shall be required to have the improvements that are listed in
Phase I installed and accepted by the Town and/or guaranteed pursuant to
the applicable provisions of Section 10.5 K. of the EVDC prior to the
application for any building permit on any of the Phase I lots. Owner may
elect to install one or more of the public improvements and/or guarantee one
or more of the public improvements listed in Phase I. No application for any
building permit shall be processed for any of the Phase I lots until the public
improvements listed in Phase I have been installed and approved, and/or
guarantees established for individual improvements.
b.Phase II. Owner shall be required to have the improvements that are listed
in Phase II installed and accepted by the Town and/or guaranteed pursuant
to the applicable provisions of Section 10.5 K. of the EVDC prior to the
application for any building permit on any of the Phase II lots. Owner may
elect to install one or more of the public improvements and/or guarantee one
or more of the public improvements listed in Phase II. No application for any
building permit shall be processed for any of the Phase II lots until the public
improvements listed in Phase II have been installed and approved, and/or
guarantees established for individual improvements.
c. Owner, nor any agent of the Owner, shall not transfer, sell, agree to sell, or
negotiate to sell any of the lots in Phase I until such time as all public
improvements listed in Phase I have been installed and accepted by the
Town and/or a guarantee has been filed with the Town pursuant to the
80
applicable provisions of Section 10.5 K. of the EVDC.
d.Owner, nor any agent of the Owner, shall not transfer, sell, agree to sell, or
negotiate to sell any of the lots in Phase II until such time as all public
improvements listed in Phase II have been installed and accepted by the
Town and/or a guarantee has been filed with the Town pursuant to the
applicable provisions of Section 10.5 K. of the EVDC.
e.All the public improvements listed in Phase I must be completed and
accepted by the Town prior to all of the public improvements in Phase II
being completed and accepted by the Town.
2. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute or be interpreted as a
repeal of the Town’s ordinances, resolutions, or policies or as a waiver of the Town’s legislative,
governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
Town and its inhabitants; nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or increase by the
Town of any tax or fee as authorized by law.
3. In the event of a material breach of any provision of this Agreement, the non-
breaching party may ask a court of competent jurisdiction to enter a writ of mandamus,
temporary or permanent restraining orders, temporary or permanent injunctions, or orders of
specific performance, to compel the breaching party to perform its duties under this Agreement.
4. The parties agree that they will cooperate with one another in accomplishing the
terms, conditions, and provisions of the Agreement, and will execute such additional documents
as necessary to effectuate the same.
5. This Agreement and all amendments shall be recorded with the Clerk and
Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado, and shall be a covenant running with the land, and shall
be binding upon all persons or entities having an interest in the Property.
6. This Agreement embodies the entire agreement of the parties. There are no
promises, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained herein; and this
Agreement supersedes all previous communications, representations, or agreements, either
81
verbal or written, between the parties. This Agreement may be amended by the Town and the
Owner. Such amendments shall be in writing.
7.As used in this Agreement, the term “Owner” shall include any transferees,
successors, or assigns of the Owner, and all such parties shall have the right to enforce this
Agreement, and shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement, as if they were the original
parties thereto.
8. As used in this Agreement, unless otherwise specifically provided herein, any
reference to any provision of any Town ordinance, resolution, or policy is intended to refer to
any subsequent amendments or revisions to such ordinance, resolution, or policy, and the
parties agree that such amendments or revisions shall be binding upon Owner, and the
Property, subject to any applicable provisions for valid, pre-existing non-conforming uses.
9. The Owner acknowledges that the annexation of the Property is subject to the
legislative discretion of the Board of Trustees of the Town. No assurances of annexation have
been made or relied upon by the Owner. In the event that, in the exercise of its legislative
discretion, the annexation of the Property is not approved, this Agreement shall be null and void
and of no further force and effect.
10. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, and
venue shall be in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
11.Notices. Written notices shall be directed as follows and shall be deemed
received when hand-delivered or emailed, or three days after being sent by regular first class
mail:
To the Owner: To the Town:
The Sanctuary, LLC Town of Estes Park
Attn: Mark Theiss Attn: Town Administrator
P O Box 4563 P O Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park, CO 80517
12. In the event it becomes necessary for either party to bring any action to enforce any
provision of this Agreement or to recover any damages from the other party as a result of the breach of
this Agreement, including, but not limited to, defective work, and the party that prevails in such
82
litigation, the other party shall pay the prevailing party its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as
determined by the court.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
________________________
By: Mayor Todd Jirsa
ATTEST
___________________________
By: Town Clerk
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
The above and foregoing was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ______________,
2016 by Todd Jirsa as Mayor of the Town of Estes Park.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires: ______________.
________________________________
Notary Public
83
THE SANCTUARY, LLC
_______________________________
By: Mark Theiss
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
The above and foregoing was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ______________,
2016, by Mark Theiss as _________________ of The Sanctuary, LLC.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires: _______________________________.
_______________________________
Notary Public
84
85
86
87
88
89
Mountain Meadow Subdivision Annexation; Estes Park Town Board, August 9, 2016Mountain Meadow Subdivision Annexation•Objective• Present Situation• Proposal• Advantages• Disadvantages• Planning Commission Recommendation• Budget• Level of Public Interest• Sample Motions
Mountain Meadow Subdivision Annexation; Estes Park Town Board, August 9, 2016Present Situation – Vicinity Map
Mountain Meadow Subdivision Annexation; Estes Park Town Board, August 9, 2016Present Situation – Final Plat
Mountain Meadow Subdivision Annexation; Estes Park Town Board, August 9, 2016Proposal – Annexation Map~6.17 AcresZoned A-1 (Accommodations)
Mountain Meadow Subdivision Annexation; Estes Park Town Board, August 9, 2016Proposal – Annexation Agreement
Mountain Meadow Subdivision Annexation; Estes Park Town Board, August 9, 2016Mountain Meadow Subdivision Annexation• Objective• Present Situation• Proposal•Advantages•Disadvantages• Recommendation• Budget• Level of Public Interest• Sample Motions
Mountain Meadow Subdivision Annexation; Estes Park Town Board, August 9, 2016RecommendationPlanning Staff is recommending APPROVALof the Mountain Meadow Subdivision Annexation application
Mountain Meadow Subdivision Annexation; Estes Park Town Board, August 9, 2016Mountain Meadow Subdivision Annexation• Objective• Present Situation• Proposal• Advantages• Disadvantages• Recommendation•Budget•Level of Public Interest• Sample Motions
Mountain Meadow Subdivision Annexation; Estes Park Town Board, August 9, 2016Sample MotionsBelow are the Town Board’s options related to the Annexation application:1. I find that the application meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVEResolution #14-16, Ordinance #20-16, and the Annexation Agreement with the following conditions:2. I find that the application meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVEResolution #14-16, Ordinance #20-16, and the Annexation Agreement with no conditions:3. I find that the application does not meet the review criteria, and move to DENYResolution #14-16, Ordinance #20-16, and the Annexation Agreement.4. I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the application and move to CONTINUE THE HEARINGto provide adequate time to review additional materials.