HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-02-23The 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, February 23, 2016
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PRESENTATION: Monte Verde Student Science Exchange.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
2017 Budget Process Overview.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated February 9, 2016 and Town Board Study Session
February 2, 2016 and February 9, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee, February 11, 2016.
1. 2017 International 7400 4x4 Single Axle Dump Truck, McCandless Truck
Center LLC - $95,238.00, Budgeted.
2. 2017 Freightliner M2106 4x4 Single Axle Dump Truck, Transwest Trucks -
$108,300.00, Budgeted.
3. Wildlife Resistant Trash Cans, Bearsaver - $58,916.00, Budgeted.
4. Informative Plaque Addition for Green Apple Statue.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated January 20, 2016 (acknowledgement
only).
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated January 15, 2016 (acknowledgement only).
Prepared 2/14/16
* Revised: 02/17/16
*
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated December 15, 2015 and a
Special Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated December 9, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
7. Motion scheduling the Public Hearing on March 22, 2016 for adoption of the 2015
International Building Codes Ordinance #05-16.
2. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Outside Entities):
1. ESTES VALLEY PARTNERS FOR COMMERCE QUARTERLY REPORT. Kirby
Hazelton.
3. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. RENEWAL LICENSE - THE BARREL, LLC, 112-120 E. ELKHORN AVENUE,
TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff
for Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. WAPITI MINOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION,
Lots 1 & 2, Wapiti Minor Subdivision, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue. Lexington Lane,
LLC/Owner. Planner Kleisler.
5. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE WATER
COMPANY PROJECT. Utilities Director Bergsten.
2. ORDINANCE #04-16 MAYOR’S RIGHT TO VOTE. Attorney White.
7. ADJOURN.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 9, 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 9th day of February 2016.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Mary Murphy/Town citizen requested an area in Performance Park be designated as a
place to recognize and honor artists. She further requested the support of the Board,
expertise and guidance needed to complete the project. Funding for the project would
be from an outside source.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen clarified her previous statement with regard to the
contract for the sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District. She stated everything can be
changed in the contract accept for the legal aspects.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris commented the Estes Valley Suicide Awareness taskforce, a group
formed by Superintendent Rosenkrance, met to address suicide prevention throughout
the valley.
Trustee Holcomb reported vacation guide requests are up 140% with most request
coming from overseas and Russia.
Trustee Phipps stated the previously cancelled February meeting of the Estes Valley
Planning Commission would now be held to discuss recommend amendments to the
Development Code for vacation homes of 8 and less guests. A county liaison would
provide the Town Board with an update on the formation of a task force to review
vacation homes of 9 or more guests during the February 23, 2016 study session. The
Commission would discuss local businesses providing housing for employees from
other local businesses. The code currently prohibits such practices.
Trustee Nelson commented the Open Lands Advisory Board discussed water rights at
their recent meeting. They have been investigating agreements related to water rights.
Trustee Ericson reminded the community of the upcoming Transportation Advisory
Board meeting on February 17, 2016 at noon. Applications are being accepted for three
open positions on the Board.
Town Clerk Williamson provided an update on the 2016 Municipal election including the
candidates, the League of Women forums on March 3, 2016 for the Mayoral candidates
Board of Trustees – February 9, 2016 – Page 2
and March 10, 2016 for the Trustee candidates, ballots to be mailed the week of March
14, 2016 and reminded voters to complete absentee mail ballot forms if the voter needs
the ballot mailed to a location other than their registered address.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Economic Development Council Liaison Report: The EDC held its annual retreat on
January 28, 2016 and developed a strategic plan using the Town’s process. A 2016
operation plan would be developed with three key outcome areas, including new
business targets to attract new business, retain current businesses and development of
business incubator. Tasks identified included securing funding for economic activities,
public relations initiative to inform and rally for the overall Avalanche strategy, establish
metrics for economic status and progress throughout the community, and engaging
volunteers in the implementation of the Avalanche strategy and overall economic
strategy.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated January 26, 2016 and Town Board Study Session
January 26, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development / Community Services Committee, January 28,
2016.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated December 1, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM TWO 16, INC., DBA THE OTHER SIDE
OF ESTES TO DEER RIDGE, INC. DBA THE OTHER SIDE RESTAURANT,
900 MORAINE AVENUE, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE.
Town Clerk Williamson presented the application to transfer the current Hotel
and Restaurant liquor license. All required paperwork and fees were submitted
and a temporary was issued on December 22, 2015. TIPS training has not
been scheduled; however, the licensee previously owned the business and was
TIPS trained. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Phipps) to approve the
Transfer of Ownership from Two 16, Inc., dba The Other Side of Estes to
Deer Ridge, Inc. dba The Other Side Restaurant, 900 Moraine Avenue,
Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License, and it passed unanimously.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. RIVERVIEW PINES TOWNHOMES DEVELOPMENT PLAN & AMENDED
PLAT, Tract 56B, Replat of Tract 56, Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deercrest
Subdivision & Tracts 56 & 57, Fall River Addition; 1150 W. Elkhorn Avenue;
Frederick Kropp/Applicant. Trustee Norris requested the item be removed
from the consent agenda. Planner Kleisler reviewed the project stating the
applicant has requested the redevelopment of an accommodations property
with the removal of all existing structures demolished and replaced with
eight townhome units, reducing the density on the property. The site would
be enhanced by widening the bridge to accommodate pedestrian traffic, a
sidewalk connecting individual units to West Elkhorn Avenue, widening of
Board of Trustees – February 9, 2016 – Page 3
the drive aisle to meet public street standards and a secondary emergency
access point to the west to ensure adequate fire protection. The Estes
Valley Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the plat
at their December 15, 2015 meeting.
Josh Westmoreland/Representative for the 4 Season Inn stated his clients
do not have an issue with the proposed development; however, there are
concerns the downstream properties would be negatively affected by the
development as it relates to ongoing drainage issues. Mr. Westmoreland
reviewed a series of slides outlining drainage issues since the flood and
excavation on the property. Standing water on the 4 Season Inn property
occurs after every rain. Unpermitted work in the river has negatively
affected the flow of the river causing further drainage issues on neighboring
properties.
Planner Kleisler stated the Planning Commission heard testimony from the
property owner regarding concerns related to drainage during their meeting.
The Commission provided the neighboring property owner and developer
with mediation. Public Works found the proposed development drainage
design to meet standards.
Ed Kropp/ Applicant commented the drainage on the property comes from
the adjacent hillside and would be caught up high on the property and
placed directly into the river. Mike Todd/Applicant’s engineer stated the
property would be graded to channel the water into the river and improve
the current drainage on the property and the neighboring property.
John Bryson/Town citizen stated the previous owner of the property in
question paved portions of the property causing the drainage issues on the
4 Season Inn’s property. The redevelopment of the property would remove
the current encroachment in the setbacks, improve drainage and upgrade
the sewer lines in the area.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Nelson/Holcomb) to
approve the Riverview Pines Townhomes Development Plan &
Amended Plat, Tract 56B, Replat of Tract 56, Amended Plat of Lot 2,
Deercrest Subdivision and Tracts 56 and 57, Fall River Addition, 1150
W. Elkhorn Avenue with the findings an conditions recommended by
the Estes Valley Planning Commission, and it passed unanimously.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. AGGREGATE STORAGE BUILDING FEE WAIVER. Planner Gonzales
presented a request by Public Works to waive development and building permit
fees for a new 3200 square foot aggregate storage building at 640 Elm Road.
The building would provide a storage area for pothole patching operation
aggregate in order for operations to occur year-around, weather permitting.
The fee waiver of $3,913.55 requires Board approval as the fee waiver policy
limits staff approval to $3,000. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Phipps)
to approve the development and building permit fees for the Public Works
aggregate storage building located at 640 Elm Road, and it passed
unanimously.
2. SCOTT POND DAM MODIFICATION DESIGN CONTRACT CHANGE
ORDER. Manager Ash requested approval of a change order to Cornerstone
Engineering and Surveying to update the current Carriage Hills Dam
modification submittal to the State Engineer’s Office to reflect the current site
and future design. At the November 10, 2015 meeting the Board determined
the project could not be completed by March 2016 as required by grant funding,
and elected to forego the grant and the project. The Department of Homeland
Security Emergency Management has reallocated the grant funds to allow an
Board of Trustees – February 9, 2016 – Page 4
extended schedule for construction completion. The revised design would
include a jurisdictional dam that creates a pond with sustainable fish habitat,
and an east dam that would have grading, spillway and outlet works that would
impound a lower volume of water. The design would be completed by May and
construction during the summer and fall.
Town citizens Johanna Darden and Tony Schetzsle support the change order
and the completion of the improvement to the dams.
It was moved and seconded (Phipps/Holcomb) to approve Change Order #2
to the professional services contract for the Scott Ponds Natural Area
Dam Modification: Hazard Classification and Consulting Engineering
services for a cost not to exceed $20,000, and it passed unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION #03-16 REAPPROPRIATION OF 2015 ENCUMBERED FUNDS
“ROLLOVERS” TO 2016 BUDGET. Finance Officer McFarland requested
approval of Resolution #03-16 to roll over funds related to 2015 contracts and
purchase orders for goods and services that were not fulfilled by December 31,
2015. The budgeted amounts in the 2015 budget will be moved into 2016; the
roll over does not affect fund balance. The rollovers include 48 purchase
orders totaling $2,663,504.89 effecting nine funds which include large capital
projects and flood repairs. It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Koenig) to
approve Resolution #03-16 to re-appropriates the 2015 encumbered funds
into the 2016 budget, and it passed unanimously.
4. POLICY #660 FUND BALANCE. The fund balance policy would address fund
balances for each fund type and fund balance classifications as prescribed by
GAAP/GFOA. The policy would set a General fund balance of 20%. The policy
would aid staff in the development of the annual budget, and would provide
long-term financial continuity and stability. It was moved and seconded
(Nelson/Koenig) to approve Fund Balance Policy 660, and it passed
unanimously.
5. POLICY #601 PURCHASING LIMITS. Finance Officer McFarland reviewed
the Purchasing policy which specifies levels of spending appropriate to staff
position. The policy would be used in conjunction with the draft Finance
Manual – Purchasing Procedures and outlines types of, and required
documentation for each level of expenditure. The policy would delegate
purchases approved through the adoption of the annual budget and
expenditures under $100,000 to the Town Administrator, with step down levels
of authority to department heads, managers and supervisors. It was moved
and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to approve Purchasing Policy 601 –
Spending Authority and Limits, and it passed unanimously.
6. POLICY #602 LOCAL PREFERENCE. The current local preference allows for
a 2% local preference discount when selecting local vendors with a discount
maximum of $37,500. Staff would recommend increasing the local preference
to 5% with no cap. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Nelson) to approve
Purchasing Policy 602 – Local Preference, and it passed unanimously.
7. ORDINANCE #02-16 – FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT
FOR STANLEY PARK WITH THE ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND
PARK DISTRICT. Attorney White presented an amendment to the lease
agreement for the Stanley Park grounds that include the ball fields, soccer
fields, playgrounds, tennis courts, basketball courts, shelters, dog park, skate
park and restroom facilities. The youth center is also located on the property;
however, a separate IGA for the building and operations was in place through
December 31, 2015. The revised agreement would include the youth center in
the lease of the Stanley Park land to the Estes Valley Recreation and Park
District. The amendment would address insurance and liability concerns raised
by the Town’s insurance company CIRSA, identify the youth center as a
Board of Trustees – February 9, 2016 – Page 5
recreational facility, increase governmental immunity act limits, add an
indemnity provision and a termination provision. Attorney White read
Ordinance #02-16. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve
Ordinance #02-16, and it passed unanimously.
8. MAYOR’S RIGHT TO VOTE (CRS 31-4-302 – MAYOR - POWERS). The
Town’s Municipal code states the Mayor shall only vote in the event of a tie and
shall not be included in the quorum for the Board of Trustees. This provision
allows the Mayor the ability to veto any Ordinance or Resolution for the
expenditure of funds and the approval of contracts. The state statute provides
a municipality the option to change the Mayor’s right to vote within 60 days prior
to a regular municipal election. The Board could decide by Ordinance to allow
the Mayor the right to vote on all issues, be included as a member of the Board
for the quorum and eliminate the Mayor’s veto power.
Board discussion followed with Trustee Ericson stating the federal and state
levels provide the President and Governor with veto power, and therefore,
would support no change to the Mayor’s right to vote. Trustee Nelson would
not support an Ordinance to change the Mayor’s right to vote.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve the preparation of
an Ordinance to allow the Mayor the right to vote on all issues coming
before the Board of Trustees for consideration at an upcoming Town
Board meeting prior to the April 5, 2016 election, and it passed with
Trustees Ericson and Nelson voting “No”.
9. RESOLUTION #04-16 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULES.
Planning Consultant Mallory Baker stated in the summer of 2015 Community
Development initiated an analysis of the department’s revenues, expenses, and
fee assessment processes for development review fees, building permit fees,
floodplain development permit fees and sign permit fees in order to determine
best practices for levying service fees. Following the data gathering phase,
public meetings were held with stakeholders and the public. The combination
model at 50% cost recovery would improve cost recovery and customer service
levels, while ensuring an equitable system for all applicants. The proposed fee
schedule does not account for Public Works or Utility Department costs
associated with development review or building permit review. Fees for
floodplain development permits would increase from $50 to an at-cost in order
to improve cost recovery and account for the complexity of developing in the
floodplain. Sign permits would be reduced from $75 to $50 to accurately reflect
time and resources spent on sign permit reviews. This model utilizes a
combination of two separate fee assessment processes: review deposit, in
which time spent on a project is tracked and invoiced up to the deposit amount,
and standard, in which a standard fee is charged based on the type of project
or service rendered. It was further determined some fee should be eliminated
or reduced because they required limited staff time. Certain review processes
require outsourcing, based on the complexity and nature of the project and
department workload. The Community Development Director would determine
which applications are outsourced and all fees from the contract labor would be
charged to the applicant. Staff would develop a customer guide and outreach
document for applicants. Software would be implemented to track time spent
on an application and to invoice the applicant. An annual review would be
conducted to analysis the fee structure and process.
Paul Fishman/Town citizen appreciates staff’s recommended approach and the
efficiencies of the new review and cost recovery process.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to approve Resolution #04-16
as recommended by staff with an effective date of June 1, 2016, and it
passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees – February 9, 2016 – Page 6
10. ORDINANCE #03-16 BUILDING PERMIT FEE ASSESSMENT AND
COLLECTION. Planning Consultant Mallory Baker stated the locally-based
valuation model proposed involves using actual per square foot construction
costs to assess project valuations for all project types, including new
construction. Valuations that fall outside of the range of average per square
foot construction costs would be audited following completion of the project.
Structural details must be stamped by an architect or engineer due to the
design wind speeds and snow loads required, which negates the need for a full
structural review. As the current assessment percentage of 65% of the permit
fee assumes full structural review, staff proposes the plan review fee be
reduced to 50%. This assessment level would reduce plan review fees
collected by 23%. Staff proposes that applicants in compliance with all
minimum submittal checklist requirements upon first review receive a 50%
reduction in the plan review fee charged for the project. Staff further proposes
that applicants not in compliance with all minimum submittal checklist
requirements upon first review would be assessed additional plan review fees
at a rate of $100 per hour after the second review. Plan reviews may be
outsourced at the discretion of the Chief Building Official with the applicant
paying for the consultant’s fees. A new dwelling life safety survey fee has been
proposed for all vacation home rentals at a cost of $200 per survey.
Attorney White read Ordinance #03-16. It was moved and seconded
(Holcomb/Ericson) to approve Ordinance #03-16 as recommended by staff,
and it passed unanimously.
11. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD INTERVIEW TEAM
APPOINTMENT. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to appoint
Trustees Ericson and Holcomb to the Transportation Advisory Board
interview panel, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado February 2, 2016
Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD,
LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSION AND ESTES VALLEY PLANNING
COMMISSION 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 2nd day of February, 2016.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
County Commission: Chair Donnelly, Commissioner Gaiter (by phone) and
Commissioner Johnson
Planning Commission: Commissioners Hills, Hull, Klink, Moon, Murphree,
Schneider, and White
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, County Manager Hoffman, Attorney White, Code
Enforcement Officer Hardin, County Planner Whitley, County
Planning Director Gilbert, Community Development Director
Chilcott, Planner Kleisler and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: Planning Commissioner Klink
Meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m.
The meeting between Town Board, County Commissioners and Planning Commission
was held to discuss next steps in the vacation home regulations. Melissa
Westover/facilitator provided the group guidance throughout the discussion. Staff
recommended the group discuss items in which there has been agreement and the draft
ordinance that addresses effective code enforcement, separating the small and larger
rentals through new uses, high intensity use would be reviewed through a Conditional
Use Permit or Special Review, internal postings to educate renters and notify the
neighbors, and amend parking requirements to be consistent with residential properties.
Initial discussion focused on the need to address the number of guests versus the
number of rooms and to ensure the regulations are equal across the valley. The County
questioned if they could contract with the Town for code enforcement. Chief Kufeld
stated the Town could provide code enforcement; however, the County Sheriff would
need to be involved.
VACATION HOME FOR EIGHT AND LESS PEOPLE.
Discussion followed on the regulations for a low intensity vacation home of eight (8) or
less guests. The County proposed the following regulations: 1) Recommend initial fee
as state statutes do not allow the County to collect an annual fee; 2) Applicant must
mail a notification to the surrounding property owners, with comments going to the Town
Clerk; 3) Town Clerk could refer application to Planning Commission, for approval, if
surrounding property owners are objecting to use; 4) Renewals should be noticed,
before approval or denial; 5) Publish/post list of approved permits on Town website, with
24-hour contact; and 6) Code Enforcement process should include “show cause”
hearings and action by elected bodies to cease operations.
Discussion followed and has been summarized: Less intense vacation homes should
be permitted as a use by right in residential and accommodation zones. Trustee Norris
commented there are vacation homes that are well managed and those causing
Town Board Study Session – February 2, 2016 – Page 2
continuous problems with their neighbors. Limiting the use does not solve the problem.
Increased and consistent enforcement is needed. Planning Commissioner Moon would
recommend a cap on the number of vacation homes in the valley to protect the
community from becoming predominately vacation homes. Planning Commissioner
White stated the CAST vacation home report should be reviewed and discussed as it
outlines best practices including the limit of eight or less per vacation rental. If vacation
homes are permitted by right in all residential zoning district the Development Code
should consider that not one size fits all as properties vary from quarter acre to 10
acres. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig commented the homes with up to eight guests have just
as many complaints as those with more than eight; therefore, the homes no matter the
size should be treated the same. A Special Review process would be treating those
homes with more than eight differently and may not be needed. County Commissioner
Johnson stated concern with the town and neighborhoods becoming transformed. He
would support a cap for the entire valley. He commented the larger homes that
accommodate more than eight guests are a higher intensity use and should be treated
differently. Discussion continued on how the different sized vacation homes should be
treated. It was questioned when the use becomes a commercial use.
Attorney White commented the cap could be used; however, it would be difficult and
unenforceable. The Town and County may find themselves addressing an equal
protect situation.
County Manager Hoffman stated the main issue continues to be consistent code
enforcement. Properties with violations would have to show cause through a hearing as
to why their permit should not be revoked. If the property owner continues to rent the
home the issue would be taken to district court.
Larimer County Community Development Director Gilbert commented an initial one-time
fee could be charged for the use. An annual renewal fee could not be collected per
state statute. In order to charge an annual fee the state statutes would have to be
amended. The use remains a residential use with eight or less. Over eight it becomes
a commercial use and would require a Special Review in the County.
After further discussion, a consensus was reached to have the Planning Commission
consider the development of a cap for the valley on a percentage based on the number
of households in the valley. The recommended changes would include an initial fee in
the County, a notification mailed by the vacation home owner to the neighbors, refer
application if the surrounding neighbors object to the vacation home and a proposed
comment period of 2 weeks, renewal should be noticed, and publish a 24-hour contact
on the Town’s website.
VACATION HOME FOR MORE THAN EIGHT PEOPLE.
Discussion on higher intensity vacation homes was heard and has been summarized.
Trustee Phipps commented individuals purchase a home with the right to rely on the
zoning in place at the time of purchase. Allowing more than eight guests in a residential
home would amount to defacto rezoning and would change the character of the
neighborhood. The community’s schools, hospital and new community center would
suffer as the number of permanent residents decrease due to a lack of housing options.
He would not be in favor of high intensity vacation homes.
Planning Commissioner Hull questioned when a home becomes a small hotel due to the
occupancy. A small hotel would be considered a commercial establishment in a
residential zoning district. Staff provided a review of the building codes that can be
interrupted differently. Staff would need guidance from the elected officials to determine
if a residential home would be considered a small hotel and should be sprinkled.
Town Board Study Session – February 2, 2016 – Page 3
Trustee Norris questioned when does the number of guests and size of the home
change the residential character of the neighborhood. He stated there are areas in the
valley where larger homes and larger parties would make sense.
The County Commissioners are not prepared to discuss over eight guests in a vacation
home with the current code amendments. They proposed a task force to address the
issue and provide further discussion between owners and neighbors.
Discussion followed on if the Town and County should develop separate codes to
address the number of guests. It was stated by doing so it would be more likely to drive
larger homes and parties into Town limits. Trustees Ericson, Holcomb and Nelson
agreed the Town has been holding public forums and gathering public input for months.
They would not support a task force and suggested the Town move forward with its own
code amendments. Planning Commissioner Hull would not support a Town only code
amendment.
After further discussion, a consensus was reached on the formation of a task force to
review the over eight limit. The County would take the lead in developing a timeline for
final code adoptions in November 2016, and establishing the make-up of the task force
members. Mayor Pinkham stated the Board, County Commissioners and Planning
Commissioners would not be involved in the task force and the task force should consist
of citizens, owners, neighbors, and affected groups. Staff would prepare code
amendments for the eight and under and bring them forward to the Planning
Commission for review and Board and County Commissioner approval at a joint
meeting in March. Amendments would be developed for the entire Estes Valley after
the task force has made recommendations to the County and the Town.
Administrator Lancaster stated a moratorium on enforcement for over eight would be
established until the task force has completed its work and amendments adopted.
Attorney White clarified the moratorium would be on the number of guests and all other
regulation would be enforced. The consensus was not to address code violations on
the number of guests for vacation homes of nine or more.
ENFORCEMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATIONS.
Planner Kleisler reviewed the enforcement and neighborhood notifications including: 1)
Communication between a vacation home owner and nearby property owner must
increase; 2) Nearby property owners should be able to influence the renewal of a
vacation home permit on an annual basis; and 3) A limit should be set on the number of
vacation homes in the Estes Valley. Additional notifications would include an internal
posting to the renter containing contact information and operational restrictions. All
online advertisements should include the rental license number. The rental owner or
operator must notify all neighbors within a 100-foot radius of the home to provide
contact information. The Town should maintain a public, online map of vacation rentals
throughout the Estes Valley that includes the local contact phone number.
Discussion followed on the enforcement and notification items. Concerns were raised
on the how the 100-foot would be determined. The online advertisement requirement
could be difficult to enforce and should not be a requirement.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:23 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 9, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of
the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at the
Town Hall in Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 9th day of
February, 2016.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Attorney White, Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
DISCUSS NOISE ORDINANCE.
Chief Kufeld reported that a noise ordinance has been a part of the Municipal Code for a
number of years, however, there has been a limited degree of success in enforcing the
current law for reasons that include but are not limited to:
1. The noise ordinance is complex and difficult to enforce
2. The noise levels contained in the ordinance are unrealistic
3. By the time an officer can respond to a noise complaint, often times the noise has
ended, and
4. No one is willing to file a formal noise complaint.
The current ordinance requires noise measurements to be taken at specific locations on
properties which are at times difficult to identify. The use of a sound level meter is also
required. Chief Kufeld noted that tickets are sometimes written for disturbing the peace
as no metering is required and the wording is less complex.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig spoke to the current decibel levels included in the ordinance and
said they are unrealistically low. She noted that a normal conversation taking place
between two people would exceed the levels currently contained in the ordinance. She
also noted that there are different measurements for different types of sound, and that
sounds in commercial areas should be considered and defined separately from those in
residential areas, which adds further complications.
Chief Kufeld proposed simplifying the ordinance, removing antiquated references,
providing for measurement procedures that are not too restrictive and make sense, and
increasing the defined noise levels to a realistic standard. Staff will bring forward a draft
noise ordinance to the Board.
Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting at 5:20 p.m. for a dinner break and resumed the
meeting at 5:40 p.m.
UPDATE ON 2015 I-CODE ADOPTION & LOCAL AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.
Chief Building Official Birchfield presented the Board with significant changes that are
being proposed for inclusion along with the adoption of the 2015 I-Code. He stated that
the codes are updated every three years in order to stay abreast of new information, new
technology and products, revised standards, and clarifications to the codes. Local
amendments are proposed to address particular circumstances or concerns specific to
the Town of Estes Park. The Town’s Building Division is currently operating under the
2009 I-Code. The proposed local amendments have been vetted through the Estes Park
Board of Appeals and through numerous public outreach meetings. CBO Birchfield
reviewed significant changes and proposed local amendments with the Board which
include, but are not limited to the following topics:
Town Board Study Session – February 9, 2016 – Page 2
Compliance and regulation of Vacation Rental Homes by the International
Residential Code and the 2015 International Property Maintenance Code;
Adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code as amended;
Adoption of the International Existing Building Code as amended;
Preparation of submittal documents for a building permit by a registered
professional engineer or licensed architect due to local wind and snow design
loads, as all structural details require engineering;
Schedule of permit fees;
Automatic Sprinkler Systems in CD zone district for new construction,
redevelopment, etc;
Roof coverings in wildfire hazard areas;
Increase in structural design live loads;
Increase to design snow loads;
Change to design wind loads;
Change to design rain loads;
Plumbing facility requirements in carry-out food and/or drink establishments with
seating for 15 or less and occupancy loads not to exceed 49; and
Wildfire hazard mitigation.
The Board requested staff provide a wildfire hazard map of the areas of Town that would
be affected by this amendment for their review as they consider the proposed stricter
regulations related to roofing materials, and sprinkler system requirements.
Staff will proceed with preparing for the code adoption process.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Nelson asked when additional follow-up on the Broadband issue would be
available. Town Administrator Lancaster said all the information will probably not
come together until late summer or early fall.
Karen Cumbo was introduced as the Interim Director for the Community
Development Department.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Town Administrator Lancaster requested the addition of the following study session
agenda items:
February 23, 2016 – Update on Vacation Home Task Force – Terry Gilbert
June 14, 2016 – Hydrology Study and Implications
Trustee Phipps noted that an update on the vacation home task force will be heard at the
Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, February 16, 2016.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:48 p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 11, 2016
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY/UTILITIES/PUBLIC
WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County,
Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the
11th day of February, 2016.
Committee: Chair Norris, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Nelson
Attending: Chair Norris and Mayor Pro Tem Koenig
Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Chief Kufeld,
Directors Bergsten and Muhonen, and Deputy Town Clerk
Deats
Absent Trustee Nelson and Town Administrator Lancaster
Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
PUBLIC SAFETY.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Crisis Advocate Report – Executive Director Mesropian touched on highlights of
services provided during the past year. She noted that in 2015 the name of the
organization was changed to Estes Valley Crisis Advocates (EVCA) from Estes
Valley Victim Advocates to remove any negative connotations related to the word
“victim” and to indicate that services provided by the organization are not only
related to domestic violence and sexual assault. She reported in 2015 the
organization provided counseling and assistance during incidents related to
accidents, stalking, assault, unattended death, suicide, crimes, tragedies and
traumas, as well as domestic violence and sexual assault; and noted that 190
students, as well as school personnel, utilized EVCA counseling services to help
cope with the deaths of two of their classmates/students. The Safehouse, Bilingual
Outreach, and the education presentations were successful parts of the program
throughout the year. Ms. Mesropian told the Committee that she will be retiring at
the end of the year and thanked the Town of Estes Park and the Police Department
for supporting the program over the past 16 years. She said the EVCA Board is
currently working on a transition plan.
2. Verbal Updates –
o Training – Chief Kufeld reported that staff is being trained in preparation for
the upcoming summer and special events seasons.
o Citizens Policy Academy – 11 participants graduated from the program on
February 10, 2016.
UTILITIES.
PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE & WATER COMPANY ENGINEERING RFP
SELECTION.
