HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2015-09-08The 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, September 8, 2015
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated August 25, 2015 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated August 25, 2015.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Community Development & Community Services Committee, August 27,
2015.
1. Resolution #14-15 Surprise Sidewalk Sale, October 10 and 11, 2015.
4. Estes Park Board of Appeals Minutes dated August 6, 2015 (acknowledgement
only).
5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated July 28, 2015 (acknowledgement
only).
2. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Outside Entities):
1. VISIT ESTES PARK UPDATE. – WHERE WE ARE NOW. President & CEO
Fogarty.
Prepared 8/31/15
*
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #12-15 ADD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 7.20 WILDLIFE
PROTECTION. Chief Kufeld.
4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. - For discussion of a personnel matter and not involving: any
specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any
member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of
the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters
personal to particular employees, Police Patrol Personnel.
Motion: I move the Town Board to into Executive Session – For discussion of a
personnel matter and not involving: any specific employees who have requested
discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or
body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body);
or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to
particular employees., under C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(f) – Police Patrol Personnel.
5. ADJOURN.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 25, 2015
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 25th day of August 2015.
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
Town Clerk Williamson
Finance Officer McFarland
Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary
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.
SWEARING IN: Town Clerk Williamson performed the formal swearing-in ceremony of
Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin.
PROCLAMATION.
Mayor Pinkham proclaimed September 2015 as “Give Where You Live, Work and Play
Month”.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Jane Livingston, town resident, presented documents, data and recommendations on
behalf of the Estes Park Vacation Home Owners Association related to the proposed
changes to vacation home regulations and requested staff add the topic to the
September 22, 2015 Town Board Study Session agenda.
Glenn Smith, town resident and business owner, stated 90% of his customers want use
of their property and would not consider long term rental. He also stated if the Town
restricts the number of homes as vacation rentals, properties would have fewer buyers
and become more difficult to sell.
Julie Reichle, town resident, stated she owns a vacation rental and has followed the
developments related to the issue closely. She believes the Board and staff should look
at the reported problems to determine the major issues and strict enforcement would
solve most problems associated with vacation homes.
Tim Curfman, town vacation home owner, told the Board the circumstances in which he
became a vacation home owner and how he hopes to become an active member of the
community once he retires here. He stated the favorable climate for vacation homes in
Estes Park allows many like himself the ability to subsidize the cost of a home they
could not otherwise afford and believes increasing the regulations would threaten the
potential for individuals to relocate.
Board of Trustees – August 25, 2015 – Page 2
Chuck Taylor, town vacation home owner, expressed concerns over the proposed
regulations on vacation homes, he stated many owners spent a significant amount of
money to improve the homes in the area for the purpose of short term rental and would
like to review the police reports of complaints related to vacation homes.
Glen Malpiede, town resident, stated in his experience many home owners have tried
and would never again rent their homes as a long term rentals due to the seasonal
economy in Estes Park. As winter approaches, renters are unable to make payments.
Long term rental housing can only be resolved by increasing year round employment.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Ericson updated the Board on the recent activity of the Transportation Advisory
Board, the upcoming Community Development/Community Services Committee
meeting and the increases in visitation reported by Rocky Mountain National Park.
Trustee Nelson stated the Open Lands Advisory Board meeting was cancelled due to a
lack of agenda items.
Trustee Phipps reported the Planning Commission design approval of the Visitor Center
Parking Structure, reviewed the schedule for the adoption of vacation home regulations
and stated Director Chilcott would present the basics of zoning at the next Planning
Commission meeting.
Trustee Norris informed the Board of the upcoming Visit Estes Park Board meeting and
the improvements made by the pothole repair truck to Dry Gulch Road.
Mayor Pinkham provided the background of the Sister Cities partnership and stated
members from Monteverde, Costa Rica would visit Estes Park in October 2015 to renew
the updated agreement.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Administrator Lancaster informed the Board the Economic Development Corporation
voted to accept the recommendations from NEO Fiber and would ask the Town to
consider moving forward with them as well. The Downtown Neighborhood Plan
consultant interviews would take place on September 27, 2015 and staff’s
recommendation would come to the next Board meeting. The Visitor Center Parking
Structure final design awaits environmental approval, but should go out for bids by the
end of the year. The Light & Power Division has completed the flood restoration work at
Windcliff ahead of schedule and under budget.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated August 11, 2015 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated August 11, 2015.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee, August 13, 2015.
1. Adam Tree Service for Seasonal Display Installation, Maintenance
and Removal for 2015 – 2018 - $108,000 – 2015/2016, $109,500 –
2016/2017 and $111,250 -2017/2018 – Subject to appropriations.
2. Dodge 5500 Light & Power Bucket Truck, Altec Industries,
$185,158.64 – Budgeted.
3. Dodge Diesel Light & Power Truck only, Johnson Auto Plaza Inc.,
$46,839 – Budgeted.
4. Light & Power Breakroom Remodel Contract, B&E Builders, Inc.
$159,524.55 – Budgeted.
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated July 15, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
Board of Trustees – August 25, 2015 – Page 3
5. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated June 17, 2015 and July 17, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
6. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated July 21, 2015
(acknowledgement only).
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Phipps) to accept the Consent Agenda, and it
passed unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
1. ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY GARDEN UPDATE AND REQUEST FOR
FUNDING. Connie Dedon provided an update on the progress of the
Community Garden and requested the Town provide $5,000 to assist with the
water tap fee in order for construction to begin this fall. It was moved and
seconded (Koenig/Ericson) to provide $5,000 to the Estes Valley
Community Garden, and it passed unanimously.
2. ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY UPDATE AND REQUEST FOR
FUNDING. Director Kurelja updated the Board on status of the Falcon Ridge
project, stating rental applications would be taken in September with the lease
process beginning in October 2015. The first building should be ready for
occupancy by January 2016 and the project should be completed by April 2016.
Leasing preference would be given priority to those affected by the 2013 Flood
and those who live within the Park R-3 School District boundaries. Two new
staff members would be hired and the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA)
anticipates full leasing by the summer of 2016.
Director Kurelja stated the EPHA is a tax exempt organization, but for the
purposes of the Tax Credit partner, a single purpose partnership entity, Falcon
Ridge LLLP was formed. Previously the State recognized entities such as this
as tax exempt. With turnover of staff at the State level, the interpretation has
changed and the State no longer considers such entities to be tax exempt.