Director Bergsten stated that through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the Town of Estes Park and the Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline & Water Company
(PEMPWCo), the Town will be accepting the private water system into the Town’s
system after it is brought up to the Town’s water distribution system standards. The
Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) has awarded this project a grant to fund
50% of the costs with the PEMPWCo owners funding the additional 50%. The rural
development division of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – February 11, 2016 – Page 2
low cost financing for this type of project. USDA requirements include the completion of
a preliminary engineering report and an environmental report. Proposals were received
from seven consulting firms and, following review, staff is recommending entering into a
contract with JVA Consulting Engineers. The firm submitted the most expensive
proposal, however, was determined by the review team to be the most qualified for this
project. Negotiations with the contractor related to the scope of work will take place.
The Committee recommended the contract move forward to the full Board at the
February 23, 2016, Town Board meeting.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Water Tap Fee Study Results – Director Bergsten reported on the results of the
water tap fee study. Subsequent to the findings, staff will be proposing an
increase in water tap fees from $10,713 to $12,514, and a decrease to system
development charges. He stated that the purpose of water tap fees is to pay for
growth and cover the cost of increased system capacity required for service to
new customers. Additionally, tap fees help to fund capital projects related to
growth. If tap fees did not increase, financial constraints would require that funds
be generated elsewhere and would likely result in higher water rates. Chair
Norris requested that staff explain the implications related to growth and
economic development that would occur without an increase to the water tap fee
when bringing this item forward to the Town Board at a future meeting.
2. Verbal Updates –
o Water Quality – With national news stories about water containing
excessive amounts of lead in the Flint, Michigan water supply, Water
Superintendent Boles noted that Town staff continually monitors water
quality and the Town complies with all EPA regulations. Staff will work
with PIO Rusch to provide information to the community.
o Smart Meter Project Pilot Program – Staff continues to work on minor
issues and research the pros and cons of the system. The system is
working well with 2000 meters being read through 24 smart meters. Staff
is creating a smart meter presentation and display related to radiation
levels associated with the meters as compared to other electronics used
on a daily basis for an upcoming Town Board Study Session.
o Little Valley Project – Adams Tree Service is trimming trees in the area.
Information, including signage and updated maps noting where crews are
working, is being widely distributed to keep residents up to date on the
project.
o Allenspark Project – A large trencher will be used for a 24-inch trench from
Baldpate Inn to Cheley Camp which will include a river crossing. Staff
continues to design the fiber route to Allenspark which will be used for the
Smart Grid system. The Smart Grid system is essential to the quality of
the Town’s system by providing monitoring that improves the operation
and reliability of the system.
o SCADA Smart Grid – A pilot program with Platte River Power Authority
(PRPA) allows staff to use fiber to install equipment that will provide wifi to
crews as well as monitor loads on the system and provide information that
will assist with repairing outages more quickly and efficiently.
o Pilot Project – Common Trench – Staff is experimenting with the idea of
using a common trench for both electric and water. A pilot project on Mills
Drive will provide information as to whether this practice has merit for
future projects.
o County Road 43 – Work continues in the Glen Haven area. Flood
recovery repairs in the Glen Haven area are expected to be 100%
complete by September 2016.
o Street Lights – LED lights have been installed along all highway areas and
installation continues in residential neighborhoods and downtown.
o RP3 – Reliable Power Program – InVision GIS and staff are working
together to map and track all power outages to create a history of outages,
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – February 11, 2016 – Page 3
as well as to identify, locate, and inventory all power poles. The maps and
attached information will be helpful for future planning and designing.
PUBLIC WORKS.
STREETS DUMP TRUCK REPLACEMENT.
Manager McEachern recommended the purchase of a 2017 International 7400 four-
wheel drive, single-axle dump truck to replace a 1999 dump truck currently being
utilized by the Streets Division. The cost of the truck (chassis only) to be purchased
from McCandless Truck Center, LLC in Aurora, Colorado, is $95,238. Dump bed and
equipment attachments will be added at a future date. The Committee recommends
the purchase of the 2017 International 7400 truck chassis from McCandless Truck
Center at a cost of $95,238 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund, account #635-
7000-435-34-42, budgeted, be included on the consent agenda at the February 23,
2016, Town Board meeting.
L&P DUMP TRUCK PURCHASE.
Manager McEachern recommended the purchase of a 2017 Freightliner M2106 four-
wheel drive, single-axle dump truck as an addition to the Town fleet in the L&P division.
The cost of the truck (chassis only) to be purchased from Transwest Trucks, Commerce
City, Colorado, is $108,300. Dump bed and equipment attachments will be added at a
future date. The Committee recommends the purchase of the 2017 Freightliner
M2106 truck chassis from McCandless Truck Center at a cost of $108,300 from
the Vehicle Replacement Fund, account #635-7000-435-34-42, budgeted, be
included on the consent agenda at the February 23, 2016, Town Board meeting.
WILDIFE RESISTANT TRASH CANS.
Manager McEachern and Supervisor Berg recommended the purchase of 72 wildlife
resistant trash cans from Bearsaver at a cost of $58,916. The containers will be
installed in order to comply with the Wildlife Protection Ordinance that was recently
approved by the Town Board and will replace the remaining traditional trash cans in the
Town’s inventory. Supervisor Berg noted that the traditional trash cans will be offered
for sale through the Colorado Municipal League (CML) newsletter to communities that
do not have wildlife issues and to private companies in order to help offset the cost of
the wildlife resistant containers. The Committee recommends the purchase of 72
wildlife resistant trash containers from Bearsaver at a cost of $58,916, budgeted,
from account 101-5200-452-25-03 be included on the consent agenda at the
February 23, 2016, Town Board meeting.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
1. Informative Plaque Addition for Green Apple Statue – Supervisor Berg reported
that the noon Rotary has donated a plaque to be displayed with the Green Apple
statue that is located at the entrance to the Estes Valley Public Library. The
plaque provides background into the story behind the sculpture. Acceptance of
the plaque has been approved by the Parks Advisory Board through the art in
public places policy and will be included on the February 23rd Town Board
consent agenda.
2. Verbal Updates –
o GIS Database – Public Works staff is building a database containing an
inventory of all equipment, culverts, drainage system components, street
signs, flowers beds, etc., which will include information such as purchase
dates, locations, installation dates, and maintenance requirements for all
Public Works services and features. The information will increase
efficiency and provide useful data and history to current and future staff
members.
o Dry Gulch – A pre-bid meeting was held and attended by a large number
of contractors. Staff attributed the high level of interest in the project to
the Town’s participation in the Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing System.
Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – February 11, 2016 – Page 4
Bids are expected by the end of the month. Director Muhonen noted that
staff is negotiating with the owner of Sombrero Stables to acquire
easements necessary for the project and for the realignment of the
intersection of Dry Gulch Road and Highway 34. A provision of the
negotiations may include vacating and trading an unused Town right-of-
way on the west side of Dry Gulch Road for the necessary easements.
o Visitor Center Restroom – The project is going well and should be
completed on time in mid-April 2016.
o Fish Creek Road and Trail Repair Work – 107 easements from 56
property owners need to be acquired for the proposed repair work. A
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved process will be utilized
to obtain these easements. Larimer County has hired a consultant who
will prepare offers which will be mailed to the property owners. The
procedure is expected to save time and money by simplifying the
acquisition process.
o Purchase Report – Public Works will provide a quarterly report of
authorized budgeted purchases, which will include photos, for Town Board
review. The Committee suggested all departments consider providing this
information to the Board on a quarterly basis.
There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 9:31 a.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Public Works Parks Division and Parks Advisory Board
Date: February 23, 2016
RE: Informative Plaque Addition for Green Apple Statue
Objective:
To approve the recommendation from the Parks Advisory Board for the addition of the
Informative Plaque Addition for the Green Apple Statue in front of the Library.
Present Situation:
The Green Apple Statue in front of the Library does not have information about the
Statue and why the art was created.
Proposal:
To add an informative plaque that tells the story about the relationship and inspiration of
the artist and the Green Apple Statue. This addition is funded by the Rotary Club and
will be maintained by the Town of Estes Park, Parks Division.
Advantages:
The plaque will benefit all by telling the story behind the inspiration of the artist and the
relationship between the two boys.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
The Parks Advisory Board recommends the Town Board approval of the informative
plaque addition for the Green Apple Statue.
Budget:
The statue is already maintained by the Town of Estes Park Parks Division. No
additional budget needed.
Level of Public Interest
Medium. All will enjoy the added feature that tells the story about the statue.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of the informative plaque addition at the base of the Green
Apple Statue in front of the Library.
Attachments:
One attachment, informative plaque content.
.
GREEN APPLES
A neighbor boy, Charles McLain, about four years
older than me, would let me ride with him on his
horse as he herded the cows in for evening milking.
We would stop at the orchard to pick green apples
for munching on the way.
Charles was saintly in manner and character far
beyond his years. At age 13 he became ill. It was
thought he had eaten too many green apples. It was
fatal appendicitis, and his last wish was that I have
his BB gun. This sculpture is my gift to him.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 20th, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Rooms 202 & 203 of Town
Hall, in said Town of Estes Park on the 20th day of January, 2016.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Gregg Rounds
Stan Black
Amy Hamrick
Belle Morris
Bryon Holmes
Gordon Slack
Thom Widawski
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
John Ericson, Town Board Liaison
Samantha Phillips, Recording Secretary
Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager
Absent: Ann Finley
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:01 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
It was moved and seconded (Hamrick/Morris) to approve the January meeting minutes
and the motion passed unanimously.
Trustee Ericson gave the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) a brief update on a draft
policy for the financial surplus levels to keep the Town financially viable. The Town
Board unanimously approved the adoption of the Parking Strategy Report.
Sandy Osterman presented the Shuttle Committee update. The Committee would
continue to discuss potential year round shuttle service options during brainstorming
study sessions. If the Town Board approves, the Shuttle Committee would search for
grants to support the shuttle and the year round shuttle would potentially be added in
2017. Expansion of shuttle routes continues to be discussed. The shuttle routes would
remain the same except for a few different stops which were removed amid safety
concerns.
OFFICER ELECTIONS
Chair Campbell proceeded for self-nomination. Gordon Slack moved for approval and
Amy Hamrick seconded the motion. Chair Campbell nominated the current Co-chair
Belle Morris as Co-Chair with all members voting in favor.
Chair Campbell reminded the Board the terms of Amy Hamrick, Thom Widawski, and
Bryon Holmes would expire on March 31st, 2016. Said members have the option to
reapply if they wish to remain on the Board.
Transportation Advisory Board – January 20th, 2016 – Page 2
PROJECT UPDATES
The public comment period for the Visitors Center Parking Structure has closed
following the release of the Environmental Assessment. Few comments were received
and most requested a copy of the final finding of no significant impact. The Bureau of
Reclamation is currently working on finalizing the terms for a Special Use Permit. The
Federal Transit Administration has not replied to the Town’s request to relocate the
parking structure to the south lot. Director Muhonen stated as soon as authorization is
given, construction would begin. This project is expected to take approximately 8
months from beginning to completion and would unavoidably encroach into the visitation
season.
The Visitors Center Bathroom Expansion is under construction and would be open for
use in the spring.
At December’s TAB meeting, CDOT did not support reinstatement of the Barnes Dance
due to technical analysis showing it delayed traffic further. Public Works presented the
memorandum to the PUP Committee on January 14, 2016 and requested staff to
prepare a resolution for the Town Board to consider. The resolution would direct the
Mayor or Town Administrator to formally request CDOT permanently reinstate the
Barnes Dance no later than Memorial Day 2016. The reinstatement would eliminate
conflict between pedestrians and turning vehicles while allowing 2600 pedestrians to
cross the intersection within an hour as compared to 1300.
Director Muhonen spoke with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) regarding the
hydrologic impact of the Downtown Estes Loop. Several bridges would have to be
replaced. The Environmental Assessment is on schedule for May. The funding realities
with Central Federal Lands are likely to result in the construction of the Loop should it
be approved. Tentative plans are being arranged for construction to begin fall of 2018
into winter of 2019.
The Town Board gave direction to pursue the Fish Hatchery Road trails alignment.
Public Works would reach out to affected property owners since the project would entail
drilling down into alignment and placement onto specific parcels.
The 1A Sales Tax Initiative funded 2024 Street Improvement Project is underway. The
software would model different options for maintaining and upgrading streets to extend
the service life involving a variety of treatment recommendations and including what
year in the 9 year life cycle is the most appropriate year for fixtures.
Transportation Advisory Board – January 20th, 2016 – Page 3
2016 MEETING AND PROJECT SCHEDULE
Chair Campbell gave a brief description of the 2016 Board Objectives. TAB intends to
have the 2017 budget goals by the May meeting for recommendation to the Town
Board. Campbell inquired on what projects the TAB believes that the Board should be
heavily involved in. Wayfinding signage was discussed in order to assist in guiding
visitors through Town. After a debate on whether or not private enterprises should have
an exception for signage, the Board agreed to keep private enterprises off and only use
public destinations. The TAB would focus on the scale of signs regarding pedestrian,
bicycle and vehicular while the Downtown Neighborhood Plan Advisory Committee
would make recommendations involving the marketing aspect.
OTHER BUSINESS
Co-chair Morris gave a presentation on bicycle lanes throughout the Town with focus on
CO-7 and U.S. Hwy 36 intersection. Among the information presented to the Board,
special emphasis was placed on lane size. With wider lanes, drivers tend to exhibit
more relaxed behavior whereas with narrower lanes, drivers show more caution and
bicyclists ride more vigilantly. The Board would like to see more bike lanes connected to
trails.
With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 1:57 pm.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 15th, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall Rooms 202 & 203, in said
Town of Estes Park on the 15th day of January, 2016.
Present: Merle Moore
Celine Lebeau
Dewain Lockwood
Terry Rustin (conference call)
Ronna Boles
Carlie Bangs
Vicki Papineau
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Bob Holcomb, Trustee Liaison
Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor
Sam Phillips, Contract Administrative Assistant
Chair Lebeau called the meeting to order at 11:07 a.m.
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded (Lockwood/Boles) to approve the December meeting
minutes and the motion passed unanimously.
OFFICER ELECTIONS
Boles nominated current Chair Lebeau and Merle Moore seconded the motion.
Boles nominated current Co-Chair Moore and Parks Supervisor Berg seconded the
motion.
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
The Board looked at re-examining the roots and objectives of the original Tree Board
following the finalization of the Art in Public Places policy. Discussion included revival of
the Tree Symposium and Beetle Busters in hopes of bringing back the educational
aspect associated with the Parks Advisory Board (PAB). The Board discussed the
possibility of taking a citizens survey to examine what citizens are interested in knowing
about horticulture. Estes Park in Bloom (EPIB) had 4 local talks this spring: Co-Chair
Moore will speak about high altitude gardening in February; the Estes Park Garden Club
will speak in March; Parks Supervisor Berg will give a one hour presentation on trees in
April; Parks Maintenance Worker III Keri Kelly will speak about her job duties and the
management of town plants in May. Papineau gave an overview of the Estes Land
Parks Advisory Board – January 15th, 2016 – Page 2
Stewardship Association (ELSA), the location for distribution of booklets (library, HOA’s,
etc.), and the Association’s discussion involving weeds and identification.
Due to the fact that the PAB is an advisory position to the Town Board, Parks
Supervisor Berg expressed that he would like to see the Trails Master Plan handled
similarly to the Art in Public Places (AIPP) policy where the PAB would make
recommendations concerning alignment, beautification, trail direction, etc.
Co-Chair Moore would also like to see the Community Development Plant Selection list
include more native-based plants and suggested a 2D barcode to assist visitors with
interpreting native landscapes.
The PAB would like to see more members sit in on local meetings, where there
currently exists no PAB Liaison, to share pertinent information with the PAB, as
necessary. Among groups discussed was potentially placing a PAB liaison at the ELSA.
The PAB would consider requesting for a delegate to be sent to the Estes Valley Trails
Committee (EVTC) and the Fine Arts District for better coordination between the two
groups. The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) would also look to be involved with
the EVTC. At that time, it was not clear whether or not the TAB and PAB’s goals would
coincide.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chair Lebeau and Bangs would meet to begin discussion involving plans for Arbor Day
2016.
Public Works received an official AIPP donation form from the Rotary Club. This
donation form requested an informational plaque be placed at the base of the Green
Apple statue in front of the library. Following the application review process, Boles
moved to accept application and Chair Lebeau seconded the motion. The Board
approved. The addition of this plaque will be taken to the PUP Committee and Town
Board in February.
With no other business to discuss, a motion was made and seconded (Boles/Moore) to
adjourn the meeting at 12:07 pm, with all voting in favor.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Russ
Schneider, Michael Moon, and Sharry White
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Murphree, Moon, Schneider, and White
Also Attending: Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Audem Gonzales,
Planner Phil Kleisler, Planner Mallory Baker, Planner Carrie McCool, Town Board
Liaison John Phipps, Town Attorney Greg White, and Recording Secretary Karen
Thompson
Absent Commissioners Hills
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 30 people in
attendance. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public comment at today’s meeting. Each
Commissioner was introduced. A quorum was in attendance. Chair Hull explained the process for
accepting public comment at today’s meeting.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Moon) to approve the minutes of the November 17,
2015 meeting as presented and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
2. RIVERVIEW PINES PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT; 1150 W. Elkhorn Avenue,
Frederick Kropp/Applicant
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The subject property is located approximately one mile
west of the downtown area, and currently contains an office with an attached dwelling unit, a
garage/shop, a six-plex, and a 12-plex motel. The property is surrounded on all sides by A–
Accommodations zoning except for a section of the east property line, which is zoned RM–Multi-
Family Residential.
Planner Kleisler stated the proposal is to demolish the existing structures except for the
garage/shop, and build three single-family dwellings and two duplexes, for a total of seven units.
The site would be accessed from an internal private driveway. The duplexes will connect to the
main office via sidewalks, and there are currenlty no planned sidewalks from the single-family
dwellings. Planner Kleisler stated staff would recommend a condition of approval to include a
sidewalk connection for the single-family dwellings. He stated the existing bridge would be
widened to contain a pedestrian trail, and an emergency access road connecting Streamside
Condominiums through this property would be created. The site design include the rotation of
some of the buildings in order to minimize the limits of disturbance.
Planner Kleisler stated townhome subdivisions are unique as they relate to traditional
subdivisions. There is one parent parcel mainainted by the homeowner’s association, which
includes commonly used items such as parking lots, utilities, etc. Individual lots within the parent
lot are individually owned. Planner Kleisler stated the Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat
submitted complies with the Estes Valley Develoment Code. A legal notice was published, and
notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. The application was routed to affected
agencies, and many have provided comments listed in the staff report. The Planning Commission
is the recommending body to the Estes Park Town Board, who will hear this item in January, 2016.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Planner Kleisler stated the adverse impacts to wildfife would be minimal. However, there were
some items to consider: construction timing, limiting fencing on site, limiting landscaping, and
installing bear-proof containers. Staff recommends limiting additional landscaping, as the existing
trees and shrubs provide adequate screening from adjacent properties and the public right-of-
way.
Planner Kleisler stated today’s review is only for the preliminary townhome subdivision plat.
There is also a development plan being reviewed at staff level, and an active code compliance
case. One of the conditions of approval is to resolve the code compliance issue (unpermitted work
in the floodplain and river setback) prior to final approval. The applicant is aware of these issues
and is working with an engineer to resolve them.
Staff Findings
1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan. The application advances several Community-Wide policies, as delineated in the staff
report.
2. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development.
3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will
comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the
Review Discussion in the staff report.
4. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the Preliminary Plat application.
The Town Board of Trustees is the Decision-Making Body for the Preliminary Plat.
5. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to
placing the application on the Board agenda. Placement on the January 26, 2016 Town
Board agenda requires a January 15, 2016 submittal of a revised Preliminary Plat
application that fully satisfies all conditions of approval.
Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval, with conditions listed below.
Public Comment
Fred Kropp, applicant, was available to answer questions.
Chris Levering/Town resident and owner of adjacent property (4 Seasons Inn), stated he was not
against the development but had concerns with other issues on the property. He stated he has
had ongoing post-flood runoff onto his property from the applicant’s property, and thinks this is
related to the post-flood work that was done without proper floodplain permits. He has also had
issues with floodplain permits on his own property, and is working to get them resolved. Mr.
Levering stated the proposed development will block the river view of five of his accommodations
units, which is of significant financial impact. He showed photos of his and the neighbor’s
property during the height of the flood. He believes spring runoff has the potential to create a
substantial problem for him, as well as during future flood events. He would recommend
requesting the applicant move the riverfront buildings back from the river so he can maintain the
views on his property and the buildings will be further out of the floodplain.
Planner Kleisler stated the applicant has received two notices of violation on the property. One
was for construction of a fence in the river setback, and the other was for work done in the river
without a floodplain permit. The applicant has been working with an engineer to resolve the
issue. Floodplain permits must show no impact to neighboring properties, both upstream and
downstream. The Community Development Director has the authority to deny issuance of any
permit if there is a violation on a property. One of the conditions of approval is to have the matter
fully resolved prior to staff signing off on the development plan.
Chair Hull recommended both parties meet together with staff to help resolve the issues.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commissioner Schneider had concerns about the drainage. Planner Kleisler stated the
development meets the drainage requirements, and any floodplain issues pertaining to drainage
will be addressed at the floodplain permit level.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with the following affected agency comments:
a. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated June 9, 2015;
b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated October 13, 2015;
c. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated October 21, 2015;
d. Town of Estes Park Community Development memo dated October 23, 2015;
e. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated October 22, 2015;
f. CDOT email dated September 30, 2015
2. Additional Conditions requested by Commissioner White, regarding Wildlife Habitat:
a. Timing restrictions on certain development activities to further reduce potential
impacts on elk and/or deer calving/fawning;
b. Removing or modifying the design of existing or future fencing to facilitate wildlife
movement;
c. Avoid planting any new trees; and
d. Installing bear-proof enclosures and/or dumpsters.
Planner Kleisler stated his notes reflect a recommendation of approval conditional to the
resolution of the code compliance cases as referenced in the presentation, as well as compliance
with the submitted wildlife report.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Murphree) to recommend approval of the preliminary
townhome subdivision plat to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended
by staff, with the additional condition regarding wildlife habitat, and the motion passed
unanimously with two absent.
3. MOUNTAIN MEADOW PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, 1570 Fish Hatchery Road; The
Sanctuary, LLC/Applicant
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. He stated the property is comprised of two
individual parcels totaling 6.17 acres. The application is a request to create 15 single-
family residential lots zoned At—Accommodations. The current water system is a well,
and the proposal includes connecting to the Town water system. Annexation into the
Town limits would be required, and would occur during the Final Plat review process.
Planner Gonzales stated the maximum allowed density could be 24 units, so with the
proposed 15 units, density is not maximized. Access will be from a new proposed road
(Barking Dog Lane) off of Fish Hatchery Road.
Planner Gonzales stated the preliminary plat is reviewed by the Planning Commission, with
approval or denial recommended to the County Commissioners. Staff reviewed the
application based on the regulations set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC), and included: Lots, Grading and Site Disturbance, Tree and Vegetation Protection,
Public Trials/Private Open Space, Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas, Wildlife, Water, Fire
Protection, Electric, Sanitary Sewer, Stormwater Drainage, Access, Public Right-of-Way,
and Annexation. He stated a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along the
southern edge of Barking Dog Lane. Subdivisions in residential zone districts require open
space dedication. However, this subdivision is located within the A -1 —Accommodations
zone district and is not required to dedicate open space. The Colorado Geological Survey
(CGS) reviewed the geologic information of the site, which is within a mapped "alluvial
debris fan" and wildfire hazard areas. CGS suggested (a) a qualified geotechnical
professional should determine maximum allowable, un-retained temporary and
permanent cut slope heights and angles; and (b) retaining walls, building foundations, and
upslope walls that will function as retaining walls must be designed by a qualified
geotechnical or civil engineer, and must include adequate behind-wall drainage. Larimer
County Emergency Services reviewed the proposed subdivision and Wildfire Mitigation
Plan, and suggested the homes be required to create a defensible space (specifically the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
homes proposed on Lots 3-8), to reduce the wildfire danger throughout the property. The
Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife suggested (a) fencing used to protect trees and
vegetation should be at least six feet from the tree/plant to ensure an animal will not try
to reach for it; (b) fencing material should be wire or woven wire for durability; and (c)
fencing should have "T" posts or wooden posts for durability. The Water Department will
require the existing well be abandoned. The Fire Protection District is requiring two
additional fire hydrants be installed. The Utilities Department stated existing overhead
power lines will continue to be used and/or removed. The Sanitation District will require
a sewer main extension and a new easement, as well as new sewer mains in the lower
half of Barking Dog Lane. Regarding stormwater drainage, the flow from Barking Dog Lane
will collect along the north boundary and discharge into a detention pond prior to being
discharged downstream via an existing culvert under Fish Hatchery Road. Planner
Gonzales stated 14 lots will access the subdivision via Barking Dog Lane, and one lot will
have access from Fish Hatchery Road. The deeded boundary is currently the centerline of
Fish Hatchery Road, with 30 feet of public right-of-way to the north. The proposed
preliminary plat would dedicate an additional 30 feet of right-of-way, which allows room
for Fish Hatchery Road and a trail.
Planner Gonzales stated the application was noticed in the local newspaper and notices
were mailed to adjacent property owners. One public comment was received. The
concern was about wildlife corridors, mainly on proposed lots 10 and 11; drainage
through a culvert that is consistently blocked by dirt and debris; and street lighting.
Staff Findings
1. With the conditions of approval listed, this proposal will comply with all applicable
sections of the EVDC.
2. Adequate public facilities can be made available to serve the proposed subdivision.
3. The proposed lot configuration will reduce the maximum allowed density from 24
units to 15.
4. A development agreement will need to be reviewed and approved by Public Works
prior to Final Plat approval by the Town Board. This agreement will need to
include the cost for utilities.
5. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration
and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff
relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.
6. This subdivision is subject to compliance with applicable sections of the EVDC.
These include, but are not limited to: Chapter 3 "Review Procedures and
Standards", Chapter 7 "General Development Standards", Appendix D "Road
Design and Construction Standards".
7. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Staff recommend approval with conditions listed below. Staff added four additional conditions
of approval following the distribution of the staff report.
Four additional conditions
11. Annexation shall occur prior to or concurrently with the Final Plat
12. Draft HOA declarations shall be submitted to staff during the Final Plat review
process
13. Compliance with the Colorado Geologic Survey recommendations
14. Compliance with the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife recommendations.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Schneider asked for clarification regarding drainage from behind the
retaining walls. Planner Gonzales stated the CGS wanted to make sure the retaining walls
were engineered correctly due to unstable slopes. The CGS has requested a copy of the
final geological report being prepared by Van Horn Engineering prior to the Final Plat.
Commissioner White asked about the clogged culvert. Planner Gonzales stated once
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
annexed into the Town limits, the maintenance of the culvert will be the Town's
responsibility.
Public Comment
David Bangs/applicant representative stated the retention pond will collect sediment
and runoff. It will be a privately-owned pond and maintenance will fall on the HOA.
Mr. Bangs stated the applicant would like to request the condition regarding the ten-
foot trail be amended to allow further discussion with Town staff regarding the trail
design. Planner Gonzales agreed to the amended condition, stating it would be an
amendment to Condition #3 from the Public Works Department.
Planner Gonzales stated the Commissioners could also explore limiting fencing on the
property to allow for the migration of bighorn sheep, especially on Lots 10 and 11, to
address neighbor concerns. Mark Theiss/property owner stated this condition was
mentioned for the first time today, and he would prefer this condition be waived to
protect the future owner. Planner Gonzales stated the HOA could place a condition;
however, Town staff does not enforce HOA regulations. The code already has fencing
requirements, which allows for wildlife breaks within fencing in wildlife corridors. The
proposed conditions to limit fencing was requested by a neighbor, and would be stricter
than the current regulations.
Terry Rizzuti/town resident stated a culvert dumps into the river on the upstream side
of their property. This culvert is frequently filled to maximum capacity with water in
the spring. He is pleased that the property is being improved. The bighorn sheep are now
migrating across proposed Lot 11, which they have not done for years. The Division of Wildlife
says the bighorn sheep have reclaimed their historical migration area. Mr. Rizzuti does not
want anything to hinder that migration. His main concern was about the drainage; during
the flood the entire retention pond area was filled with water and he thinks it may be
undersized. He wants to make sure that the report has been reviewed by someone other
than the developer and his engineers to make sure that permeable ground will be
suitable for a six acre area that is mostly impervious. The water will run off faster and
will be channeled to one location, which is already maxed out. Mr. Rizzuti wants
assurance that it is indeed oversized; he would like to see it doubled in size. Planner
Gonzales stated the proposed size of the retention pond is 3000 cubic feet.
Nancy Voiland/town resident representing her property and the property owned by
Frank and Ann Stewart. She was excited about the new development, as it will be an
improvement to the area. She submitted public comment regarding a 20-foot right-of-
way that runs from the current proposed property through the Stewart's and her
property. She was concerned about construction traffic using the road, especially since
the new subdivision will have its own access. She did not see a need for Mountain
Meadow Subdivision to have access to the road. She was also concerned about the
drainage, stating it has been a problem for years. She stated the applicant has been
open to neighbor comments, and she would like to have additional discussion with the
applicant regarding the trail extension and would like to have input on the design of
the trail, as it will be adjacent to her property. Her last concern was about lighting.
The dark sky ordinance is important to the neighbors, and minimal lighting would be
greatly appreciated. The neighbors consider their neighborhood a wilderness area and
would like to keep it that way as much as possible.
Steve Randall/town resident stated he will be working for the developer, and hopes to
live there someday. Wants to keep the historic look of the area, limit the number of
vehicles on the properties, etc. He stated they want to create an intentional
community, but cannot force it on the residents. He requested the Town be responsible
for snow removal on Barking Dog Lane.
Public comment closed.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Staff and Commission Discussion
Planner Gonzales stated once the property is annexed into the town limits, the street
will be maintained by the Town. He stated the 20-foot access easement is for the lots to
the south. Public works listed in their memo that the 20-foot easement along the south
side of proposed Lot 11 is not intended for use by Lot 11's property owner, and should
be addressed on the plat.
Commissioner Moon was concerned about a 24" storm sewer pipe coming in and an 18"
pipe exiting the property. Planner Gonzales stated the 24" pipe will discharge water into
a grass-lined pond that will contain and filter the water before leaving the pond through
the 18" culvert. Public Works found the drainage plan to be adequate. The Town will be
maintaining the culvert.
Commissioner White was concerned about fencing on proposed Lot 11, as expressed during the
public comment session. Planner Gonzales stated dog runs are exempt from fencing
regulations.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with memo from the Estes Valley Fire Protection District dated October 27,
2015
2. Compliance with memo from Upper Thompson Sanitation District dated November 2,
2015
3. Compliance with memo from Town of Estes Park Public Works Department dated
November 11, 2015
4. Compliance with memo from Town of Estes Park Utilities Department and Light and
Power Division dated November 19, 2015
5. The Geologic Hazard Analysis Report shall be submitted to staff before Final Plat
approval
6. Labels shall be included on the preliminary plat for trail along Fish Hatchery Road
7. Lots 10 and 11 shall provide easements for the proposed trail that crosses onto the lots
8. Lots area square footage shall be adjusted for Lots 10 and 11 for trail easement
9. Copy of application to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District shall be
submitted with the Final Plat
10. Dedicated right-of-way for Fish Hatchery Road shall be in place prior to the recording
of the Final Plat
11. Annexation shall occur prior to or concurrently with the Final Plat
12. Draft HOA declarations shall be submitted to staff during the Final Plat process
13. Compliance with the Colorado Geological Survey recommended conditions
14. Compliance with the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife recommended conditions
15. No perimeter fencing shall be allowed on Lot 11.
It was moved and seconded (Moon/Murphree) to recommend approval of the Mountain
Meadow Preliminary Subdivision Plat to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners
with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, with the amendment of Condition #3
to allow further discussion on the trail design, and the addition of Condition #15 regarding
perimeter fencing on proposed Lot 11, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
Chair Hull called for a 10 minute recess at 2:45 p.m. Meeting was reconvened at 2:55.
4. ROCKY MOUNTAIN PERFORMING ARTS CENTER SPECIAL REVIEW 2015-01, AND AMENDED PLAT,
116 E. Elkhorn Avenue
Planner Baker reviewed the staff report. She stated the application was a Special Review and
Amended Plat to accommodate a 760-seat performing arts center, 20-unit hotel and spa, publicly
accessible Winter Garden, bar/restaurant, and related accessory uses on a 0.68 acre site located
at 116 E. Elkhorn Avenue. Total square footage would be in excess of 44,000 square feet. The
project would also include a basement parking garage with sixteen spaces intended for hotel
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
guest use. There are unique characteristics to the site including a riverwalk, with a portion of Fall
River running through the building.
Planner Baker stated the Special Review review criteria ensures compliance with the applicable
standards set forth in the EVDC and mitigates, to the maximum amount feasible, potential
adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. The
review criteria for the Amended Plat includes compliance with the EVDC review standards, and
the Planning Commission shall also find for this minor subdivision that approval will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or
in conflict with the purposes or objectives of the EVDC.
Planner Baker reviewed the specifics of the proposed development, stating this is a mixed-use
structure, which contains both use-by-right and special review features. The performing arts
theater, considered an “Entertainment Event, Major Indoor Uses,” is the portion of the
application requiring special review. The site fronts two streets, Elkhorn Avenue and Rockwell
Street which will affect access and site visibility. The applicant has set forth a number of strategies
to address potential traffic congestion and parking issues in the downtown core. The site is also in
very close proximity to Fall River, with the design having the river running through the Winter
Garden area. The dedication of an easement for a riverwalk trail is also proposed, which will
provide essential pedestrian connectivity through the downtown corridor. This proximity to Fall
River, along with a proposed height over the 30-foot limit and exterior lighting exceeding the
limits imposed in the EVDC, necessitates a variance application, which will be heard by the Estes
Valley Board of Adjustment.
Planner Baker stated the river acts as a natural separation between the restaurant/hotel/spa and
the performing arts theatre on the south side of the river. The river is integrated into the building
design. The proposed riverwalk easement is an important element. The previous easement was
included in the option to purchase real estate agreement. The applicant would like to expand this
easement dedication to address Planning and Public Works issues, including but not limited to
ADA accessibility. Planner Baker stated construction of Phase 1B is scheduled to be completed in
January, 2018. The area to be dedicated and the timeline for construction will be spelled out in
the Development Agreement, which is a recommended condition of approval. Another key issue
is the potential parking congestion that could result from the completed development. While no
off-street parking is required in the CD–Commercial Downtown zone district, Section 7.11 of the
EVDC requires a parking study to identify and mitigate potential adverse impacts. The original
study projected a parking demand of 243 vehicles. The applicant has proposed a number of
parking strategies; use of existing parking lots in the area, including the visitor center; potential
shared parking agreements with banks and/or the school district; a formal lease of a number of
town-owned parking spaces dedicated for this use; financial contribution for a nearby parking
structure in exchange for a certain number of spaced dedicated for use by this development.
Planner Baker stated these issues and any others should be further analyzed and executed in the
Development Agreement between the Town and the applicant.
Planner Baker stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property
owners within 1000 feet of the site. This was twice the radius distance of 500 feet required by the
EVDC. Appropriate legal notices have been published in the local newspaper and on the Town
website.
Staff Findings
1. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will
comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the
staff report.
2. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan.
3. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development, if revised to
comply with recommended conditions of approval.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 8
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body, and the Town Board of Trustees is
the Decision-making Body for both the Special Review and the Amended Plat applications.
Planner Baker reviewed the Conditions of Approval, listed below. More specifically, she stated the
proposed plans show 39 trees would be removed in or near the Riverside Parking Lot. Typically,
these trees would need to be replaced; however, there is some flexibility in the EVDC to have
another mechanism for replacing trees. The applicant proposed replacing 11 trees, and placing
additional trees in the winter garden area, which can be evaluated by staff to ensure the trees
planted there are of equal or greater value than the trees removed. Planner Baker stated
Condition #6 was added due to a sewer line shown on the original plans as being removed. This
condition ensures that sewer line will be properly replaced, as it serves several locations in the
immediate area. Finally, she stated development agreements will need to be written, requiring a
significant amount of coordination between the applicant, the Town, and referral agencies.
Planner Baker stated the Planning Commission has the authority to add other conditions of
approval as they see fit based on any testimony and evidence provided by the applicant and/or
the public at this hearing.
Applicant Presentation
Stan Black/applicant stated he would be presenting information directly pertinent to the Special
Review. He stated this project is about creating a vibrant society, inspiring creativity, building
community pride, bridging diverse cultures, and entertaining us. He showed a video about the
potential entertainers at the Performing Arts Center, and added this project is about a lot more
than providing a home for local performers. Mr. Black stated is the Board Chair, and other team
members include Tom Dority, Roger Thorp, and David Bangs. For decades the local community
has sought a performing arts theater, and opportunity arose when the Park Theatre Mall burned
to the ground. The property is unique with a highly commercial front end to generate money to
support the theater. The theater will have its frontage on Rockwell. Mr. Black stated this project
complements the Comprehensive Plan, the Town’s strategic plan, and the Economic Development
Corporation’s strategic plan. This project will bring people to town for longer periods of time, to
the heart of downtown, and to do something they haven’t done before. He stated the impact of
the tall building would be somewhat mitigated because the building would be at or below river
level, located where the previous building was over forty feet tall. Also, it would be located
adjacent to the tallest building in the Estes Valley. Mr. Black stated the driving factor for the
building height is the fly space, which allows the crew to set up for more than one show at a time,
and “fly” into the area above the stage the set pieces, lighting, sound, etc. This feature allows
heavy back-to-back bookings. The team considered putting the building below grade, but hit
bedrock and ground water at eight feet. Regarding flood mitigation, the base floor must be above
the curb. Mr. Black stated effort has been put into the architecture to mitigate a boxy
appearance. The design includes 16 spaces reserved for hotel guests in an underground parking
area, weekend summer days have parking spaces that open up in the early evenings, and there
are enough spaces within a 1/4 mile radius around town to accommodate guests at the theater.
The anticipation is that guests would be in town before and after the show. The Visitor Center is
an eight-minute walk and considered overflow parking. He stated the team may negotiate
arrangements with private lots, shuttles to remote lots, and they are offering to participate in a
nearby parking structure if construction coincides with this project. He stated they would prefer
to participate in a public parking lot rather than have parking in the basement area.
Mr. Black stated there were four neighborhood meetings that were well attended and
constructive, for the most part. These meetings led them to work harder to find parking solutions.
Also from the meetings came a dramatically changed exterior appearance. Changes were made to
build a hotel in order to control the style and usage of the whole complex and mitigate negative
impacts on neighbors. A land survey found neighbors encroached on their property. A “Do No
Harm” agreement was drafted to address this. The next door neighbors have an exhaust fan that
will need to be moved, and the applicant has offered to pay for a new fan to be relocated to their
roof.
Tom Dority/EPIC Board member stated the underlying reason for the project is the intrinsic value
of the arts and culture to Estes Park. The effort to improve the cultural aspect of the community is
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 9
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
very important. Also important is the economic impact on the community. They are hoping to
have this be a venue for a wide variety of professional performance groups as well as the home of
the various local performing groups. A very conservative estimate would have 36% of the
potential seats filled for the first few years. It is possible the proposed project could
conservatively result in $1.9 million to the town. Other audience spending could result in an
additional $6.8 million. Sales tax received is projected to be about $400,000 annually. Total
economic impact could be as much as $9 million annually. Other economic factors include value
of construction materials, approximately 150 workers on site for the 18-month construction
period, a large vacant lot that is currently a liability to the community will be redeveloped with a
new building that will attract the public year round. Mr. Dority explained his sources came from
various studies.
Roger Thorp/project architect stated he has been working on this project for several years.
Adjustments have been made to better blend in with the community, as the previous design was
too “urban” for this mountain community. The second level will be set back so it is in character
with the other two-story buildings. The mountain rustic architecture uses rock and timbers. They
maintained the character in the winter garden and the auditorium by utilizing brick work more on
the theater portion of the building. A shorter exterior wall will be along the perimeter, with the fly
area being in the middle of the theater, so as to not be as intrusive to people walking beside the
building. Mr. Thorp stated a lot of work has gone into engineering the river going through the
building. The proposed design allows for approximately 2.5 times the water flow prior to the 2013
flood. Having the river going through the building was the original impetus behind the design of
the auditorium. The winter garden would be accessible year-round, and would allow connectivity
of the riverwalk to the Weist parking lot. A public easement would be dedicated through the
building. The winter garden area has been designed for pedestrian use and includes public
restrooms. The number of restrooms in the building exceeds the code requirements. Mr. Thorp
stated the building entrance on Rockwell is set back enough to allow a drop off zone, and the
performer’s vehicles will have off-street parking to unload/load. A traffic engineer assisted with
location of signs. The proposed plan includes four major pedestrian access/exit points.
Additionally, sixteen valet parking spaces, storage, mechanical rooms and green rooms would be
located on the lower level. He reiterated the applicant would be willing to negotiate an
agreement with the Town regarding a parking structure before phase two is built. He stated the
basement would require waterproofing. Mr. Thorp shows photo simulations, and stated the
proposed height is approximately 55 feet high, which is not in the purview of the Planning
Commission. A variance request concerning height will be heard by the Board of Adjustment. The
existing Park Theater is almost 14 feet higher than this proposed building. The reason for the
elaborate stage is to make sure they can take care of local performers and out-of-town
performers and still be able to change out the backdrops quickly for multiple performances in a
timely manner. They have worked hard to make this an exciting experience that will attract
people.
Staff, Applicant, and Commission Discussion
Mr. Thorp stated the Special Review and Amended Plat will be heard by the Town Board prior to
going to the Board of Adjustment for the variance requests. They don’t intend to make major
changes. As construction is detailed, some adjustments may be necessary. He stated actual
construction dates will depend on how funding comes along; however, construction would begin
in the river when the water is low (fall/winter). In response to a question, Mr. Thorp stated the
building will be designed to the new water flows and reviewed by the US Army Corps of
Engineers. He did not see any effect on this project from the proposed “Loop” project, but is
hoping a parking structure at the existing Post Office parking lot will come to fruition.
Commissioner Schneider wondered about parking on the lower level on the north side of the
river, with access on Elkhorn Avenue, and Mr. Thorp stated there is a hotelier that desires to put a
spa on the lower level, so they did not design parking. Mr. Thorp stated the parking study takes
into account all the uses in the building. They hope to be a part of the parking solution in the
downtown area. Commissioners Schneider and Murphree were pleased with the new design.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 10
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Public Comment
Paul Fishman/town resident and former business owner at the proposed location was supportive
of the downtown location. He hopes it will change the character of downtown for the better, and
thinks the project will bring an enhanced nighttime atmosphere. He stated the positive aspects
outweigh the negative. He suggested the Planning Commissioners recommend to Town Board to
seek funding for a downtown parking structure at the current Post Office lot.
Marc Richards/county resident stated several local performing arts groups need an adequate
venue and performance space. The current venues are greatly appreciated, though inadequate.
The Estes Valley has an unusually large number of highly educated performers. Estes Park could
compete for entertainment if they had a venue like this proposed project. Any town has to move
forward to improve itself, or it will become stagnant.
Ron Willcox/county resident and downtown business owner stated he was very supportive of this
project, and it is very important for this project to move forward. The issues of parking, traffic,
etc. have been mitigated and have plans for further mitigation. The project is consistent with
town goals and the downtown strategic plan. It will provide jobs, lodging downtown, will connect
the riverwalk.
Craig Soderberg/town resident was supportive of the project. His children are performers and
would love the opportunity this theater would offer. He frequently goes to Grand Lake to their
theater, and wants the same for Estes Park. He was representing Estes Performs, and this group
is very excited about having this type of venue in Estes Park. As a board member of the Estes Arts
District, he shared this group also supports this project. The Governor of Colorado supports
creative arts districts, and Mr. Soderberg encouraged the Commissioners to approve this project.
Diane Muno/town resident and downtown business owner was highly supportive of this project.
She stated it will bring a new type of visitor to the community and will give visitors and locals
something to do in the evenings.
Damien Boynton/town resident and a member of the EPIC board has been an award-winning
hotelier for 20 years. He stated the need for hotels in Estes Park has increased in the last several
years. This project will enhance the availability of accommodations in the area. He is supportive of
the project.
Adam Shake/town resident and Visit Estes Park board representative stated the VEP board
supports this project, and it will provide new product development for the Estes Valley. This
project will add a year-round product to market. Personally, he loves the Estes Park community
and appreciates the opportunity to be involved in this important project. He was supportive from
an economic development and arts district standpoint.
Jim Pickering/chair of the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) stated if Estes Park is going
to succeed long-term as a community, we must invest in projects that provide year-round
employment. The EDC is supportive of this project.
Kathy Bowers/town resident representing several performing arts groups stated this project
would be a big economic boost to Estes Park. The town has many performing groups that deserve
a better place to perform. They would like to see professional staff that could move equipment.
A stage that could support both a stage and orchestra area would be beneficial. She stated people
that say Estes Park cannot solve the parking project are very short-sighted. She fully supports the
project. There are definite positive economic impacts that performing art centers can have on
communities.
Public comment closed.
Conditions of Approval
Staff recommends approval of the Special Review and Amended Plat applications subject to the
following conditions:
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 11
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
1. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated November 19, 2015.
2. Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated November 18, 2015.
3. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated November 9, 2015.
4. The applicant shall submit a planting schedule of a similar or identical value to the 28
replacement trees required by Section 7.3 of the EVDC, to be evaluated by Staff in
accordance with the Valuation of Trees, Shrubs and Other Plants prepared by the
International Society of Arboriculture. This document shall be submitted with construction
drawings.
5. All exterior lighting installed by the applicant shall comply with Section 7.9(D)(1) of the
EVDC.
6. The applicant shall submit an amended Utility Site Plan pursuant to the Estes Park
Sanitation District Rules and Regulations within 30 days of Town Board approval.
7. The applicant shall execute a Development Agreement with the Town of Estes Park
following Town Board approval, which shall address the following:
a. Development phasing
b. Site improvements
c. Hours and manner of project construction
d. Riverwalk easement dedication
e. Riverwalk connection; including timing and manner of construction and public
accessibility
f. Parking
g. Any additional items or conditions as determined by the Planning Commission and/or
the Town Board.
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Moon) to recommend approval to the Town Board with
the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with
two absent.
REPORTS
1. Planner Kleisler reported the Board of Adjustment approved a variance request at 3850 Star
Way in Little Valley. It was a setback variance for a small outbuilding.
2. Planner Kleisler reported the vacation home ordinance has temporarily stalled. Following
the November 9th joint meeting, the County Commissioners requested additional public
forums, one of which took place last Saturday, attended by roughly 100 people. There was
good, productive discussion. Facilitators are currently drafting the after action summaries
that will be posted online after receipt. There will be a County Commissioner listening
session on January 25th at 4 p.m. in the Town Board Room. Following that meeting, one
last joint meeting with the Town Board, County Commission, and Planning Commission
would take place. Following that joint meeting, Planning Commissioners will review a draft
amendment. On January 12, 2016, the Town Board Study Session will include discussion
regarding code compliance activities related to vacation rentals, and how building code
issues come into play with vacation rentals.
3. Planner Kleisler reported a delay in an option for a new fee schedule adoption for vacation
home licenses. This could also be used for code compliance enforcement.
4. Alison Chilcott reported the Request for Proposal regarding a hydrology study has been
released. We expect to receive seven or eight proposals, and will be selecting a consultant
in January.
There being no other business before the Commission, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at
4:33p.m.
__________________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 12
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
__________________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Russ
Schneider, Michael Moon, and Sharry White
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Murphree, Moon, and White
Also Attending: Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Mallory Baker,
Planner Carrie McCool, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps,
Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, Town Attorney Greg White, and
Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Recused & Absent Commissioners Schneider & Hills
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were approximately 95 people in
attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. A quorum was in attendance. Commissioners
Schneider and Hills have recused themselves at the direction of Town Attorney White. Director
Chilcott introduced staff, stating Planner Baker was a consultant with McCool Development Solutions,
hired by the Town to be the lead planner on this project. Chair Hull explained the role of the Planning
Commission and the process for accepting public comment at today’s meeting. A sign‐up sheet was
provided for those desiring to provide public comment. Public comment may be limited to three
minutes, depending on how many people plan to speak. Chair Hull explained the Planning Commission
will be reviewing an amendment to Special Review 2014‐01, which was approved by the Town Board
on March 24, 2015. Tonight’s review will only be for a proposed fourth floor that combines the
Wellness Center and the Accommodations 2 Building. The concept of the Wellness Center or the
entire project will not be discussed, and public comment for those items should be addressed to the
Town Board. Chair Hull explained the timeline for the meeting, stating the meeting would need to
adjourn no later than nine o’clock, due to a prior commitment for one of the Commissioners. If the
time limit is not sufficient, the meeting may be continued to a future date. The meeting format will be
somewhat different than regular Planning Commission meetings.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
1. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014‐01C, EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER, 520 Steamer Parkway; Stanley
Land Holding, LLC/Applicant
Chair Hull stated the applicants would be making their presentation first, followed by the staff
report, public comment, and Commission discussion.
Applicant Presentation
David Bangs/applicant representative introduced team members Jeff VanSambeek, Lodestone
Design Group project architect; Greg Rosener, Grand Heritage Hotel Group representative; John
Cullen, Grand Heritage Hotel Group owner, and Mark Gregson, interim CEO of the Estes Park
Medical Center. Attorney Lucia Liley was ill and unable to attend.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Mr. Bangs gave a brief overview of the process to date. The Wellness Training Center (WTC)
concept was approved by the Town Board prior to the sale of Stanley Historic District Lot 4 by the
Town of Estes Park to Grand Heritage Hotel Group. In March, 2015, approval was granted to
construct the Accommodations 2 building as the first phase, and construction commenced.
Funding issues from the Estes Park Medical Center (EPMC) jeopardized the construction of the
WTC, and alternatives were considered. Mr. Bangs stated the only feasible option was to
integrate the WTC into the Accommodations 2 Building currently under construction. This
solution would provide the minimal essential amount of WTC space for the EPMC to have a
successful wellness program. The applicant then restructured financial proposals to reduce the
financial risk to the EPMC, and the changes to the Accommodations 2 Building were pursued. The
Town Board granted an expedited review process to avoid delays in construction.
Mr. Bangs stated changes proposed with this application include: conversion of part of the ground
floor from storage to the WTC; addition of a ground floor lap/training pool patio and excavation
on the west side to allow light into the new ground floor spaces; a new partial fourth floor and
exterior yoga/meditation deck above the third floor. These changes would mean a height increase
and a revised note on the plan to allow outdoor activities on the ground floor patio (east side) and
the fourth floor yoga/meditation deck. The plans that are not changing include: access; parking
plans for the first phase; utilities for servicing the building; drainage plan; open space use on the
site; trails and pedestrian linkages; overall architectural style of the building; level and style of
exterior lighting; economic benefit to the Town. Mr. Bangs stated the WTC would be a use‐by‐
right in the Accommodations zone district as approved in the original development plan. The
team is requesting to move the use from one accommodations building to the other. He stated
part of the previous approval included a building height over 30 feet. WTC uses on the ground
floor would include: research, consultation, massage and recovery, lab services, audio testing,
biomechanical and clinical functions, gym and weight training, small group exercise, lap/training
pool and lockers, totaling approximately 10,312 square feet. The exterior space on the ground
floor would be a patio (2,200 square feet) to service the pool. The fourth floor would contain a
3,455 square foot large group exercise room, and the exterior (deck above third floor) would be a
3,560 square foot area used for meditation, yoga, and relaxation. Total square footage for the
WTC would be 13,676 for interior space and 5,760 for exterior space.
Mr. Bangs addressed the building height increase, proposed at 11 feet one inch on the southeast
(downhill) side of the building. The height on the uphill side remains as approved, with the lowest
point 26.48 feet above natural grade. The Estes Park Municipal Code authorizes an increase in
building height above 30 feet in the Stanley Historic District through a special review process, with
the Town Board the decision‐making body. He stated the standard for that review is to mitigate to
the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and
services, and the environment. The Accommodations 2 Building is located outside of three view
corridors protected by the Stanley Historic District regulations. Mr. Bangs stated the proposed
fourth floor has been limited to a partial story to minimize impact to the neighboring residences.
Adding the proposed fourth floor does not increase impervious coverage nor does it decrease the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
amount of open space previously approved. The impact is limited to the additional height. Mr.
Bangs stated the outdoor activities would be limited to the pool patio area and the fourth floor
deck, which are intended to be passive, e.g. recovery, relaxation, meditation, and yoga. The
applicant has agreed to have no amplified sound in these spaces, and the entire development will
be subject to the existing Town noise ordinances.
Jeff VanSambeek/project architect stated he was given the task of trying to put the proposed
EPMC Wellness Training Center program into a space already under construction. The original
approved WTC included over 20,000 square feet of interior space, and the concept of putting that
much space into a building already under construction required communication with the EPMC to
determine what was absolutely necessary for a successful program. When it was determined not
all would fit on the ground floor, the team decided to propose a fourth floor. He briefly reviewed
the site plan, stating they did their best to minimize impacts, including improved landscaping on
the north side to minimize neighborhood impact. A retaining wall approximately four feet high
will enclose the pool patio, and a smaller retaining wall would be installed after excavation of the
west side, allowing additional natural light. Mr. VanSambeek stated the shared spaces would
include lobby areas. He stated the team worked hard to take away as much of the hotel use as
possible from the ground floor in order to add the WTC required features, so shared spaces exist
in the revised plan, including the lobby (now labeled as a cycling/training room) and the
restrooms. Two significant changes were excavations for a gym/equipment training room and the
lap/training pool. These functions were not originally anticipated, and the building ceiling height
was challenging, so the floor was lowered to obtain more ceiling height. These excavations have
already taken place. Mr. VanSambeek stated all inward functions of the program were placed on
the interior of ground floor because they do not require extra lighting. The programmatic areas
have been place around the perimeter of the building to have access to views and natural light. At
Mr. Cullen’s request the proposed fourth floor was limited to only a portion of the space
available. Activities such as yoga classes and other group assemblies would be held on this fourth
floor. The fourth floor deck would allow WTC participants to take classes outside while enjoying
the Estes Park environment. The proposed deck stops at the fourth floor stair tower, and
remaining roof portion will contain planter boxes to soften the northern edge of the building. He
stated the only other change is the removal of a garage door in the pool area, which is no longer
needed to access the pool equipment room. The south side of the building hasn’t changed except
for the addition of the fourth floor. Care was taken to make sure the architecture was in close
design to the other buildings on the campus. Mr. VanSambeek provided revised photo
simulations to analyze the impact on neighboring properties. He explained the camera settings
for the photos that were taken, and also explained the process for overlaying the proposed
building into the photos. Photos were taken from the Davis and Hayek properties. Building height
was determined based on existing grade. The most extreme height difference is at the southwest
corner. The majority of the proposed fourth floor is unseen from the neighboring properties, and
roof is about all that is seen from the north. There were a number of alternatives explored,
including reducing the hotel uses of the second and third floors to accommodate WTC uses. It was
determined this was not feasible due to the building already being under construction. The time
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
and expense to make the changes would prevent timely delivery of hotel rooms and cause default
on the applicant’s mortgage. The financing of the project is contingent on the number of rooms
delivered. Additionally, WTC uses need to be separated from hotel uses for security and
confidentiality reasons. Only shared spaces could be utilized. Another alternative explored was
expanding the building footprint and eliminating the fourth floor. This was determined unfeasible
due to the existing property line and street to the west, existing utilities, infrastructure, access
points and public easements, and required parking areas. A third alternative to eliminate the
fourth floor deck, thus minimizing outdoor activity, was not feasible because the outdoor space is
considered integral to the WTC program. At this time, Chair Hull stated the applicant’s allotted
time to present has expired, and offered to provide time later in the meeting for him to discuss
the remaining portion of his presentation.
Chair Hull read portions of minutes from the March 17, 2015 Planning Commission meeting (page
14) for Special Review 2014‐01, stating Option 1 would not comply with the 30 foot height limit,
and Option 2 would comply. The minutes showed Mr. Cullen stated he was willing and prepared
to withdraw Option 1 and continue with Option 2 to please the Commission and the town. Chair
Hull stated the approved plan was for Option 2, which was under the 30 foot height limit.
Staff Presentation
Mallory Baker stated the applicant did a great job explaining most of the revisions. She would be
comparing the previous approvals of this site to the currently proposed project. First, relocating
the WTC to the Accommodations 2 Building, currently under construction, necessitates a change
in the originally approved lower level plan. This is a change to the tenant finish plan for the
ground floor as well as the addition of the partial fourth story. Half of the area on the proposed
fourth floor would be finished floor area, with the other half being supplemental outdoor space.
Second, the addition of two ground floor patios, (pool patio on the east, and a partially covered
patio on the southeast corner). Third, the request to exceed the maximum height limit of 30 feet
by 11 feet 1 inch. The last change is to remove a previous condition of approval from the last
reiteration of this project, which specifically limited all activities in the Accommodations 2
Building to the interior of the building. In the proposed plan, some activities would be held
outdoors on the patios and the fourth floor deck.