Director Kurelja requested the Town rebate the approximate $169,000 Town
sales tax spent on materials back to the Falcon Ridge project. It was moved
and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to rebate the applicable sales taxes for
Falcon Ridge based on Town Attorney White’s advice on whether the 1A
Sales Tax is applicable for the rebate*, and it passed unanimously.
*The Town will reimburse the Estes Park Housing Authority for all Town sales
tax paid by the Estes Park Housing Authority, and subsequently collected by the
Town, in regard to the construction project at Falcon Ridge, contingent on the
opinion of the Town Attorney regarding reimbursement of the 1A portion of the
Town sales tax.
EPHA Board Chairperson Eric Blackhurst provided the history of housing
studies conducted in the Estes Valley and stated EPHA intends to reduce their
Town funding request in 2016 to $50,000. A Request for Proposals for a
community wide Housing Needs Assessment was sent out for bids and three
proposals were received. EPHA chose Rees Consulting, Inc., who completed
the 2008 housing study. The cost would be $66,000 and EPHA requested the
Town to contribute $33,000. The Board inquired why a new study needs to be
conducted since it is obvious the Town is in great need of attainable housing.
Blackhurst described how lenders need to see the need based on current data.
After further discussion, no formal action was taken on the Estes Park Housing
Authority’s Request for Funding. The consensus of the Board was to continue
the discussion during the 2016 Budget Study Session.
Board of Trustees – August 25, 2015 – Page 4
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 9:16 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado August 25, 2015
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in
Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 25th day of August,
2015.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Town Attorney White, Manager Ash, Planner
Kleisler and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
FALL RIVER TRAIL ALIGNMENT AND DESIGN.
Engineering Manager Ash stated the Town received a Paul S. Sarbenes Transit in
Parks Program grant in the amount of $337,000 to fund the design and environmental
assessment work needed to extend the Fall River Trail to Rocky Mountain National
Park. The grant application specified the trail would provide expanded access by
constructing pedestrian and bicycle enhancements adjacent to Hwy 34. Staff has
confirmed FTA would be receptive to alternative routes if supported by the categorical
exclusion environmental evaluation.
Scott Belonger/Loris and Associates reviewed the two alternative trail alignments for the
westerly 1.5 miles of the trail: 1) following south edge of Fall River Road and terminating
at the Fall River Visitor Center; and 2) south side of Fish Hatchery Road and a gravel
service road terminating at the Rocky Mountain National Park boundary near the Aspen
Glen campground. The trail alignments would stay within the current rights-of-way.
Both alternatives have been presented in three public outreach meetings.
The two alignments were assessed using a matrix with six evaluation criteria: safety,
user experience, environmental impact, resident/privacy concerns,
connectivity/efficiency and cost. Trails are built with three types of construction – Type I
– easy to construct and adequate spacing between the trail and the roadway; Type 2-
moderate to construct and reduced spacing between the trail and roadway; and Type 3
– difficult to construction with little to no spacing between the trail and roadway.
The Fall River Road alignment would require a significant portion of the trail to be built
attached to the roadway, Type III, with no separation and walls to deal with the slope, at
a cost of $1,000 a foot or $4.3 million. The Fish Hatchery Road would contain little to
no Type III construction and would be significantly less expensive to construct at
approximately $1.6 million. The Fish Hatchery Road alignment would be a safer
corridor for pedestrians and bicycles providing a better user experience. Public
comment was collected during the public meetings and concern was raised by property
owners along Fish Hatchery Road over privacy and by accommodation owners over the
removal of trees along the trail corridor. Staff stated snowplowing could be an issue for
the Fall River Road alignment.
Town Board comments and questions were heard and have been summarized:
concern was raised regarding the Fish Hatchery alignment as the Town does not know
Town Board Study Session – August 25, 2015 – Page 2
the future for the property south of the hydro plant; questioned if the Park had a
preference on the alignment; and had the Land Trust been contacted to determine their
preference.
Staff stated the Fish Hatchery alignment would not impact the future development of the
Town owned property. The Park would favor a connection to the campground to
improve the visitor experience. The Land Trust had not been contacted. The project
once fully designed would be a shovel ready project that would compete favorably for
GOCO grant funds and Open Land funds, with the 1A sales tax funds to be used for
grant matching.
The Board consensus was to move forward with the final design of the trail along Fish
Hatchery Road.
REVIEW OF DRAFT RECOMMENDATION FOR VACATION RENTALS.
Planner Kleisler provided an update on the project to review the regulations for vacation
home rentals. The Town hosted a public forum in May to hear from the community,
over 90 attended. Staff has worked to refine the public policy options and presented
items for the Board’s review and comment. With Board comments, staff would hold a
second public forum on September 11, 2015 to receive input from the community.
Fee Structure
The Town Clerk’s office conducted a fee structure analysis and recommended a tiered
fee structure, both within Town and the Estes Valley. The analysis included a review of
the CAST report and specific benchmarking against Steamboat Springs and
Breckinridge, who has a high license compliance rate. The base fee of $150 would
include the first bedroom and a $50 fee per each additional bedroom would be
collected. A homeowner renting out a single room such as an AirBnB would have a fee
of $50. The fee would cover administrative costs and code compliance. A Code
Compliance Officer would be hired seasonally to address increased code compliance
issues during the summer season.
Board comments: Questioned if the County Commissioners were on board with the new
fee structure. All costs related to vacation homes need to be reviewed to ensure the
costs are recouped through the licensing process, i.e. Police services.
Occupancy
A common theme in the public forum was to preserve residential neighborhood
character, yet another popular (yet competing) concept was increasing the occupancy
limit in rentals. In an attempt to achieve a balanced approach, staff recommends the
Trustees consider requiring a Conditional Use Permit when the occupancy is above the
current limit of eight (8) people. This concept would allow the Estes Valley Planning
Commission (EVPC) to review and neighbors to comment on some rental operations,
while still allowing potentially rental to larger parties. Staff also reviewed the possibility
of utilizing lot size to allow more occupancy.
Board comments: The Board consensus was to not move forward with the lot size to
determine occupancy; questioned the criteria to be used by the EVPC in determining
the approval or denial of a Conditional Use Permit; the permit would be a good option
as long as clear criteria can be developed; Trustee Holcomb would support 2 people per
bedroom, plus 2 with no limit (Trustee Nelson and Mayor Pro Tem Koenig agreed); a
level playing field has been the objective while protecting the neighborhoods and
addressing items such as the fire code; a clear definition of residential versus
commercial use should be developed; there are homes that can accommodate larger
family reunions that are not being utilized due to the limit and the parties must utilize the
YMCA or not come to Estes Park; the family character of Estes Park should be
considered; requested staff provide information on what qualifies as a small hotel and
what triggers a Fire Marshall review of a use; and the Board discussed what should the
upper limit be and when should a Special Review be initiated.
Town Board Study Session – August 25, 2015 – Page 3
Staff questioned having no limit on occupancy and questioned when a home becomes a
hotel in a residential neighborhood. The Board could set a cap on the number of
people.
Residential Character
Concerns were expressed during the public forum about the need to ensure vacation
rentals do not erode residential neighborhood character. Some communities have
limited the number of rentals in a given area. In Durango only one vacation rental may
be permitted on a street segment, and additional homes that wish to operate on that
street must obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommended establishing a limit on
the number of vacation rentals per street segment or within a given radius, with
additional rentals within that area requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use
Permits have similar review standards to that of a Special Review.
Attorney White stated any new regulations on the number of vacation homes would
affect new licenses. Currently licensed homes would be grandfathered.
AirBnB Option
The website www.AirBnb.com has risen in popularity over the years in part by
facilitating the rental of single rooms on a short-term basis while the owner remains in
the house. The current regulations prohibit this use, which has created a small
underground market. Staff recommended the use be permitted in smaller homes, in
essence creating a “mini-bed and breakfast” use. There would be less concern with
these rentals as the owner would be onsite.
Board comments: no concerns with a single room in a dwelling; questioned how
allowing these units would affect the accessory dwelling unit discussion; and should be
regulated to be fair to the B&Bs in town.
Notices
Another popular theme during the public forum was better communication with
neighboring properties. Staff recommended establishing some level of communication
through mailings and a Town-maintained webmap. Concern has been raised by the
property owners and the Police department that the use of a webmap may advertise the
possibility of a vacate home. The notification would be a 5 home radius around the
vacation rental delivered by the property owner, local contact or property manager.
Additional information would be posted within the home such as the business license.
The Board commented the use of property manager as a term continues to be
confusing and would suggest the use of local contact.
AUDIT COMMITTEE STRUCTURE.
The Audit Committee was formed by the adoption of Policy Directive 01-03 which
provided the Mayor the authority to appoint two representatives from the Town Board,
Finance Officer, Assistant Town Administrator and Town Administrator to the
committee. The Town’s auditors and the Audit Committee agreed the committee
structure should be updated to remove staff from the committee, as the audit process is
to audit staff for compliance with established regulations and procedures. Staff would
recommend the removal of staff as voting members on the committee, add a third Board
member, change the committee to a Standing Committee, and clarify terms for
members as two-years. Meetings would be held in the Board Room as needed,
recorded and official minutes posted on the Town’s website. The Board requested the
item be brought forward for consideration at an upcoming Town Board meeting.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
The Board requested staff bring forward a review of Town Board salaries to the budget
meetings in October. Any potential increase would need to be approved prior to the
April Municipal Election and would only apply to newly elected Board members.
Town Board Study Session – August 25, 2015 – Page 4
Administrator Lancaster stated staff has been working with Visit Estes Park on a service
level agreement. Through the review it was determined the Intergovernmental
Agreement between the Town and Visit Estes Park should be reviewed. Administrator
Lancaster, Trustee Liaison Norris and Mayor Pro Tem Koenig would meet with Visit
Estes Park staff and Board members to discuss the agreement.
Administrator Lancaster commented the Town would move ahead with the Housing
Authority to review options for the Fish Hatchery property located on the eastern portion
of the property. The concept would include a development with a private developer to
place workforce housing on the property consisting of single-family deed restricted
homes. The Town would request three houses be reserved for Town employees.
Staff discussions with CDOT regarding the replacement of the banner at highway 34/36
intersection with a variable sign have been positive. The cost of a new sign could be
paid for with the proceeds from the selling the property located on Old Ranger Road.
Mayor Pinkham commented the Town continues to have difficulty in attracting
applicants for the Park Advisory Board. In the past qualified individuals were not
appointed, and therefore, individuals are not applying for the position. Mayor Pinkham
stated there is a procedure for interviews and all candidates should be treated equal.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
The Board requested the final review of 2016 Strategic Plan for September 8, 2015.
Trustee Ericson requested an update on the status of the Event Center financing at the
September 8, 2015 meeting. The Board approved the process for interviewing for
Boards and Commissions be added to the list of items to be scheduled.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 27, 2015
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer
County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the
27th day of August, 2015.
Committee: Chair Ericson, Trustees Holcomb and Phipps
Absent: Trustee Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Directors Chilcott, Winslow
and Fortini, Manager Mitchell, Coordinators Jacobson and
Wells, and Recording Secretary Limmiatis
Trustee Ericson called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Director Chilcott updated the
Committee on the Downtown Plan consultant interview process, an upcoming public
meeting regarding vacation home regulations, the high volume of building
inspections being completed daily, staffing and the construction status of Falcon
Ridge.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
SURPRISE SIDEWALK SALE RESOLUTION.
Director Winslow requested the approval of the bi-annual Surprise Sidewalk Sale to
take place on October 10 and 11, 2015. The event allows downtown merchants to place
wares and signage on the sidewalk as long as a four foot clearance is maintained. Any
business not located within the downtown district may reserve a space in Bond Park to
participate in the event. The Committee recommended the approval of the Surprise
Sidewalk Sale Resolution to be included on the consent agenda at the September
8, 2015, Town Board meeting.
REPORTS.
Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings.
Shuttle Report – Shuttle Coordinator Wells provided updated ridership counts for the
summer shuttle season and stated ridership should be equivalent to the 2014
season. The countdown to 500,000 passengers has begun with approximately 2,000
remaining. The Mayor is on call to present the rider with a gift bag containing several
prizes from the Town, Shuttle Committee and local merchants. On September 2,
2015 the Visitor Center would host an open house in celebration of the 10th Shuttle
Season as Ridership Appreciation Day. The Committee inquired about the potential
of year round shuttle operation. Coordinator Wells stated many grants are available
each year, but further research needs to be conducted to evaluate the community’s
needs.