Ms. Baker explained the review process and timeline particular to this application. The timeline
was tighter than what typically occurs with development review applications. Staff completed the
review of this challenging application within 21 days. This timeline required extensive cooperation
with staff, the applicant, and other internal/external reviewing agencies. A pre‐application
meeting was held in early November, a completeness review was conducted to ensure all
documents needed were ready for full code compliance review, the application was sent to
referral agencies for comment, a full code review was completed, and a staff report prepared at
the end of November. Additionally, a legal notice was published and adjacent property owners
were notified by mail. Supplemental coordination was required; weekly meetings with the
applicant’s design team were held to discuss reviewing agency comments. The design team
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
frequently attend the Development Review Team meetings, held weekly, which allowed them to
discuss issues with Town staff, Estes Park Sanitation District, and the Estes Valley Fire Protection
District staff. Specific office hours for public review of the plans and questions related to the
review process were held by Ms. Baker every Friday afternoon.
Mr. Baker explained the Planning Commission’s role is to advise the Town Board on land use
matters. The responsibility is to ensure compliance with relevant codes, conformance with the
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and most importantly the Special Review criteria “…ensures the
application mitigates to the maximum amount feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land
uses, public facilities and services, and the environment.” What is typically not included in the
Planning Commission’s purview is development budget and financing programs. Also, private
partnerships, for example, the partnership with the Estes Park Medical Center, is not typically part
of the Planning Commission’s purview. The applicant’s responsibility is to demonstrate
compliance with the relevant codes, conformance with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and
to demonstrate compliance with the special review criteria. Ms. Baker’s responsibility, along with
staff, is to manage the review process, provide technical review, and act as an informational
resource for the Planning Commissioners. Staff is not in any way advisory to the Town Board, but
only acts as an information and technical resource for those elected officials.
Ms. Baker stated there are not a lot of design changes to this application. She focused on key
issues:
Height. Height limitations are very important in the town of Estes Park, as they protect key
natural resources of the town, e.g. views. 77 out of 80 public comments received to date on this
application specifically opposed the height variance request. There are advantages to vertical
height. Vertical height limits impervious coverage and maximizes the potential for open space.
The applicant is well into compliance with those requirements. The applicant has also
demonstrated they have attempted to limit to the maximum extent feasible the areas in which
they are adding height to the building. Ms. Baker read the definition of maximum extent feasible:
“No feasible or prudent alternative exists…economic considerations may be taken into account
but shall not be the overriding factor in determining ‘maximum extent feasible’”. She suggested
the Commissioners keep that in mind as the discussion continued. She stated other alternatives
were mentioned in the staff report; limiting square footage for hotel programming, expanding the
building horizontal footprint, and limiting the fourth story to finished floor area rather than
adding additional activity above the 30 foot height limit. Ms. Baker reviewed the photo
simulations provided by the applicant. These views are not part of the protected view corridors
for the Stanley Hotel. They are mountain views that are potentially obstructed by the building.
The view obstructions are not significant, but are essential in staff’s review of adverse impacts.
Outdoor Activities. Ms. Baker stated the issue of outdoor activities concerns the removal of a
previous condition of approval (March, 2015) which limited activities associated with this building
to be inside. A number of outdoor spaces are currently proposed (fourth floor roof deck and
ground floor patios), and a small number of public comments specifically opposed the allowance
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
of this proposed outdoor activity. In order to mitigate the adverse impacts from the outdoor
activity, staff set forth a recommendation condition of approval that the applicant submit a
revised development plan that limits the potential activities on those outdoor spaces to WTC
programming uses as defined by the applicant in the Statement of Intent submitted for this
application. There are two patios on the ground floor and the previously discussed roof deck area
where outdoor activities could be occurring.
Parking & Shuttling. Ms. Baker stated at this time, the applicant has stated the only guests
allowed to use the WTC will be those staying on site; therefore, there are no current issues with
parking demand and trip generation. However, the Statement of Intent discusses potential future
changes to WTC programming which could include opening up the program to people not staying
on site or to the general public, meaning there could be future increases on parking demand and
trip generation. Because of this, staff recommended a condition of approval stating any proposed
changes to the Wellness Training Center operation standards that will result in additional parking
and transportation needs, including but not limited to the opening of the programs to patrons not
staying at the hotel on‐site, shall require the submittal of a Parking and Shuttling Plan to be
reviewed pursuant to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) requirements. This would provide
staff with a mechanism to review future trip generation and parking demand impact to ensure the
proper transportation infrastructure and mitigation plans in place for any adverse impacts.
Ms. Baker stated the Planning Commission has several options for voting on this special review:
(1) Approval without conditions; (2) Approval with conditions; (3) Denial; (4) Continuation of the
hearing in order to provide adequate time to review additional materials.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with the affected agency conditions of approval and comments, including the
Town of Estes Park Utilities Department, the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department,
the Estes Park Sanitation District, the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, and RBB Architects,
serving as the Stanley Historic District Architectural Review Committee.
2. Compliance with Section 7.9(D), Exterior Lighting Design Standards, of the EVDC
3. Any proposed changes to the Wellness Training Center operation standards that will result in
additional parking and transportation needs, including but not limited to the opening of the
programs to patrons not staying at the hotel on‐site, shall require the submittal of a Parking
and Shuttling Plan to be reviewed pursuant to EVDC requirements.
4. The applicants shall submit a revised development plan with a note stating the “The fourth
floor deck and ground floor patios shall be limited to Wellness Training Center programming
uses, including research, consultation, massage and recovery, lab services, audio testing,
biomechanical and clinical functions, gym and weight training, and small group exercise.”
5. Any proposed changes to the uses included in the Accommodations‐2 Building shall require a
Special Review pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 3.5 of the EVDC.
6. The applicant shall remove the note on Sheet A1.4 referring to “Steel framing in roof above
for future cupola” prior to the submittal of final development plan mylars.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Ms. Baker stated the Commission may include any conditions it determines will render the
application compliant with all requirements based on all the evidence and testimony presented at
the hearing. Staff understands that the applicant was given time to speak at the hearing, and
valuable information was provided during that presentation. The public will also have time to
speak, so the Commission has room to include that testimony in any conditions of approval that it
so desires.
Public Comment
Commissioner Klink stated public comment is best provided in written form, submitted early
enough to be included in the meeting material packets. More thought can be given to the
comments by the Commissioners if they are able to read them rather than hearing them for the
first time as verbal public comment.
Ann Finley/town resident stated the proposed project will define the aesthetics and values of our
community, and it is imperative that we get it right. The voters based their decisions on the plans
presented before the election. The new design is clearly not what the voters approved. Minor
changes could be expected, but these plans are significantly different. She urged the Planning
Commission to respect the deliberations of the voters. Approving these modifications would
undermine the credibility of this already questionable and potentially divisive proposal. The
height variance was not a part of the plan that residents voted on. She questioned whether or not
the vote would have passed if these were the plans originally submitted. There should be no
favoritism or granting or waiver of fees associated with any variances. She encouraged the
Commissioners to deny the request for the redesign and for the height variance.
Marlene Hayek/town resident quoted lyrics from John Denver’s “Rocky Mountain High”, the
Colorado state song, stating those lyrics fit well with how some local residents felt about blocking
their view.
Barb Davis/town resident stated she had seen many changes in the many years she has been
coming to Estes Park. The majority of people think many of these changes were mistakes, and
encouraged the Commissioners not to make another mistake. She hoped the Planning
Commission considers what the height variance would do to the community. She thought it would
set a precedent for future projects. She was opposed to the height variance.
Rebecca Urquhart/town resident stated she would focus on the height variance. She stated this
would not meet the standards of review for a traditional variance request (through the Board of
Adjustment). She stated economic considerations are not an overriding factor in approving a
variance. She thinks there are feasible alternatives. The stated the statement of intent for this
application was an emotional narrative. Removal of hotel rooms is not feasible only for economic
reasons, which is not a justifiable reason for the variance. She suggested the wellness center be a
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 8
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
separate building, and it can be expanded at a later date. There is a reason for a height limit in the
EVDC, and approving this one would set a precedent.
Diane Muno/town resident and local business owner stated she is truly invested in Estes Park and
wants to know that we are moving in a progressive manner. She stated Estes Park is being
marketed away by other mountain communities for business and tourism. She campaigned for
the sale of Lot 4 because she supported the EPMC and the desire to generate additional services
and revenue. She believes in the wellness center concept. When it comes to a business opinion,
we need to look at it rationally and determine how it effects the greater good for the community.
Ms. Muno stated she is a member of the EPMC Foundation Board, and they are actively
continuing to raise funds for the WTC. There are community residents that believe that some of
the changes that need to happen may require a height variance.
Wally Burke/town resident and accommodations owner stated he was supportive of the wellness
center, but opposed to the height variance. He stated 36.7% of the building would be over 30
feet, which is significant. Height is a concern for anyone that builds in the Estes Valley, and what’s
allowed for one should be allowed for all. He was concerned about what would happen if the
wellness center was built and failed, and what the future plan would then be for the fourth and
ground floors. He was opposed to allowing the height variance.
Jan Vershuur/town resident stated the Stanley Hotel is the crown jewel of Estes Park. He did not
think the project had been presented well, as it seems to be mostly an extension of the Stanley
Hotel. He was opposed to granting a variance for the fourth floor.
Doug Warner/town resident stated he voted in favor of the sale of Lot 4. He was not opposed to
the WTC concept, but strongly opposed to the height variance. He was also opposed to the height
variance in the previous application. The 30 foot height limit was determined by men and women
with an understanding of the cultural, historical, and aesthetic significance of the Stanley Hotel
and other structures in Estes Park. He stated the variance requested is justified only if there are
(1) special conditions that exist on the lot that create a hardship; (2) financial or personal
situations of the applicant can be considered, but must not be used as a determining factor; (3)
the approval of the variance must not grant special privilege to the property owner. The “human
condition” indicates the nature of mankind is such that power, position, wealth, etc. will, from
time to time, tempt one to use that power and position and wealth to exert pressure on those in
government to get special treatment. This is not a new condition, and has been around since the
beginning of time. The applicant was intimately familiar with the property prior to the purchase.
There are no hardships present. Financial factors cannot be taken into consideration. The
applicant’s power, position, and wealth must not give him preferential treatment over the
common man. Mr. Warner stated if the Commissioners granted the requested height variance, it
would set a precedent for others seeking height variances. He urged the Commissioners to
examine carefully the criteria governing the granting of variances.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 9
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Judy Nystrom/town resident represented Mr. Findley in several real estate transactions in the
area of what is now the Stanley Historic District. Mr. Findley provided a rendition, based upon the
regulations at the time, of what was going to be on Lot 4. Nothing encroached in that area like the
current building does. She worked with several people who own homes on Findley Court who are
leaving the area, and feels she has misrepresented something. She feels this is the tip of the
iceberg, and a change here will be a change coming on everything. If it is to be allowed here, it
should be allowed everywhere. Mrs. Nystrom stated the development has changed considerably
since the election, and that concerns her. She stated Mr. Cullen is going a great job of improving
the Stanley Hotel and working with the hospital on the WTC. She is opposed to granting the
height variance.
Ed Hayek/town resident stated this was about the 30 foot height limit for the Stanley Historic
District, not about the WTC or about two or three neighbors on Findley Court. This is about
changing the visitor and resident experience forever. It is possible to have a WTC without a fourth
floor. Many alternatives exist. He stated the pool was excavated in September, Level 1 was
reconfigured and design changes were made to carry the load of a fourth floor. He wondered
about what would have happened if that much effort would have been put into designing an
alternative. No alternatives were ever presented. He thinks this is the cheapest and quickest way,
an excuse to circumvent the decades‐old 30‐foot height limit established in the Stanley Historic
District. The view to the neighbors on Findley Court has already been compromised. The common
thread throughout the written public comment is that it will impact everyone. It will set a
precedent for future development within the Stanley Historic District. Tall buildings on high
ground block vistas of surrounding mountains. Mr. Hayek was opposed to the height variance
because no evidence of detailed analysis or evidence of studying other alternatives has been
presented. Personal financial and contractual difficulties of the applicant are not the purview or
obligation of the citizens. He stated the applicant’s response to written comments not necessarily
being true was insulting. Views are extremely important to community members and visitors
alike. View corridors are a minimum protection for the Stanley; they are not the criteria for
impact on the community. Mr. Hayek stated when the applicant was before the Planning
Commission nine months ago, he stated he would build the WTC if the Estes Park Medical Center
did not raise the funds. It was implied he would build a separate building on the designated site.
Mr. Hayek stated the proposed plan is not what the voters approved. He suggested the Estes Park
Medical Center may be better served searching for a strong partner hospital rather than grabbing
at straws, squandering resources, and delaying the inevitable.
Jim Cozzie/town resident was opposed to the variance request.
Eric Waples/town resident stated he believed the wrong standard of review (Section 3.5.B) was
used to review the variance request, when it should have been Section 3.6 of the EVDC. When the
EVDC was adopted in 2000, one of the key sections of the Estes Park Municipal Codes had been
deleted (Special Review Height Section). Therefore, part of the Municipal Code referenced the
section that had been deleted. When the Town Board Ordinance 05‐14 was passed, that section
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 10
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
was overlooked again. It was understandable at that time because height was not an issue. One
year later, when the applicant request a height increase, Mr. Waples stated Town Attorney White
realized the error but chose to argue it was embedded in EVDC Section 3.5B, which deals with
Special Review Use. Mr. Waples stated this section says nothing about height. He discussed the
issue with Ms. Baker and other Town staff, and did not receive a satisfactory explanation. Mr.
Waples received a written opinion from Attorney White on December 8, 2015, and still believes
the wrong standard is being used for the review. Section 3.6 is a much stricter standard and it
would be very difficult for the applicant to meet that standard. However, even under the letter
Section 3.5.B standard, the applicant still fails to make their case to allow the requested height.
Barb Gebhardt/town resident stated 99% of all written comments are opposed to the height
variance. Only one positive comment was provided, by the Estes Park Medical Center Hospital
Board President. She stated granting the height variance would be setting a precedent for
building four‐story structures. She thinks the WTC should be built where it was originally
intended. She suggested the Estes Park Medical Center partner with another health care
organization to ensure future viability.
Christine Smith/town resident stated she is concerned about her property values dropping
because of this project. She is opposed to the outdoor yoga deck and pool patio near her home.
She is a former member of the neighborhood Homeowners Association, and feels Mr. Cullen
mislead them on numerous occasions, not only with the current project.
Johanna Darden/town resident was opposed to any height above the 30‐foot limit. She stated
there are alternatives for the yoga area on the ground floor of Lot 4. Asking WTC participants to
walk to another location on Lot 4 will not be an imposition, particularly when the applicant thinks
it will not be an imposition to shuttle participants from off‐site locations. Even though the intent
for outdoor activities is passive, there is nothing built into the plan to ensure this will remain so.
The noise ordinance is not enforceable. Allowing more light on the ground level does not mean
the lighting will be of high quality. Negative impacts include blocking views of the surrounding
area, and the unattractive structure diminishes the character of the Historic District. The hospital
foundation should have tried to raise the funds to build the WTC. She was opposed to the height
variance request.
Bill Darden/town resident stated he was pleased when the applicant stated the change in the
plans was precipitated by a financial emergency. Mr. Darden stated the Estes Park Medical Center
raised little or no money for the WTC. That invites the supposition that they have not tried, and
possibly never intended to try. He was opposed to allowing the change of plans.
Karin Edwards/town resident stated her goal was to point out how the Estes Park citizens have
been deceived since the beginning of the Lot 4 sale. There is no good reason for any Estes Park
citizen to give up more than we have, and she does not support the added building height. Ballot
Question 1B on April 1, 2014 was to sell Lot 4 for the Anschutz Wellness Center. The ballot issue
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 11
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
wording was biased, misleading, and inaccurate. From the estes.org website, she read the sale of
Lot 4 was for hotel expansion with or without the Anschutz Wellness Center. Anschutz pulled out,
and the credibility of that program was lost. The CEO and the Executive Director of the hospital
foundation resigned; they were integral to getting this Wellness Training Center going. The
Planning Commission approved changing the open space designation from the west side of Lot 4
to the east side. Settling ponds are planned for the open space, and those are not congruent with
the definition of open space. Ms. Edwards believes this denies Estes Park citizens the open space
that was required with the sale of Lot 4. Photo ads in the local newspapers show projected views
of the future buildings. The ads come across as an insult to the residents who live in the
neighborhood and those of us who live in town. The Grand Heritage Hotel Group can build the
WTC in the location defined by the Lot 4 contract, or leave that space without a building. If the
applicant chooses to house the WTC in another building, then airspace and view shed should not
be compromised with additional building height.
Mark Gregson/Interim Director of Estes Park Medical Center stated the Estes Park Medical Center
remains very committed to wellness for the community and the entire region. This is an
important component of the wellness program, and he is very grateful for the opportunity to
consider this site when it was determined the original plan for the WTC was not viable. He was
pleased the applicant was willing to work with them and give them the ability to use the ground
floor. However, that amount of square footage is not sufficient space to have a complete wellness
program. Therefore, the additional 3,500 square foot fourth floor was added to the plan. He was
grateful that it still may be possible to have the WTC available for use as early as this next
summer.
Greg Rosener/town resident stated he would like to submit an alternative condition of approval
for condition #3, to read “In the event the Wellness Training Center is opened to the general
public, submittal of a Parking and shuttling Plan shall be required to be reviewed pursuant to
applicable Municipal Code Chapter 17 and EVDC requirements. In the event that Wellness
Training Center guests are not housed on‐site but are housed in a Stanley Hotel managed hotel
facility, the Stanley Hotel must provide shuttling of such guests to and from the Wellness Training
Center.” Mr. Rosener also suggested an alternative condition #4, to read “Any proposed change
to a use other than hotel or Wellness Training Center use shall require a Special Review pursuant
to the criteria set forth in applicable provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 17 and the EVDC. The
Wellness Training Center use shall be as defined and approved in the Purchase and Sale
Agreement between Applicant and the Town. In addition, he proposed two conditions: “Outdoor
activities of the Wellness Training Center shall be limited to the lap/training pool patio area and
fourth floor yoga/meditation deck area.” Mr. Rosener stated there was an error in the staff
report, stating the patio on the southeast corner was approved in March. The other proposed
condition was “Amplified sound in the lap/training pool patio area and on the fourth floor
yoga/meditation deck shall be prohibited.”
Public comment closed.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 12
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Applicant Closing Remarks
John Cullen/applicant stated he appreciated the time and effort on this project. He did not want
to go through this process. It was not about making money or setting precedent. It is about doing
the best we can with what we have available. He stated the eight to ten million dollars that the
EPMC Foundation needed to start the construction of the Wellness Center turned out to be
substantially less, if not zero. He is trying to make good on his best efforts to provide a wellness
center, which was the town vote. Mr. Cullen stated he has been a member of this community for
21 years, and he would like to deliver on getting the wellness center built, and stated this was the
best way to do it. He stated he is basically making a four million dollar donation to make this
happen. That is the hard construction value of giving up the hotel space on the ground floor for
the wellness center. If given more time, he could go through all the alternatives with the
Commission. He could not think of any other way to come up with a viable alternative, given the
money and opportunity his team has in front of them. He believed EPMC was going to raise the
eight million dollars for the wellness center. He would not have followed through with the project
if he did not believe they would not be able to raise the funds. Since that money is not there, with
the resources they have at hand, this is the best solution. He stated he was OK if the project was
approved, or approved with the six conditions as written and modified. He was also OK with a
continuance, so he could show the Commission that they looked at every single viable alternative,
physically and financially. He also understands denial, because that means he has gone three
times to this “dance” to try and build a wellness center, and either been told “no”, or “don’t have
the resources”. This relieves him of his best effort to make a wellness center that he really wanted
to build. He still wants to build it, and believes he can, but he has to deal with the cards he has
been given, and right now, this is the best, if not the only viable alternative to deliver an EPMC
Wellness Training Center. His original desire was to build an entirely enclosed fourth floor, but he
chose to cut it back to the benefit of Findley Court. He would be accepting to enclosing the entire
fourth floor, which is doable, at an extra cost of $750,000. He is trying to be sensitive and mitigate
to the maximum extent possible by pushing it away from residential areas. It is the only solution
he has. He asked the Commission for help and support to accept the staff report with conditions,
continuance, or denial.
Staff and commission Discussion
Chair Hull stated she distributed information to the Commissioners at the study session, which
included the following: (1) an amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the
Town of Estes Park and Larimer County, dated March 12, 2010. It states “…the purpose of
establishing the Estes Valley Planning Commission, providing for the administration of the Estes
Valley Development Code…” That is why the Commission is here. (2) EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4‐2,
and EVDC Section 4.4, Table 405, listing a 30‐foot maximum building height for every zone district
in the Estes Valley. (3) EVDC Section 3.5.B Special Review Uses, Standards for Review,”…The
application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible,
potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the
environment.” Also attached was EVDC Section 13.3, #151, which is the definition of Maximum
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 13
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Extent Feasible – “shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible
efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been
undertaken. Economic considerations may be taken into account but shall not be the overriding
factor in determining “maximum extent feasible.” (4) Minutes of the March 17, 2015 Planning
Commission meeting in regards to the Amended Special Review 2014‐01, page 7, with highlighted
portions “The applicant is now requesting approval to construct the Acommodations‐2 Building
first, with the Wellness Center and Accommodations‐1 Building to follow once the Estes Park
Medical Center (EPMC) obtains necessary funding.” “…Accommodations‐2 Building approximately
five (5) feet to the northwest. The original construction phase would be reversed.” “The Stanley
Historic District Master Plan does not apply to this specific lot.” Page 8, “The applicant provided
additional photo simulations today, including ‘Option 2’, which changes the design of the roof to
comply with the 30‐foot height limit.” Page 10, Attorney Lucia Liley, “She stated the building
envelope was approved during the original approval process, as was the parking lot placement.
The building has been shifted five feet to accommodate some pedestrian connections. …“Another
potential way to design the Accommodations‐2 Building to comply with the height requirement
has been submitted.” Page 11 refers to the Accommodations‐2 Building and the
Accommodations‐1 Building. This portion of the minutes tells Chair Hull the applicant was
advocating for two separate buildings. Page 14, “Option 1 would not comply with the height
limit, while Option 2 would comply. Mr. Cullen stated Option 2 is in full compliance with the
height limits. …He stated he was willing and prepared to withdraw Option 1 and continue with
Option 2 to please the Commission and the Town.” …“Mr. Cullen explained he had every intention
to construct first the Accommodations‐1 Building adjacent to the Wellness Center, with the
Accommodations‐2 Building to follow at a later date.” Page 16, “It was moved and seconded
(Hills/Murphree) to recommend approval of the Amendment to Special Review 2014‐01 to the
Town Board as described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended and
amended by staff, using Option 2 as the design for the Accommodations‐2 building, and the
motion passed unanimously with two absent.” Chair Hull pointed out that Mr. Cullen knew there
was an alternative to the height limit with this previous amendment, which was approved by the
Town Board on March 24, 2015. She considered this previous amendment to the Special Review
as the alternative. It is not in the purview of the Planning Commission to discuss economics.
Commissioner Klink stated there were no other alternatives presented today, and the only reason
for the proposed revisions presented were purely economic, which the Commission is not allowed
to use as an overriding factor. There is no physical barrier, only economic and logistic issues to
developing the site as previously approved.
Commissioner White agreed with Commissioner Klink in that there could be other alternatives. If
the project proposed today were the original plan, she would have concerns about the height and
outdoor use. The bottom line today is economic, which cannot be considered. The job of the
Planning Commission is to ensure compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code, and with
the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 14
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commissioner Murphree stated he agreed with the other Commissioners. He has been a builder
in the Estes Valley for 30 years, and cannot totally understand why this project is where it is now.
When you start a project of this size, it seems you would have everything laid out the way it needs
to be from the beginning. He understands there are construction issues that have to be solved as
you move forward. He does not understand why the fourth story is so important, and wonders
why it was not addresses earlier. He also did not understand why it has become a huge issue with
a tight timeline requiring an expedited review and special meeting.
Commissioner Moon directed a question to Attorney White regarding whether or not this
application would set a precedent to any other structure in the Stanley Historic District, the Town
of Estes Park, or the Estes Valley. Attorney White stated Lot 4 is governed by a set of codes in the
Estes Park Municipal Code that are unique to Lot 4 due to circumstances of the development of
the Stanley Historic District and the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. Because of this a portion
of the Municipal Code applies to the height limitation and not to the Estes Valley Development
Code. Lot 4 was removed from the Stanley Historic District Master Plan process in 2009 with the
termination of the development agreement that governed it. All the rest of the Stanley Historic
District is governed by the Stanley Historic Master Plan, and the Technical Review Committee is
the process for that. Attorney White believes the 30‐foot height limit encompasses the entire
Stanley Historic District; however, the review process for a project higher than 30 feet would go
to the Technical Review Committee and not the Planning Commission and the Town Board. The
30‐foot height limitation is town‐wide, but it is specifically with regard to this piece of property in
the Stanley Historic District Ordinance. It does not establish precedence.
There was discussion among the Commission concerning precedent. Attorney White stated
everything that comes before the Board is unique and individual and you make your decision
based on the application in front of you. It does not establish any legal precedent. It is up to the
reviewing Board or Commission to apply the applicable standards.
Commissioner Moon wondered whether it was the applicant’s economic issue, or if it became an
issue because of EPMC’s inability to deliver. Attorney White stated there was a provision in the
contract for the sale of Lot 4 that had a deadline for a wellness center building permit of April,
2016. Currently, $650,000 is owed on Lot 4. If a building permit is issued by April, 2016, that
amount drops to $325,000.
Commissioner Moon stated the applicant’s issue is economic because the EPMC failed to raise the
needed funds. He questioned whether adequate alternatives had been explored that the
Commission was not aware of. Other Commissioner comments included but were not limited to:
the applicant has an approved plan he can move forward with; if there were alternatives for a
ground floor expansion, is that alternative as viable as a fourth floor?; Commissioners were
reminded of the definition of Maximum Extent Feasible; there could be ground floor alternatives
the Commission has not seen, which could mean a motion to continue rather than a
recommendation being issued tonight; it was the applicant’s responsibility to provide
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 15
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
alternatives, knowing the fourth floor would be very controversial; it may be better from the
Commission’s perspective to look at a ground floor alternative to the fourth floor for a lesser
impact on the neighborhood; that may be grounds to ask for a continuance.
Ms. Baker clarified the applicant mentioned the ground floor patio on the southeast corner was
approved with the previous plans in March, 2015. She looked at those approved plans, where that
area was shown as being paved, but not specifically called out as a patio, so that would technically
be a change in the plan. Also, the applicant stated they were not changing the architecture. Ms.
Baker stated the architecture did, in fact, change as part of this plan, and RBB Architects provided
comments on the changes as part of the Architectural Review Committee. Changes included the
placement and design of the windows and a few other things to make it contextual. Planner
McCool stated she was concerned about requesting a continuance due to the time constraints for
the Town Board hearing scheduled for December 15th. She did not think there would be enough
time to conduct a thorough review and issue a new staff report, unless the Town Board meeting
was continued as well. There would need to be discussion with the applicant before the meeting
could be continued.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/White) to recommend denial of Special Review 2014‐01C on
the grounds that the application does not substantially meet the criteria above and as
described in the staff report and the motion passed 4‐1 with Commissioners Klink, White, Hull,
and Murphree voting in favor of the denial and Commissioner Moon voting against the denial.
Commissioner Klink stated economics could not be considered for Special Review as shown in the
staff report. Commissioner White agreed the criteria required for the review process was not met.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m.
___________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
1
ORDINANCE NO. 05-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK,
COLORADO, THE SAME PERTAINING TO
BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING THE
ADOPTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING AND RESIDENTIAL
CODES, 2015 EDITIONS, AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of February, 2016, this Ordinance was introduced to
the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park which set a public hearing on the
consideration of this Ordinance for March 22, 2016; and
WHEREAS, notice of said hearing was published as provided in Section 31-16-
203, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, as stated in the published notice, certified copies of the International
Building and Residential Codes, 2015 Editions, certified copies of all secondary codes
referenced in the International Codes, and all amendments thereto, were on file in the
office of the Town Clerk and available for public inspection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: Chapter 14.12 of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows:
International Codes
14.12.010 International Building Code, 2015—Adopted. The International
Building Code, 2015 Edition, issued by the International Code Council, 4051 W.
Flossmoor Rd., Country Club Hills, IL 60478-5795, except the sections or parts of
sections thereof which are amended as set forth on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, referred to in this title as the International Building
Code is enacted and adopted by reference.
14.12.020 International Residential Code, 2015—Adopted. The International
Residential Code, 2015 Edition, issued by the International Code Council, 4051 W.