Event Report – Coordinator Jacobson described the successes seen by the Movie in
the Mountains series and the Estes Park Wine Festival. Administrator Lancaster
shared feedback regarding the Wine Festival’s inability for reentry and access to
food vendors. Coordinator Jacobson would report the feedback to the promoter who
continues to work on improving the event for next year.
Community Development / Community Services – August 27, 2015 – Page 2
Verbal Updates and Committee Questions – Director Fortini informed the Committee
of the progress of the Museum Master Plan. Manager Mitchell invited the Committee
and public to attend a Grand Friends Event at the Senior Center on August 29,
2015, stated the Senior Center had the highest attendance on record during June
and July, and provided an update on the progress of the Community Center. The
Committee thanked Director Winslow for his years of service with the Town and
wished him the best in his future endeavors.
There being no further business, Trustee Ericson adjourned the meeting at 9:27 a.m.
Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary
RESOLUTION NO. 14-15
WHEREAS, on July 23, 1991, the Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance 15-91
pertaining to “containment” within the CD District, and subsequent adoption of the Estes
Valley Development Code (Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, specifically paragraph a.
Outdoor Sales, Use, Storage and Activity in the CD Zoning District, Number (3)
Exceptions),
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
That the following guidelines shall be adopted for the “Surprise Sidewalk Sale
Days” being sponsored by the Community Services Department, Events Division
scheduled for October 10-11, 2015:
1. Hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
2. The Sale Weekend is available to all Estes Park businesses.
3. The Sale Weekend will be held rain or shine.
4. Business will be allowed to sell merchandise in front of its store only
during the hours specified above.
5. Sidewalk displays, including signage, shall provide a minimum clearance
of four feet for pedestrian walkways and handicapped accessibility.
Displays and/or merchandise will not be allowed in any street.
6. Those merchants without sidewalk frontage may contact the Events
Division at 5876-6104 to reserve a space in Bond Park (10x10 space
only).
7. Advertising posters will be provided.
8. Each participating business must possess a current Town Business
license.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that every business is urged to participate in this
Surprise Sidewalk Sale Days annual event.
DATED this day of , 2015.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 1
August 6, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo
Attending: Chair Spooner, Members Klein, Calvin, Darling
Also Attending: Chief Building Official Will Birchfield, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Senior
Building Permit Technician Charlie Phillips, Recording Secretary Karen
Thompson, Fire Marshall Marc Robinson
Absent: Member Schiaffo
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
There were no members of the public in the audience.
Chair Spooner opened the meeting, stating this meeting would be a review of the International
Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). This code has not been part of the adopted codes, and is being
reviewed for possible adoption for the first time this year.
CONSENT AGENDA
Minutes from July 2, 2015 Board of Appeals meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Darling) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion
passed unanimously with one absent.
2015 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC)
Prior to the International Building Codes, the Town adopted the Uniform Building Codes, which
included the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. This code was rarely used.
CBO Birchfield gave a brief history of the Building Codes and when other codes were brought in to the
Town, including but not limited to the Energy and Fire Codes. He stated both the Uniform Code for the
Abatement for Dangerous Buildings and the International Property Maintenance Code were written to
address hazardous conditions in buildings. Currently, CBO Birchfield is not authorized to act unless the
building is in imminent danger of collapse or other dangers deemed dangerous for public safety and
welfare. The IPMC is a companion code to the Fire Code. For the most part, it is the building code that
determines whether automatic sprinklers or fire alarm/suppression systems are required. There are
times the developers choose to sprinkle so they can increase the size of the building or add an
additional floor. As an example, CBO Birchfield explained a building could be built larger than normal if
a sprinkler system was installed. The sprinkler system would require proper maintenance, which is
where the IPMC would come into effect. Another example would be an existing building that is not
undergoing any construction, but should have done work to make the building safe. The IPMC would
allow the Division of Building Safety to inspect the building and require the needed maintenance. The
IPMC is used to ensure the building is being maintained, including but not limited to fuel gas
appliances that may be malfunctioning. The IPMC could require property owners to replace dangerous
appliances.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 2
August 6, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
In larger jurisdictions, a code like this is used to inspect all residential rental properties (AKA the Anti-
Slum Code). Some have a regular inspection program. Other jurisdictions base their inspections on
complaints. It would be his recommendation that if the elected officials decide to adopt this code, it
would be based upon complaints. CBO Birchfield stated it should be noted that staff is authorized to
initiate a complaint. He explained the importance of exhausting all options before condemning a
building. Hopefully the property owner would be cooperative. A letter from an engineer stating the
building was stable may be required. CBO Birchfield clarified the IPMC deals with safety of walls,
foundations, equipment, etc. Mold is not addressed in the IPMC.
CBO Birchfield stated if the Board of Appeals is considering recommending adopting the IPMC, details
would be provided to the elected officials. Chair Spooner stated he had a conversation with a local
designer who has a significant list of issues concerning the IPMC.
CBO Birchfield stated if the Town Board is considering adopting the IPMC, a copy of the code would be
available in the Division of Building Safety and the Library as reference materials. The goal is for the
Board of Appeals to make a recommendation at today’s meeting as to whether or not to proceed with
adopting the IPMC. Additional public outreach would occur if the Town Board directs staff to proceed.
The Town Board will need to provide direction as to any limitations on the adoption of the IPMC. CBO
Birchfield suggested, if the Town Board wishes to pursue adoption, having the IPMC issues be
complaint based, excluding one- and two-family dwellings, and excluding all perimeter issues (e.g.
outside rubbish, etc.). He stated the public needs to understand the scope of the code. The Town is
empowered by the State to protect the public (adoption of building codes). By allowing that
empowerment, staff does not have the authority to violate the constitutional rights of property
owners. It’s about voluntary consent unless the situation is very bad, and then he would have to get a
warrant from the court. A lot of times, people really do not understand how complicated and sensitive
the systems are and do not know the consequences of not maintaining them.
There was brief discussion concerning the adoption of the Fire Code a few years ago. CBO Birchfield
stated there was both support and opposition to the adoption of that code. It was important to find
out from the public what their concerns were and do their best to address their concerns. If there
were concerns that were not resolved, the Town Board was aware of the concerns and the reasons
behind them. He stated the codes are adopted by the elected officials, and staff administers it. It is a
community decision, and he hopes the community will provide comment.
CBO Birchfield stated the Constitutional language is very strong about search and seizure concerning
single-family homes. That is the basis for recommending removal of residential one- and two-family
homes from the IPMC. The commercial codes are different in that they are public buildings. He stated
it is very important to ensure property rights will not be violated. If there is reason to believe the
building is dangerous, the IPMC would allow him to investigate, with the owner’s permission. He
stated he is more comfortable recommending adoption of this code than he is doing business without
it, and it does provide some guidance. CBO Birchfield added a multi-family building is different than a
one- or two-family buildings. What one person does in one unit of a multi-family building put all
others in the building at risk.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 3
August 6, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
CBO Birchfield reminded the Board that the elected officials set the philosophy for Town staff
concerning enforcement, public safety, etc. If it is in the code, the CBO is empowered and directed to
enforce the provisions. If you do not want it to be done, it needs to be removed via a local
amendment. If a decision by the Building Official is appealed, all of the building code requirements up
to that point on are hold until the appeal is heard by the Board of Appeals. CBO Birchfield reiterated
the importance of obtaining permission from the property owner or having a judicial warrant before
inspecting a property for compliance.
Comments concerning the IPMC included but were not limited to: recommended removing the
portion of the code concerning weeds, junk vehicles, rodents, etc. that are already covered in our
development and municipal codes; the square footage sizes in Table 404.5 seems to be rather large
for today’s trends; this is a maintenance code, not a building code; one of the purposes of this code is
to try to keep too many people from sleeping in one space, for life safety reasons; if we decide to
move forward, it would be recommended to remove portions agreed upon by the Board; the State
electrical inspector enforces State regulations as well being authorized to assist the Town with
electrical requirements in the municipal code; the majority of the time, property owners do not
intentionally let things degrade to where they become unsafe, they just do not realize the complexity
of some of the systems; the IPMC would be worth adopting in some reduced form; if a notice of
violation was issued and the property owner appealed, the case would be heard by the Board of
Appeals; this code would not be used very often, and there is nothing CBO Birchfield would add at this
time; the intent of the code is to protect the public, whether it is safe or not safe; there is at least one
building downtown in danger of collapsing, and adopting this code would open the need for certain
structural modifications; Estes Park has a large number of unstable buildings with zero lot lines, so
structural engineers need to make sure everything is good all the way to the ground; if the structural
engineer has concerns, they will want to bring in a soils engineer, and it could have the snowball
effect.
CBO Birchfield stated in the Existing Building Code (IEBC), it is the responsibility of the designer to
prove that the construction work you are doing has no negative effect on the existing structure where
the loads are applied. In the remodel of a commercial building, it is the designer’s responsibility to
make sure that if the structure is altered in any way, it does not diminish the load bearing capacity of
the existing building. The commercial code is different than the residential code; however, load
bearing capacity is still reviewed in the alteration of residential structures.
CBO Birchfield stated life safety issues are much greater than structural issues in commercial buildings
in Estes Park. The IPMC is designed for determining if it is dangerous or not, and if the public is or is
not at risk. Between Inspector Traufield and CBO Birchfield are decades of experience and they can
usually tell right away if things aren’t right. If there is a complaint against a property owner, they
would ask for permission to follow through with the complaint. It is not the intent of the code to go
looking for things that are not right in buildings. He stated even without the IPMC, staff feels an
obligation to investigate complaints. Currently, it depends on how serious it is. If is not an issue where
the public is in imminent danger, staff is not authorized to require corrections be made. Staff could
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 4
August 6, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
notify the property owner about what the danger is, but could not require the property owner to take
action. If the IPMC is adopted, staff could take action (utility shut off, stop work order, etc.).
Fire Marshall Marc Robinson stated he was supportive of adopting the IPMC. Every day he sees what
is being discussed today. On average, he inspects potential violations about five times per week. He
stated there are a lot of buildings in the community that are extremely dangerous, and it is very
important to have the ability to address serious safety concerns. He feels he has a responsibility to
the community to make sure they are taken care of. Once he has educated the property owner as to
why it isn’t safe, 95 to 98% of the people are on board with making the necessary corrections. He is
appreciative of the buy-in of the community with the Fire Code. People call him to ask for annual
inspections, and thank him for pointing out potential problems. He stated the IPMC would give the
community the authority to identify the unsafe situations and make them safe. The Estes Valley
Development Code and the Estes Park Municipal Code take care of a lot of the exterior issues that
could be deleted from the IPMC. He thinks the community would be supportive of a code that would
ensure building safety. Some retroactive requirements in the Fire Code will be required to be
addressed by 2016, and property owners are gearing up for that. Overall, property owners want to
make sure their buildings are safe. CBO Birchfield stated he is not proposing annual inspections by the
building official. However, if the Fire Marshall notices something during an annual inspection, it would
be helpful for the building official to be able to use an adopted IPMC as a guide.
Inspector Claude Traufield stated he came to Estes Park from a large municipality that had property
maintenance codes. He stated he would not be driving around town looking for violations. That is not
the intent of the IPMC, nor is it the culture of the Division of Building Safety. He stated if the IPMC was
adopted, the benefits he thinks he will see are (1) If there was a condition where the reality is not as
severe as perceived, and education made them aware, it would still be documented. As time goes by
there would be documentation that could remediate some of the concerns; (2) as time goes by, he
believes that the “opening of the can of worms” would lessen, creating a better environment for
contractors in knowing what they are getting into with a job. A concern he would like the Board to
convey to the Town Board is that there is already a municipal code that prohibits someone from
picking on their neighbor by calling in multiple violations when there is no basis for the violations.
There are some situations in Estes where that might apply. Through documentation, staff could show
the complaints are not valid, and/or show that it is the same person complaining and if the IPMC was
adopted, there would be provisions that would not allow harassment. He stated he would be willing
to work with the property owner to come into compliance. Inspector Traufield was supportive of the
adoption of the IPMC.