Flossmoor Rd., Country Club Hills, IL 60478-5795, except the sections or parts of
sections thereof which are amended as set forth on Exhibit “B” attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, referred to in this title as the International
Residential Code is enacted and adopted by reference.
Section 2: Sections 14.04.040 and Section 14.04.050 of the Municipal Code shall be
amended to read as follows:
2
14.04.040 Violation.
(a) It is unlawful for any person to violate any of the provisions of the
International Building Code and International Residential Code.
(b) Every person convicted of a violation of any provision of the International
Building Code and International Residential Code shall be punished as set forth in
Section 1.20.020 of this Code.
(c) The Town shall have the option of instituting an appropriate action in any
court having jurisdiction to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove a violation of the
International Building Code and International Residential Code to prevent any illegal act
or use in or on such premises as a result of any violation of the International Building
Code and International Residential Code.
14.04.050 Damages. Neither the Building Official, Town Engineer, any other
employee or agent of the Town, nor any volunteer acting on behalf of the Town, shall be
liable in damages for any act and/or omission by said person pursuant to the duties and
the enforcement of the provisions of the International Building Code and International
Residential Code.
Section 3: These amendments to the Estes Park Municipal Code shall be effective
May 1, 2016.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this ____ day of _______________, 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2016, and
published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on
the day of , 2016.
Town Clerk
1
EXHIBIT A
2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
AMENDMENTS
101.1 Title. REVISE as follows:
These regulations shall be known as the Building Code of the Town of Estes Park,
hereinafter referred to as “this code.”
101.2 Scope ADD the following exception:
2. In addition to complying with the provisions of the International Residential Code,
individual dwelling units rented or leased for less than 30 days shall also comply with the
2015 International Property Maintenance Code, as amended. Individual dwelling units shall
be limited to the number of occupants allowed in the Estes Park Municipal Code and/or the
applicable zoning regulations.
101.4 Referenced codes. CHANGE designation 101.4.7 to 101.4.8.
101.4.1 Gas. REVISE the first sentence as follows:
The provisions of the 2015 International Fuel Gas Code, as amended, shall apply to the
installation of gas piping from the point of delivery, gas appliances and related accessories.
101.4.2 Mechanical. REVISE as follows:
The provisions of the 2015 International Mechanical Code, as amended, shall apply to the
installation, alterations, repairs and replacement of mechanical systems, including
equipment, appliances, fixtures, fittings and/or appurtenances, including ventilating,
heating, cooling, air-conditioning and refrigeration systems, incinerators and other energy-
related systems.
101.4.3 Plumbing. REVISE as follows:
The provisions of the International Plumbing Code, as amended and adopted by the
Examining Board of Plumbers of the State of Colorado, shall apply to the installation,
alteration, repair and replacement of plumbing systems, including equipment, appliances,
fixtures, fittings and appurtenances, and where connected to a water or sewage system and
all aspects of a medical gas system. The private sewage disposal regulations, as amended
and adopted by the Larimer County Health Department shall apply to private sewage
disposal systems.
101.4.3.1 State Plumbing Code.
All references to the plumbing code shall be amended to the International Plumbing Code,
as amended and adopted by the Examining Board of Plumbers of the State of Colorado.
101.4.3.2 County Health Department Regulations.
All references to the International Private Sewage Disposal code shall be amended to the
private sewage disposal regulations, as amended and adopted by the Larimer County
Health Department.
2
101.4.4 Property Maintenance. REVISE as follows:
The provisions of the 2015 International Property Maintenance Code, as amended, shall
apply to existing structures, equipment and facilities; light, ventilation, space heating,
sanitation, life and fire safety hazards; responsibilities of owners, operators and occupants;
and occupancy of existing structures.
101.4.5 Fire Prevention. REVISE as follows:
The provisions of the 2015 International Fire Code, as amended, shall apply to matters
affecting or relating to structures, processes and premises from the hazard of fire and
explosion arising from the storage, handling or use of structures, materials or devices; from
conditions hazardous to life, property or public welfare in the occupancy of structures or
premises; and from the construction, extension, repair, alteration or removal of fire
suppression, automatic sprinkler systems and alarm systems or fire hazards in the structure
or on the premises from occupancy or operation..
101.4.6 Energy. REVISE as follows:
The provisions of the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code, as amended, shall
apply to all matters governing the design and construction of buildings for energy
efficiency.
101.4.7 Existing Buildings. REVISE as follows:
The provisions of the 2015 International Existing Building Code, as amended, shall apply
to matters governing the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition to and relocation
of existing buildings.
101.4.8 Electrical. ADD this subsection as follows:
All references to the electrical code shall be amended to the National Electrical Code as
amended and adopted by the Colorado State Electrical Board.
101.5 Applicability of provisions. ADD this subsection:
As applicable, all provisions in this code, including amendments, shall be part of each
International Code. The provisions in other International Codes, as amended, shall be part
of this code, as applicable.
102.1 General. REVISE as follows:
Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the
specific requirement shall be applicable. Where, in any specific case, different sections of
this code, other local, state, or federal codes specify different materials, methods of
construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern.
102.4 Referenced codes and standards. ADD the following:
Approved proprietary products and materials shall be considered in compliance with the
provisions of this code when they are installed per the manufacturers’ specifications and
installation requirements.
3
103.1 Creation of enforcement agency. REVISE as follows:
The Division of Building Safety is hereby created and the official in charge thereof shall be
known as the chief building official.
103.1.1 Title of enforcement agency.
All references to the creation of an enforcement agency by title shall be amended to the
creation of the Division of Building Safety.
103.1.2 Title of official in charge.
All references to the official in charge by title shall be amended to the chief building
official.
105.1 Required. DELETE “electrical” and ADD the following exceptions.
Exceptions:
1: The Colorado State Electrical Board shall administer the National Electrical Code.
2. The Estes Valley First Protection District shall administer the International Fire Code.
105.1.1 Annual Permit. REVISE as follows:
105.1.1 Annual Contractor Permit
For projects not requiring design submittals or approval from other authorities, the building
official is authorized to issue an annual contractor permit to a pre-authorized contractor.
Permit applications, fees, and inspections shall be required for each individual project.
Contractors with annual permits shall be permitted to begin work prior to the issuance of an
individual permit, after filing an appropriate permit application. Inspections shall not be
provided prior to the individual permit being issued. If a proper application has been
submitted, a valid annual contractor permit shall exempt the contractor from investigation
fees if work is commenced prior to obtaining the required individual permit. Applicants for
an annual contractor permit shall first obtain the applicable Building Contractor License
and be pre-authorized by building official to apply for an annual contractor permit.
105.1.1.1 Annual Contractor Permit fee.
A fee deposit for each annual contractor permit shall be paid. The amount of the fee
deposit shall be determined by the permit applicant. As individual permits are issued, fees
established in the approved fee schedule shall be assessed and deducted from the deposit.
105.1.1.2 Work authorized by an Annual Contractor Permit.
Work authorized by an annual contractor permit shall be work which is individually
permitted, inspected and approved by the chief building official. Work which is not
permitted, inspected and approved by the chief building official, shall be unauthorized, and
is a violation of this code.
105.1.1.3 Validity of an Annual Contractor Permit.
An annual contractor permit shall be valid as long as the fee deposit has a balance and so
long as the contractor maintains a valid Building Contractor License with the chief building
official.
105.1.1.4 Limitations of an Annual Contractor Permit.
Work authorized by annual contractor permits shall be limited to work which does not
require design submittals for review, or does not require the approval of other Authorities
Having Jurisdiction and can be approved unilaterally by the chief building official. Annual
contractor permits shall not include the addition and/or vacating of plumbing fixtures or the
addition to fuel gas piping. Annual contractor permits are limited only to work which is
authorized by Over the Counter (OTC) permits.
4
105.1.2 Annual permit records. CHANGE 105.1.2 to 105.1.1.5 And REVISE as
follows:
105.1.1.5 Annual Permit Records.
Individual permits and inspections shall be obtained and documented as required for all
projects.
105.2 Work exempt from permit. REVISE exemption 2 as follows:
2. Fences not over 7 feet (2134 mm) high from original grade.
105.3 Application for permit. ADD the following at the end of condition 6.
Applicants for permits shall possess the appropriate building contractor license from the
chief building official and when applicable, the appropriate State licenses.
Exception: Property owners who have been pre-approved by the building official to work
on their property or business owners who have been pre-approved by the building official
to work on their landlord’s property.
105.5 Expiration. REVISE as follows:
Every permit issued by the building official under the provisions of this code shall expire
on a pre-determined date. Every permit shall also become null and void if the building or
work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of issue
of such permit, or if at any time after the work is commenced the building or work
authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days, or if the
person or entity to whom the permit is issued fails to request a first inspection within 180
days of the date of such permit. Before such work can be recommenced, a new permit shall
be first obtained to do so. The fee for such new permit shall be one-half the amount
required for a new permit for such work, provided no changes have been made or will be
made in the original plans and specifications for such work and provided further that such
suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one year. Changes in the plans and
specifications shall require an additional permit fee and plan review fee as described in
Section 109. Any nullified permit where the suspension or abandonment has exceeded one
year will require the permittee to pay a new building permit fee based on the current project
valuation. Any person/permittee holding an unexpired and valid permit may apply for an
extension of time to commence work, return to work, or complete work under that permit
by submitting a written request describing good and satisfactory reasons for such
extensions. This request must be received prior to the date on which the original permit
expires or becomes null and void. The building official shall determine whether the
reasons for such extension are sufficient to approve the extension. An extended permit is
valid for a period equal to the original permit, does not require compliance with codes
adopted since the original permit was issued, and does not require payment of new fees.
The building official may approve further modification to the extended permit expiration
date due to hardship, such as, death, serious health problems, foreclosure, bankruptcy, or
involuntary property transfer imposed by law. The permittee shall submit a letter
documenting the hardship, pay an extension fee and provide a definitive time when the
structure will be completed.
5
105.7 Placement of permit. REVISE as follows:
The entire permit package shall be kept on the site of the work until the completion of the
project. The permit package shall be posted as close as possible to the premises address
numbers and shall be adequately protected from the weather and from physical damage.
For new structures and other large projects, the permit package shall be kept in an approved
red weather-tight container. The approved container shall be visible from the primary
access to the property.
105.8 Transfer of permits. ADD this subsection.
A current valid building permit may be transferred from one party to another upon written
request to the building official. When any changes are made to the original plans and
specifications that substantially differ from the plans submitted with the permit, as
determined by the building official, a new plan review fee shall be paid as calculated in
accordance with Section 109. No change will be made in the expiration date of the original
permit, except as provided in subsection 105.5.
107.1 General. ADD the following before the Exception:
Because of local wind and snow design loads, there are no structures in the Town of Estes
Park exempt from design by a Colorado registered engineer or Colorado licensed Architect.
Under the following conditions, construction documents submitted for a building permit;
including but not limited to plans, calculations and specifications; shall be prepared and
sealed by a Colorado registered engineer or a Colorado licensed architect.
1. When a design does not comply with prescriptive requirements of this code.
2. All structural details, including decks, garages, additions, alterations, repairs, etc.
3. All required details for multi-family buildings containing more than 4 dwellings.
4. All required details for mixed use buildings.
5. Design and/or alterations affecting the life safety of occupants, including but not
limited to the following:
a. All changes of Use, a code analysis is required.
b. HVAC, when system plans are required (other than manuals D, J and S)
c. Plumbing, when system plans are required
d. Electrical, when system plans are required (means of egress and lighting)
e. Fuel Gas, when system plans are required (> 2” line or > one million BTUs)
f. Elevator, State requirements
g. Fire-Resistance-Rated Construction, when system plans are required
h. Means of egress, when system plans are required
i. Type 1 Hood, when system plans are required
j. Accessibility, when system plans are required
6. Additions, alterations, or repairs affecting accessibility requirements.
7. Interior space reconfiguration which may affect design load requirements, as
determined by the building official.
Methods and materials pre-approved by the building official, pre-engineered systems, and
listed and labeled appliances and equipment, shall be approved as complying with the
provisions of this code, when installed per the manufacturers’ specifications and
installation requirements.
6
106.1 Live loads posted. ADD the following:
Signs posting design live loads shall be a minimum 8.5 inches (215.90 mm) by 11 inches
(279.40 mm) with a minimum font size of 2inches (50.80 mm). Lettering shall contrast
with the sign background.
107.2.3 Means of egress. ADD the following:
For buildings and structures classified as Occupancy Category III or IV in Table 1604.5, or
when required by the building official, separate plans shall be provided clearly detailing the
means of egress requirements. Non-related information is prohibited from being on the
means of egress plans; and, the plans shall include sufficient detail to verify compliance
with this code.
108.1 General. REVISE as follows:
The building official is authorized to issue a permit for temporary structures and temporary
uses. Such permits shall be limited as to time of service, but shall not be permitted for more
than allowed by the Estes Park Municipal Code and/or the applicable zoning regulations.
The building official is authorized to grant extensions for demonstrated cause.
108.3 Temporary power. REVISE as follows:
The building official and/or the Colorado State Electrical Inspector is authorized to give
permission to temporarily supply and use power in part of an electric installation before
such installation has been fully completed and the final certificate of completion has been
issued. The part covered by the temporary certificate shall comply with the requirements
specified for temporary lighting, heat or power in NFPA 70, as amended and adopted by
the Colorado State Electrical Board.
109.2 Schedule of permit fees. REVISE as follows:
On buildings, structures, gas, mechanical and plumbing systems or alterations requiring a
permit, a fee for each permit shall be paid as required, in accordance with Tables 1-A, 1-B,
J-1, and J-2. Other fees shall be assessed as established elsewhere in this code and in other
International Codes, as amended and adopted.
109.3 Building permit valuations. REVISE as follows:
The applicant for a permit shall provide the actual project value (contractor costs including
profit) at time of application. Project valuations shall include total value of work, including
materials and labor, for which the permit is being issued, such as electrical, gas,
mechanical, plumbing equipment and permanent systems. If, in the opinion of the building
official, the valuation is underestimated on the application, the permit shall be denied,
unless the applicant can show detailed estimates to meet the approval of the building
official. Final project valuation shall be set by the building official. Valuations for all
projects shall be actual project values. The schedule of permit fees shall be reviewed and
approved annually by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park.
7
109.4 Work commencing before permit issuance. DELETE “electrical;” and, ADD
the following:
An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a
permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of
the permit fee required by this code. The minimum investigation fee shall be the same as
the minimum fee set forth in the Fee Schedule. The payment of such investigation fee shall
not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions of this code nor from any
penalty prescribed by law.
Exception: Contractors who commence work before obtaining necessary permits shall be
assessed an investigation fee equal to three times the permit fee and issued a Notice of
Violation. Contractors working without required permits shall have subsequent permit
applications denied until the violation is appropriately resolved. Contractors who
repeatedly work without required permits are subject to having their Town Building
Contractor License revoked by the Chief Building Official, in addition to other remedies
allowed by law.
109.6 Refunds. REVISE as follows:
The building official shall authorize refunding of any fee paid hereunder which was
erroneously paid or collected. The building official may authorize refunding of not more
than 80 percent (80%) of the permit fee paid when no work has been done under a permit
issued in accordance with this code. The building official may authorize refunding of not
more than 80 percent (80%) of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit
for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or cancelled before any plan
reviewing is done. The building official shall not authorize refunding of any fee paid
except on written application filed by the original permittee not later than 180 days after the
date of fee payment. The Building Official shall not authorize refunding of any fee paid for
services which have been provided by town staff or town consultants/contractors.
109.7 Expiration of plan review. ADD this subsection.
Applications for which no permit is issued within one hundred and eighty (180) days
following the date of application shall expire by limitation and plans submitted for review
may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. The
building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding
ninety (90) days upon written request by the applicant showing that circumstances beyond
the control of the applicant have prevented action from being taken. In order to renew
action on an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new
plan review fee.
8
109.8 Re-inspections. ADD this subsection.
A re-inspection fee as set forth in the fee schedule may be assessed for each inspection or
re-inspection when such portion of work for which inspection is called for is not complete
or when corrections previously called for are not made. This section is not to be interpreted
as requiring re-inspection fees the first time a job is rejected for failure to comply with the
requirements of this Code, but as controlling the practice of calling inspections before the
job is ready for such inspection or re-inspection. Re-inspection fees may be assessed when
the inspection record card is not posted or otherwise available on the work site, the
approved plans are not readily available to the inspector, for failure to provide access on
the date for which inspection is requested, for deviating from plans requiring the approval
of the building official, or for failure to post a readily visible address as required by
subsection 501.2. To obtain a re-inspection, the applicant shall pay the re-inspection fee in
accordance with the adopted fee schedule. In instances where re-inspection fees have been
assessed, no additional inspection of the work will be performed until the required fees
have been paid.
110.3.5 Lath and gypsum board inspection. Add the following and delete the
exception.
Interior grade gypsum board shall not be delivered or installed prior to the building
envelope being water-tight.
110.3.7 Energy efficiency inspections. ADD the following:
Insulation shall not be installed prior to the building envelope being water-tight. Rough
insulation inspections are required after cavity insulation has been installed. Insulation
certifications shall be provided for all buildings and structures with conditioned air.
9
110.7 Contractor’s affidavit of compliance. ADD this subsection.
In lieu of requesting an inspection, on a case by case basis, pre-approved contractors
shall be permitted to submit a Contractor’s Affidavit of Compliance for the following
work:
1. Attic final insulation
2. Balance report for commercial kitchen hood
3. Exterior wall and/or roof sheathing
4. Foundation foam insulation
5. Foundation damp-proofing, but not water-proofing
6. Foundation perimeter drain
7. Gas pipe: emergency, appliance replacement or single section of pipe
8. Hydronic piping
9. Mid-roof, if typical product and installation
10. Minor gypsum board installation not part of fire-resistance rated construction, or
shear system
12. Minor insulation installation
14. Pressure test for minor plumbing project connected to an existing system, only the
test is exempt, inspection is required
15. Radon system
16. Shower pan
17. Venting system for fuel-gas appliances, installed in existing concealed spaces such
as chimneys, chases, etc. Examples: fireplace inserts, gas logs, etc.
18. Water service line, new and replacement
19. Window/door Flashing
20. Water resistive barrier
A Contractor’s Affidavit of Compliance shall qualify for an inspection in this subsection, if
it complies with all the following conditions:
1. The contractor shall be pre-approved by the chief building official.
2. The work shall be authorized by a permit.
3. The work shall be associated with an approved system.
4. The affidavit shall be on a form provided by the chief building official.
A Contractor’s Affidavit of Compliance shall not exempt work from corrections, if the
building official determines the work does not comply with the provisions of this code.
111.2 Certificate issued. ADD the following:
Exception: Certificates of Occupancy are not required for work exempt from permits
under Section 105.2, miscellaneous permits, accessory buildings, or additions and
alterations to existing buildings. If requested, Certificates of Completion shall be issued for
additions and alterations. There shall be a fee for Certificates of Occupancy and
Certificates of Completion, as set forth in the adopted fee schedule.
111.3 Temporary occupancy. ADD the following:
There shall be a fee for Temporary Certificates of Occupancy as set forth in the fee
schedule established in 109.2.
113.1 General. REPLACE “applicable governing authority” with “Board of Trustees
of the Town of Estes Park.”
10
SECTION 113 BOARD OF APPEALS. ADD the following:
113.4 Application for appeal.
A person shall have the right to appeal a decision of the building official to the board of
appeals. Persons appealing a decision of the building official to the Board of Appeals shall
at the time of making such an appeal, pay to the Town of Estes Park, a fee as specified in
the Fee Schedule per 109.2.
113.5 Application process.
On a form obtained from the building official, the application for appeal shall be filed
within 20 calendar days after the notice was served.
113.6 Scheduling of hearing.
Upon receipt of a complete and timely appeal, the chief building official shall schedule a
hearing. The hearing shall be held no earlier than fifteen (15) calendar days and no later
than forty-five (45) calendar days after receipt of the appeal, or as soon as possible
thereafter given the availability of the board of appeals members for the appeal hearing.
113.7 Notice of hearing.
Written notice of hearing shall be given to all parties concerned at least fourteen (14)
calendar days prior to the hearing or by mailing the same to such parties’ last known
address by regular mail. The Board shall, from time to time, adopt such additional rules and
regulations as it deems necessary and advisable for the conduct of its hearings and for
carrying out the provisions hereof. All meetings or hearings shall be open to the public.
113.8 Written statement.
The chief building official shall make a written statement to the board of appeals on each
appeal request. The chief building official shall make this statement available to the
appellant at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the hearing.
113.9 Administration.
The Board of Appeals’ shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant
with a duplicate copy to the building official. The building official shall take immediate
action in accordance with the decision of the board.
113.10 Court review.
The appellant and/or the Town of Estes Park shall have the right to apply to a Colorado
court of competent jurisdiction for a Writ of Certiorari to review the decision of the Board
of Appeals. Application for this review shall be made to the court within thirty (30) days of
the filing of the Board of Appeals’ decision with the building official.
11
APPENDIX B, BOARD OF APPEALS. AMENDED and INCLUDE in SECTION
113 Board of Appeals, and Adopted, as follows:
113.11 Membership of board.
The board of appeals shall consist of persons appointed by the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Estes Park as follows:
1. One for five years; one for four years; one for three years; one for two years; and
one for one year.
2. Thereafter, each new member shall serve for five years or until a successor has been
appointed.
113.11.1 Alternate members.
The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park shall appoint two alternate members who
shall be called by the board chairperson to hear appeals during the absence or
disqualification of a member. Alternate members shall possess the qualifications required
for board membership and shall be appointed for five years, or until a successor has been
appointed.
113.11.2 Qualifications.
The board of appeals shall consist of five individuals, one from each of the following
professions or disciplines:
1. Registered design professional with architectural experience or a builder or
superintendent of building construction with at least ten years' experience, five of which
shall have been in responsible charge of work.
2. Registered design professional with structural engineering experience.
3. Registered design professional with mechanical engineering experience or a mechanical
contractor with at least ten years' experience, five of which shall have been in responsible
charge of work.
4. Registered design professional with plumbing engineering experience or a mechanical
contractor with at least ten years' experience, five of which shall have been in responsible
charge of work.
5. Licensed general contractor with at least ten years’ experience.
113.11.3 Quorum.
Three members shall constitute a quorum to conduct official business of the Board of
Appeals.
113.11.4 Rules and procedures.
The board is authorized to establish policies and procedures necessary to carry out its
duties.
113.11.5 Chairperson.
The board shall annually select one of its members to serve as chairperson.
113.11.6 Disqualification of member.
A member shall not hear an appeal, in which that member has a personal, professional or
financial interest.
113.11.7 Secretary.
The Director of Community Development shall designate a qualified clerk to serve as
secretary to the board. The secretary shall file a detailed record of all proceedings in the
office of the Town Administrator.
113.11.8 Compensation of members.
Compensation of members shall be determined by law.
12
113.12 Notice of meeting.
The board shall meet upon notice from the chairperson, within forty-five (45) calendar days
after the filing of an appeal, or as soon as possible thereafter given the availability of the
board of appeals members or at stated periodic meetings.
113.12.1 Open hearing.
All hearings before the board shall be open to the public. The appellant, the appellant's
representative, the building official and any person whose interests are affected shall be
given an opportunity to be heard.
113.12.2 Procedure.
The board shall adopt and make available to the public through the secretary procedures
under which a hearing will be conducted. The procedures shall not require compliance with
strict rules of evidence, but shall mandate that only relevant information be received.
113.12.3 Postponed hearing.
When five members are not present to hear an appeal, either the appellant or the appellant's
representative shall have the right to request a postponement of the hearing.
113.13 Board decision.
The board shall modify or reverse the decision of the building official by a concurring vote
of two-thirds of its members.
113.13.1 Resolution.
The decision of the board shall be by resolution. Certified copies shall be furnished to the
appellant and to the building official.
113.13.2 Administration.
The building official shall take immediate action in accordance with the decision of the
board.
113.14 References.
In this Code and in all adopted International Building Codes, all references to the board of
appeals and/or means of appeal shall be the board of appeals as amended and adopted in
the 2015 International Building Code.
406.3.4.1 Dwelling Unit Separation. REPLACE references to ½ inch (12.7 mm)
gypsum board with 5/8 inch (15.9 mm) type X gypsum board.
501.2 Address identification. ADD the following:
… and the approved address numbers shall be displayed next to the driveway entrance
leading to the project site. Address numbers shall be illuminated or reflective and shall be
clearly readable from the right of way.
13
903.2 Where required. REVISE Section 903.2 and ADD subsection 903.2.13 as
follows:
Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in
the locations described in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.13.
903.2.13 CD-Commercial Downtown Zone District
In the CD-Commercial Downtown Zone District, all new construction and substantial
improvements, regardless of use(s), require approved automatic sprinkler systems as
specified in this section. In this zone district, all newly constructed and substantially
improved buildings shall be protected with NFPA 13 compliant automatic sprinkler
systems. New construction includes initial development and re-development (demolition
and rebuild). Improvements include, but are not limited to, additions and alterations.
Substantial improvements are improvements to buildings, which require permits and the
value of the improvements exceed 50% of the pre-improvement value of the building. The
provisions of this amendment are in addition to and do not exempt any requirements
contained elsewhere in this code.
1011.5.1 Dimension reference surfaces. DELETE this subsection.
1011.7.3 Enclosures under interior stairways. DELETE the exception.
1030.1 General. DELETE Exceptions 1 and 3.
1030.2 Minimum size. DELETE the Exception.
1101.2 Design. ADD the following:
Federal and/or state laws and regulations apply to the construction of facilities for
accessibility to physically disabled persons. The Chief Building Official does not have the
authority to interpret or the responsibility to enforce Federal and State accessibility laws. It
is the responsibility of property owners, professional designers, and contractors to comply
with Federal and State accessibility laws and requirements.
1107.6 Group R. ADD the following:
Additionally, Group R occupancies shall be provided with dwelling units or guest rooms
accessible to the physically handicapped as specified in the most recent version of
Colorado Revised Statutes Title 9 Article 5, or as amended.
1208.2 Minimum ceiling heights. ADD Exception 5.
Exceptions: …
5. All basements in new construction, other than those basements clearly identified as
cellars or mechanical spaces, shall have ceiling heights as required for habitable spaces.
Where existing non-habitable basements, constructed prior to the adoption of this code,
are being converted to habitable uses, the building official shall be permitted to approve
a minimum clear ceiling height of 6 foot 8 inches (2032 mm) from the finished floor;
and beams, girders, ducts or other obstructions may project to within 6 feet, 4 inches
(1931 mm) of the finished floor.
14
1503.7 Roof Curbs. ADD this subsection:
Mechanical units, ducts, piping or structures shall not be installed or replaced or rest on
roofs without being properly supported by curbs, pads, bases or piers which shall be
flashed to the roofing in a watertight manner. All unsupported sections of mechanical
equipment shall be a minimum of twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) above the plane of the
roof so that they will not obstruct the re-roofing process. Mechanical appliances, such as
fans, blowers, etc., shall properly connect to heating, air handling, refrigeration and
ventilation equipment, Appliances and equipment shall be so located that proper drainage
from the roof will not be blocked or impeded. Roof curbs surrounding openings shall be
sheathed over solidly and covered with a minimum of twenty-six (26) gauge (0.48 mm)
metal approved for the use, or of equal material. All seams and miter corners shall be
constructed in a watertight manner. Such curbs shall be minimum nine (9) inches (228.6
mm) in height.
1505.1 General. ADD the following and ADD Exception 2:
Only one overlay is allowed, and only when covering non-dimensional materials which are
not severely deteriorated or damaged.
Exception 2: In all designated wildfire hazard areas and in the CD–Commercial
Downtown zone district, all new and replacement roof coverings shall be Class A or a
component of a minimum one-hour roof assembly. Partial roof replacements shall be
evaluated on a case specific basis and the building official shall determine when
compliance with the requirements of this subsection is not feasible or reasonable.
Table 1607.1 MINIMUM UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED LIVE LOADS, L0,
AND MINIMUM CONCENTRATED LIVE LOAD, Sg. ADD the following to
Occupancy or Use 5:
Residential Decks 15 Uniform (psf) greater than ground snow load (Pg)
Residential Decks with hot tubs 150 Uniform (psf)
Table 1607.1 REVISE Occupancy or Use 25: Habitable attics and sleeping areas by
changing 30 Uniform (psf) to 40 Uniform (psf)
15
TABLE 1608.2 REPLACE Table 1608.2 as follows:
The design ground snow load shall comply with the Colorado Design Snow Loads Report
and Map, published by the Structural Engineers Association of Colorado (dated May 6,
2015), which is adopted by reference, or the table below. The design roof snow load values
shall be determined from Section 1608 of the IBC, including all applicable factors, and
loading and drifting considerations of ASCE 7, Chapter 7, but in no case shall the final
design roof snow load be less than a uniformly distributed load of 30 psf.
TABLE 1608.2
MINIMUM DESIGN GROUND SNOW LOADS, Pg, for the Town of Estes Park*
Ground Elevation does not exceed (feet) Ground Snow Load Pg (psf)
7,000 60
8,000 70
9,000 100
10,000 140
*Ground snow load (Pg) may be linearly interpolated between tabulated values.
1609.3 Ultimate Design Wind Speed. ADD the following at the end of the first
paragraph:
The ultimate design wind speed, in accordance with Section 26.5.1 of ASCE 7, shall be
determined by the Colorado Front Range Gust Map, 2013, Jon A Petrerka, which is hereby
adopted by reference. Default Exposure shall be C, unless a Colorado registered
professional engineer or la Colorado licensed architect proposes an alternate exposure
based on site specific conditions. Designers shall be permitted to take advantage of site
and structure specific conditions including, but not limited to, Exposure B when
appropriate and altitude correction as follows:
Altitude Correction Factors for Wind Pressures
Altitude (ft) up to 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
Pressure Correction
Factor 0.81 0.79 0.76 0.74
Submittals shall specify the minimum sea-level ultimate design wind speed (3 second gust),
the exposure, the elevation, and the elevation-based pressure correction factor, if used.
1611.1 Design rain loads. ADD the following minimum design criteria.
Minimum design rain loads
Location Inches/Hour
GPM/Sq. Ft.
60-Minute Duration, 100-Year Return: Estes Park 2.66 .0275
These criteria will be revised based on information received from the hydrology study
currently being conducted.
1612.3 Establishment of flood hazard areas. REVISE as follows:
Building construction within Flood Plain Overlay Zone Districts established in the Estes
Park Municipal Code, Chapter 17.28 shall comply with provisions contained therein.
16
1613 Earthquake loads. ADD the following at the end of the first paragraph:
Except as noted below, seismic design values shall be determined from this section. Site-
specific seismic design values shall be determined from the USGS website.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php. For Risk Categories I and II, the
following values may be used for design:
0.2 sec spectral response acceleration, Ss = 0.229g, Site Class D, Seismic Design Category-B
1.0 sec spectral response acceleration, S1 = 0.068g, Site Class D, Seismic Design Category-B
1704.6.2 Special inspections for wind resistance. BEGIN the first sentence with the
following:
When required by the building official,
1805.3 Waterproofing. ADD the following:
As determined by the building official, foundation walls shall be waterproofed in
compliance with the provisions of this subsection, when such walls enclose habitable
spaces on the uphill side of a building, and positive drainage away from the wall is not
provided.
1805.4.2 Foundation drain. ADD the following:
Foundation drains are part of the design of the foundation system. Foundation drains are
required for all habitable structures. When required by the building official, foundation
drains shall be designed and/or inspected by a Colorado registered professional engineer or
a Colorado licensed architect.
1805.4.3 Drainage discharge. ADD the following:
Foundation perimeter drains shall not discharge into a public sewer system.
1809.5 Frost protection. REVISE method 1 as follows:
1. Extending below the frost line of the locality, a minimum of 30 inches below grade.
2902.2 SEPARATE FACILITIES. ADD the following exception:
4. Separate facilities shall not be required in structures or tenant spaces containing a use
where the primarily service is carry-out foods and/or carry-out drinks, and seating is
provided for not more than fifteen (15) persons and the total occupant load does not exceed
49.
17
CHAPTER 36 WILDFIRE HAZARD MITIGATION. ADD this chapter.
Wildfire hazard mitigation requirements for new construction shall be pursuant to the most
recent Larimer County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Requirements which are hereby adopted
by reference.
Exceptions:
1. In all Wildfire hazard Overlay Zoning Districts, all new and replacement roof coverings
shall be Class A or a component of a minimum one-hour roof assembly. Partial roof
replacements shall be evaluated on a case specific basis and the building official shall
determine when compliance with the requirements of this subsection is not feasible or
reasonable.
2. Whenever there is an addition to or a major alteration to an existing building in a
Wildfire hazard Overlay Zoning Districts, defensible spaces, per regional standards, shall
be created and maintained.
Adopt Appendix J, Grading, as follows:
J103.3 Grading fees. Fees shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of this
section and as set forth in Tables J-1 and J-2 of the fee schedule.
J103.3.1 Plan review fees. When a plan or other data are required to be submitted, a plan
review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting plans and specifications for review. Said
plan review fee shall be as set forth in Table J-1. Separate plan review fees shall apply to
retaining walls or major drainage structures as required elsewhere in this code. For
excavation and fill on the same site the fee shall be based on the volume of excavation or
fill, whichever is greater.
J103.3.2 Grading permit fees. A fee for each grading permit shall be paid to the building
official as set forth in Table J-2. Separate permits and fees shall apply to retaining walls or
major drainage structures as required elsewhere in this code. There shall be no separate
charge for standard terrace drains and similar facilities.
1
EXIBIT B
2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE
AMENDMENTS
R101.1 Title. REVISE as follows:
These provisions shall be known as the Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings of
the Town of Estes Park, and shall be cited as such and will be referred to herein as "this code."
R101.2 Scope. ADD this exception:
3. In addition to complying with the provisions of the International Residential Code, individual
dwelling units rented or leased for less than 30 days shall also comply with the International
Property Maintenance Code, as amended. Individual dwelling units shall be limited to the
number of occupants allowed in the Estes Park Municipal Code and/or the applicable zoning
regulations.
R102.1 General. REVISE as follows:
Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific
requirement shall be applicable. Where, in any specific case, different sections of this code, other
local, state, or federal codes specify different materials, methods of construction or other
requirements, the most restrictive shall govern.
R102.4 Referenced codes and standards. ADD the following at the end of the exception:
Approved proprietary products and materials shall be compliant with the provisions of this code
when they are installed per the manufacturers’ specifications and installation requirements.
R102.8 Applicability of provisions. ADD this subsection:
As applicable, all provisions in this code, including amendments, are part of each International
Code. The provisions in other International Codes, as amended, are part of this code, as
applicable.
R103.1 Creation of enforcement agency. REVISE as follows:
The Division of Building Safety is hereby created and the official in charge thereof shall be
known as the building official.
R103.1.1 Title of enforcement agency.
All references to the enforcement agency by title shall be amended to the Division of
Building Safety.
R103.1.2 Title of official in charge.
All references to the official in charge by title shall be amended to the building official.
R105.1 Required. DELETE “electrical” and ADD the following exceptions:
Exceptions:
1: The Colorado State Electrical Board shall administer the National Electrical Code.
2. The Estes Valley First Protection District shall administer the International Fire Code.
2
105.1.1 Annual Contractor Permit. ADD this subsection:
Provisions for annual Contractor Permits shall be those contained in the International Building
Code, as amended.
R105.2 Work exempt from permit. Building: Exception 1. CHANGE 200 square feet to 120
square feet.
R105.2 Work exempt from permit. Building: REVISE exemption 2 as follows:
2. Fences not over 7 feet (1829 mm) high from original grade.
R105.2 Work exempt from permit. Building: DELETE exemption 10.
R105.3 Application for permit. ADD condition 8:
8. Applicants for permits shall possess the appropriate building contractor license from the
building official and when applicable, the appropriate State licenses.
Exception: Homeowners performing work on the home which they occupy.
R105.7 Placement of permit. REVISE as follows:
The entire permit package shall be kept on the site of the work until the completion of the
project. The permit package shall be posted as close as possible to the premises address numbers
and shall be adequately protected from the weather and from physical damage. For new
structures and other large projects, the permit package shall be kept in an approved red weather-
tight container. The approved container shall be visible from the primary access to the property.
R105.10 Transfer of permits. ADD the following:
Provisions for the transfer of permits shall be those contained in the International Building Code,
as amended.
R106.1 General. ADD the following:
Provisions for construction documents submitted for a building permit shall be those contained
in the International Building Code, as amended.
R106.1.3 Information for construction in flood hazard areas. REVISE as follows:
For buildings or structures located in whole or in part in flood hazard areas as established by
Table R301.2(1), construction documents shall include:
1. Delineation of flood hazard areas, flood zones, floodway boundaries and design flood
elevation(s).
2. The elevation of the proposed lowest floor, including basements and crawl spaces.
3. The locations and elevations of the highest and lowest adjoining grades.
4. Other information, as determined by the floodplain administrator.
R107.1 General. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for permits for temporary structures and temporary uses shall be those contained in
the International Building Code, as amended.
3
R108.2 Schedule of permit fees. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for fees shall be those contained in the International Building Code, as amended.
R108.3 Building permit valuations. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for permit valuations shall be those contained in the International Building Code, as
amended.
R108.5 Refunds. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for refunds shall be those contained in the International Building Code, as amended.
R108.6 Work commencing before permit issuance. DELETE “electrical” and ADD the
following:
Provisions for work commencing before permit issuance shall be those contained in the
International Building Code, as amended.
.
R108.7 Expiration of plan review. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for expiration of plan reviews shall be those contained in the International Building
Code, as amended.
R109.1.5.1 Fire-resistance-rated construction inspection. REVISE as follows:
Gypsum board inspection.
Gypsum board inspections shall be made after gypsum board, interior and exterior, is in place,
but before any joints and fasteners are taped and finished. Interior gypsum board shall not be
delivered or installed prior to the building envelope being water-tight. Gypsum board exposed to
water shall be exterior grade.
R109.1.5.2 Energy efficiency inspections. ADD this subsection:
Inspections shall be made to determine compliance with Chapter 11 and shall include, but not be
limited to, inspections for: envelope insulation R- and U- values, fenestration U-values, duct
system R-values, and HVAC and water-heating equipment efficiency. Insulation shall not be
installed prior to the building envelope being water-tight. Rough insulation inspections are
required after cavity insulation has been installed. Insulation certifications shall be provided for
all buildings and structures with conditioned air.
R109.5 Contractor’s affidavit of compliance. ADD this subsection:
Provisions for contractor’s affidavits of compliance shall be those contained in the International
Building Code, as amended.
R110.1 Use and occupancy. ADD exception 3:
3. Provisions for certificates of occupancy shall be those contained in the International Building
Code, as amended.
R110.4 Temporary occupancy. ADD the following:
Provisions for temporary certificates of occupancy shall be those contained in the International
Building Code, as amended.
4
SECTION R112 BOARD OF APPEALS: REVISE as follows:
Provisions for the Board of Appeals shall be those contained in the International Building Code,
as amended.
Table R301.2.(1), Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria, COMPLETE and ADD as
follows:
Minimum Design Loads not specified in this table shall be those specified in Chapter 16 of the
International Building Code, as amended.
Table R301.2.(1), Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria
GRO
UND
SNO
W
LOA
Dl
WIND
DESIGN SEISMI
C
DESIG
N
CATEG
ORYf
SUBJECT TO
DAMAGE FROM WIN
TER
DESI
GN
TEM
Pe
ICE
BARRIER
UNDERLA
YMENT
REQUIRED
h
FLOO
D
HAZA
RDSg
AIR
FREE
ZING
INDE
Xi
MEA
N
ANN
UAL
TEM
Pj
Spee
dd
(mp
h)m
Topogra
phic
effectsk
Weather
inga
Fro
st
line
dep
thb
Term
itec
*
**
180
mph
(X
kph)
NO B SEVER
E 30"
Sligh
t to
Mod
erate
1º
(-17
C)
YES *** **** 920 43º
*MINIMUM DESIGN GROUND SNOW LOADS, Pg, for the Town of Estes Park
Ground Elevation does not exceed (feet) Ground Snow Load Pg (psf)
7,000 60
8,000 70
9,000 100
10,000 140
Ground snow load (Pg) may be linearly interpolated between tabulated values.
For SI: 1 pound per square foot = 0.0479 kPa, 1 mile per hour = 0.447 m/s.
**Ultimate Design Wind Speed shall be in accordance with the provisions of R301.2.1.1, as
amended.
*** Ice barriers are required on all low slope roofs (< 4/12)
**** Community Name: Town of Estes Park
Community Number: 080296
Community Panels: 1089, 1093, 1094, 1113, 1281, 1282, 1284, 1301,
1325 (1300 not printed)
Initial Identification Date: September 19, 1975
Initial NFIP Map Date: September 19, 1975
Initial FIRM Date: January 17, 1979
Most Recent FIRM Date: December 19, 2006
Initial NFIP Participate Date: May 4, 1987
5
Footnotes to Table R301.2.(1), Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria
a. Weathering may require a higher strength concrete or grade of masonry than necessary to
satisfy the structural requirements of this code. The weathering column shall be filled in with
the weathering index (i.e., "negligible," "moderate" or "severe") for concrete as determined
from the Weathering Probability Map [Figure R301.2(3)]. The grade of masonry units shall be
determined from ASTM C 34, C 55, C 62, C 73, C 90, C 129, C 145, C 216 or C 652.
b. The frost line depth may require deeper footings than indicated in Figure R403.1(1). The
jurisdiction shall fill in the frost line depth column with the minimum depth of footing below
finish grade.
c. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table to indicate the need for protection depending
on whether there has been a history of local subterranean termite damage.
d. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with the wind speed from the basic wind
speed map [Figure R301.2(4)A].Wind exposure category shall be determined on a site-
specific basis in accordance with Section R301.2.1.4.
e. The outdoor design dry-bulb temperature shall be selected from the columns of 971/2-percent
values for winter from Appendix D of the International Plumbing Code. Deviations from the
Appendix D temperatures shall be permitted to reflect local climates or local weather
experience as determined by the building official.
f. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with the seismic design category determined
from Section R301.2.2.1.
g. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with (a) the date of the jurisdiction's entry
into the National Flood Insurance Program (date of adoption of the first code or ordinance for
management of flood hazard areas), (b) the date(s) of the Flood Insurance Study and (c) the
panel numbers and dates of all currently effective FIRMs and FBFMs or other flood hazard
map adopted by the authority having jurisdiction, as amended.
h. In accordance with Sections R905.2.7.1, R905.4.3.1, R905.5.3.1, R905.6.3.1, R905.7.3.1 and
R905.8.3.1, where there has been a history of local damage from the effects of ice damming,
the jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with "YES." Otherwise, the jurisdiction shall
fill in this part of the table with "NO."
i. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with the 100-year return period air freezing
index (BF-days) from Figure R403.3(2) or from the 100-year (99%) value on the National
Climatic Data Center data table "Air Freezing Index-USA Method (Base 32°)". at
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/fpsf.html.
j. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with the mean annual temperature from the
National Climatic Data Center data table "Air Freezing Index-USA Method (Base 32°F)". at
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/fpsf.html.
k. In accordance with Section R301.2.1.5, where there is local historical data documenting
structural damage to buildings due to topographic wind speed-up effects, the jurisdiction shall
fill in this part of the table with "YES." Otherwise, the jurisdiction shall indicate "NO" in this
part of the table.
l. The design ground snow load shall comply with the Colorado Design Snow Loads Report and
Map, published by the Structural Engineers Association of Colorado (dated May 6, 2015),
which is adopted by reference, or the table above. The design roof snow load values shall be
determined from Section 1608 of the International Building Code, including all applicable
factors, and loading and drifting considerations of ASCE 7, Chapter 7, but in no case shall the
final design roof snow load be less than a uniformly distributed load of 50 psf.
6
m. The ultimate design wind speed, in accordance with Section 26.5.1 of ASCE 7, shall be
determined by the Colorado Front Range Gust Map, 2013, Jon A Petrerka, which is adopted
by reference. Buildings and structures regulated by this code shall use the Map for Risk
Category II. Default Exposure shall be C, unless a Colorado registered professional engineer
or a Colorado licensed architect proposes Exposure B based on site specific conditions.
Designers shall be permitted to take advantage of site and structure specific conditions
including, but not limited to, Exposure B when appropriate and altitude correction as follows:
Altitude Correction Factors for Wind Pressures
Altitude (ft) up to 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
Pressure Correction
Factor 0.81 0.79 0.76 0.74
R301.2.1.1 Wind limitations and wind design required.
REVISE the first sentence as follows:
The wind provisions of this code shall not apply to the design of buildings or structures.
REVISE the second sentence as follows:
The design of buildings and structures shall be in accordance with one or more of the following
methods.
ADD the following:
Ultimate Design Wind Speed.
Submittals shall specify the minimum sea-level ultimate design wind speed (3 second gust), the
exposure, the elevation, and the elevation-based pressure correction factor, if used.
R302.1 Exterior walls. ADD exception 6:
5. Walls of dwellings located within the fire separation distance (location from property
line) of three (3) feet to less than five (5) feet shall be finished (sided) with a cementitious
material.
R302.2 Townhouses. DELETE the Exception.
R302.3 Two-Family dwellings. Revise as follows:
When an automatic residential fire sprinkler system is not provided, dwelling units in two-family
dwellings shall be separated from each other by wall and/or floor-ceiling assemblies having not
less than a two-hour fire-resistance rating or by two walls of one-hour fire-resistance rating when
tested in accordance with ASTME 119 or UL 263. Fire-resistance-rated floor-ceiling and wall
assemblies shall extend to and be tight against the exterior wall, and wall assemblies shall extend
from the foundation to the underside of the roof sheathing.
R302.2.4 Structural independence. REVISE as follows:
Each individual townhouse shall be structurally independent.
Exceptions:
1. Noncombustible foundations supporting exterior walls
2. Wall and roof coverings which are nonstructural
3. Flashing at termination of roof covering
7
R302.6 Dwelling-garage fire separation. DELETE Table R302.6 and REVISE as follows:
When an automatic residential fire sprinkler system is not provided, a private garage shall be
separated from the dwelling unit and its attic area by means of a minimum 5/8-inch (15.9 mm)
Type X gypsum board applied to the garage side. Garages beneath habitable rooms shall be
separated from all habitable rooms above by not less than a 5/8-inch (15.9 mm) Type X gypsum
board or equivalent. Door openings between a private garage and the dwelling unit shall be
equipped with either solid wood doors or solid or honeycomb core steel doors not less than 13/8
inches (34.9 mm) thick. Openings from a private garage directly into a room used for sleeping
purposes shall not be permitted. Doors shall be self-closing and self-latching. Openings in garage
walls shall comply with Section R302.5.
R302.7 Under-stair protection.: CHANGE “1/2 inch (12.7 mm)” to “5/8 inch (15.9 mm)
Type X.”
R303.9 Required heating. DELETE the first part of the first sentence, up to and including
the first comma.
R305.1 Minimum height. ADD Exception 4:
4. Beams and girders spaced not less than 4 feet (1219 mm) on center may project not
more than 6 inches (152 mm) below the required ceiling height.
R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue opening required. DELETE the exception, and add
the following:
All emergency escape and rescue openings shall have a minimum net clear opening of 5.7 square
feet (0.530 m2).
R310.2.1 Minimum Opening Area. DELETE the exception.
R311.7.5 Stair treads and risers. DELETE the second sentence.
R311.7.5.1 Riser height. REVISE the first sentence as follows:
The minimum riser height shall be 4 inches (102 mm) and …
R311.7.11 Alternating tread devices. ADD the following exception:
Exception: In existing buildings, alternating tread devices may be used as an element in a means
of egress for spaces which do not exceed 200 square feet in floor area.
R311.7.12 Ships ladders. ADD the following exception:
Exception: In existing buildings, ships ladders may be used as an element in a means of egress
for spaces which do not exceed 200 square feet in floor area.
R312.2 Window fall protection. DELETE this subsection.
8
R313.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire systems. ADD exceptions 2 and 3:
2. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required for One- and two-family
dwellings which are located in residential zoning districts and are not located in a designated
Wildfire Hazard Overlay Zoning District. For the purposes of this subsection, Accommodations
zoning Districts shall not be considered residential zoning districts.
3. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required for One- and two-family
dwellings which are located in residential zoning districts and are located in a designated
Wildfire Hazard Overlay Zoning District, if the dwelling has adequate fire department access and
adequate water supply as required by the International Fire Code; and the buildings do not
exceed 5,000 square feet in ground footprint area, including detached accessory buildings. For
the purposes of this subsection, Accommodations zoning Districts shall not be considered
residential zoning districts.
R319.1 Address numbers. ADD the following:
…, illuminated or reflective and shall be clearly readable.
R320.1 Scope. REVISE as follows:
Where there are four or more dwelling units or sleeping units in a single structure, or more than
seven dwelling units in a single development, regardless of whether such units are separated by
fire-resistance-rated assemblies, the applicable provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes, Federal
regulations and Chapter 11 of the International Building Code shall apply with respect to
accessibility requirements.
R320.1.1 Guestrooms. Delete this subsection.
R322.1 General. REVISE as follows:
Building construction within Flood Plain Overlay Zone Districts established in the Estes Park
Municipal Code, Chapter 17.28 shall comply with provisions contained therein.
R326.1 General. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for the design and construction of pools and spas shall be those contained in the
International Building Code, as amended.
R327 Wildfire hazard mitigation requirements for new construction. ADD the following
SECTION.
Provisions for wildfire hazard mitigation requirements for new construction shall be those
contained in the International Building Code, as amended.
R401.3 Drainage. ADD the following at the beginning:
Surface drainage shall not be diverted to a sewer system.
R401.4.1 Geotechnical evaluation. ADD the following:
Unless determined otherwise by a Colorado registered engineer, a Colorado licensed architect or
the building official, the maximum presumptive load-bearing pressure of foundation soils shall
be 2,500 pounds per square foot. Based on site specific conditions, lower values may be
assigned by the building official, unless a geotechnical report is provided.
9
R405.1 Concrete or masonry foundations. REVISE the exception as follows:
Foundation drains are part of the foundation system and are required for all habitable structures.
When required by the building official, foundation drains shall be inspected by a Colorado
registered professional engineer or a Colorado licensed architect.
R406.2 Concrete and masonry foundation waterproofing. ADD the following at the
beginning:
As determined by the building official, foundation walls shall be waterproofed in compliance
with the provisions of this subsection, when such walls enclose habitable spaces on the uphill
side of a building, and positive drainage away from the wall is not provided.
R408.3 Unvented crawl space. ADD condition 3.
…
3. Provide ventilation to crawl space while building is under construction.
R902.1 Roofing covering materials. ADD the following at the end of the opening
paragraph:
In Wildfire hazard Overlay Zoning Districts, all new and replacement roof coverings shall be
Class A or a component of a minimum one-hour roof assembly. No portion of an existing non-
rated roof covering may be permanently replaced or covered with more than one square of non-
rated roof covering. Partial roof replacements shall be evaluated on a case specific basis and the
building official shall determine when compliance with the requirements of this subsection is not
feasible or reasonable.
R905.1.2 Ice barriers. ADD the following:
An ice barrier, such as a self-adhering polymer modified bitumen sheet, shall be installed on the
entire area of roof slopes from two units vertical in 12 units horizontal (17-percent slope), up to
four units vertical in 12 units horizontal (33-percent slope).
10
N1101.7 Thermal design parameters in Climate Zone 5B. REVISE as follows:
The following thermal design parameters shall be used for calculations required under this code:
a. Winter Outdoor Design Dry-bulb: 40F
b. Winter Indoor Design Dry-bulb: 720F
c. Summer Outdoor Design Dry-bulb: 890F
d. Summer Indoor Design Dry-bulb: 750F
e. Summer Design Wet-bulb: 620F
f. 6368 Degree Days Heating
g. 479 Degree Days Cooling
All heating and cooling equipment shall be sized such that the total sensible capacity of the
cooling equipment does not exceed the total sensible load by more than 25% for cooling-only
applications, or by more than 40% for heating applications in accordance with the procedures in
ACCA Manual J, 8th Edition, using the above thermal design parameters. All ducted air-
distribution heating and cooling systems shall be sized using cooling loads. All heating and
cooling equipment shall be tested to ensure such equipment is operating within the
manufacturers’ recommended parameters and standards according to the applicable protocols
established by the building official and in accordance with the International Mechanical Code
and the International Energy Conservation Code.
M1302.1 Listed and labeled. ADD the following:
Provisions for using permanent appliances for heat during the construction process shall be those
contained in the International Mechanical Code, as amended.
M1411.3 Condensate disposal. ADD the following:
Condensate piping shall be of approved corrosion-resistant material and shall not be smaller than
the drain connection on the appliance.
M1411.4 Condensate pumps. REVISE the first sentence as follows:
Condensate pumps shall not be located in uninhabitable spaces, such as attics and crawl spaces.
M1502.4.2 Exhaust systems. REVISE the last sentence as follows:
Ducts shall not be joined with screws or similar fasteners.
M1503.4 Makeup air required. REVISE as follows:
Hood exhaust systems capable of exhausting in excess of 600 cubic feet per minute shall be
mechanically or naturally provided with makeup air at a rate approximately equal to the exhaust
air rate.
M1507.5 Indoor depressurization. ADD this subsection:
Ducted exhaust systems shall not induce or create a negative pressure sufficient to cause back
drafting of fuel gas appliances.
M1601.7 Duct protection during construction. ADD this subsection:
Provisions for Duct protection during construction shall be those contained in the International
Mechanical Code, as amended.
11
M1701.2 Opening location. ADD the following:
Combustion air ducts and combustion air openings shall not penetrate fire-resistance-rated
assemblies.
M1801.1 Venting required. ADD the following:
Exception: Fuel gas appliances listed and labeled for unvented use are prohibited, except as
permitted in Section G2425.8 of this code, as amended.
M1804.5 Multistory requirements. ADD this subsection:
Common venting systems for appliances located on more than one floor level are prohibited,
except engineered systems where all of the appliances served by the common vent are located in
rooms or spaces that are accessed only from the outdoors. The appliance enclosures shall not
communicate with the occupiable areas of the building. The design shall be approved and
stamped by a Colorado registered mechanical engineer.
M1901.3 Cooking appliances. ADD this subsection:
Residential fuel-gas ranges shall be provided with exhaust ducts to the outdoors. Fans serving
these exhaust systems shall not create a negative pressure sufficient to cause back drafting of fuel
gas appliances.
Exceptions:
1. Fuel gas ranges listed for alternate venting methods.
2. When existing conditions make the installation unfeasible as determined by the
building official.
.
SECTION M1905 LOG LIGHTERS. ADD this SECTION:
LOG LIGHTERS
M1905.1 Prohibited.
Log lighters without an automatic shut-off safety feature are prohibited.
SECTION M1906 UNVENTED GAS LOG HEATERS. ADD this SECTION:
UNVENTED GAS LOG HEATERS
M1906.1 Prohibited.
Unvented gas log heaters are prohibited.
G2404.3 Listed and labeled. ADD the following:
Provisions for using permanent appliances for heat during the construction process shall be those
contained in the International Fuel Gas Code, as amended.
G2404.11 Condensate pumps. REVISE the first sentence as follows:
Condensate pumps shall not be located in uninhabitable spaces, such as attics and crawl spaces.
G2406.2 Prohibited locations. DELETE exceptions 3 and 4, RENUMBER exception 5 to 3
and ADD exception 4 as follows:
Appliances shall not be located in uninhabitable spaces, such as attics and crawl spaces.
12
G2412.6 Interconnections. ADD the following:
Where two or more meters are installed on the same building, they shall be located at one
approved location. This requirement shall not apply to attached buildings divided with real
property lines.
G2415.9 Above-ground piping outdoors. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for above-ground piping outdoors shall be those contained in the International Fuel
Gas Code, as amended.
G2415.12 Minimum burial depth. REVISE the minimum burial depth from 12 inches (305
mm) to 18 inches (457.2 mm).
G2415.12.1 Individual outside appliances. REVISE the minimum burial depth from 8
inches (203 mm) to 18 inches (457.2 mm).
G2415.15 Outlet closures. REVISE and add exception 2 as follows:
Gas outlets and fittings which allow for future gas line expansion and do not connect to
appliances shall be provided with approved gas shutoff valves with the ends plugged or capped
gas tight.
Exceptions:
2. Drip/Dirt legs installed at appliances.
G2416.1 General. REVISE as follows:
Changes in direction of hard metallic pipe shall be permitted to be made by the use of fittings or
factory bends.
G2417.4.1 Test pressure. REVISE 3 psig (20 kPa gauge) to 10 psig (68.0476 kPa Gauge).
G2421.3 Venting of regulators. REVISE as follows:
Pressure regulators that require an independent vent shall be vented directly to the outdoors. The
vent shall be designed to prevent the entry of insects, water and foreign objects. Vents shall not
terminate within 3 feet (914mm) of openings into the building.
G2422.1.1 Protection from damage. ADD the following sentence and exception:
Connectors and tubing shall not be installed through the sidewall of the appliance served.