CBO Birchfield explained how the process would work. Once a notice of violation and order to abate
the violation was issued, a building permit would be required to remedy the situation. The building
permit and subsequent inspections would be the tracking process to make sure the violation is
abated. People have asked him why he hasn’t done certain things concerning property maintenance,
and he has had to tell them he does not have the authority.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 5
August 6, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
CBO Birchfield stated if the Board of Appeals decides to support the adoption of the IPMC, it is up to
the Board to amend what they think should be amended. If adopted by the elected officials, the
Building Official would be the person directed to administer the code. He stated staff works at the will
of the elected officials. There was discussion among the Board about drafting proposed amendments.
Comments included but were not limited to: The Town Board still needs to give clear direction as to
whether or not to pursue the adoption of this code; the Board of Appeals members could recommend
local amendments to this code; there has been enough conversation to know it is an important matter
and thinks the Board needs to discuss it more before making a recommendation to the Town Board;
when the IBC was adopted, the Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings was put on the
back burner and the Town now has no authorization to act on anything; something of this nature is
needed and the Board would like to review it in more depth and present their recommendations to
the Board of Trustees; CBO Birchfield will present a statement of support to the elected officials from
the Board of Appeals; if the elected officials were supportive of adopting the IPMC, public outreach by
staff and the Board of Appeals would take place.
It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Klein) to direct CBO Birchfield to address the Town Board
concerning the consideration of adopting the International Property Maintenance Code. General
recommendations being considered for local amendments would be eliminating exterior property
areas and excluding one- and two-family dwellings. Additional consideration and public outreach
will be provided prior to the Board of Appeals making a formal recommendation for adoption.
End of discussion of IPMC.
REPORTS
CBO Birchfield stated the September meeting will be reviewing the International Fire Code. If time
allows, we could work on other tabled items. He would recommend saving the IPMC for last, and
would not hesitate to wait until 2016 to adopt it. The remaining codes (Fire, Energy, Existing Building)
should be relatively easy to review. It may be necessary to hold additional meetings to allow the
public the opportunity to learn more about the IPMC and provide comments. The process is more
important than the deadline, and it is very important to make sure the integrity of the process is
maintained. The public needs to be allowed the opportunity to be a part of the discussion.
CBO Birchfield read an email received from Larimer County CBO Eric Fried concerning wind and snow
loads. Larimer County is leaning towards keeping the current wind and snow loads, and not adopting
the three wind load maps based on risk category. He would like to harmonize the snow and wind
loads across the Estes Valley. CBO Birchfield would support a snow load based on a formula where
elevation is considered. Hopefully the Town and County could reach a compromise. Comments
included but were not limited to: it makes sense to align the snow loads between Town and County,
as it makes it easier for designers and architects; at the last Structural Engineers Association of
Colorado (SEAC) meeting it was stated previous snow loads for mountain communities were a little
high and snow loads for plans communities were a little low; 40 pounds per square foot (psf) would be
acceptable to Chair Spooner; during the blizzard of 2003 there were no structural failures, and
buildings were built to 40 psf; one Board member supported staying with the existing code, and using
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 6
August 6, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
the table in the IBC with the ultimate wind speed; it is important to stay with what is written in the
code to make the transition to the 2015 codes easier, especially for non-local designers.
CBO Birchfield reported the first draft of the Larimer County Building Code Local Amendments were
distributed to the Board.
CBO Birchfield reported Community Development Director Alison Chilcott has directed a consultant to
do a fee study. Additional information will be brought to the Board once it is received.
CBO Birchfield reported staff is having some issues with the Temporary Certificates of Occupancy
(TCO) that have been issued. The work required to obtain the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is not
being completed. Effective immediately, an administrative policy has been put into place to allow
TCOs be issued with one month expiration dates. This will allow staff to better track the outstanding
TCOs, and encourage the contractors to get the required work completed, inspected, finaled, and the
CO issued. When people do not voluntarily comply with the regulations (obtaining a CO) it takes a lot
of staff time to follow up with these projects; thus, taking staff away from completing plan reviews,
inspections, etc. that are in the queue. An added benefit will be the lesser effect on adjacent property
owners having to deal with never-ending construction processes.
CBO Birchfield reported he will be recommending to the Town Board collecting a non-refundable
deposit for plan reviews at the time of submittal. This will be presented with the new proposed fee
schedule. The Division of Building Safety has one entire file drawer full of permits that have been
reviewed by multiple departments and never picked up (or paid for) by the applicants.
CBO Birchfield reported staff is struggling with decisions concerning egress windows (emergency
escape and rescue openings). The current code requires them to be no more than 44 inches off of the
floor to the open area of the opening, certain widths, certain heights, must open directly to the
outside, etc. Purpose of the size is to allow enough space for residents to get out and firefighters to
get in and out wearing their full bunker gear. The issue at hand is when the Division of Building Safety
receives applications for window replacements and staff determines none of the windows in the
building are egress. CBO Birchfield explained where grandfathering comes into play, which would not
require the property owner to increase the opening size to accept egress windows. If grandfathering is
in place, the property owner is only required to maintain the building to the code that was in place at
the time the building was built. Whenever you change code cycles, existing buildings do not have to
bring their buildings up to code, with the exception of smoke alarms. If you’re doing electrical work
during a remodel, you are required to hard-wire the smoke alarms. Addressing is also retroactive. The
issue is there are buildings in town that were permitted many years ago, but the windows were never
large enough from the start. The current owner hasn’t planned on making structural changes, and only
wants to replace windows size for size. This is a very complicated issue for something that looks
simple on the surface. Egress windows are proven to save lives. CBO Birchfield stated he was not
looking for a decision, but requesting feedback as to how to address this issue. Fire Marshall Robinson
stated smoke alarms are by far the most important thing to have to get you up and out of the house.
There was discussion among the Board concerning this issue. CBO Birchfield stated according to the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Board of Appeals 7
August 6, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
building codes, any time the building official gives approval for something that does not meet code,
that approval is invalid. When the inspector signed off on the inspection record card, his signature was
invalid. It was the responsibility of the designer, builder, and building inspector to make sure those
windows were the right size, and all three of them missed it. It makes it very difficult for CBO
Birchfield to make a decision. He asked the Board to think about this and provide some direction at a
future meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:03 p.m.
___________________________________
John Spooner, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
July 28, 2015, 2015 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Pete Smith, Vice-Chair Don Darling, Members Wayne Newsom,
John Lynch, and Jeff Moreau
Attending: Chair Smith, Members Darling, Lynch, Newsom and Moreau
Also Attending: Planner Kleisler, Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: None
Chair Smith called the special meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. There were two people in
attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes from the June 2, 2015 meeting
It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Newsom) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented and the motion passed unanimously.