Exception: If protected at the sidewall of the appliance, and the gas shutoff can be accessed
from outside the fire box, tubing shall be allowed through the sidewall of gas fireplaces and gas
logs installed within fireplaces.
G2425.8 Appliances not required to be vented. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for appliances not required to be vented shall be those contained in the International
Fuel Gas Code, 508.1, as amended.
G2427.9 Condensation drainage. ADD the following:
Condensate shall not drain into uninhabitable spaces, such as crawl spaces.
13
G2433.1 Log lighters. ADD the following:
Log lighters without an automatic gas shut-off safety feature are prohibited.
G2439.3 Exhaust installation. ADD the following:
Dryer exhaust ducts shall not terminate within 3 feet (914 mm) of openings into a building.
G2445 Unvented Room Heaters. REVISE as follows:
Unvented room heaters are prohibited.
G2447.2 Prohibited location. ADD this exception:
Exception: Commercial appliances may be installed in residential applications, when installed in
accordance with all the requirements of the product’s listing, the manufacturer’s installation
specifications and the International Mechanical Code for commercial appliances.
G2447.3 Domestic appliances. ADD the following:
Residential appliances shall be installed in compliance with the manufacturer’s requirements for
clearances to combustibles.
G2447.6 Cooking appliances. ADD this subsection:
Residential fuel-gas ranges shall be provided with exhaust ducts to the outdoors. Fans serving
these exhaust systems shall not create a negative pressure sufficient to cause back drafting of fuel
gas appliances.
Exceptions:
1. Fuel gas ranges listed for alternate venting methods.
2. When existing conditions make the installation unfeasible as determined by the
building official.
P2503.4 Building sewer testing. REVISE as follows:
If connected to a public sewer, the building sewer downstream of the double cleanouts required
by P3005.2.3 shall be regulated by the requirements of the appropriate sanitation district. If
connected to a private septic system, the building sewer downstream of the double cleanouts
shall be regulated by the Larimer County Environmental Health Department.
P2503.5.1 Rough Plumbing. REVISE as follows:
DWV systems shall be tested on completion of the rough piping installation by water or by air,
with no evidence of leakage.
P2503.7 Water supply system testing. REVISE the required minimum air pressure test
from 50 psi to 80 psi (550 kPa).
P2503.8 Inspection and testing of backflow prevention devices. ADD the following:
All backflow prevention assemblies shall be in compliance with the requirements of and be
approved by the Town of Estes Park Water Department.
P2603.4 Pipes through foundation walls. ADD the following:
Pipes shall not pass through footings.
14
P2603.5 Freezing. REVISE the last sentence as follows:
Exterior water service pipe shall be installed not less than 60 inches (1525 mm) deep.
P2603.5.1 Sewer depth. REVISE as follows:
If connected to a public sewer, the building sewer downstream of the double cleanouts required
by P3005.2.3 shall be regulated by the requirements of the appropriate sanitation district. If
connected to a private septic system, the building sewer downstream of the double cleanouts
shall be regulated by the Larimer County Environmental Health Department.
P2801.6.1 Pan size and drain. REVISE the last sentence as follows:
Where a pan drain was not previously installed, a pan drain shall be required for a replacement
water heater installation.
Exception: When existing conditions make the installation unfeasible as determined by the
building official.
P2902.1 General. ADD the following:
All backflow prevention shall be in compliance with and approved by the Town Water
Department cross-connection control specialist.
P2903.1 Water supply system design criteria. ADD the following:
Service meters shall be installed in compliance with the Town of Estes Park Water Service Meter
Installation Standard.
P2903.7 Size of water-service mains, branch mains and risers. ADD this exception:
Exception: Water service pipe may be sized by the design standard “Maximum Units per Meter
Size” of the Town of Estes Park Water Department.
P2903.9.6 Location of full-open valves. ADD this subsection:
Full-open valves shall be installed in the following locations:
1. On the building water service pipe from the public water supply near the property line.
2. On the water distribution supply pipe after entrance into the structure and before any tee.
3. On the discharge side of every water meter.
4. On the base of every water riser pipe in occupancies other than multiple-family
residential occupancies that are two stories or less in height and in one- and two-family
residential occupancies.
5. On the top of every water down-feed pipe in occupancies other than one- and two-family
residential occupancies.
6. On the entrance to every water supply pipe to a dwelling unit, except where supplying a
single fixture equipped with individual stops.
7. On the water supply pipe to a gravity or pressurized water tank.
8. On the water supply pipe to every water heater.
15
P2906.4 Water service pipe. REVISE as follows:
Water service pipe installed underground and outside the structure, shall have a minimum
working pressure rating of 160 psi at 73°F (1100 kPa at 23°C) and shall be Type K copper.
Exception: Other materials as approved by the Town of Estes Park Water Department.
P2906.4 Water service pipe. ADD these exceptions:
Exceptions:
1. Service lines for fire suppression systems shall be ductile iron pipe or other material pre-
approved by the Town of Estes Park Water Department.
2. Service lines larger than 2” shall be ductile iron pipe or other material pre-approved by
the Town of Estes Park Water Department.
P2906.4.1 Water service installation. REVISE as follows:
Water service pipe shall not be installed within ten (10) feet (3048 mm) of building sewers.
Exception: The required separation distance shall not apply, provided the water service pipe or
the sewer service pipe is sleeved for all portions not complying with the ten (10) foot (3048 mm)
separation requirement. The sleeve shall be any of the pipe materials listed in Table 605.3, Table
702.2 or Table 702.3 of the International Plumbing Code.
P2910.1. Scope. REVISE as follows:
Non-potable water systems are regulated by the Larimer County Environmental Health
Department.
P3001.1 Scope. ADD the following:
If connected to a public sewer, the building sewer downstream of the double cleanouts required
by P3005.2.3 shall be regulated by the requirements of the appropriate sanitation district. If
connected to a private septic system, the building sewer downstream of the double cleanouts
shall be regulated by the Larimer County Environmental Health Department.
P3002.2.1 Building sewer pipe near the water service. REVISE as follows:
Building sewers shall not be installed within ten (10) feet (3048 mm) of the water service pipe.
Exception: The required separation distance shall not apply, provided the water service pipe or
the sewer service pipe is sleeved for all portions not complying with the ten (10) foot (3048 mm)
separation requirement. The sleeve shall be any of the pipe materials listed in Table 605.3, Table
702.2 or Table 702.3 of the International Plumbing Code.
P3002.2 Building sewer. REVISE as follows:
If connected to a public sewer, the building sewer downstream of the double cleanouts required
by P3005.2.7 shall be regulated by the requirements of the appropriate sanitation district. If
connected to a private septic system, the building sewer downstream of the double cleanouts
shall be regulated by the Larimer County Environmental Health Department.
P3003.2 Prohibited joints. ADD the following to the end of item 6:
, except sewer taps made by the appropriate sanitation district.
16
P3005.2.2 Building sewers. REVISE as follows:
If connected to a public sewer, the building sewer downstream of the double cleanouts required
by P3005.2.7 shall be regulated by the requirements of the appropriate sanitation district. If
connected to a private septic system, the building sewer downstream of the double cleanouts
shall be regulated by the Larimer County Environmental Health Department.
P3005.2.3 Building drain and building sewer junction. REVISE as follows:
There shall be an approved two-way cleanout at the junction of the building drain and building
sewer. This cleanout shall be as close to the building as practical and shall terminate above finish
grade. This two-way cleanout shall be permitted to serve as the required cleanout for both the
building drain and the building sewer. This cleanout shall define the junction of the building
drain and building sewer. An accessible interior building drain cleanout or test tee within close
proximity to the building drain exit point shall not fulfill this requirement and is not required.
P3301.2 Separate systems required. ADD this subsection.
Secondary roof drain systems shall have the end point of discharge separate from the primary
system. Discharge shall be above grade, in a location that would normally be observed by the
building occupants or maintenance personnel, or other points of discharge as approved by the
building official.
P3301.3 Drainage discharge. ADD this subsection.
Storm water shall not discharge into a public sewer system.
TBD Scope. ADD the following:
Non-potable water systems are regulated by the Larimer County Environmental Health
Department.
Chapters 34 through 43. REVISE as follows:
ELECTRICAL
All references to an electrical code shall be amended to the National Electrical Code, as amended
and adopted by the Colorado State Electrical Board, which is hereby adopted by reference. The
National Electrical Code is administered by the Colorado State Electrical Board.
APPENDIX F – PASSIVE RADON GAAS CONTROLS-is hereby adopted by reference,
and AF101.1 General is REVISED by adding the following:
Radon gas mitigation is not required; however, when radon mitigation systems are provided they
shall comply with the provisions of this appendix.
APPENDIX J - GRADING, as amended and adopted in the International Building Code, is
hereby adopted by reference.
1
EXHIBIT C
2015 INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE
AMENDMENTS
101.1 Title. REVISE as follows:
These regulations shall be known as the Fuel Gas Code of the Town of Estes Park, hereinafter
referred to as “this code.”
102.12 Applicability of provisions. Add the following:
As applicable, all provisions in this code, including amendments, are part of each International
Code. The provisions in other International Codes, as amended, are part of this code, as
applicable.
SECTION 103. REVISE as follows: DIVISION OF BUILDING SAFETY
103.1 General. REVISE as follows:
The Division of Building Safety is hereby created and the executive official in charge thereof
shall be known as the building official.
106.6.2 Fee schedule. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for fees shall be those contained in the International Building Code, as amended.
106.6.3 Fee refunds. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for refunds shall be those contained in the International Building Code, as amended.
107.8 Contractor’s affidavit of compliance. ADD this subsection:
In lieu of requesting an inspection, on a case by case basis, pre-approved contractors shall be
permitted to submit a Contractor’s Affidavit of Compliance for the following work:
1. Pressure test for emergency repairs, only the test is exempt, inspection is required.
2. Pressure test for appliance replacement, only the test is exempt, inspection is required.
3. Pressure test for single section of pipe/tubing, only the test is exempt, inspection is
required
A Contractor’s Affidavit of Compliance shall qualify for an inspection in this subsection, if it
complies with all the following conditions:
1. The contractor shall be pre-approved by the building official.
2. The work shall be authorized by a permit.
3. The work shall be associated with an approved system.
4. The affidavit shall be on a form provided by the building official.
A Contractor’s Affidavit of Compliance shall not exempt work from corrections, if the building
official determines the work does not comply with the provisions of this code.
2
108.4 Violation penalties. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for violation penalties shall be those contained in the Estes Park Municipal Code.
108.5 Stop work orders. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for stop work orders shall be those contained in the International Building Code, as
amended.
SECTION 109 Means of appeal. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for the Board of Appeals and/or the means of appeal shall be those contained in the
International Building Code, as amended.
110.2 Conformance. ADD the following:
During the construction process, heat shall not be provided by permanent appliances when the
appliance manufacturer specifically prohibits such use. When use during construction is not
specifically prohibited by the manufacturer, permanent appliances may be used for heat, provided
the appliances shall be cleaned and certified prior to requesting final inspection. Additionally, prior
to requesting final inspection, all use and restoration requirements of the appliance manufacturer
shall be complied with and documented. The contractor providing and/or installing the appliances
and/or equipment shall provide said documentation to the chief building official in the form of a
Contractor’s Affidavit of Compliance.
Exception: Permanent appliances may be used for addition and alteration projects, but shall comply
with the above conditions.
303.3 Prohibited locations. DELETE exceptions 3 and 4, and RENUMBER the last
exception from 5 to 3 and ADD the following at the beginning of this subsection.
Appliances shall not be located in uninhabitable spaces, such as attics and crawl spaces.
307.6 Condensate pumps. REVISE the first sentence as follows:
Condensate pumps shall not be located in uninhabitable spaces, such as attics and crawl spaces.
401.6 Interconnections. ADD the following:
Where two or more meters are installed on the same building, they shall be located at one
approved location. This requirement shall not apply to attached buildings divided with real
property lines.
404.9 Above-ground outdoor piping. REVISE as follows:
All piping installed outdoors shall be elevated not less than 6 inches (152 mm) above ground and
where installed across roof surfaces, shall be elevated not less than 3 1/2 inches (89 mm) above
the roof surface. Piping installed above ground, outdoors, and installed across the surface of
roofs shall be securely supported and located where it will be protected from physical damage.
Ferrous metals in exposed exterior locations shall be protected from corrosion in a manner
satisfactory to the building official. Where passing through an outside wall, the piping shall also
be protected against corrosion by coating or wrapping with an inert material. Where piping is
encased in a protective pipe sleeve, the annular space between the piping and the sleeve shall be
sealed.
3
404.12 Minimum burial depth. REVISE 12 inches (305 mm) to 18 inches (457 mm).
404.12.1 Individual outside appliances. REVISE 8 inches (203 mm) to 18 inches (457 mm).
404.15 Outlet closures. REVISE the leading statement and add exception 2 as follows:
Gas outlets and fittings which allow for future gas line expansion and do not connect to
appliances shall be provided with approved gas shutoff valves with the ends plugged or capped
gas tight.
Exceptions: 2. Drip/Dirt legs installed at appliances.
405.1 General. REVISE as follows:
Changes in direction of hard metallic pipe shall be permitted to be made by the use of fittings or
factory bends.
405.2 Metallic pipe. DELETE this subsection.
406.4.1 Test pressure. REVISE 3 psig (20 kPa gauge) to 10 psig (69 kPa gauge).
410.3 Venting of regulators. REVISE as follows:
Pressure regulators that require an independent vent shall be vented directly to the outdoors. The
vent shall be designed to prevent the entry of insects, water and foreign objects. Vents shall not
terminate within 3 feet (914mm) of openings into a building.
411.1.2 Protection against damage. ADD the following sentence and exception:
Connectors and tubing shall not be installed through the sidewall of the appliance served.
Exception: If protected at the sidewall of the appliance, and the gas shutoff can be accessed
from outside the fire box, tubing shall be allowed through the sidewall of gas fireplaces and gas
logs installed within fireplaces.
501.8 Appliances not required to be vented. REVISE as follows:
The following appliances shall not be required to be vented.
1. Electric ranges.
2. Built-in domestic cooking units listed and marked for optional venting.
3. Type 1 clothes dryers (Type 1 clothes dryers shall be exhausted in accordance with the
requirements of Section 614).
4. Refrigerators.
5. Counter Appliances.
6. Specialized appliances of limited input such as laboratory burners and gas lights.
7. Direct-fired makeup air heaters installed outdoors.
Where the appliances listed in Items 5 and 6 above are installed so that the aggregate input rating
exceeds 20 British thermal units (Btu) per hour per cubic feet (207 watts per m3) of volume of
the room or space in which such appliances are installed, one or more shall be provided with
venting systems or other approved means for conveying the vent gases to the outdoor atmosphere
so that the aggregate input rating of the remaining unvented appliances does not exceed 20 Btu
per hour per cubic foot (207 watts per m3). Where the room or space in which the appliance is
installed is directly connected to another room or space by a doorway, archway or other opening
4
of comparable size that cannot be closed, the volume of such adjacent room or space shall be
permitted to be included in the calculations.
503.2.2 Well-ventilated Spaces. DELETE this subsection.
503.5.6.1 Chimney lining. DELETE the exception.
504.3.17 Multistory requirements. ADD this subsection:
Common venting systems for appliances located on more than one floor level shall be prohibited,
except engineered systems where all of the appliances served by the common vent are located in
rooms or spaces that are accessed only from the outdoors. The appliance enclosures shall not
communicate with the occupiable areas of the building. The design shall be approved and
stamped by a Colorado registered mechanical engineer.
603.1 General. ADD the following:
Log lighters without an automatic gas shutoff safety feature are prohibited.
614.1 Installation. ADD the following:
Dryer exhaust duct terminations shall not be located within 3 feet (914 mm) of openings into a
building.
621 UNVENTED ROOM HEATERS. REVISE as follows:
All references approving the use(s) of unvented fuel gas appliances shall be amended to prohibit
the use of unvented fuel gas appliances, except as permitted in section 501.8, as amended.
623.2 Prohibited location. ADD exception 2:
Exceptions:
2. Commercial appliances may be installed in residential applications, when installed in
accordance with all of the requirements of the product’s listing, the manufacturer’s
installation specifications and the requirements for the International Mechanical Code for
commercial appliances.
623.3.1 Residential fuel-gas cooking appliances. ADD this subsection:
Residential fuel-gas ranges shall be provided with an exhaust duct to the outdoors. Fans serving
these exhaust systems shall not create a negative pressure effecting fuel gas appliances with draft
hoods.
Exceptions:
1. Fuel gas ranges listed for alternate venting methods.
2. When existing conditions make the installation unfeasible as determined by the
building official.
1
EXHIBIT D
2015 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE
AMENDMENTS
101.1 Title. REVISE as follows:
These regulations shall be known as the Mechanical Code of the Town of Estes Park, hereinafter
referred to as “this code.”
102.12 Applicability of provisions. ADD this subsection:
As applicable, all provisions in this code, including amendments, are part of each International
Code. The provisions in other International Codes, as amended, are part of this code, as
applicable.
103.1 Creation of enforcement agency. REVISE as follows:
The Division of Building Safety is hereby created and the official in charge thereof shall be
known as the building official.
106.6.2 Fee schedule. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for fees shall be those contained in the International Building Code, as amended.
108.4 Violation penalties. REVISE as follows: Provisions for violation penalties shall be those
contained in the Estes Park Municipal Code.
108.5 Stop work orders. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for stop work orders shall be those contained in the International Building Code, as
amended.
109. Means of appeal. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for the Board of Appeals and/or the means of appeal shall be those contained in the
International Building Code, as amended.
110.2 Conformance. ADD the following:
During the construction process, heat shall not be provided by permanent appliances when the
appliance manufacturer specifically prohibits such use. When use during construction is not
specifically prohibited by the manufacturer, permanent appliances may be used for heat, provided
the appliances shall be cleaned and certified prior to requesting final inspection. Additionally, prior
to requesting final inspection, all use and restoration requirements of the appliance manufacturer
shall be complied with and documented. The contractor providing and/or installing the appliances
and/or equipment shall provide said documentation to the chief building official in the form of a
Contractor’s Affidavit of Compliance.
Exception: Permanent appliances may be used for addition and alteration projects, but shall comply
with the above conditions.
2
307.3 Condensate pumps. REVISE the first sentence as follows:
Condensate pumps shall not be located in uninhabitable spaces, such as attics and crawl spaces.
507.2.6 Clearances for Type I hood. REVISE as follows:
All Type I hoods shall be listed zero clearance hoods. Type I hoods shall not be attached directly to
or contact combustible materials.
504.1 Installation. ADD the following:
Dryer exhaust duct terminations shall not be located within 3 feet (914.4 mm) of an opening into
a building.
506.3.11 Grease duct enclosures. DELETE the exception.
506.3.13.2 Termination through an exterior wall. ADD the following:
Such terminations shall not be located above or within 5 feet horizontally of an area used for
public access. Such terminations shall not be located less than 10 feet above adjoining grade
measured within 10 feet of the termination.
507.2 Type I hoods. ADD the following:
, such as occurs with griddles, fryers, broilers, ovens, ranges, wok ranges, etc.
508.2 Compensating hoods. REVISE as follows:
Compensating hoods are prohibited.
602.1 General. REVISE as follows:
Plenums are prohibited for supply, return, exhaust, relief and ventilation air systems. All such air
distribution systems shall be constructed of ductwork complying with this code. This amendment
shall not be applicable to the International Residential Code.
603.19 Duct protection during construction. ADD this subsection.
During construction, all duct systems shall be protected from entrance of dirt and debris.
Construction debris, dirt and dust shall be removed from ducts and furnace filters replaced prior
to final inspection. If ducts have not been properly protected or if they have been used for
construction heat, they shall be cleaned prior to requesting final inspection. The contractor who
installed the duct system shall provide an affidavit of compliance to the building official
certifying the ducts have been properly cleaned.
801.19 Multistory prohibited. REVISE as follows:
Common venting systems for appliances located on more than one floor level shall be prohibited,
except engineered systems where all of the appliances served by the common vent are located in
rooms or spaces that are accessed only from the outdoors. The appliance enclosures shall not
communicate with the occupiable areas of the building. The design shall be approved and
stamped by a Colorado registered mechanical engineer.
901.4 Log lighters. ADD this subsection.
Log lighters without an automatic shut-off safety feature are prohibited.
3
903.3 Unvented gas log heaters. REVISE as follows:
Unvented gas log heaters are prohibited.
1
EXHIBIT E
2015 INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE
AMENMENTS
101.1 Title. REVISE as follows: These regulations shall be known as the Plumbing Code of the Town of
Estes Park, hereinafter referred to as “this code.”
101.3 Intent. ADD the following:
All references to a plumbing code shall be amended to the International Plumbing Code as
amended and adopted by the Examining Board of Plumbers of the State of Colorado. All
references to the International Private Sewage Disposal code shall be amended to the private
sewage disposal regulations of the Larimer County Environmental Health Department.
101.5 Applicability of provisions. ADD this subsection:
As applicable, all provisions in this code, including amendments, are part of each International Code. The
provisions in other International Codes, as amended, are part of this code, as applicable.
103.1 General. REVISE as follows: The Division of Building Safety is hereby created and the executive
official in charge thereof shall be known as the building official.
106.6.2 Fee schedule. REVISE as follows: Provisions for fees shall be those contained in the
International Building Code, as amended.
106.6.3 Fee refunds. REVISE as follows: Provisions for refunds shall be those contained in the
International Building Code, as amended.
107.7 Connection of service utilities. ADD the following:
Service meters shall be installed in compliance with the Town of Estes Park Water Service Meter
Installation Standard. There shall be approved unions before the first gate valve and after the last
gate valve, allowing the entire assembly of the pressure reducing valve, meter and backflow
prevention device, to be removed without cutting the water service line. The provisions of the
applicable National Electrical Code shall govern the requirement for a bonding jumper; to
maintain required bonding should the meter assembly be removed.
2
107.8 Contractor’s affidavit of compliance. ADD this subsection:
In lieu of requesting an inspection, on a case by case basis, pre-approved contractors shall be
permitted to submit a Contractor’s Affidavit of Compliance for the following work:
1. Pressure test for minor plumbing project connected to an existing system, only the test is
exempt, inspection is still required
2. Shower pan
3. Water service line, new and replacement
A Contractor’s Affidavit of Compliance shall qualify for an inspection in this subsection, if it
complies with all the following conditions:
1. The contractor shall be pre-approved by the building official.
2. The work shall be authorized by a permit.
3. The work shall be associated with an approved system.
4. The affidavit shall be on a form provided by the building official.
A Contractor’s Affidavit of Compliance shall not exempt work from corrections, if the building
official determines the work does not comply with the provisions of this code.
108.4 Violation penalties. REVISE as follows: Provisions for violation penalties shall be those
contained in the Estes Park Municipal Code.
108.5 Stop work orders. REVISE as follows: Provisions for stop work orders shall be those contained
in the International Building Code, as amended.
109. Means of appeal. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for the Board of Appeals and/or the means of appeal shall be those contained in the
International Building Code, as amended.
202. BUILDING DRAIN. REVISE as follows:
That part of the lowest piping of a drainage system that receives the discharge from soil, waste
and other drainage pipes inside and that extends beyond the exterior walls of the building to the
cleanouts required by section 708.3.5, and conveys the drainage to the building sewer.
305.3 Pipes through or under footings or foundation walls. REVISE as follows:
Pipes shall not pass through footings.
305.4 Freezing. ADD the following:
Exterior water service pipe shall be installed not less than 60 inches (1525 mm) deep.
305.4.1 Sewer depth. REVISE as follows:
If connected to a public sewer, the building sewer downstream of the double cleanouts required by
708.3.5 shall be regulated by the appropriate sanitation district. If connected to a private septic system,
the building sewer downstream of the double cleanouts shall be regulated by the Larimer County
Environmental Health Department.
312.1 Required tests. REVISE as follows:
… all plumbing system piping shall be tested with either water or air …
312.3 Drainage and air vent test. REVISE as follows:
An air test shall be made by …
3
312.5 Water supply system test. REVISE 50 psi to 80 psi (550 kPa).
312.6 Gravity sewer test. REVISE as follows:
If connected to a public sewer, the building sewer downstream of the double cleanouts required by
708.3.5 shall be regulated by the appropriate sanitation district. If connected to a private septic system,
the building sewer downstream of the double cleanouts shall be regulated by the Larimer County
Environmental Health Department.
312.7 Forced sewer test. REVISE as follows:
If connected to a public sewer, the building sewer downstream of the double cleanouts required by
708.3.5 shall be regulated by the appropriate sanitation district. If connected to a private septic system,
the building sewer downstream of the double cleanouts shall be regulated by the Larimer County
Environmental Health Department.
312.10 Inspection and testing of backflow prevention assemblies. ADD the following:
All backflow prevention assemblies shall be in compliance with the requirements of and be
approved by the Town of Estes Park Water Department.
312.10.1 Inspections. ADD the following:
All backflow prevention assemblies and air gaps shall be in compliance with the requirements of
and be approved by the Town of Estes Park Water Department.
314.1 Fuel-burning appliances. ADD the following after the first sentence:
Condensate shall not discharge into a street, alley or other areas so as to cause a nuisance.
Condensate pumps shall not be located in uninhabitable spaces, such as attics and crawl spaces.
504.7.2 Pan drain termination. REVISE the last sentence as follows:
Where a pan drain was not previously installed, a pan drain shall be required for a replacement
water heater installation.
Exception: When existing conditions make the installation unfeasible as determined by the
building official.
603.1 Size of water service pipe. ADD the following exception:
Exception:
Water service pipe may be sized by the design standard “Maximum Units per Meter Size” of the
Town of Estes Park Water Department, which is hereby adopted by reference, unless a larger
size is required by an automatic sprinkler system.
603.2 Separation of water service and building sewer. CHANGE 5 feet to ten (10) feet and
add the following exception:
Exception:
1. The required separation distance shall not apply, provided the water service pipe or the
sewer service pipe is sleeved for all portions not complying with the ten (10) foot (3048
mm) separation requirement. The sleeve shall be any of the pipe materials listed in Table
605.3, Table 702.2 or Table 702.3 of this code.
4
605.3 Water service pipe. ADD the following:
Exceptions:
1. Service lines not larger than 2” shall be type K copper.
2. Service lines larger than 2” shall be ductile iron pipe or another material pre-approved by
the Town of Estes Park Water Department.
3. Service lines for fire suppression systems shall be ductile iron pipe or another material
pre-approved by the Town of Estes Park Water Department.
605.9 Prohibited joints and connections. ADD the following exception to condition 4:
Exception: service taps made or approved by the Town of Estes Park Water Department.
606.1 Location of full-open valves. REVISE conditions 1 and 2 as follows:
1. On the building water service pipe from the public water supply near the property line.
2. On the water distribution supply pipe after entrance into the structure and before any tee.
608.1 General. ADD the following:
All backflow prevention assemblies shall be in compliance with the requirements of and be
approved by the Town of Estes Park Water Department.
701.2 Sewer required. REPLACE the reference to the “International Private Sewage
Disposal Code” with:
private sewage disposal regulations of the Larimer County Environmental Health Department.
707.1 Prohibited joints. ADD this exception to type 6. Saddle-type fittings:
Exception: service taps installed by the appropriate sanitation district.
708.1.2 Building sewers. ADD the following:
Building sewers shall be provided with manholes and cleanouts as required by the appropriate
sanitation district.
708.1.3 Building drain and building sewer junction. REVISE as follows:
There shall be an approved two-way cleanout at the junction of the building drain and building sewer.
This cleanout shall be as close to the building as practical and shall terminate above finish grade. This
two-way cleanout shall be permitted to serve as the required cleanout for both the building drain and the
building sewer. This cleanout shall define the junction of the building drain and building sewer. An
accessible interior building drain cleanout or test tee within close proximity to the building drain exit
point shall not fulfill this requirement and is not required.
904.1 Roof extension. INSERT: 6 inches (152.5 mm).
1003.2 Approval. REVISE as follows:
The size, type and location of each interceptor and of each separator shall be designed and
installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and the requirements of the
applicable sanitation district. Wastes that do not require treatment or separation shall not be
discharged into any interceptor or separator.
5
1003.3 Grease interceptors. ADD the following:
New and replacement grease interceptors shall not be located inside buildings.
1003.3.1 Grease interceptors and automatic grease removal devices required. Add the
following:
The appropriate sanitation district shall determine which fixtures drain into the grease
interceptor.
Exception: Unless specifically exempted by the appropriate sanitation district, the following
plumbing fixtures shall drain to an approved grease interceptor.
1003.3.1.1 Commercial kitchen sinks.
Commercial kitchen sinks located within commercial establishments where food is prepared,
cooked, warmed, heated, processed or assembled and which are provided, designed, used or
intended to be used to clean pots, pans, plates, flatware or other utensils used in the preparation,
serving or consumption of food shall be protected by either a grease trap or a grease interceptor.
1003.3.1.2 Floor drains, floor sinks, mop sinks.
Floor drains, floor sinks, mop sinks or similar fixtures located in commercial kitchen areas where
woks, deep fat fryers, grills or similar equipment is provided or designed for future installation,
shall be protected by either a grease trap or a grease interceptor. The building official shall be
permitted to exempt the connection of a floor drain to a grease trap or grease interceptor where
such connection is determined to be infeasible.
1003.3.1.3 Dishwashing machines.
Dishwashing machines when installed in commercial establishments where food is prepared,
cooked, warmed, heated, processed or assembled shall be discharged through a grease
interceptor. Said dishwashers shall be the low temperature, chemical type.
1003.3.1.4 Chemical treatment agents.
Chemical treatment agents used for the emulsification, separation and removal of grease shall be
prohibited unless specifically approved or authorized by the appropriate sanitation district.
1003.3.4.1 Grease interceptor capacity. ADD the following:
The capacity of grease interceptors shall be determined by the appropriate sanitation district.
The minimum volume of grease interceptors shall be 750 gallons. Interceptors shall not be
permitted to be installed in series unless specifically permitted by the appropriate sanitation
district.
1108.2 Separate systems required. REVISE as follows:
Secondary roof drain systems shall have the end point of discharge separate from the primary system.
Discharge shall be above grade, in a location that would normally be observed by the building occupants
or maintenance personnel, or other points of discharge as approved by the building official.
1301.1 Scope. ADD the following:
Non-potable water systems are regulated by the Larimer County Environmental Health
Department.
1
EXHIBIT F
2015 INTERNATIONAL
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE AMENDMENTS
101.1 Title. REVISE as follows:
These regulations shall be known as the Property Maintenance Code of The Town of Estes Park,
hereinafter referred to as “this code.”
101.2 Scope. REVISE as follows:
The provisions of this code shall apply to all existing dwelling units used as short term rentals
and nonresidential structures and constitute minimum requirements and standards for structures,
equipment and facilities for light, ventilation, space, heating, sanitation, protection from the
elements, a reasonable level of safety from fire and other hazards, and for a reasonable level of
sanitary maintenance; the responsibility of owners, an owner’s authorized agent, operators and
occupants; the occupancy of existing structures and for administration, enforcement and
penalties.
References to residential structures shall not include structures regulated by the International
Residential Code, except those used as short term rentals.
References to premises/exterior property which do not relate to structures or grading/draining
issues. Replace “premises” with “structures” where appropriate.
As applicable, all provisions in this code, including amendments, are part of each International Code. The
provisions in other International Codes, as amended, are part of this code, as applicable.
102.3 Application of other codes. REPLACE “International Zoning Code” with “Estes Park
Municipal Code and/or the applicable zoning regulations.”
SECTION 103. REVISE as follows: DIVISION OF BUILDING SAFETY
103.1 General. REVISE as follows:
The Division of Building Safety is hereby created and the executive official in charge thereof
shall be known as the Chief Building Official. In this code, all references to “code official” shall
be revised to “building official.”
103.2 Appointment. REVISE as follows:
The building official shall be appointed by the director of Community Development.
2
103.5 Fees. REVISE as follows:
The fees for activities and services performed by the building division in carrying out its
responsibilities under this code shall be paid as required in accordance with the International
Building Code, Section 109.2 as amended.
104.2 Inspections. REVISE as follows:
The building official shall make all of the required inspections, or shall accept reports of
inspection by approved agencies or individuals. Reports of such inspections shall be in writing
and be certified by a responsible officer of such approved agency or by the responsible
individual. The building official is authorized to engage such expert opinion as deemed
necessary to report upon unusual technical issues that arise, subject to the approval of the
appointing authority. All dwelling units used as short term rentals (less than 30 days) shall be
subject to an initial life safety survey and subsequent surveys as determined by the Building
Official. At minimum, the life-safety survey shall include, but may not be limited to, the
following:
Dwelling Life-Safety Survey
1. Approved address identification
2. Evidence of unpermitted work
3. Obvious structural concerns (hot tubs on decks not originally designed for hot tubs, etc.)
4. Emergency escape and rescue openings in all spaces used for sleeping purposes
5. Approved window wells at emergency escape and rescue openings
6. Approved smoke alarms at all required locations
7. Approved Carbon Monoxide alarms at all required locations
8. Fuel-Gas appliances
a. Location
b. Space
c. Clearances
d. Combustion air
e. Vent system
f. Temperature and relief valve
g. Condensate disposal
h. Fire-blocking
9. House/garage separation (including attic access)
10. Dryer duct and exhaust fans terminations
11. Handrails and guards
12. Anti-tip device on cook stove
13. Wildfire defensible space
14. Exterior fire pits
3
108.1 General. REVISE the first sentence as follows:
When a structure, appliance or equipment is found by the building official to be unsafe, or when
a structure is found unfit for human occupancy, or is found unlawful, such structure shall be
condemned pursuant to the provisions of this code.
108.3 Notice. REVISE the first two sentences as follows:
Whenever the building official has condemned a structure, appliance or equipment under the
provisions of this section, notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place in or about the structure
affected by such notice and served on the owner, owner’s authorized agent or the person or
persons responsible for the structure, appliance or equipment in accordance with Section 107.3.
If the notice pertains to appliances, it shall be placed on the condemned appliance. The notice
shall be in the form prescribed in Section 107.2.
108.4 Placarding. REVISE as follows:
Upon failure of the owner, owner’s authorized agent or person responsible to comply with the
notice provisions within the time given, the building official shall post on the structure or on
defective appliances a placard bearing the word “Condemned” and a statement of the penalties
provided for occupying the structure, operating the appliance or removing the placard.
108.5 Prohibited occupancy. REVISE as follows:
Any occupied structure condemned and placarded by the building official shall be vacated as
ordered by the building official. Any person who shall occupy a placarded structure or shall
operate placarded appliances, and any owner, owner’s authorized agent or person responsible for
the structure who shall let anyone occupy a placarded structure or operate placarded appliances
shall be liable for the penalties provided by law.
108.6 Abatement methods. REVISE as follows:
The owner, owner’s authorized agent, operator or occupant of a structure or appliance deemed
unsafe by the building official shall abate or cause to be abated or corrected such unsafe
conditions either by repair, rehabilitation, demolition or other approved corrective action.
4
109.1 Imminent danger. REVISE as follows:
When, in the opinion of the building official, there is imminent danger of failure or collapse of a
building or structure that endangers life, or when any structure or part of a structure has fallen
and life is endangered by the occupation of the structure, or when there is actual or potential
danger to the building occupants or those in the proximity of any structure because of explosives,
explosive fumes or vapors or the presence of toxic fumes, gases or materials, or operation of
defective or dangerous appliances, the building official is hereby authorized and empowered to
order and require the occupants to vacate the structure forthwith. The building official shall
cause to be posted at each entrance to such structure a notice reading as follows: “This Structure
Is Unsafe and Its Occupancy Has Been Prohibited by the Building Official.” It shall be unlawful
for any person to enter such structure except for the purpose of securing the structure, making the
required repairs, removing the hazardous condition or of demolishing the same.
110.1 General. REVISE “one year” to “90 days”.
SECTION 109 Means of appeal. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for the Board of Appeals shall be those contained in the International Building Code, as
amended.
112.4 Failure to comply. DELETE “of not less than [AMOUNT] dollars or more than
[AMOUNT] dollars”.
SECTION 202 GENERAL DEFINITIONS. ADD the following definitions:
APPLIANCE. Any apparatus or device that utilizes a fuel or raw material to produce light, heat,
power, refrigeration or air conditioning.
SHORT TERM RENTAL. A residential dwelling unit which is rented, leased or occupied for
accommodation (living) purposes for compensation for terms of less than thirty (30) days. Short
term rental and vacation rental shall have the same meaning.
301.1 Scope. REVISE as follows:
The provisions of this chapter shall govern the minimum conditions and the responsibilities of
persons for maintenance of structures, appliances and equipment.
302.1 Sanitation. DELETE this subsection.
5
302.4 Weeds. DELETE this subsection.
302.8 Motor vehicles. DELETE this subsection.
304.1.1 Unsafe conditions. ADD the International Residential Code.
304.2 Protective treatment. REVISE as follows:
Exterior surfaces, including but not limited to, doors, door and window frames, cornices,
porches, trim, balconies, decks and fences, shall be maintained in good condition. Exterior wood
surfaces, other than decay-resistant woods, shall be protected from the elements and decay.
304.3 Premises identification. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for premises identification shall be those contained in the International Building Code, as
amended.
304.14 Insect screens. DELETE this subsection.
304.17 Guards for basement windows. DELETE this subsection.
304.19 Gates. DELETE this subsection.
305.1.1 Unsafe conditions. ADD the International Residential Code.
305.3 Interior surfaces. DELETE “Peeling, chipping, flaking or abraded paint shall be
repaired, removed or covered”.
306.1 General. REVISE as follows:
The components of a structure, appliances and equipment therein shall be maintained in good
repair, structurally sound and in a sanitary condition.
306.1.1 Unsafe conditions. ADD the International Residential Code.
308.1 Accumulation of rubbish or garbage. REVISE as follows:
6
The interior of every structure, shall be free from any accumulation of rubbish or garbage.
308.2 Disposal of rubbish. DELETE this subsection.
308.2.1 Rubbish storage facilities. DELETE this subsection.
308.2.2 Refrigerators. DELETE this subsection.
308.3 Disposal of garbage. DELETE this subsection.
308.3.1 Garbage facilities. DELETE this subsection.
308.3.2 Containers. DELETE this subsection.
403.3 Cooking facilities. ADD the following:
Hot plates and similar appliances are prohibited.
403.5 Clothes dryer exhaust. DELETE the exception.
404.1 Privacy. REVISE as follows:
Dwelling units used as vacation rentals, hotel units, housekeeping units, rooming units and
dormitory units shall be arranged to provide privacy and be separate from other adjoining spaces.
404.4.2 Access from bedrooms. DELETE this subsection.
404.5 Overcrowding. REVISE as follows:
Dwelling units shall not be occupied by more occupants than permitted by the Estes Park
Municipal Code and/or the applicable zoning regulations.
TABLE 404.5.1 Sleeping area. DELETE this subsection.
7
404.6 Efficiency unit. DELETE requirements 1 and 4 and renumber the remaining
requirements.
404.7 Food preparation. DELETE this subsection.
502.2 Rooming houses. DELETE this subsection.
601.2 Responsibility. REVISE as follows:
The owner of the structure shall provide and maintain mechanical and electrical facilities,
appliances and equipment in compliance with these requirements. A person shall not occupy as
owner-occupant or permit another person to occupy any structure that does not comply with the
requirements of this chapter.
602.3 Heat supply. DELETE “during the period from [DATE] to [DATE]”.
602.4 Occupiable work spaces. DELETE “during the period from [DATE] to [DATE]”.
603.2 Removal of combustion products. REVISE the exception as follows:
Provisions for appliances not required to be vented shall be those contained in the International Fuel Gas
Code, 508.1, as amended.
604.3.1.1 Electrical equipment. ADD the National Electrical Code and DELETE the
exception.
606.1 General. REVISE the last sentence as follows:
The inspection and tests shall be performed at not less than the periodic intervals required by the
State of Colorado.
702.1 General. ADD the International Building Code.
702.2 Aisles. ADD the International Building Code.
8
702.3 Locked doors. ADD the International Fire Code.
704.1 General. ADD the International Building Code.
704.2 Single-and multiple-station smoke alarms. ADD carbon monoxide alarms after
smoke alarms.
704.2.1 Where required. ADD carbon monoxide alarms after smoke alarms.
704.2.1.1 Group R-1. ADD carbon monoxide alarms after smoke alarms.
704.2.1.2 Groups R-2, R-3, R-4 and I-1. ADD carbon monoxide alarms after smoke alarms.
EXHIBIT G
2015 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE
AMENDMENTS
101.1 Title. Revise as follows:
These regulations shall be known as the Fire Code of the Town of Estes Park, hereinafter
referred to as “this code.” The Estes Valley First Protection District shall administer this Code.
102.12 Applicability of provisions. ADD this subsection:
As applicable, all provisions in this code, including amendments, are part of each International
Code. The provisions in other International Codes, as amended, are part of this code, as
applicable.
903.2 Where required. REVISE Section 903.2 and ADD subsection 903.2.13 as follows:
Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the
locations described in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.13.
903.2.13 CD-Commercial Downtown Zone District
In the CD-Commercial Downtown Zone District, all new construction and substantial
improvements, regardless of use(s), require approved automatic sprinkler systems as specified in
this section. In this zone district, all newly constructed and substantially improved buildings shall
be protected with NFPA 13 compliant automatic sprinkler systems. New construction includes
initial development and re-development (demolition and rebuild). Improvements include, but are
not limited to, additions and remodels. Substantial improvements are improvements to buildings,
which require permits and the value of the improvements exceed 50% of the pre-improvement
value of the building. The provisions of this amendment are in addition to and do not exempt any
requirements contained elsewhere in this code.
1011.5.1 Dimension reference surfaces. DELETE this subsection.
1011.7.3 Enclosures under interior stairways. DELETE the exception.
1030.1 General. DELETE Exceptions 1 and 3.
1030.2 Minimum size. DELETE the Exception.
EXHIBIT H
2015 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY
CONSERVATION CODE AMENDMENTS
C101.1 and R101.1 Title. Revise as follows:
These regulations shall be known as the Energy Code of the Town of Estes Park, hereinafter
referred to as “this code.”
Add the following subsections: C101.5.2 and R101.5.2 Compliance Modifications and/or
Phasing.
The building official is authorized to modify and/or phase compliance with provisions of this
code, such as, but not limited to, the following:
1. Blower door tests
2. Electrical load calculations for changes of use or alterations
3. R-values for additions and alterations
Add the following subsections: C106.4 and R106.4 Applicability of provisions.
As applicable, all provisions in this code, including amendments, are part of each International
Code. The provisions in other International Codes, as amended, are part of this code, as
applicable.
SECTION C109 and SECTION R109 BOARD OF APPEALS. REVISE as follows:
Provisions for the Board of Appeals shall be those contained in the International Building Code,
as amended.
Add the following subsection: C302.2 Thermal design parameters in Climate Zone 5B.
The following design parameters shall be used for calculations required under this code.
a. Winter Outdoor Design Dry-bulb: 40F
b. Winter Indoor Design Dry-bulb: 720F
c. Summer Outdoor Design Dry-bulb: 890F
d. Summer Indoor Design Dry-bulb: 750F
e. Summer Design Wet-bulb: 620F
f. 6368 Degree Days Heating
g. 479 Degree Days Cooling
All heating and cooling equipment shall be tested to ensure such equipment is operating within
the manufacturers’ recommended parameters and standards according to the applicable protocols
established by the building official and in accordance with the International Mechanical Code
and the International Energy Conservation Code.
Add the following subsection: R302.2 Thermal design parameters in Climate Zone 5B.
The following thermal design parameters shall be used for calculations required under this code:
a. Winter Outdoor Design Dry-bulb: 40F
b. Winter Indoor Design Dry-bulb: 720F
c. Summer Outdoor Design Dry-bulb: 890F
d. Summer Indoor Design Dry-bulb: 750F
e. Summer Design Wet-bulb: 620F
f. 6368 Degree Days Heating
g. 479 Degree Days Cooling
All heating and cooling equipment shall be sized such that the total sensible capacity of the
cooling equipment does not exceed the total sensible load by more than 25% for cooling-only
applications, or by more than 40% for heating applications in accordance with the procedures in
ACCA Manual J, 8th Edition, using the above thermal design parameters. All ducted air-
distribution heating and cooling systems shall be sized using cooling loads. All heating and
cooling equipment shall be tested to ensure such equipment is operating within the
manufacturers’ recommended parameters and standards according to the applicable protocols
established by the building official and in accordance with the International Mechanical Code
and the International Energy Conservation Code.
C303.1.3 and R303.1.3 Add the following exception:
2. Products lacking a label specifying U-factor, SHGC or VT may be allowed to use a calculated
U-factor, SHGC and VT based on the glazing manufacturer’s performance data for the glazing
and frame based on a published method from the frame manufacturer or other method approved
by the building official.
C402.1.3 Insulation component R-value-based method. Add the following:
R-38 insulation shall be deemed to satisfy the requirement for R-49 wherever the full height of
uncompressed R-38 insulation extends over the wall top plates at the eaves. This reduction shall
not apply to the U-factor alternate approach in Section C402.1.2
C405.1 General (Mandatory). and R404.1 Lighting Equipment (Mandatory).
Change 75 percent to 50 percent.
C408.2 Mechanical systems and service water-heating systems commissioning and
completion requirements. Add Exception 3:
3. Additions and alterations.
EXHIBIT I
2015 INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING
CODE AMENDMENTS
101.1 Title. REVISE as follows:
These regulations shall be known as the Existing Building Code of the Town of Estes Park,
hereinafter referred to as “this code.”
101.4.2 Buildings previously occupied. REVISE as follows:
The legal occupancy of any building existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be
permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in this code as amended,
the International Fire Code as amended, or the International Property Maintenance Code as
amended, or as is deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of
the occupants and the public.
102.6 Applicability of provisions. ADD this subsection.
As applicable, all provisions in this code, including amendments, are part of each International
Code. The provisions in other International Codes, as amended, are part of this code as
applicable.
103.1 Creation of enforcement agency. REVISE as follows:
The Division of Building Safety is hereby created and the executive official in charge thereof
shall be known as the building official.
105.3 Application for permit. REVISE the first sentence as follows:
To obtain a permit, the applicant shall have the appropriate town of Estes Park Building
Contractor License and shall first file an application therefore in writing on a form furnished by
the Division of Building Safety for that purpose.
107.1 General. REVISE as follows:
The building official is authorized to issue a permit for temporary structures and temporary uses.
Such permits shall be limited as to time of service, but shall not be permitted for more than
allowed by the Estes Park Municipal Code and/or the applicable zoning regulations. The building
official is authorized to grant extensions for demonstrated cause.
SECTION 112 BOARD OF APPEALS. REVISE as follows:
The Board of Appeals and/or the means of appeal shall be per the International Building Code,
as amended.
1301.3 Moved buildings or structures. ADD this subsection:
Buildings or structures moved into the Town of Estes Park shall comply with all current
structural requirements, such as, but not limited to, wind loads, snow loads, etc. and all
requirements of applicable Overlay Zoning Districts such as, but not limited to, flood hazard
areas, wildfire hazard areas, etc.
1401.2 Applicability. INSERT “1948”.
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: February 23, 2016
RE: Renewal License – The Barrel, LLC dba THE BARREL, 112-120 E.
Elkhorn Avenue, Tavern Liquor License
Objective:
Discussion of a liquor law violation that occurred at The Barrel on August 24, 2015.
Present Situation:
On August 24, 2015, an alcohol sales compliance check was conducted by the State’s
Liquor Enforcement Division. During this compliance check, an employee of The Barrel
sold/served an alcohol beverage to an underage person. Identification was not
requested by the employee, however, she proceeded to serve the underage customer.
The Tavern Liquor License held by The Barrel, LLC was originally issued in April of
2015. This is the first violation at this establishment. The licensee has provided the
Town Clerk with a copy of the establishment’s alcohol sales policy as well as a listing of
three permanent employees, all of whom have received TIPS training and are TIPS
certified. All necessary paperwork and fees have been submitted for the renewal.
The Liquor Enforcement Division of the Colorado Department of Revenue is handling
the administrative process related to this violation. The penalty for this type of violation,
which is a first offense, may include a written warning, up to a 15-day suspension, or
entering into a stipulation and agreement allowing for the payment of a fine in lieu of an
actual suspension with a portion of the suspension time held in abeyance for a period of
time, typically one year from the date of the agreement. If further violations occur within
a year of the date of the agreement, the licensee will serve all or any days of the
suspension held in abeyance.
Per a telephone conversation with the state liquor enforcement agent, the licensee has
elected to pay a fine in lieu of suspension with payment due to the state no later than
Friday, February 26, 2016.
Proposal:
The LED is administering the violation, therefore, no administrative action was taken by
the Town.
Advantages:
Approval of the liquor license renewal would allow the licensee to continue operating the
liquor-licensed establishment. The State has determined the penalty to be imposed for
the violation and will ensure that the penalty is fulfilled.
Disadvantages:
To deny the renewal of the liquor license would disrupt the alcohol service to patrons of
the liquor-licensed establishment.
Action Recommended:
Receive direction from the Town Board related to the renewal of the Tavern liquor
license held by The Barrel, LLC dba The Barrel. The Board has the option to move to
approve or deny the renewal of the license.
Budget:
The annual renewal fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a Tavern liquor license is
$869.
Level of Public Interest
Medium to High – Serving alcohol to minors and non-compliance with Colorado State
Liquor Laws are concerns for the community.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the renewal of the Tavern Liquor License held by The Barrel,
LLC, dba The Barrel.
Page 1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Philip Kleisler, Planner II
Date: February 23, 2016
RE: Wapiti Minor Subdivision Improvement Agreement Extension, Lots 1 & 2,
Wapiti Minor Subdivision, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue. Lexington Lane,
LLC/Owner
Objective:
Consideration of a request to extend the timeline for installation of required
infrastructure improvements.
Present Situation:
In 2014 the Wapiti Minor Subdivision subdivided a 5.9 acre parcel into two separate
lots1:
Lot 1: Located on the southern portion of the site, contains a cabin and was
divided to one (1) acre
Lot 2: This northern lot is vacant and was divided to 4.7 acres
The property is zoned RM Multi-Family and borders South Saint Vrain to the east,
Lexington Lane to the north, and single family residential properties to the west and
south. No development is proposed on either lot at this time.
Two improvements were required as a result of the 2014 subdivision: a public sidewalk
along Lexington Lane and a sewer connection to the existing cabin on Lot 1. Section
10.5.K.4 of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) requires that all required
improvements be installed within two (2) years of the date of approval. The Board may
extend such time for completion upon request of the applicant.
Proposal:
The applicant requests a two (2) year extension for the installation of required
improvements noted above. The owner has decided not to proceed with any
1 Reception #20140037257, 7/11/2014
Community Development
Memo
Page 2
development until one lot is sold to generate revenue to finance future development.
Improvements would be incorporated into the future development.
Advantages:
Final design will be coordinated with the future development project; and
Town staff would not need to draw on the letter of credit and manage the
construction project.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
The affected agencies, Estes Park Public Works and Estes Park Sanitation District,
recommend approval of this time extension.
Budget:
Disapproving the extension would lead to the Town drawing the letter of credit and
managing the construction project through a third party contractor.
Level of Public Interest:
Low. One (1) adjacent resident visited with Planning staff, but had no concerns about
the request. No written comments have been received.
Recommended Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Wapiti Minor Subdivision Improvement Agreement
Extension.
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Cost sheet
DEPT NAME HERE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pro Tem Koenig
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director
Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent
Date: February 23, 2016
RE: Engineering Services for Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline & Water
Company Project
Objective:
To obtain approval to enter into the contract with JVA Consulting Engineers for
engineering services for the functional replacement of the Park Entrance Mutual
Pipeline & Water Company (PEMPWCo) drinking water distribution system.
Present Situation:
A preliminary engineering report and environmental report are required to obtain USDA
project funding. JVA Consulting Engineers’ Request for Proposal scored the highest in
our technical review. JVA had the most experience with USDA project funding and their
price proposal was within the project’s budget. The results of the RFP selection were
reviewed by the PUP Committee on February 8 with the recommendation that this be
presented to the Town Board.
Staff and the Town’s attorney, Greg White, have been in negotiations with JVA using
the EJCDC form of contract required by the USDA. As of the time this memo is written,
all substantive changes have been included in the contract form; however, the USDA
also has to execute this agreement. The USDA representative is out on medical leave
and working from home. We anticipate having his approval by the time this Board
meeting occurs.
Staff has not attached a copy of the proposed contract due to copyright restrictions.
However, a copy of the contract is available in the Town Clerk’s office for anyone who
wants to view the proposed contract.
Proposal:
Staff needs the approval of the Town Board in order to enter into the proposed contract
for engineering services with JVA as approved by the USDA. The USDA has recently
contacted Staff to advise us that time is of the essence because they have received
notification that their funding could be reduced mid-year so it is crucial that this work be
completed on schedule.
Advantages:
• JVA’s price proposal was within the project’s budget and is a not to exceed
maximum.
• JVA has had extensive experience in working with the USDA on project funding
for this type of project.
• JVA believes they can complete their work by early June.
Disadvantages:
• The schedule proposed by staff was aggressive. The effected agencies will have
up to 30 days to review the reports potentially extending the schedule by 30
days.
• The work is assumed to qualify for a categorical exclusion and no review will be
required by the State Water Quality Control Division. If this assumption is not
correct, the project scope will increase and costs will rise.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed contract with JVA Consulting Engineers as
approved by the USDA.
Budget:
The Colorado Department of Local Affairs has awarded this project a grant to fund 50%
of the costs. The PEMPWCo owners are funding the other 50%.
Level of Public Interest
Customers of private water systems are very interested in the success of this process.
Interest outside private water systems is very low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of the Town entering into the contract for engineering services
with JVA Consulting Engineering as approved by the USDA.
TOWN BOARD MEETING
February 23, 2016
ACTION ITEM #1. ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE
WATER COMPANY PROJECT.
The contract is available for review in the Town
Clerk’s office. Copies cannot be made because
the contract is copyrighted.
Ordinance #04-16 Mayor’s Right to Vote.
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Greg White, Attorney
Date: February 19, 2016
RE: Ordinance #04-16 Mayor’s Right to Vote
Objective:
To consider Ordinance #04-16 to allow the Mayor the right to vote on all Board action
items as outlined in the Colorado Revised Statute 31-4-302.
Present Situation:
At the February 9, 2016 Town Board meeting the Board reviewed the Mayor’s right to
vote and received public comment on the issue. The Board directed Attorney White to
draft an Ordinance to consider changing the current Municipal Code language which
limits the Mayor’s right to vote in the event of a tie vote only.
The state statute allows the Mayor’s voting right to be limited with the passage of an
Ordinance by the municipality. If no Ordinance has been adopted, the Mayor votes in all
actions taken by the Board.
Proposal:
Ordinance #04-16 has been drafted to remove Municipal Code Section 2.12.030, which
would allow the mayor the right to vote on all issues as outlined in the state statute.
Section 2.04.050 would also be updated to include the mayor as a member of the board
quorum.
If adopted the Ordinance would remove the Mayor’s veto power for any Ordinance
adopted and all Resolutions authorizing the expenditure of money or the entering into of
contracts.
Advantages:
To provide the new incoming mayor the right to vote on all issues.
Disadvantages:
Removing the mayor’s right to vote in the event of a tie and the removal of his/her
veto power.
Action Recommended:
Ordinance #04-16 Mayor’s Right to Vote.
2
No recommendation as this is a legislative decision for the Board.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Ordinance #04-16.
Attachments:
Ordinance #04-16
1
ORDINANCE NO. 04-16
AN ORDINANCE ADDRESSING VOTING BY THE MAYOR
WHEREAS, Section 31-4-302 C.R.S. states the Town may provide, by
Ordinance, that the Mayor shall not be entitled to vote on any matter before the Board
except in the case of a tie; and that the Mayor shall not be counted for purpose of
determining a quorum; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.12.030 and Section 2.04.050 of the Municipal Code
currently provide the Mayor shall not vote on any matter before the Board except in the
case of a tie and shall not be counted for determining a quorum; and
WHEREAS, Section 31-4-304 C.R.S. also provides that Section 2.12.030 and
Section 2.04.050 may only be repealed or amended within the sixty days preceding any
election of a Mayor and shall take effect upon such Mayor’s assumption of office; and
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2016, the Town will hold its regular municipal election
including the election for Mayor; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined to repeal Section 2.12.030 of
the Municipal Code in order for the Mayor to vote on all matters before the Board and
amend Section 2.04.050 of the Municipal Code to provide that the Mayor shall be
counted for determining a quorum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. Section 2.12.030 of the Municipal Code shall be deleted in its entirety.
2. Section 2.04.050 of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows:
Four (4) members of the Board of Trustees shall be a quorum for the transaction
of business. No business shall be transacted except when a quorum is present,
but a smaller number may adjourn the meeting to another time.
3. This Ordinance shall take effect upon the assumption of office of the new Mayor
following the April 5, 2016 municipal election.
2
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 meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2016 and
published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado,
on the day of , 2016.
Town Clerk