3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED AT 1740 HUMMINGBIRD LANE
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The request is for a variance from Estes Valley
Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2 to allow encroachment 21 feet into the side
setback to allow an existing cabin footprint and foundation to remain after unpermitted
removal of the existing dwelling during construction of a permitted addition. Due to the
size of the lot and the zone district, the entire lot is considered in the setback.
In November, 2014, the property owner received a variance for a 580 square foot
addition. During construction of the addition, the contractor began demolishing the
principal structure. Because this was unpermitted work, the Larimer County Building
Department issued a Stop Work Order, and the applicant was required to pull a Demo
Permit. Given the extent of the demolition, Town staff determined that an additional
variance was needed to reconstruct the principal house in the same location.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting 2
July 28, 2015
The home was originally constructed in 1935, and was considered legally nonconforming.
The size of the lot is significantly sub-sized for the zone district, and the setbacks actually
overlap, making the entire lot in the setback.
Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent
property owners. Additionally, a legal notice was published in the local newspaper. One
public comment was received from the adjacent property owner to the west, who was
concerned about the existing septic system and the possibility of a sewer easement
across his property should the septic fail and the property owner at the subject address be
required to hook up to the sewer system. Several Board members commented that would
be an issue for the Larimer County Health Department, and was not in the purview of the
Board of Adjustment.
Planner Kleisler explained a condition of approval limiting the re-built structure to one
story. He stated when a structure is destroyed (by ways other than demolition), the
property owner has one year to rebuild in the same footprint with the same character.
Staff is treating this rebuild the same; therefore, staff is recommending the dwelling be
limited to one story.
Staff Findings
1. The lot is significantly sub-sized for the E-1–Estate zone district, which has a minimum
lot size of one acre. This parcel is 0.26 acres, comparable to lots in the R-Residential
zone district. Lots in the R–Residential zone district have ten foot setbacks. If zoned
appropriately, the project would comply with ten foot setbacks, and not require a
variance. The house was located legally at the time it was built.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”, staff found:
a. The applicant must receive a variance to re-establish a residential use of the
property.
b. The variance is not substantial. The footprint of the original house is not
expanding.
c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered
with the approval of this variance. The proposed addition is generally consistent
with the size and character of surrounding homes.
d. Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this
variance.
e. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the applicant purchased the
home in 2005, after the adoption of the current setback standards.
f. When asked by staff, the applicant’s Architect expressed practical concerns
with moving the footprint of the former principal structure towards the center of
the lot. The main concern expressed during that time centered on the
functionality of the floor plan layout. Regardless of location any structure will be
entirely nonconforming to setback standards; therefore, it is impossible to build
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting 3
July 28, 2015
or expand a structure without a variance. The only other options for the
Applicant are to (1) purchase an adjacent property, combine both lots and
rebuild to meet setbacks; or (2) rezone the property to a district with less
restrictive setback standards.
3. The conditions as submitted in this variance petition are not general or recurrent in
nature.
4. The variance, if granted, will not reduce the size of the lot.
5. Staff finds the variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will
afford relief.
6. Residential uses are permitted in the E-1–Estate zone district.
7. Should the variance be obtained, staff recommends that a registered land surveyor
verify building placement.
Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval of the variance request, with the
following conditions listed below.
Public Comment
Paul McKinley/applicant stated the existing deck and outbuilding were removed for the
new addition. Things got carried away, and the home was demolished. Member Moreau
questioned the possibility of moving the foundation to come more into compliance with the
zone district. Mr. McKinley stated they were planning to use the existing foundation for
the rebuild. Member Moreau inquired about whether or not the applicant received the
appropriate permits from Larimer County to demo the building, including but not limited to
permits required by the state (asbestos). He explained the demolition permit process,
which is quite lengthy and expensive if asbestos is present. The applicant stated he was
not aware of receiving those permits. Mr. McKinley stated the permit for the addition
included replacing the roof. Member Darling inquired as to whether or not the permit pack
for the addition was on site when the walls were removed. The applicant stated the permit
pack was on site, and once the walls came down, he thought it may help his case to leave
the one remaining wall. He stated the architectural plans will remain the same as the
dwelling that was destroyed, with the walls shown as new. The one remaining wall will be
removed. The applicant stated he has a valid business license in Larimer County.
Conditions of Approval
1. Full compliance with applicable building code, approved site plan, and building plans.
2. The proposed structure shall not extend beyond the original footprint and shall remain
a single story.
3. Prior to pouring foundation, the applicant shall submit a setback certificate prepared by
a registered land surveyor.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting 4
July 28, 2015
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Darling) to approve the variance request with
the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed
unanimously.
4. REPORTS
Planner Kleisler stated there will be no August meeting.
Planner Kleisler stated the Estes Park Transit Facility & Parking Structure is schedule to
be heard by the Planning Commission in August. If approved at that meeting, it would
come to the Board of Adjustment in September.
There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
___________________________________
Pete Smith, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Police Department Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Wes Kufeld, Chief of Police
Date: September 8th, 2015
RE: Adoption of Final Ordinance #12-15 - Municipal Code Chapter 7.20
WILDLIFE PROTECTION
Objective:
Presenting in final format the Wildlife Protection Ordinance, Chapter 7.20 to Town
Board and Citizens of Estes Park. Conduct a public hearing to receive any Town Board
and public comments and/or recommendations before final adoption of the ordinance.
Present Situation:
As requested by Town Board, staff is presenting the final - Wildlife Protection Ordinance
based on the recommendations presented to the board and the public on August 11th,
2015. The ordinance was amended to reflect those recommendations in the final
document.
Advantages:
Adoption of the final ordinance enhances a heightened level of public and wildlife
safety within the Town Limits of Estes Park.
Adoption leads towards effective enforcement of the code, supported by on-going
educational efforts, community and Town Board involvement.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Conduct a public hearing on the adoption of ordinance #12-15 for any public or Town
Board comment.
Budget:
None
Level of Public Interest
High public interest
Motion:
Staff moves for adoption of Ordinance #12-15 / Wildlife Protection Ordinance 7.20
Attachments:
Wildlife Protection – Chapter 7.20 - Exhibit A
1
WILDLIFE PROTECTION
CHAPTER 7.20
7.20.010
In this Chapter, the following words and phrases have the following meanings:
(a) Wildlife means any undomesticated animal, including, but not limited to, birds, elk, deer,
bighorn sheep, lynx, skunks, magpies, crows, bears, raccoons, coyotes, beavers, porcupines,
mountain lions, bobcats and foxes.
(b) Refuse means any waste that could reasonably attract wildlife including, but not limited to,
kitchen organic waste, food, food packaging, toothpaste, deodorant, cosmetics, spices, seasonings,
oil and grease. Refuse shall not include glass, paper, cardboard, metal, plastic, aluminum, textiles,
electronics, non-edible yard maintenance waste, construction materials and household items when
not commingled with food waste attractants.
(c) Wildlife Resistant Container means a fully enclosed container constructed of pliable
materials and reinforced to deter access by wildlife.
(d) Wildlife Resistant Enclosure means an enclosed structure consisting of four (4) sides and a
secure door or cover, which shall have a latching device of sufficient design and strength to prevent
access by wildlife.
(e) Hard-sided Container means a container constructed using materials such as
polycarbonate, ABS plastic, carbon fiber, wood or aluminum with a lid preventing wildlife from
accessing the interior of the container.
(f) Enclosed Structure means a residential building, commercial building, accessory dwelling
unit, garage or shed. Enclosed Structure shall not include a patio, deck, driveway, or other area
located outside of the walls of a residential building, commercial building, shed, garage or
accessory dwelling unit.
7.20.020
Standards for Wildlife Resistant Containers & Hard-Sided Containers
(a) Wildlife Resistant Containers shall meet the following standards:
(1) Containers shall be of a design that is impervious to wildlife, with drain holes no greater
than one (1) inch in diameter.
2
(2) Container lids shall have a closure mechanism and/or a latching device such as cables,
bars, and/or pull handles that prevents opening by wildlife. All lids shall also:
(i) fully enclose (cover) the container opening.
(ii) have edges that fit flush.
(iii) shall not be turned up or bent.
(iv) shall remain closed when on their side or upside down.
(v) latching devices shall lock into place with a pin or other mechanism.
(3) Wildlife Resistant Containers shall meet the standards of testing by the Living with
Wildlife Foundation and a “passing” rating by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee
(IGBC) as bear resistant for 60 minutes.
(b) Hard-Sided Containers shall meet the following standards:
(1) Container lids shall have latching devices to prevent access by wildlife.
7.20.030
Maintenance and operation of Wildlife Resistant Containers, Wildlife Resistant Enclosures,
and Hard-Sided Containers.
(a) Wildlife Resistant Containers, Wildlife Resistant Enclosures, and Hard-Sided Containers
shall be kept closed and secure when refuse is deposited.
(b) If a Wildlife Resistant Container, Wildlife Resistant Enclosure or Hard-Sided Container is
damaged and allows access by wildlife, repairs shall be made within seventy-two (72) hours after
the damage.
7.20.040
Residential refuse disposal and curbside pick-up.
(a) All refuse located outside an Enclosed Structure shall be contained in a Wildlife Resistant
Container or a Wildlife Resistant Enclosure. Multi-family housing developments and other types
of clustered residential housing utilizing centralized refuse containers shall use a Wildlife Resistant
Container or a Wildlife Resistant Enclosure for all refuse.
(b) Residents with curbside pick-up shall place refuse in a Wildlife Resistant Container or a
Hard-Sided Container at or adjacent to the curb, alley, or public right of way for pick-up. If a
Hard-Sided Container is used rather than a Wildlife Resistant Container, the Hard-Sided
Container shall be placed at or adjacent to the curb, alley or public right-of-way, no earlier than
6:00 a.m. on the day of scheduled pick-up and removed prior to 7:00 p.m. on the same day from
the area of the curb, alley or public right-of-way. Residents using a Wildlife Resistant Container
3
may place and leave the Wildlife Resistant Container at or adjacent to the curb, alley or public
right-of-way without restriction.
7.20.050
Construction site refuse disposal.
All food packaging refuse shall be deposited in a Wildlife Resistant Container. Construction
materials are not required to deposit in a Wildlife Resistant Container or Enclosure.
7.20.060
Commercial Refuse Disposal.
(a) All refuse located outside an Enclosed Structure from commercial establishments and
vacation rentals shall be deposited in Wildlife Resistant Containers or Wildlife Resistant
Enclosures. This requirement shall not apply to containers 95-gallons or less which are emptied
by 10 p.m. each day or are under contract for removal overnight.
(b) Food service establishments shall deposit all oil and grease from their operations within
Wildlife Resistant Containers or Wildlife Resistant Enclosures.
7.20.070
Trash Compactors.
Trash compactors are compliant with this Chapter when no refuse is exposed. Compactor doors
must be kept closed at all times, except when loading or removing refuse and the area around the
compactor must be kept clean of refuse and debris.
7.20.080
Bird feeders.
Bird feeders are allowed. However, between April 1 and December 1 of each year, all bird feeders
must be suspended on a cable or other device so that they are inaccessible to bears.
7.20.090
Violation.
(a) Violation of any provision of this Chapter shall be unlawful and subject to the General
Penalty provision of the Estes Park Town Municipal Code. The owner and/or the occupant of a
residence or commercial establishment may be held responsible for a violation of any provision of
this Chapter.
4
7.20.100
Compliance Required and Time Period.
Any container or enclosure containing refuse shall be brought into conformity with the provision
of this Chapter by April 1st, 2016. Upon application to the Town Administrator, and a showing
of hardship by an owner and/or occupant of an enclosure or container required hereunder, the
Town Administrator may grant an extension, for a reasonable period of time, with which to comply
with the provision of this Chapter.
ORDINANCE NO. 12-15
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 7.20 WILDLIFE ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has determined
that it is in the best interest of the Town to amend certain sections of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Estes Park, Colorado.
WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Park Municipal Code are set forth on Exhibit “A”
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the
best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Park Municipal Code, set forth on
Exhibit “A”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN
OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The Estes Park Municipal Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on
Exhibit “A.”
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO, THIS 8th DAY OF September, 2015.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at the meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the _______ day of _______________, 2015, and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the _______ day of
__________________, 2015.
_____________________________
Town Clerk